Two Realms of Existence

[didymus]

It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding about existence. There are two realms of existence. A physical realm, and a non-physical (spiritual) realm.

I have noticed throughout life, and recently in these forums that people are trying to understand the spiritual by using physical understanding. The apostle Paul states in I Corinthians 2.14, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

We see this dual existence also in Romans 7. There Paul talks about a war between the flesh and the spirit. The flesh is corrupt, but the Spirit of God is incorruption.

When the Bible speaks of a spiritual condition, you can not use physical senses to understand it. You can not understand incorruption through corruption.

To understand the spiritual realm, you must be in the spiritual realm. The only way for the flesh to understand the spiritual realm, the flesh must co-exist with the spiritual realm. That can only be accomplished in Christ. So, only those in Christ will understand the things of the Spirit of God.

So, when you are talking about death, are you talking about spiritual or physical death? When you are talking about tears, are you talking about physical or spiritual tears? When you are talking about pain, are you talking about physical or spiritual pain?

Sorry, I accidently hit the the "post" button before I was finished. It was the corrupt flesh that did that.

In the thread, "I'm a Trinitarian," worshippingjesus posted, "Where is the explanation for the scripture that says there will be "no more pain" or that pain will cease to exist?

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. Rev 21:4 "

It is apparent that some are looking at this passage in a physical sense, when it is clearly spiritual. The verse in question is obviously talking about life in the "new heaven and new earth," and the "New Jerusalem," which are spiritual. This all happens in Christ. Notice the phrase, "And God Himself will be with them..."

Notice Matthew 1.23. "'... they shall call His name Immanuel,' which is translated, 'God with us.'"

Whatever question you might have, you will find the answer in Christ. Christ is at the center of all things, and all things are fulfilled in Christ. And since Christ is a "life-giving Spirit" as quoted by Stormcrow in the thread "Isaiah 25.9," "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit," all things in Christ are spiritual. So, in order to understand all things spiritual, you must be in Christ.

[Allyn]

Dec 27, 2010 17:25:35 GMT -5 @didymus said:

It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding about existence. There are two realms of existence. A physical realm, and a non-physical (spiritual) realm.

I have noticed throughout life, and recently in these forums that people are trying to understand the spiritual by using physical understanding. The apostle Paul states in I Corinthians 2.14, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

We see this dual existence also in Romans 7. There Paul talks about a war between the flesh and the spirit. The flesh is corrupt, but the Spirit of God is incorruption.

When the Bible speaks of a spiritual condition, you can not use physical senses to understand it. You can not understand incorruption through corruption.

To understand the spiritual realm, you must be in the spiritual realm. The only way for the flesh to understand the spiritual realm, the flesh must co-exist with the spiritual realm. That can only be accomplished in Christ. So, only those in Christ will understand the things of the Spirit of God.

So, when you are talking about death, are you talking about spiritual or physical death? When you are talking about tears, are you talking about physical or spiritual tears? When you are talking about pain, are you talking about physical or spiritual pain?

I for one try to be specific when speaking about one or the other.

[didymus]

Allyn wrote:

I for one try to be specific when speaking about one or the other.

May I ask what you mean by that? Are you saying that you understand there are two realms of existence, and when you speak about one or the other, you are careful to specify which one?

Now that I am finished, you can now read the rest.

[didymus]

In re-reading this thread, it seems there is something I forgot.

The spiritual realm is in control of the physical realm. As it is written, "just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works/obedience is dead."

The physical body can not do anything apart from the spirit. Of course that is the spirit of man. When we are regenerated through Christ, we are not regenerated physically, but spiritually.

We are taught that we are predestined to be conformed to image of God's Son. Is this conformation physical or spiritual? No doubt, it is spiritual. If it is physical, would we all not have the same physical appearance of Christ?

Once we are in Christ, our spirit will comform to the spiritual image of Christ as we are predestined to. This means we will begin to act like Christ, to the point of death, if called upon to make that sacrifice. These actions in another term are called fruit. When we exibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our actions, that is proof of our salvation. As it is written, "by their fruit you will know them."

