For those who think Jesus is not a man any longer.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Blume,

Could you expound on the meaning of spiritual, as opposed to non-physical? Can you give examples of something being at once spiritual, and physical? I’ve read several times examples of you saying this, but I really don’t understand what you mean. You’ve probably explained this already, and I’ve missed it.

Thanks

Sure.

First of all, I checked out a Greek scholar's explanation of suffixes, and IKOS is one and INOS is another. PNEUMA is greek for SPIRIT. PSUCHI is Greek for natural or literally soul. PSYCHE is derived from that. So, there are the words PNEUMATINOS or PNEUMATIKOS which serve as adjectives that use those two suffixes for PNEUMA -- much like nature becomes NATURAL and spirit becomes SPIRITUAL. PNEUMATIKSO happens to describe soemthing that is of the SPIRIT in terms of empowerment. PNEUMATINOS is dealing with composite material. So, something PNEUMATINOS would be something non-physical. However, PNEUMATIKOS speaks of something driven by the SPIRIT.

Examples of physical spiritual things...

Same book!

1 Corinthians 10:2-4.. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; ..(3).. And did all eat the same spiritual meat; ..(4).. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

People ate physical manna, drank physical water and Moses struck a physical rock to shed forth that water. What made them SPIRITUAL is the fact that NATURE could not nor does not supply such things nor work in those ways. Striking a rock to get water is not NATURAL. Something aside from PHYSICS is involved. Water does not come from a struck rock, making the water spiritual. And manna does not appear as it did in the wilderness, making it spiritual food/meat.

These spiritual things were all very much physical. But they were not NATURAL. NATURAL, NOT PHYSICAL, is the contrasting term compared to SPIRITUAL. Natural is PSUCHIKOS, and speaks of things driven and enlivened by NATURE, NATURE in other words, did not cause MANNA to appear, or the water to flow from the rock. SPIRIT power accomplished those things upon very physical things. Hence, they are PNEUMATIKOS.

An ancient writing in Greek spoke of a wind-powered machine and it was called a "SPIRITUAL" or PNEUMATIKOS. WIND is the same as SPIRIT in Greek.

Not only that, but PEOPLE were called spiritual, natural or carnal in 1 Cor 2-3. SAME BOOK AGAIN!

1 Corinthians 2:14-3:1.. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ..(15).. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. ..(16).. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. ..(3:1).. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

SARKIKOS is carnal and comes from the root word SARX which is flesh.

So, you have spirit, soul and body with adjectives derived from them:

PNEUMATIKOS
PSUCHIKOS
SARKIKOS

And they are not talking about what something is made out of -- composite material. They are talking about what inspires or energizes them.

Spiritual people are not less physical than natural or carnal people. They are all spirit, soul and body beings But the spiritual person is more focused on the things that his spirit relates to, the natural man is more focued on what his soul relates to, and the carnal man's more focused on what his body relates to. BUT THEY ARE ALL just as physical as each other.


So, TJJJ and his ilk actually use the words CARNAL and SPIRITUAL in a way that contradicts themselves! They talk about spiritual people and carnal people, and all the while these peopel are JUST AS PHYSICAL as the other! But when it comes to SPIRITUAL BODIES, they suddenly REDEFINE those terms and think they are speaking about composite material.

[mfblume]

Do you understand why I made that claim now, tithesmeister?

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by mfblume

TJJJ, Nicodemus68?

Care to discuss this in depth?

Mike,
I’m going to happen to agree with TJJJ about this conversation. Like in the message I wrote you, these conversations can get to the point where our spirit can be affected. It’s very obvious Easias, and yourself do not believe what TJJJ and myself believe as far as the body of Christ is concerned.

In my opinion this conversation is going to cause more personal hard feelings rather than Godly edifying.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Mike,
I’m going to happen to agree with TJJJ about this conversation. Like in the message I wrote you, these conversations can get to the point where our spirit can be affected. It’s very obvious Easias, and yourself do not believe what TJJJ and myself believe as far as the body of Christ is concerned.

In my opinion this conversation is going to cause more personal hard feelings rather than Godly edifying.

I disagree.

I have discussed many issues with those who disagree with me, such as Parson who was an avowed futurist, and it went well. We stopped only when he showed his desire to stick to the belief he held despite his self-admitted blunder of accusing a reference I made of being ridiculous when he later agreed it was actually a reference of his belief. And the only reason that we stopped was not for insult's sake, as TJJJ has used insult, but Parson was being unethical in calling down what he claimed to be ridiculous when it was something that he later proposed himself, and admitted it! (It was about timelines).

But TJJJ simply would be insulting and accusing us of being carnal, and that is where he lost objectivity and became subjective.

I get along great with people who disagree with me. But when stunts like personal attacks are made that is when it engenders hard feelings.

If you feel that you can discuss without having to insult me as he did as though I am "carnal," then there would be no hard feelings. TJJJ could not post something without insulting me personally. So, enough was enough and I gave it to him. No fear of that if you remain objective and not subjective.

