When was the A.O.D fulfilled?

[Phoneman777]

Rev. 6:9-11 comes in a series of symbolic (Rev. 1:1) visions. Do you truly believe that there are coloured horses jumping out of scrolls?

No, but he believes in "disembodied soul bodies" - because the Immortal Soul crowd will believe anything.

These “souls” (persons) are dead, and that they, by their shed blood, in which was the Life - John 15:13 (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11,14; Deuteronomy 12:23 KJB), are symbolically crying out for justice, even as Abels’ blood shed from the foundation of the world, and they should “rest” (sleep of death in the grave) a little season longer “until” something was to happen... and that something is the slaying of the rest of the martyrs at the end, and will be vindicated in the Resurrection.

Spot on, friend.

After those things, comes Jesus, and the Resurrection to awaken the saints from the dust of the earth where they were asleep and waiting, knowing nothing. See 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 KJB.

Amen

 

[ReChoired]

No, but he believes in "disembodied soul bodies"

Understand, but a 'spirit-body' is a contradiction in terms.

Luk_24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He says he's not a Jesuit Futurist, but follows Jesuit Futurism's future arrival of the Man of Sin - got it.

There's something very, very wrong with you. I specifically told you that I don't believe in that and you still are accusing me of that. What is wrong with you? Seriously. Something's very wrong with you. Why do you lie about me? I do not believe in the future arrival of an individual Man of Sin that they call "The Antichrist". Okay? Did you read what I just said? Don't forget it.

Not sure what you're talking about. There's only Jesuit Preterists, Jesuit Futurists, and Protestant Historicists, the 3 main eschatological schools of thought.

This shows your ignorance. While we all see at least a few things as having been fulfilled in the past, in history and in the future, idealists like me interpret the book of Revelation in such a way that it reveals general truths about things that have been true for all of history or for all of the New Testament time period as it relates to Jesus and His church and His enemies.

For example, I see the beast as referring to Satan's world kingdom generally which has manifested itself in different ways throughout history. So, I guess I take an idealist and historical view of the beast. I see its heads are representing world historical kingdoms/empires. I see the mark of the beast as something that has existed since the beginning of time since it says all whose names are not written in the book of life worship the beast (Rev 13:8) and I take that very literally. It's not a literal physical mark but is the spiritual opposite of the seal of God.

And I see the great city Mystery Babylon as being the exact spiritual opposite of the holy city, New Jerusalem which figuratively represents the church since it is "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:2,9). I see Mystery Babylon as having always existed and it represents everything in "the world" that opposes God. When Jesus said we are not of "the world" (John 15:18-19). I see Babylon as representing "the world" in that sense. So, that's an idealist view of Babylon as opposed to a preterist view that would see it as representing Jerusalem or a historicist view that sees it as Rome and/or the papacy as you do or a futurist view that sees it as....whatever they see it as.

Is this making sense? I don't hold to the preterist, futurist or historicist views even if I might agree with each of them on a few things.

Do all of your doctrines rest upon subjective reasoning?

No, my doctrines rest upon scripture. That's why I back them up with scripture. Everyone can see that. I don't just spew opinions all over the place like most on this forum do without backing them up.

You can't show me a single verse where Solomon or Job says "dead body" but I can show you tons where they refer to the "dead" - which refers to the entire creature, not just the "body".

You can't show a single verse where Solomon or Job says that a person's soul or spirit dies when they die physically.

Seventh-day Adventists are the only people who not only properly differentiate between Body, Spirit and Soul, but we demonstrate how inconsistently you guys interpret the same:

Nonsense. SDA has a number of doctrines that are false and this is just one of them. Your foolish belief that we are supposed to observe the Sabbath day like ancient Jews were commanded to do (and that Gentiles were never commanded to do) is another one.

Body + Breath = Living Soul comes into existence
Body - Breath = Living Soul goes out of existence

My buddy Paul says a human being is made up of body, soul and spirit (1 Thess 5:23). It's too bad that you don't trust him to know what he's talking about.

