Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Snatchin' yo people up...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Snatchin' yo people up...

    3 Resurrections There is actually not a single scripture that teaches a translation-type of change for the bodies of LIVING believers when Christ returns. Only a change for the bodies of DEAD believers in a resurrection to incorruptibility.
    Scripture Verse: Matthew 24

    36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

    © Copyright Original Source



    For preterists who believe Jesus "came" in 70 AD at the end of the first Roman/Jewish war after a protracted siege, why would Jesus describe "that day and hour" as people going about their normal business like eating and drinking (activities much curtailed during a protracted siege), marrying, harvesting and preparing food?

    At one point they destroyed the food stocks in the city, a drastic measure thought to have been undertaken perhaps in order to enlist a merciful God's intervention on behalf of the besieged Jews, or as a stratagem to make the defenders more desperate, supposing that was necessary in order to repel the Roman army


    If the food stocks had been destroyed, what would the "men" be collecting and the "women" be grinding/preparing? Also, if those who had "already been translated" were the only people raptured, why would immortal people be collecting and preparing food they do not require for sustenance? Also, if they had glorified like Jesus already, even if they were collecting and preparing food for those who were still mortal, couldn't they break the laws of physics as Jesus did by collecting and preparing the food at superspeeds and by translating at will? Why would Jesus describe a translation event as unexpected amongst people who could translate at will already?

    Also, wouldn't believers have been able to guesstimate the rapture if Jesus and the apostles had taught them that judgment on Jerusalem represented His "coming?"

    I did not post this in her already existing thread because it includes questions meant not only for her and because I did not want her to accuse me of "going off topic" whenever I posed questions she couldn't answer.

  • #2
    Hey again Darfius,

    Happy Labor Day to you, I'm taking advantage of the holiday to check all my forum websites for content today, and came across your post here.

    You are quoting the "one shall be taken and the other left" as if this refers to a "rapture" of the living saints off the planet's surface. That is an assumption, which scripture doesn't agree with.

    In fact, these verses in Matthew 24:36-41 are not the first time when we see this comparison between some being "taken" and others being "left". Neither fate is one that is desirable. There is another example that uses this very same language found in Isaiah 13:14-15 (LXX) which describes the fall of Babylon; a text that Nick in Deeper Waters has already been emphasizing.

    "And they that are LEFT shall be as a fleeing fawn, and as a stray sheep, and there shall be none to gather them: so that a man shall turn back to his people, and a man shall flee to his own land. For whosoever shall be TAKEN shall be overcome; and they that are gathered together shall fall by the sword."

    Here we have the fate of those in Babylon who were going to be "LEFT" being turned into desperate fugitives on the run for their very lives. The fate of those who were going to be "overcome" and "TAKEN" would be to fall by the sword. NEITHER FATE WAS A DESIRABLE ONE TO EXPERIENCE. Babylon's overthrow by the Medes in Isaiah 13:19 was compared to that of Sodom and Gomorrha - as Jerusalem, the "great city" was also spiritually compared to Sodom in Revelation 11:8, and would also be overthrown in like manner.

    I have never said that a "translation" type of change for the bodies of the saints was ever promised in scripture. Only a "change" from the saints' corruptible DEAD bodies into an incorruptible state when they are glorified.

    Also, I have never said that Christ returned at the end of the AD 70 siege. It was earlier than that. I have been very careful to follow Daniel 12:11-13's timeline as to when that resurrection occurred - on the 1,335th day. That AD 70 resurrection was on Pentecost day in AD 70, which was 45 days after Titus had come and set his armies up around Jerusalem, just 5 days after Passover week had started. That left several months after Christ's bodily return to the Mount of Olives on that Pentecost Day until September of that year for the people to suffer within Jerusalem until the city was finally destroyed by the Romans.

    It sounds as if you are confusing a presumed "translation" change for the living with a "change to the incorruptible" for the dead. That's two different concepts entirely.
    Last edited by 3 Resurrections; 09-06-2021, 04:55 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
      Hey again Darfius,

      Happy Labor Day to you, I'm taking advantage of the holiday to check all my forum websites for content today, and came across your post here.
      Despite your presumption and disobedience to the Lord's command to act as a woman in submission, I do believe there is a part of you that is genuinely kind, and it is for the sake of that seed of goodness that I wish you quite well.

