Will Trump seek asylum in Israel and Build the 3rd Temple?

[Freedm]

It is symbolic of putting on the spirit. The act of glorification, and final restoration. The soul puts on a physical body and the body puts on the spirit like a robe of white.

Well, at least we agree that it's symbolic, but I really don't know what you mean by "putting on the spirit". And "the soul puts on a physical body". I don't think you understand what a soul is.

 

[ewq1938]

Now you're just being silly.

My point is Jesus' kingdom is not a physical kingdom. You should know this. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world".

That only proves the Kingdom was not on Earth yet, not that it isn't a physical kingdom.

 

[The Light]

These guys are speaking the truth ....I agree with about 99% of what they're saying. They're saying things I've been saying and I've never heard anyone else say the same thing.
(That they're making a martyr out of Trump, and building his militant programmed cult-army bigger.)

#154 "TRUMP 3:16"

Podcast-Folge · KILL THE MOCKINGBIRDS · 31.08.2023 · 1 Std. 51 Min.

podcasts.apple.com

PS .....I DO NOT approve of the foul language in the podcast. I do agree with the basic sentiment ....it isn't necessary to speak with a nasty mouth to speak the truth. These guys still have spoken the truth.... despite their foul mouths.

This just in..........NEW CHARGES COMING AGAINST TRUMP.
Allegedly, they have come across video footage from 2014 showing Trump Jaywalking in New York City. This will be added to all the other charges and is considered the nail in the coffin.

 

[Freedm]

Because it is presented as non-symbolic. Will you argue that the current city of Jerusalem is symbolic? Or New York? That's what it's like to have someone insist NJ is symbolic when it clearly is not in scripture.

The cities of Jerusalem and New York, have never been known to "come down out of heaven", so those aren't exactly good comparisons.

I think if a city, the size of China (but with only 12 gates - imagine that), is said to be coming down from heaven, then there's a good chance it's symbolic. The city is described to be 2200 km tall. The space station is only 400 km from the surface of the earth. Outer space is considered to begin at approximately 100 km from the surface of the earth. So you're imagining a city that extends well over 2000 km into outer space, and you think this couldn't possibly be a symbolic description? Let's get real here. Saying that it "is presented as non-symbolic" is just not true.

 

[Freedm]

That only proves the Kingdom was not on Earth yet, not that it isn't a physical kingdom.

Interesting. I've never met a Christian who thinks God's kingdom is a physical kingdom. It's interesting because this is the same mistake the Jews made, thinking their king would ride into battle with them, and here you are.

 

[ewq1938]

Interesting. I've never met a Christian who thinks God's kingdom is a physical kingdom. It's interesting because this is the same mistake the Jews made, thinking their king would ride into battle with them, and here you are.

No, the Jews expected the Messiah to defeat the Romans but he didn't. The idea of a physical kingdom was not false, just not yet. He was clear his kingdom was not here on Earth at that time. God's kingdom is a physical kingdom that will be here on the physical earth. That physical kingdom has a literal, physical army too. The king of that Kingdom is physical too. People were invited to touch him.

 

[ewq1938]

The cities of Jerusalem and New York, have never been known to "come down out of heaven", so those aren't exactly good comparisons.

I think if a city, the size of China (but with only 12 gates - imagine that), is said to be coming down from heaven, then there's a good chance it's symbolic. The city is described to be 2200 km tall. The space station is only 400 km from the surface of the earth. Outer space is considered to begin at approximately 100 km from the surface of the earth. So you're imagining a city that extends well over 2000 km into outer space, and you think this couldn't possibly be a symbolic description? Let's get real here. Saying that it "is presented as non-symbolic" is just not true.

Your error is not remembering the city descends upon the new Earth. We don't know the size of that earth. Comparing NJ to this current earth is error.

