Who, or what, is the dreaded bogey man of prophecy?

[Phoneman777]

Nope.

You become a soul at conception, with a body forming around you.

Yes, the moment the sperm cell joins with the egg cell, God breathes the Breath of Life into it. Scientists say a mysteriously inexplicable light appears around it at that moment.

So, yes, Genesis 2:7 KJV is absolutely correct in sayhing that the Soul comes into existence at the union of the Body and the Breath of Life.

Is the breath of life, air or do you see God breathing the Holy Spirit into every one at conception? Neither air, nor the Holy Spirit is your spirit. Moses never describes the spirit that you will put on. Not suck in as you define air.

The "Breath of Life" is known as the "life giving principle" of God that no other being has.

Once conception happens the soul never dies. It may change bodies, but never dies. I can show you in the same verse in Genesis 2 that the Holy Spirit is at work in every human soul from conception.

"The Soul that sinneth, it shall die".
"He that converteth the sinner...shall save a soul from death."
"God alone hath immortality".
"(Christians) seek for immortality".

Now, please find just one verse that says "immortal soul" or "soul never dies" - I'll wait.

The word for the Holy Spirit is still the same word for air, and stars for that matter. Stars are air and fire, as the simplest description to produce light.

Are you a pantheist which is unadulterated paganism (from which the worship of dung beetles is derived)?

 

[Phoneman777]

You cannot use Daniel to interpret Revelation.

That's perhaps the most asinine thing I've ever heard one say about prophecy. Any Jew who got a copy of the letter and read about a Beast with feet of a bear, body of a leopard, mouth of a lion would IMMEDIATELY be turning to the scrolls of Daniel 7.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not when you consider that Genesis 2:7 KJV says the Soul is the whole comprised of the two parts: the Body and Breath. Read Isaiah 28:9-13 KJV

I can't let you get away with this outright falsehood. Genesis 2:7 KJV absolutely says that the Soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath.

You're not understanding that "the breath" consists of our soul and spirit. The soul and spirit are two different parts of us, yet very closely connected, as the following verse indicates:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

And, again, as Paul clearly taught, and as you unwisely deny, the whole person consists of body, soul and spirit.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul very clearly indicated here that "you wholly" consists of "your whole spirit and soul and body". You can deny this all you want, but it couldn't be more clear. Only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from seeing and understanding what Paul said here.

The "Soul" is the "whole" the "I" the "ego" the "self" the "individual". It's not a poltergeist that flies off at death.

Again, you are not understanding that the word "soul" has more than one definition. We are souls in the sense that we are human beings. In that case "soul" is simply another word for person or human being. But, we also have three parts to us, one of which is the soul with the other two being the body and the spirit. This is what scripture teaches.

Do you always establish doctrine by taking as literal passages from the most symbolic books of Scripture?

Of course not. But, it isn't as if doctrine can't be supported by non-literal scripture. Please don't tell me that is what you're trying to say? Can doctrine not be based partly on what Jesus taught in parables? It most certainly can! But, my doctrine is not based solely on non-literal passages. It is based primarily on literal passages, but it's foolish to think that we can't also include non-literal passages as part of the foundation of our doctrine.

Blood is what ran down under the altar and "the life (Hebrew: "Nephesh" aka "Soul") is in the blood" ... so "souls under the altar crying out" is symbolic for "the injustice of martyrs sacrificed for the truth's sake crying out to God for retribution".

"Souls" are not immortal!
James says conversion saves a soul from "death".
Ezekiel says the soul that sinneth "shall die".
Paul says we "seek for immortality" - which means we ain't got it!
Paul also says God "only hath immortality" - which means neither you nor I nor Hitler have it.

The point is that not everyone is as duped as you are.

You are the duped one and that is very clear. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and He is the God of the living and not the dead. If your doctrine was true, which it most certainly is not, then God would not be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Luther said the ideas of the Immortal Soul crowd are scooped straight off the top of "the (papal) Roman dunghill of decretals".

Luther? Why do you worship fallible men like Tyndale and Luther? That is your downfall. You put man on too high of a pedestal and don't put the Word of God on high enough of a pedestal. You cherry pick the word of God to form doctrine rather than using ALL of it to form doctrine.

You absolutely agree with catholicism on core issues, like immortality of the soul, eternal torment, salvation apart from repentance, innocent of the charge it is the papal Antichrist, Jesuit eschatology, Sunday significance, ecumenicalism - right?

You are a liar. Why do you think it's okay to lie? You need to stop criticizing me falsely and look in the mirror and figure out why you think it's okay to lie and you need to repent of that.

