Jesus' ASCENSION, and what actually occurred.

[ScottA]

OK, let me try to construct an argument this way. Jesus said "my sheep know my voice and they will never follow another". Now, unless the entire church up until you have been following another I have to be extremely dubious of any claim you make of new revelation.

Before reading on--which I will do, but I should think that you have expressed the crux of the matter already.

The problem [was] and [is] just a bit more involved than that. Indeed, His sheep hear his voice...but they also hear other voices and have, just as it has been established with Israel who being lead by God also followed other gods. Therefore, Peter warned (referring to Israel) that "there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you." So, then what might have been, goes sideways off the path--which of course is no surprise to God, as He "works all things together for good for those who love Him according to His purpose"--which, in this case, is contending with the folly of the gentiles, not unlike He dealt with Israel.

All of which was foretold, and this too--the leading unto all true...is that not notice enough of new revelation? This too was foretold. Jesus even said, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." Things are just as that are to be.

Continuing on...

 

[ScottA]

In all frankness your claims are so jarringly out of line with my and the historical Church's conventional reading of the text that I feel like I have to restate the essentials of the faith to be sure we at least have that in common.

Yes, the kind of twist that takes a couple thousand years is hard to undo. I understand.

I know for a fact that I, you, and every human alive is a hopelessly wretched sinner that is incapable of looking past his or her own concerns except when we are enjoying a superabundance of what we perceive as rightly ours, be it wealth, prestige, power or sex, when in fact none of us rightly should be getting any consideration whatsoever. In fact we are all rightly deserving of being given over to the furnace for what we willfully chose to be in our first parents. That is the bad news and yes, it is very bad.
The Good and glorious news beyond believing except by a quickening act of God is that the Holy, Holy, Holy God whose presence we rationally flee from in our current state loves us beyond our ability to measure or comprehend and has made a way. He'll take it all, all the shit of our existence that we should get at our terminus and place it on his sinless, perfect and spiritually gorgouse Son at the cross, an eternity of torment, and deal with it there instead of on us if we'll have him as Lord and God. It goes beyond that in fact. We are not just rendered neutral by our act of re-aligning our loyalties to our rightful creator, we are given the status of Children of God and co-heirs of an eternity in conciously coherent bliss in a new creation that he is preparing for us that does not end. I don't know what our new society will be exactly like only that there will be no slights, intentional or otherwise, everyone's needs will be met and we will all be equal at the throne of our God and King, He who purchased us back from the kit of our great deceiver as an act of utterly unmerited Grace, UTTERLY UNMERITED. If you truly believe this your one of His and one of mine and I will take as much time as you wish to try to wrestle out our differences over secondary matters.

Amen!

 

[DanielConway]

No, no, no. The text says "my sheep know my voice AND WILL NEVER FOLLOW ANOTHER" There is no room for those who are truly of Christ to be subject to this kind of mass delusion. There are those in the Church who may buy a false doctrine, but the scripture is clear of those who are teaching it, "they will not get very far" 2 Timothy 3:9. This kind of 2000 year mistake just can't happen, OK?

 

[Davy]

OK. Let's try to get back to the initial thrust of the thread, which was the assertion that Christ did not retain his fleshly body at his ascension, an assertion that I deny. The original poster relies heavily on the I Corinthians discourse about the resurrection body to infer that Christ must somehow have been transformed into a purely spiritual being at his ascension even though there is no text in any of the accounts to support it it. However, there are several accounts of Christ's body post resurrection and prior to the ascension that overtly prove that it had already been radically transformed. He apparently passes through closed doors at one appearance, his appearance at another manifestation is so different that the witnesses to his appearance do not recognize him until he disappears from their sight, and the very fact that he rose physically into the heavens at his ascension all demonstrate that his resurrected body had taken on Angelic characteristics prior to his ascension. I maintain that these evidences are enough to prove that Christ was already in his spiritual body at his resurrection, a body that palpably had flesh, just ask Thomas, and that no further spiritualization of his corpus need be read into his ascension. Likewise, our bodies will have spiritual flesh at our resurrection just as his currently does.

Apostle Paul settled that matter in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50. No amount of continued debating... is going to somehow miraculously change what Apostle Paul said, just to suit men's fancies of men's traditions.

1 Cor 15:45-50
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV

 

[ScottA]

No, no, no. The text says "my sheep know my voice AND WILL NEVER FOLLOW ANOTHER" There is no room for those who are truly of Christ to be subject to this kind of mass delusion. There are those in the Church who may buy a false doctrine, but the scripture is clear of those who are teaching it, "they will not get very far" 2 Timothy 3:9. This kind of 2000 year mistake just can't happen, OK?

