Dr. Stanley and Eternal Security

[Brother Bob]

Rev 12:5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

Who is this Man child J. Jump, that the woman brought forth?

 

[J. Jump]

Simply saying that the devil and evil will not have the power over God's children who through Christ have the victory. It happens when someone is "born again".

Sorry Brother Bob, but your explanation falls on its face once again. Not only is the person and overcomer, but it says s/he keeps His works unto the end. So there is no possible way this is talking about when they are born again.

Why? have you been lying?

Not that I'm aware you, but you certainly have an you've been called on it at least twice if not three times. So how long can you lie about someone and stay saved or is lying no big deal?

Let me just add this as well. The more I read your post the more it doesn't make sense. So if Christ is ruling now how is Satan also ruling? The earth has two rulers at the same time? And if Christ is ruling the nations why is His rule leading to so much turmoil and corruption. Surely if Christ was at the head of the nations governments wouldn't be killing their own people and getting away with it? Would they? Surely nations wouldn't be developing weapons that can destroy the earth 20-plus times over? Would they? Surely if Christ was ruling the nations there wouldn't be corruption in Africa where leaders take aid money and line their pockets? Would there?

Do you really believe Christ is ruling the nations at this time Brother Bob? If so how do you explain all of this being allowed by Perfection?

Nice try to dodge this Brother Bob. Please answer the question. If Christ is really ruling the earth then why does a Perfect Ruler allow all of this to go on in His kingdom? Please just answer the question.

You admit the thousand year reign has nothing to do with our salvation.

More lies. Again how long can you continue to lie about me before you are in danger of losing your salvation or we just have to simply say you have never believed in the first place? This would make No. 4 I believe.

For the record I said the 1000-year reign has nothing to do with our "eternal" salvation.

Get a life J. Jump.

Brother Bob quit being rude. It's uncalled for and simply childish. I spend a great deal of time talking about because God thought it important enough to spend 27 books of the NT talking about so you bet I talk about it a lot and I will continue to do so until someone can show me that it is incorrect. And you haven't even come remotely close.

I'm still waiting for some straight forward answers isntead of all this dancing. By the way are you a Baptist that believes its a sin to dance? I sure hope not. :laugh:

 

[J. Jump]

Who is this Man child J. Jump, that the woman brought forth?

That would be Christ. But notice the text. It says who "was" to rule the nations. He didn't rule the nations, because His kingdom was never establised. The nation of Israel rejected it. There were a few that believed, but in order for the kingdom to be established the entire nation would have had to believe and repent, because it was a national offer, not an individual offer. That didn't happen.

 

[Brother Bob]

Who is this Man child J. Jump, that the woman brought forth? That would be Christ. But notice the text. It says who "was" to rule the nations. He didn't rule the nations, because His kingdom was never establised. The nation of Israel rejected it. There was a few that believed, but in order for the kingdom to be established the entire nation would have had to believe and repent. That didn't happen.

Well well, so you do believe that Rev. speaks of the past? Glad to see you finally admit there is a past tense in Rev. Even before the cross also.

BBob: You admit the thousand year reign has nothing to do with our salvation.

J. Jump; More lies. Again how long can you continue to lie about me before you are in danger of losing your salvation or we just have to simply say you have never believed in the first place? This would make No. 4 I believe.

Post #130

3. BBob; All because we do not believe in a thousand year reign, of which I understand that none of us here will be in, will that cause us to miss eternal life,

J. Jump's answer
Again no that will not cause you to miss out on everlasting life. Once you are eternally saved your are saved. There is no chance that can ever be undone despite what some teach. Scripture backs this up.

This disproves your accusation of me lying of what you said on the thousand year reign and our salvation.


You are showing your ignorance now J. Jump. There is a big difference in a lie and just not remembering the exact words of how you posted. Such as, you said you believed Christ is our King, but yet you say He has not come into His kingdom as of yet. How can you be a King with no Kingdom, that is senseless.

You speak of me being rude, yet you call me a liar of more than once. You say you like me, yet you call me a liar instead of considering that I may of misquoted you. That is in no way a friend.

