The Harvest At The End Of The Age

[Freedm]

No, scripture does not indicate that the trumpet would be blown before the end of the age when Christ returns, which has not yet happened.

No, what I'm saying is; when the trumpet blows Christ returns. That is what the Bible says and that is what we both believe. So neither of us are contradicting scripture. We simply disagree on whether this event happens before or after the year 2021.

 

[Freedm]

Yet, you do believe in His future return, so how do you determine that those passages I referenced are speaking of a past coming of Christ instead of the future coming of Christ?

Because Jesus also said that we would not taste death, which requires that we are transformed into our spiritual bodies immediately upon death, so that we move from one life straight into the next. That to me sounds like a resurrection. So putting all of those events in the first century makes the most sense to me. It just makes all the puzzle pieces fit.

 

[Freedm]

You are contradicting scripture because Paul indicates that ALL of the dead in Christ will be resurrected at the same time (1 Cor 15:22-23, 1 Cor 15:50-54, 1 Thess 4:14-17). That can't possibly have happened in 70 AD because there have been plenty in Christ who have died since then and it wouldn't be possible for them to be resurrected at Christ's coming at the last trumpet if it already sounded.

Again, this is not a contradiction. Please try to understand what I'm saying. All those who were dead in Christ at that time were resurrected together. Just as Paul said would happen. And since that time nobody has died in Christ, at least not in the sense that they went from life to death, because now when we "die" we are immediately born again into our heavenly bodies, never tasting death.

I'm not denying or contradicting anything that Paul said. You just don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying for some reason.

You say "there have been plenty in Christ who have died since then" but for that to be true, they would literally have to be dead right now, not in heaven. Do you believe those people are actually dead right now? Or do you believe they went to heaven when they died?

 

[Freedm]

Tell me this. How do you reconcile your view with what Paul taught here:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Christ rose first, then he returned in 70 AD, resurrected all those who were dead in Christ at that time, and since then all those who belong to him are immediately resurrected upon death. How is this any different than what Paul said?

 

[Marilyn C]

Look at the following scriptures that make it clear, Jesus is Israel.

Exodus 4:22
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son..

Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

Matthew 2:15
where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Those three verses together make the connection between Israel and Jesus.

You are not speaking correctly, actually `nonsense.`(Jesus is Israel)

Israel is not a part of the Godhead.
Israel did not die on a cross. etc, ec..

The word `son` is a relationship.

Israel is God`s `son` for He created that nation.
Jesus is God`s Son, as being the one who is the expressed image of the Father. (Heb. 1: 3)

The two are distinct.

 

[jeffweedaman]

This discussion had to do with the little season after the thousand years. Assuming that is meaning in this age, do you think salvation shall be shut during the little season, or do you think it remains open during the little season?

2thess 2 best addresses this.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.


The appearing of Jesus coming will destroy the revealing of satans activity in all power and deception. This is his little season I believe, when he is released to go forth in all power through this lawless one.

Looks to me that those who refused to love the truth before his release will perish during this period.


11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.



doesnt suggest to me that anybody is saved during this period , just as Rev 20 makes no mention of anyone being saved when he is released ,only that billions will perish in a flame of fire as explained in 2 thess chapter 1.


This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. 6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.

Hope this makes sense.

I dont want to turn this thread into a millennium debate.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Because Jesus also said that we would not taste death, which requires that we are transformed into our spiritual bodies immediately upon death, so that we move from one life straight into the next. That to me sounds like a resurrection. So putting all of those events in the first century makes the most sense to me. It just makes all the puzzle pieces fit.

Does it not concern you that your belief in the future return of Christ is based on a grand total of one verse (Acts 1:11)? Does it really make sense to you that such a significant event would only be mentioned once in scripture?

How do you interpret these passages:

1 Timothy 6:13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Do you think Jesus appeared in 70 AD? I'm quite certain that He didn't. These passages are clearly referring to His future coming when all will see Him. When things get hard in life, the thing that keeps me going the most is looking forward to "the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". For a Christian to think that already happened long ago boggles my mind. Are you even excited about the future return of Christ? I don't get the sense that you are. To you, it seems to be just some event that's mentioned just one time in scripture.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Again, this is not a contradiction. Please try to understand what I'm saying. All those who were dead in Christ at that time were resurrected together. Just as Paul said would happen. And since that time nobody has died in Christ, at least not in the sense that they went from life to death, because now when we "die" we are immediately born again into our heavenly bodies, never tasting death.

