General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 41024 times

Lucian

  • ***
  • 2587 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2017, 04:52:04 pm »
I hate to be like Lucian, but I don't see how this is relevant at all.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

1

AnimatedDirt

  • ****
  • 7821 Posts
  • Alwys a sinner, Alwys penitent, Alwys right w/ God
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2017, 04:59:13 pm »
I hate to be like Lucian, but I don't see how this is relevant at all. Moreover, Thompson doesn't even have a Ph.D. in the relevant area of expertise, so you might as well have quoted a random person on the street.

1.  So it's not unfounded, but you "don't see".
2.  I didn't choose to put "Ph.D." to impress you.  That's the page.
3.  Your "not seeing" isn't a refutation of what was said.  All you've done is disagree.  No evidence for reason to disagree.

Quote
No.  I was specifically dealing with the breath of life, not the creature or person...yet.  I was arguing that both creature and the Adam received the same breath of life...I haven't yet used the living soul/nephesh argument which is the  sum of "mud" and breath of life, or niš·maṯ ḥay·yîm

If I wasn't clear on that, I do apologize and hope this clarifies that.  I'm sure I am not always as clear as I think I am.  <smile>  Add to this that it's easy to confuse ḥay·yîm with ḥay·yāh.  But both creature and man are living, so that isn't so far off either.

None of this makes sense. What were you trying to say when you wrote this:

The difference is only that for the Adam, God did the forming personally and everything else, God said the land would produce.

But the bible translators, having a bias, translated the same word in from Hebrew, ḥay·yāh in Genesis 1:27 as living creatures and living soul in Genesis 2:7

That the only difference between God creating Man and beast was that God formed man where as God had the earth and sea form the beasts by His Word and not actual hands-on as with Man.

That because the translators didn't want to see that both man and beast are of the same ingredients ( Dirt/earth + Breath of life = a living being )  they translated one as a living creature and man as a living being/soul.  Both have the same ingredients and are of the same.  The real difference is their LIKENESS and attn. to detail, not their ingredients.  The ingredients are equal.

Quote from: Ecclesiastes 3:19-21  NASB
I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.”

For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.

All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.

Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?

Apparently you do not understand how illustrations work. I was showing that the same word can have different meanings. Thus, the fact that the same word is used does not mean that it means the same thing in different texts. This is one of the most basic point in linguistics and word studies, so it's not controversial at all. Thus, simply pointing out that the word is the same does not prove the point you want to prove at all. Simple as that.

Heh.  I didn't want you to produce words that have differing meanings.  That is completely agreed upon.  What I want you to produce is a text that uses the same word, say "Bank", where "Bank" is used as a financial institution and without any change in subject matter the next time "bank" is used in the same context it is a river bank.

Because both instances ( creation of man and creation of beasts ) use the same breath of life and result in a living being.  The argument is that one holds that man has a soul and beasts don't have a soul.

Where do you find the same type of thing happening in English?

People are amusing.

2

Language-Gamer

  • ****
  • 7759 Posts
  • I sneezed on the beet and Dwight got mad.
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2017, 05:04:23 pm »
1.  So it's not unfounded, but you "don't see".
2.  I didn't choose to put "Ph.D." to impress you.  That's the page.
3.  Your "not seeing" isn't a refutation of what was said.  All you've done is disagree.  No evidence for reason to disagree.

Okay, well if you ever decide to support your assertion that it is translator bias, let me know.

Quote
Quote
No.  I was specifically dealing with the breath of life, not the creature or person...yet.  I was arguing that both creature and the Adam received the same breath of life...I haven't yet used the living soul/nephesh argument which is the  sum of "mud" and breath of life, or niš·maṯ ḥay·yîm

If I wasn't clear on that, I do apologize and hope this clarifies that.  I'm sure I am not always as clear as I think I am.  <smile>  Add to this that it's easy to confuse ḥay·yîm with ḥay·yāh.  But both creature and man are living, so that isn't so far off either.

None of this makes sense. What were you trying to say when you wrote this:

The difference is only that for the Adam, God did the forming personally and everything else, God said the land would produce.

