Ammillennialism's illegitimate redefining and switching around of the meaning of Greek words and biblical concepts

[Spiritual Israelite]

Amillenialism's illegitimate redefining and switching around of the meaning of Greek words and biblical concepts is the reason why they double down with their false doctrine when faced with posts like THIS one.

Greek Septuagint translation of Genesis 2:7: καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.

The words in English: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [zoe]; and man became a living [zao] soul [psuche]."

(The Greek word used for “living” in Genesis 2:7 in the Septuagint is ζῶσαν (zōsan), which is derived from the root verb ζάω [zaō] ) *

* zaō means to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead) (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon).

Note: Genesis 2:7 tells us that the source of being alive [zao], is life [zoe] - the source of which is God.​

==================================================
There is only one Spirit who is the source of life [zoe], by which human beings can live | be alive [zao].
==================================================​

In the New Testament eternal life is always called "zoe aionios (life eternal). The Greek texts of the New Testament never call eternal life "zao aionios" (alive forever). To be alive forever is to be immortal, the source of which is eternal life [zoe], the source of which, is God.

Paul wrote:

"There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we IN HIM; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we BY him." (1 Corinthians 8:6);

and:

"In Him (God) we live | are alive [zao], and move, and have our being; For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28).

* The One God who exists from eternity unto eternity is a Spirit (John 4:24) and the source of all existence, and all life [zoe]. The life [zoe] that is in Him is eternal life [zoe aionios].

* God alone has/possesses life [zoe] in Himself (John 1:4; John 5:26).

Have you ever heard someone say, "I have eternal life because God has given me eternal life"?

Eternal life [zoe] never becomes something we possess IN OURSELVES: Of all human beings ever to have walked on the earth since Adam and Eve, only to the Son of God (the Man, Jesus Christ) has it been given by God to have eternal life [zoe] in Himself (1 John 5:11-12 & John 5:26).

Eternal life [zoe] is given IN Christ Jesus to the seed of created human beings (1 John 5:11-12; John 1:4; John 5:26; John 14:6; Colossians 3:4).​

THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY GIVES THE REASON CHRIST DIED AND ROSE AGAIN

=================================================​

Romans 14:9
--- "For this reason Christ died [apothnesko] and rose again from the dead [anistemi], and lived again [anazao], so that he may be the Lord of both the dead [nekros] and living [zao: those who are alive, not dead]." ---​

=================================================

"Fear not; I am the first and the last:
I am he that is alive / that liveth [zao],
and was dead;
and, behold, I am alive [zao] to the ages of the ages, Amen;
and I have the keys of hades and of death."
(Revelation 1:17-18)

=================================================​

"If Christ's Spirit is in you,

1. your body is dead [G3498 nekros] because of sin, but the Spirit (of Christ) is your (eternal) life [zoe] because of (Christ's) righteousness.

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

Notice how Paul is talking both about the everlasting life [zoe] of the Spirit of life AND of our lack of everlasting bodily life [zao] in Romans 8:10-11 ?
​

The New Testament does not say it has "been given to us to be alive [zao] in Christ" without mentioning the source of being alive. It says that though we are dead, we will be alive [zao] in our bodies (following our bodily resurrection from the dead) because we have been given eternal life [zoe] in Christ (who alone has life - zoe - in Himself) - which is what Jesus said to Martha.

THE AMILLENNIAL FAIL WITH REVELATION 20:4​

The Amil failure to interpret Revelation 20:4-6 correctly lies in the fact that

(a) their interpretation of Revelation 20:4 has the verse talking about souls who have life [zoe] in Christ instead of what the verse says - that they were alive [zao].

They have illegitimately switched around the two Greek words, which mean two different things, to force the verse to comply with their false doctrine; and

(b) their illegitimate interpretation of the bodily resurrection (anastasis) mentioned in verses 5 and 6 as the reason for those who were beheaded being alive [zao], as either

(i) talking about a "spiritual resurrection" or "quickening" - despite, and ignoring the fact that the word anastasis is always talking about a bodily resurrection from the dead and nothing else wherever the word is found in the rest of the New Testament; or

(ii) asserting that the souls being spoken about were alive [zao] in Christ.

The second part of their assertion is the most ludicrous because in terms of the only meaning of the Greek word zao it has the souls of people who had been given eternal life [zoe aionios] in Christ and who had been alive [zao] in their own bodies before they were beheaded, now being alive [zao] with Christ in His body instead of in their own bodies.