I'm not denying or contradicting anything that Paul said. You just don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying for some reason.

I completely understand what you're saying and I disagree with it. So, the issue is not that I'm not understanding you, it's that you can't seem to grasp the concept of someone disagreeing with you on this and not seeing this as you do.

You say "there have been plenty in Christ who have died since then" but for that to be true, they would literally have to be dead right now, not in heaven. Do you believe those people are actually dead right now? Or do you believe they went to heaven when they died?

Their bodies are dead, not their souls and spirits, which are in heaven. You don't seem to differentiate between the body, soul and spirit for some reason and I don't get that. Scripture is clear that we all have a body, soul and a spirit. Do you deny that? Or do you just deny that a person's soul and/or spirit can't be alive without a body, which scripture never says?

How do you interpret this passage:

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Philippians 1:20 I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far.

These passages indicate that being in the body means we are away from the Lord, which means we are on earth instead of the location where He is, which is the third heaven/paradise. They also indicate that being apart from the body results in being present with the Lord. That means the other parts of us, besides our bodies (soul and spirit), go to be with the Lord when we die. And notice that Paul talks about his death here. Yet, your understanding of what Jesus said would indicate that Paul would never die. Was Paul not aware of what Jesus taught about death or did he understand it better than you?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Christ rose first, then he returned in 70 AD, resurrected all those who were dead in Christ at that time, and since then all those who belong to him are immediately resurrected upon death. How is this any different than what Paul said?

Are you even trying to see my point? You only quoted part of what I said and then are trying to say that's what you're saying.

Why did you not quote the part where I said that Paul was giving the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23? He mentioned that Christ's was first and next in order were those who belong to Christ at His coming. That's it. No mention of anyone else being resurrected unto bodily immortality except Christ and those who belong to Him at His coming. If His coming was in 70 AD, then why would Paul not have also mentioned those who would be resurrected unto bodily immortality after that when his whole point was to show the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality? Why would he only talk about that topic going up to 70 AD and stop there? That makes no sense.

You act like almost nothing significant worth mentioning in scripture would happen after 70 AD. Do you even think scripture mentions anything at all that would happen after 70 AD except for mentioning Christ's return in Acts 1:11?

 

[DavidPT]

Because Jesus also said that we would not taste death, which requires that we are transformed into our spiritual bodies immediately upon death, so that we move from one life straight into the next. That to me sounds like a resurrection. So putting all of those events in the first century makes the most sense to me. It just makes all the puzzle pieces fit.

That is already a contradiction right there if one is even dead for but a split second, they are still dead for that split second, thus they have tasted of death, obviously.

If someone who is alive and remain are raptured though, maybe then that might technically equal never tasting of death. What you are referring to is not meaning the rapture, though.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That is already a contradiction right there if one is even dead for but a split second, they are still dead for that split second, thus they have tasted of death, obviously.

Exactly. I made this same point to him as well, but seemingly to no avail. This is the problem with interpreting things too literally sometimes. It leads to drawing conclusions that defy reality.

 

[Freedm]

You are not speaking correctly, actually `nonsense.`(Jesus is Israel)

Israel is not a part of the Godhead.
Israel did not die on a cross. etc, ec..

The word `son` is a relationship.

Israel is God`s `son` for He created that nation.
Jesus is God`s Son, as being the one who is the expressed image of the Father. (Heb. 1: 3)

The two are distinct.

Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son.

 

[Freedm]

Their bodies are dead, not their souls and spirits, which are in heaven. You don't seem to differentiate between the body, soul and spirit for some reason and I don't get that.

At least not in the same way that you do.

Scripture is clear that we all have a body, soul and a spirit. Do you deny that? Or do you just deny that a person's soul and/or spirit can't be alive without a body, which scripture never says?

Scripture is actually a little bit unclear, which is why so many people such as yourself are confused about it. Our spirit is our life. We are a body. A body with life is a soul. A body without life, is a dead body.

