The Rapture: And Other Silly Things Christians Get Consumed With

[PlainWord]

Apart from uncertain private interpretation of prophetic riddles, there are not two resurrections of mankind in the NT.

23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, #1 afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.

24 #2 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. - This is where the translation of the living takes place (1 Cor 15:51-53)

Then we have this:

John 11:24 NKJV

Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

and this:

Acts 24:15 NKJV

I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.

and this from Daniel 12:

2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So we clearly have a final resurrection of both the saved and unsaved at the end of everything prior to the eternal heaven state. So the issue is this, "Is there an earlier resurrection of just those martyred during the Tribulation who come back with Christ for his millennial reign? You seem to think there is only the Rev 20 passage which you call "an uncertain private interpretation of prophetic riddles." Let's see if that is the only place.

We have 1 Thes 4 which is clearly post Trib, Pre Millennial:

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

Then of course Rev 20:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

So it seems to me there are 3 places (counting 1 Cor 15) that speak of two resurrections. Otherwise there would be no 1,000 year reign and no reign of Christ where Satan is bound.

 

[konroh]

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

And of course we all knew that this verse would come up, but this verse doesn't mean that any time we see a time reference in the Bible it means we can't understand it. No, it means that whether the Lord tarries a day or 2000 years He is still going to come.

You don't believe this verse means that 1000 years is one day in Rev. 20 anymore than I do, so why use a faulty interpretation of a verse we both agree on to foist a faulty interpretation?

Argument for argument's sake?

Sad.

 

[Elin]

23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, #1 afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.

24 #2 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

One resurrection, of all mankind at the end of time, followed by the final judgment.

Ac 24:15 - And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that
there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Jn 5:28-29

Da 12:2

Two resurrections are derived from uncertain private interpretation of prophetic riddles,
as you are doing with Rev 20,
which can be, and are, interpreted by others to mean entirely different things.

There is no certain unequivocal NT teaching of two resurrections of mankind.

 

[PlainWord]

One resurrection, of all mankind at the end of time, followed by the final judgment.

Ac 24:15 - And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that
there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Jn 5:28-29

Da 12:2

Two resurrections are derived from uncertain private interpretation of prophetic riddles,
as you are doing with Rev 20,
which can be, and are, interpreted by others to mean entirely different things.

There is no certain unequivocal NT teaching of two resurrections of mankind.

How do you explain 1 Thes 4:16 then? Are you saying the Second Coming is also at the very end?

 

[PlainWord]

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

And of course we all knew that this verse would come up, but this verse doesn't mean that any time we see a time reference in the Bible it means we can't understand it. No, it means that whether the Lord tarries a day or 2000 years He is still going to come.

You don't believe this verse means that 1000 years is one day in Rev. 20 anymore than I do, so why use a faulty interpretation of a verse we both agree on to foist a faulty interpretation?

Argument for argument's sake?

Sad.

It does mean this in the context of the millennium and the Day of the Lord. If you study all that happens during this "Day of the Lord" you will see it is impossible to complete everything in one literal earth day. Keep in mind also that they are picking up the dead from Armageddon for 7 months alone.

 

[Elin]

It does mean this in the context of the millennium and the Day of the Lord. If you study all that happens during this "Day of the Lord" you will see it is impossible to complete everything in one literal earth day. Keep in mind also that they are picking up the dead from Armageddon for 7 months alone.

If we're going to take the figurative literally,
then we have to also agree that a thousand years equals a day.

You can't have the first half literal, and the last half figurative.

Both halves are either literal or figurative.

You've chosen literal, so the last half is also literal.

 

[zone]

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

And of course we all knew that this verse would come up, but this verse doesn't mean that any time we see a time reference in the Bible it means we can't understand it. No, it means that whether the Lord tarries a day or 2000 years He is still going to come.

You don't believe this verse means that 1000 years is one day in Rev. 20 anymore than I do, so why use a faulty interpretation of a verse we both agree on to foist a faulty interpretation?

Argument for argument's sake?

Sad.

uh...excuse me konroh?
that passage is used as the proof text.
that's why it was brought up.

 

[Elin]

How do you explain 1 Thes 4:16 then? Are you saying the Second Coming is also at the very end?

The certain unequivocal teaching of the NT is that the second coming is for the resurrection of all mankind and the final judgment at the end of time.

 

[PlainWord]

The certain unequivocal teaching of the NT is that the second coming is for the resurrection of all mankind and the final judgment at the end of time.

So you see no 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth?

You see no period where Christ rules the world with a rod of iron?

You see no period where Satan is chained then let loose to deceive the world again, so basically when the Lord comes, that's it. Believers go to heaven, unbelievers go to hell, game over??

 

[PlainWord]

If we're going to take the figurative literally,
then we have to also agree that a thousand years equals a day.

You can't have the first half literal, and the last half figurative.

Both halves are either literal or figurative.

You've chosen literal, so the last half is also literal.

I'm not sure I follow you but this is what I think.