But the bible translators, having a bias, translated the same word in from Hebrew, ḥay·yāh in Genesis 1:27 as living creatures and living soul in Genesis 2:7

That the only difference between God creating Man and beast was that God formed man where as God had the earth and sea form the beasts by His Word and not actual hands-on as with Man.

That because the translators didn't want to see that both man and beast are of the same ingredients ( Dirt/earth + Breath of life = a living being )  they translated one as a living creature and man as a living being/soul.  Both have the same ingredients and are of the same.  The real difference is their LIKENESS and attn. to detail, not their ingredients.  The ingredients are equal.

Okay, so you did refer to the wrong word by choosing hayah even though the translation was highlighted in your link. Glad we agree you didn't know what you were talking about on that matter.

Quote
Apparently you do not understand how illustrations work. I was showing that the same word can have different meanings. Thus, the fact that the same word is used does not mean that it means the same thing in different texts. This is one of the most basic point in linguistics and word studies, so it's not controversial at all. Thus, simply pointing out that the word is the same does not prove the point you want to prove at all. Simple as that.

Heh.  I didn't want you to produce words that have differing meanings.  That is completely agreed upon.  What I want you to produce is a text that uses the same word, say "Bank", where "Bank" is used as a financial institution and without any change in subject matter the next time "bank" is used in the same context it is a river bank.

Because both instances ( creation of man and creation of beasts ) use the same breath of life and result in a living being.  The argument is that one holds that man has a soul and beasts don't have a soul.

Where do you find the same type of thing happening in English?

This isn't how word studies are done.
I told her all about how we been livin' a lie
And that they love to see us all go to prison or die
Like, "Baby, look at how they show us on the TV screen"
But all she ever want me to do is unzip her jeans

3

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2017, 05:11:00 pm »
AD,

'Soul' can refer to the form of human beings, or it can refer to the form and the matter of human beings. This may explain why there is confusion between whether we are souls or whether we have souls.

If by 'soul' we mean the form and matter of human beings, then we are souls.
If by 'soul' we mean the form of human beings, then we have souls.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

4

Nunovalente

  • ***
  • 3859 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2017, 07:06:08 pm »

So I'm wondering where this belief comes from that we have a soul...as in something that separates from the body at death?  I believe the breath of life departs from our bodies at death, but that breath is simply the animating factor that God breathed into the Adam to live.

Where does the bible teach the soul being a separate entity that exists as the person in some ethereal manner?


Wider context.

Genesis clearly differenciates between the living creatures God created in the sea and on land, and then making man. "Let us make man in our image..."

It does not say let us make creatures in our image, one of which is man.

It also makes specific reference of God breathing life into man. It makes no such statement relating to animals. They may be  living creatures, but they are not made in the image of God.

God is spirit. We recognise as humans, we have a spiritual awareness that other creatures do not have. We are not simply material beings. We are distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom, as the narrative outlines. Do animals operate beyond the natural? Do they have an appreciation of art and music? Do they sense motive, intent? To they comprehend fear or joy? Can they love and hate?

The image of God is not material, so to be created in the image of God is of a form God has, the spirit.

When did he get his soul? Is it not rather when did he become a soul? We are a living soul, confined to a material body. Adam become such a living soul when God breathed the spirit of life into his body.
Faith is being confident in things hoped for, the conviction of facts not yet seen. Hebrews 11.
Everyone exercises faith in something. What is your faith in?

5

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2017, 08:38:03 pm »
English is a poor language for doing philosophy. Greek language FTW!

What are human beings and when are they formed? Human beings are matter/form composites. Being made from 'dirt' means being made from matter, because dirt is matter. The 'breath of life' is the animating principle in every living human being. The breath of life, or the animating principle, is also referred to as a soul. The breath of life (the soul) of human beings is different than the breath of life (the soul) of other beings, because the human soul is immaterial whereas animal souls and plant souls are material. Because of this, human souls cannot evolve from animal souls, instead they have to be formed by God at conception.

