Soul and spirit

a reply to: Deetermined
Whether the word is correctly or badly translated is a question of linguistics, not theology. You CANNOT use a theological argument to decide a matter of translation.

Now the Greek word is PSYCHIKOS.
This is an adjective derived from PSYCHE, so it means "relating to the PSYCHE".
Since PSYCHE is commonly transalted as "soul", the most literal translation of PSYCHIKOS would be "soulish".

Now the Englsih word "physical" is defined in my dictionary as "of matter, material". That makes it the wrong kind of translation for a word which means "relating to the soul".

If Paul had meant "physical body", he would have used SARKIKOS, the adjective derived from SARX (meaning "the flesh").

In fact, among the Bibles on my bookshelf, the RSV is the only version which translates that word as "physical". In other words, it isn't even the standard translation. It's an aberration.

Of course we are also being told in later verses that the body will be made incorruptible. That does not alter the linguistic question of translating the change from a PSYCHIKOS body to a PNEUMATIKOS body. Neither word can be about the substance of the body.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Now the Englsih word "physical" is defined in my dictionary as "of matter, material". That makes it the wrong kind of translation for a word which means "relating to the soul".

If Paul had meant "physical body", he would have used SARKIKOS, the adjective derived from SARX (meaning "the flesh").

Maybe you need to read those verses again. It's clear that Paul is talking about the differences between our earthly physical bodies and our new spiritual heavenly bodies. The "soul" is only mentioned in verse 45, which makes it clear to me that "soul" is only a reference to meaning that it's alive.

Remember, the Bible tells us in Matthew 10:28 that only God can destroy both the body AND the soul. The soul is life and only God can give it and take it away regardless of what kind of body it is in.

1 Corinthians 15:44-50

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

originally posted by: Deetermined
Maybe you need to read those verses again. It's clear that Paul is talking about the differences between our earthly physical bodies and our new spiritual heavenly bodies. The "soul" is only mentioned in verse 45, which makes it clear to me that "soul" is only a reference to meaning that it's alive.

V45 is the one that I'm talking about, and this is one of the verses offering a contrast.

If PSYCHIKOS merely meant that the body had life, how would that be a contrast with PNEUMATIKOS?

For what it's worth, I've got commentaries on my side here, including the classic Robertson and Plummer;
"Evidently PSYCHIKON does not mean that the body is made of PSYCHE, consists entirely of PSYCHE, and PNEUMATIKON does not mean is made of PNEUMA, consists entirely of PNEUMA. The adjectives mean "congential with", "formed to be the organ of""

a reply to: DISRAELI

Maybe the bigger problem (for me) is the way you word your posts. In my opinion, here is a better explanation for soul and spirit.

"The words "soul" and "spirit" are found throughout the Bible, each occurring hundreds of times in the Old and New Testaments. The Hebrew word translated "soul" means a breathing creature, one in which life is present, whether physical life or mental life. The Greek word in the New Testament is similar. In its most basic sense, the word "soul" means "life," either physical or eternal. Jesus asks what it profits a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul, referring to his eternal life (Matthew 16:26). Both Old and New Testaments reiterate that we are to love God completely, with the whole "soul" which refers to everything that is in us that makes us alive (Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Mark 12:30). Whenever the word "soul" is used, it can refer to the whole person, whether physically alive or in the afterlife.

The word "spirit" is used to denote something different in Scripture, although both the Hebrew and Greek words translated "spirit" also have the concept of breath or wind at their roots. We understand the difference by looking at the context of the verses that refer to the spirit of man. Unlike the soul, which is alive both physically and eternally, the spirit can be either alive, as in the case of believers, (1 Peter 3:18), or dead as unbelievers are (Colossians 2:13; Ephesians 2:4-5). The spiritual part of believers in Jesus Christ is that which responds to the things that come from the Spirit of God, understanding and discerning them spiritually. The spiritually dead perceive the things of the Spirit to be "foolishness" because, in his spiritually dead conditions, he does not have the ability to discern the things of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:12-14). The spirit is that part of us that is enabled by God to know and worship Him, the part of humanity that "connects" with God, who Himself is Spirit (John 4:24).

While the two words are often used interchangeably, the primary distinction between soul and spirit in man is that the soul is the animate life, or the seat of the senses, desires, affections, and appetites. The spirit is that part of us that connects, or refuses to connect, to God. Our spirits relate to His Spirit, either accepting His promptings and conviction, thereby proving that we belong to Him (Romans 8:16) or resisting Him and proving that we do not have spiritual life (Acts 7:51)."

a reply to: Deetermined

Its close but misses an important aspect. The seat of our conciousness is the witness. Whilst existing in it, one see's granduer in a raindrop falling to the ground. So rather than excercise our mind in reading and writing about spirituality, we should instead spend that time "praying", so we can experience it first hand. Because its beyond words. A nothingness that opens everything to pure altruistic love.

a reply to: glend

we should instead spend that time "praying", so we can experience it first hand.

Absolutely!

a reply to: DISRAELI

The Spirit of God is that aspect of God which communicates with man.
The spirit of man is that aspect of a man which communicates with God.

I'm not the only one in this thread who identifies this as the heart of the message here.

A metaphor then would be the Eucharist.

The bread is whole, then broken, the individuals eat.
The bread was first individual grain scattered across the hills and brought together to make the one loaf. ( that's from the Didache )

The Didache was accepted as canon by at least the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in a slightly modified form.

