Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

[iamlamad]

Because the bride of Christ is adorned with beauty.

Your view of the human spirit is different from mine. The spirit is what makes us Glorious as the bride of Christ. The Holy Spirit glorifies God and when others view us on earth they do not see us, but God. Spiritual separation is separation from our Godness. We are not in God's image. The robe or spirit is God covering us. It is the only way we are sons of God. Humanity was God on earth because they had a robe or covering that allowed them to be God. It is how Adam communicated with God, light to light. Revelation says there is no sun and no temple in the New Jerusalem. We are the light and God is the light. When Adam disobeyed that light left. They knew they were no longer like God.

Anyone can imagine anything. It doesn't really come out and say it in so many words, but Adam and Eve must have been clothed with the glory of God before the sin. That would be light. Paul said, "when I could not see for the glory of that light..." God's glory is brighter than the sun.

Can you point us to a verse that would align glory with the human spirit? If we study the Hebrew, God blew "breath" into the body He had created. When Jesus was talking about being born again, He mentioned wind. Job said, "The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." John 6 says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth..." telling us the human spirit is the life of a human. For the Two Witnesses, John said, "And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them." Our human spirit is what gives us LIFE. It IS life - God breathed life.

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1 Corinthians 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?

There can be no doubt; the human spirit is the life of the human. The moment the spirit leaves the body, the body is dead.

Ephesians 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

The human spirit is the "inner man." Our spirit is the REAL US. When a human heart stops, the spirit with the soul slip right out, easier than taking off an overcoat.

The spirit and soul are very tightly tied together: can only be divided by the word of God:

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.

 

[iamlamad]

It was not a poor choice of words by sovereigngrace. You only think so because of your apparent lack of understanding of what happens when someone is born again.

Please show us a scripture where the word "resurrection" is used as a spiritual rising.

 

[iamlamad]

We both obviously have our minds made up. It's folly for either of us to think we're going to convince the other of anything. So be it.

This is a very wise saying!

 

[Dkh587]

Please show us a scripture where the word "resurrection" is used as a spiritual rising.

@Spiritual Jew just showed you Paul teaching the Ephesians about a spiritual resurrection.

 

[iamlamad]

I know I said we can end our discussion and agree to disagree, but I just could not let this go. Where in the following passage (which is the one you're talking about) do you see Paul mention an earthquake?

1 Thess 5
Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

There is no earthquake mentioned here, so please don't call it "Paul's sudden destruction earthquake". Also, it should be noted that this sudden destruction occurs when the day of the Lord arrives "like a thief in the night".

I could do like others on these threads and say you simply don't understand; but I give people the benefit of the doubt.

This is putting scripture with scripture. As I have said over and over, we shouldn't form doctrine from isolated verses, but COMPARE theories with ALL end times scriptures. Someone may have a theory that fits one passage but does not fit others.

Did you read this passage? Matthew 27: "the earth did quake...and the graves were opened..." Did you study this? Did you ask God questions? When Jesus arose, He raised up what I believe to be the elders of the OT.

Did you notice another earthquake when the Two witnesses were raised? Did you mediate on that passage? Did you ask God about it?

Feel free to doubt this. It matters not at all if you do. However, perhaps you could learn something. WHAT CAUSED that earthquake when God raised the those people in Matthew 27? What CAUSED that earthquake when God raised the two Witnesses? I believe they will be raised with all the other OT saints, so perhaps billions will be raised at one time. It will cause the world's worst ever quake - as seen at the 7th vial. It will be at the 7th vial that the OT saints rise, and with them the Two Witnesses - they also being OT saints; probably Enoch and Elijah.

I believe, when God raises those who have been long dead, that raising will CAUSE an earthquake. The bodies of the early saints have long since turned to "dust." And in many cases that "dust" has been scattered far and wide from other "dust" from the same body. Some particles could be miles from others, and some could be separated by depth. I am further convinced that this "dust" all has an identity as from a certain human body that turned to "dust." In one instant of time, God the Holy Spirit will bring all the "dust" that once formed a saints body together and reform that body, and fly it up out of the grave and into the air, and change it into a resurrection body. It will be THEIR body - the very same body that died, only changed.

When the trumpet sounds, and the dead in Christ rise, that rising is going to CAUSE a worldwide earthquake. It is not written in so many words, but the scriptures hint at it, and I think it is truth.

