I said > Oh David, I thing we are
agreeing. When we speak of the mind we do not believe we have to separate
it from the body, nor from personhood, to know that we are speaking of
something which with the rest of the person makes us complete. Do you
agree.
David, please excuse me. That didn't make a lick of sense. Let me
try again.
You speak of the "brain" and the rest of a "person." You say in
agreement with me that to separate the brain from the person is to kill the
person. Then you say, "That doesn't mean that the brain
cannot be identified and talked about separate from the rest of the body
and person." David, I agree with you, and I do not get the impression
that you are that far from agreeing with me. Allow me to include what I said
to Judy the night this all began:
I think maybe part of the disconnect
you are going through may have something to do with the way in which you are
dichotomizing the idea of personhood. It's not like spirit and body are
segregated, the spirit being completely separate and set away from the body,
and the body from the spirit. The human body is an integrated whole. There is
spirit, yes; and there is body. The two make a whole -- it's kind of like
there is mind and body, distinct but interrelated. When Christ defeated the
spiritual aspects of fallenness, he defeated the physical aspects, as well. He
rose in the body, too, remember. Salvation saved the whole man and not just
his spirit. The resurrection will include some sort of physicality --
restored, recreated, glorified, however one might say it, but always
physical, always spiritual, always the whole man.
I think the key to what I am getting at is in this idea of "distinct but
interrelated." Brain fits under the idea of personhood. Persons have brains
which can be contemplated without doing damage to the greater idea of
personhood. On the other hand, mind and body are distinct but interrelated
aspects of personhood, neither of which can be understood in isolation from
the other. We cannot say how the mind causes the body to work; we can only say
that the mind causes the body to work. Yet if the body dies, the
mind loses control over the body. It may even cease to exist. Thus the
two are distinct, in that they function differently, yet they are interrelated
in that they cease to function properly in isolation, the one from the other.
Spirit and body are likewise distinct yet interrelated aspects of
personhood.
Soul, it seems to me, speaks more to that overarching idea of personhood
than it does to an additional part of distinct-yet-interrelatedness.
I said that this topic can open itself up to all kinds of difficulties. I
would have been wiser to have kept this one to myself {:>(
my booboo,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 9:36
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul
searching.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:31
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul
searching.
> Bill wrote:
> > A dichotomy is by
definition a separation.
> > I'm saying you can not do this
without killing
> > the person.
>
> David M. wrote
> True enough, but you cannot separate the brain from a person
without
> killing them either. That doesn't mean that the brain
cannot be
> identified and talked about separate from the rest of the
body and
> person.
Oh David, I thing we are agreeing. When
we speak of the mind we do not believe we have to separate it from the
body, nor from personhood, to know that we are speaking of something which
with the rest of the person makes us complete. Do you
agree.
>
> Bill wrote:
> > We
are integrated souls. The dualisms and dichotomies
> > and
trichotomies of your framework is Classical Gr.
> > philosophy
penetrating and imprisoning your thoughts.
>
> Yes, it is
classical Greek, but I think it to be spot on. Don't you
> think
Paul draws on this classical Greek thought in Romans 7 when he
> says,
>
> "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but
with the flesh
> the law of sin. (Romans 7:25 KJV).
I think sin is always irrational. Sin
seeks to divide and destroy. Paul, whether he is speaking for
himself or for Israel (another conversation), is speaking to the dichotomous
nature of iniquity; as well, he is speaking to the tension of
living in the already of Christ's resurrection and the not yet of his
return. This is not to sermonize, but I think Paul would not carry that sort
of dualism into a mind-body discussion of the glorified Christ. What
do you think?
>
> For the record, I don't object to your sense of the
word "soul." The
> Scriptures often use it exactly as you talk
about. Nevertheless, I'm
> not convinced that the soul is not
something that could be identified
> and considered as something
distinct. Several passages of Scripture
> seem to do just that
(I think Kevin quoted several already). You may
> interpret them
otherwise, but especially the Hebrews 4:12 passage
> deserves more
than just a "figure of speech" acknowledgement.
I will try to do that, but with these caveats. The Word of God
in this passage is probably better understand as referring to Jesus Christ
than it is to the Bible. The entire context of this passage is speaking
about Jesus Christ our Priest, who enters into the holy of holies, the
resting place of God on our behalf:
Hebrews 4.10
-- For the One [Jesus Christ, emphasis mine]
who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his
works, as God did from His.
11 Let us
therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through
following the same example of disobedience [context not
provided].
12 For the Word of
God [Jesus the Son of God, emphasis mine] is living and active and
sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of
soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts
and intentions of the heart.
13 And there is no
creature hidden from His sight [Whose sight? the Word of God, Jesus
the Son of God, emphasis by translators], but all
things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him [emphasis by
translators] with whom we have to
do.
14 Since then we
have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son
of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not
have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who
has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without
sin.
David, I think the
ability to divide spirit and soul, joints and marrow, to judge the
thought and intentions of our heart, is figurative in that it speaks to the
ability Jesus the Son of God has to truly commiserate with our plight.
He can sympathize because he is entirely aware of our state. There is
nothing about being human that he does not get. There is nothing in us that
is hidden from his view. There is nothing about us that he cannot get in to
and understand, because he has been like us, yet without sin.
Let me digress a
little bit here and say that I do not see this as something about which we
should divide. When I posted in the first place, it was in response to
having been rebuked and made to look ridiculous for even suggesting that
perhaps Judy was falling into dualism, rather than taking a hebrew view of
integration. I happen to think I've thought this through, but of what value
is it to me if it causes others to stumble. I will let it go, before I will
go so far as create undue confusion.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller, Beverly
Hills, Florida.
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to
answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell
him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he
will be subscribed.
>
