Spirituality

That last post of mine had a typo. I meant that the NWT's "physical man" was off the beaten path. But my problem with it is that it is not right.

The Word of God has come to us not only in the Hebrew Scriptures but in the 29 books of the Greek New Testament as well. So when you speak of "the jewish understanding" I wonder if you include the Jesus the Messiah, Peter, John, and Paul, apostles of Christ or whether your Hebrew teacher excludes the New Testament apostles and prophets.In the Old Testament it says five times in First Samuel 28 that after Samuel the prophet died and was buried in Ramah (1 Sam. 25:1) his immaterial part appeared some years latter to a desperate witch consulting Saul at Endor. To those who theorize that that some spirit imitated being Samuel I would inform that five times repeated we are told that the speaker was Samuel.Ask your Hebrew teacher how the immaterial part of Samuel could speak Saul if the destruction of the body of Samuel was the annihilation of his soul.That God made exception and this time allowed the witch to accomplish a practice strictly forbidden, is beside the point. Samuel was called up from the place of the dead. Samuel's blood had long since rotted in the grave as Ramah.I don't know whether or not your Hebrew teacher regards the oracles of the New Testament. But I will ask you instead about 2 Peter 2:4-9 and Jude 7, sister passages of one another. "Jude discovers to us the inhabitants of Sodom as now suffering the wrath of God in fire never to end: Jude 7. And Peter adds his attestation: 2 Pet. ii,9. They are preserved under punishment up to the day of judgment . Though at death the wicked may seem to escape woe, it is a mistake. They are caught, and detained in a place unseen by us, with a suffering less indeed than that which is to be awarded them after judgment but preparatory to it." - Robert Govette It is the souls of the deceased bodies of the inhabitants of Sodom that are detained, that are preserved in punishment in Hades because "God knows how to ... keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment."Samuel's soul, apart from his body, was kept in a peaceful and restful place. The souls of the unrighteous of Sodom are kept in a place of punishment.This concept is biblical. And it is confirmed by Luke 16 where the rich man's soul apart from his buried body, is in a place of torment while Lazarus, also having died, has his soul in a place of comfort - "Abraham's bosom". That sounds impressive. But I have presented the clear revelation of the Bible to you. Will you now created your own doctrine by arguing that Samuel's soul did not come up from Hades to speak to Saul?Will you now created your own doctrine by insisting that the souls of the inhabitants of Sodom are not being kept by the able God under punishment until the day of final judgment ?If I see you laboring to twist Scripture to impose Russellite beliefs, please do not accompany such labors with a boast that you believe the Bible over doctrine. First, what Matt. 10:28 says is "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is abvle to DESTROY both soul and body in Gehenna." (my emphasis)The point of the teaching is that God has a power and authority to harm man beyond that which man can do. Therefore the greater fear should be rendered to God.If the passage meant that man can kill the body and the soul is annihilated, and then latter God can resurrect the body and do the same thing by casting the man into Gehenna, then the warning is pointless. In that case God and man have exactly the SAME ability to harm the man.But the point is not that God and man have the SAME power but that God's power EXCEEDS that which man can do. He not only can kill the body as man can do, He also can destroy the soul, which man cannot do.And it is another discussion, but destroy does not always mean annihilation into non-being, non-existence, in the Bible. Before we go on to another verse (presumably Matt. 16:25) I would emphasize the logic of verse Matt. 10:28 again.If when man kills the body the soul of that body is also destroyed, then for God to latter resurrect that body and destroy soul and body in Gehenna is NOT doing anything that man has not already done. The point of the teaching is that God CAN do that which man cannot do. He can do something extra to man besides the killing of the body. Therefore we should render greater fear to be justified before Him.Now we can come to Matthew 16:24,25: Now this denying of one's soul life may involve physical death. But it may not. The servants of the Lord Jesus often denied their opinion, their self interest, thier self glory, their self comfort, their desire for revenge, their desire for money, their desire to be liked by the world, their desire for position, etc. etc. etc. in order to follow the Lord Jesus.This losing of the soul-life to follow the Lord Jesus and subsequently finding the soul-life, does not ALWAYS entail physical