Bipartite or Tripartite Nature of Man?

Great replies, me mateys...much food for thought! Unfortunately it all makes for even more of a dog's breakfast of the whole issue than we started out with.

I was thinking of the verse that says 'we should love the lord our God with "all...our HEART...all our SOUL...all our MIND...and all our STRENGTH..."

Why wasn't the SPIRIT mentioned, I wonder? And why in that particular order? Heart, and then Soul, and then Mind, at least, seem to follow Lee's hierarchical order of how we are inwardly constructed. Our Strength may refer to our physical (fleshy) capacity...hence, why it is named last.

I'm also asking myself what could be the significance intended by Paul in Hebrews 4 in mentioning the "joints and the marrow"? I mean, clearly the Word of God does not literally sunder our joints apart or suction out our bone-marrow. We'd all be dead. Could there, then, be some important clue that lies in this comparison between the 'joints' and 'marrow' and the 'soul' and 'spirit' that may serve to throw some light on the actual nature and function of both the soul and spirit, and their interdependence? This seems, to me, like a reasonable path to follow.

Needless to say, I've been carrying out some medical research into joints and bone marrow. Watch this space. Your minds will be blown apart...

Much Grace,

'Jack'

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Great replies, me mateys...much food for thought! Unfortunately it all makes for even more of a dog's breakfast of the whole issue than we started out with.

I was thinking of the verse that says 'we should love the lord our God with "all...our HEART...all our SOUL...all our MIND...and all our STRENGTH..."

Why wasn't the SPIRIT mentioned, I wonder? And why in that particular order? Heart, and then Soul, and then Mind, at least, seem to follow Lee's hierarchical order of how we are inwardly constructed. Our Strength may refer to our physical (fleshy) capacity...hence, why it is named last.

I'm also asking myself what could be the significance intended by Paul in Hebrews 4 in mentioning the "joints and the marrow"? I mean, clearly the Word of God does not literally sunder our joints apart or suction out our bone-marrow. We'd all be dead. Could there, then, be some important clue that lies in this comparison between the 'joints' and 'marrow' and the 'soul' and 'spirit' that may serve to throw some light on the actual nature and function of both the soul and spirit, and their interdependence? This seems, to me, like a reasonable path to follow.

Needless to say, I've been carrying out some medical research into joints and bone marrow. Watch this space. Your minds will be blown apart...

Much Grace,

'Jack'

Jack (or should I call you Captain Jack?),
I agree with what you have posted. In my initial post, I characterized Heb 4:12 as a metaphor. This, I believe, is a fair characterization. I have said before that Paul was no stranger to employing literary devices in his writings. With that in mind, it follows that not all verses or passages in his writings can or should be interpreted literally. Obviously, the same can be said of the rest of the Bible. Context needs to be taken into consideration, and ultimately, context is everything.

This is certainly the case with Jesus' admonition that you referred to in your post. Jesus says to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Presumably, it would have been sufficient for him to just say “Love the Lord your God” without everything else that follows. I don’t think saying “Love the Lord your God”, is necessarily an insufficient admonition, but obviously Jesus added “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" to emphasize how we should love the Lord. With that in mind, it would be completely ridiculous if someone came along and completely ignored the “Love the Lord your God” part and instead used the latter portion of what Jesus said solely to “prove” a different kind of trichotomy – that man is composed of three parts – a heart, soul, and mind. Obviously this is a stupid example, but I think the point is clear.

In the same way, in 1 Thess 5:23, Paul was trying to make a point about being sanctified. The word completely is spelled out and although the way that Paul qualifies completely seems to indicate that man has three parts, that is still secondary to his main point of being sanctified. I’m always willing to leave these kinds of things open for debate, but what I have a problem with is the position that Lee took, that these verses like 1 Thess 5:23 are just there to ‘prove’ his own dogmas. It misses the larger context to say the least.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

I'm also asking myself what could be the significance intended by Paul in Hebrews 4 in mentioning the "joints and the marrow"? I mean, clearly the Word of God does not literally sunder our joints apart or suction out our bone-marrow. We'd all be dead. Could there, then, be some important clue that lies in this comparison between the 'joints' and 'marrow' and the 'soul' and 'spirit' that may serve to throw some light on the actual nature and function of both the soul and spirit, and their interdependence? This seems, to me, like a reasonable path to follow.

