No, I addressed my thoughts in the previous post. There is nothing that moves on after we die. We return to the ground awaiting His call for each of us to be resurrected to internal salvation or damnation. And that decision is made on this side of dieing - we must accept Him as our Lord and Savior or we will be in the second resurrection.
The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.
- Thread starter ewq1938
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
It's interesting that despite your big disagreement with him, you're still willing to talk to him about these things. But, somehow, because of our big disagreement, you don't want to talk to me about it. Oh, well. Only you know the reason for that. It does appear that you guys know each personally and maybe that's the difference? Anyway, carry on...
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's just you who is confused about what he is saying. Your view is a bit confusing, also. It would be helpful, not just to me, but I'm sure to rwb as well, if you could tell us how you interpret these passages...
2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight: ) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: 24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
Yes, we must be born again - that means, that on this side of the grave, we must declare the Lord is our savior. But that does not mean He imparts His Spirit within us while we are on earth. It means we have accepted Him as our Lord and Savior and welcome HIs Holy Spirit into our lives which will give us the power to obey His commandments and live our life the way He wants us to. Keep in mind, the Holy Spirit - the third part of the trinity is God. When I speak of His "spirit" that was breathed into Adam is not the same. We can not enter heaven or even be in His presence with His Spirit being imparted into us the same way it was for Adam. Adam lost God's breathed in "spirit" when he sinned and had to leave the Garden immediately because he no longer had God's "spirit" in him. The ONLY way to get His Spirit back into us is if He imparts it in us once again at the first resurrection. We don't have it now on the earth even though we accept Him as our Lord and Savior.
When we are "born again" it means we accepted His gift of the cross and God will no longer see our sins. Since we will no longer be seen by God as having our sins, only then is He willing to impart His Spirit back into us... And of course, you can see the other side --- if we rejected Him as our savior, that means God WILL SEE our sins because they were not removed by the cross. Therefore, He would never impart His Spirit into one that is corrupted with sin.
Well, I do feel I should respond to your comment above... although I do not believe you will accept it at all. I have absolutely no problem discussing different interpretations with anyone. I am quite aware that my interpretations on Daniel and now Revelation depart, tremendously, from "today's accepted interpretations." But I am not willing to either argue, fight, or receive and exhange with nasty comments when someone doesn't agree with an interpretation. Unfortunately, you have a very sharp tongue and you are not able to have exchange without resorting to those tactics. The best question I could pose to you would be the following: If you were sitting around a table with 4 or 5 other fellow discussing these same verses and each offering their own set of interpretations, would you still respond to them the same way you do here in this forum? I can assure you that the others would stand up and walk away..... you can certainly have different opinions but once your opinions cross over into my space, there is no further desire for me to continue.
I have also found during my life that the one's who use this approach are the least able to handle it when it happens to them. They fold like a house of cards and claim "foul." I have found it is simply better to just stand up and walk away. Nothing to see here.....
I will be the first to agree with your comment. First, I most likely have less Scriptural knowledge than ANYONE within this forum. Secondly, I find it very difficult to express my very different interpretations in a clear manner - especially, because the reader is expecting more of his own kind of interpretation that he is familiar with. Third, as I mentioned to RWB, when I or anyone answers a question, that answer does not stand on its own... there is a hundred other interpretations (mostly different) that cause this particular answer to come forward..... that is what he and I are experiencing --- we both bring forward so many thoughts / interpretations form all the other books of the Bible that one does not see ... we only see the one response to that one question.
To me, this is quite clear. On this earth we cannot be with the Lord.... but given our desire, we would certainly be willing to be out of this physical world and be with Him. But the qualifier in this verse is "rather." It does not mean that when we die we will be with Him.
This verse is similar to the verse in Corinthians. If we die we will eventually be resurrected by Jesus to be with Him forever. That is a "win" situation. Unfortunately, we do not have that choice to die and be with Him... We are placed on this earth for a purpose - to be a light to Him.
- Jul 11, 2015
- 7,294
- 1,453
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
My sister's son has a bottomless stomach. The son is literal, the description of his appetite is symbolic.
The bottomless pit is a real place, but it's name is symbolic. I will also add God could easily make a literal pit that actually has no bottom, and could never get full ie: bottomless.
Now you are getting the sense of Revelation. It represents a short period of time, and a thousand years represents a long period of time since the first advent.
