Plato's Phaedo

This was my first time reading Phaedo and I noticed a lot of things that triggered me to ask questions about the validity of the arguments made by Socrates. The way he approaches his arguments are no doubt something to be recognized for, but I found some holes that I wanted to discuss about the soul. Other than the fact that the concept of the soul really and truly cannot be grasped by us as human beings (really the point of the whole argument), Socrates uses examples that didn't really convince me wholeheartedly. If we receive our divine and unchanging knowledge only through the mind, how are we supposed to create knowledge without the body? Going back to the theory of forms, he explains that there is a true essence of things, some concrete examples some abstract. The true essence of things is only found through thought (he says) because the body can hinder us from knowing the real thing. How can our physical being not contribute to "essence"? Using beauty for example, how does it exist without some type of image or experience? This is something that we cannot comprehend, because no matter how much we try, it only reverts back to physical being. He also argues that when things go from being living to being dead is through the process of dying, and things live by going through a process of coming to life (from dead to alive). This is his explanation of the theory of opposites. How can he say that these processes are the direct opposites of one another? He uses and example of big and small to relate to life and death. Big can get bigger or smaller, small can get smaller or bigger, can life get more lifeful or more deathful? Can death get less deathful or more lifeful? Adding to that, how does this all relate to the concept of the soul when he said the soul is unchanging (like knowledge)?...it is the body that is coming to life and dying then, not the soul.