One Died For All

[Clare73]

So His nature is fundamentally different from ours? Not truly human, as we are?

As his Father is "fundamentally" different than my father, Adam, causing Christ and me to be fundamentally different--me with a fallen human nature, and Christ with a perfect human nature.

How many times are we going to go around this bush?

 

[Clare73]

Ok but just bear in mind that "flesh" is the worst possible choice of terms to designate an immaterial substance. For example if you were trying to introduce a theology student to the concept of an "immaterial realm", the description "realm of flesh" would be the worst possible terminology because "flesh" is a term that screams matter.

Look, I can't prove anything 100% apodictically. I can't even prove that you exist. What I CAN say, with some confidence, is that Paul's usage of the term flesh casts a bit of doubt on the translation "immaterial sinful nature".

"Immaterial human nature". . .I'm not familiar with that term.

Is it like immaterial human thought. . .or immaterial human fear. . .or immaterial human love. . .or immaterial human self-centeredness. . .or. . .

"Sinful nature" is a disposition. . .new nature is a disposition. . .both are immaterial.

 

[Fervent]

No, I'm trusting the apostle John near the end of the first century to choose near the correct Greek word.

And the Greek word John chose is the lid of the Ark. Whether you want to call it a mercy seat, an atonement covering, whatever, John was giving a word picture of the place the blood was spread. The death of the animal is no where near that picture since the animal wasn't dealt with in the inner sanctuary where the lid was kept, and the word usage is "covering" not "payment." Even in the first English translations it was noted that the word which is directly taken from Latin means "a table hiling the ark" where "hiling" means covering. It is the later attachments to the word that are inappropriate, not the initial word choice. Just as "conversation" in 1 Peter is no longer appropriate for the context but was entirely appropriate when the KJV was initially translated.

 

[Fervent]

As his Father is "fundamentally" different than my father, Adam, causing Christ and me to be fundamentally different--me with a fallen human nature, and Christ with a perfect human nature.

How many times are we going to go around this bush?

Just seeing how far you're willing to go to preserve your theological system. So you're saying that Adam undid the work of God by sinning?

 

[Clare73]

How Can God Justly Hold Man Responsible for Adam's Sin?

To the question: if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man responsible for that sin?
Well, that is answered by law in our own legal system.

Take the Anthropos family business. As long as the Anthropos sons of future generations (who successively inherit their father's business) keep up the family business, they are in justice personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though they did not personally incur those debts, which were incurred by the previous generation, such as the mortgage on the building.

The principle here is: personal responsibility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.

The same is true in God's spiritual economy.
Because man is the son of Adam, keeping up the family business of Adam (sin), he is responsible for the debt of Adam, even though he did not personally incur that debt.

Really? Is this a theological "construct" of man, or do we see this principle anywhere in Scripture.
Well, as a matter of fact we do, it's not a new principle.

In Lk 11:48-51, Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world; because in rejecting Christ, the Prophet who was to come (Dt 18:18; Jn 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Ac 3:22-23, 7:37), they were keeping up their forefathers' business of rejecting the prophets God sent to them and were, therefore, liable for all the debts of their forefathers' business (v.51).

So in the same way, man is responsible for the sin of Adam even though man did not personally incur that sin (Ro 1:32) and, therefore, there is no injustice in man's responsibility for Adam's sin.

Now to another point demonstrated in this post:
God's justice not agreeing with man's notions is never an indictment of God,
it is always an indictment of the finite mind of man.

Let this be a lesson: it is always a serious miscalculation to indict the Word of God written because it offends one's personal notions.

We do not judge God, he judges us.
We do not judge the Word of God written, it judges us.
--Bible 101

Ka-peesh?

 

[Clare73]

Just seeing how far you're willing to go to preserve your theological system. So you're saying that Adam undid the work of God by sinning?

No, God carried out his own threat to Adam's disobedience.

 

[JAL]

""Sinful nature" is a disposition. . .new nature is a disposition. . .both are immaterial.

So you believe that Paul chose a material word (flesh) to denote something immaterial? Why do you believe that?

