ECT Our triune God

[Arsenios]

LOL....this thread is not quite as cerebral as I was told it was. :chuckle:

Indeed - Thank-you for joining!

We couldn't have made it without you!

And fwiw, the more I think about Adam not being deceived, the more sense it makes... Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned... The Garden makes even more sense now...

And much as it grieves me, I owe 1n1 BIG!

Thanks again 1n1...

Straight up...

Arsenios

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Yes - We are having a discussion about a difference we have in the interpretation of Scripture, and we are seeing it differently...

And YOUR response is this:

Yer a windbag full of deceit.

My question to you is this?

Why hurl invective and insults?

What do you hope to accomplish?



Now THAT is helpful

14 And Adam was not deceived , but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

At least I can see the basis for your disagreeing with me...



And THAT :jawdrop: is just more ego-hoser-posing...

I had forgotten that line in Scripture, so thank you for providing it.

The context of the statement was the role of women in the Church, and was not Adam's participation in the Fall, and reflects the classic understanding, Jewish and Christian, that the Serpent did not approach Adam to deceive him, but approached Eve and deceived her, and thereby induced her to eat of the forbidden fruit. And through this subterfuge and deception, he succeeded in inducing Adam to eat the forbidden fruit by this deception of the serpent...

So that what it means, in context, is that Adam was not deceived BY THE SERPENT DIRECTLY... But only THROUGH [eg by means of...] the woman did he transgress. And the wording of the Greek is a little odd in this passage, so I went to the Orthodox New Testament vol 2 translation by Mother Mary, who is a stickler for accuracy, and she has it thus:

11 - Let a woman learn in silence, all subordination.
12 - And I do not permit a woman to teach...
Nor to have authority over a man...
Bit to be in silence.
13 - For Adam first was fashioned, then Eve...
14 - And Adam was not deceived.
But the Woman,
Having been deceived,
Hath come to be in transgression.

I would quibble with her last 'hath come to be' because it is a 2nd perfect verb of gignomai, and would translate it as "HAD come to be in transgression", which means that she sinned first, and somewhat because of this, that she HAD ALREADY sinned, Adam joined her in that sin of which she was already guilty, instead of correcting her.

And your point is that Adam followed the Woman, and therefore was not deceived, but only the woman... Hence the sin of Adam, in your view, is the more serious of the two... Adam, in your view, KNEW he was sinning when he ate... The woman was merely deceived...

I can live with that interpretation - Mine was that Adam too was deceived through the woman having been deceived, and at this point, it seems plausable, but not so plausable as your view... Yours is a better understanding, in my view...

So I owe you for a change of mind...

Welcome to the freedom of the US of A...

Revised thinking and understanding is what the free exchange of ideas is all about...

God bless you, my angry Brother...

Arsenios

The jaw drop was to bash yer ego, it had nothing to do with mine.

Anger is only perceived by yer own mind.

After several weeks you have finally admitted learning sumpthin'.

It should make you stop and ponder yer prior tirade about mine and pps' grand egos that such a thing was possible.

My only ego is in the Lord.

If it is egotistical to be assured by whom I have been taught, then guilty as charged.

I've definitely found more patience in my own soul after tryin' to get through that thick noggin' of yourn'.

Even yet though you are trying to trivialize the importance of what you learned.

Adam sinning was the beginning.

Having this wrong distorts all yer theology.

There was no fall.

Adam had no more ability to perform that which is good than Paul or you and I.

The sin was in his members.

He knew to obey God but couldn't gitter done.

The desire of his flesh over rode his will to obey God.

Edit:

I wrote this right after reading yer first response to me.

I may have more to say yet.

Going back to read the last 2 pages now

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Indeed - Thank-you for joining!

We couldn't have made it without you!

And fwiw, the more I think about Adam not being deceived, the more sense it makes... Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned... The Garden makes even more sense now...

And much as it grieves me, I owe 1n1 BIG!

Thanks again 1n1...

Straight up...

Arsenios

I'm almost afraid to ask what you mean by this.:shocked:

 

[Arsenios]

I'm almost afraid to ask what you mean by this.:shocked:

It looks like Eve did not sin, but was merely deceived, and committed the transgression in deception, thinking she was doing good. Which excuse is not then available to Adam, who sinned KNOWING he was sinning... And who knows? He very well may have, in that state of mind, been seeking to steal Divinity from God...

