sleep or new life after death

[Guest]

I think all your learning is for not.
1 Corinthians 2:14-15 (New International Version)

14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

KJV is more literal
1 Corinthians 2:14-15 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Natural man, without spirit, that means some men do not have spirit, in the O/T God placed the spirit upon some men in measure, Jesus got the spirit without measure and that is what he pours out to us.

1 Corinthians 2:14-15 (Darby Translation)
14But [the] natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot know [them] because they are spiritually discerned;

There it is again Natural, means natural born, without spirit. Adam began to create men after his kind, dead.

Genesis 5
From Adam to Noah
1 This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a] "
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
Do you see a distinction there? Priestly.

1 Corinthians 2:14-15 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
14 But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated [a] spiritually. 15 The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he himself cannot be evaluated [c] by anyone.



Sounds as if the scripture gets in the way of your explanation "no Proof text please". Except for yours I guess. Your education does not impress me in these matters, many men of as high or higher education have been debating these things for 2000 years.

Spirit is not consciousness, it does say in scripture the spirit return to God, Nothing about this waiting in the Grave stuff or in Paradises garden. Mishandling of the scripture, I agree with that also, I think men and religious organizations have been doing it almost from the beginning of Christianity.

As to the Resurrection, why would you need a body if all the people who have ever died have been getting along without it and parting with God and Jesus in some cases over two thousand years? My discernment tells me this explanation is what Satan wants us to think.

Do I think I am more spiritual than everyone else? No! Do I think that I have not been indoctrinated with the Orthodox thoughts? Yes!

I am speaking of the Greek Myth of the immortal soul. it is wrong from the beginning. Anything that go's from there is twisted and not taught in scripture.

The translation you cited is saying the same thing.

Genesis 3 (New International Version
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
Sounds like the same old lie to me.

One more thought, the resurrection is no big deal the way you explain it, because #1 God can not die, #2 So what if god got up from the dead He really did not die anyway.
No the scripture teaches it as the proof positive that Jesus is the Messiah, because a flesh and blood man, God raised him from the dead.

These are some of the things I and many other Christians believe to be true.

[Guest]

Man is a Soul (Psyche) which is composed of a created rational/sentient Spirit (Pneuma) which inhabits it's created irrational/emotional biological Body (Sarx).

If the consciousness of an individual is essentially a sentient spirit which goes somewhere at death, then I ask of you the following questions:

In view of your suggestion that the sentient spirit can exist independently of the body,

1. Why would striking the body in a sever way, for example, hitting a person on the head with a baseball bat, render the sentient spirit unconscious? Or why would the intake of drugs or alchohol into the physical body, put the spirit into a state of altered consciousness? Why would the spirit of a person alter in nature as the body ages? (for example, the changes which are described as Altheimers and dementia?

2. Conversely, why would a spiritual condition, such as worry, have physical ramifications such as stomach ulcers?

As I see it, the spirit is simply the life that God gave which renderered man to become a living being (soul). When a man dies, the impersonal spirit of life goes back to the God who gave it. The soul (being) of the man no longer exists, and never will exist until the man is resurrected.

The terms "mind" and "body" describe two aspects of man which are so closely integrated as to be inseparable without detroying the man.

[Guest]

Anyone who states that man is a Mortal Soul is correct....when the created and instilled human spirit (i.e. the Spirit of the Mind = Sentient & Self Conscious Spirit) separates from its biological "House" a.k.a "Temple" the "Soul" ceases to exist; for the Soul is the union of human spirit (i.e. sentient immaterial being) and human body (biological material form).

Hebrew Anthropology is clear on this...as is the Tanakh and Brith Chadasha. "Do not fear those that can kill the Body but cannot kill the Soul (GK: Psyche); but fear Him who can kill both the body and the Soul in the fires of Gehinnom."

Both Messiah and the Apostles refer to our carnal physical form as our "Temple", "Tent" or "House". This is accurate, as we live in our bodies but are far more than our abodes of blood, flesh and bone.

