Author |
Comment |
evanpyle Needs glasses -- Thinks the cook is
cute (12/5/00 9:03:10
pm)
|
Re: battle of
senses and senses faith
oh wow, this is quite good!
thx Jerry & Mandi |
Ex10 Stayed until Midnight yesterday (12/5/00 10:59:35 pm)
|
Re: battle of
senses and senses faith
Hi all! As usual, I agree with Evan, great discussion. Reminds me
of an old "retemery": Anyone remember Prov. 3:5,6?
Trust in
the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own
understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct
thy paths.
Seems to me that I did an awful lot of leaning on
my own understanding of what I thought the bible said via TWI during
my tenure. What freedom there is in admitting I don't
understand........and being content with that!
I don't have
to understand first, in order to have faith!
I don't have to
dissect a book like I'm doing brain surgery just to get an answer to
one of life's many questions. I can actually just ask my Lord, and
he'll tell me exactly what I need to know.
Makes me want to
jump up and down and shout Hallelujah!
Thanks for the great
insight, Ex10
Edited by: Ex10
at: 12/12/00 9:41:59 am
|
TomGeiger Likes juice squeezed not shaken (12/6/00 2:07:12 pm)
|
Re: more Genesis
stuff
Jerry,
Thanks for the latest posts. You have given me much
to think about....which usually results in me getting in trouble (or
at least it used to)!
Just an FYI tidbit to try and help you
in your future posting. Write you posts in notepad or wordpad first,
then go online and "copy and paste" your post to the board. Then you
can always save the notepad file for future reference or in case of
ezboard calamity.
Thanks again to you and the other posters.
|
wja Likes Ketchup on Everything (12/8/00 5:00:04 pm)
|
Re: more Genesis
stuff
Interesting stuff, Jerry! I had noticed there was a problem with
the word "create" referring to spirit in Genesis just recently
myself.
Also what you propose about the devil omitting the
Lordship and Eve following right along makes a lot of sense. I'm
going to have to print out this reveiw and go over it. In doing my
own research since we left twi last year I have noticed that they
really underplayed making Jesus lord in your life. I was having a
conversation with a friend who belongs to a religion and she was
trying to show me that you can't really just confess Rom. 10:9 and
10 and that's it. Making Jesus your lord does require a little bit
more than what I believe we were taught in twi. I'm not saying I
believe that we are saved by works but a part of being saved is
realizing the lordship of Christ in our lives, I think.
|
Rafael
Olmeda Stayed until
Midnight yesterday (12/12/00 12:09:52
am)
|
The omission of
Lord
I have an objection to the course of this discussion: while I agree
with the conclusion that we are to remember the Lordship of God, I
don't believe that is raised by the omission of the word "Lord" in
the serpent's temptation or in Eve's response.
Jerry, you
noted that the word "Lord" is the word "Jehovah." It is not the word
"Lord" as we think of it today. Perhaps this should be noted in a
sidebar, but TWI, like most of Christianity, ran roughshod over the
meaning and importance of "Jehovah" not as a title but as a proper
name. God's name is Jehovah just as surely as my name is Rafael. The
number of times He declares this to be so is staggering. Look it up
in a Young's Concordance and you'll see that they couldn't even come
close to listing every occurence of Jehovah. But it's important that
it is a proper name which does not translate into our word
"Lord."
Quote:
Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, "Thus shalt thou
say unto the children of Israel: Jehovah, God of your fathers, the
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent
me unto you. This is my [title? No. Redemptive characteristic? Try
again] name
forever, and this is My memorial unto all generations.
Therefore, to conclude
that Eve dismissed the Lordship of God by omitting His name is
incorrect. What she dismissed was something far deeper: the personal
nature of their relationship. God wasn't just a title to Adam and
Eve. They had a personal relationship. They were on a first name
basis. And Eve treated Him like he was some kind of
zookeeper.
Yes, she rejected His lordship. But that is not
the point of omitting His name. What she rejected in omitting His
name was far more personal, far more insulting, and far more
heartbreaking than His lordship. She rejected knowing Him personally.
Anyway, that's what I
think.
Edited by: Rafael
Olmeda at: 12/11/00 11:14:16 pm
|
JBarrax Had Fries with Gravy last night (12/12/00 11:40:25 pm)
|
Lord God
Hi Rafael, God bless! While I think your point about Eve having
rejected her relationship with God is a good one and true, I
disagree with the statement that the phrase "the Lord God" refers
not to his position as Lord but to his relationship with man. I
think there are two problems with that statement. One: There are
many uses of the word Jehovah whose context don't support the idea
of relationship. The closest one to the heart of the matter is
Genesis 3:14
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent,
Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and
above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and
dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Maybe I'm
misunderstanding what you said, but I don't see this verse
describing a relationship between God and the Serpent. Similarly,
Jehovah is referred to in Genesis 6:3-7 describing the wickedness of
man that was only evil continually and that lead to the destruction
of all but 8 souls in the flood. So, if we apply a primary
definition of relationship to the term Jehovah, I think these verse
don't fit very well. I think they make more sense in the context of
God's sovereignty over mankind and the environment and rules in
which He place him. Speaking of context, since we're discussing
Eve's paraphrasing of God's word, I think it's important to remember
that Genesis 2:16 says God "commanded" Adam. What Eve was misquoting
was a commandment. Therefore, it should have been understood ad
having come from the Lord; the Master of the Garden. This is not
to say that God doesn't want to have a relationship with man, but
that a proper relationship between man and God must start with the
recognition that He is the boss. Just as our proper relationship
with Jesus Christ starts with our confession that He is Lord. But I
digress...
