Posted on 10/18/2008 12:03:58 PM PDT by Truth Defender
A Preliminary Study on The Biblical Meaning of “Soul”. In the Old Testament the word for soul is “nephesh” and in the New the word is “psuche” — with both terms having the same meaning. “Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles the LORD's tabernacle. That person must be cut off from Israel” (Numbers 19:13). The bold words in the above verse is the Hebrew word “nephesh”, commonly translated as “soul” in numerous places in the OT Scriptures. Is it valid to question WHY the translators didn’t use the word “soul” in these two places in this verse? We judge that it is very valid to ask that question, for that is the only way we can find out the WHY. We will address that in this article as a part of our study.
(Excerpt) Read more at kenfortier.com ...
I have the Catechism, and have read it. It's made up of a lot of philosophical ideas that were constructed over a long period of time. The references are very weak when saying they back up their answers.
But you are entitled to your opinion. Far be it from me to deny your freedom to choose the religious institution of your choice. As for me, I choose to listen to what Jesus said about the topic of this thread. I will let Him lead me into what I should believe, for it is only He who has the words of life and immortality. He is the way, the truth, and the life.
Yes, one could say that.
In your post to Petronski you raise a bunch of questions. I believe that the article Ken wrote answers them all. Have you read it all? When I first read it I found myself taking a fine-toothed scalpel approach in examining it. Much of what he said I had already known, but he added some finishing touches to what I discovered. I'm thankful that articles like this exist, and that they can be shared.
I guess I think this is charmingly naive. and I guess I think that because I followed this same line (or, at least, a very similar line) of argument myself in 1971.
As a side comment, I'd offer: Going to lexicographers for theology and philosophy is a risky business.
Here's a distinction: The Platonic idea of the immortality of the soul is that the soul is uncreated, that it is the life principle, and is intrinsically and by nature immortal. In that view the soul of every living thing is immortal by definition.
When this writer gives a list of people with the idea of an immortal soul and puts Aristotle right next to Plato, he makes himself incredible. It's as if he said in a treatise on economy and the idea of private property that "the idea of private property held by such men as Adam Smith, Karl Marx ... ." Aristotle's idea of soul is very different indeed from that of Plato, so different that to lump the two of them together is simply silly.
That the Catholic Church does not have the Platonic idea of soul is easily seen from the Catechism, paragraph 368 where it is stated that the soul of a human is created by God.
Fortier does not seem to appreciate the difference between a Platonic "soul" which is uncreated and intrinsically immortal, so that even if there were a personal deity in the Platonic view that being could not kill the soul, and a soul which is immortal because God made and makes it so.
Further, Fortier makes the mistake of thinking that the Bible is a tome of Systematic Theology, and that its diction is as rigorous as the diction of a theologian. Theology, the discourse about God, is informed by Scripture. Theology addresses, or tries to, what Scripture is as well as what it says. But the Holy Scriptures are not theology.
I don't know who Mr. Fortier is or what he does. I don't have any personal brief one way or the other as far as he's concerned, even though he seems to be a lapsed Catholic.
Having said that, I find it amusing when what purports to be a treatise on the words nephesh and psyche in the Bible includes a lengthy section on how wicked, deceiving, and deceived the people are who disagree with him. And it grates on me when somebody uses words like "thusly" and sentences like, "Is not the Word of God sufficient for us to believe it?" when "Is the Word of God insufficient ...?" would be better, and foregoing rhetorical questions altogether would be better still.
The lack of discipline and reflection suggested by the jumbling together of Plato and Aristotle, the excess of zeal indicated by the time spent examining the defects of those with the effrontery to disagree with Mr. Fortier, and the recourse to frenetic and affected rhetoric all lead me to think that this is, well, not top-drawer stuff.
However, I think it could be edited into a very useful review of the words nephesh and psyche in the Bible.
Yeah. I know. Who asked me?
I'll let Ken know :-)
Even God speaks of “my soul” at Isa. 42:1.
