Jump to content

Your thoughts on the soul, spirit and body


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This offers some interesting implications for pre-verbal people (who use "words" of other kinds) and chemical, pre-, non-, and a-linguistic (etc.) life forms.

Yes and I intended it to go that way.  ;)

I stole the idea from the "Wonderful World of Disney", and various other intellectual usages like "Gun World" ;)

In fact for some fun google "World of" and see how many hits you get.   Google says 17,670,000,000

Indeed there are worlds without number.....   (caution lightning strike danger)  ;) and men have created them all.  🧐 😱

Even the Big One.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Ahab?

It has crossed my mind more than once....

Link to comment
On 10/13/2022 at 5:09 PM, Brahms said:
On 10/12/2022 at 5:01 PM, tagriffy said:

Well, we're not in fundamental disagreement there. Let's see if I can find a way to help you understand where I'm coming from. Would you ask God for confirmation on the question of 2+2=4?

No because he has already helped me to learn that.  

This might just be enough to work with. If you had the time to read the blog entry I posted previously, then you know my journey into Mormonism was precipitated by a faith crisis rooted in what I was being told about the Bible. Thus, I was dragged kicking and screaming as it were to the critical biblical scholarship that @Eschaton speaks of. And it was that scholarship that helped me see the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and a lot of other issues I had with Mormonism in a whole new light. I don't need to ask about the various disagreements (which are usually fairly minor to begin with and are educational in themselves anyway). I know I'm on the right track because God helped me to learn that.

On 10/13/2022 at 5:09 PM, Brahms said:

Do you believe you need to bow your head when you want to pray to God?  Or get down on your knees?  Or address God by any particular name? Or use any particular words, as if he won't hear you unless you use particular words?  When you don't immediately know something and you search for some understanding, when you get a good idea do you thank God for his help while considering it was him who gave you that good idea?

I don't engage much in formal prayer except in the ritualistic setting of group prayers. I prefer constant interaction, sometimes verbal and far more often not. Obviously this means I feel no need to assume a particular posture or use particular forms of address. Yes, I do thank God for good ideas, but its more in the form of increased trust and intimacy.

On 10/13/2022 at 5:09 PM, Brahms said:

When you get a bad idea, who do you blame?

Why would I blame anyone? As far as I'm concerned, bad ideas are part of the process.

Link to comment

I thank everyone for your comments. I am not sure that we have found a consensus about my original question which is more or less "What is humanity?" Body, soul, and spirit? Which are material or immaterial or a combination of both? I find the human soul to be the most interesting of the three constructs. Thanks for any other comments on this issue the rest of you might have. As far as I know, we haven't heard from any of our Catholic friends on the subject. Thanks and take care.

Link to comment
On 10/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, mfbukowski said:

You are mixing science- " It was just breath" with the poetic religious thinking of ancient Hebrews.

That doesn't work. It's mixing metaphors 

 

I'm not talking about science at all - the ancient Hebrews thought that the soul was "breath." They didn't think it was some Platonic idealized form of the self, as modern Christians and LDS people do, that's for sure. 

Was it "just" breath? Not quite. The concept encompasses something that we might call "life force." 

Link to comment
On 10/13/2022 at 4:38 PM, pogi said:

This passage sounds like every soul was perceived as an individual entity that was worthy of being saved or "destroyed".  It is implied that it itself is alive, and is an individual entity culpable of being killed for sin.  That means that the soul itself was worthy in some way of living or culpable of dying.  The very fact that it could be killed suggests that it was viewed by Jesus as an independent and individual living entity - else what is being "destroyed" God's breath?  Why?  What could God's breath be guilty of?  No, the soul belonged to the individual, and was a living entity distinct from the body.  

Paul suggests the same in the following passages where the soul is identified as the sentient being who is only clothed with a tabernacle of clay.  The soul is the "we" that "knows" and possess a the house of our earthly body.  He also expresses the idea that we can live independent of the body with God.  That "we" (not some vague life force) can be present with the Lord without a body, and willingly so.  2 Corinthians 5:

Interestingly he also speaks of living in an "eternal" house in "heaven" with God, not an earthly kingdom of God, but a "heaven". 