The second problem I have with your post is the
fact that the Scriptures assign other names to God as well. Genesis
16:13 & 14, for instance, uses the word "Jehovah" but not as
God's name. The name ascribed to God in that passage is
"Beerlahairoi" [betcha can't say it three times fast].
13 And
she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest
me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth
me? 14 Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; behold, it is
between Kadesh and Bered.
Hagar called the name of Jehovah
Beerlahairoi. Clearly, in this verse, the name is Beerlahairoi,
which means "Thou God seest me". She gave that name to the Lord. And
in Exodus 4:13 & 14, God says His name is I AM.
13 And
Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of
Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent
me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall
I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and
he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath
sent me unto you.
Since the word Jehovah is used well over
5,000 times in the Bible, I'm sure we can both cite verses that tilt
one way or another, so maybe this isn't a case of right or wrong,
but of what we want to see and emphasize. But in the context of
Genesis and the loss of paradise, I think the first truth Eve lost
was that God's Word was not a suggestion, but a commandment.
Peace
Jerry
|
Rafael
Olmeda Stayed until
Midnight yesterday (12/13/00 10:29:50
am)
|
Re: Lord
God
Ok, let me try to say this again:
The word "Jehovah" is His
name. Beerlahairoi is the name of the well, not God.
And yes,
God and Satan are on a first name basis. A relationship doesn't mean
a friendship or a kinship.
Fact is, Jehovah does not mean
Lord. Therefore, the omission of the word "Jehovah" cannot mean, in
and of itself, the rejection of His lordship.
Jehovah is a
personal name, like Jerry. If I started referring to you
consistently as "the originator of this thread," I would be
completely accurate, but I would be omitting the fact that I know
who you are, that you are an individual.
Eve remembered
"God," but she forgot "Jehovah." She might as well have called Him
"that guy up there what gave my husband a job."
|
Sunlight8 Had Fries with Gravy last night (12/13/00 11:30:11 am)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
Jehovah, according to “Old Testament Word Studies” is a name that
is usually translated Lord and the Greek equivalent is kurios
(Lord). Bullinger gives the same. Based on that, I think we could
conclude that Jehovah carries the same basic meaning as Lord.
Kurios, according to Bullinger is an adjective of another word
meaning might, and basically means ownership and one who possesses
and exercises power. While Jehovah is certainly a name, it’s meaning
evidently is Lord, which explains why it is translated Lord so
often.
Sunlight
|
Rafael
Olmeda Stayed until
Midnight yesterday (12/14/00 2:35:14
am)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
That is an incorrect assumption, Sunlight.
Jehovah is a
proper name. To say it means "Lord" is gramatically and conceptually
incorrect. It is translated Lord because of an absurd mythology
which held that the name of "Jehovah" (or Yahweh, if you prefer) was
too sacred to pronounce. The name does not mean "Lord." The word for
Lord is adon or adonai, not Jehovah.
Bullinger's analysis of
the name Jehovah in the Companion Bible is laughably inadequate. |
Sunlight8 Had Fries with Gravy last night (12/14/00 2:18:18 pm)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
Quite right, adonai is the Hebrew word for Lord that more
emphasizes title, and according to the Septuagint, the corresponding
Greek word is despotoi (masculine, singular, vocative case, but
appears in the NT as masculine, singular nominative case as
despotes). Also according to what I was able to observe in the
Septuagint, Jehovah is mostly translated into Greek as kurios. You
can see for yourselves at unbound.biola.edu/.
It is
probably time to take this to the side bar if it is to
continue.
Sunlight |
JBarrax Likes juice squeezed not shaken (12/17/00 11:34:53 pm)
|
Soul and
Spirit
Well hello all you happy people. I just wanted to take a few
minutes to post some partial observations on the word soul. We
started this discussion a few weeks ago in the context of death and
resurrection. I noted then that VP's comments about the soul dying
with the body seemed ill conceived and at odds with several verses
in the Bible.
As you all know, we've gotten back into it more deeply in the
study of the infamous formed made created teaching from
Session,...what session six? Yes, I believe we're halfway through.
But I seem to be bogging down here. I've spent a couple of weeks now
looking at every occurrence of psuche, and literally hundreds
of uses of the Hebrew words nephesh (soul) and ruach
(spirit). Sunlight has also been communicating some great insights
via email. We've come to similar conclusions on some of these
truths, but I can't seem to get a grasp on the whole concept. It
seems the more I read, the more questions arise. So for efficiency's
sake, I'll just post a few quick observations as they relate to what
was taught in PFAL, and continue this study while we go on with the
class material. Some of it will no doubt come up again when we run
into the teachings on the word pneuma and its usages, so
we'll be back here sooner or later.
