That's EXACTLY what it is saying!!
Announcement
Collapse
Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines
Theists only.
This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.
The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.
The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."
The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.
The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.
The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."
The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Help me! I'm beginning to abandon the Trinity.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostNo, thats profound biblical eisegesis.
You really do not see it ? Perhaps a T/F question would cause you to see:
Question: The body is dead (ie. inoperable/broken) without the spirit is saying something about the condition of the body without a soul,
and not necessarily defining the literal death which God spoke about in Genesis 2:17 which every human being is subject to.
True or False ?
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostIn Matthew 27:52 we have the word sleep functioning as a SUBSTITUTE for the literal death which humans undergo. So sleep in this verse functions to clue us into how the apostle conceived of death. From this verse we can gather that the dead ( just like those who are asleep) are unable to actively influence their surroundings, that is, they are unable to do anything. The dead are in a passive state , a state of inaction. This is diametrically opposite the concept of active, fully conscious , disembodied human spirits residing in heaven. Also, as pointed out earlier, during sleep our spirits do not literally leave our bodies, so the same must be true of literal death. Otherwise the word which the author used in place of death was a massively misleading one indeed.
In James 2:26 the author wants to bring our attention to the fact that faith without works is not efficacious. He is NOT describing actual death nor defining it here.
He could have used the word useless instead of dead and the same point would have been clearly made. Infact that he uses the word dead as a stand in for words like useless/broken etc. goes against the notion of fully conscious, active , fully functioning, non-destructible disembodied spirits .That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNo it really is not. Trying to make it say whatever it is that you are trying to say is the definition of eisegesis.
Oh, THIS should be fun...
True
False
Just plain wow... The word "sleep" refers to the temporary repose our bodies take before getting re-joined with our spirits and resurrected. Soul sleep is simply unbiblical.
He actually is. He is explaining that without a spirit, the body dies and likens that to faith being dead without works to show it.
No it doesn't. Like works that "animate" our faith, our spirits "animate" our bodies. Without the former, in both cases, the latter are dead husks without life.
Comment
-
The following resource is on the right track with bold below:
James drives the point home here with one last illustration. James makes a clever word-play here, similar to one Jesus uses in John chapter 3. James claims that a faith without works is just as dead as a body without pneumatos. This Greek term can mean "wind," which is a euphemism for breathing, or it can mean "spirit," or even capital-S-"Spirit," meaning the Holy Spirit. The wordplay is key to seeing how serious James is about the implications of this teaching. A body without breath is dead. A person without "the Spirit" is spiritually dead. James ties together a lack of breath, a lack of spirit, and the presence of death with the concept of a works-less faith.
Bodies which don't breathe are dead.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostThe following resource is on the right track with bold below:
The apostle is saying that a body which is not breathing is "dead" (that is, it is broken, it is in a state of decay). He is not speaking about a separation of a person's "spirit" from their body. Such a notion is no where articulated (or even hinted at) in scripture. It is a non-Hebrew concept rooted in the doctrine of reincarnation.
You're not only wrong again, you're spectacularly wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostIf death is defined as the separation of the spirit from the body please explain how the author could have used it in context to the body and the spirit in James 2:26 ?
In other words, how does the following make sense:
The body without the spirit is The SPIRIT SEPARATED From The BODY
Your position is factually and contextually nonsensical. The biblical definition of death at James 2:26 is powerless/inoperative, NOT a separation of the spirit from the body.
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostThe following resource is on the right track with bold below:
The apostle is saying that a body which is not breathing is "dead" (that is, it is broken, it is in a state of decay). He is not speaking about a separation of a person's "spirit" from their body.
Such a notion is no where articulated (or even hinted at) in scripture.
It is a non-Hebrew concept rooted in the doctrine of reincarnation.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostSeriously? You've resorted to "why didn't the author write it this way?" You've lost, sir.
It does make sense. A corpse laying dead In a coffin is dead because the spirit is separated from it.
No it isn't. The term "without" makes your position of "soul sleep" completely false. If the spirit remans with the "powerless/inoperative" body, the body isn't "without" the spirit. If I am "without" money, that doesn't mean I actually have money on me, but it isn't effective. Again, sir, you lose.
Yes he is. That's what Jews believed happen at death. The spirit separates from the body. Some Jews believe it goes to sheol, tartarus, or hades. Others believe it goes to God, Abraham's bosom, or paradise.
Yes it is. Or, for example, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus makes no sense.
You know nothing of Hebrew concepts. Soul sleep is a late invention of the middle ages.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostLook at the following verse:
Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
The breath of life mentioned above is that which separates from the body at death and returns to God. True or False ?
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostBy the way, I dont think you understood why the following statement is nonsensical if we substitute the word dead for the words The SPIRIT SEPARATED From The BODY:
The body without the spirit is dead.
The statement above is saying something about the body . In other words it is saying that the BODY is dead (if X happens). Do you agree ?That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment