Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[PJM]

YOur are completly and totally welcome.

May God gide your path,

Easter Blessings,

Patrick

 

[blanchardman]

Body: In my opinion, there is no disagreement here, unnecessary to define.
(chronological numbering for easy reference)

Soul: (Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche) regardless of English translation.

1. Can mean persons, creatures, or any living thing. When used in this sense it is usually translated as persons or creatures (Gen 1:24, Gen 12:5, Lev 11:10, Acts 2:41, Rom 13:1).
2. That which gives life to a body. Sometimes translated as “life” (Deut 12:23, 1 Kings 17:21-22, Lamentations 2:12, Luke 12:19-20).
3. The seat of emotions, feelings, and desires sometimes translated as “heart” (Jonah 2:7, Micah 7:1, Matt 12:18, Matt 26:38, Rev 18:14)

Nephesh appears 753 times in the OT. 475 times(63%) it is translated soul, 0 times translated spirit.
Psyche appears 105 times in the NT. 58 times(55%) soul, 0 times spirit

Spirit: (Hebrew ruwach and Greek pneuma) regardless of English translation.
4. God (John 4:24)

1. Holy Spirit, third person of the Trinity (Matt 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14)

1. Angels or demons (Mark 1:26, Heb 1:13-14)

1. Air, wind, or breath. (Amos 4:13, Job 15:13)

1. That which gives life to a body. (Gen 6:17, Ps 104:29-30, Zachariah 12:1, James 2:26, Rev 11:11)

1. The seat of emotions and feelings (Dan 7:15, Mark 8:12, Luke 1:47)

1. Moral attitude, “poor in spirit”, etc. (Matt 5:3)

Likewise ruwach and pneuma are never translated soul. (Sorry the paper got wet and I lost the numbers on these.)

There is no indication in Genesis 2:7 that when body and spirit were joined together that a third entity “soul” also came into being (Body+Spirit+Soul= Living Person).
Rather… Body+Spirit= Living Person (i.e. Living Soul according to definition #1 from the bible).

The spirit and soul are connected and function as one. The spirit gives life to the soul (as stated by PJM). Therefore the soul without the spirit has no life and would be dead.

 

[blanchardman]

Hello, I’ve just come across this discussion about spirit, soul and body. Its a topic which has interested me too. Hope I’m not too late to comment. We are told that God is a Spirit. I remember having a discussion with someone who stated that man is a rational being. I tried to convince him that man, in fact, is a spirit which lives in a body. Some people turn it around and say that man is a body which has a soul or spirit. I think its important to define correctly. Man is a spirit being. The three aspects of man - Spirit, Soul and Body. My interpretation The highest part of man is his spirit. The spirit apprehends God
The soul responds to God in thoughts, words, emotions, and the body is the vessel of clay which contains the life of the individual and obviously the physical active element.
Regarding Judgement, I understand that we all undergo a judgement as soon as we die - the Particular Judgement. But at the end of time there will still be some people alive and the General Judgement would be the final curtain call , the winding up of history, the beginning of Eternity.
Hope this adds something to the discussion :tiphat:

This discussion goes back to a question about
1 Corinthians15:52-54
Here we have two groups of “saints” at the moment when Jesus returns.
The first group “puts on” their resurrected (incorruptible) body.
The second group (saints still living on earth) also must “put on” incorruption. It then says that they must put on immortality.
The question is; Why is group one not required to put on immortality?

Patrick, please allow Moro Rock and Spiderman an opportunity to respond before you do.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by blanchardman

Nephesh appears 753 times in the OT. 475 times (63%) it is translated soul, 0 times translated spirit.
Psyche appears 105 times in the NT. 58 times (55%) soul, 0 times spirit.

Likewise ruwach and pneuma are never translated soul. (Sorry the paper got wet and I lost the numbers on these.)

Ruwach appears 378 times in the OT. 232 times (61%) it is translated spirit. 0 times translated soul.
Pneuma appears 385 times in the NT. 111 times (29%) it is translated spirit. 0 times translated soul.

