GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

Butch5, you're being misled somewhere as to the reality of human spirits or souls. The Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. (Genesis 2:7)

Ecclesiastes 12:7 tells us that our flesh, the dust as it were, returns to the earth as it was and our spirit returns to our God who gave it to us.

Hi Buster,

I'm not being misled, I've studied this subject in great depth and for quite some time now. What I find when I look at the Scriptures "without" preconceptions is that man is not a spirit, but rather is a physical being. As I pointed out there is nothing in Scripture that states that man is a spirit. Scripture says that he is a  being with God's breath/spirit in him. I've also looked at where the idea that man is a spirit comes from and how it entered into Christianity. The idea actually has its root in Platonism.

I've posted passages showing both the creation and resurrection of man and both passage speak of God putting "His" spirit in the man.

So what's your point here? Plato means nothing to this discussion because the Hebrew scriptures preceded Plato's paganism by generations.

Genesis informs that we are created of the dust of the earth since Adam. We are flesh. So no, we're not spirits walking the earth as is obvious. However, we have a soul , a spirit, and of course those are bestowed by God.  We are souls encased in flesh.

ETA because I did some research to support my point:
 "The teaching of the Hebrew patriarchs and prophets was independent of any system of philosophy, and it is curious that Greek philosophy arose just after the Hebrew prophets closed their oracles, Malachi being contemporary with Socrates."
Source:Smith's Bible Dictionary, London: J. Murray, 1863; Revised Edition:Compiled from Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible "Epicureans," pg. 95

**Plato was a student of Socrates**

Hi Buster,

I submit that we not souls encased in flesh, but rather are souls consisting of flesh and the spirit of God. My point about Plato is that he is much of the source of this idea that man is a spirit that ascends to the heavens when he dies.

I can see where you'd arrive at that idea. It's interesting because the source I posted about the Hebrew patriarchs teachings being independent of any system of philosophy appears to be contradicted by the Jewish Encyclopedia entry I just found:
LINK(Sic)... "Only through the contact of the Jews with Persian and Greek thought did the idea of a disembodied soul, having its own individuality, take root in Judaism and find its expression in the later Biblical books, as, for instance, in the following passages: "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord"  "

And then there is the Jewish History Time Line Linked HERE

That's what I was getting at. If we don't approach the Scriptures already having the idea that man is a spirit, we can see that it's not stated in Scripture. However, the concept is so prevalent today that many just believe it is so. Gen 2 tells us that God created the man from the dust of the earth. We can see that a living soul consists of the physically created man and the breath of God.

Num 16:22  And they fell on their faces and said, "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the congregation?"

Num 27:15  Moses spoke to the LORD, saying,
Num 27:16  "Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation

Zec 12:1  The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him:

Ecc 12:7  and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Clearly here and in other references to the spirit of man, God is not speaking about the Holy Spirit.

Are you claiming then that the Holy Spirit isn't referred to in the Old Testament?
Theology Forum / Re: Once saved, Always saved..right?
« Last post by LexKnight on Yesterday at 12:32:24 PM »
Theology Forum / Re: Original Sin and the Promised Redeemer
« Last post by LexKnight on Yesterday at 12:30:55 PM »
Well, who ate of the fruit first? If Eve did, her eyes would have been opened and she would have had to have deceived Adam into doing the same...

I brought this up before, but as crow pointed out, unless their eyes were only opened after Adam ate it. Think about that, they both ate of it, but it was only after Adam ate it that their eyes were opened and they perceived their nakedness. So who here really has the more guilt?
Theology Forum / Re: Original Sin and the Promised Redeemer
« Last post by crowcamp on Yesterday at 12:23:46 PM »
Well, who ate of the fruit first? If Eve did, her eyes would have been opened and she would have had to have deceived Adam into doing the same...
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked;-Gen. 3 : 6-7

Interesting the wording here. "and pleasing to the eye", before she had eaten. "Then the eyes of both of them were opened," after Adam had eaten.

