The "secret" Rapture theory

[Victoria]

Things did not work out the way Jonah planned.

Who said God doesn't have a sense of humor?

I'm more cautious. i draw the line on anything that does not conform to the testimony of scripture.

Anyhow, you have to realize there are three main divisions of eschatological views that are treated as acceptable within Christianity. There has traditionally been enough uncertainty of meaning that people could not complain much about the other views.

Where I draw a major line is where the mystery (which is ignored entirely), 2nd coming, 1st resurrection, & millennial reign is considered to be allegorical/figurative/metaphorical/spiritualized, or whatever you desire to call the approach. Anything that cannot be proven does not conform to the testimony of scripture.

 

[mikesw]

Who said God doesn't have a sense of humor?

Where I draw a major line is where the mystery (which is ignored entirely), 2nd coming, 1st resurrection, & millennial reign is considered to be allegorical/figurative/metaphorical/spiritualized, or whatever you desire to call the approach. Anything that cannot be proven does not conform to the testimony of scripture.

Do i have to remind you that a woman is not to speak in church?

 

[Victoria]

I'll be happy to go over it and show where I think it goes against the scriptures if you like, or, if he would like me to do so.

Would you say the Bible contradicts itself? Once right division is removed, it proves the critics right.

 

[Victoria]

I did not skim over it: https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-secret-rapture-theory.2858/page-2 Please Point out to me where you think I could have said more, and I will.

Just recognizing there indeed is a secret being revealed via Paul was all I was aiming for
There's your answer, Thomas!

 

[Red Baker]

@mikesw

Do i have to remind you that a woman is not to speak in church?

Greetings Mike,

And there was a reason for Paul saying that, actually a few reasons.

1st Corinthians 14:34​

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

1 Timothy 2:11​

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

 

[Red Baker]

@Victoria

Just recognizing there indeed is a secret being revealed via Paul was all I was aiming for

Good morning Victoria,

Pray to tell me in your own words what is the NT mystery or, the one you are speaking about, since there are a few mysteries in the NT revealed to us . The main one is the one revealed in Ephesians 2,3, That's the one I desire for you to explain as you understand it.

Btw, I do get my name honestly since my father's mother was a Thomas before she became a Baker.

 

[Red Baker]

Where I draw a major line is where the mystery (which is ignored entirely), 2nd coming, 1st resurrection, & millennial reign is considered to be allegorical/figurative/metaphorical/spiritualized, or whatever you desire to call the approach. Anything that cannot be proven does not conform to the testimony of scripture.

2nd coming ~ No metaphorical language can be applied to this since Christ coming will be visible to all in that day.

1st resurrection ~(once more) We know that the scripture teaches that "The First Resurrection" is the new birth, secured by Christ's resurrection from the dead. . But again, either that is true, or our God is not telling the truth when He says it! One or the other, take your pick. God's Word teaches us that Christ is the first born from the dead (he being the head of an elect body) that in all things he might have preeminence. That's the first resurrection from the dead. So the question is, "is Christ the first born from the dead or not?" Because if that's not true, then the resurrection wherein God says "we were raised up in His death," is frankly all a monumental deception. If it is true, then as Christ is the first raised from the dead, and we who were raised up with Him have part in the first resurrection. And if it's not true, then when Jesus told Martha (who thought that Lazarus would be first raised up in the last day) that, "HE was the Resurrection," it was all a lie, and all those raised in Him are not really raised up in His First Resurrection. We must then ask ourselves, "are believers raised up with Christ in a Pretend Resurrection, or was it with Christ as the first born from the dead?" Were we ever dead and raised up before Christ raised us up? The answer is no. So then this must of necessity be the "first" resurrection, just as we are told Christ is the first raised from the dead. If we really believe that Christ was the "first" from the dead, then the answers are obvious. We were raised up with Christ in his "First Resurrection." Again, maybe not according to some theologians, but according to the Holy Scriptures we were. And interpretations do belong to God.

Colossians 2:13

• "And you being Dead in your sins, and the un-circumcision of your flesh, hath he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespass."

