Featured Who Has Part in The First Resurrection?

Okay.

He will confirm the covenant with many. "The many" refer to the remnant of Israel. Before that time, as it says, there will be war and desolations reducing their number. Who makes this covenant?

27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
---The same person who makes the covenant, breaks the covenant, causes the sacrifice to cease, etc.
IOW, in a looser translation it says:

(CEV) For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week, he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the "Horrible Thing" that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.
--The foreigner is not Christ. The many people are Jews. It is not Christ that will bring a "horrible thing" that will cause destruction."
--You have this all wrong.

The covenant being spoken of here was an evil covenant. You are not understanding this passage at all. The person is the antichrist, not Christ.
Here is the person:
Revelation 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
--Like Christ he comes on a white horse. He appears as Christ, but is not. He says he brings peace (a bow but no arrows). And yet he comes to conquer. This is not Christ. What follows this horse (antichrist)?

Revelation 6:4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
--Peace is taken. A sword is given; they kill one another.

And then:
Revelation 6:5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
--The natural outcome of war is inflation. All the prices rise.

And then:
Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
--When things are out of reach of the common person there is famine. And after famine there is death once again. This time a fourth of the world population is killed. If 8 billion were the population two billion would die.

This is the time of the antichrist. This is also what Dan.9:27 is speaking about. He will make a covenant of peace, and then break it.

A total non sequitor. It has nothing to do with Dan.9:27. Christ is not the antichrist. He does not make covenants only to break them.

The repetition of error won't convince anyone, especially when you have confused the antichrist for Christ. How sad!

 

If you want to make absurd comparisons, OR,
Islam believes in a general resurrection also. So?

Quite frankly I prefer to get my beliefs from the Bible. I have never read Darby, so why even bring him up? I have repeatedly told you that the ECF believed in dispensationalism, but that doesn't seem to register with you.
So you keep posting this falsehood about Darby. Why?

The Bible is clear about two resurrections, yes, even in John 5--the resurrection of the just, and the resurrection of the unjust. It couldn't be any clearer than that, could it?

 

You just spent a page quoting "Ice." That is not scripture.
You continue to bash Darby; (whom I have not read), that is not Scripture.
For your continued falsehoods about Darby, not Scripture, I continue to post:

If Ice hasn't read history and wants to make the unfounded claim that Darby was the founder of dispensationalism then let him do so. There are those who know better. You should know better if you had a teachable spirit.

 

Dan 9:26-27
26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." (ESV)

After 62 weeks (plus 7) the Messiah is cut off, "the Anointed one" or Christ.
Now understand carefully what the next part is speaking of. It speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem. "The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."
Who came? It was Titus, and the year was 70 A.D. He was a Roman General and he destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. Now this is a partial fulfillment as many prophecies are. It is not a complete fulfillment.

Who is Christ? Is Christ the Son of David, or the Son of a Roman?
And HE shall make a covenant with many for a week.
Who? The prince who is to come. His people are Romans. It appears that he will have some Roman heritage. This is not Christ.
The week is seven years. This is seven years after Christ was put to death. He was cut-off after the 69th week, so there is still 7 years remaining. Those seven years have not taken place yet.

(CEV) For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week, he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the "Horrible Thing" that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.
--This is not speaking of Christ. "This foreigner" is the anti-christ.

 

You really don't think you have tradition? We all have tradition that we must struggle against. We are taught certain things as we grow up and we assume them to be true and many times we read that taught belief into the text of scripture. It is unavoidable. As I said before, those who claim to have no tradition are the most blinded by it.

You also never answered my questions. Do you really believe you have absolutely no tradition at all? That you have a perfect, and complete theology? There is nothing that you ever need to reexamine or learn?

Now we are getting somewhere! Perhaps my phrasing wasn't the best. When I say "the end of the world" I mean the world as we know it today. This world will end at Christ's return, then there is judgment and we go into the millennial reign. When I said the world ends I was referring to the return of Christ. So I agree with you here, Revelation 6 is the end of the "tribulation" though I debate that term. I believe this entire age between the first and second advent is an age of tribulation, but that is another discussion.

