FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

Apparently there are some people who are so fixated on Thieme that they don't do their homework in basic LAW prior to making videos they hallucinate as disproving what he taught. What Thieme taught is either right or wrong, so what: it's the BIBLE at issue, not the believer. Here, the issue is, ANGELIC APPEAL TRIAL? Yeah, and that issue begins its coverage in Genesis 1:2, explaining why man was made. Ooops.

Here's a video and rather irrational arguments claiming there cannot be an Appeal Trial (in order to bash Thieme, not to learn Bible). I put a link to this topic in the video's comments; but the video owner deleted my comments, including my comments replying to what he said I needed to reply. So discussion will have to occur, here. For here in frankforum, only the user can delete his own comments. Exceptions are violations of the forum rules against spammers and stalkers and anti-semites.



Now, as you read through that video's comments if inclined (not sure you should be interested, I'm not), you'll see that he makes a lot of convoluted arguments, where some of the points are in the right direction but with wrong conclusions, etc. I recorded all of it in case he deletes my comments back to him, and will edit this sentence with a link to that recording, if need be.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, this whole fracas brings up the importance of knowing what 'Appeal Trial' even means, and all that Bible on it, which of course obviously folks like him, don't know. I spent 15 years on it, still not done, started in year 2000 with the Lord vs. Satan series, . Not saying you should read that, either: however, it is on this topic, and takes months to read. Took me about six years just to finish the first draft (so much more re-editing is needed).

Am saying that it might be helpful to those who are searching on the internet, to have a thread on this Appeal Trial, since a) there's junk misinformation like this video 'out there', and b) it's not common for pulpits to cover it. There are hundreds of pastors teaching it now, just Google; but they too, might be teaching garbags. So if you know of any pastors you think a reader will find helpful, would you mind posting links?

And your own research into the matter is solicited, if and as you've inclination. Thank you for your time!

EDIT: related movies you can post or watch, are .

Whoa. Just saw this, don't have much time, so I'll be brief.

God didn't need a trial. God knows all facts ahead of time, before time, and on time, and as the perfect, rightful judge, He does not require juries or "evidence" to pass a sentence.

But, apparently, the elect angels and we do need a trial. This trial is for us. Hell, this is for Satan and the fallen angels too. I mean, God could have created me as a soul in perpetual stand by mode, and know exactly what I would do and why I would do it if I were to be incarnated in a human body without actually going through the trouble of letting me be born. God doesn't need that, just like he doesn't need a trial or "evidence" to justify locking someone up. But I need to live my life. I need to make my choices. I need to partake in this trial. God fulfills those needs, and viola! I was born.

Thanks for posting this. This is probably the most nuanced clown act I've ever seen, but it made me think.

_________________
"Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'---Jesus Christ


"You seem to think because you have chicken to go you're in luck."---G. Lightfoot

FYI, one of the guy's big sticking points is that in the Mosaic Law (which technically has nothing to do with the Angelic Trial, as the Mosaic Law was post-salv spirituality and principles) -- he thinks that in the Mosaic law, there is no 'appeal'. So he's not aware of the many appellate provisions, like Numbers 5:27, going to the king, going to the safe cities, etc, the other provisions with the Sanhedrin, etc.

So if any of those appellate provisions hit your mind and you feel like talking about them, feel free. I'm sure the guy will be watching this thread, and I'm sure others will, too.

I apologize for ASSuming this APPEAL doctrine was so obvious, no one would contest its existence, my bad, maxima mea culpa. (My writing in LordvSatan is about the Appeal's effect on what constitutes the Dispensations, not about debating the Appeal's existence.)

_________________
"Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'---Jesus Christ


"You seem to think because you have chicken to go you're in luck."---G. Lightfoot

Good points, you guys. I really appreciate anything and everything more you see fit to say here, as clearly 'Tim' is confused wholly. Surely he doesn't mean to be so confused, so he needs lots of prayer and intelligent rebuttal, like you are doing!

