Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Brother not all flesh is the same flesh, there are terrestrial bodies and there are celestial bodies. Jesus did rise physically but with a spiritual/celestial body of flesh and bone. this is not carnal milk as you say as long as they make the distinction of that which is spiritual and that which is of the physical/flesh. As I pointed out to you once before brother you stand in the same place as the apostles they like you thought He was a spirit and Jesus corrected their misconception.
We will just have to disagree, brother, because the science suggests that there is no such thing as the physical as our brains experience and interpret it.
Brother not all flesh is the same flesh, there are terrestrial bodies and there are celestial bodies. Jesus did rise physically but with a spiritual/celestial body of flesh and bone. this is not carnal milk as you say as long as they make the distinction of that which is spiritual and that which is of the physical/flesh. As I pointed out to you once before brother you stand in the same place as the apostles they like you thought He was a spirit and Jesus corrected their misconception.
We will just have to disagree, brother, because the science suggests that there is no such thing as the physical as our brains experience and interpret it.
We will just have to disagree, brother, because the science suggests that there is no such thing as the physical as our brains experience and interpret it.
we can do that brother but just keep in mind science is not hypothesis, specially were quantum physics is concerned.
Did you know that what you said here was what Plato also believed?
. . . science suggests that there is no such thing as the physical as our brains experience and interpret it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Did you know that what you said here was what Plato also believed?
I was wandering by and overheard your interesting conversation - - hope you fellows don't mind if I chime in?
Plato's not the only one - just the earliest. There's Kant, Spinoza, Berkeley, Hegel and a whole flock of philosophers who all came to similar conclusions about the relationship between the real, objective world and the world as we experience it inside our heads - - namely, that the two cannot be the same. One of them is filtered through a system of sense organs and neurology. As I sit here inside my head looking at the "viewscreen", the festering thought lingers that maybe there's no out-there world at all! or if there is, it surely can't be exactly what my limited sense apparatus shows.
It turns out that "material stuff" as we have experienced and understood it since time immemorial doesn't exist in the world out there, but only in the world in here. That's not to say that matter doesn't exist, just that whatever it is we call matter "out there" isn't made of stuff. It has a structure that is highly abstract, like a perfect and eternal equation. Rather like Plato's Forms.
Pneumena's distinction between terrestrial and celestial bodies makes perfect sense if you look at it that way. Mystic makes a fair and valid point that in the final analysis there is little reason to postulate two basic substances (mind-body, spirit-matter). But this does not quite get to P's point because we cannot escape the practical dualism that arises from having eyes and brains.
Thanks and have a lovely evening!
Last edited by Arizona Humphrey; 08-13-2021 at 02:19 AM..
Reason: Clarifying language added
I was wandering by and overheard your interesting conversation - - hope you fellows don't mind if I chime in?
Plato's not the only one - just the earliest. There's Kant, Spinoza, Berkeley, Hegel and a whole flock of philosophers who all came to similar conclusions about the relationship between the real, objective world and the world as we experience it inside our heads - - namely, that the two cannot be the same. One of them is filtered through a system of sense organs and neurology. As I sit here inside my head looking at the "viewscreen", the festering thought lingers that maybe there's no out-there world at all! or if there is, it surely can't be exactly what my limited sense apparatus shows.
It turns out that "material stuff" as we have experienced and understood it since time immemorial doesn't exist in the world out there, but only in the world in here. That's not to say that matter doesn't exist, just that whatever it is we call matter "out there" isn't made of stuff. It has a structure that is highly abstract, like a perfect and eternal equation. Rather like Plato's Forms.
Pneumena's distinction between terrestrial and celestial bodies makes perfect sense if you look at it that way. Mystic makes a fair and valid point that in the final analysis there is little reason to postulate two basic substances (mind-body, spirit-matter). But this does not quite get to P's point because we cannot escape the practical dualism that arises from having eyes and brains.
Thanks and have a lovely evening!
Thanks for your contribution, Arizona. I agree with it. Your modern ontological argument is doomed to fail because of the inability to establish a consensus about the basic premise in today's world, especially not here in the CD fora. I am pleased you have joined the forum.
We will just have to disagree, brother, because the science suggests that there is no such thing as the physical as our brains experience and interpret it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
we can do that brother but just keep in mind science is not hypothesis, specially were quantum physics is concerned.
Did you know that what you said here was what Plato also believed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Yes, I am very familiar with Plato and all the classic philosophers. My philosophical knowledge extends to a great many philosophers past and present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Humphrey
I was wandering by and overheard your interesting conversation - - hope you fellows don't mind if I chime in?