Theology Forum / Re: Original Sin and the Promised Redeemer
« Last post by Jd34 on Yesterday at 12:16:37 PM »
Well, who ate of the fruit first? If Eve did, her eyes would have been opened and she would have had to have deceived Adam into doing the same...

Theology Forum / Once saved, Always saved..right?
« Last post by Jd34 on Yesterday at 12:08:53 PM »
If not, you wasn't saved to begin with.

How many times have you all heard that?

Any thoughts?
[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.

Will these people go to hell, who will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables?
General Discussion Forum / Re: My heart is broken.
« Last post by Kevin397 on Yesterday at 11:46:20 AM »
Ha ha, it's not a big deal. You're forgiven. :)
Theology Forum / Re: Grace Alone Cannot Save You - Wake up, people
« Last post by chosenone on Yesterday at 11:45:47 AM »
Almost all Christians believe that they will gomto heaven by believing in Jesus that he loves us and died on the cross to wash away our sins....this is partially true but not a complete information. Almost everybody will go to hell...including very most of Christians. You have to seek Jesus, matain spiritual relationship with him and follow him and do his will everyday every moment. This includes repentance. You practice sins you will go to hell for that too. Don't get stay brainwashed by Satan and end up in hell...don't wait till that happens to you cause it will be too late to turn back then. Wake up.


by your recipe we are all doomed...  grace is God's answer for what we can not do for ourself...
grace is required but there is much more...  We are doomed by default.


Grace and grace alone. If we do "much more" , that much more has been set in motion by Grace. "By their fruits they are known"..... Fruit that is produced directly from the tree of Grace, not fruit that grows separately on it's own.
Fruits don't come from the tree of grace you have to bear good fruit in order to get saved. Jesus doesn't do all the work for you while you just sit around and expect to get...you have to do good works. Jesus says if you love him deny yourself, pick up the cross and follow him. This takes huge dedication cause you will need to sell your life, your soul for him. You have to give up everything for him. I have the recipe how to get saved, you interested?


We are already saved but thanks anyway. ::shrug::

So you dont believe that The death of Jesus was enough to save us?
Theology Forum / Re: The Atonement in Christ: Its Purpose
« Last post by SwordMaster on Yesterday at 11:45:09 AM »

I beg to differ, Thad. The atonement has nothing to do with the resurrection, they are two separate events. Granted, Christ could not rise from the dead without first dying, but the atonement and the resurrection are two different subjects. The meet in the middle, but it has no bearing upon the OP.

Also, the elements of the atonement in Christ are the righteousness and holiness of Christ imputed to the believer, salvation from sin, which all three lead to justification, redemption, and reconciliation. Six elements in the atonement in Christ that were never present in the atonement under Mosaic Law.

It may be separate in your theology, however it is never separated in scripture. The atonement is one event, that accomplishes one task which is to defeat death, sin and the devil. Both death and sin are works of the devil.  The resurrection is actually primary since nothing happens without the resurrection. All of I Cor spells that out very clearly.

Also, the justification, or redemption as well as reconciliation of a believer through faith is only available it the atonement is completed between Christ and God. Christ first needed to justify, make right the world, redeem the world, reconcile the world back to God which is what Rom 3:24 and II Cor 5:18-19 is stating so clearly. That is all accomplished by the resurrection which authenticates the part you are stressing, namely the question of sin.

We will need to agree to disagree here since this is an essential part of scripture, of who and what Christ accomplished. It has been the foundational reason for Christianity. It has been integral to historical Christianity. The Incarnation and resurrection has always been understood this way from the beginning. The Incarnation concept went through three Ecumenical Councils where false teachings tried to change aspects of its meaning.

Agreed...the incarnation...the atoning for sin upon the cross...the resurrection...all important features of the new covenant. However, again, the OP was only centering upon the reason for the atonement...not the incarnation or resurrection. Again, they are all important...just as a carborator, clutch, and sterring wheel in a vehicle are all important - but they all have different purposes which are both separate from one another, and yet come together as a whole in order for the plan to work.


Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10