Are we divine ???

[brakelite]

@ScottA With regards the scripture, flesh and blood not inheriting heaven. If one wishes to, he could pull apart scripture to ridiculous lengths. The scripture says that in heaven there shall be no more death. Does that mean therefore that we shall have no hair or fingernails?

 

[bbyrd009]

Lots of assumptions have been made about things we can't even observe with the most powerful microscope all based on a few sentences taken out of context.

yes, including "Jesus is physically returning to save me again" imo

 

[bbyrd009]

There is absolutely no room for debate here.

Indeed, the spirit benefits the flesh.

the kingdom of heaven is within you, or beside you, in the flesh

 

[bbyrd009]

Now you miss-quote: "Absent from the body", is exactly what he says.

that is exactly what he does not say, wadr

What is known, I have told you, just as it is written.

absolutely no room for debate, right

And you have revealed nothing of what we shall be

omg, an actual follower lol. Anyone doing that is a -mancer, that is what -mancy means Scott

 

[bbyrd009]

Science's closest equivalent is statistical analysis, and it takes pains to clarify right up front that past performance is no guarantee of future expectations, in line with Scripture. Just imagine an "ordained pastor" trying to adhere to this Scriptural model

 

[ScottA]

That is not the answer you would like it to be...it is not saying that Jesus is Spirit. He is still flesh and blood, albeit infinitely. God gave Him to the human race. This was not a temporary gift to be taken back when it suited HIm. The Son is forever human. We also will forever be human. Resurrected as we are without sickness or handicap, and without the signs of age.

That is certainly the desire of the flesh - but God is spirit, and therefore none of that can be substantiated in the scripture.

And you are wrong...God did not give the Son to the human race...He sent the Son, that the world might be saved, that where they are, we might be also - not in the flesh, but in the kingdom of God which is only [temporarily] within the flesh ("for a short time"). And that is just one point.

 

[Dcopymope]

But, whether you believe that or not, your answer has you contradicting other scriptures that you cannot reconcile: "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", etc..

I don't have to reconcile anything, scripture does that for me. The "flesh and blood" being referred to is the mortal "flesh and blood" of the first Adam you inhabit now, not the "flesh and blood" of the second Adam that is made incorruptible like the body of Jesus Christ. Scripture is very clear on this.

You are not doing so well. Now you are contradicting the apostle Paul: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

It doesn't say all scripture is profitable for doctrine as it pertains to heaven though.

Now you miss-quote: "Absent from the body", is exactly what he says.
"God is spirit." Do you then deny that Jesus is God? Because, I do not.
What is known, I have told you, just as it is written.

Yes God is spirit, and God also has a body as Ezekiel plainly revealed his appearance as that of a man. I didn't "misquote" anything. I quoted the ENTIRE Scripture leading up to the statement "absent from the body" to get the context of what he actually meant. I'll boil it down for you even more. Whether you accept it or not isn't my problem because I already know you won't anyway. This is for others with eyes to see and ears to hear. By "absent from the body", Paul means absent from THIS earthly body or tabernacle you currently inhabit in place of the heavenly "tabernacle" or "building" God has prepared for you in heaven. He says he wants THIS corrupted body to be further clothed with the incorruptible body we are promised to receive to be in Gods presence in heaven, just like the body of Moses and Elijah was made incorruptible as Jesus Christ himself revealed.

Now you can sit here and be 'that believer' who have convinced themselves that they are so in tune with God, so "caught up in the spirit" that you know better than what is written in Gods word IN WHOLE or you can just admit that you have really revealed nothing but your own delusions and you don't know jack spit about heaven. I don't care one way or the other, its between you and God. There is only one thing we can say about spirit with absolute certainty based on what is written, that spirits have bodies. If you drop dead tomorrow and I see your bones are still buried six feet under three days later, then your spirit didn't go anywhere, certainly not heaven. Anything beyond this should be rebuked as myth, as Paul commanded. There are no disembodied spirits in heaven or in the presence of God.

(2 Timothy 4:1-5) "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; {2} Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. {3} For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; {4} And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. {5} But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

 

[ScottA]

The reason flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God is because it is mortal. But not just the body...the entire person. It was't just the body of Adam that sinned, it was the whole person. Thus the whole person is subject to death. And it must be the whole person that is resurrected. However, at the resurrection on the last day the dead in Christ rise (don't come down from heaven) and those who are alive change. The mortal puts on immortality, this corruption puts on incorruption. Lazarus did not come down from heaven to reappear in his burial clothes.
If it were me, I would complain rather bitterly at having to leave heaven and come back to earth. That would not be a case for rejoicing.

