False Rapture

[tdidymas]

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

One resurrection, but to different destinations.

You explained nothing, just made another assertion. Jesus didn't say that all in the graves will "hear" simultaneously and rise simultaneously. You're assuming it's simultaneous, but it doesn't say that. All this response of yours says is that you want it say that because it fits your idea.

But the question I asked is in Rev. 20:5, saying "first resurrection." This implies chronology. In Acts 26:23, it says that Jesus was "the first to rise from the dead," which is obviously chronological, since it has already happened. So then, a "first resurrection" that is a future event also implies a chronology regarding the resurrection. Especially since it says "the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended." You've already acknowledged the literal interpretation of it, since you said something about it being an undetermined amount of time (as opposed to "1000 years"). So then it appears you acknowledge the chronological events described.

I just want to know how you explain Rev. 20:5, if you claim there is only one single resurrection of both believers and unbelievers. I don't want to read your book, I just want you to explain this one thing. How do you account for this apparent contradiction to your idea in Rev. 20:5?

 

[Elijah7777]

So then, a "first resurrection" that is a future event

This is the resurrection when Jesus returns. We will rule and reign with Him for 1,000 years.

Revelation 20:4–6:“They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years… Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.”

 

[tdidymas]

This is the resurrection when Jesus returns. We will rule and reign with Him for 1,000 years.

Revelation 20:4–6:“They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years… Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.”

What's your point, since you didn't answer the question?

 

[for_his_glory]

You explained nothing, just made another assertion. Jesus didn't say that all in the graves will "hear" simultaneously and rise simultaneously. You're assuming it's simultaneous, but it doesn't say that. All this response of yours says is that you want it say that because it fits your idea.

But the question I asked is in Rev. 20:5, saying "first resurrection." This implies chronology. In Acts 26:23, it says that Jesus was "the first to rise from the dead," which is obviously chronological, since it has already happened. So then, a "first resurrection" that is a future event also implies a chronology regarding the resurrection. Especially since it says "the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended." You've already acknowledged the literal interpretation of it, since you said something about it being an undetermined amount of time (as opposed to "1000 years"). So then it appears you acknowledge the chronological events described.

I just want to know how you explain Rev. 20:5, if you claim there is only one single resurrection of both believers and unbelievers. I don't want to read your book, I just want you to explain this one thing. How do you account for this apparent contradiction to your idea in Rev. 20:5?

I explained all of this in post #277, but will answer your question about Rev 20:5.

The rest of the dead are those of the other part of the resurrection that have been raised to damnation whose names are not found written in the Lamb’s book of life. The second death are those who rejected Christ and had no faith in God being Spiritually dead that are raised from their graves, Ephesians 2:1-10. Scripture never teaches two resurrections, but only one resurrection, John 5:28, 29; 6:40, and a second death being that of Spiritual death and hell being the grave are cast into the lake of fire, Rev 20:14, 15 as they had no Spiritual power over death. There are two separate judgments, but only one resurrection as everything from Rev 19-20 happens on the last day that has no ending. Those who are priest of God and will reign with Him are those of the Spiritual rebirth and indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[for_his_glory]

Jesus said he would return after the Tribulation.

Yes He will according to what He has already spoken.

Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[JLB]

This is the resurrection when Jesus returns. We will rule and reign with Him for 1,000 years.

Revelation 20:4–6:“They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years… Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.”

This is true and contextually follows Revelation 19 which is the return of Christ.

His coming and the end of the age, thus beginning the age of resurrection where the faithful will reign with Him for 1000 years.

This is the prophetic Day of rest that the weekly Sabbath points to.

The “rest to come” as Paul calls it.

 

[Elijah7777]

thus beginning the age of resurrection where the faithful will reign with Him for 1000 years.

The Church Age has many names: the Time of the Gentiles, the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, and others. Likewise, the Kingdom Age will also be known by many titles. It is interesting that you refer to the 100-year reign of Christ as the Resurrection Age.

The Bible is clear that when His feet touch the ground, there will be a great earthquake stretching from the Mount of Olives to the Temple Mount, which is currently beneath the Dome. At that moment, the resurrection will take place, and Jesus will clear away everything that stands in the way so that He can establish the New Jerusalem. Yet, in another sense, the New Jerusalem descends from Heaven.

