They will reign with Him a thousand years and making an unknown Greek out of the English New Testament

[rwb]

I was thinking that Hymenaeus and Philetus would’ve been looking at passages such as Ezekiel 37 where there is a resurrection in the valley of dry bones and claiming this was fulfilled.

The thing that caused me to look at this again was the word “passed” <1096> in 2 Timothy 2:18. I guess I need to dig deeper into the Greek to try to understand this better.

I believe Ezekiel 37 is referring to mankind having part in the resurrection life of Christ, the first resurrection, when through the Gospel proclaimed in the power of the Holy Spirit men who were dead in trespasses and sins were made spiritually alive when born again of Christ's Spirit.

2 Timothy 2:18 (KJV) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

[Davidpt]

I was thinking that Hymenaeus and Philetus would’ve been looking at passages such as Ezekiel 37 where there is a resurrection in the valley of dry bones and claiming this was fulfilled.

The thing that caused me to look at this again was the word “passed” <1096> in 2 Timothy 2:18. I guess I need to dig deeper into the Greek to try to understand this better.

Since ginomai can mean a number of things, per this contest it likely means fulfilled, thus has been completed. Which would be like saying, since it has already been completed, it can't happen in the future. That would be my guess as to what the verse is meaning.

One thing I do know, there are some Premils that are notorious for using this passage against Amils involving Amils' interpretation of the first resurrection in Revelation 20. Totally unreasonable that they would use this verse as a weapon against the Amil interpretation of Revelation 20 and the first resurrection. I do not agree with Premils that do that and when I note any of them doing it, I usually point out that they are clueless here even if Amils are interpreting the first resurrection incorrectly. It's not even remotely the same as them doing what 2 Timothy 2:18 is describing.

 

[grafted branch]

I believe Ezekiel 37 is referring to mankind having part in the resurrection life of Christ, the first resurrection, when through the Gospel proclaimed in the power of the Holy Spirit men who were dead in trespasses and sins were made spiritually alive when born again of Christ's Spirit.

2 Timothy 2:18 (KJV) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

That could be, I think the point my friend was trying to make was that Hymenaeus and Philetus got the type of resurrection wrong. Meaning the resurrection couldn’t be <1096> or come into being, the resurrection has to be something that happens at a specific moment in time, not over a span of time.

I need to look closer at <1096>, it’s used in many different places and can have more than just one meaning.

 

[Davidpt]

I believe Ezekiel 37 is referring to mankind having part in the resurrection life of Christ, the first resurrection, when through the Gospel proclaimed in the power of the Holy Spirit men who were dead in trespasses and sins were made spiritually alive when born again of Christ's Spirit.

2 Timothy 2:18 (KJV) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Then you have to find a way to make the following fit that.

Ezekiel 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Ezekiel 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.


This land being the point. Obviously, pertaining to Ezekiel 37:25, the land wherein their fathers have dwelt, is pertaining to literal land in a certain literal geographical location upon the earth. And that it is this same land where He is going to place the ones meant in Ezekiel 37. Which BTW, since when are the fathers meant here meaning the fathers of the Gentiles rather than the fathers of the Jews? Does not the text say wherein your fathers have dwelt? For some reason some Christians apparently think everything is about Gentiles now, that God has abandoned all plans involving Jews.

 

[grafted branch]

Since ginomai can mean a number of things, per this contest it likely means fulfilled, thus has been completed. Which would be like saying, since it has already been completed, it can't happen in the future. That would be my guess as to what the verse is meaning.

One thing I do know, there are some Premils that are notorious for using this passage against Amils involving Amils' interpretation of the first resurrection in Revelation 20. Totally unreasonable that they would use this verse as a weapon against the Amil interpretation of Revelation 20 and the first resurrection. I do not agree with Premils that do that and when I note any of them doing it, I usually point out that they are clueless here even if Amils are interpreting the first resurrection incorrectly. It's not even remotely the same as them doing what 2 Timothy 2:18 is describing.

Yea, I’m not agreeing with my friend. The thing is that Paul doesn’t specifically say if he’s against the idea that the resurrection is already happened or if it’s the idea that there is only one resurrection and the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrection was it or if they had a wrong idea about what the resurrection even was.

We can speculate but the more I think about this the less I see these verses being some kind of proof one way or the other.

