what is the function of the soul?

[Paleouss]

I have not read all of the post in this thread and am not responding to anyone in particular. Only to the question, what is the function of the soul?

This topic can be hard to communicate at its start since many have a slightly different theology on the matter. So I will be transparent and say, I hold that mankind is a biblical and logical composition (one self and one whole) in the likeness of the Trinity, One God in three persons.

Mankind is a self that can be logically divided into an inner and outer self (2Cor 4:16) and additionally divided, only by logic or the discerning Spirit (Heb 4:12) for the spirit of man and the soul of man are in oneness, into an inner self represented in the formula: spirit-soul. (Formula found in Genesis 2:7). Therefore, mankind is body/spirit-soul, which is one self.

As short as I can present it... The soul is distinct personhood and the heart and mind are of the soul. This is not to say that the heart is something other than the soul or that the soul is something other than the heart. For our arms are not something other than the body and the body is not something other than the arms. But the arms are of the body and the body consists of its arms. So too, the heart of man is of the soul and the soul consists of its heart (1Chr 22:19). In other words, the soul is the principal of personhood of a self that is both body, soul and spirit; and the heart is the seat of that innermost personhood (Prov 4:23).

The heart (Heb. lēḇ, Gr. kardia) is the seat of the innermost man, for “above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.” (Prov 4:23). It is the wellspring from which thoughts (Gen 6:5, Luke 1:51, Matt 9:4), questioning (Mar 2:8), doubts (Luke 24:38), desire (Ps 37:4), attitudes (Pro 3:5, 2Chr 19:9, 2Kin 20:3, 1Kin 2:4, Rom 10:10, Rom 10:9), and emotions (1 Sam. 2:1, Deu 28:47, Prov 15:15, 1Sam 1:8) spring forth.

The heart is not only the wellspring of emotions and attitudes of the soul but also consists of the mind. For it is said that the “soul chooses” (Job 7:15 NKJV) and the “soul refuses” (Job 6:7 NKJV) just as the heart “devises wicked plans” (Pov 6:18, 16:9, 19:21 NKJV) and the “mind” has many plans (Prov 19:21 ESV).

It is useful to understand, before proceeding, that the Hebrew language has no word that translates to the English word ‘mind’. Therefore, when one comes across the word “mind” in the Old Testament, one should know that many different words have been translated into the English word ‘mind’ within the biblical text.

As for our modern understanding, the mind then is a function of the heart in which there is intellect, reason, and thoughts. And of the mind there are two faculties, that of choosing or choice and understanding. Further, we must not be confused and think that the mind is one thing and the heart is another. But to correctly think that the heart is the seat of the innermost self, the innermost self being the soul, and the mind is a function of that seat. And to say that the mind has two faculties is not to say that there is the heart and then there is the mind that has two powers. But to say that there is the heart, the seat of the soul, and the mind is a function of the heart that has the power to choose, reason, and understand.

So when we say that a mind can reason and understand we are also saying that to reason and understand is a faculty of the heart through the function of the mind. Thus we can avoid confusion in scripture when it says,“Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? (Matt 9:4) and also says, “Thus says the Lord God: On that day, thoughts will come into your mind, and you will devise an evil scheme”(Eze 38:10).

As can be seen through these two verses, thoughts are said to come from the “heart” (Matt 9:4) AND the “mind” (Eze 38:10) within the translator’s interpretation. This is not a contradiction nor is it an example of them being exactly the same thing. But it is a representation that there are nuances between the two, the mind is a function of the heart which is the seat of the soul which is the principal of personhood. So to say that thoughts come from the mind is to also say that thoughts come from the heart. For the mind is a function of the heart and the heart the seat of the soul.

Soul = is the principal of personhood of a distinct self
Heart = is the seat of the soul, the epicenter of thoughts and emotion of the innermost man.
Mind = is a function of the heart in which there is intellect, reason, and thoughts.

I think this is a vey interesting topic.

Peace and love to all of you, my brothers

 

[DavidTheGnome]

I think the first thing to know about the soul is that it's eternal.

 

[CoreyD]

I think the first thing to know about the soul is that it's eternal.

Since that is what some believe, then the first thing to know is, which source do we look to, to establish the truth in these matters - what people say, or what the Bible says?
As a Christian, I would always go for the latter, and the Bible actually says the soul is mortal. Ezekiel 18:4

 

[LoveofTruth]

there is no instance at all
of a human floating around as if etherally ..... (without a body);

Yes there are, I shared a few, they have some kind of body. We do not have all the details given, but we have enough to see that.