Bruce,

God can raise people out of stones, see Matthew 3:9. This is significant to Christians, because it shows that God does not depend on evolution to form human beings. 'Dirt' is matter, so 'animated dirt' basically means animated matter. Animated matter is matter with the breath of life, i.e. a living soul.

Breath is matter, too. It's just a gas, so it doesn't seem substantial.

So, I could see where this idea that spirit came into matter and gave it its form. After all, when a person or other animal dies and ceases to breath then it begins to decompose. So, I suppose they thought that when the spirit was lost then the matter no longer had  form and so would decompose. I mean they had no idea of how it was being digested by bacteria.

Of course, I don't know for sure this was the thought process behind the beliefs, but it would make sense to think it very well may have been. The thing is that we know much more about how the natural world works, and we no longer think of form as something that has to be added to matter to give it substance any more than we think of the sentience of a person being in their breath/spirit. Well some modern people have differentiated between breath and "spirit" with the latter being something wholly immaterial and not related to our physical breath, and they still believe that somehow our sentience belongs to the spirit. I'm sorry to say this, as I'd prefer that I had an immortal soul, I think, maybe not if human beings are never going to progress beyond savagery, but it sure looks like mind is a function of the activity of the physical brain. I know it's hard to imagine how that can be, but that is what appears to be the case.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

6

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2017, 03:20:34 am »
Bruce,

Breath isn't gas, otherwise you could give gas to your car and it would come to life. 'Breath' is the animating principle in living beings. This principle is related to gas, but is not identical to it. Leviticus 17:1 mentions that the life of a body is in the blood. Blood animates the body. If blood stops flowing, the body dies (the body becomes inanimate).
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

7

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 5933 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2017, 07:47:49 am »
AD,

I'm not saying the soul is separate from the body and the breath of life. At least, not in the Cartesian sense of 'separation'. The human soul, which is the form of the human body, is not separate from the human body. You are neither a soul (form) only nor a body (matter) only. What you are is a compound of both soul (form) and body (matter).

This compound is 'separated' at death, but not in the Cartesian sense.

It sounds to me like you're saying two different things or some sort of contradiction, but it could be my ignorance.  Help me understand you.

Biblical:  Dirt + Breath of Life = A living soul / being / a person.

A person as a whole is a soul.

Not Biblical:  Dirt + Soul = Person / a being

The belief that a person has a soul, sometimes referred to as an immortal soul.  Something that survives at death that carries "the person" to God.

Now, it does sound like you agree to some degree, but then you throw me off by saying, "What you are is a compound of both soul (form) and body (matter)."

Where can I find this teaching?

Anyway, help me understand your POV here.


"The chief concern of the Orthodox Church is the healing of the human soul. The Church has always considered the soul as the part of the human being that needs healing because She has seen from Hebrew tradition, from Christ Himself, and from the Apostles that in the region of the physical heart there functions something that the Fathers called the nous. In other words, the Fathers took the traditional term nous, which means both intellect (dianoia) and speech or reason (logos), and gave it a different meaning. They used nous to refer to this noetic energy that functions in the heart of every spiritually healthy person. We do not know when this change in meaning took place, because we know that some Fathers used the same word nous to refer to reason as well as to this noetic energy that descends and functions in the region of the heart.

So from this perspective, noetic activity is an activity essential to the soul. It functions in the brain as the reason; it simultaneously functions in the heart as the nous. In other words, the same organ, the nous, prays ceaselessly in the heart and simultaneously thinks about mathematical problems, for example, or anything else in the brain.

We should point out that there is a difference in terminology between St. Paul and the Fathers. What St. Paul calls the nous is the same as what the Fathers call dianoia. When the Apostle Paul says, "I will pray with the spirit,"[1 Corinthians 14:5.] he means what the Fathers mean when they say, "I will pray with the nous." And when he says, "I will pray with the nous," he means "I will pray with the intellect (dianoia)." When the Fathers use the word nous, the Apostle Paul uses the word "spirit." When he says "I will pray with the nous, I will pray with the spirit" or when he says "I will chant with the nous, I will chant with the spirit," and when he says "the Spirit of God bears witness to our spirit,"[Romans 8:16] he uses the word "spirit" to mean what the Fathers refer to as the nous. And by the word nous, he means the intellect or reason.
"


Since Christianity didn't begin with us, but many capable men wrote moved by the Spirit to reveal Truth as promised by Christ, so then we can go back and read what these people said. We don't have to re-discover Christianity, nor are we covering verses and passages that they didn't read and take into account as well.