      You are quoting the "one shall be taken and the other left" as if this refers to a "rapture" of the living saints off the planet's surface. That is an assumption, which scripture doesn't agree with.
      No assumption, the Lord's own words make it apparent:

      Scripture Verse: Matthew 24

      “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

      ...

      36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Jesus clearly equates His coming with the gathering of His elect. Not just His dead elect as you arbitrarily claim. And certainly not for "glorified" saints still living the drudgery of harvesting and preparing grain they no longer require for sustenance.

      In fact, these verses in Matthew 24:36-41 are not the first time when we see this comparison between some being "taken" and others being "left". Neither fate is one that is desirable. There is another example that uses this very same language found in Isaiah 13:14-15 (LXX) which describes the fall of Babylon; a text that Nick in Deeper Waters has already been emphasizing.

      "And they that are LEFT shall be as a fleeing fawn, and as a stray sheep, and there shall be none to gather them: so that a man shall turn back to his people, and a man shall flee to his own land. For whosoever shall be TAKEN shall be overcome; and they that are gathered together shall fall by the sword."

      Here we have the fate of those in Babylon who were going to be "LEFT" being turned into desperate fugitives on the run for their very lives. The fate of those who were going to be "overcome" and "TAKEN" would be to fall by the sword. NEITHER FATE WAS A DESIRABLE ONE TO EXPERIENCE. Babylon's overthrow by the Medes in Isaiah 13:19 was compared to that of Sodom and Gomorrha - as Jerusalem, the "great city" was also spiritually compared to Sodom in Revelation 11:8, and would also be overthrown in like manner.
      Your citing of the Septuagint is arbitrary, disingenuous and suggests a parallel that doesn't exist in either the Hebrew or the context:

      Scripture Verse: Isaiah 13

      14 Like a hunted gazelle,
      like sheep without a shepherd,
      they will all return to their own people,
      they will flee to their native land.
      15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
      all who are caught will fall by the sword.

      © Copyright Original Source



      The Hebrew has "wehayah" as the sole word before "fleeing fawn" which in no possible context could mean "those who are left". And no one is "left", rather everyone flees "to their own people" and from amongst THOSE (everyone), some are CAPTURED (not taken as in removed) and killed.

      By obvious contrast, when Jesus comes, His elect are gathered, resulting in the "taking" of His elect and the "leaving" of those who are not elect. There is no other possible interpretation.

      I have never said that a "translation" type of change for the bodies of the saints was ever promised in scripture. Only a "change" from the saints' corruptible DEAD bodies into an incorruptible state when they are glorified.
      By your ridiculous interpretation, those who are "taken" are those already in the "glorified" state, though they are still living lives indistinguishable from mortals via harvesting and processing foodstuffs they no longer require for sustenance.

      They are also said to be "marrying and giving in marriage", something Jesus explicitly says the glorified will no longer do because they will be "like the angels". Another direct contradiction of your theory.

      Also, I have never said that Christ returned at the end of the AD 70 siege. It was earlier than that. I have been very careful to follow Daniel 12:11-13's timeline as to when that resurrection occurred - on the 1,335th day. That AD 70 resurrection was on Pentecost day in AD 70, which was 45 days after Titus had come and set his armies up around Jerusalem, just 5 days after Passover week had started. That left several months after Christ's bodily return to the Mount of Olives on that Pentecost Day until September of that year for the people to suffer within Jerusalem until the city was finally destroyed by the Romans.

      It sounds as if you are confusing a presumed "translation" change for the living with a "change to the incorruptible" for the dead. That's two different concepts entirely.
      If at any point during the alleged "coming" of the Lord His people were living under a siege rather than living "normal" lives, then that does not describe the state of existence at the time of His coming that He described. 70 AD is not a viable candidate for the time of His coming for this reason among many others.

