LastSeven

Amil
Supporter
Sep 2, 2010
5,205
1,046
Edmonton, Alberta
✟154,576.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
lastseven,

1. Ephesians 2:12; That at the time ye were with out Christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.

2. In the old testament gentiles were proselyted into judaism into the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of promise because the gentiles had no covenant themselves such as Israel and that is why they had to be proselyted into Judaism.
Today, the church is jews and gentiles alike and gentiles are not proselyted into Judaism.
Jews and gentiles both have the same covenant called the New Covenant of which the church is comprised of.
You don't have a clue about context and wording and obviously about history.

3. Citizens spiritually together in the church has nothing to do with the Nation of Israel's calling being separate from the church in the physical KOH at the Head of the Nations. Isaiah 2:2-4.

4. Once again you have no clue of context or history about the unconditional covenants of Abraham and David that pertain specifically to the nation of physical, spiritual Israel and not physical, spiritual gentiles.

5. The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants that pertain to Israel are both unconditional but conditional on obedience. Isaiah 66:7-9 shows that part of Israel will be birthed before the actual travail of Jacob's trouble and that will be the 144,000 and that they will be a nation born in one day at the end of the tribulation when there nation is almost annihilated and that Zion will travail and bring forth her children verses 9-21 which is about the KOH.

6. So once again you are misrepresenting the meaning of words because of misunderstanding the context. Jerry kelso
And clearly you have no clue what "Israel" really is.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
?? What do you mean "stop forcing it on people"?? We're having a discussion are we not? Did you not ask me to tell you my view?

You can step away from this conversation if you want. That's what most people do when they have no way to explain the scriptures that contradict their beliefs. Up to you.
Oh. OK....Your view is right.
If I don't see it your way then I'm reading the bible in a way that contradicts scripture.

Now, if you want to believe were in the 1000 year reign...go ahead and believe that. I understand that the biblical description of the 1000 years isn't what the world look like now.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Pre-fall, there was no death but we know that there will be death during the thousand years. And if Satan is locked up, who will tempt us into sin?

Yes there will be death. After you are resurrected like Christ was resurrected there will then be no death EVER for that individual.

Those born during the 1000 years will still have a sin nature. Even though Satan is locked up we will tempt ourselves and each other.
 
Upvote 0

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
And yet you continue to ignore all the other references I posted.

1. I addressed your main point and debunked your references and all you have done is disagreed and put up your wrong assessments.

2. Your understanding of the phrase and the context of Daniel standing in his lot at the end of days has nothing to with rising in the resurrection. You are taking a different version that might say rise to mean something than the truth but it is wrong if it the translator means the resurrection.

3. The KJV is plain that Daniel will stand in his lot at the end of days and this has nothing to do with the resurrection of the body.

4. You think because some translator used the word rise and you associate it with resurrection then that is what it automatically means. No wonder you easily misunderstand because you are more in perception of the word than the context and what the phrase actually said to begin with.

5. You have no convincing evidence of the truth of scripture, it is just in your wrong perception. Jerry kelso
 
Upvote 0

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
And clearly you have no clue what "Israel" really is.

lastseven,

1. Sorry, but you are the one that don't have a clue about hermeneutics because you want to spiritualize scripture to try and prove you have the right interpretation.
You can state your idea of what you think Israel is and will be wrong if you think it is the church.
So go ahead and state what you think Israel is. Jerry kelso
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You can state your idea of what you think Israel is and will be wrong if you think it is the church.
So go ahead and state what you think Israel is.

Let us see what Peter had to say on the day of Pentecost and go with what he said.

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.



It would be best if we get what we say to line up with what Peter said under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Who did Peter address his words to on that day in the text above?

.
 
Upvote 0

LastSeven

Amil
Supporter
Sep 2, 2010
5,205
1,046
Edmonton, Alberta
✟154,576.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. I addressed your main point and debunked your references and all you have done is disagreed and put up your wrong assessments.

2. Your understanding of the phrase and the context of Daniel standing in his lot at the end of days has nothing to with rising in the resurrection. You are taking a different version that might say rise to mean something than the truth but it is wrong if it the translator means the resurrection.

3. The KJV is plain that Daniel will stand in his lot at the end of days and this has nothing to do with the resurrection of the body.

4. You think because some translator used the word rise and you associate it with resurrection then that is what it automatically means. No wonder you easily misunderstand because you are more in perception of the word than the context and what the phrase actually said to begin with.

5. You have no convincing evidence of the truth of scripture, it is just in your wrong perception. Jerry kelso
First of all, what you call "debunking" is not actually debunking, but whatever. I've only seen you address Martha's quote and Daniel's. Did you address these verses?

John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 6:40
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
So if there's death, there's sin. Correct?

"The sinner shall die being a hundred years old." So yes, definitely, there will be sin during the millennum.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"The sinner shall die being a hundred years old." So yes, definitely, there will be sin during the millennum.

Taking one verse "out of context" and not quoting it correctly is twice the problem.

We find in Isaiah 65:17 a reference to the New Heavens and New Earth and the former not being remembered.

In verse 19 we have no more weeping or crying.

How must verse 20 be translated in the context of these previous verses and in reference to the verses that follow which speak of the lion eating straw and the lamb and lion eating together?

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Isa 65:18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Isa 65:19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
Isa 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
Isa 65:21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
Isa 65:22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Isa 65:23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
Isa 65:24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

The only logical explanation for verse 20 is that it must be Hyperbole and or slightly mistranslated.
There is no other way to get the verse to make sense, based on the surrounding text.



See Albert Barnes Commentary below available from eSword.

Isaiah 65:20

There shall be no more thence - The Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, read this, ‘There shall not be there.’ The change requires the omission of a single letter in the present Hebrew text, and the sense seems to demand it. The design of the prophet here is, to describe the times of happiness and prosperity which would succeed the calamities under which the nation had been suffering. This he does by a great variety of images, all denoting substantially the same thing. In Isa_65:17, the change is represented to be as great as if a new heaven and a new earth should be created; in this verse the image is, that the inhabitants would reach a great age, and that the comparatively happy times of the patriarchs would be restored; in Isa_65:21, the image is taken from the perfect security in their plans of labor, and the fact that they would enjoy the fruit of their toil; in Isa_65:25, the image employed is that taken from the change in the nature of the animal creation. All these are poetic images designed as illustrations of the general truth, and, like other poetic images, they are not to be taken literally.

An infant of days - A child; a sucking child. So the Hebrew word, עול ‛ûl, denotes. The Septuagint renders it, ‘Nor shall there be there anymore an untimely birth (ἄωρος aōros) and an old man who has not filled up his time.’ The idea is not that there should be no infant in those future times - which would be an idea so absurd that a prophet would not use it even in poetic fiction - but that there will not be an infant who shall not fill up his days, or who will be short-lived. All shall live long, and all shall be blessed with health, and continual vigor and youth.

Nor an old man that hath not filled his days - They shall enjoy the blessings of great longevity, and that not a longevity that shall be broken and feeble, but which shall be vigorous and happy. In further illustration of this sentiment, we may remark,

1. That there is no reason to suppose that it will be literally fulfilled even in the millenium. If it is to be regarded as literally to be fulfilled, then for the same reason we are to suppose that in that time the nature of the lion will be literally changed, and that he will eat straw like the ox, and that the nature of the wolf and the lamb will be so far changed that they shall lie down together Isa_65:25. But there is no reason to suppose this; nor is there any good reason to suppose that literally no infant or child will die in those times, or that no old man will be infirm, or that all will live to the same great age.

2. The promise of long life is regarded in the Bible as a blessing, and is an image, everywhere, of prosperity and happiness. Thus the patriarchs were regarded as having been highly-favored people, because God lengthened out their days; and throughout the Scriptures it is represented as a proof of the favor of God, that a man is permitted to live long, and to see a numerous posterity (see Gen_45:10; Psa_21:4; Psa_23:6; Psa_128:6 (Hebrew); Psa_91:16; Pro_3:2-14; Pro_17:6.

3. No one can doubt that the prevalence of the gospel everywhere would greatly lengthen out the life of man. Let anyone reflect on the great number that are now cut off in childhood in pagan lands by their parents, all of whom would have been spared had their parents been Christians; on the numbers of children who are destroyed in early life by the effects of the intemperance of their parents, most of whom would have survived if their parents had been virtuous; on the numbers of young men now cut down by vice, who would have continued to live if they had been under the influence of the gospel; on the immense hosts cut off, and most of them in middle life, by war, who would have lived to a good old age if the gospel had prevailed and put a period to wars; on the million who are annually cut down by intemperance and lust, and other raging passions, by murder and piracy, or who are punished by death for crime; on the million destroyed by pestilential disease sent by offended heaven on guilty nations; and let him reflect that these sources of death will be dried up by the prevalence of pure virtue and religion, and he will see that a great change may yet take place literally in the life of man.

4. A similar image is used by the classic writers to denote a golden age, or an age of great prosperity and happiness. Thus the Sybil, in the Sybilline Oracles, B. vii., speaking of the future age, says, Στήσει δὲ τὸ γένος, ὡς πάρος ἦν σοι Stēsei de to genos, hōs paros ēn soi - ‘A race shall be restored as it was in the ancient times.’ So Hesiod, describing the silver age, introduces a boy as having reached the age of an hundred years, and yet but a child:

Ἀλλ ̓ ἑκατόν μὲν παῖς ἔτεα παρὰ μητέρι κεδνρ,

Ἐτρέφετ ἀτάλλων υέγα νήπιος ὦ ἔνι οἴκῳ.

All' hekaton men tais etea para mēteri kednr,

Etrephet atallōn mega nēpios ō eni oikō.

