Created For DESTRUCTION!

[brightfame52]

It is NOT the same. The word "carnal" and the word "flesh" are NOT interchangeable. "Flesh" means flesh. "Carnal" means fleshly, and even if we were to allow such a bait and switch, we'd have to acknowledge the post-Genesis 3:7 nature inherent in Romans 8:7.

They are the same word, carnal in vs 7 and the word flesh in vs 8 are the same sarx Rom 8:7-8

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[SeventhDay]

I agree. The flesh of a person is different after Genesis 3:7 than prior to Genesis 3:7. From Genesis 3:7 on the flesh of a human is corrupted by the disobedience of one man that has brought the inevitability of sin and sinful death to all humans. Yes?

When Paul wrote the words, "The mind of flesh is hostile to God. It does not and cannot please God," was Paul writing about pre-Genesis 3:7 good and sinless (not-corrupted) flesh, post-Genesis 3:7 corrupted flesh, or all flesh whether good and sinless of sinfully corrupted because there is some yet unspecified aspect of flesh that makes it impossible to please God, the God who made the good and sinless flesh in the first place?

1. Pre-Genesis 3:7 flesh that is good and sinless.
2. Post-Genesis 3:7 flesh that has changed to become corrupted.
3. All flesh because there is an as yet unspecified inherent aspect to flesh, whether good and sinless or sinfully corrupted that makes it incapable of pleasing the God who made it.

About which kind of flesh is Paul writing (1, 2, or 3)?

3.1! Now, let us go through Thayer's contextual definitions one by one. Please explain the first one.

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

The carnal mind of the flesh has never been subject to the Law of God, that was made manifest by the sin of adam, the temptation of the devil proved it Deut 13 3

Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Four replies:

1. You've had plenty of opportunity to discuss things with me in the past and refused to do so if and when any disagreement occurs, usually being unnecessarily divisive, rancorous, and unkind (see here, for example) so I'm not interested in anything you have to post until you set things right,
2. This discussion between @SeventhDay and I is not about the theology of carnality so Post 160 is off-topic and disrupting a conversation that does not want or need that commentary,
3. It is true the carnal mind has never been subject to the Law of God, but because of points 1 and 2 above I'm not going to digress discussing what is already known by everyone here, or waste my time trying to discuss the matter with someone who's already demonstrated an inability to do so (as well as a propensity to post ad nauseam to himself).
4. I do not care whether this post is liked or not.

Fix the pre-existing problem first.

 

[Josheb]

3.1! Now, let us go through Thayer's contextual definitions one by one. Please explain the first one.

No. Let's not.

Thayer's contextual definition is not denotative. It is connotative. That is the problem to be solved. You have, from the very beginning asserted a contextual, a connotative, definition over and at the expense of a denotative definition. That can't happen in sound exegesis. Third, the word "carnal," doesn't exist in the verse in question. There's no "contextual definition for a word that doesn't exist. You mean to provide a contextual definition of "sarx," not carnal. That's a bait and switch. I'm not having it. If the KJV didn't exist this discussion would not be happening. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because a doctrinally biased translation uses language that's more than 400 years old which does NOT exist in the Greek (which is something we have already established and agreed upon). Furthermore, neither you nor I need Thayer to understand the contextual definition (post-Genesis 3:7 flesh) and.....

You're not answering the question asked.

You asked me to take this one point at a time and now you're trying to have an extra-biblical source answer the question for you. Why do you need Thayer to answer the question asked?


When Paul wrote the words, "The mind of flesh is hostile to God. It does not and cannot please God," was Paul writing about pre-Genesis 3:7 good and sinless (not-corrupted) flesh, post-Genesis 3:7 corrupted flesh, or all flesh whether good and sinless of sinfully corrupted because there is some yet unspecified aspect of flesh that makes it impossible to please God, the God who made the good and sinless flesh in the first place?

1. Pre-Genesis 3:7 flesh that is good and sinless.
2. Post-Genesis 3:7 flesh that has changed to become corrupted.
3. All flesh because there is an as yet unspecified inherent aspect to flesh, whether good and sinless or sinfully corrupted that makes it incapable of pleasing the God who made it.

About which kind of flesh is Paul writing (1, 2, or 3)?


.