 

[JAL]

I'm not sure "matter" is sufficiently defined to declare it all we see. Besides that, when God speaks to an individual in the spirit that alone is enough to confirm the existence of the spiritual.

Assuming what is to be proven is not an argument, it's sheer assertion. Basically the word "spirit" is not in my vocabulary anymore - and it wouldn't be in yours either if it weren't for the influence of Greek philosophy. Perhaps I'll comment more - but it's hard to find the time to repeat information already provided on other threads.

 

[JAL]

Probably, though does your body not hunger?

Aren't you proving my point? No, clearly my body (i.e. my protoplasm) doesn't hunger. After all, suppose the soul is removed from the body and taken up to heaven. Now try to imagine the body having hunger.

Since no one is in the body, who is feeling the hunger? Doesn't make sense. Clearly, then, it is the soul within the body that feels hunger, not the body itself.

 

[Fervent]

Assuming what is to be proven is not an argument, it's sheer assertion. Basically the word "spirit" is not in my vocabulary anymore - and it wouldn't be in yours either if it weren't for the influence of Greek philosophy. Perhaps I'll comment more - but it's hard to find the time to repeat information already provided on other threads.

There is no assumption, or is seeing the "physical" world and believing it to be there an assumption? Whether I would call it spirit or not, there is a world hidden to the eyes perceptible only by faith. Those who do not perceive are merely still in chains staring at shadows dancing on a cave wall.

 

[Fervent]

Aren't you proving my point? No, clearly my body (i.e. my protoplasm) doesn't hunger. After all, suppose the soul is removed from the body and taken up to heaven. Now try to imagine the body having hunger.

Since no one is in the body, who is feeling the hunger? Doesn't make sense. Clearly, then, it is the soul within the body that feels hunger, not the body itself.

I see no reason to make such a hard separation, the body may not be the person but it is unique to the person and a real part of the person. And it is the body that needs nourishment, creating the hunger. How the rest of the person responds doesn't change that the initial desire came from the body, and properly belongs to the body.

 

[Clare73]

And the Greek word John chose is the lid of the Ark. Whether you want to call it a mercy seat, an atonement covering, whatever, John was giving a word picture of the place the blood was spread.

Is the NT the word of God or the word of man?

I say the word John used (propitiation) is God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) of the Holy Spirit.

I say John's word picture, understood in the light of Jesus' death, saw the lid of the
Ark of the Testimony as
covering testimony therein of God's covenant conditions; i.e.,
two new stone tablets engraved by the finger of God (Ex 31:18, Dt 10:2),
obedience to which the covenant of God was conditioned on (Ex 19:5; Jer 11:4-5, 7:23;
Lev 26:3 /w12; Hos 1:8-9),
which also were testimony to their sin in breaking those commandments,

and further testimony in the Ark to their sin being:
jar of manna - testimony to their grumbling (Ex 16:2-4, 33),
Aaron's staff - testimony to Korah's rebellion against the priesthood (Nu 16:1-3, 17:10).

I say in light of Jesus and his work, John saw the Ark as a symbol of the
throne where God sits (Ps 99:1; Ex 25:22; 1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 6:2), where
two angels--Justice and Righteousness, the foundation of his throne (Ps 89:14, 97:2), worship.

I say John saw God sitting in judgment on their sin in the Ark, the Judgment Seat of God, and
in the lid's covering of their sin in the Ark, he saw also the "Mercy Seat,"

making the Ark a picture of the Throne of God (Mt 24:31) which is both the Judgment Seat of the nations and the Mercy Seat of the sons of God (M 24:32-34, 41)

The death of the animal is no where near that picture

It is when you realize how much the Ark was connected to sin.

since the animal wasn't dealt with in the inner sanctuary

Irrelevant.

where the lid was kept, and the word usage is "covering" not "payment." Even in the first English translations it was noted that the word which is directly taken from Latin means "a table hiling the ark" where "hiling" means covering. It is the later attachments to the word that are inappropriate, not the initial word choice. Just as "conversation" in 1 Peter is no longer appropriate for the context but was entirely appropriate when the KJV was initially translated.