      Comment


      • #4
        Scripture Verse: John 12

        9 Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11 for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Why would the chief priests "make plans" to kill someone they would have known was impossible to kill, 3 Resurrections? Obviously the Jews had stories of the immortals who had resurrected into "glorified bodies" in the Old Testament, right? Presumably Lazarus could do the same feats Jesus did, right? Like teleporting, shining like the sun, floating and other feats which easily proved his immortality, no?

        Or is that all idiotic and is the simpler explanation that Lazarus was resurrected to a mortal life which the chief priests planned to snuff out again?

        Scripture Verse: John 11

        43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.

        Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”

        © Copyright Original Source



        Why did Lazarus need help getting out of his grave clothes? Why didn't he simply slough them off as the risen Christ did?

        Comment


        • #5
          Darfius, if a translation type of change at the rapture was going to occur for the bodies of those saints who are still living, this would make Hebrews 9:27 into a lie. It truly is appointed unto every man to die ONCE - and NOT TWICE. Lazarus did not die twice. If the chief priests wished they could kill Lazarus again and were making plans to that effect, that is NOT proof that this was even a possibility. As the old saying goes, "If wishes were horses, beggars might ride".

          At the cross, Jesus gave the care of His mother Mary into the "beloved disciple's" hands. That "beloved disciple" was the beloved Lazarus. Jesus planned well for Mary's senior care by entrusting her to a man who could never die, get sick, commit a sin, become weak, or fall prey to temptation. Or have a wife and children who would otherwise require his support.

          Knowing the Jews were on the lookout for him with their evil designs, Lazarus adopted many aliases to keep a low profile. It wasn't that he feared for his own life, but to prevent Mary from being targeted for persecution by the Jews by her association with himself. A list of these aliases includes the name for the "beloved Barnabas" the "Son" who "consoled" Mary after Christ's ascension back to heaven. Also, another name was John Eleazar (from which the Lazarus name derives), as mentioned in the Secret Gospel of Mark . Lazarus was also the rich young ruler that Jesus loved, and who eventually gave up his attachment to his rulership position that came with great riches. Lazarus was also John the beloved disciple (NOT John the Apostle, son of Zebedee). Lazarus supplied the material for the gospel of John, the epistles - and Revelation. The author of Revelation was purportedly plunged into a vat of boiling oil by Nero's orders, and emerged unhurt. Tertullian and Jerome mention this incident, and it was recorded in the first edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Since that vat of boiling oil failed to kill him, John / aka Lazarus was sent to the island of Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse. If this incident actually did occur, it really isn't all that miraculous, since Lazarus being a glorified, incorruptible, resurrected saint could never be injured by anything, not even an attempt to deep-fat fry him to death.

          As for the original point of your post, the question concerning why people would be going about their regular activities in the "days of the Son of Man", we are told in I Thess. 5:1-7 that the "children of the night" would be the ones unaware and unconcerned with the coming Day of the Lord. They would be saying "Peace and Safety" and would have sudden destruction come upon them while in that undisturbed state of mind. On the other hand, the "children of the day" believers that Paul was addressing were NOT unaware of the times and the seasons when that Day of the Lord would occur - in THEIR generation .

          This wasn't just a single 24-hour "Day" of the Son of Man in question. It is also called "DAYS" (PLURAL) of the Son of Man in Luke 17:26. Just as it was in the DAYS (PLURAL) of Noah, so would it be in the DAYS (PLURAL) of the Son of Man just before His coming in AD 70 at that year's Pentecost Day. James 5:1-6 scolded the rich men of his day who had "heaped treasure together in the last days", and who had held back part of the wages of those reaping harvests in their fields. This was ordinary harvesting and reaping grain, right up until the "coming of the Lord", who in those "last days" was "standing before the door", ready to return and gather His resurrected saints in the rapture.
          Last edited by 3 Resurrections; 09-10-2021, 11:02 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
            Darfius, if a translation type of change at the rapture was going to occur for the bodies of those saints who are still living, this would make Hebrews 9:27 into a lie. It truly is appointed unto every man to die ONCE - and NOT TWICE. Lazarus did not die twice. If the chief priests wished they could kill Lazarus again and were making plans to that effect, that is NOT proof that this was even a possibility. As the old saying goes, "If wishes were horses, beggars might ride".
            Why would the Bible waste space describing the hopeless plans of the priests? Especially when their plans to kill Jesus were successful? You make even less sense than usual.

