Resurrection Saints and Wicked

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Paul said, “I would not have you ignorant concerning (‘in relation to’) them which are asleep (‘the dead’, in Christ). For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even (just as Christ had to rise first in order to descend again), even so (just like He will bring together with Him us who will be alive at His Coming) even so God will gather (‘bring’) with Him together (through resurrection from the dead), them also who are asleep (“the dead”) in Jesus.... For this we say ... that [in relation to (‘concerning’) them which are asleep], we, who shall be living and remain at the Coming of the Lord -- (God forbid) may not, precede (= will not, have advantage on) those asleep / the dead. Because the Lord shall descend ... and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then / so that / before (‘epeita’) we who [in relation to (‘concerning’) them which are asleep] shall be living and remain (at the Coming of the Lord), together with / at the same time with them (the dead, now raised) shall be seized together in clouds-to-a-meeting-of, the Lord in the air.”

The dead shall be, must be, raised first – just like Christ had to be raised first in order to descend again; the dead have to be raised first in order that we all together – the living and the dead – may meet the Lord as He descends in the air, and may be gathered together with Him (“where He is” – which is where He has returned to, the earth made new by His coming).

"The dead in Christ Rise first", “with reference to and in relation to”, us “who are alive”; And “we that are alive at His coming”, “with reference to and in relation to” “the dead in Christ”, do not, will not, “may not”, by any means, “precede”, “the dead in Christ” – is what Paul is saying; is, what Paul is meaning. ‘Both John and Paul seem to agree here! Over THESE the SECOND death has NO power’ because these are both the dead and the living “in Christ”. Over these the second death has had no power because “they have had a part in The First Resurrection”.

 

[BobRyan]

So then would that imply a post-tribulation rapture?

Yes - given the Matt 24 sequence of a post-trib pre-mill rapture (gathering of the saints "AFTER the tribulation of those days")

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Haai okes, you've got your 'pre-trib' thread. Don't hike this one for it; you're confusing everybody!

Looks like the same topic to me -- what did I miss?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Looks like the same topic to me -- what did I miss?

GE
Like always, everything.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --

Bob said
"And of course AFTER that FIRST resurrection - there is a literal 1000 years according to Rev 20."

Quote:GE said
Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
GE
BR says, AFTER FIRST resurrection - literal 1000 years. John says, "Thousand Years This First Resurrection" - making the two, the same. And if, there were a chronolgical sequence, John puts, quote, "Thousand Years First, Resurrection" -- next! If you wanted literalness, you got it!

Bob said
Wrong.

We see the saints "COME TO LIFE" BEFORE the 1000 years and John CALLS that coming to life -- "the FIRST resurrection"

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to lifeand reigned with Christ for a thousand years.


5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.[/b]
6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,

Your "wild spin" on vs 5 makes it appear that John is calling the SECOND "coming to life" the "FIRST resurrection" -- what a huge clue this must be for you that your view is clearly wrong.

(No need to thank me in pointing that out for you. It is also just part of the service I am doing here for others)

I'm sorry you cannot distinguish between
a type of event (here resurrection of the just /in Christ/ )
and specific examples of such an event
(here the pretribulation resurrection and the
post-tribualtion resurrection).

Here is an example:
There is a type event called the Birthday (really
a Birthday Anniversery, but it is usually callled 'birthday').
I have had 64 such events happen to me - but it is
only one kind of event. There is another type even
called a 'knighting' which I have never experiences
(and am not likely to).

Are up saying that you agree with GE that the first resurrection happens AFTER the Millennium OR are you saying that in John's future there were a large number of "FIRST" resurrections before the millennium??

One thing is clear - according to John there is exactly 1000 years between the first resurrection and the 2nd. So pick whatever resurrection you want that was future to John -- then count 1000 years.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We see the saints "COME TO LIFE" BEFORE the 1000 years and John CALLS that coming to life -- "the FIRST resurrection"

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to lifeand reigned with Christ for a thousand years.


5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.[/b]
6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,

GE - Your "wild spin" on vs 5 makes it appear that John is calling the SECOND "coming to life" the "FIRST resurrection" -- what a huge clue this must be for you that your view is clearly wrong.

(No need to thank me in pointing that out for you. It is also just part of the service I am doing here for others)

BR and EE

"The 'first resurrection' comes BEFORE reigning with Christ for
a thousand years.
most definitely!"

GE

Most definitely not!
They came to life AND AND AND reigned with Christ Thousand Years .