 

[Freedm]

No, the Jews expected the Messiah to defeat the Romans but he didn't. The idea of a physical kingdom was not false, just not yet. He was clear his kingdom was not here on Earth at that time. God's kingdom is a physical kingdom that will be here on the physical earth. That physical kingdom has a literal, physical army too. The king of that Kingdom is physical too. People were invited to touch him.

Wait, you think God's kingdom will have a physical army? With guns and tanks? Fighter jets? Artillery?

 

[Freedm]

Your error is not remembering the city descends upon the new Earth. We don't know the size of that earth. Comparing NJ to this current earth is error.

I'm not in error. There will not be a new earth. The earth remains forever.

Ecclesiastes 1:4
A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.

Psalm 104:5
He established the earth upon its foundations So that it will not totter forever and ever.

When Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, he was speaking of the temple, which was the Jewish connection between heaven and earth. When John the revelator said he saw a new heaven and a new earth, he was speaking of Jesus. When Peter said heaven and earth would be burned up, he was speaking of the temple.

There is not a single example of scripture telling us that the earth would be replaced, except when mentioned together with heaven, and that is an indication that they are speaking of the temple because the temple is "heaven and earth".

Your error is thinking that a 2200 km tall, and wide, and long city (with only 12 gates) is realistic and literal. It's just absurd. If there are only three gates on each 2200 km side of this city, can you imagine the traffic jam to get in? That's one gate every 733 km. That's approximately the distance between Amsterdam and Prague. Or from Atlanta Georgia to St. Louis Missouri. And this makes sense to you?

 

[ewq1938]

I'm not in error. There will not be a new earth.

You are in error.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

You: There will not be a new earth.
bible: I saw a new heaven and a new earth

 

[Timtofly]

Now you're just being silly.

My point is Jesus' kingdom is not a physical kingdom. You should know this. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world".

That was the kingdom of God as Messiah.

The Second Coming is just as physical, and will be a kingdom on earth. The 7th Trumpet declares that at that point Jesus will be the physical King over all nations.

No one is saying Jesus was King at the first coming. Jesus was the Messiah. The church is the kingdom of heaven. The church is physically in residence in Paradise.

Jesus was given the authority as King. Yet the earth will see that authority come to earth at the Second Coming.

Some will argue that there is no future Kingdom on earth. That is the point. If you claim that cannot happen, then you should be consistent and state the first coming was not physical either. It was just as symbolic as your second coming. The Second Coming has not happened yet, so you cannot pass judgment about what will be until the process happens.

 

[Timtofly]

Well, at least we agree that it's symbolic, but I really don't know what you mean by "putting on the spirit". And "the soul puts on a physical body". I don't think you understand what a soul is.

I don't think you understand what being a son of God is. I am a soul. I put on a physical body of death at conception. In the near future I will shed Adam's dead corruptible flesh. I will put on God's permanent incorruptible physical body. Then put on the spirit. All spirits reside with God. You can read about them in 1 Kings 22:19-25. None of Adam's offspring has a spirit on over their body. That was taken away and called spiritual death. Death is not just non-existence. Death is separation from God and from being a son of God. Our spirit is not in us. Spirit is not the air we breath, nor the breadth of life.

John at the 5th Seal correctly states how the spirit is put on. The robe of white is symbolic of the spirit. Paul calls it putting on of immortality. The word's root meaning is divinity or about God. God is spirit. So we are putting on spirit.

In the Greek Paul is saying death puts on eternal life. That would be the English form to use, not technically mortal putting on immortality which is the Latin form meaning the same thing. So why do we then call it an immortal body? Paul is not saying we put on a body the second time. Paul states we are putting on eternal life after a body. We are not putting on a body twice. The implication is that the soul is putting on two seperate items. The soul puts on a permanent body and then puts on eternal life separate from the body. But the word immortal should not be used in conjunction with a body. Paul did not use that phrase nor is it ever translated that way. That is personal interpretation turning the word into an adjective and adding the word body. The corruptible to incorruptible already defines the physical. Paul is declaring the spiritual put on over the physical. The spirit is also never able to die. We are separated from the spirit.