Ephesians 2:5-6

• "Even when we were Dead in sins, hath He made us Alive 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:"

And so according to "scripture alone," it would seem that many are really missing the whole point about both the first resurrection from the dead, and our being raised up to reign with Him in heaven. For if it's not the first (in God's defining of the first), then we have chaos, confusion, and a contradiction in the scriptures which sticks out like a sore thumb.

Colossians 1:18

• "And He is the Head of the Body, the Church; who is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead that in all things He might have Preeminence."

Colossians 2:12

• "Buried with Him in Baptism, wherein also ye were Risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the Dead."

Scripture teaches us of two principle resurrections of the dead. It speaks of the resurrection in Christ (John 11:25, Ephesians 2:5) which is the called the first. But it also speaks of another resurrection at the last day (John 11:24, 1st Corinthians 15:52). Only one can be the first resurrection of the saints. And I want to say that again for emphasis. ONLY ONE can be the first Resurrection. And that is what many theologians cannot seem to comprehend. You cannot have two separate events, both called the first resurrection in scripture. That is confusion and God is not the author of confusion. In Revelation 20:5, the First Resurrection refers to what has occurred that made those souls who have died able to live and reign with Christ, while the souls of those who were unsaved (the rest of the dead) could not go to live and reign with Christ. The rest of the dead (unsaved who died) "they lived not again" until the second resurrection when they must be raised from death to stand for judgment before the throne of God. What the chapter is doing is contrasting the souls of the saved, which though they are dead, yet they still live and reign with Christ in heaven, with the souls of the "rest of the dead" (the unsaved) who didn't have life again until the second Resurrection. The ones who reign with Christ after death are those who have had part in the first resurrection. The expression, the First Resurrection clearly refers to the souls of the saints that are raised first, in distinction from the raising of these wicked (rest of the dead) that occurs after the millennium. This is at the the second resurrection. It is totally consistent with the Amillennial view.

There are those who attempt to split hairs, who say that Christ's "resurrection" is not the exact same phrase as "first resurrection." And so they conclude Christ's resurrection is not the same as a first resurrection. But besides from this logic being self-serving, since Christ clearly says He's the Firstborn from the dead that He might have preeminence, it's also inaccurate. If (as righteous Joseph says), "God shall give an answer of peace, and interpretations belong to Him," then God (Sola Scriptura) must define the First Resurrection, not man. And Graciously, He does. But again, "if we will receive it!" And again, He does it unambiguously.

Acts 26:23

• "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

Christ is the "First Resurrection" from the dead according To God. From the context it should be clear to anyone with no preconceived ideas that Christ is the first resurrection, the first that should rise from the dead. And note, it's according to God's Word, not according to Amillennialists, or Augustine, or Origen. So who would dare to declare that these things are untrue? The sad truth is that many will dare to declare it, but unambiguously this is the raising of Christ from death to life. And God defines Him as the first. And so, as saith the scriptures, "Let God be True, and every man a liar (Romans 3:4)". Once again, Amillennialism triumphs biblically and is found to be nothing more than what is defined by the Word of God. The first resurrection was instituted at Christ's preeminent resurrection. His ascension to the throne was the start of the Millennial Kingdom reign, and all those who have part in that resurrection are they who reign with Him in the Kingdom. And upon these, the second death hath no part. And that is what Revelation 20 is declaring.

Revelation 20:6

• "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."

Blessed are those who have part in the first resurrection, because they are now made Kings and Priests unto God, the Children of the Kingdom, and they never lie, they live and reign with Him, and the second death cannot harm these.
And this is only a natural progression of scripture, because when we study prophecy we find that most of the prophecies concerning Israel and the millennial kingdom reign are now being fulfilled through the Church. The New Covenant is with spiritual Israel, and is being extended by the body of Christ. Peace has been brought, we have no fear of our enemies, the government is upon Christ's shoulders, He rules and we serve, we live and reign with Him in his kingdom, we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to God's Promises. All those prophecies are fulfilled. But again, this is (incredibly) railed upon by many theologians as both unbiblical and as unrighteous spiritualizing. But, in all honesty, there cannot be much question about the truth of it. The New Testament or Covenant (same word) is with Israel (according to scripture) and so unless the scriptures are wrong, or the Church isn't a part of this New Covenant in Christ's blood, then once again, Premillennialists are barking up a tree with a Lion in it. The Gentiles are as branches grafted "into" the Covenant tree Israel. This is clearly signified in Romans chapter 11. The Olive tree symbolizes Covenant Israel, and there are Gentiles that are grafted into this Covenant Israel on the New Testament side of the cross. So, what's to debate? We who were once Gentiles, are as branches taken from our wild Gentile tree, and grafted into the tree representing Covenant Israel, and are after spoken of as the New Covenant/Testament Congregation. This body is the new Covenant children of God. To deny this I believe is to deny the very scriptures that proclaim it. So again, what Bible are these detractors not reading concerning God's people being one body, New Covenant Israel? Moreover:

Ephesians 2:11-12

• "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh who are called un circumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made with hands,
• That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.
• but Now ye who were sometimes far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ."

In times past, before we were in Christ, we were Gentiles, the uncircumcision, aliens or foreigners from the commonwealth of Israel. That's what we were before, but are not anymore. By being in Christ, we are reconciled together with God and the Jews, one commonwealth or citizenship in Israel. We are now all one people in Christ Jesus. All of these scriptures become null and void in the humanist Judaic views, but they are totally consistent with what is called Amillennialism. By a believer having been raised up in the "First Resurrection" with Christ, (legally~which secured our vital salvation from sin and condemnation in time) he is by the new birth, brought into the Israel of God, as far as teh knowledge of it. Jew and Gentile reconciled into one body. "There is One Body, which is Christ, not two". There is one Israel of God, not two. There is one Olive Tree of God, not two. There is one everlasting Covenant with the Israel of God, not two. And one man strengthened or confirmed that Covenant in His blood at the cross (for all), and He is not going to do it again in the future. The redemption of New Covenant Israel has already been accomplished. Their king has already come, and He reigns and continues to reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. This is the Millennial reign of Christ present in our day. And when Christ returns, it will be to usher in the second resurrection. It will be the time of the raising of the dead, and the judgment. But because we had part in the first resurrection, we have no part in that judgment. There is no second death for those who have part in the first resurrection.

 

[Red Baker]

@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 ?

Civic, I just did in my post above, before I saw this here by you.. Let me ask you a question: How do you explain such scriptures as:

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.”

If one passess for death unot life, is that not a resurrection?

Also, Paul said that the same power that brought again our Lord from the dead is the same power that is used to bring God's elect from a state of spiritual death to life in Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1:19​

“And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,”


So, civic, was Christ raised from the dead? The same power that it took to raise Christ must be used to raise sinners to life who are dead in tresspasses and sins.

 

[Red Baker]

@3 Resurrections

Red, you know very well that I do not deny that spiritual resurrection takes place when we are regenerated to spiritual life.

Well, not so sure anymore all you believe, since you have had a major overhaul of your understanding of the scriptures since we last seen each other.

But it is an error to label this spiritual resurrection as being "the first resurrection", when Revelation 20:5 itself does not do this.

I just posted more above to help defined what I consider the first resurrection, and yes all of the elect were IN Christ by the election of grace, and took part in Christ's resurrection legally speaking, or else, there's no way of explaining the scriptures above that we did. You are welcome to attempt to do so, but pretty sure you will fail to reconcile them with what you now believe.

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 wicked will only die ONCE physically speaking, and some may not do that if alive when Christ returns the second time~yet they shall die eternally/perish in the lake of fire which the Holy Ghost calls the second death ~all men died spiritually in Adam, and if one is not born again, they shall die eternally/perish in the lake of fire, which God calls the second death.

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.

You are giving me an headache listening to these fables you have came up with through men who are destitute of the truth. The city of Jerusalem is not even on John's mind in writings Revelation 20.

Revelation 20:11​

“And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.”

Very clear as to whom these scriptures are speaking of, you are following a lie.

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.

Did your prophet Josephus teach you this lie? The rapture as taught by Paul has yet to happen per 2nd Thess 2:1-3.

2nd Thessalonians 2:3​

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”

What day?

2nd Thessalonians 2:1​

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,”

You have been deceived!

 

[FreeInChrist]

Who said God doesn't have a sense of humor?