I removed the "get a life" before I knew you had even seen it. My concious got to me, but apparently it does not bother you.

All of the things you have posted come down to "who reigned in the thousand years". The scripture says "it was the souls of the beheaded", you come up with a long list, and where you get it I do not know.

You speak of Christ coming again for the rapture, You speak of Chirst coming for the thousand year reign. You speak of Christ coming to pass judgement on the world. You speak of Christ coming to establish a new Heaven and a New Earth.

That alone is 4 returns of the Lord. There is no scripture no where that speaks of such a thing and Jesus said there would be one resurrection of the Just and the unjust.

You break that down into two resurrections, one for the just and another for the unjust. You theology is so full of holes it just does not hold water.

As best as I can find out this is basicly what you believe:

Basic Points Regarding​

The Pre-Millennial Theory...​

1. The Kingdom of Christ is not yet in existence. It will not be established until Jesus returns.

2. The present gospel dispensation was not intended to convert the world to Christ. People will be saved after

Jesus returns to earth...after the "tribulation" period.

3. The world is getting worse and worse and will continue to get worse until Jesus returns.

4. The "rapture"....When Jesus returns He will remove all the righteous from the earth, including those who have

died before His return ("first resurrection").

5. The "tribulation"...After the "rapture" there will be a period on earth when God will pour out His judgments on

the wicked. During this time, Christ and His saints will be hovering in the sky.

6. The "revelation"...After the tribulation period Christ and His saints return to earth, at which time Christ will bind

satan and cast him into the bottomless pit...for 1000 years.

7. The "millennium"...Christ will then set up His Kingdom on earth with His capital in the city of Jerusalem. The

Jews will return to Palestine and restore the ancient sacrifices. Christ, along with His saints, will rule for 1000 years

over a world-wide kingdom of righteousness.

8. The "second resurrection"...After the "millennium" there will be an outbreak of wickedness on the earth as satan

is loosed from his prison. The wicked dead shall be raised and judged.
9. End of the world...After all these things happen...the resurrections, the tribulation, the millennial reign...then

the world finally comes to an end.












​

Now unless you apoligize for calling me a liar, our discussion is over!

 

[EdSutton]

Not only do unsaved people have a soul, the Bible tells us that even animals have souls.

Just now read this when re-reading the thread. They (animals) also have spirits, although I am not so sure about the souls, not recalling if I have read that, but not necessarily doubting it.

21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? (Ecc. 3:21, NKJV)

I think someone posted that animals have no spirit, if I recall correctly. Let's see. Yep! Here it is.

Animals have souls but cannot be saved. Why? Because they do not have spirits and are not created in God's image.

Half-right, but not about the spirits. BTW, when did you have that birthday, "Blessed"? I thought you were 16. I also thought one could not change their "screen name" on the BB, but apparently I was wrong on that.

Ed

P.S. Just noticed Hope of Glory was only half-right on this, as well.

 

[J. Jump]

This disproves your accusation of me lying of what you said on the thousand year reign and our salvation.

Brother Bob at best that proves you were misleading in what you said. I never said it has nothing to do with salvation. I said it has nothing to do with "eternal" salvation. You left off a part. So at best you were being a little deceptive.

You speak of me being rude, yet you call me a liar of more than once. You say you like me, yet you call me a liar instead of considering that I may of misquoted you. That is in no way a friend.

Brother I do consider you a friend, but a friend speaks the Truth when it is needed. You have lied about me on more than one occasion. You could "claim" to misquote me if it happened once, but you have been told numerous times that Christ is my King. Yet you still continue to lie and say that I don't accept Christ as King. Sorry that's not a misquote that is an out and out lie.

If you slip once fine, but you've been called on the carpet on that subject more than once and it's not that hard to remember "Christ is my King."

I removed the "get a life" before I knew you had even seen it. My concious got to me, but apparently it does not bother you.

No your concious does not bother me :laugh:. I am glad to see that it does bother you though. And if it bothered you that much why isn't there an apology instead of just a removal, epsecially since you know that I saw it and was offended by it?