As you know, VP defined soul as "that which makes you you" which
is a pretty sorry definition, btw. My DNA makes me me doesn't it?
Anyway, as we've discussed at length, VP's approach is rather
segmented. We are beings made up of three parts, we're people. The
holistic approach is indeed, backed up by Scripture, imho. Before I
go any further, I need to acknowledge that the prinicpal truth here
is indeed in this session of the class. VP said "all life is
spirit." Spirit being defined as that which is beyond the realm of
the five senses. "You can't put love in a bunsen burner and get hot
love". So soul life is in the realm of the spirit. This is why it's
referred to in I Corinthians 2 as the spirit of man.
Bearing that in mind, I think the best understanding of the words
nephesh and ruach I can come to at this point in time
is that they're essentially the same thing. That is to say, they're
both spirit. Natural man is not a purely physically being. He is a
spiritual being with limited spiritual perception. I think of it
this way. Soul is the Spirit of Life. Holy Spirit is the Spirit of
Power (and wisdom and utterance). Indeed ruach is often translated
"spirit of life" and used in reference to soul life; specifically
animals. I think we've looked at these verses before, but here they
are again.
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters
upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath
(ruach: spirit) of life, from under heaven; and every thing
that is in the earth shall die.
7:15 And they went in unto
Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath
(ruach) of life.
Animals have the spirit of life. One of the big
problems I had in studying this is TWI's intense indoctrination
about the Biblical usage of the word spirit. I kept reading "spirit"
and thinking, ‘that's a figure of speech meaning the issues of the
heart' and so on. If we're going to "let the Word speak" as we were
so often admonished to do, we have to realize that when the bible
says spirit, it means spirit. And time and time again, the Bible
says the "natural man" has spirit. Here are just a few such
verses.
Genesis 26:35 35 Which were a grief of mind (ruach:
spirit) unto Isaac and to Rebekah.
41:8 And it came to pass
in the morning that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called
for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof: and
Pharaoh told them his dream; but there was none that could interpret
them unto Pharaoh.
45:27 And they told him all the words of
Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons
which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father
revived:
Numbers 16:22 And they fell upon their faces, and
said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin,
and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?
27:16 Let
the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the
congregation,
According to these last two verses, all flesh has
ruach, spirit. Genesis 41:8 says of Pharoah, a man who was
not endued with holy spirit, that his spirit was troubled. Likewise
Genesis 26:35 says Esau's marriage to a Canaanite woman was a grief
of spirit to Isaac and Rebekah. Speaking of Pharoah, it's in the
context of this passage that we see the first Biblical reference to
a man having the spirit of God upon or within him. The spirit of God
in Joseph enabled him to interpret Pharoah's dream. So clearly,
despite the fact that Pharoah had spirit too, the spiritual ability
of Joseph surpassed that of Pharoah. I think there are two different
types of spirits mentioned here. Pharoah had the spirit of life, but
Joseph had that plus the spirit of God.
The spirit of life, "the spirit of all flesh" is the life of the
flesh, also called soul life. It's called the spirit of life because
there are some limited abilities and perceptions we soul beings have
that go beyond just the five senses. In other words, natural men can
perceive beyond their sensory organs. We've already discussed dreams
as being one such example. How many of us have entered a room full
of angry people and ‘felt" the tension? The cliche about the tension
in such a room being so thick one could cut it with a knife is
testimony to the extrasensory perception of natural man. The spirit
of life can perceive things in its realm such as feelings, emotions,
attitudes, etc. None of these are physical - visible, tangible,
audible – yet they are definitely perceptible.
The spirit of God supercedes the perceptive abilities of the
spirit of life. The spirit of God enables one to receive revelation,
utterance, and power from the Lord God. The best Old Testament
example of this is in Numbers chapter 11.
Numbers 11:16 & 17
16 And the LORD said unto Moses,
Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou
knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and
bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may
stand there with thee.
17 And I will come down and talk with
thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and
will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people
with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
11:25-29
25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him,
and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the
seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested
upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
26 But there
remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad,
and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them;
and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the
tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.
27 And there ran
a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy
in the camp.
28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of
Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses,
forbid them.
29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my
sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that
the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
All examples of prophecy and miracles in the Old
Testament involve people upon whom God put holy spirit. So the same
word refers to the spirit of life, and the spirit of God, two
different kinds of spirits. Those who object to this on the grounds
that it has to mean the same thing in both usages should remember
that the same word ruach is used of "evil spirits", which are
an entirely different kind of being. Of course there are other
spirits mentioned in the Old Testament including lying spirits and
the spirit of jealousy. One way to understand this is with the
infamous hypothetical example.
