Judy wrote: > God called Isaac the seed of Promise in Genesis 21:12 > so nothing has changed.
I don't see the word "promise" in Gen. 21:12. Even if it did, Paul interprets for us that this understanding is an allegory. Furthermore, consider Romans 4:13-16 and see how the seed has nothing to do with the physical at all, but of faith. Judy wrote: > Sin is a being A being? Do you mean that sin is literally a spirit or a creature? Judy wrote: > ... and Paul says it dwelt in his flesh in Romans 7 where > he says he was in agreement with God's Law inwardly > but at times he did what he didn't want to do and when > that happened it was not him doing it but sin that dwelt > in him. (Romans 7:17-25) and in the next chapter ... What I hear Paul describing here is what ethologists better understand as animal behavior mediated by genes. In other words, there is an animal side to man that is physical, and the behavior that comes forth from the flesh is inherently selfish and therefore sinful. He speaks about it as its own entity because he is trying to establish for us the dualism that exists in man, the distinction between flesh and spirit. It takes the Word of God to divide spirit and flesh such that we can recognize how the flesh is inherently sinful and does no good thing. This is what Romans 7 is all about, helping us recognize the concept of Greek dualism that existed in Paul's culture. Paul was affirming this perspective by using the Torah, saying that with the flesh man served sin, but with the spirit, the law of God. When he speaks about how it was not him doing it but sin within him, he was talking about his animal nature, how his flesh, had a mind of its own, that struggled against the mind of his spirit, which was struggling to live according to God's Torah. This tension between flesh and spirit, material and immaterial, sinful and righteous, changing forms and unchanging forms, was very much discussed in philosophical circles because of Plato and the opposing views of his student Aristotle. This is one reason that Christianity took off so successfully among the Gentiles. Judy wrote: > I don't see the brain (organ) as sinful in and of itself. Neither do I, but the brain does motivate behavior. Electrical stimulation can be provided to certain areas of the brain to produce emotions like anger and jealousy. It is reasonable to conclude that evil emotions likes these actually emanate from the brain in response to certain stimuli, much like instinctive behavior in animals. Such behavior is what Paul was talking about in regards to covetousness, wanting not to covet with his mind, but feeling compelled to covetousness by the instinctive nature of his body. He then personifies sin, speaking about it as existing in his flesh and bringing him into captivity. Paul does not mean that sin is a physical organ of the body that can be touched, but rather he is speaking about his nervous system creating sinful desires and behavior. Judy wrote: > Sir John Eccles (Nobel Laureate) said "the brain is a machine that any > ghost can operate" I like this quote, but I don't think we need to suppose that without a ghost, the brain cannot function. I think spirits can interface somewhat with the brain, but that the brain, in its own way, has its own activity as well. When we talk about carnal behavior, the brain is probably the most important organ for us to consider. Judy wrote: > I'm not talking any magical hocus pocus David; nor do > I have any rituals having to do with the blood of Christ. > My belief is that it cleanses the consicence from dead > works when we go to the sacrifice in time of need. How does this cleansing work? I perceive the personal cleansing as happening as a response to our consideration of the sacrifice of Christ. It seems to me like you consider the cleansing to happen by Jesus taking his literal, physical blood and pouring it over your spirit or soul, and that there is some kind of power in this literal blood that removes sin much like water and soap removes dirt. This is what I mean by "magical." There is some mysterious power in the literal blood of Christ that is applied to us and then removes sin from us. Judy wrote: > Why are you so adamant about this, why does his blood > have to be just like ours? If that were so then God could > have just had Joseph be his biological father after all he > and Mary were both from Levitical lines. I do believe that Jesus could have been born to Mary and Joseph and still been our Savior. The only reason I see in Scripture for the Virgin Birth was for a sign (Isaiah 7:14). Although the Scripture does not say that it would be a sign specifically to Mary, I believe it was. I imagine it was very difficult raising the Son of God, and she probably had to draw strength from the fact that she knew he was the Son of God because of the miracle birth. Judy wrote: > I don't have to have Him be "like me in every way" David" > to believe that by His Spirit I can do whatever He requires > of me and I don't understand why this appears to be so > important to you. I realize you don't need that, but the realization of his humanity does give me a great source of affinity and appreciation for Jesus. To think of him as my big brother is incredible, although I realize that to some on this list, such a thought is blasphemy. Part of it also may have to do with my understanding of authority. I see Jesus's authority to right humanity as stemming through his being human just like us. When I hear you share your perspective about Jesus's unique blood, he sounds more distant, alien, and far away than how I have come to know and experience him. Judy wrote: > Nor do I understand why you call my understanding > "magical powers" at this point maybe you could explain. > Was the blood of A&E magical also? No, I don't see A&E's blood as magical either. I'm not sure why you would bring them up. What I'm trying to communicate in terse form is that the idea of the blood literally being the instrument of cleansing is like the idea of a magic potion. Here, drink this potion and the problem will disappear. The concept in this is that there is some mysterious quality to the potion that effects change. It seems like you perceive Christ's blood this way, maybe kind of like the Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation during the Eucharist. From my perspective, the blood has power, but it is in its effect upon my conscience as I consider Jesus and his sacrifice and the way of the cross. I feel no compulsion to believe in transubstantiation or in the idea that the blood of Jesus did not come directly from the genetic material inherited from his mother because from my perspective there is no inherent power of the blood apart from the faith of the believer. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
