Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Thiscrosshurts]

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

What does the son see the Father doing concerning judgement?
He gives it to the son.
Who do we say that we are?
A son of God or of the son of Adam.

If you are a son of God you would do what you see your father doing.
The Father Judges "no one".
He gives it to the son.

Your serve son

 

[Spockrates]

Wow,I do exist,someone else sees what I am talking about.
Like you I start with the assumption it is not a contradiction.
If that assumption is wrong then I have wasted 1000's of hours of prayer,study and ego caging.

I have found that by asking enough questions we can form a sort of "missing piece".
Like the last missing piece of a puzzle that defines the form of the missing piece.
The answer has to fit all other scripture so that's going to take a genius like the Holy Spirit to show us what
we are missing.

What if something that appears on the surface as a contradiction is actually defining something we don't yet fully comprehend.
What if the answer is in the contradiction.
We walk by contradiction,shifting left then right is how we walk in a straight line.

Interestingly enough Lovejohn provided the next scripture..

(John 12:47-48) “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them faithfully, it is not I who shall condemn him, since I have come not to condemn the world, but to save the world: he who rejects me and refuses my words has his judge already; the word itself that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.”

Then I laid the next puzzle piece

That word has already judged me as clean,but my feet might still get dirty.
John 15:3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

Jesus is not Judging but the word he had spoken is.
So at this point I feel I found a missing piece and that piece is a new set of questions.

So I would start the same process to understand "the word itself".
Jesus is the word that was with God and was God.
You see where I'm going with this.
I have been doing this many years and I have come up with some amazing questions.

Jesus is not judging us,he already did as the word before the foundation of the world.
He did not say words,he said word.
He judged us clean because the lamb was worthy to be slain.

Yes, the Logos of John 1:

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

It's an idea I think is touched on in the Old Testament, and one known among Greeks some 600 years prior to Christ, when Heraclitus wondered if the Logos--not the Greek gods--was what gave order to the universe. 300 years later, Socrates called this Logos his God, teaching his followers that the Logos is the source of any truth and all wisdom, and that the wisdom of no man or god could compare to this Logos. I like to say that Socrates was the "John the Baptist" to the Greeks, but I know some Christians who take issue with this.

I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others. But the truth is, O men of Athens, that God alone is wise, and...the wisdom of men is little or nothing.

--Socrates (Apology 23)

But if the Word, or Logos, or Son of God does judge and condemn some, then doesn't this mean the Christ, or Messiah, or Son of Man also judges and condemns? Aren't the two so linked that one cannot act alone, or differently, or separately from the other? If so, then if the Word judges, Christ also judges, and the apparent or seeming contradiction still remains, however unreal it is!

I'm enjoying thinking it through with you, though.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

But if the Word, or Logos, or Son of God does judge and condemn some, then doesn't this mean the Christ, or Messiah, or Son of Man also judges and condemns? Aren't the two so linked that one cannot act alone, or differently, or separately from the other? If so, then if the Word judges, Christ also judges, and the apparent or seeming contradiction still remains, however unreal it is!

That is the next logical question.
Eternal=no beginning and no end,always was and always will be.

The key I believe is the "hath".
Before the foundation of the world and the end of the world would be the same thing if you are living out(apart from) of time and space.
He is his word that he spoke or sent that's why the work God demands is to believe on the one whom God sent.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Remember it is the word that was spoken that makes us clean.
When was the word spoken? The lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world.
If I judge another then I am not following my Father and I am now become the judge.

But if the Word, or Logos, or Son of God does judge and condemn some,
John 20:23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Well,stop condemning them.
That's why I said you are the only one Judging you.
Paul said he did not Judge himself but the spiritual man judges all things.
If you believe you are saved you are correct because you are the judge who is judging you.
The spiritual man Is not caught in time or space.His judgement agrees with the word God spoke.
Time and space had a beginning and end.
In the spirit it is always now.

 

[Dovegiven]

Yes, the Logos of John 1:

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

It's an idea I think is touched on in the Old Testament, and one known among Greeks some 600 years prior to Christ, when Heraclitus wondered if the Logos--not the Greek gods--was what gave order to the universe. 300 years later, Socrates called this Logos his God, teaching his followers that the Logos is the source of any truth and all wisdom, and that the wisdom of no man or god could compare to this Logos. I like to say that Socrates was the "John the Baptist" to the Greeks, but I know some Christians who take issue with this.