For the child shall die an hundred years old - That is, he that is an hundred years old when he dies, shall still be a child or a youth. This is nearly the same sentiment which is expressed by Hesiod, as quoted above. The prophet has evidently in his eye the longevity of the patriarchs, when an individual of an hundred years of age was comparatively young - the proportion between that and the usual period of life then being about the same as that between the age of ten and the usual period of life now. We are not, I apprehend, to suppose that this is to be taken literally, but it is figurative language, designed to describe the comparatively happy state referred to by the prophet, as if human life should be lengthened out to the age of the patriarchs, and as if he who is now regarded as an old man, should then be regarded as in the vigor of his days. At the same time it is true, that the influence of temperance, industry, and soberness of life, such as would exist if the rules of the gospel were obeyed, would carry forward the vigor of youth far into advancing years, and mitigate most of the evils now incident to the decline of life.

The few imperfect experiments which have been made of the effect of entire temperance and of elevated virtue; of subduing the passions by the influence of the gospel, and of prudent means for prolonging health and life, such as the gospel will prompt a man to use, who has any just view of the value of life, show what may yet be done in happier times. It is an obvious reflection here, that if such effects are to be anticipated from the prevalence of true religion and of temperance, then he is the best friend of man who endeavors most sedulously to bring others under the influence of the gospel, and to extend the principles of temperance and virtue. The gospel of Christ would do more to prolong human life than all other causes combined; and when that prevails everywhere, putting a period, as it must, to infanticide, and war, and intemperance, and murder, and piracy, and suicide, and duelling, and raging and consuming passions, then it is impossible for the most vivid imagination to conceive the effect which shall be produced on the health and long life, as well as on the happiness of mankind.

But the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed - The sense of this appears to be, ‘not all who reach to a great age shall be judged to be the friends and favorites of God. Though a sinner shall reach that advanced period of life, yet he shall be cursed of God and shall be cut down in his sins. He shall be held to be a sinner and shall die, and shall be regarded as accursed.’ Other interpretations of this expression may be seen in Poole and in Vitringa. The above seems to me to be the true exposition.


.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LastSeven
Upvote 0

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Let us see what Peter had to say on the day of Pentecost and go with what he said.

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.



It would be best if we get what we say to line up with what Peter said under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Who did Peter address his words to on that day in the text above?

.

baberean2,

1. Peter was talking to jews from Jesus ministry and they still did not understand the church of jews and gentiles in one body till 8-10 years later when Peter got the vision of the clean and the unclean.

2. Peter was talking to the house of Israel about Jesus of Nazareth that they knew and were witnesses to his ministry of the miracles. That is the context of Acts 2:22.

3. Acts 2:36 was about the house of Israel who crucified the Lord.

4. These scriptures had nothing to do with gentiles for Christ ministry was of the KOH and the KOG and the jews were the ones who killed Jesus. The church of jews and gentiles was not known in Jesus ministry or even at the beginning of the church age under the new covenant. You miss it because you refuse to understand everything didn't unfold at one time.

5. It would be best for you to learn proper history and context of that history and who Peter was talking to you.
You act just because the new covenant was in effect that the church was known etc. So quit being ridiculous. Jerry kelso
 
Upvote 0

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
First of all, what you call "debunking" is not actually debunking, but whatever. I've only seen you address Martha's quote and Daniel's. Did you address these verses?

John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 6:40
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

lastseven,

1. All these scriptures are talking about the saved in the last day. The church is said to be in the last days and the old testament talks about the latter day of the tribulation.

2. The ones saved in the tribulation will be resurrected for it is a resurrection of the dead of those who take the mark of the beast. Revelation 15:1-2, 20:4-6 which are the same resurrection of the dead and will take place before the 7 vials which is months before the second coming.

3. Many believe that all the jews will be raised at the last day which still would not be on the Day of the Lord which is the second coming. So you misunderstand the term last day as being the exact Day of the Lord and it is not.

4. It is neither the rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 for the rapture was not known by the old testament saints. Paul revealed this rapture with the dead in Christ and it was a mystery to the old testament saints.

5. I also mentioned Hebrews 6:1-2 about leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ which was the law of Moses and go on to perfection which was the new covenant. This was spoken to the jews to understand the difference between the old and new covenants.

6. All the doctrines mentioned were old testament doctrines and one was the resurrection of the dead. So this had nothing to do with the rapture.

7. So once again you are wrong because of preconceived notions on your wrong perceptions of what you think a passage is saying without really understanding the real context and failing to put them together with the immediate context of Revelation 15:1-2 and Revelation 20:4-6. I have stated this before but obviously you skated past it but now you know the real scriptural context. Jerry kelso
 
Upvote 0

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Being ridiculous is explaining away the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost in order to make your two peoples/two kingdoms doctrine work.

.

baberean2,

1. Being ridiculous is not having no understanding of the scriptural context and how to reconcile the proper history and scriptures together.

2. I never explained away the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost.
It is plain he said the house of Israel and the early church that actually started with the new covenant before the Day of Pentecost but as I said you do not understand and do not try to understand about gradual revelation and how things unfolded with time.
Peter didn't even fully understand the mystery of the church until 8-10 years later when he had the vision of the clean and the unclean and Paul received his revelations in Arabia and told the Ephesians that the mystery was shown to the apostles by that time.
Israel was who killed the Messiah with the Romans assistance, not the church. Now if you really can't understand this simple statement you shouldn't be posting.

3. The 2 peoples and 2 kingdom doctrines in your context that you think is mine is foolish because it has the jews and gentiles separate concerning the salvation and that is a falsehood from you.

4. The 2 Kingdoms of the KOH and the KOG is a fact that Jesus taught Matthew 4:17; 6:33 and Luke 17:20. Matthew 10:6-7 shows the KOH message was only for jews and not gentiles because it was about becoming the head of the nations in the earthly kingdom but they had to believe in the spiritual aspect of the KOG to be saved and eligible for the KOH earthly reign. This was prophesied throughout the old testament and was to be fulfilled in Jesus day but was not because of Israel's rejection Matthew 23:37-39. These are concrete scriptural facts.

5. There is an earthly kingdom reign for 1000 years Revelation 20:4 of which Israel will be at the head of the nations Isaiah 2:2-4. This was called the KOH which is physical because in Daniel 7:27 it talks about the Kingdom under the heavens which is talking about the physical earth. The term KOH is baselia in the greek and means that its rule comes from heaven which is where God dwells.

6. There is only one overall KOG in the physical sense of which the earth is just a small part of.

7. Revelation 11:15 says the kingdoms of this world will become the Lord's when he comes back.

8. There are many kingdoms within the 1 universal KOG. Just like there are 50 states within the 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

9. In the KOH reign will be Israel at the head of the nations and the saints will be rulers throughout the earth. Also, the church will have rulership throughout the universe which Israel and its remnant will not necessarily have. Are you going to say that is unfair to because they don't have rulerships like the church.

10. You are deducing what I have said and what I shown from scripture and twisted it into your own doctrinal stance to explain it away and that is untruthful and wrong and you have no scriptural to prove what your saying. You are being dishonest and should not be posting though that is not for me to decide. I have explained this time and time again and you refuse. That is your prerogative but it is not right.

11. So I have not explained Peter's words away on the Day of Pentecost or who killed the Messiah. You once again fail at simple historical facts of who Peter was speaking to on the Day of Pentecost as a whole. He was not talking to spiritual jews of your context as a whole for most all of them were jews more than proselytes which were from Rome.

12. Just because the new covenant and the church was technically started at the death and Resurrection of Christ of which I have explained before Peter knew nothing about the mystery of the Church.

13. As I said before Israel was the one who crucified the Messiah which he said to them on the Day of Pentecost for if they known they were crucifying the Lord of glory they wouldn't have.

14. Either you cannot comprehend properly or you are sunk into your personal or denomination doctrine that you have tunnel vision and cannot see the forest for the trees or you just don't want to believe that you are wrong and you are wrong.

15. All you can do is disagree and give your usual position but you cannot and have not disproved the scriptures and its proper context that I have shown time and time again. You do not understand proper rebuttal and have bad illogical perception and concepts of the truth as well as refusal to understand simple historical statements. Quit being unfair and dishonest. I have given you the benefit of the doubt but you refuse to be logical and pliable to the truth and I say that because of what you have stated in your posts. It is between you and God whether or not you will be honest with yourself and what the word says and the man in the mirror is showing that you are not being honest to proper hermeneutics.

16. This is not a personal attack and I still love you in the Lord but factually to the scriptures I am not sure you are even trying to be logical. Take off your "Rose Colored Glasses" and see the real truth. Jerry Kelso
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. Being ridiculous is not having no understanding of the scriptural context and how to reconcile the proper history and scriptures together.

2. I never explained away the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost.
It is plain he said the house of Israel and the early church that actually started with the new covenant before the Day of Pentecost but as I said you do not understand and do not try to understand about gradual revelation and how things unfolded with time.
Peter didn't even fully understand the mystery of the church until 8-10 years later when he had the vision of the clean and the unclean and Paul received his revelations in Arabia and told the Ephesians that the mystery was shown to the apostles by that time.
Israel was who killed the Messiah with the Romans assistance, not the church. Now if you really can't understand this simple statement you shouldn't be posting.

You are contradicting yourself above in an attempt to make your doctrine work.

You just admitted that the early Church was made up of those of the house of Israel.

Then you turn around 180 degrees and claim the Messiah was killed by Israelites, not the Church.

.
 
Upvote 0

LastSeven

Amil
Supporter
Sep 2, 2010
5,205
1,046
Edmonton, Alberta
✟154,576.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Give me precept upon precept, line upon line from the Bible to support this believe of yours. Convince me
I'm glad you asked. I only hope your intention is not to summarily dismiss everything I've written here, but to actually consider my point of view with an open mind to see if anything I believe has merit. I've supported all my statements with scripture.

Took me a few days to put it all together, but here it is...

The Resurrections

Understanding scripture is like putting a puzzle together, and the verses are the pieces. So, since the pieces are the facts, let’s begin there.

1. There are two primary resurrections.

Revelation 20
They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.

2. The first resurrection is only for the righteous.

Revelation 20
They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

3. There will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

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.

