Is The Physical Realm Analogous To A Simulated Reality?

[Right Divider]

I would point out, that this specific verse doesn't even mention the spirit, it mentions the flesh.

"Without hands" makes it crystal clear that he is not talking about the physical.

Yet we both agree that it at least has something to do with the spirit. That's what we mean by spiritual, right?

Things of the spirit are spiritual... yes.

Would you agree with me, that when something spiritual happens to us, it means something happened to our spirit?

Not necessarily "to our spirit".

Because spiritual doesn't mean "not real"

I've never made such a claim. I don't know why you would mention it.

When something spiritual happens to us, it means something real has happened to our spirit.

Not necessarily "to our spirit".

So, what was the real thing that actually happened to our spirit when we became saved, that involves:

1. The Flesh
2. Circumcision
3. And the spirit

To me it seems, the answer is clear as day.

The context determines the meaning of terms. "Flesh" often refers to our sinful nature and not necessarily our body.

In Col 2:11, Paul makes it clear that he was not talking about a physical circumcision. He is using circumcision as figure of speech.

I think most Christians today would say something like "Well Paul is just saying that when Christians stop committing the sins they used to commit , it's like the same thing as getting circumcised."

What I am saying is, that may be close to what Paul is saying here. But not quite exact. What Paul is saying is that, when we became saved, Jesus circumcised our spirit from our flesh.

Paul never says anything like "Jesus circumcised our spirit from our flesh". I simply don't see how you can come to that conclusion from any of Paul's writings.

But again, spiritual does not mean "not real".

Nobody made that claim, so please stop making that accusation.

With that in mind, I don't see how this verse conflicts with something I said. Not at the moment anyway.

How, exactly, does scripture describe "Part of my spirit has already left my body when I was saved."?

How is the spirit divisible at all?

 

[Right Divider]

I think by basically just taking Paul literally.

You cannot take figures of speech in that sort of a literal fashion.

The RCC does that with John 3 and it causes a great deal of confusion.

I am not an expert on Paul, so I don't actually know how I would do anything but that.

You do it by following the figure(s) (of speech).

"...in putting off the body of sins..."

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

In Col 1:11, Paul makes it clear that he was not talking about a physical circumcision.

Paul would say that circumcision the Jews used to practice was "a shadow of things to come"

What was the thing that came?

 

[Right Divider]

Paul would say that circumcision the Jews used to practice was "a shadow of things to come"

Paul was differentiating between Israel and the body of Christ in Col 2:17.

What was the thing that came?

They have not come yet.

All of those "shadows" will be realized for Israel in the kingdom... when it comes.

Perhaps you do not know how to rightly divide between prophecy and mystery, between Israel and the body of Christ. That might be a large part of your problem understanding Paul.

 

[Right Divider]

In Colossians 2:11, the Apostle Paul uses a metaphor—specifically a metaphor of circumcision—to describe the spiritual reality of a believer’s identification with Christ.
The verse states: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."

Context and Meaning​

Paul employs this imagery to contrast the physical, external rite practiced under the Mosaic Law with a spiritual, internal transformation.

• The Comparison: He compares the physical removal of flesh (circumcision) to the spiritual "putting off" of the entire old nature (the "body of the sins of the flesh").
• The Distinction: By explicitly calling it a "circumcision made without hands," Paul emphasizes that this is a work performed by God, not by human religious effort. It is the result of the believer’s identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In this passage, Paul teaches that this spiritual circumcision is not a ritual performed on a specific part of the body, but a total removal of the power of the old sinful nature over the believer. It represents the complete cutting away of the old man’s standing before God, making the believer complete in Christ.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

They have not come yet.

All of those "shadows" will be realized in reality for Israel in the kingdom... when it comes.

I will probably have to think about that for a long time.

Thank you for your time in this matter!!

 

[Right Divider]

I will probably have to think about that for a long time.

Thank you for your time in this matter!!

You're welcome.

 

[Right Divider]

They have not come yet.

All of those "shadows" will be realized in reality for Israel in the kingdom... when it comes.

To be more exact... those shadows are related to the nation of Israel. Some actually refer to events during the great tribulation and not just in the kingdom itself.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Paul was differentiating between Israel and the body of Christ in Col 2:17.


They have not come yet.

All of those "shadows" will be realized for Israel in the kingdom... when it comes.

Perhaps you do not know how to rightly divide between prophecy and mystery, between Israel and the body of Christ. That might be a large part of your problem understanding Paul.

To be more exact... those shadows are related to the nation of Israel. Some actually refer to events during the great tribulation and not just in the kingdom itself.

