Will There be a "Rapture"? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1206

Will There be a "Rapture"?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The average American is aware of the periodic claim that “the end is near.” When Y2K was approaching, outcries of doom, global disruption, and Armageddon were widespread. Hal Lindsey achieved nationwide attention over thirty years ago with his national bestseller The Late Great Planet Earth (1970). A more recent repackaging of the dispensational brand of premillennialism is the popular Left Behind book series (see “The Official…”). Every so often, a religious figure captures national attention, announcing the impending return of Jesus—even to the point of setting a date—only to fade into the anonymity from which he arose when his claim falls flat, but having achieved his “fifteen minutes of fame” (see Whisenant and Brewer, 1989). The sensationalism sells well and tweaks the curiosity of large numbers of people. Incredibly, this pattern has been repeating itself literally for centuries!

Such is the case with the alleged “Rapture.” It comes from the Latin word “rapere,” which means “to seize, snatch out, take away.” Dispensationalists apply this word to the idea that Christ will come suddenly and secretly in the air to snatch away from the Earth the living saints and the resurrected bodies of those saints already deceased. This rapture is supposed to occur just prior to the seven-year Tribulation period, which, in turn, will be followed by the Millennium.

Proponents claim that the Rapture will be secretive. We are told that families will be shocked by the strange disappearance of a mother, father, or child. Driverless cars will collide in the streets (thus the bumper sticker: “In case of rapture, this vehicle will be unmanned”). A man and wife will be in bed; she hears a noise, turns her head, and finds him gone. Planes will crash with no pilots found. These sensational and dramatic examples illustrate the view that the Rapture will be an invisible coming of the Lord for His saints, leaving visible results of chaos and confusion among the remaining unbelievers.

In reality, the word “rapture” is not found in the Bible, though it is claimed to be the Latin equivalent of harpadzo translated “caught up” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV). Lindsey admitted, “[i]t is not found in the Bible” (1970, p. 126), and noted that the word “translation” is just as suitable. Yet the word “translation” does occur in the New Testament. Paul referred to the fact that God “has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Colossians 1:13, emp. added). So when an unbeliever obeys the Gospel, receives forgiveness of sins, and is added to the church of Christ, he is taken out of the world and transferred to Christ’s kingdom. This use of the term is certainly a far cry from the idea that it refers to Christians being raptured from the physical Earth to meet Jesus in the air.

The New Testament uses three terms to refer to Christ’s return. First, parousia is translated “coming, presence, or advent.” Second, epiphaneia is translated “appearing, manifestation, or brightness.” Third, apokalupsis is translated “revelation.” Dispensationalism holds that parousia(“coming”) refers to the “Rapture” that occurs seven years before the epiphaneia (“appearing”) or apokalupsis (“revelation).” Accordingly, at the “Rapture,” it is claimed that Jesus will come forthe church only, while at the “Revelation,” Jesus will return with the church, and put an end to the “Tribulation” and “Armageddon.”

The primary passage used to support the idea of a “rapture” is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. But this passage was not actually given to deal with the return of Christ. Its purpose was twofold. First, it was designed to reassure Christians that their deceased loved ones would be able to share in the Lord’s return. Second, it informed Christians that those who are still living when Christ returns will have no precedence or advantage over those who have already died. This dual function of the text constitutes a very different emphasis from the one imposed upon it by dispensationalists.

The dispensational distinctions made between the three New Testament terms that refer to Christ’s return are simply untenable (see Boettner, 1957, pp. 163-164). For example, dispensationalists assert that the “coming” (parousia) in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1 refers to the “Rapture.” Yet the same word is used in 1 Thessalonians 3:13 to speak of Jesus coming “with” His saints, thereby coinciding with the dispensational concept of the “Appearing” or “Revelation” seven years after the “Rapture.” Dispensationalists apply 2 Thessalonians 2:8 to the “Antichrist,” and therefore must understand this as a reference to the “Appearing” seven years after the “Rapture.” Yet the verse uses the expression “themanifestation (i.e., “brightness”—epiphaneia) of His coming (parousia).” Thus the term “coming” is used in the New Testament to refer to both dispensational concepts of the “Rapture” and the “Appearing,” and the two expressions are, in fact, combined in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 to refer toone and the same event.