I know, there are some that think God creates a new body and will never use the old body. I disagree. Jesus had his DEAD body made alive. It was the SAME body.

Therefore, I will agree, Paul does not mention an earthquake. But when we match scripture with scripture, I think it will be so. Can you prove with scripture that his sudden destruction cannot be an earthquake?

Next, for further proof, Paul teaches us in 1 Thes. 5, that HIS rapture / gathering will come JUST before wrath, and will be the trigger for wrath. In other words, it will be the age of grace, or if you please, the dispensation of grace, and INSTANTLY will change to the Day of the Lord at the rapture. There will be no time between.

If we look in Revelation, where do we find the start of wrath? It is in chapter 6, at the 6th seal. (The previous verse is about the 5th seal martyrs of the church age, and they are told judgment will not come until the full number of martyrs is reached.) What is the very first event of the 6th seal? A huge earthquake. I believe that earthquake is Paul's sudden destruction.

For further proof, John then saw the raptured church in heaven just after that, as the great crowd, too large to number.

See how scripture fits together, hand in glove, so to speak? It will be just as Paul told us, rapture before wrath. And when one understands John's chronology, wrath comes with the start of the 70th week also. So the entire 70th week, starting with the trumpet judgments, comes with God's wrath.

Of course this does not fit with your thinking; but I think it fits scripture.

 

[iamlamad]

There is no earthquake mentioned here, so please don't call it "Paul's sudden destruction earthquake". Also, it should be noted that this sudden destruction occurs when the day of the Lord arrives "like a thief in the night". I can see no reason at all to not directly relate that to this:

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

They both are talking about what will happen when the day of the Lord (which they both relate to the second coming of Christ) arrives like a thief (unexpectedly). Paul did not specify what causes the destruction, but Peter did. It said it will be by fire. We should accept what Peter taught and not act as if he was talking about something different than Paul when it's very obvious that they spoke about the same exact thing (destruction occurring on the day of the Lord).

I can see no reason at all to not directly relate that to this: I agree. Both Paul and Peter speak of the very same Day of the Lord. Are you forgetting something here? Many people forget TIME. Do you imagine the Day of the Lord comes and ends in a flash - a second or less? Maybe you imagine it is a 24 hour day like all other "days." The truth is, the Day of the Lord is a long, extended period of time when God bring judgment first, then eternity.

Let's examine Peter's statement: Yes, He agrees with Paul, the DAY of the Lord will come as a thief. Peter probably read Paul's letter. Comparing scripture with scripture, this will happen at the 6th seal where John tells us the Day begins.

Next, Peter tells us "the heaven's will disappear with a roar." Where else do we read this? At the 6th seal John wrote, " the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together..." So this event would be in the first second or seconds of the Day of the Lord.

Next, Peter tells us, "the elements will be destroyed by fire..." Would this have to come in the first seconds, or could it come later in the Day? The way Peter wrote it, it could come later. It could be at the end of the Day. All we can prove from what Peter said is that sometime during this Day of the Lord, the elements will burn. Where else do we read about this?

1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Notice the time here: "THE DAY shall declare it." It is Day of the Lord timing. Where do we find "fire" that might give us timing information?

2 Thes. 1: 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

So it seems the fire that tries the works of man, the fire that comes from elements burning may well come when Jesus comes. It is a coming for vengeance.

Do we see any hint of vengeance in His coming in 1 Thes. 4 - a coming FOR His saints? No, we see vengeance in His coming as shown in Rev. 19, His coming to Armageddon. It is at this coming that the armies of heaven are mentioned.

Therefore, I conclude that this phrase from Peter is not at the START of the Day of the Lord, but after some TIME has passed. You may not believe it, but from the 6th seal to the coming in Rev. 19 is going to be over 7 years of time. The 6th seal is opened just before the 70th week, and Jesus coming to Armageddon is some unknown time after the week. This is still in agreement with Peter. The DAY is still ongoing at Armegeddon.

They both are talking about what will happen when the day of the Lord (which they both relate to the second coming of Christ) arrives like a thief (unexpectedly). As explained above, this is the arrival or START of the Day.

Paul did not specify what causes the destruction, but Peter did. It said it will be by fire. Now you are trying to align two scriptures that will not fit together. Paul's destruction is RIGHT THEN, at the same moment that those alive and in Christ are caught up, those left behind suffer the sudden destruction - at the START of the DAY. Again I find you just not understanding TIME. The truth is, the entire 70th week of events, 7 trumpet judgments, 7 vial judgments and many events between, will take place just after the DAY starts, but before the fire destroys and tries men's works. It may not fit your theory, but it is scripture.

