soul = spirit?

[didactics]

From what I understand they now say that our stomach has the same type cells in it that the brain has. So not only does it receive signals from the brain but it also sends signals to the brain. I think this is what we call, intuition. A spiritual sense maybe?

Not only that but the heart has brain cells in it. More than the brain does if I remember right. So were all those teenage girls right? (should I follow my head or follow my heart?)
Scripture says we are not to lean upon our own understanding and knowledge and speaks more about our heart. Interesting.

Sorry for the thread drift.

A couple verses come to mind when I read this (Proverbs 4:23; Mk 7:18-20).

Now something else I'd like to share I did a search for "1 corinthians 2 spiritual understanding" and the results showed a snippet that reads the following,

God's ultimate wisdom can only be understood spiritually, revealed to human beings through God's Spirit. Those without God's Spirit cannot understand spiritual things. As a result, they reject the idea of Christ crucified for human sin as foolish. Through the Spirit, spiritual people have the mind of Christ.
Quote from BibleRef.com

 

[Divide]

A couple verses come to mind when I read this (Proverbs 4:23; Mk 7:18-20).

Now something else I'd like to share I did a search for "1 corinthians 2 spiritual understanding" and the results showed a snippet that reads the following,

God's ultimate wisdom can only be understood spiritually, revealed to human beings through God's Spirit. Those without God's Spirit cannot understand spiritual things. As a result, they reject the idea of Christ crucified for human sin as foolish. Through the Spirit, spiritual people have the mind of Christ.
Quote from BibleRef.com

I read those and think you are right, though I think it is (Lol) Mark 7:18-22 !

Here's the place I got that stuuff from. They have lots of stuff to read.

They said they can pick up signals from the heart from farther away than they can from the brain. Hence, the heart is stronger than the brain.

HeartMath Institute

HeartMath Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and has developed reliable, scientifically validated tools since 1991 to help people reduce and avoid stress while experiencing increased peace, satisfaction and enjoyment. Research at the HeartMath Institute shows that, adding heart to...

www.heartmath.org

 

[didactics]

I read those and think you are right, though I think it is (Lol) Mark 7:18-22 !

Here's the place I got that stuuff from. They have lots of stuff to read.

They said they can pick up signals from the heart from farther away than they can from the brain. Hence, the heart is stronger than the brain.

HeartMath Institute

HeartMath Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and has developed reliable, scientifically validated tools since 1991 to help people reduce and avoid stress while experiencing increased peace, satisfaction and enjoyment. Research at the HeartMath Institute shows that, adding heart to...

www.heartmath.org

The Bible has a solution for increased peace. I think of this verse, John 14:27. Who knew our hearts, I mean our physical hearts are intelligent. I also think of psalm 42, and the words from this verse in Psalm 42:5. The psalmist speaks to his soul, or how I would interpret that is soul = heart. And it is very fitting that we use "heart" as an expression to speak of our inner man because as you say the organ has a sort of memory (or something like that-- or as judge Jackson would say, I'm not a biologist).

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Andrewn said,
Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 says that humans and animals have the same ruah. I take this to mean that they have the same breath. And concerning Genesis7:22 he said, "is confusing as it includes both neshama and ruah. I'd rather not make any conclusions based on this single verse, especially that the LXX has only "the breath of life." [/QUOTE\]

Many translations of Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 translate ruach as spirit. So I take ruach to mean spirit. I don't see Genesis 7:22 to be confusing as you do because Genesis 6:17 is teaching us that God was going to destroy both humans and animals that live on earth(the land) that has the breath of life. Genesis 7:22 is teaching us that those humans and animals that God said he was going to destroy at Genesis 6:17 had both breath(form of neshamah) and spirit(ruach). So I understand that Genesis 7:22 is confusing to you but not to me. Genesis 6:17 and Genesis 7:22 confirm one another that God was going to destroy both humans and animals that lived on the land that had the breath(spirit) of life.

