20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,836
1,311
sg
✟216,933.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you would care to study the NT you will see it. Colossians 2:14 plainly and unambiguously declares, that Christ's atonement resulted in the “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

The Greek word for “Blotting out” here is exaleiphō (eks-ä-lā'-fō) meaning: ‘to wipe off, wipe away, to obliterate, erase, wipe out, blot out’

These old covenant ordinances (rites and rituals) pertaining to the ceremonial law were obliterated at the cross.

For those that still anticipate the renaissance of the old abolished ordinances we need to ask: When did (or will) the “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances” occur? From this passage it is clear, Christ “took it out of the way” by “nailing it to his cross.” These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

Colossians 2:16-17 tells us: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

The Greek word translated “holyday” here is heorte meaning feast or festival. Of 27 mentions of this word in the normally precise KJV, it is interpreted “feast” in all of them apart from here.

New American Standard interprets: “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day -- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

The Living Bible says, “So don't let anyone criticize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewish holidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these were only temporary rules that ended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing-of Christ himself.”

Paul is saying here that the old covenant feasts and festivals simply served as types and shadows of things that were to come. They looked forward to the new covenant arrangement and the reality and substance in Christ. The Jews of Ezekiel’s day and Zechariah’s day would never have understood this.

Colossians 2:20-22 finally sums up the sums up the biblical position today: “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?”

This is not talking about the moral law, it is talking about the ceremonial law. It is a redundant system. Christ took the whole old system away. The old Mosaic ceremonial law is completely gone. It is useless.

Christianity took us away from the old Mosaic ceremonial law completely. Those who argue for a return to the old system fail to see that it has been rendered obsolete through the new covenant.

Hebrews 7:18-19 makes clear: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

This word “disannulling” is taken from the Greek word athetesis meaning cancellation.

The phrase “weakness and unprofitableness” used here to describe the old abolished system actually reads asthenes kai anopheles literally meaning: feeble and impotent useless and unprofitable.

It is hard to believe that Christian scholars would promote the return, on the new earth of all places, of such a hopeless discarded arrangement.

When Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final substitution for the sinner. Ephesians 2:13-15 also says, “now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; Having abolished (katargeo) in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

The Greek word katargeo is used here to describe the fate that befell the old Mosaic ritualistic system relating to “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” This word means: ‘bring to nought’, ‘none effect’, and ‘abolish’. Jesus did away with any need or reliance upon the outward keeping of the old covenant religious system. The cross fulfilled forever God’s demand for a perfect once-for-all sacrifice.

Hebrews 7:16 tells us that Christ “is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.”

The whole context here is the removal and the replacement of the old covenant priesthood, the writer of the Hebrews presents Christ as heavens eternal replacement. What is more, we can see that this priesthood cannot pass from one to another, it is not transferrable. No other can appropriate this title or share in the function of the position, Christ alone holds that sacred high priestly office. Christ is the only real and perfect high priest today. He is the ultimate and final High Priest of the redeemed of God.

The animal sacrifices were done away forever. Hebrews 10:4-12 explains, For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

When Jesus died on the cross He instituted the new covenant which allowed the believer to access God directly. No longer would the bulk of God’s people be excluded from the presence of the Lord by a veil. No longer did they need an earthly priest to represent them before God. They were now free to approach Him personally by simple faith. Christ removed the partition between God and His people when He laid down His life for our sins. He became man’s final high priest.

The curtain between the believer and God was eternally torn apart. The separation was removed. Matthew 27:51 says, “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent.” This veil was representative of Christ’s physical body. It was torn apart in order to secure eternal redemption for God’s people. It is only through Jesus that we can approach God. The way to salvation can only be found in Jesus.

Are you answering any of my questions in that post that you are replying to?

I will just repeat one for you

Why did James still insist on Jews keeping the Law in Acts 21:24?
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,836
1,311
sg
✟216,933.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The New Covenant will be made between the Lord and His faithful people. Those Christians who stood firm in their faith during all the graphically prophesied events to happen before Jesus Returns.

Isaiah 61:1-2a The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me. He has sent me to announce good news to the humble, to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and to proclaim a year of the Lords favor, Luke 4:16-21

Isaiah 61:2b-3...and a Day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, to give then garlands instead of ashes, oil of gladness, instead of mourners tears and a garment of splendor for the distressed. They will be called trees of righteousness, planted by the Lord for His adornment.

