Our Soul

[Stranger]

IMO our soul goes back to the Most High where it came from, where the soul pre existed before we were born into this world.
there seems to be many taking a second look at the early teachers like origen, i dont care if the church called him a heretic, they also called the Nazarenes heretics.

What is the basis in Scripture for what you said?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

What you said: eb. 17:11) does say the life of the flesh is in the blood. But that is the earthly body, not the resurrected body. (1 Cor. 15:44) "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a naturalbody, and there is a spiritual body." Thusthe life of the spiritual body, thoughcomposed of flesh and bone, is in the Spirit

Yes, I know what I said. These are the Scriptures I referred you to. What do you say concerning them?

And what is the basis for your assumption that the spiritual body will be flesh and blood?

Stranger

 

[Dcopymope]

See post #96, which you did not answer. And, where does your assumption come from that the spiritual body will have blood? Not the Scripture.

Stranger

What you said:

(Heb. 17:11) does say the life of the flesh is in the blood. But that is the earthly body, not the resurrected body. (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." Thus the life of the spiritual body, though composed of flesh and bone, is in the Spirit.

The glorified body being bloodless would be true, if for one, it actually stated so, and two, the text stating that the life of the flesh is in the blood was stated to be in reference to the mortal body only. It doesn't, except by your addition to scripture. Yet again, there are massive holes in your logic. I didn't care to answer it because you brought nothing new to the table that I haven't heard before. And the first Adam wasn't a mortal before the fall, sown in corruption, unless you want to make God out to be a liar when he said his creation was good.

 

[Stranger]

What you said:

The glorified body being bloodless would be true, if for one, it actually stated so, and two, the text stating that the life of the flesh is in the blood was stated to be in reference to the mortal body only. It doesn't, except by your addition to scripture. Yet again, there are massive holes in your logic. I didn't care to answer it because you brought nothing new to the table that I haven't heard before. And the first Adam wasn't a mortal before the fall.

Scripture teaches otherwise. Jesus is flesh and bone, as shown you in (Luke 24:39). (Heb. 9:11-12) proves the risen Christ has no blood in His body. Which you never answered. Thus are ignoring what is already on the table.

And, where does it say that Jesus resurrected body is flesh and blood?

What I believe is based on Scripture, not 'your' logic.

Stranger

 

[Dcopymope]

Scripture teaches otherwise. Jesus is flesh and bone, as shown you in (Luke 24:39). (Heb. 9:11-12) proves the risen Christ has no blood in His body. Which you never answered. Thus are ignoring what is already on the table.

"Christ has no blood in his body" according to you by the argument from silence. By this, you can make a sentence mean whatever you want.

And, where does it say that Jesus resurrected body is flesh and blood?

Where does it say that the first Adam was bloodless? The difference between me and you. I base my belief on what is stated, not on what it doesn't state that I dreamed up in my head...now I've answered your questions and I'm moving on. Although you will claim I didn't by your twisted logic, but I don't really care.

 

[Stranger]

"Christ has no blood in his body" according to you by the argument from silence. By this, you can make a sentence mean whatever you want.



Where does it say that the first Adam was bloodless? The difference between me and you. I base my belief on what is stated, not on what it doesn't state that I dreamed up in my head...now I've answered your questions and I'm moving on. Although you will claim I didn't by your twisted logic, but I don't really care.

It is not an argument from silence as Scripture has been given you.

Your argument that the resurrected Christ's body had blood is an argument from silence. Nothing but an assumption on your part.

Address (Heb. 9:11-12).

We are not talking about Adam. We are talking about the resurrected Christ.

Your moving on because you can't prove your position. Because your position is nothing but an assumption. Based solely on your logic.

Whether you care or not is immaterial.

Stranger

 

[Job]

I do actually, you saying I don't doesn't mean I don't. You are giving me an interpretation of a book that claims to be inspired from a being that created the heavens, the earth and the sentiment life therein, which makes him the author of logic since he created the genetic code of every creature, yet you are expecting me to believe something that isn't logically sound in the slightest? No thank you. And by the way, Adam and Eve wasn't sown in corruption, for there was no death before the fall. God made everything in six days and it was good, not corrupt. I'm sure them being described as flesh and bone doesn't by the argument of silence make them bloodless.

Are you going to address these 2 posts or are you going to run and hide and hope I forget about them?

So it is your belief that as Jesus stood there He was still bleeding from His wounds. Why was that not mentioned in the scriptures?

So was He still bleeding? If there was blood pumping through His veins, that side wound had to be bleeding profusely.

Do you have an answer for that or are you one of those people who inject ideas completely out of the blue?

 

[jaybird]

What is the basis in Scripture for what you said?

Stranger

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

Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

 

[Stranger]

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

Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

That God knew who we were before we were born, yes. This doesn't prove our soul existed before we were born.

Stranger

 

[jaybird]

That God knew who we were before we were born, yes. This doesn't prove our soul existed before we were born.

Stranger

it shows the Most High knew us and not an idea of us before we were born.

do you have a scripture that teaqches our soul never existed before birth?

 

[Stranger]

it shows the Most High knew us and not an idea of us before we were born.

do you have a scripture that teaqches our soul never existed before birth?