So yes Christ returns here at the 6th seal, thus the screams of the wicked, "Hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?"

This is another picture of the return of Christ. Look again at the language used:

Rev 11:15 NASB - Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world HAS (that is, at this time, when the trumpet is sounded, Jesus takes over the kingdoms of the world in fullness) become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever."
Rev 11:16 NASB - And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God,
Rev 11:17 NASB - saying, "We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign.
Rev 11:18 NASB - "And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, (note the past tense - this is after the wrath of God. Some versions - KJV, NIV, HCSB, etc. - have a present tense "has come" which would indicate this is the culmination of God's wrath. Either way works.) and the time came for the dead to be judged, (The dead are judged at this trumpet - clearly this is the end. Christ has returned in judgement.) and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, (The elect are rewarded at this trumpet. Again, showing Christ returns once to both judge and reward, as 2 Thess 1 shows) the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth."
Rev 11:19 NASB - And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

Looking at the language used, I don't see how we can come to any conclusion other than this trumpet heralds he end of the age. Christ has come in judgment against the nations and has taken the kingdoms of the earth directly for his possession.

As I said earlier the return of Christ is what I meant by the end of the world. We were talking past each other there. I apologize for not being more clear.

I would say that the army that comes with him is the "host of heaven," that is angels. Possibly it includes the dead saints throughout the ages, but primarily I believe it is angels since the believers are not to my knowledge ever referred to as an army, yet the angels are commonly called an army in the OT. Also, that corresponds perfectly with 2 Thess 1.

2Th 1:7 NASB - ... when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,

It could also include the believers who are raptured at this return. They do not come from Heaven but are joined to the army that does come from there.

The three events listed are certainly 3 different pictures of the same event - Christ returning in judgement.
Not sure what you are talking about regarding gaps I supposedly put in. Care to explain this accusation?

Our tradition colors everything we do, especially what we read. For example, and since you mentioned Christmas, it is traditional to say "the three wise men" came to visit Jesus. However the Bible never says there were only three magi. Only that they brought three gifts. Many people go their entire lives without noticing that they are reading their tradition into the text.

You lost me here.

I clearly said that the purpose of the passage is to comfort the Thessalonian Christians. Yes it was a comfort that we would be gathered together with him. That we would be with the Lord together with dead family and friends. That is the comfort. What I said was, and I quote, "They are being comforted by the promise that we will all, dead and alive, be reunited together with Christ at his return. What follows after the gathering together (rapture) is not the purpose of the passage." This is clearly true. This passage teaches absolutely nothing regarding what follows the "rapture."

1 Thess 4 does not say we go to Heaven after the rapture. It says we meet the Lord in the air and that after that we will always be with him. Again, that passage teaches nothing about what follows our gathering together with Jesus.

 

Really? Seriously? You want to elevate a disagreement on eschatology to a level equal to the judaizing of the church? Really? :BangHead:

Your inability to accept it doesn't mean that it can't be reconciled.

So you admit then that the passage in question does not say where we go after we are raptured?

There is no reason to assume that the "rapture" occurs 7 years earlier. That time frame is not mentioned anywhere and as OR showed, it is incorrect to pull the 70th week from Daniel 9. Also, I admit the rapture is not mentioned in Rev 19 either. It is not mentioned at all in Revelation. We must harmonize the various end times passages, and the most consistent and simple harmonization is of a post-tribulation gathering. One single event - the return of Christ - with two purposes - the judgement of the wicked and the glorification of the elect.

Also, as I said in my previous post, I believe the armies are primarily the angelic host. It may, and likely does, include the righteous dead, all coming from Heaven. It could also include the believers who are gathered to meet him at the air in his visible, loud triumphant return mentioned in 1 Thess 4.

Martyr complex... right...

I'm not the one hurling insults, accusing others of not taking scripture seriously, accusing others of being "bewitched" or saying that those who disagree with me should only discuss the weather.