I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others. But the truth is, O men of Athens, that God alone is wise, and...the wisdom of men is little or nothing.

--Socrates (Apology 23)

But if the Word, or Logos, or Son of God does judge and condemn some, then doesn't this mean the Christ, or Messiah, or Son of Man also judges and condemns? Aren't the two so linked that one cannot act alone, or differently, or separately from the other? If so, then if the Word judges, Christ also judges, and the apparent or seeming contradiction still remains, however unreal it is!

I'm enjoying thinking it through with you, though.

John 12:47 (KJV) 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Jesus was about forgiveness, not judgment of people.

Socrates' students like Plato didn't indicate the philosopher was speaking of the God of the Hebrews, having never denounced the Greek mythologies abounding in Athens. The voice he thought might be a god in him was telling him such things as when a person deliberately does wrong when knowing to do the right thing, they are simply weighing the benefits of doing right or wrong, among other philosophies. The voice in him was an "oracle", thought to be his conscience, or maybe even Delphi, used by the prosecution to speak against the man. Whatever it was doesn't match the word of God other than to touch on virtue as valuable. The most dramatic statement of his was along the lines of that voice convincing him that knowledge is knowing man has none. I once knew the line, sorry.

 

[Spockrates]

That is the next logical question.
Eternal=no beginning and no end,always was and always will be.

Yes, for God, that must be what eternal is. I like the way C.S. Lewis described it: All of time is like a timeline in an open book, and God is standing above the book seeing it all. At any point in the timeline, he can reach out and touch it, making changes as he sees fit.

And I agree with the premise that a soul can never be destroyed, or at lest Socrates was certain of this, and I've discovered no reason to doubt it.

But I wonder if we commit the informal fallacy of equivocation by drawing the inference that the word eternal means the same in relation to us as it does to God. Isn't it possible that a soul, which has no end does have a beginning? Cannot God create anything--even a soul--from nothing?

The key I believe is the "hath".
Before the foundation of the world and the end of the world would be the same thing if you are living out(apart from) of time and space.
He is his word that he spoke or sent that's why the work God demands is to believe on the one whom God sent.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Remember it is the word that was spoken that makes us clean.
When was the word spoken? The lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world.
If I judge another then I am not following my Father and I am now become the judge.

Yes, we should believe what he said, or have faith in him. But can one have faith in what he does not know? If in one place Jesus says he does not judge, and in another place he says he does, then the only thing in which we can genuinely say about his judging is that we don't know!

But if the Word, or Logos, or Son of God does judge and condemn some,
John 20:23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Well,stop condemning them.
That's why I said you are the only one Judging you.

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

(Luke 17)

More apparent contradiction? On the one hand, our Lord appears to advocate unconditional lack of judgement. On the other hand, he seems to advocate requiring the condition of repentance before forgiving and foregoing judgment.

At this point, are we still thinking the only thing in which we should have faith is that we don't know?

Paul said he did not Judge himself but the spiritual man judges all things.
If you believe you are saved you are correct because you are the judge who is judging you.
The spiritual man Is not caught in time or space.His judgement agrees with the word God spoke.
Time and space had a beginning and end.
In the spirit it is always now.

True, but consider what Paul says elsewhere:

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

(1 Corinthians 5)

First he advises not judging, then he advises judging! Once again, may he honestly say that when it comes to judging others, we have faith in ourselves that we really know?

The fascinating thing I find is that you and I don't lack faith. We--or at least I--lack wisdom. If I knew what Jesus and Paul meant, I'd believe that's what I should do. But since I don't know, my faith is powerless to help me!

One might say faith without works is dead, but I think it also true that faith without wisdom is paralyzed. I have wisdom to know and faith to believe that both are necessary. How about you?

 

[Spockrates]

John 12:47 (KJV) 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Jesus was about forgiveness, not judgment of people.

