What exactly is our soul?

[JustThinking]

I would question whether or not consciousness is associated with the physical, and I would challenge that the "image of God" aspect vanished. Scripture never claims that after Adam's action that humanity was no longer in the image of God, merely that it was in a fallen state, tarnished as it were as opposed to shining brightly.

Nice comments...do you have an opinion on what God breathed into Adam? Do you believe it was air? When Adam sinned, what changed? What was lost or removed from him that would require him to be removed not only from Eden but from God's presence? After the fall, there was no physical change in Adam, nothing seemed to be taken away - physically, but now he would indeed die. And let me ask if you might agree with this, or at least let me know your thoughts, but would you agree that God's plan of restoration and salvation is to once again place "His Spirit, His Holiness, His righteousness," back into mankind so we can once again be with Him, live in His presence. We have nothing to bring on our own, or there is nothing we could possibly do on this earth to obtain "righteousness." God's plan is the only way we can obtain "His righteousness."

And if I may, I would like to extend this thought out a little further. I believe that when Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, the "Spirit of God" was placed within Him. Then, when He went to the cross, one of His final words were, "into your hands I commit My Spirit." Meaning, that Jesus had to give up or give back the Holy Spirit that was given Him at His baptism because He was then going to soon die ---- but before He died, He would take on the sin of the world. Thus, sin and His Holy Spirit could not be in the same place -within Jesus.

And of course, within 3 days, He would be resurrected with the Spirit of God and would now be able to return to the Presence of the Father. So, for those that will / have placed their faith in Jesus before their death will be resurrected in the "Spirit" of God and be in His presence for eternity. Full circle. Look forward to your thoughts, thanks.

 

[rewriter]

It could be argued man is no longer in God's image. I'm not, but there is this.

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Adam was in the image of God and nothing says the image was lost. To my mind, Genesis 5:3 would at best imply that Seth was a copy of a flawed copy, after all, Abel and Cain preceded Seth.

 

[sawdust]

Adam was in the image of God and nothing says the image was lost. To my mind, Genesis 5:3 would at best imply that Seth was a copy of a flawed copy, after all, Abel and Cain preceded Seth.

That sounds like a contradiction for you say the image was not lost while at the same time saying Adam was a flawed copy. Surely, if he is flawed, then the perfect image is lost in the copy?

 

[Mem]

Adam definitely became destabilized, fractured, hiding himself from God. It brings to mind the proverbial doubleminded man, and the question whether Adam had started out as one with God, as God is One.

 

[Mem]

Was Adam ever really whole? Was Eve enough to 'complete' him? Did he (or she, for that matter) remain effectively alone even after she was formed for him so that he would not be alone? God declared it 'very good,' yes, but God stopped short of declaring it 'perfect.'

 

[Gideon300]

Was Adam ever really whole? Was Eve enough to 'complete' him? Did he (or she, for that matter) remain effectively alone even after she was formed for him so that he would not be alone? God declared it 'very good,' yes, but God stopped short of declaring it 'perfect.'

Yes. Adam was not complete. Eve did not complete him. God placed the Tree of Life in Eden for Adam to eat its fruit. If Adam had eaten from that tree, he would have been complete. Mankind is still incomplete apart from Christ, who is "The Life". Only those who are born again are complete. (Colossians 2:10).

 

[Mem]

Yes. Adam was not complete. Eve did not complete him. God placed the Tree of Life in Eden for Adam to eat its fruit. If Adam had eaten from that tree, he would have been complete. Mankind is still incomplete apart from Christ, who is "The Life". Only those who are born again are complete. (Colossians 2:10).

This makes me wonder if there was something unappealing to the tree of life that he did not eat from it even though he was told that he "may freely eat from every tree of the garden but" the one that he did eat of in spite of explicit instruction to not eat of it. Was it not 'good for food' nor 'pleasing to the eyes'? Especially considering its allusion to Christ inspires a perspective of the whirling sword of flame guarding the way to it.

