Any Post or Non-Tribbers in Here?

[Carry_Your_Name]

It might be, if one is considering that the person making such a statement, or rule, about said "prize" is ignorant of how many would be in the room at the time of the prize-awarding (in your example), future to the statement itself.


But I disagree with how you are defining this word, here:


... because of what I see at BibleHub:


[quoting... under G1538 "Hekastos" ("each")]


HELPS Word-studies

1538 hékastos (from hekas, "separate") – each (individual) unit viewed distinctly, i.e. as opposed to "severally" (as a group).


[end quoting; bold, color, and underline mine]



In its 82 occurrences, I do not see anywhere that it comes across as meaning one (or even two), but indeed "of more than two," just as BibleHub says of it:

[quoting from BibleHub]

"Definition: each, every
Usage: each (of more than two), every one."

[end quoting]

____________


As to your comment about the "THEN" word, where you'd said:



... I hope you are aware of the fact that I am pointing out Paul's use of two distinct words in this context... The word "eita" is what is used in your Mark 4:28 verse (where I underlined the two occurrences, above). - https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/4-28.htm ... which is the word Paul uses in 1Cor15:24a "THEN [eita] the end..."

... whereas the word in verse 23 translated "afterward" in the kjv, is the Greek word "epeita" which I am pointing out is never used to speak of a long spans / interval between the two items being referred to (and means "ONLY THEN," that is, "properly, only then (emphasizing what precedes is a necessary precursor).")
However, keeping in mind that both of the items listed in verse 23 fall within the "BUT-CONJUNCTIONed" "FUTURE [resurrection]" Subject that v.22b had just expressed and led into:

"...so also in Christ all SHALL BE MADE ALIVE [future tense]. BUT [CONJUNCTION] EACH [each unit (getting ready to be LISTED in v.23) distinctly] in his own ORDER / RANK [meaning there is an ORDER / RANK to it]: firstfruit Christ [of this "FUTURE [resurrection]" Subject], afterward [/ONLY THEN] those OF Christ in the coming of Him"

(that is, like we would put in modern parlance, "firstfruit Christ, and ONLY once THAT takes place THEN those OF Christ in the coming of Him," i.e. the one [future] thing must precede the other [future] thing, covered in [within] v.23 [re: "resurrection" being the Subject here]). "EPeita" is never used to speak of a lengthy interval between the two items--such as "2000 years" between items... (whereas "eita" can be used that way and often is... though it doesn't HAVE to... the point is, "eita" is a SEQUENCE WORD ONLY with NO "time-element" attached to it... whereas "EPeita" concerns "time AND sequence").

I'm pointing out that Paul uses these two distinct words purposely, here in this text.

Besides the fact that v.22b's "FUTURE [resurrection]" connects with BOTH items in v.23 (both coming under that "FUTURE" banner v.22b had just referred to, in the lead-up to verse 23's CONJUNCTION and its Subjects).
Paul is not backtracking to speak of Jesus' Own Resurrection in v.23 ("firstfruit Christ"), which is what he was speaking about back in v.20.



And in verse 20, the word there is "ἐγήγερται egēgertai [PERFECT indicative"... Of the 144 total occurrences of this word (G1453), it is used 9x in this form (as used in our present verse under discussion) - "V-RIM/P-3" (where the "R" stand for "PERFECT tense" = "ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (.) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (>).") - https://biblehub.com/greek/ege_gertai_1453.htm [9x in this form]





I hope this covered all the points you had addressed.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. = )

What are you guys arguing about? The entire chapter is Paul's explanation of the future resurrection. In 15:20-23 in particular, it simply says that Christ is the first fruit who has defeated death, "first fruit" is a cultural reference of the Feast of First Fruit. All believers will be resurrected at the second coming altogether, but long before that, every man/each one passes away at his own time during the church age. Of course "afterward" is not immediate since it says "at his coming", in this context it's referring to 15:24-26, that Christ reigns in the millennial kingdom and death is permanantly defeated.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Of course "afterward" is not immediate since it says "at his coming",

Well, that (v.23's "afterward") isn't where I personally was covering the "[then] immediately versus [then] sequentially" argument (between "Amill-teachings" and "Premills"); so I wasn't making that point in relation to v.23 and what IT is covering (but rather, v.24... when I was covering THAT verse... basically, in passing... but also to demonstrate the distinction between how "eita" is used [v.24a] versus how "EPeita" is used [v.23]--the latter of these (v.23's "EPeita"), never referring to a lengthy interval between the two things being spoken of, such as a "near-2000-yr" interval, as some are suggesting).

Both items in v.23 belong in the "future" category, due to the conjunction "but" in v.23a connecting back with what v.22b had just stated (regarding "future [resurrection]"), as well as because of the use of this "EPeita" word, here.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ P.S. I'm not sure whether your comment (quoted in my post above) was addressing my particular point, on that, or not (though it kinda SOUNDS as though you may have been addressing it specifically); but if not, my apologies for mis-reading your intention here.
= )

Carry_Your_Name said:
Of course "afterward" is not immediate since it says "at his coming",

(v.23's "afterward") isn't where I personally was covering the "[then] immediately versus [then] sequentially" argument (between "Amill-teachings" and "Premills") [...] rather, v.24a [is where that particular argument comes in / applies]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ To be clear... I FORGOT to add "TDW wrote" in that second quote box in my post immediately before this one

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Well, that (v.23's "afterward") isn't where I personally was covering the "[then] immediately versus [then] sequentially" argument (between "Amill-teachings" and "Premills"); so I wasn't making that point in relation to v.23 and what IT is covering (but rather, v.24... when I was covering THAT verse... basically, in passing... but also to demonstrate the distinction between how "eita" is used [v.24a] versus how "EPeita" is used [v.23]--the latter of these (v.23's "EPeita"), never referring to a lengthy interval between the two things being spoken of, such as a "near-2000-yr" interval, as some are suggesting).

So this is just playing word game to justify a preferred eschatological doctrine, isn’t it. The only difference is, whether you’re trying to define the whole chapter by this one word, or trying to define this one word by the context of the chapter .

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ @Carry_Your_Name ,

No this is NOT just "playing word game".


I'm endeavoring to explain:

1) Paul's (purposeful) use of the DISTINCT words "EPeita" and "eita" in this text (and how this impacts our understanding of this passage);

2) to point out the CONJUNCTION that joins v.22b's "future tense [resurrection]" with ALL of the content covered in v.23;

3) to show that "EPeita" is never used the sense that some here are suggesting (when they suggests it speaks of things which occur with a lengthy interval between them, like some "near-2000-yrs" apart);

4) to show that the word "EACH" carries the meaning, "of more than two" (and that there is an "ORDER / RANK" to what is spelled out even in these "future" aspects, even within v.23 itself); and

5) to point out the other passages such as 2Cor4:14 ('SHALL [future] raise up us also WITH Jesus')... and 1Cor12:12 ('so also is THE Christ')... and Eph5:30,32 (etc), touching on OUR "UNION" and "IDENTIFICATION" with Christ (as "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" and He as "HEAD"), so that "firstfruit Christ" is that which is referring to US ("the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" and in particular "the DEAD in Christ" who shall "rise first" i.e. be "resurrected ['to stand again']" bodily, up from their graves), rather than its referring back to what v.20 had already covered as the "PAST tense [/PERFECT indicative]" event, concerning Jesus Himself and His Own Resurrection. No.


I call that "explaining" the text (or exegesis).

Others are just tending to stab at the word "firstfruit" (2x in this context), pull it out and throw it together in a blender, TELL all of us that it means "such and such" (and expect us to believe them with no real SHOWING FROM THE TEXT "how or that this is so"), all the while disregarding the grammar and how these words are used and how they are used in relation to the rest of the words in this text... all of which I find to be thoroughly unconvincing, but which they say "supports THEIR particular 'preferred eschatological doctrine'".



Well, so, I'm just "explaining" the numerous reasons why I remain unconvinced of their viewpoint [/viewpoints]. I do NOT see the text itself supporting their views.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[ ^ Continued...] ... not to mention, I think you took what another poster said (about "immediately") and then somehow from that misconstrued what my point had been regarding that (this is how I am perceiving your post, in the part where I quoted your post--I could be mis-reading you there, though, I realize--for, what you had put could be understood in a couple of different ways that I can think of, and I'm not really certain which was your intention... so I chose to address it head on, in case you had meant it the way I think you could have...)