Socrates' students like Plato didn't indicate the philosopher was speaking of the God of the Hebrews, having never denounced the Greek mythologies abounding in Athens. The voice he thought might be a god in him was telling him such things as when a person deliberately does wrong when knowing to do the right thing, they are simply weighing the benefits of doing right or wrong, among other philosophies. The voice in him was an "oracle", thought to be his conscience, or maybe even Delphi, used by the prosecution to speak against the man. Whatever it was doesn't match the word of God other than to touch on virtue as valuable. The most dramatic statement of his was along the lines of that voice convincing him that knowledge is knowing man has none. I once knew the line, sorry.

Do you know why Socrates was martyred, Dovegiven? Do you know what was the charge of which he was found guilty?

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

But I wonder if we commit the informal fallacy of equivocation by drawing the inference that the word eternal means the same in relation to us as it does to God. Isn't it possible that a soul, which has no end does have a beginning? Cannot God create anything--even a soul--from nothing?

There appear to be different levels of reality,sometimes a statement that is accurate on one level is inaccurate on another.
I another thread you brought up:
Answer not a fool according to his folly.
Answer a fool according to his folly.
I get the feeling that it is situational.

C.S.Lewis today would have a better example and that is a saved game.
I can play a game and save at the beginning and I can play until I make a mistake.
Then I can start the game over and avoid that mistake.
The movie "groundhog day" plays on that.
By playing the game over and over I can eventually avoid every pitfall and the last game would be perfect.

It is my understanding at this time that a soul does have a beginning because the first Adam was made a living soul.
Some translations have person instead of soul.
I would be willing to bet you know something about the word persona.
That's another thread though.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
The new living translation seems more accurate to me because a spirit is eternal.
The Scriptures tell us, "The first man, Adam, became a living person." But the last Adam--that is, Christ--is a life-giving Spirit.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Thus also it is written: “Adam the first man was a living soul; the last Adam - The Life Giver Spirit.

I am still unclear about the nature of the soul or person.
One issue we must overcome is well meaning translations that try to make sense out of scripture that does not seem to make sense.
If scripture is defining things we don't understand then translators may translate to their own understanding.

My understanding at this point is that spirit is eternal,flesh is strictly bound to linear time and space and the soul is like some sort of conduit
or middle ground.
I see something in our dreams that I call "switch based time and space" or event driven.
That is time does not tick,it advances by events and people from your past may show up or you may find yourself in the house you grew up in.
I recall one dream where I was driving a car that suddenly turned into a bicycle and then it became a cardboard box.
In the dream it all seemed very normal then sometime later I was dreaming that I was standing outside a building and needed a car so I went to a dumpster and got a cardboard box.Then I crushed the box,jumped on it and drove away,no big deal.

I would be interested in your take on the words persona,ego ,name and identity.
Do you see a connection to soul?

Yes, we should believe what he said, or have faith in him. But can one have faith in what he does not know? If in one place Jesus says he does not judge, and in another place he says he does, then the only thing in which we can genuinely say about his judging is that we don't know!

He can judge someone "not guilty as well as guilty".
John 20:23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Jesus is the defense attorney not the prosecutor/accuser.
The judge hears both and has to decide the merits of each side.

Eph.2 claims we Died and resurrected with Jesus and we are "now"are seated with Christ,when did that happen at the time you believed?
When did that take place,when I believed or 2000 years ago or before the foundation of the world when the Lamb was slain.
The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world but in linear space/time it happened 2000 years ago but it is really just "now".
If it's not finished then do we disappear from heaven when we stray but suddenly reappear when we repent?
That seems absurd that we would be flashing in and out of heaven.

then the only thing in which we can genuinely say about his judging is that we don't know!
I'm ok with that,but I recommend a default setting of love,mercy and grace until we know more.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Paul was dealing with earthly matters and he was judging temporary things and not eternal.
In the temporary we make temporary judgments about temporary things.
The temporary does not seem to me to influence the eternal as much as the eternal influences the temporary.

The fascinating thing I find is that you and I don't lack faith. We--or at least I--lack wisdom. If I knew what Jesus and Paul meant, I'd believe that's what I should do. But since I don't know, my faith is powerless to help me!

