Blessed are the dead, those who die in the Lord from this moment on

RandyPNW said:

You are reading Dispensational Theology into the text when it isn't there. It is just blessing martyrs in the eternal Kingdom. They've died under the pagan Roman government, and they continue to die in history. Their testimonies will be remembered before the Lord, and their memories will be blessed. When they rise from the dead they will be crowned as victorious.

Click to expand...

Matt5 said:

Parable of the Talents

Click to expand...

Matt5 said:

Parable of Wise and Foolish Virgins

Click to expand...

Matt5 said:

The rapture comes after almost every Christian on the planet has been killed by either the harvests or the mark. So the whole rapture thing maybe applies to a million people for the entire planet. Some relatively small number for sure.

Click to expand...

3 Resurrections said:

This entire chapter's context is full of a description of the "FIRST resurrection" event, when the many Matthew 27:52-53 saints came out of their graves on the same day that "Christ the First-fruits" arose from the dead. There were 144,000 of those Jewish OT tribal members who were raised from their graves around Jerusalem on that same day, who were also called "The First-fruits unto God and the Lamb" in Revelation 14:4. These 144,000 Jewish tribal members shared the same "First-fruits" title with Christ, because they shared the same resurrection day in AD 33. This was the fulfillment of the ancient Mosaic rite in Leviticus 23:10-12 of the sheaf handful of Passover First-fruits of the barley harvest being waved in the temple (representing the many resurrected Matt. 27:52-53 saints), which was offered along with a single He-Lamb without blemish (representing Christ).

Click to expand...

RandyPNW said:

Confusion comes when you don't listen to what someone else is saying and mis-read them. I told you what my position was, that the narrative of the book of Revelation has a sequence that does not list events in chronological order. There are a good number of visions within larger visions, and they each have their own sequence. If this is too confusing for you, then you probably just don't want to understand my position.

Click to expand...

RandyPNW said:

Confusion comes when you don't listen to what someone else is saying and mis-read them. I told you what my position was, that the narrative of the book of Revelation has a sequence that does not list events in chronological order. There are a good number of visions within larger visions, and they each have their own sequence. If this is too confusing for you, then you probably just don't want to understand my position.

Click to expand...

RandyPNW said:

You see that you didn't listen? I said that to claim this was "reversed" is predicated on the belief there was a chronological order to start with. It isn't "reversed" because there was no fixed progression to start with.

Click to expand...

RandyPNW said:

Yes, I gave you the reason for not reading all of the visions of Revelation as if describing history in the structure of a strict chronological sequence. It is because each vision is shown to have its own chronological sequence.

When considering each vision in relation to other visions, the time period of each vision does not express a strict chronological sequence from one vision to the other. The Revelation begins with a prolepsis, which is the future Coming of Christ. Half way through the book we see the Kingdom of Christ come, in ch. 11. This is followed by a description of the history that *precedes* the coming of Christ's Kingdom in ch. 12.

In other words, the context of each vision establishes where it fits in in history. And the various visions contain prolepses, flashbacks, and repeats of the same history adding new details. The context makes clear that each vision should be looked at separately within the general narrative being told.

It is natural that the book end with the most detailed descriptions of Christ's Coming and Kingdom. But it is told in a number of ways, all of which happen at the same general time. There is no concern for a strict chronological sequence from one description to another.

I'm not saying there is no chronological sequencing from one vision to another. It is context that determines how we should read it.

Click to expand...

RandyPNW said:

You referred in the opening post to the harvest in the book of Revelation being next to and following the martyrdom of the saints. And you asked why this would be so, since martyrs are said to be "blessed." I wasn't sure what your point was except that it seemed related to your notion that the discourse in the book of Revelation refers to consecutive events. So no, in my mind this was not about a completely different topic.

Click to expand...

3 Resurrections said:

Not a problem. Honest doubts are a good thing.


YES, it really was an astounding number, considering. It was what gave rise to the error being taught by Hymenaeus and Philetus who were saying "the resurrection is PAST already". So many were resurrected on that day in AD 33 that these two men were mistakenly teaching that this past event was the ONLY bodily resurrection that would ever take place. They were overthrowing the faith of some who despaired that their dead loved ones in Christ had "missed the boat", so to speak. Paul had to correct that error in 1 Thess. 4 and in 1 Cor. 15:22-24, where Paul listed a total of THREE bodily resurrection events which would take place consecutively over time. - first "Christ the First-fruits" (and that 144,000 "First-fruits" group raised in AD 33). "Afterwards" those who were Christ's at His coming (in AD 70), "THEN the END, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God..." (in our future).

I wouldn't get too hung up on the "virgin" status of these individuals. After all, since there is "no marriage or giving in marriage" in the bodily-resurrected state, these "virgins" could have been a combination of male and female. Their not having been "defiled by women" I believe was a reference to the woman prophetess in those days named "Jezebel" (Rev. 2:20) who was teaching the servants of God to commit fornication and to eat things offered to idols (called the "doctrine of Balaam"). Both women and men were falling prey to this lascivious doctrine in those days according to the NT epistles, but it did not affect any of the 144,000 glorified Matthew 27:52-53 "First-fruits" who were "sealed" in a perfected state and were therefore immune to this temptation.


You're right - ONLY Jesus ascended to heaven in Acts 1. No other resurrected person ascended to heaven's temple until the seven plagues were poured out (Rev. 15:8). Those Matt. 27 "First-fruits" remained on the earth to serve in the early church (as those "gifts to men" in Ephesians 4:8). This is why the 144,000 were the only ones who could "learn that song", because their experience was going to be a unique one.

The 144,000 resurrected Matt. 27 saints were also the "First-fruits" which Paul said the church had in Romans 8:23. These "First-fruits" were also eagerly awaiting the "redemption of the body" for the rest of the dead saints in AD 70, when together with them, they would be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Paul indirectly referred to the 144,000 by calling them those who were "alive" but who had "remained" on the earth (1 Thess. 4). They were "alive" because they had already been MADE alive in a bodily resurrection process. ONLY bodily resurrected saints were to be "raptured" at that point of Christ's second coming.


NO, a second physical death experience is not even possible for a resurrected person. "Neither CAN they die anymore, but are equal to the angels..." (Luke 20:35-36) "...It is appointed unto men ONCE to die, and after that the judgment." (Heb. 9:27)


Lazarus never died a second time either. Neither did anybody else raised to life in the OT and the NT. That is a common assumption, but that idea of a "double jeopardy" with dying twice contradicts the two scriptures I gave above. Everybody bodily-resurrected in the Scriptures retained that glorified status, just like Christ, "who being raised from the dead DIETH NO MORE; death hath no more dominion over Him" (Rom. 6:9).


No, the "First resurrection" ENDED the millennium of Rev. 20. That "remnant (loipoi) of the dead" which "came to life again" when the millennium was "finished" and "expired" WAS the "First resurrection" event which was composed of all the "First-fruits". Those "First-fruits" were only a "remnant" of the dead, which numbered 144,000 Jewish OT saints plus Christ. In other words, the raising of the Matthew 27:52-53 saints the same day as Christ arose ENDED the millennium of Rev. 20. It was a literal thousand years period, extending all the way back to the foundation stone of Solomon's temple being laid down in 968/ 967 BC. One thousand years later in AD 33, Christ became the fulfillment of that symbolism by becoming the "chief cornerstone" of the spiritual temple not made with hands. One thousand years of a God-authorized physical temple system was set aside for the New Covenant realities revealed in Christ.

Click to expand...