Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[Zao is life]

It seems to me, for example, take Pretrib. There might be millions that believe that doctrine to be true, rather than just one person believing it to be true. This would still be an example of a private interpretation regardless that millions are interpreting it in the same manner. A private interpretation involves doctrines not found in the Bible. Clearly, though Pretribbers disagree of course, Pretrib is not found in the Bible, thus a private interpretation.

And the same is true of Premil vs Amil since both views can't be true. Assuming one of those positions is true, the one that is not true, it is a private interpretation. Except none of us can actually undeniably prove which position is true and that we all won't know that until the 2nd coming happens first. In the meantime we have both views insisting their view is correct. This will no longer be an issue once Christ returns and settles this debate once and for all.

I agree. A private interpretation of scripture that begins with one person or a small group of people and over time spreads to millions is still a private interpretation. In this regard (of spreading from one or a few to millions) it's like Adam's sin. Our own sin is still our private sin.

Copy @PinSeeker

 

[PinSeeker]

The more Amillennialists imply by the things they say that Christ's Spirit was quickened by the Spirit of Christ...​

"Good" amillennialists would never say or imply this, Zao. As I have said, Christ did not need to be quickened spiritually ~ born again ~ as He, being (as you agree) God was never dead in sin.

...rather than Christ's body having been quickened (and hence, raised)...​

"Good" amillennialists certainly don't deny this; Christ was certainly physically, bodily resurrected, and because of that we will be someday, too, like Him; I would hope all Christians, regardless of their view of the millennium, believe that...

through and by the quickening of the Spirit of Christ (because as it is written, death could not hold Him)...​

"Good" amillennialists would never say or imply this, Zao. As I have said, Christ did not need to be quickened spiritually ~ born again ~ as He, being (as you agree) God was never dead in sin, a point on which I'm... pretty sure... we all agree...

and the more they try to imply that our spirits are "raised from the dead" through the quickening of the Spirit of Christ...

Well, Paul explicitly says this (though you don't accept it): "when we were dead in our trespasses, (God) made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace (we) have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus"...

...the reason that we can be said to be (already now) seated with Him in heavenly places, is because we have been bodily raised with Him (synegeírō)...

Yes, amillennialists ~ and I would hope any other live person... ~ would strongly assert that we have not been bodily dead yet, so could not have been bodily raised yet... Wow.

...we have been quickened by the Spirit of God with Him (syzōopoiéō), because we have been born of His Spirit, who dwells in us...

Absolutely; again, I would hope any Christian of any millennial view would agree with this.

the more they try to imply all this...

So... they don't.

...the more I become aware of just how lame all their arguments are.

Anyone is welcome to his/her opinion(s), misguided as they may be.

One of them even went so far as to imply in his last response to me in this thread that Paul's teaching on this implies that Christ was dead in His (own) sin (or that I was implying it, or something...

Because you were; that was the effect of what you were saying, albeit unintentionally.

...and this Amillennialist said this...

I hope you're not attributing that to me. But if so, that's okay, but it's a false attribution.

, forgetting that the only reason Christ died, is because our sin was laid on Him.

Yeah, always remember that, by all means...

...Amillennialism relies on its false theology regarding this...

Well no, it "relies on a theology" quite different from the theology you falsely attribute to it. Now, whether this false attribution is unintentional or purposeful on your part is... unclear.

...being "quickened and raised by the Spirit" does not equate with being born of the Spirit...

"Good" amillennialists would agree; I certainly do... I've said this several times now...

...but is talking about being quickened and bodily raised with Christ BECAUSE we have been born of the Spirit...

Paul was talking to live folks ~ even including himself, thus the "we" and "us"... "we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ... raised us up" ~ and by extension is writing to us likewise live folks, who have not yet died, been physically (bodily) dead, and so therefore could not yet have been physically or bodily raised. Goodness gracious.

...Amillennialists will never admit their error....

Well, not the error you falsely attribute to them, no, because they don't make that error...

At least, not while they continue to choose to remain faithful to their beloved theology / theologies...

Ah, you know, it is very possible to idolize theology. Yes, Christians of all walks can idolize pretty much anything. And the tone of your posts seems to indicate that... Well...

I agree. A private interpretation of scripture that begins with one person or a small group of people and over time spreads to millions is still a private interpretation...

Well, okay, but you could attribute that to any "interpretation," even the correct one.

Our own sin is still our private sin.

Sure. But regarding "interpretations," I would assert that if one is mistaken regarding any part of the Bible, it is not necessarily sinful. Eve was sinful in Eden, although differently than Adam, who deliberately disobeyed God. She was deceived, as Paul later says. So, how was she sinful? Hint: Not because she was deceived by Satan. I hope you can see the parallel, but if not, that's... okay.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Zao is life]

Sure. But regarding "interpretations," I would assert that if one is mistaken regarding any part of the Bible, it is not necessarily sinful.

And as any honest reader can see I never said or implied it was necessarily sinful. Believing false doctrine out of ignorance is not sinful. Deliberately holding onto falsehood (whether theology or any other) even when it's been proved from the Bible that something is not true, is another issue.

There's a whole long list of what is sinful,

for example applying an argument like yours above - which implies that because I said, "it's like sin started off with one man and affected millions over time" - that I was implying that believing false theology is necessarily sinful

- and then using that sort of slur as a straw-man argument - because what you are doing is pretending to "misunderstand" what a person says, and then imply or claim that the person said something they did not.

It's that sort of thinking that's sinful - and it's noteworthy that you do the same with scripture. You continue to falsely claim that scripture is saying something that it is not saying. Such as your repeated false assertion that Paul was speaking about a "spiritual" resurrection from the dead, in the examples you give, when he was not.

It really does not matter how many times you repeat this Amillennialist false assertion: Paul is not "explicitly" applying the above to the resurrection of the human spirit" (though you don't accept it). He is not applying it to "the resurrection of the human spirit" at all.

So I'll repeat this again, though you are hard of hearing, because you keep repeating the same false assertion, even though you have provided zero scriptures in support of it. (because Eph.2:4-6 and the scriptures you have quoted do not support what you are asserting - which is what you keep doing in defense of Amillennialism, rather than in defense of scripture):

Jesus prayed to God the Father concerning those who believe in Him:

"I in them, and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me." -- John 17:23.

To His disciples He said,

"Ye shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." -- John 14:20

Paul, the apostle of Jesus, taught us the following:-

"If Christ's Spirit is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit (of Christ) is your life [zoe] because of (Christ's) righteousness.

Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive [zōopoiéō] through his Spirit who lives in you." (Romans 8:10-11).

zōopoiéō: God’s Spirit quickening, i.e making alive, giving or imparting (eternal) life.

The one who raised Christ from the dead will quicken your mortal bodies if His Spirit dwells in you.

Paul does not contradict himself - he repeats himself: He says exactly the same thing again in his letter to the Ephesians:

"God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us, even us being dead (the body being dead) in sins,

(1) He has syzōopoiéō (quickened together with) Christ, (by grace ye are saved);

(2) and has raised us up together (synegeírō)

and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:4-6).