The Church's teaching on the soul isn't only derived from the Bible alone and from Genesis alone. It takes into account the entire Bible + Tradition(inspired teachings of Church Fathers).


The Bible speaks of life being in the blood. It also speaks about "the heart,(as a metaphore of something spiritual - the soul, most likely)" which is literally that, which gets blood going. It also first speaks of the breath of life in Genesis.

However, if we read Genesis as literally as you do, then "the heart" as metaphore should be in contradiction. And also Leviticus' "life being in the blood" also as contradiction, because before the "breath of life," Adam did have his body, which contained blood(=life).


So, you should make the rightful distinctions. At some point the Bible speaks of "breath of life" into Adam, thus he became living soul, but then the Bible speaks of "life is in the blood," which Adam had before the breath of life(if we assume his body was similar to ours, which I think we may). Then, Christ says "blessed are the pure in heart..." which, I hope you'd agree, doesn't refer to the physical heart.


With all this in mind, Church Fathers devised an understanding of the soul as the one provided in the quote, with much more detail, of course. Church Fathers took all the passages/verses that speak on the "energy" that is at work in the human being, or at least passages/verses that hint at such phenomenon, and gave it the name "soul/nous(/sometimes even spirit)." For Christ says this phenomenon, which they called soul, has to be pure; that evil comes from the heart(=the phenomenon in question); the Bible speaks of some part in us being "stained with sin," which is understood as the soul(because, clearly, there's no physical propert "sin"with which our body is infected - it must be a spiritual phenomenon, which the Church Fathers called 'soul') and so on.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 07:52:08 am by kravarnik »
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

8

AnimatedDirt

  • ****
  • 7821 Posts
  • Alwys a sinner, Alwys penitent, Alwys right w/ God
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2017, 08:38:22 am »
When did he get his soul? Is it not rather when did he become a soul? We are a living soul, confined to a material body. Adam become such a living soul when God breathed the spirit of life into his body.

I would agree.
People are amusing.

9

AnimatedDirt

  • ****
  • 7821 Posts
  • Alwys a sinner, Alwys penitent, Alwys right w/ God
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2017, 08:58:49 am »
"The chief concern of the Orthodox Church is the healing of the human soul. The Church has always considered the soul as the part of the human being that needs healing because She has seen from Hebrew tradition, from Christ Himself, and from the Apostles that in the region of the physical heart there functions something that the Fathers called the nous. In other words, the Fathers took the traditional term nous, which means both intellect (dianoia) and speech or reason (logos), and gave it a different meaning. They used nous to refer to this noetic energy that functions in the heart of every spiritually healthy person. We do not know when this change in meaning took place, because we know that some Fathers used the same word nous to refer to reason as well as to this noetic energy that descends and functions in the region of the heart.

So from this perspective, noetic activity is an activity essential to the soul. It functions in the brain as the reason; it simultaneously functions in the heart as the nous. In other words, the same organ, the nous, prays ceaselessly in the heart and simultaneously thinks about mathematical problems, for example, or anything else in the brain.

We should point out that there is a difference in terminology between St. Paul and the Fathers. What St. Paul calls the nous is the same as what the Fathers call dianoia. When the Apostle Paul says, "I will pray with the spirit,"[1 Corinthians 14:5.] he means what the Fathers mean when they say, "I will pray with the nous." And when he says, "I will pray with the nous," he means "I will pray with the intellect (dianoia)." When the Fathers use the word nous, the Apostle Paul uses the word "spirit." When he says "I will pray with the nous, I will pray with the spirit" or when he says "I will chant with the nous, I will chant with the spirit," and when he says "the Spirit of God bears witness to our spirit,"[Romans 8:16] he uses the word "spirit" to mean what the Fathers refer to as the nous. And by the word nous, he means the intellect or reason.
"


Since Christianity didn't begin with us, but many capable men wrote moved by the Spirit to reveal Truth as promised by Christ, so then we can go back and read what these people said. We don't have to re-discover Christianity, nor are we covering verses and passages that they didn't read and take into account as well.

