will you know your loved ones in heaven

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

(1) I researched the Greek. We have to go to the Greek when defining word in the New Testament. Going solely to English, especially modern-day English will miss the mark, because the New Testament was written in Greek. English words usually convey .most of what we require, but for technical issues like this, we cannot stand solely on English without consulting a Greek lexicon.

(2) And the book of 1 Cor would have let us know that, anyway.

(3) Chapter 2 speaks of natural and spiritual believers. Chapter 10 speaks of spiritual meat and drink in the form of the water form the rock and the manna. In all cases they were very physical.

Did you research the Greek etymology of the term?
That's the problem, I believe. You are not realizing that "Spiritual" is not speaking of the composition of the body, but of what drives it.
You really need to check the Greek out concerning the issue. I have some notes I will provide from my research.

(1) Beloved, I understand what you’re saying. I realize that the English language (most
of the languages, actually) have changed even during the last 200 years, and must rely on
other means to get the true meaning of Bible Language. Therefore, I do not employ an
English language dictionary, except to get a better grip on what the words might mean to
me today, and as a comparison.

Ideally, I use a Strong’s Concordance and Greek/Hebrew linear Bible; then I also use an
English (KJV) and a Spanish (later version) bibles for comparison. I then pray and ask the
Lord to help me for proper context in the content.

(2) Yes, 1 Cor. 1:10, admonishes us to agree…yet not with each other, but
in the Lord. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
saith the LORD.” So our thoughts must conform to His thoughts, that our ways may
also become His ways: “…that you also may have fellowship with us…”.

(3) I can see that those who are “spiritual” will walk accordingly; while those who
are not, tend to wrestle with the lust of the flesh but still wanting to be considered
“spiritual”.
As for the water and the manna, they were in physical (natural) forms because the
Israelites were still in their physical (natural) forms. I believe we will NOT NEED physical
(natural) foods after we receive our new tabernacle (As you can see, I employ "physical"
and "natural" interchangeably).

As an after thought: the SPIRIT-man might be the natural man, having first been created;
the flesh must then be the PHYSICAL man.

I believe that the SPIRITUAL man is encased in a body of dust, and that he is ETERNAL;
the body of dust is TEMPORAL, even as that (the earth) from which it was formed.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see...?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

(1) Beloved, I understand what you’re saying. I realize that the English language (most
of the languages, actually) have changed even during the last 200 years, and must rely on
other means to get the true meaning of Bible Language. Therefore, I do not employ an
English language dictionary, except to get a better grip on what the words might mean to
me today, and as a comparison.

Ideally, I use a Strong’s Concordance and Greek/Hebrew linear Bible; then I also use an
English (KJV) and a Spanish (later version) bibles for comparison. I then pray and ask the
Lord to help me for proper context in the content.

(2) Yes, 1 Cor. 1:10, admonishes us to agree…yet not with each other, but
in the Lord. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
saith the LORD.” So our thoughts must conform to His thoughts, that our ways may
also become His ways: “…that you also may have fellowship with us…”.

I am not referencing 1 Cor 10 about agreement. I am referring to the "spiritual" meat and drink in that chapter to learn what association Paul made with the word "spiritual."

(3) I can see that those who are “spiritual” will walk accordingly; while those who
are not, tend to wrestle with the lust of the flesh but still wanting to be considered
“spiritual”.
As for the water and the manna, they were in physical (natural) forms because the
Israelites were still in their physical (natural) forms.

But Paul called them "spiritual" meat and drink in those forms. So the term does not mean non-physical.

\ I believe we will NOT NEED physical
(natural) foods after we receive our new tabernacle (As you can see, I employ "physical"
and "natural" interchangeably).

Physical is not meant to be referred to interchangeably, though

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

(1) I am not referencing 1 Cor 10 about agreement. I am referring to the "spiritual" meat and drink in that chapter to learn what association Paul made with the word "spiritual."

(2) But Paul called them "spiritual" meat and drink in those forms. So the term does not mean non-physical.

(3) Physical is not meant to be referred to interchangeably, though

"It is the Spirit that quickens..."

(1) Ah, yes. That's what I do when I don't have my coke-bottle bottoms over my eyes!
I ask your indulgence.

(2) Yes: spiritual meat and drink because they came from the Spirit: and it was meant to
make them "spiritual". But it only satisfied their natural/physical man, and they "...could not
enter in because of unbelief."

(3) Beloved, physical and natural might not have been meant to be interchangeable, so...
What do we do? Who is the "natural" man: the one in sin, or the one that was created directly
in God's own image? And the "physical" man? Was Adam not a physical man; or are only
Adam's descendants physical? And now into a deeper question regarding the one created first...
and the answer lies in the following doctrine:

Man believes in his spirit, repents with his soul, and obeys with his body

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

"It is the Spirit that quickens..."

(1) Ah, yes. That's what I do when I don't have my coke-bottle bottoms over my eyes!
I ask your indulgence.