Except Paul suggests that we are the life force.  Surely, he learned this from Jesus.  The body is merely "clothing" or "house" for the soul.  It is worthy of eternal life and culpable of judgement.  That doesn't make any sense if it is just like blood or some other life giving entity that is not "you" in any real sense. 

I think I have given good reason to doubt that Paul was an annihilationist.

As mentioned previously, the spiritual death he spoke of was figurative or else the following versus don't make any sense:

So...these people didn't literally die.  Clearly this is figurative of spiritual death more akin to what LDS teach.

More:

Ephesians 2.

Again, it all boils down to what you take literally and what you take figuratively.  

While I respect the work of scholars, they don't always all agree.  We are left with interpretations of words, one should never be free of doubt as to what the ancients actually believed and meant when they spoke.  We can't know for certain what was literal and what was figurative.  We are making our best guess is all.  

Paul believed that in the resurrection whatever remained of the physical body would be transformed into a "spiritual body." That wasn't like the Russian nesting doll concept of soul and body that we think of today. Paul thinks of the moral body like a seed that is planted in the ground, and what comes out again is transformed. He goes over this in 1 Corinthians 15.

Paul did not write Ephesians, that was a later writer. 

Link to comment
On 10/12/2022 at 6:13 PM, Brahms said:

One need not conclude from the evidence we have available that death is annihilation.  The evidence can also lead one to conclude that death is a separation. 

Mortal death a separation of the spirit from the mortal body.  Spiritual death a separation of a spirit from God. 

I'm not talking about "actual reality" only about what Paul believed. What happens after death, other than the natural decay of the body, is entirely a matter of individual faith. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

They didn't think it was some Platonic idealized form of the self, as modern Christians and LDS people do, that's for sure. 

Why do you see the Latter-day Saint version as a platonic ideal of the self?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why do you see the Latter-day Saint version as a platonic ideal of the self?

See this summary: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_theory_of_soul

Quote

Plato's theory of soul, which was inspired by the teachings of Socrates, considered the psyche (ψυχή) to be the essence of a person, being that which decides how people behave. Plato considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of a person's being. Plato said that even after death, the soul exists and is able to think.

This is common to both Christianity and Mormonism. It's not found in the Hebrew Bible. It does start to enter Christianity as it becomes less Jewish and more Greek. 

Mormonism is a little unique in that it considers the soul a form of matter, which is similar to how Paul thought of his "spiritual bodies" resurrection idea. 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I'm not talking about science at all - the ancient Hebrews thought that the soul was "breath." They didn't think it was some Platonic idealized form of the self, as modern Christians and LDS people do, that's for sure. 

Was it "just" breath? Not quite. The concept encompasses something that we might call "life force." 

Thanks for making my point for me.

I said

"You are mixing science- " It was just breath" with the poetic religious thinking of ancient Hebrews.

That doesn't work. It's mixing metaphors"

And now you are saying it's "life force" which is poetic religious thinking, and says nothing, and is certainly NOT "just breath".

That doesn't work, it's mixing metaphorical categories from "just breath" to some poetic metaphysical description which is undefinable, like Platonic Forms.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Paul believed that in the resurrection whatever remained of the physical body would be transformed into a "spiritual body." That wasn't like the Russian nesting doll concept of soul and body that we think of today. Paul thinks of the moral body like a seed that is planted in the ground, and what comes out again is transformed. He goes over this in 1 Corinthians 15.

Paul did not write Ephesians, that was a later writer. 

