Jesse Duplantis' message on Heaven

[JTM3]

ok, lol but i dont understand how he is an eagle lol

He said LIKE an eagle

 

[Tenebrae]

Hey 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

 

[JTM3]

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.

 

[Tenebrae]

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.

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

 

[Simon_Templar]

This 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.

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

 

[probinson]

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

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.

Could someone provide a source for this quote?

 

[MikeMcK]

Sticks and stones, little boy, sticks and stones.

Just because you're allowed to call people names doesn't mean that I have to stoop to your level.

When you start calling names, the conversation is over.

Welcome to my ignore list and here's hoping that you grow up.

 

[JTM3]

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.

Whatever--I WAS going to edit that[sorry I forgot] but now there's no point.

 

[nephilimiyr]

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

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.

 

[Atlantians]

In what way did Jesus limit Himself?

He intentionally restrained himself to a Body. It wasn't His nature. He made it His nature.

Why do you assume that spirit has no measure? The basic assumption here is that measure must be physical but why?

Because the word measure means height, width, depth. Size.
How can non-physical things have those? If they do then they are physical.
Please explain how they can have measure.

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.

Angels are measurless. Spirit has infinity in it.
Not everything about spirits are infinite.
But their nature as spirit is infinite, without measure.
A ball has infinite length, in that you go around and around. A line has infinite length.
Not all that is infinite is measurless.
Not all that is infinite is without form.
But if it is physical it has form.
Nothing non-physical has form, because form is an expression of physicality.

Angels are spirit. They are not physical.

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.

Well, we only got a sound bite of that. We don't know what actually happened or how.
My interpretation is that God told the angel to go to Daniel.
A false spirit asigned to Persia wanted to hinder the angel.
In some strange way, the spirit did hinder him.
God must have allowed this. Since God is incharge of the angels. And can't be overpowered by demons, neither can his messangers when they are acting in His will.

How this all worked is the issue.
Did the angel actually "move" as such?
I doubt it. But it rather was localized (not location, but manifestation) somewhere, or was in relation with God, and then was sent and was going to manifest himself to Daniel, but was hindred by the Demon in Persia.

The clear indication is that Angels can not simply BE anywhere. They do have specific location, and must travel between locations.

Anywhere. Not everywhere.
They can manfest themselves anywhere. They are anywhere.
But they don't exist everywhere ike God seems to.
And they don't have to travel in the sense we understand it.
And no they don't have specific location, only manifestation.

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.

To use a line you have:
That is earthly reasoning. Since they came to present themselves, they must have actual location.
Is it not possible that their relational aspects is so beyond us, that what you described was figurative?
In the sense that by came and present, it is saying their spirits spooke to God?
They did not move, or relocate. They were presented in a spiritual sense of some sort.
Sort of, they made themselves 'aware' to God.
Like prayer I suppose.
We come into His presense in prayer and worship, but we don't move or relocate.

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.

That was what I said.
The spirit is "in" us relationally.
But it isn't specificaklly in us. It is not in any place, yet exists in us.

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.

God isn't a thought or an idea.
Those are not real. God is real.

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.

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.
Analogy:
He exists in the universe, similar to how our spirits exist in our bodies.
Its there, but not in any particular place.

You just demonstrated that. He is not bound to location. He is not bound to form.

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.

What is form in your oppinion? What is appearance in your oppinion?
What do you mean by normal?

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.

If He has image as you mean it, then where is He?
Image, measure, they are physical.
Is God physical?
If He is, why can't we detect Him with physical means?

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.

Agreed. But I disagree with what you imply.

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.

Words are not always used in that way.
Words have many differenct facets in how they are used.

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.

Yes, exactly. He manifested Himself to them.
God appeared to Moses, Abraham, and Jacob.
He was not always with appearence.

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.

Does not the Bible say that if anyone sees God he will die?
Then why did they all who saw Jesus not die?
Because they saw Jesus' human incarnation.
Not His infinite, imeasurable, incomrehendable essense.

