PAST-Millennialism

[Truthnightmare]

Not.


No. To God ~ from His perspective ~ a day is... simultanously... as 1000 years to God, and a thousand years as a day.


Hmm, well, I say let's say it's not. Because if we do, it's just... well, neither here nor there.

Grace and peace to you, TN.

No. To God ~ from His perspective ~ a day is... simultanously... as 1000 years to God, and a thousand years as a day.

A day is as a thousand years to God.. Agreed.

Is the Lords day a 1000 years? Upon the day where/when Christ returns and lays hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bounds him a thousand years,

Is this not a day…

And the saints…

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Are not these saints under the same day (Lords day) a thousand years that you attached to God only?

 

[ewq1938]

It's not that I refuse to acknowledge two future resurrections from the time perspective of when the scriptures were written. But you are attempting to subdivide the mention of a particular single resurrection into two separate events, (one for the righteous and another one for the wicked), which scripture does not do in these texts you have brought up. Each one of the references you are highlighting is the mention of a single particular resurrection, "A resurrection of the dead" with BOTH the just and unjust participating in that occasion of a single particular resurrection event.

They don't resurrect at the same time or same event, see Rev 20 for that plus the use of resurrection twice in Joh 5:29.

 

[ewq1938]

To what man? The man Adam or the haa-'adam is not the same man/men as

'adam is man, any man, men, mankind

No, that is not a special designation only Adam of the garden was called. You were taught that but it is not a correct teaching.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man [Eth Haa Aadam] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Yep, man of the 6th day was called eth -haa Aadam. Adam in Genesis 2 is not the only one called that. This is not a personal name but simply means "this same man" and can apply to any man who was the subject.

 

[PinSeeker]

A day is as a thousand years to God.. Agreed.

Great!

Is the Lords day a 1000 years?

Hmm, well, I guess it depends on what you mean or are referring to when you say “the Lord’s day” and what you mean or are referring to when you say 1000 years. That may come across to you as coy, or playing with words, or some such, but no…

Upon the day where/when Christ returns and lays hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bounds him a thousand years…

You speak as if this has not happened yet…

Is this not a day…

Yeah, I don’t think it took Him 24 hours.

And the saints…

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Are not these saints under the same day (Lords day) a thousand years that you attached to God only?

Hm. You know, my apologies, but I really don’t understand that question at all. It makes no sense to me. Yeah, sorry.

Grace and peace to you, TN.

 

[Truthnightmare]

Great!


Hmm, well, I guess it depends on what you mean or are referring to when you say “the Lord’s day” and what you mean or are referring to when you say 1000 years. That may come across to you as coy, or playing with words, or some such, but no…


You speak as if this has not happened yet…


Yeah, I don’t think it took Him 24 hours.


Hm. You know, my apologies, but I really don’t understand that question at all. It makes no sense to me. Yeah, sorry.

Grace and peace to you, TN.

Hmm, well, I guess it depends on what you mean or are referring to when you say “the Lord’s day” and what you mean or are referring to when you say 1000 years. That may come across to you as coy, or playing with words, or some such, but no…

It is written that the Lord will return.. so we are now looking at the events that will occur on that day. But let’s establish what day that is.

Zechariah 14
14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

2 Thess 2
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Are these passages not referring to the same day?

 

[PinSeeker]

Zechariah 14
2 Thess 2

Are these passages not referring to the same day?

Yes. So, then, going back to your question before:

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Are not these saints under the same day (Lords day) a thousand years that you attached to God only?

I still do not understand this question. "Under the same day..." What do you mean by that? And "attached to God only"... what do you mean by that? No offense, but I can't even make sense of this question.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Mr E]

These are not "my" words. They are straight out of the Interlinear translation. Paul was speaking of an imminent resurrection of the dead that was "ABOUT TO BE" in his own generation. Many of the literal translations acknowledge this as the proper translation of the original Greek language in this verse. The reason I know this is the correct translation is that Christ said quite bluntly that there would be some of those standing in front of Him who would not die before they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom with the angels, to give rewards to every man according to his works (Matthew 16:27-28). That was within some 40 years or so, which would allow some of those whom Christ was addressing to still be alive at Christ's coming return in their generation, given the natural lifespan of a person in those days.