The Church's teaching on the soul isn't only derived from the Bible alone and from Genesis alone. It takes into account the entire Bible + Tradition(inspired teachings of Church Fathers).


The Bible speaks of life being in the blood. It also speaks about "the heart,(as a metaphore of something spiritual - the soul, most likely)" which is literally that, which gets blood going. It also first speaks of the breath of life in Genesis.

However, if we read Genesis as literally as you do, then "the heart" as metaphore should be in contradiction. And also Leviticus' "life being in the blood" also as contradiction, because before the "breath of life," Adam did have his body, which contained blood(=life).


So, you should make the rightful distinctions. At some point the Bible speaks of "breath of life" into Adam, thus he became living soul, but then the Bible speaks of "life is in the blood," which Adam had before the breath of life(if we assume his body was similar to ours, which I think we may). Then, Christ says "blessed are the pure in heart..." which, I hope you'd agree, doesn't refer to the physical heart.


With all this in mind, Church Fathers devised an understanding of the soul as the one provided in the quote, with much more detail, of course. Church Fathers took all the passages/verses that speak on the "energy" that is at work in the human being, or at least passages/verses that hint at such phenomenon, and gave it the name "soul/nous(/sometimes even spirit)." For Christ says this phenomenon, which they called soul, has to be pure; that evil comes from the heart(=the phenomenon in question); the Bible speaks of some part in us being "stained with sin," which is understood as the soul(because, clearly, there's no physical propert "sin"with which our body is infected - it must be a spiritual phenomenon, which the Church Fathers called 'soul') and so on.

I don't disagree with the metaphor of the heart or that the life is in the blood...but we aren't discussing what we do agree on...that "the soul" is used as a metaphor for what makes me, me and what makes you, you.  This soul is the whole person.  It isn't a separate entity that if "removed" and put into a cat, that cat would become you or if put into another body, will become you or me.  If it were that the essence of a person is in the "soul" as is believed to have been given by God, then what is the point of raising the body?  Why did Christ tell His disciples that Lazarus was dead?  If his soul was still living, Lazarus was not dead.

Christ has some interesting words about "tradition". ( Matt. 15, Luke 6 ).



People are amusing.

10

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 5933 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2017, 10:25:04 am »
I don't disagree with the metaphor of the heart or that the life is in the blood...but we aren't discussing what we do agree on...that "the soul" is used as a metaphor for what makes me, me and what makes you, you.  This soul is the whole person.  It isn't a separate entity that if "removed" and put into a cat, that cat would become you or if put into another body, will become you or me.  If it were that the essence of a person is in the "soul" as is believed to have been given by God, then what is the point of raising the body?  Why did Christ tell His disciples that Lazarus was dead?  If his soul was still living, Lazarus was not dead.

Christ has some interesting words about "tradition". ( Matt. 15, Luke 6 ).

I'm not in agreement at all. Again - the whole human being, according to the Bible, is BODY and the thing we named soul.

That's clearly indicated by "don't fear those, who can kill the body, but the One who... " ; the promise of bodily resurrection, while those awaiting the  resurrection are "the living" ; "blessed are the ones pure in heart" ; "evil comes from the human heart" ; "God searches the inside and the heart(and I sure hope you don't think He is searching your guts literally and physically)" ; bodily dead people worshipping God in front of His Throne ; we being stained with sin, while there's no physical body propert "sin"(so the Bible must be referring to some other essential, than our flesh) ; "truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in paradise(to a thief who is about to die bodily) and so on things.


Now, Hebrew tradition and Church Fathers named the referred thing "soul." You may disagree with the word, but there's undoubtedly some phenomenon different than our body, which is still "us," but is distinct from the body.