The word synegeírō (raised with Christ) is referring to the resurrection of the body, not of the human spirit.

anástasis, égersis; anístēmi; egeírō and synegeírō:: A standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death: In each and every verse or passage in the New Testament where the above words are used, they are talking about, and referring to, the resurrection of the body (the body that was dead or the body that had died, which is the seed of the spiritual, but tangible, body that we have the assurance of, will be raised).

synegeírō: Refers to being raised up together with Christ's bodily resurrection.

zōopoiéō: God’s Spirit quickening, i.e making alive, giving or imparting (eternal) life.

syzōopoiéō: Used in reference to being quickened, i.e made alive again together with Christ.

Paul does not contradict himself - he repeats himself: He says exactly the same thing again in Colossians 2:12-13; Colossians 3:1;

and in Romans 6:5:​

"For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection (anastasis)"

Goodness gracious. Christ's Spirit was not quickened by the Spirit of Christ. His body was - and He is the last Adam, the Son of man.
​

Being born of God applies to the human spirit. Quickening applies only to the resurrection of the body. Our spirit is not "quickened" by the spirit of Christ but our body will be, and this happens because we have been born of His Spirit and bodily quickened with Him - but we have not actually died in our own bodies (yet), any more than we are actually sitting in our own bodies in heaven with Him.

Goodness gracious His Spirit is in us, because we have been born of His Spirit, therefore we have been quickened with Him, and His quickening applies to His body, not His Spirit, and we have been quickened with Him so as to be bodily resurrected with Him and this is why we are seated with Him in heavenly places. We don't have to be dead or no longer alive in the body for this to be the case.​

 

[WPM]

What about Revelation 20:4 though, and how Amils like yourself have them reigning in heaven in a disembodied state after they have been martyred and are awaiting the resurrection of their body? How can Hebrews 12:22-24 possibly apply to someone while in a disembodied state?

Both Revelation 20 and Hebrews 12 describe the disembodied state of the dead in Christ, albeit covering different detail. Both relate to the same time period.

 

[WPM]

And as any honest reader can see I never said or implied it was necessarily sinful. Believing false doctrine out of ignorance is not sinful. Deliberately holding onto falsehood (whether theology or any other) even when it's been proved from the Bible that something is not true, is another issue.

There's a whole long list of what is sinful,

for example applying an argument like yours above - which implies that because I said, "it's like sin started off with one man and affected millions over time" - that I was implying that believing false theology is necessarily sinful

- and then using that sort of slur as a straw-man argument - because what you are doing is pretending to "misunderstand" what a person says, and then imply or claim that the person said something they did not.

It's that sort of thinking that's sinful - and it's noteworthy that you do the same with scripture. You continue to falsely claim that scripture is saying something that it is not saying. Such as your repeated false assertion that Paul was speaking about a "spiritual" resurrection from the dead, in the examples you give, when he was not.

It really does not matter how many times you repeat this Amillennialist false assertion: Paul is not "explicitly" applying the above to the resurrection of the human spirit" (though you don't not accept it). He is not applying it to "the resurrection of the human spirit" at all.

So I'll repeat this again, though you are hard of hearing, because you keep repeating the same false assertion, even though you have provided zero scriptures in support of it. (because Eph.2:4-6 and the scriptures you have quoted do not support what you are asserting - which is what you keep doing in defense of Amillennialism, rather than in defense of scripture):

Jesus prayed to God the Father concerning those who believe in Him:

"I in them, and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me." -- John 17:23.

To His disciples He said,

"Ye shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." -- John 14:20

Paul, the apostle of Jesus, taught us the following:-

"If Christ's Spirit is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit (of Christ) is your life [zoe] because of (Christ's) righteousness.

Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive [zōopoiéō] through his Spirit who lives in you." (Romans 8:10-11).

zōopoiéō: God’s Spirit quickening, i.e making alive, giving or imparting (eternal) life.

The one who raised Christ from the dead will quicken your mortal bodies if His Spirit dwells in you.

Paul does not contradict himself - he repeats himself: He says exactly the same thing again in his letter to the Ephesians:

"God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us, even us being dead (the body being dead) in sins,

(1) He has syzōopoiéō (quickened together with) Christ, (by grace ye are saved);

(2) and has raised us up together (synegeírō)

and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:4-6).

The word synegeírō (raised with Christ) is referring to the resurrection of the body, not of the human spirit.

anástasis, égersis; anístēmi; egeírō and synegeírō:: A standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death: In each and every verse or passage in the New Testament where the above words are used, they are talking about, and referring to, the resurrection of the body (the body that was dead or the body that had died, which is the seed of the spiritual, but tangible, body that we have the assurance of, will be raised).

synegeírō: Refers to being raised up together with Christ's bodily resurrection.

zōopoiéō: God’s Spirit quickening, i.e making alive, giving or imparting (eternal) life.

syzōopoiéō: Used in reference to being quickened, i.e made alive again together with Christ.

Paul does not contradict himself - he repeats himself: He says exactly the same thing again in Colossians 2:12-13; Colossians 3:1;

and in Romans 6:5:​

"For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection (anastasis)"

Goodness gracious. Christ's Spirit was not quickened by the Spirit of Christ. His body was - and He is the last Adam, the Son of man.
​

Being born of God applies to the human spirit. Quickening applies only to the resurrection of the body. Our spirit is not "quickened" by the spirit of Christ but our body will be, and this happens because we have been born of His Spirit and bodily quickened with Him - but we have not actually died in our own bodies (yet), any more than we are actually sitting in our own bodies in heaven with Him.

Goodness gracious His Spirit is in us, because we have been born of His Spirit, therefore we have been quickened with Him, and His quickening applies to His body, not His Spirit, and we have been quickened with Him so as to be bodily resurrected with Him and this is why we are seated with Him in heavenly places. We don't have to be dead or no longer alive in the body for this to be the case.​

Fullness of the Gentiles,

Instead of continually running your mouth off all the time, can you provide hard evidence to support your beliefs?

No! You are unable to corroborate Premil. That is because it is simply not there. I challenge you to a public debate to see who has corroboration for their position. I will not hold my breath. That is because Premil cannot abide biblical scrutiny or does it carry biblical support elsewhere in the sacred pages.

Because you have nothing on Amillennialism you have to twist what we believe in order to give your view some semblance of credibility.

Changing your name seems to have changed your attitude for the worst.

 

[Timtofly]

Right, if A and B are opposed (so to speak) to each other, then the only possibilities are that one is right and the other wrong… or that both are wrong.

If ‘private interpretation’ is meant in the sense of, oh, ‘personally accepted,’ or understood in a particular way by one group of persons and differing from another, then fine, but it seems a misnomer to me.

Grace and peace to you.

Private interpretation does not mean you came up with the theology. It means a person at one point in time came up with a personal interpretation, and it went viral, so to speak. Just like the physical is not the opposite of spiritual, private in this case is not the opposite of public.