I just want to say the CEV is just purely wrong here. The text doesn't say anything about a "foreigner." No "literal" translation renders it as such. This is why interpretive paraphrases should not be used for any serious study. You get a very biased, bad interpretation of the original text.

 

In reference to Bible knowledge or how I study the Bible, no; I have no traditions.

My knowledge is shaped by my own study of the Bible as well, in part, by those whom I interact with. But mostly by my own study. Traditions? No, not a chance.
I got saved as an adult and I left "traditions" behind in the RCC. Without anyone's help, (the result of my own occupation), I came to my own conclusion that the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of the RCC could not exist together. They were diametrically opposed to each other. There is no tradition here. The Lord led me out of the RCC and then, by his providence to the only IFB church in quite a large city. Again, no tradition is involved here. I have learned throughout my life to live and walk by faith. That is not tradition. I really have no idea what you are speaking about.
Paul condemned tradition as did Jesus. Why would I want to order my life around something the Bible condemns?

Alright, When they see the Lamb, are afraid, cry for the rocks and the mountains, it is inevitable that Christ is coming in judgment. It is obvious that he is NOT coming "in comfort" for his saints, who according to the 19th chapter are already there in heaven. Thus the two resurrections.
I know that many dispensationalists take the seals, trumpets and vials in a strict chronological order. I am not one of them. I believe that the last seal especially is near the end right before the second coming. In fact the last three seals will all be near the end.

In chapter six the first four seals take up most of the first 3 1/2 years, and then some.
Set the verses in their context.
The seals (a good many of them) are over.
We have just seen two witnesses prophesy for over half the Tribulation Period. Part of this is parenthetical.
Now six angels have blown their trumpets, and we hear:

Rev 11:14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

In very descriptive language the seventh angel is actually introducing to us the seven vials, which will culminate in the coming of Christ. These all are very close to the end and will probably happen is quick succession.

This passage is a vision which John sees:
Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
--It seem similar to what happened at Mt. Sinai but on a much grander scale.
In the next chapter, it is parenthetical going back to Israel's history, the fall of Satan, the birth of Christ.
Then in chapter 13 it still goes back again, to the description of the antichrist and of the false prophet, even though they, chronologically, have already come on the scene.
Chapter 14 is a heavenly scene and then finally in 15 it comes back to the general chronology again with the pouring out of the vials.

The word "armies" is in plural. One cannot ignore the description of "fine linen white and clean" which describes the righteousness of the saints. That description was just given concerning the Bride of Christ, and the wedding feast which had just taken place. Now we are return with Christ at his coming, and then to rule and reign with him for a thousand years.

Well, since I agree with you on the sixth seal being immediately before His coming, and disagree with you about what is happening in the last few verses of chapter eleven, then I see no gaps in the chronology, or 3 different pictures, or Christ coming 3 times or the world ending 3 times, whatever way you want to put it. I can account for the general chronology with some parentheticals and heavenly pictures or visions inserted here and there.
Consider a preacher who has a habit of going on rabbit trails here and there. :smilewinkgrin:

Perhaps lifestyle is the word you are looking for.
No, they are not reading tradition necessarily; they just haven't studied their Bibles carefully enough. I don't interpret my Bible through tradition. I read carefully, prayerfully and thoughtfully. There are those here who would like to put me either in a Calvinistic box or an Arminian box, but they can't. I am neither.

The two passages (1Thes.4 and 2Thes.1) are irreconcilable.
When Christ comes he will either come to comfort his saints or to take vengeance on his enemies. He doesn't do both at the same time. That makes no sense.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture we know that from there we go to heaven, not to earth to take vengeance on those who obey not the gospel. If we are "forever to be with the Lord," we will not be going directly to take vengeance on his enemies will we?

The implication is there that we will.
Other scriptures tell us that we will.
The Bible must harmonize not contradict.

 

I want to continue this debate. But this answer above proves that is impossible.

You believe yourself to have perfect theology and knowledge of scripture. You unreasonably believe you have no tradition, despite being a member of perhaps the most tradition enslaved group there is in Baptist circles.

