Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 4:30 PM
125 online now:
Coyote, glowby, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (5 members, 120 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,862 Year: 10,468/21,208 Month: 3,555/2,674 Week: 98/873 Day: 98/76 Hour: 0/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   Did Jesus teach reincarnation?
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 106 of 166 (777308)
01-28-2016 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jaywill
01-28-2016 7:28 PM


Lets get on with the issue of Romans 8
I will only start with the Jehovah's Witness issue because you keep using this group to sidestep the actual issue (which I can assure you, I will keep returning to).

quote:

You are incorrect here. I charge the Jehovah Witnesses for not teaching like the Bible, that "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17). The Holy Spirit to them is only a force.

I suspect that they say the Holy Spirit is the same as God, and that there isn't necessarily any sort of constant separation and differentiation. I imagine that they consider the Holy Spirit as something like God having the ability to think in multiple places at once. Sort of like a modalism of God. A temporary office or mode of operation. I have never looked into it though.

You seemed to use Romans 8:9 in a similar modalism. You said that the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God were the same thing.

quote:

The JWs do not believe that Holy Spirit is God.

You also said they think Jesus is Michael. That would not be modalism. Btw, since you keep obsessing over the JW, can you please show me evidence of this claim. I have never heard this before.

Arius was not a modalist either (I assumed that Arius was somewhat similar to Jehovah's Witness' , but after your Michael comment, now I don't know what to think about any parallels to the JW.)

You seem to keep dodging Romans 8, though you were eager to mention it earlier (it made up almost 98% of the text in your post #94).

Here is what you said back when you were eager to bring it up.

quote:

You have Romans in your list of "authentic" letters of Paul.
So you have no problem with saying these are Paul's thoughts.

Now let's go to the 8th chapter of Romans. Here we do not see a systematic theological formal. But we do see his "shop talk". In other words he is speaking of the experience of his audience.

In speaking of the experience of his audience Paul uses, seamlessly and enterchangeably some titles -

The Spirit of God
The Spirit of Christ
Christ
The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead,

Notice how, in speaking of the Christians' enjoyment and subjective experience, he moves from one title to the the next without taking a breath. Each title speaks of the One who indwells the believers.

"But you are not in the flesh. but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Romans 8:9-11)

Once again. A statement of systematic theology this is not. But it is "shop talk" in which his audience seems is suppose to perfectly understand that -

Christ is the Spirit of Christ.
Christ is the Spirit of God.
Christ is also the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

It is not FOUR separated Persons who indwell the believers. It is One mysterious Person with interchangeable titles, for man's enjoyment. For Paul the Spirit of God is Christ. And He is also the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

This verse is about the experience of the Trinity as an indwelling One giving divine life.
My God is the Man Jesus Christ. And He is able to dispense Himself into us.


Then I pointed out that heresy hunters (which I considered you to be even BEFORE you started swiping at the Jehovah's Witness' to avoid the reference I made to them. I will return to them LATER - but not now - because you keep using them as an inversion)wouldn't appreciate your modalistic interpretation of Romans 8. You responded

quote:

The way we put it where I meet, is that He is distinct but not separate. But this is very difficult for human beings to explain - the three - oneness of God. That is why the Romans passage is so good. It just takes for granted that the believers were in the experience of this "three-oneness".

There are some things that are experiential and enjoyable though not [edited] easy or perhaps possible to fully explain. The Father and the Son are distinct but not separate.
The Holy Spirit and the Son and the Father are distinct but never separated.


You simply took the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" from Romans 8:9 and said they were the same thing. That is not an orthodox Trinitarian position. The typical position, as the councils obsessed over, was to see those as separate entities.

You seemed to think that the fact that they were mentioned in a single verse somehow made them the exact same spirit.

That can't be any better than what you witch hunt the Jehovah's Witnesses over.

And I quoted the Jehovah's Witness (before I knew that you would use them to confuse the issue and sidestep the actual point of debate) just to show that there are Christians that see Romans 8:9 in a broader holistic sense as no different from the rest of scripture. The JW just see that (Romans 8:9) as a general issue of God's spirit.

You aren't any different (except you attack people in a tribalistic fashion)

Here is the (what I thought was an innocuous) quote

quote:

H O L Y
S P I R I T

The Bible

When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, he shall testify of me (John 15:26).

When he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (John 16:8).

When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (John 16:13).

The Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, he shall teach you all things (John 14:26).

His spirit that dwells in you (Romans 8:11).

Be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18; see also I Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 3:16).

But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Romans 8:9; see also vv. 14, 16).

Jehovah Witnesses

The holy spirit is the invisible active force of Almighty God which moves his servants to do his will (LG, p. 108).

http://www.menorah.org/jewitnes.html


The point of the quote was that it makes no difference if Romans 8:9 mentions the "Spirit of God" or the "Spirit of Christ" in the same verse or not (the point was that another Christian group draws the spirit of God and Christ together ANYWAY/REGARDLESS/UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES with or without the mention in a single verse). I had no clue that you were on some sort of Inquisition against the JW on the Holy Spirit issue. For all intents and purposes, the JW seem to hold the exact same view of the Holy Spirit as you do IMO. It doesn't really matter, except you keep on attacking them - in order to avoid defending your inconsistent position.

Since you want to keep attacking the JW, I ask you to demonstrate the following:

1 Please show me that the JW feel that the Holy Spirit is not eternal and not separate from God.

2 Please show me that they feel Jesus was Michael. (and don't insult this site by first comparing the JW to Arius then contradicting yourself by saying that they consider Jesus to be Michael - which was in no way, shape, or form the view of Arius!)

Here is your response (which I take to be somewhat unethical NOW) from post 101.

quote:

I don't know why you want to bring in Jehovah Witnesses' rehash of the ideas of Arius. I am not sure of the point you want to make.

It was a slight of hand IMO.

Here is his post 103

quote:

LamarkNewAge said
"You say they were used interchangeably.
Jehovah's Witnesses rehash Arius?"

[jaywill response]
To the Jehovah Witnesses Jesus Christ is the same as Michael the archangel. They vehemently deny that God became a man. Essentially, they want to go back to a Law keeping Old Testament. And the Law to the Watchtower Society really has to do with going door to door and preaching JW doctrines.

There is nothing wrong with going door to door to preach if it is not wrong preaching and teaching. But going door to door teaching that Jesus is the archangel Michael and not the Word Who was God and WAS God, is rebellion against Jehovah.

Jesus said after His resurrection that the disciples would be HIS ... witnesses -

" ... and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:8b)

Jesus is Jehovah become a man. Jesus is the mingling of God and man. And He came not only that we could have forgiveness through redemption, but that we also might be the continuation of God dispensing Himself into man.

LamarkNewAge said:
"Are you sure JW use the same arguments?"

