by LittleToe 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Just another thought:
By extension of what I just said, I think that the universe could be viewed as a whole, almost as an organism. Also the earth...you've heard about Gaia theory, well I think that there is something to be said by looking at the earth itself in terms of a "being" of its own. Is it self aware? Who knows!?
Sirona
Didier:
The later doctrine of incarnation was especially built up by Greek Fathers upon Johannine concepts. They share a common notion of time and eternity which is very different from ours. I think that's why I find your diagram somewhat reductionist, as well as the concepts of "before" or "after" incarnation.
Regardless of when the incarnation actually occured, there is a point at which the spirit person of "the Son" inhabits flesh "in time". The diagram merely presents that.
I would also qualify that I have a dual sense of "time" and "eternity" going on in my head, to which the diagram only represents that which occured "in time". In the eternal sense did he ever leave heaven? Further, does the Holy Spirit? Where is heaven?
I believe that there's a sense in which the believer, ajoined to Christ "in the 'spirit'", is in heaven while on earth.
EW:
Ok we have the flesh and spirit, now what of the soul? Jesus soul that somehow doesnt sound right.
That he had a body of flesh can be seen from Luk.24:39.
That he had a soul, which his divine nature didn't not supply the place of, Isa.53:10; Matt.26:38.
That he could render up his spirit to the Father, Luk.23:46.
Newlight:
Interesting compilation of the details.
Would it be true that you would tend to put yourself in the camp that followed this doctrine?
DD:
Let me start by saying Jesus never stopped being God. I do believe The Father forsook the Son completely (body, soul and spirit). I don't think that Jesus was separated from any part of His person (or his self), until his body died ....whereas I would hold that the separation of soul and spirit occured while alive, perhaps beginning as early as in the garden of Gethsemane. How do you understand Heb.4:12?
LT wrote: It's not so much a matter of having relationships with the parts, any more than a hand has a distinct relationship with a fingernail.Ah, this may be where the misunderstanding is coming in. I'm not talking about a triune man, but a tri-part one. God isn't tri-part, he's three persons, one God. Specifically "the Son" became man, one person in two distinct natures. An individual is one man, one person, one nature. Of course I perhaps really might throw the cat amongst the pigeons with 2Pet.1:4, but maybe another time...
DD wrote: It is, if you are comparing us to The triune God.
"How can God die?" I can only say, that any part of the Trinity being separated, might fit the biblical definition of death.How can God deny Himself? Surely it was the human person of God that was forsaken, not the deity of the Son? (or put another way, the human nature, not the divine one) Sirona:
Now I would call that "lifeforce", the living energy that inhabits living beings, perhaps more akin to the Ruach of the Hebrew language. As for the universe being joined together, I would see that as the connectedness of an omnipresent God, with perhaps the Holy Spirit (herself?) being the very fabric of this (if you want to take the conversation down to a quantum energy level) - but I digress. I see this as distinct from the "soul/spirit" that we are, though intimately connected.I don't agree with that. I think that we're all made of the same stuff. Can you see auras?
To say that humans are the only ones with "spirits" is elevating the human above the rest of creation, in fact, the rest of the universe.Yes, that would be my premise.
Ross:
there is a point at which the spirit person of "the Son" inhabits flesh "in time". The diagram merely presents that.
I still think that "whenever" this occurs the "Spirit" inhabits flesh as well (speaking from the standpoint of orthodox theology, inasmuch as economical Trinity is concerned).
I believe that there's a sense in which the believer, ajoined to Christ "in the 'spirit'", is in heaven while on earth.
I think it is exactly the mind of Colossians 3:3f; Ephesians 1:3; 2:6.
Btw I didn't get your reference to Matthew 26:3... maybe you mean something else.
Didier:
Sorry, I missed an 8. I've amended my post to read 38.
I still think that "whenever" this occurs the "Spirit" inhabits flesh as well (speaking from the standpoint of orthodox theology, inasmuch as economical Trinity is concerned).
The Father also "abides" with the believer, yes?
I tend to take such texts in a sense of the omnipresence of a triune God, working out the roles of various "offices". My comments to Sirona relate to this point.
I'm re-examining the Holy Spirit's part of this, however, after your comments yesterday.
I also want to bring to bear texts about demon possession and Jesus comments on "sweeping clean, before re-inhabitation".
LT
...whereas I would hold that the separation of soul and spirit occured while alive, perhaps beginning as early as in the garden of Gethsemane. How do you understand Heb.4:12?
How ever you want to say it, this is were the separation took place, (although I would say it was on the cross) and how God tasted death. I have no explanation for what happen to the Godhead, but something did. I believe it happened on the Divine level as well. Another good thread topic might be "the price paid for my sin" As for Hebrews 4:12, I not sure I do understand it, but I think it has more to do with the priesthood and mediatorship of Christ, than it does, the soul and spirit of man.
Surely it was the human person of God that was forsaken, not the deity of the Son? (or put another way, the human nature, not the divine one)
Why not the divine? D Dog
DD:
How ever you want to say it, this is were the separation took place, (although I would say it was on the cross) and how God tasted death.
