2Thessalonians 2 From an Orthodox Preterist Perspective

[3 Resurrections]

Insofar as 1Thess 4:15-17 is concerned, Paul is talking about those who are alive at the Parousia.

Not quite. Paul was talking about those who were "alive" and had "REMAINED" until the coming of the Lord. If Paul was merely speaking of those alive at Christ's coming who had not died yet, he would have merely said, "We who are alive...unto the coming of the Lord..." The word "remain" carries the added meaning of a particular group which had been reserved for a set amount of time for a purpose. Something like the verse that says "there remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God."

There is no such thing as a mass translation at Christ's coming of living believers who have not yet died. This would totally contradict the Hebrews 9:27 stipulation that all mankind is appointed to die the ONE time. There is no mention whatever of those "alive and remaining" ones in 1 Thess. 4 being translated. That means that these "alive and remaining" ones Paul spoke of had already been made "alive" in a resurrection process (like Tabitha / Dorcas, Lazarus, etc.).

You do not know this for a fact. Those resurrections were not the norm.

EXACTLY. The Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were definitely NOT the norm. They were the 144,000 First-fruits of Revelation 14:4. They had a "song" to sing which no one but themselves could learn (Rev. 14:3). That means their experience was unique. God used them as part of the answer to the disciples' prayer for God to "send laborers" into the "harvest" of that first century generation before Christ returned.

We know that Christ told the disciples that they themselves would not have gone over the cites of Israel until the Son of Man had come (Matt. 10:23). Yet the gospel of the kingdom was going to be preached in all the world before the end had come (Matt. 24:14). Paul announced that this had taken place in his time (Colossians 1:6, 23). I propose that these indestructible Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were God's means of taking that gospel to the whole world in that first-century generation before Christ's AD 70 return, even when the 12 apostles themselves could not fulfill that promise. Resurrected individuals were uniquely qualified to fulfill that promise. They could never get sick, commit a sin, would never have the responsibility to care for children or a wife, would never be able to die again, would have the ability to travel as rapidly as the risen Christ, were impervious to disease, safe from attacks by devils or Satan, etc. The evangelistic ground that even one of these Matthew 27 resurrected individuals could have covered would have been astounding

For example, where did the OT resurrected saints spend their time after they were raised from the dead?

Where did the deathless Melchizedek spend his time from Abraham's day up until the time Hebrews was written? Hebrews 7:8 said that Melchizedek was still alive at that time. (I believe Melchizedek ascended to heaven in AD 70 at that year's second resurrection event.)

Also, notice the first person plural personal pronoun "WE" in v.15. But Paul died! Ditto for Rom 8:23 -- "but we ourselves".

This "we" is used in the same sense as a male pastor standing in front of a congregation telling them "WE will have a women's meeting after church today." It's the rhetorical "we" Paul used. Paul knew very well that he himself would be dead before Christ returned. Just as he had desired to do, Paul was martyred in AD 68, just before the AD 70 bodily resurrection.

The intended meaning of "we who are alive and remain" is "Those of our number who are alive and remain". Paul was speaking for the whole community of first-century believers in this case.

 

[Rufus]

Not quite. Paul was talking about those who were "alive" and had "REMAINED" until the coming of the Lord. If Paul was merely speaking of those alive at Christ's coming who had not died yet, he would have merely said, "We who are alive...unto the coming of the Lord..." The word "remain" carries the added meaning of a particular group which had been reserved for a set amount of time for a purpose. Something like the verse that says "there remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God."

There is no such thing as a mass translation at Christ's coming of living believers who have not yet died. This would totally contradict the Hebrews 9:27 stipulation that all mankind is appointed to die the ONE time. There is no mention whatever of those "alive and remaining" ones in 1 Thess. 4 being translated. That means that these "alive and remaining" ones Paul spoke of had already been made "alive" in a resurrection process (like Tabitha / Dorcas, Lazarus, etc.).

EXACTLY. The Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were definitely NOT the norm. They were the 144,000 First-fruits of Revelation 14:4. They had a "song" to sing which no one but themselves could learn (Rev. 14:3). That means their experience was unique. God used them as part of the answer to the disciples' prayer for God to "send laborers" into the "harvest" of that first century generation before Christ returned.

We know that Christ told the disciples that they themselves would not have gone over the cites of Israel until the Son of Man had come (Matt. 10:23). Yet the gospel of the kingdom was going to be preached in all the world before the end had come (Matt. 24:14). Paul announced that this had taken place in his time (Colossians 1:6, 23). I propose that these indestructible Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were God's means of taking that gospel to the whole world in that first-century generation before Christ's AD 70 return, even when the 12 apostles themselves could not fulfill that promise. Resurrected individuals were uniquely qualified to fulfill that promise. They could never get sick, commit a sin, would never have the responsibility to care for children or a wife, would never be able to die again, would have the ability to travel as rapidly as the risen Christ, were impervious to disease, safe from attacks by devils or Satan, etc. The evangelistic ground that even one of these Matthew 27 resurrected individuals could have covered would have been astounding


Where did the deathless Melchizedek spend his time from Abraham's day up until the time Hebrews was written? Hebrews 7:8 said that Melchizedek was still alive at that time. (I believe Melchizedek ascended to heaven in AD 70 at that year's second resurrection event.)




This "we" is used in the same sense as a male pastor standing in front of a congregation telling them "WE will have a women's meeting after church today." It's the rhetorical "we" Paul used. Paul knew very well that he himself would be dead before Christ returned. Just as he had desired to do, Paul was martyred in AD 68, just before the AD 70 bodily resurrection.

The intended meaning of "we who are alive and remain" is "Those of our number who are alive and remain". Paul was speaking for the whole community of first-century believers in this case.

So you don't believe in a rapture? What about 1Thes 4:17? What happens to the physically living saints at the Parousia? Do they all drop dead on the spot at the Second Coming so that Christ can just immediately resurrect them?

Also, I didn't ask about Melchizedek. I asked about resurrected OT saints. Melchizedek was very likely a christophany. Take for example the Syrian's widow's son who Elijah raised in 1Kings 17. Where is that man now? Is he still young, or did he age?

And I think your "royal we" argument is weak.

Finally, none of my translations say that it appointed for ALL men or ALL mankind to die once...in Heb 9:27 They all essentially say it is appointed unto men or man once to die.

 

[3 Resurrections]

So you don't believe in a rapture? What about 1Thes 4:17? What happens to the physically living saints at the Parousia? Do they all drop dead on the spot at the Second Coming so that Christ can just immediately resurrect them?

I believe 1 Thessalonians 4:17 has already been fulfilled on Pentecost day in AD 70. All the resurrected saints were gathered to the Mount of Olives location and left this earth with Christ who "received them unto Himself". This included those who had been resurrected earlier - such as those few from the OT, the Matthew 27 saints, Lazarus, Dorcas, Jairus' daughter, etc., along with all the believers who were newly resurrected that 1,335th day which Daniel had predicted. Together, they met the Lord in the air and left this planet.

This is why Felix trembled when Paul spoke about the judgement "about to come", and told him "There is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15 and 25).

And no, the living saints did not "drop dead" at Christ's second coming in AD 70. We know this because they had obeyed Christ's warning to flee from Judea for the mountains when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies in AD 66. After AD 70, we have other records of them returning to the city of Jerusalem's location again.

Here's one quote from Eusebius about Symeon the son of Clopas, whom Eusebius and Hegesippus both credited with leading the Pella believers back to Jerusalem. ''After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention, to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph" (Church History, Book III, Chapter 11).

The "rapture" to heaven was never going to involve the living believers who had not yet died. Most people presume that, but the idea goes totally against the Hebrews 9:27 rule of everyone dying the one time before the judgment. Only the resurrected believers were evacuated to heaven with Christ back in AD 70. When Christ returns again in our future for the third bodily resurrection event, there won't be a "rapture" for that.

Also, I didn't ask about Melchizedek. I asked about resurrected OT saints. Melchizedek was very likely a christophany

No, Melchizedek was not possibly a Christophany. That is because Hebrews 7:3 said that Melchizedek was "made LIKE unto the Son of God." Also, Hebrews 7:15 says that Christ arose as "another priest" that was "after the similitude of Melchizedek". They were different individuals, but similar, because both Christ and Melchizedek had "no beginning of days nor end of life". Personally, I believe Melchizedek was the alias which Enoch adopted, since Enoch was translated that he should not see death. God chose one single man (Enoch) in all of history to translate into a glorified body without dying, so that he could establish the superior, deathless high priesthood order that Christ would also be identified with. And only one man was needed to establish that type. No others have ever or will ever be translated without dying.

 

[Red Baker]

No, not all three of these are the same. The man of sin - THE Antichrist - was one of the many antichrist which John said were presently among them at that "last hour" in that first century (1 John 2:18-19). However, this is not the same thing as the "abomination of desolation". That AOD Luke 21:20 said was "Jerusalem surrounded by armies", something which Christ's disciples would literally see happening in their generation.

3 Resurrections they are~your assertion that Luke 21:20 is something Christ's disciples would literally see, if you are speaking of the then present disciples then you are so wrong. Yes, Jesus was speaking of his disciples seeing this encampeth round about Jerusalem, but your great error is that you want to put everything back into the first century before 70 A.D.~ and take your rubber stamp and stamp FULFILLED 70 A.D.!

John the apostle tells us plainly when Jesus' words shall be fulfilled which where spoken and recorded for us in Luke 21:20. Sir, the bible is its own interpreter, not Josephus' book on the wars of the Jews that you keep right beside you on your desk per your own testimony.

Revelation 20: 7-9~"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

I've been over this with you before and do not mind doing so again for our new friends who might be interesting in knowing our understanding of these scriptures. Notice carefully as I know you will:

And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Sir, these words are a perfect fulfillment of Luke 21:20~after the loosing of Satan ( which you reject since you want to dump everything into 70 A.D. theory upo believe Satan was destroyed in the lake of fire in 70 A.D. ! ) he will go out for a little season and make war with the saints of God and overcome them to a great degree, but not totally. Revelation 13:7
While he encampeth about God's people to destroy them, the end will come for him, and his armies. Sir, Jerusalem since the death of Jesus Christ is not the holy and beloved city! There is only one that fits that bill and it is the Jerusalem which is above, not of this world! God's children now are witnessing the hatred and persecution of the very elect. They are not wanted in the average churches around this world. Besides they themselves have fled Judea~Matthew 24:16 and are warning others not to enter therein! Luke 21:21!

So, you first point is moot.

The "man of sin" phrase was never used as a collective noun in scripture. It was one particular individual, just as 2 Thess. 2 presented him: one single "Son of destruction", (not "sons"), and not the whole collective group of mankind that lives under the power of sin. This has been a condition for all men since the Fall. Nothing has been "restraining" the revealing of the collective wickedness of mankind since the Fall. It has been an obvious fact since then until now, and will be the same until Christ's final THIRD coming.

Well, again your hermeneutics based on Josephus' writings has caused you to twist and pervert God's word. Sir, you ahve been taught that context drives our interpretation of what we are reading and trying to understand, is this not correct.

Consider: 2nd Thessalonians 2:9-12~"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in THEM that perish; because THEY received not the love of the truth, that THEY might be saved. And for this cause God shall send THEM strong delusion, that THEY should believe a lie: That THEY all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

There, it should be clear that Paul goes from the wicked one that shall be revealed to using a collective nouns showing us who he is speaking about! The man of sin; the antichrist that should come in GREAT NUMBERS, and the abomination sitting in the temple of God declaring that they are God, by twisting, corrupting God truths. They preach same sex marriage is okay. They say Sodomy is not a sin anymore. They allow you to bring in every version of the scriptures you feel comfortable with, from the Cotton Patch version to the Rainbow version, to where certain doctrines are removed from the scriptures. They hate the doctrine of free grace, since they think man has some good inherit traits in them~they reject that man is desperately wicked in thoughts and deeds~their god is free will. On and on we could go.

I'm coming back to finish~RB

 

[3 Resurrections]

Yes, Jesus was speaking of his disciples seeing this encampeth round about Jerusalem, but your great error is that you want to put everything back into the first century before 70 A.D.~ and take your rubber stamp and stamp FULFILLED 70 A.D.!

RB my friend, this is not my "rubber stamp" - it is Christ's own "rubber stamp" which He put on all those first-century events that were soon to be fulfilled in that generation. You miss this fact by sticking only with the KJV, which blurred the precision of the original languages on this point.

I quote Luke 21:36 from the YLT. "Watch ye, then, in every season, praying that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are ABOUT TO COME TO PASS, and to stand before the Son of Man." The entire list of "these things" Christ was referring to starts with the disciples question in Luke 21:7, and includes everything that Christ mentioned from Luke 21:8 through Luke 21:35 - as well as His coming on the clouds with power and great glory.

If you don't like the YLT or any of the other literal translations that render this "ABOUT TO" word correctly, then you will go astray in your interpretations of what generation Christ was speaking about who would experience all those great tribulation events and His second coming.

The "false Christs" which Christ predicted would come were going to be rumored by the "false prophets" to appear in the "secret chambers" (Matthew 24:26). These "secret chambers" were a feature of Herod's second temple. The "chamber of secrets" was a room set apart for the collection of anonymous donations for the poor, which were distributed anonymously to the poor at intervals. This means Christ's prophecy regarding the "false Christs" would necessarily have to take place while there was still the "secret chambers" in existence in that second temple. Since it was torn down to the last stone in AD 70, Christ's prediction of these "false Christs" no longer applies since then.

 

[Rufus]

I believe 1 Thessalonians 4:17 has already been fulfilled on Pentecost day in AD 70. All the resurrected saints were gathered to the Mount of Olives location and left this earth with Christ who "received them unto Himself". This included those who had been resurrected earlier - such as those few from the OT, the Matthew 27 saints, Lazarus, Dorcas, Jairus' daughter, etc., along with all the believers who were newly resurrected that 1,335th day which Daniel had predicted. Together, they met the Lord in the air and left this planet.

This is why Felix trembled when Paul spoke about the judgement "about to come", and told him "There is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15 and 25).

And no, the living saints did not "drop dead" at Christ's second coming in AD 70. We know this because they had obeyed Christ's warning to flee from Judea for the mountains when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies in AD 66. After AD 70, we have other records of them returning to the city of Jerusalem's location again.

Here's one quote from Eusebius about Symeon the son of Clopas, whom Eusebius and Hegesippus both credited with leading the Pella believers back to Jerusalem. ''After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention, to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph" (Church History, Book III, Chapter 11).

The "rapture" to heaven was never going to involve the living believers who had not yet died. Most people presume that, but the idea goes totally against the Hebrews 9:27 rule of everyone dying the one time before the judgment. Only the resurrected believers were evacuated to heaven with Christ back in AD 70. When Christ returns again in our future for the third bodily resurrection event, there won't be a "rapture" for that.

No, Melchizedek was not possibly a Christophany. That is because Hebrews 7:3 said that Melchizedek was "made LIKE unto the Son of God." Also, Hebrews 7:15 says that Christ arose as "another priest" that was "after the similitude of Melchizedek". They were different individuals, but similar, because both Christ and Melchizedek had "no beginning of days nor end of life". Personally, I believe Melchizedek was the alias which Enoch adopted, since Enoch was translated that he should not see death. God chose one single man (Enoch) in all of history to translate into a glorified body without dying, so that he could establish the superior, deathless high priesthood order that Christ would also be identified with. And only one man was needed to establish that type. No others have ever or will ever be translated without dying.

Okay...we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your eschatology is a lot different than mine. Plus you never answered my question about the widow's resurrected son. Plus even if you don't believe in the rapture, you have no answer as to what happens to all the living saints upon Christ's Second Coming? Or will there be no living saints when he returns? Finally, you're making Heb 9:27 say way, way more than it is. Since 99.999999999999% of people will taste death, then the passage is speaking to a very solid general rule. The very tiny percentage of exceptions are just that -- exceptions to the general rule. Also, you have failed to show that any resurrected saint in the OT or New were raised with glorified bodies? When Jesus raised the little girl from the dead, did she live forever in her resurrected body? Ditto for Lazarus? Did these people receive glorified bodies before Jesus received his, etc., etc.?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Okay...we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your eschatology is a lot different than mine. Plus you never answered my question about the widow's resurrected son.

I did include a mention in passing of the widow's son . He was included in my list of "those few from the OT, the Matthew 27 saints, Lazarus,..." etc..

Plus even if you don't believe in the rapture, you have no answer as to what happens to all the living saints upon Christ's Second Coming? Or will there be no living saints when he returns?

I don't believe people are understanding the actual events of Paul's "rapture" passage correctly. It's not that I sweep aside this 1 Thess. 4 text about the bodily resurrection of saints and dismiss it totally, as some do. And I did give an answer to what happened to the living saints upon Christ's Second Coming back in AD 70. It was ONLY resurrected saints who participated in that gathering by the angels who were taken by Christ to heaven back then. The living saints remained on earth. What happens at the future third resurrection at Christ's final return will not include a "rapture" at that point.

Finally, you're making Heb 9:27 say way, way more than it is. Since 99.999999999999% of people will taste death, then the passage is speaking to a very solid general rule.

Only one man in all of human history was translated that he should not see death, and that was Enoch. There are no more exceptions. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" is a rule that applies universally to all the rest of humanity save that single man Enoch (aka Melchizedek). I take Hebrews 9:27 at face value. Nobody gets off this planet without passing through the death process. That is GOD'S rule and not mine. To believe otherwise is to believe the serpent's lie to Eve that said, "Ye shall not surely die..."

Also, you have failed to show that any resurrected saint in the OT or New were raised with glorified bodies?

"...Neither CAN they die anymore: and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36). Resurrected believers are incapable of physically dying again. If you claim that any bodily-resurrected saint such as the Matthew 27 saints did not have glorified bodies and could die twice, then you are essentially opening the door to the concept that Jesus Christ can die again also. It is just as impossible for believers in the resurrected state to die again as it is for Christ, since any resurrected bodies of the believers are made "like unto His glorious body".

When Jesus raised the little girl from the dead, did she live forever in her resurrected body? Ditto for Lazarus? Did these people receive glorified bodies before Jesus received his, etc., etc.?

Yes for Jairus' daughter, yes for Lazarus, and yes they did receive a glorified, resurrected body before Christ. What made Christ's resurrection unique above all others was His ascension to God the Father on the day of His resurrection (John 20:17). This was the day when Christ gained the unique "First-born" and "First-begotten" title when God told the Son, "THIS DAY have I begotten thee". Nobody before then had been able to ascend to heaven in a glorified, resurrected body form and stand in God's presence until Christ had FIRST opened up the way for His siblings to follow Him later on. All the examples of resurrected individuals on the planet that we have in scripture remained on the earth in those glorified body forms until they were given access to heaven's temple on Pentecost day in AD 70. This was after the last 7th trumpet judgment had sounded back then (Rev. 15:8).

 

[Rufus]

Hey, 3 Resurrections, I'm still waiting on an answer about all the people who were resurrected BEFORE Christ: Were they resurrected in their mortal bodies or in glorified immortal bodies?

Also, re Melchizedek here's an interesting link to read:

Who was Melchizedek? | GotQuestions.org

Who was Melchizedek (also spelled Melchisedek or Melchisedec)? Why did Abraham give a tithe to the King of Salem?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[3 Resurrections]

Hey, 3 Resurrections, I'm still waiting on an answer about all the people who were resurrected BEFORE Christ: Were they resurrected in their mortal bodies or in glorified immortal bodies?

There is no such thing as being resurrected in a mortal body. Any bodily resurrection granted to a saint involves a change in that form which renders it incorruptible and immortal. A resurrected body has "put on immortality" and has "put on incorruption", according to 1 Corinthians 15:52-54. Death is swallowed up in victory at that point.

But the terms of our salvation involve more than just getting above ground in that glorified, immortal, incorruptible state. Our final destiny is to be "presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24). Our salvation will not be complete until that full fellowship is restored to us in a face-to-face fellowship with our Creator.

 

[Rufus]

There is no such thing as being resurrected in a mortal body. Any bodily resurrection granted to a saint involves a change in that form which renders it incorruptible and immortal. A resurrected body has "put on immortality" and has "put on incorruption", according to 1 Corinthians 15:52-54. Death is swallowed up in victory at that point.

But the terms of our salvation involve more than just getting above ground in that glorified, immortal, incorruptible state. Our final destiny is to be "presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24). Our salvation will not be complete until that full fellowship is restored to us in a face-to-face fellowship with our Creator.

Then how is Jesus the "first fruits" of the New Creation? How come Paul didn't tell the Church that we're going to have the same kind of body that all the other resurrected people have who have gone before Jesus? Since Jesus wasn't the Glorified Body prototype, why did Paul just limit our bodies to being like his? Finally, where did these resurrected OT and NT saints go after they were resurrected? Are they still hanging out here on the planet or did they go to heaven?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Then how is Jesus the "first fruits" of the New Creation?

Both Jesus and the 144,000 of the Matt. 27 saints He raised from the dead the same day were all considered the "First-fruits" (1 Cor. 15:20 and Rev. 14:1-4). This "First-fruits" title was an Israelite agricultural term given to the first sheaf handful of grain of the barley harvest which was to be waved by the priest in the temple and offered along with a single he-lamb without blemish (Leviticus 23:10-12). There was no such thing as a single stalk of Firstfruits. It was a handful of the first grain to ripen.

And there is a distinct difference between the plural title for the group of "First-fruits" in AD 33 and the totally unique title of the "First-born" and the "First-begotten from the dead", which will always and forever belong to Christ Jesus alone. The difference lies in the fact that Christ Jesus was the first to ever ascend to the Father in a glorified, resurrected human body. No one did this before He did. The rest of the "First-fruits" remained on the earth until AD70 and Christ's bodily return to the Mount of Olives.

How come Paul didn't tell the Church that we're going to have the same kind of body that all the other resurrected people have who have gone before Jesus?

He didn't need to, because every bodily resurrection involves the same process resulting in a changed, incorruptible, immortal body form for the resurrected saints.

Since Jesus wasn't the Glorified Body prototype, why did Paul just limit our bodies to being like his?

Jesus was the prototype example of our completed salvation experience. It is not enough to just get above ground by a resurrection process resulting in a glorified body. The final culmination of our resurrection hopes is to stand in the presence of our Creator in that resurrected, glorified body form. In this respect, Jesus was absolutely our prototype when He became the "First-born" and the "First-begotten from the dead" at His resurrection-day ascension to the Father in heaven. None of the OT or NT saints resurrected to life had ascended to heaven before Christ did this in AD 33. He was the first to do this. Something was "born" in heaven that resurrection day which had never been there before.

Finally, where did these resurrected OT and NT saints go after they were resurrected? Are they still hanging out here on the planet or did they go to heaven?

They all left this planet together on Pentecost day in AD 70, exactly on that 1,335th day which Daniel 12:11-13 had predicted long before. That was the "rapture" Paul predicted in 1 Thess. 4. Nothing but resurrected saints participated in that "rapture" event. Most were newly-resurrected on that day, but a very few had been raised to life from OT times and had waited on earth until then for the "better resurrection" event as Hebrews 11:35 & 40 called it.

 

[Rufus]

Both Jesus and the 144,000 of the Matt. 27 saints He raised from the dead the same day were all considered the "First-fruits" (1 Cor. 15:20 and Rev. 14:1-4). This "First-fruits" title was an Israelite agricultural term given to the first sheaf handful of grain of the barley harvest which was to be waved by the priest in the temple and offered along with a single he-lamb without blemish (Leviticus 23:10-12). There was no such thing as a single stalk of Firstfruits. It was a handful of the first grain to ripen.

And there is a distinct difference between the plural title for the group of "First-fruits" in AD 33 and the totally unique title of the "First-born" and the "First-begotten from the dead", which will always and forever belong to Christ Jesus alone. The difference lies in the fact that Christ Jesus was the first to ever ascend to the Father in a glorified, resurrected human body. No one did this before He did. The rest of the "First-fruits" remained on the earth until AD70 and Christ's bodily return to the Mount of Olives.


He didn't need to, because every bodily resurrection involves the same process resulting in a changed, incorruptible, immortal body form for the resurrected saints.


Jesus was the prototype example of our completed salvation experience. It is not enough to just get above ground by a resurrection process resulting in a glorified body. The final culmination of our resurrection hopes is to stand in the presence of our Creator in that resurrected, glorified body form. In this respect, Jesus was absolutely our prototype when He became the "First-born" and the "First-begotten from the dead" at His resurrection-day ascension to the Father in heaven. None of the OT or NT saints resurrected to life had ascended to heaven before Christ did this in AD 33. He was the first to do this. Something was "born" in heaven that resurrection day which had never been there before.

They all left this planet together on Pentecost day in AD 70, exactly on that 1,335th day which Daniel 12:11-13 had predicted long before. That was the "rapture" Paul predicted in 1 Thess. 4. Nothing but resurrected saints participated in that "rapture" event. Most were newly-resurrected on that day, but a very few had been raised to life from OT times and had waited on earth until then for the "better resurrection" event as Hebrews 11:35 & 40 called it.

You still didn't answer my question. Since according to you the widow's son that Elijah raised in 1Kings 17 was raised up in an immortal, glorified body just like Jesus', where did he go after he was resurrected? Did he hang tight on planet earth for over 1,000 years until Pentecost 70 A.D. and then get "raptrued" to heaven?

For that matter, what happened to Enoch and Elijah who never saw death? They too hung out on planet earth until Pentecost 70 A.D., and then were whisked away? In fact, since you make such a huge deal of Heb 9:27, how does their immortality not contradict this passage?

 

[3 Resurrections]

You still didn't answer my question. Since according to you the widow's son that Elijah raised in 1Kings 17 was raised up in an immortal, glorified body just like Jesus', where did he go after he was resurrected? Did he hang tight on planet earth for over 1,000 years until Pentecost 70 A.D. and then get "raptrued" to heaven?

Yes, he did. That widow's son and the few others in his same case were waiting for the time of what Hebrews 11:35 called "the better resurrection". It was "better" because it involved the final transport into the heavens with Christ to stand in God's presence instead of having to remain on this planet in his glorified body until he could join the rest of the saints were bodily resurrected and "raptured" in AD 70.

The same goes for the single example God gave us in scripture of a translated body which was Enoch's (aka Melchizedek). Melchizedek was still alive on earth at the time Hebrews 7:8 was written, waiting for the AD 70 "rapture" into heaven. (As an aside, I believe this is why the book of Jude preserved some of Enoch's prophecy intact, because Enoch / Melchizedek was still around to pass on that prophecy in person.)

As for the prophet Elijah, he did not ascend into God's presence with the whirlwind, but was simply transferred through the sky to another location on earth. About ten years later after His whirlwind transport through the sky, Elijah was still on earth writing that letter to King Jehoram in 2 Chronicles 21:12. If you look at the description of Elijah's whirlwind transport into heaven in the LXX version, it says Elijah "was taken as it were into heaven". From Elisha's viewpoint down below, it appeared to be a transport into heaven and God's presence, but not in actuality. Elijah experienced death as all other men are appointed to do since Adam. As of the time that John 3:13 was written, it said that "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

 

[Rufus]

Yes, he did. That widow's son and the few others in his same case were waiting for the time of what Hebrews 11:35 called "the better resurrection". It was "better" because it involved the final transport into the heavens with Christ to stand in God's presence instead of having to remain on this planet in his glorified body until he could join the rest of the saints were bodily resurrected and "raptured" in AD 70.

The same goes for the single example God gave us in scripture of a translated body which was Enoch's (aka Melchizedek). Melchizedek was still alive on earth at the time Hebrews 7:8 was written, waiting for the AD 70 "rapture" into heaven. (As an aside, I believe this is why the book of Jude preserved some of Enoch's prophecy intact, because Enoch / Melchizedek was still around to pass on that prophecy in person.)

As for the prophet Elijah, he did not ascend into God's presence with the whirlwind, but was simply transferred through the sky to another location on earth. About ten years later after His whirlwind transport through the sky, Elijah was still on earth writing that letter to King Jehoram in 2 Chronicles 21:12. If you look at the description of Elijah's whirlwind transport into heaven in the LXX version, it says Elijah "was taken as it were into heaven". From Elisha's viewpoint down below, it appeared to be a transport into heaven and God's presence, but not in actuality. Elijah experienced death as all other men are appointed to do since Adam. As of the time that John 3:13 was written, it said that "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Wow! I had not idea that preterism could do an equal or better job at twisting eschatology than dispensationalism does.