However, the mortal putting on immortality explanation is not incorrect, but incomplete. It does not elaborate the fact that if we are born again of the spirit of God, we are that completely new creation residing in the world in earthen vessels (flesh and blood) which cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

So, it is important not to confuse what is true of the new body and all that is said of it, with the old body of flesh and blood and all that is said of it. The two do not share in the same fate. This is also the distinction between the resurrection and the ascension - one is of the flesh body and the other is of the spirit body, which is all that Christ has committed to the Father. The new robes of Christ are of the spirit.

 

[ScottA]

@ScottA With regards the scripture, flesh and blood not inheriting heaven. If one wishes to, he could pull apart scripture to ridiculous lengths. The scripture says that in heaven there shall be no more death. Does that mean therefore that we shall have no hair or fingernails?

You are using worldly terms in an attempt to explain a heavenly reality - which do not apply. That which is in the world is only a manifestation limited to the fallen nature, of what is on high and eternal. Light has no communion with this darkness - there is no actual correlation except by "image."

 

[ScottA]

By "absent from the body", Paul means absent from THIS earthly body or tabernacle you currently inhabit in place of the heavenly "tabernacle" or "building" God has prepared for you in heaven. He says he wants THIS corrupted body to be further clothed with the incorruptible body we are promised to receive to be in Gods presence in heaven, just like the body of Moses and Elijah was made incorruptible as Jesus Christ himself revealed.

This is the point in which you error.

You have stated that Jesus had this same incorruptible body after His resurrection, that you believe is what Ezekiel and others have foretold of heaven, but this is incorrect. The body of Christ that was resurrected was still His earthly body...for He said, "The world sees me know more." Yet it is written by the account of many witnesses that He was seen in the world after His resurrection. Which does not make Him a liar, but makes you and literally, most of Christendom, mistaken. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Therefore, the only reconciliation of all that is written, precept upon precept, is that He was resurrected in the flesh, but ascended in the spirit. Which is what is meant by Him "entering into the glory of the Father," whom is [only] "spirit."

 

[jaybird]

We are called God’s own people….

(1Pe 2:9) But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (ESV)

(1Pe 2:9) But you are his chosen people, the King's priests. You are a holy nation, people who belong to God. He chose you to tell about the wonderful things he has done. He brought you out of the darkness of sin into his wonderful light.(ERV)


Peter says that believers use the divine nature of God - his power and knowledge.

(2Pe 1:3) His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,

(2Pe 1:4) by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. (ALL ESV)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So, does that make us divine from rebirth?

On earth, did not Jesus ‘use’ the same divinity of his Father from birth?

If so, then are we not ‘as’ divine as Jesus, when he was born?

If not, they do we have and use a different spirit than Christ?

Or is it the same one that Jesus used yesterday and today – that of the Father’s spirit?

What say you?

Bless you,

APAK

Jesus was the perfect example so if we follow that example we should be just as divine as Jesus.

 

[APAK]

Jesus was the perfect example so if we follow that example we should be just as divine as Jesus.

jaybird:

Simple, a little general ("..follow that example..."?), although understood as a one liner. I agree...we have at least his spirit given by our Father. Our Father is 'working on us' to perfection 'as' Christ..and his divinity or nature.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[jaybird]

jaybird:

Simple, a little general ("..follow that example..."?), although understood as a one liner. I agree...we have at least his spirit given by our Father. Our Father is 'working on us' to perfection 'as' Christ..and his divinity or nature.

Bless you,

APAK

i agree its very simple, so simple almost no one can see it. why would the Father send an example for us to follow when He is not one of us therefore making it impossible to follow Him.

 

[Dcopymope]

This is the point in which you error.

You have stated that Jesus had this same incorruptible body after His resurrection, that you believe is what Ezekiel and others have foretold of heaven, but this is incorrect. The body of Christ that was resurrected was still His earthly body...for He said, "The world sees me know more." Yet it is written by the account of many witnesses that He was seen in the world after His resurrection. Which does not make Him a liar, but makes you and literally, most of Christendom, mistaken. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Therefore, the only reconciliation of all that is written, precept upon precept, is that He was resurrected in the flesh, but ascended in the spirit. Which is what is meant by Him "entering into the glory of the Father," whom is [only] "spirit."

..........Here we have a shining example of how cults are formed. Just take a small part of a verse here or there and form an entire doctrine out of it. To such cults, most of Christianity is "mistaken". Here is the scripture in question.

