| Poster | Thread | Christinyou
Member
Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3710
Ca.
| | Re: | | What is this quickening? Does it have anything to do with the topic we are on?
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
1Cr 15:36 [Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
Eph 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
It seems quickening has something to do with being able to contain the Spirit of Christ and The Holy Spirit and God the Father, as this temple now is the Abode of All of The Godhead.
I don't mean an exchange of blood but a quickening for this temple to contain our new nature which is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory". How would this affect our falling "asleep in Christ Jesus" or "changed in the twinkling of and eye." No Blood? Possibly this has some effect on the topic we are in.
In Christ: Phillip
_________________
Phillip
|
|  2007/2/1 13:22 | Profile | MikeH
Member
Joined: 2006/9/21
Posts: 116
| | Re: | | Quote:
Ormly wrote:
I know that scripture but asked for your ideas about all this.... in context, of course.
Sorry, Ormly, I am being a bit slow. I can't really grasp the breadth of the question you want me to address. Perhaps you could present it in a different way. I am worried I could go off on a long discussion (I am, unfortunately, not known for my short pithy statements) which does not address your question properly.
Mike |
| | 2007/2/1 16:28 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
MikeH wrote:
Quote:
Ormly wrote:
I know that scripture but asked for your ideas about all this.... in context, of course.
Sorry, Ormly, I am being a bit slow. I can't really grasp the breadth of the question you want me to address. Perhaps you could present it in a different way. I am worried I could go off on a long discussion (I am, unfortunately, not known for my short pithy statements) which does not address your question properly.
Mike
Fair enough. Is man immortal or no? If he dies without the cross or with the cross will it have any bearing on his mortality? |
| | 2007/2/1 16:57 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
by Ormly on 2007/2/1 14:03:16
I'm not interested in what orthodox says/states if orthodox isn't getting it correct in sorting out the "dilemma" except as it injures others by their "etched in stone" conclusions, Remember, that's one of the reasons we have the reformed; that's why the inquisitions. Both doctrines use shoehorns to make scripture fit their beliefs..
Nor me, in absolute terms, but if we think we are more intelligent or more spiritual than these men of God who served their generation we do not have a teachable spirit.
Quote:
Indeed, however, one's perspective needs to be more than one in order to get the whole picture of that verse which embraces more than just the messianic prophecy thinking. Consider: David IS ACTUALLY speaking of himself, a man after God's own heart, revealing to God, also to us, why He, God, chose him to be through whom messiah would come. The foreknowledge of God that David also sees, we can plainly see if we rightly divide the scriptures. If we don't, we open ourself up to be content with a deadend. I don't enjoy deadends.
Nor me, although it is the tidying up of conclusions that leads to other kinds of dead ends. eg the doctrine of reprobation. We also need to understand that sometimes Davids words go beyond Davids personal experience eg Ps 22
Quote:
Quote:
As I do not think of Sin in terms of hereditary transmission it is not a problem for me.
You need to because thats how is was done. I believe you have admitted life [I think] to be in the blood. Why do suppose man could not offer his as a sacrifice and the blood of animals also could not satisfy the Holiness of God, even though it was innocent blood?
I think you mean to say that such is your view of events. I have not admitted life to be in the blood. The scripture plainly says so but then we have to understand what the scripture is teaching us in such cases. Here is a collection of verses which link life to blood; [color=0000ff]Gen. 9:4 (KJVS) But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Lev. 17:11 (KJVS) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Lev. 17:14 (KJVS) For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
Deut. 12:23 (KJVS) Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.
John 6:53 (KJVS) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
John 6:54 (KJVS) Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[/color] Do we really understand the New Testament verses to mean that Christs can only be received by drinking his blood? This is what Catholicism teaches, I know. The life is in the blood is not a biological statement but a shadowing truth. The blood is a symbol of life. Otherwise we move into the realm of the JWs and cannibals with their beliefs that life actually passes from one person to another in the blood. It was because the life of Christ would be visibly poured out in blood that the Old Testament prohibitions to blood were instituted. A man does not become a pig by eating black puddings (for overseas readers a North of England delicacy made of pigs blood, and a vital ingredient of a full English breakfast). The Bible nowhere, no far as I am aware, teaches that life can be transfered by means of blood.