All of the things you have posted come down to "who reigned in the thousand years". The scripture says "it was the souls of the beheaded", you come up with a long list, and where you get it I do not know.

The problem is you have no evidence that it has actually taken place.

You speak of Christ coming again for the rapture, You speak of Chirst coming for the thousand year reign. You speak of Christ coming to pass judgement on the world. You speak of Christ coming to establish a new Heaven and a New Earth.

That alone is 4 returns of the Lord.

Well in your mind that is probably true. However in the rapture Christ returns in the air and never sets foot on the physical earth. The church goes to meet Him in the air. The only second coming that Scripture speaks of is when He returns to the earth to set up His kingdom.

After that to the best of what I know of Scripture He never leaves again.

What you are adovcating is that there is one judgment and that is a judgment of the saved and the eternlly damned together. However nowhere is Scripture do we have evidence of the eternally saved and the eternally unsaved being at the same judgment that I am aware of.

And if they are seen together then the judgment would have to be based on eternal salvation. If you have it move to your left if not move to your right.

However Scripture also tells us that judgment day is not whether or not you are eternally saved or eternally damned, but it is based on works. Whether or not you are eternally saved or eternally damned is decided before you leave this earth. Judgment is already passed on that segment.

And just FYI your listing does not completely and accurately portray what I believe.

Now unless you apoligize for calling me a liar, our discussion is over!

Please explain to me why I need to apologize for your mistake?

 

[EdSutton]

No wonder we have this board. It's a place to come to be confused, and share your confusion.

:laugh: :laugh:

Just now noticed this sentence. I like it.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

... when I was only responding to the OP. He asked for both opinions, but when I gave mine, ... when I was not addressing you at all.
...
I was talking with others, which did not involve you or PSBC.

I will pass this time.

One can address whom one wishes, but this is an open debate forum, I believe where anyone can weigh in. Whether one happens to be answering a second person, does not change that.

The forum, I believe, is free for all, and obviously sometimes leads to a "free-for-all".

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Never met a man yet, who had it all right, including him, or me and you.

And I never made such a claim, as to myself or any other.

You are the one who took us off on the journey of "aorist", you need to explain why first?

Actually, no. Here you are mistaken. I am not the one who took us off on this journey. Hope of Glory first mentioned the aorist tense, I believe, in post # 45, long before I even posted on this thread. I only first posted in this thread in response to an article commenting on a large number of fairly well known individuals supposedly being unsaved, in response to an article posted by Brother Bob, in post # 161. That is a difference of well over 100 posts. And FTR, I first brought up the '1st aorist' tense (since there is a 2nd aorist as well) after you had posted four times that a verb in Revelation was in the 'past' tense, a tense that does not exist per se in the Greek language, any more than does aorist, in the English language.

Others say there is no tense to the word "aorist". Seems you are real close to this Robertson?

No one I'm aware of has made this claim. 'Aorist' is a tense in itself. As to the 'action' of the tense, some have incorrectly said something about this, and some have correctly said something, as well. Since there is more than one view to this, obviously both cannot be correct.

And no, I am not real close to the late Dr. Robertson, as he went to be with the Lord in 1934, although my own late grandfather may well have studied under him, for all I know, as he was a graduate of Southern Seminary. Dr. Robertson was the son-in-law of Dr. John A. Broaddus, one of the founders and later President of Southern, but was himself never President of the school, but was first an instructor, and then Professor of New Testament there for nearly 40 years service in that school. He was also a pastor and considered preaching important than the Chair of NT. He was considered to have no equal in Greek, during his lifetime. That's "pretty high praise", IMO, considering it came from the likes of G. Campbell Morgan, B. B. Warfield, George W. Truett, and W. A. Criswell.

Thats your interpetation I was talking about was considered "heretic", until ninetenth century.

