#2 THE RAPTURE

[mcgyver]

Covenant,

Please do not mis-interpret what I stated as a personal reference or gibe.....merely an example of what is happening.

I am well aware of dynamics between posters, I do not agree with many here, yet I always seek (though sometimes fail) not to let personal feelings "drive my train", and I always seek to treat other with the respect that is their due, and address the issues.

The reason that I have not previously posted is two-fold:

1. I am doing additional study in order to present my views in a cogent manner, and in order to do this, I must understand the opposing view.

2. I see no point in posting in a thread that has degenerated into a personality conflict or mud slinging contest. I would much prefer to see a defence given (though I might not agree) as to a particular postion.

 

[covenant]

Originally posted by Larry; "I am not beyond learning.

It is not a matter of being "beyond learning." The pride of the Pharisees says" I can't let go of what I believe as true even if it is proven false because I have too much to loose. Pastors have the worst time of anyone with that because they have the adoration of their congregation and, in addition, the fear of loosing their job and position. That's what I mean when I say that Christ would not waste his time with them.

Originally posted by Larry; "That is why I hope you will answer the other thread. I have never seen a amill give an answer to those questions. That is not to say that it can't be done. It is simply that I haven't seen it.

Quite frankly, that is not true. I researched the archives of 2004 and saw where DeafPostTrib and ArcheryAddict quite successfully presented the case for the New Covenant. However, you simply say you haven't "seen an answer over and over again." Well, maybe you should pray that your eyes of understanding get opened.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is not a matter of being "beyond learning." The pride of the Pharisees says" I can't let go of what I believe as true even if it is proven false because I have too much to loose. Pastors have the worst time of anyone with that because they have the adoration of their congregation and, in addition, the fear of loosing their job and position. That's what I mean when I say that Christ would not waste his time with them.

So if you were shown that your position is wrong, would you change it? I agree with you that this is a huge problem. It is one I am very conscious of.

Quite frankly, that is not true. I researched the archives of 2004 and saw where DeafPostTrib and ArcheryAddict quite successfully presented the case for the New Covenant. However, you simply say you haven't "seen an answer over and over again." Well, maybe you should pray that your eyes of understanding get opened.

Perhaps you could point me here because I missed it. I have discussed teh NC with them, but they never to my recollection gave any satisfactory answers to the problems I am pointing out. I have prayed and study this topic in depth, but in seminary and out of it. I have read the major authors that support your view. I think you can hardly call me unwilling to learn. I would be willing to be that I have read and studied more about your side than you have about mine.

I believe in teh New Covenant. I believe in it very strongly. I hope you will take the time to interact with the issues that I have brought up.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Larry wrote,

Again, Let's just cite your comments: And no, I am NOT confusing here subjective translation with subjective interpretation—subjective translation is an expression subjective interpretation. Notice the part in italics. It appears to make no sense, since it appears you left out a word. It's not a big deal. I didn't respond to it because I don't know what you meant by it, and my integrity won't let me respond to something you didn't mean.

I apologize for this typographical error. My sentence should have read, “And no, I am NOT confusing here subjective translation with subjective interpretation—subjective translation is an expression of subjective interpretation.”

Craig you said you went to a dispensationalist seminary. Should I really believe your words?

No, I did not say that. I said that I had studied dispensationalism, probably more than you have. I did not say that I studied it in a dispensationalist seminary. I have never taken so much as one class in a dispensationalist seminary. So far, God, by His mercy and His grace, has spared me from making such an unfortunate error in judgment, and I trust that He will continue to spare me of that because He promises to never leave me nor forsake me.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Larry,

Here is early part of my personal testimony regarding dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture:

I got saved in an Assembly of God church where the pastor frequently preached on a pre-trib rapture. During this time I was fellowshipping very regularly at a Baptist coffee house where the pre-trib rapture was the only view mentioned.