 

[didactics]

Andrewn said,
Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 says that humans and animals have the same ruah. I take this to mean that they have the same breath. And concerning Genesis7:22 he said, "is confusing as it includes both neshama and ruah. I'd rather not make any conclusions based on this single verse, especially that the LXX has only "the breath of life." [/QUOTE\]

Many translations of Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 translate ruach as spirit. So I take ruach to mean spirit. I don't see Genesis 7:22 to be confusing as you do because Genesis 6:17 is teaching us that God was going to destroy both humans and animals that live on earth(the land) that has the breath of life. Genesis 7:22 is teaching us that those humans and animals that God said he was going to destroy at Genesis 6:17 had both breath(form of neshamah) and spirit(ruach). So I understand that Genesis 7:22 is confusing to you but not to me. Genesis 6:17 and Genesis 7:22 confirm one another that God was going to destroy both humans and animals that lived on the land that had the breath(spirit) of life.

I must confess I didn't realize how little I really know on this subject. I just learned that the technical terms for each position is Creationism and Traducianism. This also relates to how we understand original sin is transmitted. And an article on this topic by Blue Letter Bible reads,

Augustine, however, though doctrinally inclined to support the claims of Traducianists, kept an open mind on the subject: "You may blame, if you will, my hesitation," he wrote, "because I do not venture to affirm or deny that of which I am ignorant."

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I must confess I didn't realize how little I really know on this subject. I just learned that the technical terms for each position is Creationism and Traducianism. This also relates to how we understand original sin is transmitted. And an article on this topic by Blue Letter Bible reads,

Augustine, however, though doctrinally inclined to support the claims of Traducianists, kept an open mind on the subject: "You may blame, if you will, my hesitation," he wrote, "because I do not venture to affirm or deny that of which I am ignorant."

I go by what's written down in the English translation Bible and at Genesis 2:7 it clearly shows that the breath(spirit) of life has to be combined with a flesh and blood human body for there to be a living soul or living person in existence. So when the breath(spirit) of life leaves the flesh and blood human body the living soul or living person is nonexistent. So when someone tries to teach me that human beings have living souls or have living persons in their human bodies and that the living soul or living person continues existing as a living soul or living person after a human being dies, I'm not confused because what that person is teaching contradicts Genesis 2:7.

 

[Andrewn]

Genesis 6:17 and Genesis 7:22 confirm one another that God was going to destroy both humans and animals that lived on the land that had the breath(spirit) of life.

You conflate the ruah and the neshama, the breath and the spirit. This is a typical position of SDAs who believe that the spirit is an impersonal life force that returns to God at death. Standard English translations of the OT may support your view, but the NT does not.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

You conflate the ruah and the neshama, the breath and the spirit. This is a typical position of SDAs who believe that the spirit is an impersonal life force that returns to God at death. Standard English translations of the OT may support your view, but the NT does not.

Both scriptures Genesis 6:17, and Genesis 7:22 have the Hebrew words, "neshamah," and "ruahh" in those scriptures. Anyone saying that only the Hebrew word, "neshamah is there have not done their research.
These two scriptures Genesis 6:17, and Genesis 7:22 are in agreement with Ecclesiastes 3:19 that helps me to understand that both human beings and animals have not only the same breath(neshamah) but also the same spirit(ruahh)

 

[Andrewn]

Both scriptures Genesis 6:17, and Genesis 7:22 have the Hebrew words, "neshamah," and "ruahh" in those scriptures. Anyone saying that only the Hebrew word, "neshamah is there have not done their research.

No, Gen 6:17 and Ecc 3:19 have the word "ruah" only. My position is that it means breath, despite standard English translations.

These two scriptures Genesis 6:17, and Genesis 7:22 are in agreement with Ecclesiastes 3:19 that helps me to understand that both human beings and animals have not only the same breath(neshamah) but also the same spirit(ruahh)

The Greek word "pneuma" in the NT never describes animal spirits. SDAs rely on the OT. They need to read the NT more.

 

[didactics]

Both scriptures Genesis 6:17, and Genesis 7:22 have the Hebrew words, "neshamah," and "ruahh" in those scriptures. Anyone saying that only the Hebrew word, "neshamah is there have not done their research.
These two scriptures Genesis 6:17, and Genesis 7:22 are in agreement with Ecclesiastes 3:19 that helps me to understand that both human beings and animals have not only the same breath(neshamah) but also the same spirit(ruahh)

Here's an interesting statement I found from an article from Answers in Genesis, it reads,

Though animals have nephesh and ruach (the most common Hebrew words for soul and spirit), they were not created in the image of God, which means they do not have an eternal spirit, as humans do.
[end quote]

And I realize there is some weakness to my argument that soul = spirit because I've also said that soul = person. But wouldn't it be like saying that Jesus has two souls? one for his human nature and one for his divine. But we know that can't be true so I don't know how to reconcile that. This is one of those topics I need to look more into before I have anything more to say.