Bible tells you God only hath immortality and that he gives it only to those who "seek" for it - yet, you choose to believe the Serpent's lie that we have innate immortality, saying: "Thou shalt not surely die".

LOL. Your babbling is meaningless. Is God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's God right now? Your foolish doctrine says He is not because we all know that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matt 22:32).

God is the God of the living that are asleep awaiting the resurrection, which is the point Jesus was making.

LOL! What a stupid argument. Just absolutely dumb and ridiculous. God of the living that are asleep? They're just taking long naps? LOL!!! Do you actually want to be taken seriously or not? It's becoming very difficult. So, Moses and Elijah were talking in their sleep to Jesus at His transfiguration then? LOL! Wow. Such a ridiculous doctrine that you believe in.

What a shame catholicism came along and stole Christ's argument to "prove" immortal soul doctrine and what a shame Jesuits like yourself prefer Jesuit doctrine over Luther's Protestant Reformation doctrine.

Make sure you kiss the pope's ring when you visit the Vatican.

LOL! Catholicism is a joke just like soul sleep. To associate me with that joke of a belief system is hilarious. You have resorted to just complete nonsense at this point. It's all you have.

 

[Earburner]

LOL. Do you think Stephen was mistaken then for believing that Jesus would receive his spirit in heaven? Why do you have such a low opinion of Stephen that he wouldn't understand what happens after physical death? I know he understood that and that's why he said what he did. You are the one denying what Stephen indicated would happen once he physically died, which is foolish.

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

What do you think, that Jesus said "Nah, that's okay. I don't allow people's souls or spirits to go to heaven."? No, I'm sure He received Stephen's spirit just as Stephen asked Him to because Stephen understood what happens when people physically die, unlike you.

I think that many "Born Again Christians" do not fully understand the full meaning of how one becomes a "partaker of the divine nature".

One has to come to terms with what it means by: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection**: on such the second death hath no power [John 3:18], but they shall be priests [ambassadors] of God and of Christ, and shall reign [during their lifetimes] with him a thousand years [the figurative length of time of God's present Age of Grace].

**Note: only Jesus is "the FIRSTborn from the dead". If He wasn't, then how is anyone able to be a partaker of the divine nature?

 

[Phoneman777]

Understand, but a 'spirit-body' is a contradiction in terms.

Luk_24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Agree. I've told him repeatedly Scripture only identifies 2 types of bodies - the mortal and resurrection - but he's dead set on believing in "disembodied soul bodies" so the Rich Man and Lazarus can be a literal story.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

QUESTION: DIDN’T JESUS SAY THAT GOD WAS THE “GOD OF THE LIVING” AND NOT THE DEAD, DOESN’T THAT MEAN THAT THEY ARE ALIVE IN HEAVEN?

No, Jesus was referring to the resurrection (“as touching the dead, that they rise”, “they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead”, “that the dead are raised”, “for all live unto him”; Matthew 22:28-33; Mark 12:23-27; Luke 20:33-39), in that those who are dead in the first death, sleep in the grave, until their resurrection, for they haven’t suffered the second death (Revelation 2:11, 20:6,14, 21:8; Jude 1:12; 2 Corinthians 1:10), from which there is no return, or resurrection, or life (spiritually & physically).

Mat 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.​

​

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.​

​

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.​

​

Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,​

​

Mat 22:32 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 living.​

​

Mat 22:33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.​

He was not only referring to the resurrection of the dead, though. He was talking to the Sadducees there who believed, like you, that people have no consciousness after they physically/bodily die. Except they thought people just cease to exist entirely when they physically die. Like you, they made no differentiation between the body, soul and spirit as if the soul and spirit could not live separately from the body. You believe that despite Paul saying to be absent from the body (dead physically/bodily) is to be present with the Lord (spiritually - 2 Cor 5:8).