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them;..." (Revelation 6:9-11)

and the story of lazarus was Jesus using the false beliefs of some Jewish religious leaders against themselves. (i.e. it was not a lesson for the disciples nor for forum readers)

no, it doesn't say that at all, Jesus was not speaking fables and false beliefs as if true. That is a unusual interpretation. I don't agree with it at all according to scripture.

 

[Aaron112]

I shared a few

e.w.bullinger easily and with all Scripture debunks the ones you mentioned.

 

[Aaron112]

Jesus was not speaking fables and false beliefs as if true.

That's not what I posted.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Such common errors are dispelled by bullinger .

"But Dr. Bullinger teaches that at death a man-spirit, soul and body-ceases to exist.
Right throughout his pamphlet Dr. Bullinger takes Eccl. 9:5 as his great foundation text. He gives it a settled meaning, and builds on that. If his interpretation of Eccl. 9:5 is correct, then all other scriptures bearing on the point will fall into line. But, alas, we have to show that his interpretation is plainly a false one, and that the subsequent texts adduced as proofs are by him twisted and misrepresented in shocking fashion. It is the case of a man getting a fixed idea into his mind, and then making everything conform to it. He becomes the slave of an idea.
But let us see if Eccl. 9:5 teaches all that Dr. Bullinger dogmatically says it does. He must have known surely that "UNDER THE SUN" is the great key-phrase of Ecclesiastes, occurring no less than twenty-five times in the book. Solomon, the writer of the book, is stating the condition of the dead in relation TO THIS EARTH. When death supervenes a dead man is completely out of touch with his earthly environment. He knows nothing of his former surroundings. Let us quote the passage in full: "The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun" (Eccl. 9:5, 6).
Indeed, to explain the passage as Dr. Bullinger does is to go too far, even for him. He teaches the resurrection, but here in this passage the dead have no more a portion forever. This can be true only as far as this world is concerned. A dead person will never have a portion in this life forever. But to take it literally, as Dr. Bullinger does, would shut out the resurrection. Indeed, if the man ceases to exist, it is not a resurrection that can take place, but a re-creation. But when it is seen that the outlook Solomon had was "under the sun," all is plain and simple. Dr. Bullinger builds up a whole theory on a gross misinterpretation of a single verse.
It is significant that Dr. Bullinger begins his proofs by quoting Old Testament passages. It is not that the Old Testament is not equally inspired and equally authoritative as the New Testament, but that the New Testament gives fuller light on such subjects as we are examining.
Christadelphian and Adventist writers do the same thing. They base their anti-Christian theories on misinterpreted Old Testament scriptures."

By the way I also disagree with Bullinger

 

[Aaron112]

.... and so misunderstandings and miscomprehensions are so common....
Thanks be to God our Father that some truth is still revealed as God Plans and Accomplishes as He Delights to do.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Such common errors are dispelled by bullinger in his lesson: the rich man and lazarus.

We now come to the last of the five passages which Dr. Bullinger says are generally relied on and referred to by Traditionists. He says, "There remains the fifth passage, Luke 16:19-31, commonly called `The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,' or of 'Dives and Lazarus.' It is absolutely impossible that the Traditional interpretation of this can be correct; because, if it were, it would be directly opposed to all the other teaching of Scripture. And the Lord's words cannot and must not be so interpreted. If it be Bible truth (as it is) that 'the dead know not anything,' how could the Lord have taught, and how can we believe that they do know a very great deal?" (p. 34).
The Lord did certainly teach that the dead in the other world are conscious, and know a great deal. If He taught this, and He did, it is true, whatever Dr. Bullinger may say to the contrary. Dr. Bullinger puts his misinterpretation of "The dead know not anything" against the words of our Lord; and he proceeds to explain away our Lord's words so that they shall not contradict his misinterpretation of Scripture.
Here are the words of our Lord: "And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell [hades] he lift up his eyes being in torments" (Luke 16:22, 23). Whether we treat this as a parable or not does not alter the meaning. It is given to set forth the truth. If a parable, its solemn teaching is to inform us as to what takes place the other side of death. Revelation alone can draw aside the veil. Our Lord clearly teaches that there are two destinations in the next world, one of happiness and the other of woe.
Our Lord further teaches in the most implicit language that there is consciousness after death. Lazarus dies, and without the very slightest hint that there is any interregnum, any period of time between the two statements, we are told he was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom.
Further, when our Lord spoke these words Abraham had been dead over eighteen centuries. How comes he in the place of bliss, if he had ceased to exist, spirit, soul and body, as Dr. Bullinger teaches? Abraham is alive there, at any rate, for he speaks three times to the rich man. This could not be, if there were no Intermediate State.
Moreover the rich man dies, and is buried, and, without any break in the narrative, lifts up his eyes in Hades being in torment. All this most clearly teaches consciousness after death of the soul apart from the body.
Dr. Bullinger waxes sarcastic as to the inconsistencies of Traditionists in explaining what is literal and what is figurative. He asks how can the soul go on thinking without a brain, and how can the soul of a dead person, whose body with its tongue lies buried in the grave, have a tongue and speak in the other world?
So he asks: "There is the further difficulty as to a man who has been actually buried, could think without a brain, or speak without a tongue. How can the spirit speak, or act apart from the physical organs of the body? This is a difficulty our friends cannot get over: and so they have to invent some theory (which outdoes the Spiritist's invention of an 'Astral body') which has no foundation whatever in fact: and is absolutely destitute of anything worthy of the name 'evidence' of any kind whatsoever" (p. 38).
We do not and cannot tell how the soul in another world can think or speak, but we know that they do because Scripture tell us so. We do not invent any theory, but simply state a fact that Scripture warrants us in so doing. We read of God speaking and listening, and many other things, and He is a Spirit. We do not ask how this could be."

