were in daniel ch 9 does it talk about the anti christ???

Status
Not open for further replies.

rollinTHUNDER

Veteran
Dec 30, 2001
1,936
13
Central Florida USA
Visit site
✟22,549.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by parousia70

THUNDER, Adam lived to be 900 after the fall!!
are you saying your future Kingdom will be like it was in Adams day after the fall????

As to your "I'm not gonna let you get away with this" comment, OK, I'll bite, even though I have done nothing but let everyone else "get away" with ignoring my questions, I'll go ahead and continue to provide sober reason to all who call me to account in an effort to set an example that I can only hope and pray will be followed in kind.


Hello parousia,
I am replying for the second time on this. This morning after I invested over an hour and almost completing my message, I got knocked off the net. Then I couldn't get back on, the line was busy. I got frustrated and went to bed.

Don't get the wrong idea, I didn't mean it like you were trying to get away with something, or slipping in a fast one. I just thought that since you pulled up the scripture, that it would be appropriate for you to make the whole scripture fit, after I spotted something in it that did not fit what you were saying, in my view anyway.

No, I didn't mean it the way you have said. This was not referring to Christ' Kingdom. This is referring to the new heaven and the new earth, which will not take place for over a thousand years from now. The new earth will be created after the great white throne judgment, which will come at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ. We have not yet seen this Kingdom on earth yet, but we are building it through our Lord and Savior. Remember when Jesus said, "on this rock, I build my church"? He was going to build His church on the same faith that Peter had. This is where we are today, the church age, or the age of grace. Every eye will see this coming kingdom, for it will come in a very dark day, and the whole earth will mourn when they see Him coming. All those who overcome this world, that is under the power of the prince of darkness, will rule and reign with Him. What a glorious day that will be !!

I will talk more on the new heaven and new earth after I finish supper. See ya !!
 
Upvote 0

rollinTHUNDER

Veteran
Dec 30, 2001
1,936
13
Central Florida USA
Visit site
✟22,549.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by parousia70

Bingo! An infant. An infant who has eternal life, an
infant who won't live but a few days. But if you are not
born again, you are an old man and you are accursed;
cut from eternal life.

The explanation of "child" and "old man" is totally
scriptural, as I showed. And if not, you still have to
explain why one would be called child at 100 y.o.(poor
moms... raising a child would be a verrrrrry long task!)
and if at 100 y.o. one is still considered as a
child, why would he be called a sinner and be accursed
at such a young age?

I don't see any problem with a
born again (spiritually alive) who dies at 100 y.o.
(physical death). To die at a certain age is a proof of
physical death, and he is called a child, the same word
used by Christ to describe His disciples, God's
children. When you are born again, you are spiritually a
child, but you will physically die one day and at a
certain age. What is the problem with that? No
contradiction here.

YBIC,
P70

Okay - Back to why I believe that the scripture you gave doesn't fit. Keep in mind that this is not an attack against you brother. My aim here, is to take a closer look at how we are interpreting these scriptures. We are not even close in our thinking on these things.

The scripture says that there won't be any infants dying in just a few days, like they do in this (day and age). It says there will be "none". But it is talking about the youth, who are considered to be young adults. Lets say 14-17 years old in this day and age. The youth here are accursed, or sinful.

You say that you take all scripture literally, but it appears that you are spiritualizing them here. I think this time it is literal. God said He would make all things new, as in the beginning before the fall.

I have looked up all the scriptures in the new testament on "old man". There are only four mentions of old man in the NT. One identifies someone personally, so I will use the three that are unidentifying. All three seem to imply that old man means : old self, sinful or accursed.

Romans 6:6 - "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin,"

Eph. 4:22 - "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts."

Col. 3:9 - "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds."

So - even if you do spiritualize it, it still does not fit. This is literal and was meant to be taken literal. There will be no infants dying, the youth are accursed, and the old man would be accursed also if you spiritualize, so it must be taken literally. All things will be made new. This puts a big hole in the theory that you are holding on to. But there are many more. See ya friend !!
 
Upvote 0

rollinTHUNDER

Veteran
Dec 30, 2001
1,936
13
Central Florida USA
Visit site
✟22,549.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by parousia70



THUNDER, If it was talking about spiritual death here, and none of them would see it, Why did Jesus say only"Some" of them wouldn't die? How do you get around the clear implication that some of them would die?