Here are the verses:

Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. 24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.” John 10:22-30

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
​

The common assumption is that to "follow" does not include being "snatched out of His hand"...and that much is true. But that is not what it actually refers to. And we were also told that He was to go before them to the gentiles and that they were indeed to follow, as the angel said, "go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee [of the gentiles]; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” Matthew 28:7 So then, were there no false teachers, and doctrines taught and believed among the gentiles? Of course there were, just as it was foretold. Nonetheless, Jesus went again into darkness, as He also went to the cross...and they heard and followed, many of whom went astray just as it is also written. But that does not mean they have been "snatched from His hand." What do the scriptures say? That it is rather those false teachers who go to destruction. 2 Peter 2:1 2 Thessalonians 1:9

I too would rather that things did not go the way of "strong delusion" and "great apostacy." But it was that same Paul who assured Timothy who foretold delusion and apostacy...meaning that only those who brought corruption would come to their destruction, and yet not prevail.

But I sense in your tone that the very idea is upsetting to say the least. For which I will say, not to worry, we are in good hands. But also, allow me to confirm by directing you to John who upon reading of the fate of the gentiles, found it to be sweet as honey in his mouth, but bitter to his stomach. Revelation 10:9-10

 

[DanielConway]

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me . . . a stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." (Jn. 10:5, 27) The phraseology is slightly different but the meaning is identical, Christ's sheep are not subject to long term mass delusions. Of course there are those within the Church body who are subject to error, but the body of that which calls itself the Church has always been a mixture of wheat and tares, yes? We will not be separated until the last harvest when Christ himself will distinguish between his own and the pretenders. Event in the great apostasy to come, and I emphasize TO COME, Christ's own will remain true. Your construct requires an apostasy that started at the beginning and has been ongoing for 2000 years, which is outside the scope of biblical cosmology. In fact your arguments have a tendacy to do that a lot, to map every reference to a spiritual existence, which every believer currently enjoys even in our present imperfect flesh, onto some future state of pure spirituality when we will not be enfleshed. Every time I or someone else points out this twisting of the chronology of our Christian walk you break out the magic phraseology of a limited thinking in the flesh instead of in the spirit. Brother, as a Holy spirit indwelt believer I have access to the same spirit as you. When you use that argument you come close to denying my own status as holy spirit indwelt and it verges on insulting.
Now, addressing Davy's argument, lets look at another quote from Paul from the same book:
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Will we have the same kind of flesh at our resurrection? No! certainly not. But it WILL be a body, not pure spirit as the edited quote you gave might seem to imply.

 

[ScottA]

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me . . . a stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." (Jn. 10:5, 27) The phraseology is slightly different but the meaning is identical, Christ's sheep are not subject to long term mass delusions. Of course there are those within the Church body who are subject to error, but the body of that which calls itself the Church has always been a mixture of wheat and tares, yes? We will not be separated until the last harvest when Christ himself will distinguish between his own and the pretenders. Event in the great apostasy to come, and I emphasize TO COME, Christ's own will remain true. Your construct requires an apostasy that started at the beginning and has been ongoing for 2000 years, which is outside the scope of biblical cosmology. In fact your arguments have a tendacy to do that a lot, to map every reference to a spiritual existence, which every believer currently enjoys even in our present imperfect flesh, onto some future state of pure spirituality when we will not be enfleshed. Every time I or someone else points out this twisting of the chronology of our Christian walk you break out the magic phraseology of a limited thinking in the flesh instead of in the spirit. Brother, as a Holy spirit indwelt believer I have access to the same spirit as you. When you use that argument you come close to denying my own status as holy spirit indwelt and it verges on insulting.
Now, addressing Davy's argument, lets look at another quote from Paul from the same book:
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Will we have the same kind of flesh at our resurrection? No! certainly not. But it WILL be a body, not pure spirit as the edited quote you gave might seem to imply.

Yes, wheat and tares, and also sheep and goats.

There are two narratives, one of Christ's sheep hearing and following, and another of strong delusion--but you are only fully acknowledging the one. Which means, you yourself are only hearing approximately half of Christ's voice...and there you have it. That is exactly the case for most of Christendom...and both narratives have come to fruition.

As for your comments on my continued effort to return truth according to all the scriptures rather than only part, pointing to the error--that is my part, which no, is not the same as you. It doesn't work that way. It is a fine notion, but biblically spiritual gifts are give variably according to God, and even "poured out upon all flesh", including many who are evil. Which is not insulting, just the biblical truth. You have no reason to be offended. But I am not arguing, but telling, as I ought to.

