Trichotomy or Dichotomy

[Van]

My argument was totally germane. I'm sorry you could not internalize it.

I demonstrated it was off target, as demonstrated by your hurling insult.

 

[John of Japan]

I demonstrated it was off target, as demonstrated by your hurling insult.

Insult? Really? You think that was an insult??? As always, Van, you need to be less sensitive. And I certainly don't mean that as an insult, just good advice.

Have a good one. I'll not interact with you anymore on this thread.

 

[Van]

Right. Exactly. So there are two parts, spirit and soul, with a division between them.

Right they are together, two aspects of one unity and are divided by a sword. The idea is that something that is joined is separated by God's power.

 

[Van]

Insult? Really? You think that was an insult??? As always, Van, you need to be less sensitive. And I certainly don't mean that as an insult, just good advice.

Have a good one. I'll not interact with you anymore on this thread.

The word "advice" is no where to be found in "sorry you could not internalize it" but rather should be described as disparagement.

 

[Van]

Getting back to the unity of our spirit and soul, lets use different translation choices. May your life animating power AND your mental awareness and your body be found blameless. Where our human spirit is, with or without our physical body, our mental awareness is. No animating power no awareness. Thus the biblical doctrine is Dichotomy.

 

[Darrell C]

We go to a great little local coffee shop called "Fiddleheads."

Hey thanks for the response, John, I love having these discussions when they get a little more in-depth . I always look to them as a source for growth.

The word living is: ḥay.
חַי chay, khah'-ee; from H2421; alive; hence, raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively:— age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life(-time), live(-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, merry, multitude, (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

The word soul is:nep̄eš.
נֶפֶשׁ nephesh, neh'-fesh; from H5314; 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, × dead(-ly), desire, × (dis-) contented, × fish, ghost, greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, × jeopardy of) life (× in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, slay, soul, tablet, they, thing, (× she) will, × would have it.

I'm not sure how you think this invalidates trichotomy.

First, the above was not meant to invalidate anything, lol, but rather validate something.

Secondly, what the point was was this: When men were created we see the same terminology as we see in regards to whales and "living creatures." That is the reason for the quote from Strong's, simply to show the word usage, not the definition.

So I will ask you to go back and look at the point itself, which is this: the same terminology is used to describe Man and living creatures. Man became a living creature, and whales and living creatures are also called living creatures. Both have a body and a spirit, and both are called living souls.

The point extends to this: Man became a soul, rather than received one.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The Bible is clear that we communicate with God with our human spirit.

I think that is overstating the case. God has communicated with men who are dead, not in relationship with Him, and done so through verbal communication.

That is how the Gospel is given to those who are dead, who do not have the Life of Christ through reconciliation and regeneration.

The souls in Heaven in Revelation 6:9 are talking to God, yes, but it says nothing about the means of doing so. After all, they are not resurrected yet--have no bodies and thus no tongues.

The means of doing so is not, in my view, a relevant point to the discussion. These are persons in Heaven, and it is very likely they are not glorified, but more likely they are unclothed (separated from their earthly tabernacle). So we are in agreement about that point.

The question before us is whether we are seeing spirits that are souls, or spirits that have souls.

Remember, the key question is going to be "does man have a soul, or is man a soul?"


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

1 Cor. 14:14-15 "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

Doesn't really help your position: nothing in this says "I will pray with my soul."

The soul (person) is praying in/with his spirit. The "understanding" of man isn't something a man becomes.

I posted this a few posts back, and submit it for your consideration:

Finally, on the matter of man's make-up being spirit and body, and one being a soul, rather than having one, let's look at the understanding of the disciples of Christ, and Christ's confirmation of their view:


Several points.
1. The word for "spirit" in these passages is the Greek pneuma (), as you know. This word has a very wide range of meaning in the language. In the cases you have mentioned, it means what we Americans call "ghost." In our Japanese NT, we differentiated between the word "spirit" here in Luke 24 with 幽霊 (yuurei), a word for "ghost," as compared to the "Spirit" of God, for which we used the simpler 霊 (rei). In Japanese, the one Greek word must represent more than one Japanese word, because the Greek word simply carries more than the same range of meaning in Japanese. So the disciples thought they saw a spooky ghost. That's all.

