₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
7-6 fourth set to Baggy! How did Hewitt lose that set? To think i missed Arsenal's third goal just to watch Hewitt close that game off at 5-1.

Lol . . . I also missed it. Had to see how these two fighters will slug it out.

Yay! Marcos takes the tiebreak.

The thing to worry about for Hewitt is that Marcos has never lost a 5-setter here.

dinozzo:
Seems Baghdatis is on his way home, Hewitt leads 4-1 in the fouth set.

wow! 5-5 from 5-1 down. This is now a battle of guts!

Of course I was wrong, Hewitt wins the third 7-5.
What's gonna happen now? No sleep for those aussies down under.

I wish I saw that Janko/FedEx match. Had to sleep.

Who's gonna win this Hewitt/Baghdatis battle? It seems Marcos' gonna take this third set; its 5-3 at present.

@Bosegirl,

Bosegirl:
Hello, can some one tell me the meaning of gay? because this will be the first time i will heard about this case. But as for me i would have add my own comment assuming i know any thing about it.

N.B. Can male or female became Gay? Please i need your attention.

i will be very grateful, if i can get quick answer.

Lol . . . you sound very urgent about it. Don't be bothered, _{if it doesn't already apply to you}, it's nothing to worry about.
"Gay" used to mean "happy" or "bright" now it refers to people (males and/or females) who are attracted to members of the same sex.
Likewise "queer" used to mean "strange" or "unusual". Now it also means gay.

I wonder what "jolly" would mean tomorrow

Cheers

[quote author=omo.olomo link=topic=106719.msg1865589#msg1865589 date=1200676592]Anyway, I just wanted to hear comments, questions, and of course hateful/rude responses.

Peace![/quote]If those three are the things you're interested in then this thread should do. It has enough of all three. It might take you a while to read through them though.

God's peace! _hehe

@noetic,
Good to hear from you. Pardon my absence from this thread and the other one these couple of days; I've hard quite a busy time at work. And the aussie open ( ) hasn't given me much time at nights either . I wont be far behind the next few days though. Like TayoD did I have to commend you as well - and pardon any perceived excesses from my part.
Cheers .

@noetic,
Ok. Hopefully now that you've posted here we'd be able to engage in a discussion and you'd be willing to respond to my rejoinders.

My statement in the other thread (that you've not addressed the issue on this thread) is appropriately withdrawn.

Should I take it that i don't have to expect a reply to the mail I sent any longer? IMO, this thread would be appropriate except you think otherwise.

Cheers

@Pilgrim,
How's the going?

Actually, that wasn't my 0.1%. When I noticed the direction the thread was progressing, I decided to mellow so as not to stifle the progression towards addressing the original issues in the first post since my post would have been in response to the questions I posed to Bobby.

I trust that you'd advance the topic in getting to that conclusion. I can already envisage another well-written five-part (A, B, C, D, E) treatise on the subject from your end .
Cheers

@noetic,
I don't want to respond to you since you obviously didn't consider it important to respond to my direct take on the thread.

However, don't allude statements to me that i didnt say. I NEVER said the spirit of man has feelings. It might seem trivial but it isn't.

Beyond that, I think I've established the case (at least in my most recent posts) for WHY an understanding of man's makeup is crucial to understanding man's destination. Your assumption that I've not addressed that necessity is NOT because I didn't but becuase your position is different than mine. In other words, because you hold to the position that man lies in the grave, you do not think it is important to understand man's make up. I've shown that that isn't the case.

The word play on 'distinct' isn't such a big issue IMO. I'll just give a very concise summary. The spirit doesn't have to be doing another thing from the body at the same time in order for the spirit to be distinct from it. Jesus told the apostles: "the spirit is willing BUT the flesh is weak". It is a given that the spirit, for physical things, has to act through the body. The "BUT" in Jesus' statement shows that the physical limitation poses a problem for the spirit. That is why the whole point of the life of the christian, to be spirit-controlled or spirit-led and NOT to be led by the flesh. Paul shows us this clear dichotomy both in Romans and Galatians, and that dichotomy (of flesh - actually, the sinful nature of the soul - and spirit) is only resolved by exercising the will to "yeild one's members" or one's body to the leading or control of the Spirit of God in our spirits. Paul said "I beat my body, making it my slave"

Also, I still don't understand YOUR position on 'spirit' and you have not addressed it in the appropriate thread neither. Perhaps if TayoD reads your reply to me he'd be able to make some inferences that I couldn't make.

I'll stop there for now. Cheers.

@quikengr,
Please DO acknowledge your sources next time

Culled from here

Of course, we do not expect JW's to acknowledge the deity of the Lord nor the explicit biblical doctrine of God-head.
Cheers.

@toyinrayo,

toyinrayo:
NA WA O you might as well make a book

Hehe . . . that's not a bad idea now that you mention it. Will you be my editor?
I thought I only wrote a few lines, oh well, at least that's what i intended to do
The road to Bleep, they say, is paved with good intentions. Thank God I aint going there. _{Let me stop before I commit the same offence.}
Cheers

@noetic,
Like I said, a very brief response to your original post. There are too many things in there for me to talk in any detail.

Many self-proffessing christians readily claim that once a person dies in the Lord, he readily goes to heaven, yet they still believe in ressurection of the dead. some say both happens, but how can that be?

Their spirits go to be with the Lord when they die and their bodies get resurrected to meet the Lord in the air when he comes for the saints.

assuming one dies and goes to heaven, what will be ressurected since the person is already in heaven?

His physical body. There is a seperation of spirit from body at death.

no doubt this is one of the most controversial subjects facing christiandom today.

Not so, IMHO.

No where in the old testament was the reward of obidience to God--- a place in Heaven. Jesus even clarified this in John 3vs13 "no one has ascended into heaven but He who came down from it", john 11vs25 "I am the ressurection and life, he who believes in me, though he may die, but he shall live". yet he made refrences to the kingdom of heaven in his numerous parables. God is definitely not the author of confusion, but if Jesus said this, where then is David, abraham, elijah, enoch, Moses and other prophets of old including the apostles of Christ?.