So if true, then Adams sin is MUCH more evil than I had previously envisioned it, for I had always partially excused him on the basis of him being deceived through Eve BY the Serpent... And he blamed the Woman rather than confess and repent...

So I am undergoing a rather fundamental shift in my understanding of the Garden...

And chiding StanJ just a little...

What are you doing up so late anyway??

I mean, don't be gettin' drunk on my gratitude!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The jaw drop was to bash yer ego, it had nothing to do with mine.

The defense rests.

Anger is only perceived by yer own mind.

So is truth and falsehood...

After several weeks you have finally admitted learning sumpthin'.

I never said I was quick...

It should make you stop and ponder yer prior tirade about mine and pps' grand egos that such a thing was possible.

I was operating in a matter that I had not carefully looked at yet, with a misperception... It was not your antics that got me to revisit it, but PJ's ho-hum 'of course' affirmation... Had it only been you, I would never have revisited my understanding to correct it.

My only ego is in the Lord.

How humble of you to SAY SO... K:

If it is egotistical to be assured by whom I have been taught, then guilty as charged.

It is really easy to have a revelation and then think that one knows more than another, which IS egotism...

I've definitely found more patience in my own soul after tryin' to get through that thick noggin' of yourn'.

Then my efforts are not unrewarded!

Even yet though you are trying to trivialize the importance of what you learned.

Fundamental re-thinks go slow...

I mean, what's y'er big-Harry'd hurry?

Adam sinning was the beginning.

And beginnings are really important, I get it...

THAT is why I am proceeding slow...

Having this wrong distorts all yer theology.

It is actually not mine to distort, but I get your point...

There was no fall.

Adam sinned and died and passed that death to us all...

Are you saying that this is NOT a Fall from Grace???

Adam had no more ability to perform that which is good than Paul or you and I.

Paul is ontologically conjoined within Christ, having been given his sight by Ananias, who then baptized him into Christ and gave him the Holy Spirit. In THAT condition of soul, a man CAN do that which is Good, because that soul is now a New Creation IN Christ... But this is true only insofar as one "runs the race set before us" and "mortifies one's members" and puts the old man of sin to death in repentance from dead works... eg If one gains MATURITY in Christ...

And THAT entails the death of ego in the service of our Lord...

The sin was in his members.

Gal 2:20 tells us that Paul is no longer living in his crucified body, but instead that it is Christ Who is living in him...

I am crucified with Christ: Nevertheless I live; Yet not I, But Christ is living in me: And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the Faith of the Son of God, Who loved me, And gave Himself for me.

There is a great Mystery here, for Paul says "I am living..."
And immediately adds "Not am I living, but Christ..."

In this condition of a mature Christian soul, both statements are true, and the old I is obedient to self and is co-crucified with Christ, and the new I is obedient to and one with Christ...

When Paul spoke of being unable to not sin even when he wanted to not sin, he was speaking AS one knowing the Law of Moses, and was NOT speaking as one mature in Christ... Because he was speaking to "those knowing the Law", and not to "those knowing Christ, the Fulfillment of the Law..."

He knew to obey God but couldn't gitter done.

Yes, as a Pharisee... He could not overcome sin outside of Christ.

The desire of his flesh over rode his will to obey God.

Indeed so, until after he was baptized by Ananias into Christ and given the Holy Spirit and had his vision restored...

Edit:

I wrote this right after reading yer first response to me.

I may have more to say yet.

Going back to read the last 2 pages now

I am beginning to think that God let me keep this error in understanding so you would talk with me after I revisited the matter at your instigation... And so far, it has given me an understanding of the first sin that is far more sinful than I had previously thought it to be, with the result that I have a much greater appreciation for how messed up we each and every one of us actually are, and how needful we are for the death of the old man of sin, and how hard that war is to fight...

So did I say thank-you enough yet?

Thank-you!

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It looks like Eve did not sin, but was merely deceived, and committed the transgression in deception, thinking she was doing good. Which excuse is not then available to Adam, who sinned KNOWING he was sinning... And who knows? He very well may have, in that state of mind, been seeking to steal Divinity from God...