 

[LoveofTruth]

e.w.bullinger easily and with all Scripture debunks the ones you mentioned.

not at all, he has been written against by many over the years and some of his teachings.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I cannot tell with certainty from any posts if anyone on forum understand the Scriptures at all.

Im beginning to wonder this as well by the errors about a non existing "soul sleep" that is taught by many.

 

[Aaron112]

Posts have gone too far afield to be helpful.


Simply this might help , for those who seek truth as revealed by Jesus:

"In dealing with this Scripture, and the subject of the so-called ""intermediate state,"" it is important that we should confine ourselves to the *Word of God, * and not go to Tradition. ."

 

[BeyondET]

I have not read all of the post in this thread and am not responding to anyone in particular. Only to the question, what is the function of the soul?

This topic can be hard to communicate at its start since many have a slightly different theology on the matter. So I will be transparent and say, I hold that mankind is a biblical and logical composition (one self and one whole) in the likeness of the Trinity, One God in three persons.

Mankind is a self that can be logically divided into an inner and outer self (2Cor 4:16) and additionally divided, only by logic or the discerning Spirit (Heb 4:12) for the spirit of man and the soul of man are in oneness, into an inner self represented in the formula: spirit-soul. (Formula found in Genesis 2:7). Therefore, mankind is body/spirit-soul, which is one self.

As short as I can present it... The soul is distinct personhood and the heart and mind are of the soul. This is not to say that the heart is something other than the soul or that the soul is something other than the heart. For our arms are not something other than the body and the body is not something other than the arms. But the arms are of the body and the body consists of its arms. So too, the heart of man is of the soul and the soul consists of its heart (1Chr 22:19). In other words, the soul is the principal of personhood of a self that is both body, soul and spirit; and the heart is the seat of that innermost personhood (Prov 4:23).

The heart (Heb. lēḇ, Gr. kardia) is the seat of the innermost man, for “above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.” (Prov 4:23). It is the wellspring from which thoughts (Gen 6:5, Luke 1:51, Matt 9:4), questioning (Mar 2:8), doubts (Luke 24:38), desire (Ps 37:4), attitudes (Pro 3:5, 2Chr 19:9, 2Kin 20:3, 1Kin 2:4, Rom 10:10, Rom 10:9), and emotions (1 Sam. 2:1, Deu 28:47, Prov 15:15, 1Sam 1:8) spring forth.

The heart is not only the wellspring of emotions and attitudes of the soul but also consists of the mind. For it is said that the “soul chooses” (Job 7:15 NKJV) and the “soul refuses” (Job 6:7 NKJV) just as the heart “devises wicked plans” (Pov 6:18, 16:9, 19:21 NKJV) and the “mind” has many plans (Prov 19:21 ESV).

It is useful to understand, before proceeding, that the Hebrew language has no word that translates to the English word ‘mind’. Therefore, when one comes across the word “mind” in the Old Testament, one should know that many different words have been translated into the English word ‘mind’ within the biblical text.

As for our modern understanding, the mind then is a function of the heart in which there is intellect, reason, and thoughts. And of the mind there are two faculties, that of choosing or choice and understanding. Further, we must not be confused and think that the mind is one thing and the heart is another. But to correctly think that the heart is the seat of the innermost self, the innermost self being the soul, and the mind is a function of that seat. And to say that the mind has two faculties is not to say that there is the heart and then there is the mind that has two powers. But to say that there is the heart, the seat of the soul, and the mind is a function of the heart that has the power to choose, reason, and understand.