Unfortunately, there is so much stuff here for me to go into.
First, the REWARD is different from the DESTINATION. Heaven has never been the reward. All christians go to the same place but have different rewards.
No one has ascended to heaven 'to bring Christ down'. See Rom 10. Secondly, that statement was made a while ago.
Those prophets were in Hades albeit a part of hades where they were comforted rather than tormented. I believe they are now with the Lord.

Job pondered in job14vs14, " if a man dies, shall he live again?", he answers himself in verses 14 and 15.
revelation20 gives a vivid account of a ressurrection and that Christ will reign on planet earth for a thousand years, with the saved.
yet our pastors and preachers teach of a reign in heaven.

I don't see Job's answers. I don't subscribe to a "reign in heaven", the reign is here on earth. We know that of the Lord the bible says that "he must remain in heaven UNTIL . . ."(Acts. 3:21). Like you said, we are made to realize that He is coming back with the saints to earth to reign a thousand years (the final dispensation). We'd do other things in heaven however in the mean time before then.

sincerely, what do you think, do the dead in Christ go to heaven or await ressurection?

Their spirits go to heaven, they (again their spirits) await resurrection, they (when fully tripartite again) come back to earth at the appropriate time and so on.

Those are my opinions on the subject. I could be wrong and would gladly love to hear your views.
Cheers.

noetic:
@Ricadelide

I have been relunctant to reply you, just for the same reason y I was relunctant to draw issues with u initially, over this "spirit" thing.  and apparently this will be my last correspondence with u over this thread.  y?
because my sense of reasoning tells me that a disscussion/debate/information is for 3 purposes
a)pass knowledge, which is ascimilated
b)unlearn things u know, by learning from others.
c)butressing already known facts.
unfortunately none of these three is happening. but out of courtesy I will reply this correspondence for the last time. no insults intended.

Wow. Reading your reply gives me the impression you're ticked off at me and i've read through mine to see what could be causing that. I guess you wont be replying like you said but I think I need to defend myself a little (contrary to what I'd normally do). Again I apologize if my tone was a bit off, i tend to be very informal sometimes, perhaps I'd be more formal in my repostes.

First, you DID start this thread, but many times threads evolve such that they address issues that are not raised by the OP - that's a very common thing, otherwise the thread would be very narrow IMO.

Second, threads 'give birth to' other threads, this one in particular has raised issues that did not even come up when the appropriate thread was raised on the subject earlier - and I think that is a good thing, because its not only the original poster that benefits from a thread but everyone who comes across it.

Third, (and I think this is most important), even though you DID start this thread, if you look again at my original post you'd notice I DID NOT address you in particular, nor the concerns you raised - IMO, I felt TayoD had addressed your concerns appropriately; i only addressed my response to Bobbyaf, because of a statement he made. At the end of my post (you can look at it) I DID say that I did not even go into the issue of ressurection. It was YOU in fact that addressed me first presuming that I had addressed your concerns; and which I already said I hadn't.

Fourth, my not replying to you was not because I was fleeing from the topic - i felt it had been addressed and I wasn't ready to go into it it detail; I like to do things step by step and I felt the first step was to adequately understand man's nature in order to appreciate subsequent events that require such an understanding (of man's nature).

Fifth, again in that first post, I didn't so much divert the topic - I wasn't the first person to mention the word "spirit", I just happened to be the first to go into it in detail. In my second post however, I DID divert the topic, and I apologized in advance. I only diverted somewhat when it was clear that I and Bobbyaf weren't on the same page - discussions can't really proceed effectively if your terms aren't properly defined. We had different definitions for the SAME term.

Finally, I am of the opinion that a discussion such as this CANNOT be effectively addressed in full without a proper understanding of, and adequate understanding of the nature of man. I don't think I'm the only one of this position. Obviously, you don't agree with this, otherwise you wouldn't have felt my posts were off-topic. However, that's a given.

Sorry for another off-topic, i felt you were quite hard on me unnecessarily in your reposte and didn't really appreciate my concerns. Now to the issues you raised:

No it doesnt, and if u think it does u were not able to prove that. I deduced from your first post that u were running away 4m the issues. Tayo-D mad refrence to the spirit, but did not deviate from the issue, that way I was willing to debate deep with him. he raised intellectual biblibical questions about spiritual beliefs, which I was ready to disscuss or debate out, but the moment he made refrence to your post as his stand, then I felt it was over. because yours was a whole diversion of the relevant issues. none the less I commend your biblibical expertise.

I believe it does. Perhaps I wasn't able to prove it. You've misunderstood me; i was not addressing your concerns initially. Let's see it this way; when you made a statement like this in your first post:

assuming one dies and goes to heaven, what will be ressurected since the person is already in heaven

In this statement, you make it seem like there IS a dichotomy; saying that, since the PERSON is already in heaven WHAT will be ressurected. However, if one realizes that it is the SPIRIT of the man that is in heaven and then THE BODY is what is eventually ressurected, then one would realize that there is NO dichotomy at all. THus, it is necessary to understand the different parts that make up the man, so as to appreciate the different FATES that await the different PARTS of the man. Have now I proven why I think an understanding of the nature of man is important?

Second, IMO, there's no need to be 'feel it was over' because TayoD made reference to my post. We all make reference to each other's posts when the other person anticipates and addresses one's concerns. I made reference to TayoD and Longman83's posts and I'd still make reference to Pilgrim.1's post in this reply. Trumpeter also addressed many of the things I'd have wanted to say.

f u read my last post, u will c that my first definition of the spirit was exactly what he said. I don't want to believe u re biased.

Your FIRST definition is what he said, but your SECOND definition ISN'T. And that is what I said. I said I disagreed with your FIRST definition but I agreed with your SECOND. Bobbyaf, like I quoted in my post, is of the opinion that the spirit CANNOT even communicate at all and is ONLY breath. You said it was not ONLY breath - isn't that a disagreement?
In my post, I DID NOT address WHY I disagreed with your first definition of the word SPIRIT because I didn't want to fall into the trap of deviating the topic a SECOND TIME! Good for me (and us, i might say), Pilgrim.1 has addressed that distinction that I feel exists in detail and please see her rejoinders.