So if true, then Adams sin is MUCH more evil than I had previously envisioned it, for I had always partially excused him on the basis of him being deceived through Eve BY the Serpent... And he blamed the Woman rather than confess and repent...

So I am undergoing a rather fundamental shift in my understanding of the Garden...

And chiding StanJ just a little...

What are you doing up so late anyway??

I mean, don't be gettin' drunk on my gratitude!

Arsenios

This (bolded) is exactly true.

And what if this is the threshold for yet another accompanying shift in understanding?

How could a man with spiritual life in perfect communion with God ever have sin or commit sin? How could Adam have had "pre-sin" sin?

The answer lies in the overarching meaning of thanatos, and both its spiritual and physical application.

Spiritual death > Sin > Physical death

Without the onset of spiritual death, there could be no sin; the wages of which are physical death.

Augustinian original sin is fallacious; yet any degree of Pelagianism is also utterly fallacious.

There's an answer. And amazingly, it's integrally tied to Theology Proper and anthropology, etc.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It is really easy to have a revelation and then think that one knows more than another, which IS egotism...

I know only as I ought to know.

Whether it is more or less than another is gleaned in trading.

We are not told to discern the spirits if it was wrong to do.

I mean, what's y'er big-Harry'd hurry?

It'll not be said to me, thou wicked and slothful servant.

And beginnings are really important, I get it...

THAT is why I am proceeding slow...

Okay.

Adam sinned and died and passed that death to us all...

Are you saying that this is NOT a Fall from Grace???

Yes.

Was Adam promised eternal life?

Did he even know there was a tree of life?

When Paul spoke of being unable to not sin even when he wanted to not sin, he was speaking AS one knowing the Law of Moses, and was NOT speaking as one mature in Christ... Because he was speaking to "those knowing the Law", and not to "those knowing Christ, the Fulfillment of the Law..."

I will ask you this.

If Paul was alive without the law, what commandment came that revived the sin in him?

Yes, as a Pharisee... He could not overcome sin outside of Christ.

Was Adam outside of Christ?

I am beginning to think that God let me keep this error in understanding so you would talk with me after I revisited the matter at your instigation... And so far, it has given me an understanding of the first sin that is far more sinful than I had previously thought it to be, with the result that I have a much greater appreciation for how messed up we each and every one of us actually are, and how needful we are for the death of the old man of sin, and how hard that war is to fight...

So did I say thank-you enough yet?

Thank-you!

Arsenios

Yes there is a war.

 

[StanJ]

it may seem that way, unless you read more than 10 or 20 previous posts = :chuckle:

I don't need to read ALL the posts, or even 10-20 to KNOW the issue. I can't remember exactly who said that to me, I think it was Arsenios, but it obviously is not factual given all the ad hominem and supercilious statements being thrown around. I have to admit though that Arsenios is a lot more restrained than the other two recalcitrant.

 

[StanJ]

I've tried to explain this to those who bring this thread down to basal/fleshly interests. It is a thread that 'has' good explanation and discussion about our God and the necessity of Christ being God and man to bridge the gap between God and man. Unfortunately, despite asking disruptors to take it someplace else, and debators to raise the bar, there is a continual endeavor to remind those of these requests.

That necessitates that good posts must be mined from within the noncompliant. My apologies but I wasn't the one who promised a cerebral satisfaction

You may have a bone to pick with that person who promised such.

-Lon

I completely understand your frustration, but that's TOL for you. Not a lot of enforcement, despite the existing ToS.
I'll try not to exacerbate the problem.

 

[patrick jane]

I completely understand your frustration, but that's TOL for you. Not a lot of enforcement, despite the existing ToS.
I'll try not to exacerbate the problem.

View attachment 19783

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So you have set up a dichotomy between concept and content.

I would like you to take this in baby steps with a non-doctrinally charged example.

Here is a concept: "SPOTTED APALOOSA"

Here is the content: "ALL HORSES IN THIS GROUP"

What do you understand by the DICHOTOMY between Apaloosas and Horses?

Arsenios

Let me try to redirect this and avoid your caricature of what I'm saying.

Rhema is the signified. Logos is the signifier.

Content is the signified. Concept is the signifier.

