I want to spend some time writing up something longer but mind soul spirit life and body are terms with some ancient import and significant nuance in Greek. I'd be careful applying them in English without similar nuance.

I agree. My only nuance is that they are not the same ... two different Greek words.

Also, for example, Spirit vs. spirit is often difficult to distinguish. I am definitely no theologian.

Yeah but the translation to spirit and soul in English is a dubious way to establish a distinction. For example, in 1 Thess 5 I would suggest that is closer to mind, soul, body in modern vernacular.

I guess I mean, find me a use of mind will emotions soul and spirit in the same sentence - I don't think you can, because it's overlapping.

So, are saying there is no difference because you cannot find them all in one phrase or sentence?

No, I'm saying that there are different concepts that are overlapping.

For example, nous or mind talks about the reasoning faculty or intellect of a person. The fathers write about our salvation being a process of clearing our nous from the tarnish of the passions so we can clearly see God; the nous is the eye of the soul.

Psyche is the soul, your unique personhood, the seat of your identity, the source of feelings and emotions. The word literally means to breathe or to blow. But in Matthew 6:25 among many other places we see it used to mean "life". It can also be used as we would say "a ship has fifty souls" - unique people.

Pneuma means to breathe or blow also, and this is translated as spirit. Pneuma can also mean the rational part of man, the intellect. But it can mean also the soul or spirit apart of the body.

NT authors use these three words nearly interchangeably and with great subtlety of application. We have similar words - mind, body, soul, but we don't really delve into them. For example, the psyche to Plato has the logical, appetitive, and spirited levels.

In 1 Thess. the idea I think is to stress your unique personhood, your soul, and body. But I'm not taking that interpretation to the bank.

The point I was making was that if you talk about mind body emotion will soul etc all of those words touch upon various things and if you add them all up you get more than 100% of a person.

I agree that the Body Soul and Spirit make up 100% of the person. However, I don't believe that the entire part of a Christian has been regenerated as it will be at the sound of the last Trump when corruptible puts on incorruptable. The result is the tension that you see between the flesh and the spirit which Paul lays out so clearly in Romans 6, 7 and 8.

As an example of that tension, just from my own testimony, my soul, which I define as my mind will and emotions, is perfectly willing to spend three or four hours on a Saturday afternoon watching football with no problems. However if I decide to spend those same three or four hours in fellowshipping with the Holy Spirit through study of the word, and in prayer and worship, my flesh which is unregenerated, will scream out "stop doing that, there's so many other things that we could be doing that would be more fun or more entertaining or more satisfying". My spirit at the same time will be saying, "No, let's spend time with God the Father in fellowship with him enjoying his presence, seeking after him and being found of him, finding out what his calling is for my life and seeing what His agenda is for me in this earth. It's like the soul is a neutral party that can be renewed to the things of God or be corrupted by the things of the fles. It's like the intermediary that can be swayed one way or the other. I see this in my own personal experience and I don't think any of us are that much different. I believe that's why the Bible encourages us to renew our minds with the Word and to let our regenerated spirit that is alive to God and wants to do the things of God, be the stronger and ruling part of our 100% being. Literally to rule and reign over our flesh via convincing our soul, our mind, will and emotions to go after God.

I say that is it is neutral in the sense that my soul can love spending an entire Saturday watching football or it can love going out and partying,and at the same time it can also get lost in worship in a wonderful church service or alone in a prayer closet and really enjoy that as well.

That's the tension that exists and the exhortation that Paul talks about when he says if you sow to the spirit you will reap and if you sow to the flesh you'll reap is referring to this choice.

It's not that it's wrong to love watching football or to love spending some time celebrating with friends ( I am all for that), but it's more about which part of us is actually in control. Because there is a part of us that has been born again and is alive to God and that we should let rule and reign in our life. These differing parts of us are what we have been bantering back and forth about and I don't think it's so much the names that we place on them but the understanding of what's going on.

I get you, I think it's a terminology thing. I would say mind / nous where you're saying soul, and soul is interchangeable with spirit for me in vernacular. But I agree.

So, not being too sure about this I asked a bishop who is a spiritual mentor for me. His response:

In koine Greek (pneuma) and (psyche) are used, at times, with broad meanings. In the same way that, in English, we refer to our "soul" and "spirit" in a similar way (an inner essence), so the Scripture and the Fathers also do. In fact, in the various forms of Patristic Greek, one can use "heart" and "soul" in the same way. As for (nous), it can refer to a spiritual faculty within man (and thus in some instances can refer to the soul) and to the "mind," which is also called [dianoia], when referring to our "normal" mental faculties or the discursive intellect. The Fathers in fact show no preference for using it either to refer to a spiritual faculty, or as a word for describing a specific aspect of the functioning of the soul, or as a synonym for dianoia. They are guided by context and purpose.

There is no way to determine how these words are used, save in context or through spiritual insight. The latter explains why we rely on the Fathers and on prayer working in synergy with intellectual effort, not on personal opinion, in interpreting, understanding, and translating. Most translators use artificial rules and dictionaries alone in attempting Biblical exegesis ("parsing the mystical"), and much that they present is not only nonsensical but frequently misleading.

dds08 said:

---

In a world without the presence of sin?

My father and I were watching the Lucy movie yesterday starring Morgan Freeman and Scarlet Johansson.

He made the argument that God knew that with the serpent in the garden of Eden would play a part in sin; that the world would eventually be what it is today. He commented that, you would have thought God would have protected Adam and Eve from the serpent.