Your biggest arguments have been that spiritual means non-physical, and I patently proved that to be error with 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 2.

[mfblume]

I am concerned about the reason that no one who thinks Jesus does not retain humanity will discuss this civilly and without insult. Brethren, please think about that.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Do you understand why I made that claim now, tithesmeister?

Brother Blume,

I have read your opinion. I have to say my opinion is that you’re wrong. According to Merriam Webster, physical is the antonym of spiritual. So if it is opposite, how can it be the same.

I’m not necessarily wanting to engage in a debate about this, but you may need to research the meaning of English words (spiritual as opposed to physical) before jumping straight into Greek. Generally I don’t recommend people to go back and try to re-translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew (or Aramaic or Latin) when forty seven scholars, spent seven years doing just that, over four hundred years ago. I know it’s a popular thing to do, and it has the appearance of being scholarly, but it seems that it seldom ends well. I don’t do it myself, as a matter of habit. I try to stick with my birth language when it comes to studying the Bible.

The references you make to manna and water are physical types of spiritual significance, in my opinion. This is pretty common in the instance of types and shadows. The manna from heaven was a type of Jesus. The passing through the Red Sea was a type of Baptism. Miracles were performed that were physical types of Spiritual events that took place thousands of years later. Abraham offered his carnal son in sacrifice as a physical, carnal, type of God offering his only begotten Son. Isaac was carnal. His blood , had it been shed, was carnal. He was the carnal son of Abraham. He came from Abraham’s carnal loins. But he was a type of something spiritual. So there is a lot of symbolism involved.

So, spiritual does mean non-physical, in spite of what you believe. Your belief defies the definition of words. White means non-black. Spiritual means non-physical. To say otherwise is error.

That’s my opinion anyway.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Blume,

I have read your opinion. I have to say my opinion is that you’re wrong. According to Merriam Webster, physical is the antonym of spiritual. So if it is opposite, how can it be the same.

There is your mistake, brother. We are not supposed to go to the English dictionary to determining the meaning of a word translated from the Greek. The English word is the CLOSEST that serves as a translation. This is the reason that Bible students should be using Greek and Hebrew lexicons. The Greek used in the Bible is a dead language. That means it is not evolving as English is. But furthermore, there are many Greek words that aren't served justice in the English by one word.

But not only that, you showed evidence that you failed to realize that, not only must we go to the Greek, I mentioned I referenced the Greek language via a Greek scholar who distinctly explained the terminology.

Let me show you how using ENGLISH ALONE does not always work, as in this case.

Look at James 2:3. GAY CLOTHING. What GAY means there can drastically change in the English use of the word. It can mean lighthearted or carefree, or homosexual. However, when you go to the GREEK and find that the word GAY means shining or brilliant, magnificent, etc.

There are many English words that have changed meanings from 1611 when the KJV was translated until 2020.

LET: in Greek means TO HOLD BACK AND HINDER.

In English today it means: to not prevent or forbid. EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. And you are saying that SPIRITUAL means the opposite of what I am claiming!

We need to check out the GREEK term PNEUMATIKOS, not the English dictionary. I cannot stress that enough.

Many English words have various definitions. HOUSE can mean a building we indwell, as a noun, or it can be a verb and mean CONTAIN. So, when we see an English word in the Bible, then we go to the GREEK lexicon to show us what that word was translated from, to get the right understanding.

The bible was not written in English. The NT was written in Greek. So, we need to go to the Greek Lexicon to get the proper definition.

Another example.

"IN TRUTH" is ONE Greek word, "aletheia." It means IN REALITY. So, worship in truth means to have genuine and not surface or fake worship. Those who read the English alone, and fail to check out the greek, often think it means that you have to believe the truth to worship properly. That is far from the case.

I’m not necessarily wanting to engage in a debate about this, but you may need to research the meaning of English words (spiritual as opposed to physical) before jumping straight into Greek.

No no no. A million times no. That is precisely the opposite of what we should be doing. If the Greek was a translation FROM ENGLISH and the original new testament was written in ENGLISH, and translated into Greek, then you would be right. But since it is from the GREEK, we need to research the Greek and it's easy to do with a Greek Lexicon. That is Basic Bible Reading 101.

Generally I don’t recommend people to go back and try to re-translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew (or Aramaic or Latin) when forty seven scholars, spent seven years doing just that,

Back in 1611 when English words have changed meanings, and the English language is not a dead language, whereas the Koine Greek is a dead language.

over four hundred years ago.

Precisely why we absolutely need Greek lexicons!

I know it’s a popular thing to do, and it has the appearance of being scholarly, but it seems that it seldom ends well.