Both Appaloosas and horses are the signified if one is thinking and/or speaking of them. The expression is the signifier of the signified.

It is not a dichotomy between content and concept. The signifying could never be devoid of the signified.

There must be Rhema for Logos. There cannot be nothing (no thing) signified. For intelligent thought and speech, there must be subject matter. Substance. The thing thought and spoken ABOUT.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This (bolded) is exactly true.

And what if this is the threshold for yet another accompanying shift in understanding?

How could a man with spiritual life in perfect communion with God ever have sin or commit sin? How could Adam have had "pre-sin" sin?

The answer lies in the overarching meaning of thanatos, and both its spiritual and physical application.

Spiritual death > Sin > Physical death

Without the onset of spiritual death, there could be no sin; the wages of which are physical death.

Augustinian original sin is fallacious; yet any degree of Pelagianism is also utterly fallacious.

There's an answer. And amazingly, it's integrally tied to Theology Proper and anthropology, etc.

My friend and brother.

Before I would even begin to listen to yer 10 hour course on how you
could say God lied, when he said he creates evil, you would have to answer Paul's questions for me.




Romans 9:20 KJV


20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

22 What if * God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known , endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

 

[Arsenios]

I know only as I ought to know.

Whether it is more or less than another is gleaned in trading.

We are not told to discern the spirits if it was wrong to do.

Do you really think that the commandment to discern the spirits means to go around judging and attacking PEOPLE???

It'll not be said to me, thou wicked and slothful servant.

May it never be so...

Was Adam promised eternal life?

He had it until he threw it away...

Did he even know there was a tree of life?

Well, he had leave to eat of it...

I will ask you this.

If Paul was alive without the law, what commandment came that revived the sin in him?

1Cor 9:21
To them that are without law,
(I became) as without law,
(being not without law to God,
but under the law to Christ,)
that I might gain them
that are without law.

So I don't understand your question, and I don't understand my non-answer...

Was Adam outside of Christ?

Finally an easy question: Yes.

Does having the Holy Spirit mean you are IN Christ?

Yes there is a war.

And it is NOT a flesh on flesh war...

For Muslims, perhaps...

Not for us...

Arsenios

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Do you really think that the commandment to discern the spirits means to go around judging and attacking PEOPLE???

There is a time to kill and a time to let live.

May it never be so..

.

Thank you.

He had it until he threw it away...

How can you throw something away without knowing you have it?

Well, he had leave to eat of it...

That does not mean he knew it was there.

1Cor 9:21
To them that are without law,
(I became) as without law,
(being not without law to God,
but under the law to Christ,)
that I might gain them
that are without law.

So I don't understand your question, and I don't understand my non-answer...

I know.

Finally an easy question: Yes.

Does having the Holy Spirit mean you are IN Christ?

That is another topic.

Let me answer like this.

Adam was a prophet, like minded as we are.

He prophesied as he was moved by the Holy Spirit.

Hence........

Adam......

Genesis 2:24 KJV


24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Jesus........

Mark 10:7 KJV


7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;


Paul........


Ephesians 5:31 KJV


31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.



The Holy Spirit moved differently before Christ incarnated compared to after.


Ephesians 3:5 KJV


5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;



So then before, the Holy Spirit moved men to speak truth, after he guides us into all truth and shows us what is Christ's.



John 16:13 KJV


13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come , he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear , that shall he speak : and he will shew you things to come .





John 16:15 KJV


15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I , that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

And it is NOT a flesh on flesh war...

For Muslims, perhaps...

Not for us...

Arsenios

I know.

 

[Arsenios]

There is a time to kill and a time to let live.

You and I are pretty good at non-answers....

How can you throw something away without knowing you have it?

By sinning...

I mean, how did the Prodigal Son manage it?
"Father, give me my DUE..."
And the Father gave...
And the son went far away,
and lived in the great abundance of riotous living,
with no idea he was throwing away his inheritance...

That does not mean he knew it was there.

That is one of the features of knowing God - eg That it is so natural and normal to live so extraordinary a way of life, that it just seems ordinary... And how does that ol' Country Western song go? "You don't know what you had 'till it's gone..." Which is itself a great Grace, for when the denizens of that afar-off country would not even permit the prodigal to eat with the pigs, he 'came to himself'... Reality set in, and sobriety... And calm and resolve... And He STARTED OUT for Home, and had not come very far when his Father met him in great rejoicing...

