Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Some of the most annointed ministers lived on the breadlineHey man check Jesse out he has some interesting things to say on Luke 4:18
“The very first thing on Jesus` agenda was to get rid of poverty! Would you like to know why some people, including ministries, never get out of poverty? Its not because they aren’t smart. Its not because they don’t have windows of opportunity. Its because they’re not anointed. If you’re not anointed, poverty will follow you all the days of your life. His first objective was to get rid of poverty.” Jesse D.
WoFrocks
Some of the most annointed ministers lived on the breadline
Corrie Ten Boom, David Wilkerson, they both tell about on more than one occasion, how they needed money for travel for the teen challenge building etc and God provided. These two were not rich by any stretch of the imagination but boy did they do amazing things for the kingdom of God
Weath does not necessarily mean a person is annointed, any more than living on the breadline means a person is not annointed
Mischaracterization;
I don't know any wofer that says you have to be wealthy to be anointed.
“The very first thing on Jesus` agenda was to get rid of poverty! Would you like to know why some people, including ministries, never get out of poverty? Its not because they aren’t smart. Its not because they don’t have windows of opportunity. Its because they’re not anointed. If you’re not anointed, poverty will follow you all the days of your life. His first objective was to get rid of poverty.” Jesse D.
In regard to the first point, that is entirely possible.. I thought it was in the psalms, but was going simply on memoryThis isn't important to the discussion but are you sure David also said that? Because Ecclesiastes says this.
Eccl. 12:7, Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Just wondering...
I pretty much agreed with everything you had to say up till this point.
I don't believe you are right about saying every possible meaning to "tselem" denotes a visible image. If that were true the other sub definitions would be redundant.
Here's another definition for tselem from Strongs Concordance: image, likeness (of resemblance)
Definition of resemblance from my Websters says: The state, fact, or quality of resembling; similarity of appearance, or sometimes, of character. A point, degree, or sort of likeness.
Here we have the very real possibility that the image isn't our physical appearance being like God's appearance but that He created us with certain similar characteristics that he has.
If that isn't enough; I believe tselem isn't a quality but a function. We don't possess God's image; we image God. One's a noun, whereas the other is a verb. This is based on a point of Hebrew grammar and revolves around the Hebrew preposition letter beth and it's proper usage.
There's a special use of the preposition beth that many Hebrew scholars believe is the point of the author in Genesis 1:26-27. The preposition beth means functioning in the capacity of. Hebrew grammarians call it the beth of predication. The English uses the word "as" for this instead of rather than using the whole phrase 'functioning in the capacity of'. For example, the sentence 'I served as the pastor today in church' really means 'I served in the capacity of the pastor'.
Now take that meaning of the beth of predication and apply it to Gen. 1:27. And God said, let us make man as, or in the capacity of our image.
What this means is that God created humans to function in the capacity of God here on earth. We're here on earth in the place of God, we're his substitutes. God rules in heaven, it's the seat of His government, but man was created to rule on earth in the physical realm.
God's intention was to establish his Kingdom in the physical world without having to come visibly into it himself. He did this by creating man and creating man in his image. We were to function in the same capacity that God functions in heaven. We were created for dominion. That's why right after God said "let us make man in our image, in our likeness" He goes on to say "let them rule over the fish" etc. etc.. God is a ruler in heaven, but man would be ruler of earth, functioning in the same capacity as God.
This is the concept of colonization. We're here on earth as representatives to establish and implement God's invisible Kingdom of heaven into the visible world. Colonization is to transform an extended territory to be just like the center of government from which it was extended. That is to say, to manifest the nature and will of the ruler in the lifestyle, actions, activities, and culture of the territory.
Hmmmm. That quote is somewhat suspect to me. I've heard Jesse Duplantis speak many times, and this doesn't sound like something he would say.
If you dont get out of poverty, you arent annointed, according to Mr Duplantis. Is he WoF? It seems pretty clear though, if a ministry isnt rich, they arent annointed according to that quote, denominations aside
Sticks and stones, little boy, sticks and stones.