I do understand what you are saying. And you are one of those who apparently consider "pre-millenialist" views as an error. FTR, I accepted the 'pre-millenial' view, from my own study, before I had ever even heard of Darby, Scofield, or Ironside (although I had heard of D.L. Moody, but did not know one thing about what he may have believed on this subject), so you cannot blame any of them for me. :laugh:

As much as your quoting Robertson.

I quoted Robertson, not to mention Keating, whom you yourself cited from his webpage, and cited Wigram, only in response to your continued insistence that the tense of "lived" and "reigned" were always past tense. They are not in the Greek language in Revelation 20:5, they are aorist.

[long list snipped] Dispensationalism as a modernist aberrational (disorder of the mind) interpretation.

This pejorative 'slamming' statement does not deserve a response.

I suppose you could label me Amillennial, being that I believe the thousand year reign is over. I don't care for labels though.

While I do not particularly care for labels, either, I would like to ask when this '1000 year reign' supposedly started and when it ended, since you have posted contradictory things concerning it. Could it be that you don't think Jesus is actually reigning today, since that might imperil your view of a "general resurrection"?

FTR, I do believe that Jesus is 'reigning' today, but not in the same way He will reign in the future millenium.

It's way past my bedtime, and I'm now going to bed.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
This disproves your accusation of me lying of what you said on the thousand year reign and our salvation.

Brother Bob at best that proves you were misleading in what you said. I never said it has nothing to do with salvation. I said it has nothing to do with "eternal" salvation. You left off a part. So at best you were being a little deceptive.

I will post it again so you can closely read it. Please tell all of us the difference between "eternal saved and eternal life? It don't make any sense.

Post #130

3. BBob; All because we do not believe in a thousand year reign, of which I understand that none of us here will be in, will that cause us to miss eternal life,

J. Jump's answer
Again no that will not cause you to miss out on everlasting life. Once you are eternally saved your are saved. There is no chance that can ever be undone despite what some teach. Scripture backs this up.
This disproves your accusation of me lying of what you said on the thousand year reign and our salvation.

If you say you have a King but He is not ruling yet, that kinda throws me off, but is not a lie as you accuse. It is kinda like saying you are a Baptist, but don't believe in baptizing.

Brother I do consider you a friend, but a friend speaks the Truth when it is needed. You have lied about me on more than one occasion. You could "claim" to misquote me if it happened once, but you have been told numerous times that Christ is my King. Yet you still continue to lie and say that I don't accept Christ as King. Sorry that's not a misquote that is an out and out lie.

If you slip once fine, but you've been called on the carpet on that subject more than once and it's not that hard to remember "Christ is my King

Quote:
I removed the "get a life" before I knew you had even seen it. My concious got to me, but apparently it does not bother you.
No your concious does not bother me :laugh:. I am glad to see that it does bother you though. And if it bothered you that much why isn't there an apology instead of just a removal, epsecially since you know that I saw it and was offended by it?

If you are offended, then I apoligize. I asked for the same and did not receive it. You are speaking both ways here though, first you say my opinion does not bother me and then you say you are glad it bothers me.

Quote:
All of the things you have posted come down to "who reigned in the thousand years". The scripture says "it was the souls of the beheaded", you come up with a long list, and where you get it I do not know.
The problem is you have no evidence that it has actually taken place.

Why did it take nineteen hundred years for it to become a doctrine that was not called "heresy".

You speak of Christ coming again for the rapture, You speak of Chirst coming for the thousand year reign. You speak of Christ coming to pass judgement on the world. You speak of Christ coming to establish a new Heaven and a New Earth.

That alone is 4 returns of the Lord. Well in your mind that is probably true. However in the rapture Christ returns in the air and never sets foot on the physical earth. The church goes to meet Him in the air. The only second coming that Scripture speaks of is when He returns to the earth to set up His kingdom.

After that to the best of what I know of Scripture He never leaves again.

Oh, now we find out that no one is going to Heaven in the end. The church sure is preaching wrong according to you. I didn't know you didn't believe we were going to Heaven.
If you don't want to go to Heaven, then listen to J. Jump. He says the children of God will not go to Heaven to live, if I understood him right.