It is because of Amillenialism's illegitimate switching around and changing of the meaning of Greek words zoe and zao and the biblical concepts that they talk about,

that there are at least four passages where the New Testament uses the word zao to talk about those who had died but will live again | be alive again following the resurrection of the body from the dead,

where Amillennialism and main-stream churches still influenced by Amillennialism's false doctrines conflate zao (to live | to be alive) and zoe (spiritual life, which is of God) by replacing the word zao with the word zoe in their doctrine:-

|| Matthew 22:32 & Mark 12:27; John 5:24-29; John 11:25-26;

and Revelation 20:4-5. ||

Amillennial theology also conflates the quickening of the human body mentioned in some passages with the quickening of the human spirit, again switching around the meaning of two different Greek words and two different Greek concepts in order to force passages to comply with Amillennial doctrine.

With regard to the above, many Premillennial churches and authors of Premillennial theological works do not realize that they too are still teaching a carry-over of Amillennial false interpretations of some of these passages which are based on a conflation caused by switching around of the meanings of different words and the different biblical concepts they express.​

Blah blah blah. Same old thing from you. All nonsense. The word "zao" simply means to live or to be alive. Unless you believe in soul sleep there is no reason to think the word can't be applied to those who are physically dead, but whose souls and spirits are alive in heaven.

As for the word anastasis being translated as "resurrection" in "the first resurrection", always referring to a bodily resurrection, why did you fail to mention that many Amils see the first resurrection as referring to Christ's bodily resurrection, which was the first unto bodily immortality? Scripture teaches that we spiritually have part in His resurrection (Colossians 2:12-13, Romans 6, Ephesians 2:4-6).

The only other verse in scripture where the Greek words "protos" (first) and "anastasis" (resurrection) are used together is this one.

Acts 26:23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first (protos) to rise (anastasis) from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

Premils fail to use scripture to interpret scripture when identifying what is meant by the first resurrection and how someone has part in it.

Having part in the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection)...

Colossians 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

IOW, I guess--hath part in---can't fit anything such as the following---and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds

Guess what? Even those that are alive and remain have part in this event when the dead in Christ rise first. A resurrection, in regards to the saved, means to rise from a state of mortality to state of immortality. It even plainly says so in 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


Is one going to argue that only the physically dead are mortal and need to put on immortality, but those that are alive and remain don't need to?

Why are you equating a bodily change from being mortal to immortal with a bodily resurrection from being bodily dead to bodily alive? It's called the first resurrection, not the first change.

That those still alive and remain are not mortal as well. In the world I live in, the real world, every single saved person whether alive or dead are still in a mortal state until they put on immortality at the last trump. But so what? Right? That still doesn't equal anyone having part in anything. Right? One can only have part in a resurrection if the resurrection is spiritual and applies to the here and now. Right?

Look at what Revelation 20:6 says about those who have part in the first resurrection and tell me if you think what is described requires a bodily resurrection and putting on immortality or not.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

It's no wonder that you try to include those who are alive and remain as being part of the first resurrection, which you see as being a reference to the mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ when Christ returns. Otherwise, your view would contradict what this verse indicates. But, those who are alive when He returns do not need to be resurrected. This verse indicates that the second death has no power over those who have part in the first resurrection and they are priests of God and of Christ. Tell me, does the second death have power over anyone who is in Christ right now, whether dead or alive? The answer is no, it does not. So, with that being the case, how can you not conclude that those who are in Christ right now have had part in the first resurrection?

Also, it says those who have part in the first resurrection become priests of God and of Christ. Are you somehow not aware that all believers, dead or alive, are priests of God and of Christ right now?

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Other scripture indicates that Revelation 20:6 is a current reality for those who are in Christ, but Premils either ignore that or somehow don't recognize that. You don't need to be part of a mass bodily resurrection in order to be made a priest of God and Christ or in order to have the second death not have any power over you.

 

[Lizbeth]

I'm not he thread's author or the person you quoted but I hold an Amillennial eschatological position so I hope you don't mind my jumping in.

Amillennialism unequivocally affirms the bodily resurrection of the dead at the last trumpet and the visible return of Jesus Christ. The disagreement is not over whether Christ returns or whether the dead are raised, but over how the millennium of Revelation 20 is to be understood.

Amillennialism understands the “thousand years” as a symbolic designation for the present gospel age—the period between Christ’s first and second comings—rather than a literal, future, earthly reign in which Christ is physically present on earth for exactly 1,000 calendar years.