We are told that He will be HIgh and LIfted up for the whole world to see. Actually when He returns they already have a live cam. For the next 1,000 years people will be able to watch the video when these events take place. Some people say it will be made into a Hologram.

 

[JLB]

The Church Age has many names: the Time of the Gentiles, the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, and others. Likewise, the Kingdom Age will also be known by many titles. It is interesting that you refer to the 100-year reign of Christ as the Resurrection Age.

I don’t recognize such terms as the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, or the Church age, or the kingdom age.


The times of the Gentiles is not an “age” but a time that is between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9: 24-27.

That is another subject.


We are living in what Jesus can be understood as “this age”, which encompasses the time of Adam until the time of the coming of the Lord, which is “the last Day”;
the last Day of “this age”.

If there is “that age” then it stands to reason there is a “this age”.

Then begins “that age” which is (the age to come), the age associated with the resurrection.


Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Luke 20:34-36

As long as people marry and are given in marriage and people can still die, then we are still in “this age”.

 

[Elijah7777]

If there is “that age” then it stands to reason there is a “this age”.

I always say that. This is that and that is this. Glad to see that you do not get this mixed up with that and that mixed up with this.

 

[JLB]

I always say that. This is that and that is this. Glad to see that you do not get this mixed up with that and that mixed up with this.

This is this!

 

[tdidymas]

I explained all of this in post #277, but will answer your question about Rev 20:5.

The rest of the dead are those of the other part of the resurrection that have been raised to damnation whose names are not found written in the Lamb’s book of life. The second death are those who rejected Christ and had no faith in God being Spiritually dead that are raised from their graves, Ephesians 2:1-10. Scripture never teaches two resurrections, but only one resurrection, John 5:28, 29; 6:40, and a second death being that of Spiritual death and hell being the grave are cast into the lake of fire, Rev 20:14, 15 as they had no Spiritual power over death. There are two separate judgments, but only one resurrection as everything from Rev 19-20 happens on the last day that has no ending. Those who are priest of God and will reign with Him are those of the Spiritual rebirth and indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

Your explanation is inadequate. You haven't explained "until the 1000 years were completed." This directly contradicts your idea, so how do you explain it? You're really full of assertions as the way you interpret the scripture, but you seem to avoid what doesn't fit. How is your interpretation different then from everyone else's who do the same thing? Please explain "until the 1000 years was completed" from scripture and reason as to why this does not mean a first resurrection before 1000 years and another resurrection after it. Can you do this?

 

[for_his_glory]

Your explanation is inadequate. You haven't explained "until the 1000 years were completed." This directly contradicts your idea, so how do you explain it? You're really full of assertions as the way you interpret the scripture, but you seem to avoid what doesn't fit. How is your interpretation different then from everyone else's who do the same thing? Please explain "until the 1000 years was completed" from scripture and reason as to why this does not mean a first resurrection before 1000 years and another resurrection after it. Can you do this?

IMO, I believe 1000 years being a figurative number, not a literal number as in Deuteronomy 7:9; 1Chronicles 16:15; Psalms 50:10; 90:4; 105:8 Ecc 6:6; 7:28; Daniel 5:1; 2 Peter 3:8.

BTW, just because we disagree does not make me inadequate in my understanding of scripture as that is very rude.

 

[Elijah7777]

reason as to why this does not mean a first resurrection before 1000 years and another resurrection after it.

When HIs feet touch the ground there is an earthquake. Like the resurrection 2,000 years ago when the Veil was torn, the graves will be opened, and we will rule and reign with Christ for 1,000 years.
Zecharia 14 4 On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half the mountain moving to the north and half to the south.

The ground fault runs from the Mount of Olives to under the foundation for the temple. The alter will become the Throne of God. High and Lifted up. The New Jerusalam will be quite a bit bigger then just the Temple. This is where the people live who run the government. I am starting to get lazy but I should put together a video on this.

 

[tdidymas]

IMO, I believe 1000 years being a figurative number, not a literal number as in Deuteronomy 7:9; 1Chronicles 16:15; Psalms 50:10; 90:4; 105:8 Ecc 6:6; 7:28; Daniel 5:1; 2 Peter 3:8.

BTW, just because we disagree does not make me inadequate in my understanding of scripture as that is very rude.

