glorydaz
Well-known member
As you said, it's very important we say the right things. Why in the world are you saying "soul" is the same as "nature"?
James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
As you said, it's very important we say the right things. Why in the world are you saying "soul" is the same as "nature"?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Why aren't you correcting Nang? Are you reading with one eye closed?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You already did, and I'm sure she'll respond.
Lots of concepts being thrown around with very little definition to terms.
If others were Monohypostatic Trinitarians, they wouldn't have these issues to begin with.
It's a bit hard to start at Christology without laying a foundation back to Theology Proper and Cosmogony, and with copious definition of Greek terms. English simply will not get the job done except in extreme and careful delineation OF the Greek.
It's a high-context cognitive problem of English thinkers and speakers, and it can't be overcome until that is dealt with. Thought is patterned by lanugage, and English has compromised the very Rhema of God.
But you don't seem to care what I say, so I've just mostly read along quietly through this debacle.
When someone can specifically exegete the precise details of the virgin birth, I'll pay attention. Until then, it's all concepts of gnosis flying around; and without even understanding the appropriate minutiae of Cappadocian and Chalcedonian formulation (whether to affirm or disaffirm and post an alternative).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Right . . . the mountain top is being redefined and reduced, apart from any knowledge of its foundation.
Frustrating to say the least!
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Because soul/spirit reveals the nature of the creature/creation.
A dog's canine soul/spirit daily reveals he is a dog, by nature. IOW's no matter any reversing power in the universe, that dog is a dog and will always remain a dog.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I thought I made it clear before that it's not that I don't care what you say, but I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time. Do you think it possible you may care more about how you sound than getting your point across?
Instead of griping about how much people don't know, why not respond to something as simple as what Nang is claiming about the meaning of "soul". I know you understand it, and you'd actually be able to make yourself useful by setting her straight. She might just listen to you, and she certainly will never listen to me. She thinks she is above me.....below you.....get it?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Just because you don't know the difference, doesn't mean you can lump together the soul and spirit the way you do. All that "garbage" about dogs only reveals your lack of understanding.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Start with the basics....you have to start at the bottom of the mountain or that "top" will never be reached. Man is body, soul, and spirit. Without that understanding you won't even see the forest for the trees (not wise for mountain climbers).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
How so?
I find no difference between spirit/soul in Holy Scripture.
What is your argument? And what does any of this have to do with the Incarnation of God the Son?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Lack of understanding about what? . . .
Right.
The very same person.
Already understood, so I CAN say it, because it is true.
It wasn't another person that died on the cross. It was the same person.
Right, the same person did all that. Not two persons.
The same person.
Knock it off, Nang. You know full well that I am not taking 'short cuts'. In this entire thread, I have said and know that it was the Son that became incarnate.
It was not one person that was eternal and another person that died.
The same person that was eternal also died.
If you say otherwise, you are a heretic.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
That's not at all what you've made clear. The clarity has been how arrogant you presume me to be.
No, it's not possible. There may be a sense of futility and unwillingness to exert the monumental energy it takes to attempt explaining from low-context thought and language to high-context. But it's not possible I care more about how I sound that getting my point across.
If you were in one of my regular teaching sessions for just two hours, you'd be appalled for the same reasons I try to express. I even teach regularly as a Prison Chaplain, and the murderers and baby-rapers and thieves and gang-bangers get it within one teaching session.
Nang is a Bipartiter. I doubt I'm gonna change her mind. I haven't really "corrrected" anybody in this thread. I'm trying to be more effective in my communication, so I'm not posting nearly as much.
It has to begin with a reconciliation of the Bipartite/Tripartite dichotomy. Few are willing to concede from either side, just like most false dichotomies that have been introduced as doctrine.
Man is Bipartite, but not in the Spirit/Soul/Body sense. True Biblical Anthropology is man as an intangible of hypostasis (substance) underlying ousia (essence); and the tangible outward prosopon (face/appearance/person).
The ousia is the "special" (spee-see-ahl, as in "species") designation as essential being. The stasis for this ousia is the hypostasis. All beings are of a type or kind of essentiality. The distinction between different individuals of the same ousia is the hypostasis, which is the foundational underlying reality of the existence for the ousia.
