Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

DavidPT · Jan 17, 2022

grafted branch said:
In Revelation 20:10 the word “are” is not in the original text. Some translations such as the amplified Bible use the word “were” instead. If we use the word were then the beast, false prophet, and Satan can all be one and the same.

I already realize that, that the word 'are' was added by the translators, but even so, the text still has 3 entities depicted in that passage, that being satan, the beast and false prophet. Should we take the false prophet to mean satan as well? Well you did say that if we used the word 'were' instead, it could mean all 3 are one and the same. I don't remotely grasp that logic how that would mean that? I guess you will have to explain that to me.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Can you point out in this passage where it ever states that satan was also taken, then cast alive into the LOF when these other two were? The text indicates both. That usually only means two not more than two or less than two, such as one. If satan was also cast into the LOF at the time, the text would not have said both if meaning more than two. Maybe the way you are interpreting this gets around this fact since you have satan and the beast meaning one and the same, thus satan/beast plus false prophet equals two, therefore it agrees with the text when it says both.

But not all Amils take satan and the beast to be meaning one and the same. Why then can't they explain, if John also saw satan cast alive into the LOF at the time, why the text is only saying both, which only means two not more than two, if John saw more than just these two getting cast into the LOF at the time? That question isn't necessarily for you to answer. That is just a question in general, in regards to Amils who don't agree with you that satan and the beast are one and the same.

grafted branch · Jan 17, 2022

DavidPT said:
I already realize that, that the word 'are' was added by the translators, but even so, the text still has 3 entities depicted in that passage, that being satan, the beast and false prophet. Should we take the false prophet to mean satan as well? Well you did say that if we used the word 'were' instead, it could mean all 3 are one and the same. I don't remotely grasp that logic how that would mean that? I guess you will have to explain that to me.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Can you point out in this passage where it ever states that satan was also taken, then cast alive into the LOF when these other two were? The text indicates both. That usually only means two not more than two or less than two, such as one. If satan was also cast into the LOF at the time, the text would not have said both if meaning more than two. Maybe the way you are interpreting this gets around this fact since you have satan and the beast meaning one and the same, thus satan/beast plus false prophet equals two, therefore it agrees with the text when it says both.

But not all Amils take satan and the beast to be meaning one and the same. Why then can't they explain, if John also saw satan cast alive into the LOF at the time, why the text is only saying both, which only means two not more than two, if John saw more than just these two getting cast into the LOF at the time? That question isn't necessarily for you to answer. That is just a question in general, in regards to Amils who don't agree with you that satan and the beast are one and the same.

Let me ask this question then, if Satan gave away his power to the beast and the beast is cast into the lake of fire, when Satan is released from the bottomless pit how is it he can deceive the nations once again with out any power?

Zao is life · Jan 17, 2022

grafted branch said:
Absolutely!

At last, because until now you have been implying that it would depend on whether or not Revelation 20 has already been fulfilled or is yet to be fulfilled. I'm glad you finally admit that the epoch in which the resurrection of those spoken of in Revelation 20:4-6 takes place, is of no consequence to the fact that it's still the first (Christ's, the last Adam.s) resurrection.

grafted branch said:
Revelation 20:5 says this is the first resurrection. Revelation 20:5 does not say this is a person participating in the first resurrection; you would have to add that to the scriptures if you wanted to make that point.

No I wouldn't have to add that to scripture. I would just have to believe what the text says (which speaks about souls, plural and not "one person" has you here falsely imply), and I would need to believe what the text says without using my imagination to highlight the text of Revelation 20:4-6 and drag it into another millennium. I would most certainly need to have first added a meaning that is foreign to the text in order to use my imagination to highlight the text with my mouse and drag it into another millennium. @grafted branch Is this what you have done?

grafted branch said:
Christ was literally resurrected approx. AD 30. This is the first resurrection and I don’t anticipate Christ being resurrected again.

No one has ever implied such a preposterous thing except yourself.

grafted branch said:
Revelation 20:5 says the rest of the dead lived not again till the 1,000 years were finished. Are these folks taking part in the first resurrection?

Yes, this is according to scripture:

1 Corinthians 15:22 says of mankind:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive."
But the Revelation says there is a second death for those who receive the mark of the beast.