The emphasis given throughout Scripture is to avoid all spiritual aspects of life, because those who do are inviting in Satan's demonic world. There is a spiritual presence all around us that we are blind to. That we are given a glimpse in 1 Kings 22 is one of the few places we are allowed to see the spiritual. So Paul is not just saying we put on eternal life, Paul was pointing to the spiritual in distinction to the physical. We are not putting on eternal life as a physical body. We are putting on eternal life as a spiritual body. That is the spirit.

As coming from God, even the Holy Spirit does not go on over the physical body. A demon or spirit is said to enter and indwell the mind, and our thoughts. Just as indicated in 1 Kings 22. However when we are united with our spirit, both John and Paul indicate that the spirit is put on over the body. That is what the symbolism means in Revelation 6.

Now we should see from all examples that no one has their spirit currently in this dead state. The point being is that demons are spirits that have fled from God's presence and are no longer redeemable. There are people who go past the point of redemption into a state of reprobation. Those humans and sons of God prior to the Flood would be examples of those past the point of redemption literally killed by God's judgment. In fact God said His spirit could no longer strive with man's spirit. That is the point a spirit becomes a demon. This process is described for current humanity in Romans 1 by Paul.

If you think you have a soul, then who are you? You certainly are not the body which returns to dust. What would that soul do without you? You are the soul that resides in a physical body of death. You do not have your spirit. Your spirit is with God. Unless one is reprobate, and then their spirit is a demon, which will be cast into the LOF with the soul.

Now you may claim to have a totally different interpretation from Scripture concerning the soul, body, and spirit. Theology has many human opinions on the topic. For one, the Greek word "pneuma" from which we get the word "air" has many different ways it can be used and interpreted. The Latin form became pneumatic. English took both the Greek and Latin to descibe air. One has to go by context.

Paul would not have said we put on air and then assume future generations would understand spirit. Paul was using an euphemism of death putting on non death, to imply the restoration of the spirit. Many just think Paul was repeating himself. Yet they don't follow through and allow us living to be the dead in Christ. We are in death in Paul's euphemism. They don't apply that to living death, they apply that to the physically dead. Those alive are the only ones in death. Those currently in Paradise are in a state of eternal life. They are not the dead in Christ. They are only physically separated from us.

In some context people wrongly claim the spirit leaves the body. In some context the soul is wrongly called spirit. Yet Paul clearly makes the distinction between soul, body, and spirit. And the Greek word for soul as used in modern terms is totally involved with the demonic world. Human understanding does not care for God's Word and the origin of all things being God. Then people complain when I point out Scripture, falsely claiming I am too carnal minded. Then they turn around and frame all their belief on carnal understandings instead of acknowledging the author of all things is God. God created many sons of God on the 6th day, and all were souls in a physical body, within their spirit that was a robe of white, to put it symbolically. Once a spirit is put on, creation will be restored for those souls as originally intended. Death will be no more a separation.

 

[Timtofly]

The cities of Jerusalem and New York, have never been known to "come down out of heaven", so those aren't exactly good comparisons.

I think if a city, the size of China (but with only 12 gates - imagine that), is said to be coming down from heaven, then there's a good chance it's symbolic. The city is described to be 2200 km tall. The space station is only 400 km from the surface of the earth. Outer space is considered to begin at approximately 100 km from the surface of the earth. So you're imagining a city that extends well over 2000 km into outer space, and you think this couldn't possibly be a symbolic description? Let's get real here. Saying that it "is presented as non-symbolic" is just not true.

No. We should see the new creation as a totally foreign concept to current creation. We should not compare the two, and then cry; "symbolism".

John is given us a literal description of this new creation to compare with current creation.

Using the word symbolic either pro or negative does not fit the narrative.