death. Paul said that he and his co-workers died daily.The context of the passage should aid us. Peter has just voiced his opinion that Jesus should pity Himself and not allow Himself to be crucified. Jesus turns to Him and calls him "Satan". Jesus rebukes Peter's human sympathy because He says - "You are a stumbling block to Me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men."Therefore in the next few passages to take up the cross and follow Jesus is to be commited to the things of God rather than the things of men. It is to take God's will and deny the will of fallen mankind which is invariably against God's will. This MAY involve physical death. But it also may not. It may simply mean repenting of the way one thinks. He must set his mind on the will of God and take it off of the things of man.In taking up his cross this way, he denies his soul-life which is thoroughly Adam and natural, and follows the Son of God. In losing his opinion, his self concept he will eventually FIND his truer identity. It is the paradox of laying down the fallen Adamic nature in order to be rewarded with the new God centered nature in Jesus Christ.So, resurrection is not only physical. Before it is physical it is in the transformation of the soul. This is only partially true. It is true that God can and will restore the faithful to Christ to physical life again.Again, if what God does by casting the body and soul into Gehenna is identical to what man does by killing the man, then there is no difference. The fear of man and the fear of God should be the same. The greater fear recommended towards God is because His punishment can reach beyond what man can do. He can destroy the soul.Let us take Gehenna there as a literal smoldering city dump.According to Watchtower understanding when MAN throws a MAN into that dump his body is killed and his soul is rendered non-existent.Now God comes and resurrects the body and does the same thing. He throws the man into the city dump of Gehenna. The result is the same. The body is killed and the soul is rendered non-existent.If this is the case there is no reason to fear God over man. They have done exactly the same thing, according to Watchtower theology.The teaching is that God can do more than man. And this more involves His authority and power to lay hold of the man's soul aside from the destruction of the body, and destroy that soul.Gehenna here is a symbol of that final damnation that only God can carry out. I have no argument over the matter of resurrection.The argument is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not ascertain that Matt. 10:28, among many other passages, show that the soul can be separated from the body and dealt with by God distinctly from the physical man.Revelation 20 says this: John saw their souls. John then saw them raised from the dead and reign with Christ for a thousand years.If it is objected that John saw their souls AFTER they had been physically resurrected, I concede that that understanding may be possible. But I think it is the less likely of understandings. Why?It is more likely that we should understand that John saw their departed souls and their resurrection because of the connection of this passage with what was previously seen in the Fifth Seal in Revelation 6:9-11. I believe that 20:4 is the vindication connected to the vision of 6:9-11. These souls are clearly that of those who have shed their blood. They have been KILLED. Yet John sees their souls and hears the cry for judgment and vindication.Now in 20:4 John sees the souls and they are resurrected from their state of death and vindicated to reign with Christ. The number of their fellow martyrs have been completed in the previous chapters. Thier souls are brought up from Hades, from "underneath the altar" and their cry for judgment and avenging upon the earth is answered finally by God.The point being that the souls existed apart from thier slain bodies.Now I do not pretend to understand the science of this, or how robes could be put on immaterial souls. That is a mystery to me. What seems clear is that the soul of man can exist apart from the killed body though it is not normal or desired that it should.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Chapter 28 of First Samuel IS Hebrew Scriptures. It is not another writing which needs to be harmonized with Hebrew Scripture.I believe that the chapter intends to convey that the spirit was that of the prophet Samuel. The alternative would be to suggest that God used one of the demonic spirits to speak such divine admonitions to Saul. This I think is unlikely.We are told repeatedly, five times, that the speaker is Samuel. It is as if the inspired word is saying "That's right. You heard me. Samuel spoke." The repetitions are impossible for me to ignore.1.) The woman SAW Samuel (28:12).
2.) It says that Saul KNEW that it was Samuel (28:14).
3.) It is "Samuel" who speaks in verse 15.
4.) It is "Samuel" who speaks in verse 16.