Sorry-- no. Jesus is recorded there in Matt 16 speaking of his imminent return. He was killed and three days later-- he rose from death. It happened three days later and scripture records that return and his encounters with his followers. It's not about some unrecorded return that you suppose happened around 70 AD. Why make it up? Scripture describes his return -three days later, in great detail.

Then, as you read on in that same account of Matthew-- in chapter 27 he mentions a resurrection where graves were opened and where bodies of the sleeping saints came out of those graves.... why are you ignoring this resurrection?

 

[Truthnightmare]

Yes. So, then, going back to your question before:


I still do not understand this question. "Under the same day..." What do you mean by that? And "attached to God only"... what do you mean by that? No offense, but I can't even make sense of this question.

Grace and peace to you.

Let’s see if we can clarify.. You stated…

a day is... simultanously... as 1000 years to God, and a thousand years as a day.

Is there ever a time where a 1000 years is as a day to man?

 

[Timtofly]

That’s the answer TN: just yes. God plainly told Adam that he would die that very day, so he (and Eve) must have died. However, it is quite evident that his and Eve’s mortal life did not end that very day,

Their mortal life started that day. They were not mortal (in a state of physical and spiritual death) prior to Adam's disobedience. They did physically die, because they went from God's permanent incorruptible physical body to Adam's temporal corruptible physical body. It was not sin that was passed down it was physical and spiritual death.

When the sons of God's offspring intermarried with Adam's offspring, the result was still death and they also were pulled into the nature of the curse of sin. They did not restore Adam's dead flesh back to life. Only one begotten son of God, Jesus could do that as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Adam lost the physical and spiritual image of God as a son of God. Then Adam passed that state of death onto Seth.

Genesis 5:1-3

 

[PinSeeker]

Let’s see if we can clarify.. You stated…

I know what I stated, TN. If you have a point to make, make it.

Is there ever a time where a 1000 years is as a day to man?

LOL! Again, if you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise… thanks.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Sorry-- no. Jesus is recorded there in Matt 16 speaking of his imminent return. He was killed and three days later-- he rose from death. It happened three days later and scripture records that return and his encounters with his followers. It's not about some unrecorded return that you suppose happened around 70 AD. Why make it up? Scripture describes his return -three days later, in great detail.

Your interpretation of Matthew 16:27-28 is not possible. That is because in this context, Christ described His coming return with angels in the glory of His Father, giving rewards to everyone according to their works. This didn't happen at Christ's resurrection. Besides, it would have been ridiculous for Christ to solemnly declare that only some of those He was addressing would not have died before His resurrection. It was the almost universal majority of those He was addressing that would not have died before His resurrection coming up - not a small number of only some of them.

The return Christ was referring to in Matthew 16:27-28 was also the one He promised His disciples when He said "...I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14:3). This was going to be the "coming in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven" which those messengers in white declared to the disciples in Acts 1:11.

Then, as you read on in that same account of Matthew-- in chapter 27 he mentions a resurrection where graves were opened and where bodies of the sleeping saints came out of those graves.... why are you ignoring this resurrection?

Huh? What are you talking about? I've been writing repeatedly about that First resurrection in AD 33 - the first bodily resurrection event of three group resurrections staged at different times over the total span of human history (at Passover AD 33, Pentecost day in AD 70, and AD 3033 at the time the Feast of Tabernacles used to be celebrated). This is the theme behind my username.

 

[Truthnightmare]

I know what I stated, TN. If you have a point to make, make it.


LOL! Again, if you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise… thanks.

Grace and peace to you.

I do have a point, many actually, but let’s make this abundantly clear… these things have not yet happened..

20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I do have a point, many actually, but let’s make this abundantly clear… these things have not yet happened..

20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

ALL of this is ancient history by now.

 

[Ghada]

And trying to get you to do the same.

I know. But my repentance is godly unto His salvation, and I won't repent of it for your more moderate version.

For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation not to be repented of:

Not all unrepented sinners try to get everyone else to be like them, but only the self-justifying kind. Especially when they make doctrines for their consciences. It's as old as Cain trying to have a talk with his little righteous brother.

I don't need to proselytize others to feel safer. My conscience doesn't rely entirely upon my doctrine covering me from coming judgment.

Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered morter:

But in the end, no matter the amount of covering harden hearts make for themselves, the righteous Lord will still judged all of us by our works, and not by our justifying doctrines. No one will be able to repent nor play their doctrine card from the grave.

The best and safest thing is simple to repent God's way for Jesus' sake and stop playing the word games and spiritual gymnastics.

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

You're nowhere near perfect, Ghada. None of us are.

And a self-deceiving part of your proselytization of others, is to talk like everyone is already just like you anyway. Everyone just needs to get woke to it.

Let your heart therefore be perfect with the LORD our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep his commandments, as at this day.

I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.

Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.

But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

We are both, for now. One day, though, we will no longer be the latter, but only the former.

As I said. Not all unrepented sinners deceive themselves with word games, but only the self-justifying sort, that also try to get everyone else just go along and play the same game with them. And in due time it becomes insulting to normal intelligence. But it becomes the standard for doctrinally corrupted minds.

The great delusion for the ages is unrepented sinners convincing themselves they are righteous while doing unrighteousness, and good while doing evil, and saints while sinning.

Nothing has any meaning for them anymore, because words are become just playthings of the soul. It's tonka-toy religion for children of disobedience.

 

[Ghada]

As does Paul, when he exhorts us to put off the old man and put on the new:

Thank you for acknowledging the truth of your progressive religion: Human progressivism in religious form.

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

God's granted repentance, crucifixion, and circumcision of the old man and life is at once and whole, with the quick and sharp sword of the Spirit of Christ.

Man's progressive religion of gradual repentance at leisure is the botched work of their own dull blade.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

All religions of men do have some form of repentance, and can even make for successful lives on earth, but it ends in the grave.

This is called the mystery of iniquity that now works in the the unrepented children of disobedience. The make for themselves successful religion of their own form of repentance, that does appear outwardly to be the pure religion of whole hearted repentance for Jesus' sake.

However, the true God and pure Spirit still sees and judges the old heart of lust within:

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

I have been understanding by such fervent defense of your religious progressiveness, that you must have a cause for your zeal, that is more than just by doctrinal fiat. And I realize that it must indeed be the very appearance of your own religion and successful living today, that becomes your own snare and blindness to true judgment of works to come.

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

You see. There are plenty of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc..., including professionals of every stripe, that indeed succeed in making for themselves a certain measure of confidence, peace, and success in their lives. But it's not founded upon godly repentance of all their sins and trespasses, but simply by another form of man's own measure of repentance and religious good-doing.

Who can deny the truth of a faithfully sincere Buddhist attaining to a certain amount of peace within and neighborliness? The problem is that without whole hearted repentance of all our transgressions for Jesus' sake, it only achieves the crown of a man, and does not rise to enter into the heavenly place of God's everlasting righteous kingdom.

And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Mr E]

Your interpretation of Matthew 16:27-28 is not possible. That is because in this context, Christ described His coming return with angels in the glory of His Father, giving rewards to everyone according to their works. This didn't happen at Christ's resurrection. Besides, it would have been ridiculous for Christ to solemnly declare that only some of those He was addressing would not have died before His resurrection. It was the almost universal majority of those He was addressing that would not have died before His resurrection coming up - not a small number of only some of them.

The return Christ was referring to in Matthew 16:27-28 was also the one He promised His disciples when He said "...I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14:3). This was going to be the "coming in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven" which those messengers in white declared to the disciples in Acts 1:11.

Huh? What are you talking about? I've been writing repeatedly about that First resurrection in AD 33 - the first bodily resurrection event of three group resurrections staged at different times over the total span of human history (at Passover AD 33, Pentecost day in AD 70, and AD 3033 at the time the Feast of Tabernacles used to be celebrated). This is the theme behind my username.

When a person has invested so much time and effort developing 'their theory' it becomes very hard for them to set any part of it aside. So instead of doing that (when they should) they usually double down to defend it (when they shouldn't) because to do otherwise requires humility they often lack.