I don't feel either of us lack wisdom because wisdom causes us to ponder but I personally find my knowledge incomplete and my understanding clouded.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

Psalm 42:2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?
To thirst is to lack,there is no lack in spirit.

We tend to treat eternity as from now on but that is not accurate.

Yes, for God, that must be what eternal is.

Exactly,why are we even interested in our point of view.

When I think from an eternal mindset scripture makes sense
Example:
.2 Timothy 2:15 Strong surges of the sea that show their shame by their froth. These are wandering stars, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved for eternity.
I was a wandering star because my "now " thirsted for God and I was tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. my eternity was dark and filled with shame because my now was dark.
But the moment I saw light I realized that I had always been there and I AM alive eternally right "now".
"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--no matter how improbable--must be the truth."
Well with God nothing is impossible but I don't think it impossible that I am seeing that scripture correctly.

How would I interpret that verse with a space-time mindset.
Well there were these angels that dissed God at some point and are wandering around forever.
How does knowing that help me one bit except to frighten me with the unknown.
It's telling me that if time is illusory then now is eternal if you believe it is dark then you are in eternal darkness now not after you die.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 For then the dust will return to the earth, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
Were does the thirsty soul go?
That's another discussion though.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak so maybe that stress or thirst is felt in the soul.
We can also see that the first Adam was a living soul and the second a life-giving spirit.
What kind of judgement would a life giving spirit have?
Hey you.have some life.
What kind of judgement would a soul have?
Hey you,the little life you have is running out.

 

[Dovegiven]

Paul the apostle warned against such thinking as that of Socrates and Plato in Colossians 2:6-9 (KJV)
6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

God preempted Socratic philosophy when teaching King Solomon 475 years earlier such ideas as in
Proverbs 2:1-20 (KJV)
1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
8 He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.
9 Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.
10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul;
11 Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:
12 To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things;

Obviously Socrates was listening to another voice, not that of Jehovah God.
We know God is consistent with his value on wisdom, knowledge and understanding, not hoarding it to himself, but extending that to man 425 years after Socrates, twice as long after Solomon, in
2 Peter 1:5-11 (KJV)
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Giving any heed at all to vain philosophies of Socrates, Plato, or any other not in line with the wisdom of God will fail you.

It would be impossible to add those steps Peter taught without first knowing what "faith" was about. A Socratic approach will always fail, since he believed the ultimate test of "knowing" was to admit man has no knowledge at all, that admitting that was a virtue, while the greatest of Athen's deities were supposedly possessing and not sharing any wisdom, knowledge, or understanding. Since the people in Athens believed their gods provided all knowledge, knowledge itself a god to them, the notions of Socrates that no man can possess knowledge was anathema to them, therefore amounting to introducing yet another god among the many already accepted in Athens, that one not in line with the other (false, by the way) gods.

Our God emphasizes knowledge, wisdom, and understanding among his children who are eligible to partake of the highest knowledge, wisdom and understanding of the living God. Therefore we who are of God know what he means about faith. "Faith" is not at all unknown to his people, but was an alien thought to Socrates and his students.

 

[Dovegiven]

Do you know why Socrates was martyred, Dovegiven? Do you know what was the charge of which he was found guilty?

He was not "martyred". He chose suicide rather than simply leave Athens. His initial accusation was impiety towards recognized gods of Athens, changed by the prosecutor Melitus to introducing a new god and corruption of the youths of Athens. He was not at all hearing from the God of Jesus Christ, our living God. He had a "voice" in him that was unholy and totally lacking in wisdom.

That philosophy corrupted the minds of westerners until this day. God is not a God of questions, but of truth.

 

[Spockrates]

Paul the apostle warned against such thinking as that of Socrates and Plato in Colossians 2:6-9 (KJV)
6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

God preempted Socratic philosophy when teaching King Solomon 475 years earlier such ideas as in
Proverbs 2:1-20 (KJV)
1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
8 He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.
9 Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.
10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul;
11 Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:
12 To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things;

Obviously Socrates was listening to another voice, not that of Jehovah God.

We know God is consistent with his value on wisdom, knowledge and understanding, not hoarding it to himself, but extending that to man 425 years after Socrates, twice as long after Solomon, in
2 Peter 1:5-11 (KJV)
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Giving any heed at all to vain philosophies of Socrates, Plato, or any other not in line with the wisdom of God will fail you.