Oh how I love easy questions. They don't take very long to answer. The answer is very simple, "One of the twelve was a devil named Judas. He would not see the Kingdom until judgment day. Off to work I go, good night all !!
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER


No, I didn't mean it the way you have said. This was not referring to Christ' Kingdom. This is referring to the new heaven and the new earth,

If the New H/E is not "Christ's" Kingdom, Who's Kingdom is it?

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
Every eye will see this coming kingdom
Not according to Jesus:
Luke 17:20-21
"20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God DOES NOT come with observation; 21 nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!'

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
All those who overcome this world, that is under the power of the prince of darkness, will rule and reign with Him. What a glorious day that will be !!

THUNDER, thanks to Jesus, That day is here!
First of all, This world is not under the power of the "price of darkness" for he is powerless. This world is under the power of Jesus Christ. Satan does NOT rule the earth today, Jesus Christ does. I think I mentioned to you once already about how dangerous I felt that claim of yours was. I urge you once again to back away from it. Satan has absolutely no power today to keep ANYONE from salvation.
His head has been crushed. He is a defeated foe.

Satan was bound/judged/cast out by Christ's ministry, reversing satan's dominion over the People of God, granting power over all darkness to the saints, and immediately enabling the gospel to spread to all nations.
(John 12:31 and Matt 12:28-29, Heb 2:14-15 and 1 John 3:8).

Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords yesterday, today, and evermore. ALL power and dominion are His. There is nothing that is not already under his rule.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL POWER is given unto me in heaven AND IN EARTH.

Revelation 1:5
...Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, AND THE PRINCE OF THE KINGS OF THE EARTH.

Secondly, we, Christs Body, already rule and reign with Christ right now!!! It's a done deal. We are priests and Kings of a Kingdom that can never be conqured, ruling and reigning with our Lord for evermore.


Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
I will talk more on the new heaven and new earth after I finish supper. See ya !!

Great!! Perhaps as part of that talk, you could explain to me your understanding of the "heavens and earth" God created "after" he parted the sea and brought the hebrew people out of Egypt into the wilderness. (Isaiah 51:16)
Did he destroy the H/E that existed before they left Egypt, in order to create the one he created "after" they left Egypt?
I remember asking you once before, but I haven't yet had the priveledge to learn your answer. I so look forward to it!

YBIC,
P70
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER


Okay - Back to why I believe that the scripture you gave doesn't fit. Keep in mind that this is not an attack against you brother. My aim here, is to take a closer look at how we are interpreting these scriptures. We are not even close in our thinking on these things.

Of this you are absoultely correct!

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
The scripture says that there won't be any infants dying in just a few days, like they do in this (day and age). It says there will be "none". But it is talking about the youth, who are considered to be young adults. Lets say 14-17 years old in this day and age. The youth here are accursed, or sinful.

Whoa there...... Where do you get 14-17 year old out of this? Where does scripture tell you to get 14-17 year olds out of Isaiah 65?
As previously shown, the analogy of "infant/old man" I used is absolutely scriptural. the born again "infant", no matter how old he is when he dies physically, lives forever, the unrepentant "old man" sinner at physical death will have fulfilled his days.

I do commend you for recognizing that Isaiah is in fact speaking fo the New H/E and NOT the "Millennium"
The biggest hole in your theory however, is the existance of Birth, ageing, death and sinners in the New H/E. Thats why most futurists must claim "millennium" here. Tell me, How do you reconcile that with your view that the New H/E is a biological edenic paradise totally free of sin and death when Isaiah clearly claims the opposite??

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
You say that you take all scripture literally, but it appears that you are spiritualizing them here. I think this time it is literal. God said He would make all things new, as in the beginning before the fall.

THUNDER, all things have been restored. We today can communicate as freely with God as Adam did before the fall. We reside in his presence. Jesus Christ restored all that was lost in Adam.

Till tomorrow!!

YBIC,
P70
 
Upvote 0
--------[QUOTEOriginally posted by parousia70 [/i]
Willis, I wanted to comment on your stetement : “Just because a prophesy has been fulfilled doesn’t mean it won’t be fulfilled again.” While I find that to be a very wild hermeneutic, I believe your ideas of “multiple fulfillments" are rooted in O.T. TYPES--------

p70,

I am now ready to comment on your post. After careful reading I am glad to say that we are in agreement that prophecy has more than one fulfilment. Whether you want to call it a type, or shadow, or forshadowing, the fact remains that OT scriptures have fulfillment beyond the context of the prophets words, which was my point all along.

