Pastor Larry: //Why do you ignore Rev 20 and its teaching on what appear to be at least three resurrections?//
Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!
I'm still looking for an evangelical a-mill post
from this poster.
Scripture Supporting a Pretrib Removal of the Church
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by OldRegular, Mar 15, 2005.
Page 5 of 8
-
-
Larry,
During church history, Christians already been through so many tribulations and persecutions, even, while unbelievers having good times and peace. 'Peace and safety' already been happening for a long time since early Church to today. America is more clearly picture of 'peace and safety' because America is the wealthiest nation in the world, and America is the safest nation in the world. People in America have pleasure life than any nations today.
Please look in Revelation 11:9-10 "And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves, And they that dwell upon the earth shall REJOICE over them, and make MERRY, and shall send gifts one to another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth."
This passage telling us, people are tired and sick hearing of Christians preaching and warning them of sins. They want to rid them away, by persecute against Christians by killed them. They not allow Christians to be buried in the graves, but leave Christians bodies lie outside anywhere for 3 1/2 years, while many Christians killed and lie outside, sinners are celebrating and laughing because of many Christians are being killed daily, this is "peace and safety" during great tribulation. People will continue to saying 'peace and safety' during in the great tribulaiton just like as they saying today.
'Peace and safety' does not equal with wrath. Wrath shall come AFTER 'peace and safety' as Christ shall come like as thief in the night to SHOCKED people of the world, by being grabbing them away in the air by the angels (Matt. 24:40-41; Matt. 25:31-33; and Luke 17:34-37). Same as what happened to the world in the flood, that people were not expecting of the flood came and took them away suddenly.
Wrath is speak of the day of the Lord IS Christ's coming to judge the world on the last day of the age.
You mentioned of Acts chapter 15 of verse 14-17 quote from Amos 9:11-12. Premils intepreting Amos 9:11-12 & Acts 15:14-17 into literally that they believe 'tabernacle' shall be restored again in Millennial kingdom. Ther intepreting is error.
Understand, New Testament make manifest or revealed the mystery of Old testament to fulfilled and understand. Acts 15:14-17 already fulfilled 2,000 years ago. Verse. 16 says, "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of david, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." Word, 'tabernacle' does not take it literally as physical building, but it is a figurative meaning of spiritual. Tabernacle of Acts 1:15 is type of Jesus Christ, that Christ is the tabernacle, as Christ IS the temple. Christ already destroyed tabernacle, and he already built it again. How do I know? Look in John 2:19-21 "Jesus answered and said unto them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his BODY."
When Christ was on earth, he was in Jerusalem, he told them, that he will destroy that temple(physical building) where it was lie locate near the Dome of Ark is, and in three days he shall raise it up. Jews said to him, 'Three days? Impossible!, That buiding of temple was built, it took 46 years to be completed. Jews were not understand what Christ was talking about. Christ was speak of the temple is Christ's Body. In three days Christ shall raise it up, speak of his resurrection, NOW Christ IS is the temple. Christ does not need physical building of temple.
While Christ was on the cross, he yelled a, "It is finished." At the same time the viel of the temple was tore from top to bottom, it shows that Christ no longer need physical building of temple, and He already ceased daily sacrifices of Daniel 9:27. Now Christ is the temple, we are the priests. We have rights ask Christ to forgive us our sins through his blood 24 hours everyday.
That what Acts 15:14-17 talking about. I hope that you understand what my point of Acts 15:14-17 talking about.
Also, both Amos 9:11-12 & Acts 15:14-17 say nothing about 'a thousand years'.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen! -
-
Pastor Larry: //Times of "tribulations and persecutions" is not what we are talking about. We are talking about The Tribulation, the seven year period described in Revelation as God's judgment on the earth.//
Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it! -
-
Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You may not agree but at you can disagree with knowledge, rather than out of ignorance as you currently seem to be doing.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
[qb]This passage is very straightforward with nothing to indicate that it is to be interpreted any way other than literally.Click to expand...
</font>Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Comparatively speaking the passages 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 or 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff are much less clear. In fact the resurrection is not even mentioned in these passages.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
[qb]5. The implicit is to be interpreted in light of the explicit.Click to expand...Click to expand...
Revelation 20:4-5 4 ... and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.Click to expand...
1) They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
2) The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
So there is a resurredtion before the thousand years and one after the thousand years.
Then you see, This is the first resurrection. Why call it the "first resurrection" if it is the only? That makes no sense. There clear implication is that there is more than one, otherwise there would be no need to point out the "first." It would be "the resurrection."
