O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Hi everybody, a new member with the same old questions here. I have been aware of preterism for a couple of years now and though I find much of it appealing I however have challenges with primarily 2 issues, one being the resurrection and the other being the end of the old covenant. These may even be the same question. Searching for discussions about these issues has led me here, Im sure it will be beneficial, so just bear with me guy.


How is 1 Cor 15:12-13 " Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised" to be understood 

Views: 7525

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Agreed, Adam was not immortal. Nevertheless he had the chance to eat of the tree of life and live forever. He didn't do this and was denied access to it least he would eat and live forever in other words so that he may die. Thus death came upon man because he sinned. If he had eaten the tree of life, then he would have lived forever IOW he wouldn't die.

You gave some interesting thoughts on why God denied Adam access to the tree of life but where did you get those teaching from. Always need chapter and verse to be safe.

How do you understand "dust you are and to dust you shall return"?

Could you also comment on the 1 Cor 15 issue on denying spiritual resurrection.

On the issue of infinite people on finite resources, we both don't know what God would have chosen, so no need to dwell on speculation. My point is you cannot say it can't happen, since it can happen IF God so chooses. But now we do not know how life would have been had Adam not sinned, so why create an argument on speculation? So to me that is not a valid point, ever.

Hi Doug,

Sorry for the delay in getting back on these points, but here is my response on the "Dying thou shalt die" phrase.  It is found in the YLT, as well as the Hebrew translation notes in the margin of the KJV.  We can both unite on the instantaneous SPIRITUAL death that fell upon Adam and Eve that day, following their act of disobedience.  The fallout, (the repercussions of that spiritual death), caused the same effects upon their physical frames that radiation poisoning causes subsequent to a nuclear blast.  The inevitable effects of the poison of a dead soul within sounded the death knell for Adam and Eve's bodies, even though the grave would not receive their fleshly forms for many a year to come.

In and of themselves, I believe the molecules that composed Adam's fleshly form had no intrinsic immortal life, even when that form became occupied by an immortal life force - the breath of God.  The body only had life because of the living soul within.  In the same reactive manner, after The Fall, the contagious effects of the body's association with a suddenly dead spirit and soul inside brought lethal consequences to their human frame.

It's not that the fleshly form they indwelt became sinful in and of itself and deserved to die.    It's just that as soon as the spirit and soul died within Adam and Eve that day, the inevitable chain reaction of a dying body began. Death brings corruption to anything it touches.  All the OT laws regarding ritual cleanliness were meant to illustrate this.  As Job 14:4 asked, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one."  To me, this also indicates that every child conceived has had this same contagion passed to them as well, just as radiation poisoning passes along birth defects to the following generation.

On the flip side of this, though, eternal life given by the Spirit of God in the new birth produces at the same time both an accomplished reality of eternal life for the believer and an ongoing process of sanctification.  Positionally, as you have said, we ARE the Sons of God.  Nothing needs to be added to enhance our identity as a member of the family of God after the New Birth. But in our practical walk of sanctification, there is a process.

I believe DID has had some conversations before on the issue of "being in perfect standing already, but perfecting our walk before God, with final perfection after physical death."  I can claim that the middle step of perfecting our walk is progressive due to the concept found in such verse phrases as "perfecting holiness in the fear of God", "but grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and "...he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ", and reading that the gifts were given for "the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry...", and lastly Col. 3:10 (Interlinear) "...And having put on the new that is being renewed into knowledge according to the image of him who created him;"  These all indicate a work in progress of bringing forth fruit over the process of time.

As to your other point of a "second chance" at salvation after death (or actually a first chance for those who were never exposed to a knowledge of Christ while on earth) - I believe this to have been a possibility because of the I Peter 3:19-20, 4:6 verses that speak of Christ preaching to those who were dead (spirits of the dead in the prison of Sheol from back in Noah's day who were disobedient).  Whether it is still a possibility on this side of Christ's ascension - I'm not sure one way or the other, but am open to the possibility that it could be true.  As you say, once I think about it, I can't recall any scripture which decrees that this "decision" for Christ MUST be made before our death. I've just accepted that  view all along, without questioning if it actually has scriptural foundation.