As for when the apostacy began, have you not read that the spirit of anti-Christ was already at work 2,000 years ago, which you now deny and use as a point of showing me wrong--and yet it is written? But perhaps you have also not heard or read where the rift began, which Jesus clearly stated, saying that He comes "quickly", that "all things would come upon that generation", after revealing all the things "that must shortly take place." But as foretold, false teachers among the early church in unbelief soon began to develop the now popular false doctrine of a future generation and fulfillment, even changing Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy sighted by Jesus, to 69 weeks +1 week--which you now refer to saying "TO COME" with emphasis.

Back to How the dead are raised:

You seem to object to "pure spirit" and yet God is pure and spirit. But we also know that God is fully capable of manifesting in whatever form at will--and that we become One with Him having that same will. So where is the problem if not with some love of the flesh as we know it being first born of it?

All I am saying is there is nothing less of what is born of the spirit of God, but there are many apparently including yourself, who reject the idea of that form of more, and want not to hear what is better in God than what is in this world. I maintain, that what is born of the spirit of God is not less, but more by far, even perfect. Yet many argue with a tight grip on the flesh as if with cold dead fingers.

Why would anyone do that? (rhetorical)

 

[DanielConway]

Look, I don't object to God the father as being pure in spirit as the scripture teaches. You are committing a rhetorical cheat when you claim that that implies That a pure and Godlike nature requires being pure spirit. It doesn't. That is called arguing the contrapositive and it is an freshman error. You claim that I am denying potential for strong delusion in the Church, essentially stating that I am only acknowledging half the reality. That is an outright distortion of my premise. Of course there can be strong delusion in the Church, the seven Churches of Revelation were all warned against it. However, a complete and unbiased reading of the letter clearly demonstrates that Christ appeals to the believing element in each Church and commands them to clean up shop or vacate. Again, my assertion, which is complete, asserts overtly that the believing Church cannot be deceived, Christ will not permit it. This distortion of my stated premise in order to prove I have a false conclusion is called tagging the bastard and is a slightly more advanced rhetorical cheat, about on the sophomore level. Frankly, I am getting tired of trying to engage in honest debate with a mind that is either so confused that it doesn't recognize when it is engaging in false libretto or flat out is so in love with it's position that it doesn't mind resorting to invective to ostensibly carry the point.

 

[ScottA]

Look, I don't object to God the father as being pure in spirit as the scripture teaches. You are committing a rhetorical cheat when you claim that that implies That a pure and Godlike nature requires being pure in spirit. It doesn't. That is called arguing the contrapositive and it is an freshman error.

No, but rather it is the reality of being One. Which by your backlash response, you obviously don't like.

How long do you think I will put up with such responses?

 

[DanielConway]

Scott, you're tagging the bastard again. Try talking to me when you come down from whatever your on.

 

[ScottA]

Scott, you're tagging the bastard again. Try talking to me when you come down from whatever your on.

Quoting you for the record.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The problem with the idea that "Jesus received a new immortal body"...is that the church is His body (of flesh). "Glorified immortal bodies" is not the problem, but rather "glorified flesh bodies"--the scriptures just don't say that.

From there your description seems to express the confusion quite well, with the idea of Christ returning in His own body and we in ours during a time of "ensuring that Satan remains 'behind bars.'" That makes this all a two part misunderstanding of what the scriptures actually describe...and the issue boils down to the timing: Most believe that Jesus has not actually been reigning in the world which was to come "soon" or "quickly" after He went to the Father; and yet scripturally, that reign was given to Him two thousand years ago, and therefore He also said that all these things "must shortly take place."

1st, the argument over "glorified flesh bodies" has nothing to do with whether Christ said he is coming back "quickly." Two separate arguments.

The argument that Christ is coming back in the "flesh" has nothing to do with "sinful flesh." Paul often uses the word "flesh" in reference to the sinful flesh we humans all have. But saying Christ is coming back "in the flesh" has nothing to do with the "sinful flesh."

So what is the problem? Christ comes back *bodily,* just as he left. And he does this to show that we won't become disembodied spirits, but rather, re-made human beings. That makes perfect sense to me. It makes more sense in view of Christ's physical resurrection itself.

The question of Christ coming back "quickly" is one, I think, of context. In one context, coming back "quickly" would mean someone's coming back almost immediately.

But in Christ's use of the term, "quickly" refers to the entire span of human time. After millennia of human sin, he is coming back fairly quickly after having defeated Satan at the cross. The NT era is a kind of "clean-up" operation. It's like 7 metaphorical days of human history, just like the 7 days of Creation. Jesus came at about the beginning of the 5th day, and that left only the rest of the 5th day and the 6th day to arrive at the Millennium, the 7th day of rest.