In the LXX the words "my soul" as found in the KJV appear as "psuche", and in the Hebrew as "nephesh". A little point that both terms mean the same thing. Things like this should be noted, as Ken says, in the margin, in brackets, or in a note at the bottom of the page. In the eyes of most people the words "my soul" insinuates something belonging to them - a mystical, ethereal something within them. Anyone who realizes that it is God Himself speaking in Isa. 42:1 would think that God Himself has within Himself a "soul". But God is a "spirit" scripture tells us. Does a "spirit" have a "soul"? I think that this verse should have been translated different. Maybe like, "my being"? Try to read it that way and see what a difference it makes to your understanding. It opened up my eyes!
Does it matter? Yes, if we believe Jesus’ words at John 4:24 about worshiping God “in truth”.
Excellent point! And we should also not neglect to understand what Jesus said in John 12:47-50 and what is said in Proverbs 30:5-6.
>In your post to Petronski you raise a bunch of questions.
Actually I didn’t. I was using the form of argument where the answers to the proposed questions negate the claims of the opposing party, or if not negate, at least raise problems witch must be explained/reconciled.
>I believe that the article Ken wrote answers them all.
I don’t. As I said, it’s a form of argument wherein the questions are such that they point out possible fallacies and/or possible false-assumptions.
>Have you read it all?
I read four or five pages. Then I got bored.
>When I first read it I found myself taking a fine-toothed scalpel approach in examining it.
As did I. But like I said before, the whole argument enters the realm of “how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?”, being either ridiculous and/or unimportant. (”Where then is your sting, oh Death?” as Paul would say, it doesn’t matter if the soul is mortal or immortal if God is going to Resurrect me, right?)
>Much of what he said I had already known, but he added some finishing touches to what I discovered.
Really? Like I said, I quickly classified this as unimportant. Besides, it could be argued that the portions of scripture he cited were talking about other subjects than the supposed misinformation of the human soul’s mortality: specifically the portion on hearing and not being able to hear. It is obvious to me that Jesus is speaking of Himself as the Savior; the people who hear about Him and Who He is yet will not believe are whom he is refering to... not some sort of willful ‘dumb following’ of the flock toward incorrect “orthodox christian” teachings.
>I’m thankful that articles like this exist, and that they can be shared.
1st amendment. But I think that the author makes too many bad assumptions... and there is the meta-argumential point, where you step back and ask “does this matter? Why or why not?”
I did skip to that in the previous post saying why it does not matter whether or not the author is correct or not. Also, his misuse of the scriptures (miscontextualization)is not conducive to a clean or compelling argument.
Or just "I'm troubled." (Elvis translation: I'm all shook up.)
Of course, affecting the problem is that those of us who've heard the KJV as far back as we can remember have OUR language influenced by it. When I say, "My heart is troubled within me," I know I MAY be quoting, but I don't MEAN to be quoting.
I completely agree that at least in "Scholarly" versions of the Bible, when a word like nepesh or psyche is translated in different ways, a note ought to be made of it.
“nephesh
neh’-fesh
from ‘naphash’ (5314); properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):—any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.”
“being” would fit, I guess. But this shows then that “soul” cannot be an intelligence or something that is separate and able to exist beyond the person.
“Anyone who realizes that it is God Himself speaking in Isa. 42:1 would think that God Himself has within Himself a “soul”.”
And that would be because they are attaching their idea of what soul is rather than how the verse and the Scriptures as a whole uses the term.
As a side comment, I'd offer: Going to lexicographers for theology and philosophy is a risky business.
I tend to agree with you here. Going to Lexicons is all fine and good for definitions of words - after all, lexicons are dictionaries. However, going to them for one's theology and/or philosophy is, as you say, a risky business.
Here's a distinction: The Platonic idea of the immortality of the soul is that the soul is uncreated, that it is the life principle, and is intrinsically and by nature immortal. In that view the soul of every living thing is immortal by definition.
Yes, that is Plato's idea.
When this writer gives a list of people with the idea of an immortal soul and puts Aristotle right next to Plato, he makes himself incredible. It's as if he said in a treatise on economy and the idea of private property that "the idea of private property held by such men as Adam Smith, Karl Marx ... ." Aristotle's idea of soul is very different indeed from that of Plato, so different that to lump the two of them together is simply silly.
