The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[Spiritual Israelite]

Come on, pay attention to context.

I did. How about you try it some time?

Like such.

Mark 12:18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

Not only did the Sadducees not believe in a resurrection, but they believed that people cease to exist when they die. Jesus disproved both notions to be false.

Mark 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

We have to keep in mind this.

Mark 12:18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

What is being denied here is a resurrection.

They also denied that people are still alive after physical death. Jesus proved that wrong by showing that they are still alive after death, which means there is no basis for thinking that their their bodies can't be resurrected in the future.

They are not saying anything about the soul one way or the other, as to what happens to it upon death.

You are not paying attention to the text. The Sadducees believed that the dead, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were not alive in any way, shape or form and had ceased to exist. Jesus proved that wrong by reminding them that God is the God of the living, not the dead. That means He was saying that the dead, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were alive at the time despite the Sadducees claiming that they were dead and ceased to exist. By proving that they were alive spiritually, Jesus showed that there's no reason to think that they can't be bodily resurrected in the future. That would only be the case if they ceased to exist as the Sadducees believed.

So why are bringing that into the passage?

See above. You always just skim the surface of scripture and don't look into it deeply enough to see what it is saying.

It's pretty obvious why He is not the God of the dead, but is the God of the living. And that's because one day, meaning the resurrection, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are no longer going to be among the dead, they are going to be among the living again.

This shows your ignorance about what Jesus was saying. You are acting as if God not being the God of the dead, but of the living means God is not the God of the bodily dead, but of the bodily living. That would mean He is not currently the God of those who are bodily dead. But, we know that is not true.

Using your logic, what about someone such as Cain, Judas, unbelieving Jews that have died, atheists that have died, etc, is He the God of them too the fact their souls are alive as well, except not alive in heaven but alive in hell?

Obviously, the context is only in relation to believers. But, leave it to you to try to come up with something ridiculous like this.

Once again this is the context---And as touching the dead, that they rise. That has zero to do with a disembodied state.

Once again your thinking is very shallow and you are lacking the discernment to understand how Jesus disproved their lack of belief in a resurrection by showing that dead believers like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive now or else God would not be their God since He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. By proving that dead believers are spiritually alive, Jesus showed that there is no basis for thinking they will never be bodily resurrected.

You have already falsely accused @Zao is life a cpl of times in this thread for believing in soul sleep, something he obviously doesn't believe in.

It wasn't obvious to me until he stated so specifically. If he had said so before and I read it, then I guess I forgot. You know you forget a lot of things that people say. That doesn't make someone a liar. When someone says that a word that means to be alive can't be used to refer to souls who are alive, that can come across that they believe in soul sleep. What is the basis for claiming that a word that means to be alive can't refer to those whose souls are alive? What other word should be used to describe them instead?

I've read enough of his posts on this board and that other board where I initially encountered him, and I know good and well that his position has never been soul sleep.

Good for you. You've probably read more of his posts than I have. I often get nauseated from his nonsense in his posts and stop reading halfway through if not sooner. And I don't read all of his posts.

Why don't you know that as well? How is it that you can supposedly interpret all Scriptures correctly but can't even get right that @Zao is life position is not soul sleep?

I explained this above. Stop asking the same question over and over again. You are the most repetitive person I've ever come across.

You need to get off your high horse one of these days and admit that someone else might be right about some of these Scriptures being debated rather than you.

LOL. You don't know me at all. If you guys actually did disprove something I believe, I would admit as such. Just as I have in the past when I was Premil and admitted to being wrong about that. Not long ago, WPM gave his interpretation of Revelation 10:1-3 and I determined that my interpretation of it was wrong and his was right. So, stop trying to act as if you know me when you don't know me at all.

Amil cannot get past the following, and no arguments that they come up with can get them past the following

LOL. Every time you say something like this it's never a proven fact and it's clearly just your opinion. YOU are the one who has to get off YOUR high horse by acting like your opinions are facts. While I obviously believe strongly in my opinions, I rarely make statements like what you made here that you make frequently. It's ridiculous. You have no idea how weak most of your arguments are and the reason they are weak is because you always only look at part of the story instead of the whole story. You do not dig deep enough for the truth. You are carnal and not spiritual (1 Corinthians 3:1-2).