First, not sure why you think a Japanese understanding is even relevant. Let's deal with the text, not how the Japanese would understand it, but how the Bible Student should understand it.

Secondly, the point to be had in this passage is that the disciples thought they were seeing a spirit, not a soul. This is the word they used to identify someone they thought dead. The implicit teaching would be in their minds, someone separated from their body (which they thought was in the tomb) was a spirit.

It's as simple as that. That is the understanding of disciples who had sat under Christ for three years.

But we don't stop there, we look to the Lord's response:


Luke 24 KJV

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?


39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.


The point is that Christ verified their understanding of the division of spirit and body in death. That is why He shows them His physical body and asks them to feel that it is real: to verify that the separation of spirit and body was not the case, He was no longer dead.

Of course "spirit" has more meanings than just one, but what I think you fail to recognize is that the use of "spirit" in the case of "a spirit of fear" relates similarly to the idea that "the soul is the seat of emotions," as it is expressed by those trying to defend a trichotomist position.

See what I mean?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

2. You are forming your theology from the reaction of a group of scared, uneducated (except by Jesus) fishermen. No theologian I know of does theology that way.

As Van said, you are being a bit insulting in your comments. But that's okay, John, it isn't something that bothers me, lol. I can admit that sometimes a moron.



However, your assessment is incorrect. The fact is that you have missed the point for why this passage was given.

So, let me ask you, do you know any Theologians that draw conclusions based on context? That is what I was doing.

Rather, we use the clear statements of Scripture to do theology,

Is that so? That's the only way you draw conclusions in your theology?

So Scripture does not teach implicitly?

Rather, we use the clear statements of Scripture to do theology, not the reactions of scared and unspiritual human beings recorded in Scripture. Also, I rather think they were thinking back to the one genuine "ghost" in Scripture, Samuel being called up for King Saul.

Would you mind quoting where I did not use clear statements of Scripture to defend my position? You won't be able to. Unless you fail to quote the Scripture used.

Secondly, it sounds like you are guessing about what "they were thinking?" We can look at the clear statement of Scripture and see exactly what they were thinking, and I posted that in my post to you.

Third, You say theologians "use the clear statements of Scripture to do theology, not the reactions of scared and unspiritual human beings recorded in Scripture," and then you refer to a passage in which a scared woman calls up a dead man for a scared King."

Just saying.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Again, a person that has departed from the body can still be properly called "a soul," because the spirit is still "the person."

I don't see how a spirit being separated from his body could be considered not to be literal.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The passage does not say a spirit being separated from a body.

It says precisely that:


Luke 24 KJV

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?


39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


Now, the theologians I hold in high regard draw conclusions based on context as well as identifying the meaning of the words used (by cross referencing their usage), so when we look here the implicit teaching is that the disciples believe a person that had died was separated from their body. And here we see that the person separated from their body (on this occasion, Christ Who had died) would be a spirit, not a soul.

The broader context helps us to establish this, in that the disciples thought he was still dead:


Luke 24 KJV

17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?


18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?


19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:


20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.


21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.


See how they were sad because they had given up on Christ redeeming Israel? This means they no longer (or at least were quite uncertain) believed Jesus was the Christ.

So at this point, would you still say...

Again, a person that has departed from the body can still be properly called "a soul," because the spirit is still "the person."

I don't see how a spirit being separated from his body could be considered not to be literal.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The passage does not say a spirit being separated from a body.

... ?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Heb. 4:12 specifically mentions a division between soul and spirit.

I agree, and I addressed that.

The Word of God brings death.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


This is true even under the New Covenant, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (though a case could be made they weren't saved, but I believe they were) and those who partake of Communion unworthily (1 Corinthians 11:26-30).

The separation of the spirit from the person (as a whole) is in view, in my opinion. I gave several instances of verses using "soul" as a reference to persons. The people aboard the ship Paul sailed on could have had their spirits separated from their "souls."

