Now I made a statement that the spirit of the man is the REAL person that inhabits the body as a man lives in a house. Now let me re-quote a scripture I quoted before:
Phil. 1: 22-24
If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body
I asked a question and you didn’t give an adequate answer. What is the “I” that is talked about here?

You said:

The "I" is referring to the person before death. That person or soul is a combination of both body and spirit. As long as Paul remained alive he could use the word "I"

Is that so? It is clear that in this statement Paul remaining alive in some fashion is not in question. That is why it is “if I am to go on living in the body ”. The “in the body” is the most important part, for he says if he departs he would still “BE” or EXIST. The issue is not whether he is going to live, the issue is whether he is going to remain in the body. In other words, its not IF he would BE, it is WHERE he would BE - in the body and WITH men OR out of the body and WITH the Lord.
Second, the person is not the combination of soul and body. The person is not even any of those two. In this passage, it is obvious that without the body there would still be a person, for like I said earlier, even when he departs FROM the body, he would still BE ("I desire to depart and be . . . "
Coming to the last part of your statement, obviously if one is not alive, he can’t say “I”. And that is the whole point. The “I” never ceases to “be”. The spirit only ceases to remain in the body at the point of death.

To further buttress this, let me use this scripture
Luke 16:22-23
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
[Jesus told this story using actual people, for he mentions their names and uses the name of someone we are familiar with, Abraham, to show that they are real events. Second, Jesus said this in past tense when he was on earth, so he wasn't referring to something futuristic.]
We are told that the beggar died and then at the very next the scripture says, the angels "carried him".
What is the "he"or "him" referring to? Is it his body? No. For the ressurection is still a futuristic event. We are told the rich man was buried (the poor man was probably not given a proper burial because of his insignificance to men).
Is it a breath? Can you carry a breath?
Obviously, his spirit left his body just like the spirit of the rich man left his body. Their destinations differed. One was taken to a place of torment, while the other was taken to a place of comfort where Abraham was also located.
That they are fully perceptive, conscious, and alive is very clear. Bros, is it clear to you?

Since I'm guessing that might still not be sufficient, let me make use of yet a couple of scriptures to explain the matter more fully.
Rom. 7:22-23a
For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body
This verse draws a contrast between what Paul calls the “inner being” and the body or outermost being. Here, the inner being possesses a nature that delights in the things of God and therefore pleases God, whereas it is not so with the body. This ‘inner being’ is the REAL man, for it is the one that is saved and that ‘delights in God’s law’. Using this next scripture in Eph 3:16;
I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being
we can deduce that this ‘inner being’ is the spirit of the man. For, as I earlier quoted in Rom 8:14, the interaction of (and thus the enduement with power of) the Holy Spirit is with man’s spirit (NOT with his soul or his body).

Bros, like TayoD said, the Scriptures cannot be any clearer than they already are - if one is willing to let go of his preconceptions and accept what the Word of God clearly teaches. Now, having said all these, I hope you’d reconsider the subject and re-read the earlier responses in that new light (as regards the nature of man) and perhaps you’d be able to fully understand scriptures like Luke 16: 19-31, references to Hades, Jesus’ statement that God is “not a God of the dead but of the living” (in reference to the patriarchs), Jesus’ statement that “today you will be with me in paradise”, Paul’s statement that he did not know if his “catching up” was out-of-the-body or in the body, why the last Adam is called a "life-giving spirit" (rather than a 'living soul') etc.

Understanding of the nature of the spirit of man is crucial to appreciating what really happens at the new birth, how we grow spiritually, our spiritual position in Christ and so on. Cheers.

@rockiedink,
Do you mind walking us through scripture to show how we have used the bible to 'say what it didn't intend to say'?

rockiedink:

My advise? go over your scriptures again with a pre-formed bias to anything and you just might understand those scriptures.

Lol . . . did you really mean that? _{I'm guessing you didn't} Perhaps that advise would explain why you failed to realize/accept what the bible clearly teaches. No be so? (j/k)
Cheers

rockiedink:

@noetic & bobbyaf
fantastic exposition you guys have put forward there! it couldnt have been better said. like noetic said 98% of church goers today don't question what their 'so-called' pastors (whom by the way I can teach a great deal from the scripture - in this I do not lie) for some unknown fear that has been instilled into them. I really would like to correspond with you guys on this and other well mistaken areas of scripture. hook up with me; just find the necessary details in my profile (i'm sure you guys are smart enough to see them though they aren't obvious )

good to know you see the Light, as it is. I will contact u and am sure bobbybaf will do that too.
keep shinig the light
cheers

rockiedink:

@ricadelide, Tayo-D, Pilgrim.1 et al
you guys really need to get your facts straight. Read your Bibles very well and listen to what it says as it says it; not trying to interpret it to fit in with whatever your Pastor said. The Bible is always clear in its statements, it only requires u to search it out. My advise? go over your scriptures again with a pre-formed bias to anything and you just might understand those scriptures.

@all
always let the Bible interpret itself. It can do so better than any book or any Pastor, no matter how highly placed or popular he is, has written because the difference is this: the books are written by these pastors but THE BOOK, The Bible is God's living and active word.

I can only hope that they (pilgrim and tayo-d) can see it , as it is, and not as a pastor says it. you are responsible for what u believe.


@pilgrim and tayo-d

you have successfully deviated from this beautiful thread. both of you promised to bombard us with biblibical analyses of what I and bobbyaf are not getting on this ressurection issue.

like I said, stop applying logic, use biblibical context.

through my posts I have emphasised to u that:
Jesus said in simple hebrew, interpreted to english that no one has gone to heaven. john3vs13
peter said in simple hebrew interpreted to english that David has not gone to heaven. acts 13vs22, acts 2:29-34
paul said in simple hebrew interpreted to english that none of the faithfulls have recieved the promise of eternal life. he also said his reward comes on that day.

i no fit shout.

@ricadelide

I have intentionally stayed out of this "spirit" thing, because as far as I am concerned it is a deviation from the main thread.
but putting into cognizance the scriptures you guys have used I can state that bobbyaf is right. y?

re-read your bible, (especially the quotations u made) the spirit can be interpreted to mean two things

1). the breadth of life  _{as bobbyaf stated}.
2) the state of man that provides unhindererd communication with God.

go and re-read genesis1 and 2.
every thing God made were called "living creatures" including man.
but His breadth came into man, and made man reflects God`s image (a spirit being).