Where I draw a major line is where the mystery (which is ignored entirely), 2nd coming, 1st resurrection, & millennial reign is considered to be allegorical/figurative/metaphorical/spiritualized, or whatever you desire to call the approach.

I get so tired of hearing these names applied myself simply because man cannot understand what he reads... and it , perhaps, is because he is not meant to.

One of they days someone is going to state the bible is one long parable......

Anything that cannot be proven does not conform to the testimony of scripture.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I have never heard any one in Scripture identify lazarus as John or any scholar.

A quick search turned this up. As there is no way of knowing I will stick the the Apostle John as the author.... but then???

Some theories suggest that Lazarus, also known as John Eleazar, may have written the Book of Revelation, as he is linked to the beloved disciple mentioned in the Gospel of John.

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 !!!

 

[3 Resurrections]

The rest of the dead (unsaved who died) "they lived not again" until the second resurrection when they must be raised from death to stand for judgment before the throne of God

NO Red. The "rest of the dead" who "lived again" when the thousand years were finished were called the "first resurrection" in Rev. 20:5 - NOT the second resurrection. The word "rest" comes from the Greek word "loipoi" which means "a remnant" or "the remaining ones". These were those many Matthew 27:52-53 saints who had been made alive on Christ's resurrection day, but who remained on earth to serve in the early church. None of these were unrighteous. It was only saints raised on that day in which Christ arose - no unjust ones yet until the next second resurrection.

I just posted more above to help defined what I consider the first resurrection, and yes all of the elect were IN Christ by the election of grace, and took part in Christ's resurrection legally speaking, or else, there's no way of explaining the scriptures above that we did.

Rev. 20:5 is NOT speaking of the truth of our legal inclusion of the elect in Christ's resurrection. It is talking about a single, physical, bodily resurrection of a group of saints (the "remnant of the dead") which participated BODILY in that "first resurrection" event when the thousand years were "finished". This "remnant of the dead" were the righteous martyred "souls" who came to life again PHYSICALLY by their being bodily raised from the dead.

You are giving me an headache listening to these fables you have came up with through men who are destitute of the truth. The city of Jerusalem is not even on John's mind in writings Revelation 20.

The city of Jerusalem is most definitely on John's mind in Revelation 20. The second death of the city of Jerusalem is the location of the "furnace of fire" (Matt. 13:42) where God would judge His people. Isaiah 31:9 wrote that God's "fire is in Zion, and His furnace in Jerusalem". Jerusalem died once before under the Babylonians when God wrote that He would gather His people into the midst of Jerusalem as metals would be put into a furnace, and there He would "melt" His people by pouring out His fury upon them ( Ezekiel 22:17-22). "Death" and "Hell" (the grave) came to Jerusalem for the first time upon its rulers under the Babylonian invasion (Isaiah 28:14-19) when the city and its temple were burned. "Death and Hell" (the grave) were thrown into the "Lake of Fire" for the second time in Rev. 20:14 for the "second death" of the city of Jerusalem in the AD 70 period.

Did your prophet Josephus teach you this lie? The rapture as taught by Paul has yet to happen per 2nd Thess 2:1-3.

The prophet Daniel is my source of proof. He gave the exact day in which that resurrection would take place in Daniel 12:1-2, by giving the two events which would take place during the same season of time, 1,335 days before the resurrection took place (Daniel 12:11-13). Those two events already took place in AD 66 while there was still a "daily sacrifice" in the Jerusalem temple to be taken away. Christ also told His first-century audience to read their Daniel Scriptures, and they would understand the timing of when to flee the city for the mountains to avoid the "days of vengeance" coming upon His people in Judea and Jerusalem which He called "the great tribulation". And He was going to return "IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days".

This is ancient history. All of it. Christ fulfilled His promise to return in the glory of HIs Father with the angels to give rewards to all according to their works, and this would be while some of those people He was addressing were still alive to see that happen (Matthew 16:27-28). I don't need Josephus to prove this - only Christ and Daniel and all the NT writers. You would do well to heed them.

