"in the Spirit"

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Some people are so caught up on exact wordings of things that they'd deny Jesus ever used the bathroom because it's not worded exactly like that in Scripture. C'mon guys... it's a spiritual book. Not a legal manual.

Strawman.

[shazeep]

no, thats not really fair. There is also a reading in the spirit, and many of the stories have other dimensions. While that may not apply here, such hair-splitting is usually a kind of telltale to me...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

no, thats not really fair. There is also a reading in the spirit, and many of the stories have other dimensions. While that may not apply here, such hair-splitting is usually a kind of telltale to me...

What do you mean by "reading in the spirit"?

[shazeep]

by that i mean understanding the spiritual analogues or equivalents of many Scriptural passages that might seem to be describing some rather mundane situation. The Bible is a spiritual Book--i'm sure you agree--that describes spiritual principles that there really are no words for, and so an approximation is made by retelling a mundane story where things stand for other things spiritually.

As a rule, these comparisons come to me, at least, after reading/thinking on some ambiguous passage, and praying for clarity, then witnessing some reflection of it in real life--usually with me in the "painful" spot in the situation, if there is one
Thankfully i seem to have got past the more painful lessons--but this also worries me somewhat, as i know one could spend a Methusala's age in learning, and still not grasp the whole of God.

So, these are often things that could not be "proven," like "women watering camels" in Genesis, etc., but still provide meaningful reflections to one who has seen the symbology in those three words (for instance).

[mfblume]

Aquila, please read this again...

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen!

The human spirit in union with God's Spirit upon new birth is what was formerly dead before salvation, like an empty holiest of holies in the temple. Our human spirits come alive and into union with God's Spirit. And through the human spirit God can do many things with His Spirit. Including prayer. And that does not have to include tongues. BUT, when PAUL spoke of prayer in the Spirit he was specifically talking about HIS HUMAN SPIRIT in that instance because he contrasted it from HIS understanding. With our understanding (soul) we pray in native language. We UNDERSTAND what we are praying. But when OUR spirits pray it is in tongues and we cannot understand what we are saying, ourselves! Our understanding is unfruitful.

That's why Paul said earlier that no man understands, not even the speaker, when he speaks in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

The translators of the KJV recognized this distinction between God's spirit and the human spirit. so they capitalized the term when in reference to God, but not in reference to human. I do not derive my beliefs from their uses of capitalization of words, but in this case they were right!

It is a case of understanding versus not understanding. And since tongues was the subject of 1 Cor 14, praying in tongues is not praying with understanding.

Too many seem to think that prayer in the spirit is contrasted from prayer when God is not involved, when that is not the point at all. It's like saying someone is in the flesh when some people hear a person not in the spirit. They only know the contrast between ONE SPIRIT, God's, whenever the word SPIRIT is mentioned, and it is ALWAYS contrasting fleshly things from it when it is mentioned. And that is not the case at all.

Esaias thought prayer in the human spirit meant God's Spirit is not involved, and that is not the case at all. Aquila thought prayer in the spirit meant the same thing, but in the context Paul wrote of it both are wrong.

Just because I pray in the understanding does not mean I pray without the presence of God leading me. That's what you folks seem to think Paul was contrasting, and it wasn't.

If we want to talk about leading of God's Spirit, then yes prayer does not have to involve tongues. But Paul was not speaking of that at all in 1 Cor 14. AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE TRYING TO SAY.