In the creation account in Gensis there's no mention of "human will." But it is definitely attested as a thing existing and essential to us in the entire Bible, just like "the soul" is, or whatever name you will give to the thing referred by "the heart" ; "the inside" ; "the spirit" and others mentioned.


That thing the Church Fathers named soul. It is the source of one's personal passions and will. That, which is in control of the flesh, and the means by which our spiritual essence interacts with the physical, through the vessel of the flesh. That's what the Church Fathers called soul.



EDIT: And Paul also had to say about Christian tradition the following:

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15


I definitely trust the inspired Saint Paul, personally entrusted by God to guide His Church. And his word on tradition - which is STAND FIRM IN IT. So, as you see, correct teachings MAY BE and ARE delivered by mouth, and aren't only contained in cannonical Scripture.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 10:31:30 am by kravarnik »
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

11

SPF

  • ***
  • 1963 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2017, 10:35:25 am »
Matthew 10:28  "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 

Act 7:59  They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" 

1Corinthians 5:5  I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 

1Corinthians  7:34  and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit;

There are dozens more Scripture that distinguish the body from the soul/spirit.  I would recommend a basic systematic theology book like Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology for you to start with.



"It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

12

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 5933 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2017, 10:38:51 am »
Some additional clarifications as to what the traditional Church understands as the soul:


"Man is a psychosomatic being, that is, he consists of soul and body. The soul is not the whole man but just the soul of man; the body is not the whole man but just the body of man. Therefore, man is both, consisting of soul and body.

The spiritual illness of the soul has repercussions to the body, as we can see in the case of Adam’s sin. Corruption and mortality were consequences of man’s sin and of the loss of the Grace of God. Vice versa, the coming of the Grace of God to man’s heart transforms the body, too. We see this in Christ’s Transfiguration, when his face shone like the sun. We see it in Moses whose face was shining, as well as in Archdeacon Stephen, whose face looked like an angel’s face.

Orthodox life aims at the deification of the entire man, soul and body. For this reason, Hesychasm, neptic [1] theology aims at the simultaneous progression of soul and body to deification. Noetic prayer [2] and ascetic work cannot be interpreted in an Orthodox way, if not viewed through the deification of the human body.

According to the Holy Fathers, man is formed in the image of God. This means that he does not orient his life to himself, but to God. The Word of God is the image of the Father, and man is the image of the Word. Thus, man is an image-being, an image of an image.

Just as God is Triune, man’s soul is triune, that is, it has nous [3], intelligence, and spirit. The nous is the nucleus of man’s existence, intelligence expresses and formulates the experiences of the nous, and the spirit is man’s noetic love; with the Spirit’s power and energy man is driven toward God.

The soul is single and has many faculties and energies. The Fathers, besides the tripartite division of the soul we mentioned, also accepted a division established by the philosophers: that is, of intelligent, appetitive, and incensive. The first division refers to the ontology of the soul and its pictorial representation, the second one to the passions. Some passions are tied to the intelligent part (pride, atheism, heresy), others to the appetitive part (self-indulgence, avarice) and others to the incensive (wrath, anger, rancour, and so on). Saint Gregory Palamas teaches that ambition is an offspring of the intelligent part of the soul, love of possessions and avarice an offspring of the appetitive part, and gluttony an offspring of the incensive part. The incensive and the appetitive compose the so-called passible part of the soul.
"
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

13

Bill McEnaney

  • ***
  • 2986 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #28 on: September 27, 2017, 11:00:58 am »
Some additional clarifications as to what the traditional Church understands as the soul:


"Man is a psychosomatic being, that is, he consists of soul and body. The soul is not the whole man but just the soul of man; the body is not the whole man but just the body of man. Therefore, man is both, consisting of soul and body.

The spiritual illness of the soul has repercussions to the body, as we can see in the case of Adam’s sin. Corruption and mortality were consequences of man’s sin and of the loss of the Grace of God. Vice versa, the coming of the Grace of God to man’s heart transforms the body, too. We see this in Christ’s Transfiguration, when his face shone like the sun. We see it in Moses whose face was shining, as well as in Archdeacon Stephen, whose face looked like an angel’s face.