Soon after I got saved I purchased a New Scofield Reference Bible (because a close friend of mine used that Bible) and read it through—introductions, preface, Bible text, and all of the notes. And then one evening I got into a conversation with a young man about the rapture. He told me that the pre-trib rapture was a false teaching, and that the Church would be raptured as Christ returns to reign on the earth. I told this young man that he was mistaken, that the rapture would take place seven years earlier before the Great Tribulation. He asked me for verses to support my belief, and right off the top of my head I couldn’t think of any, so I offered to go home, look them up, and meet him the following evening. He agreed to this and I went home, picked up my New Scofield Reference Bible, and began to study the rapture. I kept looking for verses that proved that the rapture would precede the Great Tribulation, but I couldn’t find any. I read all of the notes about the rapture, but I could not find any verses that proved that the rapture would precede the Great Tribulation.

I prayed that night, earnestly from my heart, that God would help me to find the Scriptures that I needed, and the Holy Spirit began taking me from Scripture to Scripture and opened my eyes so that I was able to see the truth that the Rapture would NOT precede the Great Tribulation.

But the truth scared me, mostly because my church taught pre-tribulationalism and my confidence in my pastor and my church began to rapidly evaporate. So I prayed some more, and the Holy Spirit reminded me that I had a book that was an analysis of the statement of faith of The Assemblies of God. I picked up the book and read the chapter about the Second Coming of Christ and it didn’t say one word about the Great Tribulation and I was all the more discouraged and I prayed that God would help me. Then I noticed an appendix in the back of the book. The appendix was about the Great Tribulation and the time of the rapture in reference to it. I read it and it said that some pastors in the Assemblies of God believe in a post-tribulational rapture, but that the denomination encourages their pastors to preach the pre-tribulational rapture.

Larry, that greatly encouraged me, because I saw that God had shown others in my denomination the same things that He had shown me, and I went to bed with the peace of God.

That was some years ago, and I no longer fellowship with the Assemblies of God, but my experience with the word of God and the Holy Spirit that night was the catalyst that sent me on a very long journey.

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Larry,

Here is early part of my personal testimony regarding dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture:

I got saved in an Assembly of God church where the pastor frequently preached on a pre-trib rapture. During this time I was fellowshipping very regularly at a Baptist coffee house where the pre-trib rapture was the only view mentioned.

Soon after I got saved I purchased a New Scofield Reference Bible (because a close friend of mine used that Bible) and read it through—introductions, preface, Bible text, and all of the notes. And then one evening I got into a conversation with a young man about the rapture. He told me that the pre-trib rapture was a false teaching, and that the Church would be raptured as Christ returns to reign on the earth. I told this young man that he was mistaken, that the rapture would take place seven years earlier before the Great Tribulation. He asked me for verses to support my belief, and right off the top of my head I couldn’t think of any, so I offered to go home, look them up, and meet him the following evening. He agreed to this and I went home, picked up my New Scofield Reference Bible, and began to study the rapture. I kept looking for verses that proved that the rapture would precede the Great Tribulation, but I couldn’t find any. I read all of the notes about the rapture, but I could not find any verses that proved that the rapture would precede the Great Tribulation.

I prayed that night, earnestly from my heart, that God would help me to find the Scriptures that I needed, and the Holy Spirit began taking me from Scripture to Scripture and opened my eyes so that I was able to see the truth that the Rapture would NOT precede the Great Tribulation.

But the truth scared me, mostly because my church taught pre-tribulationalism and my confidence in my pastor and my church began to rapidly evaporate. So I prayed some more, and the Holy Spirit reminded me that I had a book that was an analysis of the statement of faith of The Assemblies of God. I picked up the book and read the chapter about the Second Coming of Christ and it didn’t say one word about the Great Tribulation and I was all the more discouraged and I prayed that God would help me. Then I noticed an appendix in the back of the book. The appendix was about the Great Tribulation and the time of the rapture in reference to it. I read it and it said that some pastors in the Assemblies of God believe in a post-tribulational rapture, but that the denomination encourages their pastors to preach the pre-tribulational rapture.

Larry, that greatly encouraged me, because I saw that God had shown others in my denomination the same things that He had shown me, and I went to bed with the peace of God.

That was some years ago, and I no longer fellowship with the Assemblies of God, but my experience with the word of God and the Holy Spirit that night was the catalyst that sent me on a very long journey.

Amen, Bro. Craig. That's the way that I wish you would speak all the time.

May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him. (Eph.1)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I apologize for this typographical error. My sentence should have read, “And no, I am NOT confusing here subjective translation with subjective interpretation—subjective translation is an expression of subjective interpretation.”