You also posed a world view; that you see this life "as a way for mankind to be shown, through the proof of history that the 'knowledge of good and evil' that mankind chose in Adam cannot EVER lead to righteousness."  This bears some similarity to my own growing world view that all of human history is probably meant to reveal to us that ANY CREATED BEING, (WHETHER ANGELIC OR HUMAN), CANNOT SAFELY BE ENTRUSTED WITH FREE WILL - the chance to select either good or evil. Only the Creator can be safely entrusted with the power of choice.  The lust for exercising our own will has been elevated to the position of an inviolate idol, especially in the American mindset.  This idol has existed since the Fall.  We fling the words "robot" and "puppet" around as if it were the ultimate disgrace to be totally under God's control with no opportunity to make a choice for evil or good.  A free will to choose evil or good will not be present in  heaven.  That's what makes it heaven.  That's what makes it even better than the Garden of Eden as it was before the Fall, where the gift of choice was first offered.  Every natural instinct of mine is uncomfortable with this last paragraph, but I suspect it really is God's ultimate purpose - to prove this very point to mankind at the close of human history.


I agree with much of what you wrote, but not all. You are a gifted writer, and I appreciate that, but for me I have to use scripture to prove my points. If it goes beyond scripture (even though it may be true), then it becomes speculation and is isogesis, not exogesis. So please excuse me if I question some of your conclusions. Not because I am against you, and not even that I may privately agree with you. But I just have to accept only those things that are provable from scripture. Anything else is speculative and can be fun, but we shouldn't hang our hats on them. Personally I have been down that road, and what happens is that in our fallible minds we tend to muddle fact and fiction and then get off track. Here's an example of how that happens...

You are probably familiar with the idea from Genesis that says "When the sons of God saw the daughters of men, they took them" All kinds of fables have come from this one passage alone. Some say that angels mated with men and their progeny were the giants the bible mentions. Well, that's what happens when we don't take the whole of scripture. Fables are formed, and that, in turn, colors our ideas about a whole lot of other things. For if once we start believing that men and angels can mate, we can go down the wrong theological road on a whole bunch of stuff that is unscriptural and will lead us off track about prophecy and even about the nature of salvation itself. And that's just one example of using isogesis as our biblical study method. I know, because I did it! SO I am very leery of speculation, even though it can be fun. But it's also dangerous!

So, in the spirit of this, allow me to give you how I feel about some of the things you wrote...

First, yes, we agree that Adam died a spiritual death. But I don't see how you formed your belief that the body was also affected. Sure, what we do in our spirit and soul has repercussions on the body. For example, overeating causes obesity, which leads to bad health and death. But death eventually happens anyway, even if in perfect health. My point is that our bodies were never designed to live forever. Even our sun isn't going to burn forever. The physical has limits by design. I believe that even spirit is not immortal, in and of itself. Scripture says "God ONLY has immortality" 1 Tim. 6:16. Therefore, whatever is not innately God, meaning the whole of creation, including angels, demons, and man does not have immortality. How then is immortality given? Through the resurrection! That's clear from 1 Cor. 15. And, what are we prior to resurrection? Dead!

So, my conclusion is that (and this is regardless of how one feels about the nature of the resurrection), that whether Adam "died" spiritually or physically, he eventually would have died physically, as all things created that do not have immortality do. And, there is nowhere indicated in scripture that mankind has immortality prior to the resurrection. In fact, just the opposite. We NEED the resurrection to attain immortality. My conclusion here is that Adam did not "begin to die" after the fall. He was already dying prior to the fall. Did the fall hasten his physical death? I don't know. But it seems to me that because Adam was chosen out from among the men of the earth to be their beacon of hope and a priest and ambassador for God, that God would have kept him alive physically as long as needed to do the job originally intended for him, had he not fallen. But I also think there is a lot of symbolism in the fact that he and all other patriarchs after him never lived past 1,000 years.  To God, 1,000 years is as a day, and there is much to study on that topic alone.