Unless otherwise noted; references are from wikipedia - Didache

The Didache is considered the first example of the genre of Church Orders.[3] The Didache reveals how Jewish Christians saw themselves and how they adapted their practice for Gentile Christians. The Didache is similar in several ways to the Gospel of Matthew, perhaps because both texts originated in similar communities. The opening chapters, which also appear in other early Christian texts, are likely derived from an earlier Jewish source.[3]

The Eucharist prayer then:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.

I don't think I should draw the direct correlation to the metaphor. But man ( individual men and women ) are necessary for the bread to be one, and they are also the individual partakers from the one.

That kind of looks like the metaphor, now that I look at it.

------------------
Now back to "the poor in spirit " from Matt 5:3; Maybe they benefit from what people call intercessory prayer. It's possible.

originally posted by: pthena
A metaphor then would be the Eucharist.

The bread is whole, then broken, the individuals eat.
The bread was first individual grain scattered across the hills and brought together to make the one loaf. ( that's from the Didache )

Yes, I think Paul means the same idea in both cases (in both cases, they are becoming one, not originating as one). The Eucharist is an act of visual expression of what's happening anyway- "the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" (that's from the Anglican catechism, though I don't suppose the Anglican catechism has been used much over the last couple of centuries).
I've always thought that transubstantiation theory was too materialistic, one result of the Latin-based church of the Middle Ages never really grasping what the Holy Spirit was for.

Possibly "poor in spirit" means "humble before God".

a reply to: DISRAELI

If you did not know the word spirit or soul you would not be looking for what they mean.....and making up more stuff.

What does not require looking for?

Surely THAT which does not require seeking for..... is the truth!

It is not hiding at all...... it's in plain sight.

a reply to: DISRAELI

transubstantiation theory was too materialistic

There's nothing about the substance/essence of the bread that needs changing.

The Eucharist is an act of visual expression of what's happening anyway-

Low churches like to call that communion. The distribution and sharing is the communion between individual and individual and the congregation collectively with God at the same time.

King James Version
Galatians 6:

1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. 3For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5For every man shall bear his own burden.

Of all Paul's writings, I think I like Galatians the most.


That verse would probably fit in the Judgement - Discernment thread nicely.

a reply to: glend

The man whose number is 666 is prophesied in the OT, he is spoken about more than Baptism, more than the Lords supper, more than tongues. He is the 2nd most spoken person in the Bible prophecy next to Jesus.

If you don't take Revelation literally then the whole Bible becomes a closed book.

If Paul had meant "physical body", he would have used SARKIKOS, the adjective derived from SARX (meaning "the flesh").

This is assumed that God did not preserve his word as promised in Ps 12:6-7. This is to assume even the UNVERIFIED Greek copies and meanings of Greek words are the only preserved words of God.

We are not Paul and to say Paul WOULD have used a word other than what the English has preserved unto us. We were not there at the time Luke or another scribe penned Paul's words. You have no original Greek documents to compare the Greek you quote to assure it accuracy. What if in the original Paul did use SARKIKOS, and some scholar in Alexandria, who did pen the Vaticanicus, the Siniaticus and the Alexandrius Text Changed it? Which BTW are the three text used for the RSV to the ignoring of all other texts, except for Westcot and Hort's Greek, which is based on those three.

Then we are in error and not the Bible as found in the KJV Textus Receptus text. In Luther's German it is the same word and it is from the Textus Receptus text. We would be best to accept the English and learn the 6th grade English of the KJV TR text, as it is written, where it is written, as it is found written. Just like we find Hberew 4:12.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ChesterJohn

If you don't take Revelation literally then the whole Bible becomes a closed book.

Perhaps things were hidden, not because they were secret, but because they would simply be rejected by those ruled by their ego. So like an onion, we need peel back the layers, to seek its spiritual meaning.

Revelation is a path John walked to enter the Kingdom.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Looking over the other references, it seems to me that the analogy between them can be carried a stage further. To wit;
The Spirit of God is that aspect of God which communicates with man.
The spirit of man is that aspect of a man which communicates with God.

That is an interesting take on how our spirit might bridge with God's. I would say our spirit exists on a subconscious level and our Christian training creates an access port to God, like you said. When God wants to tell us something he implants an idea between the boundaries of the subconscious and conscious. It would seem as though the thought was of our own but the application of the implanted thought would reveal a clear, revealing or righteous path. I would recommend watching the film "Inception" if you are interested in seeing Leonardo DiCaprio going into the dreamworld to implant a thought onto another through technology we haven't invented yet.

a reply to: glend

Daniel a closed book is opened in Revelation. No scriptures is hidden by God to man, it is clear for his learning. It is hidden to a man only by a wrong heart toward God and his word.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Good I go unopposed to refute your trash.

a reply to: ChesterJohn



www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ChesterJohn

God gave us choice. To serve our ego-mind or serve the Father. A person that serves their ego-mind can never pass the gate. God only exists in the reality of the now. Past and future is the domain of the ego-mind and its trappings. So what you see as open, closes you, to God.

Our ego-mind is that, which reads the words of the bible. Yet it is the very force that rejects God. So the battle between evil and good is not external, but exists within us. Its not hard to work out who 666 is. Thus knowing why it must remain secret. The generally public would totally reject its teachings.

So its not the words that appease, you should focus. But the words that don't appease. Then question yourself why they don't appease.

a reply to: glend

I don't get to heaven on my own merits. The bible is clear on that we get to heaven on Jesus Christ merits on his work on the cross.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

God's words are Pure, True and Active. His word's give me peace and hoe in Christ.