I curious what you do with the millennial (1000 year reign of Christ on earth) and the New Heavens and New Earth after that?
I have a few general questions, Eusebius. It concerns the “Ah, ha” movement, after studying A.E. Knoch.
From the online Merriam-Webster:
Where you become convinced he’s correct in his theology and the orthodox have gotten it wrong
Or he’s correct in his Greek scripture translation methodology, over the big six (NIV, NSAB, ESV, NLT, KJV, NKJV).
Was it due to:
A long study, using logic and reasoning?
A flash of insight?
Something else?
As Throreau says:
What actually convinced you?
I was in Lancaster, Ohio where I became convinced back in the 70’s. 
That’s where I was. My bad.
Just look what those translations did with AIWN and AIWNIOS or PSUCHE and PSUCHEKOS. There are a host of other words. That was the tipping point for me in knowing Knoch’s methodology was correct and their’s wrong.
Here is a read on Knoch’s methodology: concordant.org/expositions/the-scriptures/introducing-concordant-literal-new-testament-part-one/ It is multi-part.
It took a while to go through the research to feel comfortable that Knoch was correct in his approach and understanding. He never said his translation was perfect, but that it could always be improved upon. That’s just how language works. And that is why other translations go through so many iterations over the years, i.e. KJV, NKJV etc.
As Throreau says:
I’m a little different in that I hear a different rock guitarist.
Lots of research.
P.S. per your last picture in your post and what it states: I am not a religious person. Religion is the enemy of true Christianity. And his idea is incorrect. There are many “Christians” and “religionists” who use lots of reasoning powers. Seminaries and Bible Colleges attest to this in their theology departments. They may be incorrect in some matters due to starting out with a wrong major premise, but, nonetheless, they do use lots of reasoning powers. Jonathan Edwards from the 1700’s was very good at using reasoning especially on the will. However his idea of God being angry with everyone was, in my opinion, incorrect.
I have adopted the general view given in Eugenio Corsini’s The Apocalypse: The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ: Revelation chapters 1 through 20 are basically a review of the Old Testament in light of the Incarnation, culminating in Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement. Chapters 21-22 are basically a picture of the Church. In other words, Revelation is mostly about the past (with the last two chapters being about the present-day reality of the Church). The book is not about the future.
Pithy version: Revelation is about Christ’s First Coming, not His Second Coming.
Okay, thanks for letting me know.
My take on Revelation is that it is yet future and that John was in spirit IN the Lord’s day not “on” the Lord’s day. Some take the wrong translations of “on the Lord’s day” as being either on a Saturday (Sabbath) or Sunday. But “in” the Lord’s day has to do with His future unveiling and setting up His 1000 year kingdom on earth and then the new earth comes after that. I believe Revelation is not concerning the ecclesia (church) of the nations since we will be among the celestials during the time Revelation is taking place.
Rev 1:10 I came to be, in spirit, in the Lord’s day, and I hear behind me a voice, loud as a trumpet,
This is what Knoch said concerning 1:10 in the Concordant Commentary:
"10 In spirit, John is transported into the future day of Yahweh of which the prophets have often spoken. The Hebrew phrase “the day of the Lord” is changed to “the Lord’s day” in order to shift the emphasis from the character of the day to the time, which is the important point in this passage. This is done in three ways, by changing the grammatical form, the rank, and the order of the words. The direction of the thought is altered by putting “Lord” in the dative instead of the genitive case, so that it locates rather than describes the day. Its force is further weakened by making it all adjective rather than a noun, and by shifting it from its prominent place at the end of the sentence and giving that striking location to “day.”
In other words “Lord’s day” is not genitive but is actually adjectival in the Greek. It is descriptive of that that day is like.
That is correct. Probably no one is yet completely saved from their sins. But we need not worry, since if we love God, and are endeavouring to please Him, God working in us, and we coöperating with his enabling grace, fulfilling the teaching of Christ (most of which we find in Matt 5,6, and7), we are in the process of being saved. And the apostle Paul was certain that this process will be completed:
Philippians 1:6 I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Also:
The Lord is not delaying his promise as some think of delay, but is patient toward you, not willing any to perish, but that all would reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
So if the Lord is patient toward us, in the matter of repenting, and then when we have repented (had a change of heart and mind) and started on the road of salvation, He then continues to work with us and in us until He brings the process to completion, what is there to worry about? If He is not willing that anyone perishes can we not trust Him to carry out his will, working with everyone until the salvation of everyone is complete? Even those who rebel against Him throughout life, will sooner or later confess that Jesus, the Anointed One, is their Lord. (Philippians 2:11) But they will avoid a lot of severe post-mortem correction if they submit to Him as Lord of their life while they are still physically alive.
Yes, what 
Normally, that’s because the book is out of print. And book sellers like Amazon, will put up “Ridiculous prices”, for these out of print renditions.
And if you want to pay that price, then I have:
A bridge in Brooklyn
Some oceanfront property in Arizona
to sell you. 
But wait! Just for you. Because you are such a good Joe.
If you buy the oceanfront property in Arizona…I’ll throw the Brooklyn bridge in free.
or
I believe we are saved from our sins the day we trust in Jesus as Savior and Lord.
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with your heart you believe and are justified, and with your mouth you confess and are saved.…
Being saved from our sins is not about sinlessness… James said “We all stumble in many ways”…;and…“Love covers a multitude of sins”
John said, “If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” We would not need to confess them if they did not still occur.