Since the Sadducees thought that people cease to exist when they physically died, it was astonishing to people when Jesus pointed out that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive at that time because God is their God at all times and is not the God of the dead, but of the living. So, one point that Jesus was making there was to refute the Sadducees belief that people don't continue living after they physically die. But, at the same time He also was proving that they would one day be resurrected from the dead since there is obviously no reason to think that people who were alive spiritually could not be bodily resurrected from the dead. So, Jesus killed two birds with one stone, so to speak, with that one statement He made in Matthew 22:32 because it both refuted their false belief that people ceased to exist entirely upon physical death and their false belief that people could not ever be physically resurrected due to supposedly ceasing to exist upon physical death.

I noticed you created several other posts besides this one and I doubt I can get to them all. Please slow down if you actually want to discuss this in more detail.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Agree. I've told him repeatedly Scripture only identifies 2 types of bodies - the mortal and resurrection - but he's dead set on believing in "disembodied soul bodies" so the Rich Man and Lazarus can be a literal story.

LOL. I never said I believe in "disembodied soul bodies", you goofball silly person you. I believe that souls and spirits can exist outside the body without the need for a body. Luke 16:19-31 is a true story since it refers to real people and places. It figuratively describes the rich man's torment but he is a real person as evidenced by Jesus giving very specific details about him such as him having 5 brothers. Since when would a parable have a detail like that which would add nothing to the meaning of a parable?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not just William Tyndale, but about 2/3's of the so called 'fathers' were conditionalist or annihilationist, as well as many reformationists.

As scripture says, the majority is always right. Or...I guess it doesn't say that, does it. I could not possibly care less what those people believed about this. You are completely wasting your time listing all of them. They are all wrong just like you are.

 

[Phoneman777]

I specifically told you that I don't believe in that and you still are accusing me of that.

You admitted you await a future "Man of Sin" - a Jesuit idea. What's that make the followers of it?

While we all see at least a few things as having been fulfilled in the past, in history and in the future, idealists like me interpret the book of Revelation in such a way that it reveals general truths about things that have been true for all of history or for all of the New Testament time period as it relates to Jesus and His church and His enemies.

Congratulations...I've never heard a person describe their "private interpretations" so eloquently.

For example, I see the beast as referring to Satan's world kingdom generally which has manifested itself in different ways throughout history. So, I guess I take an idealist and historical view of the beast. I see its heads are representing world historical kingdoms/empires. I see the mark of the beast as something that has existed since the beginning of time since it says all whose names are not written in the book of life worship the beast (Rev 13:8) and I take that very literally. It's not a literal physical mark but is the spiritual opposite of the seal of God.

I see the Beast for exactly what it can only be: the papacy. Spurgeon says anyone who denies this is insane:

"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against antichrist, and as to what antichrist is NO SANE MAN ought to raise the question. If it be not the popery in the chruch of Rome there is nothing else that can be called by that name".

People don't take the inane ramblings of insane people seriously and neither do I.

And I see the great city Mystery Babylon as being the exact spiritual opposite of the holy city, New Jerusalem which figuratively represents the church since it is "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:2,9). I see Mystery Babylon as having always existed and it represents everything in "the world" that opposes God. When Jesus said we are not of "the world" (John 15:18-19). I see Babylon as representing "the world" in that sense. So, that's an idealist view of Babylon as opposed to a preterist view that would see it as representing Jerusalem or a historicist view that sees it as Rome and/or the papacy as you do or a futurist view that sees it as....whatever they see it as.

The reason you believe such error is you train of eschatological thought derails all the way back in Daniel 7. So, of course you believe this nonsense.

I don't hold to the preterist, futurist or historicist views even if I might agree with each of them on a few things.

You admitted you await a future Man of Sin - whether singular or a plurality, that's Jesuit Futurism!

No, my doctrines rest upon scripture. That's why I back them up with scripture. Everyone can see that. I don't just spew opinions all over the place like most on this forum do without backing them up.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL!!!! LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

You can't show a single verse where Solomon or Job says that a person's soul or spirit dies when they die physically.