God told Adam and eve in genesis that they would die, the day they eat the forbidden fruit.
u know the story, they ate it.  but guess what. they died on that day
because on that day, they lost all forms of communication with God. they lost a God who strolled to them every evening, to play with his creatures. it was that gap Jesus came to bridge.

In every other biblical context where the spirit has been defined, as though distinct from the body. It has always been in communication with God. john recieving reavelation and paul being held up in tha 3rd heavens.
and In other contexts where the spirit has been used, it is a definition of man`s inherent  instincts. please look up the definition of instincts.

cheers

Not surprisingly, I sense a great deal of semantic confusion here, esp. over the word 'spirit'.
Let's leave that for now. Noetic, Bobbyaf et al, if I understand your position properly, you are saying that there is no consciousness in the grave. If that is the case then,
[list]
[li] How do you explain the conversation between Saul and the spirit of a dead Samuel in 1 Samuel 28?[/li]
[li] How do you explain the appearance of a long-dead Moses talking with Jesus in his Transfiguration(Matthew 17:3, Mark 9:4, Luke 9:30,31?[/li]
[li][/li]
[/list]

@noetic,

@pilgrim and tayo-d

you have successfully deviated from this beautiful thread. both of you promised to bombard us with biblibical analyses of what I and bobbyaf are not getting on this ressurection issue.

I never said anything about bomnbardment. I do not talk like that. Well, I see no reason why I should add any more to what ricadelide has eloquently expressed. He expresses my thoughts vey clearly and articlately. If this was a personality contest, then I'll feel the need to chip in and make this all about verbosity. But since it is about issues that others have adequately addressed, then I can only add if and when necessary.

like I said, stop applying logic, use biblibical context.

You will do well to take your own advice. Scriptures you refered to are out of context and ricadelide has done well to present his case line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here and a little there.

Like I told you before, to avoid any mix-ups, it is good to make your points very clear. What are the issues? Are you saying there is no conciousness in the grave? What do you consider the destination of the dead? What are your views about resurrection? Highlight each point and let's take it up from there.

I believe ricadelide has started at the very basic by discussing the make up of man. Are you in agreement with what he wrote or not. Understanding man's make up is one of the vital keys to dealing with this topic.

Tayo-D:

I never said anything about bomnbardment. I do not talk like that.

I guess u forgot ur own words. u said this [color=#006600]Like Shwazenegger, I'll be back!!!!!!!![/[/b]color]

Tayo-D:

Well, I see no reason why I should add any more to what [b]ricadelide has eloquently expressed. He expresses my thoughts vey clearly and articlately. If this was a personality contest, then I'll feel the need to chip in and make this all about verbosity. But since it is about issues that others have adequately addressed, then I can only add if and when necessary.

you are right, its not a personality contest, its all about issues and about our beliefs
and I do respect your view,
but its rather unfortunate!

Tayo-D:

You will do well to take your own advice. Scriptures you refered to are out of context and ricadelide has done well to present his case line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here and a little there.

of course you are right, and I will take to it.

Tayo-D:

Like I told you before, to avoid any mix-ups, it is good to make your points very clear. What are the issues? Are you saying there is no conciousness in the grave? What do you consider the destination of the dead? What are your views about resurrection? Highlight each point and let's take it up from there.

it is rather unfortunate. the topic of the thread, the introductory post and my first reply said it all.
I thought we were going to enjoy an healthy Xtian debate, but apparently this is ur style of summing things up.
uhmn!

Tayo-D:

I believe ricadelide has started at the very basic by discussing the make up of man. Are you in agreement with what he wrote or not. Understanding man's make up is one of the vital keys to dealing with this topic.

I dont talk to be heard. I talk because something has to be said, that I have done.
cheers

Big  kudos to Ricadelide for the neat job done.I still have some few things to add. We should not forget the promise of life Christ offered the robber while awaiting  physical death on the cross.
                               "And Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise (heaven)", Luke 23:43.
                                "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit:, "
Jesus actually went to heaven in the spirit the day He died; so also the robber. Many Scholars have reasoned that Christ was only promising the robber eternal life in  the distant future. However, Jesus said "To day" not in the future. Some, in an attempt to cover their error with the glit of doctrinal bigotry, have assumed that the word "To day" is not referring to the very day Christ died simply because it is not written as "today". We must understand that this is not the only place in the canon of the sacred Scriptures where the word today is written as To day. Heb 3:7-15 declares
                             "Wherefore as the holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, ;While it is said,To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts,as in the provocation.",

Luke 16:20-31 also supports the fact that the saints of the Lord immediately enter into His rest after death. Some Theologians have ,however, thought and taught that Christ was only speaking in parables and that the event narrated here isi not a real story, and as such should not be taken hook, line and sinker. I want to say that this is not a parable but a real series of fact that must be given serious considerations. Jesus, in all His spoken parables, never mentioned the names of the characters involved but in this, He mentioned the name of Lazarus and father Abraham. This shows that this is a real story and not a parable. Additionally, the fact that Abraham was mentioned also lends credence to what Christ told the ignorant Sadducees in Mark 12:26-27

Apart from these, Jesus took Peter, James and John ( the inner circle) to a mountain for a night vigil. " And there appeared unto them Elias ( Elijah) with Moses: and they were  talking with Jesus, Mark 9:4". The fact that Elijah and Moses appeared even in glory and talked with full consciousness to Jesus renders the theory ,that Saints are locked up in the grave while awaiting resurrection, invalid and unacceptable. We know from the Scriptures that Moses died and was buried by God (Deut 34:5-6). If the whole personality (soul,spirit and body) of Moses is in the grave, according to the "Theory of Noeticism", how could he have risen from the grave and appeared and talked with Jesus when the resurrection morning has not come? This "Noetic proposition" also states that Elijah did not go heaven and that he probably died at some unspecified time. Let me pretend to agree with this assertion at least for the sake of argument. If Elijah died and was buried, how would he (from the grave) have appeared on the mount of transfiguration. This shows that the Noetic postulation is full of self contradictions. Permit me to ask the following questions. Where are Elijah and Moses now? Are they resting in Glory with the Lord? Are they hanging and gambolling somewhere around the moon and other planetary bodies? Do they have disembodied spirits? Are their spirits clothe or covered with  temporal spiritual bodies while awaiting the final resurrection, with full spiritual bodies? Please help me to proffer solutions and logical answers to these questions.

