Spiritual and Physical

[Barry]

Hey everyone.
What you say we tackle this a bit and see what kind of ideas that might come forth.

Personally speaking I have difficulty with a hard line separation of the two.
God is spirit. Therefore all is spiritual.
What we call physical is a category of spiritual that a separated from God human potential cannot escape from. It is limited spiritual.
The old covenant "world" is covenant attached to the limited confines of the what we have termed the physical.
It is not that "God does not dwell in temples made with hands" even that is how it is worded for communications sake. It is that God does not dwell in those limits.
My view is that:
In the end we will break down some or maybe even all of these barriers in the outworking of the new age.

A little controversial perhaps, but you love me anyway ;)

Does anyone have any other thoughts or ideas about this subject?
Barry

[Paige]

Barry,

I think what you said here is right on target:


It is not that "God does not dwell in temples made with hands" even that is how it is worded for communications sake. It is that God does not dwell in those limits.

How do you see barriers breaking down (examples of what that looks like)? That is where I struggle most in this discussion.

There is a school of thought our there that unless we have a return to a reconstructionist-like mode of conduct (return to the law), then the "spiritual" is having no effect. I don't see that, but on the other hand, there are principles that scripture brings out that are eternally true. For example...The borrower is servant to the lender, so when we wrack up debt we basically enslave ourselves and make life burdensome.

Perhaps I'm not even tracking with you as to where you were headed with the conversation?

Paige

[Barry]

Hi Page,
This is unfortuanately (for others LOL ROFL) a topic that I have many ideas and opinions about. [IE forgive me for I know not how to shut up LOL]
In any case JMO then.

You said,
"Perhaps I'm not even tracking with you as to where you were headed with the conversation?"
LOL this is one of those conversations that can and will head anywhere and everywhere :).

You said,
"There is a school of thought our there that unless we have a return to a reconstructionist-like mode of conduct (return to the law), then the "spiritual" is having no effect. I don't see that, but on the other hand, there are principles that scripture brings out that are eternally true. For example...The borrower is servant to the lender, so when we wrack up debt we basically enslave ourselves and make life burdensome."

The reconstructionists make IMHO the mistake of thinking in terms of law.
Even in regards to what you have brought up IMHO it is past. If I may explain my thinking sis and you can tell me what to do with it LOL.
The principle appears to be the same but IMHO it is not.
IMO you cannot borrow what is another's because it is not theirs. It's Daddy's. It is however in their stewardship.
When we accept the agreement of borrowing from what is rightfully in the stewardship of another then we accept that we can return what is in the agreement of that engagement back into their stewardship.
To not do so is not stealing (you shall not steal) because it is not theirs or yours. Law is given to self-righteous man. The riches of that age in terms of both Law observance and all forms of mammon. The old covenant man lost everything in the end of the age. Even what he thought he had, had moved from self-righteous ownership to stewardship. His gold and silver rusted away (which speaks as well as the temple which gave his gold and silver a standing).

So then what has been neglected (immaturity) is love not law not transgression. The laws of the land attempt to cover this but they will always evolve and adapt in the ever progressive outworking of the new age.

In the time of Paul the first-fruits were "fulfilling the law" through love as the old covenant world still had validity. And love expression here in the last days did not harm to another in view of that world's reality or validity. Our love can no longer fulfill the law. So then love fulfilled "you shall not steal" until stealing passed away (1 John 2:16-17).

Nor can we commit idolatry. We however can neglect the truth of God and misrepresent the truth of God which is love and grace. We do not "transgress" but we are in need of maturity to grow and know God. This all will do.

The law being written on our hearts is an OT expression as is "circumcision" is used to refer to the truth of the NC. Same with Sabbath and other things.

What we might still might think that we "because of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" are in the end less free than Adam was before eating it. This I have a lot of trouble with (can't agree). Rather we needed that knowledge so that it could be put behind us not incorporated with us.