We view the resurrection of the physical body in much the same way as Paul outlines in 1 Corinth 15 - a transformation.  This doesn't address how Paul identified our essential being, or the speaker, in 1 Corinth as something other than the body - "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan...".  What is he speaking of here if not the spirit?  He speaks of not wanting to be found naked (without body) - that is nonsense without an understanding of an essence of being or spirit that endures physical death.  Again, he speaks of both our physical and resurrected bodies as "clothing" that we adorn ourselves with.  Who, or what, is it that is wearing this clothing exactly if not the spirit?  Seems nonsensical to me unless he believes in a spirit being. 

My point is no less diminished without Ephesians as he said the same thing in Colossians:

Quote

Colossians 2:13 — New Living Translation (NLT)
13 You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins.

It seems pretty clear that Paul understood spiritual death as something other than literal. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for making my point for me.

I said

"You are mixing science- " It was just breath" with the poetic religious thinking of ancient Hebrews.

That doesn't work. It's mixing metaphors"

And now you are saying it's "life force" which is poetic religious thinking, and says nothing, and is certainly NOT "just breath".

That doesn't work, it's mixing metaphorical categories from "just breath" to some poetic metaphysical description which is undefinable, like Platonic Forms.

You don't seem to be reading what I'm posting very carefully if you think I was ever talking about science. Again, I'm just talking about what ancient people believed. There is no scientific view of the human soul, no comment to be made from that perspective.

It's tempting to read modern ideas onto ancient people, but ultimately it's presentism.  By "just breath" I meant "not an incorporeal self" or "not Plato's psyche" which is what modern people think of when they hear the word "soul." Ancient Hebrew people (so far as we can tell from the texts we have) were far more focused on the here and now - the afterlife just wasn't important to them.   

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, pogi said:

We view the resurrection of the physical body in much the same way as Paul outlines in 1 Corinth 15 - a transformation.  This doesn't address how Paul identified our essential being, or the speaker, in 1 Corinth as something other than the body - "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan...".  What is he speaking of here if not the spirit?  He speaks of not wanting to be found naked (without body) - that is nonsense without an understanding of an essence of being or spirit that endures physical death.  Again, he speaks of both our physical and resurrected bodies as "clothing" that we adorn ourselves with.  Who, or what, is it that is wearing this clothing exactly if not the spirit?  Seems nonsensical to me unless he believes in a spirit being. 

It's clearer using a better translation:

 

"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

Again this is consistent with the transformation from earthly body into spiritual body. It's replacing one body with a different body. Why would we "groan" for something that we already had inside us? 

 

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

My point is no less diminished without Ephesians as he said the same thing in Colossians:

Colossians was also not written by Paul, along with 2 Thes, 1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus.

 

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

It seems pretty clear that Paul understood spiritual death as something other than literal. 

I think that's a presentist reading. Scholars routinely read Paul as being an annihilationist. See: Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (David Sim) 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

It's clearer using a better translation:

Not really.

Quote

For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed

Who, or what, is the "we" that lives in this earthly tent (body)?  

Quote

because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked..

Same question here.  Who, or what, will be found naked (without body)?

30 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Colossians was also not written by Paul, along with 2 Thes, 1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus.

That is a pretty definitive statement of fact to make when it is not entirely settled.  Not all scholars agree.  Even if Paul didn't write these things, it seems clear that whichever early Christian wrote these passages thought that Paul would viewed spiritual death as figurative.   There is no way to know if Paul was speaking figuratively or literally, so it is probably best not to make statements of fact about what Paul believed. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not really.

Who, or what, is the "we" that lives in this earthly tent (body)?  

Same question here.  Who, or what, will be found naked (without body)?

Again, the cloth is us, our body. In life it's a messy earthly body. After death, the righteous are transformed into spiritual bodies. If we already had a "spirit" inside us what would we looking forward to exactly? It would be status quo for everyone.  

 

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is a pretty definitive statement of fact to make when it is not entirely settled.  Not all scholars agree.  Even if Paul didn't write these things, it seems clear that whichever early Christian wrote these passages thought that Paul would viewed spiritual death as figurative.   

Almost no one believes Paul wrote the pastoral epistles. Mainstream critical scholars also reject Ephesians etc on ground of a different writing style and different theological views. The people writing in Paul's name were doing so to take advantage of the weight that his name held to advance their own views. 