Here's another example, one I am sure you will enjoy:


Matthew 10:28

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


In view is simply a man on earth, in his earthly tabernacle. In view is not the eternal destruction of a spirit, but looks to Eternal Damnation in which the lost will have a resurrected body suitable for their eternal judgment.

Men can kill a man's body, but cannot kill entirely. Annihilation is not in view, because we see that God will destroy both the person (soul) and the (eternal resurrected) body of the lost in Hell.

It doesn't mean he will "kill" soul and body, but they will be in an everlasting state of destruction.

So the use of "soul" here refers to the person.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I see no connection with this statement and dichotomy or trichotomy.

I can't imagine why.

We see the Lord Himself affirm that someone that dies is a spirit. This is what He proves, that He is not a spirit, but has a body.

Right. One of the meanings of the Hebrew word is "person."

That is the primary Biblical usage.

Because people embrace a trichotomy we see false notions and doctrines arise.

Like Soul Sleep.

This negates nothing about trichotomy. Please don't make the mistake of the amateur linguist/Bible translator of always translating one word in the original by only one word in the target language.

And please do not make the equally amateurish mistake of overlooking implicit teaching as found in the context.

Nothing in my posting has me "always translating one word in the original by only one word in the target language."

What was addressed was addressed. The points raised are the points raised. Going beyond that to exclude everything I might have to say on the subject is a premature and erroneous conclusion.

(This is called translating by concordance; cf Young's Literal Translation, which does this a lot.)

And the definitions were not the point, brother: the point was that the whales and living creatures are described as living souls, just as man was when he was created.

That would be the point to address.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I have no problem with this. We are made perfect in our spirits on earth, according to trichotomy. Our souls are not yet perfect, since we have an old nature, a sin nature. The Holy Spirit is then able to live within us without living in our souls with their sin nature.

You have yet to show from Scripture that men have souls.

If your entire view is based on two verses as opposed to the numerous verses that suggest man is a soul, rather than has one, okay. But we can see in Creation that man was given a body, then spirit, and became a living soul.

I agree we have not been made "perfect" in regards to our unredeemed bodies, but the context of the passage I gave you is one of salvation and justification on an eternal basis.

I would like to see more than the two verses you stand on so far to see a justification of the position that "The Holy Spirit is then able to live within us without living in our souls with their sin nature."

Where in Scripture is the Holy Spirit said to not live in our souls?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I'm not sure where you got these definitions--couldn't track it down.

Strong's Concordance.

Would you deny that they are the words of the text? Or accept Strong's as accurate as it lists the words used?

Secondly, as I said, the definitions were not given to define the words used, simply given to show that they are the words used, and how that impacts our understanding of how man and animals, and every living creature is a living creature.

In other words, again, the point was that man became a soul, he didn't receive a soul.

However, I have to say that these are so short they merely have glosses (short definitions, usually only one word). The definitions in actual lexicons are far longer, showing the complexity of translating these words.

Not really relevant to the discussion.

What would be relevant is whether you recognize that these are the words used.

For example, here is the entry in Holladay's Hebrew-English lexicon, as accessed through BibleWorks software. (Unfortunately, the BB does not transfer the words in Hebrew.)