If you have three people in a room, one of whom is plagued by a
hateful, violent, evil spirit, one of whom is a natural man, and the
other a person upon or in whom is holy spirit, the natural man would
be able to sense the anger and hostility stirred up by the evil
spirit in the afflicted person, but would not understand where it
was coming from and would be powerless to remove the cause of the
hostility. The person with holy spirit on the other hand, would not
only be aware of the same hostile thoughts and emotions, but would
also be able to receive revelation from God about the evil sprit and
would be able to cast the spirit out and bring deliverance and peace
to its victim. Three different types of spirits, same little word.
One other observation. The words soul and spirit are related to
related terms; breath and wind.
1) Adam's soul life began when God breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life. The use of the words breathed (naphach)
and breath (nashamah) are the figure of speech polyptoton
emphasizing the process of God breathing life into Adam.
2) The blood carries oxygen, the breath of life, to every
living cell in the body. Btw, the word "life" in Leviticus 17:11
& 14 is "soul". [The soul of the flesh is in the blood...For it
(blood) is the soul of all flesh...] So soul life is physically
dependent on breathing (duh!).
3) The word ruach
(spirit) is often translated "wind", and usually refers to a
miraculous and mighty wind generated by the power of God. (Genesis
8:1, Exodus 10:13 & 19, 14:21, 15:8 & 10, II Samuel 22:11
& 16, I Kings 18:45). Also in the New Testament John 3:8 and
Acts 2:2 associate wind and spirit. When we consider John 20:22
["And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"], we have an undeniable connection
between breath. Soul, wind, and spirit; different facets of the same
entity, different aspects of the same gift, which is the spirit of
life, from God to man. Now for the questions. What I don't understand is why the word
nephesh predominately associated with birth, death, and sin.
It's associated with birth and offspring in Genesis 46:15, 18, 22,
25, 26, 27, and Exodus 1:5. It's associated with death, translated
"dead body" in numerous verses in Numbers which have already been
discussed. And its usage in Leviticus is almost exclusively
connected to blood and atonement for sin, and in the books of the
prophets, it usually appears in the context of sinners, as in, "the
soul that sinneth, it shall die." What's up with that? Birth, sin,
blood, atonement, and death are all associated with the Old
Testament usage of nephesh, while matters of the heart, mind,
emotions, will, etc are usually communicated with the word ruach.
Why, why, why? Does nephesh have some cultural or linguistic
connection to sin and mortality?
And, speaking of blood, why were the Israelites allowed to eat
flesh, but not the blood? They had to pour out the blood and cover
it with dust before they could eat fresh game. Would they be eating
soul life? How can you do that?
And finally, we know that ‘the soul that sinneth shall die', but
what happens to it then? Here again, we have conflicting verses. The
abundance of verses referring to dead nephesh as corpses [by
which Israelites were made unclean] indicate that the soul dies with
its physical home or host. But Genesis 35:18 says Rebekah's soul
‘departed' ["And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for
she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him
Benjamin."] and Jesus spoke of the destruction of the body but
preservation of the soul. [Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which
kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear
him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."] And
Revelation 18:3 and 20:4 speak of John seeing the souls of dead
saints in heaven, which contradicts not only the "dead soul" verses
in Numbers, but also those that declare that flesh and blood shall
not inherit the kingdom of heaven. More to the point, if the soul of
the flesh is in the blood thereof, and if flesh and blood shall not
inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 15:50), why is the word
soul used here instead of spirit.
By the way, the New Testament usage of the word psuche is
not eqivalent to the Old Testament usage of nephesh The basic
meaning of psuche is "person". Although there is one verse in
Acts that resembles Genesis 35:18, speaking of the revival of
Eutychus the sleepy lad who fell from a loft. Paul rushed to him and
declared "His soul is in him.". Had he died, where would it have
gone? Heaven? Hell? Purgatory? Cleveland? Questions,
questions...
Peace
Jerry |
Sunlight8 Had Fries with Gravy last night (12/18/00 3:42:54 pm)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
I believe I can answer your questions (with what I understand now
after reading your post and with what I worked on yesterday), but to
do so I will have to back up to the beginning.
Let’s begin
with facts. We know people have physical bodies. They have brains. I
studied brain function yesterday. (Anyone need any brain surgery?)
The brain stem is what handles basic life functions such as
breathing and blood pressure. Thinking, reasoning, perception etc.,
takes place in the cortex (the gray matter). Even emotions are a
brain function. So I started thinking this over in light of
everything else on the subject.
For the physical body to be
alive, it must have the spirit of life. I agree you can’t explain
all the aspects of what a human mind can do in purely biological
terms. Then there’s personality. The best I was able to determine,
scientists and psychologists are still arguing on that one. We could
fill that gap with “soul,” but I don’t think we have to.
Before I go any further, we have to make up our minds about
something. Where does life come from? Is it the spirit of life or
soul/nephesh? There are a multitude of verses that support spirit of
life in both the OT and NT. Also, if we do go with nephesh (either
as a source or separate category of living, or a separate entitiy,)
, the logic problems that creates (hey I can use that word now...)
when we try to consider the scope of the Word, basic concepts, and
individual verses, become insurmountable.