@Carry_Your_Name

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

[ ^ Continued...] ... not to mention, I think you took what another poster said (about "immediately") and then somehow from that misconstrued what my point had been regarding that (this is how I am perceiving your post, in the part where I quoted your post--I could be mis-reading you there, though, I realize)

@Carry_Your_Name

All I'm trying to say is, maybe we should take a holistic approach when we study the bible, by all means to see the forest first from a vintage point, then zoom in on each tree, then each branch. I don't know about your bible version, mine has a subtitle for the section of 1 Cor. 15:20-28 - "The Last Enemy Destroyed". That sets the tone - at the end, death will be DESTROYED, which is fulfilled in Rev. 20:14. But as for now death obviously hasn't been destroyed YET, people generally live longer, but they still die. That's because the resurrection of Jesus was a victory but not the FINAL victory. Death was DEFEATED, but not destroyed yet, that remains to be fulfilled at the second coming of the Lord. Once you have that figured out, the meaning of these words will become self evident.

 

[pottersclay]

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

If you see eve as a type of the church (as i do) then this is a very intresting vrs.
Do a word search on the word brought...it meaning is to lift up..to bring in.
Also intresting is the custom of the jewish marriage ceremony is to lift the bride and groom in chairs and carry them around the room. Then to unite them together as one.

Jesus said that he will go and prepare a place for you. That where he is we will be also.
Scripture tells us that he is seated at the right hand of the father...seated.
Are we to be seated in the heavenly places?

Eve was brought to adam in the garden no need for adam to look for a bride the Lord brought her to him in the garden.
The apostles were told to stay awake and pray but they fell asleep. The Lord remained in the garden and prayed before the company of a angel.
The Lord woke them and said couldnt you stay awake for the hour of temptation is here.

Jesus after his resurrection presented himself to the father as first fruits as the high priest.
But his physical ascension discribed in acts tells us he was taken. Taken to be seated at the right hand of the father.

These are the dots that im trying to connect to bring the event of the rapture as gospel truth.
I am convinced that not the whole church as we know it will be taken but those who believe.
Review the parable of the ten virgins and look for the relevance of the number 10. Its not what you think if you had not study it.

 

[DavidTree]

^ @Carry_Your_Name ,

No this is NOT just "playing word game".


I'm endeavoring to explain:

1) Paul's (purposeful) use of the DISTINCT words "EPeita" and "eita" in this text (and how this impacts our understanding of this passage);

2) to point out the CONJUNCTION that joins v.22b's "future tense [resurrection]" with ALL of the content covered in v.23;

3) to show that "EPeita" is never used the sense that some here are suggesting (when they suggests it speaks of things which occur with a lengthy interval between them, like some "near-2000-yrs" apart);

4) to show that the word "EACH" carries the meaning, "of more than two" (and that there is an "ORDER / RANK" to what is spelled out even in these "future" aspects, even within v.23 itself); and

5) to point out the other passages such as 2Cor4:14 ('SHALL [future] raise up us also WITH Jesus')... and 1Cor12:12 ('so also is THE Christ')... and Eph5:30,32 (etc), touching on OUR "UNION" and "IDENTIFICATION" with Christ (as "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" and He as "HEAD"), so that "firstfruit Christ" is that which is referring to US ("the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" and in particular "the DEAD in Christ" who shall "rise first" i.e. be "resurrected ['to stand again']" bodily, up from their graves), rather than its referring back to what v.20 had already covered as the "PAST tense [/PERFECT indicative]" event, concerning Jesus Himself and His Own Resurrection. No.

I call that "explaining" the text (or exegesis).

Others are just tending to stab at the word "firstfruit" (2x in this context), pull it out and throw it together in a blender, TELL all of us that it means "such and such" (and expect us to believe them with no real SHOWING FROM THE TEXT "how or that this is so"), all the while disregarding the grammar and how these words are used and how they are used in relation to the rest of the words in this text... all of which I find to be thoroughly unconvincing, but which they say "supports THEIR particular 'preferred eschatological doctrine'".

Well, so, I'm just "explaining" the numerous reasons why I remain unconvinced of their viewpoint [/viewpoints]. I do NOT see the text itself supporting their views.

Because this is your decision based on your desire, which is to find a way to establish a doctrine that never came from the Mouth of God.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 is crystal clear without any micro inspection needed.

You refuse to stand on the Foundation = "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have [fallen asleep."

We call this 'simple math' 1+1=2

 

[DavidTree]

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

If you see eve as a type of the church (as i do) then this is a very intresting vrs.
Do a word search on the word brought...it meaning is to lift up..to bring in.
Also intresting is the custom of the jewish marriage ceremony is to lift the bride and groom in chairs and carry them around the room. Then to unite them together as one.