We confess that Christ will return once, bodily and visibly, at which time:

• the dead will be raised,
• final judgment will occur,
• and the eternal state—the new heavens and the new earth—will be consumated.

Accordingly, Amillennialism holds that Christ may return at any moment or may tarry according to the Father’s will. The church is therefore not tasked with deciphering end-times signs in every news cycle, but with faithful proclamation of the gospel, perseverance in holiness, and confident hope in Christ’s promised return.

This position does not diminish the future hope of the church; it grounds that hope directly in Christ Himself, not in a speculative timetable.

Amen, I agree, so I guess that puts me in the Amillennial. camp too. The "thousand years is as a day" that Peter mentions in 2 Peter 3 is the time of longsuffering that we are to account as salvation (time for people to be saved), which is the gospel age we are in now. I would just like to mention that Paul said in 2 Thess 2 that the day of the Lord will not come except the son of perdition is first revealed. But the church has certainly become distracted and sidetracked by the whole eschatology thing instead of "occupying until I come" as Jesus instructed.

 

[WPM]

Amen, I agree, so I guess that puts me in the Amillennial. camp too. The "thousand years is as a day" that Peter mentions in 2 Peter 3 is the time of longsuffering that we are to account as salvation (time for people to be saved), which is the gospel age we are in now. I would just like to mention that Paul said in 2 Thess 2 that the day of the Lord will not come except the son of perdition is first revealed. But the church has certainly become distracted and sidetracked by the whole eschatology thing instead of "occupying until I come" as Jesus instructed.

It is an indefinite period of time in between the First and Second Advents.

 

[Hazelelponi]

YES, it is SUPER beneficial that we submit to the words of God as JESUS commanded in Matt 4:4

When we do, the Holy Spirit will Guide us and Speak thru us to one another for our benefit and healing and discovery.

i also cannot give time to endless word games and the 'shuffling of the deck' for the purpose of having a higher hand that can never outsmart the Holy Spirit who, does not play cards.

If we fail to yield to simple child-like wording of scripture, we are tempted to become "men of renown" in our own estimation of things.
Estimation of 'things' that is often derived from human intelligence beyond basic comprehension of immediate contextual application.
The swing of pendulum brain activity can go from strict contextual earthbound understanding to spiritual application which exceeds the limits of defined parameters within Scripture.

Correct apprehension of that which we are unable to apprehend on our own requires obedience to the Holy Spirit of Truth
TODAY we have the completed Scripture by which the Holy Spirit grants understanding thru what is written, from Genesis to Revelation.

CONTEXT to PRAYER to HOLY SPIRIT

Love you my brother/sister? @Hazelelponi

P.S. - NEVER go by 'context-context-contex

I think there may be some misunderstanding here, so I want to respond carefully and plainly.

I agree wholeheartedly that we must submit to the Word of God, just as Jesus said: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). I also agree that the Holy Spirit works through the written Word to guide, correct, and edify the church. There is no disagreement there.

What I’m struggling with is understanding what, specifically, you are correcting me about. I’m not trying to engage in word games, seek personal recognition, or elevate human reasoning above Scripture. My desire is much simpler than that: to speak faithfully about Christ and what He has done, in a way that is understandable to real people.

I was saved eleven years ago — truly saved. From that point on, I have wanted to share what God has done, is doing, and will do in Christ. I live with a significant physical disability that keeps me home most of the time, and I spend much of that time in Scripture and study. Over the years, the coherence and beauty of God’s Word, from Genesis to Revelation, has only deepened my faith and my worship.

I’ll freely admit that I am still growing in how I communicate. In relaxed conversation, I sometimes speak too quickly or use shorthand language — for example, saying “God says” when I mean “Scripture says.” That’s not a claim to prophetic authority; it’s an area where I’m learning to slow down and be clearer, because being understood matters.

This past year has been a season of real growth for me — in discernment, humility, and confidence. I’m not claiming perfection, only faithfulness. But I don’t believe I’m being called to silence. People need to hear about God — not through slogans or spiritualized abstractions, but through Scripture applied carefully and pastorally to real lives.

A Christian forum is an appropriate place to speak about Christ. I’m not here to compete, posture, or “outsmart” anyone. I’m here because my hope is in Jesus Christ alone, and I believe that hope is worth sharing.

Fifteen years ago, I was following Islam and had no hope. Today, my life is hidden with Christ. That is entirely the work of God’s grace, and it’s the testimony I’ve been given to share

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The reader will see that so far you have ducked around every single rebuttal that forbids your claims. That is the only way your argument can be sustained.