It would be impossible to add those steps Peter taught without first knowing what "faith" was about. A Socratic approach will always fail, since he believed the ultimate test of "knowing" was to admit man has no knowledge at all, that admitting that was a virtue, while the greatest of Athen's deities were supposedly possessing and not sharing any wisdom, knowledge, or understanding. Since the people in Athens believed their gods provided all knowledge, knowledge itself a god to them, the notions of Socrates that no man can possess knowledge was anathema to them, therefore amounting to introducing yet another god among the many already accepted in Athens, that one not in line with the other (false, by the way) gods.

Our God emphasizes knowledge, wisdom, and understanding among his children who are eligible to partake of the highest knowledge, wisdom and understanding of the living God. Therefore we who are of God know what he means about faith. "Faith" is not at all unknown to his people, but was an alien thought to Socrates and his students.

Well, I believe the word philosophy means the love of truth and the word philosopher means lover of truth. I'm sure you and I agree such love is a good thing!

So do you think Paul was condemning all philosophy as vain, or do you think he only condemned some philosophy as vain?

 

[Spockrates]

He was not "martyred". He chose suicide rather than simply leave Athens. His initial accusation was impiety towards recognized gods of Athens, changed by the prosecutor Melitus to introducing a new god and corruption of the youths of Athens. He was not at all hearing from the God of Jesus Christ, our living God. He had a "voice" in him that was unholy and totally lacking in wisdom.

That philosophy corrupted the minds of westerners until this day. God is not a God of questions, but of truth.

But the Greeks had many gods! Why would adding one more be a crime deserving the death penalty?

 

[Spockrates]

There appear to be different levels of reality,sometimes a statement that is accurate on one level is inaccurate on another.
I another thread you brought up:
Answer not a fool according to his folly.
Answer a fool according to his folly.
I get the feeling that it is situational.

Perhaps. I wonder if it is simply optional, as in most situations, you are free to treat a fool either way. If you don't point out the possibility that a person is believing a lie, then you risk harming the person. For she continues to believe the lie.

If do point out that a person is believing a lie, then you risk becoming a fool yourself! For (1) you are treating a fool as though she is wise enough to listen to reason, and (2) you risk getting caught up in a foolish debate, instead of a thoughtful Socratic dialogue.

My encounter with RJ in the previous discussion thread was an example of the latter. I tried to ask him why he condemned me, and the moderator rebuked us both for playing the fool!

But I have no regrets for gently trying to reason with him. I'd rather be a fool who cares than a wise man who doesn't give a damn.

C.S.Lewis today would have a better example and that is a saved game.
I can play a game and save at the beginning and I can play until I make a mistake.
Then I can start the game over and avoid that mistake.
The movie "groundhog day" plays on that.
By playing the game over and over I can eventually avoid every pitfall and the last game would be perfect.

This might be true in our dreams or remembrances. But are you saying it is also true of our physical bodies? Either you are saying something truly fascinating, or I'm completely misunderstanding.

It is my understanding at this time that a soul does have a beginning because the first Adam was made a living soul.
Some translations have person instead of soul.
I would be willing to bet you know something about the word persona.
That's another thread though.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
The new living translation seems more accurate to me because a spirit is eternal.
The Scriptures tell us, "The first man, Adam, became a living person." But the last Adam--that is, Christ--is a life-giving Spirit.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Thus also it is written: “Adam the first man was a living soul; the last Adam - The Life Giver Spirit.

I am still unclear about the nature of the soul or person.
One issue we must overcome is well meaning translations that try to make sense out of scripture that does not seem to make sense.
If scripture is defining things we don't understand then translators may translate to their own understanding.

My understanding at this point is that spirit is eternal,flesh is strictly bound to linear time and space and the soul is like some sort of conduit
or middle ground.
I see something in our dreams that I call "switch based time and space" or event driven.
That is time does not tick,it advances by events and people from your past may show up or you may find yourself in the house you grew up in.
I recall one dream where I was driving a car that suddenly turned into a bicycle and then it became a cardboard box.
In the dream it all seemed very normal then sometime later I was dreaming that I was standing outside a building and needed a car so I went to a dumpster and got a cardboard box.Then I crushed the box,jumped on it and drove away,no big deal.