So, for the
moment, let’s consider nephesh. Adam was made a living soul, a
nephesh chay. Living is an adjective describing the noun soul. He
was an alive person. He wasn’t alive until God breathed in the
spirit of life. Before then, he was a physical body not yet alive.
The end result is described as a living soul.
Now. Nephesh is
used in a lot of different ways. 1. Referring to persons. “Gen.
14:21 “Give me the persons (nephesh)….2. As a synonym for life. Gen.
19:17 “Escape for thy life (nephesh)….3. Figuratively as myself,
yourself, etc. where it is put for the personal pronoun. 4. Where it
is used to describe aspects of being alive, such as hunger, thirst,
weary, loathe, (and other emotions), Also thinking, reason, etc.
So far, we don’t have any justification for nephesh as a
separate entity or as a source of life. It is our brains that think,
our bodies that get hungry, etc., and clearly one definition isn’t
going to fit all cases.
Soul life. Gen. 1:20 “….the moving
creature that hath (nephesh) life…” Here is an example of how we
could get soul life as an expression. But, the word for life is
chay. The literal would be living soul. Whether we translate it into
English as soul life or living soul, it is still nephesh chay. So
why make a doctrine out of soul life as a translation as VP did ????
The only other possibility that could support VP’s theology
is Leviticus 14 (the life is in the blood) as cited in the previous
post. I noted the inclusion of “soul life” in the discussion of the
verse, however chay doesn’t appear in this verse. It isn’t saying
soul life is in the blood. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but
wanted to clarify it anyway.
Well, I am exhausted and
starving. I have spent roughly four hours writing this so that I
could take it point by point in an orderly fashion and be very
certain about the points.
Stay
tuned.
Sunlight
|
JBarrax Likes juice squeezed not shaken (12/18/00 8:29:32 pm)
|
soul or
life
Hi Sunlight. About the blood; you're right, it doesn't say the
blood is the life (chay) of the flesh. although that's how the KJV
translates it. I would have much less difficulty understanding it if
it said blood is the LIFE of the flesh; simple biology; oxygen,
circulation, etc. But it says blood is the SOUL thererof. As you
pointed out, nephesh is associated in other verses with identity,
emotion, and will. So now we have the juxtaposition of a spiritual
entity and a physical component.
I suppose the simple answer
is, it's a figure of speech. But in order to classify it as a figure
of speech, we have to be able to say definitely and authoritatively
that it can't be literally true. That would require that we have a
clear specific understanding of what "soul" is, and how it differs
from "life". I personally can't say that I do, so calling this a
figure, for me at least, would be an intellectual short cut. Btw, I
find this particular topic extraordinarily frustrating.
Peace,
Jerry
|
Sunlight8 Had Fries with Gravy last night (12/19/00 12:58:41 pm) |
PFAL
review
Hi Jerry!!! Please check your e mail...
Sunlight |
JBarrax Likes juice squeezed not shaken (12/19/00 10:55:04 pm)
|
More
Contradictions from VP
While we ponder PFAL's teachings from Genesis, I thought I'd take
a short moment to point out a few little inconsistencies and
contradictions. One we've noted before, in the context of death, but
I thought I'd resurrect it. Wierwille ridiculed the Christian idea
of an immortal soul based on faulty logic and a fabricated law. On
page 235 we read;
"The modern Church has been illogical on this particular issue
because it usually teaches that the soul is eternal life spirit and
goes back to God; but then the teachers deny that a cow having a
soul, life, must go back to God. If the soul came from God, it must
ultimately go back to God."
As I see it, there are two problems with this statement [besides
VP once again trying to make Church people look foolish]. The first
is Wierwille's "law" that everything has to go back to its original
source. This is just as much a fabrication as law of believing and
his "immutable law" of tithing. Just because God told Adam he had
come from dust and would return to dust does not mean that there is
a "law" that everything must return to its source.
The second problem with VP's above statement is it, focuses on
ridiculing the Church, but ignores the similar testimony of
Scripure. The Bible does indeed teach that the soul must go back to
God. Romans chapter two says so explicitly.
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto
thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man
according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance
in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal
life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey
the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man
that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
In the context of judgment, the Bible says that every
soul of man who does evil will receive indignation and wrath,
tribulation and anguish. Where and when will these souls receive
this just reward? After their deaths, at the throne of God. So the
soul must go back to God in order to receive judgment. Therefore,
the Bible, not "the modern Church" teaches that every soul must go
back to God; at least the bad ones.
Another interesting statement made in this part of PFAL which
refutes later Way doctrine is made in the course of explaining how
soul life is passed on. On page 237, we find this surprising
declaration.
"The soul life is in the blood and is passed on when the sperm
impregnates the egg at the time of fertilization."
If soul life is passed on at the time of
fertilization, that means an embryo... is a living soul.
Therefore, abortion is murder.
As we all know, The Way taught that abortion is not murder. In
order to make that case, Wierwille went allll the way back to
Genesis 2:7, to the record of the beginning of the life of ADAM, and
said a human being doesn't become a living soul until he takes his
first breath. That statement and the one quoted from PFAL above
stand in direct contradiction to each other. If the statement from
PFAL is true and soul life IS passed on at the time of conception,
it is illogical at best, hypocritical at worst, to try to frame a
Biblical explanation of abortion in the context of Adam's unique
beginnings.
