Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Hi all,
    
    I am mostly a read-only but thought I would like to contribute
    some of my own thoughts/questions about this topic, especially
    regarding the "what is life" question. I always wondered when
    God conferred a soul on living tissue. I have no doubt that a 
    fetus is alive, cognitive, aware of pain/discomfort and quite
    responsive to external stimuli at a very early time in its 
    development. As a fairly recent mother myself I did alot of
    reading on this subject and was amazed and astounded at the 
    medical research in this field and many of the findings have
    been widely published. PRAISE GOD FOR ALL HIS MIRACLES! (BTW,
    for this reason I was alittle disconcerted to read an entry
    in this string a while back that glibly dismissed and 
    trivialized God's wonderful plan for human fetal development
    by wishing for a time when medical science allows babys to
    grow outside the womb. What moral wretchedness THAT will open
    the door for, as if we haven't brought about enough already by
    tampering with the will/plans of our Creator!) 
    
    However, when I accidently hit and killed a cat with my car
    I was devastated but had no sense that I had "murdered" it
    because I had always asumed that what separated us from the 
    animals (also living entities) was that we had a soul and they
    didn't. Am I completely off the wall here?  Is muder linked
    to "soul" or "no soul"? I don't want to get off topic, but
    are there any Biblical pointers that you could help me out 
    with?  
    
    I don't want to imply that I am pro-abortion in any way. My
    musings stem from something I remember hearing/reading in the
    dim past about Jewish traditions concerning God sending the
    "soul" down from heaven for each baby while it was in the
    womb. 
    
    In Christ,
    Rowena
    

    Re: Note 62.141 by JUNCO::HIRMER
    
    G'day Rowena, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
    
>   for this reason I was alittle disconcerted to read an entry
>   in this string a while back that glibly dismissed and 
>   trivialized God's wonderful plan for human fetal development
>   by wishing for a time when medical science allows babys to
>   grow outside the womb. What moral wretchedness THAT will open
>   the door for, as if we haven't brought about enough already by
>   tampering with the will/plans of our Creator!
    
    We've done so much tampering already.  God wills that a person catches
    influenza, and we go and cure them.  God wills that a whole country
    starves to death, and we go and feed them.  God wills that a community
    has peace, and we go and attack them in the name of peace.  God gave us
    feet; he willed that we would use them for transportation, so we
    shouldn't need to use cars or space shuttles.
    
    So if God wills that human beings are born using the biological
    machinery that he installed inside us, it is the same thing to me if we
    change the way it is done.  Us humans have been doing this sort of
    thing for ages.
    
    How do we *know* God's will for how we should reproduce?  Has anyone
    got any scriptural references?
    
    I agree that it would be a social disaster; the parents would not feel
    as close to their children because they were not "born".  People may
    treat these "unborn" differently.  Should they be entitled to vote? 
    What if they are "improved" beyond normal human abilities?  See Robert
    Heinlein's book _Friday_ for an "interesting" treatment of this from a
    science-fiction viewpoint.
    
    James

    Rowena,
    
    Hi, I have always agreed with what you wrote about animals not having
    souls and the differentiation between humans and animals [I think this
    was in another topic at one time].. 
    
    I think you have brought up a valid point there.  Also, I disagree with
    comparing going from travelling by feet to travelling by car with test
    tube, artificial womb, development of a fetus!!!
    
    Sorry, James, but your note minimizing the miraculous birth of a baby
    [which if you haven't seen one of your *own* flesh and blood may
    contribute] really struck a sour note within me.
    
    Its early, I'm at home... not very awake yet to articulate what I
    really want to say.........
    
    Nancy

	I don't think God would view a car killing an animal or human being
murder IF IT WERE AN ACCIDENT! In more detail, if an animal/person runs out in
front of you and you don't have time to react, then I don't think He sees it as
murder. If you're under the influence, drugs, driving to endanger, things like
that then I think it's viewed differently because you are doing things that
could be avoided and putting yours and other peoples lives at a greater risk.
Maybe I'm just humanizing this, but it is something that I truly believe to be
true. (did that make sense? :-)



Glen

.141 (Rowena)

>    Is murder linked
>    to "soul" or "no soul"? I don't want to get off topic, but
>    are there any Biblical pointers that you could help me out 
>    with?  

The flesh is merely a casing or pod for the soul.  

Matthew 10:28 KJV says:  "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell."

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Three distinct things here:  formation, life, and soul.  The animals
were formed and were given life.  But only here do we see that man 
became a living eternal soul.

Mark

    My understanding is that man differs from animals in that man was given
    the power to choose good and evil.  Animals have not been given this
    choice and are therefore incapable of sin.  I believe that animals have
    spirits, but I am unclear to what extent.  (Like, does a virus have a
    spirit?  Amoebas reproduce by splitting in half and, presumably,
    started with one little cell.  So, in a way, the original amoeba never
    died.  Does that mean there's just one amoeba spirit?  Or have there
    been countless gazillions?  Do all animals go to heaven?)
    
    Interesting things to ponder and I don't know all the answers.  When I 
    was growing up I remember that my father held the view that animals 
    didn't have spirits.  But, then we had lots of pets.  We saw these pets 
    experience pain, joy, suffering and express love -- even to the point of
    self-sacrifice.  Who can deny that such pets have spirits?  My father
    changed his opinion.  More, he now feels that if we continue to train
    animals like monkeys and gorillas to speak and communicate with us, it
    won't be long before we have to seriously consider giving them "human"
    rights -- if only because they themselves might ask for them!
    
    Interesting points to ponder.  But, if one accepts that there are
    spirits in things other than man, it demands that one show respect and
    appreciation for life in general.  I think that is consistent with God's
    teachings.  
    
    As to thoughts about whether or not a fetus is alive.  Tough call.
    However, who can witness the video "Silent Scream" (I *think* that's
    the title) and come away insisting that a human fetus cannot feel 
    pain during an abortion?  IMO, to come to such a conclusion would be 
    ludicrous and inhumane.  I will not post the details for those who 
    have not seen this.  Though controversial, it is too painful and to me
    too apparently real.  Suffice it to say that because we cannot see, 
    feel or hear someone in unimaginable pain it does not mean the pain 
    does not exist.
    
    Back to the topic, I've run over a few animals over time.  It has
    always been an emotional experience for me.  I've had little animals
    die in may hands while I did all I could to nurse them back to health.
    These are emotionally painful experiences and well they should be.
    
    I've also eaten a lot of beef, chicken and pork in my time.  Conflict?
    I don't think so because I understand that one of the purposes of
    animals is to serve man, including feeding him.  Animals are to be 
    reasonably used and appreciated, not degraded and wasted.  I believe it
    is possible for one to be guilty of murder of an animal.  But, I
    believe there are clear exceptions where the taking of animal life is 
    appropriate for the service of man and for which man is guiltless.
    
    Steve

We now bring you a light break from this discussion, in response to the "Do all
animals go to heaven" question.  For those unfamiliar with this strip, it's 
about a young boy Calvin and his stuffed tiger Hobbes, who real to him:

Hobbes: I wonder if tigers go to heaven?
Calvin: I don't know.  Wouldn't they eat the people?
Hobbes: I didn't think of that.  I suppose people in heaven wouldn't be happy if
	they had to worry about being eaten by tigers.
Calvin: But if there were no tigers in heaven, I'd miss them.  *I* wouldn't be
	happy.  Maybe tigers don't eat people in heaven.
Hobbes:	But then the *tigers* wouldn't be happy.

Actually, I think the tigers would be happy, for it says that the lion shall lie
down with the lamb.  Many of those things which we consider essential for our 
happiness here on earth will seem sort of beside the point in heaven.

Paul

Steve (.146)

>    Who can deny that such pets have spirits?  My father
>    changed his opinion.  More, he now feels that if we continue to train
>    animals like monkeys and gorillas to speak and communicate with us, it
>    won't be long before we have to seriously consider giving them "human"
>    rights -- if only because they themselves might ask for them!

Shades of Planet of the Apes.

Training an animal is a far cry from rational thought.  Ever hear of
Pavlov's dog?  It's called conditioning.

I can deny that such pets have spirits.  Life and the need for comfort
drives the flesh (animals and humans alike) to seek it, but it does not
indicate that animals are living souls.

And as for the amoeba: does mankind have one or billions of souls since
the human race is propogated through others.  This is new age thought of
the cosmos being one and we being part of it.

>    Interesting points to ponder.  But, if one accepts that there are
>    spirits in things other than man, it demands that one show respect and
>    appreciation for life in general.  I think that is consistent with God's
>    teachings.  

