The "secret" Rapture theory

[civic]

Lazarus / aka John who wrote Revelation had a curious connection with the "angel" who was giving him the visions. When John was about to worship the "angel" who showed him those things, the "angel" said, "See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God." This angelic "messenger" was a man just like John - one of his brethren the prophets, and John's fellow-servant. This "angel" in Revelation 22:9 I believe was a human "messenger": another resurrected human, just like Lazarus / aka John.

I'll mention an anecdote which the original 1853 edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs gave about the author of Revelation. It said that the author of Revelation was plunged into boiling oil by the Proconsul of Ephesus and emerged unscathed. Tertullian and Jerome were the source of this account, saying that the author of Revelation was sent to Patmos after this attempt to boil him in oil failed to turn him into a deep-fried martyr. Perhaps this is not so miraculous a coincidence after all, if the author of Revelation was Lazarus - incapable of dying another time by any means whatever.

I have never heard any one in Scripture identify lazarus as John or any scholar. This is the first time I have ever heard such a thing. Nowhere is lazarus called John or vice versa.

Only the 12 were at the last supper when the disciple whom Jesus loved was present, not lazarus or any other people.

The Gospel of John is the only Gospel which mentions “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” John 13:23 tells us, “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to Him.” John 19:26 declares, “When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, 'Dear woman, here is your son.'“ John 21:7 says, “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’” This disciple is never specifically identified, but the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is clear. The disciple whom Jesus loved self-identifies as the author of the gospel (John 21:24), whom most scholars believe to be the apostle John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James.

First, only the Gospel of John mentions the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” Second, John 21:2 lets us know who was fishing with Peter: “Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together...” The apostle John was a son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21). Third, there were three disciples who were especially close to Jesus: Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; 14:33; Luke 8:51). The “disciple whom Jesus loved” could not be Peter, as Peter asks Jesus a question in regards to this disciple (John 21:20-21). That leaves us with James or John. Jesus made a statement about the possible “longevity” of the life of the disciple whom He loved in John 21:22. James was the first of the apostles to die (Acts 12:2). While Jesus did not promise the disciple whom He loved long life, it would be highly unusual for Jesus to say, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” if the disciple whom He loved was going to be the first disciple to die.

Church history tells us that the apostle John lived into the A.D. 90s and was the last surviving apostle. Early church tradition was unanimous in identifying John as the disciple whom Jesus loved. It seems that John had a closer relationship with Jesus than any of the other disciples. Jesus and John were essentially “best friends.” Jesus entrusted John with the care of His mother, gave John the vision of the transfiguration, allowed John to witness His most amazing miracles, and later gave John the Book of Revelation.got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[Red Baker]

3 Resurrections

Red, you are unfortunately stuck on thinking that the "first resurrection" is only spiritual in nature. That is impossible, because the thousand years comes to an end with that "first resurrection". Does anybody catch the irony of me, a Preterist, trying to convince Red, a non-Preterist, about the "first resurrection" being a BODILY resurrection of the dead in AD 33 and not a spiritual resurrection?? Christ was raised BODILY from the dead - not spiritually raised - because His Spirit never died. "Christ the FIRST-fruits" defines the "FIRST resurrection" from the dead.

"Red, you are unfortunately stuck on thinking that the "first resurrection" is only spiritual in nature."

The reason being is that it is! Just following the Lord Jesus' teaching, nothing more.

John 5:24​

“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.”

3 Resurrections I know you were taught this back in the eighties and nineties, so you have forsaken what you believe back then. No problem of leaving something we were taught in the past, if we can defend what we now see to be the truth, which on this subject you cannot, you're even going against Jesus' own teaching that is so clear it leaves no room for disagreement. Our Lord used a double verily twice concerning this all important truth, showing us it truth that only a few would see and believe ~ why are you not considering our Lord's teaching? What is so hard about these two verses? You tell me what the Lord is clearly saying, I would love to hear it. I'm listening.

You asked: "Does anybody catch the irony of me, a Preterist, trying to convince Red, a non-Preterist, about the "first resurrection" being a BODILY resurrection of the dead in AD 33 and not a spiritual resurrection??"

You are only doing so to push a position that you have come to accept as the truth ~ after all, you do believe in at least three of them and reject a all important truth of a spiritual resurrection being the first that truly saved, delivered us from the second death having any power over us.

I'm not denying a physical resurrection for many when Christ arose from the dead, after all, ALL of the elect arose from the dead when Christ our surety arose from the dead, "legally" we arose with him. Legally, where he now sits, so does the members of his body sit there as well legally speaking.