In summary, the DAY starts with the 6th seal, then,
the 7th seal officially starts the 70th week. Then,
The 70th week and Day of the Lord open with the first trumpet judgments.
Then the first half of the week passes with these trumpets. Then,
The 7th trumpet marks the midpoint of the week and the abomination. Then,
Those in Judea begin to flee. Then,
War in heaven breaks out: the 7th trumpet is Michael's signal to begin. Then,
John sees the Beast arise. Then, some unknown time after,
The second Beast arrives on the scene. Then,
They erect an image and create a mark. Then,
God sends angels to warn the people, the days of GT are about to begin. Then,
Days of great tribulation begin.
The beheaded begin to show up in heaven. Time passes, Then,
When the beheading reaches a peak, God sends the vials to shorten those days
Then, DARK days of dread and pain and waiting for the end of the 42 months.
Then, the 7th vial hits that ENDS the 70th week. 7 years have passed
Then, armies of the world are sent to Israel, to wipe Israel off the map. Then,
Some of Jerusalem is taken, many carried away as slaves
Those who fled are almost to be captured near Bozrah
Just when it seems all hope is lost for Israel, JESUS SHOWS UP!

This is scripture rightly divided and understood. Anything else is myth.

 

[iamlamad]

This is another thing I just can't let go. The New Testament (including Paul's writings) is a revelation of the mysteries of the Old Testament. This is what people like yourself do not understand for whatever reason. There is no mystery to what is taught in the New Testament. It reveals mysteries.

Just what is it you imagine I don't understand?

 

[iamlamad]

@Spiritual Jew just showed you Paul teaching the Ephesians about a spiritual resurrection.

Sorry, but Paul did not use that word.

 

[iamlamad]

I agree. This has gotten to be tiresome at this point and if we keep going we might end up just being mad at each other. Let's stay friends and just agree to disagree. We're mostly just repeating ourselves at this point, anyway.

With that said, I'm not completely caught up on this thread yet, so I may see something you say in another post that I want to respond to, but please don't feel any need to respond in kind if I do. Unless I misrepresent your view (which would be by mistake). Then, please feel free to correct whatever was misrepresented. If you're like me, you can't just let that go. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

Ha ha! I agree. But perhaps we will see things that we just can't let go without an answer.

 

[iamlamad]

Of course. That is all I meant. I'm sorry that wording it that way offended you, so I won't say it that way in the future.

Please calm down. I did not mean to offend you. I only meant that it is "supposed" from an amil viewpoint since we don't believe in a future earthly millennial kingdom.

My friend, I don't allow myself any kind of offense. We are good - we just disagree on many points! ;-) You can deny a millennial reign "till the cows come home." But when it comes, look me up!

 

[iamlamad]

Is the river of life "supposed?"
Are the streets of Gold "supposed?"
Is the city foursquare "supposed?"

... These things also must be symbolic. Are you consistent with your symbolism?

Please calm down. I did not mean to offend you. I only meant that it is "supposed" from an amil viewpoint since we don't believe in a future earthly millennial kingdom.

I am calm. But I really want to know, are these also symbolic in your thinking? If not, WHY not? After all, from your own words, it is a highly symbolic book!

 

[iamlamad]

...
The issue is that I can account for everything I believe in scripture. I don't believe things that I can't show you being taught in scripture. Whereas you admit to believing things that you can't show me as being taught anywhere n scripture.

Yes, it is true. I asked the Lord about Rev. 11:1-2. He told me that was the man of sin arriving in Jerusalem with Gentile armies. I cannot prove it, but then neither can anyone prove it is not so. (I did not hear words this time.)

Then before that, God told me (This time I heard His voice and His words) that I could find the exact midpoint of the week clearly marked, and also the entire 70th week clearly marked. I found what He sent me to find: the 70th week marked with 7's. I can only prove the midpoint marked by the 7th trumpet, but I cannot prove the week starts at the 7th seal and ends with the 7th vial. But then, no one can prove it does not.

I cannot prove to anyone else's satisfaction that the first seal is the church sent out with the gospel - but people can't prove it is not.