[jaywill responds]
Same argument as what ?? The JWs do not believe Jesus is God.
The JWs do not believe that Holy Spirit is God.
The JWs teach that the Son of God - Jesus, is the archangel Michael.
And many wrong things they teach because really rather than witnessing for Jehovah God they are in rebellion against the revelation of Jehovah God in Christ.

That is enough JW bashing.


Above was jaywill taking what I said totally out of its total context (it wasn't anything but a SIDE-ISSUE response on my part to his obsession, and NOT the essence of my MAIN POINT.

Overall he has chopped up and twisted the discussion. He ignored my main point. Here is my main point.

Romans 8 itself

quote:

Romans 8New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

Life in the Spirit

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to Gods lawindeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.

12 So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh 13 for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.


See verse 3, "For God...sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh"?

You have God and his offspring/offshoot. ( Please respond to the text, and not what you think my "view" is!)

verse 9, "But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."

God and his offshoot. His "Son".

That is more like a parallel to the Zeus and the Titans. (again, don't start assuming you know "my view". JUST RESPOND TO THE TEXT MAN)

This chapter (Romans 8) was your example of the incarnation.

You continued to quote me, when I was discussing Romans 8 (while trying to get away from this Jehovah's Witness obsession).

quote:

[LamarkNewAge said]
"I have no clue.
Its irrelevant.

So that Romans chapter 8 is your evidence that there was an incarnation."

[jaywill responds]
It is not my ONLY biblical evidence. I used it because it is experiencial fellowship proving that Paul and his audience were enjoying the indwelling of Christ which was the indwelling of God. This is the normal Christian life.

I didn't say it was necessarily the typical Christian life. But it is the normal Christian life. God is seeking to recover this enjoyment among His believers in Christ.

[LamarkNewAge says]
"If we see mentioned a "spirit of God" and a "spirit of Christ" in the same verse then that proves that not only did Paul think Jesus to be God, but there was a spermless incarnation at conception?"

[jaywill responds]
The incarnation was a miracle in which that which was begotten in the virgin woman was of the Holy Spirit. No human father was involved. God as a child was conceive within her. He had two natures - the nature of the Divine and the nature of the human. He was and is God-man.

He had to be Man in order to be able to die.
He had to be God to make the effectiveness of that death have eternal efficacy.

He was God by way of incarnation.
The saved become sons of God by way of His salvation.


You keep changing the subject.

You choose Romans 8 as the evidence of the incarnation of God in the flesh. It does NOT say anything of the sort according to any plain reading of the text. It says that God and Jesus are separate entities (along with their respective spirits). You can't even decide if you consider God and Jesus to have separate spirits. And please segregate your (sure to come)attacks on the Jehovah's Witness' from the actual issue discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jaywill, posted 01-28-2016 7:28 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Admin, posted 01-29-2016 9:02 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 108 by jaywill, posted 01-29-2016 9:10 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 109 by jaywill, posted 01-29-2016 10:55 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12439
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 107 of 166 (777336)
01-29-2016 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by LamarkNewAge
01-28-2016 10:46 PM


Re: Lets get on with the issue of Romans 8
LamarkNewAge writes:

You seem to keep dodging Romans 8, though you were eager to mention it earlier (it made up almost 98% of the text in your post #94).

Are you saying that 98% of the text in Jaywill's Message 94 were quotes from Romans 8? If so, be assured that's not true and that I have not fallen down on the job. The message is 447 words, the Romans 8 quote is 98 words or 22%, and the rest of the post is 349 words or 78%.

You aren't any different (except you attack people in a tribalistic fashion)
...
It doesn't really matter, except you keep on attacking them - in order to avoid defending your inconsistent position.

Since you want to keep attacking the JW, I ask you to demonstrate the following:
...
And please segregate your (sure to come) attacks on the Jehovah's Witness' from the actual issue discussion.

One moderator responsibility is to keep discussion from spiraling out of control, and accusations of unjustified attacks are a common early symptom. Jaywill is critical of Jehovah Witness beliefs, but these are no more attacks than your critiques of Jaywill's beliefs are attacks. Please keep your focus on the topic and not on your perception of misdeeds by other participants. Let moderators handle Forum Guidelines violations. If you feel there are violations that moderators are missing then they can be reported over at Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2016 10:46 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 108 of 166 (777338)
01-29-2016 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by LamarkNewAge
01-28-2016 10:46 PM


Re: Lets get on with the issue of Romans 8
quote:
I will only start with the Jehovah's Witness issue because you keep using this group to sidestep the actual issue (which I can assure you, I will keep returning to).

Let's get one thing clear. I am not sidestepping anything. I may be limited on the TIME I have to address multiple issues you raise.

There are matters you raise which I have not yet spoken to. And there are matters I raised of which you have not yet spoken to. I don't therefore automatically charge you with "sidestepping".

quote:

me:
I charge the Jehovah Witnesses for not teaching like the Bible, that "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17). The Holy Spirit to them is only a force.

you:
I suspect that they say the Holy Spirit is the same as God ... ,


You'll have to go read about their belief. All I point out is that Jesus is not God mingled with man to them and the Holy Spirit is only an energy or force and not God Himself.

We may get into modalism or "seems like" modalism in relation to what I wrote.
If I said that WHILE the Son is, the Father is NOT that would be modalism.
If I said that WHILE the Holy Spirit is, the Father and the Son are NOT, that would be modalism.

If I said each one of the Trinity was only in existence at one time so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were not simultaneously existing, that would be modalism.

If you're prone to looking into this more so that I do not have to write a book here, I recommend this reading:

Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God According to the Bible by Ron Kangus

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/...oklets/modalism.html

Mind you, I do not supply this reading because I think you know nothing about Modalism. I supply it because I think it focuses on the charge of Modalism to those who suspicion it when I speak of verses like 1 Cor. 15:45 or John 1:1,14. These verses say something about One of the Triune God became the other.

quote:

I imagine that they consider the Holy Spirit as something like God having the ability to think in multiple places at once. Sort of like a modalism of God. A temporary office or mode of operation. I have never looked into it though.

See the link above as far as what I wrote.

quote:

You seemed to use Romans 8:9 in a similar modalism. You said that the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God were the same thing.

Read a clarification above - http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/...oklets/modalism.html-

quote:

me:

The JWs do not believe that Holy Spirit is God.

you:
You also said they think Jesus is Michael.


That is right.
I am going to search for your comments more related to what I believe about the New Testament revelation.

quote:

You seem to keep dodging Romans 8, though you were eager to mention it earlier (it made up almost 98% of the text in your post #94).

The most important thing I said about Romans 8 was that there is no discernible difference in the Christian's experience between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The person who receives the Spirit of Jesus Christ cannot detect any separation between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And Paul's speaking of the indwelling Spirit in verses 9 - 11 bear that out.