Well - we differ "CAME to life" is what resurrection IS!

5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.[/b]

GE - Using Your "wild spin" in vs 4 with vs 5 it makes it appear that John is calling the SECOND "coming to life" the "FIRST resurrection" -- what a huge clue this must be for you that your view is clearly wrong.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

We see the saints "COME TO LIFE" BEFORE the 1000 years and John CALLS that coming to life -- "the FIRST resurrection"

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to lifeand reigned with Christ for a thousand years.


5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.[/b]
6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,

GE - Your "wild spin" on vs 5 makes it appear that John is calling the SECOND "coming to life" the "FIRST resurrection" -- what a huge clue this must be for you that your view is clearly wrong.

(No need to thank me in pointing that out for you. It is also just part of the service I am doing here for others)



Well - we differ "CAME to life" is what resurrection IS!

5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.[/b]

GE - Using Your "wild spin" in vs 4 with vs 5 it makes it appear that John is calling the SECOND "coming to life" the "FIRST resurrection" -- what a huge clue this must be for you that your view is clearly wrong.

in Christ,

Bob

GE

You are completely lost in your own garbled version of what John actually says. I stick to his precise words and to their precise meaning and order, and find JOHN in Revelation confrming JOHN in the Gospel. And we could have added JOHN in his epistles many times, explaining, 'came to life' / 'lived' in Rv20:4-6 for every reason Faith could give, means, and in fact is, "The First Resurrection" without which no man shall enter -- or see! -- the Kingdom of God.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Look at the time when the statements are true:

SCD = day of the Second Coming of Jesus:

SCD ------------- They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
SCD + 1,000 -- 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)
SCD -------------- This is the first resurrection.
right now ------- 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection.

This is equating
the first resurrection = when 'they came to life & reigned' etc.

IMHO there are two parts to the first resurrection:

1. The pretribulation rapture/resurrection
beginning of the 'week' - Daniel's 70th week
beginning of the 'Tribulation Period'
beginning of the 'Day of Christ'

2. The post-tribulation rapture/resurrection
end of the 'week' - Daniel's 70th week
end of the 'Tribulation Period'
end of the 'Day of Christ'

 

[BobRyan]

Ed -

By your own post - your view "needs" THREE "first resurrections" -- with Rev 20 being the "THIRD resurrection" before the 1000 years -- future to John.

I get that part.

It also needs Christ's statement of John 14 "I WILL come again and RECEIVE you" to be at least THREE events not ONE.

AND it needs some other sequence for our gathering together to Christ OTHER than "IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days" Matt 24.

In almost every area -- your view needs "a change" to the text.

This means you do not derive your view FROM the texts - you seek to find away to state the texts such that they fit your view.

The question is -- have you succeeded?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

2. The post-tribulation rapture/resurrection
end of the 'week' - Daniel's 70th week
end of the 'Tribulation Period'
end of the 'Day of Christ'

That bit about Daniel's 70th week has also got to be a huge indicator for you that your model is seriously flawed.

1. NO timeline prophecy in ALL of scripture works if you slice and dice it into discontiguous bits with unknown gaps of time inserted into the timeline.

Hint: Try doing that with Jeremiah's 70 years that START Dan chapter 9 instead of just trying that trick with the 70th week of Dan 9.

Hint 2: Try that trick with the first 483 years of Daniels 490 year prophetic timeline. Slicing it up into discontiguous bits and pieces separated by undefined/unknown gaps of time does not work there either.

2. Everyone admits that Dan 9 gives the greatest messianic prophecy in the OT - AND we all see clearly that IF you leave that 490 timeline in tact - as one timeline IT COVERS the work of Christ as the Messiah. But if you SLICE it up then it exactly MISSES the work of the Messiah.

Again - a huge indicator that your model is flawed as it takes an abnormal approach to a TIMELINE and it explicitly SKIPS the work of the Messiah when in fact we ALL agree it is THE great Messianic timeine prophecy of the OT!

I gotta say Ed - this has to be a pretty big indicator for you

Surely you readily admit that ALL the timelines in Dan are contiguous - 1260 days, 2300 days, 70 years of Jeremiah and yes even the 490 years of Dan 9. You must also admit that leaving timelines "in tact" is normative for all Bible timelines.

Basically that leaves you with only one conclusion - you have sliced Dan 9 because of an apriori bias you bring to the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR
"Surely you readily admit that ALL the timelines in Dan are contiguous - 1260 days, 2300 days, 70 years of Jeremiah and yes even the 490 years of Dan 9. You must also admit that leaving timelines "in tact" is normative for all Bible timelines."