First of all-- Jesus was talking about his imminent return in Matthew 16. We know this because he was specific in pronouncing his return in three days. John provides the context--

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

John provides the context by explicitly telling you he was NOT talking about the physical temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. In fact, this was among the false accusations against him. They misunderstood just as you must be misunderstanding because he said that the temple made by human hands would be torn down and a new temple would arise-- not made of human hands. John, Mark, and Jesus could not have been more clear.... It's not about what happened in 70AD.

Secondly-- while the 144,000 are the firstfruits from among men-- they are not the ones who are referenced in Matt 27. We know this because of the 144k John tells us that>>

These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

When the spirit/son of God is in heaven, the 144k are in heaven (before the throne of God). When the son descends in spirit upon a man (manifests and anoints) and that man becomes Christ-- the 144k go with him (in spirit) and they are in his service. They were not those asleep in the grave. They were with him and they came with him, when he arrived. They are overcomers from previous generations who reign with Christ as servant priests and ministers of the gospel in spirit-- and sing his song where ever he goes/is. They have been previously alive on earth, were resurrected previously and judged--- and were found to have overcome the world and who were not defiled by women, but are virgins. This has nothing whatsoever to do with their past sexual activity, but their current condition as heavenly priests.

I've been writing repeatedly about that First resurrection in AD 33 - the first bodily resurrection event of three group resurrections staged at different times over the total span of human history (at Passover AD 33, Pentecost day in AD 70, and AD 3033 at the time the Feast of Tabernacles used to be celebrated). This is the theme behind my username.

Lastly-- I assume you meant 2033, unless I really did miss what you've been saying, as you suppose.

 

[Ghada]

You're deceiving yourself, Ghada, just as John says:

One of us is certainly decieved. Despite your doctrinal word game of trying to make opposites to be the same, such as saints being sinners and sinners being saints, opposites are never the same nor ever will be.

You can risk being decieved with being saved without godly repentance, and I'll risk the deception of godly repentance unto salvation.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8).

Of course you and the other 'us' with you.

You're nowhere near perfect, Ghada. None of us are.

No one that is nowhere near having a perfect and whole heart toward God, can say they have no lust of sin in their heart. Not without deceiving themselves.

They certainly deceive themselves about being saved without God's repentance, but they apparently draw the line as also saying they have no sin in Christ Jesus, in whom is not sin.

That's where they show they have sin in their own christ and salvation, in whom certainly is lust and sin of the world. They even brag about it, and command all men everywhere to repent of any whole-hearted godly repentance, and return to the comfortable 'us' fold of unrepented religious form.

It's the form of gospel to find common ground for conformity to the world and to their God.

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

The problem is that such a gospel form always ends in the image of the god of this world. And it commands willing blindness to the gospel promise of full repentance for the sake of the the true God and Christ.

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

[Ghada]

You misunderstand.

Ok, I'll bite again as before.

You have repented of all your sins and trespasses, and are no more sinning with them?

You don't believe in being saved first, with gradual repentance following?

 

[3 Resurrections]

First of all-- Jesus was talking about his imminent return in Matthew 16. We know this because he was specific in pronouncing his return in three days. John provides the context--

The context of Matthew 16:27-28 included the return of Christ in the glory of His Father, with the angels, when He would give rewards to everyone according to their works.

Question for you: If this return in Matthew 16:27-28 was referring to Christ's resurrection, what rewards were given to every man on that occasion, according to their works? This did not happen at Christ's resurrection, so this return in Matthew 16:27-28 cannot be describing a return on Christ's resurrection day. It had to be Christ's second coming return which some of those alive during Christ's ministry would live to see happening later on in those first-century days.

Secondly-- while the 144,000 are the firstfruits from among men-- they are not the ones who are referenced in Matt 27. We know this because of the 144k John tells us that>>

These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

When the spirit/son of God is in heaven, the 144k are in heaven (before the throne of God).

The 144,000 First-fruits were not described as being in heaven before the throne of God. The 144,000 were on earth. It was only the "harpers" who were in heaven harping and singing before the throne, a song which only the 144,000 on earth could learn, because the 144,000 resurrected saints from those Jewish tribes were unique in their post-resurrection experiences compared to all others.