But (if I'm not mistaken) you have Christ's coming as something that has already taken place:

"But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming." (1 Corinthians 5:23)

grafted branch said:
Do you see every resurrection (physical ~~or spiritual~~) being the first resurrection? If so then those who do receive the mark of the beast will take part in the first resurrection.

Which, except for the so-called "spiritual resurrection" part of your question/statement? is scriptural:
1 Corinthians 15:22 says of mankind:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive."

And the Revelation says there is a second death for those who receive the mark of the beast.

So whether or not these who receive the mark of the beast are actually raised bodily (as those who are Christ's at His coming will be), the Revelation says there is a second death for those who receive the mark of the beast, after death and hades have delivered up the dead in them and the dead stand before Christ at the Great White Throne.

Do you believe these scriptures?

DavidPT · Jan 17, 2022

parousia70 said:
For example, I would characterize Luke 2:34-35 as speaking of Israel's first-century destruction and re-constitution via the Nazarene sect of King Jesus under the foretold NEW covenant.

How would you characterize the resurrection spoken of in that passage?

That's a difficult one based on what I have been arguing in regards to anastasis and what I was arguing concerning that in post #153. I guess I never even realized anastasis was used in that passage. But I realize it now. What I have since noted after you pointing this out, in the KJV when it is rendered 'rise again' in other passages, it appears that it uses the Greek word anistemi, but in Luke 2:34 the Greek word used for rising again is 'anastasis'. I don't know what to make of all of it yet. It does appear that a literal resurrection from the dead is not meant by 'anastasis' in Luke 2:34. But then again, maybe it is, I just don't know yet.

In the meantime I still have the following as arguments.

In John 5 I only see two resurrection events recorded in verses 28-29.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 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 Revelation 20 I only see two resurrection events recorded in verse 5.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

If this resurrection event---But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished---is not meaning this resurrection event---they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation---what resurrection event recorded in Revelation 20 is meaning that resurrection event?

If this resurrection event---This is the first resurrection---is not meaning this resurrection event---they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life---what resurrection event recorded in Revelation 20 is meaning that resurrection event?

How is that both John 5-28-29 and Revelation 20:5 record only two resurrection events, not three, not four, etc, but none of the resurrection events recorded in Revelation 20:5 mean the resurrection unto life recorded in John 5-28-29? why not? What is a valid reason for no resurrection event recorded in Revelation 20 to be meaning the resurrection unto life recorded in John 5-28-29?

Elsewhere in the NT, depending on the context of the passage involved, it is either involving one resurrection event or two resurrection events.

An example of only involving one resurrection event.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Examples of passages involving two resurrection events.

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

Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

I don't think anyone would dispute that both John 5:28-29 and Acts 24:15 are pertaining to literal resurrections from the dead by both the just and unjust. Why then are some disputing this in Revelation 20:5? Is it because John 5:28-29 is giving the impression this is meaning the same day, therefore the first resurrection can't be meaning bodily since this would mean a gap of a thousand years between the 2 resurrection events recorded in John 5:28-29. thus both events can't happen the same day?

If we were were to understand John 5:28-29 like such, would it make anything in these verses no longer true?

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, the first resurrection, at the beginning of the thousand years. and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation, after the thousand years have expired.

Per this scenario does or does not the hour eventually still come for everyone that are in the graves?

Zao is life · Jan 17, 2022

DavidPT said:
Maybe you have a valid point here when looking at it like that. I may rethink what I said and change my position accordingly. But only in regards to that and not also in regards to worshiping the beast, which is something one does not do until it ascends out of the pit first. Which means there can't already be martyrs for not worshiping the beast, neither it's image, unless the beast ascends out of the pit, and another one out of the earth first. Which then debunks that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years expire.

Those who foretold the coming of the Messiah were the prophets. They were not killed for bearing testimony to Jesus. Bearing testimony to Jesus is the same as bearing testimony to His being the promised Messiah, which is what Stephen was doing. Copy @3 Resurrections

grafted branch · Jan 17, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
No I wouldn't have to add that to scripture. I would just have to believe what the text says (which speaks about souls, plural and not "one person" has you here falsely imply), and I would need to believe what the text says without using my imagination to highlight the text of Revelation 20:4-6 and drag it into another millennium. I would most certainly need to have first added a meaning that is foreign to the text in order to use my imagination to highlight the text with my mouse and drag it into another millennium. @grafted branch Is this what you have done?