I too thought this was settled doctrine. Even in my days as a futurist, I thought this was settled doctrine, that all things in Christ are spiritual in nature. I never expected a physical resurrection. I was never were taught that. I guess the futureists I grew up with were different than the futurists of today. I was taught a future resurrection, but not a physical resurrection. It was a glorified body we would be raised in, not the physical body I lived in all these years. So, this physical resurrection is rather new to me.

It seems to me that this whole physical resurrection idea was conjured up by those who needed to prove preterism to be wrong. If preterism was proved to be right, and the masses were convinced so, what would happen to the big business connected to futurism? Harold Camping would be exposed as the fraud that he is, if he hadn't been already. John Hagee would exposed as a fraud, which he is. And all those futurist TV preachers would have their livelyhoods at stake. Even the great David Jeremiah would be questioned. We can't have that, can we?

So this new breed of futurists have taught things that were never taught before. They went from a spiritural futurism to a physical futurism. The reason for this is the difference between spiritual futurism and spiritual (full) preterism is simple timing. So, a new argument had to be found. The difference between physical futurism and spiritual preterism is not just timing, but also fulfillment. If you can show that fulfillment hasn't happened because it hasn't happened physically, that can destroy preterism. And, indeed it can. Preterism cannot show a physical fulfillment of all prophecies.

As a result we now have a battle between spiritual (full) preterism and physical (partial) preterism. We can see the physical fulfillment of the birth, death, burial and resurrection of Christ. We can see the destruction of the temple. But there it ends. We can not show the spiritual return of Christ, the spiritual resurrection. That is why it is so important to understand the two realms of existence. And, what happens in the spiritual realm and what happens in the physical realm.

What happens in the physical realm, happens in the spiritual realm first because the spiritual relam is in control od the physical realm. So, even if there is a physical resurection, there must forst be a spiritual resurrection first. So, then we are back to the difference between spiritual futurism and spiritual preterism. And that is a matter of timing.

When it comes to timing, preterism wins out. There are many timeing statements that this things are "at hand," "must quickly come to pass," etc. The timing statements of the New Testament plainly indicates an imminent fulfillment in the time of the original writings.

The only thing that futurists can do is push for a physical fulfillment, and show that the physical fulfillment has not happened yet. Then they must totally ignore the spiritual realm of existence. Once they acknowledge a spiritual realm of existence, they lose the battle. Therefore, they can't answer spiritual questions. They must ignore all spiritual realities.

To deny spiritual realities is an exercise in futility. Why? Because, God is a Spirit, the Holy Spirit is obviously a Spirit, and Christ has become a life-giving Spirit. So, even trinitarians must realize that the three that are one are one in the Spirit.

Then the question is, how does this spiritual reality effect prophecy? No our understanding of prophecy, because we can see that. But, how does this spiritual reality effect prophecy itself. Certainly, prophecies reagrding the birth, death, burial of Christ were physcial prophecies. And prophecies of the destruction of the temple were physical. What about after that? Did Christ return as he said he would, or are we still waiting for what the timing statments suggests are already fulfilled. If spiritual fulfillemnt is required, those not in the spirit will ever accept a spiritual fulfillment.

Those in the spirit will see the spiritual fulfillment. When one does see the spiritual fulfillment, what is the point of reconsidering a physical fulfillment unless to appease futurist friends.

If a spiritual fulfillment, it is impossible to explain it to those in the physical who deny the spiritual realities. So, why try, if not to reach out to those who are predestined to be conformed to the spiritual image of Christ.

Okay - it's your turn.

[mellontes]

Didymus,

It appears that you are trying to show fulfillment as being spiritual in nature. I have no problem with that...

However, as with many preterists (and once also myself), there seems to be a "need" to view the "body" as referring to the physical human form. I do not believe this is the case. Regarding redemptive themes, there are only two bodies:

1. The Adamic body (first Adam)
2. The body of Christ (second Adam)

Redemptive themes always go back to the Garden where it all started. In Revelation, we get back to the tree of life, which is Jesus Christ. It is covenantal from beginning to end, although there are few who like that approach.