It is a lie for you to say that I believe in "salvation apart from repentance". Wrong! I do not believe that and never indicated as such!

It is a lie for you to say that I believe in "Jesuit eschatology" which you indicated before applies to preterists and futurists. I am neither a preterist nor a futurist and I do not hold to "Jesuit eschatology".

I don't even know what "innocent of the charge it is the papal Antichrist" means. What is that supposed to mean?

Sunday significance? What does that mean? Every day is significant to me. Every day I praise the Lord for what He has done and every day I rest in the Lord of the sabbath.

And what do you mean by "ecumenicalism" exactly? I know what the word means generally, but what are you intending to say there exactly? I don't want to guess.

 

[Brakelite]

Are you a pantheist which is unadulterated paganism (from which the worship of dung beetles is derived)?

 

[Timtofly]

Now, please find just one verse that says "immortal soul" or "soul never dies" - I'll wait.

The soul puts on God's permanent incorruptible physical body, thus redeemed from the path of death, Adam placed on all his offspring because of disobedience.

I never said the soul is immortal. Saying the soul is mortal or immortal is Greek pagan theology.

Otherwise in English, simply death or life. This current state of life is not life, but death. Only redemption at the point of physical death, gives the soul life, otherwise it is always dead. Eternally dead is certainly not immortal. That is like calling mortal, immortal.

The soul would either be eternally dead or eternally made alive.

You go out of your way to go beyond Scripture, in stating the soul ceases to exit. Where is your verse that claims a soul stops existing?

 

[Timtofly]

That's perhaps the most asinine thing I've ever heard one say about prophecy. Any Jew who got a copy of the letter and read about a Beast with feet of a bear, body of a leopard, mouth of a lion would IMMEDIATELY be turning to the scrolls of Daniel 7.

Revelation explains, thus interprets Daniel, not the other way around.

 

[Brakelite]

I'm watching prophecy that precedes Jesus coming.World events which takes place before Jesus coming.

Jesus said "when you see these things"
Not "look to the past".

It's a good thing to watch current events. No argument. But current events haven't finished yet. So attempting to line them up with prophecy is a vain exercise, and is merely a hopeful one rather than the faith affirming exercise it could be.
Jesus said,
KJV John 13:19
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
KJV John 14:29
29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

 

[Brakelite]

My group all agree that the eventual creation of an SA is in view. It has the ability to breath and speak, and make decisions that affect humans. Sorry you can't join my group unless you agree with us about this.

That could, and I believe does, apply to a form of government. The beasts of Daniel 7, , as we are told by Gabriel, were empires. The sea beast of Revelation 13 is a composite of those same empires. The image of the beast surely is another empirical nation with similar attributes and attitudes, eg speaking like the dragon, as the first beast.

 

[ewq1938]

That could, and I believe does, apply to a form of government. The beasts of Daniel 7, , as we are told by Gabriel, were empires. The sea beast of Revelation 13 is a composite of those same empires. The image of the beast surely is another empirical nation with similar attributes and attitudes, eg speaking like the dragon, as the first beast.

A completely different nation does not match the image of the beast. Men create the image and the FP gives it life. Nothing about it having an army, going to war or being defeated and cast into the LOF. It is what scripture describes, an image of some kind that represents the first beast empire. It isn't a new nation because that is what the beast is, along with the ten new kingdoms that exist only during the time the beast does.

 

[tailgator]

That could, and I believe does, apply to a form of government. The beasts of Daniel 7, , as we are told by Gabriel, were empires. The sea beast of Revelation 13 is a composite of those same empires. The image of the beast surely is another empirical nation with similar attributes and attitudes, eg speaking like the dragon, as the first beast.

The sea beast is described as little by Daniel and shares the same kingdom with ten other horns diverse than itself.

But that is what Israel wanted.A king like the gentiles have.Thats what they got.

 

[tailgator]

A completely different nation does not match the image of the beast. Men create the image and the FP gives it life. Nothing about it having an army, going to war or being defeated and cast into the LOF. It is what scripture describes, an image of some kind that represents the first beast empire. It isn't a new nation because that is what the beast is, along with the ten new kingdoms that exist only during the time the beast does.

The second beast is an army. It arrives in Israel 3.5 years before the time of the end

Daniel 11:31
31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.


They will be taking orders from two witnesses(two horns) in which fire proceeds from their mouths.

Fire commands are oral orders issued by leaders to focus and distribute fires as required achieving decisive effects against the enemy. They allow leaders to rapidly and concisely articulate their firing instructions using a standard format (Refer to TC 3-20.31-4 for more information).


They come to Israel in Jesus name deceiving many.They occupy Israel 42 months.