 

[frederickdoc]

The question for me is not whether Scripture uses the words “body,” “soul,” and “spirit”—it clearly does. The question is whether those words are describing three separate parts of a person, or different ways of describing the same inner life from different angles.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, terms like heart, soul, and spirit are often used interchangeably to describe the inner condition of the person. Even in the verses you listed, “heart” and “spirit” appear together in ways that overlap rather than define separate compartments.

Genesis 2:7 is especially important here. It says that God formed man from the dust and breathed into him, and man became a living soul. That suggests two components—what comes from the earth and what comes from God—resulting in a living being. The dust itself includes the physical body along with the natural capacities of the mind, awareness, and consciousness. But it is only when God breathes into man that he becomes a “living soul”—a being in true relationship with God.

From that perspective, the issue in Genesis is not that one “part” of man died, but that what came from God was no longer present in the same way after the fall. The text emphasizes separation from God’s presence rather than the death of a specific component. God did with Adam something that He did not do with any other living creature -He breathed into him His righteousness, His Holiness, His Spirit that is only found within Him. This is the "image" of God that Adam was created in. But when Adam disobeyed God, that same "image," the Holiness, or Righteousness, His Spirit had to return back to God. Sin and His righteousness cannot occupy the same space. But it was ALWAYS God's Spirit - Adam, like any man, has no rigtheousness of his own.

So rather than seeing man as a three-part structure, it seems more consistent to see Scripture describing a unified person, whose life and relationship with God depend on what comes from Him—not on separate internal compartments that can live or die independently.

Skim through .
I use water ice steam 1 has 3 forms.
ike the fig tree, Adam started dieing from the inside out.the was prob body soul Spirit .God said tho is was good now man can know all things .The Lord started His Plan we all have opportunity to be in the light without the light there no life body soul Spirit . It's same as not being in the presence of God .

 

[Gideon300]

This makes me wonder if there was something unappealing to the tree of life that he did not eat from it even though he was told that he "may freely eat from every tree of the garden but" the one that he did eat of in spite of explicit instruction to not eat of it. Was it not 'good for food' nor 'pleasing to the eyes'? Especially considering its allusion to Christ inspires a perspective of the whirling sword of flame guarding the way to it.

I agree, the Tree of life appears not to be overly attractive. It seems that God did not hang around it to promote its virtues either. God respects man's will; Stan does not.

 

[frederickdoc]

Jesus had A soul of man . Jesus speaks about it Himself

 

[Lightbeamrider]

P.3
You make declarative statements based only on your authority.

As do you, and especially when the Noah flood is rejected as a historical truth claim and referenced by Jesus in the Gospels, indicating Jesus believed the flood to be real.

Aprophal is a type of literature that is somewhat out of vogue.

Who cares. Since when is fashionable a standard?

Jesus self-identifies as the Son of Man which is a term used 17 times in the book of Enoch. The book foretells of the "Righteous One" and the "Chosen One". While the Book of Daniel completed around 167 BC alludes to an "ancient of days," Enoch speaking about the Son of Man expands this role to include active judgment of kings and the mighty, removing them from their thrones and reversing the fortunes of the poor and oppressed. Explain to me why "Daniel" is spirit-inspired and Enoch is not. Which is a better witness of Jesus?

Enoch is all over the New Testament or statements like women wearing covers (am paraphrasing) because of the angels can be traced back to Enoch. Another interesting correlation is Enoch for 365 yrs and our calender depicts a year as 365 days.

 

[GWH]

Jesus had A soul of man . Jesus speaks about it Himself

Jesus was a soul.
A soul has a body and spirit (Gen. 2:7).

 

[biblestudent78]

As do you, and especially when the Noah flood is rejected as a historical truth claim and referenced by Jesus in the Gospels, indicating Jesus believed the flood to be real.



Who cares. Since when is fashionable a standard?






Enoch is all over the New Testament or statements like women wearing covers (am paraphrasing) because of the angels can be traced back to Enoch. Another interesting correlation is Enoch for 365 yrs and our calender depicts a year as 365 days.

I agree, the Tree of life appears not to be overly attractive. It seems that God did not hang around it to promote its virtues either. God respects man's will; Stan does not.

It is a point well missed. If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, did God not know what was going to happen to His+ creation including the fall of man? This was God's system. This was God's created people. This was God's creation of the world..... but God+ had no idea of what would happen when God+ put a entity in the garden whose entire task was to destroy the man-God+ relationship. An entity that God+ could not and would not protect mankind from.

