Almost a decade ago, I was told that Genesis 2:7 should probably be understood to mean "the man's soul came alive."
(CSB): Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
However, translating the verse as "[Adam's] soul came alive" does not seem to be a viable option since nephesh (nepes) is modified by an adjective in Genesis 2:7 and hā·’ā·ḏām is the grammatical subject. G.J. Wenham writes:
"As a result of divine inbreathing, man became a 'living creature' . . . The adjective ['living'] is significant in the phrase: implicitly this 'living creature' is being contrasted with a dead one, e.g., Num 5:2; 6:6, 11. Given the other uses of the phrase L'NEPHESH CHAYAH in Gen 1, 2, 9, it seems unlikely that 2:7, 'man became a living creature,' means any more than the TEV rendering 'and the man began to live.' By blowing on the inanimate earth, God made man come alive" (Wenham, Genesis 1-15,
pp. 60-61).
Nephesh hardly seems to mean "life" in Genesis 2:7; the meaning is possible, but not likely. Note how "living creatures" (i.e., souls) are described in Gen. 1:20-24; 2:19. Nephesh is used similarly in Gen. 2:7. Notice how the same word is used in the following texts:
"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul [nephesh] shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Gen 17:14 AV)
"The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself" (Proverbs 11:25)
"[As] cold waters to a thirsty soul, so [is] good news from a far country" (Prov. 25:25)
"Good news from far away is like cold water to the thirsty" (NLT)
63 comments:
Joshua ch.10:30 ESV"And the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel. And he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person(Nefesh) in it; he left none remaining in it. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho."
The Man's becoming a Soul is a real problem for those who want to make a hard distinction between the Man and that Soul he Supposedly possesses.
Yes indeed, and we have over 700 examples of nepes/nephesh in the Hebrew Bible, which contribute to the idea that man is a soul, not that he possesses an immaterial soul.
"we have over 700 examples of nepes/nephesh in the Hebrew Bible, which contribute to the idea that man is a soul, not that he possesses an immaterial soul."
The two are not mutually exclusive, the fact that the typical Old Testament wording calls the whole of man 'nephesh' does not rule out that man has an immaterial soul.
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315613673.ch2
An argument from silence if there ever was such a thing. The preponderance of evidence suggest that nefesh/psyche is a qualification of the living body and not a distinct entity.
The fact that 'nefesh' is basically the "qualification" of the living person in Old Testament terminology ('psyche' is less so in the NT, cf. Matthew 10:28), how would that disprove the that a person has a spiritual soul?
It's simple: that 'nefesh' is certainly not what the Judeo-Christian dualist anthropology understood by the soul.
See: https://justpaste.it/cmv5a
2 things:
1) we have an idiom "poor soul" meaning "poor person" or "poor [individual]" - saying either or makes good sense.
e.g Edgar is a poor soul (sorry Edgar, don't mean to be insulting)
2) We have Num 6:6 to deal with - Where the word for "soul" is used of a dead body
Edgars source is really good - once again hinting at a link between Christendom and philosophy.
a "soul" apparently never dies so why in Num 6:6 does it use say "dead soul" surely this would be misleading and confusing to anyone who believed in "eternal torment" - the logic doesn't follow.
as one scholar said "[Christendom] didn't [remove] philosophy, they adopted it."
Jerimaih 6:8 - Where it definitely doesn't mean something separate
Elliots commentary:
"As in Jeremiah 4:19, the Hebrew formula for emphasised personality. The word for “depart” may be better rendered tear itself away."
Gills:
"In Ezekiel 23:18, it is rendered, "my mind was alienated"; it denotes disunion and disaffection."
I partially agree with Nincsnevem, the bible does not say anything about whether the person is entirely material or not ... I mean given that we are talking about the pre-scientific world I don't even know what that would mean, if it were true that the person qua person was nothing more than a body with an attribute of being living (depending on what that actually means, do we mean living in the phenomenological sense or the biological sense) then resurrection to a spiritual body would be metaphysical impossibility, and the ancient debates over resurrection (what about if a cannibal and his victim was resurrected) would be actual problems (I don't think they are because I don't think the person is material, consciousness and ipseity are not metaphysically the same as atoms arranged certain ways). I also don't think nefesh/psyche is nothing more than a property, I think the bible clearly gives it some metaphysical weight.
BUT, I do think the idea that the soul is somehow seperate from the body, i.e. the body is merely incidental to the living person is not justified. The parts may not be identical to the whole, and the whole may not be identical to the parts, but it doesn't follow that a whole survives the destruction of the parts.
Judeo-Christian dualism is by no means universal, there have been hylomorphists, a few materialists, idealists, and classical duelists, the biblical data itself is under determined, although it is pretty clear that the soul dies, and individual consciousness ends at death. I personally think that dualism is a dead end, materialism is a dead end, and hylomorphism, or some kind of idealism (not Berkley idealism, but the dialectical idealism of Hegel/Schelling), is probably most likely.
Interestingly enough, when it comes to materialists/dualists, I'm not even sure they have a coherent notion of matter, much less consciousness, if matter is just what scientists deal with we're really just talking about whatever can be quantified and mathematically modeled, which doesn't even describe phenomenal reality as we see it, it only models it, and does so by ruling out phenomenality.
The "understanding" of the bible writers is inspired by God and hence infallible 2Timorhy ch.3:16 so obviously if the Human soul includes the entire reality as is the case with every other nefesh chayah any distinction between the Man and his Soul would be an abstract one. So when JEHOVAH Told the man that HE(the person) would RETURN to the ground from which HE Was taken that is exactly what he meant. The person RETURNS to his pre-creation state at death.