 

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

There is no way to know if Paul was speaking figuratively or literally, so it is probably best not to make statements of fact about what Paul believed. 

There is a way - it's called textual and historical criticism. 

 

 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Again, the cloth is us, our body. In life it's a messy earthly body. After death, the righteous are transformed into spiritual bodies. If we already had a "spirit" inside us what would we looking forward to exactly? It would be status quo for everyone.  

It doesn't say the cloth or "tent" is us (that is reading into the text), on the contrary it says that "we" are merely "living in" an "earthly tent".   Again, who or what is the "we" that are "living in" these earthly tents?  

He said "spiritual" bodies, not "spirit bodies".   I don't entirely know what he meant by that, but Paul would have known that Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh that could eat and be touched, etc.

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

There is a way - it's called textual and historical criticism.

  Textual and historical critics would agree that they cannot provide absolute assurance of their interpretations.  They are just interpretations, after all.  They offer some tools to improve our confidence, but they offer no guarantee.  You simply can't know what Paul meant with absolute certainty.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

It doesn't say the cloth or "tent" is us (that is reading into the text), on the contrary it says that "we" are merely "living in" an "earthly tent".   Again, who or what is the "we" that are "living in" these earthly tents?  

You seem to be straining Paul's metaphor past the breaking point. All metaphors break down if you take them too far. 

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

He said "spiritual" bodies, not "spirit bodies".   I don't entirely know what he meant by that,

Like I said, Paul's spiritual body idea was a transformed body that would come up out of the ground when people were resurrected. It wasn't something that was already inside of you - it was a new thing created by God when he resurrects you. Only the righteous get the new spiritual body. Paul never says that this spiritual body is already inside living human beings. 

https://ehrmanblog.org/paul-resurrection-spiritual-body/

 

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

but Paul would have known that Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh that could eat and be touched, etc.

How would Paul know about this? The idea you're referring to comes from Luke, written long after Paul's death. Luke emphasizes the physicality of Jesus' resurrected body to argue against docetism within Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

Paul's experience with Jesus comes from some kind of vision that he had. He never indicates that Jesus' body has the characteristics you mention. 

 

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

  Textual and historical critics would agree that they cannot provide absolute assurance of their interpretations.  They are just interpretations, after all.  They offer some tools to improve our confidence, but they offer no guarantee.  You simply can't know what Paul meant with absolute certainty.  

That's not really saying much - that's true about all areas of knowledge. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

You seem to be straining Paul's metaphor past the breaking point. All metaphors break down if you take them too far. 

There are 2 different metaphors going on here.  You are completely ignoring the second.  In one metaphor he compares the body to a seed, as you suggest, but the metaphor you are ignoring is the one where he compares the body to a tent/clothing/house.  He suggests that we are living in the house - that we can be naked without a house - and that we will get a new house.  The "we" being the only enduring constant.

40 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Like I said, Paul's spiritual body idea was a transformed body that would come up out of the ground when people were resurrected. It wasn't something that was already inside of you - it was a new thing created by God when he resurrects you. Only the righteous get the new spiritual body. Paul never says that this spiritual body is already inside living human beings. 

https://ehrmanblog.org/paul-resurrection-spiritual-body/

 This doesn't differ from our understanding of the resurrection.  "Spiritual" does not necessarily mean 'composed of spirit'.   There is a difference between "spiritual body" and "spirit body".  Any assumptions as to what he meant by "spiritual body" is just that - an assumption.  

45 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

How would Paul know about this? The idea you're referring to comes from Luke, written long after Paul's death. Luke emphasizes the physicality of Jesus' resurrected body to argue against docetism within Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

Paul's experience with Jesus comes from some kind of vision that he had. He never indicates that Jesus' body has the characteristics you mention. 