In interacting with Keith, I asked him how he would define the old heaven and earth. If he is dispensational, he will have to bring in the planet and universe into his definition because of his understanding of 2 Peter 3. Then I asked him what about the jot and tittles associated with this heaven and earth in Matthew 5:18.

Dispensationalists and every other futurist theology views the old heaven and earth as being mentioned in Genesis chapter one. Somehow this understanding has been lost on most preterists and has been shifted away from Genesis 1. But that begs the question as to why in the NHNE there is no more sea. Where in the Bible does it state that the old heaven and earth had a sea. That's right, Genesis 1...

[didymus]

As usual Ted, you lost me.

What is your point about Gen. 1 in regards to the two realms of existence?

The new heaven and new earth had no sea because the sea represented the gentiles. With the creation of the new heaven and new earth through Christ, there are no Jews nor Gentiles. The cross of Christ brought down the veil that separated the two. Of course, that is part of the spiritual realm, as the New Covenant is a spiritual Covenant for a spiritual kingdom. That is why in the Kingdom of Christ there are no boundaries. Those of us that are in Christ are so no matter where we are in the world. Like you said about the church in another thread. We are the church no matter where we are, in a building, a barn, a meadow, etc.

[mellontes]

Dec 29, 2010 1:35:17 GMT -5 @didymus said:

As usual Ted, you lost me.

What is your point about Gen. 1 in regards to the two realms of existence?

The new heaven and new earth had no sea because the sea represented the gentiles. With the creation of the new heaven and new earth through Christ, there are no Jews nor Gentiles. The cross of Christ brought down the veil that separated the two. Of course, that is part of the spiritual realm, as the New Covenant is a spiritual Covenant for a spiritual kingdom. That is why in the Kingdom of Christ there are no boundaries. Those of us that are in Christ are so no matter where we are in the world. Like you said about the church in another thread. We are the church no matter where we are, in a building, a barn, a meadow, etc.

I like what you posted. You don't seem lost at all...

But to get back to my point which you questioned in regard to Genesis 1, where in Scripture is the original (old) heaven and earth that did include the sea?

[didymus]

Dec 29, 2010 9:32:43 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Dec 29, 2010 1:35:17 GMT -5 @didymus said:

As usual Ted, you lost me.

What is your point about Gen. 1 in regards to the two realms of existence?

The new heaven and new earth had no sea because the sea represented the gentiles. With the creation of the new heaven and new earth through Christ, there are no Jews nor Gentiles. The cross of Christ brought down the veil that separated the two. Of course, that is part of the spiritual realm, as the New Covenant is a spiritual Covenant for a spiritual kingdom. That is why in the Kingdom of Christ there are no boundaries. Those of us that are in Christ are so no matter where we are in the world. Like you said about the church in another thread. We are the church no matter where we are, in a building, a barn, a meadow, etc.

I like what you posted. You don't seem lost at all...

But to get back to my point which you questioned in regard to Genesis 1, where in Scripture is the original (old) heaven and earth that did include the sea?

Now I get it. You are leading to "Covenant Creation."

Under the Old Covenant, the Jews were the land, and the Gentiles the sea. You think that happened in Genesis 1. But, the old Covenant was given to Moses until they were on the way to the promised land, on Mt. Sinai.

That is what you are getting at, isn't it?

I still don't see what that has to do with the two realms of existence.

[mellontes]

Dec 29, 2010 20:55:13 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Under the Old Covenant, the Jews were the land, and the Gentiles the sea. You think that happened in Genesis 1. But, the old Covenant was given to Moses until they were on the way to the promised land, on Mt. Sinai.

That is what you are getting at, isn't it?

I still don't see what that has to do with the two realms of existence.

If the old heaven and earth truly was newly created at or during Sinai, can you please direct me to the passage where the mention of the sea is.