So you know it is there when YOU are not there...

And the Way back to there is the Christian Walk of repentance from NOT-there to there in the Community of Faith that is the Body of Christ...

I know.

So THAT is where you want to leave it?

I mean, I tell you I do not understand your question...

Then I offer a Scripture that may be relevant...

And you reply: "I know." ???

A cryptic non-response?

That is another topic.

Let me answer like this.

Adam was a prophet, like minded as we are.

He prophesied as he was moved by the Holy Spirit.

Hence........

Adam......

Genesis 2:24 KJV


24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Jesus........

Mark 10:7 KJV


7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;


Paul........


Ephesians 5:31 KJV


31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.



The Holy Spirit moved differently before Christ incarnated compared to after.


Ephesians 3:5 KJV


5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;



So then before, the Holy Spirit moved men to speak truth, after he guides us into all truth and shows us what is Christ's.



John 16:13 KJV


13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come , he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear , that shall he speak : and he will shew you things to come .



John 16:15 KJV


15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I , that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Ya know, I did think I was pretty good at giving a non-answer, but now I am quickly coming to realize that I am but an incompetent beginner compared to the sheer mastery you just demonstrated.

I mean, the question was, "Does having the Holy Spirit mean that one is IN Christ?" And "Yes" and "No" are perfectly acceptable answers... Or maybe even a "Well, if you DO NOT have the Holy Spirit, you MOST ASSUREDLY are NOT in Christ!" But you wandered all over the place, and ended up, I think, saying that we who are in Christ have the Holy Spirit differently than before Christ was on earth...

So I sit at your feet, O Most Wise Master of the Non-Answer...
I am but your most worthless and disposable disciple...

I know.

Then you have to know that there is not a time to kill, and not a time to let live, because those living do not belong to you to either kill or grant leave to continue breathing... Idi Amin would disagree, no doubt, but he has joined his victims with the worms...

This is not flesh and blood warfare...

It is with the principalities and powers from which flesh and blood warfare proceeds...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Let me try to redirect this and avoid your caricature of what I'm saying.

OK - And here are your words I was trying to get a grip on:

Extreme care must be taken to
retain content
rather than
promote concept.

And this by way of understanding high context language in a low-context language environment, yes?

Rhema is the signified. Logos is the signifier.

Immediate disjunct...

BECAUSE...

The content of the concept "RHEMA" is WORDS... And words are names given to concepts... And concepts are organizations of thoughts regarding percepts... And percepts are the sensory apprehension of objects, so that the object is signified BY the RHEMA which is ABOUT it... (This is ordinary language.)

In your terms, LOGOS is thoughts, and RHEMA is objects, but the primary meaning of rhema is "sayings" about objects, which places rhema as a certain development of thoughts...

Content is the signified. Concept is the signifier.

So content is the objects signified by words which are the spoken names for concepts? I am speaking ordinary language here...

Here is the issue - If CONTENT must be conceptually apprehended in order to become CONTENT, then objective reality, the objects apart from our awareness of them, does not exist...

Here is the question again:

Here is a concept: "SPOTTED APALOOSA" Here is the content: "ALL HORSES IN THIS GROUP" What do you understand by the DICHOTOMY between Apaloosas and Horses?

Both Appaloosas and horses are the signified if one is thinking and/or speaking of them. The expression is the signifier of the signified.

IF the concept "spotted apaloosa" HAS a content, then we cannot conflate concept and content in your view, because you said we must be extremely careful NOT to emphasize concept OVER content... And you are here saying that the concept and the content are the same thing...

It is not a dichotomy between content and concept. The signifying could never be devoid of the signified.

Then why did you write:

Extreme care must be taken to
retain content
rather than
promote concept.

I mean, your rant is in these terms against low-context/low content language. In terms of Apaloosas and horses, where the concept Apaloosa is a part of the content of the content of horses, coud you show me hos I might promote concept at the expense of retaining content? Would it entail me swaggering around with a riding crop and declaring that ONLY Apaloosas are REAL HORSES??? Or something like that?