The Saints will not be rewarded at this time of resting with the Lord for they have just ceased from their earthly labour. ", Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them", Rev14:13. However, they will be rewarded at the resurrection of the just (the Rapture), Luke 14:14.

In addition to the aforementioned, contemporary testimonies also attest to the fact that the Saints go to meet with the Lord at death. A man of God,Pastor Daniel, narrated his experience at the brink of eternity in Evangelist Bonke's crusade in Nigeria. I listened to the testimony myself. My lovely sister, who is a fervent Christain, also had similar experience at her sick bed. She came back to life only by the prayer of the Saints around. She told me all that she saw. Let us therefore leave theology aside and prepare to meet the Lord.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

See my set of scriptures I first gave to this thread. The bible says that the "spirit (breath of life) goes back to God from whence it came". The response to the second part of your question becomes obvious. At the resurrection God restores that same spirit to the glorified bodies of all the resurrected saints.

I actually saw your responses and read through each one before asking you my simple questions. Apparently, it is obvious that you have already favoured the FACT that man's spirit (the man himself) goes to HEAVEN when he is dead. HOW?

Obviously, God is not in the grave - and if the spirit (which "departs" from the body) "goes back to God from whence it came", you cannot be assuming that God lives in the grave where the spirit "goes back" to!

This is how simply the whole discussion is - but typically, you are ignoring even the FACT that you stated and proffering other arguments to contradict your premise.

This is one of the reasons why I have only been concise all this while in my responses.

@noetic,

noetic:

@pilgrim and tayo-d

you have successfully deviated from this beautiful thread. both of you promised to bombard us with biblibical analyses of what I and bobbyaf are not getting on this ressurection issue.

Lol, I'm sorry that you're simply overblowing issues here. Indeed I had planned to take some time of and post something more to the point in detail - but ricadelide anticipated me, and I coudn't improve on his points.

Like I just posted to Bobbyaf, I'd rather reply in concise lines to help him see in simple terms that he doesn't really have a handle on what he was arguing. There's no denying the fact that man is actually a spirit being - and even he had quoted the verse that said man's spirit goes back to God - which clearly points to HEAVEN rather than the grave.

noetic:

like I said, stop applying logic, use biblibical context.

I don't see how you have applied Biblical context in your arguments. But rest your heart, I haven't even started applying logic to anything as yet; nor do I intend to do so - unless you invite such an exercise to this discussion.

noetic:

through my posts I have emphasised to u that:
Jesus said in simple hebrew, interpreted to english that no one has gone to heaven. john3vs13
peter said in simple hebrew interpreted to english that David has not gone to heaven. acts 13vs22, acts 2:29-34

Oh dearie-dear! How would you know that Peter said in simple "HEBREW"?

Anyhow, please understand that what Peter said in Acts 2:34 ("David is not ascended into the heavens" is in view of the the resurrection of Christ ("He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ" - v. 31). You need to find out the context of the word "ascended" in that verse 34 before denying that David is presently with the Lord Jesus Christ - in HEAVEN.

That David was dead and his sepulcre "is with us unto this day" does not mean that David was still in the grave unto this day! His bones may have still been there; but where was the man David himself?

noetic:

paul said in simple hebrew interpreted to english that none of the faithfulls have recieved the promise of eternal life. he also said his reward comes on that day.

Lol. . . if eternal life was a REWARD rather than a GIFT, you need to go back and learn what Paul himself said about the GIFT of salvation in Ephesians 2 v 8!!

Meanwhile, the resurrection is not to be confused for the gift of eternal life - because even the wicked dead will be raised to life for judgement; and it cannot be argued that the wicked also possess eternal life!

@noetic,

noetic:
I have intentionally stayed out of this "spirit" thing, because as far as I am concerned it is a deviation from the main thread.

True that. I apologize. I said the same thing earlier, however, the nature of our discussion predicates on a proper understanding of the subject of the spirit. I didn’t go into it much in my earlier post and only did so when it became obvious that I and Bobbyaf aren’t on the same page.

putting into cognizance the scriptures you guys have used I can state that bobbyaf is right. y?

Lol . . . I doubt that even Bobbyaf himself, where he to “put into cognizance” the scriptures we have used, would claim he was/is right. Haba, you and Bobbyaf aren’t even saying the same things! Here is what Bobbyaf said:

So in essence the spirit is the breath of life

Is this spirit a person? Is it aware of what God has done? Absolutely not! The "spirit" is the breath of life, or the active life force that keeps mankind and animals alive until their death

He effectively claims thus: the spirit = the breath of life whilst also claiming that this spirit is “not aware of what God has done”. Effectively saying that the spirit does not possess the ability to be aware of or communicate with God, which is what YOU are saying. No be so?

re-read your bible, (especially the quotations u made)

Ok. And?

the spirit can be interpreted to mean two things

Really? Did you mean to say “the Hebrew (and likewise the Greek) word(s) can be translated to mean two main things?
If it is the former, then, this is where I differ:

1). the breadth of life  as bobbyaf stated 

Unfortunately, or otherwise, the same words are translated in many instances to mean both “breath” and “spirit” and oftentimes other things. However, the context of the scripture in which those words are used allow translators to determine what is being referred to. As longman83 pointed out spot-on, this is a semantics issue. The ‘spirit’ does not refer to ‘breath of life’. They are two different things.

So coming to this:

2) the state of man that provides unhindererd communication with God

Now, I DO agree with you here, albeit with some modifications/clarifications. I wouldn’t call it a ‘state’ of man, as though man can enter into and out of that ‘state’ as he pleases. Neither will I use the qualifier “unhindered”, for indeed, such faculty for communing with God in most people is actually quite HINDERED! (Their spirits being dead in sin Eph. 2:1) However, you are right in the sense that the very fullness of life of such a spirit IS the knowledge of God, as the Lord points out in John 17:3. Thus the spirits of natural man, who/which has lost this ability to communicate with God, is effectively said to be dead.

go and re-read genesis1 and 2.
every thing God made were called "living creatures" including man.
but His breadth came into man, and made man reflects God`s image (a spirit being).

Ok. I don’t disagree that man is created in God’s image effectively as a spirit being. Where I disagree is your statement that “spirit can be interpreted to mean . . . breath of life”. So to clarify I’ll resort to questions:
          • Are you aware that God mentions the animals as “having the breath of life in them” (see Gen. 6:17, 7:15)?
          • If ‘spirit’ refers to ‘breath of life’ are you then saying that animals have spirits?
If you answer those I’d know how to proceed.