As for the Amil belief that Christ's reign started at the cross, that is disproven by the continued claim by his apostles that his Kingdom is "near," but not *here.*

Rom 13.12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
Phil 4.5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.
James 5.8 You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near.
1 Pet 4.7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.
Rev 22.10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near.

 

[DanielConway]

Hi Randy. I thought I'd write to let you know that I am in large agreement with your arguments, except possibly for the nature of Christ's millennial reign. The phrase "beheaded for Christ" used in Revelation is the translator's best stab at translating what is more literally rendered "those who had there heads plucked off for Christ". I always wondered why Christ would restrict his millennial reign to such a narrow class of martyr, but now I think the translators have missed this one. I suspect that "having your head plucked off" is a colloquialism for enduring torment so strong that it drives you mad, a fate arguably worse than martyrdom. I also think maybe the nature of the millennial reign of Christ and his now reconstituted victims of torment will be subtle, with no literal headquarters at Jerusalem or anything, but just a group of people that roam the world offering good services to any who need and working to ensure a peace among the peoples until Christ comes in glory to crush Satan and his armies at the final conflict.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy. I thought I'd write to let you know that I am in large agreement with your arguments, except possibly for the nature of Christ's millennial reign. The phrase "beheaded for Christ" used in Revelation is the translator's best stab at translating what is more literally rendered "those who had there heads plucked off for Christ". I always wondered why Christ would restrict his millennial reign to such a narrow class of martyr, but now I think the translators have missed this one. I suspect that "having your head plucked off" is a colloquialism for enduring torment so strong that it drives you mad, a fate arguably worse than martyrdom. I also think maybe the nature of the millennial reign of Christ and his now reconstituted victims of torment will be subtle, with no literal headquarters at Jerusalem or anything, but just a group of people that roam the world offering good services to any who need and working to ensure a peace among the peoples until Christ comes in glory to crush Satan and his armies at the final conflict.

That's okay, Daniel. None of us is going to be 100% correct on everything. We should feel free to speculate on matters that are less than clear to us. I trust the Holy Spirit will make absolutely clear the most important things to believe. Other things may require some time, but are nonetheless important.

I really don't know why the focus on Rev 20 is on the martyrs? I just associated it with the general resurrection of the Church, who are caught up to heaven and glorified at the Coming of Christ. We must become like him in order to help him establish his Kingdom on earth.

So I haven't been able to see the general resurrection at the 2nd Coming being applied, restrictively, to martyrs under Antichrist. But yes, they are specifically mentioned, perhaps as an encouragement to those who are going to die for their faith. In the same way, Paul informed the Thessalonians about the assurance of their resurrection because they were worried about those who had already died.

1 Thes 4.13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope.

Rev 20.4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.

Those martyred under Antichrist certainly have experienced a "headache!" So I think the emphasis naturally would be on them, not as if they alone are involved in the "first resurrection," but only because they are a major player in the narrative, and who are freshly killed just prior to this event taking place. Take care...

 

[ScottA]

1st, the argument over "glorified flesh bodies" has nothing to do with whether Christ said he is coming back "quickly." Two separate arguments.

You (and most) apparently have not thought so--but it absolutely does...which I will elaborate regarding the next quote:

The argument that Christ is coming back in the "flesh" has nothing to do with "sinful flesh." Paul often uses the word "flesh" in reference to the sinful flesh we humans all have. But saying Christ is coming back "in the flesh" has nothing to do with the "sinful flesh."

Again--yes, it does...and this is the crux of the problem and the reason for all the misunderstanding.

Everyone who testifies that "Christ has come into me" (sinful flesh) is the fulfillment and confirmation "that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" 1 John 4:2.

Yet, if you ask most of them who have testified, if He has returned after going to the Father...they would deny it. And that is the problem. But hearing it--even though you cannot actually deny what I have just said that is historically the truth of a host of witnesses--you too so far have also denied it (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) and will probably continue to deny it. In which case, I have met my my obligation and you have rejected it...which is on you.

But just imagine for the moment that your eyes were opened to the truth I have laid out for you and you began to consider all of the implications of these now historic and biblical facts:

How then would you answer the question of when Christ's return was and is? ...You would answer, as Paul explained that He comes "but each one in his own order" and indeed, He has "come quickly" and what He said about all these "things which must shortly take place" must also be true. Which is a sentence full of what most [shamefully] never believed. And that is just the beginning.​

So what is the problem? Christ comes back *bodily,* just as he left. And he does this to show that we won't become disembodied spirits, but rather, re-made human beings. That makes perfect sense to me. It makes more sense in view of Christ's physical resurrection itself.