Ephesians 2:5​

“Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:”

So, maybe I call myself 3 Resurrections, afterall, I have more proof than you do! Mine are more scriptural than yours. Spiritual resurrection, a legally resurrection and a bodily resurrection on the last day.

You said: "Christ was raised BODILY from the dead - not spiritually raised - because His Spirit never died. "Christ the FIRST-fruits" defines the "FIRST resurrection" from the dead."

You know, I agree with what you are here saying. The first resurrection concerning Christ guaranteed/secured our eternal redemption which includes all that is connected with that, including our new birth which is a spiritual resurrection. Brother, we were in Christ's resurrection legally speaking being members of his elect body, he being the head thereof.

The "thrones" in Rev. 20:4 with judgment given to them was the twelve disciples. Christ had told them in Matt. 19:28 that "in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory" (Christ's resurrection), "ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." This was just after Christ's ascension to heaven when the twelve disciples started exercising the ability to judge doctrinal and practical matters in the early church in Jerusalem (like the question of circumcision, the care of widows, the dispersion of charitable donations, the judgment of Ananias and Saphira, choosing deacons, laying hands on new pastors and evangelists, etc.). This first-century context of those twelve disciples on twelve "thrones" anchors the discussion of the "FIRST resurrection" in Rev. 20:5 to the day of Christ's resurrection in AD 33 along with that "remnant of the dead" (the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints).

In verse 4 John tells us that he saw the souls of the martyrs who did not worship the beast, nor receive his mark. First of all, notice that John does "not" say he saw the martyrs, nor does he say that he saw their bodies, or the persons, or he saw souls (which could be illustrating people). He is very specific! He saw the souls "of" those that were beheaded for the witness of God. The souls of them, nothing more! Again, this is the Spiritual picture that the Lord is giving us. Jesus Christ came down from heaven and binds Satan that the New Covenant Church can be built, and then John sees the souls of those martyred raised up to reign with Christ on thrones. In other words, they are made kings and Priests unto God after Christ binds Satan. If you look at verse 5 you'll see that this (the souls of these martyrs up on thrones) is called The First Resurrection. It's now a simple matter of Biblical deduction to discover exactly when and what was "The First Resurrection?"

Again, fitting perfectly into place we see that it was at the cross! These Souls were raised up to reign with Christ because of the work at the cross and Christ's resurrection thereafter. Christ is the "First" Resurrection. Those who have part in the first resurrection are all the true Believers who have part in Christ's First Resurrection. (Ephesians 2) They are the First Resurrection (the second being at Christ's return). Those who have died in Christ have gone to be with the Lord, having been raised with Christ to reign. That's the First Resurrection these martyrs have part in, which precludes the second death.

The very fact a first resurrection is spoken about, indicates that there is a second. And the second resurrection is at Christ's return. This is at the time of the Rapture (not a secret, but visible) when when the rest of the dead will be raised to stand for Judgment. And then there will be the second death, of which those who have part in the First Resurrection (raised with Christ) have no need to worry about. Likewise, the very fact that a second death is spoken about, implies that there is a first death.

Romans 5:12-14

• "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
• (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
• Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

The first death is our death in Adam. For in him we are all dead in trespass and sin. As God told Adam, "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." And in Adam, we all die, which means that we are all dead in trespass and sin. This is that first death.
1st Corinthians 15:21-22
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Did Adam die when he ate of the tree? Yes, but not physically, he died spiritually. Therefore the first resurrection from the dead is not physical, but spiritual. It is in Christ, the firstfruit. And we shall 'realize' that eternal life resurrection at his coming.
We must not be confused by this First and Second Resurrection, and the First and Second Death. This is the way the Lord writes things that His sheep 'alone' will receive it. Just as in the parables He told. If we look at these verses carefully and objectively, we can see that the thousand years are not literal. These souls are those of the martyrs in heaven. It says these are those beheaded because of the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and are those who didn't receive the mark of the beast in their foreheads (sign of bondage to satan).