In every other biblical context where the spirit has been defined, as though distinct from the body. It has always been in communication with God. john recieving reavelation and paul being held up in tha 3rd heavens.
and In other contexts where the spirit has been used, it is a definition of man`s inherent  instincts. please look up the definition of instincts.

I really don’t get exactly what you mean by your first statement: ‘defined, as though distinct from the body'. Not to be pedantic, do you mean ‘absent from’ the body? For the spirit is ALWAYS distinct from the body. And if what I alluded to is what you mean then I don’t agree, for one, the rich man in Jesus’ story (luke 16) was not ‘in communication with God’ as with many other instances I don’t want to go to now.
Beyond that, I wouldn’t use the word ‘instincts’ to refer to spirit or spiritual things; ‘instincts’ are quite basal and primitive; even animals have some form ‘instincts’ (the case of the newborn animal's suckling instinct for example). A better word would be intuition.

cheers

One silly question: why do you usually put a ‘cry’ icon after saying cheers? I don’t get it
Just pulling your legs.
Cheers

@ Longman83

Not surprisingly, I sense a great deal of semantic confusion here, esp. over the word 'spirit'.

There is actually no confusion at all. The spirit means "breath of life"

Let's leave that for now. Noetic, Bobbyaf et al, if I understand your position properly, you are saying that there is no consciousness in the grave. If that is the case then,

Jesus calls death a sleep. (See John 11)

How do you explain the conversation between Saul and the spirit of a dead Samuel in 1 Samuel 28?

Well, in actual fact king Saul communicated with a "familiar spirit" or one of Satan's demons pretending to be Samuel. Today people practise chanelling, or using a medium to reach their supposedly loved ones who are alive in the spirit world. This kind of practice was forbidden by God. God knew that Satan was only decieving people into believing that when a person dies they are not really dead. Recall that satan once led Eve to believe the same thing when he told her she would not surely die if she ate the forbidden fruit.

Thats why I am wary of such arguments about people going to heaven after death. The spirit that goes back to God in heaven is not conscious or aware of what is going on, since it only the breath of life and nothing more.

How do you explain the appearance of a long-dead Moses talking with Jesus in his Transfiguration(Matthew 17:3, Mark 9:4, Luke 9:30,31?[li][/li]

Simple. Moses was resurrected. How else do you explain his conversation with Christ.

Let me ask you guys a question. When God made Adam from the dust before blowing the breath of life into him, how would you describe Adam? Imagine Adam's intact body with all its organs just lying there fresh from God's doing.

Lets look at the record in Genesis 2:7, And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being

Was he a soul before the breath of life entered? Absolutely not! Now listen as Solomon spoke about what happens to man when he dies, Ecclesiastes 12:7, Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Most translations if not all agree that the word "spirit" means "breath of life". It is this breath of life that departs us when we die. When we take our last breath, the spirit goes back to God.

If your response is that man became a living soul after the breath entered his body, then why is it so difficult to see that if the reverse takes place man can no longer be a living soul? There can not be an entity with any form of awareness or consciousness. This spirit cannot therefore be seen as either a person, being, creature, or any other entity whatsoever.

It is important for us to take note of the word "soul". In the context of this discussion we'd have to define soul as meaning being or person in terms of how we see Genesis 2:7, In other words Genesis says man became a living soul. He doesn't really possess a soul. The word soul as used in Genesis is the composite of body and breath of life. So if we were to use an equation to highlight what it is trying to say we'd have:

Body + Breath of life(spirit) = soul or being, or creature.   Put another way we have:

Soul = body + spirit

Using simple commense sense we should see that if the factor body from the equation disappears then what are we left with?  Certainly not Soul = spirit. Once there is no body there can be no existence of a soul.

The body descends to the dust, and the spirit goes back to God in heaven, hence no more existence of a soul.

QED, 

Lol @Bobbyaf,
Sorry but, this is getting rather tedious.
Are you trying to pull our legs, make us laugh a little, make the thread last a little longer or you're just having a hard time readjusting to the fact that your arguement holds no water and what you've accepted for so long isn't true? 

I could reply to your post - and I particularly have many things to say about your many quotes from Ecclessiastes and your other points - but instead (since this has turned to more of a debate than a discussion) I'd ask the same questions I asked noetic:

[list]
[li]since you claim the spirit means "the breath of life" and you're aware of references in Genesis 6:17, 7:15 that lets us know that animals have the "breath of life" in them, are you then saying that animals have spirits? [/li]
[li]In your view is there any difference between the makeup of a human being and that of an animal?[/li]
[/list]

With regards to the grand equation you came up with (soul = spirit + body), I have just one advice; remember that 1Thess. 5:23 is still in the bible - perhaps Paul didn't come across that your equation in 'good' time.
Cheers

Bobbyaf, your response is entirely conjectural and lacks essential Biblical evidence.

Bobbyaf:

@ Longman83


There is actually no confusion at all. The spirit means "breath of life"

See ricadelide's posts.

Bobbyaf:
Jesus calls death a sleep. (See John 11)

Yes he did, and so did the apostles in their writings. However, we must balance the word of God properly. It is improper to impute your own meaning to this euphemism (i.e. that 'sleep' in this context means absolute unconsciousness), when other Scriptural evidence clearly shows that dead saints  are clearly consciously with God. This evidence has been diligently provided by ricadelide, Tayo-D, and others. Now let's deal with the little evidence I brought up.

Bobbyaf:
Well, in actual fact king Saul communicated with a "familiar spirit" or one of Satan's demons pretending to be Samuel. Today people practise chanelling, or using a medium to reach their supposedly loved ones who are alive in the spirit world. This kind of practice was forbidden by God. God knew that Satan was only decieving people into believing that when a person dies they are not really dead. Recall that satan once led Eve to believe the same thing when he told her she would not surely die if she ate the forbidden fruit.

Thats why I am wary of such arguments about people going to heaven after death. The spirit that goes back to God in heaven is not conscious or aware of what is going on, since it only the breath of life and nothing more.

First of all, I'm quite aware of this view about the Samuel story, but frankly there is no Scriptural evidence for it. Let's read that passage in I Samuel 28.