The major problem here is that you do not see that man is spiritually dead prior to salvation. You therefore do not see the need for him to be quickened/resurrected from that state of spiritual death. This is at the core of your confusion. You do not seem to want to believe that great fundamental biblical truth. If you get that wrong, which you do, everything else you say is wrong.

Joh 5:19 Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Joh 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Joh 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life [Gr. zōē], and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life [Gr. zōē].
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live [Gr. zaō].

How can Premils read John 5:24-25 and deny that those who are saved experience a spiritual resurrection (not the literal resurrection of our spirits, but going from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ)? How does that happen? When we have part in Christ's resurrection, the literal first resurrection unto bodily immortality (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, etc.). That process of becoming saved and going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ is what having part in the first resurrection is all about. It's all about going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ as a spiritual way of identifying with Christ's death and resurrection. As Paul explained here...

Colossians 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

Since Premils ignore the fact that Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection (1 Cor 15:20, Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5), they have no idea of what it actually means to have part in the first resurrection. You can't be spiritually resurrected from being dead in sins to alive in Christ without having part in His resurrection. Having part in the first resurrection has nothing to do with being bodily resurrected. If that was the case, then those who are alive and remain until the second coming of Christ would be out of luck and would not be blessed and holy and would not have victory over the second death since only those who have part in the first resurrection are considered blessed and holy and have victory over the second death, according to Revelation 20:6.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The above protest fails to provide a COMPETE list of all the verses using the word zao in the New Testament in order to prove which verses are NOT referring to being alive but rather to the spiritual life [zoe] which is the source of it,

and fails to provide adequate reason for switching the meaning in some verses only - even though the word zao (being alive) never refers to the zoe (life) that is the source of being alive,

This is a ridiculously weak argument. A vast majority of scripture is about to things that happened or are happening to people who are physically alive. It rarely talks about those who are dead and what they are doing after their physical deaths. So, naturally, a vast majority of the time you will find the word used in relation to those who are physically alive. That does NOT mean the word can't be used to those who are physically dead, but spiritually alive. That's complete nonsense. The definition of the word "zao" is NOT "to bodily live" or "to be bodily alive". It means "to live" or "to be alive". That can apply to those who are physically dead, but their souls are alive in heaven. And it does in passages like Revelation 6:9-11, which references the souls of the dead in Christ who are alive and conscious in heaven, and in Revelation 20:4-6 as well.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. You never even try to answer what you cannot answer whenever biblical truth and facts shows your assertions up to be false or based in false doctrine.

TROLL.

He has answered every argument that you have made. You just don't like the answers. It makes you look very bad to lie and claim that he hasn't addressed your arguments. He has done so extensively.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you take an umbrella or rain jacket with you in case it rains while you're trolling along singing lies and false accusations to avoid answering specific facts that you are not even prepared to answer - and drumming your drum superimposing what you do upon everyone else while you troll along?

TROLL

If I ask you ONE question, would you answer it?

Do you still now believe In Jesus and that you are a sinner whose sins He bore in His own body, and have you ever believed?

You have clearly lost it. Just because he disagrees with your end times view, you are questioning his salvation? What is wrong with you? What has WPM done to give you the idea that he might not believe in Jesus? He glorifies Jesus constantly in his posts and you have the gall to ask him this ridiculous question?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Op Note

The Op is officially in tatters!

Agree 100%. This thread probably hasn't gone the way he had hoped. LOL.

 

[WPM]

How can Premils read John 5:24-25 and deny that those who are saved experience a spiritual resurrection (not the literal resurrection of our spirits, but going from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ)? How does that happen? When we have part in Christ's resurrection, the literal first resurrection unto bodily immortality (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, etc.). That process of becoming saved and going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ is what having part in the first resurrection is all about. It's all about going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ as a spiritual way of identifying with Christ's death and resurrection. As Paul explained here...

Colossians 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

Since Premils ignore the fact that Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection (1 Cor 15:20, Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5), they have no idea of what it actually means to have part in the first resurrection. You can't be spiritually resurrected from being dead in sins to alive in Christ without having part in His resurrection. Having part in the first resurrection has nothing to do with being bodily resurrected. If that was the case, then those who are alive and remain until the second coming of Christ would be out of luck and would not be blessed and holy and would not have victory over the second death since only those who have part in the first resurrection are considered blessed and holy and have victory over the second death, according to Revelation 20:6.