I cannot prove to other's satisfaction that Revelation is VERY chronological. But I know it is. People have tried to prove to me it is not. They have all failed.

I cannot prove to anyone else's satisfaction that seals 2-4 are Satan's attempts to stop the advance of the gospel. But then, no one can prove by scripture otherwise.

How does this work? You have apparently proved to yourself that Rev. 20:5 is symbolic. But you certainly have not proved it to me. I have tried to prove to you that most of Rev. 20 is NOT symbolic, but I have failed.

It is all how we read scripture, and that, my friend, comes a lot because if preconceptions.

 

[iamlamad]

The issue is that I can account for everything I believe in scripture. .

What I question is the manner in which you account for everything.

Some things you spiritualize - supposedly to make a verse fit with other verses.

Some things you say are symbolic - I can only guess to make a verse fit with other verses.

And one reason you give is that the book is highly symbolic. I think the truth is, a small part of the book is symbolic.

Do you understand that much of the church world will not do that? My conscience would not allow me to disregard a verse by saying it is symbolic. When I read about "thousand years," then in the next verse read "THE thousand years," and it confirmed again and again, I cannot disregard it by saying it is only symbolic. A 7 headed beast? No problem: I have never seen one. But I have LIVED through periods of time. I know they are real, literal, and exist. I can READ about the 70 weeks for Daniel's people, and the final week of 7 years. Daniel had symbols too, but His 70th weeks are certainly not symbolic - other than they are sevens of years.

There is a great danger in spiritualizing verses. The truth is, 100 people might give us 99 different things a symbol is suppose to represent. (Maybe two would agree.)

You ask this question a lot, so I will ask:
If the 1000 years are not literal, why would God bother to mention it 6 different times, written very literally? Why say it at all if it is only means church age? (I don't expect an answer, it is a rhetorical question. ;-)

I guess my point is, don't criticize others for not agreeing with your symbolizing. Many refuse to do it.

 

[iamlamad]

...
Such as what would be the destiny of those who are still left alive in a future earthly millennial kingdom after Rev 20:9 takes place?

Yet, you are saying things about what IS NOT written such as saying that no one would be saved/born again during a 1007 year period on the future.

such as saying that no one would be saved/born again during a 1007 year period on the future. Why ask a question about something not written? If you can find a verse proving people are born again even during the 70th week, by all means SHOW it, and I will immediately change my thinking. I cannot find such a verse. But then, how COULD you show me such a verse when you deny the 1000 years?

My point: the born again experience MAY be only for the church age. Can you prove or disprove this statement by scripture?

 

[iamlamad]

But, to believe that animal sacrifices would be reinstituted as sin offerings for the atonement of the people of Israel's sins, would mean that you don't believe in what Hebrews 10 says about them, which is that they only had the purpose of foreshadowing Christ's once for all sacrifice.

Exactly. So, since Jesus made His sacrifice long ago, why would there ever be a need for animal sacrifices again? Especially to do what the sacrifices described in Ezekiel 40-48 says they would do, which is atone for the sins of the Israelite people.

You and I have already agreed that the blood of animals really cannot take away sins. At best God allowed animal blood to COVER sins. Yet God used the words "atone" for the sacrifices under the law. We both agree they were only POINTING ahead to Jesus' Sacrifice. Right? In other words, their sins were not really "removed" or place into the sea of God's forgetfullness until Jesus died. Still agree?

Yet by the very language we find describing those animal sacrifices, made it SEEM that animal blood was indeed removing their sins. Still agree?

Then you also believe that animal sacrifices will be reinstituted as sin offerings to atone for people's sins. I did not SAY that. You only inferred it. Did Moses have sin offerings back then? Did they really REMOVE sins?

Were any sins and the guilt thereof really REMOVED under the Old Covenant? Please answer.

It specifically says, as I showed, that they would be sin offerings for the atonement of the sins of the Israelite people.
Isn't that exactly what Leviticus said they were for under Moses law?

Exodus 29:36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement:

Compare with:
Hebrews 10:4

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

In other words, the bullock in verse 36 was only a temporary fix: it could not remove their sins, neither the guilt of their sins. They had to wait until Jesus death to get their sins GONE. AGree?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Please show us a scripture where the word "resurrection" is used as a spiritual rising.

My goodness. After all I said, this is your response? What else do you call going from being spiritual dead in trespasses and sins to being spiritually alive in Christ?

