NWL
Active member
No scripture says the spirit dies. Angels are spirit and they don't die. God is Spirit and doesn't die.
Anyone that lives in the realm of heaven is a spirit. Spirits can die, this does not mean though that God who is a spirit can die. You state "No scripture says the spirit dies" yet we know Satan who is a spirit person gets "hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10), Satan gets thrown in the lake of fire, what does the bible say about the lake of fire, it states "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire" (Rev 20:13,14).
Satan who is a spirit dies, he gets thrown into the lake of fire which refers to his complete destruction. So you claim spirits cannot die, yet the bible disagrees with you by confirming Spirits can die.
I do not believe a human body is made up of a body and a spirit, that is what you unwittingly believe. I believe Man is simply made up of flesh and that is it, nothing more nothing less. Man is only alive because God blew life/spirit into us. I believe the word "spirit", in some circumstances when speaking about man, is synonymous with the word "life" and is in reference to the breath of life God gave to all living things.
Strong's Concordance - 7307 ruach
Phonetic Spelling: (roo'-akh)
Definition: breath, wind, spirit
NWL said:Again answer it directly! If you believe God is three persons who is one then are you saying the "one God" was sitting on the throne and the "one God" was the Lamb who took the scroll from the "one Gods" hand?God's Truth said:I already answered you.
You stated "There are three, and the three are one and the same", this is hardly an explanation over a paraphrase of 1 John 5:7 which is a spurious text. One definition of the word "explanation" is defined as "a statement or account that makes something clear", how does your statement of "There are three, and the three are one and the same" make your answer clear in relation to my question? Since you've stated the three are one and the same I've asked you what it means that "the lamb" took the scroll from "the one sitting on the throne" who were both apparently the same person, stating over and over "the three are one and the same" isn't answering if you believe the lamb took the scroll from his own hand.
Let me make it easy for you, does God take the scroll from his own hand?
I'm not going to keep explaining it to you and then you lie and say I didn't.
If you asked me to explain how I think Jesus was created according to the bible and I answer and say "purple is purple because it is purple" and you rejected that as sufficient answer to your question it would be foolish for me to claim "I've answered your question". Likewise, I've asked a specific question was the "one God" both the "one sitting on the throne" and the Lamb who took the scroll out of the hand of the "one sitting on the throne", your apparent answer of "There are three, and the three are one and the same" is not a proper answer to the question, nowhere are you explaining if you believe the proposition I've made or if you disagree with it.
What does it matter if no scholars agree on it?
I use the KJV along side of other translations I use, but never without it.
'One' means 'the same'.
Because they're the one actually translating the text!!! It's like seeing a sign you can't read in Japanese getting a Japanese linguist person to read it for you with it saying "entering this room means certain death" and you then claiming that is not what the sign means despite you not being able to read Japanese! The scholars have acknowledged the expression "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" is NOT found in any of the earliest manuscripts, scholars agree the text was added in 1200 years after the original, the scholarly community is unequivocally clear on this matter. On what basis do you claim that they are wrong? Simply because you need to spurious text to be true otherwise your doctrine falls apart? It's shameful.
I have explained it to you more than once. Stop lying. It is a bad tactic of yours.
Your answer wasn't a sufficient answer to my specific question, we both know this, I wasn't lying.
Revelation 1
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
You said that Jesus is NOT God and NOT the Beginning and the End and NOT the Alpha and the Omega. The First and the Last means the beginning and the end and the Alpha and the Omega.
Notice you didn't address what I say, and that you waffle and assume, and you can't explain, and aren't humble enough to admit it.
You are guilty of every thing you falsely accuse me of being and doing, and more.
You say above "Notice you didn't address what I say, and that you waffle and assume, and you can't explain, and aren't humble enough to admit it", NOWHERE DID YOU EXPLAIN ANYTHING FOR ME TO EVEN ADDRESS! Nowhere did you explain how I was inaccurate or where or how John didn't separate Rev 1:3,4, all you did is quote Revelation 1:4-5, Isaiah 44:6 and Revelation 22:12. Follow the below link to where you claimed I was inaccurate and notice you didn't actually explain how I was inaccurate according to the verses you showed.
If the title "first and last" meant the same thing as "alpha and omega" there would be no need to write them as separate titles. Nowhere does it state the F&L means the same thing as the A&O therefore for you to say they are synonymous is an assumption. To be the F&L means you are the first and the last of something. If I were to say Satan was the first and last in the sense he was the adversary of God no one would assume that by me calling him the F&L I'm making a claim he the F&L the same way Jesus is the F&L. Likewise Jesus being called the F&L is different to the alpha and omega, how do we know this? Because the context shows what Jesus being the first and the last is in relation to, as I will show below.
"When I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave." (Revelation 1:17, 18)
“And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrʹna write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again." (Revelation 2:8)
In both counts, Jesus being the F&L is followed by the context that he died but came to life again. I put it to you that Jesus is the first person to be resurrected by the Father alone, no other person in the bible is directly resurrected by the Father but always through another, and Jesus is the last person to be resurrected by the Father alone, since now all judging and resurrections are through Jesus. It is in this sense Jesus is the first and the last, it pertains to his resurrection as the context clearly shows.
The claim the F&L pertains to the A&O the almighty is to suggest almighty God "became dead" as the text says, this goes against Gods nature and therefore cannot be the proper understanding of the verse.