"Appointed unto men ONCE to die" contradicts the rapture's "translation" myth

[Darfius]

Won't be perfect until Heaven.

Any Scripture to support that tradition of man? Jesus told us to be perfect. He didn't say, "when you get to heaven, be perfect." These are excuses you make for the sin you do not wish Him to save you from.

[Christianbookworm]

Those two died again, so more of a revivication/resuscitation. Who knows where she gets her interpretation from.

[Christianbookworm]

Any Scripture to support that tradition of man? Jesus told us to be perfect. He didn't say, "when you get to heaven, be perfect." These are excuses you make for the sin you do not wish Him to save you from.

Sanctification is a process. Not sure why it has to be a process, I'dlove it if I never sinned. But God is wiser than I. Why would there be so many exhortations to not act badly in the Epistles if Christians automatically never sin?

[Darfius]

Sanctification is a process. Not sure why it has to be a process, I'dlove it if I never sinned. But God is wiser than I. Why would there be so many exhortations to not act badly in the Epistles if Christians automatically never sin?

I didn't say it was "automatic". You're right, it's a process. But a process that goes either faster or slower depending on who is undergoing it. If you would "love" not to sin, then why do you? Are you incapable of not doing so? Is there ever a time when you choose not to sin? If you are capable of it sometimes, why not always?

[Christianbookworm]

I didn't say it was "automatic". You're right, it's a process. But a process that goes either faster or slower depending on who is undergoing it. If you would "love" not to sin, then why do you? Are you incapable of not doing so? Is there ever a time when you choose not to sin? If you are capable of it sometimes, why not always?

Because I don't always know I'm doing or saying the wrong thing.

[Darfius]

Because I don't always know I'm doing or saying the wrong thing.

So you never knowingly sin?

[Christianbookworm]

So you never knowingly sin?

Do you?

[Darfius]

Do you?

Yes. Your turn.

[Christianbookworm]

Yes. Your turn.

Then why do you keep harping on the petfection thing? And it's been a few years since the Mandela
thread. Still think it's relevant? Or have you moved on to legalism?

[Darfius]

Then why do you keep harping on the petfection thing? And it's been a few years since the Mandela
thread. Still think it's relevant? Or have you moved on to legalism?

The fact that you are avoiding the question doesn't bode well for your "I'd love to not sin" claim. That's what I mean when I say you're a lip service Christian.

Of course the Mandela effect is still relevant, since the world is being altered around us in a fashion even worse than predicted (predictively propgrammed) in 1984 in preparation for the Borg/hive mind of the beast and worldwide groupthink that is nearly upon us:

There used to be an empire larger than Russia that existed until the 18th century known as Tartary. Bet you've never heard of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartary

Jesus was never a carpenter, he was a stoneMASON (emphasis mine): https://leadership.lifeway.com/2017/...-a-stonemason/

Delilah now has a servant cut Samson's hair instead of doing it herself:

Scripture Verse: Judges 16

¹⁹ After putting him to sleep on her lap, she called for someone to shave off the seven braids of his hair, and so began to subdue him. And his strength left him.

© Copyright Original Source

There was now always a hotel in front of the WTC towers, including on 9/11:

Advising you to love Jesus in the manner He instructed you to love Him is not legalism.

[Christianbookworm]

And that looney tunes is why I don't answer your question! You think my not believing you counts as sin.

[3 Resurrections]

Hi Darfius and Christianbookworm,

The two young boys raised to life by both Elijah and Elisha were NOT "resuscitations". And after 4 days of lying in a tomb and beginning to stink, there is no question that Lazarus' soul had departed his body. That was no "resuscitation" case either. In the list of historical examples of the faithful, Hebrews 11:35 says that "Women received their DEAD RAISED TO LIFE AGAIN..." This was a direct reference to the two young boys of the two mothers for whom the two prophets, Elijah and Elisha, had performed bona-fide resurrections.