⁸ So Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and at night he and two men went to the woman. "Consult a spirit for me," he said, "and bring up for me the one I name."

⁹ But the woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?"

¹⁰ Saul swore to her by the LORD, "As surely as the LORD lives, you will not be punished for this."

¹¹ Then the woman asked, "Whom shall I bring up for you?"
      "Bring up Samuel," he said.

¹² When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!"

¹³ The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?"
      The woman said, "I see a spirit coming up out of the ground."

¹⁴ "What does he look like?" he asked.
      "An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said.
      Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

¹⁵ Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"
      "I am in great distress," Saul said. "The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do."

¹⁶ Samuel said, "Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? ¹⁷ The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David. ¹⁸ Because you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today. ¹⁹ The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines."

²⁰ Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of Samuel's words. His strength was gone, for he had eaten nothing all that day and night.


The Bible writer clearly states that Samuel was brought up. We are told that the woman saw Samuel, and that she was surprised! Why would she be surprised, and how did she realise that her client was actually King Saul, if this was just like all her other episodes of necromancy? We are also told that Saul KNEW (as opposed to 'thought') that it was Samuel. It was Samuel, IMHO. Now this interpretation is rejected by many on the basis of discomfort with the non-Biblical practice of necromancy, and I can understand this to an extent. However, soch problems do not exist with the Transfiguration of Jesus, to which you said:

Bobbyaf:
Simple. Moses was resurrected. How else do you explain his conversation with Christ.

The Bible never says anywhere that Moses was ressurrected. What this passage proves is that Moses's spirit clearly was conscious and with God, after his death.

Your repeated quotes from Ecclesiastes deserve notice, and perhaps I can already imagine ricadelide's opinions about these quotations; however, as a precursor to that, I will post the wider context of your earlier quotation from Ecclesiastes 9, which should hopefully reveal one of the problems with your exegesis of this verses.

1 So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God's hands, but no man knows whether love or hate awaits him. 2 All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad,the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.
As it is with the good man,
so with the sinner;
as it is with those who take oaths,
so with those who are afraid to take them.
3 This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. 4 Anyone who is among the living has hope —even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!
5 For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun.
7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.


Questions:
[list]
[li]Verse 1: Are the righteous truly unsure of what awaits them, whether love or hate?[/li]
[li]Verse 6: Do the dead really have no further reward, esp. the dead in Christ?[/li]
[li]Verses 7-10: Is this really the proper attitude for a Christian in his approach to life?[/li]
[/list]

These questions should highlight the problem with unrestrained and unqualified doctrination of the book of Ecclesiastes. The same can be demonstrated with your quotations from the Psalms, in fact.

Finally, take note of Jesus' comments concerning the ressurection in Luke 20:37,38:

37But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

Enough said.

So longman do you actually believe that Saul spoke to Samuel who was dead and buried? Hahahaha, You really have a lot to learn.

Why do you think God would establish a law against consulting with familiar spirits, if when anyone died then they could easily communicate with the living?

If spirits of men had consciousness of their surroundings after leaving the respective bodies after death, then all God had to do was to give them bodies right there and then without having to await the resurrection. Why the time lapse?

@ Ricadelide

Lol @Bobbyaf,
Sorry but, this is getting rather tedious.
Are you trying to pull our legs, make us laugh a little, make the thread last a little longer or you're just having a hard time readjusting to the fact that your arguement holds no water and what you've accepted for so long isn't true? Cheesy

I have to laugh. My argument holds no water? Its not my argument its God's.

I could reply to your post - and I particularly have many things to say about your many quotes from Ecclessiastes and your other points - but instead (since this has turned to more of a debate than a discussion) I'd ask the same questions I asked noetic:

Debate you say? Its a discussion.

* since you claim the spirit means "the breath of life" and you're aware of references in Genesis 6:17, 7:15 that lets us know that animals have the "breath of life" in them, are you then saying that animals have spirits?
* In your view is there any difference between the makeup of a human being and that of an animal?

Let us see from scriptures!

In Genesis 7:15: So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was found the breath of life.

In Ezekiel 37:5 "Thus says the Lord God to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life.

So here we see both animals and humans possess the same breath of life, both in the sense of maintaining life and in another sense to restore life. So if we see the association between spirit being the same thing as breath of life then your question is answered. This latter aspect appeals to the resurrection reality, in that when Jesus returns the second time He will call the righteous from the dust who will possess new and glorified bodies that will once again be given back the same spirit, or life force which they once possessed.

Also note Genesis 7:21,22, "And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;, of all that was on dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died."

This text in a more concrete way associates the word "spirit" and "breath"

Note Numbers 27:16: "May the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,, "

This text says without a doubt that all flesh including animals possess the spirit.

With regards to the grand Wink equation you came up with (soul = spirit + body), I have just one advice; remember that 1Thess. 5:23 is still in the bible - perhaps Paul didn't come across that your equation in 'good' time.
Cheers Smiley

1 Thes 5:23 says And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Not sure what you want this text to say, but soul as used in this passage means the composite of life. Its always a term used to describe the existence of life. Of course people see what they were either taught, or what they desire to see. I am saying this is how I see the passage.

Cheers.

Bobbyaf:

So longman do you actually believe that Saul spoke to Samuel who was dead and buried? Hahahaha, You really have a lot to learn.

Indeed I have a lot to learn, and so do you  .

Bobbyaf:

Why do you think God would establish a law against consulting with familiar spirits, if when anyone died then they could easily communicate with the living?

You did not pay close attention to my post; hence you're attacking a straw man here. A literal interpretation of the Samuel story does not lead to the conclusion that communication with the dead is routinely possible. On the contrary, the Bible shows that this was no usual occurrence; certainly not for the witch of Endor. As I said before:

longman83:

the woman saw Samuel, and that she was surprised! Why would she be surprised, and how did she realise that her client was actually King Saul, if this was just like all her other episodes of necromancy?

If this witch was used to bringing up the actual dead, then why was she surprised to see Samuel? And why did this lead to her discovery of Saul's true identity? Obviously she saw something that she was not used to seeing. My interpretation of this story is that God in his sovereignty hijacked this act of necromancy by sending the actual spirit of Samuel to delivering his final judgement on Saul. And it would not be the first time that God has 'hijacked' divination for His own sovereign ends - the story of Balaam the prophet is another case in point. God spoke to him through sorcery and divination - which he forbade the Israelites from doing.