At present, he doesn't research his doctrines at all, is kinda too emotional. Doesn't even know basic theology or law. For example, even in that goofy movie , someone gave Craig Schaeffer the line about babies being raptured owing to the Age of Accountability. That, they went to heaven because they were too young to understand and refuse the Gospel. Yeah, of course. Duh. I had said so in comments to him (but more succinctly), and he deleted what I wrote. So, I stopped writing.

As for why suffering, well that's the God Deeds series which is the audio complement to et seq, but just think: if God gerrymanders freedom, then where should He stop? Suffering at heart proves that we are free (i.e., have free will, and God doesn't interfere). So I suffered as a child, didn't you? So is that to be blamed on GOD? Or on the fact that freedom requires we suffer? Justice requires God make good ON the suffering, and surely He has.

Well, Age of Accountability's a longtime doctrine taught in pretty much all the Judaic and Christian theologies (excepting maybe Calvinism), and Thieme used that term to teach it. I did a (very boring) Word search to show the verses, , starting on the doc's page 4 (did it 10 years ago or so, it was hasty, to answer a video).

Now, y'all might not agree with all those verses, and I didn't go through my 40 years of classes to see which verses Thieme uses. But there is one we can all see readily, 2 Sam 12:23, why David stopped fasting when God killed his firstborn from Bathsheba: I will go (lit. Greek, journey, poreuomai) to him, but he will not return (lit. Greek, pass through, conduct/live anastrephw) to (Greek is pros) me. (Greek is used since 'Tim' claims to know it, as clearly he can't know the Hebrew, which hahaha uses shub both times.)

Link to Alleman-Tellez book and the reviews,

@hupostasis:

Good points in your post. Reading the link you provided to his site, I see Tim doesn't understand Greek itself: Greek 'huper' means SUBSTITUTE FOR, not merely 'for'. So he'd know that, if he had studied Greek. For example in the Appendix of on huper, Mounce explains that very issue: the translators TRUNCATE the meaning to 'for', but as Mounce warns, the Greek reader should always remember the SUBSTITUTIONARY meaning.

And then there's the famous 2 Cor 5:21, which uses huper, substitutionary Spiritual Death baldly there:

Ton me gnonta hamartian HUPER hemwn hamartian epoiesen, hina hemeis genwmetha dikaiosune theou en autoi.

Translated: He (Father) made Him (Son) who knew no sin, Sin! as a substitute for us, so that we would become the righteousness of God in/by agency of Him.

So then Tim's opinions about anything are suspect, if no homework done on the basics.

Thieme taught about the substitutionary meaning of huper often. So these guys didn't hear Thieme very much to know what he was talking about, either.

Ooops.
=======
And of course, hupostasis, you don't mean to say that His Godness paid for sins, do you? You know that He had to become human in the first place to pay. Human Sins, Human Payor, 1Tim2:5 and Hebrews 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10. There are more.

That Tim denies His Deity is clearly wrong. But it's not His Godness that paid. Rather, only as God-man would He be qualified to be Mediator. A point which Tim can't read in Greek, apparently, heis gar theos heis mesites.

Well, someone on a tirade needs to twist data to create red herrings. Happens all the time with Windows 10: oh, Google does the same thing. Fact is, Google does NOT do the same thing, online is not offline and non-personal data is not personal data. Further, that if Google were doing the same thing, that wouldn't make MSFT right.

Here, PLS twists data about babies like the Prolifers all do, in order to gain sympathy ('babies, see we are for babies!) -- essentially thereby calling God Himself, evil. Then in order to avoid that, invents another falsehood of whatever he claims you do to earn salvation.

Meanwhile, Bible says there's no earning of salvation nor any baby going to hell in the first place.

So our boy will likely not ever learn this side of heaven, as you say, because then the inventions have to be admitted and the book revenue lost.