The incarnation was not merely putting on a form, he became human.

Yes and No.
He existed before His humanity, and retained Himself. He was still God, but added to that He took on a human nature.

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..

Yes but God is spirit. Spirit has no location as such. So it has no form.
God is spirit, only the son took on a permanent physical state. And that state was not His origical state.

God in His nature has no form, no shape, no mass, no physicality.
This universe is physical. Physicality is created.

 

[Tenebrae]

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.

Could someone provide a source for this quote?

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?

 

[Simon_Templar]

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.

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.

Its an interesting idea though.

I honestly can't find much at all referring to the idea so I'll have to do more research.

However, even without the B'tselem equalling "as the image" the idea you present could be argued to be present within the very word tselem itself. Tselem was frequently used to describe idols and graven images, apparently because of the fact that they were specificly intended to be representative images.

This could be seen to imply that Man is the representative image of God.

My main point in this discussion is that there is no reason to assume that the anthropormphic language of the bible is metaphoric, and not literally describing God.

Most of the ideas we have about abstact spirituality and the abstract nature of the spiritual are entirely greek in origin, not hebrew and thus there is real question about whether they can be accurately applied to the scriptures.

For example, the scriptures say that God visits people and places. Such as the tower of Babel incident. The bible says God came down to check up on man. The abstract view would say.. this is just the limited understanding of the authors who didn't graps the abstract omnipresense of God. Obviously God did not need to come down in order to see what man was doing.

I reject this on two levels. First of all, its typical modern arrogance to think that those who wrote the bible couldn't have understood God as well as we do. They probably understood him much better than most of us. Secondly, the basic assumption in all these arguments is that God never does anything unless he needs to.

God didn't need to come down and visit the tower of babel, I agree 100%. That in no way means he didn't. Maybe he wanted to. God doesn't need to have a specific presense (like in his throne room in heaven) But maybe he wants to. If he is described in that way, why should I assume that it is metaphorical?

God made everything that is physical. The bible tells us that the creation, and most noteably Man, reflects even the invisible truths about God. Thus the idea that there is no significant connection between things we consider to be soley physical, and things we consider to be soley spiritual, I think, is without real basis.

There are extreme views on both sides which lead into Heresy, but I think the truth is much more in the middle.

I would like to add, that I find great merit in some greek thought and philosophy, but several aspects of it do not fit with hebrew scripture, and tend to lead to dangerous ideas.

 

[JTM3]

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

Quotes without proper citation are useless.

 

[probinson]

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?

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.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Atlantians,

You are arguing from your metaphysical viewpoint, which contains certain assumptions that I do not share.
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.

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?

You also seem to believe that "image" and "form" are uniquely physical and can not be applied to things spiritual... but why? 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. In fact in platonic philosophy "form" is almost synonymous with what we would consider "spirit".
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.

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.

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). 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

In my metaphysical view, everything which exists physically is an expression, a reflection, of what exists spiritually. 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.

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.

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.

In the incarnation, that connection was restored. Or the way of its restoration was made possible. 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.

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.

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.

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".

 

[Tenebrae]

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.

My apologies in that case

I misread the intent of your post

 

[Atlantians]

Atlantians,

You are arguing from your metaphysical viewpoint, which contains certain assumptions that I do not share.

My viewpoint is not metaphysical.

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.

That is justified.

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?

Let be preface my statement:
Infinity does not denote non-physicality.
A ball is infinite. You can never stop going around it.
A line is essentially infinite.

Spirituality is eternal.
Eternal means infinite.
I am simply saying infinite instead of eternal.
Spirit is eternal. It is never described in non-eternal ways.
No spirit is said to end in the Bible.

Now God is, for lack of a better term, super-infinite.
He is infinite in many aspects.
Including not having a begining.

Spirit is essentially divorced from time, but in some sense effected by it.

God is ultimately timeless, being without change, even greater than the angels. Never having a begining or a end.

