What's your view on Hell?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by coksiw

How do you understand it?

Paul is contrasting the natural mortal body with the eternal body. God created Adam from the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. Christ is the last man Adam and His resurrection gave Him a spiritual imperishable body. When the dead in Christ are resurrected they will likewise have a spiritual imperishable body.

The dead in Christ, upon resurrection, will be imperishable and glorified, bearing the image of Christ.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Sorry! I asked a question that was too hard for you to answer. Let me make it easier.
Have you eaten in the last three or four months?

Years?

Let me know when I get it to a level that you can answer. I’m trying to make it easy for you. I’m trying to teach you something. You are pretending to be spiritual, and not at all carnal, which is hogwash. I’m not saying you aren’t spiritual, I’m just saying that you are carnal and pretend that you’re not. There are ways to tell: If you are eating or drinking, if you have a pulse, if you are not room temperature, all these are signs of carnality.

On the other hand, if you are not displaying any of these signs, it is a sign that we have a disembodied spirit posting on AFF. Or a liar. Or perhaps you don’t know what carnality is (which is a very real possibility). The options are really limited.

So, a really easy question for you (or it should be);

Are you carnal?




I am basically telling you what Paul was saying. “Are ye not carnal?” I hope his audience received it better than you have. You are pretending (perhaps even believe) that you are not carnal. Or perhaps you believe that it is not possible to be both.


Of course they were still carnal. But you are wrong to say that he couldn’t teach them because they were still carnal. The reason he couldn’t teach them is because they were babes in Christ. Their spirituality had not developed, or matured. Paul merely pointed this out to them. All of Paul’s letters to the church were written to carnal men. They were not spirits exclusively. Much of Paul’s teaching was about the balance of the spiritual and the natural, and even the carnal man. You seem to have interpreted his teaching to mean:

Carnal=Bad

Spiritual=Good

That is not what he was teaching.

I know this is probably going to shock you but:

Paul himself was carnal!!!

And he admitted to being so!!!

Oh the scandal.

Rom.7

[14] For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

If you notice, Paul is saying “I am carnal” , he’s not saying I used to be carnal, before I was Spirit-filled. He is admitting to being carnal while he is writing his letter to Rome.

But you pretend to be other than carnal. I’m calling you out on that. As long as you live in the body that has physical needs, you are carnal. Saying otherwise is sowing confusion.



The reason it has a nice ring to it is why?

Because you are carnal!

Romans 8:5-13
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
[6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
[7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
[8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
[10] And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
[11] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
[12] Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. [13] For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Instead of justifying your sinful acts through an unbiblical explanation of carnality, how about you humble yourself, seek the spirit, by destroying the deeds of the body. Once then submit yourself fully to the spirit and that little devil that you cower to you’ll now have authority to resist it.

BTW the natural man hungers, sleeps, eats etc… Jesus himself did those things, yet to call Jesus carnal because he ate is ignorant.

Oh yeah, I have eaten in the last 3-4 months.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Romans 8:5-13
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
[6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
[7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
[8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
[10] And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
[11] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
[12] Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. [13] For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Instead of justifying your sinful acts through an unbiblical explanation of carnality, how about you humble yourself, seek the spirit, by destroying the deeds of the body. Once then submit yourself fully to the spirit and that little devil that you cower to you’ll now have authority to resist it.

BTW the natural man hungers, sleeps, eats etc… Jesus himself did those things, yet to call Jesus carnal because he ate is ignorant.

Oh yeah, I have eaten in the last 3-4 months.

But are you carnal?

Could you please look up the definition of carnal, and post it on AFF?

Please?

Better yet just tell us what you think carnal means, and I will post the real definition of carnal.

If you have fathered children, you are (or have been, at least) carnal.

Was Paul carnal?

Is it possible to be carnal, and yet be spiritual, simultaneously?

[1 God]

If I may, as per Paul in Romans 7, yes....

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

[diakonos]

Paul is saying he’s sinning?

[shag]

Not only that, He considers himself chief of sinners in 1 Tim. 1:15


AM chief, present tense.



Talk about level ground at the cross…


Yet then says, shall we continue in sin? God forbid.


Sounds like he’s full of humility to me, not so much full of sin.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I see that you never acknowledged what I pointed out in your post. You admitted that the story of Eliezer/Lazarus is the only place where you can use as a place of torments. Yet, you can't find anywhere a place called "Bosom of Abraham" is found in the Old Testament. Death was a state of sleeping in the Old Testament. The dead weren't aware of anything because of their state of sleeping in death. In John 11:11 Jesus explains this to His followers. How do you have Abraham, Eliezer/Lazarus and the rich man awake in an after life, and Jesus explaining that in Lazarus (brother of Martha, and Mary) is asleep, and needed to be brought back from the dead was to be awakened?

Bump

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

All communication have rhetorical aspects but not all communication puts rhetorical impact over accuracy. I am a scientist, in a field of applied mathematics.

Is that why your logic is fuzzy?

Some biblical passages are clear cut, others are not that clear so the honest thing to do is to present it as the most plausible interpretation. There is nothing wrong with that. Your interpretation is actually less plausible and can be seen by the breaking of the cohesion of the passage it causes, making Paul’s communication very nonsensical with no a clear strong goal, not very typical of his Epistles sections addressing important concerns.

Which is more plausible? That he is lying? Or that he is telling the truth? It is more plausible that he is telling the truth. So when he says he will NOT glory in visions and revelations he has had, then it is more plausible that he is not doing so.

Which is more coherent? That it is not expedient nor is it his goal to glory in visions and revelations that he has had, while doing just that? Or that is not expedient nor is it his goal to glory in visions and revelations that he has had, and he is therefore NOT doing just that?

Which is the stronger goal? To show that his authenticity is not based on visions and revelations while regaling the audience with his visions and revelations? Or to show that his authenticity is not based on visions and revelations so he will gladly glory in someone ELSE'S visions and revelations while only glorying in the trials he has undergone as a result of preaching and defending the Gospel?

Which is more sensible? That he will not glory in his own ecstatic experiences while telling people about his awesome ecstatic experiences, in order to show that ecstatic experiences are not the signs of authentic apostleship? Or that he will not glory in his own ecstatic experiences while NOT telling people about his own ecstatic experiences but instead focusing on his tribulations and efforts and sacrifices for the Gospel's sake in order to show ecstatic experiences are not the signs of authentic apostleship, but rather that labour and sacrifice (and fruit) are?

I think in each the latter (my position) is more plausible, coherent, stronger, and sensible than the former (your position).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shag

Not only that, He considers himself chief of sinners in 1 Tim. 1:15


AM chief, present tense.



Talk about level ground at the cross…


Yet then says, shall we continue in sin? God forbid.


Sounds like he’s full of humility to me, not so much full of sin.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Paul is contrasting the natural mortal body with the eternal body. God created Adam from the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. Christ is the last man Adam and His resurrection gave Him a spiritual imperishable body. When the dead in Christ are resurrected they will likewise have a spiritual imperishable body.

The dead in Christ, upon resurrection, will be imperishable and glorified, bearing the image of Christ.