We agree that they are two different words and a good translation should not translate one as the other. What I was trying to get across is that the manner in which they are used throughout the Bible is interchangeable in some instances. Their “meaning” within the context of scripture overlaps in some areas but certainly not all areas.

Example: Job 7:11 ”I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.” Can you make any distinction between soul and spirit here? If you exchanged those two words, would that change the meaning of this passage? I think the answer is no because they are synonyms speaking of the same thing. What is the distinction in this scripture verse? Is the inspired author even trying to make such a distinction?

The spirit and soul are connected and function as one. The spirit gives life to the soul (as stated by PJM). Therefore the soul without the spirit has no life and would be dead.

I think this is where there is some confusion because the “soul” in scripture often means any living creature or person or even a dead body.

Examples: Gen 2:19 ”…God formed every beast…every fowl….and whatsoever Adam called every living creature (nephesh), that was the name thereof.”
Jeremiah 52:29 ”…Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons (nephesh)”.
Leviticus 21:11 ”he shall not go in to any dead body (nephesh), even for his mother or his father.”

From just these few examples “soul” refers to the creature or the person and not a part of the creature or person (unless it is specifically the physical material “body”). Thus it is correct to say the spirit gives life to the soul (meaning person/creature/body). And it is also correct to say that the soul (person/creature/body) without the spirit has no life and would be dead. When used in this context, “soul” refers to the physical body or to the whole person/creature which includes the physical. Thus if used in this manner, there is a distinction between soul and spirit because “soul” includes the physical, but “spirit” never refers to the physical or material element of man. Looking at Hebrews 4:12 with this distinction in mind means the separation of the physical soul from the spiritual spirit. i.e. separation of body and spirit=physical death.

1 Kings 17:21-22: ”O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul (nephesh) come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul (nephesh) of the child came into him again, and he revived.” This example is a focus on the spiritual soul. It is in this context when the words soul and spirit become interchangeable. From your perspective, wouldn’t this be more accurate if it said “spirit” here instead of “soul”? This would be consistent with James 2:26 ”…the body apart from the spirit is dead”.

How do you explain 1 Kings 17:21-22 using the term soul instead of spirit from your point of view?

Genesis 35:18 ”And as her soul (nephesh) was departing (for she died), she called his name Benoni.” From your point of view shouldn’t this say “spirit” instead? How would you explain this?

 

[pablope]

PJM,
I recently learned that venial sins are forgiven in the Mass. Given this fact, do you find that some Catholics make less of an effort to work on the small stuff/sins since those lesser sins are automatically forgiven without any effort on the part of the venial sinner? Thanks in advance.

There is a reason for that…venial sins are forgiven in Mass so that when we receive the Eucharist, we are properly disposed of sins in ourselves. The CC teaches what we cannot receive if we have unforgiven mortal sins.

 

[blanchardman]

Ruwach appears 378 times in the OT. 232 times (61%) it is translated spirit. 0 times translated soul.
Pneuma appears 385 times in the NT. 111 times (29%) it is translated spirit. 0 times translated soul.

Thanks for the assist.

We agree that they are two different words and a good translation should not translate one as the other. What I was trying to get across is that the manner in which they are used throughout the Bible is interchangeable in some instances. Their “meaning” within the context of scripture overlaps in some areas but certainly not all areas.

Example: Job 7:11 ”I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.” Can you make any distinction between soul and spirit here? If you exchanged those two words, would that change the meaning of this passage? I think the answer is no because they are synonyms speaking of the same thing. What is the distinction in this scripture verse? Is the inspired author even trying to make such a distinction?

If the Holy Spirit wanted the two statements to be from the same “source” He could have used the same word or combined them into one statement. Why then did He use two different words?

I think this is where there is some confusion because the “soul” in scripture often means any living creature or person or even a dead body.