Plato's not the only one - just the earliest. There's Kant, Spinoza, Berkeley, Hegel and a whole flock of philosophers who all came to similar conclusions about the relationship between the real, objective world and the world as we experience it inside our heads - - namely, that the two cannot be the same. One of them is filtered through a system of sense organs and neurology. As I sit here inside my head looking at the "viewscreen", the festering thought lingers that maybe there's no out-there world at all! or if there is, it surely can't be exactly what my limited sense apparatus shows.
It turns out that "material stuff" as we have experienced and understood it since time immemorial doesn't exist in the world out there, but only in the world in here. That's not to say that matter doesn't exist, just that whatever it is we call matter "out there" isn't made of stuff. It has a structure that is highly abstract, like a perfect and eternal equation. Rather like Plato's Forms.
Pneumena's distinction between terrestrial and celestial bodies makes perfect sense if you look at it that way. Mystic makes a fair and valid point that in the final analysis there is little reason to postulate two basic substances (mind-body, spirit-matter). But this does not quite get to P's point because we cannot escape the practical dualism that arises from having eyes and brains.
Thanks and have a lovely evening!
Hi arizona, me and mystic agree on a lot and disagree of some things, but we do not get into a fight over that which we disagree on, we just point out to each other that we see it a different way. Its all good IMO
Context does matter in the interpetation of scripture. Wrath and judgment in the scriptures just refer to the negative spiritual consequences that we all face based on what we become. In order to consider God wrathful and vengeful we would need to ignore the context that controlled our ancient ancestors' recorded interpretations of any inspirations from God. To our ancient ancestors, God is the cause of everything that ever happens, including their own decisions and actions. They saw God as wrathful and vengeful and needing to be appeased by blood sacrifices. That context cannot be ignored when reading how they wrote things.
Our carnal-minded ancestors considered all negative consequences as the result of God's wrath and judgment, even if it was what they did, period. They did not lie about it. They just could not see it any other way. They did not know any better. To them, God had all the same emotions as we do, hate, anger, desire for vengeance, justice, etc. Therefore, when explaining the existence of any negative spiritual consequences they received as inspirations they would automatically be interpreted as judgments and punishments imposed by God.
This inherent bias and misunderstanding is the result of the very primitive interpretation of the early experiences in the fables as the actions of God who is wrathful and vengeful. They interpreted what happened as God punishing us for disobedience instead of preparing and training our animal ancestors to become spiritual adults. It is that misunderstanding of God born of the early experiences described in the fables of the Bible and during the Mosaic schoolmaster stage of obedience training using fear of God that caused the failure of the Old covenant that had to be corrected.
God was NEVER angry or punishing for ANY reason. Everything was for our training. God wants us to succeed NOT please Him by obedience. Our entire history and evolution have been toward attaining spiritual maturity in an animal species in a physical world which is neither easy nor natural. That is one of the reasons why Jesus was sent, NOT to pay for some ill-described "sins of mankind" or whatever.
God is not and NEVER was either wrathful or vengeful!!! There was no "Fall of man" or original sin. Eden was our first lesson in discriminating between good and evil. We would not need to deny anything in the scriptures if we simply recognized that they were written using this primitive and incorrect understanding of God. We can keep every single verse but we would need to reinterpret what they actually must have been trying to communicate from their warped perspective of God as wrathful and vengeful.
You can see this for yourself if you try to reread some of the most judgmental verses. Try to interpret what they must have meant using a God of agape love who is our Father and wants us to succeed by overcoming and enduring what this life presents us with. Reject the concept of a Godfather of wrath and vengeance who wants to punish us for our disobedience and failures.
This misconception of God as a Godfather instead of our Father Abba, as Jesus presented Him, is why our carnal ancestors did not understand the spiritual significance and importance of Jesus. Jesus represented God in human form so enduring what He did with NO WRATH or vengeance whatsoever, just agape love and forgiveness, was supposed to correct our ancestors' misconception of God. But to our ancestors' carnal minds what was being done to Jesus had to have been ordered by God for some reason.
The problem is their overall context of a wrathful, vengeful God who needed to be appeased by blood sacrifices completely skewed their interpretation away from the God revealed and unambiguously demonstrated by Jesus Christ!! They invented their own "carnal milk" reasons and rationalized them using their tradition and history of blood sacrifices to appease God. We continue the process to this day, completely ignoring the "spiritual solid food" evidence in the clear and unambiguous demonstration of God's Holy Spirit of agape love by Jesus. If there were a Satan, he would be pleased. Corrupting that central message of God's True Nature and Holy Spirit of agape love has been the most effective false teaching imaginable. It has certainly proved to be so for millennia.
Ephesians 4:6
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Matthew 1:21
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
You got things Inverted/Upside Down! The Ancient Ancestors are Spiritual and Younger Generation carnally minded having been Corrupted by the Devil/Satan.
Elohim/God encompasses all the attributes that exist. There are no attributes outside of Elohim/God.
Yeshua's/Jesus's purpose, as his name, is to save his people from their Sins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
