The Rapture theory is true?

Oseas said:

Who are you, rather, from whom have you learned or yet who is the spirit within you to determine the Lord's Day at a SUNDAY? Who invented this false interpretation, and theaches such LIE to the people, deceiving my brothers in Christ? As all can see, you are leaded and guided by the spirit of darkness which blinded you unfortunately.

1Thessalonians 5:v.1-2
But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the Day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

...
22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of ?

Click to expand...

Ah! Now we all know how you change scripture, when John said it was on the Lord's day" that all this happened to him, you now imagine that "the day of the Lord" has the same meaning.
Get this straight!
It was on a SUNDAY, the same day of the week that the Lord rose from the dead, that John saw this vision. That was JOHN'S idea of "the Lord's day.

In comparison, the Day of the Lord is FUTURE. It is a long, extended period of time when God's plan is to destroy the word and the sinners living in the world.

Some people have great imaginations and imagine that God called John into the future - into the Day of the Lord - to see this vision. This theory is error gone to seed. God showed John this vision in the throne room of AD 95 or thereabout. It was the VISION that included the Day of the Lord.

in Summary:
The Lord's day = Sunday - the day of the week John saw this vision
The Day of the Lord = an extended period of time where God's plan will be to destroy the world and the sinners in the world.

iamlamad said:

The 7th trump is not called "the last trump". But many on these threads IMAGINE the 7th trump is Pauls "last trump" because the 7th is the last in Revelation. Do you then agree that they are mistaken?

As it is we know only for certain it is the 7th. Right, but it is also the last of THAT SERIES of trumpets. Even so, it is NOT Paul's "last trump."

Click to expand...

In what sense do you believe that "the last trumpet" that Paul mentioned is the last one? In other words, why do you think it is called the last trumpet?

iamlamad said:

When you copy and paste scripture, you can't go wrong. It is when you add your opinion, which most on this thread disagrees with, that you are wrong.

Click to expand...

What prevails is the Word of God. The Word is God.
There are three that bear record in heaven(heavenly places: Ephesians 1:v.3 and Philippians 3:v.20-21), the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are One.

iamlamad said:

Ah! I get it! What you are really saying is, you CAN'T prove me wrong by scripture, so instead, you attack the messenger.

I understand, you are the ONLY writer in this thread that is right - in your own mind. Got it.

Click to expand...

Who are you, rather, from whom have you learned or yet who is the spirit within you to determine the Lord's Day at a SUNDAY? Who invented this false interpretation, and theaches such LIE to the people, deceiving my brothers in Christ? As all can see, you are leaded and guided by the spirit of darkness which blinded you unfortunately.

1Thessalonians 5:v.1-2
But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the Day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

And you preach as if the only Day the thief may come is at a SUNDAY? Get down to the abyss, spirit of darkness. You are a stumblingblock in the path of my brothers in Christ, your thinking is from a human perspective, not from God’s perspective.

What more do Scriptures say of the Lord's Day? What does the Spirit of prophecy say? The testimony of JESUS is the Spirit of prophecy:

Amos 5:v.18-20
18 - Woe unto you that desire the Day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the Day of the Lord is darkness, and not light.
19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.
20 Shall not the Day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

Joel 2v.1-3
1 - Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain(Aleluiaaaaa!): let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the Day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
3 A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.

Here is a separate message mainly for the true brothers in Christ: Hear who has ears to hear what the Spirit says to the Churches: The future glory of true Israel; the Purification of Jerusalem; Preparatory judgments; the Lord's Day;

Isaiah 2

1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.

6 Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.

7 Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots:

8 Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:

9 And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.

10 Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty.

11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.

12 For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up,

15 And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall,

16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.

18 And the idols he shall utterly abolish.

19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

20 In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;

21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of ?

iamlamad said:

When you copy and paste scripture, you can't go wrong. It is when you add your opinion, which most on this thread disagrees with, that you are wrong.

Click to expand...

What prevails is the Word of God. The Word is God, and is from everlasting to everlasting.

By the way, the everlasting Spirit of God is a devouring FIRE.

Isaiah 33:v.14 - The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?

Spiritual Jew said:

In what sense do you believe that "the last trumpet" that Paul mentioned is the last one? In other words, why do you think it is called the last trumpet?