Great, we are on the same page about Christ being the first resurrection.

If Revelation 20:4-6 (everything in the verses) is the first resurrection then all of Revelation 20:4-6 is meant physical or literal. I’m really not sure where you stand, are you taking parts of the verses to be physical and other parts spiritual? Does all of Revelation 20:4-6 = the first resurrection?

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Yes, this is according to scripture:

1 Corinthians 15:22 says of mankind:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive."
But the Revelation says there is a second death for those who receive the mark of the beast.

Would you say those who receive the mark of the beast take part in the first resurrection?

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
But (if I'm not mistaken) you have Christ's coming as something that has already taken place:

"But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming." (1 Corinthians 5:23)

I have the first fruits as those in Matthew 27. Do you have the entire harvest as the first fruits?

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Which, except for the so-called "spiritual resurrection" part of your question/statement? is scriptural:
1 Corinthians 15:22 says of mankind:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive."

Well, I don’t think those that have the mark of the beast are in Christ. No doubt all who are in Christ will be made alive.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Do you believe these scriptures?

I believe all scriptures.

DavidPT · Jan 17, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Those who foretold the coming of the Messiah were the prophets. They were not killed for bearing testimony to Jesus. Bearing testimony to Jesus is the same as bearing testimony to His being the promised Messiah, which is what Stephen was doing. Copy @3 Resurrections

And you brought me back to my senses before I ever got around to maybe rethinking this. Now I don't need to.

Zao is life · Jan 17, 2022

grafted branch said:
That is speculation, it doesn’t state anywhere in the text you quoted that the mark didn’t exist prior to Revelation 13, you are only assuming it didn’t to try to prove your point.

There is no history in the volumes of history books which we have and the Catholic Church has from before the time of Christ that there was every such a mark.

Imagine what you will, but there is no real, conclusive history that would stand up in a court of law proving that there has ever been such a mark.

grafted branch said:
I personally will admit I don’t understand exactly what all is being conveyed by all the symbolism in Revelation 13 but Revelation 17:9 says the heads are mountains. Matthew 17:20 shows that those that have faith can remove mountains. I would say the deadly wound by the sword was the very words of those that had faith.

Your unique, private interpretation that is foreign to the Bible's own symbols used prior to John receiving the Revelation

grafted branch said:
When you try to place these things in the future you have a conflict with the first resurrection. The first bodily resurrection took place in Matthew 27.

Sure. Scholars are not even sure it wasn't and interpolation, and sure, no further resurrection of the dead will ever take place.

Another one of your own private interpretations of scripture.
Copy @DavidPT

Zao is life · Jan 17, 2022

grafted branch said:
Great, we are on the same page about Christ being the first resurrection.

Good, because though I was on that page from the OP in this thread, you chose to argue against it, and as a result we weren't on the same page until I had to force you to admit it.

Takes a lot of patience to talk to someone who will change the meaning of scripture to suit his own ideas and then change back when he's forced to admit that it is simply not true what he is saying.

grafted branch said:
If Revelation 20:4-6 (everything in the verses) is the first resurrection then all of Revelation 20:4-6 is meant physical or literal. I’m really not sure where you stand, are you taking parts of the verses to be physical and other parts spiritual? Does all of Revelation 20:4-6 = the first resurrection?

@grafted branch Your questioning has made it 100% clear to me that either you've lost the plot of this thread, or you never had it from the beginning, and you therefore need to go back and read the OP and all your statements to me and my replies to you, or you are deliberately asking questions again which you know I have already given my position on.

If you do not already know what my position is, then it's because you never grasped the plot of the OP of this thread, nor have you bothered to read my replies to you.

So please answer the question I asked you in my previous post:

1. Do you take the text of Revelation 20:4-6 to mean what it says and leave it in its context, or have you used your imagination to highlight the text and drag it with your mouse into another millennium?

