Jesus' Millennium Reign: The Greatest Harvest of Souls Ever.

[WPM]

Hosea is referring to the glorious Return of Jesus. THEN we will live in His sight.
Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 tell us that one day to God, is the same as a thousand earth years. Proved by the 2 'days' that He has revived us, that is: by our redemption and salvation thru the Gospel of Jesus.

Not so. He is describing the resurrection of Christ. There is no mention of thousands. You force that into the text to support your beliefs. What is more. We are already in the 3rd thousand now, demolishing your future millennium theory.

Jesus said in Luke 24:46-49: “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”

1 Cor 15:3-4: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."

 

[WPM]

I've always addressed you in a healthy manner. You are the one who constantly disparages other viewpoints. I've gone on record many times saying that Amillennialism has a trusted and dignified place in Church history. Centuries of good Christians have held to that view. I just don't happen to agree.

Then you have these theories about how Premillennialism was not the dominant early belief in the Church, contradicted by noted Amil church historians like Philip Schaff. And because I believe Schaff you disparage me and all those who believe that Premil was the early position in the Church.

Then you claim that early Premil theologians and Church Fathers were actually Amillennial in their theology with a few deviations. Again, this is not a widely accepted position. Yet you disparage those who disagree with you.

Why not just say you have your positions and theories without disparaging anybody? Instead, you tackle their education, their logic, and their influences. Though I give you room to question how knowledgeable someone may be, why not just present your views and the reasons you hold them, without spending so much energy dividing Christians on this issue?

You have knowledge, and you have a good mind. It would be great to discuss these things without that sense of disparagement, if you know what I mean? Maybe you aren't even aware of it, having been engaged in it for so long?

Have I gotten upset over the constant attack on my own views? Yes, I'm ashamed to say that at times I go too far in fighting back. But this doesn't excuse you if you're prompting this kind of aggression by your constant wish to get personal. Can't you leave the personal stuff out of it?

You have not always addressed me and Amils in a healthy manner. That is not true. It has been mainly toxic. You seem to struggle with your views being challenged. You respond in a hostile manner. If you will engage in a healthy manner I will engage. If not i will not. Your rhetoric has been the most extreme and the most offensive I have encountered on discussion forums over 23 years. Why? Just because I will make a comment that "you have no evidence" or "you have nothing to refute Amil claims." That is normally the trigger. Something simple regarding your lack of a rebuttal is all it takes. As for the historic material, i stand over it. It proves that ancient Chiliasm was more akin to Amil. I will not change that because it cuts across your beloved doctrine.

I have no intention to offend you, but you are going to have to stop being so thin-skinned. I am not prepared to be your personal counsellor. You need to address it and we can proceed. If not we will not. I would encourage others to avoid your toxicity. It is simply not productive.

 

[robert derrick]

Yes, that is not determinative for me.

Plain scripture determines teaching for me.

Yea, I agree that it's possible--just not likely, in my view. To mix mortal and immortal really has no precedent. It would defeat the whole purpose of faith.

Once again. Since they will be on earth with immortal resurrected bodies, reigning for a thousand years, then it's perfectly sensible, that they do so even as Jesus did, with His disciples for 40 days.

I suppose they can appear in His likeness on Patmos as well, for effect. Such as when putting a stop to any pending wars.

It's not as though faith won't be there in a major way--it will. But in my view life will still require faith, because though the Kingdom will be present, it will still be somewhat invisible.

The Spirit of grace will once again be poured out upon all flesh, and once again beginning over Judea and Jerusalem.

His spiritual everlasting kingdom will not end on earth, but will still continue in them saved by grace through faith.

Yes, the Kingdom will be actualized on earth, both politically and spiritually. But it will still require faith. Sin will still be present, requiring faith in righteousness over going one's own way. Applying righteousness politically and legally doesn't guarantee adherence from the heart.

True. There will be trespassers of the King's law, who will be dealt with fairly and swiftly, so that wickedness does not abound as today.

Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

There will also be many neighborly sinners, as well as an abundance of convertes to the faith of Jesus, learning to walk in the paths of the Lord and be saved for the resurrection of the rest of the dead, and found written in the Lamb's book of life.

Yes, Jesus was here after his resurrection, but not after his immortalization. I separate his resurrection body from his immortal body, which I believe he received only after his ascension.

True:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

However, that ascension already occured before confronting Thomas, to thrust his hand into His side.

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

He was walking, talking, and eating with them like any other man for 40 days in His resurrected immortal body, after ascending to the Father. That is why they could then touch Him, since Mary could not until He had ascended to the Father.

It will be the same in His Millennium for Himself and all His resurrected saints.

And so we see that His ascension in sight of the disciple, was not His first, but last from the earth.

It's not a major point of contention for me--just my own personal supposition. I'm not dogmatic on the point. We agree on a lot.

True. In matters of Millennialism, I don't see why some people try to make a salvation-issue of it.

For me, it's just about knowing the actual truth of any Scripture. I'm always hoping for solid correction, just so the teaching is made more perfect:

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

However, that ascension already occured before confronting Thomas, to thrust his hand into His side.

I think the incident with Thomas happened right *after* the resurrection and *before* the ascension. John 20.17 indicates that the ascension *had not yet happened!* So when Jesus appeared before Thomas he was still in his resurrected body, and not yet glorified body. Even mortal bodies have strange powers when affected by the Spirit of God, such as in the translation of Philip to leave the eunuch. Acts 8.39

 

[Keraz]

Not so. He is describing the resurrection of Christ. There is no mention of thousands.

If Hosea 6:2 means actual 24 hour days, then that Prophecy is totally meaningless and useless for any purpose. But we ARE told that to God, a day in heaven equals a thousand years of earth time.

We are already in the 3rd thousand now, demolishing your future millennium theory.

That is completely wrong,
The Church age commenced when Jesus was acclaimed as King. Mark 11:1-10 Then; Crucified and resurrected.
That happened, I believe in 30AD, or as can be argued 33AD. This means there is at least 7 years and maybe 10 until the 2000 year Church age is completed by the glorious Return of Jesus.

It is the AMill theory which is demolished by many aspects of it that just don't fit this age, or even common sense.

 

[WPM]

If Hosea 6:2 means actual 24 hour days, then that Prophecy is totally meaningless and useless for any purpose. But we ARE told that to God, a day in heaven equals a thousand years of earth time.

That is completely wrong,
The Church age commenced when Jesus was acclaimed as King. Mark 11:1-10 Then; Crucified and resurrected.
That happened, I believe in 30AD, or as can be argued 33AD. This means there is at least 7 years and maybe 10 until the 2000 year Church age is completed by the glorious Return of Jesus.

It is the AMill theory which is demolished by many aspects of it that just don't fit this age, or even common sense.

You are always spiritualizing Scripture away. You cannot take it literal. Nothing is safe with your horrible hermeneutics.

Are you predicting the date of the coming of the Lord?

Hosea 6:1-3 affirms: “Come, and let us (true Israel) return unto the LORD (Jesus): for he (Jesus) hath torn, and he (Jesus) will heal us (true Israel); he (Jesus) hath smitten, and he (Jesus) will bind us (true Israel) up. After two days will he (Jesus) revive us (true Israel): in the third day he (Jesus) will raise us (true Israel) up, and we (true Israel) shall live in his (Jesus) sight. Then shall we (true Israel) know, if we (true Israel) follow on to know the LORD (Jesus): his (Jesus) going forth is prepared as the morning; and he (Jesus) shall come unto us (true Israel) as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.”

This is talking about 2,000 years ago, and Christ's defeat of the grave, not some alleged future sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted earthly millennial kingdom.

Luke 13: 32 records: "And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."

This is talking about 2,000 years ago, and Christ's defeat of the grave, not some alleged future sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted earthly millennial kingdom.