What you are adovcating is that there is one judgment and that is a judgment of the saved and the eternlly damned together. However nowhere is Scripture do we have evidence of the eternally saved and the eternally unsaved being at the same judgment that I am aware of.

And if they are seen together then the judgment would have to be based on eternal salvation. If you have it move to your left if not move to your right.

However Scripture also tells us that judgment day is not whether or not you are eternally saved or eternally damned, but it is based on works. Whether or not you are eternally saved or eternally damned is decided before you leave this earth. Judgment is already passed on that segment.

And just FYI your listing does not completely and accurately portray what I believe.

You need to talk with Jesus, He is the one that came up with the one resurrection to come.

Jhn 5:28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Jhn 5:29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Now unless you apoligize for calling me a liar, our discussion is over!
Please explain to me why I need to apologize for your mistake?

I have found out that you don't think you make mistakes, so an apology would not be real anyway.

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
... when I was only responding to the OP. He asked for both opinions, but when I gave mine, ... when I was not addressing you at all.
...
I was talking with others, which did not involve you or PSBC.

I will pass this time.

One can address whom one wishes, but this is an open debate forum, I believe where anyone can weigh in. Whether one happens to be answering a second person, does not change that.

The forum, I believe, is free for all, and obviously sometimes leads to a "free-for-all".

Ed

[personal attack removed--Please address the topic; not attack the person]

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob

Never met a man yet, who had it all right, including him, or me and you.

And I never made such a claim, as to myself or any other.

Quote:
I never said you did, again you are misreading and accusing.

You are the one who took us off on the journey of "aorist", you need to explain why first?
Actually, no. Here you are mistaken. I am not the one who took us off on this journey. Hope of Glory first mentioned the aorist tense, I believe, in post # 45, long before I even posted on this thread. I only first posted in this thread in response to an article commenting on a large number of fairly well known individuals supposedly being unsaved, in response to an article posted by Brother Bob, in post # 161. That is a difference of well over 100 posts. And FTR, I first brought up the '1st aorist' tense (since there is a 2nd aorist as well) after you had posted four times that a verb in Revelation was in the 'past' tense, a tense that does not exist per se in the Greek language, any more than does aorist, in the English language.

I see where HoG had several long posts and aorist may be in one of them. I only saw it when you came along.

Note that this is in John's prophetic vision, as the words "I saw..." show. And "shall reign", in v. 6, is the rendering of the Greek verb "ßas??e??" that is here "ßas??e?s??s??", in the future tense. BTW, the same word, "ßas??e??" in v. 4, is a 1st aorist, formed from a future tense, as well. It is not a 'past tense', as has been previously claimed on this thread. However the English language does not have such a thing as an 'aorist tense', but must "make do" with what it does have, in this case, the 'past tense', the closest thing available to it.

(Quick citing of Wigram in the Greek aorist.) I do have and can find other Greek 'authorities' to support this, but that would take a great deal of time I do not have handily available at present.


Originally Posted by EdSutton
v. 6, is the rendering of the Greek verb "ßas??e??" that is here "ßas??e?s??s??", in the future tense. BTW, the same word, "ßas??e??" in v. 4, is a 1st aorist, formed from a future tense, as well. It is not a 'past tense', as has been previously claimed on this thread.

"[Sigh!]" ( Administrators, can we get a "sighing smilie" from somewhere for the BB?) I just did! Twice now. "ezosan" (lived) is the same tense as well.

Yes, I will admit to making a typographical error in typing the word. I should have typed "ezEsan" (e??sa?), not "ezosan". The root word is "?a?" or "zaO". The 'endings' in the Greek language tell us that this use is the third person plural, first aorist tense, active voice, indicative mood.

Strong's (or Young's) concordance does not give any of these details, FTR. If either did give all the details, in the Hebrew and Greek, on each and every word, as a good lexicon and grammars do, the book would weigh 30 pounds. It is heavy enough, as it it.

"[Sigh!]", again.