2. If you have highlighted the text of Revelation 20:4-6 in your imagination and dragged it into a different millennium, is this in order to fit in with what else you've added to the meaning of scripture?

3. Would you say those who receive the mark of the beast take part in the first resurrection?

Do you see that two can play the same game? Asking questions when we know the other person has already made his position clear?

You asked me questions which you know perfectly well that since the OP of this thread and in my replies to you, I have made my position on known plainly and clearly.

I can't discuss this with you while your only motive is to play games while attempting to prove a theological premise correct, instead of attempting to allow scripture to tell us what it is saying.

I don't see your motive as being the latter in the above regard, but the former.

DavidPT · Jan 17, 2022

Thinking out loud yet again.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

If the first resurrection is something that takes place countless times throughout the thousand years rather than it being a one time event, that means every time someone initially has part in the first resurrection, the following happens each time as well---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them. Which makes zero sense of course. But why should that be a one time event if the first resurrection isn't as well?

Zao is life · Jan 17, 2022

DavidPT said:
Thinking out loud yet again.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

If the first resurrection is something that takes place countless times throughout the thousand years rather than it being a one time event, that means every time someone initially has part in the first resurrection, the following happens each time as well---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them. Which makes zero sense of course. But why should that be a one time event if the first resurrection isn't as well?

.
Christ's (the last Adam's) death and resurrection from the dead.

There are two aspects to this: Every time a person comes to faith in Christ and is baptized into Christ, he dies with Christ and is raised with Christ:

Romans 6
3 Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection;

Colossians 3
1 If then you were raised with [συνεγείρω synegeírō] Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.
2 Be mindful of things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For you died, and your life has been hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ our Life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

1 Peter 1:3 says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has begotten us again to a living hope (Greek: záō elpís) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

A. The word translated into "begotten us again" in the above verse is anagennáō. It's a combination of the words gennáō (beget) and aná (again).
B. Living hope (záō elpís): The word záō means to live, and the word elpís means to anticipate:

Just as Adam became a living soul when God breathed life into Him, so those who are born of the Spirit from above are now spiritually alive, and live in the hope (anticipation) of their bodily resurrection from the dead, which comes by Christ's resurrection from the dead.

That's the first aspect, and it takes place with Christ's resurrection over and over until He returns and those who are His at His coming are bodily raised.

Our own bodily resurrection is the other aspect.

@DavidPT Take a look at this:

2 Corinthians 5
17 So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Revelation 21:4-5
for the first things passed away. And He sitting on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.

The New Jerusalem exists in the New Heavens and the New Earth, and both exist in Christ, but the New Jerusalem also exists on earth in the saints on earth.

The Kingdom of Christ has come. So why did Jesus teach us to pray,

Matthew 6
10 Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.

It's because we are suspended between heaven and earth and there is this "already here but still coming" paradox.

grafted branch · Jan 17, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Good, because though I was on that page from the OP in this thread, you chose to argue against it, and as a result we weren't on the same page until I had to force you to admit it.

Takes a lot of patience to talk to someone who will change the meaning of scripture to suit his own ideas and then change back when he's forced to admit that it is simply not true what he is saying.

In my heart I haven’t changed my position so I will apologize if I have given you that impression.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
1. Do you take the text of Revelation 20:4-6 to mean what it says and leave it in its context, or have you used your imagination to highlight the text and drag it with your mouse into another millennium?

Yes, that context is either spiritual or literal but we can’t mix and match. You have this statement from the OP …

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Therefore the term " spiritual 'resurrection' " does not apply to any passages or verses in the New Testament which talk about the resurrection.

.. unless Revelation 20:4-6 is the only exception in the entire New Testament.

If (IF) the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 is literal, then it either took place in the days following the death of Nero on June 9th, A.D 68, or it's still coming.

Or Revelation 20:4-6 is the only exception in the entire New Testament.

If you truly believe it’s literal then it literally happened around AD30.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
2. If you have highlighted the text of Revelation 20:4-6 in your imagination and dragged it into a different millennium, is this in order to fit in with what else you've added to the meaning of scripture?

I’m not highlighting anything, but if something belongs in the first century then that’s where I leave it. I’m not going to try to apply it to some future millennium.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
3. Would you say those who receive the mark of the beast take part in the first resurrection?

