The Spiritual Body -- Physical or Non-Physical?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mental

Do you have any scholars that would take a spiritual resurrection view? I would be interested to read one. What other scripture would there be to support a spiritual resurrection?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here we go again with insults.

whew.

I'm sorry you feel that is an insult? I do hope to the Lord Jesus, that I would never go to your length of change. Brother Blume? Do you believe that you are in Truth? I would guess that you would say amen? Then there you go, no problem, no insult, I'm just stating a fact of your constant moving away from where you had started. I have changed my views of eschatology as the years rolled on, and I saw the truth contained in scripture. Yet, I held onto things that I first saw when I came into the Apostolic Faith. You went towards the Trinitarian Charismatic Pentecostal movements. This is fine with you, and you're happy, and content with what you currently believe, I myself don't agree with your direction, and yet that doesn't really matter, because you are convinced of your direction. Whether I agree, or believe in what you believe, is of no consequence to you. Please keep in mind that you, on more than one occasion have called what I and other Fulfilled believers, devilish, and you felt as fine as frog's hair when you said it. Yet, if I have learned anything, I have learned that you are totally entitled to call what I believe anything you please, because in your mind you believe it is incorrect. If you have a strong belief to say that my family and I are hell bound then that again is your perspective from where you stand.

Brother Blume, I do thank God that I have not changed as you have, but keep in mind that YOU believe that everything you do is Spirit led, and that you have Bible truth. You believe that, and therefore you post pages and pages of what you believe on these forums. You have done a wonderful job in bringing people into Fulfilled Eschatology, and Partial Futurism, and one must give credit to where credit is due. So, if I make an observation on your constant evolutions of change, it is just my convictions that I hope to God never to change in that direction that you have entered into.

You have strong feelings about issues that I believe, and through the years you have never hesitated to voice your thoughts with strong comebacks.
Devilish? Can't get anymore insulting than that, but that is your right, if you truly believe that.

Now, back to our discussion, psychikos means "of the soul" and pneumatikos means "of the Holy Ghost"

The meanings of these Greek words are clear: psychikos and pneumatikos are adjectives, meaning something is made of, or is like, or shares the properties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psychê and pneuma respectively. The Apostle Paul clearly means to say that when we are resurrected, we become like the Holy Spirit (having the same composition of the heavenly), and cease to be what we were when we were alive (like our physical father Adam, who was made of the dust), but unlike the Holy Ghost, our spirit is still centrally located as an unseen body. Jesus explains to His questioners that in the resurrection the resurrected would be as the "angels" Mat 22:30, and Mar 12:25. This isn't rocket science, as Brother Blume would want us all to believe. Could be, that he is just trying to defend the last bastions of his dispensational beliefs? Brother Blume, now there is something that really needs to change.



In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[mfblume]

Bro Benincasa, this is not about me or you. I have apologized to you in the past, although I never got the same from you. I made mistakes in engaging you in personal quibbles, and I do not want to further engage in such things. I admit I was wrong in saying things to you. Let's leave each other out of any further conversations. Cool? Let's stay objective.

Now, saying a doctrine is devilish is not the same as talking about a person. Talking about beliefs is not the same as talking about people. Sorry if you disagree. I draw the line between making this an issue of what I think of you and what I think of your teaching. If you take it personal when I described your doctrine it was not meant to be because it was not a description of you. To me, being personal is not saying your doctrine is devilish, but it is saying YOU are devilish.

You went towards the Trinitarian Charismatic Pentecostal movements.

That is not true. I am oneness and I was ever oneness. I simply think there is no difference in hearing a trinitarian preach in a pulpit than in reading their books. I remain oneness. I disagree strongly with trinity teaching. But to me reading their books is the same as listening to them preach. And I give honour where honour is due as well.

So can we leave each other out of this from now on? Call my belief devilish all you want. Call my doctrine wicked. But it is a different story when you talk about a person and describe that person.

Thanks!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Bro Benincasa

Now, back to our discussion, psychikos means "of the soul" and pneumatikos means "of the Holy Ghost"

Rather, pneumatikos means of the Spirit, holy or human. Context determines what spirit.

The meanings of these Greek words are clear: psychikos and pneumatikos are adjectives, meaning something is made of, or is like, or shares the properties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psychê and pneuma respectively.

The terms can mean far more than that, bro. As I said, an ancient wind machine that was quite physical was called a PNEUMATIKOS. Why? It was not made from wind, nor was like wind, but was driven by wind.

