Thief in the Night-- Pretrib or Second Coming?

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
The Bible tells us plainly that there will be A resurrection of the saved and A resurrection of the unsaved. Dan 12:2, Acts 24:15.

Do you realize that both of those verses indicate a single occurance - with both saved and unsaved in the same occurance?

Daniel 12:

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Acts 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.

It would seem that way. But it doesn't say so specifically.

And, Rev 20:4-6 is very clear that the FIRST resurrection (of the saved) is 1,000 years before the next one, which will be the unsaved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
So Rev 20:5 shows that the resurrection of the unsaved will be 1,000 years after the FIRST resurrection, which will be for believers only.

I agree that the resurrection referred to in Revelation 20:5 is 'believers only'.

Do you agree that the next resurrection will be the single resurrection of the unsaved?

 

[presidente]

@cv5

I just wanted to clarify what your pieces of evidence for pre-trib are, that necessitate taking passages about the 'coming' of the Lord and interpreting them to refer to a seven year series of events, including Christ returning twice.

Is one of your pieces of evidence that elders are mentioned in heaven?

And the other piece of evidence that some individuals rose from the dead at some point in time between Christ's death at the crucifixion and at some point after the resurrection of Christ?

And then there is supposed to be something in Daniel somehow that you haven't articulated that is evidence for pre-trib?

Are those your pieces of evidence? I am not really clear on your case.

If you do think the saints that arose ascended around the time of Christ's resurrection or ascension, then that kind of does away with the necessity of having a big pre-trib rapture before the second coming to align with your time travel assumptions. You could just assign the role of the 24 elders to these people, and they could be in heaven... bodily... without the need for pre-trib.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

If we take away the verse numbers and separate this passage at '.' and ';':
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened;
and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Interesting passage to think about, yeah.

A couple things I notice about this passage (which may or may not make a difference, who knows), is that 1) there's no punctuation in Greek, and 2) there doesn't seem to be an "and" word (in the Greek) between the phrases ^ "after his resurrection" and the phrase "went into the holy city" (in v.53)...

so I'm thinking, it could be listed out like the following:


--And behold the veil of the temple was torn into two from top to bottom
--And the earth was shaken and the rocks were split And the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints having fallen asleep arose
--And having gone forth [aorist participle] out of the tombs
--after His resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared to many

And the centurion and those with him keeping guard over Jesus having seen the earthquake and the things taking place feared greatly saying “Truly this was God’s Son”


or like this:


--And behold the veil of the temple was torn into two from top to bottom
--And the earth was shaken and the rocks were split And the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints having fallen asleep arose
--And having gone forth [aorist participle] out of the tombs after His resurrection
--they entered into the holy city and appeared to many

And the centurion and those with him keeping guard over Jesus having seen the earthquake and the things taking place feared greatly saying “Truly this was God’s Son”



-- https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/27-52.htm

-- https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/27-53.htm

 

[GaryA]

It would seem that way. But it doesn't say so specifically.

In the 'grammar of the language' - yes it does...

(instead of 'say so' - 'indicates' might be a better word)

And, Rev 20:4-6 is very clear that the FIRST resurrection (of the saved) is 1,000 years before the next one, which will be the unsaved.

This is the part you are assuming.

First resurrection - only the saved.

Second resurrection - both saved and unsaved - saved from the Millenium, unsaved from all time.

Do you agree that the next resurrection will be the single resurrection of the unsaved?

Is that a typo?

The next resurrection will be the one that takes place at the Second Coming of Christ - the same as the 'first resurrection' of Revelation 20:5-6.

 

[GaryA]

there's no punctuation in Greek

But - there is in English!

To ignore it is "just plain dumb"... SMH

If you cannot trust the accuracy of the translation from Greek to English --- why are you using it!?!?!?

Studying the Greek allows us to "add back" the 'detail' that may have been lost in the translation (because, as a language, English is "inferior" to Greek); however, as long as we believe that the part that was not lost in the translation (helloooo ) - that is present in the translated end result (helloooo ) - is useful as an English representation of what is in the Greek (helloooo ) - why would we "just throw it away" and ignore it when studying the Greek...???