Islam is a private interpretation of Scripture made by one man, named Mohammed, who then went on to write his own personal scripture, even though allegedly from a source other than himself.

Yes, even today people come up with private interpretation, because no one else has had that thought. However there are some new thoughts that come from Scripture even today, that is not private, but is considered that way, because it goes against accepted theology that is a private interpretation, although publicly accepted, and not Scripture at all. So the public taught teaching is private interpretation, while the thought from Scripture is not, but wrongly alleged as private.

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator."

The verse that every one uses is not simply about interpretation but an actual revelation from God, passed down in God's Word. Which is interpreted as the writer's thoughts and put into God's Word.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

So some prophecy can never be private, but always of the Holy Spirit, by the original revelation, and the continued understanding of that revelation by the Holy Spirit. We see a lot of people who defend their private interpretation, by claiming "spiritual discernment" when it is simply "changing the truth of God into a lie". But only the Holy Spirit can convince and convict when someone is not being honest, even with themselves. That is when personal conviction is deception.

 

[Zao is life]

Fullness of the Gentiles,

Instead of continually running your mouth off all the time, can you provide hard evidence to support your beliefs?

No! You are unable to corroborate Premil. That is because it is simply not there. I challenge you to a public debate to see who has corroboration for their position. I will not hold my breath. That is because Premil cannot abide biblical scrutiny or does it carry biblical support elsewhere in the sacred pages.

Because you have nothing on Amillennialism you have to twist what we believe in order to give your view some semblance of credibility.

Changing your name seems to have changed your attitude for the worst.

Your remark deserves no comment, and I will allow scripture to explain why when I quote your opening remark below.

I have already provided all the biblical evidence anyone who believes the scriptures will ever need - a full list of all the verses in the New Testament which mention rising again, being raised, resurrection, the resurrection, the Greek words appearing in each case, and I have already proved that the very verses Amillennialists quote, claiming them to be talking about "the quickening and resurrection of the human spirit", are not talking about the quickening and resurrection of the human spirit, but of the human body.

Biblical scripture - the Word of God - is not an object for your polemic games. The evidence is already public that in all these "debates" in these forums that you have ever engaged in, you have put yourself up in defense of Amillennialism rather than, and instead of in defense of scripture. You ALWAYS produce, and then repeat ad nauseam your own private interpretations of scripture while you ignore the F-A-CT-S produced by whoever is disagreeing with you, whenever they prove your many fallacies. An example of this is how you have not even commented on the F-A-C-T-S I produced in the post you were responding to.

Your "challenge" carries as much value as an artificially produced fake of the cheapest product on the market in America, IMO. I'll follow my Lord's exhortation and advice in Mat.7:6, because your own track record already tells me where that will go, LoL.

The word "corroboration" that appears in so many of your posts and the content of so many of your posts in many other threads - both in this forum and in others - will only be word-for-word the exact same arguments that you have already copied and pasted so many times before when "debating" with so many others - with whoever was disagreeing with you, while you were flatly ignoring whatever they were saying.

Talking to you is like talking to AI trained to respond to key words by pasting a post copied from a very big storehouse of word-for-word posts. You don't even provide any evidence - ever - that you even read what someone said to you. You just respond to key words and statements with the same responses already used multiple times before - and most of the time you are contradicting scripture.

You do not even start your post and challenge with the correct and Christian and Godly sort of spiritual disposition. Then you think that I would be foolish enough to enter into public "debate" over something as Holy as scripture with someone as rude as yourself, who has already proved himself incapable of, and uninterested in defending scripture, and only capable of defending his theology. Only a fool would do that - and someone who does not regard scripture - such as verse 6 below:

Matthew 7
5 Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.
6 Do not give that which is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and tear you.

Notice the context in which Jesus said what He said in verse 6 - the context is the verse which immediately precedes it. Now compare it with your statement here:​

Instead of continually running your mouth off all the time, can you provide hard evidence to support your beliefs?

Which hard evidence is contained in scripture, and has already been quoted.

Even these words: "I challenge you to a public debate" is copied and pasted from many other posts to many others in these forums and others.
​

No thanks. Not taking up your challenge. And the Lord's words in Mat.7:6 are the reason why. I do not talk to someone who is as determined as yourself to repeatedly contradict scripture while he goes about proving only that he has put himself up in defense of his own theology, instead of in defense of scripture. It's like defending scripture against AI trained to (and therefore determined to) make a mockery of Christian Bible discussion and the subject being discussed.

The posts and arguments in support of Amillennialism that you programmed into your AI has no corroboration with any part of scripture.

PS: In case you never read what I said (because you hardly ever read what anyone says), at least take note that I will "run my mouth" as much as I like.

 

[PinSeeker]

Private interpretation does not mean you came up with the theology. It means a person at one point in time came up with a personal interpretation, and it went viral, so to speak.

Well, that's fine, but it seems others are making that insinuation.

But just to what you say here, we could all say that about each other; each of us gets our information from somewhere, And if any of us says, "Oh, well, my understanding is directly from the Holy Spirit"... I mean, each of us would say that in a certain context, but if it strays into claiming personal, exclusive revelation from the Spirit, well then that's... problematic.

....some prophecy can never be private, but always of the Holy Spirit, by the original revelation, and the continued understanding of that revelation by the Holy Spirit.

Well, all, regarding Biblical prophecy. But sure.

We see a lot of people who defend their private interpretation,

By your definition of "private interpretation," I see all posters here doing that. All. As I said above, everyone gets his or her ideas and understandings from... somewhere, from someone. And regarding the Holy Spirit, as Christians, we would all say that what we have regarding our "private interpretation(s)" is coming from the Holy Spirit. So, two things to that...

1,) Some are mistaken.
2.) Interpersonally, there is (obviously) disagreement.

One day, neither number 1 above nor number 2 will be the case. But neither amounts to deception of others or of themselves.

by claiming "spiritual discernment" when it is simply "changing the truth of God into a lie".

Okay, certainly not to "talk down" to you, but this is a conflation of a couple of things, really. The ones who "exchange the truth of God for a lie" and who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1) are unbelievers, those whom God has "given over to their own passions," which presumably none of us are, else we would not be here. And, being believers, we would all claim spiritual discernment, and at least to some degree, we all have that. And this takes us into spiritual gifts, gifts of the Holy Spirit, two of which are utterance of knowledge and utterance of wisdom (1 Corinthians 12:8). And as you may know, all gifts are empowered by the Holy Spirit, Who apportions to each one individually as God wills (1 Corinthians 12:11), which strongly implies that some Christians may have a... greater apportionment... than others. Even so, drawing from Paul's words again, none of us should think of himself or herself more highly than he or she ought to think (Romans 12:3), and we should love one another with brotherly affection... even outdo one another in showing honor (Romans 12:10).

But only the Holy Spirit can convince and convict when someone is not being honest, even with themselves.