There must be Rhema for Logos.

That is true ONLY IF the thought is conceptualized into a word, but you seem to conflate thought and word, and most thoughts are not verbalized, and rhema is actually a verbalization, that reflects thoughts which are anterior to it...

There cannot be nothing (no thing) signified.

Well, PPS, one would HOPE so...

For intelligent thought and speech, there must be subject matter. Substance. The thing thought and spoken ABOUT.

Yes, one would think so...

Yet the Flower of Europe, the culture that produced Kant and Hesse and Bach and Vagner also produced Hitler...

Arsenios

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You and I are pretty good at non-answers....

My answer can only be spiritually discerned.
You are not equipped.

By sinning...

I mean, how did the Prodigal Son manage it?
"Father, give me my DUE..."
And the Father gave...
And the son went far away,
and lived in the great abundance of riotous living,
with no idea he was throwing away his inheritance...

The prodigal son has no bearing on Adam's supposed fall.

That is one of the features of knowing God - eg That it is so natural and normal to live so extraordinary a way of life, that it just seems ordinary... And how does that ol' Country Western song go? "You don't know what you had 'till it's gone..." Which is itself a great Grace, for when the denizens of that afar-off country would not even permit the prodigal to eat with the pigs, he 'came to himself'... Reality set in, and sobriety... And calm and resolve... And He STARTED OUT for Home, and had not come very far when his Father met him in great rejoicing...

So you know it is there when YOU are not there...

Once again, absolutely nothing to do with Adam's condition prior to him sinning.

So THAT is where you want to leave it?

I mean, I tell you I do not understand your question...

Then I offer a Scripture that may be relevant...

And you reply: "I know." ???

A cryptic non-response?

Simply answer the question.

The scripture you gave had nothing what so ever to do with the answer.


While Paul was alive without the law, what commandment came that revived the sin in his members?

Ya know, I did think I was pretty good at giving a non-answer, but now I am quickly coming to realize that I am but an incompetent beginner compared to the sheer mastery you just demonstrated.

I mean, the question was, "Does having the Holy Spirit mean that one is IN Christ?" And "Yes" and "No" are perfectly acceptable answers... Or maybe even a "Well, if you DO NOT have the Holy Spirit, you MOST ASSUREDLY are NOT in Christ!" But you wandered all over the place, and ended up, I think, saying that we who are in Christ have the Holy Spirit differently than before Christ was on earth...

So I sit at your feet, O Most Wise Master of the Non-Answer...
I am but your most worthless and disposable disciple...

Yer question did not demonstrate the taking it slow pace you so ardently claim.

You veered off away from Adams condition before Christ's incarnation to after.

You thought you took off runnin' little toddler but fell smack on yer beak.

Then you have to know that there is not a time to kill, and not a time to let live, because those living do not belong to you to either kill or grant leave to continue breathing... Idi Amin would disagree, no doubt, but he has joined his victims with the worms...

This is not flesh and blood warfare...

It is with the principalities and powers from which flesh and blood warfare proceeds...

This is spiritually discerned.

The reason you are not equipped to understand it is this.


1 CORINTHIANS II

12 Now we have received , not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.


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.


16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.



1 Corinthians 3:1 KJV


1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

My friend and brother.

Before I would even begin to listen to yer 10 hour course on how you
could say God lied, when he said he creates evil,

God did not lie, as we see in Isaiah 45. Few know the most ancient overarching definitions for tov (good) and ra'a (evil). Good and evil are horrific tranlsations.

The fundamental meaning of tov is functional, and ra'a is a privation or negation of tov. There is no dualism of "good and evil". There is latent potential dys-function, mal-function, or non-function inherent in function.

you would have to answer Paul's questions for me.

Romans 9:20 KJV

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

22 What if * God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known , endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

In v22, "fitted" is the perfect participle passive, where the perfect must be taken with the middle sense in that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction. (The middle voice indicates action one takes upon oneself or on behalf of oneself.) They were not fitted for destruction by God.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

OK - And here are your words I was trying to get a grip on:

Extreme care must be taken to
retain content
rather than
promote concept.

And this by way of understanding high context language in a low-context language environment, yes?

Yes, and it obviously isn't according to any context you're grasping.