I think they do. That is why they struggle to refute the Amils posts here in response to the Op. What can they say?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Be sure to be fair here, though. Be sure to equally apply to @Spiritual Israelite what you apply to me here. Though, he might be an Amil, he too agrees NOSAS is Biblical.

This again? You are obsessed. OSAS vs. NOSAS has absolutely nothing to do with the Amil vs. Premil debate. You constantly go out of your way to try to disprove Amil with your nonsensical imaginary ideas. You apparently have no interest in being taken seriously.

Except you don't have the backbone, thus too cowardly, to tell him that NOSAS and Amil's interpretation of the first resurrection are not compatable.

LOL! Does he represent literally all Amils? He knows he does not. He knows that one can be an Amil without having to believe OSAS and has told you that multiple times in the past. But, here you are thinking he has to say otherwise? Get a clue.

As if it makes sense that both positions, OSAS and NOSAS, can fit Amil's interpretation of the first resurrection.

Amil doesn't have just one interpretation in terms of whether or not one can lose their part in the first resurrection, so you are being naive here by acting as if all Amils have to agree on that. That is not the case.

As if it makes sense that after having part in the first resurrection, one can then lose part in that resurrection--thus Amil combined with NOSAS.

It makes sense if NOSAS is true because Amils associate having part in the first resurrection with salvation. If you can lose your salvation and having part in the first resurrection results in salvation, then it only follows that you can lose your part in the first resurrection. Why can't you understand this?

If that doesn't equal a false teaching--Amil combined with NOSAS--what does it equal then?

It's not a false teaching. You just wish it was because you wish Amil wasn't true. But, it is, and you have repeatedly failed to refute it for many years now.

That either means Amil is a false teaching or that NOSAS is a false teaching, since it is impossible to combine the two and not end up with a false teaching.

No one cares what you think about this. No one else but you tries to bring the OSAS vs. NOSAS debate into the Amil vs. Premil debate. That's because everyone but you knows the two debates are not directly related.

 

[WPM]

You have clearly lost it. Just because he disagrees with your end times view, you are questioning his salvation? What is wrong with you? What has WPM done to give you the idea that he might not believe in Jesus? He glorifies Jesus constantly in his posts and you have the gall to ask him this ridiculous question?

It seems like they are in love with a theory that they have been taught rather than the truth. When their cherished little theory is exposed they get frustrated. When they get frustrated they start to hurl insults at those trying to share the truth. This discussion is a classic case-in-point. There is no actually addressing of the counter-argument just frustration, avoidance and slights.

 

[David in NJ]

I think there may be some misunderstanding here, so I want to respond carefully and plainly.

I agree wholeheartedly that we must submit to the Word of God, just as Jesus said: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). I also agree that the Holy Spirit works through the written Word to guide, correct, and edify the church. There is no disagreement there.

What I’m struggling with is understanding what, specifically, you are correcting me about. I’m not trying to engage in word games, seek personal recognition, or elevate human reasoning above Scripture. My desire is much simpler than that: to speak faithfully about Christ and what He has done, in a way that is understandable to real people.

I was saved eleven years ago — truly saved. From that point on, I have wanted to share what God has done, is doing, and will do in Christ. I live with a significant physical disability that keeps me home most of the time, and I spend much of that time in Scripture and study. Over the years, the coherence and beauty of God’s Word, from Genesis to Revelation, has only deepened my faith and my worship.

I’ll freely admit that I am still growing in how I communicate. In relaxed conversation, I sometimes speak too quickly or use shorthand language — for example, saying “God says” when I mean “Scripture says.” That’s not a claim to prophetic authority; it’s an area where I’m learning to slow down and be clearer, because being understood matters.

This past year has been a season of real growth for me — in discernment, humility, and confidence. I’m not claiming perfection, only faithfulness. But I don’t believe I’m being called to silence. People need to hear about God — not through slogans or spiritualized abstractions, but through Scripture applied carefully and pastorally to real lives.

A Christian forum is an appropriate place to speak about Christ. I’m not here to compete, posture, or “outsmart” anyone. I’m here because my hope is in Jesus Christ alone, and I believe that hope is worth sharing.

Fifteen years ago, I was following Islam and had no hope. Today, my life is hidden with Christ. That is entirely the work of God’s grace, and it’s the testimony I’ve been given to share

What I’m struggling with is understanding what, specifically, you are correcting me about. I’m not trying to engage in word games, seek personal recognition, or elevate human reasoning above Scripture.

My post was directed at another member who "shuffles the deck" = Not at all towards you.