Jesus said that he will go and prepare a place for you. That where he is we will be also.
Scripture tells us that he is seated at the right hand of the father...seated.
Are we to be seated in the heavenly places?

Eve was brought to adam in the garden no need for adam to look for a bride the Lord brought her to him in the garden.
The apostles were told to stay awake and pray but they fell asleep. The Lord remained in the garden and prayed before the company of a angel.
The Lord woke them and said couldnt you stay awake for the hour of temptation is here.

Jesus after his resurrection presented himself to the father as first fruits as the high priest.
But his physical ascension discribed in acts tells us he was taken. Taken to be seated at the right hand of the father.

These are the dots that im trying to connect to bring the event of the rapture as gospel truth.
I am convinced that not the whole church as we know it will be taken but those who believe.
Review the parable of the ten virgins and look for the relevance of the number 10. Its not what you think if you had not study it.

You are close to the Truth but keep missing the Dots and making the error of 'adding to and taking away' from Scripture.

STAY on the Dotted Truth of this what you said:
"Jesus said that he will go and prepare a place for you. That where he is we will be also.
Scripture tells us that he is seated at the right hand of the father...seated.
Also intresting is the custom of the jewish marriage ceremony is to lift the bride and groom in chairs and carry them around the room. Then to unite them together as one."

John 14:1-4 has been Fulfilled by the LORD for us - just as HE promised.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

If you see eve as a type of the church (as i do) then this is a very intresting vrs.

Why would one see the woman as a type?? The story of the man and the woman is the narrative of HOW the human race began. Proving that there is ONE race of humans. All this yak about being "racist" and all is stupid. All humans are in the SAME race.

Yakkers who talk of "racism" are ignorant of God's Word and it's actually an attack on God's creation of the human race.

God didn't create separate races, unless one wants to point to angels and humans. OK then, we have the angelic race and the human race. So there is no such thing as racism. I wish someone in the public eye would make that clear.

Do a word search on the word brought...it meaning is to lift up..to bring in.
Also intresting is the custom of the jewish marriage ceremony is to lift the bride and groom in chairs and carry them around the room. Then to unite them together as one.

Keep in mind that Adam and the woman were about 1,400 years BEFORE God instructed Moses to MAKE the Jewish nation.

Jesus said that he will go and prepare a place for you. That where he is we will be also.
Scripture tells us that he is seated at the right hand of the father...seated.
Are we to be seated in the heavenly places?

John 14:1-4 has already been fulfilled. When Jesus told His 11 remaining disciples that He would go and prepare a place for them, He hadn't left earth for heaven yet. He was assuring the 11 that they WOULD have a place in heaven when they died.

iow, Jesus was teaching them the doctrine of eternal security. There is nothing in John 14:1-4 about a rapture.

Eve was brought to adam in the garden no need for adam to look for a bride the Lord brought her to him in the garden.
The apostles were told to stay awake and pray but they fell asleep. The Lord remained in the garden and prayed before the company of a angel.
The Lord woke them and said couldnt you stay awake for the hour of temptation is here.

Is there a point in all this?

Jesus after his resurrection presented himself to the father as first fruits as the high priest.
But his physical ascension discribed in acts tells us he was taken. Taken to be seated at the right hand of the father.

Yet, nothing about a rapture.

These are the dots that im trying to connect to bring the event of the rapture as gospel truth.

The best and ONLY WAY to show biblical truth about glorified believers taken to heaven (rapture) is a verse that SAYS SO.

The problem for those who believe there will be a rapture is that there are NO verses in all the resurrection passages that mentions Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven. None.

I am convinced that not the whole church as we know it will be taken but those who believe.

Biblical truth is that "when He comes" ALL believers will be glorified at that time. 1 Cor 15:23

Review the parable of the ten virgins and look for the relevance of the number 10. Its not what you think if you had not study it.

It has nothing to do with a rapture.

In fact, since the Bible never describes such an event, we can count on the FACT that there won't be a rapture.

However, consider this: "when He comes", per 1 Cor 15:23, and ALL believers will be glorified (resurrection bodies), those who are alive and remain at His coming WILL NEVER SEE HEAVEN.

Because Rev 20:4,5 says that the resurrection which occurs AFTER the Tribulation is the FIRST resurrectionn. The only one left is the resurrection of the unsaved, for the GWT judgment.