Bobbyaf:

If spirits of men had consciousness of their surroundings after leaving the respective bodies after death, then all God had to do was to give them bodies right there and then without having to await the resurrection. Why the time lapse?

Red herring fallacy. Why aren't we transformed the second we accept Jesus into our lives? Wouldn't that be an even greater witness to skeptics? 

I see that you did not comment on the rest of my post. How come? My position does not rest on the story of Saul and and the witch of Endor - concerning which I've already conceeded that some will be undertandably uneasy - but actually on the NT evidence. So how about the rest of my post? 

@poster
We accept issues like this by faith. Only the dead knows for sure. Wait till you die to find out because until then you will never know.

@Bobbyaf: Yardee, may disagree with you as to the definition of Soul, and the definition of Spirit, but I have to commend you for your boldness. You argue sensibly. Unfortunately, you are using the wrong material source. Of course, it is the only one you know. Mind you, it is an already diluted, weak product of the Pure Original.

Let me ask you guys a question. When God made Adam from the dust before blowing the breath of life into him, how would you describe Adam? Imagine Adam's intact body with all its organs just lying there fresh from God's doing.

Lets look at the record in Genesis 2:7, And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being

Was he a soul before the breath of life entered? Absolutely not! Now listen as Solomon spoke about what happens to man when he dies, Ecclesiastes 12:7, Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Most translations if not all agree that the word "spirit" means "breath of life". It is this breath of life that departs us when we die. When we take our last breath, the spirit goes back to God.

If your response is that man became a living soul after the breath entered his body, then why is it so difficult to see that if the reverse takes place man can no longer be a living soul? There can not be an entity with any form of awareness or consciousness. This spirit cannot therefore be seen as either a person, being, creature, or any other entity whatsoever.

It is important for us to take note of the word "soul". In the context of this discussion we'd have to define soul as meaning being or person in terms of how we see Genesis 2:7, In other words Genesis says man became a living soul. He doesn't really possess a soul. The word soul as used in Genesis is the composite of body and breath of life. So if we were to use an equation to highlight what it is trying to say we'd have:

Body + Breath of life(spirit) = soul or being, or creature. Put another way we have:

Soul = body + spirit

Using simple commense sense we should see that if the factor body from the equation disappears then what are we left with? Certainly not Soul = spirit. Once there is no body there can be no existence of a soul.

The body descends to the dust, and the spirit goes back to God in heaven, hence no more existence of a soul.

QED,

Thank you Bobbyaf! There it is, those of you in the Christendom trying to tell us that man is made of three elements, combined and all of them are present in a living person, can now see that Bobbyaf has put your hypothesis to shame! There is no three parts to One man. From Bobbyaf, a livig soul which means a man alive consists of body + Spirit!

But when the living spirit dies (the man who was alive is now dead), it seems as from Bobbyaf that the SPIRIT is separated from the Body. Therefore there is a dead soul (Soul dies, according to Bobbyaf, from his material source; the Protestant Bible. Probably KJV!), and what remains is lifeless Body!

See how weak or turnover its head the Trinity argument is when a Spiritually uneducated person is paralleling it with what man is made of. Living soul means body and spirit. It could also mean living body with a spirit or spirit alive in a body or living spirit. Is there any possibility here that I could be wrong?

Whats so interesting though, is that there is a part of this dead man that is still alive. But that living part can not function, unless it is fused with the body! So apply the same to dead Jesus, 1/3 god. It means that the 2/3 god remaining could not do anything and function as god! If through all of the time that the Christians claimed that Jesus was dead, there was a God fully functioning as God, then Jesus must not have been important to this God's ability and capability to fully function. Hence, I submit to you the enlightened people of Nairaland and to the world at large, that just because the Christians call or say Jesus is part of god; 1/3 god, son of god, does not mean it is so and that that it is absolutely true. From the above, we see that the role of Jesus in the Power capability of God to be God is Zero and unimportant, whether Jesus is alive or dead!

Those who are adovating 'acceptence by faith,' without any litmus test and observation, inference and hard fact conclusion are truly believers of anything, as long as it is dressed up fancifully! They are truly disbelievers of true faith therefore!

In Genesis 7:15: So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was found the breath of life.

In Ezekiel 37:5 "Thus says the Lord God to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life.

So here we see both animals and humans possess the same breath of life, both in the sense of maintaining life and in another sense to restore life. So if we see the association between spirit being the same thing as breath of life then your question is answered. This latter aspect appeals to the resurrection reality, in that when Jesus returns the second time He will call the righteous from the dust who will possess new and glorified bodies that will once again be given back the same spirit, or life force which they once possessed.

Also note Genesis 7:21,22, "And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;, of all that was on dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died."

This text in a more concrete way associates the word "spirit" and "breath"

Note Numbers 27:16: "May the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,, "

This text says without a doubt that all flesh including animals possess the spirit.

I love your reasoning and I think this mature and logical reasoning give room for learning.

Man comprises of Body (Flesh), Spirit(Breath of Life) and soul(Mind or reasoning). Now i explain each briefly:

Body of man is different from that of animal in the sense that God created it with His hand and Specially made in His own Image. By the power of God like animals and other things made, they were not created lifeless (Without any breath) so I beleive is Man. So the "Breath of life" is what make the difference because that special breath is only in Man and it worked with the Soul of man. the bible says ", and man became a living Soul"

Spirit (Breath of life infar from the above is that force (Unseen) that make the soul to function differently from animal.

About the Soul, we can see that Man reason differently from animals they are both breathing. Just because animals do not have breath of life in them and so they are not a living Soul. Please also not that Man could be dead while still alive. "That is why we pray that God do not let us be alive as if we are not. When you say people lost sense of reasoning they seize to be called a living soul.

@Olabowale
What has the discussion above got to do with the Trinity?  Don't dabble into a discussion you know nothing about. The topic if am not mistaken is for christians trying to get a better understanding of what happens to the dead in Christ from their understanding of the scriptures and not about the Trinity. So please, kindly shift _{to a muslim thread} so we can learn from the house.

@Oluchia,

Oluchia:

@Olabowale What has the discussion above got to do with the Trinity? Don't dabble into a discussion you know nothing about. The topic if am not mistaken is for christians trying to get a better understanding of what happens to the dead in Christ from their understanding of the scriptures and not about the Trinity.