            You've been corrected on Hebrews 9:27 before, but let's delve deeper into why you're wrong.

            The Greek word translated "appointed" in the KJV is "apokeimai", which is used three other times in the Greek New Testament:

            Luk 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
            Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
            2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
            Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
            All verses KJV

            Every other time, the word is translated "laid up" and it means "reserved". Reserving means to keep. Death is kept for men, not appointed to them. In fact, the Bible says death is the penalty of sin (Rom 6:23) and that "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and would prefer that they repent and live." So God would never "appoint" death to anyone, but it is the common lot of men that all sin and therefore all die (Romans 5:12). So death is "kept" for all men. Hebrews 9:27 says nothing about restricting the number of times a man may die. In fact, there is nowhere in Scripture that guarantees that in our resurrected bodies we will be incapable of sin. That the angels sinned without the excuse of a fallen body suggests the very opposite. Your argument here is dead in the water...again!

            Hebrews 9:27 — 1890 Darby Bible (DARBY)


            27 And forasmuch as it is the portion [better represents the concept of 'reserved'] of men once to die, and after this judgment;



            At the cross, Jesus gave the care of His mother Mary into the "beloved disciple's" hands. That "beloved disciple" was the beloved Lazarus. Jesus planned well for Mary's senior care by entrusting her to a man who could never die, get sick, commit a sin, become weak, or fall prey to temptation. Or have a wife and children who would otherwise require his support.

            Knowing the Jews were on the lookout for him with their evil designs, Lazarus adopted many aliases to keep a low profile. It wasn't that he feared for his own life, but to prevent Mary from being targeted for persecution by the Jews by her association with himself. A list of these aliases includes the name for the "beloved Barnabas" the "Son" who "consoled" Mary after Christ's ascension back to heaven. Also, another name was John Eleazar (from which the Lazarus name derives), as mentioned in the Secret Gospel of Mark . Lazarus was also the rich young ruler that Jesus loved, and who eventually gave up his attachment to his rulership position that came with great riches. Lazarus was also John the beloved disciple (NOT John the Apostle, son of Zebedee). Lazarus supplied the material for the gospel of John, the epistles - and Revelation. The author of Revelation was purportedly plunged into a vat of boiling oil by Nero's orders, and emerged unhurt. Tertullian and Jerome mention this incident, and it was recorded in the first edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Since that vat of boiling oil failed to kill him, John / aka Lazarus was sent to the island of Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse. If this incident actually did occur, it really isn't all that miraculous, since Lazarus being a glorified, incorruptible, resurrected saint could never be injured by anything, not even an attempt to deep-fat fry him to death.
            This is all worthless speculation that you did not even attempt to substantiate. I agree that John and Lazarus may have been the same individual, but none of this supports the notion that he was an immortal. In fact, John even refutes that notion directly (John 21:23). You even cite an extrabiblical, Gnostic source in "the secret gospel of Mark".

            As for the original point of your post, the question concerning why people would be going about their regular activities in the "days of the Son of Man", we are told in I Thess. 5:1-7 that the "children of the night" would be the ones unaware and unconcerned with the coming Day of the Lord. They would be saying "Peace and Safety" and would have sudden destruction come upon them while in that undisturbed state of mind. On the other hand, the "children of the day" believers that Paul was addressing were NOT unaware of the times and the seasons when that Day of the Lord would occur - in THEIR generation .

            This wasn't just a single 24-hour "Day" of the Son of Man in question. It is also called "DAYS" (PLURAL) of the Son of Man in Luke 17:26. Just as it was in the DAYS (PLURAL) of Noah, so would it be in the DAYS (PLURAL) of the Son of Man just before His coming in AD 70 at that year's Pentecost Day. James 5:1-6 scolded the rich men of his day who had "heaped treasure together in the last days", and who had held back part of the wages of those reaping harvests in their fields. This was ordinary harvesting and reaping grain, right up until the "coming of the Lord", who in those "last days" was "standing before the door", ready to return and gather His resurrected saints in the rapture.
            Nothing about the Matthew account precludes those who are taken from being previously aware of their gathering. In fact, as I've already pointed out, Jesus explicitly equates His coming with the gathering of His elect, a point you ignored. You are suggesting a different separation from the gathering/leaving that He Himself describes.

