Yeah, good question.

@GoreBruce God Bless.

Thank you!

Jesus says, my sheep hear my voice (John 10). We hear the voice of Christ from external sources (e.g., a preacher, a friend, etc.) but the inner testimony of the Spirit confirms the voice of Christ in our hearts. It is subjective, but it is also real. Jesus gives this instruction to warn against false religious leaders in John 10.

@@GoreBruce And where is this noted in scripture? Jesus stated the Words of Truth he spoke were coming from the Father and THEY are spirit and THEY are the life. Not himself as the chosen prophet of Isaiah 40:3 in the hebrew language. He clearly stated he was speaking by the Fathers Spirit living in in him.

​@@GoreBruceIn other words our Father is the Shepherd of our Souls (psalm 23). Jesus, a SON of MAN, merely spoke the words of Truth by his Spirit FOR our Father not of himself. As he clearly stated. I think this is where people have gotten deceived about the exactly who Jesus was. Our brother not our God Almighty. Isaiah 43:11.

@@GoreBruce "I have said YE are elohim and are all SONS of the Most High". Psalm 85:6 Being an elohim is not being THE ONE and ONLY Elohim. Isaiah 45:5-7.

@@RoseSharon7777 Thanks for your perspective.

There is certainly some correlation. One notable difference is that Mohammad actually sanctioned such methods for spreading his religion, whereas nothing in the teaching of Christ would justify 'conversion by force.'

@@GoreBruce Thank you for the explanation!

The word used in Rev. 20:4 is 'they lived' (zao), not they 'came alive,' as in being raised from the dead, which is a different word (egeiro).

@GoreBruce thank you! My version said "came alive", so that is what threw me off. So is this teaching that the souls of passed Christians are alive and conscious in a spiritual sense and reigning with Christ in the heavenly realm until His return? I know that these chapters are oblique, as you said, but am I getting the general gist of it?

Well, it includes those who died as martyrs, but also appears to include those who survived. The 'first resurrection' seems to correlate with regeneration in the New Testament, which is often described in language suggesting being raised from the dead (Rom. 6; Eph. 2, etc.).

@GoreBruce thank you for this clarification and for taking the time to answer it so thoroughly! You are definitely God's anointed and empowered teacher. If I was anywhere near Spokane, you would be seeing me every Sunday. God's blessings to you and your family!

Blessings in your ministry, brother!

Certainly.

Thank you. God‘s richest blessings to you as well!

Interesting thought! Thanks!

There you go again, casually reading the LXX, fact checking my lectures.

The description says 2025

Thanks! Fixed it.

So on what day was Jesus crucified and on what day did He rise? And what is your point? Oh wait! I see you are a 7th Day Sabbath adherent. That must color your interpretation of scripture. Careful, there.

According to Strong’s Concordance, the word translated days is hemera: and has both denotative and connotative meanings. It is important to understand that. The concordance also has a definition which explicates the difference between western and eastern understandings of the concept of “day”. Don’t impose a western understanding unless you can make clear the proper meaning without eisegesis.

Pretty clear they met on the Sunday.

@@billhesford6098 yes the disciples were gathered but he spun it around to make it sound like this is the start of Sunday service. I just think it's absurd. Also, on a Jewish calendar, you cannot get 3 days and 3/9 out of a Friday crucifixion and it's clear that the first fruits are also cut as soon as the Sabbath ends so you have Jesus being in the grave for about 24 hours if it's a Friday crucifixion. Which then makes Jesus look like a liar because Jesus said he's going to be in the grave for 3 days and three nights. And there is no such thing as a Jewish idiom that 3 days and three nights means less than 3 days and three nights because I have proven that in videos

@debblouin your right, people shouldn't impose a non-jewish meaning onto the text. Right on for calling Gore out on this.

I treat the question of due process and the roots of rules of due process as reflected in American jurisprudence in the lecture linked below kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ec1yZsicrNjIfqM.html

Thanks for that. I deal with my reasons for rejecting 'full preterism' later in this series.