And Paul wrote that the Man of Lawlessness was already alive and being restrained in his own generation. This was a Jewish Zealot commander being restrained from power by the high priest Ananias and the high priesthood institution in general. A long past fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2:1-3. Even the first-century Thessalonians knew who both of these men were, since Paul said he had told them in person about these individuals. Ancient history again. Already fulfilled, as well as the "rapture" in which all the bodily-resurrected people were gathered together and left this planet with the returning Christ in AD 70 on that year's Pentecost day. So sorry you didn't get the Daniel 12:11-13 news bulletin, Red.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Acts 26:23

• "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

Christ was NOT the first human to rise from the dead bodily. It is obvious that "women received their dead raised to life again" in the OT examples we have, as well as those in the NT who were raised to life again by the ministry of the disciples and of Christ Himself ("...heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead..." - Matt. 10:8, 11:5.)

This Acts 26:23 verse is translated poorly in the KJV. The literal translations do a better job. "...that the Christ is to suffer, whether first by a rising from the dead he is about to proclaim light to the people and to the nations." (YLT) This does NOT mean Christ was the first to rise, but He was first to proclaim light to the people and to the nations by His having risen from the dead. The sentence order gets twisted in the KJV and others translations. Christ was the first to initiate the evangelistic thrust of the gospel to the Gentile nations once He arose from the dead ("...go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature..." - Mark 16:15.)

You may consider it "splitting hairs", but there is a distinction between Christ being the unique "First-born" / "First-begotten" and what is known as the "First-fruits" (a title shared by Christ and also the resurrected Matt. 27:52-53 Jewish 144,000 "First-fruits" raised from the grave on that same day.)

The "First-born" / "First-begotten" title has always belonged only to Christ as the first glorified, resurrected one to ascend to the Father in heaven. No other human had ever ascended to the Father in that glorified, resurrected state before Christ did this first on His resurrection-day ascension. Those other 144,000 "First-fruits" were sealed and remained on earth to serve in the early church until the next resurrection event when they were taken to heaven with the returning Christ in AD 70.

 

[mikesw]

@mikesw

Greetings Mike,

And there was a reason for Paul saying that, actually a few reasons.

1st Corinthians 14:34​

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

1 Timothy 2:11​

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

Yep. I tend to agree. Of course, I was posting in jest in this situation.

 

[Jim]

NO Red. The "rest of the dead" who "lived again" when the thousand years were finished were called the "first resurrection" in Rev. 20:5 - NOT the second resurrection. The word "rest" comes from the Greek word "loipoi" which means "a remnant" or "the remaining ones". These were those many Matthew 27:52-53 saints who had been made alive on Christ's resurrection day, but who remained on earth to serve in the early church. None of these were unrighteous. It was only saints raised on that day in which Christ arose - no unjust ones yet until the next second resurrection.

You are misreading Revelation 20:1-6. In verse 4, there are three separate groups mentioned. The first group are "those to whom the authority to judge was committed". They are obviously physically dead. The second group are the "souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God". They also are physically dead. The third group are "those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands".

The "those" in the third group are not souls. The "those" there is not the object in a prepositional phrase as the "those" in the second group; rather it is the nominative subject of that second phrase "had not worshipped the beast,,,,,,," The third group are not souls of the physically dead; but rather, are physically living beings. They are the spiritually dead who came to life ala John 5:24, That is they were regenerated, born again, and reigned with Jesus for a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. The rest of the spiritually dead "did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" at which time they were sentenced to the second death.

The thousand years is the very long indefinite time between the first coming of Christ and His second coming at the end of the age. These are the last days. This is the millennium. the millennium is now.

 

[dwight92070]

yep preterism is a secret doctrine with zero evidence of a rapture, 2nd Coming or , reign of Christ in Jerusalem, millennium kingdom etc.... . they spiritulize everything in prophecy that has to do with Israel/Jews in their land after Jesus 1st Coming.

I'm still waiting for Civic to give scriptural proof of his statement that Partial-preterism, is heresy. It's been, what, two weeks now, and he still can't seem to come up with Scripture that proves his accusation.

By the way, he can't seem to acknowledge that God Himself spiritualizes things having to do with Israel - and so does Paul.

For example take Jeremiah 31:35-36:

"Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; the Lord of hosts is His name:

"If this fixed order departs from before Me," declares the Lord, "then the offspring of Israel will cease from being a nation before Me forever."