Quote:
Congenital, as in it being "it can't be prevented", is the same for me as heritary. Either way we get it whether we ask for/like it or not.
con-genital, as in a con-genital medical condition is one that a person is born with which is exactly what con genital means in the original language. My dictionary defines congenital as dating from birth but not necessarily hereditary. The reason I dont use the term hereditary sin is because that immediately declares that the transmission of Adams sin is from parent to child. I do not believe the Bible expressly teaches this. The classic passage of Romans 5 uses a series of Aorist tenses which indicate single actions rather than process. This has been expressed in Youngs Literal Translation as [color=0000ff]because of this, even as through one man the sin [b]did[/b] enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death [b]did[/b] pass through, for that all [b]did[/b] sin; (Rom 5:12 YNG)[/color] This verse does not demand hereditary transmission. My understanding is that The Sin to which Adams transgression gave admission passed through immediately to the whole race. It is pointless to try to explain it in terms of genes and hereditary; we have not been given enough information. Unless we want to go with the idea of the actual physical body being sinful we have to be content to pursue a clinical definition no further. Surely The Sin is a thing of the spirit rather than the physical.
Quote:
Enter the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary. Enter "hypostasis".
But hypostasis is the perfect seamless union of God and man which resulted in the child being of man and of God, the son. To suggest that God supplied his spiritual life in physical blood as does Stever is monstrous. This would teach that God created physical divine blood or physical divine seed to fertilize Marys womb. This is going far beyond what has been revealed although many have tidied up the revelation. by making this conclusion.
Quote:
Quote:
'credited to her lineage' will not do in respect to the Aaronic priesthood. A man had to be a blood descendent of Aaron not an adoptee.
Not so as you are lead to believe:
(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
"The Lord has sworn
And WILL NOT CHANGE His mind,
'Thou art a priest FOREVER' ")Hebrews 7:21 (NASB)
The Aaronic priest were required to have both lineage and consecration. Some like Jeremiah may never have received consecration and never became priests. You could be a descendent of Levi without being a priest, but you could not be a priest without being a descendent of Levi.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2007/2/2 6:04 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
Quote:
by Ormly on 2007/2/1 14:03:16
I'm not interested in what orthodox says/states if orthodox isn't getting it correct in sorting out the "dilemma" except as it injures others by their "etched in stone" conclusions, Remember, that's one of the reasons we have the reformed; that's why the inquisitions. Both doctrines use shoehorns to make scripture fit their beliefs..
Nor me, in absolute terms, but if we think we are more intelligent or more spiritual than these men of God who served their generation we do not have a teachable spirit.
Oh?? Did insight stop with them?? Did revelational truth? Many of them had none.
Quote:
Indeed, however, one's perspective needs to be more than one in order to get the whole picture of that verse which embraces more than just the messianic prophecy thinking. Consider: David IS ACTUALLY speaking of himself, a man after God's own heart, revealing to God, also to us, why He, God, chose him to be through whom messiah would come. The foreknowledge of God that David also sees, we can plainly see if we rightly divide the scriptures. If we don't, we open ourself up to be content with a deadend. I don't enjoy deadends.
Quote:
Nor me, although it is the tidying up of conclusions that leads to other kinds of dead ends. eg the doctrine of reprobation. We also need to understand that sometimes Davids words go beyond Davids personal experience eg Ps 22.
Indeed and my comments do not violate that nor cause the snare for anyone.
Quote:
Quote:
As I do not think of Sin in terms of hereditary transmission it is not a problem for me.
You need to because thats how is was done. I believe you have admitted life [I think] to be in the blood. Why do suppose man could not offer his as a sacrifice and the blood of animals also could not satisfy the Holiness of God, even though it was innocent blood?
Quote:
I think you mean to say that such is your view of events. I have not admitted life to be in the blood. The scripture plainly says so but then we have to understand what the scripture is teaching us in such cases. Here is a collection of verses which link life to blood;
To the contrary, I mean to say more than that. However, lets review the scriptures once more:
[color=0000ff]Gen. 9:4 (KJVS) But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Lev. 17:11 (KJVS) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Lev. 17:14 (KJVS) For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
Deut. 12:23 (KJVS) Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.
John 6:53 (KJVS) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
John 6:54 (KJVS) Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Quote:
[/color] Do we really understand the New Testament verses to mean that Christs can only be received by drinking his blood? This is what Catholicism teaches, I know. The life is in the blood is not a biological statement but a shadowing truth.
Your inferred canibalism here, is a strawman. For this discussion, not worthy of comment. Lets move on.
Quote:
The blood is a symbol of life.
Your son is Doctor? I believe he would tell you otherwise. However, in this we are speaking of the Blood that is the only Blood acceptable for your's and my sin and sins, in fact it was shed for the sin of the whole world. It is type "P" for sure. "P" for pure-perfect, uncorrupted. That was not mere symbolism hanging the cross that day long ago. Having made that clear, we can see that same perfect cleansing Blood is imputed to us upon the new birth experience; indwelt in us to be recognized as a heart of flesh, replacing our old stony heart, incapable of union with the Father that He desires. In this we are a new creation. Again, no symbolism here. It is a restoration TO life; His Life more abundantly than the life we had with our stony heart.