The punctuation in English is there for a reason! It is a necessary part of the translation! It is needed to make a proper representation - in English - of what is in the Greek!

SMH SMH SMH SMH SMH

I [partially] can't believe you said that...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

If you cannot trust the accuracy of the translation from Greek to English --- why are you using it!?!?!?
[...]
The punctuation in English is there for a reason! It is a necessary part of the translation! It is needed to make a proper representation - in English - of what is in the Greek!

So, when different ENGLISH translations put the punctuation in different slots, which one do you pick as the true one?

You were kind of doing a similar thing, when you were pointing out how you perceive the chronology based on the punctuation in English, right?

All I'm really adding to your thought was the part about their "HAVING GONE FORTH [aorist participle] out of the tombs"... the 'what came next' thing...

As I see it, that's not saying that they came out of the tombs the day of His resurrection (necessarily... likely not); it's just saying that's when they did the "went into the holy city" and "appeared unto many" thing.

To me, I find that brings greater clarity to the otherwise kinda-confusing passage.

And then, just what does [re: the "saw"] the "and the things taking-place [/becoming]" refer to (that "the centurion and those with him keeping guard over Jesus" saw), v.54,
...which to me sounds as though it is not only referring to what took place on the day Jesus died on the Cross (but includes that too, according to the first part of the verse), but also the parts that took place 3 days later on His Resurrection Day (formerly dead saints now resurrected and walking into the holy city), which provokes this response of "Truly this was the Son of God" (feared / reverenced greatly)


interesting indeed.

SMH SMH SMH SMH SMH

I [partially] can't believe you said that...

What, that the Greek language (that it was written in) has no punctuation, so that the various English translations supplied where they think it most reasonably belongs (sometimes differing amongst them--so... what then?? like, say, prior to the kjv...)?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

EDIT to CORRECT:

All I'm really adding to your thought was the part about their "HAVING GONE FORTH [aorist participle] out of the tombs"... the 'what came next' thing...

As I see it, that's not saying that they came out of the tombs the day of His resurrection (necessarily... likely not); it's just saying that's when they did the "went into the holy city" and "appeared unto many" thing.

What I think I meant to say instead was,

...that's not saying they DIDN'T come out of the tombs on His resurrection day...; it's just saying what they did, "went into the holy city and appeared unto many," after His resurrection.



"having gone forth"... they did such and such at such and such a time = D

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

...that's not saying they DIDN'T come out of the tombs on His resurrection day...; it's just saying what they did, "went into the holy city and appeared unto many," after His resurrection.

Third times' a charm??

What I meant was,

that's not saying they DIDN'T come out of the tombs on the day of His death...; it's just saying what they did, "went into the holy city and appeared unto many," after His resurrection.




Ooooo boy... (can't blame that one on the glasses , can I? LOL)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I am not going to be dogmatic about this

Ditto for me.


What I wrote in the post above this one (and my earlier post) seems to me to make the most sense given what we are provided in the text... jmho

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

FreeGrace2 said:
FreeGrace2 said:
Do you agree that the next resurrection will be the single resurrection of the unsaved?

Is that a typo?

The next resurrection will be the one that takes place at the Second Coming of Christ - the same as the 'first resurrection' of Revelation 20:5-6.

No, considering the flow of thought in FreeGrace2's post, he meant "the next resurrection" after the one he'd already mentioned, which he'd just referred to the one in Rev20:4-6.

Also... ("next" in relation) to what you'd said about that ^ one:

GaryA said:
I agree that the resurrection referred to in Revelation 20:5 is 'believers only'.

... so he meant, "next" in relation to that ^ one. (Also, he wasn't saying, immediately-next, in case anyone mistakenly thought that, either. )

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
And, Rev 20:4-6 is very clear that the FIRST resurrection (of the saved) is 1,000 years before the next one, which will be the unsaved.