Respect and appreiction are NOT predicated on "spirits in things other than man"
which I frankly find anti-biblical.  We SHOULD RESPECT and APPRECIATE life
in general, and take care of our planet, for that matter, because not to
do so abuses (uses for an unintended use) our privilege and responsibilities.

Sorry, Steve.  Don't see it your way.

Mark

Hi Rowena,

I'm with you - 'murder' implies that the one who dies has a soul. Animals
don't have souls.  Hence God gave mankind instructions that animals could
be legitimately killed and eaten as food, in Genesis 9:2-3, but at the same
time emphasised that people - 'man' - must not be 'casually' killed,either
by people or by animals (verses 5-6). 

Hi James....

�    We've done so much tampering already.
Amen.  We'd be better of getting to know the Creator, instead of just 
trying to take His creation to bits...

�    God wills that a person catches influenza, and we go and cure them.  
�    God wills that a whole country starves to death, and we go and feed them.
�    ......

hey James, your cheek has to be full of tongue there? ;-) 

Where God gives 'plenty' to one and not to another, isn't it just an 
opportunity for both to get to know the blessing of sharing; giving and 
receiving love via earthly material things?  Like in Acts 11:28-30:

 "...Agabus stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine 
  would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happeend during the reign 
  of Claudius). The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to 
  provide help for the brothers living in Judea.  This they did, sending 
  their gift to the elders by Barnabus and Saul."

 - You've also got God's warning of the 7 years of plenty, then famine in 
   Joseph's time in Genesis 41, so that deeper purposes could be fulfilled.
    
�    So if God wills that human beings are born using the biological
�    machinery that he installed inside us, it is the same thing to me if we
�    change the way it is done.  

Uh?  Tongue NOT in cheek?

    MAN, HE EVEN CHOSE TO COME INTO THE WORLD THAT WAY HIMSELF!!!!!!


� Us humans have been doing this sort of thing for ages.
The usual way always seemed pretty good to me...  
    
�    How do we *know* God's will for how we should reproduce?  Has anyone
�    got any scriptural references?

Well, 1 Corinthians 7 (especially vs 2-5) seem pretty explicit about 
keeping trying.  and the Deuteronomy / Joshua refs

�    I agree that it would be a social disaster; the parents would not feel
�    as close to their children because they were not "born".  

I believe that physical contact is an essential part of our development,
and that it has a spiritual connotation (as in 'laying on of hands -
potential multi-rathole ;-) .  I'm sorely concerned for babies without
the in-womb physical mother contact....  

I heard of experiments where young monkeys were deprived of physical contact 
(with other monkeys, in particular), and developed with significant social 
disadvantages.  Now whatever you think of using aniumals for experiments, 
you'd think this was a warning worth observing....


Hi Glen .....
- agreed, God certainly recognises the difference between deliberate murder
and accident.  In the O.T. laws, God laid down capital punishment for
murder, only if it was clearly proven.  However, for an accidental killing,
God instructed that there shuold be cities of refuge, so that after the
accident, the one who killed by mistake could flee there and be safe from
retribution 'in the heat of the moment'.  He had to stay there until the
high priest's death, as the death still had to be compensated by blood.... 

For an unsolved murder, the laws laid down that theelders from the nearest 
town should gather at the spot and after a vow that they knew nothing of 
the cause, should offer a heifer as a sacrifice....

Phew!  making the most of my odd shot 'in' today...

						God bless
								Andrew

             re: <<< Note 62.144 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

     Glen,

     > I don't think God would view a car killing an animal or human being
     > murder IF IT WERE AN ACCIDENT! In more detail, if an animal/person
     > runs out in front of you and you don't have time to react, then I
     > don't think He sees it as murder. If you're under the influence,
     > drugs, driving to endanger, things like that then I think it's viewed
     > differently because you are doing things that could be avoided and
     > putting yours and other peoples lives at a greater risk. Maybe I'm
     > just humanizing this, but it is something that I truly believe to be
     > true. (did that make sense? :-) 

     You are correct, insofar as you statement goes. This distinction is the
     reason that G_d provided Cities of Refuge for Israel in the Older
     Covenant, and why our statutes (based in English Common Law, in turn
     based in Levitical Law) disctinguish between the two situations. The
     situation you describe (insofar as it is applied to humans) comes under
     the heading of Manslaughter.

     Killing of an animal is dealt with under the code for property rights,
     and I don't recall (subject to correction) that any distinction is made
     based on malice or forethought.

     Brian 

     Folks,

     We should be careful to make a distinction between the "spirit" (notice
     the lowercase "s") and the "soul". The soul is most accurately
     described as the part of us that comprises the mind, will and emotions
     - our "id", if you will. 

     Our spirit is rather the spiritual part of us. Prior to redemption and
     salvation, it is dead in trespasses and sin, having been passed on to
     us dead from Adam. It is the part of us that is created new at the
     second birth. Prior to that, our degenerate soul rules us. Subsequent
     to our rebirth, our spirit (under the direction of *His* Spirit) is
     *supposed* to rule us. This spiritual direction is possible only
     insofar as we subjegate the soul to the direction of the spirit (and
     hence, the Spirit).

     Further reading on this subject is available in many of Watchman Nee's
     books (although I am sure that many others have also written on the
     subject), particularly in The Spiritual Man, How Shall We Then Live?,
     The Normal Christian Life, and The Latent Power of the Soul. *All* of
     these (and other) Watchman Nee books are *HIGHLY* recommended.

     Now, to apply what I've said above, I believe that it is rather
     self-evident that mammals (and perhaps other animals) *do* have a soul.
     No one who has had any close interaction with a higher order mammal can
     dispute that they do have an intellect (ie - they are sentient and
     self-aware, at least at some level), they have a will (ever try to
     teach a cat anything?), and they have emotions (my dog can be veisibly
     seen to go through quite a range of them!). Therefore, they have a
     soul. *HOWEVER*, they do _NOT_ possess a spirit, which is the image of
     G_d uniquely deposited in humans at conception. *THAT* is what makes us
     unique, *NOT* the possession of a soul. The willful destruction of a
     human spirit, created in the image of Almighty G_d is the abomination
     which distinguishes Murder and Manslaughter from beef harvesting.

     Sincerely,

     Brian 

    re: .148
    
    We're not talking about just training an animal.  There are documented
    cases of, for example, a gorilla expressing in sign language
    disappointment that its pet kitten was killed.  This is not without
    controversy.  But, scientific evidence exists of animals expressing
    original thought through sign language.
    
    As to "soul" and "spirit" it is important to make distinction and to
    make sure that there is agreement on definitions.  The terms are, IMO,
    not well defined in the Scriptures.  Not that the definition isn't
    there.  More that what IS there has been subject to many different
    interpretations and therefore become unclear.
    
    My own understanding is that "soul" is comprised of "body" and "spirit"
    that are united until death.  Thus, my understanding is that animals
    have "soul" in that they have "body" and "spirit."  Where I am in
    disagreement, per my understanding, is as to whether or not animals
    have a "spirit" that continues on after death.  I believe they do.
    But, these "spirits" are not the same as those of mankind.  In fact, I
    regard theirs as subservient and, aside from innate innocence,
    inferior.
    
    A warped version of this is the "new age" worship of the "spirits"
    within all living things.  There is in this worship a denial of man's
    responsibilities to distinguish right from wrong and an amount of
    declaration of equality between man and animal.  Thus, the life of a 
    spotted owl is of roughly equal value with the life of a human child.
    I think that type of belief system denies the true potential of man.
    (Another way to put it might be that it basically limits or damns man.)
    
    The Bible clearly indicates that "spirits" can inhabit things other than 
    man and that they can exist outside the body.  I feel the discussion has
    more to do with whether or not animals have spirits of their own.  My
    assertion that the existance of "spirits in things other than man demands 
    that one show respect and appreciation for life in general" is based on
    the assumption that these same spirits come from God and are innocent 
    of sin.  It is man's God-given capacity to sin that I have emphasized as 
    a distinguishing feature separating man from animal.  I fail to understand 
    how this paradigm is proven to be "anti-biblical."
    
    Steve

    Steve, 
      Thanks for clarifying what you mean.  
    
    >The Bible clearly indicates that "spirits" can inhabit things other
    >than  man and that they can exist outside the body. 
    
    Yes, this is true.
    
    >I feel the discussion has more to do with whether or not animals have
    >spirits of their own.  
    
    And this is where we part way in our understanding.  We can see that
    spirits (demons) were cast into swine by Jesus, and the "Legion for we
    are many" can inhabit one body, but no where in scripture does it say
    or show that an animalo possesses a spirit (or soul) of it's own.
    