The term “Revelation” (apokalupsis) in 1 Corinthians 1:7 is descriptive of what the dispensationalists call the “Rapture,” since Christians await it. But in 2 Thessalonians 1:7, it clearly refers to the “Appearing.” The term “Appearing” (epiphaneia) is used in 1 Timothy 6:14 as the event that terminates Christian activity on Earth, and thus fits the “Rapture” concept. But in 2 Timothy 4:1,8, the references to judgment fit the “Appearing.”

In view of these considerations, the sincere Bible student is forced to conclude that the three words relating to Christ’s return in the New Testament are used synonymously and interchangeably. The New Testament simply makes no distinction between the coming of the Lordfor His saints (“Rapture”) and the coming of the Lord with His saints (“Appearing” or “Revelation”). The dispensational dichotomy is in direct conflict with New Testament terminology.

Additionally, if Christians are to be removed seven years before the “Revelation” or “Coming” of Christ, then no passage should speak of Christians remaining on Earth until the “Revelation.” However, many passages do just that (see Boettner, pp. 165-166). For example, in Titus 2:13, Paul referred to the “blessed hope” and the “appearing” as one and the same event, i.e., Christ’s coming. In the original language, the two substantives, “hope” and “appearing” (epiphaneia) are closely linked by the common article. They are not two separate events, as if to be read: “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing.” Rather, the text is saying, “looking for the blessed hope and appearing.” The one explains the other. The “blessed hope” of Christians is “the glorious appearing” of Christ. Other examples would be 1 Peter 1:13 and 4:13, where the grace on which the Christian is to set his hope is to be received at the “revelation” (apokalupsei) of Christ, at which time the Christian may rejoice. But, according to dispensationalism, the Christian should rejoice seven years earlier at the rapture.

Further, the use of the word “end” comes from a word that refers to “full end” and, in the New Testament, always refers to the end of the world, i.e., the Judgment day (see Boettner, p. 168-169). In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promised to be with the disseminators of the Gospel message to the very “end.” This means the church will remain on the Earth, preaching the Gospel, until the Judgment Day. But if the church is “raptured away” seven years before the end, she cannot fulfill what Christ commanded her to do! In Matthew 13:39-40, there is no removal of the saints before the “full end.” The righteous and the wicked grow together until the very end. The separation of the two comes at the end (not seven years before the end). The dispensationalist claims that the righteous will be taken out from among the wicked. But the Bible says just the opposite: the wicked will be taken out from among the righteous (Matthew 13:39-40).

The doctrine of the “Rapture” asserts that believers will be raised seven years before the “Revelation,” and 1,007 years before the end of the “Millennium.” But in four separate verses, Jesus Himself said believers will be raised “at the last day” (John 6:39,40,44,54). There can be no other days after the last day. So the believers cannot be raised at an alleged “Rapture” beforethe last day.

Finally, the Second Coming of Christ is nowhere depicted as secret, as the “Rapture” advocates affirm. In fact, just the opposite is true. Christ’s coming will be accompanied by “blazing fire” (2 Thessalonians 1:7), the sound of a trumpet (1 Corinthians 15:52), a “shout,” the “voice of the archangel,” and the “trump of God” (1 Thessalonians 4:16). In fact, “every eye will see Him” (Revelation 1:7). These passages show that all persons everywhere will see and hear this event. In fact, the very passage upon which the doctrine of the “Rapture” is founded (i.e., 1 Thessalonians 4:16), far from describing a quiet and secretive event, is about the noisiest verse in the Bible!