Only the Hellenized Sadducean Priests and Upper class of Jewry denied the dual nature of man and even the reality of the world of spirits, demons and angels. Those who deny the dual nature of man in christian circles are not Orthodox at all. The Orthodox Council of Chalcedon states that man is a living creature (Psyche) with a dual nature comprised of a sentient rational spirit (Pnuema) created by God and a mortal biological body (Soma) created by God through human sexual reproduction. Messiah too is the God-Man (Theo-anthropos) who is like us a Living Human Soul comprised of these Two Natures. But Messiah is unique in that His Spirit is Eternal and Deity, and His Body is created by God through asexual human reproduction via the Virgin Mother Maryam and the Power of the Holy Spirit. This is the defined Orthodox Faith of all Orthodox Christians from the Apostles until the 5th Century when your notion sprang up with the Arabian churches and was deemed heretical.

It is true that many odd heresies and their supportive Sects have been resurrected in the West during the Medieval Era and the later reactionary Protestant Revolution......but the notion that man is but a biological organism which ceases to exist at death and then is reproduced at the resurrection denies clear Scripture (Koine LXX OT & Koine NT), the unbroken testimony of the Apologists, Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of Orthodox Christianity.

If Messiah is God Incarnate how can this be if Man is merely Biology and not Pnuematic? Messiah is fully Human i.e. a living Soul comprised of Spirit and Body...the Divine Human. He has a Human Mind ( a Spirit united to a Brain), as well as retain His Divine Mind. Just as our Two Natures (i.e. spirit & flresh) are united into one Person...so too Messiah is just like us in this way..fully Human, yet Divine in Spirit and Unique in Body also. This is Orthodoxy...and your anthropology denies this.

If Messiah was God and incarnate, we must be spirits incarnated....just not eternal or virgin born. God cannot change, but if man is merely biological as you insist, then the Word was not incarnated (GK: kai ho Logos Sarx egeneto), but was transmuted from Spirit to Material Biologic Being....Error!!! The Word (Logos) put on a Temple of Human Flesh, and the laid it down in Death and took it up again in Immortalized Form at His Resurrection...so says the Scriptures...and He is but the first of many others who shall take up again their Temples of Flesh in Immortalized Form. You may dismiss this language as figurative, but to deny it's import is loony. We are spirit entities in temples of flesh, and the Word became like one of Us. There is an old Orthodox saying that,"God became like us in Christ so that we might become like Christ in Him." Your theory denies this and our and Messiah's shared dual nature.

The term Soul (Nephesh/Psyche) can refer to the spiritual nature of Man, His very BEING when it is used in comparison to his physical biological FORM. In the Tanakh even God refer's to His Soul, and He is Uncreated and Eternal Spirit...not created spirits in mortal bodies of flesh, blood and bones.

If there is no such things as disembodies spirits of the dead (Ghosts) why would there be a Law against contacting them? One need not prohibit that which cannot be accomplished. Would you pass a law against flying by flapping human arms? No. Yet God forbids contacting the Dead on behalf of the Living....so it must be possible. And Samuel can attest to it. Did not Moses's apparition appear with Elijah to Messiah and His Apostles? Did not the Apostles think Messiah to be a Ghost when they saw Him on the Lake and after He arose from the Dead? Did not others think it was Shimun Kepa's (Peter) Ghost (i.e. Angel) when he came to their door direct from prison? Why would Hebrews believe in Sheol, Paradise, wandering lost spirits of the dead, apparitions etc if your view was the Hebraic one? Why do you think Messiah mocked such Sadducaean notions about man's lake of a spiritual nature when He cited the Torah to defend it when He said,"God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living...for He said to Moses I AM (i.e.present continuing sense) the God of Avra'am, Itzak and Yakov."

You my friend maybe have been studying "conditionalist" Adventists, the Watchtower, modern Liberal Jewish sources and other religious Materialists...not the usages and definitions of the languages used by the inspired Hebrew authors of Holy Writ, nor the totality of Holy Scripture, the unbroken witness of the Apologists and Apostolic Fathers, nor the Orthodox Creeds and their Councils.

So don't imply I am the Unorthodox one.....I am an Oriental Orthodox clergyman and your distain for Biblical and Theological Study reveals more about you and your position then about mine. St. Paul was the Church's first fully trained Rabbinic Scholar..and His Works are the majority of the New Covenant Scriptures...so maybe you need to firther study to show your self approved before dismissing and deriding others love of Biblical Languages, Scripture, Theology, Church History etc. I do not pride myself in what I have learned, but I do not fear education either. It is not I who have adopted an anthropological myth, it is you and the few 16th Century Western Sects.