Of the truth of the things of God, certainly. But just because one believer disagrees with another regarding any part of God's word ~ outside of the essential, salvific things, i.e., believing that Christ is God and believing in Him as our Savior, and resting in Him alone for our salvation ~ does not amount to "not being honest, even with themselves." And to this conversation, regarding eschatological things, disagreement among us regarding particulars (like the millennium of Revelation 20) is okay, Timtofly. It's okay. Neither premillennial nor post millennial nor amillennial nor preteristic believers are disqualified from God's great salvation ~ or "lesser believers," or... "not being honest, even with themselves" ~ based on his or her beliefs regarding the millennium.

That is when personal conviction is deception.

Hmmm... By 'deception,' Timtofly, do you mean that they are deceived in their personal conviction? Or do you mean that, in their personal conviction, they are deceiving themselves or others? Either way, I disagree. It's just simple mistakenness and/or mere disagreement regarding these things among people. That's all. I would humbly submit to you that... well, not all here are guilty of this, but some here need to quit belittling and even demonizing others. We are exhorted several times in Scripture in various ways not to do that, as I pointed out from Paul's words above.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davidpt]

Well, that's fine, but it seems others are making that insinuation.

But just to what you say here, we could all say that about each other; each of us gets our information from somewhere, And if any of us says, "Oh, well, my understanding is directly from the Holy Spirit"... I mean, each of us would say that in a certain context, but if it strays into claiming personal, exclusive revelation from the Spirit, well then that's... problematic.

Let me provide an example of something. The sheep and goats judgment and the way I interpret that. Before there was the internet, I already interpreted the sheep and goats judgment in the manner I still do. No church I ever attended interpreted it in this manner. Never read any books where anyone interpreted this in this manner.

Fast foward to the time of the internet and Google. So I then eventually do some Google searches and find out others are interpreting it in pretty much the same manner as I am. Maybe not the majority of ppl are, but at least some are. But when I submit my interpretation of this judgment on boards such as this one, no one seems to be able to get on the same page with me, thus they interpret it vastly different.

Since I never initially arrived at my interpretation from other sources, and that there are others that interpret it pretty much in the same manner, how can this be explained? Is it just a coincidence that I initially arrived at my interpretation the way I did, and that others also interpret it in the same manner, except initially I was 100% unaware that anyone else interpreted the sheep and goats in the same manner?

 

[PinSeeker]

And as any honest reader can see I never said or implied it was necessarily sinful.​

You explicitly accused me (and others) of twisting God's Word, Zao, which, if deliberately done, would be necessarily, and even egregiously, sinful. If this is not what you meant, then maybe you should have found some other way to say what you were saying.

Believing false doctrine out of ignorance is not sinful. Deliberately holding onto falsehood (whether theology or any other) even when it's been proved from the Bible that something is not true, is another issue.​

Well, the "proved from the Bible" part is... questionable. Even between me and you, Zao, if you say what you have said is "proved true from the Bible," I would say the exact same to you about what I have said. And saying I have "provided zero scriptures in support" is absolutely untrue. The only thing that can be said, really, is that you and I are at odds on what we have been discussing, and this "proof from the Bible" claim is subjective. Don't get me wrong, the Bible says what it says, and it means what it means; there is no ambiguity, a fact on which we both would agree.

It really does not matter how many times you repeat this Amillennialist false assertion: Paul is not "explicitly" applying the above to the resurrection of the human spirit"...

He is, Zao, because he is writing to people who...

a.) were (before they were "raised") live persons and
b.) are now (after having been "raised") live persons.

He is writing to people who...

a.) were not (before they were "raised") physically dead persons and
b.) still are not (after having been "raised") physically dead persons.

He was writing to live people (of course) in Ephesus, saying they have been raised ~ which is past tense, and as such this resurrection has already occurred ~ people who had never been physically/bodily dead (and again, by extension to us, who have never been physically/bodily dead). So he cannot be speaking of a physical, bodily resurrection from the dead; he has to be speaking of a resurrection of a different kind.

(though you don't accept it). He is not applying it to "the resurrection of the human spirit" at all.

Even though that's what he says when he speaks of having been dead in their sin... Well, okay; you're certainly welcome to your opinion.

So I'll repeat this again, though you are hard of hearing...

No need... It seems to me the issue may actually be you not really hearing yourself.

...because you keep repeating the same false assertion...​

Well, repeating, yes, but only false in your opinion. I would say the same of your assertions. And, if you want to call that my opinion, I'm perfectly okay with that.

...even though you have provided zero scriptures in support of it...​

Well that's just not true. I would provide many, if not all, the same scriptures you have said support your positions, and have. But you disagree, and that's okay. Really, all you have done is refer to the Greek words used and have said that it (specifically synegeírō) "always refers to a physical resurrection, and that's just not true. But we can agree to disagree; it's really okay, Zao. Really. It's okay. Disagreement on this is okay. Neither one of us is "ignorant."

(because Eph.2:4-6 and the scriptures you have quoted do not support what you are asserting - which is what you keep doing in defense of Amillennialism, rather than in defense of scripture)...​

In... your opinion. I don't mean that in any kind of belittling or disparaging sense.

Paul, the apostle of Jesus, taught us the following:- "If Christ's Spirit is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit (of Christ) is your life [zoe] because of (Christ's) righteousness.​

Absolutely. What you yourself wrote here, Zao... Read it again. And again, and again, and again, if that's what it takes. Two things to this:

1.) With your quote of Romans 8:10 above in mind, if you then say, regarding Ephesians 2:6, that "The word synegeírō (raised with Christ) is referring to the resurrection of the body, not of the human spirit," you're actually contradicting yourself ~ you're saying the body is dead ("the body is dead because of sin"), but in virtually the same breath saying we've been bodily resurrected, which is to say the body, having been resurrected, is no longer dead. You're (unwittingly, I guess) refuting yourself.

2.) With regard to reading what you yourself wrote here, I'm particularly referring to "the Spirit (of Christ) is your life." And you might keep in mind also, without question, the verse (9) that immediately precedes verse 10: "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you"... bearing in mind, Zao, that, yes, the body is dead, but you are not (nor am I) physically dead; we have been (since our conception) living, breathing persons. In verse 10, "not in the flesh but in the Spirit" ~ a particular emphasis on that little word 'in' ~ is very, very important. "In the Spirit," Zao.

And a note regarding number 1 above: Paul is referring directly to what God says in Ezekiel 11:19-20 ~ "a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God" ~ and 36:26-28 ~ "I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

His Spirit is in us, because we have been born of His Spirit, therefore we have been quickened with Him, and His quickening applies to His body, not His Spirit...

Here is the problem; it's a conflation of two different things. Unintentional, for sure, but it is what it is. We have been quickened, for sure, born again of the Spirit. But in saying "His quickening," you seem to be referring to Jesus, and I'm right with you there... ...but Paul is not talking directly about Jesus there, he's talking about us... he's talking specifically about those who he is addressing... and by extension to us, to those who have been born again of the Spirit.