When one is willing to remove from the mind all preconceived, complex, and sensational theological concoctions, and simply let the Bible present its own portrait of the end of time and the Second Coming of Christ, the dispensational viewpoint of a postulated “Rapture” is seen to be totally unfounded.

REFERENCES

Boettner, Loraine (1957), The Millennium (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed).

Lindsey, Hal (1970), The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

“The Official Left Behind Series Site,” (2003), http://www.leftbehind.com/.

Whisenant, Edgar and Greg Brewer (1989), The Final Shout Rapture 1989 Report (Nashville, TN: World Bible Society).

What Did You Expect? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=859

What Did You Expect?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In contrasting the God of Israel with the pagan idols of old, the prophet Isaiah issued a challenge to those who believed in the potency of their pagan deities. Isaiah said this about the idols: “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them…. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods” (41:22-23). According to Isaiah, any deity that could consistently forecast the future would be recognized as a true God, while any unable to tell the future should be relegated to the rubbish pile of false religions. In order to prove that the God of Israel was the true God, Isaiah quoted this from the mouth of God: “I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times thins that are not yet done” (46:9-10). Truly, Isaiah’s God could tell the future. The fall of Babylon, the reign of Cyrus, and the coming Messiah are but a few of the more prominent examples found within the book of Isaiah itself. In fact, the writers of the New Testament quoted the book of Isaiah more often than any other book of the Old Testament. The first-century Jewish community respected the book of Isaiah as inspired and infallible. Yet, the majority of first century Jews missed one of the main points of the book—that the coming Messiah would be not only a conquering king, but also a suffering servant.

Much of the time, people find what they want to find. During the time that Isaiah wrote his prophecy, the children of Israel suffered persecution from the surrounding nations. Years after Isaiah wrote, the nation of Israel fell into even greater troubles, even being led away into captivity by the Babylonians and being scattered throughout many different nations. During their various persecutions, they began to formulate a picture of the promised Messiah. The Coming One was He of whom it was spoken:

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this (Isaiah 9:6-7).

From this prophecy, what else could one expect but a mighty, conquering Savior Who would carry the burden of the government on His own two shoulders; a sovereign Ruler the likes of David, Who would sit on the throne of a united, far-reaching kingdom? How Israel longed for such a Ruler Who would cast the burden of foreign bondage from their backs and lead them into a physical kingdom, victorious and everlasting!

However, Isaiah did not paint a one-sided picture of the Messiah. In fact, the entire chapter of Isaiah 53 details a suffering servant who would be “despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” This suffering Messiah would be oppressed, afflicted, bruised, and stricken. At His death He would be counted among the wicked, led as a lamb to the slaughter. This picture of the Messiah was not of a conquering warrior, but rather of a beaten servant, carrying the sins of the world.

Of course, the pictures painted by the prophets were not mutually exclusive. The conquering power of the Messiah would result from His ability to bear the sins of the world through suffering and shame. But for most of the first-century Jews, a suffering Messiah was too much to bear. When Christ came from the despised Nazareth as a lowly carpenter’s son, He just wasn’t what they expected. They taunted Him to prove His power when they said, “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him” (Matthew 27:42). They failed to recognize the “time of their visitation” because they kept in mind only the prophecies that they liked—only those pictures that suited their fancy.

Let us learn a valuable lesson from those first-century Jews. What we expect from Christ is not always what we find. Christ’s Gospel was not one of health and wealth on this Earth. It was not one of moral laxity, or a half-hearted call to devotion. The Christ of the New Testament turned over moneychangers’ tables, set fathers against sons, cried out against divorce, and demanded undivided adoration. When we see something in the character of Christ that we did not expect to find, let us not join the majority of first-century Judaism in rejecting Christ and His Word based on a one-sided acceptance of the evidence. Instead, let us probe deeper for the full portrait of our Savior, based on all the evidence. Let us have the courage to go where that evidence takes us so that we can join the apostle Andrew in saying, “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:41).