I figured something like that, but notice how I didn't jump on your typographical error to make it mean something it didn't mean. I recognize that you made one. I wish you had treated me that way. You knew my error, and you knew what I meant. I wish you would have treated my error graciously instead of ripping it out of context to make it mean something it didn't.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Craig you said you went to a dispensationalist seminary. Should I really believe your words?

No, I did not say that. </font>[/QUOTE]No actually you said exactly that. Look at your post from posted March 25, 2005 03:23 AM ... When you do, you will see that I quoted your words precisely ... You said "you went to a dispensationalist seminary." Now to save time, would you rather me treat your words alone, or your authorial intent and the context in which they were written? I am willing to be that you want to use my hermeneutic of authorial intent here. I know what you meant by "you went to a dispensationalist seminary." There was no doubt in my mind. And it would be wrong for me to be serious about the assertion I made. But I made it to make a point ... that you intended something else by those words, and my use of them was a misrepresentation of what you intended.

I said that I had studied dispensationalism, probably more than you have.

Maybe, but I doubt it, especially given what seems to be a not very good grasp on teh issues at hand. But that is fine. I really don't care. It is safe to say that while you and I are brothers in teh Lord (I am assuming genuine salvation for both of us), we would not be comfortable in each other's church.

I have never taken so much as one class in a dispensationalist seminary. So far, God, by His mercy and His grace, has spared me from making such an unfortunate error in judgment, and I trust that He will continue to spare me of that because He promises to never leave me nor forsake me.

So how does that apply to me? Did the he leave and forsake me? Is that really what you want to say? Your argument here has several problems. First, you have assumed that dispenstionalism is "unfortuante error in judgment." Many, with solid exegetical support, would say you are wrong. But more to the point, you have assume that it is such an error. You certainly haven't proven it here. The men I know with the highest regard for Scripture are dispensationalists.

Second, you have assumed that the promise to never leave or forsake applies to this. Yet many in church history, even in apostolic times, with the exact same promise have embraced false doctrine. The God who promised to never leave or forsake me has countless times soothed my theological conscience with the truth of dispensationalism ... which doesn't make it right. My point is that your reasoning has no basis in the actual promise.


Lastly, I appreciate your testimony. I would caution about several things. First, no one argues that any one verse supports pretrib. It is a theological construct from the whole of Scriptures. Posttribulationism (and mid trib, and pre wrath) suffers from the same problem. There is no one supporting verse. They are all theological conclusions, drawn from presuppositions about certain issues. So to act like you've killed the big one because you point out to someone that they don't have a verse is missing the point. The pre trib rapture can be solidly defended. So can a post trib rapture. Mid trib and pre wrath not so much. I can defend a post trib rapture from Scripture. But I think they start from a faulty spot.

Secondly, praying and going through Scripture is no guarantee. I have done the same thing with the same Holy Spirit (assuming we are both genuinely saved) and arrived at different conclusions. That argument is less convincing to me than anything you have yet posted (and the previous ones were like carrying water with a net). Experience, and going to bed with peace, are bad arbiters of true doctrine.

It is unfortunate that your church never taught the pre trib rapture properly. It is not surprising to me, but unfortunate.

The fact that the AOG doctrinal statement had post trib position in it does not mean that "God had shown others in [your] denomination the same things he had shown [you]." There is no evidence that God had shown them anything. I can show you doctrinal statements with outright heresy (and you would agree with me that they are heresy). You would hardly claim that God had shown them that, and with good reason.

My point in all of this is that I can rejoice in your testimony of salvation. I cannot accept your argumentation in support of posttribulationism because it is not founded on solid biblical and argumentative principles. It is just a bad way to argue, but I can use the same arguments in favor of my position.

 

[Craigbythesea]

No actually you said exactly that. Look at your post from posted March 25, 2005 03:23 AM ... When you do, you will see that I quoted your words precisely ... You said "you went to a dispensationalist seminary." Now to save time, would you rather me treat your words alone, or your authorial intent and the context in which they were written? I am willing to be that you want to use my hermeneutic of authorial intent here. I know what you meant by "you went to a dispensationalist seminary." There was no doubt in my mind. And it would be wrong for me to be serious about the assertion I made. But I made it to make a point ... that you intended something else by those words, and my use of them was a misrepresentation of what you intended.