TIPOFF: if someone's SELLING you info about God, then God isn't in that info.

Keyword: Shatan = (legal) adversary, specifically opposing attorney, accuser.

Trial verses are many, in every chapter, and definitely in the the meter of every book's opening chapter, if not every chapter.

Gen 1:2, Job 1, Job 2, Zech 3, Matt 4, Matt 25:41, John 8:44, 1John 3:12ff, Hebrews 11:39-40, all of Psalm 110, whole book of Hebrews is on how Church completes the trial, Ephesians 3-5, all of Revelation: especially clear on how Satan is shut up first for the 1000 years, then let out for the rebellion (which unsaid lasts 50 years), then the GWTJ; Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14. Jude 9 and 23. I'm typing as the chapters/verses come to mind, so they're not in order.

In particular, you know from Isaiah 14 and 28 what Satan's sin was. You know from the stars fell from heaven clauses that this already happened, and that therefore the back-and-forth of Satan and the demons is AFTER the guilt and can only be due to an appeal, as now man not angels, is on trial. MAN on trial, means a PREVIOUS trial for the ANGELS, so now must be only an APPEAL as the same WITNESSES are not used.

Duh. There's no relevance to human witness unless this is an appeal trial, specifically to prove that the Judge is not guilty of malfeasance (which would justify a mistrial verdict). Appeal trials are run specifically to say that the RULING in the prior trial was wrong, and if the appeal proves the opposite, then the first trial is nullified. Especially if (as in the OJ Simpson trial) there can be some claim made AND PROVED that the prior trial was tainted (as to evidence or the judge's ruling).

Collateral verses on the 'stars' being behind us in the trial, are Judges 5:20 (axiomatic tone), Daniel 8:10, Rev 12:4 (as an identity for a past event). Stopping now. There's more but I'm tired.

Well apparently Tim supports a 'flat earth':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cbxeqlfCUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHGrs46QnOA

He's also against the pre-tribulation rapture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYiNHCzKsac

So let's tally it up Tim's beliefs so far:
#1 He believes in works salvation (even if he thinks he doesn't, like so many)
#2 He believes in unitarianism and claims Christ is not God
#3 He believes in calvinism as a result of his unitarianism (John 8:58) and is ironically vehement against it simultaneously
#4 He denies Christ's payment for sins & the 'dual deaths'
#5 He denies the pre-tribulation rapture
#6 He believes in a flat earth

I if I actually bought the 'principle legal standard' and wasted some time reading it that list would become exponential, but no thanks. Kind of hard to believe in a flat earth when the Bible is against it. But hey, Tim isn't interested in the Word, just himself.

This actually sucks because now he's promoting really stupid secular material (flat earth) and trying to link it up with what Christianity represents. So then an atheist will look at Tim's stuff and say "hey, this Christian stuff is stupid because they believe in a flat earth and argue nonsensical legal B.S."

_________________
"Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'---Jesus Christ


"You seem to think because you have chicken to go you're in luck."---G. Lightfoot

Actually, Haylel ben Shachar was first Satan's title, and the point of the Lord getting it in His Humanity is to show His Victory, compare Isaiah 14:12 (showing the title was Satan's, pre-fall) with 2 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 2:28; 22:16 in Bibleworks.

Lucifer is just the Latin translation, which dummy Gail Riplinger didn't know,

Satan's title translated into Latin was Lucifer, from Isaiah 14:12, please look at the VULGATE for that verse in Bibleworks.

That there is also a joke, yes, but it's a different joke than the one you're claiming.

Thought you twerps might be interested in this
http://www.principledlegalstandard.org/ ... amination/
http://www.principledlegalstandard.org/ ... versation/

Thank you for the courage of direct reply in this forum. So long as you do not stalk or make anti-semitic remarks you are welcome here, and welcome to name-call or whatever.

