All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Do we Possess three entities namely a "Body" "Soul" and "Spirit"?
I need to hear from members on AAG, what they understand by the terms "Body" "Soul" and "Spirit" Let's look forward to a lively discussion as to your impression and beliefs on the subject.
"Do men and women possess three entities, namely a "Body" that possesses a "Soul" and a "Spirit"?
The Lord Bless all on AAG
Ron.
Views: 988
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Sam on
-
Ron,
Being a person who naturally chaffs at anything approaching a double-standard, I was a bit surprised that, after reading your stinging rebuke of Tim for his assertion that the comma was incorrectly placed by the translators, I looked back through the thread and saw no such criticism of LT.
Was this perhaps an oversight?
I'll post the comment in question here for your convenience.
In discussing the Transfiguration of our Lord, LT made the statement that the account was an 'event', rather than a 'vision'. In replying to why Tim stated that it was a vision, I quoted Matthew 17:9, "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
His reply:
MT 17:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."
Jot and tittle indeed! LT changes not only a jot, but an entire sentence, and, along with it, the meaning of the scripture.
I await your response.
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Sam,
LT did not change anything. LT printed what the NIV states as translated by their translation team. I will reprint it here for you.
MT 17:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." (NIV)
Then I presented the definition of the Greek word translated as "vision" or "seen."
Thus, LT did not change anything as you assert.
Keep in mind the defintion of vision even in the English. I go to the eye doctor to have my "vision" checked.
LT
-
-
Take Note
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. KJV
What does Peter say here in the KJV regarding that event he was privileged to see? Did he see a vision or see with his own eyes?
LT
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Payne on
-
Hi Sam,
Glad to make your aquintance and forgive me if I am too straight forward. My problem I guess is that I speak my mind, hoping that the reception of what I say will be accepted by the light that it brings. Actually my Bride calls me an "Overgrown Pussycat" who is all meeow and bark.
I have been down with a faulty PC and ADSL line for nearly 8 days. In my Mail Box I have 318 emails and still growing even as I write. I attempted to reply to the "aged" replies that were made to each other on AAG and cannot recall seing the one from LT that you spoke of. It may well be a recent input from LT waiting it's turn.
Not being aware of the reason why a Vision should be different to "what they have seen"
As I understand a vision is - Sight; appearance. What they had seen on the mount.
Reading from verse 17:2-3:
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
This was Christ's change of form and appearance, but the change made no difference to the fact that He and Moses plus Elijah were alive and conversing with each other, with the three Apostles as witnessess to this fact. Call it a vision or an appearance, it does not change the fact that Moses and Elijah were not dead. Failing which, what would The Lord possibly want to discuss with those who don't exist anymore? It would be absolutely crazy, similar to a half wit
standing next to a cinema screen and trying to enter into the discussion with the actors on the screen.
While I agree that it is important that we stay as close to the originals at all time, I am not that
fanatical that I insist on a word for word translation, when the meaning - however said or changed - remains the same. In fact the 2nd and 3rd verses speak of "appearance" and "appeared" with Christ using the term Vision in verse 9. With which I also have no problem.
But, be it a vision or an appearance does not escape from the fact that Jesus was not conversing with people who were dead and gone, but were alive and able to converse.
Modern translations read the same as LT, and similar to LT's version, they keep to the facts, that an appearance was made by Moses and Elijah and Christ instructed the disciples not say a word of it to no one until He had risen.
Allow me to repeat. Jesus spoke to two men with whom he could hold a conversation. Failing which it would have been a senseless incident.
-
Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on
-
Tim,
A lot has been said and I feel from the Lord to say the following.
Is great to have you among us, you have a way of making me look twice at things. Which is good. I know we have our differences, but I suspect we have way more in common. :)
-
-
Tim,
I found that when dealing with folk on subjects similar to the one we have at hand. Once you have them in a position where they cannot give a suitable answer, they then turn to ridiculing you in order to get away from answering the questions asked.
So once more, there is no reason for us to believe that Christ would have told His listeners a long story about Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man if it were not true. We clearly understand the parables that Jesus told, were not ficticious, so why and for what reason, should this one dealing on an extremely important subject, reject - despite what Christ said - that they were alive and able to conduct a conversation? This is my first question. (Please no suppositions - I am also aware that Christ fully understands Genesis 2)
My point on the comma remains. Please explain to me why is it neccessary to twist the wording to make it mean something different to what it says? Even when you made up your own
translation, you still had to change the wording around to suit your theory. A theory I might add that I cannot find in any of my Bibles starting from The Bishops Bible right through to the modern, not forgetting my Greek Bible plus my Bride's (a Yiddisha Mama) favourite, a Hebrew New Testament that also denies your theory. Naturally should I take into consideration the New World translation I would find your theory there.
So my second question why do you have to change words around and finally my third and last question to which, I also hope to receive a reply is: How many and which translations or versions agree with your denial that the souls of Lazarus and the thief on the cross are with Christ today?
Incidently, to be able to read and understand the Greek is not what some people believe it to be, namely the ideal. In today's Theological climate there are umpteen books that can do it for you.
Even when you attempt your own translations you will find that it has already been done and you are simply repeating their work. To be fluent in the Koine Greek one has to keep at it. You soon realise that the effort required does not warrant the amount of studying, because of the availability
of a Lexicon as described by Carla with the one she uses.