Look at you! You can't even differentiate between the Soul and Spirit, yet you presume teach? Let me help:

When Jesus died, His spirit went up "into Thy hands" but His Soul was not "left in hell" which is down.
Hebrews says the Spirit can be divided from a Soul as assuredly as bone marrow can be divided from a joint.
The Soul exists as a consequence of the union of the Body and Breath of Life - and ceases to exist at death.

Nonsense. SDA has a number of doctrines that are false and this is just one of them. Your foolish belief that we are supposed to observe the Sabbath day like ancient Jews were commanded to do (and that Gentiles were never commanded to do) is another one.

Assuredly, you can't disprove a single one of our doctrines with your inconsistent, contradictory "truth".

My buddy Paul says a human being is made up of body, soul and spirit (1 Thess 5:23). It's too bad that you don't trust him to know what he's talking about.

And, you put words in Paul's mouth. He didn't say "is made up" - he said "I pray your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless" and plenty of scholars agree in the truth of "2 parts = 1 whole".

LOL. Are you babbling is meaningless. Is God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's God right now? Your foolish doctrine says He is not because we all know that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matt 22:32).

Are you "sit down in heavenly places" right now? So, I guess Paul lied to the Galatians?

See, unreasonably rigid "scholars" like you don't understand that God Who is not bound by space and time often speaks of things that are not yet as though they have come to pass.

God's indeed a God of the living because He considers the first death a "sleep" and He's gonna wake us up.

LOL! What a stupid argument. Just absolutely dumb and ridiculous. God of the living that are asleep? They're just taking long naps? LOL!!! Do you actually want to be taken seriously or not? It's becoming very difficult. So, Moses and Elijah were talking in their sleep to Jesus at His transfiguration then? LOL! Wow. Such a ridiculous doctrine that you believe in.

Are you "sit down in heavenly places" yet? Well, that means you ain't saved, right?

Or, does God speak of things that will be as though they are, calling Himself the "God of the living" although they are at the moment asleep and awaiting the resurrection?

See, that's why I'm SDA - b/c what you guys think are insurmountable theological walls are mere speed bumps, but our walls of truth are as high as heaven!

LOL! Catholicism is a joke just like soul sleep. To associate me with that joke of a belief system is hilarious. You have resorted to just complete nonsense at this point. It's all you have.

Bro, you believe in the Jesuit Futurism Man of Sin, you believe innate immortality of the soul, and I'm sure you believe in eternal conscious torment, Sunday sacredness, etc., which are all papal dogma - right?

 

[Phoneman777]

LOL. I never said I believe in "disembodied soul bodies", you goofball silly person you. I believe that souls and spirits can exist outside the body without the need for a body. Luke 16:19-31 is a true story since it refers to real people and places. It figuratively describes the rich man's torment but he is a real person as evidenced by Jesus giving very specific details about him such as him having 5 brothers. Since when would a parable have a detail like that which would add nothing to the meaning of a parable?

You claim the Rich Man and Lazarus is a literal story which depicts a man with eyes and ears and a tongue burning in eternal flames of torment - right?

Oh, but you think you can pick and choose which parts are literal and which parts are symbolic, right?

Yes, I can see where there won't be any issue with that LOL

 

[WPM]

There's so much error here, like the mosquito at the nudist colony, I'm not sure where to begin ;)

If we make this passage literal, that introduces many Bible contradictions.

The "comforted" are the church who have the Comforter. The "tormented" are the Jews upon whom "wrath has come upon upon them to the uttermost".

Correct, which proves it's not a literal passage, but a parable: The only two kinds of bodies the Bible knows about are the mortal "earthly house" and the resurrection "building of God".

These dead guys are clearly post mortem but are not yet resurrected, yet they have eyes, tongues, fingers, bosoms, legs to carry a warning, etc., which only makes sense if it's a parable, in which things happen that cannot and do not happen in real experience.

This is called figurative language. Scripture is full of that. Jesus is illustrating what a divided Hades looked like before the resurrection. After that, Abraham's bosom was emptied. Sin and death had been defeated. There was definite existence of blessing and torment before Christ's first resurrection and before that great final physical resurrection of the bodies.