The literal "thousand years" began long ago with Solomon's temple foundation stone being laid down in 968 / 967 BC. It ended with the "FIRST resurrection" of Christ (the "chief cornerstone") and that "remnant of the dead" which came to life again as being that "FIRST resurrection" event in AD 33. The "Beast" which Rev. 20:4 mentions was in existence ever since Nebuchadnezzar's first deportation of Jerusalem's citizens in 607 BC. That "Beast" continued to exist into John's days as he was writing Revelation (666 years later). In one way or another, all those pagan empires had demanded homage. The "mark" was only part of that demand for homage which was when pagan Rome was in power. Those saints who remained faithful to God during their lifetime in spite of that demand for homage all "reigned with Christ" during those literal thousand years from 968 / 967 BC until AD 33 during the time when Satan's deception of the nations was being bound.

Later....RB

 

[FreeInChrist]

I have never heard any one in Scripture identify lazarus as John or any scholar. This is the first time I have ever heard such a thing. Nowhere is lazarus called John or vice versa.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I have never heard any one in Scripture identify lazarus as John or any scholar. This is the first time I have ever heard such a thing. Nowhere is lazarus called John or vice versa.

I suggest doing some digging then, because I am certainly not the only person who has made this connection of Lazarus being the author of the gospel, the epistles, and Revelation.

CAll me Thomas if you will, I will never accept no other person wrote the gospel of John and Revelation other than John the apostle.

Revelation 1:1​

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:”

You also need to do some digging then, and I mean in the Scriptures, since I know you don't give consideration to extra-biblical sources. You need to realize that the "beloved disciple" or "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is never called "the Apostle whom Jesus loved".

Consider these Scriptures as proof that the "beloved disciple" cannot possibly be one of the original twelve Apostles (including John the son of Zebedee). You remember the account of Peter and the "beloved disciple" running to the tomb on the morning after Jesus's resurrection. The "beloved disciple" looked at the empty tomb, "and he saw, and BELIEVED" (John 20:8-9). Now, just what is it that this "beloved disciple" believed"? The scripture tells us that until then, they didn't understand the Scripture (Luke 18:31-34), that he must rise again from the dead, but at this point, the "beloved disciple" did believe and understand those Scriptures about Christ rising from the dead.

Now, go to the account in Mark 16:14 of the newly-resurrected Christ Jesus appearing later that same day at evening unto the eleven disciples (minus Judas who had hanged himself by then). In this verse, "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat" (including John the son of Zebedee), and upbraided them with their UNBELIEF and hardness of heart, because they BELIEVED NOT them which had seen him after he was risen." So here you have a clear distinction between the still UNBELIEVING John the son of Zebedee, and the BELIEVING "beloved disciple". That means the "beloved disciple" cannot possibly be the same man as John the son of Zebedee.

There is only one man who is specifically called "He whom thou lovest", and it was Lazarus in John 11:3, 5, and 36. This was also spoken about the rich young ruler whom Jesus loved, whom I believe was also Lazarus - another alias for Lazarus besides the names Barnabas and John Eleazar.

 

[civic]

I suggest doing some digging then, because I am certainly not the only person who has made this connection of Lazarus being the author of the gospel, the epistles, and Revelation.


You also need to do some digging then, and I mean in the Scriptures, since I know you don't give consideration to extra-biblical sources. You need to realize that the "beloved disciple" or "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is never called "the Apostle whom Jesus loved".

Consider these Scriptures as proof that the "beloved disciple" cannot possibly be one of the original twelve Apostles (including John the son of Zebedee). You remember the account of Peter and the "beloved disciple" running to the tomb on the morning after Jesus's resurrection. The "beloved disciple" looked at the empty tomb, "and he saw, and BELIEVED" (John 20:8-9). Now, just what is it that this "beloved disciple" believed"? The scripture tells us that until then, they didn't understand the Scripture (Luke 18:31-34), that he must rise again from the dead, but at this point, the "beloved disciple" did believe and understand those Scriptures about Christ rising from the dead.

Now, go to the account in Mark 16:14 of the newly-resurrected Christ Jesus appearing later that same day at evening unto the eleven disciples (minus Judas who had hanged himself by then). In this verse, "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat" (including John the son of Zebedee), and upbraided them with their UNBELIEF and hardness of heart, because they BELIEVED NOT them which had seen him after he was risen." So here you have a clear distinction between the still UNBELIEVING John the son of Zebedee, and the BELIEVING "beloved disciple". That means the "beloved disciple" cannot possibly be the same man as John the son of Zebedee.

There is only one man who is specifically called "He whom thou lovest", and it was Lazarus in John 11:3, 5, and 36. This was also spoken about the rich young ruler whom Jesus loved, whom I believe was also Lazarus - another alias for Lazarus besides the names Barnabas and John Eleazar.