Revelation 11
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

 

[Phoneman777]

The soul puts on God's permanent incorruptible physical body, thus redeemed from the path of death, Adam placed on all his offspring because of disobedience.

No, that would be the "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" or the "resurrection body" - which is not the "soul" for Genesis 2:7 KJV is so clear even a child can understand that the "soul" comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the "body" and the "Breath of life".

I never said the soul is immortal. Saying the soul is mortal or immortal is Greek pagan theology.

So, you admit "souls" die, then? Because "immortal" means "cannot die" and "mortal" means "can die".

Otherwise in English, simply death or life. This current state of life is not life, but death. Only redemption at the point of physical death, gives the soul life, otherwise it is always dead. Eternally dead is certainly not immortal. That is like calling mortal, immortal.

The soul would either be eternally dead or eternally made alive.

Correct! The "soul" which is the "whole person" comprised of a "body" and the "Breath of Life" is either alive or dead just as a woman is either pregnant or not pregnant.

The "Second Death" is a permanent death, an eternal death, an everlasting death...a death from which there will be no resurrection.

You go out of your way to go beyond Scripture, in stating the soul ceases to exit.

I go beyond nothing but you go around Genesis 2:7 KJV.

Where is your verse that claims a soul stops existing?

If the Soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life - how can it continue to exist when this union is dissolved?

Does light from a bulb continue shining on another plane of existence when the electric current coursing through it is removed - or does it go out of existence?

 

[Phoneman777]

Revelation explains, thus interprets Daniel, not the other way around.

Revelation doesn't tell us what "beasts" or "horns" represent...Daniel explains it, right or wrong?

 

[ewq1938]

The second beast is an army.

No, the second beast is the false prophet which is one person, and is male.

It arrives in Israel 3.5 years before the time of the end

Daniel 11:31
31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.


They will be taking orders from two witnesses(two horns) in which fire proceeds from their mouths.

Nope. The FP isn't taking orders from the two witnesses. The 2W aren't two horns either. Rev 11 says they are two candlesticks (churches) and two olive trees (two persons).

 

[tailgator]

No, the second beast is the false prophet which is one person, and is male.





Nope. The FP isn't taking orders from the two witnesses. The 2W aren't two horns either. Rev 11 says they are two candlesticks (churches) and two olive trees (two persons).

No
There isn't going to be a man with two horns sticking out of his head.Thats just someone you've seen on Halloween dressed in a costum.

Right here is that army given to the beast.

Daniel 11:31
31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.


They will rule over many for 42 months.

Daniel 11:39
He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price


This isn't a man with two horns sticking out of his head.This is the United States armed forces.

 

[ewq1938]

No
There isn't going to be a man with two horns sticking out of his head.Thats just someone you've seen on Halloween dressed in a costum.

No, that's a strawman fallacy because no one believes that.

Right here is that army given to the beast.

Daniel 11:31
31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.


They will rule over many for 42 months.

Daniel 11:39
He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price


This isn't a man with two horns sticking out of his head.This is the United States armed forces.

No, it's not and it's not the correct passage for the false prophet anyways, which is found in Rev not Daniel.

 

[tailgator]

No, that's a strawman fallacy because no one believes that.





No, it's not and it's not the correct passage for the false prophet anyways, which is found in Rev not Daniel.

You said the beast with two horns is a man.


You show me a man who has two horns sticking out of his head.One that's not wearing a Halloween costum.


Revelation 13:11
Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon.



You been watching hocus pokus?

 

[ewq1938]

You said the beast with two horns is a man.


You show me a man who has two horns sticking out of his head.One that's not wearing a Halloween costum.

It's symbolism and most people understand that.

 

[tailgator]

It's symbolism and most people understand that.

That's what you keep saying.
You don't say what the symbolism means because you don't know.Ive already said what the symbolism means but you insist it's one man.

The two horns are two men of authority who command the second beast.

They will most likely arrive in Israel to assist the first beast next year.After Donald Trump's reelection.

 

[ewq1938]

That's what you keep saying.
You don't say what the symbolism means because you don't know.I

I've said many times the horns mean the FP will be a king twice such as a peaceful kin g and then a war king.

ve already said what the symbolism means but you insist it's one man.

The bible insists the FP is a single man because that is what a prophet is in the bible.

The two horns are two men of authority who command the second beast.

Not one single time is there two men ever described as teh second beast. His name or title is the false prophet. He is a singular person.

They will most likely arrive in Israel to assist the first beast next year.After Donald Trump's reelection.

Nope. You don't understand anything about the false prophet. (not false prophetS)