You were included because i appreciate your rich posts as i concurred yesterday, if you remember = on the 'Gospel' thread

This past year has been a season of real growth for me — in discernment, humility, and confidence. I’m not claiming perfection, only faithfulness. But I don’t believe I’m being called to silence. People need to hear about God — not through slogans or spiritualized abstractions, but through Scripture applied carefully and pastorally to real lives.

HalleluYAH and i CONCUR

A Christian forum is an appropriate place to speak about Christ. I’m not here to compete, posture, or “outsmart” anyone. I’m here because my hope is in Jesus Christ alone, and I believe that hope is worth sharing.

HalleluYAH and DITTO
the problem on here is that some think they can outsmart the Holy Spirit of truth

Fifteen years ago, I was following Islam and had no hope. Today, my life is hidden with Christ. That is entirely the work of God’s grace, and it’s the testimony I’ve been given to share

HalleluYAH = when i read your posts yesterday and the day before i KNEW you are being led by the Holy Spirit

i hope now, you know why i included you in my post = as a Blessing to you just as you are to me

As we grow in the LORD, be careful of those who say "context, context, context' as that is not the WAY the TRUTH the LIFE

JESUS showed us His Way = 'context, Prayer, Holy Spirit'

 

[Zao is life]

@Hazelelponi Those who love God, love His Word which His inspired prophets and apostles wrote, and seek to fully understand what the authors who penned the scriptures meant in each and every verse.

Do you believe it's important to do that?

I do - because words in the Bible and what the authors who penned the scriptures meant by them are not, and were not ever meant to be defined by abstract extra-biblical statements plucked not out of scripture, but out of the minds of fallible human beings with theological biases.

Statements like these:

In both the LXX and NT:

ζωὴ can denote ordinary creaturely life, not only eternal life.

ζάω can be used figuratively or theologically, not only for bodily animation.

Lexicons define ranges of meaning, not iron rules. Treating ζάω as “always bodily life” and ζωὴ as “always spiritual life” is itself an example of illegitimate semantic restriction, the very error being alleged. ..

etc etc

ALL statements like the above FAIL to ascertain what the authors who penned the Bible meant by words LIKE the words brought up in this thread - and what they meant in each and every verse of scripture where they used the words.

ALL such statements about lexicon etc - derived from outside the Bible - fail, in respect of the words mentioned in this thread to provide a COMPETE list of all the verses using the word zao in the New Testament in order to prove which verses are NOT referring to being alive but rather to the spiritual life [zoe] which is the source of it,

and fail to provide adequate reason for switching the meaning in some verses only - even though the word zao (being alive) never refers (in the verses in the Bible where they appear) to the zoe (life) that is the source of being alive,

and fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the word zoe in order to prove which verses using the word are using it NOT in reference to life, but in reference to being alive,

and fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the words égersis; anístēmi; and egeírō and anástasis (the words used in reference to the resurrection) (i.e whenever the words are used in reference to the resurrection because the words égersis; anístēmi; and egeírō are not always used in reference to the resurrection: Sometimes they are used for rising up as in "get up!", or being raised up as a leader, or rising from sleep in a normal sense),

but whenever the above words are not being used in a normal sense, they are referring to the resurrection - in each verse.

So statements about lexicon etc that fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the words égersis; anístēmi; and egeírō and anástasis where the words are referring to the resurrection, are not derived from the verses where the words appear - hence they are not derived from the Bible

- they are derived from extra-biblical sources produced by the fallible minds of humans and simply accepted and believed by other humans who are not prepared to take the time and effort to search for and read each and every verse and the passage and context in which it was used by the person who penned the scripture.

and so in the same way and for the same reasons, they also fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the words zoopoieo and suzōopoiéō and make a comparison between them all in order to prove which verses are NOT referring to the quickening of the human body (but to the quickening of the human spirit instead, as they claim).

It's a complete failure on the part of many churches and theological institutions NOT TO look IN the Bible where those words appear - in each and every verse where those words appear - to see what the authors who penned the scriptures were talking about in those verses / in that passage

- instead of listening to and repeating the intellectual generalizations and definitions created in fallible human minds (which are often based not on what the authors who penned the scriptures were talking about and what they meant by the word) but on extra-biblical theological biases.

Those who love God, love His Word which His inspired prophets and apostles wrote, and seek to fully understand what the authors who penned the scriptures meant in each and every verse.

Indeed, whoever loves God enough WILL love His inspired Word enough to look for each and every New Testament verse using each word when it comes to these subjects, comparing the verses with one another to ascertain if what the authors who penned the verses were talking about, and what they meant by the words, is what those who have never bothered to do this, SAY the words mean.