Ancient texts had zero punctuation. The comma can go before or after "today". Now, the Septuagint has "today" modified by the verb it precedes only 50 times, but by the verb it follows 170 times! So, the majority use of the word suggests the comma should go after "today":

"I say unto you today, shalt thou be with Me..."

The Immortal Soul crowd shouldn't point to neutral texts as "proof" for their ideas that simply isn't there

This is not even a rebuttal. You are manipulating Scripture here to make it say what do you want to say. The fact was: the penitent chief was going straight into the presence of paradise. Where is paradise today? Heaven. Hello! You butcher this text to have no meaning.

Yes, the Spirit returned to God, the Body to dust, and the soul "Stephen" went to "sleep" aka "passed out of existence" until the resurrection where he'll come back into existence.

He followed Christ's example rising into God's presence upon death. Do you believe Jesus entered Paradise or not? You probably question that too.

In verses 2-4, Paul says Christians groan for relief from life's burdens, but "not for that we would be unclothed". So, the relief they want isn't by becoming "naked" and "unclothed" but "clothed upon".

What does this mean?

True Christian scholars who don't cowardly run past inconvenient texts will unavoidably conclude that "naked" and "unclothed" can mean only one thing: resting in peace naked and unclothed without a body in the grave awaiting the resurrection.

Verse 8 is simply Paul saying he prefers to be absent from the burdens of this mortal body - skip lying in the grave RIP without a body - and just going on to be with the Lord - not naked - but in his resurrection body, which he knew didn't happen at death, but at "the last trump".

You have turned off on a rabbit trail. He was talking about being with Jesus. Hello! That happened upon death.

Again, Paul knew "be with Christ" happens not at death, but "at the last trump" and since "the dead lie there accounting neither days nor years, but when they have awaked, they shall have seemed to have slept scarce one minute" (Martin Luther) - then yes, it will seem to anyone who wakes up to be with Christ coming in the clouds that they departed only moments before.

Paul's not saying "we live together with Jesus while we're dead".

He's saying: Jesus died, so that, whether we're alive and remain or sleeping in the grave at His coming, we should have the opportunity to live with Him as resurrected saints.

They're "naked" and "unclothed" without a body RIP in the grave awaiting resurrection, which Paul knew would happen to him despite his desire to be absent from the body, skip that, and be present with Jesus.

You are twisting the wording of the text to say something it never said. You have to do this.

Some say they're among "many of the bodies of the saints which slept" while variant readings suggest beings from unfallen worlds, but they're definitely not "disembodied souls" of dead saints.

You have no answer for that have you? Nothing! This exposes your error.

These are saints Jesus came and resurrected at the Second Coming.

These, again, are the saints that Jesus resurrected at the Second Coming.

This symbolic passage in the most symbolic book is symbolic for the divine justice crying out to be done on behalf of martyred saints.

Look, if you guys refuse to believe the truth that souls cease to exist at death, then at least acknowledge "disembodied souls" can't cry out because - being "disembodied" - they don't have vocal cords.

This is before the second coming. You have nothing to refute this.

Since "judgment must being at the house of God" which is the church, the Pre-Advent Judgment deals first with those who were deemed "heretics" and put to death to determine if they were indeed guilty, and "white robes" is symbolic of these "heretics" being found sincere followers of Jesus.

Also Pre-Advent.

Everyone knows Revelation isn't in chronological order because - unlike here in the West - the Hebrew mindset puts a story's climax in the middle, then continues, often with subsequent details rhymed thematically with preceding details in a "chiasmus" or "X" literary device style. So, verse 1 starts the revelation about the plagues, verses 2-4 are the climax, and verse 5 picks up the story and continues with subsequent details.

There is no "intra-Advent". Jesus comes, takes the saints home to New Jerusalem for 1,000 years to judge wicked men and angels and leaves behind a destroyed, desolate Earth, then New Jerusalem comes down as the wicked resurrect to judgment and are found guilty and cast into the LOF, after which Jesus remakes the heaven and Earth.

This is after the Second Coming/First Resurrection.