 

[JAL]

Whether I would call it spirit or not, there is a world hidden to the eyes perceptible only by faith. Those who do not perceive are merely still in chains staring at shadows dancing on a cave wall.

Wow. I can't believe you LITERALLY referenced Plato's cave analogy. If this isn't Greek philosophy talking, not sure what is.

So anything that you don't currently see is non-physical? For example, suppose I'm standing behind you. Does that prove I'm not physical?

You've cited the philosopher Plato. Is it okay if I cite some Scripture?

"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. "

Care to explain how an intangible angel has hands tangible enough to rollback a stone, a torso tangible enough to sit on that stone, and a body tangible enough to wear garments?

 

[Fervent]

No, God carried out his own threat to Adam if Adam disobeyed.

There was no threat, and the warning was not that Adam would be unable to control himself and his nature be fundamentally altered but that he would die. I don't believe you fully understand what you are saying, because you are denying that Jesus didn't actually share a nature with us.

I say John's word picture, understood in the light of Jesus' death, saw that the lid of the Ark of the Testimony
covered testimony in the Ark of God's covenant conditions; i.e.,
two new stone tablets engraved by the finger of God (Ex 31:18, Dt 10:2),
obedience to which the covenant of God was conditioned on (Ex 19:5; Jer 11:4-5, 7:23; Lev 26:3 /w12; Hos 1:8-9),
which also were testimony to their sin in breaking the commandments,

in addition there also being in the Ark:
jar of manna - testimony to their grumbling (Ex 16:2-4, 33),
Aaron's staff - testimony to Korah's rebellion against the priesthood (Nu 16:1-3, 17:10).

I say in light of Jesus and his work, John saw the Ark as a symbol of the
throne where God sits (Ps 99:1; Ex 25:22; 1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 6:2), where
two angels--Justice and Righteousness, are the foundation of his throne (Ps 89:14, 97:2).

I say John saw God sitting in judgment on their sin in the Ark, the Judgment Seat of God, and
in the lid covering their sin in the Ark, he also the "Mercy Seat"

making the Ark a picture of the Throne of God (Mt 24:31) which is both the Judgment Seat of the nations and the Mercy Seat of the son of God (M 24:32-34, 41)

The death of the animal is no where near that picture since the animal wasn't dealt with in the inner sanctuary where the lid was kept, and the word usage is "covering" not "payment." Even in the first English translations it was noted that the word which is directly taken from Latin means "a table hiling the ark" where "hiling" means covering. It is the later attachments to the word that are inappropriate, not the initial word choice. Just as "conversation" in 1 Peter is no longer appropriate for the context but was entirely appropriate when the KJV was initially translated.

[/QUOTE]
That's a lot of stretching with no real logic other than trying to get from one statement to your position. The context of the passages makes it clear that it is speaking of Jesus being a mediary for our sins, and the "covering" reading naturally fits without needless idea-hopping.

 

[JAL]

I see no reason to make such a hard separation, the body may not be the person but it is unique to the person and a real part of the person. And it is the body that needs nourishment, creating the hunger. How the rest of the person responds doesn't change that the initial desire came from the body, and properly belongs to the body.

No it did not. You're just pointing out that the body has an impact upon the soul's desires - a good example is hormones at puberty. But the body itself doesn't have desires. Again, imagine the soul removed from the body unto heaven, and try to imagine that body having hormonal attraction to the opposite sex. Who is having those desires? Not you, because you're not in the body. Doesn't make sense.

Again, the soul has desires, not the body. If the body had the sort of psychological capacities that you seem to want to ascribe to it, we wouldn't need a soul.

 

[Fervent]

Wow. I can't believe you LITERALLY referenced Plato's cave analogy. If this isn't Greek philosophy talking, not sure what is.

So anything that you don't currently see is non-physical? For example, suppose I'm standing behind you. Does that prove I'm not physical?