RT Robertson:

Psuchikos is a qualitative adjective from psuchē (breath of life like animal life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by animalis and the German by sinnlich, the original sense of animal life as in Jud_1:19; Jam_3:15. In 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:46 there is the same contrast between psuchikos and pneumatikos as here. The psuchikos man is the unregenerate man while the pneumatikos man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God.

It can mean BORN OF SPIRIT.

Barnes noted this:

Now the “natural man” is there opposed to the spiritual man, the ψυχικὸς psuchikos to the πνευματικὸς pneumatikos, and if the latter be explained of “him who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit” - who is regenerate - the former must be explained of him who is not enlightened by that Spirit, who is still in a state of nature; and will thus embrace a class far more numerous than the merely sensual part of mankind.

Him who is enlightened by the Spirit.

It is pertaining to the wind or spirit in some manner. Not just being made of wind.

The Apostle Paul clearly means to say that when we are resurrected, we become like the Holy Spirit (having the same composition of the heavenly), and cease to be what we were when we were alive (like our physical father Adam, who was made of the dust), but unlike the Holy Spirit, our spirit is still centrally located as an unseen body. Jesus explains to His questioners that in the resurrection the resurrected would be as the "angels" Mat 22:30, and Mar 12:25.

Angels appear in physical manners.

This isn't rocket science, as Brother Blume would want us all to believe. Could be, that he is just trying to defend the last bastions of his dispensational beliefs? Brother Blume, now there is something that really needs to change.

It is indeed simple. The body with which Jesus rose from the tomb is the same spiritual body we shall arise with.

Belief in a physical resurrection is not standing on dispensational beliefs. That is like saying we are Roman Catholic since we believe Jesus died on a cross.

Now, where are your heavyweight Greek scholars that attest to what you are saying? My popcorn is wasting!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Bro Benincasa, this is not about me or you. I have apologized to you in the past, although I never got the same from you. I made mistakes in engaging you in personal quibbles, and I do not want to further engage in such things. I admit I was wrong in saying things to you. Let's leave each other out of any further conversations. Cool? Let's stay objective.

Now, saying a doctrine is devilish is not the same as talking about a person. Talking about beliefs is not the same as talking about people. Sorry if you disagree. I draw the line between making this an issue of what I think of you and what I think of your teaching. If you take it personal when I described your doctrine it was not meant to be because it was not a description of you. To me, being personal is not saying your doctrine is devilish, but it is saying YOU are devilish.



That is not true. I am oneness and I was ever oneness. I simply think there is no difference in hearing a trinitarian preach in a pulpit than in reading their books. I remain oneness. I disagree strongly with trinity teaching. But to me reading their books is the same as listening to them preach. And I give honour where honour is due as well.

So can we leave each other out of this from now on? Call my belief devilish all you want. Call my doctrine wicked. But it is a different story when you talk about a person and describe that person.

Thanks!

1Timothy 4:1 Paul called other people's doctrines devilish because they were seduced by demonic spirits. Calling a teaching devilish and saying the person is not devilish who teaches it, is like saying John says stupid things yet John is not stupid. Also, it is the same as saying a person speaks nothing but lies and yet is not a liar. Isn't that crazy? If someone stood up in your church and said all that you preach is doctrines of devils what would that make you Brother Blume? Wouldn't that be a reference to the type of preacher you are? Didn't you preach that the ultra conservative Pentecostals who teach holiness were the spirit of anti-christ? Correct me if I am wrong about that, but didn't you preach something along those lines? You see when I say that I thank God that I have not gone your direction it isn't about eschatology, it is about where you stand on more things than that. I read the newspaper, yet I wouldn't be the Sun Sentinel's editor in our pulpit. I read books on different religions, yet none of those authors would I allow in our pulpit here in Fort Lauderdale.

Let's resume the discussion, and I'm not insulting you, just telling you that any changes that you have made are in no way the same as I have made.
That is all that I was trying to say. You changed, and you went to places that I pray to Jesus that my family and I never go. When I say Trinitarian Charismatic Pentecostal movement, I mean the Kingdom Covenant/Kingdom Conference movement of vertical and horizontal prophets, and apostles.

Alright? Let's resume our discussion.


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Rather, pneumatikos means of the Spirit, holy or human. Context determines what spirit.

Therefore in the context of the chapter of 1st Cor 15:44 it means physical bodies born from the earth, and spiritual bodies born from the quicking spirit.
Brother Blume, this is way too easy.

Originally Posted by mfblume

The terms can mean far more than that, bro. As I said, an ancient wind machine that was quite physical was called a PNEUMATIKOS. Why? It was not made from wind, nor was like wind, but was driven by wind.