You also seem to believe that "image" and "form" are uniquely physical and can not be applied to things spiritual... but why?

Because those are physical aspects and terms.

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.

Really... please demonstrate this.

In fact in platonic philosophy "form" is almost synonymous with what we would consider "spirit".

I am using the definition as being shape, and structure.
Phsyical aspects.

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.

Yes, the essense might have have form in that sense, but not form in the sense of shape or actual structure.
It might have logical structure, or have the sense of structure, but it is not "beam A holds beam B in place so thing C can rest on it" type structure.

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.

What do you mean by this?

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).

Well, not actually. We can't imagine things without seeing ow to structure it first.
So in that sense even our thoughts are physical.
Partly because we use our brain to create them.
God also thinks, so thoughts must logically be a spiritual aspect also.

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.

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.
That reflect the photon particles which enter our molecular eyes that cause us to see colors, and distinguish shapes.

This is all created. Physicality is created.
To have similar perception, it must also be physical.

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.

But imagination is based on physical perception.

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.

Exactly.

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.

Yes and no.

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.

Sort of.
We can't understand the spiritual completely or even in a small part. Because of how radically different it is.

In my metaphysical view, everything which exists physically is an expression, a reflection, of what exists spiritually.

This is metaphysicality.

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.

Not entirely accurate. To late to explain ehy, and to convoluted to try tonight without deeper thought.

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.

Yes and no. This is certainly metaphysical thinking.

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.

I will check the verse later to respond to this.

In the incarnation, that connection was restored. Or the way of its restoration was made possible.

The later, not the former.
Jesus came in the form of a perfect man.

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.

Yes.

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.

Not true.
God is always said to be beyond our even remote comprehension.

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.

Agreed.
I am not saying that.
I am saying that the spirit and physicality are seperate in essense, uncomparible in comprehension, and totally foreign to our ability to consieve or persieve, but also an integral part of us and our existence.

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".

Exactly.

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.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Atlantians,

It appears you have a different meaning for metaphysics than I do. Metaphysics is simply the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of reality, or "the world". Thus any theory of how reality, or existence works, is by definition "metaphysical". USUALLY, but not necessarily always, metaphysics also conotates the idea of dealing with non-physical reality. So any theory about the existence of spirituality is by definition, metaphysical.

As to my comments on the meaning of the word "form" here is Webster's...

1 a : the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material b : a body (as of a person) especially in its external appearance or as distinguished from the face : [SIZE=-1]FIGURE[/SIZE] c archaic : [SIZE=-1]BEAUTY[/SIZE]
2 : the essential nature of a thing as distinguished from its matter: as a : [SIZE=-1]IDEA [/SIZE]1a b : the component of a thing that determines its kind
3 a : established method of expression or proceeding : procedure according to rule or rote; also : a standard or expectation based on past experience : [SIZE=-1]PRECEDENT[/SIZE] <true to form, the champions won again> b : a prescribed and set order of words : [SIZE=-1]FORMULA[/SIZE] [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e form of the marriage service>
4 : a printed or typed document with blank spaces for insertion of required or requested information <tax forms>
5 a (1) : conduct regulated by extraneous controls (as of custom or etiquette) : [SIZE=-1]CEREMONY[/SIZE] (2) : show without substance b : manner or conduct as tested by a prescribed or accepted standard <rudeness is simply bad form> c : manner or style of performing or accomplishing according to recognized standards of technique <a strong swimmer but weak on form>
6 a : the resting place or nest of a hare b : a long seat : [SIZE=-1]BENCH[/SIZE]
7 a : a supporting frame model of the human figure or part (as the torso) of the human figure usually used for displaying apparel b : a proportioned and often adjustable model for fitting clothes c : a mold in which concrete is placed to set
8 : the printing type or other matter arranged and secured in a chase ready for printing
9 a : one of the different modes of existence, action, or manifestation of a particular thing or substance : [SIZE=-1]KIND[/SIZE] <one form of respiratory disorder> <a form of art> b : a distinguishable group of organisms c : [SIZE=-1]LINGUISTIC FORM[/SIZE] d : one of the different aspects a word may take as a result of inflection or change of spelling or pronunciation <verbal forms> e : a mathematical expression of a particular type <a bilinear form> <a polynomial form>
10 a (1) : orderly method of arrangement (as in the presentation of ideas) : manner of coordinating elements (as of an artistic production or course of reasoning) (2) : a particular kind or instance of such arrangement [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e sonnet is a poetical form> b : [SIZE=-1]PATTERN[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]SCHEMA[/SIZE] <arguments of the same logical form> c : the structural element, plan, or design of a work of art -- compare [SIZE=-1]CONTENT [/SIZE]2c d : a visible and measurable unit defined by a contour : a bounded surface or volume