            As usual, you are assuming your ridiculous version to be correct despite the insurmountable proof against it. All so you can have the "gnosis" no one else does.

            Comment


            • #7
              Darfius, you have claimed that "Hebrews 9:27 says nothing about restricting the number of times a man may die." Are you serious? The very reason this statement was written, "And AS it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE..." was to directly compare it to Christ's experience in Hebrews 9:28; "SO Christ was ONCE OFFERED to bear the sins of many;" Hebrews 9:27-28 was proving that since Christ ONLY DIED ONCE when He was offered to bear the sins of many, then in the same manner, mankind is ALSO appointed "ONCE TO DIE" - and ONLY ONCE. Don't you remember what an "AS / SO" comparison is? It's a writing technique that presents a mirror image of two concepts or two things that are exactly reflective of each other. The "reserved" status you connect with this "appointed" word only gives added confirmation that this "one-time-only" death experience for Christ and mankind is an assured thing.

              And if you think that the resurrected saints are still capable of sinning after their glorification, then you have a strange idea of what being made "incorruptible" and "immortal" means. Also, you must have no perception of what the "elect" are - either "elect angels" or "elect children of God". In the eternal state, we will be preserved in a perpetually-righteous state by the power of God - not our own power. What do you think God intended our total "salvation" package to save us from? Do you really think God intends to leave us dangling in suspense through all eternity that we just MIGHT sin again and be separated from Him once again? NO. You underestimate God's power over the saints to "save to the uttermost" in the eternal state.

              You claim I have "ignored" the fact of Christ's coming being connected with the gathering of His elect. On the contrary, I speak of this constantly on this website and several others where I post. The "DAYS of the Son of Man" in those "DAYS of vengeance" upon that "wicked generation" who rejected their Messiah was the same period that had Christ coming in glory on the Mount of Olives to gather all His resurrected saints and take them back to heaven with Him. This was "IMMEDIATELY AFTER" the "Great Tribulation" period which had begun in AD 66 in the Fall, and which concluded in AD 70.

              Jesus was going to judge BOTH the living AND the dead at His appearance and His kingdom. Paul said this was ABOUT TO HAPPEN in II Timothy 4:1, written around AD 66. Those first-century "days of vengeance" were the method by which Christ judged the LIVING by all the plagues they experienced in that first-century generation, prior to Jerusalem's destruction. That soon coming "judgment of the DEAD" was the annihilation of the wicked dead at Christ's appearance, and the judgment of rewards given to the resurrected saints on that year's Pentecost Day. Daniel was promised that he would share that resurrection experience at the end of that 1,335th day.

              As for the identity of John / Lazarus, I'm glad you can see that the beloved disciple John and the beloved Lazarus are probably the same person. But it amazes me that you can't understand that Lazarus / John as a resurrected saint was given immortality. If the King of kings is the only one with immortality (I Tim. 6:16), then anyone who is IN CHRIST is also guaranteed to share His immortality in the resurrected state. I Cor. 15:51-54 promised this immortality to all the dead resurrected saints who would be "changed" into this condition upon their resurrection.
              Last edited by 3 Resurrections; 09-11-2021, 03:38 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Forgive my late response, I had some personal issues to deal with.

                Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
                Darfius, you have claimed that "Hebrews 9:27 says nothing about restricting the number of times a man may die." Are you serious? The very reason this statement was written, "And AS it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE..." was to directly compare it to Christ's experience in Hebrews 9:28; "SO Christ was ONCE OFFERED to bear the sins of many;" Hebrews 9:27-28 was proving that since Christ ONLY DIED ONCE when He was offered to bear the sins of many, then in the same manner, mankind is ALSO appointed "ONCE TO DIE" - and ONLY ONCE. Don't you remember what an "AS / SO" comparison is? It's a writing technique that presents a mirror image of two concepts or two things that are exactly reflective of each other. The "reserved" status you connect with this "appointed" word only gives added confirmation that this "one-time-only" death experience for Christ and mankind is an assured thing.