I never implied or said anything of/or related to this. and did not expect u to dennote or connote such.

NO you did not. That was why I asked "Did you mean . . .?"

you are yet to prove this.

Pilgrim.1 has.

please don't argue because u have to. do so because u have something to say.
I stated in my last post that before Adam and eve sinned, they had unhindered communication with God, as a result of which the connection was lost. and that Jesus came to bridge that gap. which does not imply that d gap is now as implicit as it was.
I don't c any difference between what I said and this u have written, in refrence to the scriptures u have listed

Sorry that I have to defend myself again - I don't argue because I have to. I have been on this forum for a long while and I hardly make posts even WHEN I have a lot to say on issues. In fact, I have been observing events on the forum for up to two months without making ANY POSTS at all!
BEFORE this point in your post you hadn't mentioned the fall and you were giving a defintion for SPIRIT. You said; "the spirit can be interpreted to mean two things" remember? And that was what I addressed; i basically said I agreed with you as well. However, I love to choose my terms carefully and I'm sorry for expecting the same of you.

while your first position is correct (and actually the only thing I have ascimillated from u). you need to re-examine my explanation of the spirit. you are proposing a distinct nature of man to the body, a far cry from my position.
please honestly ask your self, what is spirit?, then re-read your posts, if they correspond send me an e-mail of your definition of spirit, then I will gladly draw issues with u over this spirit thing. if not, your guess is as good as mine.

I disagree with you here and I will send you an email later tonight even though I believe this issue has been addressed in detail. I am of the opinion that the bible teaches that the spirit is DIFFERENT FROM breath. And I am also of the opinion that the spirit is a distinct nature of man from the body. I will move my concerns over to other thread.

now I c y u are getting it all wrong.
luke 16`s rich man was in refrence to a parable, which doesnt imply direct communication with God.
I can't believe u said this.

TayoD already addressed this, and so have I earlier. I am, for many reasons, of the opinion that it is NOT a parable but rather a STORY. If you still want me to elucidate I'd oblige.

please do me two favours.
a) refer to the part of my post where I used "instincts" to understand what I meant and to categorise it by your implicit definition os "spirit"
b) and please, then pick up a dictionary and compare "instincts" with "intuition" in refrence to what I said

No offence but there is no point. Up till now I still don't fully understand what your SECOND definition of SPIRIT is, since I seem to infer that you don't agree that it is a distinct part or nature within tripartite man. In the other thread, we can deal with those issues. I won't divert this thread any longer (unless, of course, if you're of the opinion that I'm doing so even now).

i guess I will change the type of Icon, I look forward to recieving your e-mail if your definition of spirit does not in your sacroscant opinion differ with your earlier posts (mis-information)
have a lovely disscussion.
cheers 

don't mind me, i was just being facetious. I'd be more formal with you henceforth as I have tried to be in this reply. Beyond that I'd give a quick reply to your original post, anticipating that, like she promised, Pilgrim.1 will address them in detail. Thanks.

wow, while men slept  , this thread progressed considerably. I notice that even bros came here to show face. I'm impressed by the interest in this kind of subject.

@longman83,
Very nice post. You read my mind accurately about my views on ecclesiastes, and I could anticipate how my friend Bobbyaf will dribble past your post. Oh well

@Pili,
as always you've so eloquently passed across 99.9% of what i'd have wanted to say and more. You see, sooner than later, the real O - G - A had to show up! That 'student' line must be the joke of the century - except it applies to longman83 perhaps
Permit me however to address the 0.1% of my concerns here on this thread shortly before moving our wahala over to that dead but ressurected thread. Cheers

@Bobbyaf,
No need for unnecessary agitation , I was just pulling your legs in my last post.
Your latest post was the 0.1% i was thinking you might use as the backdoor when I read Pilgrim.1's thorough treatise on the subject. Quite predictably, you followed suit. I will address it when when I get to work. However, before harping on the phrase "breath of life" don't you think it would be appropriate if you at least tried to address, and if not possible, acquiese to the arguements she brought forth in her post?
Cheers

actually that draw wasn't quite a favorable one for Moya, Stefan Koubek is quite a good player. Somehow, perhaps due to injury or inconsistency, he isn't seeded.

Serbia just seems to be churning out tennis players every second as though they had some kind of tennis assembly plant

Lol @Bobbyaf,
Sorry but, this is getting rather tedious.
Are you trying to pull our legs, make us laugh a little, make the thread last a little longer or you're just having a hard time readjusting to the fact that your arguement holds no water and what you've accepted for so long isn't true? 

I could reply to your post - and I particularly have many things to say about your many quotes from Ecclessiastes and your other points - but instead (since this has turned to more of a debate than a discussion) I'd ask the same questions I asked noetic:

[list]
[li]since you claim the spirit means "the breath of life" and you're aware of references in Genesis 6:17, 7:15 that lets us know that animals have the "breath of life" in them, are you then saying that animals have spirits? [/li]
[li]In your view is there any difference between the makeup of a human being and that of an animal?[/li]
[/list]

With regards to the grand equation you came up with (soul = spirit + body), I have just one advice; remember that 1Thess. 5:23 is still in the bible - perhaps Paul didn't come across that your equation in 'good' time.
Cheers

@noetic,

noetic:
I have intentionally stayed out of this "spirit" thing, because as far as I am concerned it is a deviation from the main thread.

True that. I apologize. I said the same thing earlier, however, the nature of our discussion predicates on a proper understanding of the subject of the spirit. I didn’t go into it much in my earlier post and only did so when it became obvious that I and Bobbyaf aren’t on the same page.

putting into cognizance the scriptures you guys have used I can state that bobbyaf is right. y?