Now for the more complex aspects. You provide good insight into the method of interpreting prophecy (I shall use the word 'prophecy' in the broadest sense of the word which includes forshadowing). You also rightly state that the word of God has it's fulfillment in Jesus. The bone of contention is 'complete fulfillment' which can only be had with the second advent. Since you see this happening in 70AD you've closed the book on prophecy, but since I see a future advent the book is still open, the eschatology used by the apostles is still relevent, and from my viewpoint the when of fulfilled prophecy is still irrelevent since it will still serve as a forshadowing of things to come (second advent). So, as usual, our discussion comes down to whether or not prophecy was completely fulfilled in 70AD. Of course I've already acknowledged that much prophecy had both a physical and spiritual fulfillment in the fall of Jerusalem, but I stop far short of conceding 'complete fulfillment'.

Buckle up, I call your 'spiritual' fulfillment, and raise you one 'physical' fulfillment. ;)

THE RESURRECTION: Was the resurrection of the dead ever meant to be a 'physical' fulfillment? The Sadducees of Jesus' time didn't believe in it. Jesus affirmed a resurrection of the dead in Mat 22:31. What else is said about this event? Well, Jesus' body left the tomb upon his resurection as also did many bodies of the saints which slept (Mat 27:52). Also of note here is that the graves were opened, and the bodies were missing. Paul said of Christ 1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

I don't think there can be any dissension that the resurections discussed so far involve the physical body being physically removed from the physical grave. Since Christ was firstfruits shouldn't we therefore expect the rest of the harvest to occur in like manner? After all, if you sow corn, your firstfruits will be corn, and your harvest will be corn, not wheat, nor grapes. If the firstfruits were physical (and no doubt it was) then the resurrection must be of the physical body from the physical grave.

1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

Isa 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.


The bible tells me there will be a resurrection of the physical body with a disturbance of the physical grave. It didn't happen in 70AD, nor at any time since then. Since the resurrection is intimately tied in with the second advent of Jesus Christ then we can safely say that no resurrection=no 2nd advent.
 
Upvote 0

rollinTHUNDER

Veteran
Dec 30, 2001
1,936
13
Central Florida USA
Visit site
✟22,549.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by parousia70
Thunder, ONE is not some!!
Nicy try though :p

This was so simple, and now I find that you have messed up my meaning again. I can not see how you could miunderstand this simple little verse.

Matt.16:28 - "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Now let me spell it out for you.>>> "I tell you the truth, some (not all)who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. One will (NOT) see the kingdom coming. Judas got a taste of death, but the other disciples will never taste death. So - because death was defeated for all who believe, only Judas would see death. Thats why He said "some" and not "all". Do you get it??
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Willis Deal

Now for the more complex aspects. You provide good insight into the method of interpreting prophecy (I shall use the word 'prophecy' in the broadest sense of the word which includes forshadowing). You also rightly state that the word of God has it's fulfillment in Jesus. The bone of contention is 'complete fulfillment' which can only be had with the second advent. Since you see this happening in 70AD you've closed the book on prophecy.

I don't think this is what you meant to say, but I have not closed the book on prophesy. There are countless prophesies that reach beyond the 2nd advent. Even someone such as yourself ought to agree with that. I see Bible prophesy as continuing to unfold every day.The Book is still open for me to! However, I do believe all eschatology has found complete fulfillment.

Originally posted by Willis Deal

So, as usual, our discussion comes down to whether or not prophecy was completely fulfilled in 70AD. Of course I've already acknowledged that much prophecy had both a physical and spiritual fulfillment in the fall of Jerusalem, but I stop far short of conceding 'complete fulfillment'.
The trouble I see with your view here is that you can never concede "complete fulfillment" of any prophesy with a hermeneutic that says " just because something has been fulfulled, dosen't mean it won't be fulfilled again in a greater way."
Again I'll ask, Is Calvary a mere "type" of some future greater redemption from sin? If not, Why not?

Originally posted by Willis Deal

Buckle up, I call your 'spiritual' fulfillment, and raise you one 'physical' fulfillment. ;)

THE RESURRECTION: Was the resurrection of the dead ever meant to be a 'physical' fulfillment? The Sadducees of Jesus' time didn't believe in it. Jesus affirmed a resurrection of the dead in Mat 22:31. What else is said about this event? Well, Jesus' body left the tomb upon his resurection as also did many bodies of the saints which slept (Mat 27:52). Also of note here is that the graves were opened, and the bodies were missing. Paul said of Christ 1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

I don't think there can be any dissension that the resurections discussed so far involve the physical body being physically removed from the physical grave. Since Christ was firstfruits shouldn't we therefore expect the rest of the harvest to occur in like manner? After all, if you sow corn, your firstfruits will be corn, and your harvest will be corn, not wheat, nor grapes. If the firstfruits were physical (and no doubt it was) then the resurrection must be of the physical body from the physical grave.