 

[brightfame52]

Four replies:

1. You've had plenty of opportunity to discuss things with me in the past and refused to do so if and when any disagreement occurs, usually being unnecessarily divisive, rancorous, and unkind (see here, for example) so I'm not interested in anything you have to post until you set things right,
2. This discussion between @SeventhDay and I is not about the theology of carnality so Post 160 is off-topic and disrupting a conversation that does not want or need that commentary,
3. It is true the carnal mind has never been subject to the Law of God, but because of points 1 and 2 above I'm not going to digress discussing what is already known by everyone here, or waste my time trying to discuss the matter with someone who's already demonstrated an inability to do so (as well as a propensity to post ad nauseam to himself).
4. I do not care whether this post is liked or not.

Fix the pre-existing problem first.

The carnal mind and the flesh are one and the same.

 

[brightfame52]

Gods purpose for making the reprobate/the vessels of wrath, is to show or demonstrate His Wrath against human sin. This is altogether humbling to the Vessels of Mercy, in that they realize that the Sovereign Potter had the right and power to have made them also Vessels of Wrath and to fit them for destruction, but He had chosen them in Christ to be Vessels of Mercy to And that he might make known the riches of his glory

Eph 1:18

The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

See also Eph 3:16;Phil 4:19;Col 1:27 5

 

[SeventhDay]

No. Let's not.

Thayer's contextual definition is not denotative. It is connotative. That is the problem to be solved. You have, from the very beginning asserted a contextual, a connotative, definition over and at the expense of a denotative definition. That can't happen in sound exegesis. Third, the word "carnal," doesn't exist in the verse in question. There's no "contextual definition for a word that doesn't exist. You mean to provide a contextual definition of "sarx," not carnal. That's a bait and switch. I'm not having it. If the KJV didn't exist this discussion would not be happening. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because a doctrinally biased translation uses language that's more than 400 years old which does NOT exist in the Greek (which is something we have already established and agreed upon). Furthermore, neither you nor I need Thayer to understand the contextual definition (post-Genesis 3:7 flesh) and.....

You're not answering the question asked.

You asked me to take this one point at a time and now you're trying to have an extra-biblical source answer the question for you. Why do you need Thayer to answer the question asked?


When Paul wrote the words, "The mind of flesh is hostile to God. It does not and cannot please God," was Paul writing about pre-Genesis 3:7 good and sinless (not-corrupted) flesh, post-Genesis 3:7 corrupted flesh, or all flesh whether good and sinless of sinfully corrupted because there is some yet unspecified aspect of flesh that makes it impossible to please God, the God who made the good and sinless flesh in the first place?

1. Pre-Genesis 3:7 flesh that is good and sinless.
2. Post-Genesis 3:7 flesh that has changed to become corrupted.
3. All flesh because there is an as yet unspecified inherent aspect to flesh, whether good and sinless or sinfully corrupted that makes it incapable of pleasing the God who made it.

About which kind of flesh is Paul writing (1, 2, or 3)?


.

Sorry, I meant that the definitions are based on how the words are used contextually and why nor understand fully its usages. Connotation is important of course and that should be discussed which is more important and we have not discussed it enough either. However, I did answer question and you ought to have read it. Now, let us work together at this. There is more to this than the one scripture that you gave.

 

[SeventhDay]

No. Let's not.

Thayer's contextual definition is not denotative. It is connotative. That is the problem to be solved. You have, from the very beginning asserted a contextual, a connotative, definition over and at the expense of a denotative definition. That can't happen in sound exegesis. Third, the word "carnal," doesn't exist in the verse in question. There's no "contextual definition for a word that doesn't exist. You mean to provide a contextual definition of "sarx," not carnal. That's a bait and switch. I'm not having it. If the KJV didn't exist this discussion would not be happening. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because a doctrinally biased translation uses language that's more than 400 years old which does NOT exist in the Greek (which is something we have already established and agreed upon). Furthermore, neither you nor I need Thayer to understand the contextual definition (post-Genesis 3:7 flesh) and.....

You're not answering the question asked.

You asked me to take this one point at a time and now you're trying to have an extra-biblical source answer the question for you. Why do you need Thayer to answer the question asked?


When Paul wrote the words, "The mind of flesh is hostile to God. It does not and cannot please God," was Paul writing about pre-Genesis 3:7 good and sinless (not-corrupted) flesh, post-Genesis 3:7 corrupted flesh, or all flesh whether good and sinless of sinfully corrupted because there is some yet unspecified aspect of flesh that makes it impossible to please God, the God who made the good and sinless flesh in the first place?