It is absolutely essential in cases like this. And to be honest with you, if you insist on disagreeing on this aspect of using the Greek Lecxicons, then I refuse to discuss it any more, because we have no common foundation of reference. Our foundation is not the English bible with no regard for the Greek definitions. The New Testament was written in Greek, and for that reason, serious bible students understand the need for references to the Greek Lexicons at times.

I don’t do it myself, as a matter of habit. I try to stick with my birth language when it comes to studying the Bible.

You will ultimately get the wrong understanding in several issues if you continue that path. I do not think it affects the truths of salvation as much as these more detailed issues.

The references you make to manna and water are physical types of spiritual significance, in my opinion.

Like I said, they are naturally impossible realities and require the supernatural, which is a great synonym for spiritual.

This is pretty common in the instance of types and shadows. The manna from heaven was a type of Jesus.

They are types, yes. But they were called SPIRITUAL as you admit. Ther is no caveat or disclaimer that they're only spiritual inasmuch as the TYPOLOGY alone makes them so. The verses say SPIRITUAL without your explanations.

The passing through the Red Sea was a type of Baptism. Miracles were performed that were physical types of Spiritual events that took place thousands of years later. Abraham offered his carnal son in sacrifice as a physical, carnal, type of God offering his only begotten Son. Isaac was carnal. His blood , had it been shed, was carnal. He was the carnal son of Abraham. He came from Abraham’s carnal loins. But he was a type of something spiritual. So there is a lot of symbolism involved.

So, spiritual does mean non-physical, in spite of what you believe. Your belief defies the definition of words. White means non-black. Spiritual means non-physical. To say otherwise is error.

That’s my opinion anyway.

Symbolism is certainly involved, too! But more than that, something spiritual is SUPERNATURAL. That is why we read contrasts from NATURAL and SPIRITUAL, and never do we read PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL contrasts.


As I stated, your belief denies and contradicts the need for reference to the Greek language in which the New Testament was written.

So, please explain why the GREEK means what the scholars say.

Thanks for being non-insulting.

[mfblume]

So, Tithesmeister, what is a SPIRITUAL man? Is he not physical? Is he a type of Jesus?

[mfblume]

I just touched upon this point with Tithesmeister. So, I will go further here with it.

SPIRITUAL is incorrectly argued to be NON-PHYSICAL in the argument of those who insist there is no physical resurrection and there is no humanity of Jesus in existence today.

I bring this up because the argument that I made for SPIRITUAL meaning something EMPOWERED by the Spirit has bee denied by Tithesmeister based on using ENGLISH dictionaries instead of Greek Lexicons. This bypasses the issue of Greek or English. We are now looking at the USE of the words that disallow the meaning of SPIRITUAL to be NON-PHYSICAL.

When one looks at that which Paul is contrasting when he speaks of this term, he is not contrasting the spiritual from the PHYSICAL.

Look at the terms Paul used:

1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

What is NATURAL? Is something that is natural limited to being physical? Natural has the root word NATURE. Natural things are things that are not only NOT SPIRITUAL, as Paul is trying to say, but we can say they are things that are SUPERnatural. SUPER means "more, better, or bigger than usual." SUPERSCRIPT in typing is when the typed letters are raised above the usual letters. SUPERNATURAL means "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." This is what SPIRITUAL means.

Never ever does Paul contrast physical from spiritual. It's only natural and spiritual in 1 Cor 15. And it when it comes to people, spiritual people are contrasted from carnal (flesh) or natural people.

When we talk about PEOPLE, to say there are physical people versus spiritual people is to speak nonsensically.

1 Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Again, it is NATURAL versus spiritual, not physical versus spiritual.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

So, spiritual does mean non-physical, in spite of what you believe.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
(1Co 2:14-15)

So the "spiritual" man being discussed by Paul here is a non physical man?

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
(1Co 14:37)

Is Paul talking about people who think themselves to be non physical?

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(1Pe 2:5)

Are we being built up a non physical house? Offering non-physical sacrifices?

Speaking of which, what are the "spiritual sacrifices" Christians offer up to God? Are they non physical? Is the sacrifice of praise and prayer "non physical"? Or does it consist in vibrating air molecules (sound and speech) and lifting up actual physical hands, moving actual physical tongues and vocal chords, etc? What about this:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
(Rom 12:1)

Our bodies are physical, so this sacrifice that Paul speaks of must not be spiritual, then? A living, holy, acceptable sacrifice to God offered by Christians is not spiritual?

I think maybe you are in error about your understanding of what "spiritual" means as used by the Bible. While it is true that AT TIMES in English "spiritual" can be used to mean "non physical", at OTHER TIMES in English it is used to mean MORAL, and can be used to mean DERIVING FROM AN ETHICAL, RELIGIOUS, or MORAL source. Hence, in England, "spiritual lords" is a term referring to ECCLESIASTICAL lords (titled officers) as opposed to SECULAR lords. It doesn't mean they are "non physical" persons or officers, but that they serve in a moral or religious or ecclesiastical capacity rather than a secular capacity.