Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

[Judy Taylor]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:06:42 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 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   Sorry I paraphrased - Abraham was given the promise and God says in Genesis 21:12 "Whatever Sarah has said to you listen to her voice for in Isaac your seed shall be called"   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.   Seed also refers to ppl. There is the seed of the woman (Jesus) vs the seed of the serpent who are ppl.   Judy wrote: Sin is a being A being?  Do you mean that sin is literally a spirit or a creature?   A spirit being 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.    Must be your training in biology kicking in here DM.  My belief is that man is a spiritual being because God is a Spirit and the originals were made in His image (which is not flesh and animalistic)  Since the fall there has been a change in the type of spirit who is in control but man is still not at the level of a flesh animal though I know they act like it at times.      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.   Now you are sounding like 'G' who is always going on about Gk dualism; my belief is that the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of scripture and that includes Romans 7. I don't believe God's spirit was taken up with the philosophies of the day - in fact we are warned against them by scripture.  The flesh has no mind of it's own; the physical body is just that - physical.  Paul speaks of the spirit realm and the sin that dwelt in him was spiritual. Our flesh nature is driven by thoughts and this is why we need our senses trained to discern between good and evil and to take them captive. To kill the physical body would not be pursuing righteousness.   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.   Human criminals are much worse than animals driven by instinct and the only way hard core criminals can change successfully is to 'change the tapes in their head' - they have trained their minds to think in certain ways which they go back to.  It is part of their long term memory. Samuel Samenow wrote a book titled "The Criminal Mind" in which he detailed a program he working on with another Dr. in Md. where they successfully taught some of the worst to reprogram their minds. Not using scripture mind you but they followed the same principle. When God finished the creation he called everything "good" - Do you really think he made Adam with such a frail nervous system.  Remember there was no sin at all until it entered the garden as a spirit being and infected A&E. 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.   Man is the only creature in what biologists call the animal kingdom that must be taught for the first 18yrs of his life. We do have a soul and we have memory both long and short term ATST we are primarily spirit beings. 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.    There is power, it is spiritual power; I don't think in the terms you describe above, that is religious ritual.  Jesus said His Word cleansed the disciples and in Ephesians we see that husbands can cleanse their wives by the washing of water by God's Word.  This is literal and it is spiritual.   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.   I don't because he had to be holy to be a holy sacrifice without spot or blemish.  The bulls and goats were a type only. I don't believe he would have been acceptable had he been loaded down with generational iniquity, whether he sinned in his own life or not.  As for his birth, it has been a sign to every generation.   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.   I don't see Him as distant or alien because He has sent the Promise to us, the same anointing that empowered His ministry on earth even though we have a measure as individuals and he had the fullness.  The Church as a whole should be able to perform his ministry in His name.  I look fwd to being out of the daily battle and entering His rest.   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.    The way I perceive it has nothing at all, I mean nothing to do with the RCC and their weird doctrine of priests performing miracles; they take the spiritual and bring it back to the natural or preternatural which is how magic operates. I am not saying anything like that.  I am agreeing with the scriptures.  Hebrews says his blood cleanses the conscience from dead works.  I am agreeing. I don't understand completely how it happens, I believe by faith that it does.   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.    It is when we come to the sacrifice to confess and repent in time of need that the cleansing happens.   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. Like you I reject transubstantiation and the whole RC religious ritual along with the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary.  However I do believe there is power in the eternal nature of the blood of the Covenant and the 'once for all' sacrifice and  faith causes it to avail for me.   Grace and Peace, judyt