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.
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.So His nature is fundamentally different from ours? Not truly human, as we are?
"Immaterial human nature". . .I'm not familiar with that term.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".
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.No, I'm trusting the apostle John near the end of the first century to choose near the correct Greek word.
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?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?
No, God carried out his own threat to Adam's disobedience.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?
So you believe that Paul chose a material word (flesh) to denote something immaterial? Why do you believe that?""Sinful nature" is a disposition. . .new nature is a disposition. . .both are immaterial.
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.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.
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.Probably, though does your body not hunger?
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.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.
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.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.
Is the NT the word of God or the word of man?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.
It is when you realize how much the Ark was connected to sin.The death of the animal is no where near that picture
Irrelevant.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.
Wow. I can't believe you LITERALLY referenced Plato's cave analogy. If this isn't Greek philosophy talking, not sure what is.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.
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.No, God carried out his own threat to Adam if Adam disobeyed.
[/QUOTE]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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
Matter is a useless term? By "material" I mean "tangible". That's all. Is that clear enough?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."
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.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.
"Dying (spiritually), you will die (physically)" is the meaning in the Hebrew.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.
He shared everything but the consequences of Adam's sin in us (Ro 5:17).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.
That part of the response was a computer glitch. Ignore it here.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.
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?