Quote:
Otherwise we move into the realm of the JWs and cannibals with their beliefs that life actually passes from one person to another in the blood.
In Christ this so and must be for the scriptures to be true. His Blood cleanses me from all my sin. By faith, I believe that and it is more than symbolism, as you are forced to believe it to be. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
It was because the life of Christ would be visibly poured out in blood that the Old Testament prohibitions to blood were instituted.
Again, no. You are building your foundation on a crooked footing.
Quote:
A man does not become a pig by eating black puddings (for overseas readers a North of England delicacy made of pigs blood, and a vital ingredient of a full English breakfast). The Bible nowhere, no far as I am aware, teaches that life can be transfered by means of blood.
That's just another stawmen argument.
I can expound on all of this but suffice to say the verses you cite prove you wrong. Perhaps a little Spiritual eye salve is in order?
Quote:
Congenital, as in it being "it can't be prevented", is the same for me as heritary. Either way we get it whether we ask for/like it or not.
Quote:
con-genital, as in a con-genital medical condition is one that a person is born with which is exactly what con genital means in the original language. My dictionary defines congenital as dating from birth but not necessarily hereditary. The reason I dont use the term hereditary sin is because that immediately declares that the transmission of Adams sin is from parent to child. I do not believe the Bible expressly teaches this. The classic passage of Romans 5 uses a series of Aorist tenses which indicate single actions rather than process. This has been expressed in Youngs Literal Translation as
[color=0000ff]because of this, even as through one man the sin [b]did[/b] enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death [b]did[/b] pass through, for that all [b]did[/b] sin; (Rom 5:12 YNG)[/color]
Quote:
This verse does not demand hereditary transmission. My understanding is that The Sin to which Adams transgression gave admission passed through immediately to the whole race. It is pointless to try to explain it in terms of genes and hereditary; we have not been given enough information.
If you believe what you just stated, how else could it have happen except through the genes? How else can you conclude otherwise?
Quote:
Unless we want to go with the idea of the actual physical body being sinful
Body? Not the body, but the blood {watch this now} which will surely die because of the blood becoming corrupted. Bad blood means death. Surely, you know that.
Quote:
Enter the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary. Enter "hypostasis".
But hypostasis is the perfect seamless union of God and man which resulted in the child being of man and of God, the son.
Indeed, that is so.
Quote:
To suggest that God supplied his spiritual life in physical blood as does Stever is monstrous.
No it isn't, because that is what Jesus had to protect in Himself that Satan was after in Jesus' temptation. Had Jesus succumbed, as did Adam, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. Get my drift?
Quote:
This would teach that God created physical divine blood or physical divine seed to fertilize Marys womb.
He did, however it was not an act of creation; creation was finished on the sixth day. This act was of Himself, divine indeed. Jesus had sinless b
Blood of His Father. Will you deny that? If you can't then you must come to other conclusions than the ones you have established on the crooked footing.)).
Quote:
This is going far beyond what has been revealed although many have tidied up the revelation. by making this conclusion.
Revealed? by whom? to whom? All of that matters.
Quote:
'credited to her lineage' will not do in respect to the Aaronic priesthood. A man had to be a blood descendent of Aaron not an adoptee.
Blood decendant of Aaron? That's nonsense. Where you get that? Bloodline of David, to be sure. David was no priest. [101 stuff here, Ron] Aaron in many respects was type of Christ -- not the other way around as you suppose.
(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, "The Lord has sworn And WILL NOT CHANGE His mind,'Thou art a priest FOREVER' ")Hebrews 7:21 (NASB
Quote:
The Aaronic priest were required to have both lineage and consecration. Some like Jeremiah may never have received consecration and never became priests. You could be a descendent of Levi without being a priest, but you could not be a priest without being a descendent of Levi.
Believing this of Aaron is where you take you detour away from actuality to a deadend reality. Aaronic priesthood lineage and conscration, was through the tribe of Levi. Jesus came through the tribe of Juda. Juda also, was no priest. |
| | 2007/2/2 10:19 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
Oh?? Did insight stop with them?? Did revelational truth? Many of them had none.
You'll have read them all of course?
Quote:
I can expound on all of this but suffice to say the verses you cite prove you wrong. Perhaps a little Spiritual eye salve is in order?
If this is the level you want to work at, this is my last conversation with you on this forum.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2007/2/2 11:02 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
Quote:
Oh?? Did insight stop with them?? Did revelational truth? Many of them had none.
You'll have read them all of course?
Quote:
I can expound on all of this but suffice to say the verses you cite prove you wrong. Perhaps a little Spiritual eye salve is in order?
If this is the level you want to work at, this is my last conversation with you on this forum.