Darfius, those two examples you gave of Lazarus and the young boy raised by Elisha are not any different than those that the disciples were raising from the dead during Christ's ministry. Jesus had given them power to do so, and had sent them into numerous cities to "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead..." (Matthew 10:8). It takes the power of the Spirit to raise the dead - both spiritually and physically. If you are claiming that this gift of resurrection can be lost in death again for a second time, then you might as well say that you can kill the Holy Spirit as well, since it is HIS power that enables a soul to return to a dead body form, rendering it incorruptible. There is absolutely NO scripture evidence given that says any of those individuals resurrected in scripture died again. It has been a PRESUMPTION that has no actual scripture proof to stand on. Moreover, it directly contradicts Hebrews 9:27 that strictly limits our physical death to ONE occasion only, which is then followed later on by the judgment - NOT by another death process. There is NO double-jeopardy when it comes to our physical death. In the same way that "Christ being raised from the dead DIETH NO MORE; DEATH HATH NO MORE DOMINION OVER HIM" (Rom. 6:9), so we too, once physically raised from the dead, also will DIE NO MORE, because our resurrection is performed in an imitation of His (the "joint heirs with Christ" reality for the saints in Romans 8:17).

Every example you can give of a person given the gift of being resurrected before AD 70 is an example of someone who "lived and remained" on earth until the 7th plague had ended and the 7th trumpet had sounded when the time of the dead came to be judged. That particular resurrection was the AD 70 second resurrection event, the one that the Apostle Paul told both Timothy and Felix was "ABOUT TO BE" (II Tim. 4:1, and Acts 24:15). It was only then in AD 70 that bodily-resurrected people were allowed access to heaven's temple. Revelation 15:8 mentions that time restriction when the temple was finally opened up for people to enter.

Christ raised Lazarus whom He loved from the dead for some very important practical reasons. Lazarus was the "beloved disciple" standing at the foot of the cross to whom Jesus entrusted with His own mother's care before He died. Lazarus the "beloved" became Mary's "Son" to console her after Jesus died (the "Son of Consolation"); a man who could never die again, get sick, injured, or feeble, or commit a sin - ever again. This was senior citizen care that Christ mercifully provided for His own mother that would continue after He left this earth. And the "beloved disciple" Lazarus fulfilled this task until her death. Lazarus used several pseudonyms just for Mary's protection, since the Jews had wanted to get rid of Lazarus (and anyone connected with him), because many were believing on Jesus due to Lazarus being raised from the dead (John 12:10-11).

Lazarus is yet another fascinating scripture subject of a resurrected individual who "remained" on earth until Jesus returned in AD 70. Just like the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints, there is more about Lazarus in scripture than people realize.

[Sparko]

Hey again Sparko,

The church fathers have never had everything nailed down doctrinally, even from the days of the early church when doctrines contrary to Paul's and the disciples' teaching had already corrupted the church. Neither did succeeding centuries of theologians have everything correct. It is not a matter of "pride" as you say, to come to God's Word with open hands, ready to receive teaching from the Spirit alone. When you charge that what I'm presenting comes from pride, this is an accusation that you cannot prove, and one that I cannot offer a defense against either. We don't know one another personally by character, so rather than just guess at motives, it's better to just speak about the words of God alone. I have read through quite a bit of commentaries in my husband's library (he is historicist in eschatology, a Southern Baptist elder, and with a strong affection for the Puritan writers and Reformed doctrine). None of the authors in his library teach point-for-point what I'm saying, but from gleaning bits here and there from their works, and from online research, and especially by referring to scripture as best as I am able to in the Interlinear Greek, all this combines to form a homogenous whole in sync with the scripture. As far as I can tell, there are NO internal contradictions in this paradigm.

Revelation 20 speaks of the two resurrections already fulfilled in both AD 33 and the second resurrection soon to come in AD 70, with all the events leading to that near AD 70 resurrection that were "AT HAND" in John's days. That's "presently near" - to THEM.