    It is also interesting how the animals reacted to being possessed by
    evil spirits, isn't it.
    
    >My assertion that the existance of "spirits in things other than man
    >demands  that one show respect and appreciation for life in general"
    
    Again, I think  we can show respoect for God's creation and wonder
    of life without attributing spirits (or souls) to animals.
    
    Mark

    Re: Note 62.143 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
.143>   [...] I disagree with
.143>   comparing going from travelling by feet to travelling by car with test
.143>   tube, artificial womb, development of a fetus!!!
    
    That's fine.  But for me, I see the two types of "change" involved to
    be no less an ignoring of God's will.
    
    .143> Sorry, James, but your note minimizing the miraculous birth of a baby
    .143> really struck a sour note within me.
    
    I don't think I wrote a note that minimized the miraculous birth of a
    baby.  If I did then I didn't mean to.  Rereading .142 confirms my
    belief that I didn't attempt to minimize the miracle.  It __is__
    miraculous.  The creation, bearing and birth of a baby is a very well
    designed process that shows me that there must be a God.  The fact that
    this "God" is also my God is even more fantastic.  (Thank God).
    
    
    Re: Note 62.149 by ICTHUS::YUILLE
    
.149>Amen.  We'd be better of getting to know the Creator, instead of just 
.149>trying to take His creation to bits...
    
    True.
    
.149>Where God gives 'plenty' to one and not to another, isn't it just an 
.149>opportunity for both to get to know the blessing of sharing; giving and 
.149>receiving love via earthly material things?
    
    Yes to that.  But if God has given 'not-plenty' to one group, then he
    has willed it, yes?  He also wills that we go and feed them, so my
    point is not well made.
    
.142>� So if God wills that human beings are born using the biological
.142>� machinery that he installed inside us, it is the same thing to me if we
.142>� change the way it is done.  
.149>Uh?  Tongue NOT in cheek?
.149>MAN, HE EVEN CHOSE TO COME INTO THE WORLD THAT WAY HIMSELF!!!!!!
    
    I think I failed to express myself clearly.  [Maybe now that it is
    morning I'll have a better probability of getting it right... ;-) ]
    
    What I mean is that the subversion of God's will by humans is done in
    many areas of so-called human endeavour.  I see no *difference* in
    these subversions.  It _is_ wrong to subvert God's will.  But
    subverting God's will by changing the birth mechanisms is equal in *my*
    eyes to all the other subverting that "Us humans have been doing [...]
    for ages." [.142]
    
.142>� Us humans have been doing this sort of thing for ages.
.149>The usual way always seemed pretty good to me...  
    
    I meant the "changing" not the "test tube alterations".  ;-)
    
>�    How do we *know* God's will for how we should reproduce?
>Well, 1 Corinthians 7 (especially vs 2-5) seem pretty explicit about 
>keeping trying.  and the Deuteronomy / Joshua refs
    
    I read the Corinthians reference just then.  I could probably apply it. 
    What are the other references you mention?
    
.142>� I agree that it would be a social disaster; the parents would not feel
.142>� as close to their children because they were not "born".  
.149>I believe that physical contact is an essential part of our development,
.149>and that it has a spiritual connotation (as in 'laying on of hands -
.149>potential multi-rathole ;-) .  I'm sorely concerned for babies without
.149>the in-womb physical mother contact....  
    
    Me to.
    
    Just in closing, I do not agree that out-of-the-womb human construction
    is a "good idea".  It has too many problems associated with it,
    spiritual, social and least of all physical.  God gave us good
    machinery for doing it, and we would be subverting God's will [again]
    if we chose to design another system to do it.
    
    {The following may be disturbing or sickening.  You have been warned...}
    
    [Just had a Gross Idea that I hope nobody in that field of human
    endeavour ever gets to use; "grow" a gene-modified human female clone
    without a head on it, without legs or arms, for use as an incubator...
    yeauch... ]
    
    James

Hi James,

I think we're on the same track....  I had wondered when I read yours at 
first, 'cause I couldn't hear all the nuances.

� > ...and the Deuteronomy / Joshua refs
�     What are the other references you mention?
That's just those ones on bringing up children, one's own children, in the 
knowledge and love of the LORD.  Like Deuteronomy 4:9-10, 6:7, 6:20, 11:19,
32:46, Joshua 4:6.  Not so directly relevant as the other, which was why I 
didn't detail them.

							Andrew

re.153

	Mark,

> but no where in scripture does it say
>    or show that an animalo possesses a spirit (or soul) of it's own.

Yes and no. Yes, the Bible does not say that animals possess a spirit. No,
it does indicate they are souls (mind, emotion, will) (Genesis 1).

Your assumption is that there is no difference between soul and spirit. The
Bible shows that man is tripartite possessing a spirit, soul and body.

	"And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit
and soul and body be preserved complete without blame..." I thess 5:23

It's hard to distinguish the spirit from the soul in our experience and
can only be accomplished through a thorough dealing of the Spirit-Word.

	"For the word of God is living and operative and sharper than any
two-edged sword, and piercing ecven to the dividing of soul and spirit..."
Heb 4:12

	Therefore, animals are different from humans in that they possess
no spirit and therefore cannot be regenerated. But they nevertheless possess
a soul (mind, emotion, will). However, this shows that man is the center of
God's plan for it is in man's spirit that the Spirit indwells the regenerated 
believer.

Regards,
Ace

     Isn't it time to take this warm, fuzzy rathole to it's own topic (which
     it so *richly* deserves, IMHO. Perhaps it could be titled "Tri-Partite
     Humans - Fact or Fiction?"

     Moderators?

     Brian 

    Ace, you're one of very few people I've seen who actually know what
    tripartite means. Way to go!
    
    	BD�

Thanks for clarification, Ace.

    re .156 (LEDS::LOPEZ)/Ace
    
    	Not that I want to get into a knock-down, drag-em-out debate on the
    differences between body, soul, and spirit, but I noticed something
    about 1The 5:23 (made more obvious in the NWT) that I thought was worth
    commenting on.
    
    	You wrote:
    
>Your assumption is that there is no difference between soul and spirit. The
>Bible shows that man is tripartite possessing a spirit, soul and body.
>
>	"And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit
>and soul and body be preserved complete without blame..." I thess 5:23
    
    	In the NWT this reads:
    
    		"May the very God of peace sanctify YOU completely.
    		And sound in every respect may the spirit and soul
    		and body of YOU [brothers] be preserved in a 
    		blameless manner at the presence of our Lord
    		Jesus Christ."
    
    The NWT uses the typological convention of capitalizing plural pronouns
    to convey the distinction between singular and plural "you" that Greek
    can express but which English cannot.  "Brothers" was inserted in []'s
    to make it clear who Paul was addressing.
    
    	The point is that Paul was writing about the preservation of the
    "spirit, soul, and body" of them collectively; and thus, regardless of
    whether other scriptures might be used to support the notion that man
    is "tripartate," it looks to me as though this verse doesn't really
    apply, since it isn't speaking about an essential aspect of human
    nature, but rather, essential aspects of the collective Christian body
    of brothers.
    
    
    							-mark.

.160>    	In the NWT this reads:

"...may the spirit and soul and body of YOU [brothers] be preserved..."


From 23.9 and 2.9:

NWT (New World Translation), 1960
  - Translated by the Jehovah's Witnesses and published by the Watchtower
    Bible and Tract Society
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Thessalonians 5:23

KJV
"...and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved..."

Amplified
"...and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved..."

NASB
"...and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved..."

NIV
"...May your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept..."


"Brothers" is not found in any of the four "mainline" Christian
translations that I have.

Eccelisates 12:7 says: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:
and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
>    	The point is that Paul was writing about the preservation of the
>    "spirit, soul, and body" of them collectively; and thus, regardless of
>    whether other scriptures might be used to support the notion that man
>    is "tripartate," it looks to me as though this verse doesn't really
>    apply, since it isn't speaking about an essential aspect of human
>    nature, but rather, essential aspects of the collective Christian body
>    of brothers.
 
Another difference in beliefs between Jehovah's Witnesses and "mainline"
Christianity.

re.160

	Mark,

	I wouldn't have a knock down drag out with you! 

	However, I would recommend that you use a different translation from 
now on.  8*)  8*)

Regards,
Ace	

    
    Hi, it's me again, Rowena,
    
    My reply .141 seems to have initiated a series of replys that are abit
    off topic. Sorry. Thanks for all the excellent scripture quotes.  But
    all this still has me wondering...
    