This statement is followed by another that contradicts not only
what VP taught in later years but what he'd just written on the
previous pages.
"What ultimately happens to the soul? As the body goes back to dust,
the soul is passed on from one person to his progeny. If a person
has no offsrping, his soul is gone when he dies; it is no more."
Now let's think about that a moment. On page 233, he said,
"...and because of the law that everything ultimately must return to
its original state, the body must return to dust." Now he says of
the soul, it is passed on to one's progeny. But if my soul came from
my father, and there's a law that everything must ultimately go back
to its original state, why doesn't my soul go back to my father?
Must be a loophole in the law eh?
By the way, if one wanted
to believe in such a law, one could find Scriptural support for a
"return of the soul" IF one was willing to believe that the soul is
indeed immortal. If one's soul came from his fathers, then when one
died, he would be "gathered unto his fathers".
Genesis 49:29 And he [Israel] charged them, and said unto them,
I am to be gathered unto my people: bury me with my fathers
in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite,
Judges 2:10 And also all that generation were gathered
unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after
them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done
for Israel.
II Kings 22: 20 Behold therefore, I [God] will
gather thee [King Josiah] unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be
gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all
the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the
king word again.
There are also about 30 verses that say of those who
died that they "slept with [their] fathers". So here again, we have
a lattice of contradictory concepts. If the soul is passed on from
fathers to children, AND if the soul is immortal, we can accept that
it must go back where it came from; in the form of a reunion in the
afterlife. However, if we believe that the soul dies with the body,
then it cannot possibly go back to its original source and all
statements about such a "law" are invalid and illogical. I'm still
not certain what the correct Biblical doctrine about souls and soul
life is. But I am quite certain that Dr. Wierwille's version thereof
makes no sense.
Peace
Jerry
|
JBarrax Stayed until Midnight yesterday (12/22/00 10:30:15 pm)
|
The fall of
Lucifer
Hello again Bible Fans. Let me take a moment to wish all a Merry
Christmas. God bless us everyone!
Now back to our
regularly scheduled PFAL Review. Continuing in the material from
session six -- Chapter Sixteen Body, Soul, Spirit-Formed, Made,
Created–we come to Dr. Wierwille’s explanation of fossils, cavemen,
and dinosaurs. This was my very favorite section of the class, the
part that got me hooked on the Way Ministry. It was the only logical
explanation I’d ever heard of how the Bible and science agree.
Unfortunately, it too, is based on the wrong dividing of Scripture.
As many of you know, VP taught that Genesis 1:2 is
mistranslated in the KJV. It should read, “And the earth became
without form and void, and darkness upon the face of the deep.” This
is correct, imho. Genesis 1:2 contradicts Isaiah 45:18. Tohu
means empty or lifeless. Isaiah 45:18 says He formed it to be
inhabited, not as an empty wasteland. So, what caused a world that
was formed to be inhabited to become empty and barren? Here's VP's
answer.
"Now the question is, what caused this original creation in Genesis
1:1 (which was perfect) to be formless and void. To see the
tremendous accuracy of the Word, we have to study Scriptures like
Isaiah 14:12; Ezekiel 28:15-19; Romans 8:22; I Timothy 3:6;
Revelation 12:4; These Scriptures explain that in the beginning God
created angels under three leaders: Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer.
These three archangels were responsible for all the other angels.
Lucifer, who was called an angel of light, wanted to usurp the
throne of God. He caused a mutiny in heaven so to speak. Therefore
Lucifer was cast out of heaven along with one third of the angels
who, under Lucifer’s leadership, had conspired against God. After
being cast out of heaven, Lucifer became “Satan”, "the Serpent”,
“the Devil.” ...The mutiny in heaven of Lucifer and his angels was
so cataclysmic that while the war was taking place, all that God had
originally created in Genesis 1:1 fell into ruin. Thus, verse 2 of
Genesis 1 says, “and the earth was [became] without form and
void...”
This line of thinking works very well and makes perfect sense: as
long as you don’t actually study the verses cited. When you
do, one glaring error becomes apparent. Wierwille attests that the
earth fell into ruin when Lucifer was cast out. Before we review
that notion, let’s take a look at a couple of related verses in the
Old Testament.
I Kings 22:19-22
19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I
saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven
standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And
the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall
at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on
that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood
before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the
LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and
I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.
And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth,
and do so.
This is a very perplexing passage of Scripture. God
apparently sent a spirit from heaven to be a lying spirit in the
mouths of false prophets. Can an angel become a lying spirit? Not
according to any Christian doctrine I know of. This lying spirit had
to be a devil, demon, or evil spirit. Now let’s go to a familiar
passage in Job.
Job 1:6 & 7
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then
Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the
earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Satan presented himself at the throne of God in
heaven. He had come from the earth but obviously was not restricted
to earth. He had free access to both earth and heaven. Now with
these truths in mind, let’s take a close look at Revelation and
Ezekiel.