Click to expand...

Very simple, it is the last one of a series. When one says last, they are also saying their must be a first. And likely there are more - all from one word, "last." Without much doubt, Paul is referring to the final trumpet of the Feast of Trumpets. It is the one feast where "no man knows the day nor the hour."

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]
What prevails is the Word of God. True. "So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed."
The Word is God. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word WAS God. So far you are batting a thousand.

What you wrote is false, it's a fantasy, a devilish invention, a cunningly devised fable, at last the content of your post you have learned from demons Now you have gone and called a fellow Brother is Christ bad things. Shame on you. And all this simply because you don't know what John mean't by "the Lord's day." I doubt if you have ever been "In the Spirit" as John was; else you would love your brother in the Lord as you are commanded to. Love always thinks the BEST of others, not the worst. And all because you don't know what john meant by "the Lord's day." In Context John is telling us WHEN [what day of the week] he suddenly became "in the Spirit." He did not suddenly become "in the Spirit" on the day of the Lord, for that day is still future to us today.

John Gill Commentary:
Not on the Jewish sabbath, which was now abolished, nor was that ever called the Lord's day, and had John meant that, he would have said on the sabbath day; much less the Jewish passover, but the first day of the week is designed; so the Ethiopic version renders it "on the first day"; and is so called just as the ordinance of the supper is called the Lord's supper, being instituted by the Lord, and the Lord's table, ( 1 Corinthians 10:21 ) ( 11:20 ) , and that because it was the day in which our Lord rose from the dead, ( Mark 16:9 ) ; and in which he appeared at different times to his disciples,

Ellicott's Commentary;
The Lord’s day.—There is no ground whatever for the futurist interpretation that this expression refers to the “Day of the Lord,” as in 2Thessalonians 2:2. The phrase in this latter passage is totally different. The phrase here is. en te kuriake hemera. The adjective is applied by St. Paul (perhaps coined by him for the purpose) to the Lord’s Supper: from the Supper it came to be applied to the day on which Christians met for the breaking of bread. The day is still called κυριακὴ (kuriake) in the Levant. On the Lord’s Day the vision came to the Apostle.

MacLaren's Commentary
Whether the name of the first day of the week as ‘the Lord’s Day’ originated with this passage, or had already become common, is uncertain. But, at all events, it was plainly regarded as the day for Christian worship.

Benson Commentary,
On the Lord’s day — On this our Lord rose from the dead. On this the ancients believed he would come to judgment. It was therefore with the utmost propriety that St. John on this day both saw and described his coming.

Matthew Henry Commentary
The day and time when he had this vision was the Lord's day, the Christian sabbath, the first day of the week, observed in remembrance of the resurrection of Christ.

Barne's Notes
On the Lord's day - The word rendered here as "Lord's" (κυριακῇ kuriakē), occurs only in this place and in 1 Corinthians 11:20, where it is applied to the Lord's supper. It properly means "pertaining to the Lord"; and, so far as this word is concerned, it might mean a day "pertaining to the Lord," in any sense, or for any reason; either because he claimed it as his own, and had set it apart for his own service, or because it was designed to commemorate some important event pertaining to him, or because it was observed in honor of him. It is clear:

(1) That this refers to some day which was distinguished from all other days of the week, and which would be sufficiently designated by the use of this term.

(2) that it was a day which was for some reason regarded as especially a day of the Lord, or especially devoted to him.

(3) it would further appear that this was a day particularly devoted to the Lord Jesus; for:

(a) that is the natural meaning of the word "Lord" as used in the New Testament (compare the notes on Acts 1:24); and

(b) if the Jewish Sabbath were intended to be designated, the word "Sabbath" would have been used.

The term was used generally by the early Christians to denote the first day of the week. It occurs twice in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about 101 a.d.), who calls the Lord's day "the queen and prince of all days." Chrysostom (on Psalm 119) says, "It was called the Lord's day because the Lord rose from the dead on that day." Later fathers make a marked distinction between the "Sabbath" and the "Lord's day"; meaning by the former the Jewish "Sabbath," or the seventh day of the week, and by the latter the first day of the week, kept holy by Christians. So Theodoret (Fab. Haeret. ii. 1), speaking of the Ebionites, says, "They keep the Sabbath according to the Jewish law, and sanctify the Lord's day in like manner as we do" (Prof. Stuart). The strong probability is, that the name was given to this day in honor of the Lord Jesus, and because he rose on that day from the dead. No one can doubt that it was an appellation given to the first day of the week; ...