1. Pre-Genesis 3:7 flesh that is good and sinless.
2. Post-Genesis 3:7 flesh that has changed to become corrupted.
3. All flesh because there is an as yet unspecified inherent aspect to flesh, whether good and sinless or sinfully corrupted that makes it incapable of pleasing the God who made it.

About which kind of flesh is Paul writing (1, 2, or 3)?


.

One when examining a word must consider both context and its connotation. I will give you an example: If we were to discuss a particular mountain despite there are many kind of mountains we would perceive it in the perspective we are standing in.or looking at. Perspective would be its context and from that comes how e use the word for mountain. There are many kinds of mountain and how we see each mountain depends on where we are standing when we look at it. Words are defined by its context and this determines its usage.

 

[SeventhDay]

No. Let's not.

Thayer's contextual definition is not denotative. It is connotative. That is the problem to be solved. You have, from the very beginning asserted a contextual, a connotative, definition over and at the expense of a denotative definition. That can't happen in sound exegesis. Third, the word "carnal," doesn't exist in the verse in question. There's no "contextual definition for a word that doesn't exist. You mean to provide a contextual definition of "sarx," not carnal. That's a bait and switch. I'm not having it. If the KJV didn't exist this discussion would not be happening. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because a doctrinally biased translation uses language that's more than 400 years old which does NOT exist in the Greek (which is something we have already established and agreed upon). Furthermore, neither you nor I need Thayer to understand the contextual definition (post-Genesis 3:7 flesh) and.....

You're not answering the question asked.

You asked me to take this one point at a time and now you're trying to have an extra-biblical source answer the question for you. Why do you need Thayer to answer the question asked?


When Paul wrote the words, "The mind of flesh is hostile to God. It does not and cannot please God," was Paul writing about pre-Genesis 3:7 good and sinless (not-corrupted) flesh, post-Genesis 3:7 corrupted flesh, or all flesh whether good and sinless of sinfully corrupted because there is some yet unspecified aspect of flesh that makes it impossible to please God, the God who made the good and sinless flesh in the first place?

1. Pre-Genesis 3:7 flesh that is good and sinless.
2. Post-Genesis 3:7 flesh that has changed to become corrupted.
3. All flesh because there is an as yet unspecified inherent aspect to flesh, whether good and sinless or sinfully corrupted that makes it incapable of pleasing the God who made it.

About which kind of flesh is Paul writing (1, 2, or 3)?


.

We are coming to the place Watchman Nee came to when he was discussing the spiritual man and contrasting it with the soul.. He realized that the soul could be in different states and thus the usage of the word must be used in regard to what state that it is in. Was the state the soul was in was it is its normal or natural state or in a different state than that. Thus he came up with the words soulical and soulish to describe what state it was in. I know that you do not agree with Watchman Nee but we ate looking at "flesh" in the same way. What state that the soul is in and you are making this an important point and so you should. Context and usage if fundamental to our understanding!Paul also dealt with that issue as well!

 

[Josheb]

The carnal mind and the flesh are one and the same.

No, they are not.

 

[Josheb]

Sorry, I meant that the definitions are based on how the words are used contextually and why nor understand fully its usages. Connotation is important of course and that should be discussed which is more important and we have not discussed it enough either. However, I did answer question and you ought to have read it. Now, let us work together at this. There is more to this than the one scripture that you gave.

One when examining a word must consider both context and its connotation. I will give you an example: If we were to discuss a particular mountain despite there are many kind of mountains we would perceive it in the perspective we are standing in.or looking at. Perspective would be its context and from that comes how e use the word for mountain. There are many kinds of mountain and how we see each mountain depends on where we are standing when we look at it. Words are defined by its context and this determines its usage.

We are coming to the place Watchman Nee came to when he was discussing the spiritual man and contrasting it with the soul.. He realized that the soul could be in different states and thus the usage of the word must be used in regard to what state that it is in. Was the state the soul was in was it is its normal or natural state or in a different state than that. Thus he came up with the words soulical and soulish to describe what state it was in. I know that you do not agree with Watchman Nee but we ate looking at "flesh" in the same way. What state that the soul is in and you are making this an important point and so you should. Context and usage if fundamental to our understanding!Paul also dealt with that issue as well!

Last chance...


It's a simple question...

When Paul wrote the words, "The mind of flesh is hostile to God. It does not and cannot please God," was Paul writing about pre-Genesis 3:7 good and sinless (not-corrupted) flesh, post-Genesis 3:7 corrupted flesh, or all flesh whether good and sinless of sinfully corrupted because there is some yet unspecified aspect of flesh that makes it impossible to please God, the God who made the good and sinless flesh in the first place?