GE

Seeing you have hijacked this thread for your off the topic of it conversation, and seeing I cant fight you, I shall join you.

Here we one subject I found agreement with the SDAs - with a few exceptions here and there. But it came as a surprise to me I agreed with them, because the Reformers were of the same opinion - on the seventy weeks being a Messianic prophecy. So much so that to see a man like Matthew Henry differed greatly with them, went above my head.

However, the seventy week prophecy finds its fulfilment in Christ - like it should, being the Word of God, from the outset. No further debating actually needed!

But let me remind you, BR, of what you have here said, "... You must also admit that leaving timelines "in tact" is normative for all Bible timelines." You don't obey your own rule, saying, "Surely you readily admit that ALL the timelines in Dan are continuous - 1260 days, 2300 days, 70 years of Jeremiah and yes even the 490 years of Dan 9." Leave the 70 weeks 'intact'. They have nothing in time-sequence to do with each other! That was where Adventism went tragically wrong, when they started to mix up 'The 2300 evenings and mornings' and the 70 weeks.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Now here's why I actually succumbed to partaking in your two's deviating from the subject of this thread. How does Christ fulfill this prophecy? That will answer the 'issue' of what 'The First Resurrection", means. And I don't have in mind in the first place, His resurrection.

 

[Ed Edwards]

//In almost every area -- your view needs "a change" to the text.//

I disagree.
The text is the same.
I have no authority to change the text.
God has given me a better understanding of
what the text means. Again, all my development
of the text is given by the Holy Spirit.
(I won't argue who the 24-elders are, I don't know,
I haven't been shown).
But what I've been shown I gladly share.

The scripture is NOT changed by me.
My view was changed by the Holy Spirit to
His understanding shown to me.

//1. NO timeline prophecy in ALL of scripture works if you slice
and dice it into discontiguous bits with unknown
gaps of time inserted into the timeline.//

Do you understand that Daniel sliced the 70 weeks apart?
7 weeks first
followed by 62 weeks
followed by 1 week
dividing of the 70th week into half:
( 2 parts)
1260 days = 40 months = half a week (7 years) =
3½-years (time /1/, times /2/, and half a time /½/)

Here is the gap between the first 69 weeks
and the 70th week of Daniel:
Rom 11:25 (KJV1611 Edition):

For I would not, brethren, that ye should
bee ignorant of this mysterie
(least yee should bee wise in your owne conceits)
that blindnesse in part is happened to Israel,
vntill the fulnes of the Gentiles be come in.

So I interpret scripture with scripture and don't
throw in extra stuff.

BTW, I'm insulated. For I see a bias of
the New Age Movement in your logic.
It is politically correct (PC) to say "it is alright
to search for the truth" but if you find
the truth* one will immediately be labeled
'a bigot'. How long do I need to search
for the truth? How long before my preconcieved
notions become the truth?
Sorry, I have been working on the project
55 years. If the number (how long? )is under 55, I already
have the right to STICK WITH MY CONVICTIONS.

*The Truth is a person: Jesus,
not some cool idea or doctrine.

Someday I'll have to share how I start with other
doctrines and proceed to the truth of the
pretribulation rapture/resurrection. But it is
so much more fun to steal other's topics :saint:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Now here's why I actually succumbed to partaking in your two's deviating from the subject of this thread. How does Christ fulfill this prophecy? That will answer the 'issue' of what 'The First Resurrection", means. And I don't have in mind in the first place, His resurrection.

IMHO, the 'First Resurrection' is the Resurrection of the
Just - it starts with Jesus who was the protype Resurrection
(upon which all the others hinge). Recall that the only way
we can say 'I am just' is through & by Messiah Yeshua
(Christ Jesus) -- so there is no braging rights about Ed here.
So the 'First Resurrection' lasts about 2,000 years, might
be a lot longer, if the Lord taries. What is the quibble about
seven years?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

On the 'trib'-thread I have just said I'm leaving this forum for good because it's impossible to have a sane conversation with any of its occupants. But I can't keep myself from jumping back on ....

Now EE, your last post, please, in simple, straight-forward language, please, to somone not even of the same tongue, repeat? I thought I saw something we might have been in agreement on from long ago, not realising (from my side) ... so explain please, do you believe what I believe that 'The First Resurrection' is 'The Thousand Years' now already 2000 years plus going?