I said your explanation was inadequate, not your understanding. IMO I was not being rude at all. I was simply pointing out that you didn't answer the question. So from my POV, you were being rude by evading the question. So the "rude" accusation doesn't go anywhere.

Finally, if this is your final response, then we will most certainly disagree, because the term "after" is a chronological term, and it contradicts your idea that everyone is resurrected at the same time. Brushing it off as "a figurative number" just doesn't cut the mustard. It's a common error that many people commit when they come across scriptures that contradict their idea - brush it off with a lame interpretation, or avoid it altogether. Everyone I have ever encountered teaching eschatology does that at one time or another.

The only honest person who ever responded to an eschatological question I had that contradicted his interpretation answered that he didn't know. He had invited challenging questions, so the one I posed to him was, "if Isa. 65 is about the millennium, then why does it call that time "a new heaven and new earth"? He could not answer the question, and was willing to admit it.

But just to let you know, I am satisfied with your answer, and I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[tdidymas]

When HIs feet touch the ground there is an earthquake. Like the resurrection 2,000 years ago when the Veil was torn, the graves will be opened, and we will rule and reign with Christ for 1,000 years.
Zecharia 14 4 On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half the mountain moving to the north and half to the south.

The ground fault runs from the Mount of Olives to under the foundation for the temple. The alter will become the Throne of God. High and Lifted up. The New Jerusalam will be quite a bit bigger then just the Temple. This is where the people live who run the government. I am starting to get lazy but I should put together a video on this.

I agree with your confession of laziness, since your response is completely irrelevant to the question I asked. Your laziness is not about any willingness to respond or "teach" your opinion, but about your refusal to deeply consider the question posed. It looks as though you aren't even trying to understand the question.

 

[Elijah7777]

I agree with your confession of laziness, since your response is completely irrelevant to the question I asked. Your laziness is not about any willingness to respond or "teach" your opinion, but about your refusal to deeply consider the question posed. It looks as though you aren't even trying to understand the question.

I am sorry, my answer is a little complicated for you to understand. In the future I will try to tone it down to a level you can work with.

 

[Elijah7777]

I agree with your confession of laziness

Actually I am 74 and at my age people usually show respect and understand that in a foot race we can not keep up with a 20 years olds. Well maybe in some cases we can but not all the time. As a general rule 20 year olds are not willing to take us on because they know we have a lot of tricks up our sleeve. The first rule is never tell someone what you are going to do so that they are prepared. Catch them off guard and they never know what hit them.

 

[tdidymas]

Actually I am 74 and at my age people usually show respect and understand that in a foot race we can not keep up with a 20 years olds. Well maybe in some cases we can but not all the time. As a general rule 20 year olds are not willing to take us on because they know we have a lot of tricks up our sleeve. The first rule is never tell someone what you are going to do so that they are prepared. Catch them off guard and they never know what hit them.

I don't play games with truth. Goodbye.

 

[tdidymas]

I am sorry, my answer is a little complicated for you to understand. In the future I will try to tone it down to a level you can work with.

Your ego is showing. Goodbye.

 

[for_his_glory]

I said your explanation was inadequate, not your understanding. IMO I was not being rude at all. I was simply pointing out that you didn't answer the question. So from my POV, you were being rude by evading the question. So the "rude" accusation doesn't go anywhere.

Finally, if this is your final response, then we will most certainly disagree, because the term "after" is a chronological term, and it contradicts your idea that everyone is resurrected at the same time. Brushing it off as "a figurative number" just doesn't cut the mustard. It's a common error that many people commit when they come across scriptures that contradict their idea - brush it off with a lame interpretation, or avoid it altogether. Everyone I have ever encountered teaching eschatology does that at one time or another.

The only honest person who ever responded to an eschatological question I had that contradicted his interpretation answered that he didn't know. He had invited challenging questions, so the one I posed to him was, "if Isa. 65 is about the millennium, then why does it call that time "a new heaven and new earth"? He could not answer the question, and was willing to admit it.

But just to let you know, I am satisfied with your answer, and I wholeheartedly disagree.

I thought I did answer your question, but evidently it was not the answer you wanted, but that's OK. All I can do is go by what has already been written in the Bible. I hold no animosity towards you. You are my brother in Christ and pray you have a blessed evening.