Posted on 11/10/2008 11:37:17 AM PST by betty boop
This is the point where we go on separate paths. First, I do not believe it is possible to deny the soul although one could claim such a thing but his actions would prove otherwise. Historically Christian theologians have divided the soul into three parts; the intellect, the emotions, and the will. Your presentation is the old order that places "Reason" as a abstract principle independent of God himself and intellect above the the other aspects of human personality. In this schema it is thought that if man employs her intellect through the abstract principle of Reason than one can come to a knowledge of God. Reaching the knowledge of God then becomes merely an examination of universal principles.
The problem with the "old order" is that it succumbs to Platonic dualisms and places the intellect above other aspects of human personality and it believed that employing the intellect according to "laws of nature" there would be a mechanistic one to one relationship between stimulus and response.
It seems to me a truly Christian psychology of man should first note that both body and soul make a complete man. Both body and soul are two aspects of one being and the one being would be incomplete without both aspects.
If we look at the Biblical record we find how God revealed the psychology of man through the roles of Prophet, Priest, and King. If we understand how each of these offices relate to human psychology and how each is equally important then we need not overemphasize one aspect over against the other aspects.
The prophet office of our being relates to the intellect and our capacity to interpret both ourselves and the universe. The priestly office of our being relates to our emotions and dedicating oneself and the universe to God. Our kingly office relates to our will and the volitional aspect our responsibility to rule over the universe under God.
There are dangers of course of overemphasizing the emotional or volitional aspects of human psychology which many times leads to irrationalism. These systems usually dismiss the intellectual aspects leading to an unbalanced view of man. The benefit of a balanced view of the emotional and volitional aspects of human psychology is that it does justice to the individuality of each person. Since man was originally created with the love of God in his subconscious, the priestly aspect, the conscience, continues to function as that aspect which informs us when we have violated the transcendental law, that which pricks us when we fail to show the appropriate love.
The integration of personality, that is, the constant readjustment of the particular and the universal within itself, and the constant readjustment of the whole personality as an individual to the universal found in the universe beyond itself, takes place by a more ultimate and constant readjustment of the individual together with his surroundings to God who is the absolute particular and the absolute universal combined in one ultimate personality. The integration of personality according to the Christian view is an integration toward and by virtue of the triune God of Scripture as the only ultimate self-sufficient personality.
Van Til, Cornelius, The Works of Cornelius Van Til, (New York: Labels Army Co.) 1997.
The human body gets sick, rots and dies.. is basically a machine.. Personal Identity with the human body is a mistake.. Its a disquise even a "space suit".. for the spirit.. Jesus (to my reading) tryed to wean the disciples of identity with the human body.. to identity with the spirit.. Capsulated in the "born again" metaphor..
Personal Identity with the human body, "your" human body, can blind you to what Jesus was saying, teaching, even showing.. As Jesus said, "the flesh means NOTHING, it is the spirit that counts".. Jesus treated his human body as clothing he identified with the Spirit.. Jesus's human body was not who he was but only who he appeared to be.. He was far MORE than that.. And as he said... SO ARE WE.. i.e. I Cor 2;9..
Dear hosepipe, Christianity early on dealt with that sort of platonic dualism with the early Gnostics. The first thing I would point to is that when God created the universe, including man, he declared it was very good. There is nothing inherently bad about the human body. That is part of who we are. When sin entered it effected the body but it also affected the spirit. Sinfulness affects the spirit just as it effects the body and even for those who come to a knowledge of what redeems both body and spirit they are still left with the affects of sinfulness to the spirit short of glory. We know that once we attain glory we shall be reunited with our bodies and our body and spirit shall be perfected just as it was with the original man and even moreso.
One of the major errors of the Gnostics was their claim that Jesus did not really come in the flesh and this is a natural consequence of Platonic dualisms. If the flesh is all bad and Jesus is all good then it would be inconsistent to claim that Jesus came in the flesh. But Jesus did come in the flesh to redeem the whole man not just his spirit otherwise he would not have been incarnated. I'm afraid your reading of Jesus in his depiction of the flesh and spirit is too literal and does not take into account that his reference to flesh does not refer to the organic substance per se but the results that sinfulness has upon man's thinking and feeling and willing such that his actions are directed towards himself as a whole being first and not directed towards God who is spirit and the source of man and from whom we receive all wisdom. If we take this view then we can rejoice in our bodies and souls as one being created by God as very good in its original constitution and being redeemed as a whole being we can put our being in service to God as that for which we were originally designed.