Are you expecting me to believe that Paul wouldn't have heard about the account of the resurrection of Christ from his co-apostles except through the written account of Luke?  Luke describes how ALL the apostles handled him.  Either you are suggesting that Luke was lying or you are expecting me to believe that this significant detail was never communicated to Paul during his conversion and ministry along these apostles who handled the resurrected Christ.

50 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

That's not really saying much - that's true about all areas of knowledge. 

Well, you seemed to rebut me when I suggested as much by insisting that we could know through "textual and historical criticism".  These scholars are usually very careful not to state their opinions/interpretations as "fact".   Acknowledging that is important.  It didn't seem that you were.  I am glad to see that we agree that this is all just based on our best guess.  We can't know what Paul meant for sure - as I said before.  I have my interpretation, you have yours. 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, pogi said:

There are 2 different metaphors going on here.  You are completely ignoring the second.  In one metaphor he compares the body to a seed, as you suggest, but the metaphor you are ignoring is the one where he compares the body to a tent/clothing/house.  He suggests that we are living in the house - that we can be naked without a house - and that we will get a new house.  The "we" being the only enduring constant.

I think you're pushing it too far by inserting the unspoken "platonic soul" as the dweller inside the clothing or tent. You're reading your own beliefs into the text here.  

 

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

 This doesn't differ from our understanding of the resurrection.  "Spiritual" does not necessarily mean 'composed of spirit'.   There is a difference between "spiritual body" and "spirit body".  Any assumptions as to what he meant by "spiritual body" is just that - an assumption.  

What's the difference between spiritual body and spirit body and where does Paul make explicit this difference? 

 

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you expecting me to believe that Paul wouldn't have heard about the account of the resurrection of Christ from his co-apostles except through the written account of Luke?  Luke describes how ALL the apostles handled him.  Either you are suggesting that Luke was lying or you are expecting me to believe that this significant detail was never communicated to Paul during his conversion and ministry along these apostles who handled the resurrected Christ.

The gospels in chronological order are:

Mark

Matthew

Luke 

John.

Neither Mark nor Matthew have this narrative about Jesus eating fish or insisting that people touch him to see that he's physical. Why is that? It's because the author of Luke created these narratives to combat a form of Christianity he disagreed with (or possibly it was added by scribes). None of the gospels are strictly histories - they are full of literary inventions that get across the theological viewpoints of the communities that created them. Paul himself doesn't seem all that interested in anything that might have happened to Jesus on earth - he's more interested in what Jesus' resurrection means.   

 

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

Well, you seemed to rebut me when I suggested as much by insisting that we could know through "textual and historical criticism".  These scholars are usually very careful not to state their opinions/interpretations as "fact".   Acknowledging that is important.  It didn't seem that you were.  I am glad to see that we agree that this is all just based on our best guess.  We can't know what Paul meant for sure - as I said before.  I have my interpretation, you have yours. 

We don't agree that it's based on "guesses." It's based on evidence and historical analysis, as incomplete as it is. It's not like there is a competing body of knowledge about the scriptures - the only game in town if you're looking at it from the perspective of scholarship is academic Biblical studies. Anything beyond that is actually what would be a "guess."  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

I think you're pushing it too far by inserting the unspoken "platonic soul" as the dweller inside the clothing or tent. You're reading your own beliefs into the text here.  

Actually, I am not inserting anything.  You are actually doing the opposite, you are removing the "we" from the passage.  I am just asking who or what is the "we"?  Clearly he is speaking of something other than the body here.  To ignore this passage and blow it off as an unclear message is to not look at it critically and let it speak for itself.  You are not letting it speak for itself by acknowledging the conscious speaker "living in" the body identified in the passage.  We both can play this game.

It seems to me that he is speaking of an outward man that is perishable and an inward man that resists death - hmmm....where have I heard that before?  Lets see:

Quote

For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 2 Corinth 4:16

That is 2 corroborating passages where Paul identifies an inward man and an outward man.  The inward man being the conscious speaker and the one who endures beyond death. 

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

What's the difference between spiritual body and spirit body and where does Paul make explicit this difference? 