First, I will start with the essentially irrelevant point that it is not necessarily Paul who wrote Hebrews. In fact there are clues in favor of others. And I don't really care. If we can't figure it out by 2016, it's too late to worry about it.

But the whole soul and spirit thing, or joints an marrow thing — neither appear intended to state that you can find answers to separate those in the word, but rather to point to the key of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The light in the word should touch you concerning your reasons — even if you don't admit it out loud to anyone.

[Ohio]

First, I will start with the essentially irrelevant point that it is not necessarily Paul who wrote Hebrews. In fact there are clues in favor of others. And I don't really care. If we can't figure it out by 2016, it's too late to worry about it.

Of course it was Apostle Paul who authored the book of Hebrews. We have known this for a very long time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course it was Apostle Paul who authored the book of Hebrews. We have known this for a very long time.

I hope you are joking.

Because there are a lot of we that haven't.

I was told that by Lee. And it was a statement that was made in a manner that stood out from the crowd of Christianity that had not come to that conclusion (though they had not simply dismissed it either).

So "we" have not known any such thing. We just heard it stated very surely by Lee for many years.

From Wikipedia (don't just dismiss it)

By the end of the first century there was not a consensus over the author’s identity. Clement of Rome, Barnabas, the Apostle Paul, and other names were proposed. Others later suggested Luke the Evangelist, Apollos and Priscilla as possible authors.

Though no author is named, the original King James Version of the Bible titled the work "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews". However, the KJV's attribution to Paul was only a guess, and not a very good one according to the majority of recent scholarship. Its vastly different style, different theological focus, different spiritual experience — all are believed to make Paul's authorship of Hebrews increasingly indefensible. At present, neither modern scholarship nor church teaching ascribes Hebrews to Paul.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course it was Apostle Paul who authored the book of Hebrews. We have known this for a very long time.

The author of Hebrews said that s/he got their revelation of Christ from those who'd been eyewitnesses: "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him" (2:3[NIV]); which strongly contrasts with Paul's gospel narrative: "I didn't receive it from any man" (Gal 1:12).

It doesn't prove that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but it leans in that direction.

You know what WL's reasoning was? "Only Paul could have written a book like Hebrews"... that was it... and on such slender reeds the LC's conceptual edifice was built.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The author of Hebrews said that s/he got their revelation of Christ from those who'd been eyewitnesses: "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him" (2:3[NIV]); which strongly contrasts with Paul's gospel narrative: "I didn't receive it from any man" (Gal 1:12).

It doesn't prove that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but it leans in that direction.

You know what WL's reasoning was? "Only Paul could have written a book like Hebrews"... that was it... and on such slender reeds the LC's conceptual edifice was built.

There's no conflict here in verse 2.3. Yes, Paul saw the Lord directly, but that does not negate the fact that "this salvation first announced by the Lord" in the gospels (referring especially to the teachings of Jesus) "was confirmed to us by those who heard Him," referring to the 12 Apostles, Mary and the other women, and perhaps other disciples. The "us" referred to Luke and Paul, and possibly others who assisted in the research, as also Luke implies in his gospel (1.1-4) and Acts (1.1).

The chief critique against Paul's authorship was the excellent grasp of the Greek language. Luke is always considered a potential author because the writing matches his other books, but the chief critique against Luke's authorship was his lack of O.T. knowledge. Both Paul and Luke were close to Timothy. (13.23)

So unless someone can poke a hole in my assertion that Paul authored the rough draft of the book and Luke wrote the final version, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I arrived at my conclusion not from Lee, but by reading historians such as Schaaf. (Volume I, #100, pp. 808-824) Sorry if you don't like it.