 

[Keraz]

Hosea 6:2 prophesies the 2000 year Christian age, our revival, then the 1000 years when we will live in His sight.
The formula for a day in heaven, being the equal to 1000 years earth time, is in: Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8

There is also the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 13:32, where He says: Today and tomorrow I shall be working...and the next day I shall come into My reward.
He then says: Nevertheless, [notwithstanding, or in spite of this...] I must go on today and tomorrow and the following day, for I must perish in Jerusalem. Luke 13:33
Jesus is NOT talking about the same time periods in both of these verses. If people like to think that; they make Him to be rather confused and unnecessarily repetitive.
No; He Prophesied in verse 32, how He will work for the Christian age of 2000 years. Now at 1992 years since He said that. Jesus does answer prayers, He does cure some people, He does appear to those who cry out to Him, etc.

The 'next day' is Gods reward to Jesus for His sacrifice, His reign over the world for the next thousand years, Psalms 2:7-9 Revelation 20:1-7 backs these scriptures up!
The AMill belief is illogical and unscriptural. It is a lie that denies Jesus His reward.

 

[robert derrick]

I think the incident with Thomas happened right *after* the resurrection and *before* the ascension. John 20.17 indicates that the ascension *had not yet happened!* So when Jesus appeared before Thomas he was still in his resurrected body, and not yet glorified body. Even mortal bodies have strange powers when affected by the Spirit of God, such as in the translation of Philip to leave the eunuch. Acts 8.39

I've offered my explanation from Scripture, showing how He would not let Mary touch His body, because He had not yet ascended, and He told Thomas to do so, so He had to have ascended.

That's sufficient for me.

The simple point is that He walked, talked, and ate with His disciple for 40 days after His resurrection, and His immortal body was touchable as well, just like any other man on earth.

He and His resurrected saints can certainly do the same for a thousand years.

 

[robert derrick]

I have come to understand, that those who prophecy the second coming of Jesus, as a mass slaughter of all other flesh on earth, than their own, is exactly the same wish that the unbelieving Jews demand their messiah to do.

It's the exact same spirit John had, when one town refused to receive them on the way to Jerusalem.

The only christ at the end of these last days, making fire come down out of heaven in sight of men, will be the last great antichrist coming on earth.

Not Jesus Christ.

That last great beast will be made specifically for them that itching to see fire come down out of heaven to burn up everyone else.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I've offered my explanation from Scripture, showing how He would not let Mary touch His body, because He had not yet ascended, and He told Thomas to do so, so He had to have ascended.

That's sufficient for me.

Oh, I see. Sorry, I missed the argument the 1st time. So, if Mary couldn't touch Jesus and Thomas could, then Jesus must've ascended between incidents? Makes sense, but I don't think so, nor do I think Bible scholars would think so.

I believe that when Jesus said to Mary, "don't touch me," he was talking about *restraining* him, or trying to keep him from completing his mission. I don't think Thomas was doing that--he was only trying to verify that Jesus could possibly have risen from the dead.

The fact Jesus still had scars of his crucifixion indicates to me he was in his resurrection body, and not in his immortal body, which would *not* have had scars. So we have different arguments, though I don't know of anybody who reads it like you do?

But thanks for persisting in arguing this with me because I really hadn't seen your argument. Now, I do.

You might consider some of the historic interpretations/explanations on this passage: John 20:17 Commentaries: Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

 

[Timtofly]

Oh, I see. Sorry, I missed the argument the 1st time. So, if Mary couldn't touch Jesus and Thomas could, then Jesus must've ascended between incidents? Makes sense, but I don't think so, nor do I think Bible scholars would think so.

I believe that when Jesus said to Mary, "don't touch me," he was talking about *restraining* him, or trying to keep him from completing his mission. I don't think Thomas was doing that--he was only trying to verify that Jesus could possibly have risen from the dead.

The fact Jesus still had scars of his crucifixion indicates to me he was in his resurrection body, and not in his immortal body, which would *not* have had scars. So we have different arguments, though I don't know of anybody who reads it like you do?

But thanks for persisting in arguing this with me because I really hadn't seen your argument. Now, I do.