---But the rest of the dead lived not BODILY again until the thousand years are finished. Therefore, undeniably telling us that, as of the beginning of the thousand years, the only dead still needing to live bodily again is the rest of the dead that don't live bodily again at the beginning of the thousand years, the first resurrection. This verse is the trump card. It is the verse that argues 2 + 2 = 4, and that no argument, not even a million arguments, are ever going to make it untrue that 2 + 2 = 4.

It is foolish to try to interpret a passage in isolation from the rest of scripture. Your interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts other scripture, so how can you act like your interpretation is a proven fact?

 

[Zao is life]

You have said things similar to what those who believe in soul sleep say, so it came across that you believed in that. I'm not lying to say you believed in it because you definitely come across that way in some of the things you say. I can see now that you don't believe it, so I was just mistaken and not lying at all.

They need to have a no under 12's age restriction in these forums. Even after I have corrected you more than once you have continued to repeat the claim (not only in this thread). This time you repeated it to @Davidpt .

Psst I believe in whatever the biblical scriptures say.

How honest are you when you avoid addressing what it says in Mark 12:26-27 which proves that your claim that "zao" is never used to refer to physically/bodily dead human beings is false? Do you think no one notices that you are avoiding addressing that passage?

Unlike you, as I already explained to you in post #1,858 about what the scriptures say about zao and what the word applies to,I believe what the scriptures say about life and death and living | being alive [zao] in the body (a word never used in reference to the "eternal life of the human soul")

What you assert falsely with regard to Jesus silencing the Sadducees with regard to the resurrection of the body from the dead by telling them that God is not the God of the dead, but of the zao (the "alive in the body"), makes no difference to the facts.

He said:

"And as touching the dead [nekros[, that they rise [egeiro]: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead [nekros], but the God of the living [zao: of those who are alive in a body that is not dead]: ye therefore do greatly err." (Mark 12:26-27).

Jesus was answering the Sadducees' arguments against the resurrection of the body from the dead, and He was talking about being alive in the body (zao].

His full reply was,

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the zao (of those who are alive in the body)." (Matthew 22:29-32).

@Spiritual Israelite What has the resurrection and not marrying got to do with your false assertion that Jesus was referencing souls that are "spiritually" alive?

The fact remains, He was not - He was referencing humans being alive in the body [zao], thus proving the resurrection to the Sadducees.

"For this reason Christ died [apothnesko] and rose again from the dead [anistemi], and lived again [anazao: lived again in a body that is not dead], so that he may be the Lord of both the dead [nekros] and living [zao: those who are alive in a body that is not dead]." (Romans 14:9).

What Jesus said proved from the scriptures the resurrection of the body from the dead to the Sadducees. Unlike you, the Sadducees understood that they could bring no further argument against the resurrection (of the body) from the dead, because Jesus reminded them that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were dead, and God is not the God of the dead, but of those who are alive in the body [zao].

ARE YOU HONEST ENOUGH TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT?

I doubt it, because like the Sadducees you will still continue to believe whatever you want to anyway (because the facts are not Amil).

The biblical concept of eternal life for created human beings is holistic (body, soul and spirit), and implies a life being lived in a human body that does not die:

Adam became a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into him, but because of sin the body dies but the soul continues,

and a person who is born of the Spirit of God is a living soul whose dead body is quickened by the Spirit of Christ in him, and will be resurrected from the dead at the last day when Christ returns.

The quickening of the body and the resurrection of the body are integral parts of the gospel, which is the gospel of redemption from sin AND death.

"It is sown a body, natural [Greek: sōma psychikós], it is raised a body, spiritual [sōma pneumatikós]. There is a body, natural [sōma psychikós], and there is a body, spiritual [sōma pneumatikós]." (1 Corinthians 15:44).

Whether a natural body or a spiritual body, it's still a body, and there will be no spiritual body before the time of the return of Christ and the resurrection of the body from the dead.

SO WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT SAY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE BODY and BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY?

With regard to those who belong to Christ, the apostle Paul teaches us that "none of us lives [zao: alive in the body] to himself, and no one dies [apothnesko] to himself.

For both if we live in the body [zao], we live [zao] to the Lord; and if we die [apothnesko], we die to the Lord. Therefore both if we live in the body [zao], and if we die [apothnesko], we are the Lord's (we belong to Christ Jesus, we belong to God).