J.F.B. Commentary
on the Lord's day—Though forcibly detained from Church communion with the brethren in the sanctuary on the Lord's day, the weekly commemoration of the resurrection, John was holding spiritual communion with them. This is the earliest mention of the term, "the Lord's day." But the consecration of the day to worship, almsgiving, and the Lord's Supper, is implied in Ac 20:7; 1Co 16:2; compare Joh 20:19-26. The name corresponds to "the Lord's Supper," 1Co 11:20. Ignatius seems to allude to "the Lord's day" [Epistle to the Magnesians, 9], and Irenæus [Quæst ad Orthod., 115] (in Justin Martyr). Justin Martyr [Apology, 2.98], &c., "On Sunday we all hold our joint meeting; for the first day is that on which God, having removed darkness and chaos, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. On the day before Saturday they crucified Him; and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught these things." To the Lord's day Pliny doubtless refers [Epistles, Book X., p. 97], "The Christians on a fixed day before dawn meet and sing a hymn to Christ as God," &c. Tertullian [The Chaplet, 3], "On the Lord's day we deem it wrong to fast." Melito, bishop of Sardis (second century), wrote a book on the Lord's day [Eusebius 4.26]. Also, Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 4.23,8]. Clement of Alexandria [Miscellanies, 5. and 7.12]; Origen [Against Celsus, 8. 22]. The theory that the day of Christ's second coming is meant, is untenable. "The day of the Lord" is different in the Greek from "the Lord's (an adjective) day," which latter in the ancient Church always designates our Sunday, though it is not impossible that the two shall coincide (at least in some parts of the earth), whence a tradition is mentioned in Jerome [Commentary on Matthew, 25], that the Lord's coming was expected especially on the Paschal Lord's day. The visions of the Apocalypse, the seals, trumpets, and vials, &c., are grouped in sevens, and naturally begin on the first day of the seven, the birthday of the Church, whose future they set forth [Wordsworth].

Poole's Commentary
On the Lord’s day; upon the Christian sabbath, called the Lord’s day, ( as the eucharist, or breaking of bread, is called the Lord’s supper, 1 Corinthians 11:20), because Christ instituted it; or, because the end of its institution was the remembrance of Christ’s resurrection, (as the end of the Lord’s supper was the commemoration of Christ’s death), or because it was instituted for the honour of Christ.

Meyer's Commentary
The κυριακὴ ἡμέρα[712] is the first day of the week, the Sunday, which was celebrated as the day of the Lord’s resurrection

Bengel's Commentary
The κυριακὴ ἡμέρα[712] is the first day of the week, the Sunday, which was celebrated as the day of the Lord’s resurrection

Pulpit Commentary
On the Lord's day. The expression occurs here only in the New Testament, and beyond all reasonable doubt it means "on Sunday." This is, therefore, the earliest use of the phrase in this sense. That it means Easter Day or Pentecost is baseless conjecture. The phrase had not yet become common in A.D. , as is shown from St. Paul writing, "on the first of the week" (1 Corinthians 16:2), the usual expression in the Gospels and Acts (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:19; Acts 20:7; comp. Mark 16:9). But from Ignatius onwards, we have a complete chain of evidence that ἡ Κυριακή became the regular Christian name for the first day of the week;

As you can see, you are VERY MUCH in the minority. That John was referring to the first day of the week has been called the Lord's day almost from the beginning.

iamlamad said:

They came back to life and ruled with Christ for 1000 years.
This is the first resurrection. But the rest of the dead men shall not live again, until the thousand years be finished

One could spiritualize this and imagine it really does not say what is says. But WHY? One could symbolize it and say it is only a symbol for something else, but WHY? It makes perfect sense as written. No matter what translation, they really all say the same thing.

Click to expand...

It does make sense as it's written but that doesn't mean it can't be understood two different ways, and the way you understand it does not make sense. That's why I understand it differently.

iamlamad said:

The first resurrection refers to those who've come to life in Jesus. Not even this is true, if I understand your meaning. The "first" or primary resurrection is for ALL the righteous and will include all the saints from the OT. In fact, Jesus was the firstfruits or the very first human to receive a resurrection body under or in this "first" or most honorable resurrection.