1 heaven day = 1,000 earth years

1 earth day does not = 1,000 heaven years

Why? heaven is spiritual and is not confined in space rotating on an axis or around a star, at least not that we know.

Time is a dimension. An earth day is determined by its rotation on its axis. An earth year is determined by completing one revolution around the sun. Each planet has different length days and years.

We don't even know where heaven is whether it is in our solar system, our galaxy, our even in our plane or space dimension.

either this means something or nothing. if nothing, why tell us?

 

[Elin]

The certain unequivocal teaching of the NT is that the second coming is for the resurrection of all mankind and the final judgment at the end of time.

So you see no 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth?

You see no period where Christ rules the world with a rod of iron?

You see no period where Satan is chained then let loose to deceive the world again, so basically when the Lord comes, that's it. Believers go to heaven, unbelievers go to hell, game over??

No, I do not because that is not found in the certain unequivocal teaching of the NT.

That all comes from uncertain private interpretation of prophetic riddles, which can be, and are, interpreted by others to mean things entirely different.

 

[Elin]

I'm not sure I follow you but this is what I think.

1 heaven day = 1,000 earth years

1 earth day does not = 1,000 heaven years


Why? heaven is spiritual and is not confined in space rotating on an axis or around a star, at least not that we know.

Time is a dimension. An earth day is determined by its rotation on its axis. An earth year is determined by completing one revolution around the sun. Each planet has different length days and years.

We don't even know where heaven is whether it is in our solar system, our galaxy, our even in our plane or space dimension.

By "spiritual," I assume you are not using it in the NT sense, but are using it to mean non-material, non-physical.

Then on what basis would time be measured in spiritual heaven to know that one day there is 1,000 years' earth time?

 

[Isdaniel]

Sure look like on the earth to me
[h=3]Revelation 12:4-5[/h]King James Version (KJV)

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.


I doubt these nations are in heaven

 

[Isdaniel]

Wicked nations on the earth for 1000 yr surrounds the camp of the saints which is on the earth

Revelation 20:4-10

King James Version (KJV)

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 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.
9And 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.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

[konroh]

2 Peter 3:8 means all time references in the Bible are irrelevant?

It is the proof text for not seeing 1000 years in Rev. 20?

The context of 2 Peter 3 is waiting for the Lord's return. But we have the Lord's return in Rev. 19. It's then we have the reference to 1000 years in Rev. 20. So to use 2 Pet. 3 for Rev. 20 is ludicrous. There is no warrant to use 2 Pet 3:8 to figure out any time reference in the Bible whatsoever. It was never meant to do so. It was only meant to show that we should patiently wait for the Lord's coming.

I would have more respect for those on this forum if there would be more humility and less dogmatism. I can speak for myself as well in saying that a Pre-trib rapture is a correlative teaching of the NT and not an explicit one. So too the post-trib position has weaknesses in not working out all the details of the Rapture, 2nd coming, millenial kingdom.

The amill. position has weaknesses in spiritualizing OT prophecies and in not understanding Rev. 20 literally both in its terms "1000 years" and "resurrection". An amillenial scholar admits that these are weaknesses in the theory.

Anyone who doesn't admit to weaknesses in their eschatological theory is ignorant, or uneducated, or unscholarly.

 

[PlainWord]

No, I do not because that is not found in the certain unequivocal teaching of the NT.

That all comes from uncertain private interpretation of prophetic riddles, which can be, and are, interpreted by others to mean things entirely different.

Interesting.... But I think you are wrong.

 

[zone]

The amill. position has weaknesses in spiritualizing OT prophecies and in not understanding Rev. 20 literally both in its terms "1000 years" and "resurrection".

hardly

An amillenial scholar admits that these are weaknesses in the theory.

one does?
oh well. i see no weakness in it.
if you read the whole book - and see it retells the same story from many different vantage points, it's clear.

Anyone who doesn't admit to weaknesses in their eschatological theory is ignorant, or uneducated, or unscholarly.

okay.
but you don't understand amil yet.

 

[konroh]

In debates between scholars, the amill scholar admits that the term resurrection in Rev. 20 would have to be taken differently than the way it is used in any other reference in the Bible.

The idea that Rev. is a recapitulation of the same story is a nice theory, but it is an unproven assumption. Yet, I've read "More than Conquerors" I'll admit I don't know everything about amill but don't tell me I don't understand it.

I'm not saying you have to believe in a theory you think is weak, you hold it strongly, but you have to admit that there are many theories out there, that Amill is itself only another theory which actually was not originally held by the early church fathers, that there are many Christians who do not hold to it, that it comes from a hermeneutic that assumes spiritualizing and allegorizing, and that you would not hold to it as importantly as you would that Jesus is truly God, and that salvation can only be found in Him.

Maybe you don't agree with all the above, but let's agree that the main thing is the main thing: salvation by grace through faith in Jesus.

 

[PlainWord]

I can speak for myself as well in saying that a Pre-trib rapture is a correlative teaching of the NT and not an explicit one. So too the post-trib position has weaknesses in not working out all the details of the Rapture, 2nd coming, millenial kingdom.

