You did not answer the question, how would answer those that I am getting spiritual wisdom from?
I would recommend that go and see what 1 Cor. 2:14 and Isa. 6:9-11 mean.
I Cor 2:14
The natural man is the unsaved man; he does not have the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 says, "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."
Two things are true of the natural man. First of all, he does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. This man does not welcome the things of he Spirit because he considers them foolish. Secondly, the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit. He can't know them because they are spiritually discerned. The word discern is a legal term that was used for a preliminary hearing and it came to mean scrutinize, to examine, or make a judgement. The natural man has no capacity to spiritually evaluate these things because he does not have the Spirit of God. Scripture clearly teaches that until a person has been regenerated by the Spirit of God he has no capacity to understand God.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see (to perceive, notice, or discern) the kingdom of God."
If your are questioning my salvation, think again.
Heb 9:28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. And to those who look for Him He shall appear the second time without sin to salvation. If Jesus didn't appear a second time none of us are saved.
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God...1 Tim. 3:3-5a
When are the last days?
Hebrews 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
The writer of Hebrews says that they (first century Christians) were in the last days.
There is no existing Jewish race today. Consider the following quotations:
The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)
The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropornetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics. (vol. 12, page 1054)
Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)
It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .
Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon 1971, (vol. 3, p. 50).
Collier's Encyclopedia (1977)
A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they live. 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).
Today, being a Jew simply means that one is of the Judaistic religion or a convert to it, or else in a "brotherhood" of those who are. Therefore, being a Jew has nothing to do with race. We are familiar with a number of notable figures, such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Taylor, and Tom Arnold, in fact, who became Jews by conversion to the religion of Judaism.
There is no Jewish race or nation today. God put an end to Judaism in A.D. 70. The "last days" were the "last days" of Israel. The last days ended when the nation Israel ended.
Besides why would Timothy care about some future event 2000 years in the future anyway. The Bible is not written to us it is written for us.
"And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." 2 Tim. 17-18
It is about time you brought up Hymeaneaus..
When Jesus came proclaiming, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mark 1:15), this was nothing less than a declaration that the time for the resurrection had come. This is confirmed in the Immerser's message. He proclaimed the imminence of the kingdom (Matthew 3:2), and said the instruments of the harvest were already in Jesus' hand (Matthew 3:10f). The harvest is the time of the resurrection (Matthew 13:36-40). If Hymenaeus knew this, and how could he not, then he knew that Christ himself said that the resurrection would occur in that generation.
If the kingdom and the resurrection are related, what then is the nature of the resurrection? Is it discernible with the human eye? Why did Paul not tell Hymenaeus and the Ephesians, "My eyes are not seeing what my ears are hearing, Hymenaeus!"? Why did Paul not tell his readers to go to the cemetery and open their eyes? Because the resurrection is associated with the kingdom, it is not a visibly discernible event.
If we read the passage with the preterist assumption we will reason that the error of Hymeneus and Philetus was that they were teaching that the Resurrection was realized under the Law (I Tim. 1:8; Titus 1:10; 3:9). We will reason that they were teaching that “the Hope of Israel” (Acts 23:6; 24:15, 21; 28:20) was already fulfilled and that there would therefore never be a Parousia of Christ to bring about a termination of the old-covenant age (II Tim. 4:8; II Peter 3:4). We will conclude that their error implied that fleshly Israel had inherited the Kingdom and would remain God’s nation forever.
If the Resurrection was fulfilled and the old-covenant kingdom continued, that meant that the apostate, reprobate, authority-reviling, Gentile-excluding and saints-persecuting enemies of Christ, and their spiritual ancestors, were revealed to be the true sons of God. Thus the doctrine of a pre-A.D.-70 Resurrection was anti-Gospel, anti-grace and anti-Christ. It was without a doubt a faith-overturning blasphemy (I Tim. 1:20; II Tim. 2:18).
When Paul discussed the resurrection change from the outward man that was perishing to the inner man, "not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" in 2 Corinthians 4-5, he said, "we do not look on the things that are seen, but at the things that are unseen" (2 Corinthians 4:16f). This is an emphatic declaration that the resurrection was not to be a visibly discernible event. This is confirmed by Paul's trial and conflict with the Pharisees in Acts 23,24.
Hymenaeus imho proves that resurrection is not visible and if he "overthrew the faith of some" how is that possible if all they had to do was look outside and see, no earth shattering, sun darkening, heavens shaking catacylsmic event, and no dead rising from their graves?