I'm glad you brought this up!
Two points here:
1) Firstfruits.
I see you are aware of the firstfruits analogy, however, you may not be aware that it is yet another time indicator that actually supports my view.

The "firstfruits" of the harvest were taken at the time the harvest was ripe, and the rest of the harvest was "at hand" and taken "shortly after". It makes no sense to harvest the firstfruits when the harvest was ripe, then let the rest of the harvest spoil by not taking it in short order.
Firstfruits were always immediatly followed by the entire harvest. (it's actually one of my favorite analogies)

2) Physical resurrection
Of all the bodily resurrections mentioned in the Bible, Only Jesus' body had the properties it did, and we have no record of any post resurrection body ascending into heaven except Jesus. Jesus was the ONLY one who was promised that His physical body would not see decay. There is nothing in the Bible that says there was/is to be a "resurrection of the flesh" .

Now, I'll call your "physical resurrection" and trump it with the "better resurrection" :p

Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.

The writer of Hebrews shows us that there is a Better resurrection than merely having your flesh re animated.
What do you suppose that "better resurrection" than a resurrection of the flesh could be?

The Better resurrection is the resurrection out of the death of seperation from God. How much "better" do you need than that?

Also of note, You have to be dead to be resurrected. there is no resurrection of the living, the Living were "changed", in covenental status, so as to never be "death seperated" from God again.
Physical death today is merely Gods servant to bring us into a deeper level of Human existance. An existance that was intended from the foundation of the world.

YBIC,
P70
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER


This was so simple, and now I find that you have messed up my meaning again. I can not see how you could miunderstand this simple little verse.

Matt.16:28 - "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Now let me spell it out for you.>>> "I tell you the truth, some (not all)who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. One will (NOT) see the kingdom coming. Judas got a taste of death, but the other disciples will never taste death. So - because death was defeated for all who believe, only Judas would see death. Thats why He said "some" and not "all". Do you get it??

THUNDER, let me put it this way,
I have a plate of ten cookies, I leave the room, come back and there is only one cookie left. I ask you, what happened to this place of cookies? you reply "I ate some of them" when in fact you ate all 9 and left one, the truth is you ate most of them.

Some does not = all but one.
Nice try again though, keep pluggin away! :wave:

PS, What about some of the other scriptures I posted that indicated Christ would return within the disciples lifetime? (Matt. 24:34, 26:64 for example)
I have noticed you haven't touched those...any particular reason?
 
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

rollinTHUNDER

Veteran
Dec 30, 2001
1,936
13
Central Florida USA
Visit site
✟22,549.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by parousia70


If the New H/E is not "Christ's" Kingdom, Who's Kingdom is it?I was referring to Christ' 1000 year reign,known as the millenial reign, which is totally different from the new heaven and new earth. It appears that you have twisted all my words. Maybe not on purpose, but you interpret my writings the same way you interpret the bible.


Not according to Jesus:
Luke 17:20-21
"20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God DOES NOT come with observation; 21 nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' You wouldn't have had to type this if you understood what I was saying.



THUNDER, thanks to Jesus, That day is here!
First of all, This world is not under the power of the "price of darkness" for he is powerless. This world is under the power of Jesus Christ. Satan does NOT rule the earth today, Jesus Christ does. I think I mentioned to you once already about how dangerous I felt that claim of yours was. I urge you once again to back away from it. Satan has absolutely no power today to keep ANYONE from salvation.
His head has been crushed. He is a defeated foe.John 16;10-16 says he is condemned, not chained up and thrown into the abyss.Yeah-greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world (satan). If you have seen the kingdom of God, then why are you still in your sinful body, that must not enter into heaven?? Why have over a million christians been martyred in Sudan, and other parts of the world if Christ' Kingdom is already here?? And why is Christ not ruling in Jerusalem??

