Featured What do members of the BB hold as separating them from Papists?

Of course they do, in a huge way. Modern day Israel has virtually become their Golden Calf.

 

While not addressed to me, I figured I would answer since you seem to think this is a trump card.
I counted 4 or 5 depending on how literal you get.

Rev 4:1
Now I will admit that the only reason I included this one is because this is a favorite proof text for pre-tribbers, saying that this is the rapture by making John an Allegory of the church (oh the irony).

Rev 11:12
Here we have the 2 witness, who were dead, being resurrected to life and then being called to heaven. A pretty clear cut verse.

Rev 14:14-20

Ok I will admit that this one is a bit of a stretch but I still think its interesting that here we have the wicked being gathered together, to have the wrath of God poured on them. Very much like we see in Rev 20 with the wicked being gathered together and thrown in the lake of fire.

Rev 20:5-6
Of course I know this is the one that you were really going for.

Rev 20:13-15

And here is the other one you were going for.


Now here is a question for you.
How many resurrections does Jesus talk about?
I'll be nice and help you out:

Matt 22:29-32
Now I realize this was when the Sadducees were trying to trick him, and Jesus is showing them their error in denying the resurrection, but I want you to notice how many resurrections Jesus mentions.

Ok here is the parallel passage to help you out.

Luke 20:33-35

Here is another passage

John 5:28-29
how much time?
who hears?

How many resurrections does Paul talk about?

1 Cor 15:20,21 and 42
Now before you complain yes I know there is a lot more in 1 Cor 15, it is a very theologically rich chapter but for the sake of being concise I just focused on the verses that specifically talk about the resurrection. I'm sure you are going to go farther and bring up the rapture from this chapter as well, but I will just point out that its all in the context of talking about our hope in the resurrection because of Christ's resurrection, and that is also why I included Rev 4 in my list from Rev because Paul puts the rapture under his teaching of the resurrection.

Acts 24:15
How many resurrections are there according to Paul?

And last passage for you

Phi. 3:11
How many here?


Now the last question I have for you DC is how do you reconcile the number of resurrections that Jesus and Paul state with the number of resurrections that you see in Revelation.
I know OR has asked a variation of that question many times in the past, so maybe presented this way we might get an answer.

 

And it's appreciated. Even the sarcasm, lol. The point is you have addressed the question, and while you went outside of the boundaries of the question (and that's okay), which distracts from the purpose of the question, and the point which the question seeks to make, it is overall far better than what usually takes place when the Rapture comes up.

And if the OP doesn't mind, I will just respond to your post, and then we can make this more on topic with the question "How many Resurrections do Catholics see in Revelation," lol.

I could have narrowed the focus and asked how many literal resurrections, but, John and being caught up, which I see as a sequential metaphor (though I do not take a dogmatic position on it) would make four.

Not sure why you would think so. Not all Pre-Tribulation believers view this as a rapture. Not all Pre-Tribulation believers view this as an allegory of the rapture. I don't view it as an allegory, but metaphor. It has a literal person, John, in view, which denies an allegorical form. I don't see it as a literal rapture, simply descriptive of the placement of the Rapture of the Church in the Prophetic timeline of events in Revelation.

And I have only taken that view for a couple years.

And here is something I will point out: again you make this central to an offensive against another group. Why is that even necessary?

The question simply asks how many resurrections in Revelation. The point is to come together and discuss what Scripture states so we can determine the correct understanding of the Word, not the incorrect understanding of others. When we find the correct teaching, all other views will automatically be exposed.


Then

Agreed. This is a rapture. It involves those who are dead being brought to life and caught up to Heaven. This is resurrection number one in the Timeline of events.

I don't personally see this as a resurrection, for several reasons:

1. Here Angels are prominent, in the Rapture the Lord personally collects the Church;

2. I do not take the view this speaks of Christ based on the statement "another Angel" comes;

3. Here, in view are live people who die, quite the opposite of resurrection;

4. The Rapture involves only the Church according to the teachings, here we see the death of unbelievers, an element never mentioned in Rapture teachings;

5. This takes place within the Tribulation, whereas very few have ever offered Mid-Tribulation arguments, primarily because of the weakness of the view (though I will say it is a better view than the Post-Tribulation view, in my opinion).

If we have here the reaping of both believers and unbelievers, I would suggest (but am not dogmatic in regards to believers), that in view would be the deaths of believers and unbelievers. From this reaping will come those resurrected in the First Resurrection, the second resurrection in the Timeline.

No, BW, what I was going for was "How many Resurrections in Revelations." It's as simple as that.

The question is designed to allow the discussion to walk through the details that have to be considered in order to understand what is going on.

Now why this is important is because many do not consider the Rapture of the Two Witnesses, nor the Resurrection of the Dead one thousand years after this resurrection. Many think this is the same resurrection.