    Re .151 and .156 regarding soul and spirit (Biblically not the same
    thing) and comparing mankind to animals:
    
    	- in the above mentioned notes spirit and soul both seemed to
          be described as "will", so which caused us to sin? 
    
    	- if animals have no concept of sin (as mentioned in one of
    	  the recent replys, and BTW, I tend to agree) then they
    	  are not in need of redemtion and therefore wouldn't go to
    	  heaven because they would not be judged?
    
    	- if animals didn't sin, i.e. weren't responsible for bringing
    	  sin into the world, and don't need redemption, were they ever 
    	  separated from God in the first place? Do they still dwell
    	  with God in the garden and it is only humans who are separated
    	  from God by sin? Just rambling here.
    
    	- Someone in a recent reply mentioned the "intrinsic innocence" 
    	  of animals and it made me think of the following scripture:
    
    	  Jesus said in Mat 18:10 "See that you do not look down on
    	  one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels
    	  in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven." (NIV)
    	  God so loved the innocent that he is not willing to loose
    	  even one little child to Satan! AMEN! (Mat 18:14)
    
    	- isn't there a story in the Bible about a donkey that speaks
    	  wisdom to a man and God says something to the man about raising
    	  the donkey to eternal life? I looked and looked but couldn't
    	  find it. If I remember correctly it might support the idea
    	  that animals can be raised. Of course God can do anything he
    	  wants to!
    
    WHEW! Once I started musing I got on a roll and couldn't stop! (I
    was going to say "and couldn't get off" but upon futher con-
    sideration I changed to a less risque' version!)
     
    I guess this has a vague connection to the base notes in this topic
    about murder and abortion, about how we see ourselves in relation
    to our Creator God and our fellow creations, and how we justify
    our actions. 
    
    May the Holy Spirit guide all of us in our search for the truth. 
    
    In Christ,
    Rowena
    

    re .161 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
    	Thanks for typing in the 4 other translations.  What you say:
    
>"Brothers" is not found in any of the four "mainline" Christian
>translations that I have.
    
    is true of just about all translations, but you're overlooking the
    point that I explained why the word "[brothers]" was in the text, and
    why it was bracketed, which was to make the sense -- that Paul was
    addressing the Thessolonians collectively -- clear.  (On the matter of
    inserted words, the KJV does something similar.  It italicizes words
    that the translators have added to the literal wording, to best convey
    what they consider the sense of the passage to be.)  
    
    	The "your" in the KJV, Amplified, NASB, and NIV is the only way
    English has to translate either the singular or plural "you" -- and
    thus a reader either has to read the Greek or examine the context to
    figure out which is meant.  [In fact, it's funny you should use the
    Amplified Bible, for it adds all sorts of words to the text of its
    translation to "amplify" the translators' view of the meaning for the
    benefit of the reader.  Complaining about added words in the NWT when
    you use the Amplified Bible is the pot calling the kettle black.]   As
    verse 25 indicates, Paul WAS talking to the "brethren" (RSV).  I assume
    your four "mainline" translations indicate this as well.  It's also
    clear from the salutation in 1Th 1:1 that Paul was writing to the
    entire "church" (RSV) in Thessalonia, and not an individual (like
    Timothy or Titus).
    
    	My main point had to do with the capitalization of YOU in the NWT,
    to indicate that the plural was in use in the underlying Greek. 
    Picking a nit over the clarifying word [brothers] doesn't change the
    truth that Paul wasn't speaking to an individual about *his* "spirit,
    soul, and body", but was speaking to the congregation about its
    *collective* spirit, soul, and body.
    
    	==*==
    
    	Again, I'm really not arguing about whether humans possess "body,
    soul, and spirit" -- for I believe it's clear from the Bible that we do
    (although my view is quite different from yours on what the soul and
    spirit is, I'm sure).
    
>>    	The point is that Paul was writing about the preservation of the
>>    "spirit, soul, and body" of them collectively; and thus, regardless of
>>    whether other scriptures might be used to support the notion that man
>>    is "tripartate," it looks to me as though this verse doesn't really
>>    apply, since it isn't speaking about an essential aspect of human
>>    nature, but rather, essential aspects of the collective Christian body
>>    of brothers.
> 
>Another difference in beliefs between Jehovah's Witnesses and "mainline"
>Christianity.
    
    	Mark ... aside from stating a widely known generalization, you
    haven't shown that what I said (about Paul speaking in the plural in
    this verse) was wrong ... you only picked on a nit (about the word
    "[brothers]") that was off to the side of the point.
    
    	For the record, lest anyone think otherwise, neither I, nor any
    other Witness in this conference (that I am aware of) has EVER
    attempted to masquerade ourselves as just another "mainline" form of
    Christianity.  We're QUITE different (in many ways), and hardly ashamed
    of those differences.  If you want to emphasize those genuine
    differences yourself, you only help us out.
    
    	However, waving those differences around just for the sake of
    waving them isn't always going to prove anything, like that I'm wrong
    on this point.
    
    	Don't think that I'm ALWAYS attempting to 'slay a giant' (i.e.,
    attack some MAJOR point of difference) when I make a point.  All I did
    was say that I think Ace missapplied this one verse (without malice) by
    treating it as a statement about the human nature we individually
    possess, when it was, instead, a statement about the nature of the
    collective congregation.
    
    
    								-mark.

>    is true of just about all translations, but you're overlooking the
>    point that I explained why the word "[brothers]" was in the text, and
>    why it was bracketed, which was to make the sense -- that Paul was
>    addressing the Thessolonians collectively -- clear.

I did not overlook the point.  I made the counterpoint that the other
translations did NOT put this in and stands in contradiction to the 
Jehovah's Witness translation of the NWT.  Now, we can argue which we
believe; I merely point out the difference.

>    [In fact, it's funny you should use the
>    Amplified Bible, for it adds all sorts of words to the text of its
>    translation to "amplify" the translators' view of the meaning for the
>    benefit of the reader.  Complaining about added words in the NWT when
>    you use the Amplified Bible is the pot calling the kettle black.] 

The root of the complaint is not "added" words, but differing meaning,
wouldn't you agree?  The Amplified Bible uses Strong's definitions to 
insert into the verses so one doesn't have to go to Strong's when you
wonder about the nuance of a word.  So it become a bit more verbose
but does not alter the meaning.  I can't say the same for the NWT.

>    	For the record, lest anyone think otherwise, neither I, nor any
>    other Witness in this conference (that I am aware of) has EVER
>    attempted to masquerade ourselves as just another "mainline" form of
>    Christianity.  We're QUITE different (in many ways), and hardly ashamed
>    of those differences.  If you want to emphasize those genuine
>    differences yourself, you only help us out.

Consider yourself helped out, and all others informed of these differences.

>    	However, waving those differences around just for the sake of
>    waving them isn't always going to prove anything, like that I'm wrong
>    on this point.
    
Waving them distinguishes the differences that you are hardly ashamed of.

>    	Don't think that I'm ALWAYS attempting to 'slay a giant' (i.e.,
>    attack some MAJOR point of difference) when I make a point.  All I did
>    was say that I think Ace missapplied this one verse (without malice) by
>    treating it as a statement about the human nature we individually
>    possess, when it was, instead, a statement about the nature of the
>    collective congregation.

Noted.  And I post a further note to help us all understand how you 
come to believe Ace has misapplied the verse.

Cut and dried, so we're clear now?

Mark

    re .162 (LEDS::LOPEZ)/Ace
    
>	I wouldn't have a knock down drag out with you! 
>
>	However, I would recommend that you use a different translation from 
>now on.  8*)  8*)
    
    Hey ... thanks for the advice.  Yer a pal!
    
    Really (all humor aside), when NOTING here, I usually DO use a
    different translation, since you folks are so gun-shy about the NWT. 
    However, I made an exception in this case because I felt the utility of
    a feature of the NWT -- that it distinguishes single and plural for the
    reader, since the English "you" itself is ambiguous -- was too useful
    to not mention.  Silly me for thinking no ordeal awaited me for doing
    so.
    
    
    								-mark.

I'll move the diversion of the past number of notes somewhere when I have time.

Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-Mod

>    	My main point had to do with the capitalization of YOU in the NWT,
>    to indicate that the plural was in use in the underlying Greek. 
>    Picking a nit over the clarifying word [brothers] doesn't change the
>    truth that Paul wasn't speaking to an individual about *his* "spirit,
>    soul, and body", but was speaking to the congregation about its
>    *collective* spirit, soul, and body.

Paul was talking to a group of people, not just one, so he would use the plural
"you" in this case.  That does not at all imply that the spirit, soul, and body
he was referring to were a "collective" spirit, soul, and body.  It could just
as easily mean that he was speaking to a group about their individual spirits,
souls, and bodies.