Isaiah 61:4-11 Buildings long in ruin and desolate will be restored and rebuilt. Foreigners will serve you, caring for your flocks and vines, but you will be called priests of the Lord [the Christians; Revelation 5:9-10] and the wealth of the nations will be yours. Because My people have received insults and shame in double measure, they will receive in their own Land, wealth in double measure.

For I, the Lord love justice and hate injustice, I shall give My people a sure reward and make an everlasting Covenant with them. Their posterity will be renowned among the nations, they will be seen as a people blessed by the Lord.

Let us rejoice in the Lord with all our hearts. From Him has come victory and deliverance. His people, robed in beauty are like a garden full of flowers. The Lord will make His victory and renown known to the nations. Reference: REB, NIV, KJV. Some verses abridged.

So you also agree that the New Covenant has not begun yet, since you wrote your first paragraph?
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,672
2,491
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟293,055.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
So you also agree that the New Covenant has not begun yet, since you wrote your first paragraph?
Yes. It is plain to anyone with an open mind, that the tenets of the New Covenant remain to be fulfilled. Hebrews 8:10-12, Jeremiah 31:31-34

Jeremiah 31:6 For the day will come when the watchmen on Ephraim's hills will call. Come let us go up to Zion, to the Lord our God. Jeremiah 50:4-5
Ephraim: the leader of the ten Northern tribes. All the faithful peoples of Israel, plus those grafted in will gather in all of the holy Land.

THEN the Lord will cut a new Covenant with them. Jeremiah 32:37-41
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Guojing
Upvote 0

ShineyDays2

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2018
432
216
81
Murphy
✟50,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What in the world are you talking about? Do you think we should just exchange quotes from other people back and forth? Is that the purpose of this forum?
This is just plain drama. My post n #3243 was simply a REPLY to a poster. It in of itself was a form of a comment. In that one I preferred to let higher authorities speak for me.

I have seen lists of the Early Church Fathers and Commentators in other posts on other forums and no one gets upset. Occasional posts like those should be welcomed. - not condemned.

In my earlier post, I posted those ECH's that did seem to interpret Mt 27:52-53 in the manner in which Matthew was inspired to write it and dismissed those commentators and ECH's that inserted the word "Jerusalem" into the text that just was not there. If anyone wished to post otherwise, let them post their own research. What I posted of the ECH's obviously indicated what my positions was. It is because I saw so much controversy about the Matthew 27 text I thought it was appropriate to post what many, but not all, of the early church fathers had to say about it so that posters would understand that it was not a NEW exposition of the text by myself. To me, when a thought gets out of hand, go to those theologians who are more learned than myself. The post should have been seen as useful even if it did not have my comment added.

But what happened? I was told not to post only research and that I had to post my opinion along with it. Yet previously I had posted two list of just Bible verses with no comment on those. One was simply a list of all NT verses that uses the word "temple" for a building and the Greek for that list of verses. The other was of "temple" for a figurative different Greek word which changed the thought of the text for the second list of verses. They both were was given several positive results.

To me, it is wrong to be telling a poster what to post, (as long as long as that post is within this websites guidelines) and then telling them they must attach an opinion in every post. That to me is censorship.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is just plain drama. My post n #3243 was simply a REPLY to a poster. It in of itself was a form of a comment. In that one I preferred to let higher authorities speak for me.

I have seen lists of the Early Church Fathers and Commentators in other posts on other forums and no one gets upset. Occasional posts like those should be welcomed. - not condemned.

In my earlier post, I posted those ECH's that did seem to interpret Mt 27:52-53 in the manner in which Matthew was inspired to write it and dismissed those commentators and ECH's that inserted the word "Jerusalem" into the text that just was not there. If anyone wished to post otherwise, let them post their own research. What I posted of the ECH's obviously indicated what my positions was. It is because I saw so much controversy about the Matthew 27 text I thought it was appropriate to post what many, but not all, of the early church fathers had to say about it so that posters would understand that it was not a NEW exposition of the text by myself. To me, when a thought gets out of hand, go to those theologians who are more learned than myself. The post should have been seen as useful even if it did not have my comment added.