As for my notions on Sheol having a Prison separated by a Canyon with Paradise on the other side..well you need to read Messiah, the Apostles, the Apologists, the Apostolic Fathers, Josephus and the Targums, Rabbis etc. You are the one with the Sadducaean notion concerning man, not I. Paul was a Pharasee, even saying so after His conversion to the Nazaraean Way..and we know full well what the Pharasees believed and still do..we have their works (i.e The Targums, Mishnas, & Talmuds)...and even the Zadokite Essenes beliefs we understand..all Jewry, excepting the Sadducees held that Scripture taught that Man is a Soul comprised of a created Spirit and a mortal Body; and that at death the Soul dies and the body returns to the earth while the spirit is taken by angels either to Paradise to await the Resurrection to Life Eternal or to Sheol's Prison House to await the Resurrection of Condemnation to the Fires of Gehinnom. Messiah held and taught the same thing, only saying that He was the Resurrection and the Life etc. You, sir, I say gently...need to rethink your position as it conflicts with Scripture and Cardinal Dogmas such as the Incarnation and Duality of Man and Messiah.

But if you revel in dismissing anything that has the patena of Ancient Judeo-Christianity, or instinctually reject all things derived by educated study, linguistic investigation and god forbid...Apostolic Sources such as the Apologist, and Father's such as Irenaeus etc....well I will pray that you soften up on these areas. Because if you Seek you shall Find.

May God Bless you Body (Physically), Soul (Mentally) and Spirit (Spiritually).

In Messiah,
Rev. Ken

[Guest]

Thus saith Reverend Ken:

The Word (Logos) put on a Temple of Human Flesh

and thus saith the scripture:

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...

[Guest]

Is your first name really Reverend, Ken?

[Guest]

Well,

My Friends like Steve Gregg etc. call me Ken. And my fellow Oriental Orthodox Nazranis call me +Mar Kenat'el...which in English is Rev. Kenneth...so you can take this factoid as you will. The name I was ordained into Holy Orders is the Aramaic form of my Name in English. As a Shamash (Deacon), Zeqan (Presbyter) and now Mebaqqar (Bishop) in the Oriental Orthodox Jurisdicition I belong to I am given similar addresses as you'll find in any Apostolic and Episcopal Church i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Orthodox Anglicanism etc. Our Theologians are even called Rabbans.

I am sure you have heard of the Church of the East and other various St. Thomas Christian jurisdictions (i.e. +Mar Thoma Nazranis) in Kerala, Tamil Nadu etc.

Steve Gregg knows me well, and even taught my Wife, my Sister in Laws and their Cousins at his former "Great Commission School" in McMinnville, Oregon. Though he and I may disagree on some issues, we both came out of the "Jesus Movement" of 1967 - 1977. Steve does not like "Churchianity" any more than I do, but we have come to different ways of seeking to overturn this status quo in the West's Christendom. He seek a radical christian antiestablishmentarian counter culture..while I seek a return to the Ancient Nazaraean Way. We both seek an authentic Walk upon the Narrow Path..we just get there by different paths.

I have been called many things in my time, so you can remain formal and use Rev. Ken, or Ken if you feel me your friend. Just don't call me late for dinner.



In Messiah,
H.G. +Mar Kenat'el W. Huffman - Rt. Rev. +Kenneth W.Huffman
+Mar Timotheos dO'regon: Mikra d'Natzari Shamrani
+St. Timothy's of Oregon: Nazaraean Orthodox Church

[Guest]

So it is a title? There are no titles in the body of Christ, as I see it, so I guess you are fairly indoctrinated in a religious type establishment. I'll call you Ken.

[Guest]

I have been called many things in my time, so you can remain formal and use Rev. Ken, or Ken if you feel me your friend. Just don't call me late for dinner.

Priestly, I have just read this post and it seems to me that titles are important to you, but I wonder if it matters to God. Personally I don't think it impresses Him. Thanks be to God when we get to heaven their won't be any denominations or titles attached to our names. When the roll is called up yonder I don't think when He reads my name in the Lambs Book of Life it will have Reverend attached to it. He will simply say well done thy good and faithul servant.

I have been ordained also by man and I have a tittle which I very seldom use. I have been called Reverend, Pastor, Preacher and Evangelist and I won't find fault if you call me any of those, but I prefer what my mother named me, Frank or what I hope my Father calls me Servant. Most important I have been ordained by God and you know what He calls me, Son! To Know that brings more joy and comfort to me than all the titles that this world and man has to offer.