vp,n< (ca. 750 ×): vp,n"), sf. yvip.n:, ^v,(p.n:, Wnvep.n: (Wnyvep.n: La 59); pl. t¿AÀvop'n>, cs. tAvp.n:, sf. ~t'vop.n:, Wnytevop.n:: — 1. throat Is 514; — 2. neck Ps 10518; 3. breath Jb 4113, what makes man & animals living beings Gn 120, ‘soul’ (to be sharply distinguished fm. Greek idea of soul) whose seat is the blood Gn 94f; — 4. nefeš µayyâ living beign Gn 120 ( = animals), 27 (man); — 5. man, men, person, people: a) nefeš °¹d¹m man (i.e person) Lv 2417, = slaves Ez 2713; hœr¢gnefeš whoever kills a person Nu 3119; pl. kol-nafšôt bêtô all the persons in his household Gn 366; °eµ¹d nefeš one (out of every 500) Nu 3128; kol-nefeš °¹d¹m any person Lv 2417, nefeš b®h¢mâ a head of cattle 2418; ±¹´â nefeš acquire people, rear persons (slaves?) Gn 125, q¹nâ nefeš buy a slave Lv 2211; b) population: kol-nefeš all per- sons, everyone Gn 4615; w. numbers Gn 4618; pl. n®f¹šôt Ex 124; — 6. personality, individuality: a) nafšî (&c.), stressed I (myself) Gn 274, so nafš¢nû we Ps 1247; b) expression of reflexive, esp. stressed: k®nafšô like himself 1S 183; ±annôt n¹feš self-humiliation, penance Nu 3014; c) kol-nefeš every one = each one Ex 1216 , kol-nefeš °šer the one who, whoever Lv 727, hannefeš °šer 720, hannefeš w. pt. 718, nefeš °šer one who 52; — 7. life (of a person, a single life): nefeš h¹°¹d¹m Gn 95, ±al-nafšek¹ (flee) for your life 1917, biqq¢š nefeš seek (s.one’s) life 1K 1910; b®ƒ¢°t nafš¹h as her (breath =) life left her Gn 3518; hikkâ nefeš strike dead 3721; h¢šîb nefeš give (new, fresh) life Ru 415; — 8. ‘soul’ as seat & support of feelings & sensations: a) desire (even inordinate desire): (of love) SS 17; n¹´¹° nefeš °el have desire for Ho 48; ma´´¹° nefeš desire Ez 2425; ba±al nefeš greedy (for food) Pr 232, r®µab nefeš greedy (for possessions) 2825; nefeš is never satisfied Ec 63, never quieted Ps 3525; b) mood, state of mind: of g¢r Ex 239, of cattle Pr 1210; c) feeling, taste Nu 215; d) will: y¢š °et-nafš®kem you are willing Gn 238; — 9. someone dead, a dead person, corpse: ´ere‰ lannefeš a slash because of the dead Lv 1928; nefeš m¢t dead body Nu 66, > nefeš (w/o m¢t) 611; Ez 1318-20 nafšôt, hunted by women who prophesy, usu. of disembodied souls hunted by magic, but sugg. simply ‘persons’; — 10. b¹ttê hannefeš perfume-bottles Is 320. (pg 243)

Why would I need this when I can allow Scripture to define the terms used?

And then place them in the broader context of the teachings of Scripture.

So we have to go back to the original point I made, man became a soul, and did not receive one. That detracts greatly from a trichotomist view.

And I apologize I wasn't clear enough to make the point easily understandable.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I don't think I agree with this. Let me ask a couple.

Sure.

Is there some sort of perfection seen in the following? And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting -- the redemption of our body; Rom 8:23 YLT

Yes, that is a completion we await, but we have to place everything in its proper context.

Hebrews 12:24 has a view to the temporal:


Hebrews 12 King James Version

18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,


22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


This Epistle (letter) was written to living believers, and the point is that "...you have not come to the Covenant of Law, but to the New Covenant."

The redeemed body of the believer is not in view.

Is that relative to the hope seen in V 24,25? Is it relative to the hope of V 20? Is the accomplishment of the redemption of the body by the means spoken of in V 11? Does that and is that at the moment of Paul's blessed hope?

Well sure, our hope does not stop at the salvation we enjoy in Christ right now, we groan for our heavenly bodies, lol.

but that isn't in view here.

Now compare to Paul's thoughts as seen in Phil 3:7-14 YLT
But what things were to me gains, these I have counted, because of the Christ, loss; yes, indeed, and I count all things to be loss, because of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, because of whom of the all things I suffered loss, and do count them to be refuse, that Christ I may gain, and be found in him, not having my righteousness, which is of law, but that which is through faith of Christ -- the righteousness that is of God by the faith, (I might add, Of Christ) to know him, and the power of his rising again, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, if anyhow I may attain to the rising again of the dead. Not that I did already obtain, or have been already perfected; but I pursue, if also I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by the Christ Jesus; brethren, I do not reckon myself to have laid hold; and one thing -- the things behind indeed forgetting, and to the things before stretching forth -- to the mark I pursue for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Isn't all of that from Phil 3 at the same moment of that from Rom 8 the manifestation of the sons of God 8:19? See also Luke 20:36 for neither are they able to die any more -- for they are like messengers -- and they are sons of God, being sons of the rising again.