The "thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge" (Rev. 20:4) were the 12 thrones of the disciples that Jesus promised to give them, back in Matthew 19:28. After the "regeneration" when Christ was resurrected in the "First resurrection" and then sat upon the throne of His glory, the disciples on earth were given authority over the affairs of the early church, judging matters of dispute, and establishing Christ's doctrines from the church based in Jerusalem when the "12 tribes of Israel" were still in existence. Think of the case of Ananias and Sapphira, the dispute about circumcision, selecting deacons, distributing charitable donations, etc. These "12 thrones" for the disciples were meant to be a reflection of the "thrones of judgment in Jerusalem, whither the tribes go up; the tribes of the Lord..." back in Psalms 122:4.

These 12 thrones for the 12 disciples set the stage for the Revelation 20 context, and anchor the first-century as the main focus of the majority of this chapter. John saw a varied group of saints, both dead AND even some still living at that time, who had either been martyred for God (like the prophets under Jezebel for example), or who had actually been beheaded (like John the Baptist), or who (like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abedneggo) had never given homage to the Sea Beast. That Sea Beast had existed ever since Nebuchadnezzar's time, 666 YEARS PRIOR to the time John was writing Revelation. During that millennium from 968/967 BC until AD 33 (from Solomon's temple foundation stone being laid down until Christ became the Chief Cornerstone of the True Temple at His ascension) a host of saints had remained faithful to God throughout the various 4 world empires that had demanded homage in one way or another to their pagan religions. It doesn't necessarily follow that all these saints themselves had each "reigned in life" with Christ for the ENTIRE period of a thousand years - start to finish. It just means that their lifetime of "reigning" was at some point contemporaneous with the millennium years when Satan was bound. Their faithfulness to God either resulted in being martyred for their faith, or they had naturally died and were succeeded by other saints who also remained faithful for their natural lifetime sometime during those millennium years .

The Rev. 20:5 "REMNANT (loipoi) of the dead" who "came to life again" were the ones who formed the "First resurrection". That "REMNANT of the dead" was the Matthew 27:52-53 saints who were raised from the dead along with "Christ the First-fruits". "CHRIST THE FIRSTFRUITS" IS indisputably the "FIRST resurrection" event taking place in time. There were also 144,00 of those Matthew 27 resurrected "First-fruits" who, along with Christ, came out of their tombs in AD 33 at the END of the literal thousand-year millennium (that "remnant" being a comparatively smaller number than the second resurrection to follow in AD 70). At that END of the millennium in AD 33, after the war in heaven (for 3-days / 3 nights), Satan was cast out of heaven down to the earth with his angels when Christ ascended. It was the shed blood of the Lamb that He offered on heaven's mercy seat that morning that "overcame" Satan and erased any ability for Satan to accuse the brethren from then on. It's just as I told Darfius on another post: "The millennium ENDED when Christ ASCENDED, and the Devil DESCENDED. All simultaneously.

Since he was kicked out of heaven that morning in AD 33, a wrathful Satan wasted no time, but went out to persecute the early church, knowing he only had a "short time" after AD 33 to do deceptive damage (Rev. 12:12). This is why a persecution from the Jewish leadership sprang up the very same day Stephen was martyred (Acts 8:1). For 3-1/2 years after AD 33, a "flood" of persecution instigated by Saul / Paul raged against men and women of the Jerusalem church. Paul himself said he was "exceedingly mad against them". These persecuted saints "fled into the wilderness" by being scattered from Jerusalem, bringing the gospel with them. When Saul / Paul was converted, that was the "earth swallowing up the waters that the dragon cast out of his mouth". Satan was enraged that his chief opponent to Christ's church had become a believer, so he went out to make war with the "REMNANT of the woman's seed" (the same as the "REMNANT of the dead" Jewish Matthew 27:52-53 saints). These were still present as workers in the early church, because Paul said "we HAVE the FIRST-FRUITS" of the Spirit's work of redeemed men among the church at that time (Rom. 8:23).

The White Throne Judgment took place in AD 70 with the dead standing before God. God used the "Lake of Fire" in Jerusalem to "burn up the chaff" of the wicked dead, and also the entire demonic realm that was imprisoned in that city (Rev. 18:2). God said long ago in Isaiah 31:9 that His "FIRE is in ZION, and His FURNACE IN JERUSALEM". That "furnace of fire" in Jerusalem when the city was experiencing its "second death" (since the nation's first death of destruction under the Babylonian invasion) became the location where God exercised vengeance by disposing of His enemies.