From John chapter 13-17 Jesus is alone with the 12, then the 11 after judas departs. The disciple whom Jesus loved was present which means it was not lazarus since he was not one of the 12 disciples. It was John, not lazarus.

 

[Red Baker]

You also need to do some digging then, and I mean in the Scriptures, since I know you don't give consideration to extra-biblical sources. You need to realize that the "beloved disciple" or "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is never called "the Apostle whom Jesus loved".

Of course I only trust the word of God, no outside source for any teaching as pertaining to biblical truth. You would be much wiser doing the same.

Acts 17:11​

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Noble Christians trust only the scriptures.

I know you don't give consideration to extra-biblical sources.

You do know me, and that is correct.

You need to realize that the "beloved disciple" or "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is never called "the Apostle whom Jesus loved".

But, you must confess, that an apostle is also a disciple! An apostle is a specific type of disciple.

Consider these Scriptures as proof that the "beloved disciple" cannot possibly be one of the original twelve Apostles (including John the son of Zebedee). You remember the account of Peter and the "beloved disciple" running to the tomb on the morning after Jesus's resurrection. The "beloved disciple" looked at the empty tomb, "and he saw, and BELIEVED" (John 20:8-9). Now, just what is it that this "beloved disciple" believed"? The scripture tells us that until then, they didn't understand the Scripture (Luke 18:31-34), that he must rise again from the dead, but at this point, the "beloved disciple" did believe and understand those Scriptures about Christ rising from the dead.

Now, go to the account in Mark 16:14 of the newly-resurrected Christ Jesus appearing later that same day at evening unto the eleven disciples (minus Judas who had hanged himself by then). In this verse, "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat" (including John the son of Zebedee), and upbraided them with their UNBELIEF and hardness of heart, because they BELIEVED NOT them which had seen him after he was risen." So here you have a clear distinction between the still UNBELIEVING John the son of Zebedee, and the BELIEVING "beloved disciple". That means the "beloved disciple" cannot possibly be the same man as John the son of Zebedee.

You are desperately reading too much into Mark 16:14, because you want to believe that in order to ad some support to your beliefs.

Mark 16:14​

“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

Nowhere does it say that all of them did believe that Christ did not bodily resurrected, for John did as we know, what he upbraided them for as a group is not believing some that had seen him, after all why did he not FIRST reveal himself to the eleven, which no doubt some of them thought. You are reading more into this than that is there.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You asked: "Does anybody catch the irony of me, a Preterist, trying to convince Red, a non-Preterist, about the "first resurrection" being a BODILY resurrection of the dead in AD 33 and not a spiritual resurrection??"

You are only doing so to push a position that you have come to accept as the truth ~ after all, you do believe in at least three of them and reject a all important truth of a spiritual resurrection being the first that truly saved, delivered us from the second death having any power over us

Red, you know very well that I do not deny that spiritual resurrection takes place when we are regenerated to spiritual life. No contest. But it is an error to label this spiritual resurrection as being "the first resurrection", when Revelation 20:5 itself does not do this. This "first resurrection" is defined in that Rev. 20:5 verse. It was the single occasion when the "remnant of the dead" came to life again when the thousand years was "finished". That was a single point on the calendar. The thousand years cannot possibly come to an end every time that someone is spiritually resurrected to eternal life, regardless of when you think the millennium was to take place.

And you are mistaking what the "second death" is. It has absolutely nothing to do with humans dying a second time. This is also an impossibility, because of verses like Hebrews 9:27-28. "It is appointed unto men ONCE to die, and after that the judgment." ONCE ONLY. Even for the wicked, who never die twice physically either.

The "second death" Rev. 20:14 says was just another name for the "Lake of fire". This was the "second death" for the city of Jerusalem - not wicked humanity who are destined to die just once. Jerusalem and its temple died twice with that temple being torn down and burned. It happened once under the Babylonians in 587 BC, and for a second time under the Romans in AD 70.

Christ is the "First" Resurrection. Those who have part in the first resurrection are all the true Believers who have part in Christ's First Resurrection. (Ephesians 2)

Those who actually participated in the "first resurrection" were Christ Himself AND the Matthew 27:52-53 saints on that same day. You and I did not bodily participate in that resurrection event. We do have a spiritual share in the benefits of it, but we did not bodily participate in that resurrection event at that time. Revelation 20:5 says that it was that "remnant of the dead" which came to life again when the thousand years was "finished" which were called the "first resurrection". It was a single event in time, and only included that stated portion of the righteous dead OT saints. This group of resurrected saints had been martyred back in OT times, which is why Rev. 20:5 refers to them as that group of "souls" of the dead which came to life again when the thousand years was finished.