Any thoughts so far Page or anyone?
Barry

[Amie]

Barry,

I feel that God is "a" spirit. He is the spirit of Love.

I think that this "The old covenant "world" is covenant attached to the limited confines of the what we have termed the physical" had to do with limited human perception/paradigm. Humanity defined limits based on what humanity understood. The prophesied New Covenant would bring about the knowing of God - they did not know him before that (at least not in full). They interpreted the law based on their limited (human/flesh and blood) understanding.

Did they have less love than we? Were they less able to love perhaps?

Amie

[Barry]

Hi Amie,
"Did they have less love than we? Were they less able to love perhaps?"
IMO the law interfered with love because the law placed accountability in ownership. [Don't take what is mine, I want what is yours.] The lust of the flesh passed away in AD 70 IMO.

IMHO if God is a spirit then all is spiritual. That however is grasping for words on my part. Simply put I do not have a dualistic view of the two. I believe that the positive-negative view of good and evil is that "limited human perception/paradigm" which had standing (accountability) in the old world. Accountability killed Adam not responsibility. That he already had.

Had it been God's will to bring Adam (humanity) to a progressive breaking down of the apparent barriers of what lied in human possibility and toward the non-limitations which was of God's possibility (love shares it is its nature) then Adam would have proceeded in this direction without calling the world around him physical but rather growth hurdles.
JMO
Barry

[Paige]

Barry said:


IMO you cannot borrow what is another's because it is not theirs. It's Daddy's. It is however in their stewardship.

This I understand and completely agree with.

It is the working out of this that I have more problems attempting to understand:


When we accept the agreement of borrowing from what is rightfully in the stewardship of another then we accept that we can return what is in the agreement of that engagement back into their stewardship.
To not do so is not stealing (you shall not steal) because it is not theirs or yours. Law is given to self-righteous man. The riches of that age in terms of both Law observance and all forms of mammon. The old covenant man lost everything in the end of the age. Even what he thought he had, had moved from self-righteous ownership to stewardship. His gold and silver rusted away (which speaks as well as the temple which gave his gold and silver a standing).

So then what has been neglected (immaturity) is love not law not transgression. The laws of the land attempt to cover this but they will always evolve and adapt in the ever progressive outworking of the new age.


I'm thinking in particular of a show I recently viewed which focused in on the suffering of those who were living way beyond their means. They had racked up quite an enormous amount of debt that would take them years to get payed back. This was causing a strain in every facet of their living. Even pushing some to the point of possible divorce. I don't believe that because of their actions, they had separated themselves from God's love. However, they were definitely not experiencing peace and contentment. The thought immediately came to my mind that what God tried to teach about debt still holds true today. It even goes deeper because the reason they had the debt boiled down to one or both of them trying to fill a void in their life w/material things. (That's probably another topic.) IOW, I wouldn't call them transgressors and condemned by God (as you pointed out above, I think :)). However, how we live in our physical existence is still affected by the kinds of choices we make. And people can still be brought into lawful account for perpetuating fraud (borrowing from another steward with no intent to repay).

The way I interpreted it before is that there are spiritual principles in place that really do work a practical difference in how we enjoy physical life. Sometimes I wonder if teaching about the fulfillment of the OC, in the process we discount the benefit and application of what we learned from its existence. The fact that God loves is not called into question. How we love ourselves and others is what I question, and that is how I always viewed the "physical."

Have I just embarked on another adventure in missing the point, lol?

[Barry]

Hi Page,
You said,
"The way I interpreted it before is that there are spiritual principles in place that really do work a practical difference in how we enjoy physical life. Sometimes I wonder if teaching about the fulfillment of the OC, in the process we discount the benefit and application of what we learned from its existence. The fact that God loves is not called into question."

IMO we agree. I'm trying however to further distance myself from reconstructionist-like thinking. In other words those principles look like they remain because they parallel in some ways.
Obeying the sabbath might be wise because you need some rest but it is not the fulfilled sabbath. Stealing was a transgression but it no longer is because it is no longer possible.