I have always said that John 5:28, 29 should be interpreted literally.Click to expand...
In fact if you interpret Revelation 20:4-6 literally you have a hard time defending the dispensational error.[/qutoe]That perhaps makes as little sense to me as anything you ahve said yet. What do you mean? If you interpret Rev 20 literally, you have to be a dispensationalist. THat is almost universally acknowledged.
John sees souls not bodies and the first resurrection was that of Jesus Christ.Click to expand...
Those who have part in the first resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, are the saved.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Overall, the support for pretrib better handles the Scriptures and recognizes key theological issues.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You may not agree but at you can disagree with knowledge, rather than out of ignorance as you currently seem to be doing.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Comparatively speaking the passages 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 or 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff are much less clear. In fact the resurrection is not even mentioned in these passages.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
OldRegular: "Could you please state how Revelation 20:4-6 explicitly teaches two resurrections? "
Would you like to state how it does not?
The first meaning of 'first' is:
preceeding all others in a series.
The use of the word 'first' in the term
'first resurrection' implies at least
'a second resurrection'. This is as
explicit as you can get. -
OldRegular: "I have always said that John 5:28, 29 should be interpreted literally."
John 5:28-29 (KJV1611):
Marueile not at this: for the houre is comming,
in the which all that are in the graues shall
heare his voice,
29 And shall come foorth, they that haue done
good, vnto the resurrection of life, and they that
haue done euill, vnto the resurrection of damnation.
Do you then contend that these resurrections cannot
happen in 61 minutes or more (technical definition of 'minute')?
The Revelation 20 passage show it taking 1,000 years
(literal, could be a figure of speach for a LONG TIME)
between the resurrection of the just and resurreciton
of the unjust. Nothing in John 5:28-29
conflicts with Revelation 20 EXCEPT IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING
OF JOHN 5:28-29. Sad that you have to scrap a beautiful
scripture like chapter 20 of Revelation because
you can't understand John 5:28-29 :( -
Revelation 20:4-6
1769 KJV
4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
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.
NASV
4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
5. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
6. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Pastor Larry,
Please tell me where people are mentioned in the above Scripture. Please show me where two resurrections are explicitly taught. [Explicit means fully and clearly expressed, leaving nothing merely implied.]
May I also add that none of the recent posts address a pretrib removal of the Church. They are a discussion related to premillennialism. -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 20:4-5 4 ... and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice
1) They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
2) The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
So there is a resurredtion before the thousand years and one after the thousand years.
Then you see, This is the first resurrection. Why call it the "first resurrection" if it is the only? That makes no sense. There clear implication is that there is more than one, otherwise there would be no need to point out the "first." It would be "the resurrection."
Common simple explanation. Don't have to play
twister here :eek: -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You may not agree but at you can disagree with knowledge, rather than out of ignorance as you currently seem to be doing.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
OldRegular: "Could you please state how Revelation 20:4-6 explicitly teaches two resurrections? "
Would you like to state how it does not?
The first meaning of 'first' is:
preceeding all others in a series.
The use of the word 'first' in the term
'first resurrection' implies at least
'a second resurrection'. This is as
explicit as you can get.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
OldRegular: "I have always said that John 5:28, 29 should be interpreted literally."
John 5:28-29 (KJV1611):
Marueile not at this: for the houre is comming,
in the which all that are in the graues shall
heare his voice,
29 And shall come foorth, they that haue done
good, vnto the resurrection of life, and they that
haue done euill, vnto the resurrection of damnation.
Do you then contend that these resurrections cannot
happen in 61 minutes or more (technical definition of 'minute')?
The Revelation 20 passage show it taking 1,000 years
(literal, could be a figure of speach for a LONG TIME)
between the resurrection of the just and resurreciton
of the unjust. Nothing in John 5:28-29
conflicts with Revelation 20 EXCEPT IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING
OF JOHN 5:28-29. Sad that you have to scrap a beautiful
scripture like chapter 20 of Revelation because
you can't understand John 5:28-29 :(Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 20:4-5 4 ... and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice
1) They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
2) The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
So there is a resurredtion before the thousand years and one after the thousand years.
Then you see, This is the first resurrection. Why call it the "first resurrection" if it is the only? That makes no sense. There clear implication is that there is more than one, otherwise there would be no need to point out the "first." It would be "the resurrection."
Common simple explanation. Don't have to play
twister here :eek:Click to expand...
Page 5 of 8