Hmmm...where did Ken say that all these people believed the same thing about "soul"? On the contrary, I read that he said that they were at odds with one another on that score: that one believed one thing, and another believed a different thing - and not all believed man had an immortal soul within them. Aristotle believed that man had an immortal soul residing within the body, just as Plato; however, he didn't believe it was pre-existent. Tertullian believed in the immortal soul theory, but like Aristotle, didn't believe it was pre-existent. Same with Augustine and a few others before him. I think Ken lumped them altogether, correctly, because they all believed in an immortal soul within the body of man. One whould think those who read the Bible closely would see that the "soul" is what man "became", not something put into the body by the Creator.
That the Catholic Church does not have the Platonic idea of soul is easily seen from the Catechism, paragraph 368 where it is stated that the soul of a human is created by God.
I would disagree here. And I imagine Ken would also. The Scriptures do not give any indication, explicit or implicit, that man has a "soul", especially that a "soul" is immortal. In fact, it says the opposite; the complete man is mortal. Ken's article points that out in many places, and backs it up with documentation. The Catholic church teaches that man has an immortal soul residing within the body - Plato's idea! Thusly (sorry for that word), they propagate that part of Plato's theory and have made it a dogma of their church. Protestantism has done the same thing - mainly through Calvin.
Fortier does not seem to appreciate the difference between a Platonic "soul" which is uncreated and intrinsically immortal, so that even if there were a personal deity in the Platonic view that being could not kill the soul, and a soul which is immortal because God made and makes it so.
Ken is very aware of what Plato theorised. However, he also knows that nowhere can anyone point to any revealed truth that God created an "immortal soul" in man. This does not mean that one cannot receive one, for at the resurrection of the body man will put on immortality which is the gift of God. Even if God grants man immortality, man still depends upon God to sustain it, for God can destroy it when and if He chooses.
However, I think it could be edited into a very useful review of the words nephesh and psyche in the Bible.
I've mentioned that to him. If you noticed, he calls this a "preliminary" study, not the end-all of what could be said. In fact, he encourages those in Bible Colleges and Seminaries to use the topic for their graduate thesis. I think credit should be given him for that encouragement!
Yeah. I know. Who asked me?
I think I did by starting a thread on the article. That article is not a treatise but a short look at the meanings of the words used by translators. Your input is appreciated by me...and I'll pass it on.
I love that kinda talk.
;-)
sitetest
Are you disagreeing with my account of the catechism or with the catechism?
If the latter, I'm REALLY confused.
First The catechism doesn't say we "have" a soul. On the other hand, if IHS says "MY psyche is troubled," (John 12:27) then even our Lord sometimes uses language suggesting something sorta kinda like "having".
The Catechism uses words like aspect, after saying certainly the word is used to denote the entire human person. I think you would find paragraphs 362 - 368 of the catechism not quite so Platonic as all that.
Now, could you tell me where Aristotle says that he believed that man had an immortal soul residing within the body, ... I would not characterize either or Aristotle's or Thomas Aquinas's thought that way, though, while unfamiliar (lately) with both, I am a tad less unfamiliar with Thomas. He is highly technical in his section on the soul, but, speaking loosely and maybe wrongly, I'd say he would say, strictly speaking, a man "has" a soul no more than a fire has burning.
I will eagerly admit that the popular notion of soul is mostly sort of Platonic. Aquinas interestingly refers to Paul's talking of "the inner man".
My outer man has to go eat supper.
Heh heh heh.
1st Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
According to the Word there is a difference between the spirit and soul.
Yes I am. And I belong to Him, the Creator of everything.
Eze 18:4
"Behold, all souls5315 are Mine; the soul5315 of the father as well as the soul5315 of the son is Mine. The soul5315 who sins will die.
H5315
נפשׁ
nephesh (659b); from an unused word; a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion : - any (1), anyone (2), anyone *(1), appetite (7), being (1), beings (3), body (1), breath (1), corpse (2), creature (6), creatures (3), dead (1), dead person (2), deadly (1), death (1), defenseless *(1), desire (12), desire *(2), discontented *(1), endure *(1), feelings (1), fierce *(2), greedy *(1), heart (5), heart’s (2), herself (12), Himself (4), himself (19), human (1), human being (1), hunger (1), life (146), life *(1), lifeblood *(2), lives (34), living creature (1), longing *(1), man (4), man’s (1), men *(2), mind (2), Myself (3), myself (2), number (1), ones (1), others (1), ourselves (3), own (1), passion *(1), people (2), people *(1), perfume *(1), person (68), person *(1), persons (19), slave (1), some (1), soul (238), soul’s (1), souls (12), strength (1), themselves (6), thirst (1), throat (2), will (1), wish (1), wishes (1), yourself (11), yourselves (13).