Am I having hallucinations, or did Pastor Larry REALLY write this? Yikes!!!

From now on PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT read authorial intent into ANY of my words in ANY of my posts on this message board. You do NOT know me, you do NOT know where I went to school, and you have NO basis for KNOWING my intent in writing what I do. PLEASE take my words AT FACE VALUE, IN CONTEXT, AND IGNORE YOUR IMMAGINATION OF MY INTENT.

As for the words that I wrote,

Apparently you went to a dispensationalist seminary where you were incorrectly taught. I know this stuff is very basic, but your posts betray the fact that you do not understand it. I have tried to help you, but you refuse to listen to my instruction—and that is certainly your right.

I did NOT say that “I went to a dispensationalist seminary,” I said that “you went to a dispensationalist seminary.” There is no need here to look for my authorial intent—the words in their context as they appear on your monitor are sufficiently clear to be understood by any adult who can read English. You do NOT need both my “authorial intent and the context in which they were written,” you need both my words (the words that I actually typed) “and the context in which they were written.”

It is impossible to arrive at a dispensational view of the Bible without reading into the text that which is not there. Reading into the text of the Bible one’s own guess at the authorial intent is reading into the text that which is not there. Mary Baker Eddy did that, and million of people are in hell because of it. Thousands more die needlessly every year because they don’t believe that their diseases are real—all because Mary Baker Eddy read into the text of the Bible what she believed was the authorial intent. We find Islamic fundamentalist extremists reading into the text of Qur'an what they believe was the authorial intent, and we have very many people being killed because of it. We find dispensationalists reading into the text of the Bible what they believe was the authorial intent, and only God knows the damage that they are causing.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed's essay on three pre-trib verses:

\---------------------------

Pretrib pre-mill outline of time forward:

0. church age continues &lt;== you are here!
1. rapture/resurrection event
2. Tribulation time
3. Second Advent of Jesus event
4. literal MK=millinnial kingdom
5. new heaven & new earth

The timeline according to Matthew 24
(Mount Olivet Discourse, also Matthew 25,
Mark 13, Luke 21):

0. church age continues &lt;== you are here!
Matthew 24:4-15

1. rapture/resurrection event
Matthew 24:31-44

2. Tribulation time
Matthew 24:21-28

3. Second Advent of Jesus event
Matthew 24:29-30)

Not mentioned in Matthew 24:
(4. literal MK=millinnial kingdom)
(5. new heaven & new earth)

The timeline according to Revelation:

0. church age continues - Rev 2-3 &lt;== you are here!
1. rapture/resurrection event - Rev 4:1 (type)
2. Tribulation time - Rev 4:2-19:10
3. Second Advent of Jesus event - Rev 19:11-21
4. literal MK=millinnial kingdom - Rev 20:1-6
5. new heaven & new earth - Rev 20:7-22:5

The timeline according to 2 Thessalonians 2:

0. church age continues &lt;== you are here!
(implied, until the falling away)

1. rapture/resurrection
v.1 - gathering together unto him
v.3 - falling away

2. Tribulation time
(time of the man of sin)

3. Second Advent of Jesus event
v.1 - coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
v.8

Not mentioned:
(4. literal MK=millinnial kingdom)
(5. new heaven & new earth)

BTW, I believed in the pretribulation rapture/resurrection
before i saw these three scriptures as pretrib.
So even if you can prove all three of these scriptures
in error, i'll still hope in the pretribulation rapture
as will 90% of Baptists and kindred Christians.

--------------------------
BTW, i have some friends in who are
Carismatic Baptists (AKA: A.O.G.

)

 

[Craigbythesea]

BTW, i have some friends in who are
Carismatic Baptists (AKA: A.O.G. )

Does A.O.G. = A. of G. = Assemblies of God = Charismatic Baptists?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Craig, you make me laugh, seriously. When you deny saying that you said you went to a dispensationalist seminary, it is very funny. This is the most open and shut discussion we have ever had. There is absolutely no room for dispute. I am amazed that you even tried to dispute it, since your dispute itself proves my point. You had an intent and I violated it, even though I quoted you precisely. In fact, I used crtl-C and crtl-V to get an exact quote. I didn't even retype it.