But that doesn't mean that the White Throne Judgment books cannot be opened once more in the final THIRD resurrection for us. Because "we must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (II Cor. 5:10). This is a judgment for giving rewards to the believers (or for not receiving them). As several of you have said above, it is not a judgment that condemns the saints to the grave like the fate of the wicked.

You may not agree with any of this Sparko, but does it at least clarify a few things that I've said? I hope so. If this only muddies the water further, let me know.

Hi 3,

I am not going to try to parse that word salad. You ramble on way too much for me to make any sense out of it. Can you just answer my questions succinctly and clearly?

1. When did the 1000 years occur?
2. When did the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:1-6 occur?
3. When did the second resurrection mentioned in Revelation occur (or will occur) where everyone is judged and if not found in the book of life tossed into the fire?
4. Is that Resurrection (point 3) the same one where you and I will be resurrected? If not where is that one mentioned?

[Sparko]

Hi Darfius and Christianbookworm,

The two young boys raised to life by both Elijah and Elisha were NOT "resuscitations". And after 4 days of lying in a tomb and beginning to stink, there is no question that Lazarus' soul had departed his body. That was no "resuscitation" case either. In the list of historical examples of the faithful, Hebrews 11:35 says that "Women received their DEAD RAISED TO LIFE AGAIN..." This was a direct reference to the two young boys of the two mothers for whom the two prophets, Elijah and Elisha, had performed bona-fide resurrections.

Darfius, those two examples you gave of Lazarus and the young boy raised by Elisha are not any different than those that the disciples were raising from the dead during Christ's ministry. Jesus had given them power to do so, and had sent them into numerous cities to "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead..." (Matthew 10:8). It takes the power of the Spirit to raise the dead - both spiritually and physically. If you are claiming that this gift of resurrection can be lost in death again for a second time, then you might as well say that you can kill the Holy Spirit as well, since it is HIS power that enables a soul to return to a dead body form, rendering it incorruptible. There is absolutely NO scripture evidence given that says any of those individuals resurrected in scripture died again. It has been a PRESUMPTION that has no actual scripture proof to stand on. Moreover, it directly contradicts Hebrews 9:27 that strictly limits our physical death to ONE occasion only, which is then followed later on by the judgment - NOT by another death process. There is NO double-jeopardy when it comes to our physical death. In the same way that "Christ being raised from the dead DIETH NO MORE; DEATH HATH NO MORE DOMINION OVER HIM" (Rom. 6:9), so we too, once physically raised from the dead, also will DIE NO MORE, because our resurrection is performed in an imitation of His (the "joint heirs with Christ" reality for the saints in Romans 8:17).

Every example you can give of a person given the gift of being resurrected before AD 70 is an example of someone who "lived and remained" on earth until the 7th plague had ended and the 7th trumpet had sounded when the time of the dead came to be judged. That particular resurrection was the AD 70 second resurrection event, the one that the Apostle Paul told both Timothy and Felix was "ABOUT TO BE" (II Tim. 4:1, and Acts 24:15). It was only then in AD 70 that bodily-resurrected people were allowed access to heaven's temple. Revelation 15:8 mentions that time restriction when the temple was finally opened up for people to enter.

Christ raised Lazarus whom He loved from the dead for some very important practical reasons. Lazarus was the "beloved disciple" standing at the foot of the cross to whom Jesus entrusted with His own mother's care before He died. Lazarus the "beloved" became Mary's "Son" to console her after Jesus died (the "Son of Consolation"); a man who could never die again, get sick, injured, or feeble, or commit a sin - ever again. This was senior citizen care that Christ mercifully provided for His own mother that would continue after He left this earth. And the "beloved disciple" Lazarus fulfilled this task until her death. Lazarus used several pseudonyms just for Mary's protection, since the Jews had wanted to get rid of Lazarus (and anyone connected with him), because many were believing on Jesus due to Lazarus being raised from the dead (John 12:10-11).