The first resurrection for those who die in faith is SPIRITUAL! It happens when those who were "dead in trespasses and sins", walking according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience. To have eternal life after we are physically dead, before we die, we must first be made spiritually alive together with Christ by grace through faith. To die in faith means before death we were made alive (quickened), not individually, physically resurrected by the works/power of God. It is in this way that man has part in the "first resurrection". Because the first resurrection is the physical/bodily resurrection of Christ ALONE! We, TOGETHER with Christ are made to partake of the first resurrection that is the resurrection of Christ alone, for He is the only first to be bodily resurrected to NEVER die again. (Eph 2) Through the power of God the moment we believe, we have been made ONE with Christ through spiritual re-birth, the power of the Holy Spirit within us.
By having part in the resurrected life of Christ, we have ETERNAL/EVERLASTING spiritual life through His Spirit that shall be with us always. To possess eternal life means our spirit, through the Holy Spirit, is, spiritually speaking, with the Lord before we physically die. For this reason, when our body dies, we, as spiritual body return to heaven a living soul. (1Cor 15:44) Our physical body shall return to the dust of the earth and not be resurrected immortal & incorruptible until the hour coming when the last trumpet sounds, and time shall be no longer.
Yes, the body of every human after death returns to the earth. However the human body consists of both physical flesh from the earth, and the breath of life that is spirit. Together our body with spirit became a living soul. We receive the Holy Spirit from God when we have been born again. Which is why Christ says we must be born again to both know (see) and enter the Kingdom of God.
John 3:6 (KJV) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The Spirit of Christ that we receive when we are born again will never leave us, but be with us until we are bodily resurrected immortal & incorruptible.
Ephesians 1:13-14 (KJV) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
The spirit of every human being returns to God after our body has died. When we die in faith our spirit returns to God a living soul. Man, who dies in unbelief is simply said to be in silence and darkness in the grave, without life (soulless) to wait for the bodily resurrection of all who are in the graves. When the hour comes when the last trumpet sounds the bodies of unbelievers shall be resurrected to stand before God and be judged according to what is found written in the books and the book of life.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Charlie, I can't help but notice that your replies are filled with speculation/opinion but lacking any biblical proof texts? Unless you can biblically prove what you allege, I will not believe you have any understanding of matters of life and death after all! You seem to be focused only on what you can physically see and appear to lack discernment for the things of God that are unseen!
Charlie, without the Spirit of Christ making us spiritually alive together with Christ, no one would possess faith to believe Christ. That is the purpose for which Christ has sent His Spirit to be IN US!
John 3:6 (KJV) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 6:63 (KJV) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 14:16 (KJV) And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:17 (KJV) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Davy
Well-Known Member
Per bishop Ussher's Biblical chronology, and E.W. Bullinger who did the same Bible chronology, Christ's actual year of birth was 4 B.C.
We are at the year 2025 A.D. Add 4 years to that, and it has been 2029 years since Lord Jesus Christ came.
How... then can anyone in their right mind, claim that period of 2029 years is what the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 is about?? Yet that is exactly what some on man's false Amill theory try to do, showing how deceived they are.
Because Charlie is arguing the first resurrection is physical. My response is 'how can that be' since our mortal body will not be resurrected immortal and incorruptible until the last trumpet sounds! According to Scripture, when our mortal body dies, the eternal spirit of faithful saints ascends to heaven a spiritual body as living soul. Paul tells us we (faithful saints) after physical death are sown a natural body, and raised a spiritual body, because in Christ we possess both natural mortal life as well as eternal spiritual life through the Spirit of Christ in us.
1 Corinthians 15:44 (KJV) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1 Corinthians 15:50-53 (KJV) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 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.
Thank you for your detailed response. Clearly, we have very different interpretations for these verses in Revelation, and they are / seemingly based on the many other interpretations we each have developed during our studies of the Old and New Testament books of the Bible. Here we are studying Revelation 20 and we support much of our interpretations on these verses with Scriptural quotes from earlier books and that can and most likely would continue until we run out of scripture.....
So, rather that address each and everyone of those supporting verses that come forward to lend a hand in our interpretation of Revelation, perhaps we might try a different approach - if you and others have an interest.
If we want to understand and study Revelation, we must start with Revelation. That may sound strange but I have found this is exactly the kind of thing that took place in my study of Daniel. I would constantly receive intepretations that were based on verses in Revelation and other books... without stopping to ask the question, " what is this verse in Daniel meant to tell us." That is the starting point not a verse in Revelation... it may support our interpretation in Daniel but it does not define it. I believe the same is happening with Revelation. But now, we are looking back to Daniel, and other books to define what it should mean without first asking us. "what is this verse telling us or meant to say."
So, let us both, and anyone intersted start with Revelation and we can learn how each of us come to interpret a certain verse: Here is the "timline" I sent that, hopefully, shows the events in their order for this discussion of the "resurrection of our bodies" at the end of time:
1. The Second Coming of Christ and the First Resurrection (the righteous dead)
- The dead in Christ will rise first, and those who are alive in the faith will be caught up together with them.