Do you know God ?

You have given a lot of information about Polycarp and Clement and Paul and Bart Erhman and Arius and other things. What about your own experience of God Himself. Do you have the confidence that you can say you know God ?

I am looking for a Yes or a No or a "I don't really know."
I can say that I experience what Paul is speaking of in Romans 8:9-11. I know what he is talking about there - subjectively, experiencially and even corporately with others of the practical church life I daily enjoy.

I can detect absolutely no difference or separation in this indwelling Spirit of God. He is the Spirit of Christ and is even Jesus Christ Himself.

I brought in isaiah to prove that the incarnation of God as a man was prophesied long before the writing of the New Testament. It was not a dodge. It is relevant.

quote:

Here is what you said back when you were eager to bring it up.

me:
You have Romans in your list of "authentic" letters of Paul.
So you have no problem with saying these are Paul's thoughts.

Now let's go to the 8th chapter of Romans. Here we do not see a systematic theological formal. But we do see his "shop talk". In other words he is speaking of the experience of his audience.

In speaking of the experience of his audience Paul uses, seamlessly and enterchangeably some titles -

The Spirit of God
The Spirit of Christ
Christ
The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead,

Notice how, in speaking of the Christians' enjoyment and subjective experience, he moves from one title to the the next without taking a breath. Each title speaks of the One who indwells the believers.

"But you are not in the flesh. but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Romans 8:9-11)

Once again. A statement of systematic theology this is not. But it is "shop talk" in which his audience seems is suppose to perfectly understand that -

Christ is the Spirit of Christ.
Christ is the Spirit of God.
Christ is also the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

It is not FOUR separated Persons who indwell the believers. It is One mysterious Person with interchangeable titles, for man's enjoyment. For Paul the Spirit of God is Christ. And He is also the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

This verse is about the experience of the Trinity as an indwelling One giving divine life.
My God is the Man Jesus Christ. And He is able to dispense Himself into us.

LNR:

Then I pointed out that heresy hunters


I am not a "heresy hunter". I am interested in the revelation of the Bible.
I am not hunting for what is wrong with someone's beliefs.
I am searching for what helps me to increase my enjoyment of the Christ Who came into my life many years ago. I am seeking to know Christ deeper and the Bible in the way of life deeper.

That is why I wrote previously that that was enough of Jehovah Witness bashing.
I am not that interested in arguing with or about the Jehovah Witnesses.
I did mention something , granted. But I am more interested in discussing Romans and John and the revelation Paul unveiled with the other New Testament writers.

And you may get frustrated because I have no intention of driving several books of the New Testament out of it. If speaking of these things, for you, precludes that we do not mention certain NT books like letters to Timothy, the Gospel of John, or Colossians or other books of the NT, we might as well not converse.

If you say "But John is not the word of God because Bart Erhman says this or that" then I won't go along with that. Every Bible scholar doesn't agree with Bart Erhman.

=======================================
Bart Erhman verses Craig Evans on Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7gmgdk9qG8

Bart Erhman verses Simon Gathercole on How Jesus Became God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W08JXrm8ioc

Bart Erhman vs James Whilte on Does the NT Misquote Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-4HGcksXiY

Bart Erhman verses Derroll Bock on Was the New Testament Forged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKQnRCjG5XY

Bart Erhman verses William Lane Craig on Historical Evidence for Risen Jesus ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2NEiW69G-0

There is no shortage of educated Bible scholars who can stand up to Bart Erhman.

Now I cut this post here not having addressed everything you wrote.
Maybe you can give me some hours to catch up. Time is a limitation today.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2016 10:46 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 109 of 166 (777342)
01-29-2016 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by LamarkNewAge
01-28-2016 10:46 PM


Re: Lets get on with the issue of Romans 8
f LNR,

I will have to take responses in smaller manageable pieces. Maybe its me, but you're confusing me a bit.

quote:
You simply took the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" from Romans 8:9 and said they were the same thing.

That's right. The titles refer to the SAME wonderful Triune God. It is through the Holy Spirit that God finally reaches a man's inner being. It is as Spirit that Father and Son can come to indwell the believers as the Divine "We" of John 14:23.

That it is profound and very difficult to fully explain, I admit.

Look, God from the creation of man, wanted to come INTO man to be MINGLED with man to be man's eternal life. We HAVE to get the big picture from time to time. We have to.

quote:

That is not an orthodox Trinitarian position. The typical position, as the councils obsessed over, was to see those as separate entities.

We could get into slinging around quotations from the early church "fathers". And we will see that often it depends on who you're quoting. And sometimes teachers were simultaneously charged with a bad teaching and the very opposite bad teaching.

I would rather refer to the Scriptures and what I know I have experienced.
God was never real to me before I received the Lord Jesus Christ into my innermost being. I could talk about God. I could philosophies about God. I could debate about God. And I could grope on what was meant by "God" anyway. But I could not call "Abba Father, my own dear Father. Papa ! Abba Father" to God because I simply did not KNOW God.

In the journey of God imparting Himself into us the Holy Spirit is the last stage. He reaches us in our human spirit as the Third of the Triune God. What the Trinity IS can never be separated from what the Trinity DOES. And what He does is dispense God into man. We have to receive Jesus Christ.

The Spirit of Jesus coming into my spirit made God subjectively real to me.
I am a part of that audience that Paul speaks to. And there the indwelling Christ is the indwelling Spirit of God.

quote:

You seemed to think that the fact that they were mentioned in a single verse somehow made them the exact same spirit.

I am going to guess that you are bothered by what you consider a not legitimate usage of the book of Romans. In a nutshell, I think that that is what you may be complaining about.

How, can I use Romans 8:9-11 to say that God became incarnated as a man ? Is that your problem ?

I would hope that you can see that "The Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead" would mean God the Father. Then the question is :

Besides the Christ being the indwelling one in the saved is there ANOTHER indwelling one called "The Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead" ? If you answer YES, then you have TWO Spirits indwelling the Christians.

To make matters more confusing, if you say beside those TWO you also have "the Spirit of God" indwelling the saved, then you have THREE indwelling the Christians. If you add to this puzzle another indwelling one called "the Spirit of Christ" living in the believers, then you have FOUR Spirits in them.

But what we have is the Triune God indwelling men through Christ's salvation.

In Romans 5:10 Paul writes this:

" For if we being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled." (Rom 5:10)

Grasp what is going on here. The believers were RECONCILED to God through the death of God's Son - Jesus. But there is something MUCH MORE to take place. Having been reconciled by Christ's redemptive death, they are to be MUCH MORE saved in the realm of His life.