Then you "mostly sort of" agree with what Ken wrote.
My outer man has to go eat supper.
I hope your psuche enjoyed the meal :-)
Are you disagreeing with my account of the catechism or with the catechism?
Both, in a certain way. While it admits that man himself is a soul, it still maintains that a soul is immortal; and does not present any proof that it is immortal (other than the assertion).
Now, could you tell me where Aristotle says that he believed that man had an immortal soul residing within the body, ... I would not characterize either or Aristotle's or Thomas Aquinas's thought that way, though, while unfamiliar (lately) with both, I am a tad less unfamiliar with Thomas.
While it has been ages since I've looked at what Aristotle had to say on any subject, it may be in his "De Anima (On the Soul)". As with any philosopher, they all seem to speculate or assume many things. I don't consider either of these men to be the "authority" one should look to for their beliefs of Christianity.
Then you "mostly sort of" agree with what Ken wrote.
My outer man has to go eat supper.
I hope your psuche enjoyed the meal :-)
Are you disagreeing with my account of the catechism or with the catechism?
Both, in a certain way. While it admits that man himself is a soul, it still maintains that a soul is immortal; and does not present any proof that it is immortal (other than the assertion).
Now, could you tell me where Aristotle says that he believed that man had an immortal soul residing within the body, ... I would not characterize either or Aristotle's or Thomas Aquinas's thought that way, though, while unfamiliar (lately) with both, I am a tad less unfamiliar with Thomas.
While it has been ages since I've looked at what Aristotle had to say on any subject, it may be in his "De Anima (On the Soul)". As with any philosopher, they all seem to speculate or assume many things. I don't consider either of these men to be the "authority" one should look to for their beliefs of Christianity.
heh heh heh
Then you "mostly sort of" agree with what Ken wrote.
Well as long as Mr. Fortier is not mostly sort of disagreeing with the teaching of the Catholic Church, I'm okay with that. The popular opinion on something, even the popular opinion on the teaching of the Church, is not in fact what the Church teaches.
On of the reasons I say "mostly sort of" is that I THINK it's right to say that Plato's immortal soul has no personality, and doesn't think of itself as Joe or Sally or Barack. Plato SEEMS to be in the "cosmic soup" school, or close to it, while the popular opinion seems to be that Little Suzi is now one of God's angels, returning to whence she came. (Cf the very weird movie "The Bluebird of Happiness") But in that connection, why do you say
While it admits that man himself is a soul, ...Are we stating from the position that the Catholic Church is defending, surlily, some suspect position and only grudgingly conceding Mr. Fortier's points when all other options are closed to it? That's not a game I especially want to play.
I think the difference about immortality is on the question of intrinsic vs God-given immortality. The proposition, "God can not bestow immortality on the human soul," is not one I'd like to defend. The proposition that God HAS not bestowed immortality on the human soul is controversial, and while it runs against the general thrust of Mr. Fortier's word study, there are hints ("I shall not die but live," comes to mind) that it may not be a slam-dunk either way.
And there is the problem of God Himself in the Isaiah quote and IHS Himself in my John quote talking about their "souls". If the soul IS the self, then who is it who says "my" in "my soul is troubled?" Are we going to say, "Well God and the Christ were speaking loosely; we can ignore their turns of phrase?" When Paul speaks of "inner" and "outer", and in related discussions, of "sarx" and "pneuma", I come up thinking that it's not going to be that simple.
(Just for giggles, my "Schema" is that my soul, that is "I" died when I was grafted into Christ, and now I live with Christ's life, for it is written, "Now I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me.")
Moving along ... One of the things that brought me up short in my Fortier-like line of thought was that the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to agree with it. For me, if Arians firmly maintain something I've been thinking, I'm going to go over it again ... and carefully, making a list, checking it twice.