Genesis ch.3:19NIV"By the sweat of YOUR brow
YOU will eat YOUR food
until YOU return to the ground,
since from it YOU were taken;
for dust YOU are
and to dust YOU will return.”"
Ecclesiastes ch.9:16ESV"But I say that wisdom is better than might, though the poor man’s wisdom is despised and his words are not heard."
1Corinthians ch.3:19"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness";
JEHOVAH Salutes the wisdom of the common man and jeers folly of this age's elites
There is no scientist that can explain what matter is even matter is not reducible to matter. What the bible is clear about is that the soul RETURNS to its pre-creation state at death.
Man is not the only living soul "nefesh chayah" on this planet:
Genesis ch.1:24KJV"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. " Many of the lower creatures exhibit the same mental and emotional qualities man does indeed some exceed our mental capacities in certain respects it is clear from the JEHOVAH'S Command re:the treatment of domestic animals that JEHOVAH does not regard them as mere meat machines.
Matthew ch.10:29NIV"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care." Few would argue for an immortal Soul for the primates or ravens based on their mental and emotional qualities.
You said"I mean given that we are talking about the pre-scientific world"
"Science is a measure of our ignorance: the more we know, the more we realize how little we know’" Dr Gianluca Calcagni,
The main achievement of science has been to reveal to man a more accurate estimate of his ignorance.
There are several arguments in the Bible against the monistic anthropology view:
1. God is a soul without a body (pneuma), so there is not necessarily a need for a physical body to talk about personality. If personality does not depend on the body in an absolute sense, then we can not only say that we are a body, but also that we have a body.
2. The Old Testament primarily emphasizes human unity, but this does not mean it is strictly monistic:
- the Old Testament also contains references to the inner being of man
- several theologians (e.g., E. Jacob) showed that the term "heart" in the Old Testament refers to the inner being of man, which differs from the external man (cf. Ps 73:26)
- Prov 20:27 "The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all his innermost parts."
- in the Old Testament, we see faint hints that there is life after the death of the body: Ps 73:24-26, Ps 49:6-16, Prov 15:24.
- the Old Testament strongly condemns necromancy (Lev 20:6; Deut 18:9-12; 2Kings 21:6; 23:24; Isa 8:19-20; 19:3; 1Sam 28:3-25), which at least makes it likely that Jews generally believed in the existence of the soul after death. Notably, while the prophets often ridiculed the worship of other gods by pointing out that these gods did not exist, they never refuted the inquiry from the dead by denying the continuation of the souls of the deceased!
- the intertestamental literature clearly represents the view that the soul continues to live after the body has been placed in the grave (it is unlikely that this would be entirely contrary to the Old Testament Hebrew view, rather, what was present in seed form in the Old Testament became an explicitly formulated belief before the New Testament times, openly professed by the Pharisees - with whom Paul, even as a Christian, agreed - against the Sadducees)
3. The New Testament clarifies the divine revelation in many ways; the biblical revelation is gradual, so the Old Testament's image of man also becomes clearer in the light of the New Testament's teaching.
- Paul, along with the Pharisees, not only believed in angels and resurrection but also in a soul separate from the body, as he testified during a debate
- Acts 23:6-8 "But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both."
- We also see this duality in Paul's letters:
* 1 Cor 2:11 "For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God."
* 1 Cor 5:3 "For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed."
* 1 Cor 5:5 "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
* 1 Cor 7:34 "There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband."
* 2 Cor 4:16 "Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (from the context, it is clear that this is about the body and soul)
* 2 Cor 7:1 "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."
* Col 2:5 "For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ."
- James also spoke of the body and soul: James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
- in the New Testament, we see that the immaterial part of man continues to live after the death of the body: Mt 22:31-32 "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The future resurrection guarantees that they are alive now after their death (which is expressed in the present tense: God is their God now, not just in the past!)
- the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31) suggests that people continue to live in a conscious state between their death and resurrection, even though their bodies rest in the grave. It is not convincing to object that Jesus only used a popular legend here, for if the situation described in the parable cannot be true, then Jesus would have reinforced a mistake (as evidenced by the fact that Christians in almost every age took this parable as teaching!)
- Jesus' spirit (pneuma) separated from his body upon death and went to heaven with the thief's spirit (while their bodies were buried).
- Lk 23:46 "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (pneuma)!' And having said this he breathed his last."
- Lk 23:43 "And he said to him, 'Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.'"
* Monistic interpretation: "Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." (The word "today" refers to when Jesus makes the promise, not to when it is fulfilled.)
* Objection 1: The word "today" would then be unnecessary redundancy, especially unlikely when someone is speaking with difficulty!
* Objection 2: The natural reading is that Jesus, using his favorite expression ("Truly, I tell you"), emphasizes his statement: "Today you will be with me in paradise!"
* Objection 3: The promise's immediacy makes Jesus' words especially comforting: even today!
- Stephen's spirit (pneuma) went to God upon death: Acts 7:59-60 "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit (pneuma).' Falling to his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them.' And when he had said this, he died." Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, ready to receive him (7:56).
- Paul was convinced that death meant a joyful communion with Christ, and in this state, separated from our bodies, we are "naked" spirits, waiting for our resurrection and "putting on" the imperishable body: 2 Cor 5:1-10, Phil 1:21-24.
- The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks about worshiping God in the presence of the spirits of the righteous made perfect around God's throne: Heb 12:22-24.
- In the Book of Revelation, the deceased saints are in conscious communion with God: 4:4, 6:9-11, 7:9-17, 20:4.
- Peter speaks of the torment of the spirits of the unbelievers between their death and the final judgment: 1 Pet 3:19-20, 2 Pet 2:9.