" ... much more we will be saved in His life"

This is forgiven in His death and afterward saved in the sphere of Him being alive and living in us. We, being justified; being reconciled in a judicial sense now must much more be "organically" saved in our personality in the realm of His life. We are ONE with His LIFE.

Does this mean that Jesus is God? Yes. Man's problem in the fall is that he is ALIENATED from the life of God.

" Being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance which is in them, because of the hardness of their heart." (Eph. 4:18)

The "life of God" is so subjective TO God. The "life of God" cannot be separated from God Himself. To receive Christ as life and be saved in the realm of His available life is to no longer ... be "alienated from THE LIFE OF GOD" .

Now I hear you protest perhaps - IE. "You referred to Ephesians. You are dodging and not STICKING to Romans."

I am referring to another book - Ephesians. Why not? Both are written by the Apostle Paul.

It should be welcomed. Afterall we read of salvation the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus in Romans 8:2 -

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and of death." (8:2)

That is the the same as being saved from being "alienated from the life of God". That is the same as being "saved in His life" . By imparting the resurrected and available Jesus Christ into our being we can enjoy being mingled with God - mingled with Jesus Christ. We need such "much more" .

This New Testament is about God becoming a man to die for our reconciliation and then dispensing Himself into us that we be saved in the sphere and realm of His life.
What the ... ...

its 11 O'Clock already !! Sorry have to go for awhile.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2016 10:46 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2016 9:39 PM jaywill has responded
 Message 166 by Phat, posted 09-16-2016 7:40 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9458
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 110 of 166 (777356)
01-29-2016 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jaywill
01-27-2016 9:04 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
jaywill writes:

What do you think giving life to the dead means ?

Romans 4:17 does not state that Abraham believed that God quickened the dead. Paul is the one that says that God quickens the dead. You quoted way too little of the context.

quote:
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.


Paul believes in the God of Abraham, the God who quickens the dead.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jaywill, posted 01-27-2016 9:04 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jaywill, posted 01-29-2016 7:22 PM NoNukes has responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 111 of 166 (777368)
01-29-2016 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by NoNukes
01-29-2016 2:28 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
Romans 4:17 does not state that Abraham believed that God quickened the dead. Paul is the one that says that God quickens the dead. You quoted way too little of the context.
---------------------------------------------------------
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
---------------------------------------------------------

Paul believes in the God of Abraham, the God who quickens the dead.


Of course Paul believes in the God of Abraham, a God Who gives life to the dead.
But the context suggests that Abraham believed in this life giving and resurrecting God.

"[Abraham] ... not weakening in faith, he considered his own body as already dead, being about one hundred years old, as well as the deadening of Sarah's womb ... " (v.19)

Two matters here were a trial to Abraham's faith:

1.) His own body - AS ALREADY DEAD

2.) His wife's body - THE DEADENING OF SARAH'S WOMB.

Perhaps you will argue that this is not real physical death. I would agree that they are still breathing. However. death, inability, weakness are drawing the two nearer and nearer to actual physical death.

What was Abraham's experience with his own body being as good as dead and the deadening of Sarah's womb? It was witnessing God's power of life to give them a child. By this he was prepared for an even more drastic dealing, the potential physical death of Isaac.

This is the God in whom he believed, God who gives life to the dead ...
Continuing with "context" as you wish ...

"But with regard to the promise of God, he did not doubt in unbelief, but was empowered by faith, giving glory to God and being fully persuaded that what He had promised He was able to also to do." (v.21)

I feel that the attitude expressed in verse 21 covers not only his seeing the fulfillment of the birth of a son. It also was his attitude in his obedience in offering UP this son whom God had given him.

If someone wants to protest - "Hey! We don't see all THAT when we read Genesis" that's ok. Some of us can appreciate it, if eventually but not at first.
And we don't feel here we are being fanciful or just imagining things into Scripture.

The problem of death and deadening became stronger to Abraham, testing the depth of his hope in God.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 01-29-2016 2:28 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 01-30-2016 6:25 AM jaywill has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 112 of 166 (777373)
01-29-2016 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by jaywill
01-29-2016 10:55 AM


Re: Lets get on with the issue of Romans 8
quote:

[jaywill, post 99]

You have given a lot of information about Polycarp and Clement and Paul and Bart Erhman and Arius and other things


I was trying to discuss Romans 8 (since you brought it up),in post 100,and then you brought up Arius in post 101.

You said this:

quote:

[jaywill, post 101]

I don't know why you want to bring in Jehovah Witnesses' rehash of the ideas of Arius


From the start,it was extremely screwed up to bring a guy from 300 AD (the Bible you use wasn't even put together till 367!) and then compare him to a 19th century protestant group. Then to make matter worse, you kept harping about the Jehovah's Witnesses (after about a half dozen posts, you NOW claim you are finished attacking them), and then to really make things hopelessly confusing it seems that Jehovah's Witnesses have views on the Holy Spirit that Arius DID NOT.

So now I have to deal with you mixing into your obfuscating commentary on Romans the straw man attacks on the views of Jehovah's Witnesses on not only the nature of Christ (which was why you brought up Arius) but also the Holy Spirit.

Witness how you start (the substantive part of) your post 108

quote:

[jaywill, post 108]

You'll have to go read about their belief. All I point out is that Jesus is not God mingled with man to them and the Holy Spirit is only an energy or force and not God Himself.


Ironic that you are still talking about the Jehovah's Witnesses. You have not backed up any of your accusations. Assuming you are correct about their view of the Holy Spirit (which you haven't backed up), then what did that have to do with Arius? You said, in post 101, that my quote of the Jehovah's Witness website was just a "rehash" of the ideas of Arius.

It put me in a tough position, because I had to deal with wondering if I should research better on Arius and his view of the Holy Spirit and then I had to wonder what the heck you were endlessly blathering about on the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Amazing that you spent so much time confusing the issue, but then failed to back up any of your obsessive attacks on the JW. You still haven't told us what view Arius had of the Holy Spirit. From what I understand, he was pretty orthodox except he felt Jesus wasn't made of the same substance as God. But why did you bring him up, except to duck the issues?

You continued in post 108

quote:

[jaywill post 108]

We may get into modalism or "seems like" modalism in relation to what I wrote.
If I said that WHILE the Son is, the Father is NOT that would be modalism.
If I said that WHILE the Holy Spirit is, the Father and the Son are NOT, that would be modalism.

If I said each one of the Trinity was only in existence at one time so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were not simultaneously existing, that would be modalism.


The early Church Fathers, as far back as the late second century, were extremely critical of those who said that Jesus' spirit was the same as the Holy Spirit.

I suspect that Arius had more in common with the orthodox view of the Holy Spirit than you display here. But his view had NOTHING to do with the Jehovah's Witness view.