First, CAN MEAN, doesn't mean ONLY CAN MEAN. Brother Blume, this is way too simple, that a child shouldn't err therein. Brother Blume, ancient wind machine, so every where that we read pneumatikos we should understand that it means to be moved by the wind? So a spiritual man means to be moved by the wind? Spiritual meat and drink means to be moved by the wind?

Brother Blume, your arguments are failing you, try to place the words in their proper context within the chapter and how the writer is using them in a sentence.

Originally Posted by mfblume

RT Robertson:

Psuchikos is a qualitative adjective from psuchē (breath of life like animal life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by animalis and the German by sinnlich, the original sense of animal life as in Jud_1:19; Jam_3:15. In 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:46 there is the same contrast between psuchikos and pneumatikos as here. The psuchikos man is the unregenerate man while the pneumatikos man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God.

Here your scholar only gives the one meaning, of the two adjectives. Brother Blume, we wrestle not against flesh and blood? But against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Brother Blume, that doesn't mean physical wickedness in epouranios, which means heavenly places, the spirit realm. Wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, epouranios means the heavenly realm!

Originally Posted by mfblume

It can mean BORN OF SPIRIT.

Amen, therefore one man is born from the dust of the ground, and the other is from heavenly places, therefore we must go from the physical to the spirit realm. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Barnes noted this:

Now the “natural man” is there opposed to the spiritual man, the ψυχικὸς psuchikos to the πνευματικὸς pneumatikos, and if the latter be explained of “him who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit” - who is regenerate - the former must be explained of him who is not enlightened by that Spirit, who is still in a state of nature; and will thus embrace a class far more numerous than the merely sensual part of mankind.

Brother Blume, please, 2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day, or which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. Therefore, we who are spiritual man goes on beyond the confines of the outer natural man, who is finite, and the spirit which is eternal.

2Co 4:18

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

Now that is too simple.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Him who is enlightened by the Spirit.

It is pertaining to the wind or spirit in some manner. Not just being made of wind.

I have shown where it just doesn't mean to be wind powered.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Angels appear in physical manners.

Heb 1:7

"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his ANGELS SPIRITS, and his ministers a flame of fire."

Brother Blume, so are you meaning to tell us that the angels are physical being who are always in tangible forms that are always visible? Wouldn't you agree that they are mostly and commonly spirit beings? Or don't you understand why Jesus was saying that in the resurrection that we would become as the angels? Spirit beings, who cannot procreate! Too simple. Way too simple.

Originally Posted by mfblume

It is indeed simple. The body with which Jesus rose from the tomb is the same spiritual body we shall arise with.

Brother Blume, we will have the same body? You mean with any of the injuries we sustain in death, we will still have in the resurrection? Jesus said if you cut off hand and foot you would go into eternity without those body parts.
So, do you believe that John the Baptist had to go to Salome, and retrieve his head? Jesus made the statement about feet and hands being cut off because that is what the Pharisees believed, and therefore he used it in a parable. Yet, Jesus and the many who resurrected from the grave were the physical resurrection that had to be handled, and touched by those who were chosen. Those who would die after that part would be resurrected in the spirit, not having to sleep and wait in the grave, and never having to worry about lost body parts.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Belief in a physical resurrection is not standing on dispensational beliefs. That is like saying we are Roman Catholic since we believe Jesus died on a cross.

You were never a Roman Catholic, and therefore I wouldn't mingle your futurist views with Catholicism. Yet, you were raised around dispensationalism and therefore I make the connection.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Now, where are your heavyweight Greek scholars that attest to what you are saying? My popcorn is wasting!

Brother Blume, read what I posted, your same scholars believe in the Trinity, Historicism, rapture, and who knows what else. They dont agree with you on so many levels, and yet you dance with them on where they agree with you? Maybe you should try reading the Bible in English.



In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Bro Benincasa

Therefore in the context of the chapter of 1st Cor 15:44 it means physical bodies born from the earth, and spiritual bodies born from the quicking spirit.
Brother Blume, this is way too easy.

No, that is not the context. The context is bodies and their quality as being of the Spirit or nature. But WHAT SPECIFIC QUALITY is in question. You claim it is only one quality that is the picture, and that is material. You seem to think material composition is the only thing "spiritual" can refer to. And that is simply not true. The heavyweights say this is in fact NEVER true. Never. Show me one who thinks otherwise.

First, CAN MEAN, doesn't mean ONLY CAN MEAN. Brother Blume, this is way too simple, that a child shouldn't err therein.

The simplest solution is what most people read from the text, and it is not what you are saying. You can repeat how simple your conclusion is in all this but that does not make it so.