[Guest]

Titles in the Body of Christ

Meshiach/Christ: The Sovereign God & Anointed King of the Israel of God

Sh'liach/Apostle: The founding Presiding Elders of the New Covenant Church of Israel - Acts 1:20 & Psa. 109:8 = The 12 Apostles were the first Bishops. Yakov ha'Tzaddiq (James the Just) was the first elected "Nasi" or Archbishop over the 12 Apostolic bishops in Jerusalem (Acts 15).

Mebaqqar/Bishop: A Presiding Elder over the Eldership of the Local Community of the Faithful.

Zeqan/Presbyter: An ordained Elder who pastors the Community of the Faithful.

Shamash/Deacon: An Ordained Minister who assists the Eldership in pastoring the Community of the Faithful.

Rabban/Teacher: One who is ordained to Instruct the Faithful in the Way.

Navi/Prophet: One who under inspiration exhorts the Faithful of the Way.

Evangelist/Missioners: Those sent out by Communities of the Faithful to make Disciples and establish the Faith among foreign peoples.

So you see, in the New Covenant Scriptures these positions, their duties and their titles have existed with the Communities of the Way since the beginning...and they correspond to the Hebraic Community offices and those who hold them to this very hour.

You seem to have a very negative view of Nazaraean Community structure and the offices established to serve, guide and defend the Community. I did not invent the Offices I have and still do serve in, as I continue in the Way established by Messiah through His Holy Apostles and their chosen successors down through the ages. Have you never read the Apologists and Fathers such as H.G. Bishop +Irenaeus of Lyon? He was trained by H.G. +Polycarp of Asia Minor, who was himself a converted disciple and ordained Bishop of H.E. Bishop and Apostle Yokhannan BarZevedee (St. John the Apostle).

I realize you, as an independent Protestant, disavow all that you feel is Romanist, but I feel your reactionary attitude may just be the sort to throw out the Baby of the Orthodox Nazaraean Way along with the dirty water of Romanist error and vain Western traditions.

Steve Gregg is a Teacher and I believe an ordained Minister also, those are his roles and offices in which he functions in the Communities he serves...those my friend are Titles. Hmmm...+Rabban Stefanos Greggos...sounds very nice in Aramaic.

So don't get hung up on semantics.....Paul the Sh'liach even said he was ha'Sh'liach b'Goyim (i.e. Apostle to the Gentiles), and called himself the spiritual "Father" of a convert and disciple..( Wow! Rev. Fr. Paul d'Tarsus!!! lol ) ..so your fear of Judao-Nazaraean offices and titles need not be so. But you can call me Ken any time..as you are not under my spiritual care or a member in the church I serve. Just don't call me Kenny...I hate that..have hated that diminutive since I was a whipper snapper.

I do see from where you are coming from...I was once where you are now. I am not saying I have progressed, just that there was a time in my life where I had the same views on Titles, Church structure and the idea that man is a mere breathing biological creature with higher intelligence then other such creatures on earth. I had the same views anthropologically as 7th Day Adventists in this area.

But on these positions and many others I have had to rethink my views based on all the Hebrew, Greek, Judeo-Nazaraean Studies and the writings of Ancient Christianity. So understand, I really do see from where you are coming, and how you are reading the texts you do.

Un Messiah,
+Ken

[Guest]

Isogetic reading of my posts bothers me. I never stated that service roles in the Church, and the titles to those roles impress me. I have just tried to answer what I am asked factually.

Paul stressed that he sis not care one whit about who said they were what in Jerusalem, yet he did defend his role as Apostle of God, and a Spiritual Father...that seemed important to him. My Role or Education are in fact what I have...not a boast but a fact. If facts make you uncomfortable I shall pray for you. You are a christian, a son, maybe a a brother and possibly a husband and a father right?...all titles and facts...and I think God recognizes them and will hold you accountable for what you do while serving him in those roles.

I know many "Pastors" who are called Rev. so and so. I know many Priests and fellow bishops of one Church or another....those are the roles and functions they serve in Messiah. And to God they are accountable for all the do or fail to do in those roles. God cares my friend...whether you are just a "christian" or a "Minister" who is called "Reverend", "Pastor", "Deacon" or whatever you do in Christ as a servant of the servants of God.

If my ease with formal ecclesiastical nomanclature irritates or bothers you I cannot help you...as you must own your own reactions and feelings. I am but a believer in Him who was, who is and who is coming....and I have answered His Call in my life and have no sense of shame of guilt in revealing in what capacities I serve Him and His Flock in. What seems to bother you is not bothersome to God, it is just that it bothers you Frank and some others, and frankly that is something you need to go into your prayer closet and seek God's face about. I have not made Seminary Education, Ministry or Offices of Ministry a Dogma in which all must seek to attain to..no way.

