Defining humankind - what are the terms and definitions?

You made my point. Scripture never set out to define those words or concepts. And yet here we are trying to force meanings on them that correspond to logic and reason and necessity. Even more is based on theological inferences and doctrinal principles from other areas of dogma to reach a conclusion that was never defined in Scripture. My point is, we try to define things so specifically that we go way beyond the text. It seems better at times to be more general, more vague, and allow for the opportunity of more options considering the fact that is was never the purpose of the Bible to answer questions that it never addressed in the first place.

 

I believe we are Mind, Body, and Spirit. The three together are the living soul. The mind and the spirit can be closely related while the physcial is nothing more than that what the mind and spirit dwell in. Once saved the mind and the Spirit are united. While the flesh is still in rebellion. This is a two against one idea it should give us encouragement in taking control of our flesh and making it do the bidding of God. We are like God in the sense of a trinity. While The Father, The Son ,and The Holy Spirit, together are one God. We are mind, body, and spirit, which makes us a living soul.

My heart is my spirit, My strength is God's if I have any, My will is it seems to be two very different enities at the same time. It seems our will is on both sides of good and evil. We can change our will by over coming sin with the help of God. The reverse is also true. Our wills can be over come by sin if we allow it to happen. God and the mind/spirit are the answer to it's control.
MB

 

God Spirit Holy from whence comes life to all living things.




Body: That which is formed from the dust of the ground. The elements. Gen 2:7

Spirit: Life from God Gen 2:7 also Luke 23:46

Soul: The two above became a living soul. When it was created and or is born begins the knowledge base of that being, soul, person usually has a name. Gen 2:7 and following ******When the life (spirit) from God departs
the soul is without life in Hades See Acts 2:27,32 and given time the body would return to dust, rot away Acts 13:34&36 for a comparison. It was from Hades that Jesus the once living soul was resurrected and given the sure mercies of David. He the soul Jesus wasn't born with them but was given them.

Mind A part of the living spirit from God that allows interrelationship and thought. Various scripture It is mind/spirit that allows commune between people and also between man and God at his allowance.

Heart: ???? Used instead of soul for the person often in scripture.

Strength: ????

Will: That of the living soul that always chooses sin. It is tied to lust. Scripture Rom 3:23 James 1:12-15

 

True: Which is why when Paul penned this verse he was speaking metaphorically of death and life;
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Carnality leads one to his death. Spirituality leads one to life. Now if the man has a dead spirit he is dead and it's too late to worry about Salvation. We simply cannot live with out a spirit to quicken the flesh. When we believe and are saved it is God's Spirit that quickens the flesh and our spirit is in the heavenlies.
Paul then wrote;
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
The lost can't help them selves. However God can help them. All things are possible with God.
Paul writes further;
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
This is also true However it pleases God to convice the man who otherwise doesn't believe, to be convinced of Christ therefore causiing the man to believe.
In;
Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Being indwelt by the Spirit means the body is dead. The Spirit quickens the flesh giving it animation and strength. The Spirit then lives my life for me;
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Will: one waring against itself or two waring with each other (can it be both ways?)
[/quote]
It seems to be two different enities yet connected. The very minute I'm tempted. I know I'm being tempted. If I dwell on it or simply think it over it's to late I've already sinned. No matter how good a person wants to be Paul said evil is always present. Some think that it's Satan placing these evil thoughts in our minds but I believe these thoughts come from the sin that already dwells in our flesh.
Every Christian battles with in them selves over good and evil. It's something that is with us to the grave. There simply is no man living who has no sin except Christ. The Lost have no such objection until they are shown it is sin
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Further I believe there is no such thing as sin that wasn't a willing act. Simply because everytime I sin I know it's wrong the moment I think of it. If sin were accidental it would not be sin it would be an accident with no one at fault.
MB

 

Take from it what you want. But when you come up w/ these definitions and then assert them towards Scripture, who then is the final authority in interpretation? And why ask the Bible a question that it never meant to answer. This is my contention with the bi-tripartite debate. The Bible allows for both views. Is that a paradox? No... but we are so western, so modernistic, so post-enlightenment thinkers that we have to solve every paradox. But the eastern mindset (i.e. the authors of the Bible) did not think in that way. They would never have addressed the question b/c they would be scratching their heads wondering why the question was even posed. I.e. they would say, "So what?"

Now if we were to make this a philosophical query, then that is another matter completely, but it should not be merged with the text of Scripture.

 

Scripture for my post concerning mind is, 1 Cor. 2:11-16

 

Not disagreeing, but any preset definition asserted into a context may skew the best interpretation of that text.

THat is all well and good, but there will hardly ever be a consensus here for definitions. So why bother w/ that route?

But I have not been arguing for definition of words and semantic ranges. I am arguing for a definition of "humankind" (see the title of this thread). That is an area that Bible never set out to define.

Again, I'm not saying that we can't try to give words like soul and spirit definitions (even though those definitions can change depending on the author and context and even be used interchangeably). What I am saying is that categorically, this thread is about defining a concept w/ the Bible. THe problem is that the Bible never had the intention of defining humankind. Therefore the simplest definition is likely the best. THus I prefer my definition of someone of the race of Adam, but I'm sure there are better/simpler ones out there.

This is because you are a western thinking person. You cannot allow a plurality of meaning even though the text itself as an entity can have a life of its own in the eyes of the interpreter. However, as it relates to word meanings like soul and spirit, giving 1 definition for the word is linguistically false and does not allow for the wide range of meanings that the words denote and connote.

Very western thinking, YES. Easterners did not seek definitions, no. And it is not that easterners would not merge all areas of thinking and being b/c they hardly separated concepts. For instance, the sacred/secular divide did not exist in their minds. Government and religion are one and the same (especially for Israel). So Scripture as the final authority would simply merge with all of life not all areas. See the distinction?
The very fact that you require a definition w/ reasoned proof is the quintessential hallmark of western thinking. This is post-enlightenment modernistic language at its best. Is that wrong? No, not in and of itself. We are all part of that mindset in some way. But if we force that mindset on the Bible and the authors of the Bible, then we are going to ask questions and seek definitions that would have never occurred in the minds of the ones whom we are studying.

 

Well being we have gotten so far off the OP I will say I believe the gospel of Jesus is about, Government and religion being one.

OP what did you think of my original post and amendment?