Click to expand...

You're still thinking of the first resurrection as being a physical resurrection. That's why my understanding makes no sense to you.

iamlamad said:

The second resurrection is the only physical resurrection of the two

Click to expand...

iamlamad said:

Sorry, but this is nonsense. All who take part in the first or most honorable resurrection will be raised and changed to a resurrection body. It will be flesh and bone, but no blood.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

It was and still is a PHYSICAL body that the disciples TOUCHED.

Click to expand...

Nobody's disputing that there will be a physical resurrection. We will all be transformed and become life giving spirits, as Paul explains clearly in 1 Cor 15, but even knowing that, why is it nonsense to believe there is also a different type of resurrection that happens first?

iamlamad said:

The last day is the last day of days. Again I must disagree. There will be the last day of the 70th week. There will be another last day of the 1000 year reign of Christ. There will be another last day of the church age. We must qualify WHICH "last day" by using other passages on the same subject.

Click to expand...

Then please tell me the scripture that redefines "the last day", as you have done.

iamlamad said:

We don't form doctrine from an isolated verse as you are attempting to do. The verse in Daniel is ONE VERSE while in Revelation we have many verses about the same subject. And the all MUST agree.

Click to expand...

iamlamad said:

Daniel 12:13
As for you, go your way until the end. You will rest, then at the end of days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.

Click to expand...

The Daniel verse agrees with all the other verses that say we will be resurrected on the last day. Why do you keep insisting that I'm looking at only a single verse?

iamlamad said:

If we study Revelation we learn (or we should learn) that the resurrection of the OT saints will be at the 7th vial. If you notice, there is no verse anywhere showing us the resurrection of the Old Testament saints. They are not listed in chapter 20 in so many words. But through study, we can tell that the OT saints will rise on the last day - the last 24 hour day - of the 70th week. We can pinpoint their resurrection because when God brings the "dust" together that once made up their bodies it will cause the world's worst earthquake. The ground will shake so violently that the mountains will shake down into the ground.

Where do we find such an earthquake? At the 7th vial. Next, the Two Witnesses are OT saints, so when they rise, all the OT saints rise. And again, with study, we see that they rise at the 7th vial also.

So you're linking two events, without any proof that they should be linked except your own understanding, while completely throwing out the verses that clearly state "the last day". I'm afraid if you're going to convince me I'm wrong you're going to have to do better than that. In the meantime, I will continue to understand less clear scripture in light of more clear scripture.

iamlamad said:

Just thinking about "the last day," in truth, the real and final "last day" would be when God destroys the old heaven and earth. And that is at the great, white throne judgment. That is when the "rest of the dead" are raised.

Click to expand...

That is when we all are resurrected, not only the rest of the dead, but the rest of the dead together with the saints. Revelation 20 does not say that the saints don't partake in the second resurrection.

Click to expand...

iamlamad said:

I understand, when you see a conflict between scriptures:

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Then:

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished...

One verse seems to say that in one hour ALL in the tombs will be raised. Yet, the other verse tells us that one resurrection is over a thousand years AFTER the other.

So your remedy is to say that verse 5 does not really mean what it says. You spiritualize it or symbolize it.

Question: is this the ONLY WAY to solve this apparent dilemma?

Click to expand...

On the contrary. I'm not claiming that it does not mean what it says. I'm reading it carefully, and the fact is it does not say that we don't partake in the second resurrection. Maybe you never noticed that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Freedm said:

It does make sense as it's written but that doesn't mean it can't be understood two different ways, and the way you understand it does not make sense. That's why I understand it differently.

You're still thinking of the first resurrection as being a physical resurrection. That's why my understanding makes no sense to you.



Nobody's disputing that there will be a physical resurrection. We will all be transformed and become life giving spirits, as Paul explains clearly in 1 Cor 15, but even knowing that, why is it nonsense to believe there is also a different type of resurrection that happens first?

Then please tell me the scripture that redefines "the last day", as you have done.

The Daniel verse agrees with all the other verses that say we will be resurrected on the last day. Why do you keep insisting that I'm looking at only a single verse?

