The Millennial Kingdom

[ScottA]

This is exactly what I said, although not verbatim; you sort of changed how I said it. Not to say that is a bad thing or "changed what I said, but, yeah. "Spirit" can have different meanings, depending on the context in which it is used. The context in which I used it was that the Son has a visible, corporeal body like men ~ at least in the time that He walked the earth, and when He returns and in the age to come.


Well, again, it depends ~ in my opinion, I guess I will say ~ on the context in which you use "flesh." It you mean it (as it is used many times in Scripture) as sinful... of the flesh... then I certainly agree. If you mean it in the context of a corporeal body, then, in the flesh, as a man, Christ did "return to dust" when He died, but He was ~ as you will certainly agree ~ resurrected, and soon thereafter ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.


Well, it proves that; yes, I agree. But you missed my point, which is understandable.


Well, you're not Jesus... or like Him yet.

And I would say with regard to Peter that just in and of himself he did speak his opinion ~ spoke in his own words, and of his own volition, conveyed his own thoughts very well ~ but yes, it was the Holy Spirit superintending Peter's writing. And having said that, your words are not inspired by God. Nor are mine.

You're angry, it seems, which is a good reason to stop. And, whether that's true or not, even beyond that, I certainly don't mean this in any disparaging way, Scott, but it's enough, my friend.

Grace and peace to you.

I am not angry.

But you are still referring to darkness as light. But what is written--does it not say that this "tent is destroyed", and that there is "no shadow of turning" in the presence of God--meaning no casting of shadows, as is true of the flesh?

Did Jesus not cast a shadow after He rose from the dead? Did He not also have the wounds of the flesh--flesh that "cannot inherit the kingdom of God?"

You are not putting it all together, but speaking of the flesh as being of the flesh...as a man. But I have not rebuked you, but have spoken clearly putting together what was first given "here a little, there a little."

 

[PinSeeker]

I am not angry.

Okay.

But you are still referring to darkness as light.

Absolutely not.

But what is written--does it not say that this "tent is destroyed", and that there is "no shadow of turning" in the presence of God--meaning no casting of shadows, as is true of the flesh?

It is enough, Scott.

Did Jesus not cast a shadow after He rose from the dead?

I would think so, yes.

Did He not also have the wounds of the flesh--flesh that "cannot inherit the kingdom of God?"

Nope. I think the misunderstanding is yours, there, Scott. By, "wounds of the flesh," it seems ~ seems; I don't want to put words in your mouth ~ that you mean the nail prints in His hands and the wound from the sword to His side. If so... yeah, nope. But your question here is... ambiguous.

You are not putting it all together...

Well... two things:

• None of us, Scott, not one of us, "has it all together." If anyone says he/she does, that's a good reason to... not engage with him/her.
• In your context in saying this, though, I would say it's you that is not putting all together. But, we are both welcome to our opinions... as I have said more than once now.

...but speaking of the flesh as being of the flesh...as a man.

See, this statement itself is also ambiguous. I'm sure you will disagree, and that's okay. But that has been at least part of my point.

But I have not rebuked you...

Ah, yes you have. Not in a mean-spirited way, really, but, yeah. But no worries; I am not bothered.

...but have spoken clearly putting together what was first given "here a little, there a little."

You have spoken clearly. But clarity and accuracy are two different things.

It's enough, Scott. Grace and peace to you.

 

[ScottA]

Okay.


Absolutely not.


It is enough, Scott.


I would think so, yes.


Nope. I think the misunderstanding is yours, there, Scott. By, "wounds of the flesh," it seems ~ seems; I don't want to put words in your mouth ~ that you mean the nail prints in His hands and the wound from the sword to His side. If so... yeah, nope. But your question here is... ambiguous.


Well... two things:

• None of us, Scott, not one of us, "has it all together." If anyone says he/she does, that's a good reason to... not engage with him/her.
• In your context in saying this, though, I would say it's you that is not putting all together. But, we are both welcome to our opinions... as I have said more than once now.

See, this statement itself is also ambiguous. I'm sure you will disagree, and that's okay. But that has been at least part of my point.


Ah, yes you have. Not in a mean-spirited way, really, but, yeah. But no worries; I am not bothered.


You have spoken clearly. But clarity and accuracy are two different things.

It's enough, Scott. Grace and peace to you.

You're putting the breaks on. "It's enough." I get the hint.

It is a shame however. We have gone to the deep end, and you are back peddling. While I have revealed things that have never fully been explained before, you have retreated to what has only been believed based on "opinion." I'm not sure what you imagined, but history shows...this is exactly how this works--how God works...with or without things being received.

John 3:11​

Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness.​

As you will.

 

[PinSeeker]

You're putting the breaks on... you are back peddling.

LOL! I wouldn't put it that way, because that's very inaccurate, Scott, but you can put it however you like, certainly. I would put it very differently ~ and I would be speaking for myself about myself, so there's a much better chance of me being accurate about myself than... someone else. But you wouldn't like it, so I'll keep it to myself.

While I have revealed things that have never fully been explained before...

That's... a frightening statement.

...you have retreated...

Yeah no.

to what has only been believed based on "opinion." I'm not sure what you imagined, but history shows...this is exactly how this works--how God works...with or without things being received.

Hmmm...

John 3:11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness.

I do appreciate your conviction.

As you will.

Right, and you as well. Grace and peace to you.