This is the part you are assuming.

First resurrection - only the saved.

Second resurrection - both saved and unsaved - saved from the Millenium, unsaved from all time.

Your counting is slightly off. The Bible speaks of only TWO resurrections; one for the saved and one for the unsaved. But you are claiming that there will be TWO resurrections of the saved. And the idea that people will be saved in the Millennium is YOUR assumption.

I make no assumptions. Only one resurrection of the saved, and that occurs at the Second Advent. No assumptions.

So, 1,000 years after the Second Advent, all unbelievers will have died, and then resurrected for the GWT judgment. Again, no assumption.

Why assume there will be mortal believers in the Millennium when the Bible doesn't say so? Further, the Bible doesn't say anything about resurrection of believers at the end of the Millennium. None of this is taught in the Bible.

FreeGrace2 said:
Do you agree that the next resurrection will be the single resurrection of the unsaved?

Is that a typo?

The next resurrection will be the one that takes place at the Second Coming of Christ - the same as the 'first resurrection' of Revelation 20:5-6.

No, no typo. Again, the Bible speaks of ONLY 2 resurrections, 1 for the saved and 1 for the unsaved.

Acts 24:15 - and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. See? No assumptions.

 

[presidente]

I think t wo posters may be misunderstanding each other.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I think t wo posters may be misunderstanding each other.

Sometimes a thread reaches the end of it's natural life and should be laid to rest.

 

[presidente]

Sometimes a thread reaches the end of it's natural life and should be laid to rest.

Yeah when you challenge pretribbers like @cv5 until he would actually have to give his evidence for pretrib the thread may wind down.

 

[GaryA]

Yes - 1000 posts should be "plenty enough" - if we can't have a good productive discussion by then - well...

 

[cv5]

Whereas 12:13 speaks of Daniel (OT saint), "thou shalt rest [in death] and STAND IN THY LOT [be resurrected ('to stand again' on the earth)] at the END of the DAYS"

The problem is.....this cannot be the resurrection of Matt 27. Some kind of "firstfuits" ever-living OT saints mingling with the general public would be utterly unmistakable. I mean they would still be around. This of course is obvious.

It also seem very unlikely that it would be a Lazarus-type resurrection.....thought I concede that this is possible. You would think such a remarkable reality would be noted in the text. But it is not.

Can we deduce or even guess precisely what type/category of sheaf/saint this resurrection is? I do not think so.

But for my part, it is the undeniable proximity to the resurrection of Jesus to glory that convinces me that the Matt 27 resurrection is of this type. There is not much else to hang our hat on frankly.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The problem is.....this cannot be the resurrection of Matt 27. Some kind of "firstfuits" ever-living OT saints mingling with the general public would be utterly unmistakable. I mean they would still be around. This of course is obvious.

Yeah, I'm saying the ones in Matthew 27 are not "firstfruit" and are never called such.

Nor do I see any OT saint ever called "firstfruit".





And the way I'm reading the passage sounds to me as though they were resurrected and came out of the tombs on the day of Christ's death; and only went into the holy city and appeared unto many after His resurrection (that is, at least 3 days later).

Feel free to disagree. = )

The problem is.....this cannot be the resurrection of Matt 27.

Yeah, I'm not saying it [Dan12:13] was. Daniel will be resurrected ('to stand again' on the earth) at the END of the Trib yrs.

[nor is Matt27 referring to the thing in Dan12:1-4, to be clear]

 

[GaryA]

And the way I'm reading the passage sounds to me as though they were resurrected and came out of the tombs on the day of Christ's death; and only went into the holy city and appeared unto many after His resurrection (that is, at least 3 days later).

I would suggest that it is quite clear that they came out of the graves after his resurrection:

And came out of the graves after his resurrection

 

[GaryA]

So, when different ENGLISH translations put the punctuation in different slots, which one do you pick as the true one?

The one I trust the most - the one I believe was translated the most correctly - the KJV.