5.) It was "Samuel's words" which made Saul afraid (v.20)The hope that this spirit was something or someone other than the soul of Samuel is a very slim hope. I recently discussed this passage with you or someone else. It is not wise to look to the book of Ecclesiastes for a final word on the state of the dead in the whole progressive revelation of the Bible.Solomon's discourse is mainly concerning things "under the sun". His observations are limited to the temporal realm of life from the standpoint of man's limited knowledge of temporal things "under the sun".When Solomon questions "Who knows the breath of the children of men, that it goes upward; or the breath of the beasts, that it goes downward to the earth?" (Ecc. 3:21), he is elaborating on man's limited experiential knowledge. No one living really knows by experience whether at death his spirit will ascend and that of the beast will descend. These are unknown experiences to all men living. from the standpoint of mortal man in his temporal existence "under the sun", at death his life, knowledge, activity is all over.This pragmatic limitation is the essence of the book of Ecclesiastes. For that reason I would not use Ecclesiastes to supercede the clearer revelation of the New Testament. This is unwise. This passage is along the same line. How can the living rely upon those dead for anything? They cannot.We are also told that Hades is a place which, though hidden from man's sight, is wide open to God's:"Sheol is naked before Him, And Abaddon has no covering" (Job 26:6)"Sheol and Abaddon [lie open] before Jehovah. How much more the hearts of the children of men." (Prov. 15:11)The implication is that God can view the departed souls of men in that region.Psalm 139 also discribes Sheol as a place where David might flee to only to find that God is there also:"If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, there You are." (Psalm 139:8)The prophet Amos described Sheol as the greatest depth of the earth, to be reached by digging, if men could carry the process far enough:"Though they dig into Sheol, thence will mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down." (Amos 9:2)The strong indications of these passages is that Sheol is more than just a physical grave. It is a realm where the departed souls dwell, hidden from human view but laid bare before the eyes of God.Furthermore we see that this place is never filled up though more and more souls go there. Hadees is never full while the physical graves fill up (Prov. 27:20; 30:15) [qs] jaywill writes: I admit that it is unusual. However sometimes God allows man's obstinate heart to get its desire. For example, God commanded the prophet Balaam not to go to as a paid curser to curse the Israelites. When Balak offered Balaam even more money Balaam repeated his request for permission to go. God granted him his request though He had just forbidden him to do so.The extra money meant nothing to God. He allowed Balaam to take his own self chosen greedy course. He used it as an opportunity to manifest His own purposes of preserving Israel from accusation and curses of the enemies of God.It like manner, God made an exception with this stubborn king and brought up the soul of Samuel as Saul had requested from the witch. God condemned also the greed of Balaam the prophet. But he allowed him to take his self chosen greedy way. The angel in the road with drawn sword to kill the prophet, indicated that HIS way was the way of death. He was going according to God's sovereignty and not according to Balaam's way. Had it not been for the speaking donkey Balaam would have probably been killed. There is no debate from me that sorcery and witchcraft were condemned by God.I think the raising up of Samuel's soul from Sheol was of the power of God and not the power of Satan. I do not think that the occult can actually do such things. I think the danger is that demons imitate the dead and lead witches and sorcerers astray into deception.But in the case of First Samuel 28, God actually brought up the soul of the prophet. Perhaps the surprise of the authenticity of the matter is what caused the witch to be astounded. Exactly. That is why I think it was actually the soul of Samuel. As God allowed Balaam the paid curser to follow his self chosen greedy way, likewise God allowed the rebellious Saul to follow his self chosen way.You should remember that God had told Saul that rebellion was as the sin of witchcraft. Saul's rebellion had sunk to the level of the witchcraft. And that depraved state God spoke to him through the soul of the prophet Samuel though Samuel had died.Saul's case was so tragically pitiful that even the witch felt sorrow for him.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Bluejay, you do not have to take my little testimony ss your absolute roadmap to the spiritual. I did not intend it to be your absolute proof of the spiritual.Peter also speaks of his experience of seeing the transfiguration of Christ on a mountain and hearing a divine voice saying "This is My Son, the Beloved ...". Yet Peter does not let his personal experience supercede the Scriptures.Here: Peter here does speak of his personal experience. He assures his readers that the apostles were not following cleverly contructed myths in what they relate about Jesus.But notice that he concludes with a recommendation that the prophetic word is made "more firm". That is the word of the Bible basically. His experience only confirms the prophecies. But I think his main emphasis is on the reliability of the Scriptures.Likewise, I do not expect you to place my personal experience above what the Bible reveals to you about Jesus Christ. I only offer it as a little confirming testimony to Christ's ability to come into a man as "a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) Stile certainly has the freedom to counter with his own experience and explanation. He has that right.If you are requesting that I prove to you here with some kind of mathematical certainty the reality of the spiritual realm, I cannot do that. You're free to adopt another opinion. I am just contributing to the discussion what I believe I know about the matter.As I wrote before - "Time will tell. Won't it?" The point about the joints in marrow may possibly be understood in two ways. First as the marrow in within the bone, so the human spirit is within the soul. I admit this portion still needs some light shed on it for me.But when I compare it to my spiritual experience I also understand it this way - the word of God can so illuminate your inner motive for doing things that even in your physical movement of the seemingly involuntary and quick, God