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.

"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".

This echoed again in deffinition 2a.
This is an idea present in both Platonic and Aristotelian conception, and one which for the most part matches with scripture.

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.
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.
We were created to partake in the spiritual as well as the physical. Thus spirituality is a natural part of our capacity.
Our mind was created to fellowship with God's mind, to have conversation with God's mind.. the very idea of mind, is spiritual. 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.

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. Why would he make creatures, ostensibly for the purpose of fellowship and worship, which are fundamentally incapable of understanding his nature?

You keep going back to the concept that physical can have no resemblance to spiritual, why?

at the end of your post you said

"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."

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.

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.
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 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. Beyond not seeing evidence for it, I think it runs contrary to everything we know to be true about creation.

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.

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.

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.

There is a HUGE HUGE difference between saying that we can not comprehend God and saying that we can not know and understand God.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Questioning Christian]

THIRD BASE!

 

[Atlantians]

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.

And I was not using, nor was aware of those.
That is why I asked.

"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".

You are misunderstanding what it is saying.

It is like saying "it is round"
regardless of if it is titanium or aluminum.

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.

God's ways are above our ways.
God is not-temporal, we are.
He is infinite, we are finite.
Infinity is extremely hard to comprehend.
Never dieing, forever continuing, knowing all things at once, are all very foreign concepts to us.
Even the limited nature of the angelic world is beyond what we can currently understand.

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.

I find that Ironic.
For I said spiritual existence is currently immpossible to comprehend or understand, and you then said "that is unreasonable".
Well of course it is! That was the point.

And what I said is logical.

Let me descrie it this way:
Someone who is blind and has never seen anything, can not understand color, or the physical imaginations like those who can see can.
They have no way of comprehending it, even though it is part of their nature. They are physical, they are an image, but they can't comprehend it because they can't see.

We were created to partake in the spiritual as well as the physical. Thus spirituality is a natural part of our capacity.

Not exactly.
We can interact with the spiritual.
But we can't comprehend excisting that way, or how it exists.
That won't occur until we are seperate from our bodies when we die and actual exist as spirit.
Then we will understand.

Our mind was created to fellowship with God's mind, to have conversation with God's mind.. the very idea of mind, is spiritual.

Essentially, yes. But ideas, knowledge, emotion, these are abstract. These are hard to place in a box so to speak.
They are impossible to understand, even though we rely on them.
Like to the spiritual. We are spiritual, but since we are physical in nature also, and all our senses are physical, the spiritual is immpossible to understand since we dn't actively exist as pure spirit.
We need to relate it to our understanding, thus the metaphores.

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.

Agreed.

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.

You used the phrase begs the question wrong.
Begging the question is where one assumes something is true and argues from that assumption.

I don't know why He did that. I am not Him.
I know He did.

I can only assume that since He is infinite, and He is loving, and He loves to do things, He wanted to be creative.
I am sure it is infinitely deeper than that though.
Further, we are also spirit.
We are spirit like He is spirit.
We just exist, percieve, and think in terms of and through our physical nature.
Thus we can't truly comprehend of and truly understand the spiritual, because we have always existed in the physical.