When you start calling names, the conversation is over.
Welcome to my ignore list and here's hoping that you grow up.
Ok, I just thought I'd throw that in there and say this is something I was taught and pretty much agree with.In regard to the first point, that is entirely possible.. I thought it was in the psalms, but was going simply on memory
The english word resemblance may contain the idea of resembling in character, or other non-visual ways, but in Hebrew, tselem as far as I've ever seen has visual meaning. Granted I'm no hebrew expert. Rambam makes an argument that tselem should be understood to mean the essential characteristic of a thing (which I disagree with for other reasons) but even he admits that it is used in cases that have specific visual elements.
The reason I disagree with the idea that Tselem means to have the essential characteristics of a thing, is that the word tselem derives from the hebrew for "shadow" and it usually means not an exact representation but an illusion, or a shadow of something. This is one of the reasons the word is frequently used of idols, because they are illusory by nature, representing falsehoods.
The Bet proposition is interesting but it is debated. Some say that the 'bet' is used in that manner, others deny that it is and say it never means "as". So, its somewhat up in the air, since I have no idea myself.
Even if you understand it to mean "as" I would disagree that God created us to be his image here so that he did not have to come here visibly himself. I believe he always intended to be here with us, as he walked with adam
He intentionally restrained himself to a Body. It wasn't His nature. He made it His nature.In what way did Jesus limit Himself?
Because the word measure means height, width, depth. Size.Why do you assume that spirit has no measure? The basic assumption here is that measure must be physical but why?
Angels are measurless. Spirit has infinity in it.In a little bit you will argue that something which is infinite has no form, I'll get to that in a moment.. but in this case, it must be stated that something which is not infinite must have measure. Angels are not infinite, we are not infinite.. thus spirit must have measure.
As to the idea that Angels exist anywhere, first, it is possible, though unknowable that there could be places in which Angels could not exist. IE places they can not go.
Well, we only got a sound bite of that. We don't know what actually happened or how.Secondly, Angels must travel and they can be hindered in their traveling. This is evident in scripture. When Daniel prayed the Archangel Gabriel was dispatched to bring him a message, but it took Gabriel 21 days (if memory serves) to deliver the message because he was held at bay by the prince of persia, until Michael came to fight with him.
Anywhere. Not everywhere.The clear indication is that Angels can not simply BE anywhere. They do have specific location, and must travel between locations.
To use a line you have:This is also indicated in Job when the sons of God (ie angels) come before God to report on their doings on the earth. Satan comes in among them and he tells God that he has come from roaming back and forth upon the face of the earth. It is clear that he has location and he must move in order to change location.
That was what I said.It is within your body. The fact that you can't pin down a specific location in your body does not mean that your spirit is not in your body.
God isn't a thought or an idea.It isn't a contradiction in terms. It is your assumptions which make it a contradiction. Ideas and thoughts have structure, and form, yet they are not physical.
That is why He doesn't have true form. If He is omnipresent, He is not present as such. He can manifest Himself in locations. But He isn't truly "in" that location.God is said to be infinite in wisdom, infinite in strength, infinite in love, etc etc. To simply say God is infinite is often confusing because God does have boundries in a sense. There are things which are not in him, thus he does not include all things. He is omnipresent.. but that means present in all places. Reality itself is finite (as far as we know) in size, there are a limited number of locations. Further, we know that God has both specific special presense AND omnipresense. There are times where God's presense has come upon people in special ways that go above and beyond his normal omnipresense.
What is form in your oppinion? What is appearance in your oppinion?Thus even if he is infinite in size or presense, which he would seem to be, this does not preclude the possability that he has a normal appearence or form.
If He has image as you mean it, then where is He?The fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God necessitates that he must have image and likeness.
which we will look at next.
Agreed. But I disagree with what you imply.The word Likeness in genesis is the hebrew word d'muwth which means similarity, or like kind. In otherwords God, when he made man made two comparisons. He said man would be in his image, and in his likeness.
