Romans 1:20. Those who study the things that He made. There is strong logic to that. Everything we do or make is a product of the condition of our minds. Frightening, isn't it?

Tom

In the context of this discussion, for Jesus to be a better source of knowledge about God than the authors who wrote about what Jesus thaught while walking earth would require personal special revelation for everyone. Maybe He is teaching people appart from any biblical source but it doesnt seem to be the norm does it?

Darius

Quote:

---

Romans 1:20. Those who study the things that He made. There is strong logic to that. Everything we do or make is a product of the condition of our minds. Frightening, isn't it?

---

While God ougth to be made plain for those who study His creation, you will find the majority of those who pursue this field to be either atheists or agnostics, and even of them who would call themselves christians most would not acknowledge Him as Creator. The following verses are all to true:

Quote:

---

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

---

My base for saying this is having spent four of the last five years at different biology institutions at two different universities.

I had in mind for the thread to focus on the spirit of man rather than on God. God enters in because we're made in His image. Would anyone like to address the soul/spirit difference in man based on what revelation tells us or from nature - but not from speculation! Darius, how about you?

Jesus Christ uses many sources to reveal truth. The purpose of the Scriptures is to testify of Him.

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. (John 5:39, 40)

While God ought to be plain from a study of the Scriptures, you will find that the majority of those who pursue this field to have worse concepts of God's character than those who are totally ignorant of it. I say this on the basis of studying for 6 years at a religious/theological institution.

I'm just making an ironic observation here; I'm not denigrating the Scriptures in any way. The problem is with those who read the Scriptures, not with the Scriptures themselves.

I'll give a perfect example of this. When Jesus Christ taught, He said He spoke not of Himself, but spoke the words He heard from His Father, and did the works He saw Him doing. Now where did Jesus see and hear these things? From His study of the Old Testament. So Jesus was basically saying, "If you want to know what I think God is like based on My study of the Old Testament, just look at Me."

Now when we look at Jesus Christ, we see one thing, but when we look at the Old Testament God, we see something totally different. What we actually see is not the true God, but a caricature. The true God we see in Jesus Christ. Now the true God was revealed in the Old Testament, but as a glass dimly, or, as Paul puts it, through a veil. Through Jesus Christ the veil is removed, and we see what God is really like.

But Jesus saw the truth about God when He studied the Old Testament, because that's where He learned that truth. So this shows that the difference is not in the Scriptures, so both Christ as we study the same Old Testament, but in the one reading those Scriptures. He saw something totally different in them than we do.

Oh for the eyes of Jesus Christ!

How would anything we said about the soul/spirit based on nature, but not inspiration, be anything but speculation?

One comment I would make is that it is a mistake to take the Scriptures that say split man up into parts, such as body, soul and spirit, too literally, as if these were exact divisions. This is easily seen in that the divisions are split up differently. For example, one place says "body, soul, and spirit" while another says, "mind, heart, soul and strength." So if we are going to use the one text to say man is comprised of three distinct things, "body, soul, and spirit," say like a three roomed house, where each thing corresponds to a different room, then to be consistent, from the other text we'd have to say that man is comprised of four distinct things, which are "mind, heart, soul and strength."

So we shouldn't take these things too literally, but should instead try to understand the meaning that is trying to be communicated.

Mark, humans are not spirit beings nor do they have spirits. Let us not be bound by the misunderstandings of men who wrote the best they understood thousands of years ago. I can't comment on a concept that is not supported by enlightened facts.

Darius,

You say that with so much certainty, therefore, what is the basis, what is the authority of your certainty?