God "spiritualizes" EVERYTHING.

[charity]

God is spirit. He is in the process of spiritualizing everything. Why then, is "spiritualizing" a bad thing for so many would-be christians?

Hello @ScottA,

It depends on what you mean by 'spiritualizing': to me it means to give a spiritual meaning to something; or to understand in a spiritual sense. When used as a means of interpreting Scripture, it can be damaging to the sense intended by the Holy Spirit.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Windmillcharge]

You are talking about doing good in the world, which we are indeed instructed to do. That is not the point I am making or addressing. That is all secondary to first seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness. God is spirit. So...if we are to put him first, it is not physical, not flesh, but spiritual.

And many have that so backward they have come to believe in "glorified fleshly bodies", the old earth being saved from eternal fire from God, and such. It's nonsense.

What we believe is seen in how it works out in our lives.

You could be deluded into thinking your spiritual practises is making you close to God, while your physical lack of action actual shows that you are far from God due to the lack of care and practical help given.

The most heavenly minded are of the most earthly use.

 

[marks]

That is scriptural debauchery.

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

But thanks for stepping into the light to be counted.

I think you are the one who is being counted. FWIW

 

[ScottA]

You've been attacked for saying God is Spirit? Where?

Still your op is quite vague bro. I don't see where your case has been made clearly or where your opponents have been described concisely.

Also the term "attacked" is over-used in forums imo.

Must I repeat that "would-be christians" speak against the Spirit, when God is spirit?

Where? Here. Everyday. Search the word "spiritualize."

We are talking about the acts of those who speak against God. Do you not know, that the end for such is to be "slain?" Yes, "attack" is most appropriate.

Each offender has made their own case. I have not been vague, but concise, sharp, and yet kind.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Must I repeat that "would-be christians" speak against the Spirit, when God is spirit?

Where? Here. Everyday. Search the word "spiritualize."

We are talking about the acts of those who speak against God. Do you not know, that the end for such is to be "slain?" Yes, "attack" is most appropriate.

Each offender has made their own case. I have not been vague, but concise, sharp, and yet kind.

OK, but you've failed to show how you've been attacked. Sorry bro, but all you are saying is quite vague. Of course speaking against God is wrong, but that's a given. You've also pronounced the just judgment upon it. These are all given facts, not proven tangible scenarios against you.

Yet with all this you've still failed to show where this applies to you being attacked for saying God is Spirit.

Nothing you've said substantiates your assertion.

 

[ScottA]

Hello @ScottA,

It depends on what you mean by 'spiritualizing': to me it means to give a spiritual meaning to something; or to understand in a spiritual sense. When used as a means of interpreting Scripture, it can be damaging to the sense intended by the Holy Spirit.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Thank you.

Nonetheless, those who honor God and the Holy Spirit should not be using the word to criticize against the Spi

Hello @ScottA,

It depends on what you mean by 'spiritualizing': to me it means to give a spiritual meaning to something; or to understand in a spiritual sense. When used as a means of interpreting Scripture, it can be damaging to the sense intended by the Holy Spirit.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

The word "spiritualize" is like the word "sacrifice." It is not the word that is bad, it is taking it up against God in His own house, that is bad.

 

[ScottA]

What we believe is seen in how it works out in our lives.

You could be deluded into thinking your spiritual practises is making you close to God, while your physical lack of action actual shows that you are far from God due to the lack of care and practical help given.

The most heavenly minded are of the most earthly use.

If we have our priorities straight, we put God first and do his will wherever he has us. Which does not include dis'ing the Holy Spirit and the very nature and make up of God.

 

[ScottA]

I think you are the one who is being counted. FWIW

We all are.

 

[ScottA]

OK, but you've failed to show how you've been attacked. Sorry bro, but all you are saying is quite vague. Of course speaking against God is wrong, but that's a given. You've also pronounced the just judgment upon it. These are all given facts, not proven tangible scenarios against you.

Yet with all this you've still failed to show where this applies to you being attacked for saying God is Spirit.

Nothing you've said substantiates your assertion.

How is it that you have not seen the elephant in the room?

Even if you have just come into the discussion, these few pages are enough. But I am not stating my defense, this is not about me. This is not a trial. This a witness, a testimony, and a warning. There are those within the church who are speaking against the more perfect spiritual essence of God, and against the will and promise of Christ to lead us into all truth by the Holy Spirit. The spirit of anti-Christ is among us.

 

[Enoch111]

Sorry bro, but all you are saying is quite vague.

That is Scott's M.O. The more vague things are the more *spiritual* they become. Until they evaporate.

 

[ScottA]

That is Scott's M.O. The more vague things are the more *spiritual* they become. Until they evaporate.

Cool - thanks for the compliment!

 

[Preacher4Truth]

How is it that you have not seen the elephant in the room?

Even if you have just come into the discussion, these few pages are enough. But I am not stating my defense, this is not about me. This is not a trial. This a witness, a testimony, and a warning. There are those within the church who are speaking against the more perfect spiritual essence of God, and against the will and promise of Christ to lead us into all truth by the Holy Spirit. The spirit of anti-Christ is among us.

You've made a few true statements mixed in with muddled assertions. Overall your OP is still vague and unclear bro.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Do we need to review the v again? The world is not mentioned in there at all, and neither is the Spirit

Matthew 5:19 Lexicon: "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

New International Version
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

New Living Translation
So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

English Standard Version
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Berean Study Bible
So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Berean Literal Bible
Whoever then shall break one of the least of these commandments and shall teach others the same, he will be called least in the kingdom of the

You said “and neither is the Spirit.” Mentioned.

“...in the kingdom of heaven.” is Spirit??