Lazarus is yet another fascinating scripture subject of a resurrected individual who "remained" on earth until Jesus returned in AD 70. Just like the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints, there is more about Lazarus in scripture than people realize.

But as Darfius said, if Jesus was the FIRST Resurrection, (First Fruits) as you have claimed then how do you explain Lazarus and the other people resurrected BEFORE him?

[3 Resurrections]

Hey again Sparko,

Sorry about the "word salad". You're right that it's a lot to wade through. I used to work for several years in a library, so maybe that's the root cause for my wallowing in mounds of verbiage. My only excuse is that Jesus was also called "The WORD" before His incarnation, so maybe He loves words too.

Your #1 question: "When did the 1,000 years occur?"
Answer: The literal one-thousand-year millennium of Rev. 20 ran from 968/967 BC until AD 33. It began with Solomon's temple foundation stone being laid, and lasted until Christ laid Himself down as the True Foundation Stone of the temple not made with hands at His resurrection-day ascension. Rev. 12:12 compared with Rev. 20:3 and 7 proves that the millennium was already past when John was writing Revelation. And there are other scripture indications in the OT of when the already-fulfilled millennium would first begin.

Your #2 question: "When did the first resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:1-6 occur?"
Answer: The "FIRST resurrection" was in AD 33, and was composed of "Christ the First-fruits" and the "remnant of the dead" 144,000 "First-fruits". These were same as the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised along with Him. Christ became the unique "FIRST-born", and the "FIRST-begotten" out of that "FIRST-fruits" group, when He became the FIRST EVER to ascend to the Father in heaven that morning in His resurrected body form. "THIS DAY have I begotten thee..." (in heaven) was fulfilled then.

Your #3 question: "When did the second resurrection mentioned in Revelation occur (or will occur) where everyone is judged and if not found in the book of life tossed into the fire?"
Answer: The SECOND resurrection already took place, (as the New Testament writers - and Christ - predicted was "ABOUT TO" occur), in AD 70 on that year's Pentecost Day; a day pinned down on the calendar by Daniel 12's prediction about the 1,335thday.

Your #4 question: "Is that Resurrection (point 3) the same one where you and I will be resurrected?" If not, where is that one mentioned?
Answer: NO, that second bodily resurrection in AD 70 was NOT the same THIRD bodily resurrection event you and I will experience in the future. I'm already guilty of heaping up a "word salad" describing how the type of the THREE required harvest feast celebrations under Mosaic law (Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles) was meant to prefigure the THREE "harvests" of the dead out of the ground in THREE mass bodily resurrection events spaced out over the span of human history.

James 5:7-8 used this same language that speaks of the coming of the Lord being linked with the timing for BOTH the "early" and "latter rain" periods on the Jewish agrarian calendar. James compared the Lord to "the husbandman" who was waiting with long patience for the "precious fruit of the earth" (the precious dead bodies of His saints) until he received the "EARLY" and "LATTER RAIN". Any Jewish person reading James' words made an instant connection to their own very predictable harvest schedule of rainy seasons. The barley harvest came at Passover. The greater wheat harvest came at Pentecost. Both were linked with the "latter rain" period. At the end of the agricultural year, just before the heavy "early rains" of November set in for the winter season, all the rest of the varied crops in Israel were harvested, with the Feast of Tabernacles celebrating that "ingathering" in the 7th month.

Hosea 6:3 also used this same terminology about the manner of the "coming" of the Lord being linked to the Judean rainy seasons of their agricultural year. "...And HE SHALL COME UNTO US as the rain, as the LATTER and FORMER RAIN unto the earth."

Christ also gave a parable in Luke 12:36-38 about His coming return that warned His disciples to be ready for His return(S). He said that His servants would be blessed if He found them watching and waiting when He came "in the SECOND watch AND (kai) in the THIRD watch". This would be the SECOND (AD 70) and THIRD (our future) mass resurrection events predicted. Do you want the dated year for the third resurrection? I'm not into the whole Harold Camping kind of thing, but it's not a sin to propose a date, you know, in spite of what people presume scripture says about that.