-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well there are so many arguments around that whether the Lazarus story is a parable or isn't a parable, that I would rather not open a can of worms... If I say it is a parable you will protest because you want to apply what you said above, but if I say it is not a parable, then again you will not agree because it challenges the mainstream view of hades as a waiting room. I think it's best not to even go there 
L
well that is what wiki states but it states more than that so did you also read where the actual trend is now leaning towards monism?
wiki quote below
One part (Monism)
See also: Monism
Modern theologians increasingly hold to the view that the human being is an indissoluble unity.[32] This is known as holism or monism. The body and soul are not considered separate components of a person, but rather as two facets of a united whole.[33] It is argued that this more accurately represents Hebrew thought, whereas body-soul dualism is more characteristic of classical Greek Platonist and Cartesian thought. Monism is the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which adheres to the doctrine of "soul sleep". Monism also appears to be more consistent with certain physicalist interpretations of modern neuroscience, which has indicated that the so-called "higher functions" of the mind are dependent upon or emergent from brain structure, not the independent workings of an immaterial soul as was previously thought.[34]
An influential exponent of this view was liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann. Oscar Cullmann was influential in popularizing it.
your post did read like a wiki primer, so I actually looked up Christian anthropology...anthropology being another quote from you, and found the article it appears found favor with you
and still do apparently
but you did miss the alternate evolving view that both tripartite and bipartite are falling from favor.
why? I know it did not support your 'thesis' but let's get it all out there so informed decisions can be made. that's how I like to do it
at any rate, most spiritual Christians are of the opinion that the devil is aiming to dissuade us that we are even human, let alone created in God's image
wiki quote below
One part (Monism)
See also: Monism
Modern theologians increasingly hold to the view that the human being is an indissoluble unity.[32] This is known as holism or monism. The body and soul are not considered separate components of a person, but rather as two facets of a united whole.[33] It is argued that this more accurately represents Hebrew thought, whereas body-soul dualism is more characteristic of classical Greek Platonist and Cartesian thought. Monism is the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which adheres to the doctrine of "soul sleep". Monism also appears to be more consistent with certain physicalist interpretations of modern neuroscience, which has indicated that the so-called "higher functions" of the mind are dependent upon or emergent from brain structure, not the independent workings of an immaterial soul as was previously thought.[34]
An influential exponent of this view was liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann. Oscar Cullmann was influential in popularizing it.
your post did read like a wiki primer, so I actually looked up Christian anthropology...anthropology being another quote from you, and found the article it appears found favor with you
and still do apparently
but you did miss the alternate evolving view that both tripartite and bipartite are falling from favor.
why? I know it did not support your 'thesis' but let's get it all out there so informed decisions can be made. that's how I like to do it
at any rate, most spiritual Christians are of the opinion that the devil is aiming to dissuade us that we are even human, let alone created in God's image
Btw, I am not disputing that in some cases they are used interchangeably (although not in the second example here), the question is why, and based on why, when that is answered one can find if that makes them the same or not.
But let's test drive your hypothesis and try to use interchangeably.
Spirits cannot be slain - only souls, because "living soul" only exists while the body exists (Adam clay moved by breath => living soul). So the word soul is used for a reason.
I just pulled spirit and "slay-" and "slai-" not one example in the Bible that spirits are slain. It's because you can't "slay" an identity or essence of something, which is what a spirit is; to slay something it has to operate in a physical body and be sentient which is characteristic of a soul.
But let's test drive your hypothesis and try to use interchangeably.
Spirits cannot be slain - only souls, because "living soul" only exists while the body exists (Adam clay moved by breath => living soul). So the word soul is used for a reason.
I just pulled spirit and "slay-" and "slai-" not one example in the Bible that spirits are slain. It's because you can't "slay" an identity or essence of something, which is what a spirit is; to slay something it has to operate in a physical body and be sentient which is characteristic of a soul.
Well there are so many arguments around that whether the Lazarus story is a parable or isn't a parable, that I would rather not open a can of worms... If I say it is a parable you will protest because you want to apply what you said above, but if I say it is not a parable, then again you will not agree because it challenges the mainstream view of hades as a waiting room. I think it's best not to even go there
==========================================
"But the other one rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same judgment? 41We are punished justly, for we are receiving what our actions deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42Then he said, “Jesus, remember mej when You come into Your kingdom!”