Ed

Quote:
Others say there is no tense to the word "aorist". Seems you are real close to this Robertson?
No one I'm aware of has made this claim. 'Aorist' is a tense in itself. As to the 'action' of the tense, some have incorrectly said something about this, and some have correctly said something, as well. Since there is more than one view to this, obviously both cannot be correct.

If I understand this right, you can use the "aorist" as a past tense if there was no happening there, such as building a temple, I suppose.

An Overview of Aktionsart with Time with the Different Tenses ​

If the writer is referring to an action that happened in past time, he could refer to it as either progressive (by using the imperfect tense) or as merely a simple occurrence, with no emphasis on the action's progress (by using the aorist tense).

By Corey Keeting;

Kind of Action and Time of Action for Each Verb Tense

Tense Name

Kind of Action
Time Element (In Indicative Mood)
Present
Progressive (or 'Continuous')
present
Aorist
Simple (or ‘Summary’) Occurrence
past
Perfect
Completed, with Results
past, with present results
Imperfect
Progressive (or 'Continuous')
past
Future
Simple Occurrence
future
Past Perfect
Completed, with Results
past
Future Perfect
Completed, with Results
future​

Aorist Tense
The aorist is said to be "simple occurrence" or "summary occurrence", without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the 'punctiliar' tense. 'Punctiliar' in this sense means 'viewed as a single, collective whole,' a "one-point-in-time" action, although it may actually take place over a period of time. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.

Hope said it was a happening, like pulling the trigger on a gun.

And no, I am not real close to the late Dr. Robertson, as he went to be with the Lord in 1934, although my own late grandfather may well have studied under him, for all I know, as he was a graduate of Southern Seminary. Dr. Robertson was the son-in-law of Dr. John A. Broaddus, one of the founders and later President of Southern, but was himself never President of the school, but was first an instructor, and then Professor of New Testament there for nearly 40 years service in that school. He was also a pastor and considered preaching important than the Chair of NT. He was considered to have no equal in Greek, during his lifetime. That's "pretty high praise", IMO, considering it came from the likes of G. Campbell Morgan, B. B. Warfield, George W. Truett, and W. A. Criswell.

Thats good, I would not say anything against him. I do not know him. I study the Bible.

Quote:
Thats your interpetation I was talking about was considered "heretic", until ninetenth century.

I do understand what you are saying. And you are one of those who apparently consider "pre-millenialist" views as an error. FTR, I accepted the 'pre-millenial' view, from my own study, before I had ever even heard of Darby, Scofield, or Ironside (although I had heard of D.L. Moody, but did not know one thing about what he may have believed on this subject), so you cannot blame any of them for me. :laugh: Quote:
As much as your quoting Robertson.
I quoted Robertson, not to mention Keating, whom you yourself cited from his webpage, and cited Wigram, only in response to your continued insistence that the tense of "lived" and "reigned" were always past tense. They are not in the Greek language in Revelation 20:5, they are aorist.

All that and it still does not tell us where or when it took place.

Quote:
[long list snipped] Dispensationalism as a modernist aberrational (disorder of the mind) interpretation.
This pejorative 'slamming' statement does not deserve a response.
Not my slamming, it was others and according to them the majority of Christians. St. Augustine, I think was one who disputed the thousand year reign in the end of time and on this earth.

Quote:
I suppose you could label me Amillennial, being that I believe the thousand year reign is over. I don't care for labels though.
While I do not particularly care for labels, either, I would like to ask when this '1000 year reign' supposedly started and when it ended, since you have posted contradictory things concerning it. Could it be that you don't think Jesus is actually reigning today, since that might imperil your view of a "general resurrection"?

FTR, I do believe that Jesus is 'reigning' today, but not in the same way He will reign in the future millenium.
It's way past my bedtime, and I'm now going to bed.
ED

No, its your friend J. Jump that does not believe He is reigning. I have said all along that His Kingdom is within the "saved for eternal life", have to put that clause on there for J. Jump, or he gets messed up.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I thought you said it was like a "dot", or did I misread?

Yes, I said the aorist tense is like a dot on a graph. It can be a big dot, or a little dot. It's an event. It's punctiliar action.