Wrong About the Grand Canyon by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1194

Wrong About the Grand Canyon

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

For many years, awe-stricken tourists to the Grand Canyon have been fed a steady stream of uniformitarian propaganda designed to teach that the amazing chasm took six million years to form. Uniformitarian geologists, however, recently concluded that the “traditional” age of six million years has been incorrect. In fact, they suggest that parts of the Grand Canyon began to open “at least 17 million years ago” (Neergaard, 2008).

As you can imagine, a discrepancy of almost 300% for the canyon’s age has gained international media attention. And it brings to light several glaring, irreparable problems inherent in the uniformitarian philosophy. First, it should be noted that if the new research is right, uniformitarian texts that have used the six-million-year figure have been glaringly incorrect for the past several decades. Thus, all those visitors who were taught the Canyon was six million years old were misinformed. If such “solid” dates can be adjusted upward so easily, should we not eye their accuracy as extremely suspect? If the Canyon’s age can be adjusted by 11 million years with one or two studies, could the age be adjusted by 5.9 million years in the other direction? And who is to say that in five or 10 years, new “research” will not tell us that the Canyon is 30 million years old, or 100 million?

In truth, the Canyon never was six million years old, and it certainly is not 17 million years old. Such outlandish dates are based on faulty evolutionary dating methods that have been proven to be inaccurate due to their reliance on unprovable assumptions. Neergaard reported that the research team responsible for the current age-adjustment used “uranium-lead isotope testing” to arrive at the new dates (2008). But uranium-lead isotope testing is known to render ridiculously exaggerated dates (see DeYoung, 2005; Snelling, n.d.).

Geological structures in the Grand Canyon do not even point to a uniformitarian origin for the huge chasm. In fact, models that present a catastrophic origin fit the available evidence much more readily. Several books have been published verifying that such is the case, including Grand Canyon: A Different View (Vail, 2003) and Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Austin, 1994).

Evolutionary uniformitarianists often point to “proven” ages of millions of years to “disprove” the biblical account of Creation. The recent research on the Grand Canyon shows us that such ages never were “proven” in the first place. Furthermore, the actual geological evidence shows that the entire philosophical approach of uniformitarianism is untenable. It is time we turned our attention back to the Book that will never change—the Word of God.

REFERENCES

Austin, Steven (1994), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Santee, CA: ICR).

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Neergaard, Lauran (2008), “It Took Eons to Make Grand Canyon Grand,” [On-line], URL:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_sc/old_grand_canyon;_ylt=AhnI3 _H1G1YAzFMF0TkJVuvQOrgF.

Snelling, Andrew (no date), “The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating of Rocks: Basalt Lava Flows in Grand Canyon,” [On-line], URL:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating.

Vail, Tom (2003), Grand Canyon: A Different View (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Who Gets to Kill a Child Legally? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2349

Who Gets to Kill a Child Legally?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The drug mifepristone is the active ingredient in the abortion pill known as RU-486. On a regular basis, women in the United States legally use the drug to abort their children. This is done in complete accord with the law, with no fines or other punitive measures enacted. Thus, according to the laws of the United States of America, women can legally kill their children.

But what happens when someone other than the child’s mother attempts to kill the child? What if the child’s father would like to end the child’s life, without the consent of the unborn child’s mother? In that case, the law is not so lenient. Recently in Wisconsin, 34-year old Manishkumar Patel was charged with first-degree murder of an unborn child. What had Patel done to be charged with such a heinous crime? Apparently, his girlfriend was pregnant with his child. Patel wanted to kill the child, against the wishes of the mother. In an attempt to do so, he intentionally spiked food and drinks he offered to his girlfriend with the drug mifepristone. Consequently, according to Patel’s girlfriend, she suffered two miscarriages. Patel has been ordered to be held on bail and the case has yet to be tried (Ramde, 2007).