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout... and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds…”
1 Corinthians 15:51-52
“...we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed... at the last trump... the dead shall be raised incorruptible…”
Revelation 20:4-6
“...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years... this is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection…”
Above is just the first event in Revelation. The discussion is on the First Resurrection. The interpretation reveals the dead in Christ will rise first and those alive in the faith will be caught up together with them. Then, there are the 3 verses to support that interpretation..
So this is descibing the "first resurrection" at the time of His return. I would ask if you might offer your thoughts on this and the key verses that might support this (shown above). Once we agree on the what this "first resurrection" is all about, we can introduce our supporting verses.
I believe if we take baby steps in understanding what the verse is telling (on its surface), then we can discuss the supporting verses that will give each of our interpretations. I will understand your side much better... thanks.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I'm still not clear on what you're saying. Do you believe that 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 will be fulfilled when Jesus comes in the future when the last trumpet sounds or do you believe it is fulfilled each time that a believer dies physically? It seemed like you were saying you see it as having the same context as 2 Cor 5:6-8 since you listed those verses together in your other post, so I'm trying to get clarification on how exactly you interpret 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I couldn't disagree more. That's the wrong approach to interpreting the book. We must start with clear, straightforward scripture to establish doctrine and then interpret more difficult scripture, such as the book of Revelation, according to that foundation. If you start with Revelation, then you will have a tendency to interpret Revelation in isolation from the rest of scripture and then try to change the rest of scripture to fit your interpretation of Revelation.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
So much for your claim that all the time periods in Revelation are literal. I guess you forgot this one when you said that?
Somehow those time periods have to be literal, but the one hour of Revelation 17:12 doesn't. This is typical of how Premills are not consistent in their approach to interpreting scripture.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I don't know what "today's accepted interpretations" means. There are many different interpretations of Daniel and Revelation today just as there always has been.
I was not doing that in my responses to you.
Yes, I was not doing anything like that in our discussion up to the point when you decided to end it.
Yes, I would.
I can assure you that you have no way of knowing that.
I was not being nasty with you in this thread and was simply sharing my view. I think if you make a claim based on a certain verse like Ecclesiastes 9:5, you should be willing to discuss the meaning of that verse in more detail to see if it really means what you claim it does.
Why did you talk to me at all then? The discussion we were having was fine and there was no insults or anything like that and then you just decided to end it. Why? Because you just assume I was going to start trying to make it personal or something? I was not. When you make claims the way you do, you should be willing to have them challenged and to back them up. There's nothing wrong with me challenging your view the way I did. I was not being personal about it or anything like that.
Perhaps I was not clear … which often occurs. When we open the book of Revelation we must begin with the first verse given to us and ask what is this telling us. If we believe it is telling A, then we should have supporting scripture to lean on … since no scripture can contradict other scripture. Since much of Revelation can be found in the earlier books like Daniel, we might use those verses to support our interpretation in Revelation.
I was told no less than a gazillon times that in order to understand Daniel, I must first understand Revelation!!! (Cart before the horse to me).
But I am not saying we don’t bring our understanding and knowledge forward WHEN we get to open Revelation, but we must first ask what is this verse meaning to tell us and then avail ourselves of the supporting scripture.
This is exact what I faced during my study of Daniel, only in reverse. They (most) would give me an answer to a verse in Daniel by quoting a verse in Revelation. It was not used in a supporting role but as to define what the verse on Daniel means. And that is one of the main reasons Daniel is misunderstood and grossly misinterpreted.
So, regarding Revelation, first try and determine what is the message or meaning of the verse and then avail ourselves of the scripture to support our interpretations.
I certainly have no desire to continue this line of thought. Best wishes.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I agree with this, but what I'm saying is that we should already have an established doctrine based on other more clear scripture even before attempting to interpret more difficult passages such as Revelation 20.
Well, maybe to some extent, but Daniel is an undeniably difficult book to interpret as well because of the amount of symbolism it contains. I think the foundation of our doctrine should be based on more clear scriptures that we can then use to help us interpret more difficult passages contained in books like Daniel and Revelation. I'm not saying that there isn't anything clear in Daniel or Revelation. There is. But, there's also undeniably a lot of symbolism which results in many different interpretations of some parts of the book.
I'm trying to tell you that we should understand the rest of scripture before understanding either one of them. At least as it relates to the more highly debatable parts of those books such as Daniel 9:24-27 and Revelation 20.
Sure.
But, what about other scripture? Do they only interpret Daniel by what is written in Revelation and not other scripture?
Similar threads