Satan was bound/judged/cast out by Christ's ministry, reversing satan's dominion over the People of God, granting power over all darkness to the saints, and immediately enabling the gospel to spread to all nations.
(John 12:31 and Matt 12:28-29, Heb 2:14-15 and 1 John 3:8).He was judged before he was thrown out of heaven, but show me where he was bound, and cast out of the earth.He is condemned already sure, but he is still roaming around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, which is the lost. Who do you think is causing the saints to be persecuted?? Not God. Where is your reward that Jesus promised to bring when He comes, or came from your point of view?? If you are part of His kingdom, then where is your crown of life??

Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords yesterday, today, and evermore. ALL power and dominion are His. There is nothing that is not already under his rule.
This world is still run by corrupt men, most of which are being led astray by the evil forces in the heavenly relms (air) - don't mistake this for Gods heaven now. There are three heavens.
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL POWER is given unto me in heaven AND IN EARTH. I can agree here, satan can only do what the Lord will allow. Remember when satan wanted to sift Peter like wheat??

Revelation 1:5
...Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, AND THE PRINCE OF THE KINGS OF THE EARTH. Yes, and a Prince has to wait for his time to come. He is declared King of Kings and Lord of Lords only when He is seen coming from heaven. The angels told the men that watched Him ascend to heaven, that He would return in the same way. He would be seen, and the bible says that every eye will see Him coming in power and great glory.

Secondly, we, Christs Body, already rule and reign with Christ right now!!! It's a done deal. We are priests and Kings of a Kingdom that can never be conqured, ruling and reigning with our Lord for evermore. Maybe you saw your king, but I'm still waiting on mine. I am living by faith, which is believing in something unseen. I have hope in the promise that he would come and receive us unto Himself, like He said He would. I am one of the children of the promise.




Great!! Perhaps as part of that talk, you could explain to me your understanding of the "heavens and earth" God created "after" he parted the sea and brought the hebrew people out of Egypt into the wilderness. (Isaiah 51:16)
Did he destroy the H/E that existed before they left Egypt, in order to create the one he created "after" they left Egypt? I am not your teacher. But I see you have also misunderstood this as well, Par for the course I guess.
I remember asking you once before, but I haven't yet had the priveledge to learn your answer. I so look forward to it! I didn't reply, because you make no sense, and I thought I would spare you the embarrassment.

I can see that you got very defensive and then offensive. If I angered you, I'm sorry, but I don't like it when you twist what I am saying. I don't have any ill feelings towards you. I forgive you and hope you forgive me, but I just can't see this going anywhere good. I don't have time to spell every thing out for you. I tried my best to explain to you what I thought, but it seems you are getting defensive again, and twisting my words really doesn't help. We should agree to disagree, and leave it at that. No hard feelings brother, See ya !!

YBIC,
P70
 
Upvote 0

rollinTHUNDER

Veteran
Dec 30, 2001
1,936
13
Central Florida USA
Visit site
✟22,549.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Sorry - I thought that it would separate our words automaticly. I answered all your questions on the above post, but it looks like ours words ran together. You can see my answer at the very end of your question, each one.
 
Upvote 0

rollinTHUNDER

Veteran
Dec 30, 2001
1,936
13
Central Florida USA
Visit site
✟22,549.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by parousia70


THUNDER, let me put it this way,
I have a plate of ten cookies, I leave the room, come back and there is only one cookie left. I ask you, what happened to this place of cookies? you reply "I ate some of them" when in fact you ate all 9 and left one, the truth is you ate most of them.

Some does not = all but one.
Nice try again though, keep pluggin away! :wave:

PS, What about some of the other scriptures I posted that indicated Christ would return within the disciples lifetime? (Matt. 24:34, 26:64 for example)
I have noticed you haven't touched those...any particular reason?

You still missed the point, and this is why our debate is over. Maybe He should have said all, just to make you feel better. In any case, you missed it, and I'm done with it. I answered all your questions.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by parousia70


Again I'll ask, Is Calvary a mere "type" of some future greater redemption from sin? If not, Why not?

I'll answer again... Not every verse has to be taken as a shadow of things to come.


Originally posted by parousia70


I'm glad you brought this up!
Two points here:
1) Firstfruits.
I see you are aware of the firstfruits analogy, however, you may not be aware that it is yet another time indicator that actually supports my view.