You have nothing of credibility to bring to the table - only nonsensical carnal reasoning. Your view is dead in the water.

 

[Earburner]

There's something very, very wrong with you. I specifically told you that I don't believe in that and you still are accusing me of that. What is wrong with you? Seriously. Something's very wrong with you. Why do you lie about me? I do not believe in the future arrival of an individual Man of Sin that they call "The Antichrist". Okay? Did you read what I just said? Don't forget it.


This shows your ignorance. While we all see at least a few things as having been fulfilled in the past, in history and in the future, idealists like me interpret the book of Revelation in such a way that it reveals general truths about things that have been true for all of history or for all of the New Testament time period as it relates to Jesus and His church and His enemies.

For example, I see the beast as referring to Satan's world kingdom generally which has manifested itself in different ways throughout history. So, I guess I take an idealist and historical view of the beast. I see its heads are representing world historical kingdoms/empires. I see the mark of the beast as something that has existed since the beginning of time since it says all whose names are not written in the book of life worship the beast (Rev 13:8) and I take that very literally. It's not a literal physical mark but is the spiritual opposite of the seal of God.

And I see the great city Mystery Babylon as being the exact spiritual opposite of the holy city, New Jerusalem which figuratively represents the church since it is "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:2,9). I see Mystery Babylon as having always existed and it represents everything in "the world" that opposes God. When Jesus said we are not of "the world" (John 15:18-19). I see Babylon as representing "the world" in that sense. So, that's an idealist view of Babylon as opposed to a preterist view that would see it as representing Jerusalem or a historicist view that sees it as Rome and/or the papacy as you do or a futurist view that sees it as....whatever they see it as.

Is this making sense? I don't hold to the preterist, futurist or historicist views even if I might agree with each of them on a few things.


No, my doctrines rest upon scripture. That's why I back them up with scripture. Everyone can see that. I don't just spew opinions all over the place like most on this forum do without backing them up.


You can't show a single verse where Solomon or Job says that a person's soul or spirit dies when they die physically.


Nonsense. SDA has a number of doctrines that are false and this is just one of them. Your foolish belief that we are supposed to observe the Sabbath day like ancient Jews were commanded to do (and that Gentiles were never commanded to do) is another one.


My buddy Paul says a human being is made up of body, soul and spirit (1 Thess 5:23). It's too bad that you don't trust him to know what he's talking about.


LOL. Are you babbling is meaningless. Is God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's God right now? Your foolish doctrine says He is not because we all know that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matt 22:32).


LOL! What a stupid argument. Just absolutely dumb and ridiculous. God of the living that are asleep? They're just taking long naps? LOL!!! Do you actually want to be taken seriously or not? It's becoming very difficult. So, Moses and Elijah were talking in their sleep to Jesus at His transfiguration then? LOL! Wow. Such a ridiculous doctrine that you believe in.


LOL! Catholicism is a joke just like soul sleep. To associate me with that joke of a belief system is hilarious. You have resorted to just complete nonsense at this point. It's all you have.

Although I do agree with you on a number of things, there are a few things I agree with, in what Phoneman says.
The scriptures reveal we are only able to know things in part, therefore I for one do agree with that. We are only having part in the divine nature. None of us in our mortal flesh are fully divine. So yes we all often do stumble in error.

So then, by that admission, I can safely conclude of us all that:
"ALL the churches have SOME of His Truth, but NONE of the churches have ALL of His Truth"- Earburner

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is called figurative language. Scripture is full of that. Jesus is illustrating what a divided Hades looked like before the resurrection. After tat, Abraham's bosom was emptied. Sin and death had been defeated. There was definite existence of blessing and torment before Christ's first resurrection and before that great final physical resurrection of the bodies.



This is not even a rebuttal. You are manipulating Scripture here to make it say what do you want to say. The fact was: the penitent chief was going straight into the presence of paradise. Where is paradise today? Heaven. Hello! You butcher this text to have no meaning.



He followed Christ's example rising into God's presence upon death. Do you believe Jesus entered Paradise or not? You probably question that too.