If my three kids come inside this spring from playing in the mud, I might say
"You really need to take a bath."  If I were speaking greek, I'd use the plural
"you" since I'm talking to more than one person.  But that doesn't mean I'm
telling my kids that all three of them need to get into the tub together.

Paul

    re .165 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
>>    is true of just about all translations, but you're overlooking the
>>    point that I explained why the word "[brothers]" was in the text, and
>>    why it was bracketed, which was to make the sense -- that Paul was
>>    addressing the Thessolonians collectively -- clear.
>
>I did not overlook the point.  I made the counterpoint that the other
>translations did NOT put this in and stands in contradiction to the 
>Jehovah's Witness translation of the NWT.  Now, we can argue which we
>believe; I merely point out the difference.
    
    	But the fact that the word "brothers" is in the NWT and not in
    others is only incidental to the point that the scripture itself IS
    addressed collectively to the brothers in Thessalonia; thus your
    counter-point that it's not in other translations doesn't address the
    point that Paul was still addressing the 'body' of believers.
    
    	The RSV reads this way:
    
    		"(12) But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those
    		who labor among you (plural) and are over you (plural)
    		in the Lord and admonish you (plural) ...
    		"(23) May the God of peace himself sanctify you (plural)
    		wholly; and my your (plural) spirit and soul and body
    		be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord
    		Jesus Christ.  (24) He who calls you (plural) is
    		faithful, and he will do it.  (25) Brethren, pray for
    		us."
    
    Paul also calls them "brethren" in verses 1 and 4 (of chapter 5).  The
    absense of the word "brothers" in verse 24 in other translations
    creates NO contradiction with the NWT, which only includes the word
    parenthetically, for the context makes it clear that the sense of verse
    24 also applies to Paul's brothers.
    
    	Your counter point seems to be that the NWT is wrong to
    parenthetically include the word brothers because it changes the sense
    of the verse (presumably to a plural expression, rather than being an
    expression to an individual man).  What the entire context of the
    passage [in addition to the actual plurality of the underlying Greek] 
    shows is that Paul WAS addressing his "brothers" throughout the entire
    chapter.  It reads this way in the RSV (and presumably all translations
    as well).  There is no true difference in meaning between the NWT and
    other translations; the NWT just makes it more obvious that Paul was
    talking to his brothers, and thus makes the passage less vulnerable to 
    misinterpretation.
    
>The root of the complaint is not "added" words, but differing meaning,
>wouldn't you agree?  The Amplified Bible uses Strong's definitions to 
>insert into the verses so one doesn't have to go to Strong's when you
>wonder about the nuance of a word.  So it become a bit more verbose
>but does not alter the meaning.  I can't say the same for the NWT.
    
    	It's clear to me that there's a difference of interpretation, but
    only because the verse is easier to misinterpret from other
    "mainstream" translations (as applying to the body, soul, and spirit of
    an individual) when viewed by itself, without reference to the whole
    passage, which is addressed to all the brothers. It's still quite
    possible to read the verse in the KJV or NIV or any of your favorites
    and still understand it with the same sense that the NWT makes plain.
    
    	I don't have a copy of the Amplified Bible, but I've looked at
    copies before, and it was pretty obvious to me that the translators
    weren't just flexing their thesauric muscles (inserting Strong's
    definitions); they were also quite forthcoming with, shall we say,
    'doctrinally clarifying renditions,' especially when dealing with a
    number of classic 'trinity' passages (which are the ones that stood out
    the most as I flipped through it).
    
    	I submit that you probably wouldn't notice that the Amplified Bible
    "alters the meaning" because they do it in a way that you're already
    predisposed to agree with [which is rather like the argument that says
    Witnesses favor the NWT because it reads the way they like it to read].
    
>>    	Don't think that I'm ALWAYS attempting to 'slay a giant' (i.e.,
>>    attack some MAJOR point of difference) when I make a point.  All I did
>>    was say that I think Ace missapplied this one verse (without malice) by
>>    treating it as a statement about the human nature we individually
>>    possess, when it was, instead, a statement about the nature of the
>>    collective congregation.
>
>Noted.  And I post a further note to help us all understand how you 
>come to believe Ace has misapplied the verse.
    
    	Since you focused on the inclusion of the word "brothers" in the
    passage, it seemed to me that you MISunderstood why I believed that Ace
    misapplied the verse, since that had little to do with it.

>Cut and dried, so we're clear now?
    
    	Oh ... I don't know ... but we've probably all had enough of the
    point [which I admit I've pounded into the ground].
    
    
    							later,
    							-mark.

.169>

See note .168.  Paul addresses it well, and I'm (admittedly) in 
skim mode at the moment and only skimmed .169.  If you want to
pound some more, maybe my next time through the Next unseens.

Mark M

    re 62.168 (EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS)/Paul
    
>Paul was talking to a group of people, not just one, so he would use the plural
>"you" in this case.  That does not at all imply that the spirit, soul, and body
>he was referring to were a "collective" spirit, soul, and body.  It could just
>as easily mean that he was speaking to a group about their individual spirits,
>souls, and bodies.
    
    	Believe it or not, I DID consider this as a possibility -- and I
    WILL look into it a little further -- but in reaction to Ace's
    assertion that man is "tripartate," with his use of this verse as a
    proof text, it seemed that this verse was worth a closer look.
    
    	It so happens that the commentators in the Oxford Annotated RSV
    appear to agree that Paul IS speaking about the makeup of individuals,
    BUT, their comment shows they do NOT believe Paul was advocating the
    notion that man is tripartate.  They wrote:
    
    		"Paul does not think of a person as having three
    		parts, but as a unity which may be viewed from three
    		different points of view: his relationship to God,
    		his personal vitality, adn his physical body."
    
    It DOES, of course, seem obvious that each individual brother needed to
    tend to his own "spirit and soul and body" in order to be "blameless at
    the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," in order for it to be true of the
    entire congregation, but it still looks to me as though Paul was
    speaking of their collective makeup, especially since the
    "sanctification" that Paul wished upon them in verse 25 was explained
    in 'graphic detail' in chapter 4, which was counsel for the whole
    congregation.
    
>If my three kids come inside this spring from playing in the mud, I might say
>"You really need to take a bath."  If I were speaking greek, I'd use the plural
>"you" since I'm talking to more than one person.  But that doesn't mean I'm
>telling my kids that all three of them need to get into the tub together.
    
    	Yes, I see your point, but I think it would work only if you added
    that they must be clean in "body, soul, and spirit," and that taking a
    bath was part of the process for each kid.
    
    	In any case, you don't normally address your children as a
    collective unit (but rather as just a bunch of kids, right?), whereas
    the "brothers" of Paul WERE part of a single spiritual "body" that had
    a collective status to uphold.
    
    								-mark.

>  	In any case, you don't normally address your children as a
>    collective unit (but rather as just a bunch of kids, right?),

"You children need a bath."

Not an abnormal statement to make.

    re 62.172 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/mark
    
>>  	In any case, you don't normally address your children as a
>>    collective unit (but rather as just a bunch of kids, right?),
>
>"You children need a bath."
>
>Not an abnormal statement to make.
    
    	Yes ... but "children," being a plural noun, pretty much means the
    same thing as "a bunch of kids".  I was thinking more along the lines
    that we don't generally speak of our children with a term that
    addresses them as a single body, as we might speak of children +
    parents as a "family."  I suppose "children" pretty much has to do (at
    least in English), but even so, it still has a different sense than
    "family."
    
    	Family is singular, and it implies a plurality, but additionally,
    families tend to have characteristics of the collective that transcend
    the characteristics of the individuals.  This discussion
    notwithstanding, the same is true of congregations (in my experience,
    that is).  In spiritual terms, "brothers" doesn't just mean more than
    one "brother," but applies to the body (and often includes "sisters").
    
    
    								-mark.

	Mark (Sornson),

	What "Jehovah Witness" beliefs would you have to give up if you ever
came to the realization that you have a spirit, a soul, and a body?

Thanks,	
Ace

    re 62.174 (LEDS::LOPEZ)/Ace
    
>	Mark (Sornson),
>
>	What "Jehovah Witness" beliefs would you have to give up if you ever
>came to the realization that you have a spirit, a soul, and a body?
    
    	Although I didn't make the point stand out, I *did* say that I
    believed man possesses 'body, soul, and spirit'; just not in the way
    more "mainstream" folks are accustomed to thinking about the terms.
    