Just because he knew us does not mean our souls existed at that time. Just because our souls did not exist at that time doesn't mean we were just an idea.

The Scripture I believe was already given. (Gen. 2:7) "And the LORD god formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The soul is not formed until the body and breath are united.

Stranger

 

[DPMartin]

In Genesis 19, two angels ate with Lot. Beyond that, I can not answer. The best answer, was Job's reply of 1 Cor 15.

don't forget the Lord and two escorts, one could say angels, also ate with Abraham, before the two when to see Lot. but I would refer you to:


Joh_6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


Mat_4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


hence for man the Life that is to be in the place in creation in the earth that is man, is to be of the Word of God which is Spirit and Life. not the blood, the blood is the life that man was left with that any animal of similar stance has. though God created the blood it isn't the Life that is of the Word of God that one would have the power to become a son of God.

 

[DPMartin]

So the logic here goes that if I refer to someone as having flesh and blood, I am in fact not simply referring to part of the body to describe the whole body, which includes the bones, but I am instead trying to say that said individual has no bones, simply because I didn't mention it? Would you be able to prove this in a court of law? Because this would be a great point for a lawyer to attack someone on, considering how legalistic the argument really is, this argument from silence. If I use the word 'wheels' to refer to a car, I legally am not referring to a car, but simply wheels. By the logic displayed by some here, Jesus didn't have fingernails, toenails, eyelids, a tongue, the whole the whole kit and caboodle, since I neglected to mention it. Great argument.........................................it would be quite hilarious, if this wasn't so serious.

the life of the body was removed that is a fact, that was witnessed wasn't? the fact that the holes where still in the hands and the hole in the abdomen (as far as we know) was witnessed to not only be there when He appeared to the apostles, but was also witnessed that it happen to Him at the Cross didn't it.



if fingers and toes and bones where removed it would have been documented wouldn't have been. (as a matter of fact it was documented that His bones wouldn't be broken) you believe your views on things rather then what is actually written in scripture. if the holes where there, as said to have happened on the cross what makes you think the blood was restored after witnesses has documented that the blood was removed?

stick to assumptions of self enlightenment do to your own judgement, stay away from courts you will make a fool of your self. the evidence shows that the blood was removed, the evidence shows that Jesus is the Son of God having Power of God available capable of bringing the Spirit that quickens to any form He pleases, evidence also shows that there is no evidence that the blood that is the life of the body that was removed, was restored.

what you don't get the Life that is Christ's isn't blood. blood is created, and the Life of Jesus Christ isn't created. why don't you go back into your dark corner.

you actually have no evidence that the blood was restored to the body only your assumption that you just admitted to doing in this case, that in your mind is more accurate then what was documented. sounds pretty lame to me. maybe you can get your friends to agree with you, maybe that will make it more truer for you.

 

[bbyrd009]

i dont care if the church called him a heretic

ends up making him look better, huh

 

[prashanthd]

God may have a factory on Galaxy X where he makes souls.
Then they wait in line to get a body.
Can you prove me wrong?

Not really, since you can't prove how God makes a soul.
That makes my opinion as legitimate as anyone else's opinion.

It is easy to prove you wrong, brother!

We humans need a factory, why would God need so? (Isaiah 55:8)

Hebrews 11
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Genesis 1
2 And the earth was without form, and VOID; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Psalm 33
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Psalm 139
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Genesis 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The only "line" I could remember is this,

Psalm 16
8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
Isaiah 40
31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.



His name is WONDERFUL (Isaiah 9:6)
All glory to God.

 

[Helen]

If in Revelation there is no need of the sun or moon because The Lamb is the Life there.
There is no need of blood in a spiritual body because The Lamb is our whole life! ( ie ref ..the life is in the blood)
So often we try to make spiritual things fit into our natural thinking...but it not natural but spiritual.

 

[prashanthd]

If in Revelation there is no need of the sun or moon because The Lamb is the Life there.
There is no need of blood in a spiritual body because The Lamb is our whole life! ( ie ref ..the life is in the blood)
So often we try to make spiritual things fit into our natural thinking...but it not natural but spiritual.

I cannot provide references, this is what I think. The blood of Jesus flowed away during crucifiction and after the resurrection, there was no body found in the tomb. It would not have been necessary for God to fill the resurrected body with blood again.

 

[Helen]

I cannot provide references, this is what I think. The blood of Jesus flowed away during crucifiction and after the resurrection, there was no body found in the tomb. It would not have been necessary for God to fill the resurrected body with blood again.

Agree...why would a Spirit need blood...God doesn't have blood.
The blood of Jesus is strong and powerful today...it is spiritual not literal .
OR literally spiritual
The demons are terrified of the blood of Jesus...it ' went' nowhere...it STILL IS!!

 

[prashanthd]

Agree...why would a Spirit need blood...God doesn't have blood.
The blood of Jesus is strong and powerful today...it is spiritual not literal .
OR literally spiritual
The demons are terrified of the blood of Jesus...it ' went' nowhere...it STILL IS!!

Or the blood of Jesus flowed into the Earth.

 

[jaybird]

ends up making him look better, huh

haha rome and the pharisees were experts at coming up with all their heresies.