Failure to do so = not interested enough in what the authors who penned the scriptures, who were inspired by God to write what they did, meant and were seeking to convey.

Copy @David in NJ

 

[David in NJ]

Amen, I agree, so I guess that puts me in the Amillennial. camp too. The "thousand years is as a day" that Peter mentions in 2 Peter 3 is the time of longsuffering that we are to account as salvation (time for people to be saved), which is the gospel age we are in now. I would just like to mention that Paul said in 2 Thess 2 that the day of the Lord will not come except the son of perdition is first revealed. But the church has certainly become distracted and sidetracked by the whole eschatology thing instead of "occupying until I come" as Jesus instructed.

The "thousand years is as a day" that Peter mentions in 2 Peter 3 is the time of longsuffering that we are to account as salvation (time for people to be saved),

Dear Lizbeth and @Hazelelponi , Peter never said that nor implied amillenialism.

Please go back and read again = Peter is pointing us Back to GENESIS as well as Forward to the Second Coming

Amil is another 'ism that divides the Body of Christ = Satan has 6,000 years advance development of false teachings for us to take in.

The Scriptures and Holy Spirit is our Guide out of all that we were born into in this world of darkness, including the 'isms'

The Number 1 Reason why so many 'isms' is we break the Commandment of God given to us at least three times.
This Continuous Commandment covers ALL of Scripture.

Deuteronomy 4:2 , Proverbs 3:5-6 , Revelation 22:18-19

Not many obey this most crucial Commandment

The Entire World was brought under the Judgment of Sin all because this Commandment was not obeyed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Dear Lizbeth and @Hazelelponi , Peter never said that nor implied that.

Please go back and read again = Peter is pointing us Back to GENESIS as well as Forward to the Second Coming

Amil is another 'ism that divides the Body of Christ = Satan has 6,000 years advance development of false teachings for us to take in.

The Scriptures and Holy Spirit is our Guide out of all that we were born into in this world of darkness, including the 'isms'

LOL. Says the guy who believes in Premillennialism.

 

[David in NJ]

LOL. Says the guy who believes in Premillennialism.

No brother, that is the label that others created = not me

i do not believe in 'isms' except Baptism of the Holy Spirit and if there be any other approved by the Word.

i believe JESUS and His Commandments = Matthew 4:4 , Deuteronomy 4:2 , Proverbs 30:5-6 , Revelation 1:3 and 22:18-19

 

[Davidpt]

@Hazelelponi Those who love God, love His Word which His inspired prophets and apostles wrote, and seek to fully understand what the authors who penned the scriptures meant in each and every verse.

Do you believe it's important to do that?

I do - because words in the Bible and what the authors who penned the scriptures meant by them are not, and were not ever meant to be defined by abstract extra-biblical statements plucked not out of scripture, but out of the minds of fallible human beings with theological biases.

Statements like these:

In both the LXX and NT:

ζωὴ can denote ordinary creaturely life, not only eternal life.

ζάω can be used figuratively or theologically, not only for bodily animation.

Lexicons define ranges of meaning, not iron rules. Treating ζάω as “always bodily life” and ζωὴ as “always spiritual life” is itself an example of illegitimate semantic restriction, the very error being alleged. ..

etc etc

ALL statements like the above FAIL to ascertain what the authors who penned the Bible meant by words LIKE the words brought up in this thread - and what they meant in each and every verse of scripture where they used the words.

ALL such statements about lexicon etc - derived from outside the Bible - fail, in respect of the words mentioned in this thread to provide a COMPETE list of all the verses using the word zao in the New Testament in order to prove which verses are NOT referring to being alive but rather to the spiritual life [zoe] which is the source of it,

and fail to provide adequate reason for switching the meaning in some verses only - even though the word zao (being alive) never refers (in the verses in the Bible where they appear) to the zoe (life) that is the source of being alive,

and fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the word zoe in order to prove which verses using the word are using it NOT in reference to life, but in reference to being alive,

and fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the words égersis; anístēmi; and egeírō and anástasis (the words used in reference to the resurrection) (i.e whenever the words are used in reference to the resurrection because the words égersis; anístēmi; and egeírō are not always used in reference to the resurrection: Sometimes they are used for rising up as in "get up!", or being raised up as a leader, or rising from sleep in a normal sense),

but whenever the above words are not being used in a normal sense, they are referring to the resurrection - in each verse.