    	Humans clearly have bodies.  (Spirit beings evidently have 'bodies,'
    too, though not of flesh and blood, being of a sort that's not clearly
    defined in the Bible.)
    
    	In the Biblical strictest terms, humans ARE souls (in contrast to
    the notion that we possess souls).  As I recall, "soul" literally means
    "breather."  In the Hebrew, when God created Adam by breathing into him
    the "breath of life," Adam "became a living soul" (though many
    translations render this as, he "became a living being").
    
    	Given that "soul" is often used to mean "life", man 'has a soul'
    that can be lost or saved; but it's in the sense that we possess our
    lives, and ultimately, it's really our lives that are lost or saved.
    God can 'take away a soul' by killing a person, and do so permanantly
    by leaving that one dead forever.  God can 'give back' a soul by
    resurrecting a person to life again.  The Bible does NOT say, however,
    that man possesses an 'immortal soul' that lives on after a person
    dies.  In the Christian writings, "immortality" is spoken of as a gift
    that Christians receive when resurrected to heaven (the spirit realm)
    as members of the heavenly "body of Christ".
    
    	Man also has a 'spirit', though this is also true in more ways than
    one.  The "breath of life" that God infused into Adam was, in other
    terms, the 'spirit of life' that animates living tissue.  It's this
    "spirit" that "returns to God" when man dies, meaning that man's
    prospects for future life return to God (unlike the spirit of animals
    which Ecclesiastes says returns to the ground when they die, for
    animals were evidently not created to live forever, and it's not God's
    expressed purpose to resurrect dead animals).
    
    	Man's psychological and emotional makeup are also referred to as
    'spirit' (like, a person can be in "high spirits" or "poor spirits"). I
    believe spirit has other shades of meaning as well, but I'd have to do
    a little more reading before saying more [I mean, speaking off the cuff
    so much sometimes leads me out on a limb].
    
    	All things considered, I don't have to give up ANY Witness beliefs
    in order to realize that humans have 'body, soul, and spirit' -- but
    the real rub is that I know (or I believe that) you hold a different
    view on the significance of the soul and the spirit, so for me to
    believe in them as you do probably WOULD require some major changes in
    belief.
    
    	If you'd like to define what you mean by man having a spirit, a
    soul, and a body, then I won't have to guess.  It would also serve as a
    better basis for comparision (whether pro or con).
    
    								-mark.

>    	Man's psychological and emotional makeup are also referred to as
>    'spirit' (like, a person can be in "high spirits" or "poor spirits"). I
>    believe spirit has other shades of meaning as well, but I'd have to do
>    a little more reading before saying more [I mean, speaking off the cuff
>    so much sometimes leads me out on a limb].

	You're right, you're way out on a limb.  8*)

	A right understanding of the tripartite is not essential for
experiencing regeneration, but it is very beneficial for the believer's
growth in life. 

	This probably would be an excellent time to move this string to a
new topic: i.e. "Tripartite Man"

Regards,
ace 

Former notes 62.141 through 62.176 have been moved to 78.1 through 78.36
to continue a discussion that "evolved" into "the Tripartite Man."
(Can't resist a pun, sorry.)

If you find any in 78.something that really belongs back here, please 
let me know.

Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-Mod.

    Re: .5
    
    Hi Mark,
    
      I am amazed that you found that Genesis passage to include the
      word ETERNAL.
    
      Truly amazing.
    
      There is a chapter in Ezekiel that states that "The soul that 
      sinneth, it shall DIE."
    
      And there is a passage in  Timothy that says (speaking of God)
      "who ONLY hath immortality."
    
      And Christ says "He who has the Son has LIFE."
    
      Your interpretation of Genesis (for what it and it only reads)
      is evidence of something outside of scripture itself for the 
      passage says eternal nowhere in it.  (I think its a preconception.)
    
      I've only read 5 replies, but my essential 'take' on this is that
      it is profitable to comprehend agape as Paul exhorts in Ephesians 3
      and agape is not comprehended to a great degree when it is endorsed
      that God created man to be eternal knowing (by foreknowledge) that
      some would choose to leave Him and the consequences (while living)
      would ultimately be tormenting.
    
      That is simply diametrically opposed to agape.  It is time we (and
      I mean WE - I included) understood agape to a much greater depth
      than we do now.
    
                                                   Tony

Hi Tony,
   
�      And there is a passage in  Timothy that says (speaking of God)
�      "who ONLY hath immortality."

1 Timothy 6:16

In the Youngs literal, "Who only is having immortality"

 - present tense.  1 Corinthians 15:52-54 shows that this is to be bestowed 
upon all mankind at the resurrection and judgement:
 
"... For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and
we will be changed.  For the perishable must clothe itself in the
imperishable and the the mortal with immortality.  When the perishable has
been clothed with the imperishable , and the mortal with immortality, then
the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in
victory." 

This was the reason for the cherubim and the sword guarding the way to the 
tree of life, in Genesis 3:24.  Had man in his sin eaten of the tree of 
life, it would have established him as eternally fallen.  However, God 
protected him from this, to make room for the day of grace.  The tree of 
life is once again available with the very leaves 'for the healing of the 
nations', as recorded in Revelation 22:2 (cf Ezekiel 47:12), and the 
monthly fruits...

�      That is simply diametrically opposed to agape.
 - to our finite fallen minds.  But that does not give us a mandate to 
question what God's Word says.  In particular, we cannot decide eternal 
criteria and principles based upon finite understanding.

�      It is time we (and I mean WE - I included) understood agape to a
�      much greater depth than we do now.

Now *there* I am in full agrteement with you.  And that is the most 
important thing He is teaching us in this life....  To enter more and more 
fully into His agape ..... Like Abraham got a Revelation in Genesis 
18:16-33.

Tony, we're not going to agree on this one...
- but He brings eternity to life in our hearts even down here....

						love
							Andrew

re.39

	Brother Tony,

	At least you're consistent. 
	
	8*)

ace

Tony Barbieri,

.38>      I've only read 5 replies, but my essential 'take' on this is that

Well, had you read a little farther, Ace might have cleared up both our
confusions.  The spirit is eternal and people will either spend eternity
in heaven or hell, despite what you have come to believe about sin,
punishment, and [agape] love.  This is scripturally sound.

Andrew spoke well to some of your points and, yes, as Ace says,
you are consistent.

     Now *this* is coing to get interesting!

     On one hand, we have Mark Soronson, representing the Witnesses, who
     propound a sort of nihlist (a cessation of existance) belief regarding
     the unsaved (leaving that term rather undefined for the moment). 

     On the other hand we have Tony Barbieri representing the 7th Day
     Adventists who hold to a notion of "soul sleep" (everyone goes into a
     sort of suspended animation pending the Second Coming). 

     Finally, we have Mark Metcalfe and Andrew Yuille, who offer a concept
     fo eternal existance for both the saved and unsaved (again, both terms
     being left undefined to simplify the discussion), with the saved living
     in eternal bliss in Heaven with the Father and the unsaved existing in
     eternal torment in Hell (eventually in the Lake of Fire) with Satan. 

     Have I correctly capsulized YOUr (to emphasize plurality) positions?

     I hope so. I'll go back to Read-Only mode now that I've started a
     really good argument (way back at the beginning of this when I
     proffered a definition of the Tripartite Man) and sit back and enjoy
     the show! 8^{)

     Heve fun butting heads! (Am I being too sarcastic, here?) 8^{)

     Brian 

>     Have fun butting heads! (Am I being too sarcastic, here?) 8^{)

Not *too* sarcastic, Brian.  I'm glad you didn't write that
with a comma, and the "ing " missing!

MM

Hi Brian!!!!!

Haven't you a third alternative, so we can choose, say, a limited 
punishment for those who haven't done as badly as they might?  Or are 
you just holding the towel?  and for whom ;-) 

Actually, you only gave the pre-judgement part of Tony's view, which then 
devolves, I believe, more like the above.  

C'mon in, Brian, the water's HOT!!!! ;-)

					love you....
							&rew

      Hi Y'All!,
    
        Mark, my principle point was that your reply assumed something
        _based on interpretation_ and not based on what that text in 
        and of itself said.
    
        The word soul is in the scriptures hundreds of times.  You will
        not once find it described as eternal.  Not once in hundreds of
        times.  And you will find it described as capable of dying.
    
      Hi Brian,
    
        The Adventist view (which is the one I hold) is that "when you're
        dead, you're dead."  And the Psalmist describes death quite well.
        I believe that all saved persons are in the grave and are as "dead
        as doornails" save Moses (resurrected), Enoch and Elijah (transla- 
        ted), and the firstfruits (resurrected).
    