 

[Davidpt]

How is that possible? When the last/seventh trumpet begins to sound there shall be time no longer. Why does John write the they "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" before they were physically martyred? There is only one bodily resurrection that shall be in an hour coming when the last trumpet sounds. Then those who have done good in life are resurrected immortal, so they cannot die.

If we use Scripture to interpret Scripture, John 5 and the passage in question is meaning the following according to Revelation 20.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life(at the beginning of the thousand years) ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation(after the thousand years following satan's little season) .

Per this scenario does not the hour come, regardless? The text doesn't say it's the same hour.

Take the following, for instance.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Are Amils going to interpret that hour the same way they are apparently interpreting the hour meant in verses 28 and 29? Of course not since no one in their right mind would take the hour meant in verse 25 to be involving the same hour throughout.

If you think saints are not, have not been martyred throughout the Old as well as the New Testament period of time, you have not read Hebrews 11 of all who died in faith waiting for the Messiah/Redeemer to come. Amil understands martyrdom is and always has been part of man being faithful to Christ, the Messiah/Redeemer, and that this martyrdom would become "great tribulation" as never before on earth after Christ came in human flesh with the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and the Church on earth would proclaim that the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven would be complete.

I fully agree that saints have been martyred during both OT and NT times. Per the following I take this to be involving martyrdom during both OT and NT times---: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus(Only applicable to NT times), and for the word of God(applicable to both OT and NT times)---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(only applicable to NT times once the beast has ascended out of the pit first). Therefore, the first resurrection involves both the bodily rising of OT saints and NT saints.

I might reconsider some of this if Amil, either you or some other Amils, could actually make sense out of those deceived by satan after the thousand years. Obviously, if they are present after the thousand years, they were present during the thousand years as well. What was their status during the thousand years prior to satan deceiving them after the thousand years? Were they already deceived during the thousand years? Or were they not deceived during the thousand years?

The former makes no sense whatsoever, because if they were already deceived during the thousand years who was it that deceived them if satan is bound so that that can't happen again until he released first? Not to mention, it makes no sense to deceive someone already deceived. You deceive someone not already deceived, not someone that is already deceived. And the latter only makes sense if this means they were saved during the thousand years, the fact to not be deceived during the thousand years, if assuming Amil is the correct position, would have to mean they are saved during the thousand years. Are Amils going to argue that to not be deceived during the thousand years equals being unsaved rather than saved? Probably not would be my guess.

 

[rwb]

Then you have to find a way to make the following fit that.

Ezekiel 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Ezekiel 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.


This land being the point. Obviously, pertaining to Ezekiel 37:25, the land wherein their fathers have dwelt, is pertaining to literal land in a certain literal geographical location upon the earth. And that it is this same land where He is going to place the ones meant in Ezekiel 37. Which BTW, since when are the fathers meant here meaning the fathers of the Gentiles rather than the fathers of the Jews? Does not the text say wherein your fathers have dwelt? For some reason some Christians apparently think everything is about Gentiles now, that God has abandoned all plans involving Jews.

That's not difficult David, when you read Ezekiel as pertaining to the SPIRITUAL Kingdom of God that is within you. When did Christ send His Spirit to be within you? Think Pentecost.

Are those bones that come to life through the Spirit in them the "whole house of Israel" ethnically or spiritually. IOW is Ezekiel speaking of the "Israel of God" or is he speaking of an apostate ethnic people whose house Christ pronounces desolate since His coming?

Ezekiel 37:11 (KJV) Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.

Matthew 23:38 (KJV) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Land and earth are defined from the same Greek word that means country, land, earth, ground, world. Do you think Christ was saying the faithful would inherit the land of Canaan? How do you reconcile the words of Christ and the prophecy of Ezekiel so there is not contradiction?

Matthew 5:5 (KJV) Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

 

[rwb]

If we use Scripture to interpret Scripture, John 5 and the passage in question is meaning the following according to Revelation 20.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life(at the beginning of the thousand years) ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation(after the thousand years following satan's little season) .

Per this scenario does not the hour come, regardless? The text doesn't say it's the same hour.

Take the following, for instance.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Are Amils going to interpret that hour the same way they are apparently interpreting the hour meant in verses 28 and 29? Of course not since no one in their right mind would take the hour meant in verse 25 to be involving the same hour throughout.