Lol . . . I doubt that even Bobbyaf himself, where he to “put into cognizance” the scriptures we have used, would claim he was/is right. Haba, you and Bobbyaf aren’t even saying the same things! Here is what Bobbyaf said:

So in essence the spirit is the breath of life

Is this spirit a person? Is it aware of what God has done? Absolutely not! The "spirit" is the breath of life, or the active life force that keeps mankind and animals alive until their death

He effectively claims thus: the spirit = the breath of life whilst also claiming that this spirit is “not aware of what God has done”. Effectively saying that the spirit does not possess the ability to be aware of or communicate with God, which is what YOU are saying. No be so?

re-read your bible, (especially the quotations u made)

Ok. And?

the spirit can be interpreted to mean two things

Really? Did you mean to say “the Hebrew (and likewise the Greek) word(s) can be translated to mean two main things?
If it is the former, then, this is where I differ:

1). the breadth of life  as bobbyaf stated

Unfortunately, or otherwise, the same words are translated in many instances to mean both “breath” and “spirit” and oftentimes other things. However, the context of the scripture in which those words are used allow translators to determine what is being referred to. As longman83 pointed out spot-on, this is a semantics issue. The ‘spirit’ does not refer to ‘breath of life’. They are two different things.

So coming to this:

2) the state of man that provides unhindererd communication with God

Now, I DO agree with you here, albeit with some modifications/clarifications. I wouldn’t call it a ‘state’ of man, as though man can enter into and out of that ‘state’ as he pleases. Neither will I use the qualifier “unhindered”, for indeed, such faculty for communing with God in most people is actually quite HINDERED! (Their spirits being dead in sin Eph. 2:1) However, you are right in the sense that the very fullness of life of such a spirit IS the knowledge of God, as the Lord points out in John 17:3. Thus the spirits of natural man, who/which has lost this ability to communicate with God, is effectively said to be dead.

go and re-read genesis1 and 2.
every thing God made were called "living creatures" including man.
but His breadth came into man, and made man reflects God`s image (a spirit being).

Ok. I don’t disagree that man is created in God’s image effectively as a spirit being. Where I disagree is your statement that “spirit can be interpreted to mean . . . breath of life”. So to clarify I’ll resort to questions:
          • Are you aware that God mentions the animals as “having the breath of life in them” (see Gen. 6:17, 7:15)?
          • If ‘spirit’ refers to ‘breath of life’ are you then saying that animals have spirits?
If you answer those I’d know how to proceed.

In every other biblical context where the spirit has been defined, as though distinct from the body. It has always been in communication with God. john recieving reavelation and paul being held up in tha 3rd heavens.
and In other contexts where the spirit has been used, it is a definition of man`s inherent  instincts. please look up the definition of instincts.

I really don’t get exactly what you mean by your first statement: ‘defined, as though distinct from the body'. Not to be pedantic, do you mean ‘absent from’ the body? For the spirit is ALWAYS distinct from the body. And if what I alluded to is what you mean then I don’t agree, for one, the rich man in Jesus’ story (luke 16) was not ‘in communication with God’ as with many other instances I don’t want to go to now.
Beyond that, I wouldn’t use the word ‘instincts’ to refer to spirit or spiritual things; ‘instincts’ are quite basal and primitive; even animals have some form ‘instincts’ (the case of the newborn animal's suckling instinct for example). A better word would be intuition.

cheers

One silly question: why do you usually put a ‘cry’ icon after saying cheers? I don’t get it
Just pulling your legs.
Cheers

@rockiedink,
Do you mind walking us through scripture to show how we have used the bible to 'say what it didn't intend to say'?

rockiedink:
My advise? go over your scriptures again with a pre-formed bias to anything and you just might understand those scriptures.

Lol . . . did you really mean that? _{I'm guessing you didn't} Perhaps that advise would explain why you failed to realize/accept what the bible clearly teaches. No be so? (j/k)
Cheers

Now I made a statement that the spirit of the man is the REAL person that inhabits the body as a man lives in a house. Now let me re-quote a scripture I quoted before:
Phil. 1: 22-24
If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body
I asked a question and you didn’t give an adequate answer. What is the “I” that is talked about here?

You said:

The "I" is referring to the person before death. That person or soul is a combination of both body and spirit. As long as Paul remained alive he could use the word "I"

Is that so? It is clear that in this statement Paul remaining alive in some fashion is not in question. That is why it is “if I am to go on living in the body ”. The “in the body” is the most important part, for he says if he departs he would still “BE” or EXIST. The issue is not whether he is going to live, the issue is whether he is going to remain in the body. In other words, its not IF he would BE, it is WHERE he would BE - in the body and WITH men OR out of the body and WITH the Lord.
Second, the person is not the combination of soul and body. The person is not even any of those two. In this passage, it is obvious that without the body there would still be a person, for like I said earlier, even when he departs FROM the body, he would still BE ("I desire to depart and be . . . "
Coming to the last part of your statement, obviously if one is not alive, he can’t say “I”. And that is the whole point. The “I” never ceases to “be”. The spirit only ceases to remain in the body at the point of death.

To further buttress this, let me use this scripture
Luke 16:22-23
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
[Jesus told this story using actual people, for he mentions their names and uses the name of someone we are familiar with, Abraham, to show that they are real events. Second, Jesus said this in past tense when he was on earth, so he wasn't referring to something futuristic.]
We are told that the beggar died and then at the very next the scripture says, the angels "carried him".
What is the "he"or "him" referring to? Is it his body? No. For the ressurection is still a futuristic event. We are told the rich man was buried (the poor man was probably not given a proper burial because of his insignificance to men).
Is it a breath? Can you carry a breath?
Obviously, his spirit left his body just like the spirit of the rich man left his body. Their destinations differed. One was taken to a place of torment, while the other was taken to a place of comfort where Abraham was also located.
That they are fully perceptive, conscious, and alive is very clear. Bros, is it clear to you?

Since I'm guessing that might still not be sufficient, let me make use of yet a couple of scriptures to explain the matter more fully.
Rom. 7:22-23a
For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body
This verse draws a contrast between what Paul calls the “inner being” and the body or outermost being. Here, the inner being possesses a nature that delights in the things of God and therefore pleases God, whereas it is not so with the body. This ‘inner being’ is the REAL man, for it is the one that is saved and that ‘delights in God’s law’. Using this next scripture in Eph 3:16;
I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being
we can deduce that this ‘inner being’ is the spirit of the man. For, as I earlier quoted in Rom 8:14, the interaction of (and thus the enduement with power of) the Holy Spirit is with man’s spirit (NOT with his soul or his body).