I mean that. Here, we all disagree or agree with each other. One minute we might be beating each other up, and the next minute drooling over each other. Both are FREE and FRANK. So it's fine if you think we are twerps (cute name, btw, thanks). You can be as nasty as you like, subject to the two rules above. And your privacy is sacrosanct (I hope you used a FAKE email address in your profile, so no spambot will find you).

Of course, you are not able to read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek original mss, so whatever you THINK you're saying about it, will be incorrect. You are nonetheless free to say it, here or in your own site. You will not be censored. Censured maybe, but this is FRANK forum, not politically-correct-fake-niceness forum.

So because you cannot read the Real Bible, I won't take the time to rebut what you say in your own site. You wouldn't understand the text I'm using. For everything you've written and said thus far, demonstrate an appalling ignorance of LAW101, Greek101, and Bible101. So discussion won't be fruitful.

When you at least prove you can understand what follows below, then maybe we can argue the merits/demerits in your arguments. Until then, it would be a waste of your and my time.

As to Matt25:41, we've been working on its Greek meter (which you cannot understand apart from 1John1:9 used like breathing) for some months here, viewtopic.php?f=16&t=512

I just posted the latest Luke 21 counterpart an hour+ ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Cvj_S ... 4fmi3Xs3Yf

The Luke 21 text surgically maps to Matt24-25 (which is one chapter in the Greek), and its own thread is here: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=521

You are welcome to rebut as you choose. Seriously. Free to be nice or nasty, so long as not stalking or anti-semitic. Welcome to the Forum.

You idiots want to use unprincipled exegesis as the standard for their beliefs or arguments, rather than principles of law. (i'm not asking what happens to infants after they die, i am not asking about what adam did...you state that all men of human history ALL MEN deserve wrath...and you do not base it on what "all men have done"...for the infant who lives two months and dies, those who will never learn their own names in this life because of mental defect...YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN AND ESTABLISH A BASIS FOR THEM DESERVING TO BE PUNISHED...you also have to give the basis and explain WHAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE DONE AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES...NOT FOR WHAT OTHERS HAVE DONE, THEIR UNCLE, GRANDPAH OR EVEN ADAM. Infants have not chosen to sin, infants do not do anything deserving of wrath, much less infinite wrath, beaten bloody, crucified and thrust through the heart. You say wrath in all men's places, talking about "their needs", or just stating "born alienated from the life of God", or stating "born in sin"...THEY DID NOT DO THAT. In order for punishment, one has had to have done something themselves, that is without mitigating circumstances or states. It is not law to punish someone for something they did not do and are not responsible for and could not and cannot prevent. Infants are not responsible for your satanic misinterpretation of "condemned in Adam", they do not deserve to be punished for it....AS IF THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE!

You can talk "separation" all you want or consequences...then I will state once again WHERE DID THE WRATH GO??? You must make your case for WRATH and you must use principles of law and personal responsibility AS IS SEEN IN REAL LIFE. I saw what you wrote before "infants crying is rude"...well, at least they don't deserve wrath for miscounting 10% of their damn MINT DILL AND CUMMIN SEEDS! Talk about a speck and turning it into a mountain of wrath! PHARISEE! It isn't classified as rude when one cries out in pain and ignorance, being unable to cope BECAUSE HE DON'T EVEN KNOW HE IS HUMAN IS AND WHAT THE WORD PAIN EVEN IS...YOU DUMB ASS PSYCHOTIC! Name what infants themselves have done are responsible for and how they themselves could have avoided it...tell us how infants deserve to be nailed to trees and suffer infinite wrath! IN THE PLACE OF INFANTS AND THE MENTALLY RETARDED, JERRY'S KIDS, ZIKA INFANTS...MEANS JUST THAT! ( you want to hide in fantasy exegesis? no way bitch). You must answer this question and you are not going to get away pretending that you did, or mentioning things that are irrelevant to the question....WHAT HAVE INFANTS PERSONALLY DONE THEMSELVES TO DESERVE WRATH AND YOU BETTER NAME SOME CRIMES, NOT MISDEMEANORS NOR CRYING WHEN THEIR ASS IS RED, YOU PSYCHO!