You got to Romans.

quote:

[jaywill post 108]

The most important thing I said about Romans 8 was that there is no discernible difference in the Christian's experience between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The person who receives the Spirit of Jesus Christ cannot detect any separation between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And Paul's speaking of the indwelling Spirit in verses 9 - 11 bear that out.


Paul taught that Jesus was the same substance as God or not in this chapter? You wanted to bring Arius up. We are talking about different issues. We are talking about the 7 authentic letters of Paul and whether they teach that Jesus was a fleshly human from an at conception incarnation of God. We aren't talking about the 100 AD Gospel of John or even Matthew.

Anyway, here is what Paul said.

quote:

NRSV
Romans 8
3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
....
7For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to Gods lawindeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him


He was talking about Jesus and God BOTH from verse 3 on. Both were the subject. He went from discussing God's spirit to discussing the issue of Jesus. Romans 8 was in between Paul teaching that Jesus and the new Christian religion was superior to "the law" or the old Jewish religion. He was simply mentioning the Jesus Christ issue as an issue of God's current revelation.

Why is it that Romans doesn't have a single mention of the spermless incarnation? Romans 9:5 aside (since the translation is disputed), why didn't Paul mention the issue of Jesus being God.

Remember the Da Vinci Code obsession of fundamentalists? They kept saying that 1 Corinthians 9 was proof that Jesus wasn't married. Why? The endless fundamentalist echo-chamber response to the Da Vinci Code has been represented here:

quote:

The Bible Answer Book Volume 2
By Hank Hanegraaff
p.31
Finally, while no evidence from the historical record supports the notion that Jesus was married, the New Testament contains powerful evidence that Jesus was not.In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul defended his right to have a wife by appealing to the fact that Peter and other apostles had wives: "Don't we have a right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" If Jesus had been married it is unthinkable that Paul would have neglected to appeal to Jesus as the ultimate precedent.For this reason Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, aptly refers to 1 Corinthians 9:5 as "the graveyeard of the married-Jesus fiction."
https://books.google.com/books?id=H6988x16XiwC&pg=PT51&lp...


What about this set of verses?

quote:

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.

Show me anywhere Paul (and his 7 authentic letters of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Philemon are most important) mentioned the virgin birth?

The fact that jaywill is grasping at straws to defend the idea that Paul taught the incarnation should speak volumes to us.

It shows that he really has nothing to actually offer.

Paul talked a lot about Jesus and he talked a lot about God.

Where is the incarnation? Why is it so hard to find?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by jaywill, posted 01-29-2016 10:55 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2016 10:00 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 118 by jaywill, posted 01-30-2016 8:59 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 113 of 166 (777375)
01-29-2016 9:47 PM


Take a while to visualise this.
1) You have Jesus clearly teaching that John the Baptist was the (re)incarnation of Elijah's spirit (Jesus said he was the man himself).

2) Then you have Paul NEVER mentioning (in any verses I have seen presented so far) the incarnation of God or the Holy Spirit into his Jesus' mother. He sure the heck never mentioned the virgin birth (and Christian apologists felt that Paul not mentioning Jesus being married was 100% evidence against the Da Vinci Code marriage details).

Now notice something.

You have people in this thread denying the first while attempting to say that Paul knew of (and even taught and wrote?) the virgin birth.

This is just amazing and it should be an eye opener.


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 114 of 166 (777376)
01-29-2016 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by LamarkNewAge
01-29-2016 9:39 PM


Why didn't Paul mention the Holy Spirit conception of a virgin.
quote:

And the unmarried woman and the VIRGIN are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be HOLY in body and SPIRIT
-Apostle Paul- c.55 A.D.

Perhaps because he did know about it!

That could be why.

That Da Vinci Code obsession saw a tidal wave of apologetics.

I wonder if such foolish obsession, by fundamentalists, over a fictional novel will actually have a legacy that we can all learn from.

I think so.

The logic they used (and repeated endlessly) can be used against the idea that Paul knew of a virgin birth.

It should beg the question.

Was the spermless conception of Mary the mother of Jesus an import from India after Jesus was born (or after he died)? Was the incarnation just an import of an important doctrine from India?

Was Krishna, the 8th Avatar of Vishnu, becoming an eternal persona in his own right (separate from Vishnu, whom he was said to be an incarnation of), the inspiration for the incarnation, virgin birth, and trinity doctrine?

There are many possibilities.

Some possibilities are consistent with both the Hindu and Christian religions (and claims).

But jaywill seems to be making the case that the incarnation was a late concept that Jesus and Paul knew nothing of.

EDIT: This discussion is spilling over into another forum. Jon is mad that his preacher doesn't believe in reincarnation, while Jesus taught it, so he attacked me (see link below). see his attack in post 209. My response is in 210 & 211.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=19042&mpp=1...

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2016 9:39 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Admin, posted 01-30-2016 7:57 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 119 by jaywill, posted 01-30-2016 4:37 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9458
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 115 of 166 (777392)
01-30-2016 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by jaywill
01-29-2016 7:22 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
But the context suggests that Abraham believed in this life giving and resurrecting God.

"[Abraham] ... not weakening in faith, he considered his own body as already dead, being about one hundred years old, as well as the deadening of Sarah's womb ... " (v.19)

Of course Abraham was not dead actually dead at relevant time. Your argument is pretty poor. Further, you've gone from a claim of literal resurrection to living a long time and fertility. I'll take that as an admission that your first post was wrong and that you are just trying to save another bad argument.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jaywill, posted 01-29-2016 7:22 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jaywill, posted 01-30-2016 6:17 PM NoNukes has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 116 of 166 (777394)
01-30-2016 7:48 AM


Direction in my conversation with jaywill (and others).
I think we should look at the authentic letters of Paul.
One by one.
And see if we can find 3 different things in them.

1)Verses saying Jesus was God

2) incarnation at conception

3)virgin birth

Those are the three things we will be looking for.

Now, where to look? The 7 authentic letters of Paul.

Start with the youngest epistle first, then get to the older ones, in order.

1 Thessalonians (most British scholars put Galatians earlier)

2 1 Corinthians

3 2 Corinthians

4 Galatians

5 Romans

6 Philippians

7 Philemon (I'm not even sure if this can be dated)

I actually do think Philippians 2:5-10 qualifies for #1 & #2 , but not #3 (the virgin birth). Romans 9:5 possibly qualifies for #1, though most would disagree (it depends on the translation). Philippians was a "prison epistle" (written from 59-61 AD).

I still can't understand why Paul didn't mention the virgin birth. I find it amazing that he only said Jesus was God in 1 place (and only in an epistle roughly 10 years after his first), and only 1 (the same)place was the divine incarnation (albeit not a spermless one)mentioned.

This post of mine will be an attempt to maintain direction.