I would be interested in your take on the words persona,ego ,name and identity.
Do you see a connection to soul?

Thanks for clearing that up. We agree that some beings who are eternal may have a beginning. But I'm not sure I understand what those words you asked me about mean to you well enough to answer your question in an intelligent way.

He can judge someone "not guilty as well as guilty".
John 20:23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Jesus is the defense attorney not the prosecutor/accuser.
The judge hears both and has to decide the merits of each side.

So then, rather than saying never judge, is Jesus instead saying that sometimes we must judge, but if we do, we should judge fairly--judge others the way we ourselves would want to be judged if we were in their shoes?

Eph.2 claims we Died and resurrected with Jesus and we are "now"are seated with Christ,when did that happen at the time you believed?
When did that take place,when I believed or 2000 years ago or before the foundation of the world when the Lamb was slain.
The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world but in linear space/time it happened 2000 years ago but it is really just "now".
If it's not finished then do we disappear from heaven when we stray but suddenly reappear when we repent?
That seems absurd that we would be flashing in and out of heaven.

then the only thing in which we can genuinely say about his judging is that we don't know!
I'm ok with that,but I recommend a default setting of love,mercy and grace until we know more.

Paul was dealing with earthly matters and he was judging temporary things and not eternal.
In the temporary we make temporary judgments about temporary things.
The temporary does not seem to me to influence the eternal as much as the eternal influences the temporary.

I don't feel either of us lack wisdom because wisdom causes us to ponder but I personally find my knowledge incomplete and my understanding clouded.

Fascinating! Please explain why you believe wisdom is not knowledge.

 

[Spockrates]

Psalm 42:2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?
To thirst is to lack,there is no lack in spirit.

We tend to treat eternity as from now on but that is not accurate.

Exactly,why are we even interested in our point of view.

When I think from an eternal mindset scripture makes sense
Example:
.2 Timothy 2:15 Strong surges of the sea that show their shame by their froth. These are wandering stars, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved for eternity.
I was a wandering star because my "now " thirsted for God and I was tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. my eternity was dark and filled with shame because my now was dark.
But the moment I saw light I realized that I had always been there and I AM alive eternally right "now".
"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--no matter how improbable--must be the truth."
Well with God nothing is impossible but I don't think it impossible that I am seeing that scripture correctly.

How would I interpret that verse with a space-time mindset.
Well there were these angels that dissed God at some point and are wandering around forever.
How does knowing that help me one bit except to frighten me with the unknown.
It's telling me that if time is illusory then now is eternal if you believe it is dark then you are in eternal darkness now not after you die.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 For then the dust will return to the earth, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
Were does the thirsty soul go?
That's another discussion though.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak so maybe that stress or thirst is felt in the soul.
We can also see that the first Adam was a living soul and the second a life-giving spirit.
What kind of judgement would a life giving spirit have?
Hey you.have some life.
What kind of judgement would a soul have?
Hey you,the little life you have is running out.

Yes, but remember that we need to be careful to avoid the illogic of the fallacy of equivocation. There is a difference between judging someone--giving them a consequence for wrong behavior--and making a judgement--deciding what is right and what is wrong. The first is a disciplinary action, the second is a thoughtful determination.

So when Christ tells us not to unfairly judge, is he saying we should not take unjust disciplinary action? Or is he saying we should never try to distinguish between right and wrong?

 

[Dovegiven]

Well, I believe the word philosophy means the love of truth and the word philosopher means lover of truth. I'm sure you and I agree such love is a good thing!

So do you think Paul was condemning all philosophy as vain, or do you think he only condemned some philosophy as vain?

Well, I believe the word philosophy means the love of truth and the word philosopher means lover of truth. I'm sure you and I agree such love is a good thing!

So do you think Paul was condemning all philosophy as vain, or do you think he only condemned some philosophy as vain?