 

[peldom10]

Why would one see the woman as a type?? The story of the man and the woman is the narrative of HOW the human race began. Proving that there is ONE race of humans. All this yak about being "racist" and all is stupid. All humans are in the SAME race.

Yakkers who talk of "racism" are ignorant of God's Word and it's actually an attack on God's creation of the human race.

God didn't create separate races, unless one wants to point to angels and humans. OK then, we have the angelic race and the human race. So there is no such thing as racism. I wish someone in the public eye would make that clear.


Keep in mind that Adam and the woman were about 1,400 years BEFORE God instructed Moses to MAKE the Jewish nation.


John 14:1-4 has already been fulfilled. When Jesus told His 11 remaining disciples that He would go and prepare a place for them, He hadn't left earth for heaven yet. He was assuring the 11 that they WOULD have a place in heaven when they died.

iow, Jesus was teaching them the doctrine of eternal security. There is nothing in John 14:1-4 about a rapture.


Is there a point in all this?


Yet, nothing about a rapture.


The best and ONLY WAY to show biblical truth about glorified believers taken to heaven (rapture) is a verse that SAYS SO.

The problem for those who believe there will be a rapture is that there are NO verses in all the resurrection passages that mentions Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven. None.


Biblical truth is that "when He comes" ALL believers will be glorified at that time. 1 Cor 15:23


It has nothing to do with a rapture.

In fact, since the Bible never describes such an event, we can count on the FACT that there won't be a rapture.

However, consider this: "when He comes", per 1 Cor 15:23, and ALL believers will be glorified (resurrection bodies), those who are alive and remain at His coming WILL NEVER SEE HEAVEN.

Because Rev 20:4,5 says that the resurrection which occurs AFTER the Tribulation is the FIRST resurrectionn. The only one left is the resurrection of the unsaved, for the GWT judgment.

A racist is one who does not apply your point...thus discrimination.

Wrong on the rapture. Scripture will refute your claim each time you state it.

Baptism is Required also;


Peter 3: 21.... whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...

John 3:5 .......Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


Acts 2;38-....Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22;16... And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.


Galations 3:26...... For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

KJV Marrk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

KJV Matthew 3:14... But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15. Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all rightesousness. Then He suffered Him.

KJV Matthew 28:19..... Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:.

Acts 8:12-18: But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

Quote from Billy Graham that is note worthy;
....Also, to clarify I did not say remission of sin takes place at repentance. Scripture makes it clear that it occurs upon obedience to water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. Each is a step of faith, along with receiving the Holy Ghost, in the process of one's spiritual rebirth

.."Paul explains the doctrinal significance of what occurs when one is baptized.His explanation is found in his letter to those who had already been obedient to the command.

Paul tells the Roman Christians what actually occurred when they were/are baptized; they were baptized into His death. Being buried with Jesus into His death resulted in their sin being destroyed.

Even though Paul explains this concept, the NEW AGE RELIGION TEACHING is......... that water baptism is nothing other than a mere public display.......... And that is so far removed from the truth.

Keep in mind that Satan knows if he can continue to perpetuate that lie ...... he can keep people from entering the kingdom of God. Thus He has proven scripture which says ...in the end times there will be ...great delusions.....they are here.

Conclusion....teaching that baptism is not necessary is violation of Rev. 22;19.... And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (Also two other books of the Bible).

Why can't you take a minute and eplain why God's word is unacceptable to you re; baptism?

 

[FreeGrace2]

A racist is one who does not apply your point...thus discrimination.

So you subscribe to the stupid theory that there are races of humans then?? Go ahead and reject what Genesis says about the human race. All humans came from Adam and Eve. That's one race.

Discrimination is bigotry. That's the correct word, not racism. It's the idiots who want to divide the human race into factions that came up with "racism". You know the phrase: "divide and conquer". That's Satan's plan. Attack God's creation and conquer the humans. So go ahead and believe what you want.

Wrong on the rapture.

Then show me a passage that describes Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven.

You KNOW you can't do that. So why do you believe what isn't in the Bible? Can you at least explain that mystery?

 

[peldom10]

...................................Discrimination is bigotry. That's the correct word, not racism. It's the idiots who want to divide the human race into factions that came up with "racism". You know the phrase: "divide and conquer". That's Satan's plan. Attack God's creation and conquer the humans. So go ahead and believe what you want.


Then show me a passage that describes Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven.

You KNOW you can't do that. So why do you believe what isn't in the Bible? Can you at least explain that mystery?