Brother Blume, ancient wind machine, so every where that we read pneumatikos we should understand that it means to be moved by the wind?

You are not reading what I said. I already said it can mean BORN OF the Spirit, not just moved by wind or spirit. Is birth from Spirit the same thing as moved by it? No. but the same Greek word and refer to either, unlike your claim that is can only mean made from spirit material. Even something made from the Spirit does not mean it has to be spirit material. The Spirit of God is a person -- the ONLY person of the Godhead – and He, Jesus, can made fish multiply. So the multiplied fish can be said to be spiritually provided. It was not nature that multiplied fish. It was the supernatural. The Spiritual.

Here your scholar only gives the one meaning, of the two adjectives.

Is it incorrect, though? You claim spiritual means material that is spirit. You think that is the only meaning it can have. But that defies how the word is used in other places that disallow that meaning. Now you imply the scholar used a viable meaning, but you simply think it is not the ONLY meaning. There is a big difference between being the ONLY meaning and a correct one of several.

Brother Blume, we wrestle not against flesh and blood? But against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Brother Blume, that doesn't mean physical wickedness in epouranios, which means heavenly places, the spirit realm. Wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, epouranios means the heavenly realm!

I know there are many nuances to how "spiritual" can be used. The context determines it, and material composition is not contextually accurate. And scholars say it can never mean compositional material. You must simply not want to believe in physical resurrection to deny all the evidence.

Amen, therefore one man is born from the dust of the ground, and the other is from heavenly places, therefore we must go from the physical to the spirit realm. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

No "therefore" about it. You again are insisting it can only mean material composition. I asked and asked you for Greek scholarship attesting to your hypothesis, and you have not provided anything yet. All I am reading is what Dominic Benincasa thinks of the Greek use of the term, and Dominic Benincasa is not a greek scholar. So, when did you learn Greek, as you asked me many times? Why are you so afraid of researching greek scholarly sources and citing them for validity? You and I do not know Greek. So provide me some sources. The point is that true greek scholarship should validate your reasoning. Mental asked you for the same thing, and you have not provided us with anything.

Sorry, but this shows your conclusions to be purely subjective. You do not want to admit you were wrong.

Brother Blume, please, 2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day, or which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. Therefore, we who are spiritual man goes on beyond the confines of the outer natural man, who is finite, and the spirit which is eternal.

2Co 4:18

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

Now that is too simple.

This is indeed simple, and you are stretching it to unreasonable lengths. The spiritual people who are eternal are indeed of the eternal spirit. How does that prove spiritual is talking about material composition?

I have shown where it just doesn't mean to be wind powered.

No you have not. You gave your limited opinion and refused to believe 1 Cor 15 is talking about a supernaturally motivated body rather than a naturally motivated body, and you have distorted the contextual purpose of how flesh of fish differs from flesh of birds, as though you claim it is made of different material.

PSUCHIKOS (natural) means OF THE SOUL. How is material composition of the SOUL? Does the soul produce physical matter and the spirit provide non-physical matter?

(I bet you will not answer that one).

I told you before that flesh is flesh and it is made of earthly elements if it is mortal. You did not respond to that specific point. I do not blame you for you cannot respond to it. I showed you the contrast of our specific bodies going from dishonor to glory and strength weakness to strength. Material composition is not even suggested. I told you that the phraseology disallows for your conclusions. Something that puts on immortality shows us that the same thing that is mortal is altered to become immortal. You never responded an iota about that point. You cannot. The phraseology of "It is sown... it is raised," shows the same object sown is the object that is raised, but since it is altered when it is raised it has a different quality about it. It is no more driven by nature but supernatural life, Spirit. You said nothing in response, for you can't. This sort of phraseology disallows for your conclusions.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Bro Benincasa

Heb 1:7

"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his ANGELS SPIRITS, and his ministers a flame of fire."

So Jacob grabbed onto non-physical spirit matter when he wrestled the angel?

See? You did not directly deal with what I say, but you, in effect, answer my question with a question. Angels did what Jesus did after His resurrection. They appear in the physical and then vanish. And we shall be like the angels and like Jesus in very body.

Brother Blume, so are you meaning to tell us that the angels are physical being who are always in tangible forms that are always visible?

Where did I say that? I simply said angels appear in physical manners. That does not say it is all the time. Are they no longer spiritual when they are physical?

Wouldn't you agree that they are mostly and commonly spirit beings?

Sure! But the fact remains is that they appear and have appeared in physical manners. But all the while they ARE STILL SPIRITUAL EVEN WHEN PHYSICAL. Becoming physical in form DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE NO LONGER SPIRITUAL AT THAT MOMENT.