For to this end Christ both died [apothnesko] and rose [anistemi: resurrection of the body] and lived again [anazao - alive in the body], that He might be Lord both of the dead [nekros] and living [zao: alive in the body]." (Romans 14:7-9).

Jesus said,

"Do not fear, I am the First and the Last, and the Living [zao] One, and I became dead, and behold, I am alive [zao] for ever and ever, Amen. And I have the keys of hades and of death." (Revelation 1:17-18)

"God has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,

which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made visible by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has broken the power of death, and has brought life (zoe) and immortality to light through the gospel." (2 Timothy 1:9-10).

WHETHER BY LIFE OR BY DEATH

Paul said,

"According to my earnest expectation and hope I shall be ashamed in nothing, but as always now Christ shall be magnified in my body with all boldness, whether it is by life or by death.

"For to me to live [záō] is Christ, and to die [apothnesko] is gain. But if I live [záō] in the flesh [sarx], this is the fruit of my labor. Yet I do not know what I shall choose. For I am pressed together by the two: having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more needful for you." (Philippians 1:20-24).

Note: ALIVE IN THE BODY in respect of human beings = ZAO (always) ZAO is never ever referring to "spiritual life". Spiritual life is always called ZOE in the New Testament.

TO BE AWAY FROM HOME OUT OF THE BODY

"Being always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body, we are away from home from the Lord; for we walk by faith, not by sight; then we are confident and we are pleased rather to go away from home out of the body, and to come home to the Lord. Therefore we are also laboring to be well-pleasing to Him, whether at home or away from home." (2 Corinthians 5:6-9).

"Away from home out of the body" = souls without limbs. ZAO-LESS HUMANS.

WHAT HAS THAT TO DO WITH THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY DO YOU THINK?

AND WHAT IS IT THAT JESUS SAID ABOUT GOD NOT BEING THE GOD OF THE DEAD BUT OF THOSE WHO ALIVE IN THE BODY [ZAO] THAT SILENCED THE SADDUCEES' ARGUMENT ABOUT THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY FROM THE DEAD?

I doubt you will know the answer, because your Amil doctrine is age-restricted: "Not for adults".

@Spiritual Israelite Long ago I once (only once), basing it on what Paul said about death (quoted above), and what Revelation says about the souls of those under the altar being told to rest a little while longer, I said that death is possibly like having a really pleasant dream and then waking up in a new resurrected body - but I said it's not as though souls who have died in Christ and sleep in death will be asleep in the sense of not being conscious and fully aware of their surroundings (which is NOT what those who believe in "soul sleep" believe).

Saying something is like having a pleasant dream is not claiming "heaven" is not a real experience or that the soul is not fully conscious.

Immediately you began ringing your fire alarm, and you have never stopped: "SOUL SLEEP! SOUL SLEEP! HE BELIEVES IN SOUL SLEEP!"

And it has not mattered that I have denied it and corrected you. You have just kept on ringing your fire alarm.

"Soul sleep" = "no consciousness after death (after the death of the body)". I've never believed that, and my saying that the experience of death and being with Christ and resting in Christ is possibly LIKE having a pleasant dream, although we will be conscious and fully aware is not pushing "soul-sleep".

I've never believed in soul-sleep - but what Paul and the scriptures say about what happens to us after death does not support the ideas of some - also some who post in these boards - of being kings and priests in heaven swinging incense containers around or driving around in Porsche, fetching and dropping off angels for their missions (or whatever their human imaginations have conjured up).

A soul without a body is a limbless soul - a zao-less soul.

 

[Davidpt]

A soul without a body is a limbless soul - a zao-less soul.[/B]

Which, BTW, proves that the following is not already true, but not that it won't be true, but that it's not true yet. Meaning in regards to the fate of those such as the rich man.

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Per this scenario, if we assume this is already true, this would mean both Lazarus and the rich man would be in a disembodied state. It would contradict what you stated here---A soul without a body is a limbless soul --meaning this would contradict it--the tip of his finger-- my tongue--all of which speak of something bodily.

 

[Zao is life]

Which, BTW, proves that the following is not already true, but not that it won't be true, but that it's not true yet. Meaning in regards to the fate of those such as the rich man.

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Per this scenario, if we assume this is already true, this would mean both Lazarus and the rich man would be in a disembodied state. It would contradict what you stated here---A soul without a body is a limbless soul --meaning this would contradict it--the tip of his finger-- my tongue--all of which speak of something bodily.