43And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
=========================================
Since we know that Jesus and the thief both died that same day, how could Jesus promise the man that he would be with Him in paradise that very same day? For one, you have to be conscious and aware in order to experience paradise. It is because Jesus and thief went down into that same area of comfort/paradise that Abraham and Lazarus were in. Jesus body was in the tomb, but His spirit/soul was down in Hades.
Then we have Moses and Elijah appearing to Jesus on the mountain when he was transfigured. We know that Elijah never died, but Moses certainly did, yet there he is speaking with Jesus about His upcoming departure.
S
So here is an example from another poster tantalon in this thread "The SOUL is simply that part that encompasses the emotions: tenderness pity, compassion etc. and, or, their counterparts or opposites. The SPIRIT encompasses the will, heart and intellect "
My point was that you and tantalon and others present your views as to the definition of soul but you do not have scriptures that say that is what soul is. Therefore it is unsupportable with scripture. It is mere conjecture. You may be able to say you have a scripture that suggests that soul and spirit and body are to be considered separate parts of men with Heb 4:12 but you cannot say that Heb 4:12 defines soul in the way you have described it or the way tantalon sees it. Many and varied are the expressions of those who attempt to explain what the soul consists of verse the spirit but none of these ideas are found in the text itself.
I only mentioned Watchman Nee because he is one that has greatly influenced the modern church in the tri part view, but not the only one of course, it is simply that he is one of those that is quoted by others who have attempted to explain this view doctrinaly. There are many others. I have no issues with Watchman Nee as a one who had good teachings and was a good author worthy of reading.
The scriptures in John said Jesus was troubled in soul, and then in the same book the author John says that Jesus was troubled in spirit. Should that be explained in two different ways? The context both seems to indicate that what was on his MIND is what troubled him in both cases. His emotions seemed to be involved in both cases.
This idea that the soul is the emotions and the spirit is something else does not line up with scriptures where the word spirit is used and is often in context of emotions.
Mary Magnified God with her Soul then Rejoiced with her Spirit. Should we really be trying to explain how Mary can Magnify with her soul and not her spirit and rejoice with her spirit and not with her soul?
My point was that you and tantalon and others present your views as to the definition of soul but you do not have scriptures that say that is what soul is. Therefore it is unsupportable with scripture. It is mere conjecture. You may be able to say you have a scripture that suggests that soul and spirit and body are to be considered separate parts of men with Heb 4:12 but you cannot say that Heb 4:12 defines soul in the way you have described it or the way tantalon sees it. Many and varied are the expressions of those who attempt to explain what the soul consists of verse the spirit but none of these ideas are found in the text itself.
I only mentioned Watchman Nee because he is one that has greatly influenced the modern church in the tri part view, but not the only one of course, it is simply that he is one of those that is quoted by others who have attempted to explain this view doctrinaly. There are many others. I have no issues with Watchman Nee as a one who had good teachings and was a good author worthy of reading.
The scriptures in John said Jesus was troubled in soul, and then in the same book the author John says that Jesus was troubled in spirit. Should that be explained in two different ways? The context both seems to indicate that what was on his MIND is what troubled him in both cases. His emotions seemed to be involved in both cases.
This idea that the soul is the emotions and the spirit is something else does not line up with scriptures where the word spirit is used and is often in context of emotions.
Mary Magnified God with her Soul then Rejoiced with her Spirit. Should we really be trying to explain how Mary can Magnify with her soul and not her spirit and rejoice with her spirit and not with her soul?
S
Frankly I didn't even know monism existed before yesterday. I have no idea what monism is and from what I have read does not seem to be the view of any theologian who believes that the bible is divinely inspired. It appears to be contrary to scripture. If that is your view feel free to present it. Maybe you can explain it for the rest of us. I have nothing to say about it, as I don't understand it, and don't see how it applies to the discussion. If it is gaining acceptance among liberal theologians that do not believe that the bible is inspired then I really don't care what is trending among them.