Well, Israel DID CEASE from being a nation from 70 A.D. until 1948, so it appears that God FAILED TO KEEP HIS PROMISE.

But wait, even though Israel ceased from being a nation for 1878 years, YET THE REMNANT OF ISRAEL, OF WHICH THE BODY OF CHRIST IS A PART, NEVER DISAPPEARED EVEN UNTIL TODAY AND YES, THEY (AND WE) ARE CONSIDERED BY GOD TO BE A NATION BEFORE HIM.

1 Peter 2:9 "But you, (the Body of Christ, both Jews and Gentiles who believe) are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, A HOLY NATION, a people for God's own possession, ..."

Paul quotes Isaiah in Romans 9:27 "Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED."

"Thus says the Lord, 'If the heavens above can be measured and the foundation of the earth searched out below, then I will also cast off all of the offspring of Israel for all that they have done," declares the Lord.

HE DID cast off all the offspring of Israel in 70 A.D. EXCEPT FOR THE REMNANT, WHO OBEYED JESUS WHO SAID, 'When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then FLEE TO THE MOUNTAINS ..." They were kept from the awful destruction of Jerusalem and massacre of over 1 million Jews.

Ever since Jesus rose, the body of Christ has always consisted of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. We are called "the Israel of God" by Paul in Galatians 6:16

Paul said "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."

Paul spiritualizes what it means to be a Jew. We are all part of the remnant of Israel, because we have believed God and Jesus.
We are part of the olive tree that Paul mentions in Romans 11.

Unfortunately, the majority of modern day Israel, are NOT part of the remnant nor are they part of the olive tree. Only about 1% of the country of Israel are believers in Jesus. Ninety-nine percent of the Jews in Israel today believe either Judaism or atheism or some other false religion. They have rejected their Messiah. They are not the true "Israel of God".

The Talmud says that Jesus is burning in excrement in hell right now. That's their opinion of their Messiah. Do you think that God still considers them His chosen people? No way! His chosen people is the body of Christ, Jewish and Gentile believers.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You are misreading Revelation 20:1-6. In verse 4, there are three separate groups mentioned. The first group are "those to whom the authority to judge was committed". They are obviously physically dead.

NO, those on thrones are NOT "obviously physically dead" in this context. Christ had granted authority to judge to the twelve disciples, which authority would be granted to them in the regeneration when Christ sat on the throne of His glory after His resurrection-day ascension. They were to judge the twelve tribes of ISRAEL so these "thrones" in Rev. 20:4 were established in AD 33 when members of the twelve tribes of Israel were still around (like "the twelve tribes scattered abroad").

This was meant to be a reflection of the "thrones of judgement" in the city of Jerusalem, which Psalms 122:5 writes about. Under OT law, all judicial cases too hard to be settled otherwise were to come to Jerusalem to be settled by the rulers - by those "thrones of judgment". Under the New Covenant, the twelve disciples were the new established authority on those "twelve thrones" in the early church at Jerusalem to settle doctrinal and practical matters.

The second group are the "souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God". They also are physically dead. The third group are "those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands".

I agree with you that there are three groups spoken of in this context. The second group of "souls" who had been martyred for their testimony of Jesus and the word of God were all those OT martyred servants of God which Jerusalem had killed for showing before of the coming of the Just One. These were the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints who rose from their graves around Jerusalem the same day as Christ arose.

Then, of course, there is the third group who had not worshipped the beast, ever since Nebuchadnezzar had been the first one of those ancient pagan empires to demand homage. This was a continual problem all the way until John's days. Some of this third group, just as you have said, could well have still been living during the time John was writing Revelation. The Sea Beast had an ancient biography, beginning from Nebuchadnezzar, and extending into John's days, 666 years later when he was writing Revelation.

The thousand years is the very long indefinite time between the first coming of Christ and His second coming at the end of the age. These are the last days. This is the millennium. the millennium is now.

Wrong on all of this. John wrote that the thousand years was "finished", "expired, and "fulfilled" when the "first resurrection" had taken place. That was in AD 33 when Christ and the "remnant of the dead" Matthew 27:52-53 saints rose from the dead on that same day.

The millennium ended when Christ ascended and the Devil descended after losing the war in heaven.