Bros, like TayoD said, the Scriptures cannot be any clearer than they already are - if one is willing to let go of his preconceptions and accept what the Word of God clearly teaches. Now, having said all these, I hope you’d reconsider the subject and re-read the earlier responses in that new light (as regards the nature of man) and perhaps you’d be able to fully understand scriptures like Luke 16: 19-31, references to Hades, Jesus’ statement that God is “not a God of the dead but of the living” (in reference to the patriarchs), Jesus’ statement that “today you will be with me in paradise”, Paul’s statement that he did not know if his “catching up” was out-of-the-body or in the body, why the last Adam is called a "life-giving spirit" (rather than a 'living soul') etc.

Understanding of the nature of the spirit of man is crucial to appreciating what really happens at the new birth, how we grow spiritually, our spiritual position in Christ and so on. Cheers.

Kai! See intentional searching for trouble . . . intoxication na good thing?

Now, coming to the spirit, the spirit is NOT mere breath as I’ve endeavored to show you previously. I’ll do so more explicitly now.
Gen. 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Like you said, God breathed into man’s nostrils and he became “a living soul”. Understanding the parts of the whole man from 1Thess.5:23, we can draw a parallel with the creation account. The body is that which was formed out of the dust of the ground, the spirit is that which was formed out of the breath of the Almighty (see Zech. 12:1b). These are the two independent entities. That which was produced in the man as a result of contact of the spirit WITH the body, and which became the coordinating seat or meeting point of the two is the soul. It is the self-aware part of man or the seat of individuality and personality and that is why men are called 'souls' and Adam, a 'living soul'.

Now, the attributes of the spirit that was so formed in the man can be gleaned from other sources. I’ll show you things that the spirit can do, and hope that you’d realize that you’re mistaken, as a mere breath or life principle cannot possess such attributes. There are so many scriptures, but I do hope these few would do.
1Cor. 2:11
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
The spirit is capable of knowledge, a mere breath cannot ‘know’.

Acts 17:16
Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.
The spirit is capable of being provoked.

Luke 1:47
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
The spirit of man is capable of rejoicing

1Cor 14:15-16
What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?
This draws a contrast between praying with the mind and praying with the spirit. The spirit is NOT the mind. Yet, the spirit is capable of knowledge. You can’t sing with or pray with a mere breath. And NO, this verse is not referring to the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 8:16
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.
Here we see a mention of the Holy Spirit AND the spirit of man and we see that they are in contact. Here we realize that the testifying or witnessing of the Spirit of God to/in us is actually to our spirits. This can be understood more accurately in the light of this verse:
Prov. 20: 27
The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all the innermost parts of his being.
This shows us that the guidance or leading of God to the man is via the man’s spirit. It is via the spirit of the man that God gives light the whole of a man’s being. Thus the spirit is the part of the man that is capable of communicating with God, and it is via this faculty that the Holy Spirit speaks to and leads us. (Rom. 8:14)

Finally for now,
Heb. 12: 23
to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect
Among the throng in the Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the writer of Hebrews mentions “the spirits of just men”. I hope it should be obvious that God did not gather the breaths (whatever that is) of the men of old together to be kept in one place.

Now, all these should suffice to show that the spirit of the man is a faculty within the man that is[b] capable of knowing, perceiving, rejoicing, praying and many other things[/b]. I really do hope you’d be open-minded and let the scriptures speak for themselves – it is NOT mere breath (again, whatever that means).

@bobbyaf,
Unfortunately, this would be a diversion from the topic at hand to something entirely different. However, since it’s obvious you do not understand some of these issues (no offence) I’d go into them.

First, the bible makes it explicitly clear that there are THREE parts to the WHOLE man.
1Thess 5:23
And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here there are three distinct entities which must be preserved complete and blameless at the coming of Christ. The order in which they are mentioned is also important, for it is from the innermost man to the outer man. These are what make up the WHOLE man.
For this discussion we can discountenance talking about the body. However, this verse makes it clear that the spirit is NOT synonymous with the soul. That they are different entities can be buttressed by this latter scripture:
Heb 4:12
For the word of God is living and operative, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and penetrating to the division of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Here we are made to realize that the Word of God is the instrument by which a separation or division of the spirit and the soul of man takes place. What the soul is and why there needs be such a separation isn’t my emphasis for now. Suffice it to say that, the mere fact that they CAN BE separated shows that they are two distinct entities.

@TayoD,
Thanks bro. I guessed you were busy like you said yesterday that was why i preempted you guys.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=104156.msg1842042#msg1842042 date=1200061627]Also you refered to the story of Lazarus which makes it clear that when a righteous man or sinner dies, they will be consious though there destinations are different. How clearer can these be?![/quote]In red, my thoughts exactly. Cheers

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=104156.msg1841857#msg1841857 date=1200058144]Hehe. .@Bobbyaf,

There's just one reason why I keep holding back instead of rushing answers to the subject. But let me point out something and then ask you two simple questions:[/quote]I wonder what that reason is. I had written all the above on Word and was about to post it when I saw your post. Didn't want to waste the writeup.
Hope I didn't preempt something special .

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=104156.msg1842021#msg1842021 date=1200061171]I-spy ricadelide. . .

Lol. . . Happy New Year!! I just dey wonder whether them don release you from your exams! How body?[/quote]Lol . . . happy new year to you too. I spied your notes abi? Se I no copy the wrong answers sha

Actually, I've been released from exams for a long while, after exams, lab work and research took my time so i've just been hanging around and enjoying other people's contributions.

Well said. See your neat delinetaion of the subject - why we no go call you oga patapata!?!

Thanks. _sheepish Obviously though, the only reason why I had a 'chance' of speaking was because you and TayoD somehow chose not to. So, the real ogas should be fairly obvious. No be so?
cheers

@bobbyaf,

The biblical fact is that those who die in Christ sleep until the resurrection. There can be no spiritual resurrection as others are saying. That is an oxymoron.