The very fact a first resurrection is spoken about, indicates that there is a second. And the second resurrection is at Christ's return. This is at the time of the Rapture (not a secret, but visible) when when the rest of the dead will be raised to stand for Judgment. And then there will be the second death, of which those who have part in the First Resurrection (raised with Christ) have no need to worry about.

All of this is ancient history. The second resurrection WAS at Christ's return in AD 70. And a "rapture" occurred then of all the resurrected saints - some of whom had "remained" on earth for quite a while in that glorified state until Christ's return. That is when the Matthew 27:52-53 saints of the "first resurrection" event also left this planet. These Matthew 27:52-53 saints had not been hurt by the "second death" of the city of Jerusalem because glorified resurrected saints are impervious to injury of any kind - even a city which was burning down with rampant demonic possession filling it.

 

[civic]

Can either of you show me from Scripture @3 Resurrections @Red Baker where there is such a thing as a non physical/bodily Resurrection ?

 

[3 Resurrections]

You are desperately reading too much into Mark 16:14, because you want to believe that in order to ad some support to your beliefs.

Mark 16:14​

“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

Nowhere does it say that all of them did believe that Christ did not bodily resurrected, for John did as we know, what he upbraided them for as a group is not believing some that had seen him, after all why did he not FIRST reveal himself to the eleven, which no doubt some of them thought. You are reading more into this than that is there.

LOL, no I am not "desperate". I am reading the texts exactly, as I know you also wish to do. The "eleven" (minus the dead Judas) were scolded by Christ for their "UNBELIEF and hardness of heart because they BELIEVED NOT" the report of those who had seen him after He was risen. The beloved disciple who DID BELIEVE was therefore not included among the UNBELIEVING eleven. That means the "beloved disciple" was NOT one of the eleven (he was not John the son of Zebedee).

The "disciple whom Jesus loved" was also listed separately as one of the "two other of His disciples" distinct from the sons of Zebedee in that fishing expedition in John 21:2.

From John chapter 13-17 Jesus is alone with the 12, then the 11 after judas departs. The disciple whom Jesus loved was present which means it was not lazarus since he was not one of the 12 disciples. It was John, not lazarus.

You are making the usual assumption that ONLY twelve men were present with Christ at the Last Supper. We don't have to interpret our Scriptures according to Da Vinci's painting.

 

[civic]

LOL, no I am not "desperate". I am reading the texts exactly, as I know you also wish to do. The "eleven" (minus the dead Judas) were scolded by Christ for their "UNBELIEF and hardness of heart because they BELIEVED NOT" the report of those who had seen him after He was risen. The beloved disciple who DID BELIEVE was therefore not included among the UNBELIEVING eleven. That means the "beloved disciple" was NOT one of the eleven (he was not John the son of Zebedee).

The "disciple whom Jesus loved" was also listed separately as one of the "two other of His disciples" distinct from the sons of Zebedee in that fishing expedition in John 21:2.


You are making the usual assumption that ONLY twelve men were present with Christ at the Last Supper. We don't have to interpret our Scriptures according to Da Vinci's painting.

Its not asumption the text says it was the disciples only, no one else.

Mark 14:17-18
17When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.”

Luke 22:14
And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

Matthew 26:20
When evening came, Jesus was reclining with the twelve disciples.

 

[Red Baker]

@3 Resurrections

The literal "thousand years" began long ago with Solomon's temple foundation stone being laid down in 968 / 967 BC. It ended with the "FIRST resurrection" of Christ (the "chief cornerstone") and that "remnant of the dead" which came to life again as being that "FIRST resurrection" event in AD 33.

I know very well some theologians look at the number 1000 in revelation chapter 20, and insist that it must be a literal length of time. In fact, some go so far as to say that it's precluded it can be understood any other way but literal. But the book of Revelation is replete with symbolism and figurative language, and so why would anyone even begin to think that this "must" be understood literally? Considering the context, they would have to be predisposed to thinking this way. It is self-evident that they are showing their bias by even making such an untenable statement. Are dragons, seven headed beasts, candlesticks that are olive trees, locusts like scorpions, vials with prayers in them, blood coming out of a winepress, the seas turning to blood, precluded from being understood any other way but literally? Who are they kidding saying the thousand years must be taken literally? By the Spirit of God we understand that what is to be understood as literal, and what is understood spiritually, is defined by the scripture itself, and not by consensus or opinion. And certainly not because a popular theologian or author says it must be.