The word "human" is not in the scriptures. The word just means: Adam.

But what is your fear of being "disembodied spirits", and where does that come from? After all, God is spirit, whom we are to become One with, and He (including Jesus) has no problem manifesting a body at will. Indeed--"what is the problem?" I would venture to say, it is all tied to the tenancy of the flesh rearing up to save itself--self preservation of that body that is not to be.

The question of Christ coming back "quickly" is one, I think, of context. In one context, coming back "quickly" would mean someone's coming back almost immediately.

But in Christ's use of the term, "quickly" refers to the entire span of human time. After millennia of human sin, he is coming back fairly quickly after having defeated Satan at the cross. The NT era is a kind of "clean-up" operation. It's like 7 metaphorical days of human history, just like the 7 days of Creation. Jesus came at about the beginning of the 5th day, and that left only the rest of the 5th day and the 6th day to arrive at the Millennium, the 7th day of rest.

Indeed, what history has recorded by millennia, God has demonstrated in 7 days, and fulfills in the twinkling of an eye. But the context is that context that Jesus spoke to...which is true either way. Yet, what should be considered out of context and yet is not, is "My master is delaying his coming"...which has been happening now for millennia by many.

As for the Amil belief that Christ's reign started at the cross, that is disproven by the continued claim by his apostles that his Kingdom is "near," but not *here.*

Rom 13.12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
Phil 4.5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.
James 5.8 You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near.
1 Pet 4.7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.
Rev 22.10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near.

All that you have shown here is that it was near 2,000 years ago during that generation that Jesus addressed, saying "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."

And none of those quotes negate what Jesus said of when His reign actually began:

Matthew 12:28
But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.​

 

[ScottA]

The phrase "beheaded for Christ" used in Revelation is the translator's best stab at translating what is more literally rendered "those who had there heads plucked off for Christ". I always wondered why Christ would restrict his millennial reign to such a narrow class of martyr, but now I think the translators have missed this one. I suspect that "having your head plucked off" is a colloquialism for enduring torment so strong that it drives you mad, a fate arguably worse than martyrdom.

The term "beheaded" is the same as was true of John the Baptist, a foreshadowing, meaning those who endured persecutions as if without Christ (the Head).

 

[DanielConway]

No, it's not. You are quoting me an English translation of two different phrases in the kiona greek. The term used to describe what happened to John the baptist is a martial one which clearly indicates, I won't say implies because it is strong enough to be definative, execution by beheading. The phrase in Revelation is literally give by "Had their heads plucked off", which is very vauge and I believe to be subject to a colloquial rendering "had their heads driven mad with torment/fear." As far as the bit about enduring torment without Christ that is complete B*ll Sh*t. We are never nearer to our Lord than when we are about to suffer or die for him, recall the testemony of the martyr Steven. Please Scott take a little time to investigate the real implications of the language instead of just reading into into it what your fancy dreams should be there to support your aberrant cosmology.

 

[ScottA]

No, it's not. You are quoting me an English translation of two different phrases in the kiona greek. The term used to describe what happened to John the baptist is a martial one which clearly indicates, I won't say implies because it is strong enough to be definative, execution by beheading. The phrase in Revelation is literally give by "Had their heads plucked off", which is very vauge and I believe to be subject to a colloquial rendering "had their heads driven mad with torment/fear." As far as the bit about enduring torment without Christ that is complete B*ll Sh*t. We are never nearer to our Lord than when we are about to suffer or die for him, recall the testemony of the martyr Steven. Please Scott take a little time to investigate the real implications of the language instead of just reading into into it what your fancy dreams should be there to support your aberrant cosmology.

That is literary. My explanation was not.

Oh...and that same Christ can see and knows what you are writing.

 

[DanielConway]

OK. When you use the word literary I think you mean literal. And yes, I intend my arguments to be interpreted literally. How do you want your arguments to be interpreted, in Esperanto? If you are trying to communicate in some other way than expressing your ideas in ordinary English you need to provide us with a concordiance.

 

[Timtofly]

I would venture to say, it is all tied to the tendency of the flesh rearing up to save itself--self preservation of that body that is not to be

I don't think so. The tendency of the flesh is not self preservation, but self destruction. There is nothing this flesh can do to preserve itself.

How humans were created on the 6th day is exactly how it was meant to be. Body, soul, and spirit. We will never be more than that in this or the next creation. Perhaps a creation will come along, when we will be more, or less, what we are meant to be. There is no Scripture that claims otherwise.