Yes, I agree with you that Jesus's quickening is in reference to to His body, His physical, bodily resurrection, but that's not Paul's context in Ephesians 2... he is not talking directly about what happened to Jesus, but rather what has happened to us, for us. Now, as Paul says elsewhere, particularly in Romans 6:5, Christ's physical, bodily resurrection from the dead ensures that, because we our having been born of the Spirit, our eventual physical resurrection from the dead will be just like His ~ "...we shall certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His" ~ very much a physical, bodily resurrection, but shall be, and that's unmistakably future in tense, Zao, not past.

...and we have been quickened with Him so as to be bodily resurrected with Him and this is ​

Ah, well, will be bodily resurrected, and then with Him in person, rather than just in spirit through the Holy Spirit. See above. Yes, as Jesus said, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29). Thanks be to God, you and I are in the resurrection of life group. But this hour is coming ~ i.e., still future, and not past, as it seems you (inadvertently, maybe) think it to be.

...we are seated with Him in heavenly places. We don't have to be dead or no longer alive in the body for this to be the case.​

I agree with this. But to have been physically resurrected, we must have been physically dead, and that's true of neither one of us. As far as I can tell, at some point you were conceived in and (nine months later) birthed from your mother's womb, and to this point, you have not yet died. I mean, that's the case with everyone around us...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Let me provide an example of something. The sheep and goats judgment and the way I interpret that. Before there was the internet, I already interpreted the sheep and goats judgment in the manner I still do. No church I ever attended interpreted it in this manner. Never read any books where anyone interpreted this in this manner.

I have no doubt about what you are saying here. But David, you having never attended a church where the sheep and the goats judgment...

Aside: You're talking about Matthew 25:31-46 here, right? And are you talking about the timing of it, like in relation to the millennium of Revelation 20? Or is this, like you said, just an example for examples' sake?​

...is interpreted in that manner or not having read such books mean necessarily mean that there are none? I hope you would answer no, because otherwise it would be. at the very least, uninformed, or, worse, quite arrogant to suggest that.

Fast forward to the time of the internet and Google. So I then eventually do some Google searches and find out others are interpreting it in pretty much the same manner as I am. Maybe not the majority of ppl are, but at least some are.

Ah, well... I don't remember whether I said this particular thing to you or not, David, but (sorry if I'm repeating myself) the great thing about the internet is you can find anything. But the terrible thing about the internet is (also) that you can find anything. I can provide you with Google searches that back me up, too...

And to your last comment, I would say that since the mid-1800's and more and more so up to now, western Christianity has become more and more dispensational, so much so today that that's all a majority of western Christians have ever been exposed to. So for them, well of course dispensationalism is right, because that's the only explanation there is.

It's interesting that most of these people would call themselves Protestants (as opposed to Catholics), but (unwittingly, maybe) disavow the Protestant Reformation and at least to an alarmingly large extent the very reasons ~ and understandings of the Word of God ~ from which it came about.

Since I never initially arrived at my interpretation from other sources, and that there are others that interpret it pretty much in the same manner, how can this be explained?

Well, I'll answer with a question. If two people, or even a group of people, or even a large group of people ~ independently reach the same conclusion about something, does that necessarily mean they are all correct? Could they not all be only partially correct or even mistaken?

Is it just a coincidence that I initially arrived at my interpretation the way I did, and that others also interpret it in the same manner, except initially I was 100% unaware that anyone else interpreted the sheep and goats in the same manner?

I don't really believe there is any such thing as a coincidence, if you mean that in the sense of "luck." But again, regarding anything, even if a large group of people independently reach the same conclusion about something, does that necessarily mean they are all correct?

I remember asking a couple of questions of you... Certainly, you can do what you want, but between you and me, am I the only one putting forth any effort to follow the other's reasoning here?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davidpt]

I have no doubt about what you are saying here. But David, you having never attended a church where the sheep and the goats judgment...

Aside: You're talking about Matthew 25:31-46 here, right? And are you talking about the timing of it, like in relation to the millennium of Revelation 20? Or is this, like you said, just an example for examples' sake?​

...is interpreted in that manner or not having read such books mean necessarily mean that there are none? I hope you would answer no, because otherwise it would be. at the very least, uninformed, or, worse, quite arrogant to suggest that.

The timing of it is already crystal clear, it is meaning at the beginning of when He initially bodily returns. Who this judgment is involving in particular, that's where others can't seem to get on the same page with me about. IOW, I feel I understand who the goats are meaning per this context. Others disagree with whom I take that to mean. Not everyone, though. Because like I already pointed out, there are others that interpret it in the same manner. The following is an example of such a person.

--------------------------------



Goats and sheep are indistinguishable from a distance in the same way that wheat and tares are indistinguishable. Both sheep and goats are also "kosher" animals, which makes them similar. Thus this judgment is not between the righteous (believers) and wicked (unbelievers), but between the righteous (believers) and the apparent-righteous (unbelievers). In other words, the scope of this judgment is for the declared followers of the shepherd, who are ostensibly "kosher" creatures.

Ezekiel 20:33-44 appears to be the parallel account in the Hebrew Bible to this passage in Matthew, when the Lord God will one day regather his people from the nations of the world in order to be their king. That is, this regathering will be a mix of the righteous (believers) and the apparent-righteous (unbelievers). Thus he will judge his people in the "wilderness of the peoples" (Ezek 20:35). The comparison here is to the wilderness of the land of Egypt (Ezek 20:36), where the Lord had "purged" his people in order to prevent "rebels and transgressors" from entering the Promised Land. Thus the scope of judgment is limited to the declared followers of the Lord. As the shepherd he will make his people "pass under the rod" (Ezek 20:37). In this context, the goats will undergo the following.

Matthew 7:21-23 (NASB) 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

At the end of Matthew 25:31-46 the announcement is made: “These (goats) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous (sheep) into eternal life.” That is, the sheep are the righteous (believers) and the goats are the unrighteous (unbelievers) notwithstanding that both groups were the ostensible and therefore self-declared followers of the Lord.

The idea here is that those "believers" who love other "believers" through both their words and deeds are indeed the sheep (cf. Ja 2:15-17 and 1 Jn 3:18), whereas the remainder (the goats) are those whose spiritual gifts (which were prophesying, healing, miracles) were of no use or benefit to the sheep (hunger, thirst, nakedness, sickness, and their loneliness in incarceration) and therefore the goats were never "known" by the Lord.

Who are the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25?

In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus tells this parable. When the Son of Man comes… All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

--------------------------------------------

This post above sums up almost perfectly how I too understand this judgment. And the fact I already understood this years ago, thus no outside influence at the time, and that this person above understands it in the same manner, what then explains the reason why, especially if there are others, such as yourself, that don't agree with the way we are interpreting this?

It's understandable if I was initially aware of this interpretation first, then eventually adopted it. But that was not the case in this case. So how did arrogance enter the discussion based on what I said in that other post? It somehow makes me arrogant if years ago, without any outside influence at all, such as churches teaching this to me, authors of books teaching this to me, that if I concluded what I did at the time, then learned years later that I'm not the only one that interprets it in that manner? Once again, just one big coincidence then? Or is someone trying to tell us something here, that maybe I am on the right track, thus interpreting it correctly, though others disagree?