The view of monism, in the light of the New Testament's teaching (as traditionally understood by Christians), thus does not hold up, no matter how popular it has become in recent decades. The rest of the text also confirms that the duality of the spirit-soul and body – a feature of human nature – is among the fundamental tenets of biblical anthropology. However, between 1930 and 1960, it became fashionable among theologians to deny this. Under the influence of J. Pedersen's Old Testament interpretations and R. Bultmann's New Testament interpretations, and due to their disillusionment from the 19th-century idealism, authors en masse insisted that according to the 'Hebrew way of thinking,' man forms a coordinated, indivisible (psychosomatic) unity: he does not have a body, he himself is the body, and so on. They were right in emphasizing that, by stressing the unity of personality in biblical thinking, they discarded the long-standing mixture of Christian faith and vulgar Platonism. Yet under the influence of academic fashion, they too quickly abandoned the doctrine of dual structure. Though this decision was relatively weak and methodologically dubious, they did not take the time to review it. Ultimately, this elicited a healthy reaction. Robert H. Gundry, in his recently published work on the concept of the body, reconstructs the biblical interpretation of almost every Christian generation on this issue. The duality is unmistakably outlined in the New Testament, as in contemporary Jewish religion; moreover, this view is presupposed by the doctrine of the intermediate state, i.e., the survival of the spirit-soul without the body between death and resurrection. As for the Old Testament, despite the vagueness of the concepts and the ambiguity of the words, it would be a mistake to think that this duality is not present in it. We often find references to the inner life of man, which the Old Testament authors call the heart.
John W. Cooper's relatively new study also challenges the monistic stance, advocating instead for a "holistic dualism" (Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, Eerdmans, 1989); other authors who have argued for a dualistic view in recent years include W. Grudem: Systematic Theology; R.H. Gundry: Soma in Biblical Theology With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology; H. Ridderbos: Paul: An Outline of His Theology; John Murray: The Nature of Man; C. Ryrie: Basic Theology; C. Venema: The Promise of the Future.
Roman, you raise a number of points that are interesting to me, but let me just ask: if a person were more than physical, just what would this mean? And how would we know that the person was not merely physical/material?
Secondly, you know how hard defining the word "person" is from the standpoint of theoretical philosophy. Boethius famously defined a person as an individual substance of a rational nature; Aquinas accepted the definition with qualification. But contrast this definition with John Locke's definition or Rene Descartes. And on the discussion goes.
The much more sensible interpretation is that the spirit is abstract and that JEHOVAH has the power to preserve and reinstantiate the abstract spirit.
Occam's razor demands that we go to the simpler explanation first and the Principle of infallibility of the inspired scripture demands the explanation most in harmony with scriptural precedent
The bible's dualism is abstract not concrete. That is the only sensible way to harmonise all of the relevant text.
Note please that the bible's "dualism" includes the beasts proverbs ch.12:10KJV"A righteous man regardeth the life(nefesh) of his beast: "
Genesis ch.9:4KJV"But flesh with the life(Nefesh) thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. "
Note that the abstract nefesh is symbolised by the blood the capacity of blood to sustain the psyche gives the blood (including the blood of Christ) atoning merit.
Leviticus ch.17:11KJV" the life(Nefesh) of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your SOULS: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the SOUL."
If the SOUL was concretely distinct from the body blood would have no atoning merit (including the blood of Christ) note the blood redeems the SOUL not the body
The Satanic claim "you will not surely die" (Genesis 3:4) has nothing to do with the immortality of the soul. God proposed here that if they break His command, then "in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die." From this, it is apparent that here "you will die" did not refer to the literal, physical death, but the consequence of it, that man will die, or (his body) will return to the dust. Here, the word "death" does not refer to physical death but spiritual death, separation from God, and loss of grace.
"In the day that you sin, you will die" - When you sin, I will take away my grace, eternal life, and you will die.
When Satan says, "you will not surely die," he means, "Just go ahead and sin; God will not fulfill His threat (he's just bluffing)."
Then the "dispute" with Satan was not about the immortality of the soul but whether humanity will lose God's special privilege that the human body is free from the compulsion of death. God warned Adam not to eat from 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', or he would die on that day (Gen 2:17). Adam and Eve ate from it anyway, but did not die a biological death >on that day<, as they lived much longer (Gen 5:5). Adam, however, lost fellowship with God (he was driven out of Eden) and eternal life (he could no longer eat from the tree of life, Gen 3:23-24). Adam's (man's) death on "that day" was spiritual-religious death (cf. Eph 2:1), which led to biological death. So the "death" with which God threatens man is twofold: the death of supernatural life (i.e., loss of sanctifying grace) and [as a result] the mortal transformation of the body: before the Fall, man could have not died; since then, man cannot not die.
This of course is avoided by the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation, and they want to explain away the "day" here as exactly a thousand years. But why would it be a thousand years "on that day"? I know there's a biblical statement, "With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8), but that doesn't make it applicable here (this is a leap in logic), so this is entirely a leap of logic. Also, we know that this is metaphorical language, illustrating that God is outside time, and before Him, a day is not literally exactly a thousand years but eternity.
The Peter's part (which I say again, they arbitrarily tie together with the Moses' part using biblical leap logic) is obviously only symbolic: especially since the context does not explain how Adam "died" >that day<, but why the Last Judgment day is delaying in human terms, the answer: because in God's view our "time" is just a moment. "A thousand years" is an ancient analogy: a very long time.
And then, as I mentioned, the subject of the debate was not whether man has an immortal soul but whether he will die physically (i.e., whether God will carry out the threat, or be afraid that man has become like God, autonomous, or self-legislating).