4. There will be no more nights on the new earth. Which means there will be a “last day”.

Revelation 22:5
There will be no more night.

5. The resurrection happens on the last day.

John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

So if the first resurrection is only for the righteous then we know that the second resurrection includes both the righteous and the wicked. And since the resurrection Jesus spoke of is to occur on the last day, this must be the second resurrection (since obviously you can’t have 1000 years following the “last day”, or it wouldn’t really be the last day).

Furthermore, given that we know at some point there will be no more days or nights, and we know that we will be resurrected on the last day, we can know for certain that we will be resurrected just before the new earth. This means the resurrection Jesus spoke of (the resurrection on the last day) is the resurrection for both the righteous and the wicked and it is at the end of the thousand years, because the end of the thousand years is just before the new earth (where there is no more night) and also because we know death is not destroyed until then.

This conclusion is supported by 1 Corinthians 15

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

All will be made alive … then he hands over the kingdom (end of 1000 years), as death is destroyed.

This is further supported by Daniel 12 when the angel told Daniel that he would be resurrected at the end of days.

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

Earlier in that same chapter, the angel also confirmed that this resurrection will include both the righteous and the wicked. And surely Daniel is one of the righteous.

Daniel 12:1
But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

So knowing those facts, we are left with some interesting questions. For example, if Daniel died 2000 years ago and he will not be resurrected until the end of the thousand years, then does that mean he will be overlooked during the first resurrection?

And if Jesus talked about the second resurrection (on the last day), surely he must’ve also talked about the first resurrection. Where in the gospels do we see anything about the first resurrection?

What is this mysterious first resurrection?

The confusion comes from expecting both resurrections to be physical. It’s natural to assume that of course because a physical resurrection is much easier to conceive of than anything spiritual or symbolic. However, given that we’ve already established that Daniel will rest until the second resurrection, we can conclude that the first resurrection must be something different, because he surely would take part in it as he was a righteous man.

Knowing that there is a resurrection other than the one on the last day, surely scripture must talk about it. And of course it does. It turns out there is a lot of talk about dying and rising, though if you’re expecting the first resurrection to be physical it’s easy to dismiss this stuff as being unrelated. However, given that we’ve already established that the first resurrection must be something different, let’s take another look at this evidence.

First of all, in Galatians 2, Paul says that he has been crucified with Christ. This is clearly not literal, but spiritual.

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 makes it clear that we were crucified with him, which means we died. And further tells us that we have been brought from death to life in Christ. That is literally the definition of resurrection. Dying, then coming to life.

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.

But that’s talking about the future physical resurrection, is it not? Because just as Christ was physically raised from the dead, we will be also. Or is it? Let’s look at another example.

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.

Paul is clearly stating that, in a sense, we were crucified with him and died with him. Though of course we didn’t die physically when he was crucified, rather Paul explains that it was “our old self” which died along with him. All of these examples are speaking of spiritual death, and therefore, the life that we received after this death is also spiritual life. When you put it all together you have a spiritual resurrection. We died, and came to life.

Paul goes on to confirm that we have been brought back to life already.

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

In John 5 we can see the words of Jesus himself, where he explains that simply believing on him we are passed from death unto life. And further confirms that now is the hour that the dead shall live.

John 5:24-25
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

The hour that now is, means currently we are in the hour that people are being resurrected by coming into life by believing in Christ. This is the first resurrection.

Still not convinced? Well then Ephesians 2 is by far the clearest scripture that tells us that we’ve been resurrected with Christ, and even goes one step further. Not only does it say that we were resurrected with Christ, but also that we are now seated on our thrones with Christ.

Ephesians 2:4-6
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus

We have not been physically beheaded, nor were we physically resurrected, but we have been spiritually beheaded by leaving our old lives behind, and spiritually raised up by being born again, a new creation with new life in Jesus. This is what Revelation 20 was speaking of, and this is what Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 10.

Matthew 10:39
whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

But that would require the thousand years to be now…

So if the first resurrection is spiritual, then that must mean the thousand years is now. But in order for the thousand years to be now, that means Jesus would have to be reigning, and we with him. Does scripture support that? Let’s look at some more facts.

1. Jesus has received all authority and power

Matthew 28:1
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

2. Jesus disciples also received authority and power over Satan.

Mark 3:15
He appointed twelve[a] that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons.

3. Every believer has received authority and power over Satan.

Mark 16:17
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons

4. During Jesus reign there is still death and sin and mourning and sorrow.

1 Corinthians 15
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

5. Only on the new earth are we free from death and mourning and crying and pain.

Revelation 21:4
There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

6. During the thousand years a mysterious group of people are seated on thrones

Revelation 20:4

I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.

According to Paul, we are those people right now.

Ephesians 2:6

6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus

So, yes, there is scriptural evidence to support a current reign of Christ and the saints. Plenty of it.

So to summarize the facts as seen in scripture:

· Jesus has received all authority and power.
· Jesus gave that same authority and power to those who believe.
· Death and sorrow and pain still exist during his reign.
· We are currently seated with Jesus on thrones.