I have attempted to inject honesty into Biblical discussion. It has ticked people off who prefer to see what they want to (I was accused of hacking or SPAMing the site in another thread by a wacko). I urge those who value honest discussion to stay vigilant and don't let dishonest arguments and hateful attacks overrun these important historical issues. Force the participants to display integrity and accuracy in their arguments. Challenge those with preconceived notions to empty out their prepackaged ideas, and to start clean with an open mind and open heart.

Anyway, lets see who can offer any evidence in 1 Thessalonians.

Don't let them smuggle verses in from the Gospel of John. Infact, every book of Paul should be able to stand on its own weight. (Don't forget this last point P-L-E-A-S-E)


    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12439
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 117 of 166 (777395)
01-30-2016 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by LamarkNewAge
01-29-2016 10:00 PM


LamarkNewAge Suspended 2 Days
Hi LamarkNewAge,

The antagonistic tenor of your posts continues unchanged, as if you hadn't read my Message 107, where I said that one moderator responsibility is to keep discussion from spiraling out of control, and that accusations of unjustified attacks are a common early symptom, which is what you are doing. Dispassionate critiques of others beliefs, such as Jaywill's criticisms of Jehovah Witness beliefs, are not attacks, but your criticisms of Jaywill's beliefs have crossed the line into attacks and abuse:

LamarkNewAge writes:

From the start,it was extremely screwed up to bring a guy from 300 AD...Then to make matter worse, you kept harping about the Jehovah's Witnesses (after about a half dozen posts, you NOW claim you are finished attacking them)
...
So now I have to deal with you mixing into your obfuscating commentary on Romans the straw man attacks...
...
Amazing that you spent so much time confusing the issue, but then failed to back up any of your obsessive attacks on the JW.
...
The fact that jaywill is grasping at straws...

It shows that he really has nothing to actually offer.

Summarizing your comments directed at Jaywill instead of the topic, he was "screwed up" and obfuscative, he conducted "straw man attacks", he confused the issue, he conducted "obsessive attacks", he grasped at straws, and "he has nothing to actually offer."

To make matters worse, you've gone way off-topic in the 2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet? thread in Message 210 and Message 211.

In trying to detect a pattern or theme in the way you generally conduct your discussion all I can see is a tendency toward creating a mild chaos that, since you're familiar with it and others aren't, you can use to your own advantage. Please, when a moderator requests that you take it down a notch, don't ignore them and instead take it up a notch.

Also, please keep your focus on the topic and on the actual arguments made, not on how deficient your co-discussionists are. Let moderators handle Forum Guidelines violations. If you feel there are violations that moderators are missing then they can be reported over at Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.

I'm issuing you a two day suspension.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2016 10:00 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 118 of 166 (777398)
01-30-2016 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by LamarkNewAge
01-29-2016 9:39 PM


Re: Lets get on with the issue of Romans 8
quote:
Paul taught that Jesus was the same substance as God or not in this chapter?

In Romans 8 The Spirit of God is Christ indwelling the Christians.

" ... if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you ... " (See vs.9,10)

Christ is God.

Christ is the Spirit of God dispensed into the saved man.
Christ is the Spirit of Christ dispensed into the saved man making him "of Him"

"Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him" (v.9b)

In my past I received Jesus Christ and became "of Him" . I definitely got to realize that to know Christ was to know God.

quote:

We are talking about different issues. We are talking about the 7 authentic letters of Paul and whether they teach that Jesus was a fleshly human from an at conception incarnation of God. We aren't talking about the 100 AD Gospel of John or even Matthew.

All 27 books in my New Testament I count as "authentic".
All 27 do not all mention the same things.

It is true that the virgin birth is not specifically mentioned in Romans.
Colossians which I may understand WHY you want to dismiss as not Paul's teaching, says that the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ.

"For in Him [Christ] all the fullness was pleased to dwell" (Col. 1:19)

"For in Him [Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (2:9)

That explains why I met God on the day I received the Spirit of Christ by calling on the Lord to take me. Once again - "the Spirit of God" was interchangeably used for "the Spirit of Christ" which was also "Christ" HIMSELF in Romans 8:9-11.

Forget about me not counting Colossians as authentic.
You can also forget about me not regarding John or Matthew as being in the New Testament as God speaking to man.

quote:

Anyway, here is what Paul said.

quote:
NRSV
Romans 8
3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit


Okay. And this Jesus has a way to impart Himself into those who believe in Him.
He does this so that He may be their life - compounding God into man, once man has been justified through His redemption.

He becomes a spontaneous "law of the Spirit of life" moving and operating in the forgiven sinner. Then we can live by Christ, not by imitation but in a joined and mingled way.

In the same chapter Paul speaks of the liberating power of this indwelling Person -

"For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death." (v.2 Recovery Version)

It is actually kind of "scientific". Christ having come INTO a man's inner being is like the law of gravity. It is spontaneous and never failing. It is powerful automatic. The Christians, however, must learn to set his mind on his regenerated human spirit.

Remember, I quoted Paul's authentic final exhortation to Timothy - "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you" (2 Tim. 4:22) .

Set your mind on the born again spirit Timothy. That is where the Lord is. That is where the empower grace of the Lord is. You must learn a new way of living. When Jesus came into you you realized that there was another unknown dimension to your life. You had a spirit deep within. The Lord is with your spirit acting spontaneously as an automatic "law of the Spirit of [Divine] life" .

This is God living in man.

quote:
....
7For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to Gods lawindeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him


As I said in another post, I agree with the translators of the rendering that the human spirit [small s] is contrasted to the human flesh in verse 9.

"But you are not in the [human] flesh but in the [human regenerated] spirit ... "

In other words - "Your human spirit has been made alive. You are now in that realm, having and living with a born again human spirit."

The Holy Spirit, Who is God and Who is Christ in a most mysterious way, is with the human spirit. So Paul's utterance includes both -

" But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you ... Christ in you ... " (see vs.9,10)

Now. this audience can also say "The Lord is with our spirit."
The Lord is with the Christians' spirit and Christ as a law of life can spontaneously free them from the law of sin and of death - IF we learn to set out mind upon our spirit where the Christ is.

I am learning.

quote:

He was talking about Jesus and God BOTH from verse 3 on.

That is correct. And as I said the two are distinct - Jesus Christ and God the Father, yet they are not SEPARATED because in verse 9 the Spirit of God in them is Christ in them in verse 10. He is with their regenerated spirit.

" ... if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you ... the spirit is life because of righteousness."

I am not "grasping at straws." I am grasping though, at pearls, diamonds, gold.
God wants to dispense Himself into man to be lived out from within man.
To do so, FIRST He had to justify sinners through Christ's death on the behalf of sinners.

When we believe in the Son of God, the innermost human spirit is Divine Life because the Righteous One comes into our forgive, reconciled, and justified being. And the human spirit IS life because of righteousness.