So if we insist on taking the bodily death on that day literally, as Jehovah's Witnesses do, but rule out the false excuse, then Satan would be right: man did not die that day but lived much longer.
Also, since this is relevant to the topic, I'll mention that Jehovah's Witnesses often point out that why death would be a punishment if their souls would live on in heaven. But the question is inherently flawed, since we don't say that. Even then, it wouldn't be a punishment, a shame that this hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with what we teach. Just at first glance:
1. The first human pair's soul did not go to heaven, THEN when they died. So this is about the Old Testament, the deceased before Christianity. Before Christ's redemption, heaven was closed; then the deceased were all together in the underworld (in Sheol) in a joyless, sad existence, even if they were chosen for eternal bliss. Though separate from the damned (cf. Ez 32:17-32), this place - like a vestibule of hell - was not a place of joy but of silent sorrow, where they did not even praise God. This differs entirely from heaven, which only Christ opened through His death on the cross. From then on, death became joy, and from then on, the dead saints praise God, and from then on, they can intercede for us. So it did not yet happen that Christ "ascended on high, leading a host of captives" (Eph 4:8)
2. We do not say that the role of heaven is that man lives there eternally without a body, like a spiritual being. Because heaven here does not mean a spiritual realm but a state of cosmic glorification.
3. We also confess the resurrection of the body. Immortality and resurrection relate to each other as shell and core, beginning and end. The resurrection can only be imagined if life beyond death can be envisioned at all.
4. However, resurrection does not mean that man "comes out" of heaven (since as I wrote above, it's not a place), but that the body also rises and is glorified and unites with the already glorified soul.
Attributing continued existence to man after physical death does not eliminate the crisis of death. Even one who now goes directly to heaven in spirit after death does not "skip over" death. Another reason is that, as I explained in my previous comment, Adam could not have gone to a "good" place after his death; at best, he went to Limbo Patrum, which, though better than hell, was still a joyless, sad existence, one of hopelessness - who knew then, for millennia, that there would be redemption, especially extended to them?
It also belongs here that the idea that the body is the prison of the soul, like a garment, is a belief of Platonism; however, Catholic theology does not hold this but that the two form a close unity, and the state of the soul outside the body is not a "normal" state but a vis maior.
Some thoughts about the human body and soul
https://justpaste.it/d4mnf
Mr.Nevem:The Satanic claim "you will not surely die" (Genesis 3:4) has nothing to do with the immortality of the soul. God proposed here that if they break His command, then "in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die." From this, it is apparent that here "you will die" did not refer to the literal, physical death, but the consequence of it, that man will die, or (his body) will return to the dust. Here, the word "death" does not refer to physical death but spiritual death, separation from God, and loss of grace.
AsservantofJEHOVAH:Typical argument by assertion The bible explains what death means
Genesis ch.3:19NIV"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou RETURN unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou RETURN."
Of course the churches of Christendom ignore the obvious meaning of RETURN the soul reverts to its pre-sin state at death and divine justice can make no further demands upon it
Romans ch.6:7NIV"For he that is dead is freed from sin."
The dead CANNOT sin only the living can sin and the punishment is death for those who do sin but sin and the penalty for sin ends at death. So to punish the dead any further would be unrighteous on JEHOVAH'S part
Nincsnevem"In the day that you sin, you will die" - When you sin, I will take away my grace, eternal life, and you will die.
When Satan says, "you will not surely die," he means, "Just go ahead and sin; God will not fulfill His threat (he's just bluffing)."
AservantofJEHOVAH: JEHOVAH calls what is not as though it is so once he has predetermined an outcome he Can speak as if it has already occurred that is why on the very day that the prospect of eternal human perfection had ended for the original human pair they could be regarded as already dead living from JEHOVAH standpoint would mean entitled to eternal human perfection any less than that would be regarded as dead.
Genesis ch.3;22,23NIV"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken"
From here on humanity was dead. We note that there was no tree of death in the garden. So eternal human perfection was JEHOVAH'S purpose for our race and not superhuman perfection.
Nincsnevem:Then the "dispute" with Satan was not about the immortality of the soul but whether humanity will lose God's special privilege that the human body is free from the compulsion of death. God warned Adam not to eat from 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', or he would die on that day (Gen 2:17). Adam and Eve ate from it anyway, but did not die a biological death >on that day<, as they lived much longer (Gen 5:5). Adam, however, lost fellowship with God (he was driven out of Eden) and eternal life (he could no longer eat from the tree of life, Gen 3:23-24). Adam's (man's) death on "that day" was spiritual-religious death (cf. Eph 2:1), which led to biological death. So the "death" with which God threatens man is twofold: the death of supernatural life (i.e., loss of sanctifying grace) and [as a result] the mortal transformation of the body: before the Fall, man could have not died; since then, man cannot not die.
AservantofJEHOVAH: Just as JEHOVAH can count those he has determined to grant eternal life as already living though dead. he can count those he is determined to punish with eternal death as already dead though alive.
Luke ch.9:60NIV"Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”"
That is why Christ death can furnish a substitutionary atonement. If the wages of sin were eternal conscious torment. Then Christ would need to undergo eternal conscious torment to be a substitute for us
Nincsnevem:This of course is avoided by the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation, and they want to explain away the "day" here as exactly a thousand years. But why would it be a thousand years "on that day"? I know there's a biblical statement, "With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8), but that doesn't make it applicable here (this is a leap in logic), so this is entirely a leap of logic. Also, we know that this is metaphorical language, illustrating that God is outside time, and before Him, a day is not literally exactly a thousand years but eternity.
