Mijn homepage is natuurlijk under construction, maar ik vertel wel even iets over mezelf: Geboren: 19 juli 1969. Te: Delfzijl Gewoond in: Delfzijl, Groningen en ik woon nu in Zuidhorn. Sinds 1993 ben ik administratief medewerker bij een MBO-school. Maar naast administratief medwerker heb ik natuurlijk ook nog vrije tijd en hobbies.
1. Many are confronted with 'mental' or 'psychic illness'. My question is:
"Is there somsething like 'psychic illness'?". Thomas Szasz speaks of: The
Myth of Mental Illnes. Interesting is, that in the '30th some books were
written by A. Janse, which are related tot this question.
2. Man is created bij God. This involves:
3. Man's creation is characterized by God's presence. He took from the
'dust of the ground': clods of earth like in a garden; 'bare earth' we
should say (Gen 2:5). Our origin is 'ordinary' and also 'special' (because of
God's presence). From this earth, God 'formed' a male (Gen 1:26,37). The
presence of 'earth' demonstrates the impossibility to produce life; there is
'something', but that apppears to be 'nothing'.
4. When God formed the 'earth', He 'simply' goes on. Didn't He want to make
human beings in His image? In the dust is no life. Therefore: life have to
be related to Gods 'breath'. So man became a 'living soul' (Gen 2:7)
5. When Adam gets up from the dust, there is the 'son of God' (Luke 3:38);
not with a fake-body or evolved from a Primeval Hord (cf R. Rushdoony:
Freud). He is a human being just as we. There is much to notice: arms,
legs, sexual organs, warmth, etc. Later on the same with the woman. All this
is directly perceptible (d.p.) and coincides with the body. But there were
also gladness, love, wisdom and -after the Fall- hate, pride, etc. That was
indirectly perceptible (i.p.). It reveals via the d.p.: eyes, attitude, voice,
words, gestures, etc. I put this as follows:
fig. 1
What belongs to the d.p. is called body. "Is it possible also to use one
word for all i.p.?" Current science says: "Yes! That i.p. is the soul or
psyche. Man has body (soma) and soul (psyche)". Then we should read fig.
1 as follows:
fig. 2
But is that correct?
6. When Adam opened his eyes, he was a soul; later on also the woman.
So:
/ person(s) The word soul includes more than /
soul -- animal(s) (life) only 'creature'. There is an \
\ blood ore life(exsistence) other problem.
fig. 3
7. In 1 Cor 15:35-49 Paul speaks of 2 sorts of bodies: a 'natural' body and
a 'spiritual' body. The natural body knows sowing, corruption, weakness;
etc.; in one word: 'negative'. The spritual body: glory, power, etc.:
'positive'. In the Greek text the 'natural' body is called psychical and the
'spritual' body pneumatical (cf 1 Cor 15:44). When Adam 'awaked' after his
creation, he was a soul with a 'psychical' body. All his d.p. aspects were
psychical. The scientific distinction between body and soul (soma and
psyche) is at least problematical.
8. But what is then the meaning of the word of Jezus in Matth. 10:28: 'Fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul'? (Greek:
soma-psyche). I think we have to start again in the origin of the soul. God
used the 'dust' (d.p.), but also 'breath' (i.p.). The 'dust' is matter (one can
feel and touch it), but Gods breath is immaterial. And that 'model' God
follows since the 'birth' of Adam. Eve was made from a rib - matter! But in
that matter is no life. I assume, that God also her gave His 'breath'. When
they begot kids (also souls) there was matter: sperm and ova. That's all
what man can produce. Is it unlogical to assume that God give His 'breath'
to every individual (cf the view of traducianism and creationism). I put it
so:
| Living souls | Material | Non-material |
| Adam | "dust of earth" | "breath of life" |
| Eve | "one of his ribs" | "breath of life"? |
fig. 4
9. When I say that the soul is eternal, then is that not new. This is God's plan with the soul (cf Heidelberg Catechism 32). The soul is 'born' in time, but God wants that His creation is living eternally. There is a moment, the soul passes from temporal to eternal life. Gen. 2:17 and 3:22 make clear that man have to manage this by himself. There are two parts:
Although both were perfect, woman and man choose against their Origin;
that is the way of the death, the 'dust'. From Gen 6:3 I derive, that God's
Spirit was -after the Fall- still indwelling (cf 1 Cor 15:44,45). But by their
sin there was a radical alteration in them. Man shall live eternally, but not
everybody with God ; many go to hell.