I do not know what you are asking here.,

(2) Yes: spiritual meat and drink because they came from the Spirit: and it was meant to make them "spiritual". But it only satisfied their natural/physical man, and they "...could not enter in because of unbelief."

No, the meat and drink was spiritual. That would not make THE PEOPLE spiritual. It was just spiritually provided. Supernaturally provided. Water from a rock and manna from heaven do not make a person spiritual. It just feeds people. What is your reasoning for saying it was meant to render them spiritual? 1 Cor 10 is saying that we, like Israel who were baptized and had spiritual meat and drink, can backslide and never fulfill our journey. Just because we were water (sea) and Spirit (cloud) baptized and were nourished by God, does not mean we will complete our journey and are free from falling to idols.

(3) Beloved, physical and natural might not have been meant to be interchangeable, so... What do we do?

We go to the Greek definition like I said.

In Greek, the IKOS suffix implies what empowers the noun to which the adjective applies. In this case, the BODY is said to be spiritual, informing us that SPIRIT empowers that body. If it were a case of composite material, then the suffix would instead be INOS. PNEUMATIKOS versus PNEUMATINOS. So, since the meat and drink were provided supernaturally, not by nature, then the physical meat and drink was spiritual.

A wind machine was referred to in ancient Greek writings as a PNEUMATIKOS. It was very physical. As you likely know, WIND is the same in Greek as SPIRIT. Pneuma.

Greek terms use the noun versions in their adjectives in this case, more than English does. there are the nouns spirit, soul and body, which is pneuma, psuche and sarx respectively in Greek.

• SPIRITUAL is PNEUMA-T-IKOS
  
• NATURAL is PSUCH-IKOS - that's why it is more correctly called "SOULISH" than natural, if we were to extrapolate the English noun from the adjective as Greek does.
  
• CARNAL is SARK-IKOS

A soulish person is not made of soul MATERIAL. He/'she is DRIVEN by the soul. A CARNAL person is driven by FLESH. And a spiritual person is driven by SPIRIT.

So, it's got nothing to do with composite material, but motivating factor.

Who is the "natural" man: the one in sin, or the one that was created directly in God's own image?

Neither. The natural man is the soulish man. Not necessarily ONE IN SIN. Because the soul of man is fallen, then sin is usually associated with it. But not technically as per the term itself. It's just someone driven by the SOUL which is the emotional, intellectual and willful part of us.

And the "physical" man? Was Adam not a physical man; or are only Adam's descendants physical?

Not sure what you're asking here again. Maybe you can rephrase it.

Maybe your confusion is coming from the term natural. It is literally SOULISH. The PHYSICAL aspect is from the Greek word for FLESH which is SARX, and the adjective is SARKIKOS which is defined as CARNAL. a CARNAL person is not a NATURAL person.

And now into a deeper question regarding the one created first... and the answer lies in the following doctrine:

Man believes in his spirit, repents with his soul, and obeys with his body

Again, speaking of spirit,soul and body, the SOUL is associated with a NATURAL person, not the body. The body is associated with the CARNAL person. And SPIRIT is associated with the SPIRITUAL person. We are not dealing with BODY versus SPIRIT, but the empowerment of SPIRIT versus SOUL. And in this case SOUL is nature. But not BODY.

Do you see the association between the noun and the adjective in Greek so as to reveal what the focus is upon when referring to SPIRIT, SOUL and BODY?

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I do not know what you are asking here.,
No, the meat and drink was spiritual. That would not make THE PEOPLE spiritual. It was just spiritually provided. Supernaturally provided. Water from a rock and manna from heaven do not make a person spiritual. It just feeds people. What is your reasoning for saying it was meant to render them spiritual? 1 Cor 10 is saying that we, like Israel who were baptized and had spiritual meat and drink, can backslide and never fulfill our journey. Just because we were water (sea) and Spirit (cloud) baptized and were nourished by God, does not mean we will complete our journey and are free from falling to idols.



We go to the Greek definition like I said.

In Greek, the IKOS suffix implies what empowers the noun to which the adjective applies. In this case, the BODY is said to be spiritual, informing us that SPIRIT empowers that body. If it were a case of composite material, then the suffix would instead be INOS. PNEUMATIKOS versus PNEUMATINOS. So, since the meat and drink were provided supernaturally, not by nature, then the physical meat and drink was spiritual.

A wind machine was referred to in ancient Greek writings as a PNEUMATIKOS. It was very physical. As you likely know, WIND is the same in Greek as SPIRIT. Pneuma.
Greek terms use the noun versions in their adjectives in this case, more than English does. there are the nouns spirit, soul and body, which is pneuma, psuche and sarx respectively in Greek.

• SPIRITUAL is PNEUMA-T-IKOS
• NATURAL is PSUCH-IKOS - that's why it is more correctly called "SOULISH" than natural, if we were to extrapolate the English noun from the adjective as Greek does.
• CARNAL is SARK-IKOS

A soulish person is not made of soul MATERIAL. He/'she is DRIVEN by the soul. A CARNAL person is driven by FLESH. And a spiritual person is driven by SPIRIT.
So, it's got nothing to do with composite material, but motivating factor.