shines on your intentions to help you see whether or not you are obeying Him or your own will.I mean we can do some physical things in a split second - reach for another helping of food, tighten our jaws out of anger, wander where we should not with our feet, loosen our tongue to say something unkind or subtle, cast our eyes in a split second in the wrong direction to look at something we should not, quickly hide something from view which we are ashamed of, quicken our pace so as to get impatiently ahead of someone else, spank a child a little too hard, etc. etc.My experience is that when I have the word of God living and operating in my heart, these very subtle physical movements get exposed as to their source. The intense light of the word of God discerns within me these quick and subtle actions of the joints and bones of my body.Maybe this approaches what the writer in Hebrews had in mind. I am willing to do some more study about it. I don't know about you but I was taught to have a time with the Lord each morning. I spend time in the Holy Spirit as a habit most days to begin my day fellowshipping and communing with Christ.I would not advize trying to live the rest of one's life only on one dramatic experience.And there is much in the New Testament about the pledge of the Spirit, the foretaste of the Spirit, the seal of the Spirit, and the teaching of the anointing. All these teachings are along the line of the Christian having a kind of downpayment or foretaste of a fuller enjoyment of God to come. I do not write science fiction. But I do compose symphonic music for a recreation and hobby. I also am a song writer. I have been a creative person all my life. I only say this to let you know that I am not at all a stranger to the joys of creative activity or even "inspiration".I don't intend to discourage your high feeling about your creativity. If you want to call that a spiritual experience, go right ahead.I guess my point is that there can be a lot of "high" experiences in the soul of a person. God did not intend that the only high be a spiritual one. He created us with emotions that they may be lifted up or lowered. It is not wrong in and of itself to have a emotional "high" which is something of the mind, emotion, or will.I am not "anti - soul". I hear you saying "But jaywill, you have to understand that that IS my spiritual experience."Okay, I hear you. I hear Stile also. I don't think that I am going to debate you both that that cannot be a spiritual experience. I hold suspect "spirituality" which puts the Holy Spirit behind me and calibrates me to a direction independent, unbelieving, closed minded, close hearted towards Jesus Christ.When I was not willing to submit to divine authority I sought another authority. With another authority came also another power. By God's mercy I was kept from getting to deep into occult dabblings. I think someone was praying for me. At the time you could not have told me that these were not "spiritual" activities.Once again, we will just have to allow time to tell. We are seeking for the truth, all. I recommend to people the Son of God, Jesus. If you think that that is a step in the wrong direction, I think you're wrong to think so. That is of course meaning a step towards the Person of Jesus as the life giving Spirit and not simply a religious matter.Part of the problem here may be that you hear me say "towards Christ" but you think I mean "join a religion, in a formal, non-vital or purely organizational way." If you protest that you get no spirituality in that, I might agree.Now, I don't think that only humans who know the name of Jesus Christ can be led spiritually. I believe there is a difference between God being definite and God being narrow."No man comes to the Father except through Me" I think is not a matter of God being narrow. It is a matter of God being definite.I do believe that in this world someone came to the Father through this Divine "Me" of Jesus who may not have known the name "Jesus". That is an exciting thing to happen for sure.I am a musician. I can recall the trouble I had sleeping the night I heard a certain Mahler symphony for the first time. I can recall being blown away by hearing a live performance of my composition teacher's original piece.Even recently I was delighted to hear some CD lectures from "The Teaching Company" which finally made some things about Relativity clear to me. I use to lie in the cold snow and gaze up at the stars with my new telescope. How very exciting.Getting a king snake in the mail that I had ordered from a reptile pet store was a real high to me a youngster. I had a friend who was into animation. When we went together to see 2001 a Space Odyssey, he came out with tears in his eyes because he was so moved at Stanley Kubrick's special effects.I recall seeing a certain Jazz band play live. Aftwards, I stood before the musicians wanting to say something, but was speechless. The drummer said "Man, aren't you going to say anything ?" I was dumbfounded that they could play so well.These were all high experiences. I am not anti- high experiences. And I can appreciate that you are blown away by some new science discovery. I am sure it is exciting and gives you a feeling or purpose and self fulfillment and without it, as Einstien said, you feel as good as dead. Well if it is, we should find out who made it up and soak that person's imagination for all that its worth.Personally, I don't think that humans would concoct a fictional character like Jesus Christ even if they were able to do so. With me, I have seen that my spiritual experiences are not just for me individually. They are for the building of the Lord's church, His Body.I said "with me". My spirituality is tested by the communal organism of the Lord's church. If it builds up the church it us genuine. If it tends to make me more isolated from the fellowship of the Body, it may have a question mark upon it.The discernemnt of the other members of the Body of Christ help me. And I in turn help them. Paul said that the members are of one another. The foot in the body cannot say that it does not need the hand. The hand cannot say that it does not need the eye, etc. This is all developed in First Corinthians 12.This may be limiting. And this may not always be convenient. But it is a safeguard for me - that is the fellowship of the church life.My preference would be that there is only need for a vertical relationship with God - just me and God and that is all. But God has designed this spiritual life so that there is a horizontal dimension also. Some blessing I receive directly from above. Some blessing I receive horozontally from other