Why do you think most thought the earth was flat at one point? Who is being deceived by Satan today? Satan has gone far and above the call of duty in changing Genesis 1 into a modern virtual realty. He even has theistic evolutionist believing that his virtual realty is real. Genesis 1 can never be reconciled with modern science no matter how one spins it, pun intended. We are past the point of declaring Genesis is truth unless we are hypocritical in what we have been taught. We cannot declare science is true at the same time Genesis 1 is true. It is physically impossible. Or should I say Genesis 1 is the true form of reality. Current scientific thought is a virtual reality and not real. Satan has convinced the human psyche we are no longer in God's creation, but a creation of Satan's making.

So then people come along and declare Revelation 21 is symbolic from the perspective of their virtual reality thought processes. When what we are taught is symbolic, and Revelation 21 is literal. You think there is a solar system. "Reality" will be drastically changed at the Second Coming. Satan's deception will be what is dissolved.

 

[No Pre-TB]

Your error is not remembering the city descends upon the new Earth. We don't know the size of that earth. Comparing NJ to this current earth is error.

It is not a literal city. Ive never heard anyone even suggest that. Not today and not in any text since 100 AD

 

[Timtofly]

Interesting. I've never met a Christian who thinks God's kingdom is a physical kingdom. It's interesting because this is the same mistake the Jews made, thinking their king would ride into battle with them, and here you are.

No. The mistake was the timing. Not the contrast between spiritual and physical. Creation is both physical and spiritual. Not one or the other. You cannot see the spiritual world all around you, due to blindness.

You are worse off than they are. You deny the reality of creation itself. They understood creation. They just misunderstood the timing of God's overall plan. You are having issues with both the plan and creation.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm not in error. There will not be a new earth. The earth remains forever.

Ecclesiastes 1:4
A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.

Psalm 104:5
He established the earth upon its foundations So that it will not totter forever and ever.

When Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, he was speaking of the temple, which was the Jewish connection between heaven and earth. When John the revelator said he saw a new heaven and a new earth, he was speaking of Jesus. When Peter said heaven and earth would be burned up, he was speaking of the temple.

There is not a single example of scripture telling us that the earth would be replaced, except when mentioned together with heaven, and that is an indication that they are speaking of the temple because the temple is "heaven and earth".

Your error is thinking that a 2200 km tall, and wide, and long city (with only 12 gates) is realistic and literal. It's just absurd. If there are only three gates on each 2200 km side of this city, can you imagine the traffic jam to get in? That's one gate every 733 km. That's approximately the distance between Amsterdam and Prague. Or from Atlanta Georgia to St. Louis Missouri. And this makes sense to you?

A generation is a concept. In this case earth is a concept. Instead of there being a nebulae and a corpus, God calls the concept heavens and earth.

There will always be a heavens and earth.


If you think there are galaxies and solar systems, that is carnal and absurd.

You would trade the truth of God's Word for your own understanding?

Have you seen the spacing of most entrances to amusement parks? Have you seen the long lines at amusement parks? Seems pretty normal to me instead of absurd. Not all people are planning to enter or leave this city at the exact same time, are they?

So when God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning he was creating Herod's Temple instead of creation? When Isaiah declares a new heaven and earth, he was referring to Herod's Temple?

I am thinking the temple is just a building and never referred to as the heavens and earth in Scripture.

 

[ewq1938]

It is not a literal city.

It has gates and walls. It's clearly a literal city.

 

[No Pre-TB]

It has gates and walls. It's clearly a literal city.

Yeah, and angels and each gate is 1 pearl and each wall has 12 foundations…hint hint

 

[ewq1938]

Yeah, and angels and each gate is 1 pearl and each wall has 12 foundations…hint hint

There is no "hint hint". The city is described as being literal. Fantastic yes, but literal nonetheless.

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

 

[Freedm]

You are in error.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

You: There will not be a new earth.
bible: I saw a new heaven and a new earth

As I said, the references to a "new heaven and new earth" refer to the temple, not the actual earth.