[aron]

I doubt Paul wrote 2:3... at best, the "us" is Luke referring to himself and Paul. The passage stresses the mediatory effect of both scripture and witnesses. Paul's writing stresses direct revelation. This was the basis of his ministry, and I seriously doubt he'd undercut that for anything. Of course this is my opinion, and the point is incidental, as OBW said.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

. . . . So unless someone can poke a hole in my assertion that Paul authored the rough draft of the book and Luke wrote the final version, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I arrived at my conclusion not from Lee, but by reading historians such as Schaaf. (Volume I, #100, pp. 808-824) Sorry if you don't like it.

And there you have it. Someone asserted reason for it being Paul. And others assert reasons for others.

If you are holding this out as an opinion — much like everyone else — then there is nothing to "poke a hole in" unless someone claims to have the definitive answer. Your opinion is noted.

But your challenge speaks of certainty. And you have provided nothing that is certain. Only reference to one author, and to a fact that may or may not be relevant to the query at hand. You have therefore provided nothing through which to poke a hole.

And therefore the challenge is reversed. If you are certain that it is so, it is on you to establish the particulars. And being close to Timothy, coupled with knowledge of the OT and mastery of Greek does not make for more than a plausible explanation. Not a bad one. But insufficient to stand as certainty.

If, on the other hand, it is merely an opinion, then unless someone thinks they have the proof of contrary authorship, there is nothing about which to make a challenge.

I accept your position as a reasonable opinion, even if not the majority opinion (both at the end of the fist century and today). As I said, it is irrelevant. If it is inspired, the lack of clear attribution of authorship means little if the inspiration was truly from God.

[Ohio]

But your challenge speaks of certainty. And you have provided nothing that is certain.

Certainty? And what might be your standard for that? Some challenge the authorship of Paul's epistles which lead with his name (e.g. Timothy and Titus), so that provides no "certainty." I referred to Schaaf, the premier church historian, but that provides insufficient "certainty" for you too. My proposal solves all the problems with the authorship, but that is inadequate also.

Because you said so! So be it! And there you have it!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The author of Hebrews said that s/he got their revelation of Christ from those who'd been eyewitnesses: "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him" (2:3[NIV]); which strongly contrasts with Paul's gospel narrative: "I didn't receive it from any man" (Gal 1:12).

It doesn't prove that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but it leans in that direction.

You know what WL's reasoning was? "Only Paul could have written a book like Hebrews"... that was it... and on such slender reeds the LC's conceptual edifice was built.

In each of known Paul's epistles, it begins with Paul announcing himself before proceeding with his epistle. Hebrews doesn't begin this way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

In each of known Paul's epistles, it begins with Paul announcing himself before proceeding with his epistle. Hebrews doesn't begin this way.

In the eyes of the Hellenistic Jews, Paul was damaged goods, his reputation was destroyed by the throngs of Judaizers emanating from Jerusalem. Hence he wrote anonymously, as it truly was, inspired by the Spirit of God. To reach the widest possible audience, Paul wanted polished Greek, that which only Luke, his longtime faithful companion, could provide. Paul and Luke most probably wrote this lengthy discourse while he was under house arrest in Caesarea under the safety of Felix the governor.

Since Paul learned first-hand that the church in Jerusalem had completely returned to Moses, and soon would face destruction by Titus, Paul knew it was futile to write to them in Hebrew. The book of Hebrews was intended for the Diaspora. It was a writing on par with the best of Romans, not dictated freehand according to inspiration, but carefully collaborated and prepared over time. I believe during this same time, Luke also researched and wrote his Gospel and Acts.

Originally Posted by OBW

But the whole soul and spirit thing, or joints an marrow thing — neither appear intended to state that you can find answers to separate those in the word, but rather to point to the key of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The light in the word should touch you concerning your reasons — even if you don't admit it out loud to anyone.