members of the Lord's mystical body, the church. And in the church life my spirituality is tested and discerned. As well as God uses me to help others too.This is all takes place in an atmosphere of love and patience, mutual forebearance and support. What I discribed to you in Hebrews 4:12 is not something quickly mastered. It is a deepening matter which occupies the whole lifetime of the believer.We often want everything quickly. You cannot master all the education needed from elemntary school to post graduate quickly. It takes much time.So also the discerning of the "myself" and the Spirit of God within me, takes time. This dividing is not a yanking apart in one moment for all time. It is a matter of deepening development and growth in spiritual life. If you read on in the book of Hebrews I think you should see that. The writer is encouraging them to go on to maturity looking to those who are ineriting the divine promises as examples and helpful guides.Reading some biographies and autobiographies is helpful. That is of those who have progressed ahead of us to inherit to some deeper degree the promises of God.There is a classic one on the Christian walk called The Practice of the Presence of God by a certain Brother Lawrence. The autobiography of Hudsen Taylor has also been a help to many seeking Christians. The writings of Andrew Murray have been helpful. I enjoyed help from "The School of Prayer" by A. Murray."The Experience of Life" by Witness Lee is probably one of the best experiencial guides to Christian growth I have ever read.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Of course I believe that Ecclesiastes is a divinely inpired book. I believe that all Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equiped for every good work, as Paul instructs Timothy.Ecclesiastes says "money solves everything" in some English translations of Ecclesiastes 10:19.Now in the progressive revelation of the Bible Ecclesiastes 10:19 should not cause me to disregard Christ's words that we cannot serve God and mammon, or other NT exhortations not to be drowned in anxiety over riches.In like manner when Solomon quips that the dead are gonzo and know nothing, I think this should not be regarded as the Bible's final word on the subject of physical death.And now I would draw your attention to another passage I feel strongly indicates an immaterial soul of man. And it is in the Old Testament.Job says that outside of his physical body, after it has rotted away, in the end of history, he will see God: Now I don't know the physiology or science of how this can happen. But it seems that this oldest book of the Bible holds for the expectation of the patriarch, that apart from his physical body, he will see His Divine Redeemer.This must be because Job's immaterial part, his soul and spirit, will exist apart from his flesh and bones.When we turn to the New Testament we see that the Apostle Paul regarded this state of being "unclothed" with the body, as undesireable for the apostles and for God. It is not normal. And they do not want to stay long in that condition should they be forced to.Rather than appear "naked" before God, apart from a body, Paul desires to appear clothed upon with a glorified body. Here to be "unclothed" is not to be non-existent but to be a soul without a body. To be found "naked" is not to be non-existent but to be a unclothed soul apart from a physical body.Paul and his co-workers do not want to be unclothed. And God does not want man to be unclothed before Him forever. He intends that the saved, living or deceased, would be clothed upon with a glorious resurrection body which I believe Paul discribes as "our dwelling place from heaven".In the Job passage, Job insists that even if he is unclothed and found naked, apart from his flesh in his immaterial soul, he will see his Divine Redeemer.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Because I love to quote the Bible, your post tempted me to include many passages which encourage the Christians to walk by faith and not by sight.What I do have is the history of God's interaction with man. I have the legacy of His FAITHFULNESS to man's faith in His word. I don't feel that I have faith in a complete vacuum. I believe that the Bible is a resume of God's accomplishments of faithfulness overcoming all kinds of unimaginable obstacles.Over the thousands of years covered by the Bible's record God and Christ build up an approvedness to me that will not let us be put to shame.This kind of record of God encourages me that in the case of faith in Christ also, there will be a total vindication. His resurrection, which I did not personally witness, forms for me an assurance that Christ's words will be completely vindicated.So this is the adventure. We walk by faith and not by sight. We have in the mean while the Holy Spirit operating within us as an assurance, a down payment, an appetizer, a foretaste of a fuller enjoyment to come.Just think of the joy we will have when we see Jesus with our eyes. And I think of the joy Jesus will have in us that we, like Him, walked the path of faith as He had also done.If you ask me, I think the universal and total vindication of Jesus of Nazareth is the one inevitable truth of human history.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The words fantastic and awesome seem to convey that the Christian life is usually sensational. It is more my experience that we enjoy Christ in that rather mundane and typical things of human life.Sometimes He is fantastic and awesome. But being on a continuous sensational high would not be what I would convey is my daily experience.Someone has said "All truth is God's truth". To the extent that there is some truth in Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism I think that portion of it is powerful to grab the attention of millions of people.Islam has no use for a "Son of God". They do not believe that Jesus died for for a prophet to die by persecution, to thier thinking, shows weakness of God's part.However, they teach that there is only one God. There is truth to that, I believe. To the extent that that portion of Islam is true it will grasp the attention of millions of people.Similar things could be said of Buddhism. When the Buddhist points out that the striving desire of man is empty, illusionary and caused heartache and sadness, well, there is some amount of turth to that teaching. To that extent Buddhism can be expected to capture the devotion of millions of people.My point is that most of the great world religions do have some element of truth in them. That portion particularly will capture the devotion of people seeking for the truth.