But before all those comments, I made the comment that all the things Lucy was doing in the movie, becuase she supposedly had 100% capacity of her brains mental functioning, is bogus because there is no way humans were meant to time travel and read minds, control people, and the such.

All this got me to thinking, is it possible to have a world such as Perelandra or Malacandria in CS Lewis Space Trilogy? Where the inhabitants have free will yet live sinless lives?

---

CS Lewis' Sci-Fi premise is incorrect, imho

No one forces us to cheat on our wives, we choose that--free will. We make decisions every day--God does not micromanage our action, we are not robots.

We are all flawed and we all use free will to make sinful choices.

Lucy was entertaining, Scarlett J is easy on the eyes. "Lucy" was merciless.

I truly believe that free will in hindered by our own humanness. Something that Landmark Forum really helps you see.

We are, in a way, imprisoned by the choices we make at very very young ages and most of us live our entire lives never really understanding why we do what we do, why we want what we want, ect. Without self actualization and a true investigation of self mindfulness we really cannot have free will. We are basically just slaves to how we programmed our brain.

This realization was a major facet of why I could no longer believe in the biblical god. A god that judges his creation based off of how they live, when the vast majority of them are really no more than slaves to their own programing.

When you see so many people in this world constantly make decisions that hurt themselves, yet continue to make those same choices, it becomes apparent that they are not in control. When you also see many people who "come to the lord" and are born again yet ultimately are still no more mindful of their own programming, it really drives home the point that meditation is far more helpful than "finding jesus".

Now where I have seen an advantage for christianity is the humility that it can bring where the strong headed are given an excuse to do things like be more mindful and introspective. If churches could add on mindfulness and meditation learning to their repertoire I think they would be even far more successful than they are now.

I think your criticisms can only be pointed toward a relatively shallow approach to Christianity.

The entirety of a Christian's salvation is through a purification of self in mind, body, and soul. The freedom we have in Christ is to be freed from our passions (pathema) which are certainly the "programming" you describe.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think your criticisms can only be pointed toward a relatively shallow approach to Christianity.

The entirety of a Christian's salvation is through a purification of self in mind, body, and soul. The freedom we have in Christ is to be freed from our passions (pathema) which are certainly the "programming" you describe.

---

But it is the shallow approach that matters according to the Good Word. That is to say, being "born again" is all that really matters when it comes down to it. Sure you may go further in self improvement after you are born again, but what does it really matter when compared to eternity?

Whether you expand in your self knowledge or not, if you get to the hereafter to spend eternity with God as opposed to being forever left out of heaven, what real difference does it make in the long run? If you could have ten thousand "saved" christians who progressed to a higher level of christianity and self knowledge or 10 million "saved" christians who progressed no further than simply to have faith and obey to the best of their ability, which would you take?

I know many christians who have been devout for the better part of their lives. They truly believe (for what their actions say), they truly serve others, they truly love their version of God. Yet they are no more truly self aware and mindful than other non believers their age.

They simply pray to God to help give them strength where they are weak yet they never delve down into their psyche to truly understand what drives them and why they are programmed the way they are. Their weakness for the drink or for lust or for abusive behavior toward their spouse or children is just seen as chosen weapons of "the enemy" who comes to "kill, steal and destroy". They are not pressed to truly go back into their past to face what really set them on the path they are on. They are completely unaware it is probably a child around the age of 5-7 who is their true adversary and not some maleficent entity that is out to get them.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Free will is a common excuse for sin. But usually christians dont characterize heaven as a place without free will but do consider it as a place without sin.

I would say free will combined with human frailty and imperfection cannot exist without sin. Perhaps perfect beings can pull it off e.g. angles. In which case the question becomes why did God bother with the humanity bit.

---

How can you say heaven is a place without sin? It seems one angel, in particular, was susceptible to pride/vanity. This was the highest ranking, cherubim, angel too we're talking.

chuckd said:

---

Quote:

---

Can free will exist in a world without the presence of sin?

---

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world..."

Adam made a rational choice without the presence of sin.

---

What choice was this?

Him deciding to go ahead and eat the forbidden fruit was far from rational. Then to turn around and blame Eve instead of being a man and owning up to the error of his ways and expressing remorse for his actions; was far from righteous/good by far.

k2aggie07 said:

---

St Maximos talks about this a bit in his cosmology, I think it's in Ambiguum 7. When we are in God, in heaven, we can only cease our motion in God.

Found the quote. He writes:

Quote:

---

everything that has received its being ex nihilo is in motion (since all things are necessarily carried along toward some cause), then noting that moves has yet come to rest, because its capacity for appetitive movement has not yet come to repose in what it ultimately desires, for nothing but the appearance of the ultimate object of desire can bring to rest that which is carried along by the power of its own nature.

no created being has yet ceased from the natural power that moves it to its proper end, neither has it found rest from the activity that impels it toward its proper end.

[rational creatures] are moved from their natural beginning in being toward a voluntary end in well-being. For the end of the motion of things that are moved is to rest within eternal well-being itself, just as their beginning was being itself, which is God, who is the giver of being and the bestower of the grace of well-being, for he is the beginning and the end. For from God come both our general power of motion (for he is our beginning), and the particular way that we move toward him, for he is our end.

...I am not implying the destruction of our power of self-determination, but rather affirming our fixed and unchangeable natural disposition, that is, a voluntary surrender of the will, so that from the same source whence we received our being, we should also long to receive being moved, like an image that has ascended to its archetype, corresponding to it completely, in the way that an impression corresponds to its stamp, so that henceforth it has neither the inclination nor the ability to be carried elsewhere.

---

---

kinda far fetched and hard to wrap my brain around but. OK I follow this for the most part.