Okay, I staggered upstairs and hauled down De Anima. And it's been a few years, but I did a lot of highlinhting and marginal noting back then. Here's what I found. A number of statements about the soul that it is the actuality of the body and inseparable from the body.
The line I have used is, "soul : body :: burning : fire". The last Dominican I asked for an inquisition on this said, "I will quote Obama: That's above my pay grade," and we cracked up.
Anyway, for most of the relevant discussion of soul, Aristotle is right there with Fortier. The brick wall is MIND. And the discussion on mind is very difficult.
At the end of Book III chap 5 Aristotle sounds (but I think it's misleading) really gnostic when he says mind "set free from current conditions" alone is "immortal and eternal".
Here I'd suggest that it's important to understand the difference between "eternal" and "From everlasting to everlasting". I'd suggest that for Aristotle pure intellection is simply outside of time. And it's clear that he has all the appropriate philosophical problems with this. (As in, so how can we think about time?)
As with any philosopher, they all seem to speculate or assume many things.
I'd say it is in the nature of reasonable discourse that things are assumed, and further that the minute THIS conversation leaves being a mere descriptive account of the use of the words nephesh, psyche, etc. in Scripture and gets prescriptive ("We should think of soul in this or that way") we are hauling in assumptions, one of the most debatable of which is that the words are used with technical philosophical or theological rigor in Scripture.
I don't consider either of these men to be the "authority" one should look to for their beliefs of Christianity.
I think they were brought up as presenting a particular incorrect view, or an array of incorrect views of the "soul", not as authorities for our belief.
But at another level: the other day I pompously described myself to someone as a "philosophical theologian." If you ask what such a monster might be, I'd say, "You know how we discuss what a sacrament or ordinance is and wonder what thing the bread and wine are or become? A philosophical theologian is too stupid to be able to discuss such questions. He's still stuck and wondering what a thing is. If you say, 'it's not true that the bread becomes the body of Christ," I'll start dawdling and wondering about 'true' and 'becomes' while the rest of you go on ahead."
The relevance of this verbosity is this: Mr Fortier, you, and I are trying to say something meaningful and true about something we call the soul. If I say, "X," you and Mr. Fortier say,"But don't the Scriptures seem to say, 'Not X?'" If you say,"Y," I say, "But here are verses which seem to require or to suggest at least a soupçon of 'Not Y.'" As far as I can tell, we are the only physical creatures who do this kind of thing. Again as far as I can tell, we are the only physical creatures who wonder about the difference between us and the other creatures.
Now some aspects of this kind of conversation are sort of pre-religious. I mean that the builders of the Hagia Sophia, Notre Dame, or The Greater Park Street Baptist Tabernacle would not hesitate, I believe, to derive some of their techniques of architecture and construction from the unregenerate. Deciding to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified does not mean forgetting all the construction techniques one learned as a sinner.
Similarly, while I am not going to look to Aristotle, Plato, Heidegger, or the disciples of Siddhartha for the ultimate truth about the Ultimate Truth, I think they all have useful things to say about the relationships among certain thoughts and opinions, and about the challenges of grasping and articulating the things that matter with the mind and tongue.
So I won't take any of these guys as guides for the whole journey, but I will still consult them from time to time, just as ded reckoning can tell me, with perilous imprecision, more or less where I am, but only consulting heaven will tell me reliably where I am.
Okay. yeah. that was long.
Well as long as Mr. Fortier is not mostly sort of disagreeing with the teaching of the Catholic Church, I'm okay with that. The popular opinion on something, even the popular opinion on the teaching of the Church, is not in fact what the Church teaches.
Ken, I imagine, does not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church - otherwise he would probably still be in it. However, he does not expound on that very much, rather, he does bring out things he disagrees on, and refers readers to check out exactly what the official teachings are - sending them to Catholic sources. If you don't think that is fair, well, all's fair in love and war, as the saying goes.
On of the reasons I say "mostly sort of" is that I THINK it's right to say that Plato's immortal soul has no personality, and doesn't think of itself as Joe or Sally or Barack. Plato SEEMS to be in the "cosmic soup" school, or close to it, while the popular opinion seems to be that Little Suzi is now one of God's angels, returning to whence she came. (Cf the very weird movie "The Bluebird of Happiness")
Very sharp. I follow you here...