Immediate disjunct...

BECAUSE...

The content of the concept "RHEMA" is WORDS...

Now you've tossed Rhema in as concept. I don't know why you don't just listen to what I'm saying without forcing it into your own grid.

And words are names given to concepts... And concepts are organizations of thoughts regarding percepts... And percepts are the sensory apprehension of objects, so that the object is signified BY the RHEMA which is ABOUT it... (This is ordinary language.)

No.

In your terms, LOGOS is thoughts, and RHEMA is objects, but the primary meaning of rhema is "sayings" about objects, which places rhema as a certain development of thoughts...

Primary definitions are not only nor preeminent definitions, but indicate volume of usage. Rhema is the subject matter. The thing (thought and) spoken about. You just refuse to accept the valid definition.

So content is the objects signified by words which are the spoken names for concepts? I am speaking ordinary language here...

I don't know what you mean by the question. You're on another page.

Signified. Signifier.

Here is the issue - If CONTENT must be conceptually apprehended in order to become CONTENT, then objective reality, the objects apart from our awareness of them, does not exist...

No, it's the inverse. There must be objective reality for there to be subjective thought and expression.

Here is the question again:

Here is a concept: "SPOTTED APALOOSA" Here is the content: "ALL HORSES IN THIS GROUP" What do you understand by the DICHOTOMY between Apaloosas and Horses?

And that has nothing to do with what I've said, but with your caricatured misunderstanding of what I've said.

IF the concept "spotted apaloosa" HAS a content, then we cannot conflate concept and content in your view, because you said we must be extremely careful NOT to emphasize concept OVER content... And you are here saying that the concept and the content are the same thing...

No, I'm not referring to the terms content and concept in any way the same manner in which you are. You're forcing me into your caricature.......again.

Then why did you write:

Extreme care must be taken to
retain content
rather than
promote concept.

Because I'm referring to something you have made into something tangential that isn't within the same solar system of what I'm saying.

I mean, your rant is in these terms against low-context/low content language. In terms of Apaloosas and horses, where the concept Apaloosa is a part of the content of the content of horses,

No no no no no no no no no no no.

coud you show me hos I might promote concept at the expense of retaining content? Would it entail me swaggering around with a riding crop and declaring that ONLY Apaloosas are REAL HORSES??? Or something like that?

No. It would entail you having some idea what I'm talking about rather than just installing your presumptions.

That is true ONLY IF the thought is conceptualized into a word, but you seem to conflate thought and word, and most thoughts are not verbalized, and rhema is actually a verbalization, that reflects thoughts which are anterior to it...

You act as though speech is distinct from thought, and both thought and speech are distinct from objective reality.

Well, PPS, one would HOPE so...

Yes, one would think so...

It would be nice if you'd stop importing and assigning what I'm referring to.

Yet the Flower of Europe, the culture that produced Kant and Hesse and Bach and Vagner also produced Hitler...

Arsenios

And now we're back to Hitler. Somehow you erroneously think Germanic personalities are relevant to this topic.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

God did not lie, as we see in Isaiah 45. Few know the most ancient overarching definitions for tov (good) and ra'a (evil). Good and evil are horrific tranlsations.

The fundamental meaning of tov is functional, and ra'a is a privation or negation of tov. There is no dualism of "good and evil". There is latent potential dys-function, mal-function, or non-function inherent in function.

Functional to suit God's purpose.

There is no malfunction or dysfunction going on in it.

Definitely no non function. :wazzup:

In v22, "fitted" is the perfect participle passive, where the perfect must be taken with the middle sense in that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction. (The middle voice indicates action one takes upon oneself or on behalf of oneself.) They were not fitted for destruction by God.

This is not even credible.

You are ignoring all the previous context and trying to install the definition you like.



Shall the thing formed say to the maker, why did you make me like this?

BTW it's rhetorical, we dont get to do that.


Paul then says what if God fitted and prepared the vessels.

So I'm asking you, what if he did just that?


I know when it comes to God's sovereignty and his purpose you always implode.

I understand everyone's reluctance to embrace that God's sovereignty includes having mercy on whom he will have mercy without any explanation especially one that would not seem fair.

But just like he asked Job, where were you when I...........?