Just like on youtube where you said you would copy and paste our whole conversation...AND DID NOT...because you got busted and wanted to cover it up...we will not move on here FROM THIS QUESTION, UNTIL YOU DIRECTLY ANSWER IT ACCORDING WHAT IT IS ASKING SPECIFICALLY. Name the crime, name the sin, name-n-splain how infants have no mitigation, where in a state of the total absence of any knowledge at all and total inability....THAT THEY DESERVE WRATH! WRATH IS THE SUBJECT BABY...YOU SAY ALL MEN DESERVE WRATH...this is because it says Jesus Christ died FOR all men...you twist into IN THE PLACE OF all men...therefore all men personally deserve wrath...for all men are judged INDIVIDUALLY and not ALL AS A SPECIES IN GENERAL. Each man must give account for his own deeds...not for the deeds of others. God will repay each man according to HIS OWN DEEDS...try and exegete "for the deads each man has done"...into "for the deeds that others have done, even Adam"...YOU LOON...SO WE WILL NOT MOVE ON UNTIL YOU GIVE ANSWER to my question about infants, the mentally retarded and so forth. You are a satanic liberal, you do not use the laws of personal responsibility, accountability, conditions and states of mitigation...you portray God as violating all of the law and principles of jurisprudence. INFANTS-WRATH-ANSWER-USE LAW!

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

"you are welcome here, and welcome to name-call or whatever. I mean that. Here, we all disagree or agree with each other. One minute we might be beating each other up, and the next minute drooling over each other. Both are FREE and FRANK. So it's fine if you think we are twerps (cute name, btw, thanks). You can be as nasty as you like, subject to the two rules above."

Anonynomenon did not address the question and responded with the typical religious over severity that would make the pharisees jealous of such refined pettiness. hell fire for calling a psycho, a psycho....NEXT

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

"Anonynomenon: Infants have no capacity to understand that, therefore infants cannot be held accountable."

Then Jesus Christ was not punished in their place, did not suffer wrath in their place, your "penal substitute gospel" and youe "isogesis interpretation" contains a lie...it says "for all men" and you all say that is every person ever born except for Christ himself. You got a conundrum pal.

I shall quote from your grand exulted and (but dead) leader: Jesus Christ became true humanity to be our substitute and pay the penalty for our sins. When our Lord Jesus Christ was on the cross, He was judged for the sins of the world. Every sin that has ever been committed in the history of the human race was imputed to Him on the cross and judged. (he did not say some sins and he did not say some people).

So it is a lie that "Jesus Christ suffered the wrath of God for all men that all men deserve". Care to exegete "all men"? All ain't some. The truth is that Jesus Christ died FOR all men...not "in the place of all men". Unaccountable means not punishable or deserving of wrath. "every sin ever committed" (no legal distinctions, no mitigating circumstances taken into account, ignorance inability is not taken into account...some sins are not cause for punitive wrath.) Now they gonna play word games! All don't mean all, every sin don't mean every sin...YOU DIDN'T DEFINE THOSE WORDS THAT WAY WHEN YOU SPOKE YOUR "GOSPEL"...and the hearers heard and understood it as ALL MEN DESERVE WRATH, EVERY SIN EVER COMMITTED IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY DESERVES WRATH....you are liars and you misuse words and you mislead people. Did Christ suffer the wrath in the place of ALL MEN for every single sin every committed? (for that which I want to do I do not, and that which I do not want to do I do...AND PARROT HEAD THIEME SAYS WRATH FOR ALL SINS!).