        If you've died, ya gotta be resurrected in order to have life - any
        kind of life at all.  That's what resurrection is.  Lazarus didn't
        go from death to a 'spirit life' in heaven to 'earthly life' on
        earth.  No...the miracle was far greater than that.  He was DEAD
        and Christ brought him to LIFE.
    
        And of course another way to never be dead is to never die at all
        which is what happens if you're translated.
    
        The first death is unlike the second for all will awake from the
        first death.  At the second coming, Christ will raise all sleeping
        (DEAD) saints who when dead did not praise Christ for "Who can praise
        Thee in the grave?".  After the millenium, He will raise the
        unsaved who will be destroyed sometime after and that will be
        final.  They'll be ashes under our feet as Malachi says.
    
      Hi Andy,
    
        Amen, bro that you ache to more clearly understand agape!  I can
        only say that you're present belief is one mega, mega, mega road-
        block to better comprehending agape.  How a comprehension of agape
        is STIFLED by this belief!  (I say this from deep conviction.)
    
        This is the main difference of our walk (I think).  You see road-
        blocks to understanding agape and say "We cannot go any further."
        Where you see roadblocks, I often see ERROR.  And it is error
        believed that prevents us from searching out God further and better
        understanding His ways.  Oh yes, there are things we cannot under-
        stand, but "the path of the just is a shining light that shines
        BRIGHTER AND BRIGHTER."  When we comprehend agape to a certain 
        fulness, we will be filled with all the fulness of God.  Oh, there
        is SO MUCH MORE TO UNDERSTAND!
    
        The last generation of God's believers must shed this false belief
        before Christ comes for only a showering of truth and sealing
        (being settled in the truth) can prepare them for that great day.
    
        Finally, let me say that through the centuries many Godly men and
        women have shed this false belief.  Among them are Martin Luther 
        and Isaac Waats, he of whom perhaps penned the most inspirational
        words whose original tongue was English.  "When I survey the
        wondrous cross..."
    
        I implore you who believe that God ordained any who reject His 
        love to be in eternal consciouss torment rather than destroyed by 
        sin (for sin in the presence of God's love destroys), PLEASE read 
        Ed Fudge's 'The Fire That Consumes.'
    
        Ed Fudge believed in the traditional view and took upon himself 
        the study of what ultimately happens to the unsaved.  His is a
        beautiful, thorough work.  He was confronted eventually with the
        truth of the Word that again and again and again painted destruction
        as that which befalls the unsaved.  It was at first very difficult
        mentally to give up what he had always believed.  But, give up he
        did.  
    
        I have had a couple conversations with him and his wife and they
        both enjoy a sweeter fellowship with Christ partly on the basis 
        of their fairly recently found deeper understanding of the mind
        of Christ toward His creation.  When they reflect back at their
        former belief and the picture of their Lord it painted, they are
        astonished.
    
        PLEASE READ THAT BOOK!
    
     Hi Ace,
    
        Hermano, I've changed so much over the years about things I believe
        and including this in some fundamental respects.
    
        Thank you.
    
                                                     God Bless,
    
                                                     Tony
                  

>        Mark, my principle point was that your reply assumed something
>        _based on interpretation_ and not based on what that text in 
>        and of itself said.

All interpretation is based on the text, including yours.

>        The word soul is in the scriptures hundreds of times.  You will
>        not once find it described as eternal.  Not once in hundreds of
>        times.  And you will find it described as capable of dying.

Is the same true of man's spirit?  Something in man is eternal.  If I
have misunderstood the differences between soul and spirit, then I
apologize ofr ignorance.  However, this does not negate the eternality
of a person.  

Lazarus merely had his spirit reunited with his body (and soul).
(Differing interpretations.)

>        The first death is unlike the second for all will awake from the
>        first death.  

Yes, the dead shall be raised for judgment. (agreeing interpretation)
Destruction will be final and everlasting (eternal). (differing interpretation)

>        This is the main difference of our walk (I think).  You see road-
>        blocks to understanding agape and say "We cannot go any further."
>        Where you see roadblocks, I often see ERROR. 

Tony, YOU see the roadblocks to OUR understanding of agape.  And I see 
error in your vision because WE don't see roadblocks in understanding
agape.  Wether roadblocks are a reality or not, there is a difference, 
you know.

Mark

�      Hi Andy,

Hi again, Tony!!!  Old ground, hey??? ;-)
    
�        Amen, bro that you ache to more clearly understand agape!  

That, we *can* agree on ;-)

I know you speak from a firmly held conviction, but my perception of God's 
agap� is something which is unlimited.  Even by finite man's understanding.

Your position is that 'punishment is unpleasant, so it *can't* go on 
indefinitely*'

Mine is that I have to start with the clear Word of God, and where I don't 
understand it, trust in His unlimited and eternal knowledge glimpsed 
through His Word.  Rather than question what He has said, I ask for a 
better knowledge of Him.  Not just 'better knowledge about Him', but a
better knowledge of Himself.  And I find that the most astounding 
revelations He gives are when He takes a simple practical rule, and throws 
it into a different perspective by shining the light of eternity upon it.
It makes me say with Job, "Surely, I spoke of things I did not understand, 
things too wonderful for me to know..." Job 42:3  In order to prepare for 
heaven, I have to become like God, not Him like me!!!!

God has created eternity within us, for us to rise to the greatest heights
with Him (Ephesians 2:6).  To be like Him, not only in character and
appearance (1 John 3:2), but in that eternality. 

Where He has given eternality, the choice to reject Him for eternity is as 
ultimate and everlasting as the choice to follow Him for eternity.  The 
greater power an implement has, the more it can be used for both good - and 
evil.  The choice of some to spend eternity in Godless darkness - where we 
all deserve to be - is an eternal reminder of His grace and love in 
providing salvation.

"...I was shown mercy sp that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus 
might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would 
believe on Him and receive eternal life.  Now to the King, eternal, 
immortal invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever."
						1 Timothy 1:16-17

This does not conceal God's agap�; it reveals it, but so mysteriously that 
many take a humanly 'easier' way out...  and miss the treasure.

Tony, we've tussled this one so many times before, we're not going to 
persuade each other ;-).  We're not the ones with the answers; He is!
Ready to be revealed in the last time....


				God bless
						Andrew

      Hi Whoever,
    
        Let me just say Andy that my understanding came not from wresting
        the Word but through the Word itself.  We both know this is not
        an easy study.
    
        For example, you raised a verse which speaks of having eternality,
        but there is the verse in Revelation which looks forward to the
        time when ALL CREATURES worship the Lord.  There is the verse
        speaking of 'forever and ever' for Satan and then there is the
        Ezekiel verse saying "and NEVER shalt thou be anymore."  As well
        as the Septuagint's revelation of a more expanded meaning of 
        aion/aionios in that they are used in texts which speak of 
        finite time duration.  Then there is the verse which speaks of
        Sodom as a type of the last day for Sodom suffered 'eternal' (aion)
        fire.  Again giving us a bigger picture of what aion/aionios
        means.
    
        So this is not an easy study.
    
        And of course we have several texts which speak of life as in
        Christ only.
    
        So around and around and around we go and I can only repeat my
        conviction that the last generation will shed this false belief
        as the light shines brighter and brighter.  They will know Him
        in a way that anyone who has this belief in God cannot.
    
        They will come to know that agape is inconsistent with a belief
        which states that God created man with intrinsic immortality all
        the while in foreknowledge knowing that some would reject Him and
        thus suffer eternal consciouss torment.
    
        This is not the God I serve.  Its not the God you serve either!
        ;-)
    
        And I repeat...the deeper my study has been (such as my personal
        Septuagint study which bore out what I knew it would about the
        meaning of aion/aionios) the more it has shed light on God's
        character and revealed that sin in the presence of God's love
        CONSUMES.
       
      Hi Mark,
    
        Getting back to the Genesis passage.  Yes, I included interpreta-
        tion, but again the point is missed.  You essentially quoted that
        text _with an insertion of the word 'eternal'_.  That was the
        source of my complaint.  I did not insert.  That text in and of
        itself simply is not saying the soul is eternal.
    
        In fact, the creation account states that man _became_ a living 
        soul.  This is the total man.  If the soul can die as Ezekiel
        states...
    
                                                     Tony

Hi Tony,

I'm not sure why you raised wrestling.  It goes deeper than that.

And you have to take the whole verse in context, not a snippit - 
Ezekiel 28:19 refers to the termination of the devil's reign of terror:

 "All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou 
  shalt be a terror, and never thou any more"

btw - you know the Septuagint came out of Alexandria, through Origen?  
Careful of your sources!

No time for more - its late here....