I can only tell you the difference between the physical body and the spiritual body as explained by Paul.  The only discernable difference from his writings is that the spiritual body will be "immortal" and "incorruptible" (15:53-54).  That resonates with my understanding as well.   He doesn't say anywhere that it will not be flesh (that is you reading into it).   He does speak of having a spirit that can consciously glorify God though -  

Quote

glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, 1 Cor. 6:20.

Sounds an awful lot like Mary who speaks of an animated and conscious soul/spirit:

Quote

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Luke 1: 46, 47

As a side note there is 1 Peter 3: 19:

Quote

By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

These spirits are suggested to have been disobedient people from the time of Noah.  

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Neither Mark nor Matthew have this narrative about Jesus eating fish or insisting that people touch him to see that he's physical. Why is that? It's because the author of Luke created these narratives to combat a form of Christianity he disagreed with (or possibly it was added by scribes). None of the gospels are strictly histories - they are full of literary inventions that get across the theological viewpoints of the communities that created them. Paul himself doesn't seem all that interested in anything that might have happened to Jesus on earth - he's more interested in what Jesus' resurrection means.   

Sounds like you know everything exactly how it happened and why.  It couldn't possibly be that being different people they thought to emphasize different points - as would be expected with a recounting of any experience by two different people.  Different details will be noted.  Period.   You see, your interpretation requires you to take authority over these words and dismiss those which disagree with your narrative.

 

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

We don't agree that it's based on "guesses." It's based on evidence and historical analysis, as incomplete as it is. It's not like there is a competing body of knowledge about the scriptures - the only game in town if you're looking at it from the perspective of scholarship is academic Biblical studies. Anything beyond that is actually what would be a "guess."  

Evidence and historical analysis inevitably leads to an interpretation, an interpretation without the verification of the author is just a guess - no matter how educated and evidence based.  

Link to comment
16 hours ago, pogi said:

Actually, I am not inserting anything.  You are actually doing the opposite, you are removing the "we" from the passage.  I am just asking who or what is the "we"?  Clearly he is speaking of something other than the body here.  To ignore this passage and blow it off as an unclear message is to not look at it critically and let it speak for itself.  You are not letting it speak for itself by acknowledging the conscious speaker "living in" the body identified in the passage.  We both can play this game.

It seems to me that he is speaking of an outward man that is perishable and an inward man that resists death - hmmm....where have I heard that before?  Lets see: For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 2 Corinth 4:16

You don't have in mind your modern beliefs about the soul in what Paul is saying? It sounded like you do. 

Again, the passage in question:

""For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

There is nothing at all here about an immortal indestructible version of the self already dwelling inside the body. To establish that Paul believed such a thing you'd need more than mere speculation. 

Your 2 Corinthians passage again suffers from your choice of outdated translation. It actually says:

"16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day."

Nothing here indicating the soul idea you are projecting onto Paul. 

 

16 hours ago, pogi said:

That is 2 corroborating passages where Paul identifies an inward man and an outward man.  The inward man being the conscious speaker and the one who endures beyond death. 

Again, the "inward man" is an idiosyncratic mistranslation. 

 

16 hours ago, pogi said:

I can only tell you the difference between the physical body and the spiritual body as explained by Paul.  The only discernable difference from his writings is that the spiritual body will be "immortal" and "incorruptible" (15:53-54).  That resonates with my understanding as well.   He doesn't say anywhere that it will not be flesh (that is you reading into it).   He does speak of having a spirit that can consciously glorify God though -  

Paul explicitly says we will be resurrected as a spiritual body, and he explicitly says that flesh can't enter the kingdom of heaven. For Paul, "flesh" represents human sin and corruption. It can be confusing, because the new spiritual body is physical too, but transformed into some finer, heavenly matter. 

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Sounds an awful lot like Mary who speaks of an animated and conscious soul/spirit: And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Luke 1: 46, 47

That would be the author of Luke speaking - he invented his nativity from whole cloth. Luke did believe in some kind of immortal soul, but I think what you've found is not that, but typical poetic language. 