Or this could be a "origins story" that became embedded into the pre-history of mankind. One know to all the world and to writing t the specific Hebrew take on the creation story.

We argue endlessly today about the founding of America. Suddenly there is an intense effort to recast our founding on "Christian Principles." This rewrite of history is only 250 yrs old. Can you imaging a time when the founding stories were believed to be 4,000 years ago and they included a story about Adam and Eve, horney Angels, mixed race semi-divine populations but totally corrupt, God repenting He ever made mankind/angelkind? Is this factual history or just a belief held by the people of Jesus's time that He used to separate who He was from the stories of the past. God sent destruction. I bring eternal life...

 

[Lightbeamrider]

It is a point well missed. If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, did God not know what was going to happen to His+ creation including the fall of man? This was God's system. This was God's created people. This was God's creation of the world..... but God+ had no idea of what would happen when God+ put a entity in the garden whose entire task was to destroy the man-God+ relationship. An entity that God+ could not and would not protect mankind from.

Or this could be a "origins story" that became embedded into the pre-history of mankind. One know to all the world and to writing t the specific Hebrew take on the creation story.

We argue endlessly today about the founding of America. Suddenly there is an intense effort to recast our founding on "Christian Principles." This rewrite of history is only 250 yrs old. Can you imaging a time when the founding stories were believed to be 4,000 years ago and they included a story about Adam and Eve, horney Angels, mixed race semi-divine populations but totally corrupt, God repenting He ever made mankind/angelkind? Is this factual history or just a belief held by the people of Jesus's time that He used to separate who He was from the stories of the past. God sent destruction. I bring eternal life...

I went to GROk and asked if Jesus depicted Noah as real

Yes, Jesus treated Noah as a historical person and the Flood as a real event.In the Gospels, Jesus directly references the days of Noah and the Flood as factual history, using it as a real precedent for the suddenness and unexpected nature of his own future return (the coming of the Son of Man).Key PassagesMatthew 24:37-39 (NIV):

“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.”
Luke 17:26-27 (similar wording):

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.”

Jesus speaks of Noah entering the ark, people carrying on normal life unaware, and the Flood suddenly destroying them. He presents this as something that actually happened in history, not as a parable, myth, or symbolic tale. He draws a typological parallel: the Flood was a real past judgment, just as his return will bring future judgment.Context and Implications This fits Jesus’ broader approach to the Old Testament. He treats other Genesis figures and events (e.g., Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4-6, Abel in Luke 11:51, Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah) as historical.

Other New Testament writers echo this: Luke’s genealogy includes Noah (Luke 3:36), Hebrews 11:7 praises Noah’s faith in building the ark, and 1 & 2 Peter reference the Flood and ark as real (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5).

sundayschoolzone.com
-------------------------
You can believe what you want about Noah and life prior to the flood and the alternative(s). Common descent and life from nonlife is even more preposterous. People believing they are apes and land animals to whale transformations over deep time by mindless means only. These also are supernatural claims, including humans mating with Neanderthals who were not considered fully human.

 

[Gideon300]

It is a point well missed. If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, did God not know what was going to happen to His+ creation including the fall of man? This was God's system. This was God's created people. This was God's creation of the world..... but God+ had no idea of what would happen when God+ put a entity in the garden whose entire task was to destroy the man-God+ relationship. An entity that God+ could not and would not protect mankind from.

Or this could be a "origins story" that became embedded into the pre-history of mankind. One know to all the world and to writing t the specific Hebrew take on the creation story.

We argue endlessly today about the founding of America. Suddenly there is an intense effort to recast our founding on "Christian Principles." This rewrite of history is only 250 yrs old. Can you imaging a time when the founding stories were believed to be 4,000 years ago and they included a story about Adam and Eve, horney Angels, mixed race semi-divine populations but totally corrupt, God repenting He ever made mankind/angelkind? Is this factual history or just a belief held by the people of Jesus's time that He used to separate who He was from the stories of the past. God sent destruction. I bring eternal life...