You might consider some of the historic interpretations/explanations on this passage: John 20:17 Commentaries: Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

Jesus already had from birth the same body He will always have. His body never returned to dust like Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

Jesus never changed bodies. His body was never of a sin nature nor part of corruptible flesh like ours.

Of course Jesus ascended to heaven Sunday morning with all the OT redeemed. He presented the firstfruits to God in Paradise. People knew this at the time. Paul had to explain to them, they did not miss this resurrection. Paul never said it did not happen. He claimed Christ was the firstfruits, plural. He taught Jesus led captivity captive. He taught Jesus first descended, into sheol, before ascending to the Father. The OT redeemed did not hang around for 40 days. Jesus ascended with the OT redeemed, and returned later that day on the road, and later that evening with the disciples.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus already had from birth the same body He will always have. His body never returned to dust like Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

Jesus never changed bodies. His body was never of a sin nature nor part of corruptible flesh like ours.

Of course Jesus ascended to heaven Sunday morning with all the OT redeemed. He presented the firstfruits to God in Paradise. People knew this at the time. Paul had to explain to them, they did not miss this resurrection. Paul never said it did not happen. He claimed Christ was the firstfruits, plural. He taught Jesus led captivity captive. He taught Jesus first descended, into sheol, before ascending to the Father. The OT redeemed did not hang around for 40 days. Jesus ascended with the OT redeemed, and returned later that day on the road, and later that evening with the disciples.

I have a number of problems with this, Timothy. First, you seem to equate the resurrection with the ascension. I find them to be two very distinct events, both in Jesus' life and in our own lives. When Jesus rose from the dead he was not simultaneously engaged in the ascension. Jesus plainly said, after his resurrection, that he had not yet ascended into heaven!

John 20.17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

So, Jesus rose from the dead, not having raised up others from the dead and delivering them to heaven in glorified, physical bodies. I do relate the ascension into heaven as the *immortalization* of resurrected saints, which clearly has not yet happened. So I do not believe Jesus enabled resurrected believers to ascend into heaven, which for me would mean they received glorified bodies.

Second, you say that Jesus' body, being perfect from the beginning, can never change. What does this mean? That Jesus could not be healed, physically, from his crucifixion, that once he receives wounds he must forever bear their scars? This seems ludicrous. If he can be healed from physical beatings and death, he can certainly be rid of scars imposed by those beatings!

And Paul indicated in 1 Cor 15 that our current mortal bodies are like seeds, designed to transform. Since Jesus had a mortal body, though incorruptible and sinless, he still could transform as a "seed" into a more transcendent form, as God apparently created Man to do!

1 Cor 15.35 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.

Since Jesus falls into the experience of *those who die,* then his body, despite being sinless and incorruptible, was still designed to be raised from the dead and ultimately transformed into something different. Perhaps the new body can change appearances or do other new services that we cannot fathom?

But there is no question that Jesus, having died, fits into the category of those destined to obtain better, more transcendent bodies! His initial body also, then, must've been a "seed," after which he would be resurrected and then glorified. But the glorification of Jesus did not take place *at* his resurrection, but only later.

As I told our brother, I don't know of many respectable Christian scholars who would argue that the resurrection is the same as the ascension, or that Jesus' body would not be transformed *after* his resurrection? But I could be wrong.

 

[robert derrick]

Oh, I see. Sorry, I missed the argument the 1st time.

No problem, thanks for responding.

So, if Mary couldn't touch Jesus and Thomas could, then Jesus must've ascended between incidents? Makes sense, but I don't think so, nor do I think Bible scholars would think so.

I don't go by consensus. It can be a dangerous road when applied to more important things of Scripture, than what we are not discussing.

Such as with being saved and justified by Christ.

I believe that when Jesus said to Mary, "don't touch me," he was talking about *restraining* him, or trying to keep him from completing his mission. I don't think Thomas was doing that--he was only trying to verify that Jesus could possibly have risen from the dead.

Sorry, but I stick to what Scripture says, and take as simple sense from it as possible.

The reason he did not want her to touch His body at that time, He says is because He had not yet ascended to the Father.

That's His reason given, nothing else.