So when we say that a mind can reason and understand we are also saying that to reason and understand is a faculty of the heart through the function of the mind. Thus we can avoid confusion in scripture when it says,“Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? (Matt 9:4) and also says, “Thus says the Lord God: On that day, thoughts will come into your mind, and you will devise an evil scheme”(Eze 38:10).

As can be seen through these two verses, thoughts are said to come from the “heart” (Matt 9:4) AND the “mind” (Eze 38:10) within the translator’s interpretation. This is not a contradiction nor is it an example of them being exactly the same thing. But it is a representation that there are nuances between the two, the mind is a function of the heart which is the seat of the soul which is the principal of personhood. So to say that thoughts come from the mind is to also say that thoughts come from the heart. For the mind is a function of the heart and the heart the seat of the soul.

Soul = is the principal of personhood of a distinct self
Heart = is the seat of the soul, the epicenter of thoughts and emotion of the innermost man.
Mind = is a function of the heart in which there is intellect, reason, and thoughts.

I think this is a vey interesting topic.

Peace and love to all of you, my brothers

Must be symbolic for a human heart can be transplanted to another human. Along with other organs. Interesting enough bone and skin cells live the longest after the breath is gone, sometimes for weeks.

 

[BeyondET]

"But Dr. Bullinger teaches that at death a man-spirit, soul and body-ceases to exist.

The body does continue to exist for awhile. The life in a human body dies in a cascading manner, brain cells being the first to die. The immune system is a fascinating part of the body. It will actually send out cells trying to repair failing organs. But without the breath it's futile.

 

[CoreyD]

.... and so misunderstandings and miscomprehensions are so common....
Thanks be to God our Father that some truth is still revealed as God Plans and Accomplishes as He Delights to do.

That's true.
The Bible is not an invention created by a novice, who invents something and then says, I call it AX, and someone else says, No, call it BX, and another says, Why not call it CX.
Then each agree that whatever anyone wants to call it, that's what it is... to them.

"But Dr. Bullinger teaches that at death a man-spirit, soul and body-ceases to exist.
Right throughout his pamphlet Dr. Bullinger takes Eccl. 9:5 as his great foundation text. He gives it a settled meaning, and builds on that. If his interpretation of Eccl. 9:5 is correct, then

Why do you say it's "his interpretation"?
How does one interpret "cats have fur", for example? Does that need interpreting?
No. It's a conclusive statement.

The moon orbits the earth.... A conclusive statement.
Fire is hot... A conclusive statement.
The living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing... A conclusive statement.

A conclusive statement of fact, needs no interpreting?

How would a truth be known, if everyone decides to interpret everything.
Nothing said would be what is said.

Martin Luther saw the error in this habit that had sprouted, by the time he came on the scene, but he was not able to stop it, though he tried, because it was the Lord's will for it to flourish, for the harvest, when the angels would cast their sickles in. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12; Revelation 14:14-20

It's so common now, to hear, "My interpretation. Your interpretation."
A bit sad, but lots of things God allows, are that way, until his time arrives to remove it.

 

[LoveofTruth]

The body does continue to exist for awhile. The life in a human body dies in a cascading manner, brain cells being the first to die. The immune system is a fascinating part of the body. It will actually send out cells trying to repair failing organs. But without the breath it's futile.

The body sleeps or awaits the redemption of the body but the soul and spirit remain and are conscious after death as scripture shows clearly.

 

[BeyondET]

The body sleeps or awaits the redemption of the body but the soul and spirit remain and are conscious after death as scripture shows clearly.

The body turns to dust, indeed the soul and spirit live on but those are not part of the physical body.

Redemption of the body is like dry bones coming to life.

 

[LoveofTruth]

That's true.
The Bible is not an invention created by a novice, who invents something and then says, I call it AX, and someone else says, No, call it BX, and another says, Why not call it CX.
Then each agree that whatever anyone wants to call it, that's what it is... to them.


Why do you say it's "his interpretation"?

I was quoting another man there, not my own words.

But Jesus asked sone,

Luke 10: 26. He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

 

[CoreyD]

I was quoting another man there, not my own words.

Okay, thanks.
So you do not agree with the person you quoted?
Do you agree with me, then?

But Jesus asked sone,

Luke 10: 26. He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
If you clarify, it might be helpful.