LOL . . . what do you want to do about Paul’s statements in Eph. 2:6? You (your spirit) were dead (verse 1). [Death here being a separation from the life of God rather than a dissolution of the entity. In other words, we still retained our spirits even though the bible calls it dead. But in the sense that the spirit has lost its ability to communicate with God and exude his life, then it was dead.] The same (dead) spirit was ‘made alive’ and then ‘raised up with Christ’. Even now, positionally, you’ve been raised up and are seated above all rule and authority.

Understanding the nature of man and the process of death, one would realize that death is merely the departure of the spirit of man FROM the body. This is very clear from scripture. The spirit does not cease to exist; it only ceases to remain in the body. This statement is true regardless of the spiritual condition of the man, whether righteous or unrighteous. What differs between those two groups is their destination. The other factor that plays into the debate is as regards righteous men of old – those issues have been addressed.

There are many scriptures that show that spirits continue to exist and are self-aware subsequent to death. The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 18:19, Jesus’ response to the Saduccees in Mark 12: 24-27 and so on.

The nature of man
In Paul’s writings, this same fact that the spirit of man is a distinct entity which is clearly conscious, perceptive and aware of its surroundings is also evident.
Phil. 1:22-24
If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
We see Paul saying “if I am to live IN the body”. What is the ‘I’ that is mentioned 6 times in 3 verses? Is it not the spirit of the man Paul? The spirit or the inner man is the REAL man, the body is just a “tent” for the spirit, and the soul is merely the seat of (self) consciousness – sort of a ‘co-ordinator’ or ‘mediator’ between the spiritual and the physical.

2Cor. 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.
If the experience could have been an “out-of-body” experience, in which case it would involve the spirit of the man being taken to the third heaven, then it should be fairly obvious that the spirit is a conscious, perceptive entity rather than a mere breath. As he later said in that passage, he “heard” many things, showing perception. And he was warned not to say some of those things, showing memory. These are all attributes that the spirit of man can exhibit, just like the body making use of the CNS can. That’s why Paul said he was not sure whether it was in the body or out of it, for – we can assume – it seemed to make no difference to him.

The same was true of John.
Rev. 4: 1-2
After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.
He was called up to heaven. The text gives a lot of evidence to suggest that it was an out-of-body experience. The Greek word that is used to describe (I assume every instance of) bodily snatching up or catching up of people (see Acts. 8:39, 1Thess. 4:17, Rev. 12. 5, etc.) is not used to describe this experience. Instead, he says he was “in the Spirit (or spirit)”; strongly suggesting that it was his spirit-man that was involved.

The process of death
Now does the bible give us insight into what happens when one dies? If we look at some of Peter’s statements we can also get some insight:
2Pet 1:14-15
knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind.
There are two senses of ‘departing’ – on the one hand, objectively, it is a departure from the brethren (to the brethren, Peter would have departed) on the other hand or subjectively, it is a departure of Peter from the body AND to be with the Lord. To put it simply, to us, they’ve left, to them, they (their spirits) are leaving their body. That is the same sense in which Paul refers to the dead saints in Christ as ‘asleep’. They are asleep to us but as Jesus said in Luke 20:38, they are (NOT ‘they will be’) alive to God (and of course, to themselves).

Phil. 1:22-24
If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
When Paul says “depart AND be with Christ” he was referring to death – he sees death not as a dissolution of man’s existence, or a temporary suspension of awareness, but merely as a departure of the inner man (or the spirit) from the body. This departure does not imply that the spirit man ceases to be conscious upon leaving the body that is why his departure immediately implies a relocation to be with Christ.
The phrase be “with Christ” in this context is not a figurative term, it is literal. If it was merely figurative, then there wouldn’t be a contrast between remaining in the body and being with Christ. As I said earlier, figuratively (or rather, positionally), our spirits are ‘with Christ’ even now (see Eph. 2:6). So it would be wrong then for Paul to suggest that we cannot be “with Christ” while in the body if he were not referring to a literal being together with Him.
As regards destination, the question then is; where is Christ? If Christ is in heaven would Paul not also be with him in heaven?

These two points - that the spirit continues to exist, and that the location of the said spirit is with Christ in heaven - can be further buttressed by considering the scenario involving Stephen.
Acts 7:55-56, 59
But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God  ……… They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
Stephen was about to be killed. However at the point of death, knowing that for him dieing is only a door (so to speak) to pass through in order to be with Christ, the bible records that he ‘gazed intently’ into heaven, the Holy Spirit then opened the eyes of his spirit to look into heaven and he saw the Lord standing in wait for Him. That led him to then make the statement that “Lord, Jesus, receive my spirit”, if I might add, unto yourself. 
A little digression that might be a little relevant to the point is the fact that the Lord was standing. Normally we know that the Lord sits at the right hand of God, but because of the imminent reception of Stephen (his spirit), the Lord stood in sort of an ovatory manner. I kind of like that picture.

Sorry for the long epistle. We are with Him positionally now, out spirits will leave our bodies to literally be with Him when we die, and at his coming (I didn’t go into this latter fact), we will we reunited with our resurrected and changed bodies. Cheers all .

The Grail Message and the Message of the son of God Jesus is exactly the same and is the WHOLE TRUTH. That is the revelation from the Grail Message. It is left for each individual to decide where his or her path leads him or her.

The Grail message cannot be the message of the Son of God Jesus, except you’re talking about another Jesus. It is clearly at odds with the teachings of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ, neither does it even understand nor appreciate the purpose of the Son nor the Work of the Son.
Considering the issue is very simple: the author of the grail message was not an eyewitness, he stands entirely alone and apart from eyewitness accounts of the Word. Beyond that however, he contradicts the teachings of the Word; how then can the message of the GM be the same as the message of the Son?