When Jesus died and he was said to "give up the spirit" you probably think that means he left his body and went somewhere else in the form of a spirit. Which would be absurd because that would mean he never died. If he is a spirit, then he never died. He just left his body, yet our faith tells us that he died and he defeated death. As Paul says, if Jesus didn't die then our faith is in vain. And we can only say he died if he was a body, and his life left him. That is in fact exactly what happened. His life literally left him (which means he did not continue on in spirit form) and he actually literally really honest to goodness DIED. That means he had no life. That's what death is. No life. When it says he "gave up his spirit" it means he gave up his life because spirit is life.

And if we are all spirits, as you believe, then we're already immortal. So what are you waiting for? Why do you look forward to the resurrection if you're already an immortal spirit? You're probably thinking that the resurrection means that our spirits are "reunited with our bodies". Am I right? Well, how absurd is that? For what possible reason would we want to "reunite with our bodies" if we are already spirits. Why would we want that? We wouldn't. It's absurd. We are not destined to live eternity in these old corruptible flesh and blood bodies. We are destined to live in heavenly bodies; ie we are destined to live as spirits.

Do you suppose this body is a vessel for us to live in? Why would a spirit need a vessel? Why? There is no reason. Spirits are superior to flesh and blood in every way. So on the one hand you think we are already spirits, yet on the other hand you think we long to be "reunited" with our flesh and blood bodies. None of that makes any sense.

How do you interpret this passage:

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

When Paul speaks of "the body" he's speaking of the body of believers, ie. the church.

That means the other parts of us, besides our bodies (soul and spirit), go to be with the Lord when we die. And notice that Paul talks about his death here.

This is where you're going off the rails (in my opinion). There are no "other parts of us". We are only a soul, a living body. We do not have spirits living inside of us, rather we will be transformed into spirits at the resurrection.

And please explain to me what you think a "soul" is as compared to a "spirit". You clearly think these are two different things because you think we're made up of three "parts". So I'm pretty sure I know what you think a spirit is, but what do you think a soul is? Do you think all three of these parts share a single consciousness? Or when they separate at death they all have their own consciousness? Do you believe you get split into three separate entities upon death? One dead and two alive? How does that work exactly?

In any case this whole notion of having a spirit living inside of us is really non-sensical if you think about it. You would have to then ask yourself, "are you a body, or are you a spirit dwelling inside a body?" And if you are a spirit (or you have a spirit - whatever that means) then what's the point of the resurrection? The answer; there is no point because a spirit is already immortal. Yet at the same time you say you're not immortal yet. Well, which is it? Are you a spirit, or are you not? You see? Nonsense.

Yet, your understanding of what Jesus said would indicate that Paul would never die. Was Paul not aware of what Jesus taught about death or did he understand it better than you?

I think Paul understood it better than you.

 

[Freedm]

That is already a contradiction right there if one is even dead for but a split second, they are still dead for that split second, thus they have tasted of death, obviously.

If someone who is alive and remain are raptured though, maybe then that might technically equal never tasting of death. What you are referring to is not meaning the rapture, though.

It's not a contradiction, but it is hard to say it using the English language. And if you think it's a contradiction then you would have to say Jesus contradicted himself too because he said "you will never taste death" and he also said "you will live even though you die". So you can either be anal about this and shout "CONTRADICTION!" or you can be reasonable and realize that this is simply a way of saying that upon "death" (for lack of a better word) you move from one life right into the next, thereby never being in the state of death. I really don't think this is so hard to understand, but you're all just being difficult for the sake of argument.

 

[Freedm]

Are you even trying to see my point? You only quoted part of what I said and then are trying to say that's what you're saying.

I didn't quote the rest because I didn't think it was necessary, but apparently I need to be even more clear about this. And believe me, I see your point better than you think because I used to agree with you 100%. I've been where you are and so I know why you believe what you believe. I've just had an eye opening moment (or two) since then that you haven't had yet.

If His coming was in 70 AD, then why would Paul not have also mentioned those who would be resurrected unto bodily immortality after that when his whole point was to show the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality? Why would he only talk about that topic going up to 70 AD and stop there? That makes no sense.