Click to expand...

As for "the last day:" It does make sense as it's written but that doesn't mean it can't be understood in different ways. The way you understand it does not make sense alone because it does not say the last day of WHAT? That's why I understand it differently. The bible speaks of the dispensation of grace. Since all things come to an end except eternity, this dispensation of grace (the age we are living in) will have "a last day." Then the Bible speaks of the 70th week - a seven year period of time of judgment. Since it is only 7 years, it too must have a "last day." The bible speaks of the 1000 years. Since that is a specific period of time, it too will have a "last day."

Therefore, if a verse just mentions a resurrection 'on the last day" we have to look in other scriptures to be more precise. And Revelation 20 is VERY precise. It tells us there will forever and ever be two resurrections by title: the "first" resurrection for all the righteous, and the next resurrection for all the damned. It further tells us the 1000 year reign of Christ will be BETWEEN these two resurrections.

If you just don't like the way God planned this, you will have to take it up with Him. I think His plan is always best.

If you can find scriptural PROOF of a spiritual resurrection, using the word "resurrection" I will be ready to change my mind.

Maybe, just maybe, these verses were speaking in generalities and not being specific. Like Martha said: "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." That is all she knew. She did not know God would turn to the Gentiles and have a dispensation just for them that would have a last day. She might have understood the 70th week, but I doubt it. Today we know much more than Mary and Martha knew. WE know there will be a 1000 year reign of Christ. WE know there will be a general resurrection for all the righteous before this 1000 years starts. And we know (or should know because it is written plainly) that after the 1000 years those in hell will be resurrected for the Great, White throne judgment.

iamlamad said:

As for "the last day:" It does make sense as it's written but that doesn't mean it can't be understood in different ways. The way you understand it does not make sense alone because it does not say the last day of WHAT?

Click to expand...

Why do you insist it has to be the last day of anything? Why can it not just simply be the last day, as it says? Do you not believe there will be a last day?

iamlamad said:

If you can find scriptural PROOF of a spiritual resurrection, using the word "resurrection" I will be ready to change my mind.

Click to expand...

Don't you think being "born again", represents dying and rising, the same way a resurrection does?

Here are four scriptures that clearly compare our coming to Jesus with a "dying and rising", aka a resurrection.

Galatians 2:19
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

Romans 6:4
For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

Romans 6:6
For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

Romans 6:13
Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life

Paul clearly says we have been brought from death to life. Is that not a resurrection? We were crucified with him, but now live. Is that not a resurrection? We died and were buried with Christ, but just as Jesus was raised from the dead now we also live. Is that not a resurrection?

Freedm said:

Don't you think being "born again", represents dying and rising, the same way a resurrection does?

Here are four scriptures that clearly compare our coming to Jesus with a "dying and rising", aka a resurrection.

Galatians 2:19
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

Romans 6:4
For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

Romans 6:6
For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

Romans 6:13
Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life

Paul clearly says we have been brought from death to life. Is that not a resurrection? We were crucified with him, but now live. Is that not a resurrection? We died and were buried with Christ, but just as Jesus was raised from the dead now we also live. Is that not a resurrection?

Click to expand...

Are you saying Jesus Christ had only a spiritual resurrection and not physical?

There is no spiritual nor physical resurrection prior to nor years after death. Death is the spiritual and physical resurrection in one single point of time. It reflects the point of Jesus' death and resurrection. In Christ we have been seated in heavenly places even before we were born, spiritually. Not that we literally left and came here for a few years in physical form. That is heresy. Figuratively we have held that position, based on the physical death and resurrection of Jesus at the Cross. And it was figurative even before we were born.

iamlamad said:

Maybe, just maybe, these verses were speaking in generalities and not being specific. Like Martha said: "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." That is all she knew. She did not know God would turn to the Gentiles and have a dispensation just for them that would have a last day.

Click to expand...

The last day in their view was from the OT Word of God. It was the Cross. Martha was talking about the resurrection on the Cross when all OT believers where physically raised from death, sheol. They were given incorruptible bodies and allowed into Paradise. That was the last day for any readers of the OT. The last day for the church in the NT is the opening of the 6th seal. The thief in the night event that ends the church, or age, prepared or not. There is no lead up to it like the Palm Sunday event of the Cross. Nor did OT believers worry about missing the event. They were waiting for it to change their lives, not leave them behind. Who is left on earth after the rapture will not be the church. It will be a harlot who thought they were "a church".