There are reasons why the gospels do not only contain the teachings of Jesus, they also contain the historical context in which the Son lived, the things he did, how he lived and so on. These facts can all be attested to and the historical context provides a bedrock for corroborating the life of Jesus and a framework for understanding his Truth. The Son is the Word made flesh, thus not only can we learn from what he said, we can learn from what he did. His actions do speak. Only eyewitnesses and people who had first-hand access to eyewitnesses can give a careful report on the details of his life.

In the case of Paul, who we might assume was not a direct eyewitness of Jesus while on earth, he still got in contact with those who he met the Lord, even though his teaching was gotten independent of those apostles. Beyond that, the beautiful thing though is that even though he had been teaching / preaching about the Lord Jesus before he met with the other apostles, he did not contradict what they said. Thus they were able to extend to him the right hand of fellowship, even in the face of the atrocities he had earlier committed against them.

All that said, there was / is no sole source of revelation about the life of Jesus. Although Paul wrote a lot of epistles in the New Testament, many others wrote as well, and the Scriptures that came through them are just as important as those ones alluded to Paul.
Any careful observation of the issue makes it abundantly clear that in no way can the GM be the same as the message of the Son of God. You cannot try to undermine the Message and the account of the Son (Scripture) and then try to hijack the same Son of God and present him in a new light different from that which the Son has revealed Himself to be. Neither can you offer a said "proclamation of Truth" as a sole, standalone authority on the life of the Son. We can choose to believe whatever we want, however, it is wise to be wary of stand-alone claims that disregard and try to discountenance all that God has done before it.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=92544.msg1688228#msg1688228 date=1195227237]5. God is love and and also Justice and any human being who uses these as a guide will recognise the WILL of God, and will be able to separate the truth from distortions. He or she will one day be permitted the highest grace of God, being permitted to exist forever as a servant of the ALMIGHTY GOD. In any activity where Love and Justice are lacking, that activity has nothing to do with God for everything that is of God vibrates in Justice and Love. In justice and love lies harmony. All creations of God are based on these apparently simple words.[/quote]Considering this point and the words in bold, for now I'd only quote a scripture, and hope that the message is clear. If i have can spare more time, i'd be more detailed.
1John 5:10-12
Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (emphasis mine)
Cheers .

The various contradictions you see in world religions is that the part truths brought by the various prophets of God were distorted and are no longer pure, hence the contradictions. Had they remained pure they would have formed a single flight of steps on which the WHOLE TRUTH will stand.

Unfortunately I can’t bother my self so much with world religions but will confine myself to discussing the Bible. The world religions are contradictory and inconsistent for the simple reason that they are not based on a revelation of God’s truth. God is NOT an author of confusion – he does not send prophets to start religions that contradict one another. Those who have a revelation of God do not contradict other people who are from God, and God is able to preserve the Words He delivers through the mouths of His prophets that their words “do not fall to the ground”. There is a clear exclusivity with God, all roads (even at their pristine condition) do not, or have not always led to God.

Coming to the bible, which is called the Word of God, the allegation that the Word of God is or has been corrupted is not new. It is a cheap allegation that really can’t be sustained on proper scrutiny. It has continued to be proffered since the creation of time. Back in the garden; it was: “Did God really say . . . ?” And even now, it’s still the same principle. However, since we never really consider the seriousness of that allegation, we let it slip by many times.

The first thing is that it is a strong allegation – because, inherently, considering that the reason God reveals his Words is for a certain purpose and to a certain people, any allegation that all of the Scripture (God’s Word) is corrupted is a statement that God is not able to preserve His Word.
The thought that usually comes to my mind when people make such claims is that: “when WAS the Word of God corrupted?” Is it when it was spoken, before being written down? In other words, are the autographs themselves corrupted? Considering that the very ones who wrote them down were said to be inspired as they wrote how is that possible?
Or is it rather AFTER it was written? If so, is it ALL the copies of the original that got (intentionally) corrupted? Then who was the Word sent to in those regards – did God SEND His Word to people that will intentionally corrupt it? Or was God handicapped in preventing His Word from such forms of corruption?

The other issue is “what exactly is corrupted in God’s Word?” How do we determine that His Word is corrupted? You mentioned Love and Justice as a yardstick – obviously that is very vague; you can have a lot of accounts indicating a high degree of love and justice and yet they are false.

Does God send new Scripture to replace the old? No. Even when Jesus came, although he had the “good news” to proclaim, he did not undermine the Law and the Prophets. “Have you not read” was a common phrase he used. His sermon on the mount is very clear in this regard. It was not meant to nullify the old but to fulfill it. He came to raise the bar, not to do away with that which went before. Jesus Christ made it clear that “the Word of God cannot be broken.” (John 10:35). John 5:39 makes it clear that the scriptures (referring to the Old Testament) testify of the Son of God. Thus, all in all, there is no basis for advocating any assertion that God proclaims part-truths that later got corrupted, or that God might, at a later date, feel the need to re-proclaim Truth so as to act as a ‘remedy’ for lost or corrupted Truth. That is not consistent with God’s working in any way.

A deeper study of Scripture (for example the events surrounding Eve’s temptation) can lead one to truly understand why one would even MAKE such an allegation in the first place OR, beyond that, why one can FALL FOR that cheap slur against God’s Word in order to undermine it. I wouldn’t go into that for space however.

Obviously, people can, in their folly, misunderstand God’s word or choose not to obey God’s word. They can even misrepresent Him in some way or elevate their traditions to the status of the word of God (like the Pharisees did) – however, they cannot erode God’s Word. God’s word, like God’s people, cannot be wiped out and it is established forever. Obviously, there can be copy errors in translation or other such minor mistakes – however, they’d remain minor mistakes that can easily be identified on examination of the numerous manuscripts that abound and they do not affect the core doctrines of the faith in any way.
God’s truth is a canon and the canon of Scripture is complete, it leaves no room for any new claims of divine inspiration, not to mention claims of inspiration that try to lay claim to the Son of God and certain teachings in the Scriptures while undermining the whole of the Scriptures themselves and contradicting the doctrines of Christ.