The fact of the matter is the man lost his human imperfection on that day and thus as from the divine perspective was dead on that day. Psalm ninety was written by the prophet Moses it points out that a yom from JEHOVAH'S Perspective would necessarily be very different from man's perspective does the Catholic church teach that the seven yom in which JEHOVAH Made the world are seven 24 hour yom. As I pointed out the man lost his human perfection on that 24 hour day but even from the standpoint of experiencing the consequences of losing human perfection from the divine perspective less than a day could have said to have passed .
JEHOVAH'S perspective is the only one that matters
Psalms ch.90:3,4NIV"You turn people back to dust,
saying, “Return to dust, you mortals.”
4A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night."
nincsnevem: and then, as I mentioned, the subject of the debate was not whether man has an immortal soul but whether he will die physically (i.e., whether God will carry out the threat, or be afraid that man has become like God, autonomous, or self-legislating).
So if we insist on taking the bodily death on that day literally, as Jehovah's Witnesses do, but rule out the false excuse, then Satan would be right: man did not die that day but lived much longer.
AservantofJEHOVAH: By stripping the man of his human perfection on that day and driving him from the tree of life JEHOVAH Fulfilled his Just punishment on the man the sentence was staggered to allow the birth of some who will show a different and thus vindicate JEHOVAH as creator. You see the real debate is whether or not man's fall was really the fault of his maker or not? If man was well made why could he not fulfill the purpose for which he was made? Those who argue that man's sin was predestined are the ones who are taking Satan's side of the debate.
Nincsnevem:Also, since this is relevant to the topic, I'll mention that Jehovah's Witnesses often point out that why death would be a punishment if their souls would live on in heaven. But the question is inherently flawed, since we don't say that. Even then, it wouldn't be a punishment, a shame that this hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with what we teach. Just at first glance
AservantofJEHOVAH: I Suspect that most JWS would be savvy enough to know that the souls of Adam and Eve would go in the other direction if there was such an intermediate state. What I do remember asking is why the righteous dead Having been freed from their sinful bodies and having received the post mortem evangel that they supposedly receive are not praising JEHOVAH.
Isaiah ch.38:18,19NIV"18For the grave cannot praise you,
death cannot sing your praise;
those who go down to the pit
cannot hope for your faithfulness.
19The living, the living—they praise you,
as I am doing today;
parents tell their children
about your faithfulness"
You claim Luke 16 is a literal understanding of condition of the righteous dead in their intermediate state, the word picture there is one of feasting and Joyful fellowship for the righteous so why aren't they praising JEHOVAH who has made this provision for them?
Also how could it be a kindness for Jesus to take Lazarus away from this bliss and return him to the Sinful body and world he had just escaped?
Here is Cambridge's commentary on Luke ch.16:22
"into Abraham’s bosom] Comp. Luke 13:28. This expression is used as a picture for the banquet of Paradise "
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/luke/16.htm
1 Cor. 15:44 says if there is a physical body there is a spiritual body. God is not a soul without a body. No! He is a spirit body, that is what Paul says. No other explanation is needed.
Sorry, I meant to write that God is spirit (pneuma, John 4:24) and has no body. Where does the Scripture say anywhere that he would have a body? Being a spirit is the exact opposite of being a body. The term "spiritual body" is always used by Paul exclusively for the transformed body of the resurrected righteous, never for angels and God.
That's correct God is a spirit. Paul simply says if there is a physical body there is a spirit body. Also read Philippians 3:21. The spirit anointed wll have a body to be like his gloroious body. Any questions?
I agree with everything you're saying here, more or less.
But I would not say a person is nothing but matter or nothing but a physical object given what those terms mean as used today.
1. So I would say that if something can be described exhaustively by physcial descriptions, it is merely physical, and by physical i basically mean scientific (I don't know what else physical would mean). I don't mean actually exhaustively describable, but potentially.
So if a human being cannot be (in principle) exhaustively described with physical descriptions she cannot be only physical but must be more.
2. I agree, and I have to tread carefully here because you're far more learned in this subject than I (you wrote a book on the subject).
I might say a person is at least an intentional subject, or a willing will (that phrase taken from Maurice Blondel).
But I know this subject controversial.
I can't see how that can make sense (where does Paul say God has a body)?
If a body means anything it must mean a bounded center of perception and action (what else could it mean, even a spiritual body). This implies there are things that are more and less immanent to the body, this is not compatible with God being all powerful and all knowing since everything is fully immediate to him at all times. If everything is fully immanent there is no sense in which things can be further or closer to God or thay anything bounds him (making him finte).
It also is incompatible with creation ex-nihilo since a bounded body and center of perception and action only has meaning if there is something beyond the bounded body that bounds it and that which is outside the center of action and perception such that it can be a center. But prior to creation there was nothing outside of God.
That scripture doesn't say God (who is infinite) has a spiritual body (which again, I cannot see how it can make sense), just that there are finite creatures with spirit bodies including the ressurected anointed and Christ.
JEHOVAH is telekinetic thus he is unaffected by time and space. So though his essence is bordered his actualised potential can be instantaneously projected to every/any part
Of his creation. That is why his Holy Spirit is distinguished from his presence/person see genesis ch.1:2
1Kings ch.8:27NIV"“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! "
JEHOVAH'S essence is located outside of his creation suggesting a border of some kind.
1Kings ch.8:39NIV"then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal with everyone according to all they do, since you know their hearts (for you alone know every human heart), "
There is an uncreated time and space beyond the boundaries of the creation where the embodied essence of JEHOVAH is stationed this form is not like anything within the creation, all created bodies are fashioned to be necessary elements of the overall creation. JEHOVAH however is utterly self-sufficient thus his self-existent eternal form is unlike anything in the creation,so definitely not humanoid.