Freedm said:

Why do you insist it has to be the last day of anything? Why can it not just simply be the last day, as it says? Do you not believe there will be a last day?

Click to expand...

As I have now stated several times, we don't form doctrine from isolated verses, but for ALL verses pertaining to the subject. For example, Jesus said there would be an hour when all in the grave would rise up. So the subject is "resurrection." Then we find all the verses in the bible pertaining to that subject and form a theory that fits every scripture. When I read in Rev. 20: "But the rest of the dead did not live" until after the 1000 years, I cannot form a doctrine that all the dead rise at the same time - in the same hour.

So I study the Greek behind Jesus first, and find that word translated as hour has also been translated as a "season." In the Greek then, the writer was talking about "a period of time" not limited to an hour.

Then I find Paul's resurrection of the Dead in Christ and he is plain that his resurrection of the dead in Christ comes before wrath, while the resurrection of the OT saints seems to be "on the last day" of the Jewish age, or the last day of the 70th week that will end the Jewish age. So I have two verses that prove "hour" cannot be the right translation.

Finally, if we really wanted to be exact, what would cause a "last day?" It would be the end of our sun. If the sun were gone, there would be no more "days" and "nights," so the day the sun is gone would be the last day on earth. WE find that also in Rev. 20, just before the Great White Throne judgment, heaven and earth disappear. And that fits the timing of "the rest of the dead" that JOhn said would rise from hell after the 1000 years. But it does not fit those that rise before the 1000 years.

Therefore, it seems very plain that "on the last day" or "an hour" is just a figure of speech. There will be "a season" when all rise from their graves, but not all at the same time.

Timtofly said:

The last day in their view was from the OT Word of God. It was the Cross. Martha was talking about the resurrection on the Cross when all OT believers where physically raised from death, sheol. They were given incorruptible bodies and allowed into Paradise. That was the last day for any readers of the OT. The last day for the church in the NT is the opening of the 6th seal. The thief in the night event that ends the church, or age, prepared or not. There is no lead up to it like the Palm Sunday event of the Cross. Nor did OT believers worry about missing the event. They were waiting for it to change their lives, not leave them behind. Who is left on earth after the rapture will not be the church. It will be a harlot who thought they were "a church".

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I must disagree. There is no verse that tells us all OT believers were raise from death "on the cross" - what ever that means. What it does say is that "many" - NOT ALL - OT saints came out of their graves when Jesus was resurrected. The only other thing we can find as confirming that; John saw "elders" around the throne in heaven. I have often suspected these elders are those who came out of the graves. But that cannot be proven by scripture.

Freedm said:

Don't you think being "born again", represents dying and rising, the same way a resurrection does?

Here are four scriptures that clearly compare our coming to Jesus with a "dying and rising", aka a resurrection.

Galatians 2:19
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

Romans 6:4
For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

Romans 6:6
For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

Romans 6:13
Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life

Paul clearly says we have been brought from death to life. Is that not a resurrection? We were crucified with him, but now live. Is that not a resurrection? We died and were buried with Christ, but just as Jesus was raised from the dead now we also live. Is that not a resurrection?

Click to expand...

Let's be very clear: NO WHERE in scripture is the word "resurrection" used for anything spiritual. It means a dead BODY is raised. As I said, if you can find where the word "resurrection" is used in scripture for anything spiritual, you have something to stand on. I cannot find such a use.

iamlamad said:

Sorry, but I must disagree. There is no verse that tells us all OT believers were raise from death "on the cross" - what ever that means. What it does say is that "many" - NOT ALL - OT saints came out of their graves when Jesus was resurrected. The only other thing we can find as confirming that; John saw "elders" around the throne in heaven. I have often suspected these elders are those who came out of the graves. But that cannot be proven by scripture.

Click to expand...

The many were in Jerusalem. The all were every where else.

You claim that only certain people were free from Abraham's bosom. The rest are still in sheol to this day. That seems like a half way salvation. So we are not yet in Christ, but still in sheol. Just sounds wrong, but if you insist....

Timtofly said:

Are you saying Jesus Christ had only a spiritual resurrection and not physical?