Some say that he was the sin-bearer from conception. Personally I don't think that occured till Calvary, either. In the sacrificial arrangements the lamb was set apart for several days before it was sacrificed for sin. There's something in there concerning the Azazel scapegoat having sins laid on it's head before being led outside the camp. I suspect "being outside the camp" was in relation to disconnection from God, rather than coming down from heaven.
I have no explanation for what happen to the Godhead, but something did. I believe it happened on the Divine level as well. Another good thread topic might be "the price paid for my sin"
Indeed, but that would be outside the scope of this thread
Whatever happened to Undisfellowshipped, btw?
As for Hebrews 4:12, I not sure I do understand it, but I think it has more to do with the priesthood and mediatorship of Christ, than it does, the soul and spirit of man.
I agree, but nonetheless this wee snippit is tantalizing as it indicates there is a difference between the two even though they are bound so tightly together.
Why not the divine?
Because the price needed to be paid to God. Because God is never less than wholy God. This is also outside the scope of this thread, but I suspect that Gal.3:20 has a bearing on it (though I hate to make a patchwork quilt of scripture).
On another note, have you heard of subtraction by addition?
The Son of God becoming less by the addition of a human body and soul?
I think one shouldn't read too much into Hebrews 4:12, as interpreting it along the line of the Pauline-Gnostic psukhikos/pneumatikos distinction could be a complete mistake. In Hebrews psukhè is a positive term pertaining to salvation (12:3 and especially 10:39; 13:17).
In 4:12 I guess there is no reference to two of the supposed three parts of a "tri-part man", unless we also add "joints and marrows" as further parts (and then we have a "multi-part man"). As Schweizer notes in TDNT, the Greek text doesn't exactly say "piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow" as the NRSV has it, but (literally) "penetrating until the division of soul and spirit, as well as joints and marrows". One similar text is Philo's (remember Hebrews is certainly the most Philo-like part of the NT) treaty Who is the Heir of the Divine things?, 128-132:
Moses appears to me to have intended figuratively to represent these virtues when he calls the midwives of the Egyptians, Shiphrah and Puah, {45}{#ex 1:15.} for the name Shiphrah, being interpreted, means "a little bird," and Puah means "red." Now it is the especial property of divine wisdom, like a bird, to be always soaring on high; but it is the characteristic of human wisdom to study modesty and temperance, so as to blush at all objects which are worthy to cause a blush; (129) and as a very manifest proof of this the scripture says, "He took for himself all these Things."{46}{#ge 15:10.} This is the praise of a virtuous man, who preserves the sacred deposit of those things which he has received, the soul, the outward sense, speech, divine wisdom, human knowledge, in a pure and guileless manner, not for himself, but only for him who has trusted him. (130) After this the scripture proceeds to say, "And he divided them in the middle," not explaining who did so, in order that you may understand that it was the untaught God who divided them, and that he divided all the natures of bodies and of things one after another, which appeared to be closely fitted together and united by his word, which cuts through everything; which being sharpened to the finest possible edge, never ceases dividing all the objects of the outward senses, (131) and when it has gone through them all, and arrived at the things which are called atoms and indivisible, then again this divider begins from them to divide those things which may be contemplated by the speculations of reason into unspeakable and indescribable portions, and to "beat the gold into thin Plates,"{47}{#ex 39:3.} like hairs, as Moses says, making them into one length without breadth, like unsubstantial lines. (132) Each therefore of the three victims he divided in the midst, dividing the soul into the rational and the irrational part, speech into truth and falsehood, and the outward sense into imaginations which can be and cannot be comprehended; and these divisions he immediately places exactly opposite to one another, that is, the rational part opposite to the irrational, truth to falsehood, what is comprehensible to what is incomprehensible, leaving the birds undivided; for it was impossible to divide the incorporeal and divine sciences into contrarieties at variance with one another.
What we have here is a description of the potentially endless power of division of the mind, as always able to distinguish between things which are not separated in the real world. This is in line with Wisdom tradition (Proverbs 20:27: "The human spirit is the lamp of the LORD, searching every inmost part"). I think this suits the Hebrews passage pretty well.
So the apparent "trichotomy" in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is really unique in the NT, probably reflecting a popular Greek anthropology (still found in neo-platonism) rather than Paul's original thinking. For (1) the Pauline authenticity of 1 Thessalonians is not unchallenged and (2) the author, whoever it is, may just be using a traditional wish formula -- which is hardly the place for the first and last exposition of an original anthropology.
Sheesh LT
I was sure Tri-part man must be a Scottish Superheroe or something..one that drinks Beer, Scotch and Guinness...
Guinness don't count as beer because it's a meal in itself!
Didier:I agree that reading too much into Heb.4 could be a mistake, but in view of the lead we have in 1Thess., it makes an interesting philosophy when viewed consistently
I mean that, not from the perspective of "does the literature teach this?", but more from a position of "if this is how the human is constructed, does the literature support such a model?"
For example, assuming for a moment that demon possession is possible, where does the demon go to act upon the human?
So the apparent "trichotomy" in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is really unique in the NT, probably reflecting a popular Greek anthropology rather than Paul's original thinking.
And yet he neither contradicts, dismisses or ignores it, but rather supports it...
Shotgun:Whisky is a spirit, beer makes you the life and soul of the party, and Guinness has body - it's all good!!!