						God bless 
							Andrew

Hello All,

This has been illuminating to me as it has been discussing topics and
issues that I am not well versed in.  I want to thank all of you for
taking the time and for the level and tone of discussion.

Now a question, so that I can learn even more.  Is it important to
determine the fate of the unsaved?  Whichever answer, I will appreciate
reasons, etc.  This is not a challenge.  I want to learn.

Lew

A short answer (for lack of time), Lew, is yes.  The short reasons are thus:

1) If [eternal] hell is a reality, we've done people no favors by telling
   them that an unrepentant life is merely erased.  Some would prefer this
   to what they have been led to believe is "hell on earth."
   If hell is real, then nothing bad we've experienced here is of
   any real consequence, for what is 70 years (or 120 years!) in the
   face of eternity?

2) If the spirit is eternal (in both cases of judgment), then it is 
   important for one to know into which eternity he is headed.  People
   are in grave peril.

Mark
(sorry for the short answers)

Hi Lew,

1 Corinthians 15:14 ... 19

 "....if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is 
  your faith. More than that, we are found to be false witnesses about God...
  ....... if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still 
  in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.  
  If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than 
  all men."

Awareness of the reality we anticipate is an essential factor in Biblical
hope, which is not mere optimism, but anticipation.  It's not as great a
feature as love, but it still rates pretty important (as in 1 Corinthians
13:13). 
						love
							Andrew

or Rew .... ;-)

RE.  .51, .52

Let me be more specific.  Mark's first answer comes closest to answering.
The life awaiting us is of clear importance, if in nothing else but our
attempt to store treasures in heaven, where no thief can take them.  The
consequences of unbelief are surely to be feared.  However, in light of
the fact that a Christian life is always better here and now as well as
later, do we need the exact nature of a condemned afterlife?  I can see,
Mark, that there are the cases you describe, but it also seems to me that
those with such a life would be unlikely to listen to any description.

I am thinking particularly about the parable of the prodigal son, and about
the fact that we seem to have a hard time letting the world know that we
are happy in the older brother's position.  They see, and we portray that
we are denying ourselves to achieve a certain afterlife.

Actually, I have to be honest and say that I have kind of avoided the topic
because it is hard.

Lew

P.S. Rew, You're in Sidney aren't you?  Do you ever travel to Melbourne?

    I hope my reply doesn't rathole anything here but .53 made me  think of
    something.
    
    Right after Caroline's death I read a book called "Within Heaven's
    Gates" by a woman, last name Springer.  She had a vision of heaven she
    believes and one of the key messages she has for the reader is that
    heaven is an extension of our earthly lives.  There is work there,
    plants, trees, mansions, fellowship, music, teaching and of course
    Jesus and God, rivers (you get in them and you can breath and everything,
    they have a healing/rejuvenating effect), sleep even.   It is a
    fascinating book and it provided comfort to us when we dearly needed
    it.  I'm ready to read it again - I would highly recommend it to
    anyone.
    
    jeff 

      Hi,
    
        I devoted what little time I had to Topic #80, but here's a
        couple quickies.
    
        Andy, what was the approximate time of the life of Origen?
        Also, are you suggesting that in the Septuagint, the words
        aion/aionios were put in when they should not have been???
        For example, when it is said that Jonah was in the belly of a
        fish _forever_ (as the KJV renders it) and the LXX translators
        rendered the Hebrew as aion, you are saying they are in error???
    
        Can you substantiate?  I find this hard to believe for the use of
        aion/aionios is always consistent so far as I can see.  Just take
        out the KJV (obviously written after LXX), look up 'for ever' in
        the OT and you will 99% of the time find that the LXX Greek is
        aion/aionios.
    
        Mark, I honestly believe that when you water down what happens 
        to the unsaved (should finite consciouss torment be applied)
        shame is brought to the cross of Christ.
    
        I would NEVER want to die that death and I would NEVER want to 
        say that His death was not significant and is equated to merely
        'being erased.'
    
        Please reconsider.  To die that death would be the most horrible
        thing this universe knows.
    
        And that's what the unsaved will die, the equivalent to Christ's
        being weighed down with sin and what it did to _Him_.
    
                                                    Tony

>        I would NEVER want to die that death and I would NEVER want to 
>        say that His death was not significant and is equated to merely
>        'being erased.'
>    
>        Please reconsider.  To die that death would be the most horrible
>        thing this universe knows.
 
We should probably move this discussion, Tony, but *why* do you 
think that being unmade is "the most horrible thing this universe knows"?

Being unmade, we will have no consciousness to feel horror.

And I am confused because you felt my concept of hell was too horrible for
God to pass such a judgment.  So I don't understand you.

Mark

      Mark,
    
        I am referring to the process of being 'unmade.'  That going
        from life to death.  It will involve experiencing a despair 
        that will be overwhelming to the unsaved.
    
        When one speaks of eternal consciouss torment, one speaks of
        something that is 100% fictitious and that noone will ever 
        know.  It is not reality.  I believe it is more horrible than
        what Christ endured and the unsaved will endure.
    
        But, the reason _why_ is because I don't even believe it exists
        except in the minds of some.
    
        As to what happens to the unsaved, it is 100% consistent with
        agape.  (I haven't the time to explain now, but will if you
        would like.)
    
        I repeat.  The traditional view is inconsistent with agape.  Sin 
        in the presence of agape CONSUMES.  Lamentations says it is only 
        by God's mercy that we are not consumed.  (When you're consumed, 
        you're not around!  ;-)  )
    
        As Malachi says, the unsaved will be ashes under our feet. 
        Apparently, the place of burning is earth (just as it was with 
        Sodom) and we will inhabit that selfsame place.  They do not
        get teleported somewhere else.
    
        Ya know Mark, a light bulb went off when you acknowledged that
        you may have been wrong about the soul as to whether or not it
        is eternal.
    
        Now think about that.  You're in your 30's (or thereabouts!).
        And noone has ever spoken to you about this?????
    
        How can this be??  Has noone read Ezekiel???
    
        If something like this could have been believed for so long
        (CENTURIES in fact), where's the credibility in this whole idea 
        that man is necessarily immortal when if one polled someone of
        the idea of the immortality of the _soul_, none would say "Wait
        a minute, haven't you read Ezekiel??!"?  Noone in this Conference 
        (save myself) even seemed aware of the plain statement of scripture 
        regarding the soul.
    
        What does that mean?
    
        It means that there is entrenchment, but it is not by the Word
        of God; it is by the traditions of men.
    
                                                     Tony

�        For example, when it is said that Jonah was in the belly of a
�        fish _forever_ (as the KJV renders it) 

You'll have to give me a reference there, Tony.  I don't believe that mine 
does! - but i may have missed it.  I did with Origen - he's 'way after, 
185-254 A.D., a notable advocate of allegorical interpretation of 
Scripture, but was quite influential.

							Andrew

================================================================================
Note 78.57  STRATA::BARBIERI 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        I am referring to the process of being 'unmade.'  That going
>        from life to death.  It will involve experiencing a despair 
>        that will be overwhelming to the unsaved.

It still makes no sense.  For in the end, there will be no despair
because there will be nothing when one is "unmade."

>        When one speaks of eternal consciouss torment, one speaks of
>        something that is 100% fictitious and that noone will ever 
>        know.  It is not reality.  I believe it is more horrible than
>        what Christ endured and the unsaved will endure.

I believe you are 100% mistaken.  Time to restart the note on Hell?

>        Ya know Mark, a light bulb went off when you acknowledged that
>        you may have been wrong about the soul as to whether or not it
>        is eternal.
>    
>        Now think about that.  You're in your 30's (or thereabouts!).
>        And noone has ever spoken to you about this?????

That I confused soul and spirit has little to do with what Scripture clearly
says about Hell.  Why do the fires of hell never go out?  Why is there smoke
conitually going up?

>        It means that there is entrenchment, but it is not by the Word
>        of God; it is by the traditions of men.

So you say.  Wesley says the quadrilateral means for determining truth is the
Word of God, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.  (See 82.7) You are clearly one
for dispensing with Tradition, and it seems *TO ME* that you have dispensed
with Reason as it relates to the Scriptures abouty Hell.

If we go a note or two further, we'll classify this rathole as a bona fide
tangent on the topic of Hell and reopen it with all of its fury.

Mark
    

    re: <<< Note 78.59 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

     Mark,

     > Time to restart the note on Hell?


     Please forgive me, but the temptation was insurmountable... 


     Go To Hell! The ride *alone* should be worth the price of admission!

     Feeling a little guilty (but only a little!).....

     8^{)

     Brian