You said I said that “you went to a dispensationalist seminary.”Ironically, even though you dispute it, that is exactly what I said you said. Go back and look at your post. Here it is from page 5, at 3:23am. You said: Apparently you went to a dispensationalist seminary where you were incorrectly taught. I know this stuff is very basic, but your posts betray the fact that you do not understand it. I have tried to help you, but you refuse to listen to my instruction—and that is certainly your right.

Now, notice the words in bold and go back and compare them to my quote of you from March 25, 2005 08:53 AM (p. 5, about 2/3 of the way down. I said, Craig you said you went to a dispensationalist seminary. Should I really believe your words? As anyone here can see, I quoted you word for word. You even admit it in your response to me when you say I did NOT say that “I went to a dispensationalist seminary,” I said that “you went to a dispensationalist seminary.” Once again, everyone can see that I quoted you precisely. I took your words and quoted them. So this is open and shut. You said you went to a dispensationalist seminary, and that is exactly what I said you said.

Now, the truth is that I know what your intent was. How? Because I read the context. I purposely yanked it from its context to illustrate my point that you believe in authorial intent. And the fact that you are upset shows that you agree with me. I did not say what you intended by your words. You and I both know that.

It is interesting that to know your intent, I did not need to talk to your personally. I did not need to read copious amounts of material from you. All I needed to do was read the context and the words, and place it in the context of your other posts. And I know your intent. You intended me to understand your supposition that I went to a dispensationalist seminary. And if you had said that, and I quoted it, I would have been correct. You would have said that I went to a dispensationalist seminary. And that is true.

Your argument about context is, as those who have studied this subject know, a vital part of understanding authorial intent. Context is a key indicator of what the author intended you to understand.

It is impossible to arrive at a dispensational view of the Bible without reading into the text that which is not there.

Craig, that is simply and plainly false. It is an outright deception to make such a statement. The presupposition of the dispensationalis is that the text means what it actually says ... a literal or normal interpretation. We don't "read things into it." If you want to maintain that, then give us an example to discuss.

A dispensationalist takes the text at face value. In fact, you are the one who blasted the dispensational hermeneutic for that very reason in another thread, saying it was too literal. That was a bad reason to blast it becuase you revealed a misunderstanding what what "literal interpretation" is. It is also wrong to say that we must read into it.

Authorial intent doesn't take "reading into" something. It takes study of the historical context, the literary context, the grammar, and the lexical information. It is a fairly easy thing. And I am willing to bet everything I have that you practice it everyday of the week. It is impossible to have rational communication without it. But you do have to study rather than just blindly accept what people tell you.

We find dispensationalists reading into the text of the Bible what they believe was the authorial intent, and only God knows the damage that they are causing.

I fail to see how believing what God actually said is causing damage. I don't dispute that some dispensationalists have caused great damage, as have those on the other sides.

[ March 26, 2005, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[covenant]

Originally posted by Larry; "Seriously, stop the foolish charges the dispensationalism is false and has no merit. You know it is false if you have studied much."

CRAIG, GIVE IT UP PLEASE!!!! Even I know it was a "faux paux!"

Originally posted by Craig; "Apparently you [referring to Larry] went to a dispensationalist seminary where you were incorrectly taught."

LARRY, GIVE IT UP PLEASE!!!! It's obvious you were misquoting him!

GIVE IT A REST!!!!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually, Covenant ... I quoted him exactly. I misrepresented him ... on purpose, to make a point that he denies ... ... My main point is about hermeneutics and all we all use one, the same one, in everyday conversation. But for some, when they get to Scripture they want to switch all of the sudden. I think that is not the right way to go about it.

 

[covenant]

Ya, know...I really did not wanna to keep this thing goin' but, since ya jist had ta git that last word in there, I'm gonna git my licks in here too, I guess!

Your original "intent" was obvious as we all know you wouldn't say otherwise about dispensationalism. However, when Craig, quoted your "words", he quoted them EXACTLY as you wrote them - faux paux or not and did not leave out any of your words in the process.

However, when you misquoted him, you left out some of his words in order to distort his original intent. Even if it was done to prove a point, you didn't prove it because it wasn't his original words as was in yours.