Examples: Gen 2:19 ”…God formed every beast…every fowl….and whatsoever Adam called every living creature (nephesh), that was the name thereof.”
Jeremiah 52:29 ”…Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons (nephesh)”.
Leviticus 21:11 ”he shall not go in to any dead body (nephesh), even for his mother or his father.”

Yes words can have different meanings.

From just these few examples “soul” refers to the creature or the person and not a part of the creature or person (unless it is specifically the physical material “body”). Thus it is correct to say the spirit gives life to the soul (meaning person/creature/body). And it is also correct to say that the soul (person/creature/body) without the spirit has no life and would be dead. When used in this context, “soul” refers to the physical body or to the whole person/creature which includes the physical. Thus if used in this manner, there is a distinction between soul and spirit because “soul” includes the physical, but “spirit” never refers to the physical or material element of man. Looking at Hebrews 4:12 with this distinction in mind means the separation of the physical soul from the spiritual spirit. i.e. separation of body and spirit=physical death.

1 Kings 17:21-22: ”O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul (nephesh) come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul (nephesh) of the child came into him again, and he revived.” This example is a focus on the spiritual soul. It is in this context when the words soul and spirit become interchangeable. From your perspective, wouldn’t this be more accurate if it said “spirit” here instead of “soul”? This would be consistent with James 2:26 ”…the body apart from the spirit is dead”.

How do you explain 1 Kings 17:21-22 using the term soul instead of spirit from your point of view?

I must repeat what I said before. The spirit and soul are connected and function as one.

Genesis 35:18 ”And as her soul (nephesh) was departing (for she died), she called his name Benoni.” From your point of view shouldn’t this say “spirit” instead? How would you explain this?

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by blanchardmand

This discussion goes back to a question about
1 Corinthians 15:52-54
Here we have two groups of “saints” at the moment when Jesus returns.
The first group “puts on” their resurrected (incorruptible) body.
The second group (saints still living on earth) also must “put on” incorruption. It then says that
They must put on immortality.
The question is; Why is group one not required to put on immortality?

My answer is pretty straightforward. Because the second group is still “mortal” (i.e. able to die or subject to the universal consequence of sin), they must put on “immortality”. An incorruptible body wouldn’t do much good if they were still able to die. This is a poor example but I’m thinking of Lazarus dying, Jesus raises him, Lazarus dies again, Jesus raises him again, on and on into eternity.

It is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). The example with Lazarus (not my distorted version above)was an exception that God used to demonstrate who Jesus was and that he had power over death. Definitely not the norm, and Lazarus still died again. The first group has already died and only need to be incorruptible because they have already died and are no longer subject to death. So in a sense they are already “immortal”, because they are no longer required to suffer the universal consequence of sin which is physical death.

In both cases it is referring to their glorified bodies. In both cases they will be immortal and incorruptible.

An interesting thing to note is that the same Greek word, ”aphtharsia”, translated here as incorruption is translated as immortality in 2 Timothy 1:10.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by blanchardman

If the Holy Spirit wanted the two statements (from Job 7:11) to be from the same “source” He could have used the same word or combined them into one statement. Why then did He use two different words?

Which is it? Either soul and spirit function together as one unit, therefore the emotions expressed in Job are indeed from the same “source” (the unnamed unit); or they do not function as one unit making it necessary for the Holy Spirit to make a distinction between the two “sources”. It can’t be both. If this is a distinction between the two “sources”, you would have to conclude that the “soul” is responsible for “bitterness” and the spirit is responsible for “anguish”, which is the opposite of what is said in Genesis 42:21 and Ezekiel 3:14. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

Alternative explanation: The inspired author is using two words to describe the same thing. He is expressing it twice to emphasize his emotions in a similar manner that Jesus often said “Truly, truly (amen, amen)…” to emphasize what he was about to say. Or in Mark 14:36 Jesus prays “Abba, Father…” two words with the same meaning.

In response to the example of 1 Kings 17:21-22, you claim that soul and spirit are connected and function as one.