What I posted seems to have gone completely over your head..
I didn't say the flesh is "bad" just temporary..
Some mentalities have a real problem considering a better life when flesh is not included.. That flesh is somehow required.. even preferred..
Humans are and have been virutal slaves to their bodies FIRST and some are slaves to other humans on top of that.. Humans must groom, feed, water, bathe, pay attention to gender niceties, breed, educate, heal, comfort, heat, cool, clothe, shod, protect, entertain, and at least a hundred other things before they serve other humans.. They are slaves because of their bodies.. You know their flesh.. And if you have a family you may be a slave to others too in many other ways..
All because a human body is so needy.. Gnostics saw "matter" as evil.. but I'm talking of the human body.. The human is a blessing for the ability to have our spirit tested... But almost everything else is a trial producing slavery to it.. Unless you starve or punish it.. in that case, that human, has mental problems..
Jesus never used the word heretic.. unless he implied it to various clergy of the times..
Many do in fact claim such a thing — e.g., "hard" materialist scientists and atheists — and you're right: Their own actions prove inconsistent with their claim. For to deny the soul, the seat of the subjective self, denies the existence of a thinker. And yet such people continue to think and speak.
I personally do not believe that "through the abstract principle of Reason ... one can come to a knowledge of God"; that one can know God through "an examination of universal principles." God can only be known — to whatever extent he can be known by mortal men — in Spirit. And thus we have our Faith.
Moreover, I have very strong doubts that Plato believed God is knowable by the exercise of reason.
Now I don't consider myself any kind of "expert" on Plato. It's just I've been reading him since I was 17 years old, and that's four decades-worth of companionship by now. What I have is an "opinion" of the import of his magnificent work created over a long and productive lifetime. Certainly there are other opinions; e.g., Ayn Rand's, whose view is totally opposed to mine in virtually all particulars. Then again, my view may not match the currently-prevailing academic view; I don't know. All I can say for sure is that it's my view; and people are free to exercise their own judgment in evaluating it.
I'm really struck by your references to Platonic dualisms. I honestly can't think of an example of "dualism" in Plato's writings. Moreover, your "Christian psychology of man" that comprehends and reconciles both body and soul, thus to make "a complete man," had been throughly anticipated and described by Plato, some ~400 years before the Incarnation of Christ.
Plato described man as psyche-in-soma, as soul-and-body — as "the ensouled animal who thinks." There is no duality here that I can perceive: for man is conceived as the integration, the unity of body and spirit who, alone among the creatures, possesses the quality of nous, of mind, reason, intelligence — a preeminently spiritual quality that just happens to be a reflection or "image" of divine Nous.
Thus Plato's essential "picture" of man.
But what of his "picture" of God? Plato described God as both (1) Epekeina: that which is ultimate and is itself indefinable because it surpasses all categories of understanding. In most translations, Epekeina is translated as "the Beyond," i.e., that which is "beyond" all direct human experience and the Cosmos itself. I.e., God is not a denizen of space-time reality, but stands outside of it as creator and guarantor of its order (i.e., its Being). (2) Apeiron: the "unlimited, indefinite, unbounded," the unlimited source of all particular things that now are or may possibly come into existence under the conditions of space and time. Because the Apeiron transcends all limits, it is also indefinable in principle.
In Plato, the Apeiron refers to the beginning of things together with their lasting ground; the Epekeina to the lasting order of their being. Both are, in principle, inaccessible to comprehension by means of the normal categories of the human mind. Thus Plato regards the comprehension of God in his fullness as being wholly, everlastingly, finally beyond the capabilities of unaided human reason.
That is to say, God in his eternal immensity and unity is wholly incomprehensible to the human mind as a matter of principle. Thus, it cannot be argued, it seems to me, that Plato suggests that God and his divine order is penetrable by means of human reason alone. Indeed, the point of Plato's exercise is to show that human reason has indefeasible limits.
So far I have not spotted any obvious "Platonic dualities." So where shall we find one? Could there be, perhaps, a "duality" between God and man in Plato?