Now, are you going to let it rest? Perhaps this is why you actually "think" you win debates most of the time, when in fact, people seem to just get weary with debating you - notice the silence?

 

[Pastor Larry]

because it wasn't his original words as was in yours.

No, go back and look ... I quoted him precisely, with a cut and paste. My quote of him was his original words. I did leave out the beginning to distort them in order to show the fallacy of his hermeneutic. He was upset when I violated his authorial intent. And rightly so. He intended one thing and I represented it another way. Now, if he gets upset (and rightly so), don't you think God gets upset when he word his handled in a similar fashion, being made to mean somethign that the language and context don't allow? I do. I have long said that the major difference between someone like you and me is not theology; it is hermeneutics. If we treated Scripture the same, we would be relatively close. We are not becuase we don't.

Will I let it rest? It depends on whether or not there are further points that can be made with profit. So far, I think some value has been gained by this part of hte exchange. It actually worked out far better than I thought it would.

But there is a bigger point here that you are losing in the personality conflict you are having. The bigger point is how do we treat language? That is what I am going after because the root of our differences (yours and mine and mine and Craig's) is the way that we treat language. If you treated language as I do, and as Craig wanted me to treat his own, then I think you would be a dispensationalist.

I don't "think" I win debates. I don't really think about it at all, and I really don't care that much. I come here to learn, and interact. If you don't want to debate, then don't. I don't really care. If you have something to contribute, I am always willing to learn, but expect that I will interact with it, and I expect people to interact with my views. I want my views to be critiqued. It is what refines them and makes them worthy. And some of them I abandon and others I strengthen. But overall I come here to learn. Why are you here?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Someone in this thread is absolutely insane and needs to be committed to a psychiatric hospital!

I'll leave it up the readers to decide which one of us it is

. If you decide that it is me, please pray me as I most surely need it!

 

[Craigbythesea]

I just now called the paramedics. Within minutes I will be safely put away in Belleview Psychiatric Hospital. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

P.S. I almost forgot—Happy Valentines Day!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Bro.Craig...enjoy your vacation at the hospital...just don't let them get ya with the drugs or the shock therapy....methinks you are confused enough already and that would just make things worse!!!!!!

Greg Sr.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

By the way...if the Rapture takes place while you're in there you may have some 'splainin to do at the JSOC!

Greg Sr.

 

[covenant]

CRAIG, OH, NO!!!! NOT YOU TOO????????

I'M NOT STAYING HERE ALL BY MYSELF!!!!

Originally posted by Larry;"If we treated Scripture the same, we would be relatively close. We are not becuase we don't."

Finally, you're right about something! I do agree with you on this! We do not treat Scripture the same way. I take these words very literally, and very seriously.

Jesus said the resurrection will be on the LAST DAY.

Joh 6:39 And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day.

Christians and non-Christians must live together until we're separated ON THE LAST DAY. "Growing together" in NO hermeutical manner means a thousand years in-between by ANY honest Christian's interpretation.

Mat 13:24-30 He put out another parable to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed darnel among the wheat and went his way. But when the blade had sprung up and had produced fruit, then the darnel also appeared. So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Then where have the darnel come from? He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Then do you want us to go and gather them up? But he said, No, lest while you gather up the darnel you also root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. And in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather together the darnel and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my granary."

OT Martha believed the resurrection to be ON THE LAST DAY, and I believe it!

Joh 11:24 Martha said to Him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Paul believed the resurrection to be on the LAST DAY and I believe it!

1Co 15:23-24 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming; then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, DESTRUCTION OF UNGODLY MEN, AND THE EARTH BURNED OCCUR ON THE DAY THE LORD APPEARS

2Pe 3:7-10 "But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same Word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. ...But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat. And the earth and the works in it will be burned up.

The JUDGMENT is on the LAST DAY!

Joh 12:48 He who rejects Me and does not receive My Words has one who judges him; the Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Now Larry, unless you really mean those very pious and eloquent words in your post, you won't take the above scripture as seriously as you claim to do, because when literally read, they can say nothing else but that the resurrection and the end of the world is on the SAME DAY AND IS ONE MAJOR EVENT!

However, I have no hopes with these verses, outside the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, any more than in the previous thread.