Up unto this point I really haven't heard any "preterist" to my satisfaction explain how the lust of the flesh passed away and how it is possible that that once the first-fruits receive a full reward at his coming that none of them could then be susceptible to it again.
The answer to me is that ownership passed away. We are no longer judged by our works. They (christians who loved through the changeover of the ages) could not be judged twice by their works (once at the end of the age and once at their death). They were completely free because the OC completely passed away.
They then could not by any means turn around or get tuned around.
They could however neglect the growing "principles" of new age outworking.
JMO sis.
Barry

PS and you are right about not going into heavy debt IMO.

[Paige]

Yes, I think we are agreeing. Knowing that ownership has passed away and that all belongs to God helps me stay in "perfect peace". If I consider that I "own" then I suffer when I feel it has been taken away, rather than accepting that "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." It especially helps in our relationships.

I still think there is a tension. Perhaps because we haven't yet 'worked it all out'? Maybe this crosses over into the discussion on boundaries. I haven't yet come to the place in my thinking that I won't press charges against someone who is seeking to harm me or my family. So, spiritually I can see that there is nothing anyone can "do" to me, like Paul refers to (What can man do to me?), yet physically, if its in my power to prevent harm in any way, I will.

I'm still feeling like you're on a whole other level in your discussion that I'm missing. I'm really sorry if thats the case :o

Paige

[christyG]

Another great discussion. Barry, you are really something else. Have you always been so deep and I somehow missed it before?:9_cool: (I've been away a while I know)


Barry said:It is not that "God does not dwell in temples made with hands" even that is how it is worded for communications sake. It is that God does not dwell in those limits.

and,
Amie said:I feel that God is "a" spirit. He is the spirit of Love.


Isn't God all in all. So yes, he dwells in temples and is also not confined to them. Also, if he is all in all wouldn't he be not just "a" spirit, but all spirits. The spirit of love, truth, justice, etc...?

I've read another good book about Jewish foundations to interpretting the parables of Jesus. This book states that there are many great paradoxes like this in God. Knowing God is being able to see him thorugh the paradox, not limiting him to one side or the other. This same book states that it was a very Jewish thought that all things belong to God, the creator of all. All is his and we are stewards of his creation. This seems to be what you are saying Barry?

Also, have any of you read the Gospel of Mary? I believe it addresses the issue of physical and spiritual, I'll check it out. IMHO there is much to be learned from a variety of sources, regardless of what theological agenda they may or may not be pushing. After all the writers of the gospel also had theological agends as well.

Christy

[Bill]

Hi everybody,

These "spiritual" threads are really hard for me to follow so I hope what I have to say is appropriate. "Spiritual" can mean just about anything nowadays.

When I was writing a review of the Narnia movie I went through and gathered all of the things Peter said. I wanted to show how Peter's life was transformed. This transformation parallels the transformation from Law to Grace. Anyhow, as I was looking over all the things he said I realized that many of the things he said were good things. So I thought, well yeah the Law did have many good things to say. It's not that the Law says bad things, it's just that the Law was a temporary replacement for the real thing, just as Peter was a temporary replacement for his father until he got back from the war. In Galatians, Paul even refers to the Law as a pedagogue, which is basically a replacement father.

Here's a quote from my review and a link for the whole things if you're that interested.

"With the Pevensie father gone off to the war, Peter is left in charge. I think that Peter represents the Law of Moses. The Law ruled Israel in God's stead. The Law was an expression of the character of God. Notice how Peter is consistently commanding and condemning until his "fatherhood" is replaced by Aslan."

http://billsbloggins.blogspot.com/2006/02/two-gospels-of-narnia.html

Bill

[Barry]

Page,
you said,
"I'm still feeling like you're on a whole other level in your discussion that I'm missing. I'm really sorry if thats the case"

Not really sis. I think that we are seeing and saying the same basic stuff. The only thing in the back of my own thoughts is the presumption of ongoing advancement wherein the separation of what have have called the physical (the corners of the earth, earth wind and fire) and what we have presumed to be the spiritual to be, will break down.

You said,
"If I consider that I "own" then I suffer when I feel it has been taken away, rather than accepting that "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." It especially helps in our relationships."

I think so to sis. Nice way of saying it.

Hi Christy:
You said,
"This same book states that it was a very Jewish thought that all things belong to God, the creator of all. All is his and we are stewards of his creation. This seems to be what you are saying Barry?"

Pretty much so. But while they thought this they still had ideas of individual possession that were linked to their "ego". They considered the "land" theirs in a covenantal way. But no one can own land in reality. Our ownership laws can be understood in stewardship (and it's not the government's either). That is why they had the ten commandments. You shall not covet for example. Coveting today imo is not the same because of the reasons previously mentioned.

JMO though.

Hey Bill,
You said,
"When I was writing a review of the Narnia movie I went through and gathered all of the things Peter said. I wanted to show how Peter's life was transformed. This transformation parallels the transformation from Law to Grace. Anyhow, as I was looking over all the things he said I realized that many of the things he said were good things. So I thought, well yeah the Law did have many good things to say. It's not that the Law says bad things, it's just that the Law was a temporary replacement for the real thing, just as Peter was a temporary replacement for his father until he got back from the war. In Galatians, Paul even refers to the Law as a pedagogue, which is basically a replacement father."

Bill, do you think that when the law said good things as laws that those laws are still good things today? What are your thought if ya don't mind me asking?

Blessings, Barry

[Bill]

Barry,


Bill, do you think that when the law said good things as laws that those laws are still good things today? What are your thought if ya don't mind me asking?

Well, how about love? I think that's a good thing. How about you? :biggrinbounce:

Bill

[Barry]

Barry,



Well, how about love? I think that's a good thing. How about you? :biggrinbounce:

Bill

For sure Bill! We can't live without it and we won't make it without it, and we will never have peace without it.

Formatting it in law as the 10 commandments do, might however change things.
When love your neighbor as your self was given it didn't appear to be the poor folk already inhabiting the promise land :)
But they were idolaters. They deserved death.

Then there is the "if ya don't do it (love) you pay the price of rejection".
So love God with everything you got or God will reject you.

These are the precepts that IMHO the old covenant man lived with.
Any thoughts?

blessings Barry

[Bill]

Barry,

I hear ya man! Be nice or I'll be mean to you never made much sense to me either. People sure seem to eat it up though and then come back for seconds. I think the whole concept of Law was designed to show us the inherent absurdity of trying to earn God's favor. Once we come to see that absurdity we're ready to cling to His grace; at least I know I sure am! :clap2:

Bill

[Barry]

Barry,

I hear ya man! Be nice or I'll be mean to you never made much sense to me either. People sure seem to eat it up though and then come back for seconds. I think the whole concept of Law was designed to show us the inherent absurdity of trying to earn God's favor. Once we come to see that absurdity we're ready to cling to His grace; at least I know I sure am! :clap2:

Bill

Right on. Here is a gun to your head, now love me or I'll pull the trigger.
How can we find ourselves in that?
My view is that it is like the "kings" when God warned them to stay with Judges.
http://www.infinite-grace.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=23&mode=&order=0&thold=0
"Hey but if ya really want kings then maybe you need kings to know what kings are like." It seems to me that man wanted the gun to prove something about himself that in the end he really could not do. Of course God knew all this too (Titus 1:2).
God always has been love. But love means sharing. And (just to touch on focus of this thread) this to me means that God will guild us (humanity) into one heck of an incredible future. A future we never dreamed possible. A future that even good sci-fi hasn't yet thought of :)
The thought behind this is (IMO) the principle of sharing attached to love.
Any thoughts?
Barry