Words are not always used in that way.Likeness means what you are applying to the word image. It means we are like him in kind, we have similarities in quality etc.
Image always means visible appearence.
Yes, exactly. He manifested Himself to them.Also in Genesis we are told that God walked with Adam in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day. When Adam and Eve sinned they hid themselves from God. Every indication here is that God was visible to them and had local manifestation. Which is why they thought they could hide.
It is also clear in scripture that God appeared to Moses, Abraham, Jacob, etc.
Does not the Bible say that if anyone sees God he will die?People have seen Jesus. Part of the reason Jesus came was to be the perfect revelation of the Father. Jesus told his disciples when they asked him "show us the Father" "I have been with you all this time and you ask me to show you the Father... I tell you, anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father".
One of the primary purposes of the Son of God, is to reveal the Father to mankind.
When Jesus said "no man has seen God" he was referring specificly to the Father because people had seen him, and he had appeared to people in the past.
Yes and No.The incarnation was not merely putting on a form, he became human.
Yes but God is spirit. Spirit has no location as such. So it has no form.But now we're sorta getting off-topic. So my point is, I don't believe that having a "body" would hinder God, much like it did not hinder Jesus.
And more food for thought, WE are the body..
that would be good, coz I quoted it off WoFrocks postHmmmm. That quote is somewhat suspect to me. I've heard Jesse Duplantis speak many times, and this doesn't sound like something he would say.
Could someone provide a source for this quote?
it could be, I haven't studied it enough to have a sound idea on it myself. In the little bit of looking I've done, I've just seen that there is some disagreement on it.Ok, I just thought I'd throw that in there and say this is something I was taught and pretty much agree with.
There's a man, Doctor now, Dr Michael Heiser who did part of his disertation on this and who I got this understanding from.
If you dont get out of poverty, you arent annointed, according to Mr Duplantis. Is he WoF? It seems pretty clear though, if a ministry isnt rich, they arent annointed according to that quote, denominations aside
I can't tell if you're being serious or not because of the winking dude, but just to be clear, I wasn't jumping to any conclusions or implying you were quoting something from a heresy hunter site. I was simply asking if anyone could source the quote for me.that would be good, coz I quoted it off WoFrocks post
So no it wasnt me quoting something I found on a hersey hunters site, out of the mouth of someone claiming to be WoF. So, how about an apologiy for leaping to those conclusions?
My apologies in that caseI can't tell if you're being serious or not because of the winking dude, but just to be clear, I wasn't jumping to any conclusions or implying you were quoting something from a heresy hunter site. I was simply asking if anyone could source the quote for me.
My viewpoint is not metaphysical.Atlantians,
You are arguing from your metaphysical viewpoint, which contains certain assumptions that I do not share.
That is justified.I understand that you have certain positions, and beliefs, but if I'm going to really understand the why, or to be convinced, you need to explain WHY you make certain assumptions, not simply state them.
If you simply restate them, it suggest that you either believe them to be logically demanded, which I do not. Or you believe them to be self evident, which I also do not.
Let be preface my statement:For example,
you equate "spirit" with "infinite" as you say "spirit has infinity in it". I don't see this as logically demanded, nor do I see it as self evident. You appear to believe that it is implicit in the definition of "spirit". I do not.
So the question is, why do you believe this, why should I believe it?
Because those are physical aspects and terms.You also seem to believe that "image" and "form" are uniquely physical and can not be applied to things spiritual... but why?
Really... please demonstrate this.To some degree you have misdefined what "form" is, which may explain this to some degree. Form does not mean "length, width, size" (that would be closer to one of the definitions of measure). Form as it is defined is actually specificly divorced from "material" or physicality.
I am using the definition as being shape, and structure.In fact in platonic philosophy "form" is almost synonymous with what we would consider "spirit".
Yes, the essense might have have form in that sense, but not form in the sense of shape or actual structure.But even in english form means either how something looks, the shape and structure of something (NOT necessarily in physical terms) and it refers to the essence of a thing as opposed to the material components of a thing.