So statements about lexicon etc that fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the words égersis; anístēmi; and egeírō and anástasis where the words are referring to the resurrection, are not derived from the verses where the words appear - hence they are not derived from the Bible

- they are derived from extra-biblical sources produced by the fallible minds of humans and simply accepted and believed by other humans who are not prepared to take the time and effort to search for and read each and every verse and the passage and context in which it was used by the person who penned the scripture.

and so in the same way and for the same reasons, they also fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the words zoopoieo and suzōopoiéō and make a comparison between them all in order to prove which verses are NOT referring to the quickening of the human body (but to the quickening of the human spirit instead, as they claim).

It's a complete failure on the part of many churches and theological institutions NOT TO look IN the Bible where those words appear - in each and every verse where those words appear - to see what the authors who penned the scriptures were talking about in those verses / in that passage

- instead of listening to and repeating the intellectual generalizations and definitions created in fallible human minds (which are often based not on what the authors who penned the scriptures were talking about and what they meant by the word) but on extra-biblical theological biases.

Those who love God, love His Word which His inspired prophets and apostles wrote, and seek to fully understand what the authors who penned the scriptures meant in each and every verse.

Indeed, whoever loves God enough WILL love His inspired Word enough to look for each and every New Testament verse using each word when it comes to these subjects, comparing the verses with one another to ascertain if what the authors who penned the verses were talking about, and what they meant by the words, is what those who have never bothered to do this, SAY the words mean.

Failure to do so = not interested enough in what the authors who penned the scriptures, who were inspired by God to write what they did, meant and were seeking to convey.

Copy @David in NJ

Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live(zao).

and his deadly wound was healed(verse 3) = and did live(zao)(verse 14)


What should we make of this use of zao?

 

[Zao is life]

I think there may be some misunderstanding here, so I want to respond carefully and plainly.

I agree wholeheartedly that we must submit to the Word of God, just as Jesus said: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). I also agree that the Holy Spirit works through the written Word to guide, correct, and edify the church. There is no disagreement there.

What I’m struggling with is understanding what, specifically, you are correcting me about. I’m not trying to engage in word games, seek personal recognition, or elevate human reasoning above Scripture. My desire is much simpler than that: to speak faithfully about Christ and what He has done, in a way that is understandable to real people.

I was saved eleven years ago — truly saved. From that point on, I have wanted to share what God has done, is doing, and will do in Christ. I live with a significant physical disability that keeps me home most of the time, and I spend much of that time in Scripture and study. Over the years, the coherence and beauty of God’s Word, from Genesis to Revelation, has only deepened my faith and my worship.

I’ll freely admit that I am still growing in how I communicate. In relaxed conversation, I sometimes speak too quickly or use shorthand language — for example, saying “God says” when I mean “Scripture says.” That’s not a claim to prophetic authority; it’s an area where I’m learning to slow down and be clearer, because being understood matters.

This past year has been a season of real growth for me — in discernment, humility, and confidence. I’m not claiming perfection, only faithfulness. But I don’t believe I’m being called to silence. People need to hear about God — not through slogans or spiritualized abstractions, but through Scripture applied carefully and pastorally to real lives.

A Christian forum is an appropriate place to speak about Christ. I’m not here to compete, posture, or “outsmart” anyone. I’m here because my hope is in Jesus Christ alone, and I believe that hope is worth sharing.

Fifteen years ago, I was following Islam and had no hope. Today, my life is hidden with Christ. That is entirely the work of God’s grace, and it’s the testimony I’ve been given to share

Yet you placed a "love" under the post of one of the people who frequent these forums who does exactly that in almost ALL of his posts (@Spiritual Israelite) - only because he was placing it for my OP - which you seem to assume is posted out of a desire to outsmart arrogant people like that.

Please read THIS post which I left for you - because that post will tell you what my motive is - my motive is only to uphold the truth of what those who penned the scriptures wrote, nothing more.

What was your motive for the "Love" you placed under the post of @Spiritual Israelite where he expressed nothing more or less than his usual insults and slurs which have nothing to do with the subject?

I only ask because when I see that "love" that you posted under his post filled with his usual trolling arrogance and insults and false accusations, then something is not adding up here regarding what you claim above about your own motives.

Praise Jesus for your salvation, and God the Father for calling you. May you continue to grow in the knowledge of Jesus and in grace - and in wisdom - because by placing a love under the post of someone who proves all the time by his own choices of words that his motives are the exact motives that you are falsely accusing me of, you either lack discernment, or we need to question what you claim regarding your own motives.

God bless you.