No, because those people are not written in the book of life according to Revelation 13:8. These people were dead from the foundation of the world. All those who were in the book of life all died in Adam.

DavidPT · Jan 17, 2022

grafted branch said:
Let me ask this question then, if Satan gave away his power to the beast and the beast is cast into the lake of fire, when Satan is released from the bottomless pit how is it he can deceive the nations once again with out any power?

That's a good question that has crossed my mind multiple times. Currently I have no good answer for that, or even an answer at all. Revelation 13 does say that satan gives power to the beast. If the beast is no longer in the picture though, who does he give power to in that case? It's things like this that cause me to question Premil at times. But even so, I can come up with plenty of things involving other things that cause me to question Amil if Amil is supposed to be the solution instead. What then?

On a different note. While I can somewhat understand how a former Premil becomes an Amil eventually, I can't even begin to understand how a former futurist becomes a Preterist eventually. If I recall correctly, it seems that you have indicated in the past that you used to be a futurist. I can never in a million years see myself switching to Preterism. I'm not suggesting that everything regarding Preterism is incorrect, I just can't see relying on it alone as being the answer. There has to be somewhat of a balance. Some of it can be explained via Preterism. Some of it can be explained via Futurism. IMO, it is wrong to think all of it can be explained via Preterism, or that all of it can be explained via Futurism.

Zao is life · Jan 17, 2022

grafted branch said:
In my heart I haven’t changed my position so I will apologize if I have given you that impression.

Yes, that context is either spiritual or literal but we can’t mix and match. You have this statement from the OP …

If you truly believe it’s literal then it literally happened around AD30.

I’m not highlighting anything, but if something belongs in the first century then that’s where I leave it. I’m not going to try to apply it to some future millennium.

No, because those people are not written in the book of life according to Revelation 13:8. These people were dead from the foundation of the world. All those who were in the book of life all died in Adam.

Well now it's my turn to say "Great". Because even though we know that we don't agree about how many times in the history of mankind a general literal bodily resurrection of those who are Christ's takes place, at least we agree that the general literal bodily resurrection of mankind exists in the first and only resurrection (which is Christ's resurrection).

Zao is life · Jan 17, 2022

DavidPT said:
Some of it can be explained via Preterism. Some of it can be explained via Futurism. IMO, it is wrong to think all of it can be explained via Preterism, or that all of it can be explained via Futurism.

I agree with that statement. Preterists have some good points. They could even say that the NHNE is a vision John saw of what came into being when the Spirit of Christ came to live in man (in His people), and they wouldn't be entirely wrong:

2 Corinthians 5
17 So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Revelation 21:4-5
for the first things passed away. And He sitting on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.

The river of Life is the Spirit of Christ:

John 7
38 He who believes on Me, as the Scripture has said, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
39 (But He spoke this about the Spirit, which they who believed on Him should receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.)

DavidPT · Jan 17, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
I agree with that statement. Preterists have some good points. They could even say that the NHNE is a vision John saw of what came into being when the Spirit of Christ came to live in man (in His people), and they wouldn't be entirely wrong:

2 Corinthians 5
17 So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Revelation 21:4-5
for the first things passed away. And He sitting on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.

The river of Life is the Spirit of Christ:

John 7
38 He who believes on Me, as the Scripture has said, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
39 (But He spoke this about the Spirit, which they who believed on Him should receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Though it might seem like it at times, I'm not anti Preterist nor am I even anti Amil, since I tend to think both positions have valid points concerning certain things, but I do think they are anti Premil though, since you never see any of them ever admitting Premils have valid points as well. But then again I can't really fault them for that, the fact I used to be Pretrib, for example, and that I don't see anything they raise as being a valid point that supports what they are proposing, a rapture of the church prior to the trib. Amils are just as convinced Premil is wrong as I am convinced Pretrib is wrong. But even so, Premil vs Amil is a lot more complex than something vs Pretrib.

Zao is life · Jan 17, 2022

DavidPT said:
but I do think they are anti Premil though, since you never see any of them ever admitting Premils have valid points as well.

I know but here in these forums .. the worst of me comes out.