But they are clearly separate resurrections and that is important in understanding the Timeline of events in Revelation. And unless one takes these things into consideration, their understanding will be off. And this will throw them off in other areas as well.


Continued...

 

It's not a matter of what I am "going for," it's a matter of "How many resurrections are there in Revelation."
There is an entire thread devoted to the question.

In this resurrection we have a general resurrection which is the last resurrection listed in Scripture. While it appears only the unjust are raised, we can't be dogmatic about that, and it is very possible (and some might say likely) that there will be those who are just raised as well (and this based on Christ's teaching, i.e., John 5 and 6).

That raises the discussion as to the disposition of the just who die during the Millennial Kingdom. Do they die and their bodies await this resurrection (which is what I lean toward), or are they immediately glorified?

Scripture only teaches two resurrections:


John 5:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


We see that in the Old Testament as well:


Daniel 12:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


But that is of a different scope than the question "How many resurrections in Revelation?"

In view is the type, rather than specific instances where these two actually occur.

For the unjust there is only one event, but, for the just, that is, those who have been eternally redeemed...we see three listed in Revelation, and, if you are a Pre-Tribulation believer...four.

The First Resurrection, for example, is not the "first" in the TimeLine, thus we can say that in view is the type between the two types that are taught in Scripture.

The view that sees the First Resurrection as descriptive in sequence, rather than type, have to overlook the fact that the Two Witnesses are the "first" to be resurrected and raptured (and a rapture is first and foremost a resurrection).

Awfully nice of you, lol.

The Lord consistently taught two types of resurrection, having only one event, that will never change. However, just as the Lord did not preach the Gospel of Christ, because it was a Mystery (not revealed), even so the Rapture of the Church was a Mystery:


1 Corinthians 15:50-52

King James Version (KJV)

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


The previously unrevealed truth here is that not all believers would die before being resurrected into glorified bodies.

In the foundational teachings of the Hebrew Scripture (from which the Writer states we are to progress from, and not lay again that which is foundational, Hebrews 6:1), the Doctrine of Resurrection was limited to the just and unjust one day being raised from the dead. That there would be raptures, such as that of the Two Witnesses and the Tribulation Martyrs was not known, and only revealed in the teachings of Paul and John.

And you are correct, the Lord, in this passage (your quote), is addressing the error of Annihilation embraced by the Sadducees. They thought they would be cute and could cause the Lord to stumble with trick questions, and they simply did not have the Doctrinal advantage, much less an intellectual advantage. Because of their error on a key Doctrine, their entire walk was compromised. For them, it was more important to show the Lord wrong through deceptive communication (rather than simply discussing it), that what was correct...never even entered into the arena of their thoughts.

Not sure why you would think this helps me out, lol. My Doctrine is not going to be impacted by a "surprise verse" from an obscure passage.

The first quote had relevance in that it speaks of resurrection, but that does not change the scope of the question, nor alter the truth which the answer to that question demands.

This teaching of the Lord does not change the revelation we receive through Paul and John. No Scripture cancels out another, and if one's doctrine accomplishes that, they need to back up and see where their error begins.


Continued...

 

lol...now who is the literalist?

"An Hour" does not demand a particular amount of time. Was the Lord's suffering...an "hour?"


John 16:32

King James Version (KJV)

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


Did the scattering of the sheep last an hour? I can account for no less than Three Days, but personally place the length of that "hour" as approximately 50 days.

So at this point, tell me why you think the "hour" is significant? There must be a point to the question, right?

All who are in the tombs.

I view this to speak of the general resurrection just prior to the Great White Throne Judgment, so what we can say, if that is what the Lord refers to, is that the Two Witnesses and the Tribulation Martyrs are excluded from this, as they have already been resurrected, and are no longer in the tombs.

On that point we can be dogmatic, is it without controversy.

Secondly, if the Lord is speaking of those who resurrected at His Death...


Matthew 27:51-53

King James Version (KJV)

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


We can dogmatically say that the general resurrection is not in view there either, because only Saints are raised at this point.

We know that the general resurrection of the dead did not take place at the Cross.

One theory about this resurrection is that this is the first-fruits harvest of the dead, and that these saints are raised in glorified form.

That cannot be the case for one simple reason: Christ is the Firstborn from the Dead, and the First Fruits of the dead. We can't have Saints glorified before the Lord.

Therefore this resurrection would fall into the same resurrection category as any physical resurrection we see in Scripture. There are numerous physical resurrections (that of Lazarus the most familiar) in Scripture, occurring in both Old and New Testaments, but those raised from the dead would go on to die physically again.

The Lord is the First to be raised in glorified form.

Complain? I have done my best just to get answers to simple questions and have certain engage in discussion.

As I said, I appreciate the response. This is how we learn, BW. If you can dismantle the doctrine I hold to, then I learn. If I dismantle yours, you do. Those who may follow the conversation will learn. The Public looking for answer can learn. The Lost seeking God can learn.