But in that connection, why do you say, While it admits that man himself is a soul, ...
Hmmm...because of the teaching of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is quite explicit in saying that. How's that for keeping it short and to the point?
Are we stating from the position that the Catholic Church is defending, surlily, some suspect position and only grudgingly conceding Mr. Fortier's points when all other options are closed to it? That's not a game I especially want to play.
Not at all. Just stating what I read. I believe they are being very honest in saying that both the Hebrew "nephesh" and the Greek "psuche" refer to the whole man. And in their follow-up, which is a philosophical stance, I don't believe that Ken, nor I, accept that stance as something we must believe in. It is in the realm of supposition and presumption that other "options", as you say, are put forth.
FYI, Both Ken and I attended College and enrolled in philosophy classes. In Ken's case, he also enrolled in Logic classes at the same time - which he admitted to me caused him problems in accepting much of what philosophy entailed. He rejects philosophy as forming his beliefs, preferring the pure word as found in the Scriptures.
I think the difference about immortality is on the question of intrinsic vs God-given immortality. The proposition, "God can not bestow immortality on the human soul," is not one I'd like to defend. The proposition that God HAS not bestowed immortality on the human soul is controversial, and while it runs against the general thrust of Mr. Fortier's word study, there are hints ("I shall not die but live," comes to mind) that it may not be a slam-dunk either way.
Intrisic vs God-given immortality? Hmmm...I would "off-hand" reject the "intrisic" idea as being purely Platonic. On the other "on-hand" side, hold tight that only God can bestow immortality to man. I would say that the real question is stated by your second sentence; You say it is controversial; I say that God has, in what He chose to reveal to us in the Scriptures, not yet gifted any man, other than Jesus, with immortality. If you would like to discuss it on that thought, I would be willing to accommodate you. What you "hint" at is a good start.
(Just for giggles, my "Schema" is that my soul, that is "I" died when I was grafted into Christ, and now I live with Christ's life, for it is written, "Now I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me.")
Actually (not giggling), I "mostly sort of" agree with you here.
Moving along ... One of the things that brought me up short in my Fortier-like line of thought was that the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to agree with it. For me, if Arians firmly maintain something I've been thinking, I'm going to go over it again ... and carefully, making a list, checking it twice.
Let me make a point here. It will not do to condemn a doctrine because it is sometines held in conjunction with false doctrines. The fact that some sect, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, have grasped a truth is certainly no reason for anyone to discard that truth. Neither does one become one of their followers because he agrees with them on a particular truth they may hold, or why else not accuse all who hold to the Virgin Birth of following Roman Catholicism?
At the end of Book III chap 5 Aristotle sounds (but I think it's misleading) really gnostic when he says mind "set free from current conditions" alone is "immortal and eternal".
Here I'd suggest that it's important to understand the difference between "eternal" and "From everlasting to everlasting".
I agree, and that is a worthy topic for discussion.
***As with any philosopher, they all seem to speculate or assume many things.***
I'd say it is in the nature of reasonable discourse that things are assumed, and further that the minute THIS conversation leaves being a mere descriptive account of the use of the words nephesh, psyche, etc. in Scripture and gets prescriptive ("We should think of soul in this or that way") we are hauling in assumptions, one of the most debatable of which is that the words are used with technical philosophical or theological rigor in Scripture.
I think that this is where we would have to agree to disagree. If I were to say that "I think we should translate this Greek or Hebrew term by this English word", would you say I was making an "assumption"? Or would you agree that my choice of words may or may not be correct in your way of thinking? If the latter, I would then ask you the important question of WHY? Would you say that is philosophical thinking, or just seeking the best word to use?
Similarly, while I am not going to look to Aristotle, Plato, Heidegger, or the disciples of Siddhartha for the ultimate truth about the Ultimate Truth, I think they all have useful things to say about the relationships among certain thoughts and opinions, and about the challenges of grasping and articulating the things that matter with the mind and tongue.
Good for you! Same here!
So I won't take any of these guys as guides for the whole journey, but I will still consult them from time to time, just as ded reckoning can tell me, with perilous imprecision, more or less where I am, but only consulting heaven will tell me reliably where I am.