By implication you are saying that it is not necessary to make any distinction here because they function as one unit. By using the word “soul” it is also implying “spirit” because they are one unit. Therefore it would be consistent with your answer to make the claim that when Jesus refers to being able to destroy the soul in hell (Matt 10:28), that the spirit is also implied in that statement. Or in 1 Corinthians 5:5 that the spirit may be saved, also includes the soul. Or even that the soul may be destroyed, but the spirit still saved. It has all kinds of implications with no way of discerning what actual Truth is.

By your definition, every time I see the word spirit or the word soul I have to ask, “Does this mean the individual part, or is it referring to the combined whole?” And depending on how I interpret that, it can change the meaning of many scripture verses. That’s a recipe for chaos and contradictions, but not clarity and Truth. If I can’t have reasonable assurance that I’m correctly understanding the Word of God then that could affect my eternal destiny. If a particular belief brings chaos to the Word of God, then it is time to seriously re-examine that belief. The Holy Spirit is not the author of chaos.

Something else to consider….Don’t you think it’s odd that the Holy Spirit never inspired anyone to call this spirit/soul unit something? Instead it’s just the “unnamed thing” that may or may not be sometimes implied, but even if it is implied, it’s ambiguous as to when it is implied (use your best judgment) and at those times it’s still only called by something else which is only a part of it? That seems very odd to me.

 

[PJM]

There is a reason for that…venial sins are forgiven in Mass so that when we receive the Eucharist, we are properly disposed of sins in ourselves. The CC teaches what we cannot receive if we have unforgiven mortal sins.

OK:shrug:

And just HOW is that different from what I shared?

God Bless you!

PJM

 

[fbl9]

PJM,
I recently learned that venial sins are forgiven in the Mass. Given this fact, do you find that some Catholics make less of an effort to work on the small stuff/sins since those lesser sins are automatically forgiven without any effort on the part of the venial sinner? Thanks in advance.

Perhaps some may make less an effort. During the Penitential Rite we are asked to reflect on our shortcomings, which are the venial sins. These sins are not forgiven automatically, they are forgiven through prayer and the asking for the Lord’s mercy.

 

[blanchardman]

My answer is pretty straightforward. Because the second group is still “mortal” (i.e. able to die or subject to the universal consequence of sin), they must put on “immortality”. An incorruptible body wouldn’t do much good if they were still able to die. This is a poor example but I’m thinking of Lazarus dying, Jesus raises him, Lazarus dies again, Jesus raises him again, on and on into eternity.

It is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). The example with Lazarus (not my distorted version above)was an exception that God used to demonstrate who Jesus was and that he had power over death. Definitely not the norm, and Lazarus still died again.

Perhaps he could have been take to heaven body,soul & spirit.

The first group has already died and only need to be incorruptible because they have already died and are no longer subject to death.

What separates them from the dead who do not return at this time? They have been judged worthy to put on immortality. Those still alive on earth at this time who will also put on immortality will likewise be judged worthy.

So in a sense they are already “immortal”, because they are no longer required to suffer the universal consequence of sin which is physical death.

They have put on immortality and are no longer subject to the second death. What part of man is still subject to death once he has died physically?

In both cases it is referring to their glorified bodies. In both cases they will be immortal and incorruptible.

An interesting thing to note is that the same Greek word, ”aphtharsia”, translated here as incorruption is translated as immortality in 2 Timothy 1:10.

Some do translate this incorruption here.

 

[blanchardman]

Which is it? Either soul and spirit function together as one unit, therefore the emotions expressed in Job are indeed from the same “source” (the unnamed unit); or they do not function as one unit making it necessary for the Holy Spirit to make a distinction between the two “sources”. It can’t be both. If this is a distinction between the two “sources”, you would have to conclude that the “soul” is responsible for “bitterness” and the spirit is responsible for “anguish”, which is the opposite of what is said in Genesis 42:21 and Ezekiel 3:14. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

True but here He is pointing out that although they are different they funtion as one.