Yes, this is in a context dealing with the glorification of the believer.

And yes, the "perfection" is in regards to being redeemed bodily. "Perfection" means completion. In that regard we are not yet complete, but that is not salvific in regards to the Atonement. It is salvific in regards to bodily resurrection, to wit, the redemption of our bodies.

Also IMHO 1 Cor 13:9-12 speaks of the same thing. The perfection of us.
for in part we know, and in part we prophecy; and when that which is perfect may come, then that which is in part shall become useless. When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe; for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then <when that which is perfect is come) face to face; now I know in part, and then <When that which is perfect is come) I shall fully know, as also I was known;

This is a much-debated issue. Personally, I regard the "perfect" here to be our knowledge and understanding of things when we are in the Eternal State.

Consider the souls seen in Heaven, asking, "How long, oh Lord, til you avenge our blood?"

They had died, were in Heaven, yet did not have complete knowledge of everything. In the Eternal State we will know all things, because history of this Creation will have wrapped up, and the New heavens and Earth will have replaced this one.

But it's debatable.

! john 3 :2,3 comes to mind also
beloved, now, children of God are we, and it was not yet manifested what we shall be, and we have known that if he may be manifested, like him we shall be, because we shall see him as he is; and every one who is having this hope on him, doth purify himself, even as he is pure. ------ There's that hope again. Same hope?

I agree. This refers to that time when we will be like Christ, glorified.


God bless.

 

[John of Japan]

As Van said, you are being a bit insulting in your comments. But that's okay, John, it isn't something that bothers me, lol. I can admit that sometimes a moron.

Van and I go way back. He's always like this, very quick to accuse people. I have more than once put hm on ignore.

However, your assessment is incorrect. The fact is that you have missed the point for why this passage was given.

So, let me ask you, do you know any Theologians that draw conclusions based on context? That is what I was doing.

The point of the passage is to increase our faith, so that we can step out of the boat like Peter, not teach dichotomy or trichotomy. The word "spirit" meant "ghost," as I tried to indicate with my reference to the witch of Endor and Saul and Samuel. I produced no theology from either passage.

Is that so? That's the only way you draw conclusions in your theology?

So Scripture does not teach implicitly?

I teach theology. It's what I do for a living.

The stories of Scripture are there to illustrate and illumine theology and the Christian life, not teach it implicitly or explicitly.

Would you mind quoting where I did not use clear statements of Scripture to defend my position? You won't be able to. Unless you fail to quote the Scripture used.

Secondly, it sounds like you are guessing about what "they were thinking?" We can look at the clear statement of Scripture and see exactly what they were thinking, and I posted that in my post to you.

You lost me here. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Third, You say theologians "use the clear statements of Scripture to do theology, not the reactions of scared and unspiritual human beings recorded in Scripture," and then you refer to a passage in which a scared woman calls up a dead man for a scared King."

Just saying.

Continued...

I taught no theology from either the Samuel/Saul story or the walking on the water story. I simply linked them as the possible progression of thought of the disciples saying "Ghost!" when they saw Jesus. Since I teach theology for a living, I'm pretty sure I would know when I did theology with a passage of Scripture.

 

[John of Japan]

It says precisely that:


Luke 24 KJV

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?


39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


Now, the theologians I hold in high regard draw conclusions based on context as well as identifying the meaning of the words used (by cross referencing their usage), so when we look here the implicit teaching is that the disciples believe a person that had died was separated from their body. And here we see that the person separated from their body (on this occasion, Christ Who had died) would be a spirit, not a soul.

The broader context helps us to establish this, in that the disciples thought he was still dead:


Luke 24 KJV

17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?


18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?


19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:


20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.


21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.


See how they were sad because they had given up on Christ redeeming Israel? This means they no longer (or at least were quite uncertain) believed Jesus was the Christ.

So at this point, would you still say...





... ?


Continued...

In this passage also, they thought they saw a ghost. It's a simple semantic point. The Bible is not teaching either trichotomy or dichotomy in Luke 24:36-39. That's why they were "terrified." They were afraid of ghosts, just like little Eri in my church in English who asked me for counseling about ghosts.