I will not waste any more time discussing this with someone who is unreasonable, closed-minded and entirely convinced of their infallibility. Which is sad because every point you raised is easily answerable, but your belief in your own infallibility will cause you to reject anything I say out of hand.

 

I am not the one unreasonable. You are forcing "tradition" on me. That is wrong. You have the wrong word. Learn some English!
Of course I am fallible, do not have a perfect theology, etc. No one does.
I study my Bible; I come to my own conclusions. Why is that hard for you to accept?
The Bereans did the same thing:
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.

Now throughout these posts I have given you plenty of Scripture to show that following the traditions of men is wrong. We are commanded not to.
Yet you say I do, and can't prove that I do. You make false accusations and I have no idea what you are talking about. What traditions?
You haven't proved your case at all. The Bible commands us to obey the commands of God to the exclusion of the traditions of men. You say I am influenced by the traditions of men to the exclusion of the Word of God. Hence, in your opinion, I have the wrong interpretation.
You have tradition; you have the wrong interpretation. That is what Christ told the scribes and Pharisees. They relied on their tradition. It was wrong.

So if you can prove me wrong according to the Word of God then do so.
Otherwise don't falsely accuse me.

 

So it's OK for you to say I am relying on tradition, but I can't say the same to you?

 

You brought up the subject. You first accused me of relying on "your tradition" (your exact words). Thus, I turned the tables and used your exact words against you. Now according to your last post, (and the one before that), you believe everyone has tradition, including yourself. So you need to explain yourself.
Is it RCC tradition? The tradition of Calvin? Lutheran tradition? What tradition are you speaking of, especially tradition that affects the outcome of what you believe. I can understand if you say Calvin. There are many here that can only see the Bible through Calvin's eyes, or through the eyes of TULIP. That comes before the Bible, unfortunately. But that is not me.
You may or may not have tradition; I don't know. You said you did.

 

You're ridiculous. Seriously. Your double standard is amazing.

Of course I have tradition (so do you!). We are raised a certain way, as we grow in the faith we are taught a certain way, all these things all contribute to our traditional understanding of scripture. Hence the definition I supplied earlier: "an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior." Yours is premillennial dispensationalism. As was mine. When I set aside my tradition and actually examined the texts for myself I saw that the tradition I was taught is entirely bankrupt of any value or basis in scripture.

You are IFB correct? I believe you said that earlier. I was IFB for several years. That is one tradition bound group! I have never seen any group of people so bound by and blinded by tradition in my life, except perhaps the cults of Mormonism and JWs. (No I am not saying that IFB is a cult, don't even go there)

If you weren't relying on your tradition to (mis)understand those passages, what were you relying on? It certainly wasn't exegesis!

 

You have not understood my testimony, my background, my education, etc.
Perhaps you were raised in a Christian home and for you that brought what you considered "tradition" and then you changed.

That is not true for myself.
I was raised in a Catholic home where I never heard the gospel, not once.
I did not hear the gospel until I was an adult. I got saved the first time I did hear the gospel at the age of 20. I left the RCC completely a short time afterward never again to return. Its traditions, liturgy and heresy I have put forever behind me.
From that time onward the Bible has been my sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. I read and memorized. Within 3 1/2 years I had memorized the books of Romans, Ephesians, 1 John, James, and scores of individual verses.
Now what tradition has affected my study? None. I forsook heresy and embraced the truth. Within three years after I was saved I found myself in Bible College. I did not consider myself learning tradition in Bible College, but rather the Bible.

You may have grown up with tradition. The tradition I grew up, for the most part, was heretical. I left it all behind and embraced the Bible instead. No, I don't have tradition.

 

So you are absolutely correct, 100%, in your understanding of scripture?

 

I am fully convinced that I am correct in my understanding of the Scripture as I know it. If I wasn't I would change. That doesn't mean I am infallible. I know I don't have all the answers. I will always be learning. I am in a capacity where I am always teaching. That privilege in itself promotes learning.