You've cited the philosopher Plato. Is it okay if I cite some Scripture?

"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. "

Care to explain how an intangible angel has hands tangible enough to rollback a stone, a torso tangible enough to sit on that stone, and a body tangible enough to wear garments?

Frankly, no matter how hard I press no one seems to have a clear definition of "physical" other than relying on an intuitive sense. What specific phenomena are covered by physical? How is light physical, and chemistry? Nuclear forces and gravity? How are quanta physical when they don't follow classical mechanical laws? It's a useless catch all that relies on inconsistent definitions to maintain a sense of "well, everything is physical." You speak of Greek philosophy, and then deny that the word they used for spirit is appropriate because it is derived from "wind" as if Jesus meant "unless they are born of water and wind" not "born of water and spirit." It's a fallacious use of language because words don't have the exact same meaning, and "spirit" is one of the meanings of pneuma.

 

[Fervent]

No it did not. You're just pointing out that the body has an impact upon the soul's desires - a good example is hormones at puberty. But the body itself doesn't have desires. Again, imagine the soul removed from the body unto heaven, and try to imagine that body having hormonal attraction to the opposite sex. Who is having those desires? Not you, because you're not in the body. Doesn't make sense.

Again, the soul has desires, not the body. If the body had the sort of psychological capacities that you seem to want to ascribe to it, we wouldn't need a soul.

How do you imagine being separate from the body, when you've never experienced such a phenomena and so have no reference? Your whole thought experiment is impossible. We can only speak of what we have experienced, which is life in the body. And in the body, desire often originates with base bodily urges such that we can assign to the body a nascent sort of desire, often called an appetite.

 

[JAL]

Frankly, no matter how hard I press no one seems to have a clear definition of "physical" other than relying on an intuitive sense. What specific phenomena are covered by physical? How is light physical, and chemistry? Nuclear forces and gravity? How are quanta physical when they don't follow classical mechanical laws? It's a useless catch all that relies on inconsistent definitions to maintain a sense of "well, everything is physical."

Matter is a useless term? By "material" I mean "tangible". That's all. Is that clear enough?

You speak of Greek philosophy, and then deny that the word they used for spirit is appropriate because it is derived from "wind" as if Jesus meant "unless they are born of water and wind" not "born of water and spirit." It's a fallacious use of language because words don't have the exact same meaning, and "spirit" is one of the meanings of pneuma.

That's exactly what Jesus meant - except capitalize it, born of [divine] Water and [divine] Wind. Verse 8 is a clear reference to divine Wind - if you don't see why, just ask, and I will explain it to you. When the divine Wind slowly parted the waters of the Red Sea over the course of an entire evening, Moses called it a blast of breath from God's nostrils. That word for "breath" is the same word historically mistranslated "Spirit of God" in all of the Bibles.

It was literal physical Wind. Maybe Pentecost will help?

"They heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind...They were all filled with the Holy [Wind]."

As you can see, the context clearly indicates physical Wind. There is no support here for the spirit-nonsense fabricated by the pagan homosexual philosopher Plato.

 

[Clare73]

There was no threat, and the warning was not that Adam would be unable to control himself and his nature be fundamentally altered but that he would die.

"Dying (spiritually), you will die (physically)" is the meaning in the Hebrew.

That first dying, that loss of eternal (God's own) life in his spirit, caused the fallen disposition of his nature.

I don't believe you fully understand what you are saying, because you are denying that Jesus didn't actually share a nature with us.

He shared everything but the consequences of Adam's sin in us (Ro 5:17).

That's a lot of stretching with no real logic other than trying to get from one statement to your position. The context of the passages makes it clear that it is speaking of Jesus being a mediary for our sins, and the "covering" reading naturally fits without needless idea-hopping.

That part of the response was a computer glitch. Ignore it here.
It belongs to my response to you of post #392.

 

[JAL]

@Fervent ,

Remember, we all believe in tangible substance (matter). Material wind is not an extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary claims like "intangible spirit" require extraordinary amounts of evidence. But there isn't ANY evidence for that claim.