Cases like that of Patel’s bring to light the extreme absurdity of our nation’s stance on abortion. The state of Wisconsin maintains a law that states that “anyone who attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her fetus could face life in prison” (Ramde, 2007). Patel is being charged based on that law. Yet, the laws of the country allow that same woman to visit an abortion clinic, and with the help of a doctor, ingest the same medicine that Patel used on his girlfriend. In Patel’s case, the action is “intentional homicide of an unborn child.” But if the mother does it, what is it called? Simply, legal abortion. The same child is dying, the same drug is ingested, so what is the difference? In reality, there is no moral difference. Murder is murder whether it is committed by the father of the child or by the child’s mother and a doctor. When will our deluded nation tear itself away from the carnage of legal abortion and be honest enough to admit that murder is murder, regardless of the perpetrator? How long will the Lord withhold His judgment on a nation that has filled its borders with “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17)?

REFERENCES

Ramde, Dinesh (2007), “Man Accused of Forcing Miscarriage,” [On-line], URL:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071130/ap_on_re_us/miscarriages_charges; _ylt=AhAQvWuhna1my_MblX8kn12s0NUE.

Who, Exactly, Asked the Question? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=342&b=Matthew

Who, Exactly, Asked the Question?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q:

Why does Matthew 9:14 say that the disciples of John asked Jesus about fasting, while Luke 5 indicates that the Pharisees and their scribes asked Jesus this question? Isn’t this a contradiction?

A:

Indeed, Matthew specifically mentioned that “the disciples of John came to Him [Jesus], saying, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?’” (9:14, emp. added). It also is true that Luke refers to “the Pharisees and their scribes” (5:30,33, NASB, emp. added) as asking the question. But, the fact that two different Bible writers indicated that different groups of people asked Jesus the same question is not proof of biblical errancy.

Consider how often we make similar statements. Suppose that several students in a classroom ask a teacher why she is not married. Later, the teacher may report to Jimmy’s parents that he asked why she is single. On another occasion, the teacher may inform Ricky’s parents that he asked the same question. Has the teacher lied? Not at all. In truth, both Jimmy and Ricky, along with several other students, asked about the teacher’s marital status. Depending on the setting, the teacher may rightfully choose only to mention one who asked the question, or she may decide to name every student who inquired about her private life.

Just as someone would be unjustified in alleging that the aforementioned teacher was a liar because in one setting she stated that Jimmy asked the question, and in another setting she mentioned that it was Ricky, a person would be equally unjustified in accusing Matthew and/or Luke of being mistaken. Did the disciples of John ask Jesus why His disciples were not fasting? Yes. Did the Pharisees and their scribes ask Jesus virtually the same question? Yes. What’s more, when Mark addressed this subject in his gospel account, he mentioned how “the disciples of John and of the Pharisees...came and said to Him, ‘Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?’” (Mark 2:18).

Though it may appear at first glance that Matthew and John are in conflict, both accounts are correct. “Each tells the truth, but each tells only a part of what was true, and we get at the whole truth by putting both of their statements together as one. This circumstance furnishes a key to the reconciliation of the different writers in many other places where there is an appearance of discrepancy” (McGarvey, 1875, p. 276; cf. Lyons, 2005).

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2005), “Extra, Extra, Read All About It!” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2772.

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

Why I Left The Homosexual Lifestyle by Tony Horton

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Horton/Tony/Earl/1957/whyileft.html

Why I Left The Homosexual Lifestyle

The reason why is simple. I want to spend eternity in heaven. Our life is a vapor. We're not on this earth long (James 4:14). We are here to serve God and do His will (John 6:38) and if we are faithful unto death He will give us the crown of life (Revelation 2:10). It's a small price for us to pay when you consider eternity.

I wasn't born gay and neither were you. It was a path I chose, a sexually perverted choice on my behalf. If I was born that way, others, such as child molesters, drunkards, adulterers, thieves, could claim the same thing. Even if you think you were born that way, God still condemns it. He wouldn't make you that way and then condemn you to hell. It was your choice, so turn from it. Even if you still have the desire after you have repented, fellowship with Christians, personal prayer, and studying God's word will help you refrain and stay right with God. You may never have a heterosexual relationship and you may be single the rest of your life, but as stated above, life here on earth is a vapor. We aren't here long but we have heaven to look forward to if we remain faithful unto death.