Lol. . . that is just what Muslims do - they are so restless and never satisfied with what Islam offers them; that is why they must necessarily seek to dabble into what they have no clues about!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Bobbyaf: Yardee, may disagree with you as to the definition of Soul, and the definition of Spirit, but I have to commend you for your boldness. You argue sensibly. Unfortunately, you are using the wrong material source. Of course, it is the only one you know. Mind you, it is an already diluted, weak product of the Pure Original.

Again, for the sake of not inviting what you won't be able to handle, may I request that you desist from referring in derogatory terms to the convictions of other people?

I have clearly and briefly answered this allegation of the Muslim mindset on accusing the Bible as having been tampered with - and I offered pointers to shawn123 in another thread that there are different Qur'ans all saying different things ("In it are textual variations from the standard Qur'an that is presently read throughout the world" - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscripts]Wikipedia[/url]). This is not the thread to discuss your misgivings, olabowale; and if you would like to enter into that debate on a corrupt and watered-down Qur'an, please oblige us and open a thread for that so that your vexations can be put to rest once and for all.

It's no use trying to incessantly attack the Bible and Christians if you're so unsatisfied with the false claims of Muhammad in the Qur'an. Once again, I caution you to apply common sense and respect to non-Muslim convictions, and refrain from your continuous derision.

olabowale:

Those who are adovating 'acceptence by faith,' without any litmus test and observation, inference and hard fact conclusion are truly believers of anything, as long as it is dressed up fancifully! They are truly disbelievers of true faith therefore!

And just as well you have inadvertently dressed up your wrong notions fancifully and demonstrated yourself to be the very unbeliever that you allege against others. We have asked you to apply your own litmus tests and observations in several instances where you mixed up your own ideas - and typically, you vamoosed from those threads without addressing your misconceptions. Two examples:

(a) when you floated the thread out of your over-reaction from the YIM chats we had last week, it was left there for that long as a public specimen of your mindset. But the moment pilgrim.1 responded by sharing about the outcome of your actions behind the scenes, the thread vanished promptly!

(b) you are yet to apply your "litmus test and observation" to your own idea that "in heaven there are Paradise and Hellfire"; and that idea was queried several times (see it by clicking here, here and here). Where have you addressed that misconception, olabowale?

If you don't have a handle on your own misconceptions, what do you hope to achieve from your vexations against what you have no clues about?


Cheers.

longman83:

Not surprisingly, I sense a great deal of semantic confusion here, esp. over the word 'spirit'.

ricadelide:

As longman83 pointed out spot-on, this is a semantics issue. The ‘spirit’ does not refer to ‘breath of life’. They are two different things.

@longman83 and ricadelide,

The discussion both ways has been interesting; but I sense (as you do) that our dear friends unfortunately don't seem to have a thorough grasp of the word "spirit". Just so that many people do not continue to hold such unfortunate ideas and arrive at the wrong inferences (as olabowale predictably did), just permit me (as your student ) to try and straighten out this semantic term and demonstrate that it actually does not mean the same thing as "breath".

Good posts, All; and cheers.

@Bobbyaf,

I have tried to patiently follow your ideas all through; but it seems you're rather straining at an insignificant theory that really does not undergird your persuasions. At the risk of anticpating your answers to the sane questions posed both by ricadelide and longman83, let me help a little here.

It's great to see that you have no qualms with the Biblical fact that man's spirit goes back to God in Heaven:

Bobbyaf:

The body descends to the dust, and the spirit goes back to God in heaven, hence no more existence of a soul.

Your problem, however, is being able to see what exactly is the spirit of man. Aside the fact that your recent rejoinders have carefully evaded (or tacitly avoided) the real concerns and questions in others' repostes, you don't seem to have a good grasp of the word "spirit" which you are forcing in every instance to mean "breath of life". Let's review your statements and persuasions:

#1

Bobbyaf:

There is actually no confusion at all. The spirit means "breath of life"

#2

Bobbyaf:

Most translations if not all agree that the word "spirit" means "breath of life". It is this breath of life that departs us when we die. When we take our last breath, the spirit goes back to God.

Just so that you understand how you're mixing issues up on these terms, let me delineate them neatly for you.

A. There is a difference between "spirit" and "breath"

There is a clear difference between "breath" and "spirit". You would have easily seen the difference if you'd endeavoured to do a study of the words being translated ether as spirit or breath in the translations you had inferred. Just two examples in Scripture to distinguish between them:

Job 34:14 & 15
If he set his heart upon man,
if he gather unto himself his spirit^A and his breath^B;
All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn
again unto dust.

Isaiah 42:5
Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens,
and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth,
and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath^B unto
the people upon it, and spirit^A to them that walk therein.

One can readily see that spirit is distinct from breath; and both words in Hebrew as they appear in those verses are not the same:

(A) SPIRIT - רוּח (rûach)       

(B) BREATH - נשׁמה (n^eshâmâh)

The former ("spirit" - רוּח [rûach]) is used especially in reference to man as a rational being, including its [i.e., the spirit's] expression and functions (Strong's Concordance). It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him. This is clear in the following examples:

Isaiah: Isaiah 26:9
With my soul have I desired thee in the night;
yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early:
for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants
of the world will learn righteousness.

Mary: Luke 1:46-47
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Paul: 1 Cor. 14:14
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth,
but my understanding is unfruitful.

Even if you apply a common sense approach as you hinted earlier, it is clear that neither Isaiah, Mary nor Paul were pointing to their "breaths"; for it would indeed be absurd for any "translation" to misconstrue spirit in those verses to mean "breath of life" (as if Paul meant to say 'if I pray in an unknown tongue, "my breath of life" prayeth').

On the other hand, the latter term ("breath" - נשׁמה [n^eshâmâh]) is self-explanatory in the verses cited earlier (Job 34:14 & 15 and Isaiah 42:5) as pointing simply to the breath of man.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

Most translations if not all agree that the word "spirit" means "breath of life".

Further to the foregoing, let's note that:

B. The "spirit" in man has distinct functions from "breath"

The point has already been made that (according to Strong's Concordance) the term "spirit" in reference to man includes its expression and functions. The functions of the spirit supercede the breath, even though both are important.