 

[Ed Edwards]

// ... do you believe that I believe that 'The First Resurrection'
is 'The Thousand Years' now already 2000 years plus going?//

No.

I think you beleive that 'The First Resurrection'
is 'The Thousand Years' some time in our future.

I wonder? is your first language
Afrikaans or Zulu? As always, do not say anything
you do not want to say.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

// ... do you believe that I believe that 'The First Resurrection'
is 'The Thousand Years' now already 2000 years plus going?//

No.

I think you beleive that 'The First Resurrection'
is 'The Thousand Years' some time in our future.

I wonder? is your first language
Afrikaans or Zulu? As always, do not say anything
you do not want to say.

O, you have given me a good laugh to start the day with! I'm Afrikaans, very Boer at heart,, and perhaps boerish (I don't mind saying it) -- and like Jan Smuts and Jaap Marais - in my eyes of our greatest men, a great admirer of the English language -- which I find extremely difficult. But Zulu is hundred times as difficult as English. Will never be able to master it. I use 'Fana Ga Lo', it helps - even if you try to communicate with the Spanish (I hoped)!

But I can't tell you how disappointed I am in myself and in my mastering(?) of the English language, to express my views properly, because the very last thing on earth I believe is ... that 'The First Resurrection' is some time in our future, a 'The Thousand Years' some time in our future. No, I believe just what John said - in the Greek - which here, I don't find difficult in the least, that it means what it says, "They (the saved, reborn Christians and OT believers), blessed and holy, lived / came to life (were regenerated, were born and resurrected to life of the Holy Spirit) Thousand Years This The First Resurrection"! Our age, the era of the rule and reign of God's Grace and Love still beconing, "Today, if you hear ('hear'! as in Jn5:24/25 and 28/29) HIS VOICE, do not, harden your HEART!" - the spiritual creation of the new man in Christ, that, is, "The First Resurrection", dear Ed.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That's why I believe the Seventh Day God thus concerning spake is the Sabbath the keeping of still is valid for the People of God.

What do you, believe, dear Ed brother in Christ?

 

[BobRyan]

BR
"Surely you readily admit that ALL the timelines in Dan are contiguous - 1260 days, 2300 days, 70 years of Jeremiah and yes even the 490 years of Dan 9. You must also admit that leaving timelines "in tact" is normative for all Bible timelines."

GE

Seeing you have hijacked this thread for your off the topic of it conversation, and seeing I cant fight you, I shall join you.

Hint: quote the part I am RESPONDING to to SEE that my response is directed to what was POSTED instead of going on your non-stop "All the world problems are Bob Ryan's fault" tirade again.

I was responding to ED bringing in the 70 weeks of Daniel as you well know -- your proclivity for changing the "details" is awesome.

Here we one subject I found agreement with the SDAs - with a few exceptions here and there. But it came as a surprise to me I agreed with them, because the Reformers were of the same opinion - on the seventy weeks being a Messianic prophecy. So much so that to see a man like Matthew Henry differed greatly with them, went above my head.

As I said - very poster on this board agrees with that part.

But let me remind you, BR, of what you have here said, "... You must also admit that leaving timelines "in tact" is normative for all Bible timelines." You don't obey your own rule, saying, "Surely you readily admit that ALL the timelines in Dan are continuous - 1260 days, 2300 days, 70 years of Jeremiah and yes even the 490 years of Dan 9." Leave the 70 weeks 'intact'. They have nothing in time-sequence to do with each other!

Since you have just admitted that you struggle with the English language I will not take that comment as the wild twist-and-spin that it "appears to be".

1. I never said that DIFERENT timeline prophecies were contiguous to EACH OTHER as you have mangled it above.

NEITHER did Adventism EVER say that the 2300 years of Dan 8 and the 1260 years of Dan 7 and the 490 years of Dan 9 were contiguous to EACH other.

Surely this mangling on your part is simply an honest mistake with the english language.

2. The ACTUAL point I made was that a SINGLE timeline prophecy HAS to be a contiguous timeline as we see with Jeremiahs 70 years for EXAMPLE. So no slicing up that ONE timeline into desparate segments separated by undefined lengths of time!

A very simple point - obvious and yet somehow it escapes you GE. Why is that? Even in your response you duck-and-dodge the simple point made - "re-inventing" it into some wild mythical "different timelines are contiguous" nonsense. My conclusion is that you deliberately intend to do this even though it is clearly innaccurate.

in Christ,

Bob