 

16 hours ago, pogi said:

As a side note there is 1 Peter 3: 19:

These spirits are suggested to have been disobedient people from the time of Noah.  

 

Yes, I agree. The author of 1 Peter (who was not Peter) did believe that the souls of the dead lived underground in prison. As I said before, this stuff starts to enter Christianity as it becomes more Greek and less Jewish. The Greeks absolutely believed in immortal souls.  

 

16 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Evidence and historical analysis inevitably leads to an interpretation, an interpretation without the verification of the author is just a guess - no matter how educated and evidence based.  

That's not how it works and that's not what guessing is. On the contrary, reading modern theology back onto an ancient text is pretty close to guessing. 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Eschaton said:

""For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

There is nothing at all here about an immortal indestructible version of the self already dwelling inside the body. To establish that Paul believed such a thing you'd need more than mere speculation. 

Again, who or what is the conscious "we" (which is distinguished from the body in this passage) speaking?  A voice coming from something other than the body - something that is only clothed by the body?  That doesn't fit your narrative.  Who or what is being "clothed"?  Who or what is afraid of being naked (without body)?  Who/what is the inner/nonbodily voice speaking?  This language simply doesn't fit the narrative you want me to believe - not even as a metaphor.  If you believe that Paul viewed the body as the only source of consciousness, voice, or being, then I want to hear a reasonable interpretation of this passage. 

4 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Your 2 Corinthians passage again suffers from your choice of outdated translation. It actually says:

"16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day."

Nothing here indicating the soul idea you are projecting onto Paul. 

Your choice of translation is interesting.  This unpopular translation also happens to be one that favors your favorite narrative/bias.  Is that by coincidence, or do you really think that translation is the best one?  I personally don't think you can support this translation.  The most common translations for this verse are "inward man", "inner self", "inner person", or "inner nature"...

Your choice of translation seems to be missing the mark.  Here are the root words and their meaning:

Quote

outer
ἔξω (exō)
Adverb
Strong's 1854: Without, outside. Adverb from ek; out(-side, of doors), literally or figuratively.

self
ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 444: A man, one of the human race. From aner and ops; man-faced, i.e. A human being.

https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/4-16.htm

"Outer self/man" is clearly the better translation.  "Outwardly" is completely omitting "anthropos" (man/human being) from the translation .

Quote

inner
ἔσω (esō)
Adverb
Strong's 2080: Within, inside, with verbs either of rest or of motion; prep: within, to within, inside. From eis; inside.

[self]
ὁ (ho)
Article - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/4-16.htm

"ho" is an interesting choice of words which is clearly distinguished from "anthropos" - which can only be interpreted/understood as a mortal human.   "Ho" is not necessarily a physical human though.  It has been translated as "someone" or "one" 19 times in the bible.  As in "inner one/someone".

For example:

Quote

Matthew 2:2 Art-NMS
GRK: Ποῦ ἐστὶν  τεχθεὶς βασιλεὺς
INT: Where is the [one] having been born King

"Inwardly" is not even close.  

This understanding of an "outward man" and an inner one/someone clearly matches the language found in 1 Corinthians of an inner voice speaking about an outward clothing/tent/body/man. 

4 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Paul explicitly says we will be resurrected as a spiritual body, and he explicitly says that flesh can't enter the kingdom of heaven. For Paul, "flesh" represents human sin and corruption. It can be confusing, because the new body spiritual body is physical too, but transformed into some finer, heavenly matter. 

That is how I understand the resurrected body to be too - physical, but something more heavenly/pure and refined so as to be immortal and incorruptible.  Clearly Paul understand the resurrected body to be something other than "spirit" or breath/life force. 

Quote

That's not how it works and that's not what guessing is. On the contrary, reading modern theology back onto an ancient text is pretty close to guessing. 

Now we are just arguing about semantics...which is really all this boils down to.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...