 

[Andrewn]

And I realize there is some weakness to my argument that soul = spirit because I've also said that soul = person. But wouldn't it be like saying that Jesus has two souls? one for his human nature and one for his divine. But we know that can't be true so I don't know how to reconcile that. This is one of those topics I need to look more into before I have anything more to say.

Human beings have 2 souls: an animal soul/ anima/life force and a rational soul/animus/spirit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/428udm

 

[didactics]

Human beings have 2 souls: an animal soul/ anima/life force and a rational soul/animus/spirit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/428udm

I disagree. Man ≠ animal. We are unique in that we are capable of discursive thought. There's only need for one soul if soul = spirit. Animals have a soul (or spirit if you will) and you are correct that it's a life force.

All the way back to the dawn of our studies we find man still being man. Wherever we turn - to the caves in the Pyrenees, to the Sumerians, and further back to the Neanderthaler man burying his dead with flower petals - it makes no difference: Everywhere men show by their art and their acts that they observed themselves to be unique. And they are unique, unique as men in the midst of non-men (Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time,Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1972, pp. 158,159).

 

[Andrewn]

I disagree. Man ≠ animal.

What then do you think the Apostle Paul means by the word "flesh?"

We are unique in that we are capable of discursive thought. There's only need for one soul if soul = spirit.

As I said, the rational soul = spirit.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Here's an interesting statement I found from an article from Answers in Genesis, it reads,

Though animals have nephesh and ruach (the most common Hebrew words for soul and spirit), they were not created in the image of God, which means they do not have an eternal spirit, as humans do.
[end quote]

And I realize there is some weakness to my argument that soul = spirit because I've also said that soul = person. But wouldn't it be like saying that Jesus has two souls? one for his human nature and one for his divine. But we know that can't be true so I don't know how to reconcile that. This is one of those topics I need to look more into before I have anything more to say.

I don't believe from what I have read and studied in the scriptures that this, what you have said here, agrees with Genesis 2:7. I understand that God created human beings in his image but the fact that God gave the same spirit to animals that he gave to human beings, I disagree that the spirit he gave animals or humans beings is a living soul that separates at death. Animals when they die, they are no longer living souls or living animals, so the spirit in animals isn't a living soul or living animal that continues to be a living soul or a living animal at death. Since human beings have no superiority in death concerning animals and because they too are living souls or living persons, when human beings die, just as an animal ceases to be a living soul or living animal when they die, human beings cease being living souls or living persons when they die.

I honestly believe that the majority of people have been taught to believe in a death that people said was scriptural but actually isn't. From what I have read and studied from the scriptures is that death is when a human being or an animal stops being a living soul which means just as animals stop being living animals at death human beings stop being living persons at death. Animals are just animals but human beings are intelligent living persons so when a human being dies that intelligent living person is no longer is a intelligent living person. The scriptures teach me, that the only hope a human being has when he/she dies is to be resurrected back as a living soul or living person. This resurrection a human being gets only if the True God YHWH has judged such person worthy of a resurrection.

 

[didactics]

I don't believe from what I have read and studied in the scriptures that this, what you have said here, agrees with Genesis 2:7. I understand that God created human beings in his image but the fact that God gave the same spirit to animals that he gave to human beings, I disagree that the spirit he gave animals or humans beings is a living soul that separates at death. Animals when they die, they are no longer living souls or living animals, so the spirit in animals isn't a living soul or living animal that continues to be a living soul or a living animal at death. Since human beings have no superiority in death concerning animals and because they too are living souls or living persons, when human beings die, just as an animal ceases to be a living soul or living animal when they die, human beings cease being living souls or living persons when they die.

I honestly believe that the majority of people have been taught to believe in a death that people said was scriptural but actually isn't. From what I have read and studied from the scriptures is that death is when a human being or an animal stops being a living soul which means just as animals stop being living animals at death human beings stop being living persons at death. Animals are just animals but human beings are intelligent living persons so when a human being dies that intelligent living person is no longer is a intelligent living person. The scriptures teach me, that the only hope a human being has when he/she dies is to be resurrected back as a living soul or living person. This resurrection a human being gets only if the True God YHWH has judged such person worthy of a resurrection.