10. God is unable to deny His creation: He remains true to what He did -a
wonderfull grace. Everybody, who trust the Lord and lives through His
force has eternal life. In that way we can say, that there are living souls
and dead souls. That is peculiar. But this is not peculiar, when we realize,
that the souls (man, women, cildern) are IN God or are OUT OF God.
11. In Luke 16:19-31 Jezus teaches about a difficult matter: life after death
(Luke 16, Rev 6 and Hebrew 12 join here together). After passing the
'barriere' every soul is living on. For us they are dead souls. But for God
they still living. When we die, all corporeity is forcefully pulled out of the
soul; and not: when we die the soul is pulled out of the body. This 'naked'
soul (a person) is going to heaven or hell, for some time without bodily
aspects. Jezus didn't speculate about possibilities. He shows the reality. He
made this clear to the disciples. They haven't look at the tree, but at the
fruits. That is clear when we this compare with the attitude of the souls in
Rev. 6: 9-11. Their attitude is directed to God and the neighbour.
12. In Matth. 10:28 Jezus says that His diciples have to go in the world.
Jezus warns them that their mission is difficult. But at that moment they
have to realise that they can't be seperated from God. They have to honor
Him, for He is the Only Who can bring them as a total soul (with all d.p.
and all i.p. aspects) in heaven or hell.
13. In his book (Van Idolen en Schepselen - Of Idols and Creatures) Janse
uses the term: 'human-outside' and 'human-inside'. He wants to indicate the
d.i. and the i.p. apsects. Some (fe R.Wiskerke) rejected Janse's opinion: he
should incorporated a Greek dualisme. Is this correct? First Janse tried to
find a scriptural answer in a difficult matter. Second, I think Wiskerke
read more than Janse said. He made a distinction in i.p. and d.p. aspects,
without saying that we have to see man as devided in two parts. I think
Janse is correct, though he isn't consequent.
14. On the 6th day God created 'living creatures' or 'souls'. But on that
same day God created two other 'living souls', who are totally different: a
man and a woman. The term 'living souls' is wider than the word 'man' (Gen
5:2) In the souls, called 'animals', is central the 'kind'. What this implies
isn't quite clear. But can we do so with respect to man and woman? I think
not. I will show this so:
| "Living creatures" or "souls" | "soul-outside" | "soul-inside" |
| animals | body | "kind" |
| man | body | ???? |
fig. 5
15. These two creatures (souls) where 'in the image of God'. And from
hereout we have to look at i.p. and d.p. At this point is seems that
Scritures (Matth. 10:28) and science (psychology and psychiatry) find each
other. Is that real? When we return to Janse, we don't have to draw the
lines too close. He didn't mean an man-inside, but an soul-inside; and of
course also an soul-outside. Thus so:
fig. 6
16. Now we enter the realm of the i.d. The most important conclusion is,
that we here are NOT able to verify. Nothing here is touchable or perceiveble. We have to trust on revelation: a crucial point. For we are pressed to
choose radically: either OUR opinion OR what God revealed. In the i.p. is a
place, the Bible sais, where everything in life originates: the heart of the
soul. Before the Fall this heart was pure, holy and filled with God's Spirit
and fully determined bij Gods Word. After the Fall it became corrupt: filled
with sin (lust, pride, unbelief, etc.). In the heart are -since that moment-
the Spirit of God and at the same time the sin (cf Paul in Rom 7; also Gal
5:13-26).
fig. 7
Spirit and flesh are in a deadly conflict; our psychical existence is terribly
devided. This is reality, but it is i.p. The first person who become aware of
this we are ourselves. Our conscience is capable to judge all what is
coming up in our heart. The function of the conscience is to witness. In
two ways: to affirm OR to condemn. That is related to the revealed Word of
God. This witness concerns all we do, think, want, etc. I put this so:
fig. 8
This produces something inside; modern science calls this 'feelings'. That is
a wrong word, for really feelings are in the lower parts of the belly. What
we experience is a positive (affirmative) or negative (condemning) witness.