The "firstfruits" of the harvest were taken at the time the harvest was ripe, and the rest of the harvest was "at hand" and taken "shortly after". It makes no sense to harvest the firstfruits when the harvest was ripe, then let the rest of the harvest spoil by not taking it in short order.
Firstfruits were always immediatly followed by the entire harvest. (it's actually one of my favorite analogies)

2) Physical resurrection
Of all the bodily resurrections mentioned in the Bible, Only Jesus' body had the properties it did, and we have no record of any post resurrection body ascending into heaven except Jesus. Jesus was the ONLY one who was promised that His physical body would not see decay. There is nothing in the Bible that says there was/is to be a "resurrection of the flesh".

Point one: If you use firstfruits as a literal human time indicator the resurrection would HAD to have had it's fulfillment within a few weeks of the resurrection of Jesus. However, Paul plainly states in several different verses that during his minisitry, years later, the resurrection still awaited a future fulfillment. Since firstfruits has no correlation to a literal human time frame it can serve as no time indicator.

Point two: Most resurrections recorded in the bible are resurrections of the corruptible flesh, those resurrections involved people who came back to this life only to suffer death and corruption at a later date.

Originally posted by parousia70


Now, I'll call your "physical resurrection" and trump it with the "better resurrection" :p

Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.

The writer of Hebrews shows us that there is a Better resurrection than merely having your flesh re animated.
What do you suppose that "better resurrection" than a resurrection of the flesh could be?

The Better resurrection is the resurrection out of the death of seperation from God. How much "better" do you need than that?

Also of note, You have to be dead to be resurrected. there is no resurrection of the living, the Living were "changed", in covenental status, so as to never be "death seperated" from God again.
Physical death today is merely Gods servant to bring us into a deeper level of Human existance. An existance that was intended from the foundation of the world.

YBIC,
P70

Are you saying that those who refused deliverance for a better resurrection were somehow sin seperated from God and that their death somehow reconciled that seperation? For the verse clearly says that they REFUSED deliverance FOR a better resurrection. Now the people we are talking about were martyrs, dying for their belief in God.

The better resurrection is one in which the body never again faces death. As I mentioned, most resurrections in the bible were of bodies that later died. Jesus is a notable example of one raised who would never die again, possibly the saints who rose at the same time were in the same catagory but we don't have enough information from scripture to state this for a certainty. Since Jesus was FIRST we wouldn't expect to see any other similar resurrections prior to Jesus, and shouldn't expect to see any others until 'harvest'.

The bible most certainly does say the flesh shall live again. Why else would the graves be opened, the earth cast forth the dead? Why, when Paul was ridiculed for preaching reseurection did he not explain that he didn't expect a physical resurrection of long dead bodies but rather a spiritual resurrection if that were the case? Why did Martha say she knew her brother would live again when resurrected on the last day if indeed he was alive with God at that moment? Was Lazarus not alive with God at that time? Certainly Moses and Elijah were alive since they had appeared with Jesus not too long prior to this event.

In fact, the very word 'resurrection' means 'raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.' Now, as you pointed out, to be resurrected you must first be dead, but even more, you must have at one time lived in order to die. To enter into convenental relationship with God you must be 'born again'. Why? Because you have never really lived, you begin again with birth, not resurrection.
 
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

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Willis, Good reply. Gives me much to ponder. I want to clarify a few points I believe you misunderstood, and ask for clarification on a few points of yours that I don't understand, but I am about to head to the beautiful Oregon Coast for a weekend free of Computers, television and work. Just My Wife, 18 month old son and myself, and believe me, we need the break.

Perhaps we can resume this in a new thread. I think we have strayed far enough away from Daniel 9 and Anitchrist to warrant a switch.

I'll start a thread Sunday or Monday that will serve to focus on the "nature" of these things (resurrection, 2nd coming, Heavens & earth, etc....)

I believe it would be appropriate and I hope you will join me!

Have a good weekend,
YBIC,
P70
 
Upvote 0
:wave:
Originally posted by parousia70
Willis, Good reply. Gives me much to ponder. I want to clarify a few points I believe you misunderstood, and ask for clarification on a few points of yours that I don't understand, but I am about to head to the beautiful Oregon Coast for a weekend free of Computers, television and work. Just My Wife, 18 month old son and myself, and believe me, we need the break.

Perhaps we can resume this in a new thread. I think we have strayed far enough away from Daniel 9 and Anitchrist to warrant a switch.

I'll start a thread Sunday or Monday that will serve to focus on the "nature" of these things (resurrection, 2nd coming, Heavens & earth, etc....)

I believe it would be appropriate and I hope you will join me!

Have a good weekend,
YBIC,
P70
:wave:
 
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
Status
Not open for further replies.