The bodies of the 144,000 First-fruits were "redeemed out of the earth" by that physical resurrection process. On that day, they went into Mount Zion the temple site in Jerusalem on earth with the newly-risen "Christ the First-fruits", just as Rev. 14:1 and Matthew 27:52-53 both described. The 144,000 shared this same "First-fruits" title with Christ because they shared the same bodily resurrection process on that same day in AD 33. As "virgins", these resurrected individuals were neither married nor given in marriage in their bodily resurrected state, and they were immune to the licentious practices in the early church of the "doctrine of Balaam", led by the prophetess which John nicknamed "Jezebel" in those days.

During the 40 days when Christ remained on earth until His final ascension, this Matthew 27:52-53 group of 144,000 First-fruits saints "followed the Lamb" wherever He went. They were "without fault" and "in their mouth was found no guile" because bodily resurrected saints are in a state of sinless perfection in God's eyes.

Lastly-- I assume you meant 2033, unless I really did miss what you've been saying, as you suppose.

No, I did not intend to write AD 2033 for the final third group resurrection event. I meant AD 3033, at the same time of year when the Feast of Tabernacles used to be celebrated. This is why Zechariah 14:16-19 emphasized that one single FOT harvest feast celebration to be remembered after Jerusalem's AD 70 destruction and Christ's second-coming return on that Pentecost-day occasion (the date Daniel 12:11-13 had predicted).

 

[Ghada]

Both. You're refuting what Paul says in Ephesians 4:22 (cited above), among several other passages.

I'll correct myself to be clearer. There is no mind repentance without deeds.

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

God's repentance is not just of our thoughts about sin and death, but of our deeds from sinning and dying to God.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

The thoughts and ways of the Lord are not like that of decieved man: His thoughts and ways are always the same.

Decieved hearts and minds of unrepented sinners, believe their thoughts can be good and justified, while their deeds are still unrighteous and corrupt.

The gospel of mind repentance alone without deeds, is for hearers only who now know the truth of sin and death by hearing, but don't do the truth by repenting of sinning from the heart.

The Bible calls it being double of heart and double minded: the mind now things one way, but the heart does another. It's the wretched spiritual and living condition of Romans 7:8-23, that the self-justifiers hang onto for their own unrepented sinning unto death.

Do you not pray continually as Jesus taught us to pray, namely, "...lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil..."?

All saints do, that have repented of sinning and seek deliverance from all temptation without sinning. Just as Jesus walked on earth.

I don't pray "lead us into more sinning, but deliver us from condemnation". This is the prayer of the hard-hearted and unrepentant, that teach themselves they are no more condemned with sinning again and again and again...

But after thy hardness and unrepentant heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

I just want you to quit deceiving yourself, Ghada, thinking you're perfect.

Again, I know already. But I'll not repent of godly repentance for your little conscience sake.

For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation not to be repented of:

You really do overrate yourself. And even if I did repent to be like you, there is still no safety in numbers. The beast preaches numbers of sinners for safety sake. God preaches repentance from sinning for Jesus' sake.

But the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Even if I were to join you in just being sorry for sinning in my mind, rather than ceasing the sinning from my heart, it would still end in death for you. I would only add to your numbers of the sorry 'us', that repent not and still dead in sins and trespasses.

Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls:

Repenting of righteousness to have lust and sin again like you, can happen with me if I turn back to my old sins. But I can assure you despite all your pleadings and protestations for me to do so now, I won't for your sake. Never.

Unlike you, I don't try to convert you to my doctrine and faith, because I don't care what you do. It's your soul's life, not mine. I'm only here to correct other forms of doctrine by the Bible, as well as have my own teaching perfected by sound correction from others.

You see I am surely blessed, because unlike you, I don't need numbers of converts to cover my conscience from guilt. You must trust entirely upon your self-justifying doctrine, because you can't have any trust in the life you live, that is still corrupted by your old hardened heart of lust.

It would be nice of your quit playing doctrinal word games, and just repent of your sinning already for Jesus' sake. That would indeed be good for your soul. But unlike you, I'm not here to try and get anyone to do what I preach. And so, unlike you, my satisfaction here is not dependent on gaining proselytes to help soothe my conscience.

Just so we know where each other is coming from. All I want to hear is true doctrine of the Bible. And if it corrects my teaching of it, then all the better. Unlike you, I'm not here to convince others any self-justifying doctrine is true, and need others to join in for conscience sake.