Perhaps the reason he "stopped there" is because at that point nobody else was dead except those who would be resurrected at his coming. Although I do agree that it would've been more clear if he'd added something to the effect of, "afterwards all those who are in Christ will never taste death" but perhaps he thought it was implied or perhaps he didn't mention it because he was only speaking to those there who had expressed concern about those who had died in Christ up until that point, and so he only addressed their concerns and wasn't considering the concerns you or I might have 2000 years later.

You would really have to ask Paul why he wasn't more clear on that point for our benefit but if you think this omission of his somehow proves that I'm wrong, you're gonna have to do a lot better than that.

 

[Timtofly]

It doesn't matter if the whole world was inhabited. What matters is what Jesus was referring to, and he was referring to the Roman world. I'm sorry if that doesn't jive with what you've always believed. I guess you learned something today.

Oh, and just in case you think I'm making it up, here's the source: Strong's Greek: 3625. οἰκουμένη (oikoumené) -- the inhabited earth (biblehub.com)

And here's the lexicon for Matthew 24:14: Matthew 24:14 Lexicon: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. (biblehub.com)

Not even the Romans thought their empire was the whole earth or world. Why would any one think that?

 

[Timtofly]

At least not in the same way that you do.

Scripture is actually a little bit unclear, which is why so many people such as yourself are confused about it. Our spirit is our life. We are a body. A body with life is a soul. A body without life, is a dead body.

When Jesus died and he was said to "give up the spirit" you probably think that means he left his body and went somewhere else in the form of a spirit. Which would be absurd because that would mean he never died. If he is a spirit, then he never died. He just left his body, yet our faith tells us that he died and he defeated death. As Paul says, if Jesus didn't die then our faith is in vain. And we can only say he died if he was a body, and his life left him. That is in fact exactly what happened. His life literally left him (which means he did not continue on in spirit form) and he actually literally really honest to goodness DIED. That means he had no life. That's what death is. No life. When it says he "gave up his spirit" it means he gave up his life because spirit is life.

And if we are all spirits, as you believe, then we're already immortal. So what are you waiting for? Why do you look forward to the resurrection if you're already an immortal spirit? You're probably thinking that the resurrection means that our spirits are "reunited with our bodies". Am I right? Well, how absurd is that? For what possible reason would we want to "reunite with our bodies" if we are already spirits. Why would we want that? We wouldn't. It's absurd. We are not destined to live eternity in these old corruptible flesh and blood bodies. We are destined to live in heavenly bodies; ie we are destined to live as spirits.

Do you suppose this body is a vessel for us to live in? Why would a spirit need a vessel? Why? There is no reason. Spirits are superior to flesh and blood in every way. So on the one hand you think we are already spirits, yet on the other hand you think we long to be "reunited" with our flesh and blood bodies. None of that makes any sense.


When Paul speaks of "the body" he's speaking of the body of believers, ie. the church.


This is where you're going off the rails (in my opinion). There are no "other parts of us". We are only a soul, a living body. We do not have spirits living inside of us, rather we will be transformed into spirits at the resurrection.

And please explain to me what you think a "soul" is as compared to a "spirit". You clearly think these are two different things because you think we're made up of three "parts". So I'm pretty sure I know what you think a spirit is, but what do you think a soul is? Do you think all three of these parts share a single consciousness? Or when they separate at death they all have their own consciousness? Do you believe you get split into three separate entities upon death? One dead and two alive? How does that work exactly?

In any case this whole notion of having a spirit living inside of us is really non-sensical if you think about it. You would have to then ask yourself, "are you a body, or are you a spirit dwelling inside a body?" And if you are a spirit (or you have a spirit - whatever that means) then what's the point of the resurrection? The answer; there is no point because a spirit is already immortal. Yet at the same time you say you're not immortal yet. Well, which is it? Are you a spirit, or are you not? You see? Nonsense.

I think Paul understood it better than you.

Genesis 5:3

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

We are not currently in the image of God with all 3 parts. We are from Seth. We are in the image of fallen Adam. Adam was in the image of God. A soul, an incorruptible body, and an outer spirit. We are now only a soul and a corruptible body. Our spirit has been separated from us. We cannot shine like a bright light, like Jesus did on the mount of Transfiguration. John points out at the 5th Seal, these souls will be given a robe of white. That is the symbolism for our spirit a bright light to return to us and wrap around our incorruptible body.