I fully understand that Job's suffering was so intense that he thought death would bring relief.This longing to be conceal from his trials by death really doesn't effect the utterance of 19:26." ... And after this body of mine is destroyed, outside my flesh I will look on God ..."The key phrases here:1.) "after this body of mine is destroyed"
2.) "outside my flesh".I am not disputing your point that Job thought death would be preferable to his sufferings in this life. But that fact does not change his resolve that even outside his flesh, even with his body destroyed, he would see God. He could not do this if he was annihilated into non-existence with the destruction of his body or the removal of his flesh. Hold on. I think first of all that his suffering was so terrible in life that he prefered to be dead. It was the lesser of two bad situations.Secondly, the resurrection of the body in the NT is NOT to be "outside my flesh". For the saints of God it is to receive a glorified body.This involves Christ's act to transfigure of the body (Phil. 3:20,21)). This involves Christ's act of the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23).Neither of these is the removal of the body. And neither could be discribed as resulting in the believer being outside his flesh. There is no argument from me concerning 1 Cor. 15:21-22. I don't see how this changes Job's strong belief that even if his body were destroyed and he were to be totally without flesh, still his soul would see God.Job 19:25-27 is not being proposed by me as an exhaustive study on eschatology. I am not using Job 19:25-27 as an in depth analysis of all things pertaining to God's salvation in the future. I am only using it to demonstrate the patriarch's strong feeling that in God's creation, even without a body, he has an existence and can see God.The passages that you are underscoring to counter this are not effective. I think at most you could argue that that may have been Job's hope, but that was not the case. I think that is your only possible objection.And I don't think that objection would work because of many of the other passages I already showed you about the souls speaking, praying, waiting, etc. in Sheol or Hades. Physical death is a separation of the soul from the body. The evidence for the soul not being made non-existent is strong.But I think you are arguing the wrong position. You seem to be trying to argue that such a state of a disembodied soul is not God's purpose for man. But I already indicated that it was not, strongly, from Second Corinthians.So this objection, to me, is not effective to disprove that the soul can temporarily be separated from the body without being non-existent. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Okay. But the Christian life is spirituality if it is normal. There is no difference between the life and the spirituality.The Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" .The Christian life is living out the indwelling Christ who is the divine life and the eternal life.Christ made Himself available to man as the divine life by transfiguring Himself into the life giving Spirit, the Spirit of life."the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)I know you will feel exasperated with me for saying this. But the Christian life and the Christian spirituality are one in the same. My points right now are these:Christ is unique. I am not a relativist. The experience of Christ is unique.Another point. Man's is on a withdrawal away from God. As man withdraws from God man has the need to replace God. He may replace God with something very good and very noble. He may replace God with something evil and not noble. Either way as man withdraws from God he wants to replace God.What man replaces God with is an idol. To uplift the idol in his thought man must apply characteristics that apply to God to his idols. So man will speak of the "spirituality" of these idols, these replacements for God.This is to borrow a matter related to the experience of the Spirit of God (spirituality) and hijack the term to uplift his idol. Ie. the "spirituality" of a successful company, the "spirituality" of a great work of art, the "spirituality" of a tremendous breakthrough in science, the "spirituality" of the conquest of a high mountain, the "spirituality" of a successful marriage.Of course there is no law forbidding us from borrowing the term "spiritual" to apply to these matters. The experience of them may indeed be very exchilarating.Personally, I feel if this does not involve the human spirit and the Holy Spirit, this is borrowing a concept to place great importance to it. So you get the "spirituality" of the Atheist which he claims is just as legitimate a "spirituality" of the believer in Christ's "spirituality".If I wanted to exalt figure skating to the level of worship of God, I might talk of the "spirituality" of a successful figure skating championship.I am kind of skeptical about this. But there are probably worse things that can happen.A second point is that I am skeptical of a person who is not moved by ANY particlar faith to claim "They are all the same." What I understand this to really mean is that to that person none of these beliefs have any enfluence on his life whatsoever. Therefore they are all the same. Sure, to the person who doesn't care about Allah or Visnu or Jehovah or Jesus or Buddha or Confusius or Mohammed or Allen Watts or some other teacher or system which has absolutely no enfluence on their life, they ARE all the same.However, if I wanted to find out if my experience of Christ is all the same as that of say, the Moslem, I would go to the Moslem and question him about it. By examining his explanations then I could more accurately determing if it IS