Some of the functions of the "spirit" (as far as 'expressions' are allowed) point to the fact that:

~ man's spirit constrains him (Job 32:18);

~ his spirit can also:
[list][li]be troubled (Gen. 41:8; Job 21:4 and Dan. 2:3);[/li][/list]
[list][li]be sad (1 Kings 21:5)[/li][/list]
[list][li]experience anguish (Job 7:11)[/li][/list]
[list][li]be hardened (Deut. 2:30)[/li][/list]
[list][li]be provoked (Psalm 106:33)[/li][/list]
[list][li]be overwhelmed (Psalm 142:3 & 4)[/li][/list]
[list][li]be patient or proud (Eccl. 7:8)[/li][/list]
[list][li]be grieved (Isaiah 54:6 and Dan. 7:15)[/li][/list]

~ by his spirit man is able to make dilligent search (Psalm 77:6).

There a lot of functions connected with the "spirit" of man; and one cannot misconstrue these "functions" as indices of the "breath" of man. It would absolutely be absurd for anyone to imagine, for instance, that "spirit" means "breath" in such texts as Psalm 77:6 - as if the Psalmist meant to say 'my "breath of life" made dilligent search'; nor would it make any sense to read 1 Kings 21:5 as if Jezebel meant to say 'Why is thy "breath of life" so sad . . ?'


C. The "spirit" is a distinct component of man

We understand that man is comprised of "spirit, soul and body" (1 Thes. 5:23); and that the spirit and soul are two distinct components that cannot be mistaken the one for the other - which is why Hebrews 4:12. speaks of "the dividing asunder of soul and spirit".

Let's quote again the verses cited already to distinguish them:

Isaiah: Isaiah 26:9
With my soul have I desired thee in the night;
yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early:
for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants
of the world will learn righteousness.

Mary: Luke 1:46-47
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Paul: 1 Cor. 14:14
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth,
but my understanding is unfruitful.

First, we learn from those verses that the "spirit" is quite distinct from the "soul" - they are not the same (as you also recognized earlier).

Second, we understand that both the "spirit" and the "soul" of man have their varied expressions and functions. One cannot apply a cut-and-dry rule to make the "spirit" = "breath of life" in every instance as you have assumed - as if man assimilates spiritual matters merely by his breath!! These verses (as well as numerous others) simply cast that idea aside and enables us to seek the contextual application of what is meant by the "spirit" of man.

The prophet Isaiah desired God with his soul, but said that with his spirit he would "seek" Him.

In Mary's case, she magnified the Lord with her soul, but her spirit rejoiced in God her Saviour.

The "spirit" of man is not to be confused for the "breath of life"; for there are tomes of evidence in Scripture to point out the fact that the "breath" that man has is not capable in (nor used for) grasping "spiritual matters" in the things of God.

@Oluchia: My sister, you won. Your advise is taken to heart. thank you.

@Oluchia: My sister, you won. Your advise is taken to heart. thank you.

Glory be to God

@Bobbyaf,

D. The "spirit" of man was created WITHIN him

The "real" man himself that identifies as well as separates him from other creatures is his "spirit". This component of man is declared by the prophets to have been created within man - that is, it is that part that came from God and actually resides in the innermost part of man. As ricadelide has hinted earlier, this is what Paul referred to as the "inner man" (Rom. 7:22 and Eph. 3:16). This is not a new or isolated phenomenon; for besides Paul, other prophets have indeed referred to the "inner man" in various ways:

Job: Job 38:36
"Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts?
or who hath given understanding to the heart?"

David: Psalm 51:6
"Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts:
and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom"

Jeremiah - Jeremiah 31:33
"I will put my laws in their inward parts"

Peter: 1 Peter 3:4
". .let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that
which is not corruptible, even the ornament of
a meek and quiet spirit"

Paul again refers to the "the inward man which is renewed day by day (2 Cor. 4:16). All these are various ways of expressing the very same thing, that the "spirit" of man is the innermost component from where he is himself granted the capability to grasp spiritual matters in the things of God.

Let's see a few verses to the point that the "spirit" was created within man, and not just a matter of "breath" passing through our nostrils:

Job 32:8 & 18
But there is a spirit IN man: and the inspiration of
the Almighty giveth them understanding. . . For I am
full of matter, the spirit WITHIN me constraineth me.

Zechariah 12:1
The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD,
which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation
of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man WITHIN him.

1 Corinthians 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man,
save the spirit of man which is IN him?
even so the things of God knoweth no man,
but the Spirit of God.

Now, please understand from the verses above, that:

[list][li]the "spirit" of man within him is conected with receiving inspiration from God - which is not the function of "breath" (Job 32:8)[/li][/list]

[list][li]the "spirit" of man within him "constrains" him - which is not what the "breath" in man would do (Job 32:18)[/li][/list]

[list][li] the "spirit of man which is IN him" has the ability to KNOW things (1 Cor. 2:11) - which is not a function of "breath"[/li][/list]

All these are clear pointers to the FACT that the "spirit" of man within him is not simply a matter of "breath of life". Please understand that:

The "spirit" of man within him is NOT EQUAL to "breath of life"!!!

If you hold the view that the "spirit" = "breath", then you would have to carefully delineate for us all the precise FUNCTIONS of "breath" and let us see how they tessellate with the functions of the "spirit".

Your problem, Bobbyaf (as with many people), is that you're reading a forced idea into every instance where the word "spirit" appears in the OT verses you had cited - without even taking a careful step to seek out the context of its varied uses in Scripture! When someone tries to force his ideas into the text as you do, then all we have is a personal pretext that is skewed and away from the intended meaning of a verse. And please, if you assume that my submissions are as skewed, please, please, and please go one step further to show where I might be mistaken, thank you.

Bobbyaf:

I have to laugh. My argument holds no water? Its not my argument its God's.

Aiight. . .let's cut out all the pride - it is all too classic of a manifestation of an empty spirit. I do not hold my views as superior to anyone's. I'm learning to be humble enough to learn - and anyone willing enough to help out here should offer cogent discussions based on what they understand from God's word without assuming to take His place!

@All,

Anyhow, I think that this is a timely discussion that shows up between seasons; and true, we cannot ignore it. I had hoped that the issue of distinguishing between the components of man would have been discussed at length in an appropriate thread - Spirit, Soul and Body - What's The Difference?. Bobbyaf, noetic, olabowale. . . any luck of seeing you guys there with seasoned entries?

Pilgrim please note that "breath of life" is different from breath. So when you refer to my posts, do so honestly and completely.

All life has the spirit in them. When all die that spirit goes back to God who gave it. Someone stated above that man is a spirit. Come on goodly people.