So all mankind shares a type of ousia as humanity, and the individual "personal" distinction is the hypostasis (hence why the term was allowed to be translated from Greek to Latin as "persona/ae" in light of "substantia" already being in use with a different meaning; and "persona/ae" in Latin became "person/s" in English to further dilute the original meaning to what has now become a pitiful and erroneous concept).
The objective substantiality and reality of existence is the hypostasis underlying the ousia, which is the essentiality of being. The ousia doesn't "have" the hypostasis. The hypostasis is the foundational underlying reality of true existence as the substance giving stasis to the ousia as essence. The substantial for the essential. One, but distinct in this manner.
Our ousia is the "what" of our shared humanity, individualized by the hypostasis as our own unique reality of existence. Our essence cannot change, but our hypostasis is conformed by whatever hypostasis of faith comes from whatever rhema hypostasis we hear. Since the "who" of the hypostasis and the "what" of the ousia combine to be our outward "person", it's the inward that determines the outward. (And that's why God accepts NO man's "person"/prosopon. He only accepts the sinless prosopon of Jesus Christ, whom we must put on.)
The hypostasis underlying the ousia is the intangible that is presented outwardly as the tangible prosopon. So in this regard, we are Bipartite as immaterial/non-corporeal hypostasis/ousia and material/corporeal prosopon. Substance underlying essence, presented as a prosopon.
This is mistaken by Bipartiters as spirit/soul and body as two parts. In regards to the spirit and soul, they are distinct, but can only be pierced and divided asunder by God's Logos. So the spirit and soul are distributable, but not separable. That's why Bipartiters insist they are the same, but they aren't. And their concerns about Tripartitism are well-grounded because of Gnostic and Sophistric abuses.
This may seem either confusing or too loaded with vocab, but it's actually a tiny summary introduction to the subject; especially in relation to the complexities of the propagation of souls and then dealing with Theology Proper, Christology, and Pneumatology, etc.
Biblical Anthropology is no joke, and isn't as simple as staking out a declared position of Bipartite or Tripartite. Man is BOTH, but not in the dichotomous manner that is often approached. And Hamartiology ("Sinology") is also predicated upon this understanding, which is why everyone has that wrong and is strengthening sin with the law/law method.
Spirit/Soul/Body versus Hypostasis/Ousia and Prosopon is the three-on-two that can be explained without resorting to the shallow false dichotomy of Bipartite versus Tripartite. But it takes a minute. LOL.
I've been intentionally low-key and purposely as humble as I can be, with no overtones of frustration or whatever that always draws the invalid assessment that I'm just arrogant and condescending. I hope that is evident, even though this is only a very partial preliminary dealing on the subject and the many related subjects.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Try getting affirmation of this from your buddy, AMR.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Just because you have found no difference doesn't mean there isn't one. 1 Thess. 5:23 Heb. 4:12
In case you didn't notice, whether Jesus in His humanity had a body, soul, and spirit was being discussed. It was when you started claiming the soul and spirit are the same that I told you, in essence, to practice what you preach....speaking clearly and being sure about what you say. The soul is composed of the mind, will, and emotions, and the spirit is how we communicate with God...who is Spirit. Men not only have a soul, they are also living souls.......'how many souls were lost on a shipwreck'. Context is everything.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
If the eternal Person of God the Son had died, all the heavens and earth would have ceased to exist!
The uncreate God cannot die; He upholds all life in the universe.
You must rethink your position . . .
Feel free to tell us what other person became incarnate and died on the cross.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Heh . . . really?
The human spirit communicates with God? How?
Cite Scripture, please . . .
glorydaz
Well-known member
That has nothing to do with it, so I won't head down that bunny trail. We were talking about the "mediator".....the man, Jesus Christ, and "God is one". Meaning, our Lord had to be God and man in order to be the perfect mediator between God and man.
Our Lord being a man was not enough to make Him our Saviour. No man was found worthy, and man's righteousness would only cover his own sins. The fact that God provided HIMSELF a Lamb is why He can say He is the ONLY Saviour. This is why Sozo was saying God died for our sins. Death, of course, does not mean "cease to exist", which is also what Sozo was trying to tell you.....but, it's easier to parrot a creed than to discuss what the word of God actually says. So.....
Ezek. 14:14, 20