What do you mean by this?The idea that image, shape, form, etc are only physical assumes that spirit has no similarity in its methods of perception, or conception, to what we know in the physical world.
Well, not actually. We can't imagine things without seeing ow to structure it first.We perceive these things witht he eyes, and we form and image of them in the mind (which in and of itself shows that image by nature is not merely physical).
Because to be physical, things are made of tiny things that make quarks that make all larger sub-atomic particals that make atoms that make molecules, that make things.Why should we assume that in the spiritual world there is no similar method of perception, or even more especially a similar method of conception.
But imagination is based on physical perception.Our minds are made to image things. Our minds work in imagination, the act of imaging. This to me suggest that image is NOT only physical.
Exactly.God made us to be like him, he made us specificly for the purpose of interacting with him, this suggests a kinship between our mind and his mind.
Yes and no.Further all the images that exist are expression of God's mind. Thus it is clear that God's mind images, and imagines, just as does ours.
Sort of.This to me suggest strongly that image is a quality of spiritual, just as much, maybe even more than it is of physical. It leads me to believe that image exists physically because of its place in the spiritual.
This is metaphysicality.In my metaphysical view, everything which exists physically is an expression, a reflection, of what exists spiritually.
Not entirely accurate. To late to explain ehy, and to convoluted to try tonight without deeper thought.It is all born in the mind of God, and finds its being in the mind of God. There was a point at which the physical did not exist. However, it will never now cease to exist because it is eternally joined to the spiritual.
Just like The Son of God existed without body, but when he became incarnate as Jesus, he became eternally linked with humanity. The incarnation is an image, if you will, of the creation.
Yes and no. This is certainly metaphysical thinking.to go more in depth with this concept. When God created the world, it existed in him. It rested upon him.. there was a connection between God and his creation.
I will check the verse later to respond to this.Paul tells us in Romans 8 that when Man sinned, God subjected the entire creation to vanity (which means emptiness) and corruption. I believe what this means is that God severed the special connection between himself and his creation. Not only between himself and man, but all creation.
The later, not the former.In the incarnation, that connection was restored. Or the way of its restoration was made possible.
Yes.So the incarnation is not only a figure of the creation.. but a renewing of the creation. This hasn't been fulfilled yet, as Paul tells us in Romans 8, its fullfillment comes at the end, when we are resurrected. Essentially it would almost appear that creation itself will be resurrected as well. Paul makes this implication in Romans 8 by applying the hope of glory not to us only, but to all creation.
Not true.The idea that the spiritual is totally different from the physical is simply not present in hebrew thought, or in hebrew scripture. It was not introduced until christianity and judaism became mixed with greek philosophy.
Agreed.As I stated previously, I like some aspects and agree with some aspects of greek philosophy (particularly platonic and some artistotelean) but there is also a dangerous dichotemy in greek philosophy which seperated the spiritual and the physical completely. Relegating the spirit to the world of the abstract. This is never present in hebrew thought.
This is also what produced and continues to produce the errors which lead to gnostic heresy.
Exactly.On the other side the danger is equally present to assume that because the spiritual is similar to the physical, that it is physical. To assume that because God may have appearence, he must have physicality. This tends to produce the heresy of "tri-theism".
And I was not using, nor was aware of those.As you can see there are numerous definitions which have little or nothing to do with physical measurement. Pay special attention to the very first deffinition.
You are misunderstanding what it is saying."the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material " You would not doubt also consider shape and structure to be physical descriptors, but the clear distinction is made between those things that material of the "thing".
God's ways are above our ways.The idea you put forward that "spirit" or "spirituality" is so different from anything we know that we can not concieve of it, or understand it, in my opinion has no basis in scripture, and no basis in any other evidence that I am aware of.
I find that Ironic.It strikes me as fundamentally illogical as well considering that we are spiritual beings. To assume that we have no capacity for percieving or concieving of something that is an inherent part of our nature and being seems unreasonable.