All of this evidence strongly supports a current thousand year reign.

But Satan still prowls around, so…

1 Peter 5:8

Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

If Satan still prowls around the earth seeking whom he may devour, then we can not be in the thousand years because during the thousand years Satan is “bound”, right?

Revelation 20:2
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

But what does it really mean for Satan to be bound? Naturally we would expect Satan to be completely out of the picture, as that’s how we picture things to be in our earthly realm. When a prisoner is locked up he is completely isolated from society.

However, does Satan live in a physical world that he can be locked behind bars? Obviously not, so it stands to reason that this “binding” of Satan may take a different form than what we would naturally expect. So, aside from our own perceptions of the world around us, and our own assumptions about what the world would be like if Satan is bound, is there any scriptural evidence to suggest that Satan is currently bound? Well, yes, there is.

1. In order for Jesus to have all the authority, he must first bind the strong man

Mark 3:27
In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.

2. Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven.

Luke 10:18
He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven".

3. When Satan fell from heaven, Jesus received his authority.

Revelation 12:8
But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:

Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb


Notice that Revelation 12 says “Now has come the authority of the Messiah”. This is exactly what Jesus said in Matthew 28:18 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. This links the two passages together on the timeline, and confirms that Satan was cast out of heaven when Jesus was sacrificed and resurrected.

Since Jesus can not have authority and power without first binding the strong man, and Jesus has received his authority and power, we can know that he has bound the strong man. But how is he bound? He is bound to earth, with no authority over Christ or those who believe in Him.

Don’t forget, we already know that death exists during Jesus’ reign, so since death is the result of sin, we know that the time of Jesus’ reign will look very much the same as the world looks today. Full of death and mourning and crying and pain. So there’s no reason to think the thousand years would be paradise on earth where there is no Satan and no sin.

1 Corinthians 15:25
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

He reigns until, death is destroyed. And where there’s death, there’s sin and pain and sorrow.

But Jesus hasn’t returned yet, so…

Scripture does not require Jesus to have returned for the thousand year reign to begin. Yes, Jesus will return as promised.

Acts 1:11
This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

And yes, Jesus reigns during the thousand years.

Revelation 20:6
they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

But notice that this verse says nothing about Jesus being on earth during his reign. In fact, Acts 3:21 tells us that Jesus will not return to earth until the restoration of all things, which we know occurs after his reign ends (ie. The new heaven and new earth begins).

Acts 3:21
Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

1 Corinthians 15 tells us the same thing. When he comes, then he will hand over the kingdom. In other words, when he comes, then his reign ends.

1 Corinthians 15
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

So Jesus reigns until he’s destroyed all his enemies, including death. Which means during his reign, death still exists. It also means that the resurrection (the end of death) happens at the end of his reign, because resurrection literally means “the end of death”. And furthermore, we can see by combining 1 Corinthians 15 and Acts 3:21 that Jesus returns at the end of his reign. So, yes, Jesus will return to earth, but at what point in the timeline? That is the key. And Acts 3:21 and 1 Corinthians 15 give us that answer beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But Rev 20 comes after Rev 19…

So this is literally the single reason that most Christians believe in a certain order of events. The rest of scripture lays out a completely different order of events than what you would find if you read Revelation as a chronologically detailed book of fiction, but because Revelation 20 comes after Revelation 19, most readers just can’t see that.

Now to base an entire understanding of eschatology on just this one single reason is folly, to say the least. If the rest of scripture seems to contradict this chronology then you have to either dismiss the Bible as a contradictory mess, or you have to reconcile the two so that they agree.

Of course if you’re one of those who still believe Revelation is 100% chronological, then you’ve probably already dismissed all the evidence I’ve presented thus far. The reason for that is because, in your mind, it contradicts the truth. I get that. It’s called a mental block and the mental block is the first thing you believe and once you believe it, everything else that doesn’t jive bounces off. No it’s not a disease, it’s a normal thing. Everybody’s brain works this way, unless you make a conscious effort to open up your mind, and that’s what I’m hoping you can do here.

So please consider another possibility. In this case, the possibility that Revelation was written in a style called “Progressive Parallelism”. Progressive parallelism repeats the same narrative several times (in parallel), but each time with progressively more or less detail.

Now when you read Revelation with this consideration in mind, you start to see patterns. Such as the battle of Armageddon being mentioned three times.

Revelation 16:12-16
The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13 Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.

Revelation 19:19
Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army.

Revelation 20:7-10
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves.

The binding of Satan being mentioned twice.

Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray…. They triumphed over him…

Revelation 20:3
He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him

The release of Satan being mentioned twice.

Revelation 9
The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth (Satan). The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss… he opened the Abyss …They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

Revelation 20:3
After that, he must be set free for a short time.

The judgment being mentioned twice.

Revelation 11:18
The time has come for judging the dead

Revelation 20:11
The dead were judged…

God the Father and his Christ beginning their eternal reign together being mentioned twice.

Revelation 11:15
The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.

Revelation 22:5
And they will reign for ever and ever.