Your statement claimed that there is no tense.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Such as, you said you believed Christ is our King, but yet you say He has not come into His kingdom as of yet. How can you be a King with no Kingdom, that is senseless.

Let me ask you a question that I doubt you will answer.

David was anointed king. He had followers.

When did he ascend the throne in relation to being anointed king?

 

[Brother Bob]

I don't know if I understand your question or not. Christ came to sit on David's throne.

Act 2:29Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Just now read this when re-reading the thread. They (animals) also have spirits, although I am not so sure about the souls, not recalling if I have read that, but not necessarily doubting it. I think someone posted that animals have no spirit, if I recall correctly. Let's see. Yep! Here it is. Half-right, but not about the spirits.

This is one thing that I am unclear on, but I do know that in both Hebrew and Greek, "soul" has one meaning, but "spirit" has three basic meanings.

The soul is the life.

But, the spirit is breath, wind, or spirit (as in spirit of the person).

(BTW, this was done from memory, and there may be four basic meanings.)

 

[Brother Bob]

The soul is the life.

But, the spirit is breath, wind, or spirit (as in spirit of the person).

I have thought on this one also. I believe when the bible says the spirit goes back to God who give it, it is talking about the breath of life, which I consider a spirit.

It took that same spirit to be breathed into Adam's nostrils for Him to become a living soul.

When it says the spirit goes back to God who give, it has to be talking about the breath, for all life has that and it returns to God, Who said I give you your breath and you live, I take it and you die. I find it hard to equate this spirit with the Spirit of man that leads him. Either a good Spirit or a evil spirit.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I don't know if I understand your question or not. Christ came to sit on David's throne.

I'm talking about when David - the giant killer, shepherd... the man - was anointed king vs when he ascended the throne.

After Saul had been rejected, although he was still occupying the throne, God singled out David and instructed Samuel to anoint him king in Saul’s place. Although he was anointed king in Saul’s stead, David didn't immediately ascend the throne. Although Saul was rejected, he continued to reign. During this time, David found himself rejected in a different sense (by man, not God), exiled, and passing through a time of trials and sufferings.

During this time, a number of individuals who were dissatisfied with existing conditions in the kingdom under Saul, left Saul's kingdom and associated themselves with David. In doing this, they found themselves occupying exactly the same position in which David found himself during this time; they were rejected, exiled, and passing through a time of trials and sufferings.

The band of men who had left the kingdom under Saul and had associated themselves with David simply changed positions, and this is what it's talking about in Colossians 1:13. There was no existing kingdom under David in which these men found themselves, just as there is no existing kingdom under Christ in which Christians presently find themselves. In David's day, Saul still occupied the throne, just as Satan continues to occupy the throne today. David was waiting to ascend the throne, just as Christ is presently waiting to ascend the throne. Those who had joined themselves to David had been moved into a new position (from the kingdom under Saul, anticipating the kingdom under David) in order to share David's glory in a coming day, and those who have joined themselves to Christ have been moved into a new position (from the kingdom under Satan, anticipating the kingdom under Jesus Christ) in order to share in his glory in that coming day.

BTW, don't forget that Christ's reign is limited. 1 Corinthians 15:24 says, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 

[skypair]

Sure. Matthew 22:1-14 and Matthew 25:14-30

JJump --- that is most assuredly NOT true! Both these parables you cite are about the OT JEWS! The wedding feast is for Jesus and His church, the "invitees" are GUESTS and are the OT saints. Those who are not invited (Satan) are cast into "weeping and gnashing of teeth -- a STRICTLY JEWISH HELL.

Likewise with the SERVANTS with TALENTS. They are resurrected JEWS from the OT who either "invested" the "oracles of God"/Bible or hid them. Again we see "weeping and gnashing of teeth" -- JEWISH HELL. Why JEWISH HELL? Because they were given the truth directly but still did not learn it. The word will gnash on them there.

I perceive you are either self taught or man taught but definitely not Spirit taught on this.

skypair