You're not reading this passage carefully David. Notice in vs 24-25 Christ says the hour that NOW is NOT time for hearing Christ's voice calling for the physically dead to come out of the graves. He says the hour that NOW is when the dead His voice through hearing His Word and believing on Him. That speaks of the day/time/age/era of the Gospel being proclaimed to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, NOT the physically dead in the graves.

There is also an hour coming for all who are physically dead to be resurrected to life or to damnation. That day according to Paul is when the last trumpet sounds when the physically dead are resurrected immortal & incorruptible in a moment and twinkling of an eye, or the dead are resurrected and judged according to what is written in the books and the book of life. IOW resurrected to damnation in the hour that is coming when the dead are resurrected to damnation.

 

[rwb]

I fully agree that saints have been martyred during both OT and NT times. Per the following I take this to be involving martyrdom during both OT and NT times---: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus(Only applicable to NT times), and for the word of God(applicable to both OT and NT times)---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(only applicable to NT times once the beast has ascended out of the pit first). Therefore, the first resurrection involves both the bodily rising of OT saints and NT saints.

Those who have part of the first resurrection are NOT among the dead, who shall be resurrected and judged in an hour coming when the DEAD will hear Christ calling them to come out of the graves. Again, I ask you who was the serpent at creation who through deception marked for death Adam & Eve?

 

[Davidpt]

That's not difficult David, when you read Ezekiel as pertaining to the SPIRITUAL Kingdom of God that is within you. When did Christ send His Spirit to be within you? Think Pentecost.

Are those bones that come to life through the Spirit in them the "whole house of Israel" ethnically or spiritually. IOW is Ezekiel speaking of the "Israel of God" or is he speaking of an apostate ethnic people whose house Christ pronounces desolate since His coming?

Ezekiel 37:11 (KJV) Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.

Matthew 23:38 (KJV) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Land and earth are defined from the same Greek word that means country, land, earth, ground, world. Do you think Christ was saying the faithful would inherit the land of Canaan? How do you reconcile the words of Christ and the prophecy of Ezekiel so there is not contradiction?

Matthew 5:5 (KJV) Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Roger, yet, the text plainly says in Ezekiel 37 that He is going to place them in the land where their fathers dwelt. It is then a matter of determining what land that was. Was it literal land with literal borders, or was it a spiritual land of some sort, whatever that might mean and look like? Do you seriously think the land their fathers dwelt in, that literal land with literal borders are not meant?

 

[grafted branch]

I believe Ezekiel 37 is referring to mankind having part in the resurrection life of Christ, the first resurrection, when through the Gospel proclaimed in the power of the Holy Spirit men who were dead in trespasses and sins were made spiritually alive when born again of Christ's Spirit.

2 Timothy 2:18 (KJV) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

I talked with my friend, here’s what he said, as I understood him.

In 2 Timothy 2:18 Paul says “who concerning the truth”. Either the resurrection was the truth or that it had “passed” was the truth, but both couldn’t be true nor can both be false, one is true and one is false.

When an Amill uses John 11:25 where Jesus says He is the resurrection, that means Hymenaeus and Philetus would’ve been right in both the resurrection and that it had “passed” if they meant Jesus was the resurrection.

My friend says Amill can’t give an answer as to which one Hymenaeus and Philetus had right. Amill has to have both wrong which means Paul’s statement of “who concerning the truth” would also be incorrect.



My friend went through several scenarios of resurrections and “passed” meanings which I’m not going to reproduce, but I’m still not convinced he has a solid case. Just letting you know what he said, he refuses to post on social media, or I would have him make his own arguments.

 

[rwb]

Roger, yet, the text plainly says in Ezekiel 37 that He is going to place them in the land where their fathers dwelt. It is then a matter of determining what land that was. Was it literal land with literal borders, or was it a spiritual land of some sort, whatever that might mean and look like? Do you seriously think the land their fathers dwelt in, that literal land with literal borders are not meant?

Who are their fathers? Are they not the remnant according to election of grace? The fathers of Old as in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

 

[rwb]

I talked with my friend, here’s what he said, as I understood him.

In 2 Timothy 2:18 Paul says “who concerning the truth”. Either the resurrection was the truth or that it had “passed” was the truth, but both couldn’t be true nor can both be false, one is true and one is false.