@@GoreBruce Link please.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qrSogal3lbOUf6M.html

@@GoreBruce Thank you.

For those with a sincere interest in this question: The southern states were emphatic that unless a compromise was allowed for the entrenched systems of slavery, a constitution uniting all the colonies would be impossible. There were Christian voices that vigorously opposed slavery at the time, as I document elsewhere in this series. A 'sunset' clause was added in the Constitution that prohibited importing new slaves 20 years after the Constitution was ratified, in the hope that the slavery itself would gradually disappear from atrophy over time.

@@GoreBruce I sincerely appreciate you sharing your point of view on this subject. ______ My position is quite succinct... The United States maintenance of Enslaving People based upon Complexion and the treatment of the Native American Population via the US "Manifest Destiny" Christian concepts (being taught in American Grade School History Classes to this day) is what Christianity is really all about. Even to this day, Conservatives are supporting taking America back to the Little House on the Prairie days of White Supremacy (reversing whatever legal opinions are required to get there... back to say---Dred Scott Decision). This Conservative Religious focused COURT is what the Churches Moral Majority so called Pro Life Political Party position moving from the past century of Democrats/Dixiecrats essentially through the Nixon into Reagan Administration going forward: more and more extreme Conservative Churches and Republican Party. This so called Pro Life Political stuff is all about taking America back to the past century via the Courts and Political Party apparatus. www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480 I am citing from the above article from POLITICO... there's many other sources as well on support of my assertion. --------- I'm not doubting your sincerity at all. However, today's American Churches are openly supporting armed insurrection if they don't have their way politically. History of the interwar years of Germany (1918 going forward) the Churches and the Christians in Germany and Europe in general... favoured the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis. Indeed, the Catholic Pope got back a "Vatican City" supporting Mussolini and the Fascist Politics putting the Jews in jeopardy. The Vatican City was established in 1929 by Mussolini and the Pope getting into a political deal. The Churches in Germany supported the rise of the Nazis into power politics assisting Hitler and the Holocaust coming to pass. Sir, bearing this in mind. Clearly today's American Churches are supporting the return of Nazi Germany type stuff... using the "Original Constitution is Christian" rhetoric. I accept that perhaps the plan/idea was as you so graciously responded to me explaining why and what happened back then. However, these people today are supporting something on the level of say "The Catholic Inquisition"... which lasted 500 years through 80 consecutive Popes. The Churches have supported some really terrible times in America...1920-1022 era of Tulsa, OK and Rosewood, FL type behavior. It's that very point you raised about the Southern States saying that if they couldn't have White Supremacy they'd rather destroy the country back then. I knew about that from my own studying and such. I truly think America has arrived at the moment that those same people preaching going back in time to yesteryear...are supporting the same thing: either America goes back or they're saying destroy democracy. There's nothing "Jesus" about that in any way. I'm just saying... the Churches are preaching this stuff from the Pulpits. No? I'm asking...

@@GoreBruce thanks for the information. However, today's Supreme Court already reversed Women Rights and this is going back to the Dred Scott Decision... With the American Churches supporting this stuff. Legal precident ( I may have misspelled it) has been established with the Dobbs decision. And revoking the Prohibition Constitutional Amendment in 1933... means 14 Amendment can be revoked as well and Boom Slavery is legal. Dobbs decision Supreme Court used British Decisions from the 17th century of a Woman Burning Man (the Witch burning Prosecutor one of the Supreme Court Justice (Alito's) cited in their decision.) I'm trying to figure out exactly how Jesus fits into any of this stuff Christian Voters support this going back in time to yesteryear...

Thank you!

If you have any interest in how I would handle the issues you have raised here, you might refer to the lectures on chapter 20 that I offer later in this series. I appreciate your summary of the arguments that I once made!

You will find a decent summary of the life of Boniface in volume 4 of Philip Schaff’s history of the Christian Church.

Thanks for that. Don't believe anything because I say it, but believe everything that you are sure Jesus had said!