I think when I brought up "shadows of things to come", you and I started talking about 2 different things here. So I think it would be worthwhile to clarify this.

Just to reiterate, the things I am talking about are:

The circumcision of Christ (The circumcision Christ gives us)
Our death and baptism in Him
And that we have died and our lives our hidden with Christ in God (I am taking Paul literally and treating this as a real event that involves our death and baptism)

Colossians 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [h]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Colossians 3:1-4 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory......so stop sinning.

I agree that there are still things to come which will be realized for Israel in the kingdom. But surely you agree that, for example, this baptism Paul is talking about is something that we Christians today have now. Because I went and read elsewhere on the forum, your posts concerning baptism and you seem to treat the same way I am. That it is a real thing that actually happens when we are baptised into the body of Christ. And that it not a water baptism, it is something else (and I agree).

RD, it seems to me that the reason you understand baptism better than anybody is not only because you rightly divide God's Word, but because you take Paul literally! You know the baptism Paul speaks of in Col 2 is the real baptism! It is the real washing away of sins! We don't need 2 baptisms, because Christ gives us the real one.

But when I say, "Hey look! In the same sentence Paul says Christ also gives us a circumcision", you say, "Well that part is just a metaphor. You shouldn't take it literally."



See what I mean?

How is the spirit divisible at all?

Not splitting apart from itself. Splitting apart from its connection to our physical bodies.

The Bible does not necessarily treat death as always being instantaneous. Genesis describes Rachel's death as a more of a process. The process of her spirit being disconnected from her body.

Gen 35:18 And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni...

 

[Right Divider]

I think when I brought up "shadows of things to come", you and I started talking about 2 different things here. So I think it would be worthwhile to clarify this.

This is why I insist on Bible references when we are talking about the Bible.

When you said "shadows of things to come", what was I supposed to think that you are talking about? I had to assume you were referring to what the Bible says about "shadows of things to come".

Just to reiterate, the things I am talking about are:

The circumcision of Christ (The circumcision Christ gives us)
Our death and baptism in Him
And that we have died and our lives our hidden with Christ in God (I am taking Paul literally and treating this as a real event that involves our death and baptism)

Those things are never referred to as "shadows of things to come".

I agree that there are still things to come which will be realized for Israel in the kingdom.

That's good. In the Bible, the "shadows of things to come" is always related to Israel.

But surely you agree that, for example, this baptism Paul is talking about is something that we Christians today have now.

Yes, for almost two thousand years.

Because I went and read elsewhere on the forum, your posts concerning baptism and you seem to treat the same way I am. That it is a real thing that actually happens when we are baptised into the body of Christ. And that it not a water baptism, it is something else (and I agree).

Paul makes it clear that members of the body of Christ are baptized by the Spirit... into the body. Paul also says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ. It's too bad that so much of Churchianity does not follow Paul.

RD, it seems to me that the reason you understand baptism better than anybody is not only because you rightly divide God's Word, but because you take Paul literally! You know the baptism Paul speaks of in Col 2 is the real baptism! It is the real washing away of sins! We don't need 2 baptisms, because Christ gives us the real one.

I'm not sure that your definition of "literal" is correct. I do take Paul seriously and literally when he is speaking literally. But when he uses figures of speech, I read it just that way.

But when I say, "Hey look! In the same sentence Paul says Christ also gives us a circumcision", you say, "Well that part is just a metaphor. You shouldn't take it literally."

Indeed, it must be taken in the way that its written... figuratively.

Circumcision is literally the cutting off of some of a man's body. And that is not what Paul is talking about.

See what I mean?

No.

Not splitting apart from itself. Splitting apart from its connection to our physical bodies.

That is definitely NOT what Paul is saying.

Again, you say that PART of your SPIRIT was cut off from your body and that makes no sense whatsoever. Our spirit is not a divisible thing that is not connected in a way that would allow a "partial cutting away". That is simply not what the figure of speech represents.

The Bible does not necessarily treat death as always being instantaneous. Genesis describes Rachel's death as a more of a process. The process of her spirit being disconnected from her body.

Gen 35:18 And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni...

Again, this "departing" appears to be a figure of speech and not a gradual, piece by piece, process. This seems to be a case of you reading your ideas into the text.

In Genesis 35:18, the phrase "as her soul was in departing, (for she died)" contains a figure of speech known as a metalepsis or a form of metonymy.
Specifically, the "soul departing" is a metonymy of the subject, where the soul leaving the physical body stands as a description for the act of dying. The text itself immediately provides the literal meaning in the parenthetical clause: (for she died).
The verse reads:

"And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died,) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin." (Genesis 35:18, KJV PCE)

By including "(for she died)," the scripture defines the figure of speech directly within the text, ensuring you understand that the departure of the soul refers precisely to the cessation of physical life.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

When you said "shadows of things to come", what was I supposed to think that you are talking about?