As for Luke 24:17-21, again, there is no trichotomy or dichotomy there. I'm very puzzled at your choices of proof texts.

 

[John of Japan]

Strong's Concordance.

Would you deny that they are the words of the text? Or accept Strong's as accurate as it lists the words used?

Secondly, as I said, the definitions were not given to define the words used, simply given to show that they are the words used, and how that impacts our understanding of how man and animals, and every living creature is a living creature.

In other words, again, the point was that man became a soul, he didn't receive a soul.

Exactly! I'm glad to finally get this out of the way. Trichotomy does not teach that man receives a soul, but that he is a soul.

Not really relevant to the discussion.

What would be relevant is whether you recognize that these are the words used.

My point was that those words must be translated according to context, and the meaning of a single Hebrew or Greek word can be quite different according to context. Example: πνεῦμα (pneuma) sometimes means a ghost, and sometimes means the Spirit of God. The two meanings could not possibly be more different. In many languages (including English), the one Greek word can be translated with various different words, unlike the original Greek, which wrapped up various meanings in one Greek word.

Why would I need this when I can allow Scripture to define the terms used?

And then place them in the broader context of the teachings of Scripture.

So we have to go back to the original point I made, man became a soul, and did not receive one. That detracts greatly from a trichotomist view.

And I apologize I wasn't clear enough to make the point easily understandable.
God bless.

Au contraire. I believe exactly as you are saying here, that man is a soul, not that he receives one. And I am a trichotomist.

 

[John of Japan]

Doesn't really help your position: nothing in this says "I will pray with my soul."

The soul (person) is praying in/with his spirit. The "understanding" of man isn't something a man becomes.

Well, yes, "the soul (person) is praying in/with his spirit." I agree totally. And that is trichotomy. Dichotomy teaches that spirit and soul are the same, two different words for the same thing. Dichotomy is defined by one systematic theologian as "the view that the human is composed of two elements, a material aspect (the bod6) and an immaterial component (the soul or spirit" (Christian Theology, 3rd ed., Millard J. Erickson, p. 478).

First, not sure why you think a Japanese understanding is even relevant. Let's deal with the text, not how the Japanese would understand it, but how the Bible Student should understand it.

My point was the same linguistic point I've been trying to make all along. The disciples thought they say a "ghost," not simply some disembodied spirit. A "ghost" is the immaterial part of a dead human being, usually thought of as inimical to humans, therefore scary.

Secondly, the point to be had in this passage is that the disciples thought they were seeing a spirit, not a soul. This is the word they used to identify someone they thought dead. The implicit teaching would be in their minds, someone separated from their body (which they thought was in the tomb) was a spirit.

It's as simple as that. That is the understanding of disciples who had sat under Christ for three years.

Sigh. No, they thought they had seen a ghost, something to fear, an inimical disembodied person. There is no way this proves dichotomy.

But we don't stop there, we look to the Lord's response:


Luke 24 KJV

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?


39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.


The point is that Christ verified their understanding of the division of spirit and body in death. That is why He shows them His physical body and asks them to feel that it is real: to verify that the separation of spirit and body was not the case, He was no longer dead.

Of course "spirit" has more meanings than just one, but what I think you fail to recognize is that the use of "spirit" in the case of "a spirit of fear" relates similarly to the idea that "the soul is the seat of emotions," as it is expressed by those trying to defend a trichotomist position.

See what I mean?

I see it but as a linguist I cannot agree.

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, if you are going to argue for dichotomy, you have to argue for two parts to a human: material and immaterial. The immaterial is called by different names, usually either soul or spirit or both as synonyms. One theologian even adds "mind" and "heart" as other synonyms (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 193).

As soon as you give ground indicating that "soul" and "spirit" both exist in a person, you've lost to the trichotomist.

Baptist theologian A. H. Strong wrote, "It must be acknowledged that πνεῦμα (spirit) and ψυχή (soul), although often used interchangeably, and always designating the same indivisible substance, are sometimes employed as contrasted terms" (Systematic Theology, p. 484).