This corruptible body, Paul calls a tent returns to dust. Immediately at physical death the soul goes from this tent to a permanent body made by God. It is no longer flesh and blood from Adam through Seth. It is from God, a permanent incorruptible body. The corruptible body is dead. The incorruptible body is alive and permanent. Will not change, nor die. Of course God reserves the right to take even that life away, since God is God and no one else besides God can make those decisions.

The first physical bodily resurrection was at the Cross. Those firstfruits were the bodies leaving Abraham's bosom to enter Paradise. The Cross opened Paradise back up, and the redeemed can now enter. We have our incorruptible bodies restored. The spirit will be restored at one time to the whole body of redeemed at the Second Coming. The 5th and 6th Seal go hand in hand. Only at the Second Coming will the redeemed be fully restored soul, body, and spirit. That is the full image of God. That is why Paul says this corruptible body must put on incorruption (physical body), and then we put on immortality (our spirit, a light). We are a soul which is God's image. We have a body which is Christ's image. We have a spirit which is the image of the Holy Spirit. Right now in place of our spirit, we have the Holy Spirit inside, as earnest or credit until we are glorified.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

At least not in the same way that you do.

Scripture is actually a little bit unclear, which is why so many people such as yourself are confused about it. Our spirit is our life. We are a body. A body with life is a soul. A body without life, is a dead body.

I believe you are the one who is confused and I think you are VERY confused.

When Jesus died and he was said to "give up the spirit" you probably think that means he left his body and went somewhere else in the form of a spirit.

Of course He did. He went to paradise, which is where He told the thief on the cross he would be that day as well (Luke 23:43).

Which would be absurd because that would mean he never died.

It's absurd for you to not believe that Jesus would be in paradise the day He physically/bodily died even though that's what He said in Luke 23:43-46.

If he is a spirit, then he never died.

His body died. Your inability to differentiate between the body, soul and spirit is your downfall. You have no understanding of these things at all.

He just left his body, yet our faith tells us that he died and he defeated death. As Paul says, if Jesus didn't die then our faith is in vain. And we can only say he died if he was a body, and his life left him. That is in fact exactly what happened. His life literally left him (which means he did not continue on in spirit form) and he actually literally really honest to goodness DIED. That means he had no life. That's what death is. No life. When it says he "gave up his spirit" it means he gave up his life because spirit is life.

Nonsense. He told the thief on the cross that he would be with Him that day in paradise. You think they were dead in paradise? God is a God of the living, not the dead. I don't think you know what that means. His spirit went to paradise (third heaven). Accept it instead of believing this unbiblical nonsense that you've bought into.

And if we are all spirits, as you believe, then we're already immortal. So what are you waiting for? Why do you look forward to the resurrection if you're already an immortal spirit?'

Because I don't yet have an immortal body. This isn't as hard as you're making it out to be.

You're probably thinking that the resurrection means that our spirits are "reunited with our bodies". Am I right?

Of course. It will be our changed bodies, not the bodies like we have now. Paul called them spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15:42-44).

Well, how absurd is that?

Not at all.

For what possible reason would we want to "reunite with our bodies" if we are already spirits. Why would we want that? We wouldn't. It's absurd. We are not destined to live eternity in these old corruptible flesh and blood bodies. We are destined to live in heavenly bodies; ie we are destined to live as spirits.

What in the world are you talking about?! When did I say that the dead in Christ will unite with their corruptible flesh and blood bodies? Are you kidding? No, scripture says our bodies will be CHANGED and will then be incorruptible. We will have spiritual bodies. You say we'll live as spirits, but spirits don't have bodies. You are so confused.

Do you suppose this body is a vessel for us to live in? Why would a spirit need a vessel? Why? There is no reason. Spirits are superior to flesh and blood in every way. So on the one hand you think we are already spirits, yet on the other hand you think we long to be "reunited" with our flesh and blood bodies. None of that makes any sense.

I don't care if it makes sense to you or not. It's what scripture teaches. Can a spirit eat food and drink water? Can a spirit play sports or do anything we use our bodies to do? I don't get your point of view at all.