Alternative explanation: The inspired author is using two words to describe the same thing. He is expressing it twice to emphasize his emotions in a similar manner that Jesus often said “Truly, truly (amen, amen)…” to emphasize what he was about to say. Or in Mark 14:36 Jesus prays “Abba, Father…” two words with the same meaning.

In response to the example of 1 Kings 17:21-22, you claim that soul and spirit are connected and function as one.

By implication you are saying that it is not necessary to make any distinction here because they function as one unit.

As do you.

By using the word “soul” it is also implying “spirit” because they are one unit. Therefore it would be consistent with your answer to make the claim that when Jesus refers to being able to destroy the soul in hell (Matt 10:28), that the spirit is also implied in that statement. Or in 1 Corinthians 5:5 that the spirit may be saved, also includes the soul. Or even that the soul may be destroyed, but the spirit still saved. It has all kinds of implications with no way of discerning what actual Truth is.

Both are referring to the time of the final judgment.

By your definition, every time I see the word spirit or the word soul I have to ask, “Does this mean the individual part, or is it referring to the combined whole?” And depending on how I interpret that, it can change the meaning of many scripture verses. That’s a recipe for chaos and contradictions, but not clarity and Truth. If I can’t have reasonable assurance that I’m correctly understanding the Word of God then that could affect my eternal destiny. If a particular belief brings chaos to the Word of God, then it is time to seriously re-examine that belief. The Holy Spirit is not the author of chaos.

Only statements addressing the final judgment speak of them as separate. Otherwise they are joined.

Something else to consider….Don’t you think it’s odd that the Holy Spirit never inspired anyone to call this spirit/soul unit something? Instead it’s just the “unnamed thing” that may or may not be sometimes implied, but even if it is implied, it’s ambiguous as to when it is implied (use your best judgment) and at those times it’s still only called by something else which is only a part of it? That seems very odd to me.

When you say God are you speaking of the Father, the Son , the Holy Spirit or all three? It could be any of these. When you speak of man do you mean just the flesh or the whole being. It could be either. There is no need for a unifying term for soul and spirit when either one will suffice.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by blanchardman

Perhaps he could have been taken to heaven body, soul & spirit.

Perhaps….nothing is impossible with God.

What separates them from the dead who do not return at this time? They have been judged worthy to put on immortality. Those still alive on earth at this time who will also put on immortality will likewise be judged worthy.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. The question of 1 Cor 15:52-54 was framed around the view that this is referring to two groups of “saints”. The “dead” group is raised and changed, the “living” group is changed. So what group is the “dead who do not return at this time?”

They have put on immortality and are no longer subject to the second death. What part of man is still subject to death once he has died physically?

God created man with immortal and incorruptible bodies envisioned united with our incorruptible and immortal spirit made in his image and likeness. Jesus says that after the resurrection we will be “as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt 22:28-31). Granted, he is only speaking of those resurrected to eternal life in heaven. However, there are other angels who are immortal who are not in heaven. What separates the “good” angels from the “evil” angels? Both good and evil people will all be resurrected (Daniel 12:2, John 5:29). Some will be with God in heaven; others will be with the devils in hell when he separates the sheep from the goats. Both groups will be “alive”, but one group will be spiritually dead, the “second death”. Even now, people who are “alive” physically are still dead spiritually due to sin (Ephesians 2:1-5), except they still have time to repent and become alive in Christ.

 

[blanchardman]

Perhaps….nothing is impossible with God.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. The question of 1 Cor 15:52-54 was framed around the view that this is referring to two groups of “saints”. The “dead” group is raised and changed, the “living” group is changed. So what group is the “dead who do not return at this time?”

1 Cor 15:52-54 is about the first resurrection. We agree that “the dead in Christ” are (have put on) immortality. Immortality is a gift from God to those who believe (in/on) His Son. Therefore the dead(not yet resurrected)nonbelievers do not have imImmortality.