We all serve God in various ways in this Great Big Body of His. But I do believe Paul said that seeking to become a Bishop was a good thing. "This saying is True: whomever aspires to the office of Bishop desires a noble vocation." So long as you can meet the prerequisites for the job description Paul thinks one should seek this important vocation in the Body of Christ. (I Tim. 3:1-7). The same goes for all other Ministerial Holy Orders too. So if God Calls certain sheep into the Ministry and has given them aspirations to seek such Noble Vocations why do you find it something to cast dispersions on? Why does my office and calling in Christ cause you such trouble and make you question my values and honest expression of my Faith, Practice and Service? Steve Gregg has always been a friend of mine, and never once has he spoken so to me, or stated that I think titles are important etc.

Must I grow long hair, a long beard, cast off my Alb, Stole, Chasible and put on a tie dyed T-shirt and sing folk song hymns of the 70s before I am acceptable to you? Been there Frank, and done that. I still wear my Burkenstocks under my Alb...so is that counterculture enough? I could get a Tie dyed Priestly collored shirt too if that would make you easier.. Steve knows I am laid back and not a Pontificating Prelate....far from it. I say it as I see it and Black is Black and White is White.

I am a Nazrani Bishop and I am not ashamed of it or ha'Basora d'Maran Y'shua ha'Meshiach (i.e the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ) which I proclaim, defend and seek to make available in terms this post modernist world can grasp and latch onto. I think you have a preconception about Oriental Orthodoxy and our Heirarchy Frank..we are not Romanists, and left the "Established Church" in 431 C.E. We were called the "Protestants of the East" by 19th Century Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists and other Protestant Missionary Churches who re-discovered us in what is now called Iraq, Iran, India and the Far East. We establish our "Parishes" in House Churches..that's right, House Churches...and when they grow we build Community Sanctuaries that are little different from Jewish Synagogues in style and function. Our Clergy marry and our vestments are simple and not goddy and rich. If any Apostle came to our communities in the East he would not feel out of place or out of history. In the West we adopt western styles...but we still begin and meet in House Churches. My Home is also where we meet for fellowship, worship, catechism and celebration of the Holy Mysteries..which in the west are called Sacraments. We have 10, not 7..but reject transubstanciation, purgatory, worship of saints, mandatory celibacy for any clergy or religious...but we do allow for monks, nuns and those who choose to remain so for the sake of the Gospel, as we see it as a gift as Messiah taught. In the East we worship in Aramaic and our Bible is in that language also...but in the west we have Western Rites in English and our Bibles are in English. So you may have a preconception about Me, My Faith, My Practice and My Tradition.

Our Church was established by St. Thomas the Apostle from Edessa in Assyrian Iraq to Madras, India were he was Martyred and originally buried in 73 CE. We have been called by Romanists and Eastern Orthodox churches "Nestorian" Nazaraeans but in fact we have always believed in and have accepted the "Chalcedonian" Christiology as our Orthodox Nazaraean Faith. And we are Nestorian defenders because we see in Chalcedon the actual teaching of John Nestorius who was falsely accused of error by that Monophysite Cyril of Alexandria...but that is water under a long crumbled bridge. We are Christiologically Chalcedonian...and quite Orthodox.

We are Quartodecimains and Sabbatarians (like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church remains also), yet we also celebrate Messiah's resurrection weekly on Sundays and three days and three nights after our Pascha on our Nisan 19. So we keep Sabbath (and all of the Ten Commandments) and observe the first day of the week weekly and annually also. But we do not keep Sabbath like the unbelievers do, as we are all Priests of God and are exempt from Sabbath regulations as to work so long as it is the work of the Gospel in Messiah....so if someone needs s meal we make them one..if a lamb is in a pit we get it out.....we do not accept Rabbinic Oral Law...we only observe the Royal Law of Messiah. We are not like Sabbatarians in the West..Legalists. Nor do we claim that Sunday is 666 Nor do we have a deity code, as we follow the Jerusalem Council's decree in these areas (i.e. Acts 15).

Believe me Frank, you and I are not so different...just in different sheep Pens, but still sheep in Messiah's One Flock.


In Messiah,
+Rev. Ken.