Revelation 12:7-10
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought
against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in
heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old
serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole
world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out
with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now
is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the
power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast
down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Verse 8 bears repeating. “...neither was their
place found any more in heaven.”. The book of Job testifies that
Satan had free access to God’s throne. I Kings says a lying spirit
descended from heaven to cause the demise of King Ahab. Therefore,
Lucifer’s place is still found in heaven and the casting down
referred to in Revelation 12 is yet to occur.
Furthermore, verse 10 describes the fall of Lucifer as
the casting down of “the accuser of our brethren...who accused them
before our God day and night.” How pray tell, could Lucifer be the
accuser of the brethren if he had been cast out before Adam and Eve
were formed, before Abraham was called, before the Church was
founded? This is a chronological impossibility. And speaking of
chronology, let's examine Ezekiel 28.
Ezekiel 28:12-19
12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and
say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full
of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden
the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the
sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the
jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the
workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in
the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed
cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the
holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of
the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the
day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in
thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled
the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore
I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and
I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of
the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of
thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy
brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee
before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 Thou hast
defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the
iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire
from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will
bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that
behold thee.
19 All they that know thee among the people
shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt
thou be any more.
Please note that every single reference to Lucifer’s
former status and his sin, [the real “original sin”] are past
tense. Conversely, every single reference to his fall from heaven is
future tense and is communicated in the same context as his
destruction. He will be cast down and humiliated and destroyed all
in the same time frame.
So the question remains; what caused the earth to become a
lifeless wasteland–without form and void? I dunno, and as far as I
can ascertain, the only Biblical information about this is in II
Peter 3:6, which says, “"Whereby the world that then was, being
overflowed with water, perished:" It is possible that this
cataclysmic flood was caused by the original sin of Lucifer,
but not by his fall from heaven. So we can no longer associate the
darkness of Genesis chapter one with the casting down of the angel
of light.
The fall of Lucifer is still future. At this point
in time he still has access to the throne of God and uses that
access to accuse God’s people day and night, as he did Job.
Fortunately, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
Righteous. This truth is the context of the epistle of Ephesians
which presents us as seated in the heavenlies, declares that by the
Church the wisdom of God is manifest to those in the heavenlies, and
declares that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities and powers in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6, 3:10
& 6:12).
This is a sobering reality, but our hope of
justice and of the eventual destruction of the destroyer is certain.
God will throw down and humiliate the god of this world before he is
eventually brought to ashes before the people he continues to
enslave. That will be a glorious day indeed!
Peace
Jerry
|
Rafael
Olmeda Likes Ketchup on
Everything (12/23/00 5:04:54
pm)
|
Further
notes...
Nice job, Jerry. Your thoughts and analyses on the subject are
quite intriguing.
There is something you glossed over,
though. I defy anyone to find a single verse of scripture to support
the notion that Gabriel was in charge of ANYTHING. The term
"archangel" only appears in the singular in scripture and is a clear
reference to Michael. Gabriel is never referred to as an archangel.
Nowhere in scripture that I have been able to see is there ANY
indication that the angels were divided up into three groups under
Lucifer, Gabriel and Michael. It is utter fiction.
I'll be
happy to eat those words if anyone can establish they are wrong,
from scripture.
Also, for those of you on a plagiarism alert,
I refer you to Hal Lindsay's book "Satan is Alive and Well on Planet
Earth." His explanation of the angelic struggle is agonizingly
similar to VPW's, in ways that suggest either that one copied from
the other, or that both copied from a similar source. The flagrant
Biblical inaccuracies lead me to believe that divine inspiration and
guidance is NOT a plausible explanation for the
similarities.
Oh, and Merry Christmas.
|
JBarrax Stayed until Midnight yesterday (12/23/00 9:00:44 pm)
|
Archangels
Hi Rafael, Merry Christmas to you too! You're quite right,I
glossed over the archangel thing. I thought it sounded like a fairy
tale or another one of VP's assumptions, but I didn't take the time
to investigate it. Thanks for bringing it up, I think it's worth
pursuing.
Maybe someone took the reference in Revelation
12:4 to "a third part of the stars of heaven" and made the
assumption of the three archangels. Interesting that it says "stars
of heaven" not angels, but we interpret it as angels. Isaiah 14:13
also refers to stars in a similar context. Maybe that's something
that bears further study too...
God bless us
everyone!
Jerry
|
JBarrax Stayed until Midnight yesterday (12/23/00 11:33:45 pm)
|
More on Michael
and the stars
Howdies to one and all.
Here are a few more verses to
consider about angels, stars, and the future fall of Lucifer. As
Rafael stated, there are no references in Scripture to three
archangels and the word archangel is only used twice; [I
Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 1:9] both times in the singular,
indicating that there is only one archangel: Michael.