When an Amill uses John 11:25 where Jesus says He is the resurrection, that means Hymenaeus and Philetus would’ve been right in both the resurrection and that it had “passed” if they meant Jesus was the resurrection.

My friend says Amill can’t give an answer as to which one Hymenaeus and Philetus had right. Amill has to have both wrong which means Paul’s statement of “who concerning the truth” would also be incorrect.

My friend went through several scenarios of resurrections and “passed” meanings which I’m not going to reproduce, but I’m still not convinced he has a solid case. Just letting you know what he said, he refuses to post on social media, or I would have him make his own arrangements.

The resurrection that had not passed as these deceivers tried to make it appear, is the physical resurrection that shall come when all who are physically dead in the graves shall be resurrected to life, or to damnation. The only resurrection shown in the Bible is physical or bodily resurrection from physical death to physical life. Even the resurrection of Christ was bodily. That's why spiritually dead mankind MUST have part in Christ's resurrection life to overcome the second death. Why would Hymenaeus and Philetus teaching the resurrection of Christ had passed overthrow the faith of some? That is the heart of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. The only way these deceivers could overcome the faith of some was to convince them that Christ had already come again and they were left behind.

 

[grafted branch]

The resurrection that had not passed as these deceivers tried to make it appear, is the physical resurrection that shall come when all who are physically dead in the graves shall be resurrected to life, or to damnation. The only resurrection shown in the Bible is physical or bodily resurrection from physical death to physical life. Even the resurrection of Christ was bodily. That's why spiritually dead mankind MUST have part in Christ's resurrection life to overcome the second death. Why would Hymenaeus and Philetus teaching the resurrection of Christ had passed overthrow the faith of some? That is the heart of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. The only way these deceivers could overcome the faith of some was to convince them that Christ had already come again and they were left behind.

So why didn’t they just look in the graves and see that there were still physical bodies in the graves? That would be the sensible thing to do to prevent the faith of some from being overthrown.

 

[Timtofly]

I don't think that follows from what I said.

Unifying body and spirit resulted in a living person - a soul. Once the spirit leaves the body the person - the soul - no longer exists.

What spirit? You are changing God's Word. This is the text:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

This does not say God combined a physical body with a spiritual body, and created a soul. This does not even say God placed a spirit inside of a physical body. This says that God breathes life into us every time a human is conceived in a womb. Creating the soul was not a one time occurrence. The soul is not connected to the physical DNA passed down from two parents.

The soul does not cease to exist when the body dies. We could easily conclude that the breath of life is the Holy Spirit. Every one gets the Holy Spirit when conceived. When the Holy Spirit leaves at death, then the body ceases to function. So that breath of life is not even our spirit, but the Holy Spirit that maintains physical life until the time God takes back the Holy Spirit.

Bodies lay in sheol - the grave- a hole in the ground. A review of Acts chapter 2 will be helpful to our discussion. In that passage, Peter argues on the basis that "David both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." By contrast, Christ was not abandoned to Hades (Sheol) nor did is flesh suffer decay. "Jesus was raised up again." says Peter. "And having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he pour forth this which you both see and hear."

And that body will always lay in the ground, because it returns to dust. It will never be given life again. Not even David's body still in that grave somewhere. It was not the physical body they had that is ever resurrected.

Only the soul is eternal.

Jesus was the only human whose body came out of that grave, as that physical body was not temporal, corruptible, nor from Adam. The physical body of Jesus was permanent incorruptible, from God. It lay in the tomb, until the soul returned to it and then left the tomb. No one took their original body out of the grave. God placed their soul from Abraham's bosom into a different body, when they came out at the Cross. That permanent incorruptible physical body ascended to heaven with Jesus on Sunday morning. At that point they permanently left death behind and entered Paradise.

You can define your terms however you like, but if we are discussing what the Bible means by such terms, then I don't think you are using the term "mortal" the way the Bible does. A mortal body isn't a dead body. A mortal body is a body subject to death. It isn't dead now; it will be dead eventually.

I don’t define terms however I like. I go with dictionary definitions. Terms are not privately interpreted. They are defined in dictionaries by the concensus of human usage.

The term mortal does not suggest "subject to" it means lacking eternal life which is the state of death. You use the term immortal which means non death as if it means eternal life, no? Do you say immortal means "subject to life"?

