Does the Lord take us to heaven and we reign with Him

[Wordsmith]

I agree we are waiting on only one more resurrection at the coming of the Lord in our future. But there have already been two bodily resurrection events which took place back with "Christ the First-fruits" and the 144,000 First-fruits, Matthew 27:52-53 saints back in AD 33, as well as a second bodily resurrection back in AD 70 at Christ's second coming - the one which all the disciples were anticipating in their near future.

You assume a lot about Matthew 27:52-53. Nothing says this is a resurrection to eternal life. Lazarus was brought back from the grave but died again. This most likely was the same thing. Thhe truth is with no other mention in Scripture we cannot make the leap that these saints were raised to eternal life at that time. I simply does not fit with other resurrection passages.

1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

I see no room in. the above passage for a resurrection to eternal life as related to Matthew 27.

There was no second coming in 70 AD. That does not fit in the above passage either.

And I also agree that scripture does not teach a "pre-trib" rapture. I believe it teaches a rapture for only resurrected saints after the great tribulation of AD 66-70, which took place at Christ's second coming in AD 70. The "rapture" promise was for that first-century generation of saints - not us.

Error!

 

[3 Resurrections]

You assume a lot about Matthew 27:52-53. Nothing says this is a resurrection to eternal life. Lazarus was brought back from the grave but died again. This most likely was the same thing.

Of course both Lazarus and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints experienced a "resurrection to eternal life". God does not perform half-baked resurrections that can be rescinded. Nobody dies twice. That is a common assumption, but it goes totally against the rule in Hebrews 9:27-28. Humanity only experiences a one-time-only physical death appointment. No more, and no less. You will search in vain for a verse which says that Lazarus died again. There is none.

1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

I see no room in. the above passage for a resurrection to eternal life as related to Matthew 27.

There was no second coming in 70 AD. That does not fit in the above passage either.

"Christ the First-fruits" shared that "First resurrection" event with the 144,000 "First-fruits" who literally stood with Him on Mount Zion in the city of Jerusalem on His resurrection day, just as Revelation 14:1 said. Those 144,000 "First-fruits" were the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints who went into the city of Jerusalem that day and were seen of many.''

"They that are Christ's at His coming", which would take place when the "end" came is the very same "end of all things" which 1 Peter 4:7 said was then "at hand" in Peter's days. A prophecy designated as being "AT HAND" is fulfilled in the very same time frame in which the prophecy is first spoken. They are not "prolonged" into "times that are far off". Check your scripture in Ezekiel 12:21-28 for how God defines what an "at hand" prophecy actually is.

 

[Wordsmith]

Of course both Lazarus and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints experienced a "resurrection to eternal life". God does not perform half-baked resurrections that can be rescinded. Nobody dies twice. That is a common assumption, but it goes totally against the rule in Hebrews 9:27-28. Humanity only experiences a one-time-only physical death appointment. No more, and no less. You will search in vain for a verse which says that Lazarus died again. There is none.

1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. So you are telling us Lazarus was the first fruits and not Jesus? Sorry my friend you are not rightly dividing the scriptures.

 

[3 Resurrections]

1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. So you are telling us Lazarus was the first fruits and not Jesus? Sorry my friend you are not rightly dividing the scriptures.

No, I didn't say that Lazarus was called the "First-fruits". That "First-fruits" label was given to Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:20 & 23 and also to the 144,000 "First-fruits" in Revelation 14:4. The resurrected "First-fruits" is the fulfillment of the sheaf handful of First-fruits barley grain waved in the temple at Passover in Leviticus 23:10-12 (a picture of the Matthew 27:52-53 saints), and offered along with a single he-lamb without blemish (a picture of Christ).

That "First resurrection" in AD 33 was the first group "harvested" out of the earth at Passover. Other individuals had been raised from the dead in various isolated cases before then, but this "First resurrection" event was the first massive group all "harvested" from the grave on the same day.

What made Christ's resurrection totally unique among all the other 144,000 "First-fruits" raised that same day was the fact that He was the first to ascend to heaven in a glorified human body. This gave Christ the totally unique title of the "First-born" and the "First-begotten from the dead" who stood face to face with God in heaven in that glorified human body. No one had ever done that before Christ.

 

[Wordsmith]

No, I didn't say that Lazarus was called the "First-fruits".

No you didn’t say he was called the first fruits but you did say he didn’t die again, which means he was raised to immortality. That was was before the resurrection of Jesus which puts you in a theological box you cannot get out of. Revelation 1:5 says Jesus was the first begotten from the dead. No way to spin this.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Revelation 1:5 says Jesus was the first begotten from the dead. No way to spin this.

Yes, Christ was the "First-begotten from the dead". But check your own definition of what "begotten" means as opposed to what God said that word "begotten" means in Psalms 2. "THIS DAY have I begotten thee" was that day when Christ resurrected and then ascended to heaven. This was the day when God directly told Christ to ask Him, and He would give Christ the heathen for His inheritance. That inheritance of the heathen had already been given to Christ (as in Matthew 28:18-20), even before His final ascension in Acts 1, which proves that Christ had already ascended to His father in heaven at least once before Acts 1.

You see, it isn't enough just for our bodies to get above ground in a glorified, immortal condition in a resurrection process. Our salvation inheritance is not complete until we are "presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24). Our face-to-face restored fellowship with God in our glorified body is the culmination of our salvation hopes. This is what being "begotten" by God meant for Christ when He ascended to His father in His resurrected body that morning after His resurrection. He was the "First-born" to do this and "open the matrix" for the rest of His siblings to follow in the same path of physical access to the Father that He had opened up for them to likewise experience afterwards.

 

[Wordsmith]

Yes, Christ was the "First-begotten from the dead". But check your own definition of what "begotten" means as opposed to what God said that word "begotten" means in Psalms 2. "THIS DAY have I begotten thee" was that day when Christ resurrected and then ascended to heaven. This was the day when God directly told Christ to ask Him, and He would give Christ the heathen for His inheritance. That inheritance of the heathen had already been given to Christ (as in Matthew 28:18-20), even before His final ascension in Acts 1, which proves that Christ had already ascended to His father in heaven at least once before Acts 1.

You see, it isn't enough just for our bodies to get above ground in a glorified, immortal condition in a resurrection process. Our salvation inheritance is not complete until we are "presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24). Our face-to-face restored fellowship with God in our glorified body is the culmination of our salvation hopes. This is what being "begotten" by God meant for Christ when He ascended to His father in His resurrected body that morning after His resurrection. He was the "First-born" to do this and "open the matrix" for the rest of His siblings to follow in the same path of physical access to the Father that He had opened up for them to likewise experience afterwards.

You are playing word games to deflect from your claim Lazarus was raised to immortality.

Fact :Jesus raise Lazarus before His own death and resurrection

Fact: Jesus was the first begotten from the dead. Revelation 1:5

Fact : Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruitsof them that slept.

1 Corinthians 15:23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

You are in shifting sand on this issue.

Did the three raised from the dead in the OT have mortal bodies?

Jesus raised two others from the dead did they have immortal bodies?

Peter raised one from the dead did they have an immortal body?

Paul raised one from the dead did they have and immortal body?

As far as my experience you are a party of one making such a claim.

People are revived from the dead everyday in hospitals they all die again.

People in recent history have through pryer been raised from the dead the were not immortal.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You are playing word games to deflect from your claim Lazarus was raised to immortality.

I am sticking word-for-word with God's definitions. He makes a clear distinction between the "First-born", aka, the "First-begotten from the dead" and the "First-fruits". These are not the same thing.

Since when was a "First-fruits" harvest ever composed of a single stalk of grain? "First-fruits" is plural individuals - a group "harvested" out of the grave - not a single individual.

The "First-born" aka the "First-begotten from the dead" IS a single individual. A "First-born" is the very first one born to the father that is followed later in time by other siblings of the family. Someone was "begotten" of God in heaven that morning after the resurrection that had never appeared there before; the Son of Man with a glorified, immortal, resurrected human body stood before the Ancient of Days for the first time ever. No one had ascended into heaven in a resurrected body until that glorified Son of Man did so.

Please don't use the example of hospital resuscitations as examples of a bodily resurrection. This is comparing apples and oranges.

Did the three raised from the dead in the OT have mortal bodies?

Jesus raised two others from the dead did they have immortal bodies?

Peter raised one from the dead did they have an immortal body?

Paul raised one from the dead did they have and immortal body?

Yes, these were all examples of isolated individuals raised to immortal life again. They could not ascend to heaven's temple until later in AD 70 along with those resurrected at that time (as in Revelation 15:8). During those intervening years until AD 70, these individuals who had been made "alive" had "remained" on earth waiting until the group transport to heaven of all the resurrected saints from Creation until that time. The "rapture" doctrine as commonly interpreted has some flaws in it.

 

[Wordsmith]

I am sticking word-for-word with God's definitions. He makes a clear distinction between the "First-born", aka, the "First-begotten from the dead" and the "First-fruits". These are not the same thing.

Since when was a "First-fruits" harvest ever composed of a single stalk of grain? "First-fruits" is plural individuals - a group "harvested" out of the grave - not a single individual.

The "First-born" aka the "First-begotten from the dead" IS a single individual. A "First-born" is the very first one born to the father that is followed later in time by other siblings of the family. Someone was "begotten" of God in heaven that morning after the resurrection that had never appeared there before; the Son of Man with a glorified, immortal, resurrected human body stood before the Ancient of Days for the first time ever. No one had ascended into heaven in a resurrected body until that glorified Son of Man did so.

Please don't use the example of hospital resuscitations as examples of a bodily resurrection. This is comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, these were all examples of isolated individuals raised to immortal life again. They could not ascend to heaven's temple until later in AD 70 along with those resurrected at that time (as in Revelation 15:8). During those intervening years until AD 70, these individuals who had been made "alive" had "remained" on earth waiting until the group transport to heaven of all the resurrected saints from Creation until that time. The "rapture" doctrine as commonly interpreted has some flaws in it.

I would like to see some sources. Who is actually teaching this stuff. There was no "transportation " to heaven in 70 AD. If we had all of the immortals from the OT and the NT running around no OT or NT writer mentions it, no historical record I've ever heard of mentions it.

Trust me if those OT people were raised from the dead to immortality somebody would have notice a immortal person of flesh and bone who lived an extraordinary number of years, who could not be killed or get sick. This is pure fantasy on your part.

John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The last day was NOT in 70 AD!

There was no resurrection in 70 AD there was no return of Christ in 70 AD there was no group of immortals waiting around for 70 AD to come so they could be "transported" to heaven.

You cannot prove any of this from scripture!

 

[3 Resurrections]

Trust me if those OT people were raised from the dead to immortality somebody would have notice a immortal person of flesh and bone who lived an extraordinary number of years, who could not be killed or get sick. This is pure fantasy on your part.

Ever heard of Melchizedek? Hebrews 7:8 testified that Melchizedek was still living at the time Hebrews was written. Melchizedek was in an immortal body, since he had "no end of days", just like the other priest - the resurrected Christ. This isn't fantasy.

I would like to see some sources. Who is actually teaching this stuff. There was no "transportation " to heaven in 70 AD. If we had all of the immortals from the OT and the NT running around no OT or NT writer mentions it, no historical record I've ever heard of mentions it.

Well, Hymenaeus and Philetus are one source. These men were teaching that the resurrection was past already. Where do you think they got that idea? Because of those resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints who had gone into Jerusalem and were seen of many. Hymenaeus and Philetus had either heard of or had actually seen these resurrected individuals, and were falsely teaching that this massive group resurrection of 144,000 First-fruits was the only resurrection event that would ever take place. This was discouraging the faith of some in that generation, who despaired in thinking that their own dead loved ones who had died in Christ after that "First resurrection" in AD 33 had "missed the boat", so to speak.

To counter that error, Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians 4 about the coming resurrection, saying that those who were "alive", but who had "remained" on the earth would not precede the dead believers in being transported to heaven. The dead in Christ would rise FIRST on that occasion. THEN, those who had already been made "alive" (by a resurrection process, like Lazarus) but who had "remained" on the earth would be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.

The last day was NOT in 70 AD!

That is not what all the NT scriptures testify - virtually all of them. The "last days" had turned into "the last HOUR" by the time 1 John 2:18 was written. "Little children, it is the LAST HOUR..." Peter said that "the end of all things is AT HAND" (in his own days). I believe Peter. And John. And Paul, etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

I agree we are waiting on only one more resurrection at the coming of the Lord in our future. But there have already been two bodily resurrection events which took place back with "Christ the First-fruits" and the 144,000 First-fruits, Matthew 27:52-53 saints back in AD 33, as well as a second bodily resurrection back in AD 70 at Christ's second coming - the one which all the disciples were anticipating in their near future.

And I also agree that scripture does not teach a "pre-trib" rapture. I believe it teaches a rapture for only resurrected saints after the great tribulation of AD 66-70, which took place at Christ's second coming in AD 70. The "rapture" promise was for that first-century generation of saints - not us.

The disciples were anticipating it in their near future--unless there was a delay, which there was. 2 Peter 3, for one.

 

[CrowCross]

Well, Hymenaeus and Philetus are one source. These men were teaching that the resurrection was past already. Where do you think they got that idea? Because of those resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints who had gone into Jerusalem and were seen of many. Hymenaeus and Philetus had either heard of or had actually seen these resurrected individuals

How do you know that?

 

[EarlyActs]

re the OP. The nuance of Christ reigning now is imperative. Not indicative. That means he deserves honor and all mankind should be honoring him, let he be angry and smash them, Ps 2.

 

[EarlyActs]

Ever heard of Melchizedek? Hebrews 7:8 testified that Melchizedek was still living at the time Hebrews was written. Melchizedek was in an immortal body, since he had "no end of days", just like the other priest - the resurrected Christ. This isn't fantasy.


Well, Hymenaeus and Philetus are one source. These men were teaching that the resurrection was past already. Where do you think they got that idea? Because of those resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints who had gone into Jerusalem and were seen of many. Hymenaeus and Philetus had either heard of or had actually seen these resurrected individuals, and were falsely teaching that this massive group resurrection of 144,000 First-fruits was the only resurrection event that would ever take place. This was discouraging the faith of some in that generation, who despaired in thinking that their own dead loved ones who had died in Christ after that "First resurrection" in AD 33 had "missed the boat", so to speak.

To counter that error, Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians 4 about the coming resurrection, saying that those who were "alive", but who had "remained" on the earth would not precede the dead believers in being transported to heaven. The dead in Christ would rise FIRST on that occasion. THEN, those who had already been made "alive" (by a resurrection process, like Lazarus) but who had "remained" on the earth would be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.

That is not what all the NT scriptures testify - virtually all of them. The "last days" had turned into "the last HOUR" by the time 1 John 2:18 was written. "Little children, it is the LAST HOUR..." Peter said that "the end of all things is AT HAND" (in his own days). I believe Peter. And John. And Paul, etc.

They do not testify that about 70. The expected the end, but there was a delay. This is all I do all day: find people on one side of the delay doctrine or the other, making either mistake #1 or #2.

 

[3 Resurrections]

They do not testify that about 70. The expected the end, but there was a delay. This is all I do all day: find people on one side of the delay doctrine or the other, making either mistake #1 or #2.

The disciples were anticipating it in their near future--unless there was a delay, which there was. 2 Peter 3, for one.

The disciples had a right to expect the end in their own lifetime, because Christ had said that some of those He spoke to would not have died before He returned with His angels to reward every man according to his works (Matthew 16:27-28). He also told them that the disciples personally would not have finished going over the cities of Israel before the Son of Man had come (Matthew 10:23).

The "delay" you speak of was the delay which led up to the AD 70 return of Christ. "Where is the promise of His coming?" was a question which those first-century scoffers were then saying before AD 70 and Christ's return.

 

[EarlyActs]

The disciples had a right to expect the end in their own lifetime, because Christ had said that some of those He spoke to would not have died before He returned with His angels to reward every man according to his works (Matthew 16:27-28). He also told them that the disciples personally would not have finished going over the cities of Israel before the Son of Man had come (Matthew 10:23).

The "delay" you speak of was the delay which led up to the AD 70 return of Christ. "Where is the promise of His coming?" was a question which those first-century scoffers were then saying before AD 70 and Christ's return.

If you say that, you break the rest of 2 P 3. No thanks.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If you say that, you break the rest of 2 P 3. No thanks.

Perhaps I'm just dense, but can you tell me what you mean by "breaking the rest of 2 Peter 3?

 

[EarlyActs]

Perhaps I'm just dense, but can you tell me what you mean by "breaking the rest of 2 Peter 3?

You read the 1st part about scoffers normally, but I'll bet you will break and find some symbolic/Judaic meaning to the 2nd about the ancient world and the final end of this world and the elements, and I will counter by showing you the normal sense.

One prep question you could ask is 'would people in Judaism say the whole world goes on as it has from the beginning?' Or is that line about an existing 1st cent. denial of a global cataclysm?

 

[3 Resurrections]

You read the 1st part about scoffers normally, but I'll bet you will break and find some symbolic/Judaic meaning to the 2nd about the ancient world and the final end of this world and the elements, and I will counter by showing you the normal sense.

One prep question you could ask is 'would people in Judaism say the whole world goes on as it has from the beginning?' Or is that line about an existing 1st cent. denial of a global cataclysm?

By reading it "normally", I presume you mean in a physical, literal sense instead of metaphorically, yes? I don't have a problem with that.

But there is something which we seem to be defining differently and that is "the EARTH" ("tes ges" or ge"), which in scripture predominantly refers to the land of Israel (such as "darkness over the whole earth" with Christ's crucifixion at Jerusalem). For the planet at large, meaning the world or the whole habitable world, this is usually spoken of as "kosmos" or "oikoumene".

When Jesus said He had come to send fire on the earth, and that He wished it were already kindled (Luke 12:49), I believe this fire in 2 Peter 3 is what Christ was talking about that would burn up the elements and the works in the earth with fervent heat. It's the same fire that Malachi 4:1 foretold, that would burn up the wicked to ashes, leaving them neither root nor branch.

This was a fiery cataclysm concentrated on the land of Judea's cities and Jerusalem in particular, which city quite literally turned into a "lake of fire" for its final destruction in AD 70. The burned ash layer over the city is still there to be seen in the archaeological digs going on in Jerusalem today (for example, the Siebenberg house museum excavations in the Old City) This fire did not refer to the entire planet burning up into cinders at Christ's final return. That "flaming fire taking vengeance" in 2 Thess. 1:8 would fall on the Thessalonian believers' enemies in their near future. The Jews of the first century were persecuting the saints, and wrath was about to fall on them to the uttermost in retribution for the people of Israel's betrayal and murder of their prophesied Messiah, whom most had rejected.

The planet itself is supposed to "abide forever". Even Noah's global flood cataclysm did not destroy the world into non-existence: only the conditions of existence upon the globe were drastically altered from before that time. Once again at the AD 70 return of the Lord, conditions were drastically altered, but materially speaking, the planet is still going to last forever.

 

[EarlyActs]

By reading it "normally", I presume you mean in a physical, literal sense instead of metaphorically, yes? I don't have a problem with that.

But there is something which we seem to be defining differently and that is "the EARTH" ("tes ges" or ge"), which in scripture predominantly refers to the land of Israel (such as "darkness over the whole earth" with Christ's crucifixion at Jerusalem). For the planet at large, meaning the world or the whole habitable world, this is usually spoken of as "kosmos" or "oikoumene".

When Jesus said He had come to send fire on the earth, and that He wished it were already kindled (Luke 12:49), I believe this fire in 2 Peter 3 is what Christ was talking about that would burn up the elements and the works in the earth with fervent heat. It's the same fire that Malachi 4:1 foretold, that would burn up the wicked to ashes, leaving them neither root nor branch.

This was a fiery cataclysm concentrated on the land of Judea's cities and Jerusalem in particular, which city quite literally turned into a "lake of fire" for its final destruction in AD 70. The burned ash layer over the city is still there to be seen in the archaeological digs going on in Jerusalem today (for example, the Siebenberg house museum excavations in the Old City) This fire did not refer to the entire planet burning up into cinders at Christ's final return. That "flaming fire taking vengeance" in 2 Thess. 1:8 would fall on the Thessalonian believers' enemies in their near future. The Jews of the first century were persecuting the saints, and wrath was about to fall on them to the uttermost in retribution for the people of Israel's betrayal and murder of their prophesied Messiah, whom most had rejected.

The planet itself is supposed to "abide forever". Even Noah's global flood cataclysm did not destroy the world into non-existence: only the conditions of existence upon the globe were drastically altered from before that time. Once again at the AD 70 return of the Lord, conditions were drastically altered, but materially speaking, the planet is still going to last forever.

I don't know how you can miss what the passage is saying about the entire earth. (I'm aware of the limited meaning in some cases, but we are talking about the 'elements' of Stoicism here, which have a way of acting like the Torah, Gal 4:8,9).

Then there is the problem of Rom 2; first for the Jew then for the Greek. Where's the massive burning of the earth already?

Then there is the change of 'corporeality' in Rev 21, 22, when there is the NHNE. I don't see how this earth goes through; I Cor 7:31