Romans Ch.1:23
@Philip Fletcher (7:25 AM)
In connection with 1 Corinthians 15:35-54, I've uploaded a text, please feel free read it: https://justpaste.it/avwxj
"Paul simply says if there is a physical body there is a spirit body."
Precisely in 1 Corinthians 15:44, Paul speaks of the resurrected body as "spiritual" (pneumatikos) in contrast to the "natural" (psychikos) body, so you quoted Scripture incorrectly. And that certain "pneumatic sōma" is said ONLY about the resurrected righteous, but never about the angels, and God (who do not have a "spiritual body", but simply pure spirits). Paul here comparies a resurrected body with a mortal body, saying that it will be a different kind of body; a "spiritual body", meaning an immortal body, or incorruptible body (15:53—54). 15:38 also reveals that it is everyone's "own" (idios) body that will be glorified.
"Also read Philippians 3:21. The spirit anointed will have a body to be like his glorious body."
Yes, and Jesus also had his own real body, which was glorified and did not become a pure spirit, like the angels, cf. John 2:21, Luke 24:39.
@Roman (9:27 AM)
"...including the ressurected anointed..."
In 1 Corinthians 15, there is no mention of any "anointed" group, that putting on the spiritual body and transformation refers to a special group of believers. Even in relation to the 144k Israelites mentioned in the Book of Revelation, the New Testament does not contain the words 'khrisma', 'khrio', or 'khrīstós', even though they are also very common in the NT. The 144k as "anointed ones" in the JW sense should be called 'khrīstoí' in Greek, but this word is not applied to them, nor are any of the words anointing or anointing. These are common words in the New Testament, aren't they?
On the other hand, in the New Testament there are not two separate classes of salvation, all believers are called to ONE hope (Ephesians 4:4), as soon as a baptized person is born again, and so on. 1 Corinthians 15:51 says "we will ALL be changed", but JWs think that this is not about "all", but only some privileged class within the faithful. There is no such thing as "anointed class" and "Jonadab class", there are the faithful who were baptized and became children of God. Please read these about this doctrine:
* https://www.docdroid.net/okyE4TI/144000-heaven-pdf
* https://justpaste.it/arng4
* https://tinyurl.com/37hyph6b from page 464 (or 468 according to the pdf)
* https://shorturl.at/rMRX1
So when you say "his essence is bordered" what does that actually mean? If it does not mean that beyond his border things are more and less immanent to him and thus he does not have immediate access, then what? if he has immediate access in what sense is he "bordered."
Telekenesis doesn't change anything I said, even people who supposedly have telekenisis know things more and less immanently, and access things more and less immanently.
Also if Jehovah has immediate knowledge of anything at all times, it makes no sense to say he has a center of perception.
The Holy spirit is just God in his action, it's not a separate thing.
1 Kings 8:27 doesn't imply that at all, it implies that no space can contain God because God is transcendent.
1 Kings 8:39 There is no reason to take "heavens" in this regard to be a literally place (anymore than he literally hears, or literally has arms), it refers to God in his transcendence, i.e. beyond our immanent phenomenological world.
To say that there exists some uncreated "space" is to deny what the bible says clearly, that all things are created by God, also if God existed alone prior to creation there being "space" is nonsense, space between him and what?
If Jehovah exists "in" some "space" and is bounded, and can only act through some substance that is distinct from him called (holy spirit), then he is not self-sufficient but nor is he self-existent, but he is continent and dependent like other creatures.
Also what do you mean when you say he has a "form?" like a shape? Does he have a front and back? I mean are you seeing the problem here?
For my response:
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2023/08/against-roman.html?m=1
God is above space, immeasurable, and omnipresent. This is denied by pantheism, which measures the existence of God by the existing or evolving world; by Gnosticism and Manichaeism, which claim that God is not present in the material world in His essence, although His jurisdiction and power do extend there (which He exercises through pure spirits); the Stoics and some Stoic-flavored Christians perceived God's universal presence as though it were light, ether, or air.
The immeasurability (immensity) declares God's excellence in relation to space and encompasses the following aspects: 1. By denial: It keeps God away from the imperfection that the empirical world shows in the aspect of contiguity, which is the basis and concomitant of extension, space, and attachment to a place. There is no extension in God; there is no space and place for His existence; consequently, He is not comparable with these quantities and cannot be measured with the unit of space; that is, immeasurable. 2. By assertion: God, as the author of extension, space, and locality, carries within Himself their positive content (as a creative thought) and the power necessary for their realization, and therefore is most intimately present everywhere (universal presence, omnipresence, omnipraesentia). 3. By intensification: God is neither bound by place, nor enclosed by space, nor tied to the spatial category by His creative ingenuity; He infinitely transcends extension and space in His existence and action.
The Scriptures teach that:
a) God is above all places and extensions; higher than the sky, deeper than the underworld, longer in measure than the earth, and wider than the sea. (Job 11:8–9) "If heaven and the heavens of heavens cannot contain you, how much less this house!" (1 Kings 8:27; cf. Is 40:12)
b) The Scriptures, however, mainly celebrate God's universal royal presence in their concrete speech and vision: "Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord." (Jer 23:24) "Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me." (Ps 139:7; cf. Deut 4:39, Is 66:1, Mt 5:34, Eph 4:6, Rom 11:36, Col 1:16.)
c) It proclaims that He works in all events: "She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well." (Wisdom 8:1; cf. 6:7, 7:24, Heb 1:3, 1 Cor 12:6.) "He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being." (Act 17:24–28; cf. Gen 1 49 25 Ex 19,4 etc.)