 

[Red Baker]

Paul spiritualizes what it means to be a Jew. We are all part of the remnant of Israel, because we have believed God and Jesus.
We are part of the olive tree that Paul mentions in Romans 11.

It has been well said by Tony Warren..........

The New Testament or Covenant (with Israel) reveals the truth of the old Covenant. In careful study and rightly dividing the word of truth, we see the prophesies concerning Israel (for example Jeremiah 31, and Hosea 1) refer to the New Testament congregation. It is the representation of the elect of all nations brought into the Kingdom. It is only in this that God's promise that Israel would never cease to be a "nation" before Him can be fulfilled (Jer, 31:36). Most certainly He was not speaking about an earthly nation, as the earthly nation of Israel surely has ceased to exist in history. Until 1948 there was no worldly or earthly nation Israel. But the true understanding of this prophecy is that it speaks of God's chosen people, His Spiritual congregation that will never cease, and not the earthly representation of it.

Luke 3:8-9~"Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

The political nation Israel rejected Christ's truth concerning this, and it seems that much of the Church today is following in that same error. They don't understand the concept of the external Church contrasted with the indivisible Church. They neglect the concept of "types" and the fulfillment thereof. Considering these things in light of scripture illustrates that the Millennial reign, and the redemption of Israel, both started at the cross. The promises to Israel are not now null and void as some might suppose. Nor has the Church replaced Israel as some boastfully claim. Indeed Israel has not been abandoned. The promises to Israel "stand" because they were not made to a literal earthly nation, but to a chosen people who bring forth the fruits worthy of repentance. Unfortunately, some people have no concept of the way Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Those promises to Israel are kept, and are fulfilled in Christ, and in whosoever God chooses to call Israel, by reason of their being in Christ. He is the true Israel of God.

Hosea 11:1~"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."

Matthew 2:15~"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."

God is plainly talking about His Son Jesus Christ, and speaking of Him as the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Israel. So, whosoever man defines as Israel is insignificant. For Christ is the "true" Israel and the essence of its being. Therefore, those in Him are Israel because they get their fundamental new nature, virtue, and qualities from Him. Which of course is why we are called Christ-ians, and why we can be grafted into the Covenant Olive tree (Romans 11) Israel. Because we are the body of Christ.

If we look carefully at the promises made to Israel, and their fulfillment, we will get a better understanding of the mystery of the Old Testament, in the "light" of the New testament.

The Promise made to Israel

Hosea 1:10~"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are sons of the living God."

The Promised fulfillment in Israel, The Church

Romans 9:22-26~" What if God, willing to shew His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

As He saith also in Hosea: I will call them My people, which were not My people, And her beloved, which was not beloved." And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people; There shall they be called children of the living God."

There is the undeniable truth of fulfillment in the Church of what God had promised to Israel in the book of Hosea. He would make Israel as the sand of the sea by bringing into her the Gentiles who were not His people, to now be His people. The mystery (Romans 11:25; Colossians 1:26-27) "of the Old is revealed in the New Testament." He has made both Jew and Gentile one body in Christ, and that is the fulfillment of the promise that the Children of Israel would become as the sand of the sea because He would make them His people who were formerly not His people. To deny this is to deny the very scriptures which say it. To the noble, these truths are made self-evident by the authority of scripture, through the working of the Spirit within them.

The Promise made to Israel
Hosea 2:23~"Then I will sow her unto Me in the earth; And I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy; Then I will say unto them who were not My people, thou art My people; And they shall say, Thou are my God!'"

The Promised fulfillment in Israel, The Church

1st Peter 2:9-10~"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God, which had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy."

Again the clear consistently scriptural view that these things promised Israel were all fulfilled in the New Covenant Church. And we should not loose sight of this fact in the midst of the various millennial posturing by some theologians. It is God who says the scriptures were fulfilled in the New Covenant. It's not sporadically, but consistently we see God's promises to Israel applied to the Church. This is not an error by scribes, it is not coincidence, and it is not to be ignored as if it doesn't exist. This is God ordained, and it illustrates to us that Israel is a kingdom, and a Priesthood, and a special people "Only" in Christ. In the Old Covenant it was by faith as they looked forward to the coming Messiah, that He would fulfill the law of blood for them (by the blood of animals is no flesh justified). And in the New Covenant it is by faith, we looking backward at the coming of Christ and his fulfilling the law of blood sacrifice. Two perspectives, but one identical salvation program. The Grace and faith of Christ is what saves us all. There is no other salvation program.