But what happened? I was told not to post only research and that I had to post my opinion along with it. Yet previously I had posted two list of just Bible verses with no comment on those. One was simply a list of all NT verses that uses the word "temple" for a building and the Greek for that list of verses. The other was of "temple" for a figurative different Greek word which changed the thought of the text for the second list of verses. They both were was given several positive results.

To me, it is wrong to be telling a poster what to post, (as long as long as that post is within this websites guidelines) and then telling them they must attach an opinion in every post. That to me is censorship.

I enjoy your posts so please do not be discouraged.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you answering any of my questions in that post that you are replying to?

I will just repeat one for you

Why did James still insist on Jews keeping the Law in Acts 21:24?

I showed that the old was removed at the cross and the new introduced. There is nothing that relates that to AD70.
 
Upvote 0

Freedm

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
740
172
42
Austin TX
✟40,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
I already addressed that. I will add: a corpse does not normally vanish from sight immediately upon death until it is put into the grave and buried. But corruption, decay, degeneration has already kicked in. It is lifeless. It is powerless. It has no function. That is how the old covenant was between AD30 and AD70.
Cool analogy but it doesn't really work because the law was still being practiced up to 70 AD. A corpse can't do that. It may have been meaningless to God, but it was still the predominant religious system in Judaism. It didn't die at the cross. It died when the temple was destroyed.
 
Upvote 0

Freedm

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
740
172
42
Austin TX
✟40,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
You talk about understanding both passages (Colossians 2:13-14 and Hebrews 8:13) together, but how does your interpretation of Hebrews 8:13 line up with what is said in Colossians 2:14? I don't believe it does.

Yes, we should make sense of both passages, not just the one we prefer. For reference, I'll list them both here.

Colossians 2:14
having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

This is how I see it: At the cross Jesus removed the bond, that is the penalty for breaking the law and in doing so made the old covenant obsolete / useless, but it was always a two sided relationship. God provided the covenant, men followed it.

When God said "this covenant is no longer in effect" men didn't listen. It's kind of like breaking up with a girl but she still keeps coming over. In order for the covenant to actually disappear (not just become useless) both parties had to sever ties with it. So destroying the temple in 70 AD is like the ex-boyfriend changing the locks on the door. That was when it was truly over.
 
Upvote 0

Freedm

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
740
172
42
Austin TX
✟40,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
When exactly did I ever say otherwise?
When did you say otherwise, regarding a spiritual body is still a body?

Maybe I misunderstood but you said: "How are you coming to that conclusion? John said in Revelation 6:9 and Revelation 20:4 that he saw the souls of those who had been physically killed, so how are you coming to the conclusion that they had bodies?"

So it sounds to me like you're questioning the fact that they had bodies because John saw the "souls" of those who had been physically killed, implying that a soul is not a body. If you agree that a soul is a body, then why would you question whether they had bodies?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freedm

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
740
172
42
Austin TX
✟40,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Where does scripture teach this? I'm not going to be convinced of anything by just your opinions. Show me the scripture which teaches what you're saying.

Again, what scripture are these claims based on?

Yes, thanks for asking. We should definitely be able to point to scriptures as the source for our opinions. For reference I'll repost my claim here:

You either have an earthly body and you live on earth, or you have a heavenly (spiritual) body and you live in heaven. If John saw people in heaven, then they have their heavenly bodies already. They've been resurrected.

And you want to know where I'm getting this from? I'm getting this from 1 Corinthians 15 and John 8:51.

1 Corinthians 15
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

Paul is talking about two different kinds of bodies, and he explains that we begin with the natural body and then after that we move to the spiritual body. He never talks about at third type of body, and he never talks about a state of life without a body. He never talks about any time or type of existence in between the two bodies. He never talks about being a spirit that is not a body. The only type of spirit he talks about is a spiritual body.

Now I understand that omitting something in his speech does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist (though it would be extremely strange for him to omit such a thing considering he's explaining what happens after death), but when I combine Paul's speech with what Jesus said in John 8:51 I can come to no other conclusion. There is no time between the two bodies.

John 8:51
Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

So given that we will never see death, but we will have a spiritual body, that tells me there is no time in between the two types of bodies because any time in between the two bodies would have to be considered death, because a resurrection can only come after death. This is why I believe in the instant resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You think Jesus Christ cannot call each soul home?
Of course He could if He wanted to, but scripture teaches that the bodies of all believers will be changed at the same time which will be when the last trumpet sounds at Christ's second coming. The bottom line here is that you are not accepting what Paul taught in passages like 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. Those all teach that all of the dead in Christ will be resurrected at the same time.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When did you say otherwise, regarding a spiritual body is still a body?