The fact Jesus still had scars of his crucifixion indicates to me he was in his resurrection body, and not in his immortal body,

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

The resurrected body is the immortal body changed from mortal flesh.

The face will be the same in appearance, which is why the disciples recognized Jesus on sight.

which would *not* have had scars.

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

In heaven, He wears those marks on His resurrected immortal body.

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.

Also at His coming again to earth.

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

And also finally on the new earth.

So we have different arguments, though I don't know of anybody who reads it like you do?

Perhaps, but once again, I just make as simple sense of what is plainly written as possible. I don't try to read into it anything of my own, nor take away from what is plainly there.

But thanks for persisting in arguing this with me because I really hadn't seen your argument. Now, I do.

And thank you for your persistence as well. Disagreement is not bad, so long as it is with integrity of Scripture, and we learn something from it.

You might consider some of the historic interpretations/explanations on this passage: John 20:17 Commentaries: Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

I do see the point, however translations by interpretation, is in violation of inserting our own private interpretation into Scripture, and then teaching it as Scripture.

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.

That too is dangerous when dealing with matters of salvation and justification. I've learned this lesson the hard way, and so I've learned to be very disciplined in only sticking to what Scripture says, and not what I want it to say for my own teaching.

Resorting to original language study, in order to prove a teaching, is an admission that it cannot be proven simple reading of our own language. I believe God has purposely provided simple translations in every language of men, so that we do not need to become Hebrew or Greek scholars, in order to know what Scripture teaches in our own language.

However, looking to the Greek for embellishment is not at all wrong.

Hapto is used three ways: to touch, to handle, to have the sense of.

And so, the translation must be in context, so as not to interpret under the banner of translation.

Nowhere does Scripture at that time even hint at Mary touching Jesus at all, much less taking hold of Him, but rather the opposite.

Mary was standing apart from Jesus with enough room to turn around, when she saw Him, and then finally recognized Him, when He called her name.

In fact, we could safely say there was some distance between them, one being a chaste woman and the other a strange man.

No doubt she was moving toward Him to touch, hug, handle His feet in worship, but He stopped her, because He had not yet ascended to the Father.

That is the simple teaching of what is written. Translating something else into it, is changing the meaning to teach something else.

I read the King James myself, but there are times when I believe it could be better translated for the sake of doctrinal clarity; however, they were very good about not inserting their own doctrine into the translation itself, but have left it as neutral as possible.

Thanks again for your attention. I've noticed you argue with integrity, unlike others that just talk around one another.

 

[Timtofly]

I have a number of problems with this, Timothy. First, you seem to equate the resurrection with the ascension. I find them to be two very distinct events, both in Jesus' life and in our own lives. When Jesus rose from the dead he was not simultaneously engaged in the ascension. Jesus plainly said, after his resurrection, that he had not yet ascended into heaven!

John 20.17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

So, Jesus rose from the dead, not having raised up others from the dead and delivering them to heaven in glorified, physical bodies. I do relate the ascension into heaven as the *immortalization* of resurrected saints, which clearly has not yet happened. So I do not believe Jesus enabled resurrected believers to ascend into heaven, which for me would mean they received glorified bodies.

Second, you say that Jesus' body, being perfect from the beginning, can never change. What does this mean? That Jesus could not be healed, physically, from his crucifixion, that once he receives wounds he must forever bear their scars? This seems ludicrous. If he can be healed from physical beatings and death, he can certainly be rid of scars imposed by those beatings!

And Paul indicated in 1 Cor 15 that our current mortal bodies are like seeds, designed to transform. Since Jesus had a mortal body, though incorruptible and sinless, he still could transform as a "seed" into a more transcendent form, as God apparently created Man to do!

1 Cor 15.35 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.

Since Jesus falls into the experience of *those who die,* then his body, despite being sinless and incorruptible, was still designed to be raised from the dead and ultimately transformed into something different. Perhaps the new body can change appearances or do other new services that we cannot fathom?

But there is no question that Jesus, having died, fits into the category of those destined to obtain better, more transcendent bodies! His initial body also, then, must've been a "seed," after which he would be resurrected and then glorified. But the glorification of Jesus did not take place *at* his resurrection, but only later.