Anyway, to your other the spirits in prison in the days of Noah "While the ark was being prepared" Contextually, this is clearly the spirit of Christ that Noah preached while he was making the ark. The "spirits in prison" were not people who were dead physically, they were people who were in bondage to sin to whom Noah preached in the days before the deluge. In effect, they are the same kinds of souls of today who are "dead in their sins" that we preach to who need the message of Christ so they can be made alive. 

Finally, re: your views on free will. I do indeed believe we have free will, up to a point. That point being how free we are to choose something that actually has a choice in it. For example, if you are born into a poor Indian caste system, while you theoretically have free choice to choose to be in a higher caste, realistically you will never be able to break out of your caste because of all the cultural bonds that keep you enslaved. The same is true for mankind in general. While we are free to choose anything and everything, we don't really have the power to make those choices a reality. 

But I disagree with you about no creature being able to be trusted with free choice. IN fact, the bible is full of examples of people being entrusted to do the right thing. Time after time God gives men time to repent and change, of their own free will. And, time after time they don't. And yet, God entrusts them with the capability to choose. Deut. 28 even commands men to choose life and good. God put before them blessings or cursings and tells them to choose. 

While I agree with your assessment that Western civilization is obsessed with "doing it my way", that doesn't annul the fact that God gives mankind the capability to make that choice. That is the whole point of the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" That tree showed that God WANTED Adam to choose life, and choose to find his knowledge of what is right and wrong in God, not in his own thoughts and reasoning. But Adam made the choice to reject God and God's advice about what is good and bad. The rest is history and it continues to this day. Free choice isn't exclusive of God. We are told that in Christ we are TRULY free. That includes the freedom to choose.

Let me ask you. Do you still sin, even though you are in Christ? I do! Does the free choice to sin negate my salvation? Not at all. But what we have in Christ is the atonement to cover our sin WHEN we sin. So we see that we have free choice AND salvation. That is where grace comes in. Yet Paul says clearly that we cannot use that freedom as a cloak to sin, because it exposes Christ to an open shame again.

The working of the Holy Spirit is, as you said, a progressive thing. But there will NEVER be a time when we are perfect, in and of ourselves. Our perfection will ALWAYS be found in the perfection of God in Christ. It is impossible to be perfect by ourselves. But it IS possible to be perfect in God's eyes, as seen through the lens of Christ.

So it is possible to have free will and free choice, even post-mortem. But we will always be covered by the blood and we will always be imperfect in and of ourselves. But our ultimate HAPPINESS and FULFILLMENT happens only when we are in complete harmony with God's will. That is the true essence of freedom. Freedom to be able to sin, yet never choosing to sin, because we identify wholly and completely with God in Christ.

Hope this helps the discussion....Thanks for your responses. Iron sharpens iron :) 


Before I address your points I do have a question for you, one I asked earlier but those who believe in the corporate resurrection (consistently, if I remember correctly) did not answer:

Who are the dead in 1 Cor 15:21 and who were in Adam in 1 Cor 15:22

21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

I ask this because you spoke of Adam NOT being the first man but simply the first covenant man and that the death brought by Adam is relational death to God.

Why does the scripture say "all" die in Adam, yet "all" were never "in" Adam?


Since you know I believe that Adam was the first covenantal man, let me explain about the "other" men, those NOT in Adam.

I believe that the "darkness" that was on the face of the deep was the lack of God's light in the minds of the non-covenantal men and women. I also believe that Adam was placed in the garden and that the light that came was the same light spoken of in John 1. That is, God who was in the garden was none other than Jesus. 

John 1:4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it. This scripture isn't speaking of the nativity of Christ 2,000 years ago, this is speaking of the light existing at the time of the creation.

When God said "Let there be light" He was speaking of this light, Jesus, God, who shined in the darkness. That light was the light of men, not just 2,000 years ago, but all the way back to Adam.