Whether the soul is in a mortal body, or in sheol without a mortal body, it is still in a state of death. The death God promised to Adam when Adam disobeyed God.

 

[Timtofly]

Well, I argued from scripture that a "soul" results from the unification of body and spirit. Genesis 2:7 Consider other alloys or combinations of things, which result in something entirely new.

God created a soul to be eternal, not the mortal body given to Adam when Adam disobeyed God. Adam had a permanent incorruptible physical body that would have lived forever. That is the whole point. God took that permanent incorruptible physical body away and placed Adam's soul in a temporal corruptible physical body, which we define as mortal.

Adam was made subject to death, because he no longer had that permanent incorruptible physical body. Adam's original body did not start dying. Adam was literally placed into death with a body of death.

Likewise, when a body and a spirit come together, a soul is formed. However, if you remove the body, the spirit will remain, but the soul will be lost.

Again, "mortal" doesn't mean "dead." A body subject to death is still alive. And Luke 8 doesn't support your contention that demonic spirits can possess a soul.

Why would the Holy Spirit remain in a dead mortal body?

Once again you hold this term spirit as something created. The verse claims the breath of life is God and comes from God. That would be the Holy Spirit. God gave that spirit, and that spirit returns to God. So it was not created, but on loan.

What does a demon possess then? Your soul is the mind and heart. Certainly not the brain and the heart that pumps blood. The brain and heart organ are merely physical.

No. I am arguing that at death, the body and the spirit separate and as a result soul ceases to exist. What enters the grave is the body, which is subject to decay as it returns to dust. The spirit returns to God who gave it.

The concept of the "soul" refers to the life a person lives, encompassing all of their experiences, relationships, accomplishments, struggles, and everything in between from birth until death. Once a person passes away, their life comes to an end and they cease to exist. The only possibility for continued existence would be through some sort of resurrection from death.

Why do you say the spirit remains with the body removed and the body remains with the spirit removed? The only thing that God created was the dust of the physical body.

If we had that original body that was permanent and incorruptible, that body would never die. The only body that returns to dust is this second body of death, you call mortal.

Once again the soul is the eternal you. It does not matter what physical body God places that soul in. God could place that soul into a physical star, no? Then you would experience reality as a star, no? You can never cease to exist, not even in death, because you are in death in your current body and you are separated from your spirit. Because that spirit in you is the Holy Spirit, not your spirit.

The phrase "the soul of David was abandoned to the grave" indicates that all of David's activities, hopes, dreams, aspirations, plans, loves, hates, goals, and his way of life have come to an end. After he was buried, he was no longer able to serve as the King of Israel, provide for his family and people, or defend his country against their enemies. He was no longer a living soul, so his story ended there.

My argument is based on the implications of Genesis 2:7. God took dust from the ground and breathed into it and it became a living soul. The adjective indicates that Adam was active, busy, occupied with everyday life, setting goals, performing tasks and things such as these. When a body dies, the spirit, not the soul, returns to God who gave it. The soul ceases to exist.

David did not cease to exist. David was in Abraham's bosom and only tasted death. In fact he was better off in Abraham's bosom than the physical mortal body. Because he was no longer bound in sin and death. There was no longer any guilt or dread associated with sin and disobedience.

David was still separated from a physical body and his spirit. His body was dissolving in a tomb under Jerusalem, and the Holy Spirit returned to God.

Jesus told us about Abraham's bosom. People tend to dismiss God's Word as irrelevant. David said:

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."

"If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

How can David cease to exist if he claims he can be in heaven or sheol?

My argument is that John sees souls throughout the book of Revelation as always existing with or without a physical body, because you are the soul. You don't have a soul. You are the soul that can put on your physical body, and put on your spirit over that physical body. Paul said to ensure all remain blameless: soul, body, and spirit. 1 Thessalonians 5:23

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Can you explain how you are supposed to keep the Holy Spirit blameless? The spirit in you is not your spirit, but God's, and you still have to keep your spirit blameless from becoming demonic. Certainly God's spirit in you does not become demonic.

Paul states that our glorification is pending the return of Jesus Christ. We currently possess it as an inheritance.

Paul indicates that we shall be changed, and he subsequently describes the change in the verses that follow. He compares those who have died with those who are still alive. According to him, the dead who follow Christ will first be raised from the dead before they can experience the change. This contradicts the belief that the dead are waiting in heaven for this transformation to occur.