One thing I have figured out over the years is this. Whatever one thinks something might mean, simply insert that into the text and see whether it makes sense of the text or nonsense of it. Let's do that now.

Let's assume the goats in Matthew 25 are meaning all of the lost since the beginning of time. Obviously, Cain, for example, would be among the lost. Let's see if the text makes sense or nonsense if we insert him into the text.

Matthew 25:44 Then shall they, including Cain, also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

As if during the days that Cain dwelled upon the earth so did Christ. Christ wasn't even born yet when Cain was alive upon the earth. How then is it remotely reasonable that Cain too would be answering Jesus in this manner---Lord, when saw I thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

In my mind context along with good common sense helps determine what something means. And if one sticks to both they are more likely to be right more often than wrong. Context nor good common sense support that the goats are meaning all of the lost since the beginning of time, nor does it support that this judgment is involving anyone other than professed servants of Christ. IOW, yet another passage that proves Not Once Saved Always Saved, that this is Biblical.

 

[Jay Ross]

Let me provide an example of something. The sheep and goats judgment and the way I interpret that.

David your understanding of the Sheep and the Goats parable is within the bounds of what Jesus was trying to convey.

In Matthew 25:1-13 is all about the return of the Bride, Israel to the Lord near the beginning of the seventh age.

In Matthew 25:14-30 Jesus is telling us that Satan will empower his good and faithful servants with copious amounts of money to impede the establishment of God's Everlasting Kingdom here on the face of the earth and the salvation of the people on the earth.

In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus is telling His disciples that among those who call me Lord, that not everybody will have a heart after His heart doing the things that are His heart for the peoples of the earth. The ones how have a heart that can be likened to sheep will be judged righteous, whereas the ones who have a heart after that of a Goat, i.e., a Grecian Heart after their own needs and desires, will not be found to be righteous and will be dispatched into the Lake of Fire.

In the Eziekiel 34:17 God tells us this: -

. . . thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I shall judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats."

which I like to present this way. There are two separations of the flock into two separate flock, based on whether or not the person called Jesus/God "Lord." Then the separated flock that called Jesus/God, "Lord" will be separated into those that have a Hebraic Heart after God's heart or a Grecian Heart where their focus is in their gaining of righteous without exhibiting the attributes of having a heart after Jesus/God for the people that they were rubbing shoulders with on a daily basis.

In the Jewish cultic practice, the Priests will bring a goat into the midst of the people for them to lay their sins upon the goat and the got was released to go out into the wastelands to die where the wages of their sin and the sins of the people that was placed upon them was the second death.

But this is just my understanding based on what is recorded in the Old Testament.

So many people today inside and outside of the Church have a Grecian understanding of what will be their future when God begins to bless the Saints.

Shalom

 

[Zao is life]

You explicitly accused me (and others) of twisting God's Word, Zao, which, if deliberately done, would be necessarily, and even egregiously, sinful.

You make such a claim above (about me accusing you, let alone others) and yet you fail to quote the post number, and with the exact words I used in order that it can be ascertained whether or not I accused you or someone else of personally twisting God's Word.

Until you do so - until you quote the actual words I used as well as the post number, you're a liar who slurs people, and then slurs people a second time in order to save face when your first slur is shown up for what it is.

If you keep trying to slur people (or for that matter trying to belittle them or what they are saying by talking "at" them with "humorous condescension") and whether you do so subtly, or directly - then you wind up being at odds with them personally, instead of only at odds with them regarding the biblical topic under discussion - because you are giving them the message that you are at odds with them personally.​

Back to topic:

1.) With your quote of Romans 8:10 above in mind, if you then say, regarding Ephesians 2:6, that "The word synegeírō (raised with Christ) is referring to the resurrection of the body, not of the human spirit," you're actually contradicting yourself ~ you're saying the body is dead ("the body is dead because of sin"), but in virtually the same breath saying we've been bodily resurrected, which is to say the body, having been resurrected, is no longer dead. You're (unwittingly, I guess) refuting yourself.

No I am not. You are contradicting yourself because you do not understand - or do not want to understand - that Christ's body has been resurrected from the dead,
​

and because He IS the resurrection, we are seated with Him in heavenly places because His Spirit dwells in us and we in Him (as Christ Himself promised) and our resurrection - the resurrection of mankind and of each and every individual - takes place with HIS resurrection because of His Spirit in us.

It does not mean each and every son of Adam has already been resurrected. It means that Adam (mankind) has already been resurrected because the One who IS the resurrection and the life - the last Adam and Son of man - is already resurrected and seated in heaven. MANKIND - ALL MANKIND - has already been resurrected from the dead IN CHRIST, the last Adam:

"For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming" -- 1 Cor.15:21-23.

This is the root of your problem. You fail to understand (or refuse to understand) HOW it is that we are resurrected in the first place.

Our resurrection from the dead - in the day we are resurrected individually - is not of ourselves - it is with Christ's resurrection, WHO HAS ALREADY RISEN BECAUSE HE WAS QUICKENED BY THE SPIRIT after dying for our sins.

It is Christ's BODY that has been raised. The entire New Testament teaches us that it is because CHRIST has been raised from the dead that our bodies will be raised:

"For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. -- 1 Cor.15.

The above passage is teaching about the resurrection of the body. Christ is the last Adam. The Son of man.

"If Christ's Spirit is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit (of Christ) is your life [zoe] because of (Christ's) righteousness.
Moreover, if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive [zōopoiéō] through his Spirit who lives in you." (Romans 8:10-11).

zōopoiéō: God’s Spirit quickening, i.e making alive, giving or imparting (eternal) life.

It is because CHRIST was bodily raised when HE was quickened by the Spirit (when HIS body was quickened by the Spirit),

that by the same power of HIS resurrection,

our mortal bodies are quickened with Him whose dead body was quickened by the Spirit (so as to be BODILY raised from the dead),

because we are quickened with His quickening because HIS SPIRIT lives in us - just as Paul said (a number of times).

It's totally obvious that it cannot happen if we are not first BORN of the Spirit.

What you are asserting is tantamount to saying that we cannot be seated with Him in heavenly places until our bodies have been individually resurrected - and is therefore tantamount to saying that His Spirit is not yet living in us.

"God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us, even us being dead (the body being dead) in sins,

(1) He has syzōopoiéō (quickened together with) Christ, (by grace ye are saved);

(2) and has raised us up together (synegeírō)

and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:4-6).

This is BECAUSE

"If Christ's Spirit is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit (of Christ) is your life [zoe] because of (Christ's) righteousness.
Moreover, if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive [zōopoiéō] through his Spirit who lives in you." (Romans 8:10-11).

Again, what you are asserting is tantamount to saying that we cannot be seated with Him in heavenly places until our bodies have been individually resurrected, and is therefore tantamount to saying that His Spirit is not yet living in us.

So EITHER you only half-believe the gospel, or believe only half the gospel (which is not believing the gospel at all),

OR

You are sticking to your assertion BECAUSE you must stick to the false humaneology that masquerades as theology because if you don't then you have to conceded that there is no such thing as a "quickening" of the human spirit or "raising" of the human spirit (from the dead) in scripture

- but scripture only talks about the human spirit being born (gennao) of the Spirit, resulting of the quickening of the body with the same quickening of Christ that caused Him to be BODILY raised from the dead.