So, those who were not Adam, were in darkness. They had no light. Adam was created to be an emissary to the darkness. He was put, as it were, in the midst of the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. 

Were those not in Adam "dead"? Most assuredly so! They had no life, because they had no light.

Now, you asked about "as in Adam all die" This is a completely true statement. Consider that those who were NOT in Adam were already dead, and those who WERE in Adam (that is, the covenantal men in the line of Adam) BECAME dead also. In total, then indeed, ALL MEN ARE DEAD IN ADAM. Why? Because the "best hope" for mankind, prior to the death of Adam, failed in the job he was assigned to do. He was tasked with being the high priest for mankind, representing God to all the men on earth who were in darkness.

So then, as their representative to God, Adam's failure caused death to come on all men, since his sin extinguished the light.  

Why does the scripture say all died in Adam? Because they all did, since they all lost their hope of salvation that Adam could have brought. And, just as they all died in Adam, all can live in Jesus Christ, the second Adam.

You see, for there to be a type and antetype, the equation, as you pointed out, has to balance out. 

Those in darkness now, just as those in darkness then, are indeed dead. They are "dead in Adam" because the life that Adam could have brought to them was put out by Adam's sin. Adam died, and so did the last hope for "all men" But, the good news is that in Christ those same all are made alive in Christ.

Thanks Doug

But lets back up to verse 21, Who are the dead?

I need this clarity because I had been told that the "dead" in 1 Cor 15 are old covenant saints, do  you agree with this and do you maintain this definition even in verse 21 (and following)?

Let's back up and take the entire passage in context. I think this will clear some things up. I will put my own comments in italics

1 Cor 15:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

(Jesus certainly wasn't an OT saint, yet the saints after Christ were questioning whether or not there was a resurrection. How odd that those in the church, who believed in a risen Christ, were questioning whether there even was a resurrection. Could it be they were not questioning the facts of a physical resurrection, but instead the concept of a spiritual resurrection? It's important to establish what these Corinthians were debating before we answer their questions!)

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 

(Verses 13 and 14 seem to answer this question, since Paul is saying [apparently], that this discussion must be about a physical resurrection, since Jesus'  resurrection was physical, right? And, if we stop there, this would be the logical conclusion. But there is more...)

15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

(The 'more' is that our hope of salvation is not in a physical resurrection of Christ. If that were so, then salvation would be nothing more than physical immortality. This is certainly not [only] what our hope is all about. As it says, if in THIS LIFE ONLY we have our hope, then we are most miserable of all men. But the hope of the resurrection is not physical eternal life. I don't know about you, but that is not what the good news gospel is about. It is about reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sin, a right standing before God, a clear conscience, holiness, sanctification, and oh, BTW, being able to enjoy these things forever. The forever part is a by-product of the resurrection, not the goal. Immortality is not the goal of salvation, it is a benefit of being resurrected to newness of life. Those questioning the resurrection in Paul's day were in fact questioning the entire gospel message. The miracle of Christ's resurrection was not in the physical raising of His body (even as miraculous as that was). Instead, the miracle of His resurrection that we share in when we are saved by faith and baptism, is that we have overcome the grave which holds us bondage to sin and the death of the spirit.  No being can achieve either spiritual or physical immortality while they are in sin. 

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

(Verses 20 and 21 cement the whole thing together. Identifying Christ as the first includes all who have ever died as well as all who will die from that time forward as inclusive. Verse 21, which you questioned, actually makes my point, because it points out that death, not physical death but spiritual death, was conquered by Christ's spiritual death on our behalf. If the death of Christ were merely physical, then the salvation his resurrection would give us would be only physical. Yet we know that there is far more to salvation than physical immortality. So you have to ask yourself - Did Jesus die to only bring physical immortality, or did He die to bring reconciliation to mankind? If the latter, then verse 21 is speaking not of a physical salvation from physical death brought on by Adam, but instead it is talking about the resurrection of Christ [the 'man'  who was resurrected as the second Adam] being how we are reconciled to God, and that is through the spiritual resurrection that negates the spiritual death brought on us all originally by Adam.)