Maybe I misunderstood but you said: "How are you coming to that conclusion? John said in Revelation 6:9 and Revelation 20:4 that he saw the souls of those who had been physically killed, so how are you coming to the conclusion that they had bodies?"

So it sounds to me like you're questioning the fact that they had bodies because John saw the "souls" of those who had been physically killed, implying that a soul is not a body. If you agree that a soul is a body, then why would you question whether they had bodies?
A soul is not a body. The term "soul" can refer to a whole person, but that isn't the context of those verses. Each person has a spirit, soul and a body. John saw the souls of people who had been physically/bodily killed.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

If you believe the NC is for today, why do we need pastors to teach us to know the Lord?
We don't need pastors to teach us that. The Holy Spirit can teach us that directly and we can learn that through reading God's Word for ourselves. I don't know the Lord because of anything a pastor taught me.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is just plain drama. My post n #3243 was simply a REPLY to a poster. It in of itself was a form of a comment. In that one I preferred to let higher authorities speak for me.

I have seen lists of the Early Church Fathers and Commentators in other posts on other forums and no one gets upset. Occasional posts like those should be welcomed. - not condemned.

In my earlier post, I posted those ECH's that did seem to interpret Mt 27:52-53 in the manner in which Matthew was inspired to write it and dismissed those commentators and ECH's that inserted the word "Jerusalem" into the text that just was not there. If anyone wished to post otherwise, let them post their own research. What I posted of the ECH's obviously indicated what my positions was. It is because I saw so much controversy about the Matthew 27 text I thought it was appropriate to post what many, but not all, of the early church fathers had to say about it so that posters would understand that it was not a NEW exposition of the text by myself. To me, when a thought gets out of hand, go to those theologians who are more learned than myself. The post should have been seen as useful even if it did not have my comment added.

But what happened? I was told not to post only research and that I had to post my opinion along with it. Yet previously I had posted two list of just Bible verses with no comment on those. One was simply a list of all NT verses that uses the word "temple" for a building and the Greek for that list of verses. The other was of "temple" for a figurative different Greek word which changed the thought of the text for the second list of verses. They both were was given several positive results.

To me, it is wrong to be telling a poster what to post, (as long as long as that post is within this websites guidelines) and then telling them they must attach an opinion in every post. That to me is censorship.
I think you're misunderstanding the issue I had. I find that the ECFs and other Bible commentators like Matthew Henry are sometimes be difficult to follow because of they old way of speaking. I didn't understand what was being said in what you quoted from the 2 commentators, so I thought it would've been nice if you gave your understanding of what they had written so I could see why you were quoting them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Cool analogy but it doesn't really work because the law was still being practiced up to 70 AD. A corpse can't do that. It may have been meaningless to God, but it was still the predominant religious system in Judaism. It didn't die at the cross. It died when the temple was destroyed.
What God thinks is what matters. Just because some people didn't recognize that the old covenant law was made obsolete by Christ doesn't mean the old covenant law was still in effect. God decides if it's in effect or not, not man.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, we should make sense of both passages, not just the one we prefer. For reference, I'll list them both here.

Colossians 2:14
having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

This is how I see it: At the cross Jesus removed the bond, that is the penalty for breaking the law and in doing so made the old covenant obsolete / useless, but it was always a two sided relationship. God provided the covenant, men followed it.

When God said "this covenant is no longer in effect" men didn't listen.
If God says it's no longer in effect, then it's no longer in effect regardless of whether men listen to Him or not.

It's kind of like breaking up with a girl but she still keeps coming over. In order for the covenant to actually disappear (not just become useless) both parties had to sever ties with it. So destroying the temple in 70 AD is like the ex-boyfriend changing the locks on the door. That was when it was truly over.
I completely disagree. It was over when God said it was over and it was over when Jesus said "It is finished". The veil/curtain of the temple tearing in two signified that the old covenant was over and the new covenant had been ushered in through the shed blood of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, thanks for asking. We should definitely be able to point to scriptures as the source for our opinions. For reference I'll repost my claim here:

You either have an earthly body and you live on earth, or you have a heavenly (spiritual) body and you live in heaven. If John saw people in heaven, then they have their heavenly bodies already. They've been resurrected.