When we have studied this issue carefully, and taken all things into consideration, we are brought to the inescapable conclusion that the number one thousand in Revelation chapter 20 signifies the "fullness" of time that the dragon is bound. It is no more literal than the key and chain that holds the dragon in the bottomless pit is.

Briefly, numbers are often used in scripture to signify spiritual truths. One thousand signifies the fullness of whatever is in view. This spiritual significance includes the number 10, and multiples of it such as 100, 1000. The numbers 10, 100 and 1000 are "full numbers" which are even in our day used figuratively to illustrate the fullness of whatever is in view. As someone today might say, "I've told you ten times already," or "I'll love you a thousand years, or a million years." Likewise the number ten and its multiples are used to illustrate the fullness of whatever is spoken of in scripture, whether it be time, virgins, plagues, Blood, etc. For example, the days of the tribulation of the Church of Smyrna are 10 signifying the fullness of time. Again, in the parable of the 10 virgins, we see the number 10 signifies the fullness of the Church. Again, the beast that appears with 10 horns, which signifies the fullness of time that it will reign in power (horns=Power) near the end of the world. Other notable pertinent applications were the ten plagues upon Egypt, signifying the fullness of God's wrath upon it; the ten commandments, which signified the fullness of God's will and law concerning His people; or the ten talents, ten thousand saints, etc. The number 10 signifies that a full measure of something is in view. This is really not hard to see, if we removed our bias glasses.

And so considering all these things, along with the apocalyptic (uncovering) of the symbolic character of the book of Revelation, there is no question but that Christians are justified in considering a spiritual or allegorical view. In order to insist that the one thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 must be understood literally, one would first have to show that a figurative understanding is Biblically unjustified. And that cannot be done. The number 1000 is 10 multiplied by 100, and represents the fullness of this long period of time ~ known only to God. It is the fullness of time that Satan is confined, the fullness of time (millennial) the Church reigns as the kingdom of Christ in heaven and on earth, and the fullness of time in which the rest of the dead who didn't have part in the "first resurrection" will not live again before they are raised in the second resurrection unto their judgment.

The "Beast" which Rev. 20:4 mentions was in existence ever since Nebuchadnezzar's first deportation of Jerusalem's citizens in 607 BC. That "Beast" continued to exist into John's days as he was writing Revelation (666 years later). In one way or another, all those pagan empires had demanded homage.

Actually the beast/anti christian spirit/abominations that God will make desolate in His own time has been here since Cain, only in the end of this world as we know it, will it increase greatly in numbers. This is the sense of such scriptures as:

1st John 2:18​

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

But even though there were many in John's days, so many more will come at the end of this world per Daniel 7-12; Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; 2nd Thess. 2; and Revelation 7-18.

That "Beast" continued to exist into John's days as he was writing Revelation (666 years later).

You have no clue as to what 666 means in biblical term as used by the prophets and John.

Zechariah 13:7​

“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.”

Those of Revelation that have the mark of the beast are two third, (666) with a third, or small remnant that God has preserved by his grace, and mercy. We can discuss this more in depth Later.

He's already come back and destroyed the enemies described in Revelation. All those three Beasts as well as Satan and his devils are dead and long gone since AD 70. Since then, Christ has been wearing those "many crowns" confiscated from a dead Satan who once claimed to have power over the kingdoms of this world. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you and I are now living in the New Jerusalem with its open gates, and the leaves of the Tree of Life are available for the healing of the nations.

Later...RB

 

[3 Resurrections]

Its not asumption the text says it was the disciples only, no one else.

Mark 14:17-18
17When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.”

Luke 22:14
And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

Matthew 26:20
When evening came, Jesus was reclining with the twelve disciples.

You are inserting the word "ONLY" into these texts. It isn't there.

I find it quite significant that in John 12:1-2, we see Lazarus seated directly beside Jesus in that feast that they made for Christ in Bethany. "Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him."

Here we have Lazarus seated in close proximity to Christ at the table six days before Passover. From this point on, the beloved Lazarus disappears from being mentioned in this fourth gospel by that name, but just a few days later, we see "the disciple whom Jesus loved" leaning on Jesus's breast at the Last Supper. Same favored position of close proximity to Christ as Lazarus had just enjoyed a few days before. This is the same man. The twelve were at the Last Supper, and also Lazarus, and perhaps more of Christ's followers - men and women.