And we have to listen to that. Heart and conscience form the spirit of the
soul. That is -so to say- what man is 'breathing-out'. Spirit, spiritual life
and mind are closely related. I put it so, together with fig 5 and 6.
fig. 9
17. "..for by the Law is the knowledge of sin.."; that's the end of Paul's preaching to the Romans. Here he cuts right-on in the self-justifying attitude of the Jews. Paul makes clear, that there is an objective standard: or flesh or Spirit. And this standard makes clear what is good and what is evil. More is, that the Bible sais that there is no one who is doing good (Ps 14:3). And that we experience. Between 'doctrine' and the the conscious is a very close relationship. That is grace of a God, Who don't want that man is lost in his sins. But there is an another side: we can paralyse our conscous; and then our guilt-feelings deminish (fe by tranquillizers or alcohol). But one thing have to be clear: our guilt itself cannot be removed!! We can deminish the feelings, but not the guilt. Science accepted this wish of mankind; therefore she produced a system of 'therapy', which is an attack on the doctrine ('moral system') and/or the conscience. Man wants to loose the correct sight on his guilt. And this is world-wide, for the fundamental purpose is: to pass Jezus Christ, the Only Who can really free man of sin and the conseqencies. In my opinion this is a diabolic proces of rebellion against God. The 'evil-one' uses important persons in this process. One of them was Freud.
18. Freud was highly-talented. He studied medicine, first in Vienna, later in Paris; he specialised in the neuro(patho)logy. After some time he joined in to the hypnosis-experiments of Breuer (MD). He saw astonishing things. Though Breur absolutely not worked somatically, the patients were freed from several somatic complaints; for Freud a revelation. But not for us. I think on David in Ps. 22:16: somatic (bodily) complaints, but with a spiritual cause! But that is i.p. And than we have to trust the revealed Word of God. But that wasn't an option for Freud. He choose his own thinking, based on Greek-gnostic, Greek-dualistic and -later on- Jewish-mystical thinking. And that became the basis for every modern psycholological and 'therapeutical' system.
19. For a Greek life was quite simple. There was a d.p. world of human beings and a i.p. world of gods. Every decision of man was in fact determined bij the i.p. gods. These gods were living in the All-Psyche or All-Soul. They determined marry, fight, think and life. The i.p. and the psychical life was one. Paul and Barnabas were confronted with this in Lystra ( Acts 14:11,12). The Greek wants to know the gods and their actions. He studied the d.p. to know what the (hidden) i.p. includes. This was also his meaning about men. A man or a woman was devided in two parts: the d.p. (the body) and the i.p. (the 'psyche'). Here he ignores the Scriptures; he followes his own insights. And he was deeply convinced: there was no discussion possible. Freud agreed fully with this; it is one of the recources of his psychoanalysis. The d.p. (cf 2 Cor 5:10) is for him a 'wall' on which the gods make 'signs' in the form of 'somatic' complaints. His medical knowledge became for him a mean to know the real, the psychical causes.
20. Freud read books about Jewish Mystisicm; esp. the Kabbalism, introduced in Europe in the 12th and 13th century. From these books he learned that the gods can be found everywhere, in the form of godly energy. Everybody who is working systematically will absolutely experience this energy. These energies can be strongly negative and strongly positive ('Lebenstrieb/ Todestrieb'). The first in which these forces are manifest, is sexuality. On this basis he built his 'pan-sexualism'. In stead of focusing on christian doctrine, Freud chooses for human life. He also choose against the heart of man (with its struggle between Spirit and flesh); he choose for the Es (= feelings). His mysticism is the pro-motor for a 'gliding' use of the Scriptures (cf Hiltner and Boisen).
21. As a medical doctor, Freud meets many people with bodily (somatic) complaints. But now he know, that a large part don't have a somatic cause: there is a psychical or mental cause. In the psyche is no harmony!. At this point Freud follows the Jewish-mystical 'bible': the Zohar.
fig. 10
fig. 10b
22. The fact that man is 'in the image of God' is for Freud not relevant.
God is for him unknown. Sin is only relational, not moral. For him is the
Cross of Golgotha no way. Complaints? Go to the 'gods' (the energies). And
now we see, what Freud actually is: a denier of the only way, given by
God: Jezus Christ.
23. It is clear that we speak here about two ways, that don't come together at any point. Freud propagates the way of the flesh (the psychical and unconverted man). The end is the death. He don't want to aknowledge the overwhelming influence of sin. And therefore he wants to alter the 'doctrine': Moses and the Prophets. He remains faithfully to the spiritual leaders (the Scribes and Pharizees); faithfull tot death, in all eternity.
© Copyright
Jan T. Schaafsma,
Zuidhorn, Holland
[email protected]