Orthodox life aims at the deification of the entire man, soul and body. For this reason, Hesychasm, neptic [1] theology aims at the simultaneous progression of soul and body to deification. Noetic prayer [2] and ascetic work cannot be interpreted in an Orthodox way, if not viewed through the deification of the human body.

According to the Holy Fathers, man is formed in the image of God. This means that he does not orient his life to himself, but to God. The Word of God is the image of the Father, and man is the image of the Word. Thus, man is an image-being, an image of an image.

Just as God is Triune, man’s soul is triune, that is, it has nous [3], intelligence, and spirit. The nous is the nucleus of man’s existence, intelligence expresses and formulates the experiences of the nous, and the spirit is man’s noetic love; with the Spirit’s power and energy man is driven toward God.

The soul is single and has many faculties and energies. The Fathers, besides the tripartite division of the soul we mentioned, also accepted a division established by the philosophers: that is, of intelligent, appetitive, and incensive. The first division refers to the ontology of the soul and its pictorial representation, the second one to the passions. Some passions are tied to the intelligent part (pride, atheism, heresy), others to the appetitive part (self-indulgence, avarice) and others to the incensive (wrath, anger, rancour, and so on). Saint Gregory Palamas teaches that ambition is an offspring of the intelligent part of the soul, love of possessions and avarice an offspring of the appetitive part, and gluttony an offspring of the incensive part. The incensive and the appetitive compose the so-called passible part of the soul.
"
Kravarnik, what does "energies" mean here?

14

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 5933 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
Re: When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2017, 11:08:10 am »
Some additional clarifications as to what the traditional Church understands as the soul:


"Man is a psychosomatic being, that is, he consists of soul and body. The soul is not the whole man but just the soul of man; the body is not the whole man but just the body of man. Therefore, man is both, consisting of soul and body.

The spiritual illness of the soul has repercussions to the body, as we can see in the case of Adam’s sin. Corruption and mortality were consequences of man’s sin and of the loss of the Grace of God. Vice versa, the coming of the Grace of God to man’s heart transforms the body, too. We see this in Christ’s Transfiguration, when his face shone like the sun. We see it in Moses whose face was shining, as well as in Archdeacon Stephen, whose face looked like an angel’s face.

Orthodox life aims at the deification of the entire man, soul and body. For this reason, Hesychasm, neptic [1] theology aims at the simultaneous progression of soul and body to deification. Noetic prayer [2] and ascetic work cannot be interpreted in an Orthodox way, if not viewed through the deification of the human body.

According to the Holy Fathers, man is formed in the image of God. This means that he does not orient his life to himself, but to God. The Word of God is the image of the Father, and man is the image of the Word. Thus, man is an image-being, an image of an image.

Just as God is Triune, man’s soul is triune, that is, it has nous [3], intelligence, and spirit. The nous is the nucleus of man’s existence, intelligence expresses and formulates the experiences of the nous, and the spirit is man’s noetic love; with the Spirit’s power and energy man is driven toward God.

The soul is single and has many faculties and energies. The Fathers, besides the tripartite division of the soul we mentioned, also accepted a division established by the philosophers: that is, of intelligent, appetitive, and incensive. The first division refers to the ontology of the soul and its pictorial representation, the second one to the passions. Some passions are tied to the intelligent part (pride, atheism, heresy), others to the appetitive part (self-indulgence, avarice) and others to the incensive (wrath, anger, rancour, and so on). Saint Gregory Palamas teaches that ambition is an offspring of the intelligent part of the soul, love of possessions and avarice an offspring of the appetitive part, and gluttony an offspring of the incensive part. The incensive and the appetitive compose the so-called passible part of the soul.
"
Kravarnik, what does "energies" mean here?

The piece I am quoting doesn't give a definition of it, but by the context I'd guess it is the capacity to realize what is possible for one's potency. In other words the thing, by which the possible becomes actual, or something along the lines. But, definitely, don't quote me on that.
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm