You are correct. Our Lord Jesus called it a "vision" in Matthew 17:9. The Greek word "horamah" means "that which is gazed upon". I thought you meant a "vision" like Luke 1:22 where the Greek is "optasia", meaning "an apparition". Looks like we got lost in translation. But you were correct according to the English.
The natural man
- Thread starter ForestGreenCook
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Same word as Acts 7:31; and 16:9, among others: a spiritual vision. CONCORDANCE
Yes. I think the word "vision" for both Greek Words is not wrong, especially in 1611 when the King James was translated. It think that one means to "gaze upon something unusual". What do you think? Was there a real bush burning but not being consumed, or was it something Moses saw while in the spirit?
No. I did not say that, nor allude to it. But I do sense you have a problem. You want to introduce a system whereby you divide rebirth and receiving the Holy Spirit. This is enable you to have Old Testament saints born again before Christ was glorified. I find no evidence of this. My solution is that IN TIME Christ needed to fulfill the human experience to add it to the Deity. The result of adding something to the Triune God is that it becomes ETERNAL. This is easily demonstrated. Was Christ slain in about 30 AD, or was He slain "from the foundation of the world"?
If you can answer this without breaking human logic, you will be able to answer John 7:39 without breaking human logic. John 7:39 presents us with all sorts of problems, the greatest of which is that the word "given* is not in the original texts. That leaves the verse with an astounding claim. Let's leave out the word that is not in the original;
"(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet ... because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"
Can you see the implications? It now states that the Holy Spirit was not yet! But the Holy Spirit is eternal! How do we reconcile this? The answer of course is that "not yet" does not qualify the Holy Spirit, but it qualifies "the Spirit THAT THEY SHOULD RECEIVE". What is the difference? The difference is that the Holy Spirit has always been around as a Spirit. But now human experience is being added to it by the life, death and resurrection of the Man Jesus. And, IN TIME, Christ's glorification in resurrection had not happened yet when John 7:39 applied. "THAT Spirit that would contain both the totality of the Triune God AND the totality of a perfect human life. But then, that which was achieved IN TIME, because it is added to the ETERNAL DEITY, become ETERNAL. So you have;
If you can answer this without breaking human logic, you will be able to answer John 7:39 without breaking human logic. John 7:39 presents us with all sorts of problems, the greatest of which is that the word "given* is not in the original texts. That leaves the verse with an astounding claim. Let's leave out the word that is not in the original;
"(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet ... because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"
Can you see the implications? It now states that the Holy Spirit was not yet! But the Holy Spirit is eternal! How do we reconcile this? The answer of course is that "not yet" does not qualify the Holy Spirit, but it qualifies "the Spirit THAT THEY SHOULD RECEIVE". What is the difference? The difference is that the Holy Spirit has always been around as a Spirit. But now human experience is being added to it by the life, death and resurrection of the Man Jesus. And, IN TIME, Christ's glorification in resurrection had not happened yet when John 7:39 applied. "THAT Spirit that would contain both the totality of the Triune God AND the totality of a perfect human life. But then, that which was achieved IN TIME, because it is added to the ETERNAL DEITY, become ETERNAL. So you have;
- Our Lord born in ca. 4 AD - but He is the Firstborn of ALL creatures
- Our Lord born in ca. 4 AD - but He was before Abraham
- Our Lord killed in 30 AD - but He is slain from the foundation of the World
- Our Lord resurrected in 30 AD after at least six people were raised from the dead - but He is firstborn from the dead
- Our Lord breathing the Holy Spirit into His disciples on resurrection day - but putting His Spirit into Moses 1,500 years before
- Our Lord maintaining Law until John Baptist - but extending mercy to David when Law required his death
- Our Lord atoning for sins on Golgotha - but covering the sins under the Law in the Wilderness
Cognate: 3705 hórama (a neuter noun derived from 3708 /horáō, "to see, spiritual and mentally") – a vision (spiritual seeing), focusing on the impact it has on the one beholding the vision (spiritual seeing). See 3708 (horaō).
3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with
the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).
A spectacle (especially supernatural) -- sight, vision.
3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with
the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).
A spectacle (especially supernatural) -- sight, vision.
I tend to believe that all of the old testament saints were reborn in the same manner that all of us are reborn, and that is with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Do the scriptures prove my thinking wrong in that assessment?
Do you think that our rebirth comes before our believing, or after we believe?
Do you think that our rebirth comes before our believing, or after we believe?
There is no contradiction between 1 Cor 2:14, and Romans 1. In verse 18, who is the wrath of God against? Answer; Those who hold "THE TRUTH" in unrighteousness. The truth has reference to the "spiritual truth" because God, in verse 19, has shown it unto them.
The unregenerate natural man cannot discern "spiritual truths", and thinks them to be foolishness. Romans 1 is all about regenerated children of God, you evidently do not understand how bad that we are by our nature, which God says that it is as filthy rags.
The unregenerate natural man cannot discern "spiritual truths", and thinks them to be foolishness. Romans 1 is all about regenerated children of God, you evidently do not understand how bad that we are by our nature, which God says that it is as filthy rags.
Sorry but you are wrong. God uses His creation to reveal to the natural man that He is God. Romans 1 is speaking about unbelievers of which all men are deemed guilty. God declares Himself to all men.
As to holding the truth in unrighteousness I will let you account for yourself.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
As to holding the truth in unrighteousness I will let you account for yourself.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
There's two words there . Election and Grace . Neither are found connected to ' unconditional ' or ' irresistible '
It seems to me that the most comprehensive teaching on the subject of grace is found in Ephesians but I do not find anywhere is it defined as irresistible. Can the Reformed teachers teach that doctrine without a clear witness from scriptures? Should this doctrine be abandoned?
Election is to service, calling and purpose, not to salvation. (Isa. 42:1; Acts 9:15; Rom. 11:28)
It seems to me that the most comprehensive teaching on the subject of grace is found in Ephesians but I do not find anywhere is it defined as irresistible. Can the Reformed teachers teach that doctrine without a clear witness from scriptures? Should this doctrine be abandoned?
Election is to service, calling and purpose, not to salvation. (Isa. 42:1; Acts 9:15; Rom. 11:28)
We were not born again by the cross. We were secured in our inheritance of eternal heaven in a covenant relationship. by the cross.
Spiritual faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, and we did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until we were born again.
We were not born again by the cross, nor by faith.
Spiritual faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, and we did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until we were born again.
We were not born again by the cross, nor by faith.
By God's foreknowledge, he saw that no one would serve him. That is why he choose an elect people, and had his Son clean them of their sins, and secured them in their inheritance of heaven, and quickened them to a spiritual life, so that he would have a people that would serve, and honour him. It was unconditional, which is saying that it was not because of their works.