You have turned off on a rabbit trail. He was talking about being with Jesus. Hello! That happened upon death.



You are twisting the wording of the text to say something it never said. You have to do this.



You have no answer for that have you? Nothing! This exposes your error.



This is before the second coming. You have nothing to refute this.



You have nothing of credibility to bring to the table - only nonsensical carnal reasoning. Your view is dead in the water.

Its almost comical seeing all these people attack each other. when really non of them have the whole truth.

I have been enjoying reading the posts (although I have one on ignore. so only see some of his posts)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Although I do agree with you on a number of things, there are a few things I agree with, in what Phoneman says.
The scriptures reveal we are only able to know things in part, therefore I for one do agree with that. We are only having part in the divine nature. None of us in our mortal flesh are fully divine. So yes we all often do stumble in error.

So then, by that admission, I can safely conclude of us all that:
"ALL the churches have SOME of His Truth, but NONE of the churches have ALL of His Truth"- Earburner

I think we see this by all the infighting between churches.

Not only do they have some of the truth, they will fight till the death for all of their so called "truth" as if it is an us against the world (other churches) war.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You admitted you await a future "Man of Sin" - a Jesuit idea. What's that make the followers of it?

You really are dense. When did I ever say that? The "Jesuit idea" is that the man of sin is "The Antichrist", an individual bad guy that will show up and sit down in a literal physical temple one day and claim to be God. I do NOT believe that nonsense! Stop lying and misrepresenting my view.

I see the Beast for exactly what it can only be: the papacy. Spurgeon says anyone who denies this is insane:


"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against antichrist, and as to what antichrist is NO SANE MAN ought to raise the question. If it be not the popery in the chruch of Rome there is nothing else that can be called by that name".

You put fallible man on a pedestal which is never a good idea. You need to repent of your idol worship of fallible men. Spurgeon was an idiot for saying that and shows his own insanity.

You admitted you await a future Man of Sin - whether singular or a plurality, that's Jesuit Futurism!

You continue to make a fool of yourself. Jesuit futurism sees the man of sin as an individual Antichrist and I do not. So, just keep lying if you want, but it just proves that you are a liar and nothing more.

Remind me your understanding of how Moses and Elijah could have been talking to Jesus at His transfiguration if they were asleep. You believe they were talking in their sleep, do you? LOL.

And, you put words in Paul's mouth. He didn't say "is made up" - he said "I pray your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless" and plenty of scholars agree in the truth of "2 parts = 1 whole".

He didn't have to say it. He referenced three different parts that make up a human being. Body, soul and spirit. Why don't you give your ridiculous analogy again that you gave me before of how you understand 1 Thessalonians 5:23. That would make for a good laugh. I'd like everyone here to see it.

See, that's why I'm SDA - b/c what you guys think are insurmountable theological walls are mere speed bumps, but our walls of truth are as high as heaven!

You talk just like all brainwashed people talk. You are like a zombie who just repeats all the nonsense you've been taught by false teachers.

Bro, you believe in the Jesuit Futurism Man of Sin, you believe innate immortality of the soul, and I'm sure you believe in eternal conscious torment, Sunday sacredness, etc., which are all papal dogma - right?

This is just stupid nonsense. As if agreeing with Catholics about anything makes you one yourself. LOL!

Catholics believe that Jesus died and rose again so that makes you a Catholic. Sorry, bro! You are a Jesuit Catholic. Make sure you don't miss mass on Sunday or God will strike you down.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You claim the Rich Man and Lazarus is a literal story which depicts a man with eyes and ears and a tongue burning in eternal flames of torment - right?

Wrong. Why must you be so ignorant? I believe it is a story about real people in real places, but the rich man's torment is described figuratively. As I have already told you many times. You must have ADD. Jesus likely described that figuratively because it wasn't even possible for Him to explain how things are in hell literally where people can understand. That's why you never see literal descriptions of heaven or hell in scripture. That doesn't mean they are not real places, though. But, they are not earthly places, so it's not something we can currently comprehend. But, there's no reason to doubt the existence of a real place called hell and no reason to think that people don't experience torment in the sense of feeling regret there like the rich man expressed.