" But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the [human] spirit is life because of righteousness. "

I know God now - because of righteousness.
I know Christ in ME now - because of righteousness.
God is no longer merely "up there" or "out there" or "far above somewhere" in a purely objective matter. Rather God has come into me. And His life acts as a powerful righteous living "law of the Spirit of life" spontaneously operating within - AS I learn more and more to set my mind on my spirit.

Since this is a life long lesson of learning a new way to live, we are reminded that "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." ( 2 Tim. 4:22)

You cannot get any more "authentic" then that. Don't be cheated by someone trying to rob you of experiencing of God by turning you away from New Testament books.
We can LIVE God. We MUST live God.

Put another way - God wants to live on the earth again, but this time within men and women who receive Jesus Christ - His redeeming death and His victorious resurrection and coming as "life giving Spirit"

"the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)

I haven't forgotten about your birth of Christ matter. I hope to get to it below.

quote:

Both were the subject. He went from discussing God's spirit to discussing the issue of Jesus. Romans 8 was in between Paul teaching that Jesus and the new Christian religion was superior to "the law" or the old Jewish religion.

Paul is teaching that Jesus Himself is a LAW. Jesus being imparted into man is "the law of the Spirit of life". It is Jesus living within which is more powerful than the law of sin and death.

In the previous chapter 7 there is a cry of condemnation - SELF condemnation -

"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death ? " .

He is in a terrible dilemma of defeat, weakness, hypocrisy, longing to be right with God but lacking the life power to do so. This is almost all of chapter 7. The law of sin and death drags him down even though his mind agrees with the law of God. In the end he cries out in self condemnation which goes along with the condemnation of God.

" Wretched man that I am! WHO ... will deliver me from the body of this death?

Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord !

Jesus Christ will deliver Him. Christ will deliver Him as explained in chapter 8. Christ will be a stronger law; a more powerful law; a higher law - "the law of the Spirit of life ... in Christ Jesus." .

Because Christ is liberating from WITHIN Paul now rejoices and teaches the Christian to do so -

"There is now NO CONDEMNATION to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death." (8:1,2)

Jesus living in me has freed me from "Oh WRETCHED MAN THAT I AM!"
Jesus living in me is stronger than my sinful nature.
I am learning to set my mind on my spirit where the Spirit of Jesus is; where the grace of the Lord is and where a higher more powerful LAW OF CHRIST'S LIFE dwells in me.

We have to ask the Lord to bring us into Christ Jesus - bring is into God Himself.
We should want to be "OF HIM"

" ... if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not OF HIM." (v.9b)

We're grasping not at straws LNR, but at rubies and diamonds. Don't you want to experience living by Jesus Christ ? Here's the way.

quote:

He was simply mentioning the Jesus Christ issue as an issue of God's current revelation.

Paul was truly pioneering deep into the experience of allowing Christ to live in him.
That is why God used Paul to write some 13 or 14 of the 27 New Testament books.
You're being cheated by people leading you to believe you can discard some of them.

quote:

Why is it that Romans doesn't have a single mention of the spermless incarnation? Romans 9:5 aside (since the translation is disputed), why didn't Paul mention the issue of Jesus being God.

I don't know ANYTHING about a "spermless incarnation". I said that no human father was involved.

How this happen, we do not know. But Jesus did not become a man by directly descending down from heaven. He was conceive miraculously by the Holy Spirit and stayed in the womb of Mary for nine months.

That Paul does not talk a lot about the birth in Romans I agree. He mentions Christ is out of the seed of David. Mary was related to David.

I think that my point was the Jesus is God because the indwelling Spirit of God is the indwelling of Christ. Once again, in Romans Christ is located by Paul at the right hand of God in heaven (8:34) and in those who receive Christ (vs. 9 -11)

The Spirit of God is The Spirit of Christ is Christ Himself.
This indwelling One Whom the believers have received is also the indwelling "Spirit of the one Who raised Jesus from the dead."

God the Father is said to have raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24,32; 3:15,26; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30; Romans 4:24;10:9) to mention a few verses.

quote:

Remember the Da Vinci Code obsession of fundamentalists?

I never saw the whole movie and never read the book.
I do study the Bible and the 27 New Testament books are a gold mine to me.

My beliefs about the birth of Jesus are from the Gospels and the prophecy. Especially Isaiah 9:6 says that the child born is the incarnation of the Mighty God and the son given is the incarnation of the Eternal Father.

The Mighty God is Jehovah - " ... rely on Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob to the mighty God." (Isaiah 10:21)

"The Mighty One, God Jehovah speaks and summons the earth ..." (Psalm 50:1)

" ... O great and mighty God, whose name is Jehovah" (Jer. 32:18)

So the child born is Jehovah the Mighty God. It is Wonderful.
And the Son given is the Eternal Father. It is Wonderful.

The Eternal Father is also Jehovah -

"You, Jehovah, are our Father; Our Redeemer from of old [or everlasting] is Your name. ( Isaiah 63:16)

"But now, Jehovah, You are our Father ..." (Isaiah 64:8a)

"For thus says the high and exalted One [God], Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy ..." (Isaiah 57:15a)

We do not teach Modalism. We do affirm that Father - Son - Holy Spirit are the Triune God. And He is three-one for dispensing Himself into man to be man's life and to become united with His saved people.

quote:

Show me anywhere Paul (and his 7 authentic letters of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Philemon are most important) mentioned the virgin birth?

All the epistles of Paul in the New Testament I take as the oracles of God and as authentic.

The virgin birth is not expounded on by Paul.
Perhaps Galatians 4:4 may be an exception, saying God sent forth His Son born of a woman.

But generally, I don't think Paul speaks about the same event in detail as is mentioned in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-56.

Do you have a verse from Paul contradicting the two accounts of the birth of Jesus mentioned in these two Gospels ?

He says Jesus is the man from heaven - " The first man is out of the earth, earthy, the second man is out of heaven." (1 Cor. 15:47)

quote:

The fact that jaywill is grasping at straws to defend the idea that Paul taught the incarnation should speak volumes to us.

It shows that he really has nothing to actually offer.


Your next post, I ask you to show Paul contradicting the story of the virgin birth.
And your next post, I ask you to mention some OTHER man Paul says was out of heaven.

And I can see why you have to fight against the book of Colossians, complaining that Paul didn't write it. That is because it says the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily.

Every letter of Paul does not have to mention exactly the same thing.
And in Romans 8 the Spirit of God is Christ Himself.

quote:

Paul talked a lot about Jesus and he talked a lot about God.

And when he says the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ you have to insist that that is not what the Apostle Paul wrote.

Now we also have Paul talk about "God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4) . And in the same authentic letter " our Savior God " ( 2:10) .