(John 14:15-21) "¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments. {16} And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; {17} Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. {18} I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. {19} Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. {20} At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. {21} He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

Translation: I will not leave you comfortless for I will come to you in the form of the holy spirit. Soon the world will no longer see me (because he is going to die), but you will see me again. Because I rose again, you shall also live. And on that day, you will know that me and my Father are one.

You quote "the world seeth him no more" as if that somehow disproves his bodily ascension into heaven. Yes, his apostles certainly witnessed him in the flesh three days later and witnessed his bodily ascension into heaven. They were the only ones to see him, the world however never set eyes on him again after his crucifixion, and never will see him again until his second coming. He was resurrected in the flesh, and clearly ascended in the flesh.

(Acts 1:7-11) "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. {8} But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. {9} And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. {10} And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; {11} Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

..........At what point does it ever state "he was resurrected in the flesh, but ascended in the spirit."? You are adding words onto the scripture which is exactly the thing Jesus warned against. I'd be very careful if I were you, because I don't know about you, but I fear the Lord, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The two 'men' in white states he shall return from heaven in the exact same body he ascended with. In other words, there is no change of state between the resurrected form and the form he presently inhabits in heaven.

You quote "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak", well guess what Scott, the spirit is also weak. The word "willing" doesn't mean "impenetrable", or "impervious" to sin, or "divine", or whatever else people want to pull out of thin air. Look at Satan, that pathetic excuse of a spirit being who was made "perfect" yet still fell into temptation. The flesh may be weak, but God isn't a weakling. That verse was also taken completely out of context anyway because it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. God physically interacted with Adam and Eve before they fell into temptation, two fleshly beings. He breathed into their nostrils, removed one of Adams ribs, closed his wound, formed Eve out of his bone and physically presented her to Adam along with the animals. Quoting "the flesh is weak" proves nothing, but of course your own delusions...........yet again.

 

[bbyrd009]

The two 'men' in white states he shall return from heaven in the exact same body he ascended with.

hmm. i agree with your premise, but i don't think that is what that v is trying to impart, exactly. Ok, or at all

"you will see Him come down the same way you saw Him go up"
seems to be the relevant concept there,
yet we read it differently, huh, like
"i will see Him come down the same way they saw Him go up"

 

[OzSpen]

Many on these forums, with no initials after their name, seem to know the Greek language. (Koine).
The problem is with the aorist tense and using it to prove eternal security.
IOW, they believed once in the past and it carries through into the future because the aorist tense was used.

I know nothing of old, common Greek, but I know that the aorist tense is not easy to understand and we with no knowledge of Greek should leave it alone.

I read the link to your article. It explains exactly the situation nowadays in the remarks made by Jim Parker.
We have the silliest teachings , as can be seen on YouTube , and they are accepted. The latest one I know of is that salvation and discipleship are totally divided. Two different goals to achieve. When I asked the poster the lag time between the two, the reply was maybe years or maybe never!

So, iow, we could be saved and never become a disciple,,,disciple means follower!
How could one believe and not be a follower when that's what the word believe means!

I find this shocking.
2 Timothy 4:3

GG,

In my view, that's exactly where we are in the church and especially with preachers - 2 Tim 4:3.

This may be too technical for many in explaining the Greek tenses. Please feed back what you don't understand. This is from my article, Consequences of screwing up meanings of New Testament Greek tenses.

Before I begin with the details, I need to mention the grammar known as the 'indicative mood'.

The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer's or speaker's perspective. Even if the writer is lying, he may state the action as if it is a fact, and thus the

verb would be in the indicative mood. It may be action occurring in past, present, or future time. This 'statement of fact' can even be made with a negative adverb modifying the verb (source).

In Greek (except for the future tense), the tenses refer primarily to the kind of action (continuous, completed with continuing results, and simple occurrence) rather than the time of action (as with English). Therefore, the present tense in Greek is not equivalent to the present tense in English. The Greek present tense refers to continual or continuous action. The time factor is of minor importance.

NT Greek grammarians, Dana & Mantey, stated this important difference when compared with English tenses:

The distinctive function of the verb is to express action. Action as presented in the expression of a verbal idea involves two elements, time of action and kind of action. That is, the action may be described as occurring at a certain time, and must be described, if intelligible, as performed in a certain manner. Tense deals with these two aspects of verbal expression, kind of action being the chief idea involved, for time is but a minor consideration in the Greek tenses…. The important element of tense in Greek is kind of action (Dana & Mantey 1955:177, 178 emphasis in original).?

What is the meaning of the present tense in Greek? The aorist tense may be represented by a dot (•). It happened. The present tense by a line (_______________), and the perfect tense by a combination of the two (•_______________) [Dana & Mantey 1955:179].

