Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not correct.
You continued,
Not correct.
Times of "tribulations and persecutions" is not what we are talking about. We are talking about The Tribulation, the seven year period described in Revelation as God's judgment on the earth.
Exactly, which is tied in to the imminence of the Rapture. That is not in dispute.
Right ... and read the whole surrouding context of the seven seals, the seven bowls, and the seven trumpets. They don't like the gospel and they will kill those who stand for it. That is not happening on a large scale basis today, nor do we see the judgments that are prophesied.
Not according to the text of Revelation. There will be famine, economic issues, and they will cry out for the rocks and hills to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. That is the wrath that we are saved from. It is a time that cannot be characterized as "peace and safety."
Which is what I said. The wrath that we are saved from is the wrath that comes after the peace and safety. It will not overtake us. We will be taken out of it. The people who will be surprised are the ones who are not looking for his return.
No, go back and read. The "tabernacle of David" is the nation of Israel, similar to the "house of Israel" or "house of Jacob" you see often.
That is demonstrably impossible. Look at the word "rebuild" or "build again." You say that the tabernacle of David is "Christ." But how is that a "rebuilding"? Christ was never built before? A rebuilding, by definition, has to be a rebuilding of something that previously existed. Your view does not deal with teh words of the text.
Several severe problems. First, there is no reason to connect this with Amos 9. Second, Amos 9 is the context of judgment on Israel as a nation, and future restoration of the same people. It is not about an individual. Third, if you want to play off the word "temple" you have to recognize that Amos 9 does not use that word. It uses a different one.
No he didn't. You just cited the text above. He was not talkign about that termple, but about his body.
What he "needs" is irrelevant. He needs nothing at all. He is God. But the OT prophesies a rebuilding of the temple and we either have to have that rebuilding or say that God lied ... he said somethign he really didn't mean. Or spiritualize the text so that it doesn't mean anything. Which is problemmatic since you are using your presupposition to interpret the text.
Which is irrelevant since that isn't under discussion.
No, it's not. You have taken the words of God and changed them to mean something else. You said "tabernacle of David" really means "Christ." If so, then why didn't God say that? Did he really appoint you to make that point? Why not just say what he meant? He certainly could have done that, and in fact did that in other places when he talked about the coming Christ. He most assuredly did not talk about that in Amos 9.
I do. I referenced it above, gave you a resource you could read for more info, and took the time to show how your understanding is inadequate.
So? They don't say anything about a crucified Savior either, or a God that is unchangeable. Do you really want to talk about something it does not say? I don't see how what it doesn't talk about it relevant.
Could you please state how Revelation 20:4-6 explicitly teaches two resurrections?
I see that you have the heart of a pastor but then I have come to expect nothing less from a follower of Darby/Scofield.
</font>[/QUOTE]Is this the personal attack to which you were referring? If so please reread your remarks to which I responded.I have always said that John 5:28, 29 should be interpreted literally. In fact if you interpret Revelation 20:4-6 literally you have a hard time defending the dispensational error. John sees souls not bodies and the first resurrection was that of Jesus Christ. Those who have part in the first resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, are the saved.
No I am not wrong, you are. The passages under discussion were 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 or 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff, not 1 Thessalonians 4.
Could you please state how Revelation 20:4-6 explicitly teaches two resurrections? </font>[/QUOTE]Did you read it? I can't see how you would question this if you read it.
Notice
So have I.
I see that you have the heart of a pastor but then I have come to expect nothing less from a follower of Darby/Scofield.
</font>[/QUOTE]Is this the personal attack to which you were referring? If so please reread your remarks to which I responded. </font>[/QUOTE]I know exactly what I said. But you made a personal attack on me. Why? There was no call for it. I made no personal attack on you. Go back and read what I said. There is not even a hint of a personal attack in there.No I am not wrong, you are. The passages under discussion were 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 or 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff, not 1 Thessalonians 4. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you under the impression that chapters 4 and 5 are not in the same context? Paul wrote it all together, with no verse divisions. That, by definition, is context. You brought up an ancillary point to what I was making, but it was addressed in the context that I was talking about. That is a really minor point, and not a good way to try to dodge the question.
I see that you have the heart of a pastor but then I have come to expect nothing less from a follower of Darby/Scofield.
</font>[/QUOTE]Is this the personal attack to which you were referring? If so please reread your remarks to which I responded. </font>[/QUOTE]I know exactly what I said. But you made a personal attack on me. Why? There was no call for it. I made no personal attack on you. Go back and read what I said. There is not even a hint of a personal attack in there. </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds peraonal to me: "disagree with knowledge, rather than out of ignorance".NO? The second resurrection is implied, not stated. That is implicit reasoning.
I have stated repeatedly that the resurrections occur in a brief, specific period of time as you well know. It is you who don't understand either John 5:28, 29 or Revelation 20:4-6. In fact I question whether anyone who has been seduced by the teaching of Darby/Scofield understand any Scripture.Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
OldRegular: "I have always said that John 5:28, 29 should be interpreted literally."
John 5:28-29 (KJV1611):
Marueile not at this: for the houre is comming,
in the which all that are in the graues shall
heare his voice,
29 And shall come foorth, they that haue done
good, vnto the resurrection of life, and they that
haue done euill, vnto the resurrection of damnation.
Do you then contend that these resurrections cannot
happen in 61 minutes or more (technical definition of 'minute')?
The Revelation 20 passage show it taking 1,000 years
(literal, could be a figure of speach for a LONG TIME)
between the resurrection of the just and resurreciton
of the unjust. Nothing in John 5:28-29
conflicts with Revelation 20 EXCEPT IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING
OF JOHN 5:28-29. Sad that you have to scrap a beautiful
scripture like chapter 20 of Revelation because
you can't understand John 5:28-29
What was the first resurrection as recorded in Scripture?Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 20:4-5 4 ... and they came to life and 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice
1) They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
2) The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
So there is a resurredtion before the thousand years and one after the thousand years.
Then you see, This is the first resurrection. Why call it the "first resurrection" if it is the only? That makes no sense. There clear implication is that there is more than one, otherwise there would be no need to point out the "first." It would be "the resurrection."
Common simple explanation. Don't have to play
twister here