You're right. I've never even noticed what you say above, until now. Good point. It's a parable about the state and experience of those who have been resurrected from the dead and those who have been cast into the lake of fire.

Jesus made it very clear to Martha that Lazarus would rise from the dead, saying that He (Jesus) IS the resurrection (of the body from death) and the (eternal) life [zoe] and that the one who believes in Him, even though he die, yet he shall be alive in the body [zao].

He concluded by saying that the one who is alive in the body [zao] will never die - but the context is Lazarus' death and Jesus telling Martha that he will rise from the dead bodily, and Jesus saying that the one who believes in Jesus will be alive in the body [zao] even though he dies - he will be alive in the body [zao] because JESUS IS the resurrection of the body and the eternal life [zoe].

So in John 11:26 Jesus is talking about the one who has risen from the dead and is alive in the body [zao] when he says that one "will never die" - talking about immortality.

Jesus was announcing the gospel of redemption from death to Martha - at the time Lazarus died.

So I believe you are correct - the parable is a parable of what comes following the judgment, which would be following the resurrection from the dead.

I never thought about that, till now. I always took it as being a parable and so in that sense I took it as being not a literal tongue or a literal finger. Glad you posted the above

 

[Davidpt]

You're right. I've never even noticed what you say above, until now. Good point. It's a parable about the state and experience of those who have been resurrected from the dead and those who have been cast into the lake of fire.

Jesus made it very clear to Martha that Lazarus would rise from the dead, saying that He (Jesus) IS the resurrection (of the body from death) and the (eternal) life [zoe] and that the one who believes in Him, even though he die, yet he shall be alive in the body [zao].

He concluded by saying that the one who is alive in the body [zao] will never die - but the context is Lazarus' death and Jesus telling Martha that he will rise from the dead bodily, and Jesus saying that the one who believes in Jesus will be alive in the body [zao] even though he dies - he will be alive in the body [zao] because JESUS IS the resurrection of the body and the eternal life [zoe].

So in John 11:26 Jesus is talking about the one who has risen from the dead and is alive in the body [zao] when he says that one "will never die" - talking about immortality.

Jesus was announcing the gospel of redemption from death to Martha - at the time Lazarus died.

So I believe you are correct - the parable is a parable of what comes following the judgment, which would be following the resurrection from the dead.

I never thought about that, till now. I always took it as being a parable and so in that sense I took it as being not a literal tongue or a literal finger. Glad you posted the above

Here's something else to think about in case you haven't.

Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

A lot of interpreters interpret this to mean that this would be fulfilled that very same day. But look what verse 42 records---remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Did Jesus come into His kingdom when He died? Obviously, no. His soul didn't even ascend to heaven upon death, let alone come into His kingdom upon death.

----------------------
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
------------------------------------

Luke 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord

And where does the Bible indicate Jesus will be forever once He returns? In His kingdom, the NJ, thus paradise. And that's when the one meant in Luke 23:42 will be in paradise with Jesus, not that same day both of them died. What I see Jesus basically saying in Luke 23:43 is this. This very day, your faith has sealed your fate. I will remember you when I do come into My kingdom, and you will be with me in paradise.

Does it really make sense the fact this involves Jesus coming into His kingdom first, where that is then connected with paradise in verse 43, where Revelation 2:7 then informs that paradise is meaning the NJ by comparing with Revelation 22:2, 14, that Jesus was meaning that same day both of them died? Of course not.

 

[WPM]

Which, BTW, proves that the following is not already true, but not that it won't be true, but that it's not true yet. Meaning in regards to the fate of those such as the rich man.

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Per this scenario, if we assume this is already true, this would mean both Lazarus and the rich man would be in a disembodied state. It would contradict what you stated here---A soul without a body is a limbless soul --meaning this would contradict it--the tip of his finger-- my tongue--all of which speak of something bodily.

When is this speaking of then? What is it speaking of?

This is where your hyper-literal contradictory Premil thinking exposes itself. This is figurative language existing with a parable pertaining to the time before the cross when the redeemed went to Abraham's bosom. When Jesus defeated the grave he emptied Abraham's bosom.

 

[Zao is life]

Here's something else to think about in case you haven't.

Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

A lot of interpreters interpret this to mean that this would be fulfilled that very same day. But look what verse 42 records---remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Did Jesus come into His kingdom when He died? Obviously, no. His soul didn't even ascend to heaven upon death, let alone come into His kingdom upon death.

----------------------
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
------------------------------------

Luke 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord

And where does the Bible indicate Jesus will be forever once He returns? In His kingdom, the NJ, thus paradise. And that's when the one meant in Luke 23:42 will be in paradise with Jesus, not that same day both of them died. What I see Jesus basically saying in Luke 23:43 is this. This very day, your faith has sealed your fate. I will remember you when I do come into My kingdom, and you will be with me in paradise.

Does it really make sense the fact this involves Jesus coming into His kingdom first, where that is then connected with paradise in verse 43, where Revelation 2:7 then informs that paradise is meaning the NJ by comparing with Revelation 22:2, 14, that Jesus was meaning that same day both of them died? Of course not.

Yes, you did mention the above in a post somewhere before when speaking to someone else - and again your insight caused me to understand Jesus' statement for the very first time. I agreed with your post in that thread. I remember it also prompting me to look at the Greek word translated as "Today".

I think I said that the definite article with it ("the day") shows that it could be meaning "that day" ("that [the] day") but though the word does have the definite article with it, I now think I was wrong about that, because quite a few of the other places and verses where the word semeron is used, it's referring to the same day.

Your wording ("This very day, your faith has sealed your fate. I will remember you when I do come into My kingdom, and you will be with me in paradise.") makes total sense to me, as well as your argument about the fact that the person could not have been in paradise that same day with Christ when Christ was in hades.

I do agree with you.

to the usual childish and meaningless "ha ha ha" response below (watch it disappear now)

 

[Zao is life]

When is this speaking of then? What is it speaking of?

This is where your hyper-literal contradictory Premil thinking exposes itself. This is figurative language existing with a parable pertaining to the time before the cross when the redeemed went to Abraham's bosom. When Jesus defeated the grave he emptied Abraham's bosom.

This is where your chosen wording always exposes itself - the blah-blah-blah type of wording you think proves your point - in this case, "your hyper-literal contradictory Premil thinking exposes itself .." doesn't prove your point at all because it exposes itself. And it just invites a response worthy of your choice of words.

Better worded argument would go: "IMO this is figurative language - Abraham's bosom was emptied when Christ rose again" (or something like that).

But your insistence that it's figurative language contradicts your literal interpretation of Abraham's bosom.

I believe @Davidpt is probably correct about the flames of torment being figurative language representing the lake of fire. No soul has ever been tormented in a place like that, that he cannot escape, yet. And in that case, Abraham's bosom is also figurative language representing paradise, and the timing for the fulfillment of the parable still in our future.

Maybe - but it makes a LOT of sense to me.

 

[WPM]

Here's something else to think about in case you haven't.

Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

A lot of interpreters interpret this to mean that this would be fulfilled that very same day. But look what verse 42 records---remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Did Jesus come into His kingdom when He died? Obviously, no. His soul didn't even ascend to heaven upon death, let alone come into His kingdom upon death.

----------------------
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
------------------------------------

Luke 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord

And where does the Bible indicate Jesus will be forever once He returns? In His kingdom, the NJ, thus paradise. And that's when the one meant in Luke 23:42 will be in paradise with Jesus, not that same day both of them died. What I see Jesus basically saying in Luke 23:43 is this. This very day, your faith has sealed your fate. I will remember you when I do come into My kingdom, and you will be with me in paradise.

Does it really make sense the fact this involves Jesus coming into His kingdom first, where that is then connected with paradise in verse 43, where Revelation 2:7 then informs that paradise is meaning the NJ by comparing with Revelation 22:2, 14, that Jesus was meaning that same day both of them died? Of course not.

Where your confusion kicks in is in your inability to differentiate between the physical and spiritual. Jesus physical body was in the grave for three days and three nights. But, His Spirit was immediately committed onto His Father in heaven in His kingdom upon death. Read what the Scriptures say, not what you want them to say in order to support your taught teaching.

Matthew 27:50: “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”

Luke 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”

John 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

This was a deliberate, willing and voluntary act of surrendering His life to God, emphasizing His obedience and the completion of His mission.

 

[WPM]

This is where your chosen wording always exposes itself - the blah-blah-blah type of wording you think proves your point - in this case, "your hyper-literal contradictory Premil thinking exposes itself. This is figurative language .." doesn't prove your point at all because it exposes itself.