Where is the offence? Spiritual eye salve? Ok, how about just eye salve because you aren't reading correctly. How else is it to be put because it is 101 material that unbridled human reasoning is distorting? |
| | 2007/2/2 11:24 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
RobertW wrote:
Quote:
I have my own ideas on this but would like very much to read yours; i,e., bottom line, are we immortal or not? regardless of our salvation.
I think of an old line 'Dying isn't much of a living'. Living in hell for eternity is certainly not much of a life. It's hard to get our head aound the idea of eternal death. But it is eternal conscious existence seperated from God.
All peoples will exist for eternity somewhere. Death means separation. So in that sense all people are immortal. But in terms of putting off this body, I was trying to understand why we need to put off this body at all once we are saved. I'm thinking in terms of physical death for the lost and falling asleep in Christ for the saved.
Why the process of death and resurrection for we that are saved? Why the need to be 'changed'? What is it that is corruptable and corruption that must needs put on uncorruptable and incorruption? Dead flies spoil the ointment, but what has corrupted our bodies? Certainly all will live for eternity (if by living we mean existing [i]consciously[/i]).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever responds to RobertW:
Human beings, with our bodies of flesh and blood cannot inherit eternal life:
1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
When Christ resurrected from the dead, He resurrected in a new glorified resurrected body of flesh and bone, that will live for eternity. When He met His disciples in the upper room, He presented His new glorified body for inspection to them. The body looked like the old body, except now, in its glorified form, it consisted of FLESH AND BONE.It could also pass through walls at will.
Luke 24:36-39 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a SPIRT HATH NOT FLESH AND BONES, AS YE SEE ME HAVE.
Paul, in 1st Corinthians tells us more about our new bodies:
1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There
is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
(Read the whole context)
There are several Greek words used for "Spirit" in the New Testment.
When Christ said in Luke 24:39 that "a "spirit" hath NOT flesh and bones, he was referring to the word "pneuma" which actually equates to soul, to God, to Christ's spirit, and the Holy Spirit
Strong's Number: 4151
Transliterated: pneuma
Phonetic: pnyoo'-mah
Text: from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit: --ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare 5590.
When Paul the Apostle was referring to the word "spiritual" in 1 Cor 15:44 he was using a different word- "pneumatikos" that means something entirely different that "pneuma". It means supernatural, regenerate, religious, spiritual (not the natural, earthly mud balls that we are now- but a supernatural, regenerate, religious and spiritual person).
Strong's Number: 4152
Transliterated: pneumatikos
Phonetic: pnyoo-mat-ik-os'
Text: from 4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concretely), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious: --spiritual. Compare 5591.
Strong's Number: 5591
Transliterated: psuchikos
Phonetic: psoo-khee-kos'
Text: from 5590; sensitive, i.e. animate (in distinction on the one hand from 4152, which is the higher or renovated nature; and on the other from 5446, which is the lower or bestial nature): --natural, sensual..
The difference between the two words is tremendous. I often wonder about our new bodies of flesh and bone. The blood is of course missing. Do you think that our new life force could be the Holy Spirit flowing through the veins of each of us? A wonderful thought, but I have not been able to back it up by Scripture yet.
When will we get these new bodies? At the Rapture! The dead in Christ will receive their new resurrected bodies and rise first, while those of us still alive will receive our new Resurrected bodies, and forever we will be with the Lord. 1 Cor 15:51-58 tells us about this blessed event: 51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56. The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
However, the Bible is clear. All of those that die in Christ will be immediately in the presence of God, in Heaven, waiting for the rapture (To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord 2 Cor 5:8). The lost, on the other hand, go to a place called hell, waiting for the Great White Throne Judgment, at the end of time, and will be judged for their sin of unbelief, receive their new eternal bodies, and spend eternity in Hell, that was originally prepared for Satan and his fallen angels.
God bless,
Stever :-D
|
| | 2007/2/5 20:40 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
The difference between the two words is tremendous. I often wonder about our new bodies of flesh and bone. The blood is of course missing. Do you think that our new life force could be the Holy Spirit flowing through the veins of each of us? A wonderful thought, but I have not been able to back it up by Scripture yet.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What kind of resurrection body would that be with 'spirit' flowing through our veins?!?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2007/2/6 6:49 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
Quote:
The difference between the two words is tremendous. I often wonder about our new bodies of flesh and bone. The blood is of course missing. Do you think that our new life force could be the Holy Spirit flowing through the veins of each of us? A wonderful thought, but I have not been able to back it up by Scripture yet.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What kind of resurrection body would that be with 'spirit' flowing through our veins?!?
"Abundant LIFE" |
| | 2007/2/6 8:54 | |
|