Stop adding to my post. I did not say that.

The Bible does not explain ...as i see it...the races from one creation...but, we have them...black, white, yellow, red, etc.
Why can't you see that?
The only reference to separate races....in the Bible could be...the tower of babel. Notwithstanding, it refers to speech....which generally follows race.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Stop adding to my post. I did not say that.

Read post 854. I didn't add anything. Show me what you think I did.

The Bible does not explain ...as i see it...the races from one creation...but, we have them...black, white, yellow, red, etc.
Why can't you see that?

Rather, why can't you SEE my explanation of the FACT that there is ONLY ONE human race.

Do you really think that blacks are from a different race than whites? And that yellow and red are also different than whites?

ARE YOU KIDDING?

Do you really NOT comprehend the ORIGIN of the human race? Or can you even understand that there IS a human race?

You are confusing ethnicity with "race" which is bogus. As I pointed out, it is STUPID people, you know, idiots, who, under Satan's deception, are attacking God's creation by this nonsense "racial theory" divide.

Do you believe that blacks are in a different race than the human race?
Do you believe that yellows are in a different race than the human race?
Do you believe that reds are in a different race than the human race?
Do you believe that whiltes are in a different race than the human race?

Here is the FACT: blacks, whites, yellows, and reds and whatever other colors there are, ALL are in the human RACE.

Acts 17-
26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.
27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

You are free to believe or reject Acts 17:26,27, but from ONE MAN came ALL the nations. ONE RACE.

People who are against different ethnicities are BIGOTS, not "racists".

It's easier to say BIGOTS than "ethnicists" which isn't even a word.

But since there is only ONE RACE of humans, only very ignorant people use the word "racist" when referring to bigots.

I suggest you no longer watch CNN or MSNBC. They are the "race baiters" for sure.

The only reference to separate races....in the Bible could be...the tower of babel.

I challenge you to quote a verse about "separate races".

Notwithstanding, it refers to speech....which generally follows race.

Quite wrong. The word "racist" does NOT refer to speech. Nonsense. It refers to a BIGOT; someone who hates a different ethnicity than their own. But they are too stupid to understand that God created A human race, with multiple ethnicities.

 

[peldom10]

Read post 854. I didn't add anything. Show me what you think I did.


Rather, why can't you SEE my explanation of the FACT that there is ONLY ONE human race.

Do you really think that blacks are from a different race than whites? And that yellow and red are also different than whites?

ARE YOU KIDDING?

Do you really NOT comprehend the ORIGIN of the human race? Or can you even understand that there IS a human race?

You are confusing ethnicity with "race" which is bogus. As I pointed out, it is STUPID people, you know, idiots, who, under Satan's deception, are attacking God's creation by this nonsense "racial theory" divide.

Do you believe that blacks are in a different race than the human race?
Do you believe that yellows are in a different race than the human race?
Do you believe that reds are in a different race than the human race?
Do you believe that whiltes are in a different race than the human race?

Here is the FACT: blacks, whites, yellows, and reds and whatever other colors there are, ALL are in the human RACE.

Acts 17-
26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.
27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

You are free to believe or reject Acts 17:26,27, but from ONE MAN came ALL the nations. ONE RACE.

People who are against different ethnicities are BIGOTS, not "racists".

It's easier to say BIGOTS than "ethnicists" which isn't even a word.

But since there is only ONE RACE of humans, only very ignorant people use the word "racist" when referring to bigots.

I suggest you no longer watch CNN or MSNBC. They are the "race baiters" for sure.


I challenge you to quote a verse about "separate races".


Quite wrong. The word "racist" does NOT refer to speech. Nonsense. It refers to a BIGOT; someone who hates a different ethnicity than their own. But they are too stupid to understand that God created A human race, with multiple ethnicities.

We can readly see that you don't.
Anyone who cannot see black folks, white folks, etc...needs to see a eye doctor...right away.
They would not be here without God's authorization.
Do you think masn can evolve a purple race? Green race ...perhaps?

 

[FreeGrace2]

We can readly see that you don't.
Anyone who cannot see black folks, white folks, etc...needs to see a eye doctor...right away.

Wow. Where do you get your ridiculous conclusions from?

I NEVER denied the various ethnicities of the human race.

Did you really NOT see what I posted?

"Do you believe that blacks are in a different race than the human race?
Do you believe that yellows are in a different race than the human race?
Do you believe that reds are in a different race than the human race?
Do you believe that whiltes are in a different race than the human race?"