Jesus Christ died FOR ALL MEN...it comes down to more than just interpretation (it sure as shit ain't exegesis). You idiots claim he was PUNISHED WITH THE WRATH THAT ALL MEN DESERVE!...Clearly your "twisterpretation" does not work...for the infant that lives 5 minutes and dies, or 2 months or 6 months or 3 years ect., cannot be held accountable and cannot be said to deserve wrath. YOU HAVE A CONTRADICTION THAT YOU CANNOT RECONCILE.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Penal substitute whackos have several different "gospels" and they are not in harmony with each other. They run to the "spiritual death gospel" when they cannot make the case for wrath on ALL MEN. "Spiritual death" isn't in the Bible...that's why they dont EXEGETE IT! You cannot exegete what isn't there. So they run to the "spiritual death gospel"....and my question is "WHERE IN THE HELL DID THE WRATH GO???" They are full of contradictions, and claim that "ALL MEN ARE BORN WITHOUT HUMAN SPIRITS" and define that as "spiritual death". A spirit has to live in order to die, but a spirit that goes into annihilation (as in does not exist anymore) is not "death". Its "spirit anihilationism". What compounds their convoluted illogic...is the claim that Christ suffered "spiritual death" in the place of all men...while all men are in that state to begin with (according to them). So lets see: All men are born in a state of "spiritual death" and Christ dies a "spiritual death" INSTEAD of ALL MEN. They first start with "spiritual death" being a "consequence of sin" (because God cannot touch sin)...and therefore it is not the penalty or punishment. This is circular reasoning...then they invent some new insanity "HE PAID WITH HIS THINKING!" (pure isogesis and is not but pure unbiblical interpretation, because it is not based on anything from the bible or original languages) (that is not exegesis and cannot be found in the bible). WHAT CANNOT BE EXEGETED ISN'T THERE AND ISN'T BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK OR HEBREW, ETC.)

"spiritual death" (not having a human spirit) is not only not found in the bible...and what they claim is "new creation", using "anothan genneo"...is bad grammer and is also not from the original languages. I remember the 3 creation verbs. Nothing is created in "genneo" it not an exnihilo word. Genneo, means born and nothing is created out of nothing with the human body...THE HUMAN BODY (REPRODUCTION) IS FROM PRE-EXISTING MATERIALS. A human spirit out of nothing is not genneo. Souls are not born nor are spirits, only bodies and out of pre-existing materials. They break most fundamental rules of grammar that it is pitiful. Human spirits are "NOT BORN"...much less born again. But what the hell do they care what words mean? WHERE'S THE WRATH??? If SPIRITUAL DEATH IS THE PENALTY FOR SIN THEN EVERY HUMAN WHO EVER LIVED (CEPT CHRIST) SUFFERED THE PENALTY AND PAID IT IN FULL. Of course they will say that spiritual death isn't the penalty, or punishment or WRATH. They will then split hairs and create two kinds of spiritual death...like ours isn't the penalty but Christ's was. But they started out as spiritual separation occurred because man sinned (in Adam that is...we actually didn't) and they go back to "God not being defiled" and it being a non-punitive consequence of sin...Then "spiritual death" in christ's case (which isn't the same at all, for they claim He retained His spirit because He did not sin). This is once again "the pretense", "the farce"...God pretending like Christ sinned...God separates from God the Son...as if He sinned...AND GOD CANNOT BE DEFILED BY HIS OWN SINFUL SON!!!! Then they state that the Father knew the Son wasn't sinful and wasn't "putting on a pretense". THEY LIE, THEY LIBERALS, THEY CHANGE THEIR GOSPEL AND ACTUALLY HAVE SEVERAL GOSPELS! First its the Son must suffer fiery punishment wrath THAT WE ALL DESERVE(in order to satisfy justice!) and they go over the Greek word for wrath, angry snort etc. Then they switch to another gospel when the wrath gospel don't work...."spiritual death" in our place (which they say all men are in spiritual death)...CONUNDRUM! IS IT TIME TO GO BACK TO WRATH??? God having WRATH on His Son is not from exegesis....NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE!