It is nice to hear a Pre-Tribber actually admit this. I can admit that the millennial reign of Christ is poorly explained, its existence and purpose. But the Millennium isn't needed to support a Post Trib uni-return of Christ. Post Trib does not have a single problem or conflict with any scripture once they are correctly understood. I believe Jesus clearly teaches one return and plainly says when that will be. All of Paul's teachings agree as to one return and the timing. Revelation, as difficult as it can be, also supports one return after the Tribulation.

Pre-Trib is far weaker than just being based on a correlative NT teaching. It cherry picks verses and ignores context such as saying 1 Thes 4:13-18 describe a Pre-Trib Rapture while cutting off the rest of the passage where just two verses later, the event is called (in 1 Thes 5:2), "The Day of the Lord." This Day of the Lord is discussed throughout the OT and NT and is not some new event unique to Paul's teachings.

Pre Trib also assumes facts that aren't stated anywhere such as 1) no Pre-Trib timing ever given, 2) no separate returns of Christ found, 3) no u-turn trip to heaven for Christ with the church in tow, 4) and no changing into spiritual bodies of those "caught up or gathered." These are major holes in the theory, far more problematic than any of the other theories, IMHO.

The Day of the Lord lasting 1,000 earth years does have considerable merit. We have the Lord Returning in multiple passages. We have Him reigning with a Rod of Iron in multiple passages. We have the Lord separating and ruling over nations. We have a lengthy clean up after Armageddon. We have Ezek 40-48 which describes a new temple 1/7th larger where the Lord resides and reigns. We have passages that discuss the restoration of things. We have a judgment and a destruction and rebuilding of earth all within this Day of the Lord. Then of course we have Rev 20 that sets the time at 1,000 years and 2 Peter 3:8 which provides at least some explanation as to how all these things can occur within a "Day." To call this "ludicrous" is being a little disingenuous. Are the facts as clear as they could be? Certainly not but to suggest there is no basis for such thinking is not accurate either.

Maybe you don't agree with all the above, but let's agree that the main thing is the main thing: salvation by grace through faith in Jesus.

Obviously I think we all agree with this. I also think those on this thread, while holding different views, have been respectful and Christian-like in the debate and I appreciate this.

 

[Elin]

It is nice to hear a Pre-Tribber actually admit this. I can admit that the millennial reign of Christ is poorly explained, its existence and purpose. But the Millennium isn't needed to support a Post Trib uni-return of Christ. Post Trib does not have a single problem or conflict with any scripture once they are correctly understood. I believe Jesus clearly teaches one return and plainly says when that will be. All of Paul's teachings agree as to one return and the timing. Revelation, as difficult as it can be, also supports one return after the Tribulation.

Pre-Trib is far weaker than just being based on a correlative NT teaching. It cherry picks verses and ignores context such as saying 1 Thes 4:13-18 describe a Pre-Trib Rapture while cutting off the rest of the passage where just two verses later, the event is called (in 1 Thes 5:2), "The Day of the Lord." This Day of the Lord is discussed throughout the OT and NT and is not some new event unique to Paul's teachings.

Pre Trib also assumes facts that aren't stated anywhere such as 1) no Pre-Trib timing ever given, 2) no separate returns of Christ found, 3) no u-turn trip to heaven for Christ with the church in tow, 4) and no changing into spiritual bodies of those "caught up or gathered." These are major holes in the theory, far more problematic than any of the other theories, IMHO.

However, the charge that amill is itself only another theory that comes from a hermeneutic that
assumes spiritualizing and allegorizing is likewise meritless.

Spiritualizing and allegorizing OT texts is not an assumption, it is a practice of the NT writers;
e.g., where they spiritualize:

Ac 15:13-18 --> Am 9:11-12;
Ro 9:25-26; 1Pe 2:10 --> Hos 1:9, 2:23;
Heb 8:6-13, 10:15-18 --> Jer 31:31-34;
Heb 11:10, 13, 16 --> Jer 31:31-34 & Ge 17:8;
1Co 10:1-4 --> Ex 14:22, 16:4, 17:6;
Gal 3:16, 29, --> Ge 12:7;
Gal 4:27 --> Is 54:1;
1Co 9:8-10, 14; 1Tim 5:17-18 --> Dt 25:4
Heb 3:7--4:11 --> Dt 12:10, 25:19; Nu 14:30, Ps 95:7-11;

and where they allegorize:

1Co 5:7-8 --> Ex 12:12-20;
Gal 4:21-31 --> Ge 16:3-4, 21:1-3;
Heb 11:19 --> Ge 22:13.

Objection to "spirtualizing and allegorizing" the OT text is not based in the Bible, for the NT writers often do just that.

In fact, to the NT writers, a correct understanding of the OT often required "spiritualizing and allegorizing" the text.

So we're wiser now than the NT writers, and forbid the OT to be interpreted spiritually and allegorically?