For reason, God's immeasurability directly follows from His simplicity and infinity. For God, as a simple spirit, cannot be measured against extension, which presupposes complexity, neither with its individual elements (point, line, place), nor with the whole (space). For even the experiential spiritual or even mental life is incomparable with extension: truths, decisions, sorrow, virtue cannot be measured or anchored to space by weight or length. God is truth. And truth is not square, not circular, not long or short; and it is everywhere. Due to His infinity, God cannot be exhausted by any finite measure, not even in thought. His universal presence follows from His universal causality. What exists, in its entirety, in its ideal content and real existence, in its individual nature and universal aspects, is God's conception and creation. Where something exists at all, God must also be present with His creative thought and constructive action, that is, with His power (per potentiam); moreover, naturally not only with His ruling power, as Gnosticism thought of the material world, but with His full creative power, which conceives, creates, and maintains everything (per praesentiam sc. cognitionis et gubernationis directae). Since God's activity is identical with His essence, He is everywhere with His essence (per essentiam).
A servant, I read your response, I'm not pursuaded.
If space is not a "limiting factor" then in what sense does it bound him? If he has immediate access then it IS immanent.
Referring to telekenisis without actually saying what that means doesn't communicate anything, I don't know any telekentic individuals because it refers to a supposed paranormal phenomenon (likely not real), so if God has immediate access to all of creation, and that's all you mean, then in what sense is he "bounded," and what does that even mean? If he doesnt and he relies on some medium then he's limited.
If a border does not mean X is bordered by Y such that beyond Y X cannot access Y without a medium then I don't know what a border means, if you just insist on using the term border but rob it of all its actual meaning then our language means nothing. You might as well say God has literal toe nails, but what I mean by toe nails bears no relation to what we mean by toe nails in the physical world.
So tell me what you mean by "border," if it cannot be "breached" then I don't know what you mean when you say God has immediate access to it.
I also don't know what you mean by virtually immanent as opposed to literally immanent, immanent just means immediately accessable without mediation, if the holy spirit is not something seperate from Go then his knowlege and powers and literally immanent.
Space and time are not abstractions, the past really does not exist, and the future really is not yet, and things are really distanced from one another, perhaps measurements of time and space are abstractoins sure, but what they measure are not. But even if they were abstractions, prior to creation what sense does it make to talk about space, what would that be an 'abstraction' of?
I agree his holy spirit is his actualized potential, but if that potential is literally everywhere and immediate (none mediated), then what does it mean to say he's bounded?
You keep telling me I'm "projecting" human type insecurities .... no I'm just noting what terms mean and noting that claiming God is unlimited yet bounded is a logical and metaphysical contradiction. I'm also asking what words you use mean, if "form" is not analogous to anything we usually mean by "form" it's literally meaningless.
1 John 3,2 doesn't mean literally since angels and the annointed don't have literal eyes, it means that they will have immediate knowledge of God.
I think that will be my last comment on the issue, I don't feel that comfortable debating with brothers/sisters publically. Thanks for engaging on this issue respectfully, honestly, and seriosuly.
My reply:https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2023/08/against-roman-ii.html?m=1
Genesis ch.13:8ESV"Then Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen, for we are kinsmen."
@Roman
"I think that will be my last comment on the issue, I don't feel that comfortable debating with brothers/sisters publically."
It is quite sad that you feel that you are not allowed to express your disagreement, whereas the apostles (Peter, Paul, James) freely expressed their differences of opinion...
God is not present in space like bodies, whose each part corresponds to a part of space, and the whole extension of the body to a specific continuous part of space, which is the place of that body (circumscribed presence, praesentia circumscriptiva). He is also not present like the spirit creatures, who are entirely present in each part of their place and at the same time in the whole; nevertheless, they are still tied to a certain part of space, although not as tightly as bodies (determinate presence, praesentia definitiva). God is entirely present in the innermost part of each thing and at the same time in the whole space, without, however, being restricted in the slightest by either the whole space or any of its aspects (repletive presence, praesentia repletiva). Accordingly, God is present in space and in any part of it in a way incomparably more excellent than any other being is or can be present.
Dear Roman,
would you mind reading this?
https://t.ly/tnjsJ
Nincsnevem, sir, please don't get things twisted. Nobody ever said one could not disagree but the apostles did not make a habit of disagreeing publicly. I know you won't find that in the Bible. Secondly, I once heard a Witness talk where the brother said that if two people see eye-to-eye on everything, then one person is not thinking. Husbands and wives disagree; but how beneficial is it for them to disagree in public? See Proverbs 6:16ff.
Nincsnevem, I have no problem disagreeing, I have no problem voicing my opinion, I just did, and have done in the past many times, even things I've actually published I know include things some brothers and sisters disagree with.
Just not a public debate in which one 'wins' and one 'loses.' I'm 'allowed' to do whatever I want, but when things get into debate with a brother and sister I prefer to do it privately where no one is put into a position where they lose face in front of others, I see no benefit to that and only downsides, some things are more important than 'winning' debates publically.
Dear Mr. Foster,
"the apostles did not make a habit of disagreeing publicly."
Galatians 2:11
And this in the epistle written to read aloud in the local churches.
Dear Nincsnevem, I specifically said they did not make a habit of it. One occurrence doesn't constitute a habit and Paul's issue with Peter was not doctrinal but due to his hypocritical actions.
Paul indeed wanted more consistency from Peter regarding the exemption of baptized Jews from the Mosaic Law, and he blamed Peter's procedure regarding this practical or methodological issue there.
Roman didn't make it a "habit" either, and I think it's counterintuitive, to put it mildly, that even though your denomination denies that it considers itself infallible, it still demands unconditional obedience. The norm in Protestant denominations is that, since the current interpretation of the leaders is not identified with God's a priori, it is therefore open to debate. But even the pope's non-"ex cathedra" expression is open to debate in the Catholic Church.