I really don't see what there is to disagree over. You admit there is a resurrection of the dead which solves the problem. Of course we can't do anything about our death apart from God's intervention. In that sense we are no different than animals, but God has chosen for himself a redeemed people among mankind.

What then do you think the Apostle Paul means by the word "flesh?"

Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 15:39? In context he continues with this, It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption (v. 42). God is only concerned with raising the rational soul from the dead as we have eternity placed on our hearts being made in the image of God, whether to be damned or glorified.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

didactics said,
"I really don't see what there is to disagree over. You admit there is a resurrection of the dead which solves the problem. Of course we can't do anything about our death apart from God's intervention. In that sense we are no different than animals, but God has chosen for himself a redeemed people among mankind." [/QUOTE\]

The disagreement I have is when people believe that a person continues living when a human being dies, because they believe human beings have a living soul that separates at death and continues living as a living soul or living person when a human being dies. True death as I understand from what I have read and studied in the scriptures is that you're no longer a living soul or living person when a human being dies. So it's my understanding that those believing that a human being has a living soul that continues living at death are denying death, because the true death that's in the scriptures as I understand it is that you're no longer a living soul or living person when a human being dies. From what I read and studied in the scriptures you can't deny the true death that is in the scriptures to do so is calling the True God YHWH a liar and agreeing with the serpent who told Eve she wouldn't die. So aren't such people in serious danger when it comes to their eternal life? Are not all of us all to love one another that we warn them when they are in such a situation.

 

[didactics]

didactics said,
"I really don't see what there is to disagree over. You admit there is a resurrection of the dead which solves the problem. Of course we can't do anything about our death apart from God's intervention. In that sense we are no different than animals, but God has chosen for himself a redeemed people among mankind." [/QUOTE\]

The disagreement I have is when people believe that a person continues living when a human being dies, because they believe human beings have a living soul that separates at death and continues living as a living soul or living person when a human being dies. True death as I understand from what I have read and studied in the scriptures is that you're no longer a living soul or living person when a human being dies. So it's my understanding that those believing that a human being has a living soul that continues living at death are denying death, because the true death that's in the scriptures as I understand it is that you're no longer a living soul or living person when a human being dies. From what I read and studied in the scriptures you can't deny the true death that is in the scriptures to do so is calling the True God YHWH a liar and agreeing with the serpent who told Eve she wouldn't die. So aren't such people in serious danger when it comes to their eternal life? Are not all of us all to love one another that we warn them when they are in such a situation.

This reminds me of what Jesus said of Lazarus when he died, he said he sleeps (Jn 11:11). And in verse 14 he speaks plainly and says he's dead. Have you ever heard of the expression that someone has passed on? when referring to someone's death, they are said to have passed on. What is it that has passed on? it is the soul that has passed on. It can still be true that death is truly death and yet the soul remains. Even if the damned are raised from the dead, their death remains because life is associated with quality of being and there is no quality of life lived in torment. This is the second death because their raised bodies are designed for the purpose for the undiluted wrath of God. The bodies we have now could not be exposed to the undiluted wrath of God; he makes that possible in the second death. The first death is truly death and the second death → eternal payment of wages, because the reality is is there is nothing natural about death; it is wages (Ro 6:23).

 

[Andrewn]

Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 15:39? In context he continues with this, It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption (v. 42). God is only concerned with raising the rational soul from the dead as we have eternity placed on our hearts being made in the image of God, whether to be damned or glorified.

I was thinking of verses like the following:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery,20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Many other verses have the same idea. The Apostle Paul does not mean by "the flesh" the body, but the animal soul/nature in us.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

This reminds me of what Jesus said of Lazarus when he died, he said he sleeps (Jn 11:11). And in verse 14 he speaks plainly and says he's dead. Have you ever heard of the expression that someone has passed on? when referring to someone's death, they are said to have passed on. What is it that has passed on? it is the soul that has passed on. It can still be true that death is truly death and yet the soul remains. Even if the damned are raised from the dead, their death remains because life is associated with quality of being and there is no quality of life lived in torment. This is the second death because their raised bodies are designed for the purpose for the undiluted wrath of God. The bodies we have now could not be exposed to the undiluted wrath of God; he makes that possible in the second death. The first death is truly death and the second death → eternal payment of wages, because the reality is is there is nothing natural about death; it is wages (Ro 6:23).