This is why those who are not born of the Spirit will die the second death when they are raised from the dead with all mankind. ​

 

[WPM]

Your remark deserves no comment, and I will allow scripture to explain why when I quote your opening remark below.

I have already provided all the biblical evidence anyone who believes the scriptures will ever need - a full list of all the verses in the New Testament which mention rising again, being raised, resurrection, the resurrection, the Greek words appearing in each case, and I have already proved that the very verses Amillennialists quote, claiming them to be talking about "the quickening and resurrection of the human spirit", are not talking about the quickening and resurrection of the human spirit, but of the human body.

Biblical scripture - the Word of God - is not an object for your polemic games. The evidence is already public that in all these "debates" in these forums that you have ever engaged in, you have put yourself up in defense of Amillennialism rather than, and instead of in defense of scripture. You ALWAYS produce, and then repeat ad nauseam your own private interpretations of scripture while you ignore the F-A-CT-S produced by whoever is disagreeing with you, whenever they prove your many fallacies. An example of this is how you have not even commented on the F-A-C-T-S I produced in the post you were responding to.

Your "challenge" carries as much value as an artificially produced fake of the cheapest product on the market in America, IMO. I'll follow my Lord's exhortation and advice in Mat.7:6, because your own track record already tells me where that will go, LoL.

The word "corroboration" that appears in so many of your posts and the content of so many of your posts in many other threads - both in this forum and in others - will only be word-for-word the exact same arguments that you have already copied and pasted so many times before when "debating" with so many others - with whoever was disagreeing with you, while you were flatly ignoring whatever they were saying.

Talking to you is like talking to AI trained to respond to key words by pasting a post copied from a very big storehouse of word-for-word posts. You don't even provide any evidence - ever - that you even read what someone said to you. You just respond to key words and statements with the same responses already used multiple times before - and most of the time you are contradicting scripture.

You do not even start your post and challenge with the correct and Christian and Godly sort of spiritual disposition. Then you think that I would be foolish enough to enter into public "debate" over something as Holy as scripture with someone as rude as yourself, who has already proved himself incapable of, and uninterested in defending scripture, and only capable of defending his theology. Only a fool would do that - and someone who does not regard scripture - such as verse 6 below:

Matthew 7
5 Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.
6 Do not give that which is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and tear you.

Notice the context in which Jesus said what He said in verse 6 - the context is the verse which immediately precedes it. Now compare it with your statement here:

Which hard evidence is contained in scripture, and has already been quoted.

Even these words: "I challenge you to a public debate" is copied and pasted from many other posts to many others in these forums and others.
​

No thanks. Not taking up your challenge. And the Lord's words in Mat.7:6 are the reason why. I do not talk to someone who is as determined as yourself to repeatedly contradict scripture while he goes about proving only that he has put himself up in defense of his own theology, instead of in defense of scripture. It's like defending scripture against AI trained to (and therefore determined to) make a mockery of Christian Bible discussion and the subject being discussed.

The posts and arguments in support of Amillennialism that you programmed into your AI has no corroboration with any part of scripture.

PS: In case you never read what I said (because you hardly ever read what anyone says), at least take note that I will "run my mouth" as much as I like.

My aim is to discuss what Scripture teaches, let it speak for itself and support it with other similar Scripture.

I do not appreciate your ad hominem when someone disagrees with you.

 

[Zao is life]

My aim is to discuss what Scripture teaches, let it speak for itself and support it with other similar Scripture.

I do not appreciate your ad hominem when someone disagrees with you.

Neither do I appreciate yours. My aim is to QUOTE what scripture says, and let it speak for itself.

You neither let scripture speak for itself nor was I responding to you discussing scripture without any ad hominum attack regarding "my mouth". Hypocrite.

My attack was not even ad homimum but a simple and truthful analysis of your copied-and-pasted posts and your refusal to actually read what people say.

 

[WPM]

Neither do I appreciate yours. My aim is to QUOTE what scripture says, and let it speak for itself.

You neither let scripture speak for itself nor was I responding to you discussing scripture without any ad hominum attack regarding "my mouth". Hypocrite.

My attack was not even ad homimum but a simple and truthful analysis of your copied-and-pasted posts and your refusal to actually read what people say.

You are back to the way you used to communicate years ago. Because you cannot refute your opponents you try to belittle, taunt, misrepresent or attack them. This totally nullifies everything you write.

When someone disagrees with you they are supposedly defending false teaching. When you do it, you are supposedly defending Scripture. That is hypocrisy and pride!

Listen to the following nonsense you spoke to a poster:

"you have put yourself up in defense of Amillennialism rather than, and instead of in defense of scripture. You ALWAYS produce, and then repeat ad nauseam your own private interpretations of scripture while you ignore the F-A-CT-S produced by whoever is disagreeing with you, whenever they prove your many fallacies. An example of this is how you have not even commented on the F-A-C-T-S I produced in the post you were responding to.

Your "challenge" carries as much value as an artificially produced fake of the cheapest product on the market in America, IMO. I'll follow my Lord's exhortation and advice in Mat.7:6, because your own track record already tells me where that will go, LoL."

Who talks like that in real life???

That is what I challenged. That is how you think!

Pride cometh before a fall!

 

[PinSeeker]

You make such a claim above (about me accusing you, let alone others) and yet you fail to quote the post number, and with the exact words I used in order that it can be ascertained whether or not I accused you or someone else of personally twisting God's Word.

Until you do so - until you quote the actual words I used as well as the post number...​

All your posts recently have progressively done this at my expense. It's worth saying that I'm not really "bothered" by anything you've said, but it is what it is. From the most recent post preceding the one I am responding to here ~ specifically post #83 ~ you said the following:

• (regarding sinful actions)... "Deliberately holding onto falsehood (whether theology or any other) even when it's been proved from the Bible that something is not true, is another issue." Here you accused me of "deliberately holding onto falsehood," which in no uncertain terms is and accusation lying.
• Shortly after that, in the same post, you are even more explicit in your accusation, saying, "It's that sort of thinking that's sinful - and it's noteworthy that you do the same with scripture. You continue to falsely claim that scripture is saying something that it is not saying." The "twisting of Scripture" accusation, I mean, there it is... and it's not the first manifestation of it...
• Shortly after that... "I'll repeat this again, though you are hard of hearing..."

There are more, in Post #83, but that's enough... should be anyway... to get the point across. And then in this post (#94):

• "...you're a liar who slurs people, and then slurs people a second time in order to save face when your first slur is shown up for what it is."
• And then, "If you keep trying to slur people... or for that matter trying to belittle them..." The clear and obvious insinuation and accusation is that I do these things...