As I told our brother, I don't know of many respectable Christian scholars who would argue that the resurrection is the same as the ascension, or that Jesus' body would not be transformed *after* his resurrection? But I could be wrong.

That is because the resurrection and ascension are seperate events. So seperate, that not even the 11 disciples knew what was going on. Mary had to tell them that Jesus ascended to the Father, and would come back. They only knew the body was gone, and Jesus was no where to be found.

First off, no such thing as the contrast between a mortal and physical body. You all quote Paul and still don't get it. The mortal body is not a seed planted in the ground and comes up immortal.

There is Adam's dead corruptible flesh. The word mortal means death. I get it, the body is dead. Jesus did not have a dead body ever. The body from Adam is dead and corruptible. The body from God is permanent and incorruptible. Both are physical. One comes from Adam, the other from God. Jesus as God never had a dead body, not even in physical death. Jesus did not plant His body in the ground to get a new one. His body was placed in a tomb to show it was physically dead.

Jesus showed His glorified body on the mount of Transfiguration. He did not change bodies between that moment and the Cross. Nor did He ever change bodies ever. Our soul changes bodies like we do a garment. That is why Paul states we "put on".

"We shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law."

The soul puts on God's permanent incorruptible physical body. Then the body puts on the spirit. See the mount of Transfiguration account of how the spirit works over the body. We don't have this spirit. We have the Holy Spirit as earnest until the 5th and 6th Seal. Earnest: a thing intended or regarded as a sign or promise of what is to come. 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."

The Holy Spirit is in us. Any other spirit can be in us. But our spirit is what John points out; putting on a robe of white. The 5th Seal.

"And white robes were given unto every one of them."

This is not being purified, they are already under the Atonement (under the alter). This is not about being clothed. They were already physically clothed, and had on natural garments. This is the point of glorification, when the physical body puts on the spirit. This is Paul's mortal putting on God. But they already had a permanent incorruptible physical body from God. What the church receives at the Second Coming is the final putting on of the spirit, that white robe. Those on earth will get both a body and the spirit. Those Christ brings with Him, meet us in the air to put on the spirit all at the same time. The only time the church is glorified as one body. And all on earth will see it, because the light (Remember the mount of Transfiguration) will light up the sky just after all the angels leave the sky, and all the stars will be on earth, obviously looking human. For the next few months the church will be the stars in the sky while the angels are on the earth removing souls from Adam's dead flesh and placing them in permanent incorruptible physical bodies or casting them into the LOF. Matthew 13 and Matthew 25:31.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is because the resurrection and ascension are seperate events. So seperate, that not even the 11 disciples knew what was going on. Mary had to tell them that Jesus ascended to the Father, and would come back. They only knew the body was gone, and Jesus was no where to be found.

Where did Mary tell the 11 disciples that Jesus had ascended to the Father? This is *not* that!....

John 20.17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Plainly, Jesus was saying that he would eventually ascend, indicating that nobody should try to restrain him or keep him from completing his mission, which was to ascend to heaven, obtain his immortal body, and sit on the right hand of God, representing us.

First off, no such thing as the contrast between a mortal and physical body. You all quote Paul and still don't get it. The mortal body is not a seed planted in the ground and comes up immortal.

But that's what Paul said. He called our physical bodies "seeds," in a sense.

There is Adam's dead corruptible flesh. The word mortal means death. I get it, the body is dead. Jesus did not have a dead body ever.

That's far from true. Jesus died for our sins. That means his body died. He gave up the ghost, or his spirit.

The body from Adam is dead and corruptible. The body from God is permanent and incorruptible. Both are physical. One comes from Adam, the other from God. Jesus as God never had a dead body, not even in physical death. Jesus did not plant His body in the ground to get a new one. His body was placed in a tomb to show it was physically dead.

Jesus' body came from both Adam and God. As such, he had a mortal body--one that could die. He was sinless, but his body died.