1) Nobody shut Roman down: he made the choice to do it himself and what he discussed was not like questioning the Witness view of the Trinity, etc.
2) The organization does not demand unconditional obedience. Those are your words, not ours.
Nincsnevem, it's pretty disingenuous to act as though the reason I didn't want to continue a public debate with a brother/sister was anything other than what I said it was: I didn't want to get into an endless debate where emotions get high, and where one might feel as though they will lose face publicly with a brother/sister.
It certainly wasn't me being shut down or me being uncomfortable or hesitant in sharing my opinions. I gave my positions, my reasons, and my arguements, and I stand by them.
I don't know where you're getting this unconditional obedience from. I've published two books and a few articles, some of them where I have taken positions on issues of historical reconstruction and other details that differ from things my 'denomination' has written. So what you're insinuating is just untrue. If I didn't agree with the fundamentals of my faith I wouldn't be a Witness. But I speak what I think.
I would hope that you wouldn't publicly debate with someone in your church snd try to prove them wrong online if you have a disagreement and would rather discuss it privately.
Again, my reason for not wanting to continue the debate publicly was precisely because of the nature of public online debates, not because I was hesitant to share my theological opinions. If you want to know why I decide something ask me, don't just invent your own reason.
Dear Mr. Foster,
"The organization does not demand unconditional obedience. Those are your words, not ours."
Okay, then what should these mean then? (I hope I don't transgress your rules, since these are WTS publishments available publicly.)
"The Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organization in mind." (Watchtower, Oct 1, 1967, pg. 587)
“Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do.” ⎯ The Watchtower, December 1, 1981, p. 27
“"Avoid independent thinking...questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization. ... Fight against independent thinking... Such thinking is an evidence of pride... If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: ‘Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?’ No, we cannot!” ⎯The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, p. 27
"We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the scriptural guidance we need outside the 'faithful and discreet slave' organization.'" (Watchtower, February 15, 1981, p.19)
Where does it say "unconditional obedience"? in those - I cant find it.
Its says about needing the organisation yes - but not about obedience.
"Where does it say "unconditional obedience"? in those - I can't find it."
Where it compares those who show "independent thinking" to the behavior of Satan, all it takes is for someone to "question" what the organization claims. If that's not the definition of unconditional obedience, I don't know what is.
"Its says about needing the organization yes - but not about obedience."
That's not all it says, read it again. For example, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the visible Church is "necessary" too, yet canon law does not make all church manifestations unquestionable, but only "de fide" dogmas (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_notes). If I counted correctly, there are only 249 such "de fide" dogmas that result in excommunication, and everything else is open to debate, see: https://shorturl.at/cezJM
The Code of Canon Law is publicly available (https://shorturl.at/flnPR), it defines exactly what the concept of heresy is (Can. 751) and in what case it deserves excommunication. Furthermore, the Catholic Church distinguishes between formal and material heresy. The difference is the heretic's subjective disposition towards their opinion.
In contrast, in the WTS denomination, the book of elders (corresponding to the Code of Canon Law) is not public, and it cannot be known exactly which WTS interpretations to question may result in disfellowshipping and which ones not. For example, it is also the reason that you question the current "light" about the 1914 "generation" and similar questions, the certainty of which is highly questionable, to put it mildly, even from a WTS point of view.
“‘In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28)
The human world and the world of nature are permeated by the divine Logos; Christian thinkers proclaim God's transcendence over the world but also assert that God is present in the world. God is present everywhere, He sees all and hears all. God is whole everywhere and is excluded from nowhere. He is not confined in any way. With the power of His presence, He fills heaven and earth. The Creator of all descends upon everything without stepping out of Himself; the divine goodness pours out into creation.
Despite the fact that the divine existence immeasurably surpasses the world, God is present in everything, inwardly. The omnipresence is exclusively a characteristic of God.
The concept of divine omnipresence (ubiquitas; omnipraesentia): God's all-encompassing presence (praesentia repletiva) differs from the spatially circumscribed presence of bodies (praesentia circumscriptiva) and also differs from the spatially bounded presence of the human soul (praesentia definitiva). The omnipresence of the divine existence means that God, with His essence and power, perfectly permeates the world of finite beings, without, however, becoming an inner constituent element of finite beings. God is immanent (Latin: immanens: remaining within), that is, permeates the world, but at the same time, He is transcendent (Latin: transcendens: surpassing), that is, infinitely transcends the world. And since God permeates the world and differs from it, nothing is so far from Him that it does not contain God in itself. Things can only be said to be distant from God insofar as they are not similar to Him in the order of nature or grace, as accordingly, by the excellence of His nature, God surpasses everything. The transcendence that is directly proportional to immanence is explained by the "bipolar" nature of existence, its inner polarity. The inner polarity of existence means that the more completely an existent realizes existence, the more identical it is with others, yet the more it is itself. The closer something is to God (that is, the more it identifies with the fullness of existence), the more it is itself. Finite beings realize existence only in a limited, imperfect way, so their identity with each other, and thus their difference from each other (independence), is also relative. But God is the fullness of existence: He perfectly permeates the world of beings distinct from Him, and at the same time, infinitely surpasses them, that is, is most completely independent of them. God is simple and infinite reality, so He is not confined to some large or small place, but with the immeasurability of His power, He reaches everything that is in some place.
I'm going to take the last word on this thread. If you want to know the truth, please go to the JW online library and use the search term "unconditional" or unconditional obedience. The only person to whom JWs give unconditional obedience is Jehovah. We don't render men such duties. Honest-hearted people can find this out for themselves.
Post a Comment