the same or is not.I would go to question the Buddhist about his spirituality to determine if it is the same. I don't know why the atheist should even want to use the term "spirituality".I suppose that his position is that there is spirituality without God. For some reason they want to "cash in" on a term which is related to the pursuit of God and the Holy Spirit of God.I suppose I feel that way because of the Bible's use of the term spirit.Now it may be argued that the Native Americans talked a lot about "the Great Spirit" and had no Bible. Why can that not be genuinee spirituality ?My answer is that I think it can. I think the Bible is God's revelation and within that revelation there is room for that.Then the Atheist might go on to argue "Then why cannot my being blown away by the sheer genius of some scientific formula of Einstien, also be consider "spirituality"?My opinion is that that is something uplifting in the mind, emotion, and will of the soul. And I would add that even some activity under the banner of "Christian" might also be something not really spiritual but totally in the realm of the exalted mind, emotion, and will of the soul.Having said all these things. I could be wrong about some of it.I could be wrong about some of this. To find out if they were all equivalent I would go to enquire of the people having this "spirituality", carefully compare notes, and base my decision about that on what they tell me.For example, I have not met a Moslem yet who, when REALLY enquired deeply will admit that they know God.I have only ONCE talked to a Jehovah's Witness who when really pressed could admit that they know God.I use these two examples because their beliefs about spirituality have similar elements to my New Testament faith. Moslems believe very strongly in one God. But when I really question them deeply they will eventually object that anyone could know God, Fear God - yes, Obey God, yes, bow down and prostrate oneself to God, yes, give alms for God, yes etc. But when I really press them eventually they will say that they do NOT KNOW God Himself.I will still enquire of other people. I am not saying that I may not find someone yet who will answer in the affirmative who is not regenerated in the spirit by Christ.I have on one occasion been surprised by a poster for a Jewish Bible Study which had language which I thought was kind of particular to the Christian faith. That was someting about the living water.Now I am being honest with you. I never forgot that poster.Finally, I would say that this is related to the matter of "tolerance". I think a person who has something that they firmly believe is the person who can show tolerance. Some people believe in nothing particular and think that because they are not committed to anything therefore they are tolerant.I say, first show me someone who HAS something they consider the truth. Then we can ascertain in their dealings with others, how tolerant they are. But if the person you are trying to show has no spiritual discernment, that complicates the matter.Suppose you are wine tasting with a person whose taste buds are dead? He's likely to say that there is no discernable difference in the various wines that are being tasted.It is not quite as cut and dry as you would like to make it, IMO. In Paul's letter to Christians in Corinth he said that one of them was doing something that even the heathen would find shameful. So I cannot argue that automatically all Christians are more spiritual.I think that it is more spiritual to be regenerated in the human spirit than not to be. But this is perhaps saying that it is more human to be born than it is to be still a separated sperm and egg. That beneficial aspect is simply Christ Himself. But He is indeed available to everyone who believes into Him.I don't think humanistic magnimousness is as open and fair as the invitation to believe in Christ for salvation. I don't think humanism can improve on the all encompassing love of Christ or replace His wide open invitation with a philosophical system which is more fair.My experience in questioning Humanists and Atheists is that invariably thier road to what they see as the universal truth is more restrictive, more elitist, more narrow than Christ's
"whosoever believes into Him might have eternal life"Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't think I said that one was "better". It is more annoying than that. I said one was real spirituality and the other was not.I mean the concept of "I do not believe in God. But I am very spiritual", IMO, is not true. And I am not sure even why an Atheist would want to talk that way.Most of the ones I talk with don't maintain that they are just as spiritual. They maintain that they are "rational," and more so than any Theist could be.At least that is what I am more accustomed to hearing.Now, a little caveat. If a person is begrudging of organized religion or has some resented wound in his life because of some mistreatment from the hands of religion, and if he counteracts this by saying "I am an Atheist" but actually means he hates relgion, well maybe that person can have some spirituality.But I have heard one Atheist say that if you are an atheist only because you are mad with religion you are not a true atheist. An atheist believes that there is no God, rather than he is mad with orgnized religion.I think a person disgusted with Christianity as an organized religion could have spiritual experience. I guess I keep saying things like that because I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that what you are saying, in essence is:"C'mon admit it. There is nothing unique about the Christian experience of Jesus."I guess I am reacting by writing things like "No. I don't share your