1. Pre-Genesis 3:7 flesh that is good and sinless.
2. Post-Genesis 3:7 flesh that has changed to become corrupted.
3. All flesh because there is an as yet unspecified inherent aspect to flesh, whether good and sinless or sinfully corrupted that makes it incapable of pleasing the God who made it.

About which kind of flesh is Paul writing (1, 2, or 3)?

.

The answer is 1, 2, or 3.

Pick one and post it.


Btw, Nee was wrong. Nee held to a tripartite view of humanity and he did so based on the KJV translation (which translated Genesis 2:7 inaccurately). I have read everything Nee wrote and would count him as one of the two most influential Christian writers on my early understanding of Christ and Christianity. I will NOT be entertaining further digression about Nee; I simply want you to know I know Nee, and I know him well. We are NOT coming to "the place Nee came to..." We're past the place Nee failed to get correct.


Now please answer the question asked. 1, 2, or 3?

 

[brightfame52]

No, they are not.

Yes they are, you just cant see it

 

[SeventhDay]

Last chance...


It's a simple question...

The answer is 1, 2, or 3.

Pick one and post it.


Btw, Nee was wrong. Nee held to a tripartite view of humanity and he did so based on the KJV translation (which translated Genesis 2:7 inaccurately). I have read everything Nee wrote and would count him as one of the two most influential Christian writers on my early understanding of Christ and Christianity. I will NOT be entertaining further digression about Nee; I simply want you to know I know Nee, and I know him well. We are NOT coming to "the place Nee came to..." We're past the place Nee failed to get correct.


Now please answer the question asked. 1, 2, or 3?

Looks like the conversation is finished, Jobsheb. As you said, last chance. Bye!

 

[brightfame52]

The vessels of wrath are to be fitted for destruction in the purpose of God.

Its never Gods purpose for the vessels of wrath to be saved from the wrath to come, in fact its His design for them to fill up the measure of their sin. Jesus told some men this Matt 23:31-33

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.


32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


In Vs 32, Jesus is giving a command or an imperative to this wicked seed of the serpent, not to repent, but to continue in the wickedness of their fathers in killing the people of God, even Christ Himself, and gave them no hope at all of escaping the damnation of hell !

No, they are not of those which Jesus came to call to repentance, but contrary, they must continue in hardheartedness and rebellion to fill up their measure being fitted for destruction, even damnation !

 

[brightfame52]

The vessels of wrath are to be fitted for destruction in the purpose of God.

Matt 23:32-33 ; Rom 9:22

All who are vessels of wrath are compelled by the decree of God to fill up the measure of their sins and enmity against God, so making apparent their meetness for destruction, and so God shows how He is Just in punishing them for their sins, Col 3:5-6

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:


6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

God had determined before the world began, what degree of punishment the vessels of wrath would be fitted for, each one.

 

[SeventhDay]

The vessels of wrath are to be fitted for destruction in the purpose of God.

Matt 23:32-33 ; Rom 9:22

All who are vessels of wrath are compelled by the decree of God to fill up the measure of their sins and enmity against God, so making apparent their meetness for destruction, and so God shows how He is Just in punishing them for their sins, Col 3:5-6

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:


6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

God had determined before the world began, what degree of punishment the vessels of wrath would be fitted for, each one.

We have all been vessels of wrath and take not God will save all of creation without exception!

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
Rom 11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

 

[brightfame52]

@SeventhDay

We have all been vessels of wrath

False, that would mean none were vessels of mercy.

 

[SeventhDay]

@SeventhDay



False, that would mean none were vessels of mercy.

All become vessel of mercy, brother. Read Romans chapter 11 carefully!

 

[Mr GLee]

All become vessel of mercy, brother. Read Romans chapter 11 carefully!

Yes, become not the source of the power.(faith the unsen power

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men put new wine (spirit) into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine (spirit) runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Remember the Catholic just like the faithless Jew they must call blessed by the mercy of the unseen invisible head Christ our sister in the Lord Mary.

The Faithless Jews . they had a different name for their own invisible mother of mercy. . same his and hers gods. The legion of patron saints. venerable dead men

 

[brightfame52]

All become vessel of mercy, brother. Read Romans chapter 11 carefully!

Thats clearly false.