 

[FreeInChrist]

@3 Resurrections

CAll me Thomas if you will, I will never accept no other person wrote the gospel of John and Revelation other than John the apostle.

Revelation 1:1​

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:”

@Red Baker
I have looked on and off for many years to prove John, the apostle was the John that wrote the Book of Revelation.

Eusibeus was, in fact, a disciple of the Apostle John

Both of these men were Disciples of the Apostle John.

And ironically, Though he was born in 69AD, so would have been too young to know what was happening in 70AD one
would think that if the Apostle John had written Revelation in the accepted 95AD he would have been aware of it as his
disciple.

So does this mean that it was written before the temple destruction, before Eusebius birth ? It appears that could be so....

The important thing is that Eusebius did not name John the Apostle as the author of Revelation... he names another John... John the Elder.

So we must find another support for John the Apostle and here is one.

Authorship of the Book of Revelation (part 1): Some Evidence from Church Fathers

Writers of commentaries and New Testament introductions uniformly report that the authorship of Revelation is a controversial issue. Although the authorship of John the apostle is still defended in conservative circles, scholars outside of these circles commonly reject it and reject the idea...

www.bibleandtheology.net

Evidence from Justin Martyr and Ireneaus

The external evidence from Church Fathers is significant. Justin Martyr’s famous debate with Trypho occurred in Ephesus around A.D. 135. In his work Dialogue with Trypho (81.4), he writes, “There was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem.” Justin is undoubtedly referring here to the book of Revelation and associating it with John the apostle. Irenaeus introduces a series of quotations from Revelation with an introductory formula. In this formula, he claims that “John, the Lord’s disciple” wrote the following words in “the Apocalypse” ( Against Heresies 4.20.11). Irenaeus spent time as a young man in Smyrna with Polycarp, whom he claims knew John the apostle (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.20.6; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4). The agreement between Justin Martyr and Irenaeus on the authorship of Revelation is significant. It finds additional support from the Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen (Maier, Offenbarung 1-11, 25; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 338-9). Beckwith concludes, “So much external testimony to the personality of the author, traceable back to almost contemporaneous sources, is found in the case of almost no other book of the New Testament” (Apocalypse, 351).

There is just too much out there do make a definitive call, though I keep trying for the 95AD date and with that John the Apostle.

 

[civic]

You are inserting the word "ONLY" into these texts. It isn't there.

I find it quite significant that in John 12:1-2, we see Lazarus seated directly beside Jesus in that feast that they made for Christ in Bethany. "Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him."

Here we have Lazarus seated in close proximity to Christ at the table six days before Passover. From this point on, the beloved Lazarus disappears from being mentioned in this fourth gospel by that name, but just a few days later, we see "the disciple whom Jesus loved" leaning on Jesus's breast at the Last Supper. Same favored position of close proximity to Christ as Lazarus had just enjoyed a few days before. This is the same man. The twelve were at the Last Supper, and also Lazarus, and perhaps more of Christ's followers - men and women.

John 12 is not the last supper timeframe. There are several days between John 12 and John 14. John 14 begins with Jesus alone with the 12 men , His disciples in John 14.

I'm not sure why you would not follow the biblical timeline of events.

Nice try though.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Of course I only trust the word of God, no outside source for any teaching as pertaining to biblical truth. You would be much wiser doing the same.

@Red Baker
When there are writings from people from back in the day or close to the day they should be trusted. When an historian is an actual disciple of an apostle they also should be. (Eusebius and John the Apostle)

I am not talking Ai here or God Questions or Wiki but if you do not trust historians from back in that time how can you possible trust translators into your bible choice. You know the charges against Jimmys translation and more come out all the time.

And I personally think NIV to be the worst. And none are perfect, but you have to read and compare.

So don't be so off the cuff dismissive and go look at what I posted to you. Reply 73 above.

Acts 17:11​

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Noble Christians trust only the scriptures.

You do know me, and that is correct.

But, you must confess, that an apostle is also a disciple! An apostle is a specific type of disciple.

You are desperately reading too much into Mark 16:14, because you want to believe that in order to ad some support to your beliefs.

