Only The Saints Were Raised...

TC,

Not sure why we would call it separate phases of the same resurrection as opposed to two separate resurrections? Please explain.

 

I believe in 2 Resurrections and one already came. I just do not believe there are 3 more to come but 1.

You are talking my language now. I believe Jesus Christ and the saints were the First Resurrection and Jesus Christ being the first fruits of them that slept that arose, and they went into Heaven, not Jerusalem. New Jerusalem is in Heaven now, the part that has died. The Mk took place during this resurrection and that is why the scripture says "blessed and holy is he that hath a part in the first Resurrection. In other words, "blessed and holy is he that hath a part in Jesus Christ" for on such the second death hath no power.
Now when Jesus comes again, there will be the second resurrection of all the dead, both just and unjust.

rjprince; did you know about the beginning of the doctrine of Mk as given here?

LINK;
http://books.google.com/books?id=l9g...fbKTFJZoI0KFs\


BBob,

 

I would have to take it one at a time TC; Take for instance "a time and a time and a half a time".
Or silence in heaven for the space of an half an hour, I doubt very seriously that would be man's time.

Go back and read again when the saints came out of the grave TC; it was after the Lord arose and then the saints arose with Him.

Mat 27:53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

BBob,

 

That is how I deal with it TC:

Please read this scripture closely TC;

 

NASB: and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
(NASB ©1995)GWT: They came out of the tombs after he had come back to life, and they went into the holy city where they appeared to many people.
(GOD'S WORD®)KJV: And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
ASV: and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.
BBE: And coming out of their resting-places, after he had come again from the dead, they went into the holy town and were seen by a number of people.
DRB: And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.
DBY: and going out of the tombs after his arising, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.

Coming out of the grave after His resurrection fits Pauls writings, Him being the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

I am aware of the teaching of Amil, Postmil, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. Began studying different millennial positions in detail in about 1977 or 78. Last big effort to study out the postmil position was about 7 years when I read just about everything that Sproul, Gentry, DeMar, Sutton and a few others wrote on the subject. Also went back and read a couple of Mauro's books on the subject.

The fact that I do not agree with you on the subject does not mean that I do not understand your position. I have read what I believe to be the best the other side has to offer. I always try to do that. If I can't defend my position against the BEST POSSIBLE ARGUEMENTS against it, one of two things are true.

1) I am wrong, or
2) I do not know the Scriptures well enough

Fact of the matter is this: I DO NOT REALLY CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT THE END TIMES, THE MK, THE JUDGEMENTS, ETERNITY, ETC. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IT AND BELIEVE IT, WHATEVER IT IS!!!

I have no particular allegiance to any one view or position. My allegiance is to the Word of GOD, and that above the Word of theologians, historians, philosophers, preachers, teachers, etc.

My LOYALTY is to the BOOK and to the GOD WHO WROTE IT!

The only ax I have to grind is faithful and sound exegesis of the Word of God according to a consistent literal grammatical historical hermeneutic.

I DETEST ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION TO THE DEGREE THAT THE ONLY RULES ARE IN THE MIND OF THE INTERPRETER.

I STRONGLY ADHERE TO THE PERSPICUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES! This does not deny that there are difficult passages and that there are passages that seem to contain apparent contradictions. It recognizes that all of these can be harmonized on the basis of language, time frame, or BIBLICAL covenant involved.

God told Adam to eat only fruits, nuts, and vegetables. He told Noah to eat the flesh of whatever moves. He told the Jews not to eat some animals that were unclean. He removed those distinctions with the sheet vision to Peter. Paul says, let no man judge you in meat, forbiding some things.

I have thrown out many things that I was taught as a child, as a student, and as a pastor in deference to clear teachings of the Word of God. I do not discard these things lightly, but I will be bound by the Word of God and not the traditions of men, no matter how long standing or how recent they may be. If I ever stand anywhere but there, I would just as soon not even be able to stand at all. If I ever take the Word of man over the Word of God, I am ready to go. I have no more purpose here, certainly no more useful purpose.

RJP

 

I think they all read that way TC; sorry, I didn't understand. I agree.

 

Well said and I agree whole heartedly.

rjprince, regardless of the MK, you and I have accepted Christ as our Savior and He through His Grace saved us. If we get to the end and there is a MK, I will just enjoy the time. If there is not a MK, we both will meet Jesus in the air to everly be with Him.

May God Bless, it has been a good discussion and I highly respect your veiws.

BBob,

 

"that arose". He was the First and is the Resurrection.

 

No, the scripture reads that way but the writer adds the line that the Lord resurrected first to make sure it was right.


Mat 27:53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. This plainly says, He arose first!! I used to think that until I read it more closely because the writer did say the saints arose, but then the writer, himself made sure it was right before leaving the subject. He must of realized he needed to make sure that was correct. He had to be speaking at first as the death, burial and resurrection as a whole.

BBob

 

BB and TC,

Here is the comment from Jamison, Fausset, Brown...

52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose—These sleeping saints (see JFB on "1Th 4:14") were Old Testament believers, who—according to the usual punctuation in our version—were quickened into resurrection life at the moment of their Lord’s death, but lay in their graves till His resurrection, when they came forth. But it is far more natural, as we think, and consonant with other Scriptures, to understand that only the graves were opened, probably by the earthquake, at our Lord’s death, and this only in preparation for the subsequent exit of those who slept in them, when the Spirit of life should enter into them from their risen Lord, and along with Him they should come forth, trophies of His victory over the grave. Thus, in the opening of the graves at the moment of the Redeemer’s expiring, there was a glorious symbolical proclamation that the death which had just taken place had "swallowed up death in victory"; and whereas the saints that slept in them were awakened only by their risen Lord, to accompany Him out of the tomb, it was fitting that "the Prince of Life...should be the First that should rise from the dead" (#Ac 26:23 1Co 15:20,23 Col 1:18 Re 1:5).
and went into the holy city—that city where He, in virtue of whose resurrection they were now alive, had been condemned.
and appeared unto many—that there might be undeniable evidence of their own resurrection first, and through it of their Lord’s. Thus, while it was not deemed fitting that He Himself should appear again in Jerusalem, save to the disciples, provision was made that the fact of His resurrection should be left in no doubt. It must be observed, however, that the resurrection of these sleeping saints was not like those of the widow of Nain’s son, of Jairus’ daughter, of Lazarus, and of the man who "revived and stood upon his feet," on his dead body touching the bones of Elisha (#2Ki 13:21)—which were mere temporary recallings of the departed spirit to the mortal body, to be followed by a final departure of it "till the trumpet shall sound." But this was a resurrection once for all, to life everlasting; and so there is no room to doubt that they went to glory with their Lord, as bright trophies of His victory over death.

Just cannot reconcile them being brought to life before the Lord Jesus with Paul's declaration that Jesus is the Firstfruits from the dead. Gotta make it fit with all the rest of Scripture. Since the other synoptics are no help and neither is John, I have to lean toward this understanding of the passage:

MY PARAPHRASE: "When He died, the tombs broke open. Many of the bodies of the saints which slept, arose and came out of the graves after His resurrection."



This is all that fits. And of course there was no punctuation in the originals and no disinction between upper and lower case so as to mark off end and beginning of sentences...

 

WE AGREE!!! (See JFB quote above)