Michael is also referred to by Gabriel as "one of the chief
princes [Daniel 10:13]" and "the great prince which standeth for the
children of thy people: [Daniel 12:1]" So if we consider only the
word "archangel", Michael stands in a class by himself. But
Gabriel's words indicate that there may be other "chief princes" or
ruling angels with Michael. Perhaps this plurality refers to
Michael's angels who fought or will fight against Lucifer and his
angels. What is clear is that no such authority is ever attributed
to Gabriel, as Rafael stated above.
My wife adds that the
Miriam Webster dictionary's reference to Gabriel defines him as "one
of the four archangels named in Hebrew tradition." Anybody have any
idea who the supposed fourth archangel is?
There are a
few verses that refer to stars as angels or vice versa. Some of
these also reinforce the idea that the casting down of Lucifer is
yet to come. Jesus Christ is also called a star [prophetically] in
Numbers 23:17 and the bright and morning star in Revelation
22:16
Numbers 23:17 I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him,
but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre
shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and
destroy all the children of Sheth. The following
passage from Job is interesting because it uses the word "star"
along with another phrase associated with angels in the context of
the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Job 38:3-7
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of
thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the
foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast
understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou
knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon
are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone
thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the
sons of God shouted for joy?
Isaiah 14:12 appears to put the fall of Lucifer in
past tense, but rest of the passage places it in the future, so
verse 12 is a figure of speech prolespsis; the reference in
past tense to future events, similar to the reference in Genesis
2:24 to a man leaving his father and mother. Further–I say,
furthermore, verse 12 says Lucifer "didst weaken the nations",
putting his deleterious affect on man in the past tense. I'd say
he's still at that job. So again his being "cut down to the ground"
follows after his nation-weakening days, which are still ongoing.
Isaiah 14:12-16
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend
into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will
sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the
north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I
will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought
down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee
shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this
the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
The verses in Matthew and Mark also refer to the stars
of heaven in prophecy about the tribulation and its events. The fall
of the stars of heaven is mentioned in the same breath as the
shaking of the "powers of heaven". This is believe is another
reference to the events of Revelation 12. And speaking of
Revelation, the last verse in the list is the familiar "in its
context" explanation of the vision of the seven stars and the seven
golden candlesticks.
Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and
it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and
stamped upon them.
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the
tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon
shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and
the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mark 13:25 And
the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven
shall be shaken.
Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven
stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden
candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches:
and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
So Gabriel apparently is not an archangel, but
he's a star in my book. :-)
Peace
Jerry |
Sunlight8 Had Fries with Gravy last night (12/24/00 12:04:48 am)
|
Re:
Nephesh
Leviticus 17:11
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 (nephesh): for it is the blood that maketh an atonement
for the soul (nesphesh).
Elaborating a little further on some
things Jerry has already laid out….(Jerry, you are a wonderful
soul…. )
As has been said, nephesh is often used for person. A person
is a whole person who has a body, is alive because of the spirit of
life, and has thoughts, emotions, etc. Some uses of the word refer
to particular aspects of the whole person, such as emotions and
thoughts.
As relates to this verse, I would like to consider
what blood is. As Jerry mentioned, blood carries oxygen from the
lungs to all the other tissues in the body, and carries waste
products, primarily carbon dioxide, back to the lungs where it is
released into the air. Nutrients derived from the digestive system
are released into the blood stream and then delivered to the
tissues. It transports hormones that regulate certain body
functions. “The movement of these chemicals enables one organ to
control the function of another even though the two organs may be
located far apart. In this way, the blood acts not just as a means
of transportation, but also as a communications system. It is also
responsible for the activities of the immune system, helping fend
off infection and fight off disease.” And this isn’t even
all.
The thing I particularly got from this is the fact that
blood is animate, not inanimate. If the life of the flesh is in the
blood, then it is because the blood itself is alive, animate. It is
animate because of the presence of the spirit of life.
Why is
blood isolated to represent life? I should think because it is what
makes it possible for everything else to work. Theoretically
speaking, if a body were alive via the spirit of life but had no
blood, the internal organs would not function.
Why does God
want Israel to not eat blood? God is the author of life. The Devil
is the author of death. God invented life. The Devil to marred what
God invented. It is reasonable to assume that God considers life
precious and sacred as it comes from Him. Blood sacrifice was for
atonement. By doing this, it was designated for God and not to be
partaken of by Israel. It was a symbolic action, but in the doing of
it, they achieved atonement. It was a symbolic representation of the
shed blood of Jesus Christ. (An interesting point Jerry made via e
mail about this is animals were innocent as was
Jesus.)
Further, verse seven of this chapter states, “And
they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom
they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them
throughout their generations.”
God was having Israel do this
as an act of respect, respecting what He had done (inventing life),
devoted to Him alone, and not for themselves or to devils, but the
benefit for themselves was atonement.
Another fascinating
point is the fact that blood gives life and function, but also acts
to preserve it in “helping fight off infection and fight off
disease.” That parallels very directly to blood sacrifice atonement
to preserve life and keep it healthy.
Happy holidays or
merry Christmas…
Debbie Mason, aka sunlight
Quote from
Encarta encyclopedia.
| |