And you do realize that law was enforce long before the Law (which was added because of transgression).

Unless one believes that incest was allowed at one time by our immutable God.

Unless Abel just guessed and, like, totally lucked out regarding an accepted offering.

Unless one believes Cain's murder did not go unpunished.

It's all covenant.

[didymus]

Dec 29, 2010 22:48:14 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Dec 29, 2010 20:55:13 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Under the Old Covenant, the Jews were the land, and the Gentiles the sea. You think that happened in Genesis 1. But, the old Covenant was given to Moses until they were on the way to the promised land, on Mt. Sinai.

That is what you are getting at, isn't it?

I still don't see what that has to do with the two realms of existence.

If the old heaven and earth truly was newly created at or during Sinai, can you please direct me to the passage where the mention of the sea is.

And you do realize that law was enforce long before the Law (which was added because of transgression).

Unless one believes that incest was allowed at one time by our immutable God.

Unless Abel just guessed and, like, totally lucked out regarding an accepted offering.

Unless one believes Cain's murder did not go unpunished.

It's all covenant.

You misunderstand my last post here. I was not making a statement of fact. It was a lead up to the question, "That is what you are getting at, isn't it?"

You are trying to sneak "Covenant Creation" in here. If that is what you are doing please do it elswhere. That is not what this thread is about.

[mellontes]

Didy,

That is usually the type of response I get when asking difficult questions...

If you want to learn more about the two realms, you are going to have to understand and distinguish between the two covenants (from begining to end), the two Israels, the two cities, the two bodies (first Adam, last Adam), the two kingdoms, the two deaths, and the two heaven and earths.

Since the foundation of understanding the sin curse had included physical death, which was IN ERROR, one tends to springboard from that foundation leading to further error - like physical resurrection, for instance.

Understanding the correct foundation of the old heaven and earth is just as necessary. What does the phrase "in the begining" refer to? For instance,

Psalms 102:25 - Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

Many take this passage to be referring to material creation of the universe, etc. There are many passages similar to this all throughout the Bible.

But when the author of Hebrews quotes this verse as in:

Hebrews 1:10 - And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

The author continues further (as it is in the Psalm) by saying:

Hebrews 1:11-12 - They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed...

Do we believe this heaven and earth is going to perish if referring to physical, material creation? No, of course not. That is why preterists have automatically shifted their thinking to Sinai. Very few wish to rethink Genesis 1. It is dismissed out of hand just as futurists dismiss preterism out of hand.

But where in Exodus (Sinai account) does it talk about the creation of the sea? It doesn't.

And as for sneaking around, I hardly think so.

[Allyn]

Administration note:
I think this thread actually invites the reader to address the subject in a way that reader best understands how to deal with the two aspects or realms of existence. Therefore I suggest all who participate in this thread try and realize that there is some refining each of us go through as we get closer to the truth of the matter.

In other words I am seeing some tension building up here and would ask that it not get out of hand.

End of public service announcement.

[didymus]

Mel,

I know what you are doing, and I don't appreciate it one bit. You are hijacking this thread to push your *edit*. We have been through this before. Covenant Creation as you and your friends teach it is false. If you want this thread have at it. I don't need it. I have my own sites where I can start threads without somebody hijacking them for there on twisted doctrines.

Your *edit* has nothing to do with the points I have been making in this thread. This is the type of behavior that got you kicked off my site.

This site was so peaceful when you were gone.

Sorry Allyn, that's the way I feel.



* Note - The term "heresy" will only be acceptable when referring to that which is outside the belief of Salvation through the shed blood and the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. This is subject to change in future incidences.

[mellontes]

Dec 30, 2010 11:29:27 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Mel,

I know what you are doing, and I don't appreciate it one bit. You are hijacking this thread to push your*edit*. We have been through this before. Covenant Creation as you and your friends teach it is false. If you want this thread have at it. I don't need it. I have my own sites where I can start threads without somebody hijacking them for there on twisted doctrines.

Your*edit* has nothing to do with the points I have been making in this thread. This is the type of behavior that got you kicked off my site.