And you want to know where I'm getting this from? I'm getting this from 1 Corinthians 15 and John 8:51.

1 Corinthians 15
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

Paul is talking about two different kinds of bodies, and he explains that we begin with the natural body and then after that we move to the spiritual body. He never talks about at third type of body, and he never talks about a state of life without a body. He never talks about any time or type of existence in between the two bodies. He never talks about being a spirit that is not a body.
Maybe not in that passage but he certainly implied it here:

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.

The only type of spirit he talks about is a spiritual body.

Now I understand that omitting something in his speech does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist
Exactly.

(though it would be extremely strange for him to omit such a thing considering he's explaining what happens after death),
Not when his point is to talk about the different types of bodies there are. He was focused on the body there, so I think it makes perfect sense that he only talked about the body and not the soul or spirit in that passage.

but when I combine Paul's speech with what Jesus said in John 8:51 I can come to no other conclusion. There is no time between the two bodies.

John 8:51
Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

So given that we will never see death, but we will have a spiritual body, that tells me there is no time in between the two types of bodies because any time in between the two bodies would have to be considered death, because a resurrection can only come after death. This is why I believe in the instant resurrection.
Obviously, unless Christ returns first, we will die physically, so He's not talking about never seeing death in any sense. He's talking about never experiencing the second death there since only unbelievers will experience the second death when they are cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15).
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Cool analogy but it doesn't really work because the law was still being practiced up to 70 AD. A corpse can't do that. It may have been meaningless to God, but it was still the predominant religious system in Judaism. It didn't die at the cross. It died when the temple was destroyed.

Please look back on the biblical evidence we have presented rather than defaulting to what you have been taught. The old died when Christ died. The new replaced it. The Scriptures testify (before AD70) that the old covenant sacrificial system is “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:2 confirms they “ceased to be offered.”
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freedm

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
740
172
42
Austin TX
✟40,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
A soul is not a body. The term "soul" can refer to a whole person, but that isn't the context of those verses. Each person has a spirit, soul and a body. John saw the souls of people who had been physically/bodily killed.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
A soul is a living body according to Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I acknowledge the verse you're quoting from 1 Thessalonians but it can not contradict Genesis 2:7 therefore it must be misunderstood, keeping in mind that Genesis was written in Hebrew and 1 Thessalonians in Greek.

The word "spirit" for example, is translated from the Greek word pneuma which means "wind, spirit, breath" which is interesting because in Genesis 2:7 it is the breath of life that turned Adam into a soul. In other words, "spirit" usually is referring to life, as in when Jesus gave up his "spirit/life" on the cross. It is the breath of life he gave up, meaning he actually died. He did not simply leave his body, because that would not be death, and death was the whole point of the cross was it not?

And the word "soul" in 1 Thess 5:23 is translated from the Greek word psuché which can also mean breath of life, or it can refer to a person's identity, individuality, or life as in how they conduct themselves. This is why we get the English word psychology derived from psuché.

So those two words have meanings very different than what we typically think of in modern pop culture. Not to mention the fact that if we are to take "spirit" and "soul" in that same sentence to mean what most people think they mean, they are two words that mean the same thing are they not? That is, if you believe a "spirit" or a "soul" is a self conscious ghostly entity without a body, then why would those two words that mean the same thing be mentioned in a single sentence as though they're two distinctly separate things? It makes no sense.

It makes far more sense if we understand that the word translated as "spirit" actually means breath of life, as in that which comes from God and animates the body (as per Genesis 2:7) and gives you your thoughts and sense of self, and the word translated as "soul" actually means life, as in the choices you make as you go through life, that is your individuality or life record. Then with that more in-depth understanding of the original text, it could be more accurately translated as something more similar to "
May your thoughts, life choices and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." as those are three distinct things that make up one person.

Depending on the context, psuché can also refer simply to the individual, so I believe when John saw the souls of people who had been killed, it simply means he saw the individuals. Looking strictly at the meaning of the word psuché (Strong's Greek: 5590. ψυχή (psuché) -- breath, the soul (biblehub.com)), used in Revelation 20:4, there is absolutely no indication that John saw ghostly entities without bodies. It tells us only that he saw individuals, but because they were in heaven, logic tell us they would have had to have had their heavenly / spiritual bodies.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.