You're right. My bad. Point taken.

I had to assume you were referring to what Bible says about "shadows of things to come".

Those things are never referred to as "shadows of things to come".

That's good. In the Bible, the "shadows of things to come" is always related to Israel.

Yes, for almost two thousand years.

Paul makes it clear that members of the body of Christ are baptized by the Spirit... into the body. Paul also says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ. It's too bad that so much of Churchianity does not follow Paul.

I'm not sure that your definition of "literal" is correct. I do take Paul seriously and literally when he is speaking literally. But when he uses figures of speech, I read it just that way.

When I say literal, I am referring to the primary meaning.

The primary meaning behind baptism in the Bible isn't the pouring of water on someone's head. It is the washing away of sin.

Eden can be thought of as a sort of natural temple where Adam could dwell together with God, without being baptised because he was blameless in that paradise, until he ate from the tree. Later, after the fall, God has the Israelites construct another place, a tabernacle, where man and God can be in the same place, but this time only the priests may enter and they must wash first. It was like Eden, but different. It had some gardenlike features, the 7 lampstands had almond blossoms, buds, and flowers decorating them (Exodus 25:33-34), the ark and the coverings had images of cherubim.

Likewise, John baptised because he knew the Lord was coming to now dwell with us as a man, in the flesh! So get yourselves ready for it!

Now because of what Christ did for us, Paul says we don't need to worry about this stuff anymore, because we can get the real baptism directly from Christ. We don't need to wash ourselves with water or have a priest intercede for us. And we will continue this relationship with Him in paradise. Like Adam would have had in Eden.

RD, You and I agree in all of this. Because we both take Paul literally! And by doing so it provides us with a cohesive model of how baptism is significant to our relationship with the Lord. Full circle from Adam to Revelation.

What I am suggesting is that, we can do the same thing when we take Paul literally when he talks about the circumcision of Christ. Because, inasmuch as baptism involves our relationship with the Lord, circumcision involves our relationship with the flesh.

And I think Bob provided some insight as to how to do that, when he taught that the brain/body is an interface. That your brain isn't you. You are your spirit.

No.

That is definitely NOT what Paul is saying.

Again, you say that PART of your SPIRIT was cut off from your body and that makes no sense whatsoever

Col 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ

. Our spirit is not a divisible thing that is not connected in a way that would allow a "partial cutting away". That is simply not what the figure of speech represents.

Again, this "departing" appears to be a figure of speech and not a gradual, piece by piece, process. This seems to be a case of you reading your ideas into the text.

Well no. Gen 35:18 is just confirming that dying is a process. A process that involves your spirit leaving your body. She named her son as her spirit was leaving her body. She was dying and then she died and was dead.

See, look. The Bible says this:

Gen 35:18 And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni...

 

[Right Divider]

When I say literal, I am referring to the primary meaning.

The primary meaning behind baptism in the Bible isn't the pouring of water on someone's head. It is the washing away of sin.

No, not really. The many water baptisms in the OT law, etc. were about cleansing for service, cleansing lepers, cleansing sacrifices, and that sort of thing.

Water baptism for the remission of sins was not introduced until John the baptizer.

Eden can be thought of as a sort of natural temple where Adam could dwell together with God, without being baptised because he was blameless in that paradise, until he ate from the tree. Later, after the fall, God has the Israelites construct another place, a tabernacle, where man and God can be in the same place, but this time only the priests may enter and they must wash first. It was like Eden, but different. It had some gardenlike features, the 7 lampstands had almond blossoms, buds, and flowers decorating them (Exodus 25:33-34), the ark and the coverings had images of cherubim.

Not sure what any of that has to do with the topic that we are discussing.

Likewise, John baptised because he knew the Lord was coming to now dwell with us as a man, in the flesh! So get yourselves ready for it!

Now because of what Christ did for us, Paul says we don't need to worry about this stuff anymore, because we can get the real baptism directly from Christ. We don't need to wash ourselves with water or have a priest intercede for us. And we will continue this relationship with Him in paradise. Like Adam would have had in Eden.

Are you aware that the law will be in force for Israel again after the body of Christ is removed from the earth? Again, I think that you need to learn to rightly divide.

RD, You and I agree in all of this. Because we both take Paul literally! And by doing so it provides us with a cohesive model of how baptism is significant to our relationship with the Lord. Full circle from Adam to Revelation.