The completion of the mystery of God being mentioned twice.

Revelation 16:17
It is done

Revelation 21:6
It is done

And all this is because Revelation is written in a style called progressive parallelism. Yes, it’s a real thing. Look it up.

When you realize the style of writing used here, you can no longer base your entire understanding of the timeline of eschatology on a chronological reading of the book of Revelation. And that’s when all the other scriptures magically begin to make sense.

And that’s when you no longer have to work overtime to come up with reasons why those other scriptures don’t say what they actually do say. Like Acts 3:21 Heaven must receive him until the time of the restitution of all things. Yes, all things, is the new heaven and new earth. To claim anything else would be solely for the purpose of aligning this verse with a chronological reading of Revelation. As I said, that is the single thing that most Christians base their entire understanding of eschatology on. And it’s most unfortunate, because it blocks your brain from seeing other things.

The most obvious example is the description of the seventh trumpet in Revelation chapter 11. With a chronological reading of Revelation, chapter 11 comes before chapter 20, so the inclination is to assume that the seventh trumpet is blown before the thousand years begin, but if you read the description of the seventh trumpet, you’ll see that this is actually impossible.

The seventh trumpet tells us three things that we know happen at the end of the thousand years, not the beginning.

1. The time has come for the judging of the dead.
2. The time has come for God the father and his Christ to begin their eternal reign.
3. The mystery of God is done.

Those three details alone should be enough to convince any serious Bible student that the seventh trumpet is blown at the end of the thousand years, not the beginning, and therefore we know that the book of Revelation is not 100% chronologically written.

Summary

So here is what we can deduce from the facts we see in scripture.

1. A spiritual resurrection occurs in each of us, as we accept Christ.
2. Jesus’ reign began when Satan was cast out of heaven, 2000 years ago.
3. When Jesus returns, his reign ends, and the new heaven and earth are revealed.
4. The second resurrection is the resurrection Jesus was speaking of.
5. The book of Revelation is not a single chronological account of the eschatological timeline.

Jesus told us straight up that Satan fell from heaven, and Revelation 12 tells us straight up that when Satan was cast out of heaven, the kingdom of God came and Jesus received his authority. This is the kingdom the Jews were waiting for but didn’t recognize, because it’s not a kingdom of this world. It’s a spiritual kingdom.

All believers have authority over Satan, because Christ lives in them. In this way we reign with Christ right now. We have taken part in the first resurrection, and therefore don’t have to fear the second death.

Nowhere does scripture tell us that the reign of Christ is a time without sin or death or suffering, in fact the very opposite as death is not made his footstool until the end of Christ’s reign. Nowhere does scripture tell us that the thousand years requires Jesus to be on earth. In fact, several key passages tell us the exact opposite, as he returns to earth at the end of his reign.

When Jesus’ reign ends, death will be destroyed once and for all and there will be no more sorrow and pain and tears, as we take possession of the new earth in our new glorified spiritual resurrected bodies. The resurrection is literally the end of death. That is the definition of resurrection. The first resurrection is the end of the second death (for those who believe), and the second resurrection is the end of physical death (for everyone).

And finally, if you insist on a chronological reading of Revelation, none of what I said will make sense to you. If, however, you open your mind to seeing Revelation differently, then all of the pieces of the puzzle fit together perfectly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LastSeven

Amil
Supporter
Sep 2, 2010
5,205
1,046
Edmonton, Alberta
✟154,576.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
lastseven,

1. All these scriptures are talking about the saved in the last day. The church is said to be in the last days and the old testament talks about the latter day of the tribulation.

2. The ones saved in the tribulation will be resurrected for it is a resurrection of the dead of those who take the mark of the beast. Revelation 15:1-2, 20:4-6 which are the same resurrection of the dead and will take place before the 7 vials which is months before the second coming.

3. Many believe that all the jews will be raised at the last day which still would not be on the Day of the Lord which is the second coming. So you misunderstand the term last day as being the exact Day of the Lord and it is not.

4. It is neither the rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 for the rapture was not known by the old testament saints. Paul revealed this rapture with the dead in Christ and it was a mystery to the old testament saints.

5. I also mentioned Hebrews 6:1-2 about leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ which was the law of Moses and go on to perfection which was the new covenant. This was spoken to the jews to understand the difference between the old and new covenants.

6. All the doctrines mentioned were old testament doctrines and one was the resurrection of the dead. So this had nothing to do with the rapture.

7. So once again you are wrong because of preconceived notions on your wrong perceptions of what you think a passage is saying without really understanding the real context and failing to put them together with the immediate context of Revelation 15:1-2 and Revelation 20:4-6. I have stated this before but obviously you skated past it but now you know the real scriptural context. Jerry kelso
Wait. Let me get this straight. You're basically saying that I'm wrong because I believe that "the last day" actually means "the last day". Right, how silly of me. I should know better than to believe what Jesus actually said. There's always a hidden meaning, right? Especially if the actual words don't line up with what you believe. You can't possibly be wrong in what you believe, therefore the words of Jesus must be wrong. Or should I say "misunderstood"? :doh:

Seriously, that's the best you can come up with and you're comfortable with that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Davidson
Upvote 0

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
You are contradicting yourself above in an attempt to make your doctrine work.