It is interesting that the "writer" here should mention the "heart" (i.e. ...'thoughts and intents of the heart'..). My mind flies back to the gospels where Jesus, speaking of the heart, asserted that, "..for from within, "out of the heart" of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within..." (Mark 7: 21-23).

The apostle Paul, speaking to the Romans of similar sinfulness writes ..."I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet; but sin, taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence"...(But)..."it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me; for I know that in me, that is, in 'my flesh', dwelleth no good thing" (Romans 7: 7-8, 17-18).

If one reads those quoted passages carefully, one notices a peculiar conundrum. On the one hand, the Lord states emphatically that "sin" emanates from the 'heart'; but on the other hand, the apostle Paul explains that "sin" actually resides in the 'flesh'. Now, which one to accept?

Surely, the terms 'the flesh' and 'the heart' cannot be taken as freely interchangeable synonyms. Perhaps, what Paul meant to imply was that 'his heart' was encased in 'his flesh' and so, in a manner of speaking, the sin in his heart, technically, was located in his flesh. But he himself would seem to dispute such a shallow explanation because further on in that same chapter he quite unmistakably makes the distinction between the physical and the non-physical when he states, "..I see another 'law in my members' warring against the 'law of my mind'.." (Romans 7:23).

The Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul seem to have, most disturbingly, contradicted each other!!! Who to take? And if we are to take one over the other, what about after that? What is one expected to make of the rest of Scripture from this point forth, and particularly of the integrity of the New Testament -which, to add further to the complication, owes much of its weight to Paul's contributions? If faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and this question remains unanswered, where else can our faith find to rest?

What, therefore, is the unseen relationship between the heart (mind, will, emotions, conscience, and the spirit, according to Li Changshou) and the flesh? What is the nature of their interconnectedness? Would the answer to this offer insight into Paul's conflict with the Lord Jesus?

Moreover, in view of the foregoing ramble, what can explain Paul's didactic intention in mentioning the 'joints and marrow' in apposition to the 'spirit and soul'? Is it simply to show us that when we read the Word it should shine on us 'concerning our reasonings'? Really? Just that?

Does that offer an effective cure for all that is gravely wrong with us, not just in our behavior, but fundamentally and constitutionally, as was indicated by the Lord?
Do calls to just 'act better', to just be 'better people', because the Word of God has divided and discerned our behavior and exposed the 'reasons' behind that behavior really suffice to reverse and correct the deeply corrupt condition of humankind?

Poppycock!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

If one reads those quoted passages carefully, one notices a peculiar conundrum. On the one hand, the Lord states emphatically that "sin" emanates from the 'heart'; but on the other hand, the apostle Paul explains that "sin" actually resides in the 'flesh'. Now, which one to accept?

Surely, the terms 'the flesh' and 'the heart' cannot be taken as freely interchangeable synonyms. Perhaps, what Paul meant to imply was that 'his heart' was encased in 'his flesh' and so, in a manner of speaking, the sin in his heart, technically, was located in his flesh. But he himself would seem to dispute such a shallow explanation because further on in that same chapter he quite unmistakably makes the distinction between the physical and the non-physical when he states, "..I see another 'law in my members' warring against the 'law of my mind'.." (Romans 7:23).

The Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul seem to have, most disturbingly, contradicted each other!!!

Jesus in Mark 7 rebuked the Pharisees for invalidating the Word of God with their traditions by contrasting what enters a man from without (passing thru the stomach and out the other end) but never enters his heart, from evil things what go out of a man "from within" out of his heart. "From within"(v.21) should be what Paul explained in Rom 7.18 to be the flesh. No problem here. Neither the heart nor the flesh in these verses is physical.

Your second contrast is different. Using Rom 7.23, Paul contrast the law of God which he has mentally acknowledged and "the members" of his body, later referred to as "this body of death." These "members" should include all our faculties (from brains to fingers and toes) which can be used in the attempt to fulfill the law of God. This is a contrast between knowing and doing, between the psychological and the physical. Paul engaged this battle so vigorously that he referred to both sides as laws.

So SheepDawg, let not your heart be troubled! Welcome to the forum! And rest assured that Jesus and Paul are on the same page.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus in Mark 7 rebuked the Pharisees for invalidating the Word of God with their traditions by contrasting what enters a man from without (passing thru the stomach and out the other end) but never enters his heart, from evil things what go out of a man "from within" out of his heart. "From within"(v.21) should be what Paul explained in Rom 7.18 to be the flesh. No problem here. Neither the heart nor the flesh in these verses is physical.

Your second contrast is different. Using Rom 7.23, Paul contrast the law of God which he has mentally acknowledged and "the members" of his body, later referred to as "this body of death." These "members" should include all our faculties (from brains to fingers and toes) which can be used in the attempt to fulfill the law of God. This is a contrast between knowing and doing, between the psychological and the physical. Paul engaged this battle so vigorously that he referred to both sides as laws.

So SheepDawg, let not your heart be troubled! Welcome to the forum! And rest assured that Jesus and Paul are on the same page.

Thank you for your response, Ohio,

Regretfully, I cannot wrap my head around what it is exactly you are trying to say. I don't mean you any offense, but the construction of your sentences I am finding a little bit problematic. Perhaps you're tired. Might you try considering re-writing your reply a little bit more lucidly to more clearly bring out your points? Thank you.

...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

Thank you for your response, Ohio,

Regretfully, I cannot wrap my head around what it is exactly you are trying to say. I don't mean you any offense, but the construction of your sentences I am finding a little bit problematic. Perhaps you're tired. Might you try considering re-writing your reply a little bit more lucidly to more clearly bring out your points? Thank you.

...

Can anyone else help out with SheepDawg's conundrum?

You have to read my post in context with SheepDawg's post.

He makes two comparisons using Mark and Romans. He contends that the comparisons are similar, but they are not. He appears to be facetiously introducing conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and Paul for some reason. In the first comparison, he linked the heart and the flesh. In his second, he linked the law in our members with the law in our mind. By equating these comparisons, he attempted to prove that Jesus' teaching was at odds with Paul's.

I explained that neither our heart nor our flesh is physical, of course. Jesus said that all manner of evil came from within, probably referring to our fallen flesh, and passed thru our heart and come out of us, which can corrupt us. This is in contrast to food which comes into our stomach and passes out of us, never going thru our heart, so it could never can corrupt us as the Pharisees implied. Our heart is not the source of evil, since our heart can also love God, and out of it are the issues of life.

Does this help? Perhaps you can rework your original post after you register. It would help me.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I explained that neither our heart nor our FLESH is physical, OF COURSE.

This is sooo, so, so funny! ! !

I have nothing to say.. Lol! ..

Originally Posted by Freedom

Perhaps this "conundrum" exists only because you want it to exist. Lets rewind from Romans 7 back to chapter 3 where Paul references several Psalms in his discussion of sin:
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

What Paul quotes in Rom 3 represents the same theme that Jesus spoke about- "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man". In other words, Paul was on the same page as Jesus. .

Thank you for 'opening my eyes' and showing me the link between what Jesus said and what Paul said. Very valid.

"Conundrum" solved, I guess...(or at least that's what you think, isn't it?)

Originally Posted by Ohio

I explained that neither our heart nor our flesh is physical, of course. Jesus said that all manner of evil came from within, PROBABLY REFERRING TO OUR FALLEN FLESH, and passed thru our heart and come out of us, which can corrupt us. This is in contrast to food which comes into our stomach and passes out of us, never going thru our heart, so it could never corrupt us as the Pharisees implied. OUR HEART IS NOT THE SOURCE OF EVIL, since our heart can also love God, and out of it are the issues of life.