God is very clear about homosexuality: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10). "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

God loves everyone and wants us to be saved, waiting patiently for us to repent (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9).

I heard the truth of God's word and through obedience to the gospel, I was added to the "church of Christ" (Acts 2:38, 47).

Denominationalism had me confused for years, and then I heard the truth and my life changed. You, too, may transform your life through the power of the gospel (Romans 12:1-2; Romans 1:16). The only "cure" for sin is the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-6) and sincere obedience to it (Romans 1:16; 6:17).

What I feel is my testimonial is how I live today. I don't go into detail about my past because it is just that, my past. I have been out of the homosexual life for almost seven years. One thing I will say about my past is, I was happy being a homosexual. I wasn't unhappy. I am now happier than I was then, now that I live for God. I was the typical homosexual. I had a few relationships and many sexual encounters. I was a bar fly. I got mad if anyone said my way of life was wrong.

I shook my fist in God's face most of my life, blaming Him, cursing His name, when people tried to show me the truth. And now I see nothing but His love for me. I no longer curse Him, but praise His holy name. I'm happier now than I've ever been in my life. God has given me the peace that passes all understanding which comes from studying His word and fellowship with my Christian friends (Philippians 4:7).

You can also reach this point if you have an honest heart and have the desire. You have to make the effort and meet God on His terms not yours.

Everyday I open my eyes I thank God He gave me another day to repent.

Tony Horton

The Scripture quotations in this article are from The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Transformation: From sentience to spirituality by Gary Rose

Romans, Chapter 12 (WEB)

 ² Don’t be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of God.

Brother Ed Healy posted this on facebook and I am thankful that he did. Thankful, because of the beauty of the picture and the verse from one of my favorite books of the Bible, Romans.  I think that Romans is perhaps the most intellectual book in the Scriptures and as many times as I have read it, I still find myself amazed at the depth of its logic and its merger of intellect and practicality of its insights.

This one verse (12:2) from this wonderful book raises questions: What really is the mind? How is the mind transformed? How is the nature of spirituality, emotion and intellect intertwined? And probably many, many more that I am just too dull to perceive.

When I think of the mind, I recall a word that I first heard from the Sci-Fi series, Star Trek- sentience. My Wordnet program defines it as:

1. awareness, sentience -- (state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness")

2. sense, sensation, sentience, sentiency, sensory faculty -- (the faculty through which the external world is apprehended; "in the dark he had to depend on touch and on his senses of smell and hearing")

3. sentience -- (the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "gave sentience to slugs and newts"- Richard Eberhart)

But what is it really? 

Consider 1 Thessalonians 5:23

²³  May the God of peace himself sanctify you completely. May your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

I wonder- in this world, can we really separate these things, or are they an integrated composite that links to the Almighty? And if our spirit links to that of our heavenly father, does that mean that our incorporation of the thoughts of God via the Scriptures change us into gods (notice the small g)?  Speaking of that small "g", how about adding the following passage to the mix...

John, Chapter 10

 ³¹  Therefore Jews took up stones again to stone him.  ³² Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?” 

  ³³  The Jews answered him, “We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 

  ³⁴  Jesus answered them, “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ (Emp. added GDR)  ³⁵  If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken),   ³⁶  do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’ 

I find myself being unable to answer all of these questions fully, but it seems to me that God's plan for us is to be completely transformed in body, soul and spirit when we see HIM in heaven. 

I know that all this is a lot to consider, but consult the Scriptures yourself and pray about these things, perhaps God will grant you understanding that will amaze you. How? Probably Not like the picture, but in HIS own way, through his WORD and HIS Spirit who dwells in all Christians.

Please feel free to comment, I could use some fresh perspectives....