Not exactly.We were created to partake in the spiritual as well as the physical. Thus spirituality is a natural part of our capacity.
Essentially, yes. But ideas, knowledge, emotion, these are abstract. These are hard to place in a box so to speak.Our mind was created to fellowship with God's mind, to have conversation with God's mind.. the very idea of mind, is spiritual.
Agreed.Further, the fact that our mind was created for fellowship with God's mind demands that there is common foundation for the two and common ground.
You used the phrase begs the question wrong.Your view on the lack of relationship between physical and spiritual also begs the question.. Why would a Holy, and spiritual God, create something which was completely different and "other" than his own nature.
Ask Him. I don't know His reasoning.Why would he make creatures, ostensibly for the purpose of fellowship and worship, which are fundamentally incapable of understanding his nature?
Beacuse the physical is by very nature created in a certain way.You keep going back to the concept that physical can have no resemblance to spiritual, why?
"But if spiritual is not physical, then it can not truly be understood or explained in physical terms and descriptions.
So much simply is not applicable.
Like measure, shape, form as we know it.
It is infinitly beyond our total comprehension beacuse of or natural (what we are) physicality.
But experiencable, and understandable to an extend do to our natural spirituality."
You can not describe by touch to a blind or deaf person, what those senses are like. The best you can do is make metaphores that do relate to them.But your conclusion here does not follow from your premises.. there is no logical reason why two different things, can not resemble each other, and can not be accurately described by each other.
But He also just IS.All that is required for two things to have similarity and to be able to be described in common terms is that they share a common source, or a common foundation. Both spirituality and physicality arise from God. He is the source.
Spirituality itself does not arise from God.Even if you were to argue that spirituality does not arise from God, but rather is simply part of his being or character (which would discount all other spirits such as ours, and angels etc which are created)
You say I make assumptions. That is a pretty big one.you must still admit that physicality arises from God, and thus it MUST bear similarity to him.
Frankly I think the idea that the spiritual and physical are so different that they can not describe each other, or that the physical can not understand the spiritual is untenable.
Such as?Beyond not seeing evidence for it, I think it runs contrary to everything we know to be true about creation.
Actually He made it to glorify Himself.The indication of scripture is that God created everything specificly for the purpose of revealing himself. Thus the idea that he would make a physical world which is incapable of even relating to him, or describing him make no sense to me.
Yes. and no.We are the image and likeness of God, we were made both to reveal God, and to fellowship with God. Thus it necessarily follows that we are capable of comprehending his nature, and that we infact, share common ground of mind, and ability to concieve of thoughts.
Yes and No.The physical creation shows forth the invisible attributes of God. Thus it follows necessarily that the physical world IS CAPABLE of describing accurately the invisible, spiritual world.
Um... what does this have to do with what I said?There is a HUGE HUGE difference between saying that we can not comprehend God and saying that we can not know and understand God.
True.Comprehend means to grasp the total scope of something. Note the similarity between the words "comprehend" and "comprehensive". When the scripture, or jewish or christian tradition talks about our inability to grasp the nature of God, or to comprehend God.. it is ALWAYS in terms of our inability to comprehend God, to COMPELTELY or COMREHENSIVELY know him or understand him. It is NEVER in terms of saying that we are incapable of understanding anything of his being or nature. That is a direct contradiction to virtually everything in the bible and the history of the faith.
You can't compare the visual, and the sense of touch.Our journey of knowing God and discovering God will continue forever because of his infinite nature, we will never reach the end. Thus we can not comprehend him. However, we absolutely can understand the things of his nature, his character, his being etc.
We can't comprehend because the nature of inifinity is that there is always more to discover.. it has nothing at all to do with the idea that his nature is so completely foreign to ours that there is no basis for comparison. Our nature springs directly from his, and he made us for the purpose of knowing him.
I fail to see where you get that from.To say that creation is incapable of describing God, or that we are incapable of concieving of his nature or character is to say that God failed in creation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?