Oh, but you think you can pick and choose which parts are literal and which parts are symbolic, right?

LOL!!!!!!!! Is the Bible all literal? No, right? So, do we not all pick and choose which parts are literal and which are symbolic? Of course! Including you. So, this is just an extremely lame argument you're trying to make here. What do you think, that Jesus just made up a name for a fictional character and called him "Lazarus"? LOL. That's not how parables work. And why don't you tell me how Jesus specifying how many brothers the rich man had was of any importance if it's a parable? Why include a detail like that if the rich man wasn't a real person?

Your understanding of Luke 16:19-31 is nothing more than a complete joke and is influenced by extreme doctrinal bias. That is obvious.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Although I do agree with you on a number of things, there are a few things I agree with, in what Phoneman says.

That's fine with me. Regarding the topic we're talking about here, you can probably tell I'm fully convinced that he's completely wrong about it. And I'm obviously not afraid to make it clear how I feel about it. What I don't appreciate him doing is misrepresenting my view repeatedly. There's no excuse for that. He tries to call me a Jesuit when I am not. He has said himself that Jesuits are futurists and preterists and I am neither of those and have told him that many times. And he still calls me that. I don't tolerate that kind of dishonesty.

The scriptures reveal we are only able to know things in part, therefore I for one do agree with that. We are only having part in the divine nature. None of us in our mortal flesh are fully divine. So yes we all often do stumble in error.

I've never said otherwise.

So then, by that admission, I can safely conclude of us all that:
"ALL the churches have SOME of His Truth, but NONE of the churches have ALL of His Truth"- Earburner

Right. That's why we all need to study scripture for ourselves and not blindly follow what any particular church teaches like he does by following SDA teaching. You can see for yourself how he puts men on a pedestal as if these people are on equal footing with the authors of scripture themselves. That is not wise and is a form of idol worship.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Because I know the tactics of the enemy. The sinner says “because I live in sin the words of God can’t be true”.

What a non-answer answewr. If you believe you do not commit sin anymore, why can't you simply say yes or no! It is a simple question that only needs a simple answer.

But like all others her I have met who claim sinless lives, you obfuscate, divert, deflect, twist and turn instead of simply saying yes or no. That is the work of the evil one in the heart of a person.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What a non-answer answewr. If you believe you do not commit sin anymore, why can't you simply say yes or no! It is a simple question that only needs a simple answer.

But like all others her I have met who claim sinless lives, you obfuscate, divert, deflect, twist and turn instead of simply saying yes or no. That is the work of the evil one in the heart of a person.

His non-answer clearly means his answer is yes, but he knows how that comes across, so he didn't bother answering.

Apparently, he has never read this:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

That is John talking to believers and including himself in his message there as evidenced by him saying "we", "our" and "us". All we have to do is read Romans 7:14-25 to see that we struggle with sin even after becoming saved. We can overcome sin with the help of the Holy Spirit but that doesn't mean we are successful in doing that all the time. Thanks to the grace of God, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness". But "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.". People who think they have never sinned since becoming saved must not even really know what sin is. Some sins are obvious, but even knowing what we should do and not doing it is sin.

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

This person expects us to believe that he always does what he knows he should do? That is ridiculous. I'm sure he does not. If he was able to be sinless, then why did Christ die for his sins? Is this person more holy than Paul who admitted to struggling against sin even after he was saved? I highly doubt that.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

What a non-answer answewr. If you believe you do not commit sin anymore, why can't you simply say yes or no! It is a simple question that only needs a simple answer.

But like all others her I have met who claim sinless lives, you obfuscate, divert, deflect, twist and turn instead of simply saying yes or no. That is the work of the evil one in the heart of a person.

This is not my first rodeo. Either way I answer you will try to condemn. What I am, or what you are does not make the words of God any less true.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;

Let Gods words be True, and every man a liar.