Paul didn't condemn philosophy per se, nor vain deceit. He warned to beware, not to let people spoil you (carry you away as a prize, hostage, convert) through philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, religions, myths, feigned friendship and false treaties, and not after Christ. There was already a spoiling of Israel through Greek influences creating Hellenistic Judaism, and a danger Paul recognized of it corrupting Christianity, replacing the Mind of Christ in believers. The need to beware is in effect today, on guard against being carried away by false cults. Socratic and Platonic philopsophies replace the manner of thinking God wants of his children.

 

[Spockrates]

He was not "martyred". He chose suicide rather than simply leave Athens.

Dovegiven:

I think I was too quick to reply. Please allow me to once again try. The reason I used the word martyred is this: By democratic vote, the decision was made that Socrates must be put to death by poison. He received this death penalty in part for his beliefs about God. While I agree he was not a Christan or Jewish martyr, I'm of the opinion that receiving a death penalty for a religious belief is what makes one a martyr. But perhaps I'm mistaken?

His initial accusation was impiety towards recognized gods of Athens, changed by the prosecutor Melitus to introducing a new god and corruption of the youths of Athens.

So then I think it is an important question to ask, and one I hope you will thoughtfully try to answer: There were many gods worshipped in Athens and adding another was not criminal. So why did Socrates' belief of his God convince others he was being impious and corrupting young people? Why was his belief criminal?

He was not at all hearing from the God of Jesus Christ, our living God. He had a "voice" in him that was unholy and totally lacking in wisdom.

I think if you took the time to reread the Socratic dialogue Theatetus, you might change your mind about that. In it he plainly said his God never gave him wisdom at all, but compelled him to seek wisdom from others. He described himself as a "midwife" who helps others give "birth" to the truth, and like a midwife, he was himself baren. He admitted the only wisdom he himself had he received from others by the answers to his questions he coaxed out of them.

He did say his God gave him a strong feelings that he should not speak to some people, but added that these impressions were not wisdom.

That philosophy corrupted the minds of westerners until this day. God is not a God of questions, but of truth.

Socrates would agree with that statement, as do I. He said his God is the source of all wisdom. So I see no way the God who knows all would need to ask any questions.

But are you saying Socrates' method of asking why people believed is a wrong way to receive the wisdom they themselves have received from God? If so, then why do you answer any questions for me or anyone at this forum? Why not just say, this? "Don't as me. Ask God. Listening to my answers is no way to learn the truth!"

 

[Spockrates]

Paul didn't condemn philosophy per se, nor vain deceit. He warned to beware, not to let people spoil you (carry you away as a prize, hostage, convert) through philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, religions, myths, feigned friendship and false treaties, and not after Christ. There was already a spoiling of Israel through Greek influences creating Hellenistic Judaism, and a danger Paul recognized of it corrupting Christianity, replacing the Mind of Christ in believers. The need to beware is in effect today, on guard against being carried away by false cults. Socratic and Platonic philopsophies replace the manner of thinking God wants of his children.

Yes, I completely agree. So tell me, what philosophy did Socrates teach, of which I should be wary?

 

[Spockrates]

Yes, I completely agree. So tell me, what philosophy did Socrates teach, of which I should be wary?

Dovegiven:

The reason why I ask is that I think--perhaps erroneously--Socrates never taught any systematic philosophy. His student Plato did, but I'm not following Plato's philosophy. I'm following Socrates' method of asking simple questions to attempt to discern if the reasons why someone believes are logically sound and good reasons why I should believe, too.

 

[Spockrates]

Dovegiven:

If then you don't see any sin in my using Socrates' method and not adopting Plato's systematic philosophy, I'd like to get back to your answer to my question of the opening post. Are you thinking that we are saved through more than merely faith alone?

 

[B-A-C]

True Christianity doesn't seek wisdom in the world, but rather in God.

1 Cor 1:24-25; 1 Cor 2:5-6; 1 Cor 3:18-19; Rom 11:25; Rom 11:33;
Anytime we ask ourselves (or any man) questions it is done in the flesh.
True wisdom only comes from God, and He is who we should for wisdom ( Jas 1:5; )
The wisdom of the world is foolishness. Unfortunately we are of the world, so any wisdom we have apart from God is also of the world.

Is seeking wisdom a sin? Of course not. But seeking it from men or the world is foolishness.