Or don't you understand why Jesus was saying that in the resurrection that we would become as the angels? Spirit beings, who cannot procreate! Too simple. Way too simple.

Just because something is physical does not mean it has to procreate. You are really mixing apples and oranges here now. You imply that being physical means you procreate! What on earth is that? Rocks procreate, then, since they are physical?

They are spiritual because they are not living by natural life, and for other SPIRITUAL reasons. But they do not become suddenly NON-SPIRITUAL, or PSUCHIKOS, when they appear in physical form. Think about what you are saying. The whole contrast is between natural and spiritual. And you hereby imply that when an angel appears in physical form it is NATURAL! Answer me this time... 1) Do you believe an angel is no longer pneumatikos when it appears physically? 2) Do you believe an angel is psuchikos when it appears physically?

Brother Blume, we will have the same body? You mean with any of the injuries we sustain in death, we will still have in the resurrection?

You are not even reading what I am saying.

Please read what I said again, and can you respond to it this time?

Worn out response. Let me repeat what I told you every time you said this.... Jesus was whipped to hamburger meat on the cross. He was marred in his visage more than any man, and men have been marred quite badly. And YOU THINK IT ONLY MEANT HIS HANDS AND FEET AND SIDE HAD HOLES????

To say that the fact that the wounds with which He died were still visible in his body is to imply that risen body is NOT the spiritual body that we shall get. You use that in attempts to make it sound like everyone who is saved and has a mangled member of their body will rise with a mangled member of their body according to my belief. But you fail to realize that thinking the holes in his feet, hands and side were the few of many more wounds all over his frame. And that for the disciples to only see nail and spear wounds and none other is for the Lord to have CHOSEN TO RETAIN THOSE PARTICULAR WOUNDS, while not bearing any other wounds that caused him to be marred more than any man.

The only way you can disagree is to say he was marred more than any man since he had holes in hands, feet and his side. Wow! That REALLY is being marred more than any man, isn't it?! (Not).

HE CHOSE TO RETAIN THE NAIL WOUNDS AND SPEAR WOUND. But where are the thorn wounds in his brow? What about the wounds from the beard ripped from his face? One would think that if you were correct, and Christ had a risen body that remained MANGLED from the cross in all manners in which he was mangled by the ordeal, they would have gasped at the torn flesh of his cheeks from which his beard was plucked, and the gaping holes in his forehead from where the thorns punctured his brow. He would have had open wounds all over his face and neck. But the obvious point is that He resurrected and the wounds he chose to retain in order to witness of his resurrection to the disciples were ONLY the wounds in hands, feet and side. He CHOSE to retain them, and not the others.

You have arguments for his wounds as though you reach so far to grasp at straws by saying that body with which he came from the tomb is not the kind of body with which we shall arise with in the resurrection. You have to create a moment that is not written in the bible when Jesus discarded the physical body with which he resurrected AND ASCENDED. You have to re-phrase "THIS CORRUPTIBLE SHALL PUT ON INCORRUPTION" into something where no "this" puts on anything. For a "this" to put on one thing after having another trait means that the "this" changes in nature, just as a body is no longer mortal but the same body is rendered and altered immortal. All these manners of speaking in Paul's words here completely disallow for your view.

You were never a Roman Catholic, and therefore I wouldn't mingle your futurist views with Catholicism. Yet, you were raised around dispensationalism and therefore I make the connection.

Your logic fails here again. Dispensationalism is named after a thought that describes the belief system. It is a system of a series of Dispensations. How a body resurrects is not restricted to a specific teaching about a series of specific diespensations.

Brother Blume, read what I posted, your same scholars believe in the Trinity, Historicism, rapture, and who knows what else.

It is weak argumentation to stand on guilt by association. Just because one doctrine is associated with another by only being held by people who hold another, without any direct connection to that other doctrine, does not mean the first is wrong. Illogical.

They don’t agree with you on so many levels, and yet you dance with them on where they agree with you? Maybe you should try reading the Bible in English.

Moot point and illogical. Please show me your heavyweights. You posted a popcorn eating icon as if to anticipate something you felt could not be supplied. Mental asked me for some heavyweights in Greek scholarship, and you in effect challenged me with that icon as though saying you knew I could not provide any. Now, I challenge you to show me scholarship, because you do not know Greek any better than I do, and when i asked you to show me what your relatives said, you did not do so. All we are hearing are thoughts from your understanding that HAS NO GREEK TRAINING WHATSOEVER.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is a interesting read.http://www.christianorigins.com/resbody.html

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is another one. http://www.babylonforsaken.com/resurrection.html