                And if you think that the resurrected saints are still capable of sinning after their glorification, then you have a strange idea of what being made "incorruptible" and "immortal" means. Also, you must have no perception of what the "elect" are - either "elect angels" or "elect children of God". In the eternal state, we will be preserved in a perpetually-righteous state by the power of God - not our own power. What do you think God intended our total "salvation" package to save us from? Do you really think God intends to leave us dangling in suspense through all eternity that we just MIGHT sin again and be separated from Him once again? NO. You underestimate God's power over the saints to "save to the uttermost" in the eternal state.
                Hebrews 9 is discussing the inadequacy of the old sacrificial system to "cleanse our consciences from sin", in part because it required repetition and something which requires repetition is clearly inadequate as a permanent solution. So the point of the "once" motif is to stress that Christ's sacrifice does NOT require repetition as a solution, not to restrict the number of times a man MAY die. In fact, "sin when it is full grown gives birth to death" (James 1:15) and Adam and Eve died the very day they ate of the fruit.

                Conversely, the Lord Jesus said that all who believe in Him shall NEVER die, which would contradict your "all men MUST die once" claim immediately. No, we must distinguish between the separation from God that sin brings about which is the "second death" (and worse) and the physical death that results from the corruption in our bodies. Notice that the verse in question in Hebrew 9 states "and then comes judgment" as a corollary to all men dying. The point of "once" is that men will face JUDGMENT once and not "many times". Since judgment comes only at "the last day", which is ALSO when "the resurrection" occurs, the author referring to a FINAL physical death is more than sufficient to answer to his meaning. There is no need to restrict the number of times man may PHYSICALLY die since that is not the issue. The point is that WHEN man dies, then and only then shall he face judgment AT THE LAST DAY.

                Christ's "once for all" sacrifice was sufficient to cleanse our consciences from sin because it and He were and are perfect. For reasons too numerous to list, He can help us repent and turn to God for salvation infinitely better than the blood of bulls and goats could. Perfection cannot be improved upon and therefore does not require repetition. But unless you are suggesting that the author was also calling the death of mere men perfection, then you have obviously missed the point. We die daily because we sin daily and our physical death is merely an inevitable consequence of that sin. Why would God limit the number of times we could die if our death has no salvific or destructive effect inherently?

                You are also clearly in error when you suggest the resurrection could occur before "the last day", referring to the last day within normal time. In fact why would Jesus resurrect a very small portion of His people and leave the rest to languish in death for thousands of years? How is this claim different from that of Hymenaeus that the resurrection has already come (2 Timothy 2:18)?

                God has never and will never do away with our free will. The reason we will have an easier time not sinning in our "incorruptible" bodies is the same reason the holy angels have never sinned. They've never REALLY wanted to. If they had, they would have, which is the same reason the "incorruptible" bodies of the fallen angels WERE capable of sinning.

                You claim I have "ignored" the fact of Christ's coming being connected with the gathering of His elect. On the contrary, I speak of this constantly on this website and several others where I post. The "DAYS of the Son of Man" in those "DAYS of vengeance" upon that "wicked generation" who rejected their Messiah was the same period that had Christ coming in glory on the Mount of Olives to gather all His resurrected saints and take them back to heaven with Him. This was "IMMEDIATELY AFTER" the "Great Tribulation" period which had begun in AD 66 in the Fall, and which concluded in AD 70.

                Jesus was going to judge BOTH the living AND the dead at His appearance and His kingdom. Paul said this was ABOUT TO HAPPEN in II Timothy 4:1, written around AD 66. Those first-century "days of vengeance" were the method by which Christ judged the LIVING by all the plagues they experienced in that first-century generation, prior to Jerusalem's destruction. That soon coming "judgment of the DEAD" was the annihilation of the wicked dead at Christ's appearance, and the judgment of rewards given to the resurrected saints on that year's Pentecost Day. Daniel was promised that he would share that resurrection experience at the end of that 1,335th day.
                It occurs to me that your theory requires there to have been at least 144,000 resurrected and immortal people walking the earth for decades between the crucifixion and His "coming". And yet despite the fact that we have incredibly detailed accounts of the time period from Josephus for example, we do not have a single account of these individuals from any historical writing from the period whatsoever. Not even a footnote.

                That alone proves the absurdity of your claims.

                As for the identity of John / Lazarus, I'm glad you can see that the beloved disciple John and the beloved Lazarus are probably the same person. But it amazes me that you can't understand that Lazarus / John as a resurrected saint was given immortality. If the King of kings is the only one with immortality (I Tim. 6:16), then anyone who is IN CHRIST is also guaranteed to share His immortality in the resurrected state. I Cor. 15:51-54 promised this immortality to all the dead resurrected saints who would be "changed" into this condition upon their resurrection.
                We dispute the timing of the resurrection, not its imparting of immortality. The Bible says it shall happen "at the last day". You, like the apostate Hymenaeus, claim it is already past.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                  . So the point of the "once" motif is to stress that Christ's sacrifice does NOT require repetition as a solution, not to restrict the number of times a man MAY die....

                  Conversely, the Lord Jesus said that all who believe in Him shall NEVER die, which would contradict your "all men MUST die once" claim immediately.
                  Darfius, you are clearly missing the connection that Hebrews 9:28 and Hebrews 9:27 made between the non-repeatable death experience of Christ's sacrifice and the non-repeatable death sentence we experience as believers. You are missing the forest for the trees. There is DEFINITELY a restriction to a one-time event of death for both the saints and Christ. Because Christ's one-time death experience was all-sufficient, that put a limit on the saints' own physical death experience to a one-time only event.

                  The Lord Jesus said in John 11:26 that "He that liveth and believeth in me shall not die forever." This is directly following v. 25, "I am the resurrection and the life, Whoever believes in me will live, even though he dies." Christ acknowledged that physical death would come to believers, but even though they would die that one time, they would not die forever, or "to the age" (YLT). Death would not keep a permanent hold on them. This in no way contradicts Hebrews 9:27.

                  You asked why God would allow a majority to "languish in death for many years" while resurrecting just a small portion of His people. I never said the second resurrection was a small minority. In fact, Revelation says that those who came out of the Great Tribulation (which ended in AD 70) were too numerous for anyone to count. This is vastly more than the First Resurrection of the Matthew 27 saints, which amounted to a limited 144,000 First-fruits raised from the dead with Christ.

                  Hymenaeus' doctrinal error was in thinking that the impressive 144,000 "First-fruits" amount of Matthew 27 saints raised form the dead were the only resurrection that would ever happen. In a sense, Hymenaeus was correct - that Matthew 27 "First resurrection" event WAS past already, but it was NOT the only group resurrection event that God had planned. He had TWO MORE resurrection events planned after that First resurrection in AD 33, with the last resurrection in our future being the largest one of all.


                  You are incorrect that there is no scriptural evidence or extra-biblical proof of the Matthew 27 saints remaining on earth for those few decades until AD 70. Do you need a list of the couple dozen or so references which speak of the identity and / or activities of this group? I can give you a link if you wish. Also, the Book of Nicodemus has an account of the Matthew 27 saints, and Eusebius preserves a quote from Quadratus which mentions the ones Christ resurrected remaining on earth.

                  James 5:3 already said that the "last days" were then in progress. So did Hebrews 1:1. Hebrews 9:26 said that "the consummation of the ages" was then in place. I John went even farther and said that the "last HOUR" had arrived back then. I Peter 4:7 also said that "the end of all things is AT HAND" in his days. Way too many references to something being "last" in those first-century days. They were describing the end of THAT age, but not the end of fallen man's history on this planet, which will be in our future.


                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by seanD, 10-15-2021, 07:32 PM
                  77 responses
                  450 views
                  1 like
                  Last Post rogue06
                  by rogue06
                   
                  Started by Thoughtful Monk, 10-15-2021, 01:04 PM
                  74 responses
                  487 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                  Working...
                  X