This site was so peaceful when you were gone.

Sorry Allyn, that's the way I feel.

Thanks *edit*. Just because you say it is heresy does not mean it is so. That word gets flung around a little too easily, and coming from a preterist, well, that is just plain intolerable.

I was not here to hijack your thread at all, Didy. It is just that it all leads back to Genesis 1. You just refuse to even look at it or study it out further. And that behaviour is a lot more, shall we say, less desirable.

How do we get back to the tree of life in Revelation if it is not back to the tree of life orignially in the Garden? Where is Sinai in all of that? Answer: nowhere.

But thanks for the usual conversation regarding these things.

*note - the name PaulT is far too inflammatory to be used in this context.

[didymus]

There is now a forum for Covenant Creation. So you don't need any other thread to spew that junk theology. Convince me if you can.

[didymus]

* Note - The term "heresy" will only be acceptable when referring to that which is outside the belief of Salvation through the shed blood and the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. This is subject to change in future incidences.

In my opinion, any religious lie is outside the belief of Salvation through the shed blood and the death, buriel and resurrection of Christ.

If one were to postulate the theory that Jesus died in an electric chair. Would that change the other facts the surrounding the shed blood, death, burial and resurrection of Christ?

[Allyn]

Dec 31, 2010 14:37:52 GMT -5 @didymus said:

* Note - The term "heresy" will only be acceptable when referring to that which is outside the belief of Salvation through the shed blood and the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. This is subject to change in future incidences.

In my opinion, any religious lie is outside the belief of Salvation through the shed blood and the death, buriel and resurrection of Christ.

If one were to postulate the theory that Jesus died in an electric chair. Would that change the other facts the surrounding the shed blood, death, burial and resurrection of Christ?

I'm not sure if you are arguing what is required in belief concerning Christ or not but if someone claimed that Jesus died in the electric chair then that would certainly be heresy for at least two reasons that pop into my head.

Here is what is required of Jesus for the sacrifice to be acceptable to God and for our hope to be based on Him..

1. It must be that He was led to His death.
2. It must be that He shed His blood.
3. It must be that He died.
4. t must be that He was buried.
5. It must be that He rose again.

[didymus]

Allyn,

No disrespect intended, but, what I am trying to point out is the all the Scripture has to be truth in order for the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to be credible. The same God who "in the beginning ... created the heeavens and the earth," is the same God who sent Jesus to be born of a virgin, as Scripture says, to die, as Scripture says, to be buried, as Scripture says, and to be raised from the dead, as Scripture says. If you can't trust what is said in Genesis 1.1, how can you trust any of it?

[Allyn]

Whenever I have discussed CC with any CCer I have always made it known that I have never had a problem with the Covenant of God right up there at the top throughout all of Scripture where Scripture supports it in context and that is where it should be. I still am not sold on the Genesis account being a metaphor for God's covenant with mankind. I just don't see it. However I try to have an open mind and I will be taking a look at the link Ted provided. If I am not convinced then I will be prepared to say why. So I do agree with you when you say:

all the Scripture has to be truth in order for the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to be credible.

[didymus]

Allyn,

Thanks for your understanding, and your tolerance of my strong resistance to this doctrine and the use of this thread to bring it up in. CC has no place within the subject of the OP, do you think? Unless to show that the CC preterists, and the futurists have a problem with seeing the two realms of existence.

Allyn, the points I made in this thread are somewhat important, and I would like if we can back to what this thread was intended.

[didymus]

If ever there was a time to understand the two realms of existence, it's now.

[toml]

Here it is Bev.

[Once4all]

Apr 10, 2011 12:22:54 GMT -5 toml said:

Here it is Bev.

Thanks, Tom. That's the one I was looking for!

[toml]

Apr 10, 2011 15:26:38 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Apr 10, 2011 12:22:54 GMT -5 toml said:

Here it is Bev.

Thanks, Tom. That's the one I was looking for!

Did you find what you were looking for? And, if I may ask, what were you looking for?