Better worded argument would go: "IMO this is figurative language - Abraham's bosom was emptied when Christ rose again" (or something like that).

But your insistence that it's figurative language contradicts your literal interpretation of Abraham's bosom.

Again, total avoidance of the rebuttal. You have to. You will change the meaning of any biblical words in order to facilitate Premil. No Scripture is safe. You will also change figurative language to be literal and literal language to be figurative in order to support your Premil. This is classic eisegesis. You have no consistent or stable hermeneutics. Anything goes.

 

[Zao is life]

Where your confusion kicks in is in your inability to differentiate between the physical and spiritual.

Where your confusion kicks in is in your inability to differentiate between the physical and spiritual.

This is why what you say makes no sense - this time, and hardly ever makes much sense.

 

[ewq1938]

Here's something else to think about in case you haven't.

Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

A lot of interpreters interpret this to mean that this would be fulfilled that very same day. But look what verse 42 records---remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Did Jesus come into His kingdom when He died? Obviously, no. His soul didn't even ascend to heaven upon death, let alone come into His kingdom upon death.

I think he said he was going to see his father when he died:

Joh 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

This is a reference to after the cross but before the resurrection and eventual bodily ascension.

Joh 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

This is the same reference made in verse 1.

 

[Zao is life]

Again, total avoidance of the rebuttal.

Another example of the meaningless blah-blah-blah you think makes an intelligent point.

Again, total avoidance of the rebuttal.

Not reading the rest.

 

[Zao is life]

I think he said he was going to see his father when he died:

Joh 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

This is a reference to after the cross but before the resurrection and eventual bodily ascension.

Joh 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

This is the same reference made in verse 1.

I disagree.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. -- John 20:17

The Spirit was with Him in hades. His body was quickened and raised by the Spirit. There's a big difference between hades and the abode of the Father.

 

[WPM]

Another example of the meaningless blah-blah-blah you think makes an intelligent point.

Again, total avoidance of the rebuttal.

Not reading the rest.

Your error cannot abide scrutiny that is why you avoid. You have no rebuttal. Checkmate!

 

[Zao is life]

Your error cannot abide scrutiny that is why you avoid. You have no rebuttal. Checkmate!

@WPM ,

Your error cannot abide scrutiny that is why you avoid. You have no rebuttal. Checkmate!

Pssst Your meaningless blah-blah-blah ain't workin today

 

[WPM]

@WPM ,

Your error cannot abide scrutiny that is why you avoid. You have no rebuttal. Checkmate!

LOL.

The reader can see your avoidance. My arguments above remain unaddressed. That is because you have no rebuttal.

 

[Zao is life]

LOL.

The reader can see your avoidance. My arguments above remain unaddressed. That is because you have no rebuttal.

LOL. You don't even see when your arguments are addressed - because you never read what the person who addresses your arguments said carefully (hardly ever - and when you on odd occasions do, you don't read nearly carefully enough) before ignoring whatever you want to ignore, changing the subject to something else, and repeating your mantras about rebuttals and avoidance and blah-blah blahdie blah blahs.

The "dialogue" is your monologue - every time.

 

[WPM]

LOL. You don't even see when your arguments are addressed - because you never read what the person who addresses your arguments said carefully (hardly ever - and when you on odd occasions do, you don't read nearly carefully enough) before ignoring whatever you want to ignore, changing the subject to something else, and repeating your mantras about rebuttals and avoidance and blah-blah blahdie blah blahs.

Avoidance and name-calling is the Premil MO when their teaching is exposed. Your responses are proof of that. You are incapable of laying a punch on Amil. That is why you resort to this childishness.

 

[Zao is life]

Avoidance and name-calling is the Premil MO when their teaching is exposed. Your responses are proof of that. You are incapable of laying a punch on Amil. That is why you resort to this childishness.

LOL. I'm incapable of the Mount Everest of patience needed to bear your avoidance of the rebuttals you receive when you simply say something else without addressing what was said, and then respond with your mantras of your blah-blah-blah accusations of the person you're monologueing on doing what you do - which is what you always do.

It's better to just repeat what you say back to you when you start with your avoidance of rebuttals and all the other blah blah blahs.

LOL. You obviously don't like the sound of your own voice.