Knowing something will happen does not mean that you cause it to happen. I bought my kids bikes when they were young. I told my son to slow down, otherwise he would fall off. Sure enough, he fell. A few bruises, not much else. He was soon back riding. I did not push him off.

I keep things as simple as I can. God is real, and His Word is true. I do not understand everything because I am not God. Jesus declared that God's Word is truth (John 17:17). Jesus referred to Noah as a real person and the flood as a real event. I'm not about to argue the point with Lord Jesus.

 

[Lightbeamrider]

I
Can you imaging a time when the founding stories were believed to be 4,000 years ago and they included a story about Adam and Eve, horney Angels, mixed race semi-divine populations but totally corrupt, God repenting He ever made mankind/angelkind? Is this factual history or just a belief held by the people of Jesus's time that He used to separate who He was from the stories of the past. God sent destruction. I bring eternal life...

Certainly, the ancients believed it, and it has been around for thousands of years across cultures.

Do you believe you are an ape? That your ancient ancestors walked on all fours and had tails? That your ancient ancestors were fish? Bible critics despise compare analysis and wish to isolate the claims of the Bible and ignore their claims on origins. Not happening.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2052799347813752872

 

[frederickdoc]

A basic free will soul gives the temporary body life ,the spirit is the connection To t's god .
What Lord Jesus God wants Now ,The Soul By His Holy Spirit, This is Life in Glorified body thats eternal to & from glory to Glory ,As Jesus The Lord Himself
short ver +
. The rejecting The Spirit of the living God Jesus
will have A corruptible Soul Destin for Eternal Damnation most like has a hideous form body

 

[GWH]

Knowing something will happen does not mean that you cause it to happen. I bought my kids bikes when they were young. I told my son to slow down, otherwise he would fall off. Sure enough, he fell. A few bruises, not much else. He was soon back riding. I did not push him off.

I keep things as simple as I can. God is real, and His Word is true. I do not understand everything because I am not God. Jesus declared that God's Word is truth (John 17:17). Jesus referred to Noah as a real person and the flood as a real event. I'm not about to argue the point with Lord Jesus.

Well, Jesus referred to Noah and the Flood in order to teach the reality of judgment for sin, not to discuss whether the story was literal or allegorical. Current scientific evidence indicates that the world's tallest mountains were once below sea level, but not recently. The ancients probably had no idea the world could be billions of years old. Thus, 2 Pet. 3:8 might be applicable.

 

[Gideon300]

Well, Jesus referred to Noah and the Flood in order to teach the reality of judgment for sin, not to discuss whether the story was literal or allegorical. Current scientific evidence indicates that the world's tallest mountains were once below sea level, but not recently. The ancients probably had no idea the world could be billions of years old. Thus, 2 Pet. 3:8 might be applicable.

It is impossible for the physical earth to be billions of years. Erosion is still causing cliffs near where I live to collapse. How is that possible if the process has been going on so long? Everything that is not solid rock should be at the bottom of the ocean. The moon is moving away from the earth at the rate of about 40 mm a year. If it was formed billions of years ago, it should have escaped earth's orbit by now. There are still vast reserves of oil and gas. With the frequency and power of earthquakes, gas especially should have escaped into the atmosphere.

Oil and coal supposedly formed over millions of years. This is evidently not true. Upright trees have been found in coal seams. A more likely explanation is Noah's flood that devastated forests with incredible force. Do you know how they make synthetic diamonds? Pressure. Not over millions of years, in a lab. Again, the pressure of 4,000 metres water depth could form diamonds.

If you dismiss the story of Noah as myth or allegory, you may as well dismiss the whole of the Old Testament. Noah appears in the genealogy of the human race.

I don't know exactly how old the earth is or precisely when Noah's flood took place. I'm also convinced that the earth was created long before Adam and Eve were created. I believe that there was a prior creation, also destroyed by flood, the result of Satan losing his place in heaven as Lucifer. So there is a valid explanation for an earth older than the 6,000 years implied by the Biblical record. The reality is, no one knows for sure except God.​

 

[frederickdoc]

Just remembering I'm pretty sure my soul as Adam is now a quickened Spirit like the last Adam