You said you don’t teach others to break the law of God. I’m genuinely interested in knowing how you see this because you speak of Spirit and in another thread how raising the dead is Spiritual and plucking out an eye...are you saying we then keep the law (commands) of God by flesh?

 

[bbyrd009]

You said “and neither is the Spirit.” Mentioned.

“...in the kingdom of heaven.” is Spirit??

ok sure, but that is forcing a change of Object in the verse, don't you think? "whoever" seems to pretty firmly be the object there? I mean don't get me wrong I still get fooled, and I'm keeping an open mind here, but I sure don't see how "called least in the kingdom" can possibly be better than "called great in the kingdom" in that context?

You said you don’t teach others to break the law of God. I’m genuinely interested in knowing how you see this because you speak of Spirit and in another thread how raising the dead is Spiritual and plucking out an eye...are you saying we then keep the law (commands) of God by flesh?

well we are trained that "flesh" (and even "natural") is "bad," but imo we forget that "flesh" in the Bible means "worldly thinking" if you will right, and "natural" can be used the same way, to mean "un-natural." Not natural in the way a little kid is natural iow imo.

So one might keep the law by "flesh," sure; that guy would call the cops when someone stole his shirt, and most Christians would hardly condemn that behavior I guess right. And then they would immediately come here and tell us how they are not "under the law," yes? Prolly even get patted on the back and commiserated with over their ordeal?

So the def of "flesh" is deliberately confused imo, so that flesh and blood cannot inherit cannot be understood by the wise, and life more abundantly and today can be substituted with Death More Abundantly and Tomorrow, bc after all we're pretty much all Looking Up and Waiting for the Spirit today, right, the omnipresent Spirit is like Somewhere Else at the moment, Anywhere But Here I guess lol.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Death More Abundantly and Tomorrow,

What is least in the Kingdom of Heaven if flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom? Not a trick question... really don’t know.

 

[bbyrd009]

What is least in the Kingdom of Heaven if flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom? Not a trick question... really don’t know.

Well imo "flesh and blood does not inherit" is relying on a play on words, surely it is spirit that inherits, but spirit resides in flesh and blood after all, and the "you" in "the kingdom is within you" is flesh and blood, the life is (even) in the blood, I came that you might have life, more abundantly.

So "flesh and blood does not inherit" becomes a way to say "flesh and blood is all that can possibly inherit" in a way that hides wisdom from the wise, and allows them to keep defining Eternal as Immortal, imo

So iow I would not try to commingle two parabolic concepts in that way myself, at least without correctly defining the terms. Imo "what is least in the kingdom of heaven" has already been defined in that parable, and your "if" there cannot be made to make sense as a question, at least as it stands, bc "flesh cannot inherit" is dealing with a different concept anyway, namely that of succession or "inheriting" that Romans are so fond of

 

[ScottA]

You've made a few true statements mixed in with muddled assertions. Overall your OP is still vague and unclear bro.

An elephant called "Vague."

 

[CoreIssue]

Spiritual and spiritualizing are different.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit is spiritual but denying the physical resurrection is spiritualizing.

 

[ScottA]

Spiritual and spiritualizing are different.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit is spiritual but denying the physical resurrection is spiritualizing.

The fruit is evident. The word "spiritualizing" is not used in support of the Holy Spirit, but against. Which is the backlash of misunderstanding, ironically, because of would-be spiritual half-truths.

The example you gave of the physical resurrection, is the perfect example. And because you are suggesting things that are "different", this should not be too complex, although, thus far it has been.

The truth, according to what is written, is that the resurrection of Christ is "different" than His ascension. I for one would never argue against the fact of physical resurrection - this is evidence of Christ's power over death. But you make the same mistake as Martha, who knowing the scriptures assumed that there was one resurrection...which there indeed is, except one is by sight and the other in the spirit, and "different", just as the flesh and the spirit are different. The flesh profits nothing.

So, what had been held in belief for thousands of years, Christ elaborated upon...just as He also explained that we must also be born again of the spirit of God, which up until that time was not understood. Likewise, just as "in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive", they are "different", the one manifesting the flesh, and the Other the spirit. This we know, for Christ did not commend His flesh to the Father, but His spirit only. Thus, it was His birth and death on the cross which made Him "the Last Adam", and His ascension that makes Him "the First Fruits." But many like Martha who only know the former things of the flesh, saw only what they expected to see at His ascension: only what He was, rather than what He had become in glory. Those of the flesh then, holding to the flesh, consider the "like manner" of what was seen as He ascended as the flesh, while those of the spirit saw Him "as He is" according to 1 John 3:2.

What then shall we call the denial of the spiritual ascension of Christ, which spirit He commended to the Father before ascending to that same spiritual glory? "Flesh-a-lizing?" Heaven forbid!

Nonetheless, life and death has been set before us...and we must choose. Some choose the spirit and follow Christ, while some choose the flesh unto death, who's end is according to their works.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Well imo "flesh and blood does not inherit" is relying on a play on words, surely it is spirit that inherits, but spirit resides in flesh and blood after all, and the "you" in "the kingdom is within you" is flesh and blood, the life is (even) in the blood, I came that you might have life, more abundantly.

So "flesh and blood does not inherit" becomes a way to say "flesh and blood is all that can possibly inherit" in a way that hides wisdom from the wise, and allows them to keep defining Eternal as Immortal, imo

So iow I would not try to commingle two parabolic concepts in that way myself, at least without correctly defining the terms. Imo "what is least in the kingdom of heaven" has already been defined in that parable, and your "if" there cannot be made to make sense as a question, at least as it stands, bc "flesh cannot inherit" is dealing with a different concept anyway, namely that of succession or "inheriting" that Romans are so fond of

Don’t know but thank you for answering the question. Still not sure I see what you mean.