You just admitted that the early Church was made up of those of the house of Israel.

Then you turn around 180 degrees and claim the Messiah was killed by Israelites, not the Church.

.

baberean2,

Now quit being ignorant, the early church was made up primarily of the house of Israel and Peter and the apostles didn't have the knowledge of the mystery of the church in its full fruition.
I didn't turn around 180 degrees. Peter was taking to jews who killed the Messiah before the Day of Pentecost.
The Jews understood this and this was the reason Peter said that. Now you are just being willingly ignorant and unfair.
You have proved nothing except the fact that you can twist the truth around. The church of jews and gentiles wasn't even in the days of Jesus when the Jews had him killed.
If you are going to continually be wilfullly ignorant you need to quit posting or somebody needs to tell you to quit posting because the facts are plain that you are being unfair in exegesis and plain statements of facts concerning history and who was being spoken to. Give up. Jerry kelso
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Wait. Let me get this straight. You're basically saying that I'm wrong because I believe that "the last day" actually means "the last day". Right, how silly of me. I should know better than to believe what Jesus actually said. There's always a hidden meaning, right? Especially if the actual words don't line up with what you believe. You can't possibly be wrong in what you believe, therefore the words of Jesus must be wrong. Or should I say "misunderstood"? :doh:

Seriously, that's the best you can come up with and you're comfortable with that?

last seven,

1. Plain statements have a context. For example, eternal life is an eternal substance but the possession of it is different. Hyper-Calvinists use this to prove OSAS because eternal life means eternal.
It does mean what it says but it is an eternal substance whether one chooses it or not. A diamond is considered an eternal object but it can be lost and that is the interpretation of the lady that lost her coin and found it again. She had possession of it but lost it and then found it.

2. Paul said I die daily but he wasn't saying that a person was to die every day physically but that they were in danger of dying everyday physically for their faith.
Spiritually, Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:9-10 that the message of the death, burial and resurrection was what they could have been killed.
The whole context is that he was talking to people who didn't believe in the physical resurrection in verse 12 of 1 Corinthians 15. If there was no hope of a physical resurrection then everything was in vain of preaching the gospel and people's faith in it and Christ died in vain, etc.
It had nothing to do with dying to sin because Paul believed in dying to sin once as Christ died in Romans 6. He had already died to sin and gloried only in the cross.

3. Concerning the last day all jews understood to be in the last days. The church is considered to be in the last days and the old testament talks about the jews being restored in the latter days which is the tribulation.
The last day was also about being righteous and was about the resurrection of the dead and had nothing to do with a rapture.

4. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 is the rapture of the church of both the dead in Christ first and then the living believers and they are both caught up in the clouds with Christ who brings the dead back out of Heaven with him.

5. When you read Revelation 15:1-2 and Revelation 20:4-6 is both the blessed dead of Revelation 14:13 and this resurrection of the dead tribulation saints who didn't take the mark happens right before the 7 vials which are on the beast kingdom worshippers only and leads to the 7th vial which is when Armageddon happens Revelation 16:16.
The 7 seals happen first and then the 7 trumpets next and last are the 7 vials.

6. Didn't say Jesus was wrong but you don't understand the correct jewish history and what will reconcile with the book of Revelation.

7. You are trying to go with the literal phrase of the last day which was an old testament doctrine about the jews and not the gentiles and not the church.

8. The church was a mystery to the jew and the rapture was a mystery to the jews.

9. The last day does not mean the day of the second coming and you cannot reconcile the scriptures with it across the board on all the contexts of the difference of the rapture, resurrection of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 and the resurrection which is in the last day but not on the last day because Revelation 15 shows the last resurrection of the dead was before the 7 vials and not on the second coming.

10. KJV is not perfect all the time because it is 16th century english. The thing is the newer versions are not as good in many respects because they imply things that are not the intent or leave out substantive adjectives etc.

11. It is not about changing to be changing but it is about understanding the real intent what was meant by the writers of the day and how the scriptures are reconciled together to be in harmony.

12. I have already mentioned also about Hebrews 6:1-2 and its context but you have not addressed these things and even if you addressed it it most likely wouldn't be a rebuttal that is of the context.

13. I disagree with you but I have given logic to the scripture because of the true context and why your view is wrong and all you can do is disagree and keep up your same scriptures.
I have already told you why the last day didn't mean the exact day to begin with.

14. The Day of the Lord means the second coming in most passages and in other passages means a period of time in the millennial kingdom and some interpret it as Jacob's trouble which is the last half of the tribulation.

15. Not everything is an open shut case if the context differs. There is an immediate context most of the time and then you have others that harmonize with it etc.

16. You can stay in your tunnel vision of the wording of the last day and on the last day etc., but you cannot prove it in the context of all the scriptures on the subject concerning the rapture and resurrection of the church being on the last day. Jerry Kelso
 
Upvote 0