When I placed my faith in Jesus, the old man was dead. Slain with the body of Christ on His cross. A new man was born in me, “Begotten by the incoruptible word of God”, the seed of “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” A distinct separation was made on that day, and it cannot be easily undone, if at all.
That new person is the person God sees, as He works with me to grow the new man by sanctification through the Spirit of grace. The greatest power for walking in freedom from sin is to focus on that grace, and to avail myself of forgiveness through confession- as often as I need it. “If we are faithless, He is faithful stil and cannot deny Himself.”
Now, it is no longer I that sins, but sin working in my members. “For with my mind I acknowledge the law of God is good, but there is another principle working in my members”. Those members are the enemy. They are not you. God sees it, but it gets murky for us, because of the accuser of the brethren, because of religious deception, and because of the littleness of our faith.
So Jesus says, “Watch and pray for the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”- and Paul says, “Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh”.
The first step of walking in the Spirit is to believ, by faith, that God has forgiven us completely- not just for our sins, but for all we were in Adam. “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Thank God for Jesus… therefore there is now no condemnation for those who walk after the Spirit.” We are conscious of the body of this death, but when we see that it has been slain by forgiveness and receive that washing, we have to renew it day by day, and if we do, the inner man grows in strength and our hearts do not condemn us because we have been strengthened by grace and we kno He is our righteousness. Since we have none of our own, we pray for His to grow within us- from whatever point of growth or ungrowth 
we find ourselves in.
Paul said All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is extending to more and more people may overflow in thanksgiving, to the glory of God. 16Therefore we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, yet our inner self is being renewed day by day.
I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness(progressive sinfulness), so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification(Progressive righteousness).
God deals with us as sons, and disciplines us, and that is proof that He loves us. He is “all in” for us, and He is teaching us to be “all in” for Him. But at the point in which we believe in Him, we are forgiven, and that well has no bottom. If we abuse the privilege, we will suffer consequences both spiritual and physical, but he will not deny His promise. The prodigal was still His son, even tho he was not experiencing the benefit of it.
HFPZ, I was saying Yes to the previous post by LLC.
It is natural to get testy when in disagreement. Totally natural. “Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.”
Everyone has sacred cows.
No one likes to eat hamburger made from their sacred cows, especially if its force fed. The truth is not strong enough to speak for itself, therefore i insist on the right to get in the flesh so that I can muddy already murky waters even more- and I reserve the right to berate anyone who tries to berate me 
Randy said:
I like to watch re sellers like thriftbooks.com 
I buy from them all the time. If you order over $10, it is free shipping
I do not own the book, but I spent a good amount of time studying it some years back. I would suggest requesting it via Interlibrary Loan from your local library. If you really like it, you could probably photocopy the entire thing for about $20 and put it in a 3-ring binder. 
In the meantime, as an appetizer, study Christ’s Olivet Discourse under the assumption that nothing in it refers to anything later than the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. N. T. Wright touches on this in his Jesus and the Victory of God.
(I believe that the only references to Christ’s Second Coming in the Bible are in Acts and in the Epistles.)
For those of you who believe you have to contribute to what Christ has already done to save you, what do you think unbelievers have to do for God to save all mankind?
i doubt it. The theology that Lutheran churches embrace, would be odds, with the theology of A.E. Knoch. But it raises a question for me. Are there any current and active churches, that embraces the theology of A.E. Knoch?
No, I’m American.
Would there need to be for A.E. Knoch to be correct?
I’m still curious about this question:
For those of you who believe you have to contribute to what Christ has already done to save you,
what do you think unbelievers have to do for God to save all mankind?
I believe he said somewhere on this thread, that he likes Luther’s idea of will. He can correct me, if that understanding’s not correct. I’m still curious if any contemporary churches exist, that follow the theology of A.E. Knoch. My thinking is not.
I don’t know if you would call it "the theology of A.E. Knoch but around 90% of Presbyterian ministers believe God will save all mankind. They call themselves closet Universalists. I explained everything I believe to my dad before he died and he said that’s what he was taught as a young one going to the Presbyterian church in Columbus Ohio.
But why would any contemporary church follow the theology of A.E. Knoch? I imagine you mean by “contemporary churches” you mean the massive corporations which call themselves churches but which are actually corporate businesses like the Catholic Church, Presbyterian, Methodist etc?
Like any corporation they have to think of the bottom line. To be successful they have to keep the money flowing into the coffers. To do that they have to keep everyone comfortable with what the majority believes to be the way things should be run and taught. They have their charters etc. Knoch’s theology does not fit within the parameters of that reality map. They would fear losing too many people and the bottom line would suffer. They have huge building to pay for, lawns to keep up, pastors to pay, heat and electricity to pay. They can’t afford to take a chance at change.
I proclaimed the same thing until I was 25 years old. But I didn’t really mean that we were saved from our sins themselves. I believed the clause actually meant that on the day we trusted in Jesus as Savior and Lord, we were saved from the result of our sins—namely eternity in the lake of fire.
It wasn’t clear to me from you post what you mean when you say we were saved from our sins on the day we trusted Christ. Perhaps you could spell that out for me.
I see being saved from sins as tantamount to being saved from sinning. If we haven’t stopped sinning, we haven’t been saved from sin. Thus I believe salvation is a process that will be completed in the day that Jesus returns, when we will be raised to life.