Click to expand...

Not at all. Obviously Jesus was resurrected physically. That's the whole point of our faith.

My point is that, through Christ's physical death and resurrection, and our belief in him, we have experienced a spiritual death and resurrection. And this is the first resurrection, because Jesus said unless a man is born again he can not enter into the kingdom of heaven, making this spiritual resurrection a pre-requisite to the rewards of the final resurrection.

iamlamad said:

As I have now stated several times, we don't form doctrine from isolated verses, but for ALL verses pertaining to the subject. For example, Jesus said there would be an hour when all in the grave would rise up. So the subject is "resurrection." Then we find all the verses in the bible pertaining to that subject and form a theory that fits every scripture. When I read in Rev. 20: "But the rest of the dead did not live" until after the 1000 years, I cannot form a doctrine that all the dead rise at the same time - in the same hour.

So I study the Greek behind Jesus first, and find that word translated as hour has also been translated as a "season." In the Greek then, the writer was talking about "a period of time" not limited to an hour.

Then I find Paul's resurrection of the Dead in Christ and he is plain that his resurrection of the dead in Christ comes before wrath, while the resurrection of the OT saints seems to be "on the last day" of the Jewish age, or the last day of the 70th week that will end the Jewish age. So I have two verses that prove "hour" cannot be the right translation.

Finally, if we really wanted to be exact, what would cause a "last day?" It would be the end of our sun. If the sun were gone, there would be no more "days" and "nights," so the day the sun is gone would be the last day on earth. WE find that also in Rev. 20, just before the Great White Throne judgment, heaven and earth disappear. And that fits the timing of "the rest of the dead" that JOhn said would rise from hell after the 1000 years. But it does not fit those that rise before the 1000 years.

Therefore, it seems very plain that "on the last day" or "an hour" is just a figure of speech. There will be "a season" when all rise from their graves, but not all at the same time.

Click to expand...

Revelation 22 indeed tells us that there will be no more night, so whether we consider that to be the last day, an everlasting day, or something that is not defined as a day but comes after the last day is irrelevant. Either way, our eternity begins at the last day.

Revelation 22:5
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

Regardless of that, in reading your explanation it seems clear that your understanding rests entirely on the requirement that the first resurrection is a physical resurrection, and that those who take part in the first do not take part in the second. That's essentially the only place where we disagree, because everything else flows from how we understand the first resurrection.

Your understanding of the first resurrection requires you to believe that there are more days after the last day Jesus spoke of, and it requires you to believe that we do not partake in the second. It also makes the two verses below difficult for you to explain as they seem to be speaking of a single resurrection in a single hour.

My understanding of the first resurrection allows me to read "the last day" as simply that, and leave it exactly the way Jesus said it. Literally the last day. It also allows me to read the following two verses exactly as they are, and understand them to say exactly what they say.

Acts 24:15
and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

John 5:28-29
“Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 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.”

In other words, my understanding causes a lot less friction with the rest of scripture, and as you say we should not form doctrine on a single verse but our understanding should be harmonized with the whole of scripture.

Again, I challenge you to consider that our crucifixion with Jesus and our subsequent coming to new life in Him, as Paul described in both Galatians 2 and Romans 6, is a type of resurrection.

Timtofly said:

The many were in Jerusalem. The all were every where else.

You claim that only certain people were free from Abraham's bosom. The rest are still in sheol to this day. That seems like a half way salvation. So we are not yet in Christ, but still in sheol. Just sounds wrong, but if you insist....

Click to expand...

The "all" is imagination because it is not found anywhere in scripture.

No, when Jesus took captivity captive and rescued those in Abraham's bosom, He took ALL of them to heaven, but that does not mean they were all resurrected: they were just RESCUED from Hades in their spirit form and taken to heaven in their spirit form.

Just so you know, people in this age who have been to heaven and allowed to come back and testify, have noticed SOME OT saints in heaven who have their resurrection body - Abraham being one. But the rest of the OT saints are still in spirit form awaiting resurrection. Their resurrection will be on the last day of the 70th week - the day that will END the Jewish age.

NO believer has had to go to Hades since Jesus rose from the dead. That place is EMPTY. No, as Paul has written, we go to be with the Lord when our body dies. So your thinking is just off.