God our Father and Jesus Christ our Savior and our Savior God, he says.
Then again its "Jesus Christ our Savior" ( 3:6)

Jesus Christ our Savior is our Savior God.

quote:

Where is the incarnation? Why is it so hard to find?

It is not hard to find. It is only that every letter of Paul does not have to speak of exactly the same things. And the things you deny exist you do so by teaching that the Apostle Paul didn't write them.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2016 9:39 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 119 of 166 (777414)
01-30-2016 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by LamarkNewAge
01-29-2016 10:00 PM


Re: Why didn't Paul mention the Holy Spirit conception of a virgin.
quote:

That Da Vinci Code obsession saw a tidal wave of apologetics.

I haven't followed the dispute over this.
I gather my faith in order to experience Christ as Lord from the Bible rather than Hollywood. I don't know much about your movie.

quote:

Was the spermless conception of Mary the mother of Jesus an import from India after Jesus was born (or after he died)? Was the incarnation just an import of an important doctrine from India?

No. And once again, the term "spermless conception" I have never heard before in my life. The Luke account and the Matthew account are clear that a human father was not involved in the birth of Jesus.

If Paul did not write anything about Jesus' mother Mary during that birth, that does not cause me to doubt Matthew 1:18-25 or Luke 1:26-56. Luke was Paul's traveling companion and historian of the early church. There no hint that there was some kind of major schism about this matter.

And again, First Corinthians does say that Jesus was the man ... out of heaven.

"The first man [Adam] is out of the earth, earthy; the second man [Christ, the last Adam] is out of heaven."

It doesn't alarm me that Paul does not labor on the virgin Mary. His traveling companion Luke the medical physician wrote of the virgin birth of this "man out of heaven. (See Luke 1:26-56).

Interestingly Luke ALSO tells us that Mary temporarily seemed to forget this miraculous birth, when He was twelve years old and found in the Jerusalem temple. And His mother Mary erroneously referred to Joseph as His father. The youth Jesus reminded them that His Father was God.

" And they saw Him, they were astounded; and His mother said to Him, Child, why have You treated us like this? Behold, Your father and I, being greatly distressed, have been seeking You.

And He said to them, Why is it that you were seeking Me? Did you nor know that I must be in the things of My Father?

And they did not understand the word which He spoke to them." (Luke 2:48-50)

The "man ... out of heaven" had God as His Father not Joseph (other than a legal sense). Mary was his mother though.

quote:

Was Krishna, the 8th Avatar of Vishnu, becoming an eternal persona in his own right (separate from Vishnu, whom he was said to be an incarnation of), the inspiration for the incarnation, virgin birth, and trinity doctrine?

No. But it seems the wishful thinking of some people.

quote:

There are many possibilities.

You may notice that I have balanced my responses to speak of God objectively with the subjective experience of God, indwelling the believers in Christ. This does frustrate some people. They want only to talk about God as an objective something to believe is somewhere rather removed from their experience.

I have spoken much about the INDWELLING of God as "the Spirit of God" Who is "Christ" Himself in Romans 8.

The Trinity is afterall for man's experience. It is a mistake to think of the Trinity as only a mental doctrine for debate. Here in Romans the three-one God is for indwelling - to be "in you" for your enjoyment and participation in God.

" But if Christ is in you though the body is dead because of sin, the [human] spirit is life because of righteousness.

And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to you mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Rom. 8:10-11)

This IS about the Trinity. But it is mostly about participation and enjoyment of the Trinity. It is about a corporate and subjective experience of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit to be an INDWELLING One Who gives His life to us.

He CAME that we might have life and have it abundantly.

" The thief does not come except to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly. " (John 10:10)

He came that we might have life by giving Himself to us, to indwell us, that we may enjoy God as life. He became a "life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) this "man ... out of heaven."

quote:

Some possibilities are consistent with both the Hindu and Christian religions (and claims).

Can you show me something in Hindu sacred text which says that a man and God will come as a Divine "We" and make an abode with the believers in that man ?

" Jesus answered and said to him. If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

After your suspension, I ask that your next post to me will produce a parallel to this teaching from Hindu sacred text.

You can also show me something similar in Hinduism to this saying of Jesus.

"As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me." (John 6:57)

These verses are very emphatic. The way to get God into our very being is to "EAT" Jesus Christ. He lived because of God His Father and we can live by taking Him into us. He is so emphatic that He is the eternal God that He astounding drives the point home that His flesh and blood are food. And that food from heaven.

Where in Hindu text can you locate something like this?

"Jesus therefore said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you.

For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him.

As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me." (vs. 54 - 57)

I don't believe here that Jesus meant we literally eat His physical body and drink His physical blood. I do believe He is saying that we have to believe His incarnation as a man and receive Him as God come to us as a man.

This was God Himself in a man speaking - IE. I have come down as food. You have to eat my very incarnation.

quote:

But jaywill seems to be making the case that the incarnation was a late concept that Jesus and Paul knew nothing of.

No, jaywill didn't make that case. Paul saw no need to speak of the body of the mother of Jesus, Mary during the birth of Jesus. But his traveling companion, Luke the medical physician told us all about the virgin birth.

Possibly, Paul alluded to this in Galatians 4:4:

" But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a women, born under law." (4:4) .

But I wouldn't be to insistent about this meaning a virgin birth. God sending FORTH HIS SON who is "the man ... out of heaven" means to me God's incarnation as a man.

Luke alone was remaining with Paul near his martyrdom.

" Luke alone is with me... At my first defense no one was with me to support me, but all abandoned me. May it not be counted against them." (Second Timothy 4:11,16)

I get the impression that the physician Luke closely worked with Paul. If they had had a major disagreement about the origin of Jesus Christ, I don't think they would have been so close co-workers.

Furthermore, when Luke says on the side that Mary kept all these things in her heart, I think this is a window into how Luke consulted eyewitnesses about the origin of Jesus Christ.

" And all those who heard marveled at the things spoken to them by the angel.

But Mary kept all these things and pndered them in her heart." (Luke 2:18,19)

Luke did journalistic research on all the details of the earthly ministry of Jesus. Possibly Mary was one of his eyewitness sources for the birth of Jesus.

" Insomuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us. Even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,

It seemed food to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus,

So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)

My opinion is that in his investigative research Mary told him of her experiences and the of the things which she had treasured up in her heart and in her memory about Jesus.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2016 10:00 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 120 of 166 (777422)
01-30-2016 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by NoNukes
01-30-2016 6:25 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
. I'll take that as an admission that your first post was wrong and that you are just trying to save another bad argument.

You can take it however you need to.
I take it as me tending to agree with the New Testament about Abraham and you tending towards disagreeing with it.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 01-30-2016 6:25 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 01-30-2016 10:38 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017