You asked whether "the dead" were just OT saints. The dead were, and are, EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER LIVED AND WHO WILL EVER LIVE! Why? Because ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that includes all after Christ. Otherwise only those in the OT are who were resurrected to life, and we have no hope. But, since all are dead in their sins prior to salvation, ALL are in need of the resurrection to life in Christ!

Hope this helps!

Thanks for clarifying your understanding, I realise more and more that it is important to actually know what the person you are discussing with believes.

If you were following the thread (which I believe you were) you will know that your understanding of "the dead" is different from the one I had been presented with by the majority of those who interacted with me.

And I agree with you in a sense, that it is plainly wrong to say "the dead" are dead OT saints. Unfortunately those who hold this view grew tired of interacting with me before they explained how they get "dead OT saints" in verse 21. So I agree with you that "the dead" is all inclusive, like you put it EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER LIVED AND WHO WILL EVER LIVE

Now, what were those at Corinth denying? Verse 12 says they were denying resurrection of the dead. You have said that the resurrection about which the gospel is concerned with is spiritual resurrection. IF that is so, do you mean those at Corinth were denying spiritual resurrection?

"Now, what were those at Corinth denying? Verse 12 says they were denying resurrection of the dead. You have said that the resurrection about which the gospel is concerned with is spiritual resurrection. IF that is so, do you mean those at Corinth were denying spiritual resurrection?"

Yes, I think they were. Consider the times they were living in...The Romans were occupiers, and Christianity was a "new" religion. But, at its core was the resurrection of Jesus. Why would new believers go against the pagan gods of Rome to believe in a risen man from Galilee if they didn't believe that He died and rose from the tomb? They risked everything to believe in Jesus and His resurrection. 

So, it would be illogical for Paul to be debating the PHYSICAL resurrection, because presumably the Corinthians had already stated their belief in the risen Lord Jesus. So a physical resurrection really wasn't what was being debated. Besides, remember that a whole host of dead saints were also resurrected physically at Jesus' resurrection, and they were witnesses that few could deny.

I believe that Paul was telling the Corinthians that there was more to christianity than just believing in a physically resurrected man. He was making the point that if there is no resurrection of the spirit and soul, then christianity really has no purpose. After all, if that is the point of christianity, I don't think I would believe it either. 

And, salvation isn't just about the afterlife either. Indeed, the good news gospel is the good news about a new LIFE in Christ. not just a promise of an afterlife where things will be better. Sadly, today, the gospel has been reduced to just that. Churches are all about getting people saved, and once saved, well, then just wait for your passing, because THEN things will be better.

But a spiritual resurrection is about new life NOW, because we are actually made into new creatures. We are put under water, signifying death and burial, and resurrected up from the water into newness of life. We ARE born again, not [future tense] just waiting around for physical death so that later we can enjoy heaven. 

As you adequately put: a spiritual resurrection is about new life

Now if some brethren (for it is clear these people were among believers) at Corinth were denying spiritual resurrection then what did they believe? What was the purpose of converting to Christianity? Denying a spiritual resurrection is simply denying Christianity. You can't be a Christian yet deny spiritual resurrection thus they could not have been denying a spiritual resurrection.

This is not  a refutation of what I presented to you.

Yes Paul called them Brothers so yes they were Christians but were denying all the dead saints from Adam to Christ wouldn't be Resurrected.

Once again.

It was not about a spiritual resurrection vs a physical resurrection.

They (Corinthians) were denying a certain group would not be resurrected.

They were called "The Dead Ones"

They were all those who had died from Adam to Christ.

Yes I know you don't like this definition but that's too bad.You need to come to terms with it and start dropping your old baggage as it's clouding your judgment.

Of course you can continue to just disagree but don't say you haven't gotten answers.You just don't like them and you haven't refuted them.

Paul was using a classical argument called "modus tollens"

"The symbolic arrangement of such an argument is 'if P,then Q.

P is not,therefore Q is not.