You contradict Matthew 27 that clearly states the OT redeemed waiting as souls in Abraham's bosom were resurrected into permanent incorruptible physical bodies and ascended with Jesus as both David and Paul states leading a processession of those held captivity into heaven. Psalms 68:18

"Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them."

Ephesians 4:8
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."

Those in Christ are consistently rising first. The soul entering that permanent incorruptible physical body is an ongoing phenomenon. 2 Corinthians 5:1

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

The Greek word for spirit naturally includes the concept of "breath" (not air) since a lack of breath usually indicates a dead body. Since breath seems to animate the body, the term spirit indicates that which animates the person, e.g love, hate, dreams, wishes, beliefs, hopes, and other things that motivate a person.

With regard to the spirits of God, Paul is indicating that the spirits of God bring light, that is, wisdom, knowledge, enlightenment, insight, and discernment.

The Holy Spirit animates. The Holy Spirit comes from God, and returns to God.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

What else is this God breathed/spirit of life into us other than the Holy Spirit?

Air is still made up of elements/dust of the earth. The very atoms need the Holy Spirit moving within creation. The Holy Spirit is not part of creation created by God, but God Himself giving life to creation. The air and wind is just creation, but used to show us how the Holy Spirit is at work. John 3:6-8

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

 

[Timtofly]

In Revelation 12:7 it clearly states Michael and his angels fought the dragon. You have the dragon symbolizing human government, then you go on to say Michael doesn’t fight human government but he does fight Satan. Obviously then the dragon is Satan and not human government, regardless of what other symbolism is present in the verse. You could argue the seven heads are human government as it doesn’t say Michael fought the heads, only the dragon.

You need to change how you’re interpreting this so it at least agrees with what the Bible says. Interpreting this way is only going to lead to confusion, could we say the Lamb of God isn’t Jesus because the Lamb symbolizes sheep and Jesus is the Shepherd? No, we shouldn’t question the Bible when John the Baptist says behold the Lamb of God, he is specifically referring to Jesus.

We should not be attempting to change the scriptures, instead we need to adjust our view. There are many verses that may have several different meanings but to say something like Michael didn’t fight the dragon when it clearly says he did is not acceptable.

So how did Michael fight against human government if only one head was left?

Who was cast out of Heaven?

The point is the timing of being cast out.

You have not explained how a literal angel fights a symbolic reference.

 

[grafted branch]

So how did Michael fight against human government if only one head was left?

I don’t think Michael fought against human government, Michael fought the dragon which is another name for Satan, that old serpent, called the Devil.

The dragon has seven heads in Revelation 12:3. I do think the heads represent human government of some kind, but just because the dragon has the heads doesn’t necessarily mean there is a seven headed dragon somewhere. I think it simply means the human governments were under the dragons control, Satan had them.

Who was cast out of Heaven?

Satan and his angels.

The point is the timing of being cast out.

Right, when this happened is important. In Daniel 12:1 Michael stands up and in Revelation 12:7 Michael fights the dragon. If you don’t think these are both referring to the same time period then I would think you could give a reasonable explanation. So far you’ve only given the idea that Michael didn’t actually fighting the dragon, I don’t consider that a reasonable explanation, but if that’s where you stand then we are simply not in agreement on how the Bible should be interpreted.

You have not explained how a literal angel fights a symbolic reference.

I think “dragon” is a name for Satan just as Lamb is a name for Jesus. Each name has significance but they are ultimately referring to one entity. The fight in Revelation 12:7 was between two entities and their angels.

 

[Timtofly]

That is physical, corporal, material. It is composed of flesh and blood.

1Co 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

So Adam did not have a physical body until he disobeyed God?

How is a spiritual body made from dust?

Humans will always have a physical body. Humans will always have a spirit separate from the physical body. If you call the body, spirit, what do you call the spirit?

Adam's physical body cannot enter heaven. God's physical body given to all sons of God can enter heaven.

 

[ewq1938]

The dragon has seven heads in Revelation 12:3. I do think the heads represent human government of some kind

The heads are mountains, and the horns are kings that have kingdoms. That would make the heads/mountains the areas of land where kingdoms exist. Think the 7 continents as the mountains. Also mountains don't only mean (super high) mountains in English but any land rising up out of water so islands and entire continents also apply.