How about the phrase "raised up". Is that close enough? Once again, I will show this passage:

Eph 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.

Are you really so hyper-literal that unless a passage contains the word "resurrection" it can't be speaking of a resurrection? What else can you call God raising us up to new spiritual life with Christ after previously being dead in our trespasses and sins?

By the way, I can see in my notifications that you replied to several of my posts, so I guess we're not done discussing these things, after all.

 

[Timtofly]

Anyone can imagine anything. It doesn't really come out and say it in so many words, but Adam and Eve must have been clothed with the glory of God before the sin. That would be light. Paul said, "when I could not see for the glory of that light..." God's glory is brighter than the sun.

Can you point us to a verse that would align glory with the human spirit? If we study the Hebrew, God blew "breath" into the body He had created. When Jesus was talking about being born again, He mentioned wind. Job said, "The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." John 6 says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth..." telling us the human spirit is the life of a human. For the Two Witnesses, John said, "And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them." Our human spirit is what gives us LIFE. It IS life - God breathed life.

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1 Corinthians 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?

There can be no doubt; the human spirit is the life of the human. The moment the spirit leaves the body, the body is dead.

Ephesians 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

The human spirit is the "inner man." Our spirit is the REAL US. When a human heart stops, the spirit with the soul slip right out, easier than taking off an overcoat.

The spirit and soul are very tightly tied together: can only be divided by the word of God:

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.

All those verses are talking about the Holy Spirit. Only Adam and the sons of God created on the 6th day can truly say they had God's Spirit with them as their own physical existence. The punishment is that this image of God was taken away, including the Spirit. Now I doubt it was the Holy Spirit that is the robe of white. Because the church was given back God’s Spirit, but not as part of their physical being.

The 5th and 6th seal is when we are reunited with the physical image of God, our own spirit. We have access now to the Holy Spirit and it is not via a robe of white. Most get lost in the point the Holy Spirit only was given to the church. No! Only the church had a choice in how this Holy Spirit worked in their lives.

In the OT it came and went, and it worked behind one's choices, not in conjunction with one's choices. Also in the OT one had to deal with sin in their lives different, not that most humans have ever been taught properly, because we are still taught the examples of OT believers instead of the more mundane NT believers. The truth is that the OT are the mundane ones who had non mundane experiences. The NT believers had the power of the Holy Spirit and mundane experiences. We would rather live in sin with 1 or 2 minutes of God, Than live with God in control and never see God at work behind the scenes of the lives of others. The flesh wants instant gratification. Not eternal God recognition.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'll try and address other parts of your post at a later time, assuming I don't get sidetracked and forget. But I want to take this on for now.


I'm not Catholic, but here are what Catholics have to say about this subject, below, 3rd paragraph. And I don't see any of that involving offerings to God like the OT priests did. Obviously, I'm not meaning priests in the sense they were priests in OT times, to begin with. I don't know why you are even bringing things like that up to begin with?

Because you didn't specify what you thought the priest's duties should be at that time. So, I could only guess.

The primary function of all priests is administering the church's seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, confession, holy communion, marriage, holy orders, and anointing of the sick. Diocesan priests also visit the sick, oversee religious education programs, and generally provide pastoral care to their parishioners.

You're not Catholic and yet you think the reference to priests in the Bible has something to do with performing the duties a Catholic priest does? How does this make any sense?

In what way would souls in heaven awaiting a bodily resurrection even remotely be administering the church's seven sacraments, while in that state?

You are the one (not scripture) who says they would need to be doing those things. Stick to scripture instead of wasting time describing things that Catholic priests do (which I couldn't care less about).

Who in heaven would need to be baptized? Who in heaven would be sick where they are in need of anointing? So on and so on. So by duties, maybe not the best word to use to describe what I was inquiring about, so meaning like these sacraments above, as some examples.

Examples not given in scripture. Show me the scripture that says they would be doing the same things Catholic priests do? I'm sorry, David, but this might be the weakest argument you've ever made.

To me, anything priestly would be involving something earthly, not something heavenly, in regards to humans.

And that is because your mind seems to be always on literal and earthly things rather than spiritual and heavenly things. Why is that?

And the same goes for the thousand years. That involves time, something earthly.

If time can't refer to things in heaven, even symbolically, then how do you explain this:

Rev 8:1 When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

Heaven couldn't possibly be going by earth time where it consists of 24 hour days up there.