-
1
- Show all
Not only that but that verse indicates that the two are knit together, only Word of God being able to separate the two.
(they are said to be divided asunder aka separated, as opposed to one and the same thing sliced in half)
I am a bit at a loss what is the purpose of this thread if any argument proving opposite points to the OP is just going to be brushed aside.
(they are said to be divided asunder aka separated, as opposed to one and the same thing sliced in half)
I am a bit at a loss what is the purpose of this thread if any argument proving opposite points to the OP is just going to be brushed aside.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
S
There are many born again Theologians that believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible and are teachers that are gifted by the Holy Spirit as gifts to the Church that Paul clearly states as God's method in helping the saints grow into the image of God. These theologians teach the Word of God and those that read them learn the Word of God.
And no, the two scriptures from 1 Thess and Heb 4 does not end the discussion. Actually all it does is present a case for a three part view. It is a weak case, but I concede it is a case.
All other scriptures in the bible that use the word soul and spirit interchangeably and there are so many I have not even taken the time to list them all yet, cannot be overruled by these two verses and this is a basic rule of bible interpretation, something you should agree with even if you have not read from or ever plan to ever read from any theologians. You don't have to be a theologian to agree that the overwhelming majority of scriptures using soul and spirit are interchangeable and have been understood that way throughout history. These two verses seem to be intending less that all that is said about the soul as a result wouldn't you agree with that? I mean so much is said about what the soul is, and these texts do not give you that sort of detail do they?
And no, the two scriptures from 1 Thess and Heb 4 does not end the discussion. Actually all it does is present a case for a three part view. It is a weak case, but I concede it is a case.
All other scriptures in the bible that use the word soul and spirit interchangeably and there are so many I have not even taken the time to list them all yet, cannot be overruled by these two verses and this is a basic rule of bible interpretation, something you should agree with even if you have not read from or ever plan to ever read from any theologians. You don't have to be a theologian to agree that the overwhelming majority of scriptures using soul and spirit are interchangeable and have been understood that way throughout history. These two verses seem to be intending less that all that is said about the soul as a result wouldn't you agree with that? I mean so much is said about what the soul is, and these texts do not give you that sort of detail do they?
True! If the spirit and soul was used interchangeably to refer to the same element, then Paul could have just dropped the word 'spirit' our of that scripture, so that it read:
"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your entire, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, instead of 'may your entire, spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless.'
"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your entire, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, instead of 'may your entire, spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless.'
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Scriptures should never be "overruled" by one another in either direction regardless of the number of verses that seem to support a hypothesis, but explored until they altogether make sense within a premise that unifies them.
You have to provide a satisfactory explanation for the verses that don't fit your hypothesis to maintain it, either that, or modify your hypothesis until it all agrees.
You have to provide a satisfactory explanation for the verses that don't fit your hypothesis to maintain it, either that, or modify your hypothesis until it all agrees.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Scriptures should never be "overruled" by one another in either direction regardless of the number of verses that seem to support a hypothesis, but explored until they altogether make sense within a premise that unifies them.
You have to provide a satisfactory explanation for the verses that don't fit your hypothesis to maintain it, either that, or modify your hypothesis until it all agrees.
You have to provide a satisfactory explanation for the verses that don't fit your hypothesis to maintain it, either that, or modify your hypothesis until it all agrees.
S
This evening if I get time I will post more scriptures where soul and spirit are used interchangeably. My goal is not to expound upon "what I think about the nature of the invisible soul verses the spirit" but simply to see if any of the texts on soul can be used to teach those things that others have said about what the soul verses the spirit looks like. If it is there in the text we ought to be able to find it. Once again I will repeat that 1 Thess and Heb 4 simply makes a case for the three part view, there is nothing in those two texts that can be used to define the difference between soul and spirit such as claiming the soul is the intellect, or emotions, and the spirit is ??? whatever .... fill in the blank. Therefore we must find some other verses that describe the soul being emotions to back that up, otherwise we just are making that up because we read it from someone else but not the bible. Lets get to the scriptures that prove what is being said about the soul.