No, I don't think so. Plato so integrates man into the spiritual order of God that he describes him as syngenes of God; that is, the "likeness" or "reflection" of God, as the divine Nous stands to the human nous. For all the incompletely knowable Immensitas of God, Plato was able to discern that this Being had the character of mind, of intelligence. To the extent that man perceives himself to be modeled likewise, a channel of communication God-to-man and back again could be rationally conceived.
And this is precisely what Plato did. Plato described the reality of human existence as experienced "in-Between" the divine and human, "in-Between" the psyche and the physical body (with its insistent demands), "in-Between" the unknowable and the known, "in-Between" time and timelessness, "in-Between" the Epekeina and the Apeiron, "in-Between" the essential order of the universe and its virtually inexhaustible possibilities of realization in space and time — and its Beyond of space and time.
Where is the "duality?"
Notwithstanding VanTil may have thought himself bound to be preoccupied with such matters, his testimony doesn't seem to be particularly labored by them. It comes across as straight and clear and (to me) seems unfettered by such preoccupations.
His testimony came through straight and clear to me, as truthful, eminently worthy witness to which I personally resonate and which inspires me....
As for what "body" and "flesh" mean.... I think hosepipe is looking at the matter under the auspices of the second law of thermodynamics, where you are looking at it under the auspices of sinful human nature. Both are entirely legitimate, eminently truthful points of view. Or so it seems to me.
Thank both of you so very much for your witness and testimony! May God ever bless you!
Yes, I think that is correct. I wonder if Adam endured the same difficulties in paradise?
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass
Adams difficulties in so-called paradise were great.. even before he blamed his sin/failure/mistake(s) on Eve.. Mankind has been blaming their lack on others ever since..
The creation "metaphor" is quite complete except for where did Satan come from.. Would easy to blame GOD too.. That is, IF Satan was not part of the "Plan".. Factored in, Satan would make Gods TESTING of the human spirit(not his flesh).. quite wonderful and pure genius.. Mankind even KNOWING they are spirits(like God/Angels/Satan) far beyond flesh is quite a revelation itself.. Most do NOT.. but identify will animals instead.. i.e. indentifying with the flesh..
That's an interesting supposition and I would not even begin to guess what you have in mind. I can think of one thing that might lead to their consternation but I would not label it a great difficulty.
I will also agree that God's plan was wonderful and genius because, well, he's God. I will also agree that their knowledge was revelatory but in the sense that they went along with the created being instead of the uncreated Creator. They had to choose whose interpretation of nature was correct was it God as absolute being or the derivative being Satan? Would he accept God, his creator, interpretation of the future or would he look within himself and use an empirical model of self interpretation and test the model to see if his interpretation was correct? It revealed what man would do from that point forward and that is they would look within themselves for the point of truth testing particularity as opposed to looking outside themselves to what God had revealed.
In what way could Satan possibly be "derivative" of God?
I see... you have much to learn.. God bless you..
the_conscience, I suspect you have attributed more to betty boop’s use of the word “reason” than she actually expressed. More specifically, to arrive at your conclusion that she elevates “reason” equal to or beyond “faith” would be attributing motives that I have never, ever heard betty boop express.
In sum, faith and reason are complementary – but reason does not, indeed cannot, substitute for faith. That is a point of this passage:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. – Romans 1:20-23
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. – I Corinthians 2:11-14
But as hosepipe is often wont to say: "Jesus: you MUST be born again."
In other words, we must always remember that flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God.
[Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.
[There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another. [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.
So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. – I Cor 15:35-50
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. – Rev 2:11
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. – Hebrews 9:27-28
We are even now passed from death to life, we are alive with Christ in God.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. - John 5:24
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
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. – Galatians 2:20
Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. - John 3:5-7
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
“In what way could Satan possibly be “derivative” of God?”
He was created by God.
BTW, I’ll get to your other fine post when I have some time to give an appropriate response.
“the_conscience, I suspect you have attributed more to betty boop’s use of the word “reason” than she actually expressed. More specifically, to arrive at your conclusion that she elevates “reason” equal to or beyond “faith” would be attributing motives that I have never, ever heard betty boop express.”
I’m not attributing any motives to bb I’m just taking her at her word when she says she subscribes to a pretty strong form of Platonism which in fact does elevate reason as the ultimate good.