Neither. The natural man is the soulish man. Not necessarily ONE IN SIN. Because the soul of man is fallen, then sin is usually associated with it. But not technically as per the term itself. It's just someone driven by the SOUL which is the emotional, intellectual and willful part of us.
Not sure what you're asking here again. Maybe you can rephrase it.
Maybe your confusion is coming from the term natural. It is literally SOULISH. The PHYSICAL aspect is from the Greek word for FLESH which is SARX, and the adjective is SARKIKOS which is defined as CARNAL. a CARNAL person is not a NATURAL person.
Again, speaking of spirit,soul and body, the SOUL is associated with a NATURAL person, not the body. The body is associated with the CARNAL person. And SPIRIT is associated with the SPIRITUAL person. We are not dealing with BODY versus SPIRIT, but the empowerment of SPIRIT versus SOUL. And in this case SOUL is nature. But not BODY.
Do you see the association between the noun and the adjective in Greek so as to reveal what the focus is upon when referring to SPIRIT, SOUL and BODY?

You sure make it complicated.

God created man in His image (spirit: the TRUE man);
God FORMED a body for man from the dust of the ground (earthly body);
God breathed LIFE into the body (gave man a soul to choose)

God has empowered man through the Spirit of GRACE (in our TRUE/inner man) to do and
fulfill His will.
Satan has corrupted our minds (soul) and confused the TRUE man from accomplishing any
objective the Lord has for us;
If we (our TRUE/inner man) can govern our souls (minds), we will also be able to bring
our bodies unto the Lords OBEDIENCE!
Can't get more simple than that!

Man believes in his spirit; repents with his soul; and obeys with his body.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

You sure make it complicated.

God created man in His image (spirit: the TRUE man);
God FORMED a body for man from the dust of the ground (earthly body);
God breathed LIFE into the body (gave man a soul to choose)

God has empowered man through the Spirit of GRACE (in our TRUE/inner man) to do and
fulfill His will.
Satan has corrupted our minds (soul) and confused the TRUE man from accomplishing any
objective the Lord has for us;
If we (our TRUE/inner man) can govern our souls (minds), we will also be able to bring
our bodies unto the Lords OBEDIENCE!
Can't get more simple than that!


Man believes in his spirit; repents with his soul; and obeys with his body.

What is the spirit of man? How does it differ from his soul? Is not the spirit of man his breath? Is not the soul that part of man which was created in the image and after the likeness of God?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

You sure make it complicated.

i did not make it anything. It's as it is in Greek.

God created man in His image (spirit: the TRUE man);
God FORMED a body for man from the dust of the ground (earthly body);
God breathed LIFE into the body (gave man a soul to choose)

God has empowered man through the Spirit of GRACE (in our TRUE/inner man) to do and
fulfill His will.
Satan has corrupted our minds (soul) and confused the TRUE man from accomplishing any
objective the Lord has for us;
If we (our TRUE/inner man) can govern our souls (minds), we will also be able to bring
our bodies unto the Lords OBEDIENCE!
Can't get more simple than that!

Man believes in his spirit; repents with his soul; and obeys with his body.

What's that got to do with the adjective "spiritual" and what it says about the body?

We have to learn the definitions of words and their limits of applicability.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Lafon

What is the spirit of man? How does it differ from his soul? Is not the spirit of man his breath? Is not the soul that part of man which was created in the image and after the likeness of God?

I believe the bible reveals the spirit of man is the holiest of holies within him, and the soul is the holy place and body the outer court, so to speak.

the spirit is that which is born again, not the soul. It is the part of us that communes with God, has intuition and is what cries out to worship in us. The soul is the natural mind with the human will and intelligence and emotions.

Spirit and soul can be divided by the word, so they're not the same thing. Heb 4:12.

I;ll show some scriptures later to relate this understanding.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

i did not make it anything. It's as it is in Greek.
What's that got to do with the adjective "spiritual" and what it says about the body?
We have to learn the definitions of words and their limits of applicability.

Doctrine must be established by intent, content, context, and/or the mouth of two witnesses or three.

I understand the necessity of applicability of definitions: I try to ascertain and not forget
to apply them in the Biblical context. Definition becomes moot is placed outside of context
(whether it is local and within the immediate text or chapter), or universal (within the whole
framework of the Bible).
I also try to make it as simple as possible for the novice.

Nicodemus was a "...ruler of the Jews...": certainly not a novice. He not only KNEW the scriptures,
but the grammar. Yet he ERRED concerning the words "born again"! He incorrectly interpreted them
to mean "come out of the womb", instead of meaning, "to be begotten". Of course, he didn't have
Peter to refer to saying, "Being born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible...".
And surely, we have been born again (begotten from above) by the preaching of the Word!

[Aquila]

If our bodies are not resurrected... why must they be water baptized?