When Paul speaks of "the body" he's speaking of the body of believers, ie. the church.

Not in 2 Cor 5:6-8. You have to be kidding. I've never seen anyone interpret him to be talking about the body of believers in that passage before. Do you know of anyone else who interprets that passage the way you do? He's clearly talking about his human mortal body and not the body of believers there.

This is where you're going off the rails (in my opinion).

You couldn't possibly be more off the rails than what you are about this (in my opinion).

There are no "other parts of us". We are only a soul, a living body. We do not have spirits living inside of us, rather we will be transformed into spirits at the resurrection.

Show me the scripture which teaches that. Good luck.

And please explain to me what you think a "soul" is as compared to a "spirit". You clearly think these are two different things because you think we're made up of three "parts".

Is the following verse in your Bible or not?

1 Thess 5: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.

So I'm pretty sure I know what you think a spirit is, but what do you think a soul is? Do you think all three of these parts share a single consciousness? Or when they separate at death they all have their own consciousness? Do you believe you get split into three separate entities upon death? One dead and two alive? How does that work exactly?

I can't say that I know exactly how that all works. I don't have a vision into that realm like John was given when he wrote the book of Revelation. He saw the souls of the dead. But you seem to think that there isn't such thing as a soul. Go figure. If you want to deny clear scripture, then that's your choice.

What I can say is that scripture clearly tells us that we have a body, a soul and a spirit. Hebrews 4:12 that the word of God can even divide soul and spirit, which implies that the soul and spirit are different parts of us even though they are apparently nearly inseparable. If you don't want to accept that the body, soul and spirit are separate parts of a human being, then it shouldn't even matter to you what the exact description of each is because you don't even accept that they exist in the first place.

In any case this whole notion of having a spirit living inside of us is really non-sensical if you think about it. You would have to then ask yourself, "are you a body, or are you a spirit dwelling inside a body?" And if you are a spirit (or you have a spirit - whatever that means) then what's the point of the resurrection? The answer; there is no point because a spirit is already immortal. Yet at the same time you say you're not immortal yet. Well, which is it? Are you a spirit, or are you not? You see? Nonsense.

Can a spirit manipulate physical objects like we can with bodies? I truly don't get your point of view at all. Your opinions are nonsense because they contradict scripture. Spiritual things aren't always going to make sense to us as weak, fallible human beings. You'll understand better some day. Just because you don't get it now doesn't mean you should reject it. It's taught in scripture.

I think Paul understood it better than you.

I think I understand Paul better than you.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I didn't quote the rest because I didn't think it was necessary, but apparently I need to be even more clear about this. And believe me, I see your point better than you think because I used to agree with you 100%. I've been where you are and so I know why you believe what you believe. I've just had an eye opening moment (or two) since then that you haven't had yet.

Let me be very clear. I will NEVER have such an eye opening moment because what I currently believe is true. You were duped at some point and have abandoned the truth about this topic.

Perhaps the reason he "stopped there" is because at that point nobody else was dead except those who would be resurrected at his coming.

Do you actually think that's a convincing argument?

Although I do agree that it would've been more clear if he'd added something to the effect of, "afterwards all those who are in Christ will never taste death" but perhaps he thought it was implied or perhaps he didn't mention it because he was only speaking to those there who had expressed concern about those who had died in Christ up until that point, and so he only addressed their concerns and wasn't considering the concerns you or I might have 2000 years later.

Your arguments here are very weak, in my opinion. Not convincing at all.

You would really have to ask Paul why he wasn't more clear on that point for our benefit but if you think this omission of his somehow proves that I'm wrong, you're gonna have to do a lot better than that.

I believe Paul was quite clear in 1 Cor 15:20-23. It's only you who thinks he wasn't. It's clear to me that your mind is made up on this, so there isn't anything I can say to change your mind. So be it. Agree to disagree. I don't have anything more to say about this topic to you.

 

[Freedm]

Not even the Romans thought their empire was the whole earth or world. Why would any one think that?

It doesn't matter why. It only matters that this is a fact. Jesus was referring to the entire Roman world. Accept it or deny it. Your choice.