What I am suggesting is that, we can do the same thing when we take Paul literally when he talks about the circumcision of Christ. Because, inasmuch as baptism involves our relationship with the Lord, circumcision involves our relationship with the flesh.

And I think Bob provided some insight as to how to do that, when he taught that the brain/body is an interface. That your brain isn't you. You are your spirit.

You need to learn what Bob taught about circumcision. Circumcision and the law are practically synonymous.

Paul was using a figure of speech that you refuse to understand.

Col 3:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ

Well no. Gen 35:18 is just confirming that dying is a process.

No, it does NOT. You completely ignored my previous post. If you're not going to read what I post, I won't continue to have a discussion with you.

A process that involves your spirit leaving your body. She named her son as her spirit was leaving her body. She was dying and then she died and was dead.

See, look. The Bible says this:

Gen 35:18 And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni...

Sigh.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

No, not really. The many water baptisms in the OT law, etc. were about cleansing for service, cleansing lepers, cleansing sacrifices, and that sort of thing.

Water baptism for the remission of sins was not introduced unto John the baptizer.

I am going to hold you at this right here. Because, I think you are trying to obfuscate. And you are better than this.

In Exodus the priests had to wash themselves before entering the inner chamber of the tabernacle, where the Lord was. Otherwise they would die. Why did they have to do that, when Adam was freely able to walk with the Lord in the cool of the day in Eden, before the Fall?

 

[Right Divider]

I am going to hold you at this right here. Because, I think you are trying to obfuscate. And you are better than this.

Correcting you from scripture is obfuscating? You're on very thin ice with me.

In Exodus the priests had to wash themselves before entering the inner chamber of the tabernacle, where the Lord was. Otherwise they would die. Why did they have to do that, when Adam was freely able to walk with the Lord in the cool of the day in Eden, before the Fall?

Talk about obfuscating!

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Correcting you from scripture is obfuscating? You're on very thin ice with me.

In Love, I am not going to let you get away with throwing a fit.

You quoted the scripture 4 times. You never explained how they show that we should not take Paul literally when he speaks of the circumcision of Christ in Colossians. If anyone reading this thinks that you did explain it, let that person come to your defence now.

Rev 20:14-15 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (20:15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
1Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Talk about obfuscating!

The above quote was your reply to my following question :

In Exodus the priests had to wash themselves before entering the inner chamber of the tabernacle, where the Lord was. Otherwise they would die. Why did they have to do that, when Adam was freely able to walk with the Lord in the cool of the day in Eden, before the Fall?

What is wrong with this question? How is it an obfuscation?


RD, we are like 2 brothers who wrestled each other, and now you are all petered out while I am still standing strong. Because I took Paul at his word and you did not. The Right Divider could not even rightly divide my words when he quoted me in his prior post. He was too tuckered out to address what I had said. Look at this garbled mess you posted: https://theologyonline.com/threads/...ous-to-a-simulated-reality.61654/post-1929220

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

You need to learn what Bob taught about circumcision. Circumcision and the law are practically synonymous.

The value of most of Bob's teaching is that they provide a framework to aid in further studies. The are meant to be foundational, not exhaustive. He taught a lot about circumcision and the law, yes. But he didn't write an entire book for every single chapter in the Bible.

In one his studies I have, when he gets to Col 2:11 (In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [h]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.), he says "Well Christ was cut off at the cross" and then he moves on. And that's fine. His focus on the overall theme of Colossians. So he never goes in to much detail about what these things are:

The circumcision of Christ (The circumcision Christ gives us, the circumcision made without hands)
Our death and baptism in Him
And that we have died and our lives our hidden with Christ in God

YOU, RD. Seem to go back and forth in whether or not you think these are real things or if they are just metaphors. You said Col 3:1-4 is talking about a legal and spiritual reality and not a real death. See?

You said this:

This is not a physical death, but a legal and spiritual reality.

And you said this:

When Paul speaks of OUR circumcision... it has nothing to do with the flesh per se. OUR circumcision is purely spiritual.

Then, when I asked you this:

Would you agree with me, that when something spiritual happens to us, it means something happened to our spirit?

You said, "No."

Not necessarily "to our spirit".

So, it doesn't seem to me like you are interested in addressing the actual point of me wanting to discuss the above 3 things in the first place. Which is simply to ask, When we take Paul literally, can a cohesive model of these things be constructed, in a way that is consistent throughout the Bible?

I think the answer is YES.

and it's quite apparent to me now that..

You think the answer is NO.

FINE.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]