So, Jesus was "probably" referring to our fallen flesh, although the record reflects that he said "out of the heart of man" (and not "probably" out of his heart). He did not mention the word 'flesh'. And when you say that the "heart is NOT the source of evil" I just wonder who, now, is truly at "odds" with and in "conflict" with the Lord Jesus? This explanation of yours, I'm sure you know, amounts to 'conjecture' on your part, at best; and a flat-out denial of the express words of Jesus, at worst. Am I wrong?

Nevertheless, for entirely different reasons, I agree with the general tenor of your argument. However, I was essaying to make a much wider point than what you have seen. I was not just 'facetiously introducing a conflict between Paul and the Lord Jesus' for the heck of it (and, by the way, I object to that word "facetiously"; I intended no humor), rather I 'introduced' the imagined conflict and intended it to be received as a 'rhetorical and polemic device' to illustrate and color the much broader issue I desired to cover.

But I have no more heart to pursue this topic. It is potentially a Pandora's box and I am sensing and discerning that we have not all been irradiated and been made level with the same amount of light; and my spirit will not allow me to continue further. Some things ought not to be shared. I'm sorry. But thank you all for your responses and taking the trouble to trouble your bibles to search for scriptures to refute me. But please feel free to engage me on other threads.

God bless.
________________________________________
"The heart is deceitful above ALL things and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

If one reads those quoted passages carefully, one notices a peculiar conundrum. On the one hand, the Lord states emphatically that "sin" emanates from the 'heart'; but on the other hand, the apostle Paul explains that "sin" actually resides in the 'flesh'. Now, which one to accept?

Surely, the terms 'the flesh' and 'the heart' cannot be taken as freely interchangeable synonyms. Perhaps, what Paul meant to imply was that 'his heart' was encased in 'his flesh' and so, in a manner of speaking, the sin in his heart, technically, was located in his flesh. But he himself would seem to dispute such a shallow explanation because further on in that same chapter he quite unmistakably makes the distinction between the physical and the non-physical when he states, "..I see another 'law in my members' warring against the 'law of my mind'.." (Romans 7:23).

Perhaps this "conundrum" exists only because you want it to exist. Lets rewind from Romans 7 back to chapter 3 where Paul references several Psalms in his discussion of sin:
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

What Paul quotes in Rom 3 represents the same theme that Jesus spoke about- "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man". In other words, Paul was on the same page as Jesus. Yes, Paul emphasized sin dwelling in the flesh, but there is no evidence to suggest that Paul felt that sin only resides in the flesh. I agree with what Ohio said regarding Paul's use of the word members in Rom 7:23. All evidence that I can see suggests that Paul's view of the flesh was broader than just understanding it to be his physical body.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

n 1 Thess 5:23, Paul was trying to make a point about being sanctified... I have a problem with is the position that Lee took, that these verses like 1 Thess 5:23 are just there to ‘prove’ his own dogmas. It misses the larger context to say the least.

A recent unregistered poster wrote that no one on this forum has come out with a compelling narrative which captures the complete arc of scripture, from start to finish, to which replied that hardly had Lee, either. Lee's method was to take a few passages or clauses, often out of context, and put them together in a make-shift attempt at systematized theology. Then he re-imposed this conceptual grid, this "larger narrative" back onto scripture. And the fact that he had to reject large swaths of scripture as "fallen human concepts" in order to keep his theology whole, speaks volumes to me.

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

What can explain Paul's didactic intention in mentioning the 'joints and marrow' in apposition to the 'spirit and soul'? Is it simply to show us that when we read the Word it should shine on us 'concerning our reasonings'? Really? Just that?

Does that offer an effective cure for all that is gravely wrong with us, not just in our behavior, but fundamentally and constitutionally, as was indicated by the Lord?

Do calls to just 'act better', to just be 'better people', because the Word of God has divided and discerned our behavior and exposed the 'reasons' behind that behavior really suffice to reverse and correct the deeply corrupt condition of humankind?