@m_nwankwo,
Sorry I'm just replying. And thanks for responding. While you addressed some of the issues I raised, there were yet others that I assume you missed.
For now, i'd only focus in detail on point number four in your post, while i'd just quote a scripture in regards to 5. Hopefully, if i find the time, i can address the other points in more detail. Pardon the length of my post, I have a lot to say on the issue and I have a hard time knowing what not to say in order to prevent being misunderstood whilst still preserving clarity.
Furthermore, permit me not to accept your claims at face value, just like you do not accept mine.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=92544.msg1688228#msg1688228 date=1195227237]4. Revelations of God are adapted to the spiritual maturity of the people recieveing the revelations.  You do not teach calculus to a kid in primary school. You teach him the simple arithematic. If he learns the simple maths, he will one day be an expert in calculus.[/quote]Your analogy might suffice for certain things – however it doesn’t work when we are talking about the Word of God. The word of God is not algebra, neither is it calculus. The word of God is spirit and life. I do not agree with the statement “revelations of God are ADAPTED TO the spiritual maturity of the people receiving the revelations” in the context of discussing Scripture and I’d explain why.

I guess by the “people receiving the revelations” you mean the prophets (who wrote down the scriptures) although I assume you could also mean the audience of such a revelation of God or who receive a revelation (of God) when studying the scriptures. I’d address both and likewise try to define what revelation means.

Again, you fail to understand the concept and the context of the written Word of God. The Scriptures are inspired as they were written. They can contain the spoken words of God, events, history, and so on – all those things together are still scripture. The person who reads scripture, if his inner eyes are open, receives a revelation of the written word of God, and this revelation of God is profitable unto that individual for growth and transformation. The ‘revelation of God’, in the first place, cannot be adapted to the level of spiritual maturity of the recipient simply because it assumes that one can be spiritually mature independent of God’s Word. That is clearly not the case. Spiritual maturity is not a product of doing right and wrong or even of a superior form of morality – it is a product of the word of God being fed to our spirits (2Cor. 3:18). How then can the same spiritual maturity be a condition or a limiting factor for receiving what is meant to produce it?

My argument is not that those who wrote the scriptures were not spiritually mature, definitely they were, it is that their spiritual maturity is not the criterion for writing down what God inspired them to write.

Apart from plain logic, one can consider the case from the scriptures themselves.
In the first scenario, as for you referring to the level of spiritual maturity of those prophets who wrote it, the scriptures are clear against that being the case. The written word of God was not determined by the level of maturity of those who wrote it. We can assume that the level of a man’s maturity will be reflected in his level of understanding of God and His Ways. Here is a scripture:
2Pet. 1:21
“For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
I don’t want to quote the whole context, however it is clear that the inspiration for the writing of scripture was not dependent on the level of maturity of the prophets or even the extent of their understanding. Earlier in 1Pet. 1:10-12, Peter had shown that the prophets did not even understand fully the time and circumstances of what the Holy Spirit said through them, yet they wrote it down nonetheless. Thus, it is not the level of the person that determines what is written, it is whether they are inspired or not.

And if you mean it to refer to the objects of the Word, in the New Testament for example, Jesus said many things to the disciples. Many of those things they did not understand until after his death and resurrection – if the Word was dependent upon and thus adapted to their level, then He would not have said those things that they could not understand at the moment. Yet he said them nonetheless, because he knew that the time would come when they would be able to understand it.
Furthermore, populations of people are not usually at the same level spiritually, how then can the Scripture be ‘adapted to’ the level of the receivers of the said? The audience of scripture is universal – not confined to a certain time frame. Furthermore, they are not all at the same level; the same word that is sown on fertile soil is the same that fell on the roadside and the same that got choked by thorns.
Claiming that God’s word is adapted to our level is clearly not consistent with God’s working.

Coming to the issue of revelation, to the individual (I mean that is a member of the population to which the written word is sent) the degree of revelation that that individual does possess will correlate with the person’s level of maturity. However, even in that, it is still not exactly as you put it up there (note that I didn’t say “adapted to”). You cannot attain any form of spiritual maturity without the Word; it is the Word that makes one spiritually mature. The Word of God always draws us up: that’s why John was told to “Come up hither” (Rev. 4:1). It is by abiding in His Word that we grow. Those who walk in what they have seen would be “blessed in what (they) do” (James 1:25). Thus, even for the newly born in Christ, the milk of God’s Word is not adapted to their level – it is given for their growth.

The level of the Word that has been revealed to you with determine your level of maturity – and this in turn determines how much more of God’s written Word you can “see”. Obviously the baby cannot chew solid meat, however, it is not that God then brings about a new book of Truth, rather He gives us greater insight into that which He has already written. God’s revelations are ‘seen’ and the seeing is commensurate with the degree of light that one has. God does reveal His Word. When we feed from God’s word, we can only assimilate as much as the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to see; and we would continue to seek and see, that is why the study of the Word for a child of God is a lifelong process. Thus, it is true that “we speak a message of wisdom among them that are mature”. That is to be distinguished from scripture. The Word of God (scripture) is unchanging and complete and there is no need for any new book of truth.

@purist,

Purist:
I am inclined to agree with enitan2002 based on these:

* http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/isaiah7.htm
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

. . . save for the part where he refers to them as "thing". (j/k)

Rebuttals, anyone?

the links you provided do not provide a basis for agreeing with enitan2002 for the simple reason that they are not referring to the same thing. The "problem" in those links is that they claim that Matthew's reference to Isaiah is not justified as a fulfilment of prophecy while enitan's claim is that Immanuel is the Holy Spirit - IN NO PLACE does the bible refer to Immanuel as the Holy Spirit. So the latter is a non-issue.

As regards the point in those links, its very simple: if the correct rendition of the text in Isaiah were "woman" then the verse has no meaning and is self-defeating, for there is no "sign" (or miracle) involved in a woman giving birth to a child and calling him certain names; anybody can wake up and do that. It only becomes extraordinary and thus warrant the designation "a sign" if a VIRGIN gives birth to a Son.

In the Septuagint, the greek word for "virgin" is used in that text in Isaiah, and there is no basis for dismissing it. We don't have the hebrew autograph - the masoretic text is also a copy, even though its in Hebrew. Cheers