Why would he make creatures, ostensibly for the purpose of fellowship and worship, which are fundamentally incapable of understanding his nature?

Ask Him. I don't know His reasoning.

You keep going back to the concept that physical can have no resemblance to spiritual, why?

Beacuse the physical is by very nature created in a certain way.
The spiritual is based on God's nature solely.
It is spiritual.
The physical is based on a purely new concept.
A different form of existence.

I am further saying that using the term "resemble" the spirit, is self-defeating, and a contradiction of terms because the spirit by nature is not comparable in any sensory sense to the physical.

The spiritual can not normally be percieved by the senses.
Thus it resembles nothing. It can't resemble anything.
We can't percieve spiritual existence, with physical means.

"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."

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.

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.
And then that is a poor understanding. Only when they can actually see or hear, can they understand.
We exist as finite temporal Humans.
The spirit, being based in nature from God who is spirit, is not temporal, and is infinite. At least in the sense of eternality. It never ceases by nature. The physical must be maintained, the spiritual is self-sustaining.
Well, at least God is self-sustaining.
I assume then that all spirit is, since the term spirit is used interchangably for human, angelic, and God's spiritual natures.

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.

But He also just IS.
God IS spirit.
He is the source of more spirits, but He Himself is also Spirit.

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)

Spirituality itself does not arise from God.
New Spirits do.
They are more limited then God, but still have the same sense, and are in essense similar to God and capable of understanding the spiritual.
They likely have difficulty understanding the physical, at least those who have not been given a physical form at one point or another.
So no I don't discount the other spirits.
Spirituality does not arise from God, but God progresses it into new 'forms'.

you must still admit that physicality arises from God, and thus it MUST bear similarity to him.

You say I make assumptions. That is a pretty big one.
You assume what is created must resemble in some level what created it.

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.

Beyond not seeing evidence for it, I think it runs contrary to everything we know to be true about creation.

Such as?
And saying "tenable" is again physical terminology.

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.

Actually He made it to glorify Himself.
Which shows why it doesn't have to be ale to fully be related to His nature.

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 Bible says essentially that we can't understand Him. His ways are above our ways,
His thoughts above our Thoughts.

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.

Yes and No.
It can be compared through metaphore.
But sinse one is non-tangible, and the author is, it can't be related literally.
They are mutually destinctive. Comparable, but not able to be explained truly by eachother.
You can explain through touch, or hand gestures metaphorical ideas of how other senses are like, but one can not understand how those senses are like, if you can't actually use that sense.

There is a HUGE HUGE difference between saying that we can not comprehend God and saying that we can not know and understand God.

Um... what does this have to do with what I said?
We can't comprehend, or understand God or His existence.
That does not mean we can not in the future when we exist as spirit, and then when we live with Him in the ressurection.
But as of now we can't.

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.

True.
But it is the difference of knowing about Him, and knowing Him.
I am saying that the spirit and the physical are descriptively incompatable.
But are metaphorically relatable, but only to an extent.
No metaphore can completely reveal something.
But in this case it is even more foreign in nature.

Example:
There are words in some languages that can't be translated to other languages.
Those words are impossible to truly understand unless you learn that language from scratch fully, and learn that word in that language and its context.
Likewise:
The spirit can not be 'translated' into the physical.
They are to different.
They are both states of existence, but are to different to be accurately translated.
However, metaphores can be used to describe the word's meaning, the true level of meaning can't be tranlated, but a vague image of it can be created.

Likewise we can get a vague idea of the spirit through physical terms, but its true depth is beyond the physical.
And can't truly be related or translated.

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.

You can't compare the visual, and the sense of touch.
Or the ability to hear, and to see.
They are so radically different, that they can't be understood in the terms of the other.

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.

I fail to see where you get that from.
The physical can describe God, and reveal His character.
But it can't relate to what spirit is. It can be used in metaphores, but metaphores can only reveal so much.
Until we actually die and are solely in our spirits, we won't understand the spiritual existense, or how the spirit is like.