For me, my studies in Hebrew and Greek stopped almost 48 years ago. In fact I know that many theological establishments, have dropped both of the ancient languages some time go, for the very reasons I listed. Unless of course you are looking towards a Higher degree. Even with a 3 year course one would still have a Lexicon at your side, even more so for me, after 48 years of
neglect. The ideal for the layman would be to study the Alphabet and it's proper pronunciation. From there a good Lexicon and concordance and your off to a good start.
Ron.
-
-
Hi Hon,
Yes I know the feeling.
We had to paint out our house (11 rooms) The previous owners had wall paper up (felt and looked like a Musuem)
When we pulled the wallpaper down, the walls had not been plastered and Oh Boy! What a site!
So 3 months of labour, painting and plastering all the walls and 130,000 Rand (roughly $18,500) later
we had the house looking like new. Had I known you had a tent, I would have asked to borrow it.
Should you want to get close to Him, stop!........ He is already there. "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Mat 28:20. He loves us so much that He will not spend one second away from us. Right this minute He is next to me and nodding His head in approval.
Love you "muchly" in Christ,
Ron
-
-
Hi Eric,
Well once again you references are questionable.
Little wonder the Watch Tower version (NWT) taken from who knows what translation and riddled with verses that they completely irradicated, and not grammaticlly correct, would use and support the two English versions by Rotherham and Lamsa on Luke 23:43
Then too the Curetonian Syriac is a translation from the Aramaic originals, according to William Cureton this version differs considerably from the cannonical Greek texts. Again one of your reference points.
Forgive me if I have missed this question which may have been asked of you earlier, but may I ask, what is your opinion of the NWT translation concerning John chapter 1 verse 1.
Ron
-
Permalink Reply by Carla on
-
Tim,
If you follow the beliefs and teachings of Jehovah's Witness then I believe it would enlighten others here to understand where you are coming from.
I am not desiring to build disunity in any way shape or form, however, a Jehovah's Witness person holds beliefs that are in opposition to God's Word.
As a born again believer, it is my responsibility and duty to expose false teachings, and I believe that Jehovah's Witness teachings are false.....They prove themselves to be false as they are held against God's Word.
False teachings are dangerous..they can spread as yeast causes bread to rise.
What do you think?
Carla
-
-
Tim, I typed this response to you on April the 29th.. you can find it at the top of page 4 in this forum...I have copied and pasted it here.
Hi Tim,
Gen 2:7 cross references with 1 Cor 2:45...
Gen 2:7
tells us that the breath of life (literally 'soul') is breathed into Adam.
Gen 3:19
tells us that Adam returned to the dust from which he was created... obviously he did not leave the earth...right! so your physical theory of death does not hold up! This was a spiritual death. Their disobedience caused them to be relationally separated from God...But they lived on in the flesh..naturally. But they were dead spiritually.
lets read 1 Cor 2:45-58
1 Cor 2:45 tells us 'The first man Adam became a living 'soul', The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.' Who is that last Adam? Well...we know that's Jesus! :)
verses 46-50 go on to tell us this:
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man (Adam) is from the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven.
As is the earthly, so also are those who are earthly.
(which means spiritually dead--separated from God). When Adam and Eve left Eden...their bodies did not leave the earth physically, but they were separated from God spiritually...that is the meaning of death)
and is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly (Jesus was first...bringing life to all who believe and trust in Him)
Just as we have born the image of the earthly, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
Now I say this brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Tim, you gave me this verse to try to squeeze your theology to have merit...that our Spirits die:
Ps 146:4: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."
But you have neglected to add in the others verses and therefore you have left out the context.
Psalm 146:1-8 portrays man as an inadequate savior. The context if you read verse 3 is that we are not to trust in princes, nor in the son of man (note the small 's' where it says 'son'), in whom there is no help. KJV. The NASB version says 'mortal man' in place of 'son of man.' This has nothing to do with the discussion here.
Your explanation seems to deny the risen Christ...since you say our Spirits die??? Did you mean to come across that way? I urge you to Reevaluate your post....lest you deny the risen Lord.
I would like to add a new question for you to answer.... Who is Jesus to you? Do you believe He was crucified, died and rose again. If you say 'yes' to that, then you are contradicting your earlier statement...
John 3:16 (NIV)
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
2 Corinthians 5:21 (NIV)
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
I look forward to hearing from you.
~Carla -
-
-
Hi Tim,
I could see and tell that you had placed much thought and effort into your last post to me.
But Tim there was nothing new in your arguments, that has not already been said.
What was new, was pointing out the translations that I had not heard of, hence my enthusiasm to check out your references you posed as being in agreement with your theory, which now you refer to them as Apostate websites.
Tim, I think that it is time to close running around in circles, I will give you the last word, while I end off with the following:
No matter which one of us is correct regarding the doctrine of the soul. I do not believe that this doctrine (similar to Baptism) regarding my salvation will be held against me when I stand before God. I may not be able to discern the meaning of scriptures in the same light as you, but I would never go as far as believing that Jesus purposely misled, not only His listeners, but billions of Christians with a false report on souls after death. This then can be construed as a lie and as I said previously, I would walk warily.
If I should be wrong, my biggest fault would be that I could not understand the death of a soul, when the Bible refers to incidents of living souls. Therefore I know that God will understand my confusion.
But Tim, as a Christian it is my duty to ask you: "Should you be wrong and you continue with the blasphemy that Christ purposely misled His listeners and future students of the word by telling them a lie, especially in regard to Lazarus, what then of your soul Tim?
Like the Bereans, may the Lord Bless us all, as we search the Scriptures daily.
Ron.
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