If you (Corinthians) deny the resurrection of 'the dead ones' , then you must deny the resurrection of the 'dead one', the Messiah ,'but since you do not deny the resurrection of the dead messiah ,then you cannot deny the resurrection of the dead ones.

Please respond to this argument.

The Time of the End

12 “At that time shall arise aMichael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And bthere shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be deliveredceveryone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who dsleep in ethe dust of the earth shalleawake, fsome to everlasting life, and fsome to shame and everlasting contempt.

Hie John,

True to my PROMISE and after taking the Doug's ADVICE let me give my thoughts.

I have noticed and am a little ashamed of the fact that I do engage like someone who doesn't read people's responses. Taking time before responding definitely helps.

Firstly I remind of what I hope was the most COMPLETE statement of my current understanding and issues.

They (Corinthians) were denying a certain group would not be resurrected.

They were called "The Dead Ones"

They were all those who had died from Adam to Christ.

Yes I know you don't like this definition ... you can continue to just disagree but don't say you haven't gotten answers.You just don't like them and you haven't refuted them.

I hope that in my COMPLETE post I managed to express my concerns clearly enough so that you may see exactly how to help me. I do not deem it a refutation but just a point for clarity.

Paul was using a classical argument called "modus tollens"

"The symbolic arrangement of such an argument is 'if P,then Q.

P is not,therefore Q is not.

If you (Corinthians) deny the resurrection of 'the dead ones' , then you must deny the resurrection of the 'dead one', the Messiah ,'but since you do not deny the resurrection of the dead messiah ,then you cannot deny the resurrection of the dead ones.

I understand the argument Paul was using but like I said to Dave Green, I cannot see the reasoning behind the reverse of the equation i.e. If those who died before Jesus' resurrection will not rise, neither did Jesus rise. I cannot see how the conclusion is obvious (which I believe it needed to be) nor how it follows. Nor do I see why some would believe that God would fulfill His promises to Abraham in themselves but would deny it to the ones who received the promises.

>>I better understand Davo's statement (though I disagree with it somewhat) that Jesus was true Israel, thus if God was never going to fulfill His promise to Israel then God would never raise Jesus.

As I read Paul's argument to me it says that if dead ones cannot rise (a concept/principle) then neither could Jesus have risen but if you believe Jesus rose (an event) then of necessity you must believe the principle (that dead ones do rise).

As for Daniel 12 it was a promise delivered to OT saints and fulfilled in the AD70 resurrection.

So your saying all men and women born or created died in Adam...then by your reasoning they are all made alive in Christ.

Thanks for clarifying for us that you are a universalist.

Of course your probably not but this is what happens when you don't think out the consequences of what you saying.

1 Cor 15:21-22 can be read in a number of ways depending on your starting point and reasoning. But yes, you may say I am a universalist and I had already thought through it before you mentioned it. But the resurrection is for both the righteous and the wicked, so "all" do rise, yet I do understand an angle in which only those who believe in Jesus are "in" Christ and experience "resurrection" while others do not believe in Christ hence are NOT "in" Christ and do not experience "resurrection".

Obviously there is need (another time) for discussions about Adam, who were in him and how that affects those outside of him (if there were people outside of him).

However, the point is not so much about who were in Adam but how the definition of dead ones as solely dead OT saints seems to me insufficient as Paul was referring to ALL who died in Adam not just a specific group of those who were in Adam.

1 Corinthians 15 has time texts... The timing of the resurrection determines the nature of the resurrection.

I acknowledge not only the time texts and the OT references but also that NT eschatology is focused on AD70. Further I remind that I believe 1 Thes 4 was fulfilled in AD70 and was NOT a physical resurrection (I am yet to meet any partial futurist who sees this). Also even among preterists there are various opinions about the nature of the resurrection. So it is not true that timing determines nature.

Thus its not about the timing of the resurrection nor am I afraid to have the resurrection in AD70 nor am I afraid to have a non physical resurrection but its about understanding what Paul taught about the resurrection i.e. who are the dead ones.




Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 26. 6 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 22, 2016. 9 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies


Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service