Now to Sheepdawg's quote. Why did Paul write his epistles? What was the kingdom of God, as presented by Paul, by Jesus, and in Second Temple Judaism? Who is our Father, and why are we so separated from Him? And how many "parts of man" are there, and how do they fit into the larger narrative? How does the "spirit" versus the "soul" help us navigate our way back to the celestial realms, and escape the chains of fallen flesh?

I won't try to answer that, but will simply make one small point about the larger context, which I believe Lee completely missed. How can Lee and now his Blended Lieutenants say that the spirit of Man and the Holy Spirit are somehow entirely divorced from the spiritual realm, i.e. the "world of the spirits", to coin a phrase? Lee told us that Jessie Penn-Lewis tried to address this spiritual realm in an unbalanced way. So he rejected it, and that was that. We got the mingling of the Holy Spirit with the spirit of man, presented from "The Lord be with your spirit" and "The Spirit witnesses with our spirit", gleaned from Paul's writings, but no "when a spirit goes out of a man, it flies about looking for rest", as Jesus taught.

And on and on. I could present 50 verses which were ignored because they weren't convenient to Lee's narrative arc. And I could present 350 verses that were panned by Lee & Co as "fallen" and "ignorant men's concepts" because Lee couldn't reconcile them with his theology. Including verses from the NT (!!).

I conclude that the "Tripartite Nature of Man" isn't invalid as an avenue of discussion, of itself, but our feeble attempts to systematize it may end up creating small prisons of conceptual thought, which actually cut us off from the scriptures themselves. So be awfully cautious as you try to read larger meaning into small phrases of 6 or 8 Greek words. The enemy is extremely subtle. Don't presume that you can think your way past the gates of Hades. They are not called "adamantine gates" for nothing. They are indeed strongholds.

Peace and God bless.

[JJ]

I've been reading the posts in this thread from the beginning, and haven't felt learned enough to weigh in on the question.

Like most LCers, I have been in the tripartite "camp" of thought, and still am. As Paul tells us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and the temple has an outer court, holy place, and holiest place has always been a helpful picture for me. Not just for teaching, but worship as well.

As with others, like aron, on this thread, I have come to see that "pounding and pounding" on the importance of the spirit, without also taking account of the biblical roles of body, soul, and heart leads one into weird places.

That Jesus' death tore the curtain between the holiest place and holy place may be instructive, as His Spirit now "invades" more than just the spirit from the inside out, and as it does, He is magnified.

Praise Him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Like most LCers, I have been in the tripartite "camp" of thought, and still am. As Paul tells us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and the temple has an outer court, holy place, and holiest place has always been a helpful picture for me. Not just for teaching, but worship as well...

That Jesus' death tore the curtain between the holiest place and holy place may be instructive, as His Spirit now "invades" more than just the spirit from the inside out, and as it does, He is magnified.

Praise Him.

I'm also in the tripartite camp, but with qualifications. A few comments from Paul, in passing, doesn't lay the foundation to build a hermeneutical system.

Originally Posted by JJ

I've been reading the posts in this thread from the beginning, and haven't felt learned enough to weigh in on the question.

Mr. Lee didn't learn enough to weigh in either, and it didn't stop him from putting out 26 books on the subject. So feel free to comment, as we all have. It's a learning process here, or should be, and as we think, read, talk, listen and write, hopefully we learn something. As (a small) part of the larger conversation, Witness Lee and Mary McDonough and the 'three parts of man' also have a place.

http://www.tripartiteman.org/historical/mcdonough.html

But Erasmus wrote on the three parts of man back in 1504, and with much more "life" (imho) than Lee ever did. Read his "Enchiridion" and he has a chapter devoted to it. I loved it (but I love Erasmus anyway, and am hopelessly biased).

Take Lee in small doses, balanced liberally with others, and you might avoid going into a ditch. But if you live on the "ministry" exclusively, I daresay your journey through the Bible, and life, will be distorted.