It is enough, Zao. It is quite enough. I have not "slurred" you (or anyone else here) in any way. Now. Have I made a bit of a sarcastic comment here or there, or made some kind of occasionally whimsical ~ but still pretty good-natured, I think ~ comment or gesture (emoticon)? Sure. Guilty as charged. Hey, I'll even accept ~ and readily so ~ responsibility for "talking 'at' (you) with "humorous condescension." I actually got a kick out of that little comment, and laughed out loud. I was like, "Well, okay, yeah..." LOL! And here I'm kind of laughing at myself, really... Now, you take that personally, then, really, Zao, I think that to be your own issue. Surely there's a sense of humor (and some humility) in there somewhere... With respect, Zao, you do seem to... take yourself too seriously from time to time... But I have not been disparaging to you, or anyone else... and in fact have made a very conscious and concerted effort not to do so.

Continued below...

 

[PinSeeker]

Just a couple of things to that post... after your "Back to topic" heading...

...you do not understand - or do not want to understand - that Christ's body has been resurrected from the dead...​

Uh... what??? Yes, Christ has certainly been physically, bodily resurrected... I mean, that's kind of what Christianity is based on... As Paul says:

• "God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power" (1 Corinthians 6:14),
• "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures... He was buried... He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
• "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that He raised Christ, Whom He did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep..." (1 Corinthians 15:12-20)

I'm preaching to the choir here, I think...

Anyway... n post #83, you said, "His quickening applies to His body, not His Spirit...", to which my direct response in post #90 was, "you seem to be referring to Jesus, and I'm right with you there...", obviously expressing my agreement. But now I "don't or do not want to understand" that Christ's body has been resurrected from the dead??? <chuckling> Yes... I understand quite well ~ obviously ~ that Christ's body has been resurrected from the dead...

But back to my point there, which you seem to have ignored... In Ephesians 2:4-10 specifically, Paul is not talking directly about Jesus there, he's talking about us... he's talking specifically about those whom he is addressing in his letter, the Ephesian Christians... and by extension, us... and even himself:

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."​

And he's speaking to us not about a future event but about something that has already happened to Paul himself and to all of us as believers. And the fact is that we have not yet been physically/bodily raised from the dead. It seems ridiculous to have to say this, but we would have to first be physically/bodily dead ~ which we are not, as yet ~ to be physically/bodily raised from the dead. Maybe you disagree, but that would be quite astounding, really.

Our physical, bodily resurrection will occur when Jesus returns, which is yet future; we believers will be physically/bodily resurrected ~ because we have done good ~ to eternal life. As I said, Christ's physical, bodily resurrection from the dead ensures that, because we our having been born of the Spirit, our eventual physical, bodily resurrection from the dead will be just like His ~ "...we shall certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His" (Romans 6:5) is certainly written in the future tense... "shall be." Paul is crystal clear about... well, all the things he talks about, of course... but crystal clear about what is past and what is future for us as believers. And our past resurrection from the dead is different in nature than what our future resurrection will be.

It does not mean each and every son of Adam has already been resurrected.​

Right; I have never insinuated such.

It means that Adam (mankind) has already been resurrected... ​

Believers only. And not physically/bodily. But we will be... See above. Is what you say here not a direct refutation of the quote immediately above this one? Here you say "mankind has already been resurrected," but immediately above you say "it does not mean each and every son of Adam has already been resurrected..." Are you making some kind of distinction between sons of Adam and mankind?

MANKIND - ALL MANKIND - has already been resurrected from the dead IN CHRIST, the last Adam...​

Oh. So, no, just believers. God's elect. Those whom He chose before the foundation of the world. Here again, incredibly, what you say here seems to absolutely refute what you said in the quote two quotes immediately above this one...

I'm just going to point out what you yourself quoted Paul as saying in 1 Corinthains 15:21-23, and emphasize the parts of that passage in which Paul clearly refutes the ideas of a.) a past physical/bodily resurrection, and b.) of all mankind being resurrected in Christ:

"For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be..."​

...this is future tense, so refutes the idea of a past resurrection [a]​

"...made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's..."​

...this is obviously a subset of all mankind, not all are or will be given to Christ by the Father (John 6:39, 10:29, 17:9,11), and so refutes the idea of all mankind being resurrected in Christ Now, all mankind will be resurrected, for sure, but many will never have been nor will ever by in Christ. They will be the ones who ~ referencing Jesus's words in Matthew 25 ~ will be on His left at the final Judgment, who will have been physically, bodily resurrected to judgment (John 5:29b) and therefore be subject to the second death of Revelation 20.​

​

"...at His coming."​

...which we agree has not yet occurred. This is still yet a future event, Zao, as you surely agree... Surely...​

You fail to understand (or refuse to understand) HOW it is that we are resurrected in the first place.

LOL! Okay, well, I say it is you who cannot or will not acknowledge the difference in nature ~ and the timing, I guess ~ between the first and second resurrections. What is astounding to me is that you do acknowledge such but then seem to turn right around and refute it.

Here's a case in point:

...those who are not born of the Spirit will die the second death when they are raised from the dead with all mankind.

Now see, this I wholeheartedly agree with (unless you equate the second death with annihilation). But yes, otherwise, I totally agree, but what you say here seems to totally refute what you said above, that "MANKIND - ALL MANKIND - has already been resurrected from the dead IN CHRIST." The "has already been" is an issue, because the physical, bodily resurrection is not a past event but future, but I addressed that above... I'm really talking specifically here about your previous "all mankind" assertion; here you're saying it's not all mankind but only some subset of all mankind who will be physically/bodily resurrected from the dead in Christ, which, yes, I agree with. Maybe how you said it above was somewhat ambiguous.

Okay, it is enough. Grace and peace to you.

 

[Zao is life]

You are wasting your time. That is who he is and that is what he does.

For someone whose very first interaction with me opened with what yours began with (the very first words of your first post to me before I had said anything to you), you're no small hypocrite:

Fullness of the Gentiles,

Instead of continually running your mouth off all the time, can you provide hard evidence to support your beliefs?

No! You are unable to corroborate Premil. That is because it is simply not there. I challenge you to a public debate to see who has corroboration for their position. I will not hold my breath. That is because Premil cannot abide biblical scrutiny or does it carry biblical support elsewhere in the sacred pages.

Because you have nothing on Amillennialism you have to twist what we believe in order to give your view some semblance of credibility.

Changing your name seems to have changed your attitude for the worst.

Of course, you chose the above words because:

My aim is to discuss what Scripture teaches, let it speak for itself and support it with other similar Scripture.

You never fooled me the first time. You might have fooled someone else, but you will never fool the same person twice.

Your aim is to discuss what scripture says, so to PinSeeker about me you said:

You are wasting your time. That is who he is and that is what he does.

That's who you are and that's what you do, hypocrite.

I do not appreciate your ad hominem when someone disagrees with you.

Boo-hoo. It isn't even ad-hominum. I simply told you why I won't take you up on your "challenge" to a public debate. You're clearly not capable of it (or qualified, IMO) - and the reasons are again what you say when 'you're only interested in "discussing" scripture', and the way you merely copy and paste your favorite responses to whoever disagrees with you, frequently without even reading what they said.