Jesus showed His glorified body on the mount of Transfiguration. He did not change bodies between that moment and the Cross. Nor did He ever change bodies ever. Our soul changes bodies like we do a garment. That is why Paul states we "put on".

Jesus revealed his glory, but he did not, at that time, receive his glorified body. It was a revelation--not a physical transformation from one body to another body, except by appearances. A "transfiguration" is not a physical transformation, except superficially, to provide a revelation. It indicated who Jesus was, as Messiah and God, rather than represent a permanent change in Jesus' physical anatomy.

"We shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law."

The soul puts on God's permanent incorruptible physical body. Then the body puts on the spirit. See the mount of Transfiguration account of how the spirit works over the body. We don't have this spirit. We have the Holy Spirit as earnest until the 5th and 6th Seal. Earnest: a thing intended or regarded as a sign or promise of what is to come. 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

We have the earnest of the Spirit until our inheritance, which is when we receive glorified, immortal bodies. This is after the 5th and 6th seals. It is at the Return of Christ.

We don't put on "God's body" at our transformation to immortality. We put on our own new immortal bodies, which are given to us by God at Christ's Return.

"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."

The Holy Spirit is in us. Any other spirit can be in us. But our spirit is what John points out; putting on a robe of white. The 5th Seal.

"And white robes were given unto every one of them."

This is not being purified, they are already under the Atonement (under the alter). This is not about being clothed. They were already physically clothed, and had on natural garments. This is the point of glorification, when the physical body puts on the spirit.

We don't put on the spirit at our transformation to immortality, when we receive new physical bodies that are glorified bodies. We have already been given the Spirit as an earnest on our inheritance, which is received when we obtain our new immortal bodies.

This is Paul's mortal putting on God. But they already had a permanent incorruptible physical body from God. What the church receives at the Second Coming is the final putting on of the spirit, that white robe. Those on earth will get both a body and the spirit. Those Christ brings with Him, meet us in the air to put on the spirit all at the same time. The only time the church is glorified as one body. And all on earth will see it, because the light (Remember the mount of Transfiguration) will light up the sky just after all the angels leave the sky, and all the stars will be on earth, obviously looking human. For the next few months the church will be the stars in the sky while the angels are on the earth removing souls from Adam's dead flesh and placing them in permanent incorruptible physical bodies or casting them into the LOF. Matthew 13 and Matthew 25:31.

You should base your beliefs on what Paul says in the way he means to say them, rather than try to fit all of the passages together using your own logic. It takes you far afield of what Paul was actually saying, in my opinion.

 

[Timtofly]

You should base your beliefs on what Paul says in the way he means to say them, rather than try to fit all of the passages together using your own logic. It takes you far afield of what Paul was actually saying, in my opinion.

So the bottom line is to accept theology from hundreds of humans, throughout history, instead of Scripture?

That is your opinion?

 

[Randy Kluth]

So the bottom line is to accept theology from hundreds of humans, throughout history, instead of Scripture?

That is your opinion?

no, of course not. but we should respect the talents and gifts God gave to men and women to save us the time and study. Some people here want their names in the headlines by coming up with their own original ideas. I think that's wrong-headed. God isn't impressed. It's good enough simply to carry water for the Lord.

 

[Timtofly]

no, of course not. but we should respect the talents and gifts God gave to men and women to save us the time and study. Some people here want their names in the headlines by coming up with their own original ideas. I think that's wrong-headed. God isn't impressed. It's good enough simply to carry water for the Lord.

Carrying water is my only agenda.

Or pouring it out.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Carrying water is my only agenda.

Or pouring it out.

Mine too.

 

[Truth7t7]

So when Jesus appeared before Thomas he was still in his resurrected body, and not yet glorified body.

After the resurrection Jesus maintained a resurrected glorified tangible body of flesh and bone, a body that could enter a room with doors shut, vanish out of human sight, and could eat tangible food in this physical world

There is one future resurrection that will take place, Jesus was the fruistfruit, and we will have a body just as his after the resurrection

Jesus Is The Lord

"This Same Jesus"

Acts 1:9-11KJV
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.