I understand what people believe. I'm not confused about what people believe. They very clearly tell me what they believe and I'm capable of understanding what they say they believe. The problem I have is when anyone who says humans beings have a living soul that passes on and continues living they still are contradicting Genesis 2:7. This scripture is very clear that it takes the combination of the flesh and blood human body and that breath(spirit) of life in that flesh and blood human body for there to be a living soul or living person. So anyone who says or teaches that a living soul exists separate from the flesh and blood human body from what I have read and studied in the scriptures is contradicting Genesis 2:7. Genesis 2:7 is teaching us how the True God YHWH created the human being, and as I have said I see nowhere in Genesis 2:7 where God says the breath(spirit) of life separate from the flesh and blood human body is a living soul, so Genesis 2:7 is being very clear.

When you ask, "Have you ever heard the expression that someone has passed on?" Then you answer, its the soul.that has passed on, you're teaching that the living soul is separate from the flesh and blood human body, which is contradicting Genesis 2:7 which as I said Genesis 2:7 clearly teaches it's the combination of the flesh and blood human body and the breath(spirit) of life that makes a living soul, or living person. People can believe what they choose to believe, I understand that, because that's their right to choose to believe what they choose to believe. But when I hear someone or read what someone has written and it doesn't agree with what have read and studied concerning the scriptures then I'm going to disagree. The way Genesis 2:7 has been translated in many English versions of the Bible, at least all the one's I have read has Genesis 2:7 translated showing that it's a combination of a flesh and blood human body and the breath(spirit) of life in that flesh and blood human body that makes a living soul or living person. The breath(spirit) of life not being combined with a flesh and blood human body isn't the living soul or living person. Whenever you exclude the flesh and blood human body when speaking about the living soul you have gone beyond scripture and in fact are denying Scripture because Genesis 2:7 doesn't teach that the living soul is separate from the flesh and blood human body.

 

[didactics]

I understand what people believe. I'm not confused about what people believe. They very clearly tell me what they believe and I'm capable of understanding what they say they believe. The problem I have is when anyone who says humans beings have a living soul that passes on and continues living they still are contradicting Genesis 2:7. This scripture is very clear that it takes the combination of the flesh and blood human body and that breath(spirit) of life in that flesh and blood human body for there to be a living soul or living person. So anyone who says or teaches that a living soul exists separate from the flesh and blood human body from what I have read and studied in the scriptures is contradicting Genesis 2:7. Genesis 2:7 is teaching us how the True God YHWH created the human being, and as I have said I see nowhere in Genesis 2:7 where God says the breath(spirit) of life separate from the flesh and blood human body is a living soul, so Genesis 2:7 is being very clear.

When you ask, "Have you ever heard the expression that someone has passed on?" Then you answer, its the soul.that has passed on, you're teaching that the living soul is separate from the flesh and blood human body, which is contradicting Genesis 2:7 which as I said Genesis 2:7 clearly teaches it's the combination of the flesh and blood human body and the breath(spirit) of life that makes a living soul, or living person. People can believe what they choose to believe, I understand that, because that's their right to choose to believe what they choose to believe. But when I hear someone or read what someone has written and it doesn't agree with what have read and studied concerning the scriptures then I'm going to disagree. The way Genesis 2:7 has been translated in many English versions of the Bible, at least all the one's I have read has Genesis 2:7 translated showing that it's a combination of a flesh and blood human body and the breath(spirit) of life in that flesh and blood human body that makes a living soul or living person. The breath(spirit) of life not being combined with a flesh and blood human body isn't the living soul or living person. Whenever you exclude the flesh and blood human body when speaking about the living soul you have gone beyond scripture and in fact are denying Scripture because Genesis 2:7 doesn't teach that the living soul is separate from the flesh and blood human body.

Well of course the soul is not designed to be separate from the human body, but you're forgetting one very important detail, namely the fall of man. That made things different. There used to be harmony between heaven and earth. But now we are subject to death, disease, famine and war. Scripture confirms this too. Take for example what Jesus said to the thief on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Now, how can he be with him in paradise before he receives his resurrected body?