I remembered just in time before I pointed that finger that I have four pointing back at me.

parousia70 · Jan 17, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Good. Then we are at least on the same page with regard to the fact that After Adam's death, death came to all mankind, and, and mankind's resurrection is with Christ's (the last Adam's) resurrection from the dead,

I suppose so.. are you on the same page with Paul who taught that when we are baptized, we are baptized into the Death and Burial of Christ, and when we come up from the water we have been raised with Him as well?:

Coloissians 2:11-13
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

Do you generally agree once baptized, you and I "were raised with Him." already? Generally speaking?

and that He rose from the dead bodily with a glorified, spiritual, tangible body, and ascended into heaven bodily.

We are not on the same page about the timing of the Glorification, or the Nature of Christ's Resurrected Body.
I suppose we risk getting off into the weeds on this one point, but it is an important distinction.

I believe Christ rose from the dead in the self same physical, corporeal, miracle working body that hung on the cross and was laid in the tomb.
I do not believe His body was glorified until Acts 1:9 at the earliest.

1. Do you believe in a general bodily resurrection for all mankind who belong to Christ?

I do, generally.

2. If so, do you believe this general bodily resurrection is still coming, or has come already?

I believe as the Creed States:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Zao is life · Jan 17, 2022

parousia70 said:
I suppose so.. are you on the same page with Paul who taught that when we are baptized, we are baptized into the Death and Burial of Christ, and when we come up from the water we have been raised with Him as well?:

Coloissians 2:11-13
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

Do you generally agree once baptized, you and I "were raised with Him." already? Generally speaking?

Of course. I believe there are two aspects to this:

Every time a person comes to faith in Christ and is baptized into Christ, he dies with Christ and is raised with Christ:

Romans 6
3 Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection;

Colossians 3
1 If then you were raised with [συνεγείρω synegeírō] Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.
2 Be mindful of things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For you died, and your life has been hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ our Life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

His Spirit is in those who believe in Him, and we are in Him, therefore we have died with Him and risen with Him, and are with Him in heavenly places:

John 14
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

1 Peter 1:3 says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has begotten us again to a living hope (Greek: záō elpís) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

A. The word translated into "begotten us again" in the above verse is anagennáō. It's a combination of the words gennáō (beget) and aná (again).
B. Living hope (záō elpís): The word záō means to live, and the word elpís means to anticipate:

So just as Adam became a living soul when God breathed life into Him, so those who are born of the Spirit from above are now spiritually alive, and live in the hope (anticipation) of their bodily resurrection from the dead, which comes by (with) Christ's one resurrection from the dead.

That's the first aspect, and it takes place with Christ's resurrection over and over (every time someone is saved and added to His family) until He returns and those who are His at His coming are bodily raised. This is also the other aspect: our our own experience of a bodily resurrection, when He returns.

parousia70 said:
We are not on the same page about the timing of the Glorification, or the Nature of Christ's Resurrected Body.
I suppose we risk getting off into the weeds on this one point, but it is an important distinction.

I believe Christ rose from the dead in the self same physical, corporeal, miracle working body that hung on the cross and was laid in the tomb.
I do not believe His body was glorified until Acts 1:9 at the earliest.

Well I won't argue that point because He did say to Mary,

John 20
17 Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, I ascend to My Father and Your Father, and to My God and your God.

parousia70 said:
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Beautiful (so says anyone who's been debating with Preterists - the creed starts to be beautiful to see again).

I believe the the catholic church is the following:

Ephesians 4
4 There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling,
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.

Timtofly · Jan 17, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Again this is an assumption you are making with absolutely zero basis.

Did Paul say that Hymeneus and Philetus had "mistaken this past, first resurrection of the Matthew 27 saints as being the only bodily resurrection that would ever take place."?

No, He did not say that, and unless Paul said that, you have zero evidence on which to base such a claim.

I had a question about that point. If the resurrection at the Cross were those in Abraham's bosom from the OT redeemed, why would those living have missed it? A resurrection is for physically dead humans. One would have had to be dead and in Abraham's bosom.

I think the point was that they claimed like the Sadducees, no more resurrection period. The "living" missed the opportunity, and Christ was never even coming back.

Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads