The Rapture

[Hodgie]

Does that agree with apostolic teaching?
The apostle teaches that Christ comes down from heaven first and then the martyrs are resurrected (1 Th 4:16).

Read 1 These 4:16 in Greek. You will notice that the word "and" which is "kai" can also be translated as "but". There are two "kai" words in that text. The first kai is definitely the word "and" as it would not make good sense otherwise. But the second can make sense if it is translated with both the word "and" or "but. It can still be understood to have a separation between the return of Jesus and the rapture if using the word "and", but to someone who has a preconceived understanding, they will only see it in one way. So, change the translation to the word "but" and it will make perfect sense to you. (Hopefully)
"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, but the dead in Christ will rise first."

Also, please feel free to comment on the second understanding of Matt 24:39-41 and also, Matt 25:31-33. Both make perfect sense and align with scripture.

 

[Eleanor]

Read 1 These 4:16 in Greek. You will notice that the word "and" which is "kai" can also be translated as "but".

There are two "kai" words in that text. The first kai is definitely the word "and" as it would not make good sense otherwise. But the second can make sense if it is translated with both the word "and" or "but. It can still be understood to have a separation between the return of Jesus and the rapture if using the word "and", but to someone who has a preconceived understanding, they will only see it in one way. So, change the translation to the word "but" and it will make perfect sense to you. (Hopefully)
"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, but the dead in Christ will rise first."

Also, please feel free to comment on the second understanding of Matt 24:39-41 and also, Matt 25:31-33. Both make perfect sense and align with scripture.

So you are presenting two resurrections 1,000 years apart?
But Jesus and the apostles teach only one resurrection, in the last day.

 

[Hodgie]

So you are presenting two resurrections 1,000 years apart?

Correct. The first resurrection is as Revelation 20:4-6 says. It is only for the martyrs. And they are the only ones who will reign with Christ for 1000 years. Then satan will be set free for a short time. Then lastly, everyone, dead and alive, believer and non-believer will be raised and meet with Christ in the clouds and be taken off to the GWT judgement. This is the second resurrection.

But Jesus and the apostles teach only one resurrection, in the last day.

Yes. The apostles only taught of a resurrection on the last day (The very last day that takes everyone to the GWT Judgement). That is for every person, and it is the second resurrection. In Rev 20:4-6 it teaches of the first resurrection. You will see in verse 6 it even says that this is the first resurrection. Those that are raised will reign for 1000 years with Christ.

 

[Eleanor]

u

 

[civic]

u

me ?

 

[Eleanor]

Correct. The first resurrection is as Revelation 20:4-6 says. It is only for the martyrs. And they are the only ones who will reign with Christ for 1000 years. Then satan will be set free for a short time. Then lastly, everyone, dead and alive, believer and non-believer will be raised and meet with Christ in the clouds and be taken off to the GWT judgement. This is the second resurrection.

Yes. The apostles only taught of a resurrection on the last day (The very last day that takes everyone to the GWT Judgement). That is for every person, and it is the second resurrection. In Rev 20:4-6 it teaches of the first resurrection. You will see in verse 6 it even says that this is the first resurrection. Those that are raised will reign for 1000 years with Christ.

Authoritative NT apostolic teaching presents only one resurrection at the end of time, and we have no authority to add to their teaching with our personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not clearly spoken (Nu 12:8) and subject to more than one interpretation.

I interpret the 1,000 years, in agreement with authoritative apostolic teaching of only one resurrection at the end of time, as being
1) symbolic of the fullness of the church age,
2) where the first resurrection is the new birth from spiritual death (loss of eternal life, caused by Adam) to eternal life.

 

[Eleanor]

me ?

Sorry, misfire.

 

[civic]

Sorry, misfire.

just lightening things up a bit having a little fun/humor.

 

[EarlyActs]

Authoritative NT apostolic teaching presents only one resurrection at the end of time, and we have no authority to add to their teaching with our personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not clearly spoken (Nu 12:8) and subject to more than one interpretation.

I interpret the 1,000 years, in agreement with authoritative apostolic teaching of only one resurrection at the end of time, as being
1) symbolic of the fullness of the church age,
2) where the first resurrection is the new birth from spiritual death (loss of eternal life, caused by Adam) to eternal life.

some have said the 1st is the event in Matt 27. It is an interesting incident: they are actually out at the graves for a while a couple days and then are in the city. Then they 'reign' with Christ for his long reign until the end of this earth.

 

[Eleanor]

some have said the 1st is the event in Matt 27. It is an interesting incident: they are actually out at the graves for a while a couple days and then are in the city. Then they 'reign' with Christ for his long reign until the end of this earth.

None of which enjoys any support in NT apostolic teaching, and much contradiction of apostolic teaching.

 

[Hodgie]

Authoritative NT apostolic teaching presents only one resurrection at the end of time

I have shown you Rev 20:6 where it says, "Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection." If it is the first, then there must be at least another one to follow.
Can you tell me the verse where is says "there is only one resurrection"? I have shown by using verses that there is two. (Rev 20:4-6 (The first), John 6:40 (The second/last), 1 Thes 4:16-17 (Both).)
Please explain why Rev 20:6 says that this resurrection is the first resurrection which denotes that there is more to come?

Once again. Please stop using the slogan "authoritative NT teaching" as there is more than one understanding to the verses that you use for your authority. And since there is other ways of looking at these verses, this makes it all a matter of opinion.

some have said the 1st is the event in Matt 27. It is an interesting incident: they are actually out at the graves for a while a couple days and then are in the city. Then they 'reign' with Christ for his long reign until the end of this earth.

Maybe. That is an interesting way of looking at it. I will have to investigate. (Always excited to find another way of looking at end times) (Test all things)

 

[EarlyActs]

I have shown you Rev 20:6 where it says, "Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection." If it is the first, then there must be at least another one to follow.
Can you tell me the verse where is says "there is only one resurrection"? I have shown by using verses that there is two. (Rev 20:4-6 (The first), John 6:40 (The second/last), 1 Thes 4:16-17 (Both).)
Please explain why Rev 20:6 says that this resurrection is the first resurrection which denotes that there is more to come?

Once again. Please stop using the slogan "authoritative NT teaching" as there is more than one understanding to the verses that you use for your authority. And since there is other ways of looking at these verses, this makes it all a matter of opinion.


Maybe. That is an interesting way of looking at it. I will have to investigate. (Always excited to find another way of looking at end times) (Test all things)

It is important to remember that the whole period from John (Elijah) onward is the end of time. That's why Joel 2 is quoted by Peter in Acts 2.

 

[EarlyActs]

None of which enjoys any support in NT apostolic teaching, and much contradiction of apostolic teaching.

But it is Mt 27; I don't know what you mean. They were OT believers and after they were there (graves) for a day or two, they were 'later seen in the holy city' (Mt may have suddenly switched to Jerusalem above, of course). If the J-above, they began reigning with Christ for the long reign.

The[cl] earth shook and the rocks were split apart. 52 And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died[cm] were raised. 53 (They[cn] came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.)

 

[Eleanor]

But it is Mt 27; I don't know what you mean. They were OT believers and after they were there (graves) for a day or two, they were 'later seen in the holy city' (Mt may have suddenly switched to Jerusalem above, of course). If the J-above, they began reigning with Christ for the long reign.

The[cl] earth shook and the rocks were split apart. 52 And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died[cm] were raised. 53 (They[cn] came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.)

Jesus is the firstfuits of the resurrection with a glorified body (1 Co 15:20).
There were no resurrection bodies before his.

No, Matthew did not switch to Jerusalem above. He was not giving prophecy.
It is Jesus who switched from Jerusalem to above in his prophecies of Mt 24.

Those who came out of their graves at Jesus' death were like Lazarus whom Jesus raised, testimonies that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
They did not have glorified bodies, and they died again.

 

[EarlyActs]

Jesus is the firstfuits of the resurrection with a glorified body (1 Co 15:20).
There were no resurrection bodies before his.

No, Matthew did not switch to Jerusalem above. He was not giving prophecy.
It is Jesus who switched from Jerusalem to above in his prophecies of Mt 24.

Those who came out of their graves at Jesus' death were like Lazarus whom Jesus raised, testimonies that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
They did not have glorified bodies, and they died again.

On the switch, I wondered if Matthew (not Jesus) was referring to Jerusalem above when he said they went to the holy city.

 

[Eleanor]

On the switch, I wondered if Matthew (not Jesus) was referring to Jerusalem above when he said they went to the holy city.

They "appeared to many people" indicates the current Jerusalem to me.

 

[Wordsmith]

Those who came out of their graves at Jesus' death were like Lazarus whom Jesus raised, testimonies that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
They did not have glorified bodies, and they died again.

I agree with you on this. Not many people even address this.

 

[armylngst]

Jesus is the firstfuits of the resurrection with a glorified body (1 Co 15:20).
There were no resurrection bodies before his.

No, Matthew did not switch to Jerusalem above. He was not giving prophecy.
It is Jesus who switched from Jerusalem to above in his prophecies of Mt 24.

Those who came out of their graves at Jesus' death were like Lazarus whom Jesus raised, testimonies that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
They did not have glorified bodies, and they died again.

That is absolutely true. They came back to life, were seen, and sometime after (no times are given), they died again, just like Lazarus. The Holy City is Jerusalem, and it was, as you say in another comment, current to that day.

 

[EarlyActs]

That is absolutely true. They came back to life, were seen, and sometime after (no times are given), they died again, just like Lazarus. The Holy City is Jerusalem, and it was, as you say in another comment, current to that day.

And yet John called it the city where the Lord was crucified and thus Babylon.

 

[EarlyActs]

That is absolutely true. They came back to life, were seen, and sometime after (no times are given), they died again, just like Lazarus. The Holy City is Jerusalem, and it was, as you say in another comment, current to that day.

There is silence on them dying again.