“I see... you have much to learn.. God bless you.. “
Yes I do. Thank you.
betty boop is my dearest sister in Christ!
She loves God surpassingly above all else. Her profound appreciation for Plato – and mine – are set way beneath the overarching Truth of Jesus Christ.
Indeed, Justin Martyr also believed Plato was prophetic, making references to Christ without even realizing it – much like Caiaphas and Gamaliel. Paul also remarked on the Greek poets.
Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;… And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. – Acts 5:34-39
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you… For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. – Acts 17:22-18
Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had [two] horns: and the [two] horns [were] high; but one [was] higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither [was there any] that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat [had] a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had [two] horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. – Daniel 8:1-8
Logos is the Greek term meaning “the Word.” Greek philosophers like Plato used Logos not only of the spoken word but also of the unspoken word, the word still in the mind -- the reason. When applied to the universe, Greeks were speaking to the rational principle that governs all things.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 BC to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates the entire universe. Monotheistic Jews used Logos to refer to God, since He was the rational mind -- reason -- behind the creation and coordination of the universe.
Thus, John (the author of the biblical book of John) used a very special word -- Logos -- that was meaningful to both the Jews and the Greeks during the first century AD.
The Essenes
The Qumran sect's origins are postulated by some scholars to be in the communities of the Hasidim, the pious anti-Hellenistic circles formed in the early daysof the Maccabees. The Hasidim may have been the precursors of the Essenes, who were concerned about growing Hellenization and strove to abide by the Torah.
Archeological and historical evidence indicates that Qumran was founded in the second half of the second century B.C.E., during the time of the Maccabean dynasty. A hiatus in the occupation of the site is linked to evidence of a huge earthquake. Qumran was abandoned about the time of the Roman incursion of 68 C.E., two years before the collapse of Jewish self-government in Judea and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E.
The chief sources of information for the history of this fateful time span are the Qumran scrolls and the excavations, but earlier information on the Essenes was provided by their contemporaries: Josephus Flavius, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder. Their accounts arc continuously being borne out by the site excavations and study of the writings.
The historian Josephus relates the division of the Jews of the Second Temple period into three orders: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. The Sadducees included mainly the priestly and aristocratic families; the Pharisees constituted the Jay circles; and the Essenes were a separatist group, part of which formed an ascetic monastic community that retreated to the wilderness. The exact political and religious affinities of each of these groups, as well as their development and interrelationships, are still relatively obscure and arc the source of widely disparate scholarly views.
The crisis that brought about the secession of the Essenes from mainstream Judaism is thought to have occurred when the Maccabean ruling princes Jonathan (160-142 B.C.E.) and Simeon (142-134 B.C.E.) usurped the office of high priest (which included secular duties), much to the consternation of conservative Jews; some of them could not tolerate the situation and denounced the new rulers. The persecution of the Essenes and their leader, the teacher of righteousness probably elicited the sect's apocalyptic visions. These included the overthrow of "the wicked priest" of Jerusalem and of the evil people and, in the dawn of the Messianic Age, the recognition of their community as the true Israel. The retreat of these Jews into the desert would enable them "to separate themselves from the congregation of perverse men (IQ Serekh 5:2).
A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime — the bird perspective — these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta — a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.
The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: The universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.
And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. - Rev 19:3
Indeed, the the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is to me like God’s copyright notice on the cosmos!
In short, our appreciation of Plato must be understood in context with the revelation of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, the living Word of God.
Bump for later post. Thanks for the link to this thread.
Kind of addresses the *common ancestor* issue, doesn't it?
It goes along with Genesis where God created the different kinds in different acts of creation.
This can only be determined after what God "is", is decided..
What "is" God?.... or... Who is God?.. is the same question..
Most eastern so-called Gods are cartoons or minions of a cartoon..
Westerners or judeo-christians call them Gods..
But they are just cartoons of an all powerful creator(singular) or minion..
Cargo cultists of all kinds worship the cargo or the vehicle carrying the cargo.. i.e. like "evolutionists".. or all manner of degrees of socialism(socialists)..
Some do not use the word God but use instead the meme of God.. i.e. God implied.. Really it takes listening to the tenor of the/a conversation to see what is being discussed is origins..back to the source..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.