The fundamental significance of the present tense is the idea of progress. It is the linear tense. This is not, however, its exclusive significance. It is a mistake to suppose “that the durative meaning monopolises the present stem” (M. 119). Since there is no aorist tense for present time, the present tense, as used in the indicative [mood], must do service for both linear and punctiliar action. But it is to be borne in mind that the idea of present time is secondary in force of the tense. The time element belongs to the indicative [mood], where the present tense is really the “imperfect of present time,” while what we know as the imperfect tense is the “imperfect of past time.” The progressive [i.e. continual/repeated action] force of the present tense should always be considered as primary, especially with reference to the potential moods, which in the nature of the case do not need any “present punctiliar” tense (Dana & Mantey 1955:181, emphasis in original).

You stated:

The problem is with the aorist tense and using it to prove eternal security.
IOW, they believed once in the past and it carries through into the future because the aorist tense was used.​

The aorist tense has the meaning of point action (generally); something happened. How do these people get on with verses like John 5:24 and the present tense of continuous action. This also is the case with John 3:16,

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (ESV).
​

What's the Greek tense of 'believes' and 'have'? Are they both aorist mean, 'whoever believes once ... should not perish but have eternal life'?

Oz

Works consulted

Dana, H E & Mantey, J R 1927/1955, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto, Canada: The Macmillan Company.

 

[bbyrd009]

If it were me, I would complain rather bitterly at having to leave heaven and come back to earth. That would not be a case for rejoicing.

for that i would consider Esau, denying his birthright

 

[bbyrd009]

We should stop assuming that we know what heaven is, or what "spirit" is, and just admit that we really don't know jack spit about it.

ha, but even a dog knows to hide from a master who walks in displaying an evil spirit i guess


imo it might be better to reflect upon spirits as things that we create all of the time

 

[ScottA]

..........Here we have a shining example of how cults are formed. Just take a small part of a verse here or there and form an entire doctrine out of it. To such cults, most of Christianity is "mistaken". Here is the scripture in question.

Translation: I will not leave you comfortless for I will come to you in the form of the holy spirit. Soon the world will no longer see me (because he is going to die), but you will see me again. Because I rose again, you shall also live. And on that day, you will know that me and my Father are one.

You quote "the world seeth him no more" as if that somehow disproves his bodily ascension into heaven. Yes, his apostles certainly witnessed him in the flesh three days later and witnessed his bodily ascension into heaven. They were the only ones to see him, the world however never set eyes on him again after his crucifixion, and never will see him again until his second coming. He was resurrected in the flesh, and clearly ascended in the flesh.

..........At what point does it ever state "he was resurrected in the flesh, but ascended in the spirit."? You are adding words onto the scripture which is exactly the thing Jesus warned against. I'd be very careful if I were you, because I don't know about you, but I fear the Lord, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The two 'men' in white states he shall return from heaven in the exact same body he ascended with. In other words, there is no change of state between the resurrected form and the form he presently inhabits in heaven.

You quote "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak", well guess what Scott, the spirit is also weak. The word "willing" doesn't mean "impenetrable", or "impervious" to sin, or "divine", or whatever else people want to pull out of thin air. Look at Satan, that pathetic excuse of a spirit being who was made "perfect" yet still fell into temptation. The flesh may be weak, but God isn't a weakling. That verse was also taken completely out of context anyway because it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. God physically interacted with Adam and Eve before they fell into temptation, two fleshly beings. He breathed into their nostrils, removed one of Adams ribs, closed his wound, formed Eve out of his bone and physically presented her to Adam along with the animals. Quoting "the flesh is weak" proves nothing, but of course your own delusions...........yet again.

You accuse me of picking out a small part of a verse, and then you do the same thing - yet, so did Jesus do likewise. But you call it wrong because of your own "translation."

That is just you desperately defending the flesh, while I am desperately defending the spirit. How is it that you say you fear the Lord, when you do not even "see Him as He is?" No, what it is that you fear, is leaving behind the Egypt of your flesh.

You have completely refused to include the fact that "God is spirit", and that Jesus went "to" and is "One" with the Father, and has entered into "the glory of the Father", and that if we are in Him and He in us, we will also do likewise. This is the "like manner" (of the Father) that the men in white were referring to - which is the glory and perfection of God. For, "now the Lord is the Spirit."

 

[bbyrd009]

That which is in the world is only a manifestation limited to the fallen nature, of what is on high and eternal.

...and to be manifested in the earth, "on earth as it is in heaven."