Well said.
Okay. yeah. that was long.
Yeah, wasn't it. Same as my response. Long but enjoyable. It's been a long time since I've taken part in such a conversation. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I thank you very much.
First on the Witnesses and that thing. I absolutely agree that if a certain candidate says both that I cling bitterly to my Bible and the sky is blue, I can deny the bitterness and affirm the blueness. But if that same candidate says the sky is blue and surrounds that with 99 more propositions all of which are grossly false, I'm inclined to go check the sky again, just in case something happened. So that's all the usefulness I get out of the Witnesses. Check everything twice, or more, hold fast to that which is good.
Hmmm...I would "off-hand" reject the "intrinsic" idea as being purely Platonic.
The line between creator and creature is fuzzy in Plato, and so wide that only a miracle can cross it in Xty. Which is why we bow at the "et incarnatus" in the Creed. Glory be to God, He gave us the miracle we needed!
On the other side, I say things like, God doesn't foresee; He sees; He didn't see Adam fall and the foresee the Cross. Rather He sees the fall and sees the cross (and the consummation.)
Now I have some, to me artificial, arguments, one from Peter, the other from Aristotle which show to my satisfaction why this is a necessary idea.
And where it gets especially dicey is in our thinking about the Asssumption of the BVM (as if that weren't dicey enough, huh?) in that we say that she "currently" enjoys what all the blessed "will" enjoy. And the best I can do to make room for that in my alleged thinking is to say that "eternity" "comprehends" all of time.
In other words, I recognize I am on shaky ground here.
I could go on. For example, you may know that in our thinking Purgatory, which is VERY temporal, is no more after the consummation.
But spare me, unless you're really interested.
I am really committed, barring a memo from the Vatican, to my account of my having died. Let me try to lay it out briefly:
In the day that we ate the forbidden fruit we surely died. But the dying had to work its way out from the central breach of relationship with Life Himself and to this day it takes our poor bodies several decades to figure it out. Okay so far?
IHS brought the death of all humanity to completion. (And also to transformation, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.)
In that act or event or series of acts or events which we can call "coming to IHS" or his coming to us individually (and leaving aside all the issues about baptism) we are joined with His completed death, and, in the Spirit, His resurrected life is now ours.
Not only does it take our bodies a while to behave accordingly, but even our hearts, or our subjective experience of them at least, are slow on the uptake. I dare to say, "It is well with my soul," but if a bad guy burst into my office now, I bet I would, well, have a few sphincter control issues, an adrenaline dump, and all the physical and many of the psychological signs of mortal fear. This is likely despite my being persuaded to dare to hope that my good Lord will see that all comes out as well as can be and better than I can imagine. I am slow on the uptake, though a tad faster when I remember to leave tempo issues to Him.
Now I think we don't have much witness to the state of humans between their death and the consummation, and what witness we have is, at best, unclear. Do the martyrs sleep under the altar now? What are the Apostles actually doing "right now"? I'm blest if I can tell.
But, in another way, I don't much care one way or another. As long as the "blue-bird of Happiness" or related Platonic, Hindu, neo-Platonic blah blah notions of the soul as a little spark of the divine trapped in my gross body -- as long as they are just stomped on and only thought of again in order to construct counter-arguments, I am happy either to sleep for a spell, which would perhaps involve so awareness at the end of a passage of time, or to pass, directly or in stages, to the Joy of my Lord.
What I will insist upon (until He shows me different) is that it is HIS life in HIS Spirit which lives, not me, not my life.
How's that?
(BTW, what college? I went to St. John's Annapolis and to The Episcopal seminary in Alexandria VA.)(I am NOT a good student. I am, however, enthusiastic.)
I think every translation makes a tertium quid. I'd even suggest that translations of the Bible into English have altered English, affecting diction and rhythms.
"To choose the best word" is no small thing in any event. Hebrews 11:1, to take an extreme example, is tough. Finding the best English word for hypostasis?
Would you say that is philosophical thinking, or just seeking the best word to use?
I guess I can't see picking the best word as unphilosophical.
But thanks for the question. I'll chew on it.
The soul cannot live without love. Its eternity depends on providing it with a worthy object.
-- St. Francis de Sales
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.