Exactly. That's why the thousand years is symbolic because it's referring to things happening in the spiritual realm where it wouldn't make sense to think of it as a literal thousand years since time isn't the same there as it is on earth, just as you said yourself.

It is impossible that a thousand years do not involve 24 hour days, regardless whether it's a literal thousand or not, therefore the thousand years are only relevant to something earthly, and not relevant to anything taking place in heaven where God dwells.

You make a lot of claims of how things have to be, but you have nothing to back them up. You just share opinion after opinion without being able to point to any scripture that says what you're saying.

 

[iamlamad]

My goodness. After all I said, this is your response? What else do you call going from being spiritual dead in trespasses and sins to being spiritually alive in Christ?

How about the phrase "raised up". Is that close enough? Once again, I will show this passage:

Eph 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.

Are you really so hyper-literal that unless a passage contains the word "resurrection" it can't be speaking of a resurrection? What else can you call God raising us up to new spiritual life with Christ after previously being dead in our trespasses and sins?

By the way, I can see in my notifications that you replied to several of my posts, so I guess we're not done discussing these things, after all.

My goodness. After all I said, this is your response?
Yes, I am only asking for scripture!

By definition "resurrection" means physically dead coming alive. You have appropriated this word and applied to the born again experience. All I ask is you show us where any writer in the bible uses this word for one being born again. Or now are you showing us that you believe something that cannot be proven with scripture?

What else do you call going from being spiritual dead in trespasses and sins to being spiritually alive in Christ? I call it being born again - what God called it.

How about the phrase "raised up". Is that close enough? What you are showing me is there is no scripture where "resurrection" is used for the born again experience. Ephesians says we have been "raised" to sit at the right hand of God, but "resurrection" does not fit that either.

Webster's
1 a: the rising of Christ from the dead
1.b: the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment
1.c: the state of one risen from the dead
" from Late Latin resurrection-, resurrectio act of rising from the dead, from resurgere to rise from the dead, from Latin, to rise again..."

Resurrection in its primary use and bible use is for the physically dead to be raised physically. Many times the bible says "the resurrection" referring to the end of the age. Other times it is HIS resurrection, referring to Jesus. Many times it is followed by "of the dead."

Are you really so hyper-literal that unless a passage contains the word "resurrection" it can't be speaking of a resurrection?
I just know that no writer of the bible used that word, "resurrection" to refer to anything but a physical resurrection of someone dead to becoming alive. Why then should we change the biblical meaning? To fit some theory?

By the way, I can see in my notifications that you replied to several of my posts, so I guess we're not done discussing these things, after all. Now you are being funny again! It is true, there are things I just could not let pass.

 

[iamlamad]

All those verses are talking about the Holy Spirit. Only Adam and the sons of God created on the 6th day can truly say they had God's Spirit with them as their own physical existence. The punishment is that this image of God was taken away, including the Spirit. Now I doubt it was the Holy Spirit that is the robe of white. Because the church was given back God’s Spirit, but not as part of their physical being.

The 5th and 6th seal is when we are reunited with the physical image of God, our own spirit. We have access now to the Holy Spirit and it is not via a robe of white. Most get lost in the point the Holy Spirit only was given to the church. No! Only the church had a choice in how this Holy Spirit worked in their lives.

In the OT it came and went, and it worked behind one's choices, not in conjunction with one's choices. Also in the OT one had to deal with sin in their lives different, not that most humans have ever been taught properly, because we are still taught the examples of OT believers instead of the more mundane NT believers. The truth is that the OT are the mundane ones who had non mundane experiences. The NT believers had the power of the Holy Spirit and mundane experiences. We would rather live in sin with 1 or 2 minutes of God, Than live with God in control and never see God at work behind the scenes of the lives of others. The flesh wants instant gratification. Not eternal God recognition.

All those verses are talking about the Holy Spirit. That is your theory, and you are welcome to it. But the church in general would disagree. Why are your theories so often different than most other believers?

Only one is talking about the Holy Spirit: in Eph. 3 I copied "his Spirit in the inner man;" to show that our "inner man" is the real us. All the rest of the verses are talking about the HUMAN spirit.

Take this verse for an example:

1 Corinthians 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?

Why would ANYONE imagine this is speaking of the Holy Spirit?

I am sorry to say, but your thinking is clear out of the ball park.