attitude in that way."Or maybe I hear you saying "Embrace Relativism". And I am reacting by saying, "No. I don't think I will." Yes. I think I understand that. Just I could say so and be wrong. I could be deceiced. I could be purposely lying. I could be deluded.I could be partially correct but not absolutely so. That as why in the intricacies of this discussion I decided to submit that I could be wrong in some regards. That's right. I think that between the human philosophy of Humanism and the life and death of Jesus, there is not an equal comparison.I think the opportunity for a man to have a fresh and new start as a redeemed and forgiven believer in Christ's death for his sins, is unparalleled.A man believes into Christ. God looks upon him as if he had never sinned at all. His crimes have been judged. If the man were to remind God of His sins, God might respond that He does not remember or know what he is talking about.His slate is as clean as Jesus Himself. He has a completely new start. Humanism is really good. But it is not that good, IMO. In the spiritual realm saying things means a great deal. The spiritual enemy of the child of God does not care about our arguing theology. He cares about us proclaiming the facts." ... they overcame him (the devil) by the word of their testimony"In the spiritual warfare, proclaiming the facts is extremely powerful. The power of Satan consists in his lies. His lies are coountered by the Christian warrior proclaiming the facts in this universe - "It is written ..."You put a very low premium on just "saying" things. But the Bible and our experience puts a very high premium on stating the divine facts.Let me make it practical. Let me make it down to earth.If you were to declare tonight "Lord Jesus I receive you as the Lord and Savior. And I accept, regardless of my feelings, that YOU have washed away all of my sins in your precious blood. I receive this forgiveness and I accept the gift of eternal life. I receive this not based on how I feel or on any sensation. I receive this on faith in what you have said."If you were to declare that sincerely, I think you would undergo a fundamental change in your being.Now it is funny that some people scoff at me for saying that. But when they come right up to the possibility of saying it, their hands get sweaty, their breath quickens, they feel rather agitated. It is as if they realize that they know they will change.I have noticed that there is an event horizon close to the receiving of Christ / spirituality / Spirit of God, at which instinctively man knows that he is about to embark on something real and powerful. I didn't say that you necessarily would not understand. I implied that there are situations in which a person would not understand because of no ability to discern the spiritual.Whether you are of that catagory or not, only God knows. I am limited. To me it could sound like a 10th grader being told by a 3rd grader something true, but the 10th grader is so steeped in the attitude that he knows just about everything better. So he thinks he is being lied to or tricked by the 3rd grader.But analogies are limited.Back to the subject here - I think that "spiritual" involves the spirit of man. That spirit of man is comatose until Christ causes the spirit of man to be reborn, born anew, regenerated.Having said that I would add that maybe I would concede that a dealing with the human conscience might be something spiritual.Ie. A true story. A very disgruntled employee was so enraged that he had been fired that he placed a homemade bomb in his boss's mailbox. The child of the boss opened that mailbox. The explosion went off. The child was seriously disfigured for life as a result of the injuries.The disgruntled employee was so distraught at what he had done that he commited suicide. This actually happened.Now, the conviction of the man's conscience of the guilt of his action, I might say was a spiritual experience. Don't misunderstand me here. I do not say it was right or good that he commited suicide in response to the guilt of his conscience. That is not the point. The point I make is that I might call the genuine conviction of the conscience of real guilt for a real transgression, a spiritual experience.At least this is probably consistent with my belief that the only part of the human spirit which is not totally unfunctioning is the conscience of man. I think the conscience is in the spirit of man.You may not know, or care, that when some of us use the term "the spirit of man" we have done so by analyzing all the hundreds and hundreds of instances in the Bible of the use of the term "spirit" and noticed that the conscience is always related to the spirit of man.Jessie Penn Lewis is the woman who did a lot of this kind of research. And we owe a lot to her for her definition of the biblcal usages of terms like:spirit
soul
heart Hold on here. That's a leap. You don't know that I am talking only about my imagination. You may have a case that I cannot prove with mathematical certainty my belief about spirituality. But to deduce from that that what I believe is therefore all just in my imagination, could just as well all be in your imagination.That what I am saying has no reality to it, could be all your imagination.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That is probably all the time I have today.But the POINT that you WERE just speaking to is summed up here:"You're just talking about your imagination."That was the point you made. Had you said "You COULD be just talking about your imagination" I probably would have agreed that that was possible.Then I would have again submitted as before "Time will tell. Won't it?"Latter. Got to do stuff. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.