Mark 16:14​

“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

Nowhere does it say that all of them did believe that Christ did not bodily resurrected, for John did as we know, what he upbraided them for as a group is not believing some that had seen him, after all why did he not FIRST reveal himself to the eleven, which no doubt some of them thought. You are reading more into this than that is there.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I know very well some theologians look at the number 1000 in revelation chapter 20, and insist that it must be a literal length of time. In fact, some go so far as to say that it's precluded it can be understood any other way but literal. But the book of Revelation is replete with symbolism and figurative language, and so why would anyone even begin to think that this "must" be understood literally?

The thousand years is both a symbolic number and a literal one which had a date when it "expired", a point when it was "finished", and when it was "fulfilled": namely, a single point in time when the "first resurrection" occurred. The thousand years was not some nebulous, vague metaphor that had no time parameters.

Actually the beast/anti christian spirit/abominations that God will make desolate in His own time has been here since Cain, only in the end of this world as we know it, will it increase greatly in numbers.

Red, this subject deserves its own post. The Beast was NOT the antichrist, and it did not show up with Cain. You are seriously drifting out of Scripture's definition of these terms.

You have no clue as to what 666 means in biblical term as used by the prophets and John.

I know exactly what the six-hundred-and-sixty-six number applied to. Luther also knew that this number applied to a set number of years. Unfortunately, Luther applied that number of years to the time he thought Catholicism would endure. This number really applied to how many years the ancient pagan Beast empires had existed up until Revelation was being written. That is why Revelation 13:2 described the Sea Beast a having lion, bear, and leopard features from all those ancient pagan empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece within its biography.

I see you still persist in mistakenly applying the six-hundred-and-sixty-six number to Zechariah 13:7's two-thirds in the land of Israel who would physically be cut off and die, with one third surviving God's refining fire as God's people. Wrong application altogether. Two thirds is not the equivalent of six-hundred-and-sixty-six which is a very precise number that was to be "calculated" by counting backward in time that number of years to find when the Sea Beast had first originated back under Nebuchadnezzar.

 

[3 Resurrections]

John 12 is not the last supper timeframe. There are several days between John 12 and John 14. John 14 begins with Jesus alone with the 12 men , His disciples in John 14.

I'm not sure why you would not follow the biblical timeline of events.

Nice try though.

Please give the exact text you are reading which says that Jesus was "alone" with the twelve men, His disciples. I read of no such limitation, but I'd be willing to read a verse which states this limitation to "ONLY" the twelve if you have one. If you had twelve men and Christ eating together at a table, I guarantee you that they had a "waitress" or two present to help with cooking and serving. So no, I don't believe Scripture limits the number of men present to ONLY the twelve and Christ. The "beloved disciple" Lazarus was also there, and probably more people besides.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Can either of you show me from Scripture @3 Resurrections @Red Baker where there is such a thing as a non physical/bodily Resurrection ?

There is no such thing as a bodily resurrection which does not involve the physical body itself being changed into the incorruptible and immortal condition. "Who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body..." (Phil. 3:21).

Paul listed three groups of such bodily resurrection events which would take place in sequence over time, as listed in 1 Cor. 15:23-24.

•Christ the First-fruits (the "first resurrection" in AD 33)
•Afterwards, they that are Christ's at His coming (all the resurrected saints raptured in AD 70, timed as Daniel 12:11-13 had predicted)
•Next, the end when Christ will have delivered up the kingdom to God, and when all rule and power and authority structures are eliminated in the final judgment and resurrection in our future.

 

[civic]

There is no such thing as a bodily resurrection which does not involve the physical body itself being changed into the incorruptible and immortal condition. "Who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body..." (Phil. 3:21).

Paul listed three groups of such bodily resurrection events which would take place in sequence over time, as listed in 1 Cor. 15:23-24.

•Christ the First-fruits (the "first resurrection" in AD 33)
•Afterwards, they that are Christ's at His coming (all the resurrected saints raptured in AD 70, timed as Daniel 12:11-13 had predicted)
•Next, the end when Christ will have delivered up the kingdom to God, and when all rule and power and authority structures are eliminated in the final judgment and resurrection in our future.

You guys have mentioned a spiritual resurrection but the Bible never states any such type.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You guys have mentioned a spiritual resurrection but the Bible never states any such type.

Try Ephesians 2:1. "And you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins..." This is God bringing to life those who are spiritually dead in sin. A resurrection of their spirit which is given eternal life, with the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

And John 5:24. "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." A resurrection of the dead human spirit which has passed from death into spiritual life. The evidence and proof of spiritual life having already been given is in the fact that they can now hear and believe. And "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them." (Prov. 20:12).