The greeks and hebrews had words for spirit, death, wrath, but if you will notice none of their doctrines are found and cannot be derived from exegesis. Thanatos does not mean spiritual death. You will find thanatos all over the new testament. You will find Paul in 1 Corinthians 15...still waiting for deliverance from THANATOS! (same word as in Romans 5)...

THIS IS TALKING ABOUT PHYSICAL DEATH AND THANATOS IS A JUDGMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL LEGAL AUTHORITY OF DEATH, WHICH CAN BE PUNITIVE OR MAY NOT BE AS THE CASE MAY BE. Paul is still waiting for deliverance from THANATOS, WHICH IS A JUDGMENT OF PHYSICAL DEATH, (MORTALITY not punitive).
50I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death(thanatos) has been swallowed up in victory.”h
55“Where, O death(thanatos), is your victory?
Where, O death(thanatos), is your sting?”i
THANATOS JUDGEMENT OF THE DIVINE COURT OF A NON PUNITVE PHYSICAL DEATH
56The sting of death(THANTOS) is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

They want to make thanatos mean only a few things "spiritual death"...or "death in hell".And they mistranslate it wherever they can to make it seem like their bullshit doctrine is found in the bible and it is derived from exegesis, AND IT IS NOT.

What do we see THAT IS THERE? Adam ate and gained the knowledge of good and evil (you cannot exegete "knowledge of FALSE good and FALSE EVIL") Just as stupid as they are, the liberal satanic morons, they cannot give 1 example of "false good" that does not contain kakos or poneros evil! They cannot even give 1 example of false evil because it is so blitheringly insane...("well I meant to do evil, but it was only a false evil...so it is good instead???? WTF?). What we see that is there, is Adam gained the knowledge of good and evil and was subject to motive testing (katakrima) and therefore physical death (from dust to dust). There is no "because you ate of the tree your human spirit will be annihilated!"...IT AINT THERE. We see wrath being poured out of abominable wrongdoers and criminals ALL OVER THE BIBLE! It says it plain as day dozens upon dozens of times! It does not say that God had wrath on His Son or punished His Son NO WHERE, NOT EVEN ONCE! They pretend like it is exegesis or the writers said it....yet the writers never use the words and it is never found.We see Adam and all men suffering mortality, or physical death The first Adam all APOTHNESKO (all physically die). What we see that is there in EXGESIS is physical death, which is the result of mortality coming upon mankind through Adam. IT CAN BE EXEGETED. "spiritual death" cannot be exegeted. AND TRYING TO USE THE BOOK OF JUDE WHICH DOES NOT BELONG IN THE BIBLE, ALONG WITH 2 PETER AND JAMES...Jude and 2 peter were written by imposters and they had a false doctrine of non human chimera type hybrids...unreasoning animals that did not have a spirit, only born to be caught ans slaughtered like animals....thats why the heretic of Jude called them the ZOON, STRANGE FLESH! DO NOT HAVE A SPIRIT...NOT HUMAN. "BRUTE BEASTS".

You can't deal with any of my statements or arguments...and your psychotic penal substitute bullshit, ain't any LAW that is practiced on this earth. I won bitch...I won bitch, and blew you out of the water...destroyed all your bullshit false interpretations for what they are...lies. NOT EXEGESIS. Tell where you practiced law on this earth where infants deserve death? full shams (that you call trials) are conducted with no defendants, no evidence...NOTHING Tell us where you practice the law of punishing the innocent and declaring the clearly guilty as innocent? THAT AINT LAW. its satanic garbage. What court room did you work in where the judge pretends that the innocent are guilty and the guilty never committed any wrongdoing? What court? what legal firm? you satanic bitch, I leave you to the wrath of God...THAT WAS NEVER PUT ON CHRIST. You're busted.

If you could choose your own salvation plan, which would you choose? Don't worry, results remain anonymous.