The Promise made to Israel
Exodus 19:5-6~"Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people, for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak to the children of Israel."

The Promised fulfillment in Israel, The Church
1st Peter 2:9~"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

The law is fulfilled in Christ, as He is the head, the authority of the body. We can keep God's commandments because of Christ in us. Other doctrines may claim that Israel (the literal nation) are the elect or chosen people, a peculiar (special) people, but here God assigns these terms to the Israel of God, which is the Church. Are there two Holy nations, two special people, two Kingdoms of Priests of God ? No, there is but one Israel of God, and the nation of Israel was just a type of this Israel. It was a shadow of the true Israel of God, to whom the promises were made. So while many theologians err in looking for national salvation, God is very clear that His is an individual salvation. In the Old Testament, the people were saved just as they are in the New Testament. By grace, through the faith of Christ (Ephesians 2:8). They were a special and chosen people by the Spirit of Christ alone. A remnant out of the nation was truly saved, but never the whole nation. The promises to them, as they are to us, were fulfilled in Christ.

 

[Jim]

NO, those on thrones are NOT "obviously physically dead" in this context. Christ had granted authority to judge to the twelve disciples, which authority would be granted to them in the regeneration when Christ sat on the throne of His glory after His resurrection-day ascension. They were to judge the twelve tribes of ISRAEL so these "thrones" in Rev. 20:4 were established in AD 33 when members of the twelve tribes of Israel were still around (like "the twelve tribes scattered abroad").

This was meant to be a reflection of the "thrones of judgement" in the city of Jerusalem, which Psalms 122:5 writes about. Under OT law, all judicial cases too hard to be settled otherwise were to come to Jerusalem to be settled by the rulers - by those "thrones of judgment". Under the New Covenant, the twelve disciples were the new established authority on those "twelve thrones" in the early church at Jerusalem to settle doctrinal and practical matters.


I agree with you that there are three groups spoken of in this context. The second group of "souls" who had been martyred for their testimony of Jesus and the word of God were all those OT martyred servants of God which Jerusalem had killed for showing before of the coming of the Just One. These were the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints who rose from their graves around Jerusalem the same day as Christ arose.

Then, of course, there is the third group who had not worshipped the beast, ever since Nebuchadnezzar had been the first one of those ancient pagan empires to demand homage. This was a continual problem all the way until John's days. Some of this third group, just as you have said, could well have still been living during the time John was writing Revelation. The Sea Beast had an ancient biography, beginning from Nebuchadnezzar, and extending into John's days, 666 years later when he was writing Revelation.


Wrong on all of this. John wrote that the thousand years was "finished", "expired, and "fulfilled" when the "first resurrection" had taken place. That was in AD 33 when Christ and the "remnant of the dead" Matthew 27:52-53 saints rose from the dead on that same day.

The millennium ended when Christ ascended and the Devil descended after losing the war in heaven.

I have to say here that your Preterism requires such a twisted interpretation of scripture it must be rejected and tossed in the trash bin.

 

[Victoria]

Good morning Victoria,

Pray to tell me in your own words what is the NT mystery or, the one you are speaking about, since there are a few mysteries in the NT revealed to us . The main one is the one revealed in Ephesians 2,3, That's the one I desire for you to explain as you understand it.

Good late evening Red,

The revelation of the mystery can only be found in Paul's epistles. Ephesians 2, & 3 alone won't reveal, in full, God's manifold wisdom. In my own words, I understand that God wants me to rightly divide "aka" to know the difference between the nation of Israel, & the Body of Christ. I learn that we're a spiritual body eternal in the heavens, & that born again Israel, in ages to come, will be a physical nation eternal on the earth. If we don't rightly divide, we cannot interpret the Old, & New Testaments consistently w/ accuracy.

Btw, I do get my name honestly since my father's mother was a Thomas before she became a Baker.

Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic in that reply to 3 R's.
I was just joking w/ you