All through discussion which is not corrupted by disruption, biting and devouring, and ridicule, all of which is enough to drive even believers away from getting in the middle of that.

So...no complaints.

In type Paul only teaches two resurrections. In sequential meaning Paul teaches two events of resurrection. We know this because Paul taught the same two resurrections Christ and the Old Testament taught, but...Paul also taught of the Rapture.

You would have to post the entire Chapter, as it mostly focuses on resurrection.

No, because my question was "How many Resurrections in Revelation."

My goal is not to talk about the Rapture at this time, but to develop underlying truths which have to be considered before one even thinks about getting into a discussion about the Rapture. When you can admit that Revelation provides three separate resurrections...then one might be ready to discuss the Rapture.

Christ's Resurrection is the foundation for the teaching, as it is because of Christ that Saints are glorified. The Gospel is our hope:


1 Corinthians 15

King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


The Gospel was presented in the Old Testament, but, it was not until the Mystery of the Gospel was unveiled that men began to understand. It was not until Christ actually died that this knowledge moved from the category of Secret, Hidden Wisdom...to unveiled revelation provided by the Comforter Himself.

But back to the focus.

The Rapture is first and foremost a resurrection. That we are caught up in the Rapture is integral, but Paul's teaching does not distinguish between the two.

We cannot have a Rapture without resurrection, but we can have resurrection without a Rapture. The Rapture has a focus of one being caught up to Heaven, whereas resurrection can be seen as merely physical, as well as that of the dead in Revelation 20, where those resurrected are not caught up to Heaven, simply raised in eternal bodies suitable for their eternal destination.


Continued...

 

Two. Both in type and sequence.

Only one, but this does not nullify the rest of Biblical teachings, where one could try to teach the view that there will only be one general resurrection, thus bypassing the Rapture of the Church as well as the Millennial Kingdom.

The Three Resurrections of Revelation deny the validity of the A-millennial and Post-Tribulation views.

Just did that.

On the contrary, OR, as well as many here...have refused to engage in discussion about the points which show the weaknesses of their views.

If you can find one question that I have not answered (and I am not speaking about posts I haven't seen or have been directed at someone else that I did not get involved in) then do so.

Again, this is how we work out the difficulties of doctrinal views, and in doing so we can accomplish two things: first, we shore up our own understanding, and secondly...we can put to rest the animosity caused by unanswered questions.

If we confront that which stands in opposition to our doctrine, we should be able to either admit our error, or support our views.

But that can only take place when both sides engage in discussion.

You cannot possibly claim that I have not answered your proposed views. I have. The only one between us that has awaited answers would be me.

And again, I appreciate the response, and just ask that if you are going to deny the responses, please do so on all points. Please do not leave out any of the issues and points that have thus far been raised.

And I think I will place this last post in "How many Resurrections in Revelation" as well, so that if you or anyone else wants to pursue the points raised, we will not be derailing this thread any more than it has been so far. And for that I take responsibility, as it was I that raised the question, though the question was in response to a post.

We could, in this thread, look at how many resurrections Catholics see in Revelation, which might surprise some.


God bless.

 

Doesn't seem our threads we create are listed in our profile, at least I couldn't find a link, so I wasn't able to find the thread.


God bless.

 

1) Because, it makes for interminable posts.
2) I won't change his mind about anything.
3) There is no need to respond point for point.

I choose one or two I think are pivotal and respond to those, but instead of interacting on those he chooses to question why some of his more inconsequential assertions are ignored. Well, not really ignored, but not brought up.

But I am willing to engage a point upon which he would like me to expound if he would ask directly in a brief and concise post.

No.

 

Oh. And
4) I don't read his tomes. I skim them.

 

No, I apply it how it's meant, to the Church, the seed of Abraham, children of promise, just as Isaac was.

It doesn't take a genius to look back on the history of the past two millennia and see: it's the children of promise who have been blessed, NOT Israel after the flesh.

Just as Gen 15:6 was pronounced BEFORE circumcision, so was Gen 12:3.

It's the height of stupidity and idolatry to submit or kowtow to any flesh in order to gain favor with God.

 

You're attempting to defend the indefensible when he admits to doing it:

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/i-am-announcing-a-general-amnesty.96235/#post-2174604

[ add]

...egad Old Man, look at what he's done to this page alone.

 

You have a problem with dyslexia?

And if ye are Christ`s, then are ye Abraham`s seed, heirs according to promise. Gal 3:29

 

Maybe he has another verse or two in view, which you have not considered:


Galatians 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


1 John 3:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.





God bless.

 

Please point out the part/s you consider to be gibberish.


God bless.

 

That was not his statement.

You mean "father of many nations."

kyredneck quoted Gal. 3:29. Those who are Christ's are the church, and the seed of Abraham.

Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.​