So you see, I ACKNOWLEDGED the different colored skin among people of the HUMAN RACE.

Do you really not comprehend what "ethnicity" means?

It is so difficult to have a discussion with you, given your very limited knowledge base.

Are you going to provide that verse where you claim the Bible notes "separate races" at the tower of Babel, or not?

When people make claims, they need to be prepared to support their claims by Bereans who actually search the Scriptures to "see if what peldom10 says is true".

If you can't back up your claims, then you need to withdraw it.

 

[DavidTree]

Why would one see the woman as a type?? The story of the man and the woman is the narrative of HOW the human race began. Proving that there is ONE race of humans. All this yak about being "racist" and all is stupid. All humans are in the SAME race.

Yakkers who talk of "racism" are ignorant of God's Word and it's actually an attack on God's creation of the human race.

God didn't create separate races, unless one wants to point to angels and humans. OK then, we have the angelic race and the human race. So there is no such thing as racism. I wish someone in the public eye would make that clear.


Keep in mind that Adam and the woman were about 1,400 years BEFORE God instructed Moses to MAKE the Jewish nation.


John 14:1-4 has already been fulfilled. When Jesus told His 11 remaining disciples that He would go and prepare a place for them, He hadn't left earth for heaven yet. He was assuring the 11 that they WOULD have a place in heaven when they died.

iow, Jesus was teaching them the doctrine of eternal security. There is nothing in John 14:1-4 about a rapture.


Is there a point in all this?


Yet, nothing about a rapture.


The best and ONLY WAY to show biblical truth about glorified believers taken to heaven (rapture) is a verse that SAYS SO.

The problem for those who believe there will be a rapture is that there are NO verses in all the resurrection passages that mentions Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven. None.


Biblical truth is that "when He comes" ALL believers will be glorified at that time. 1 Cor 15:23


It has nothing to do with a rapture.

In fact, since the Bible never describes such an event, we can count on the FACT that there won't be a rapture.

However, consider this: "when He comes", per 1 Cor 15:23, and ALL believers will be glorified (resurrection bodies), those who are alive and remain at His coming WILL NEVER SEE HEAVEN.

Because Rev 20:4,5 says that the resurrection which occurs AFTER the Tribulation is the FIRST resurrectionn. The only one left is the resurrection of the unsaved, for the GWT judgment.

Adam & Eve is both the creation of man/woman and also is pointing to Christ and His Bride/Wife/Elect/Saints.

Therefore the LORD says: "what God has put together let no man separate"

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26that He might [g]sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30For we are members of His body, [h]of His flesh and of His bones. 31“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

 

[Taranis]

I do a lot of pondering about end times and what it’ll look like for the believer. No one in my church wants to talk about it, so I thought I’d bring it here.

I have heard a few theologians proclaim that a pre-trib rapture is false doctrine, and a “lie from the pit of hell”.

I’m a pre-tribber married to a post tribber, and frankly, his arguments for a post tribulational rapture don’t hold water as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps a post-tribber from this forum can make me understand.

I have an open mind. Mostly because I fully expected the rapture to happen last year. The numbers just made sense. 2021 was 73 years since Israel became a nation, leaving 7 years for the tribulation culminating in the 80-year-old-generation mentioned in Psalms.

Regardless, God is angry, and He’s about to punish the entire planet, and I’m persuaded that ours is the generation that will see these things come to pass. With a possible (probable?) WWIII scenario, and end time prophecies jumping off the pages of the Bible, I am fascinated, excited, and a little nervous. I would love to read the thoughts of any post-tribbers on what you think it will look like for believers to go through the tribulation (specifically, the 7 trumpets, seals and bowls of The Revelation.)

Do post-tribbers believe that as God’s elect, we are subject to the same wrath as everyone else? For instance, at some point the earth will be bombarded with 75 lb hailstones (Rev 16:21). Are we subject to God’s wrath in that we will be crushed along with everyone else? Or will they not effect us? When those crazy looking locusts are tormenting the population, are we to be supernaturally protected from them?

If you’re a post-tribber (or even a non-tribber) convince me that I’m wrong. I wouldn’t want to believe God for something that’s never going to happen based on misinterpreted scripture.

Anybody?

I get there are 1,000 years of Peace on the Earth before the Devil and his angels are Destroyed, Then Christ Rules the Earth, for Many Years.