God created man with immortal and incorruptible bodies

In his original form but he, and all mankind, lost it when he sinned.

envisioned united with our incorruptible and immortal spirit made in his image and likeness. Jesus says that after the resurrection we will be “as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt 22:28-31). Granted, he is only speaking of those resurrected to eternal life in heaven.

After the first resurrection we will spend eternity on earth.

However, there are other angels who are immortal who are not in heaven.

True many (good) angels operate here on earth. The “bad” angels are held in chains until the judgement. Their holding place could be in heaven.

What separates the “good” angels from the “evil” angels? Both good and evil people will all be resurrected (Daniel 12:2, John 5:29). Some will be with God in heaven; others will be with the devils in hell when he separates the sheep from the goats. Both groups will be “alive”, but one group will be spiritually dead,

In Daniel12:2 it says some (many) will be raised. Again the first resurrection. John5:29 speaks of both resurrection. Those in the second resurrection are still mortal and could die the second death.

the “second death”. Even now, people who are “alive” physically are still dead spiritually due to sin (Ephesians 2:1-5), except they still have time to repent and become alive in Christ.

A final note on Daniel12:2. Those who are raised to everlasting shame are those mentioned in
1 Corinthians3:15. Imagine spending eternity with the saints after you had died with no works of any value.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Thanks for all who participated on the now closed after 1020 post

Because there were several meaningful dialog s going; I’m starting this new Thread to God willing continue our discussions. Please join us…

Are there any questions you have regarding Catholic beliefs and or practices?

God Bless you,

Patrck

Hello Patrick

May I ask a more personal question (as what interests me is ‘real world’ faith, rather than ‘apologetics’) - how sure would you be, on a normal day, that everything the Catholic Church says is true is actually true?

Thank you

Michael

 

[Emjay66]

Thanks for all who participated on the now closed after 1020 post

Because there were several meaningful dialog s going; I’m starting this new Thread to God willing continue our discussions. Please join us…

Are there any questions you have regarding Catholic beliefs and or practices?

God Bless you,

Patrck

Hello Patrick (or anyone else!)

May I ask a personal question? I’m always more interested in ‘real life’ faith than apologetics, so may I ask whether you ever have any doubts about Catholicism being absolutely true and error-free?

 

[blanchardman]

Hello Patrick (or anyone else!)

May I ask a personal question? I’m always more interested in ‘real life’ faith than apologetics, so may I ask whether you ever have any doubts about Catholicism being absolutely true and error-free?

I hope I don’t get into hot water over this answer. I have never met Patrick except through our exchanges here. I am sure he is deeply rooted in his faith as I am in mine.

 

[Emjay66]

I hope I don’t get into hot water over this answer. I have never met Patrick except through our exchanges here. I am sure he is deeply rooted in his faith as I am in mine.

Thank you for that. I like the phrase ‘deeply rooted’. And I respect such faith. But must deeply rooted faith (be it Catholic, Islamic or Jewish) necessary be beyond doubt? Or could deeply rooted faith actually be more aware of the questions and uncertainties of faith?

 

[Abu]

Emjay66 #805
May I ask a personal question? I’m always more interested in ‘real life’ faith than apologetics, so may I ask whether you ever have any doubts about Catholicism being absolutely true and error-free?

As God the son founded His own Church, as Catholicism, She has been empowered by Him to teach the fullness of His Truth.

Only what She teaches as dogma and doctrine is “absolutely true and error-free “ and that may be developed without contradiction and more fully as has occurred.

I have had no doubts about that; but I was educated by great English Jesuits at school and a Catholic mother, and took the trouble to learn how to explain and defend Catholicism and to recognise the frailty and errors of many individuals in the Church, including some Popes (who nonetheless did not teach error in dogma or doctrine).

 

[Emjay66]

Thank you Abu. May I ask you a trivial question, but one that opened up some doubt about the reliability of scripture for me in the past. Which of King David’s sons was Joseph (the step-Father of Jesus) descended from?