H
Howdy
Guest
You really believe the first resurrection is after the Millennium?
Who taught you such foolishness?
Here are the differences between the last two prophetic comings of Christ (the Rapture vs Second Coming)
- Thread starter EddieM
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Who taught you such foolishness?
H
Howdy
Guest
I suppose you do not believe what John wrote as directed by God in Revelation when He said THIS IS THE FIRST RESURRECTION.
Explain to me why John would say such a thing if it were not true.
No offense, but it is because you need to study it more and study it deeper. The truth is in there. You have to dig for it and refer to the original language to get the actual meaning.
Some verses in scripture sound like they say one thing, but when you word study in the original language out, it actually means the opposite of how they translated it. You want some examples?
And there's already been several resurrections of a sort, but that's much deeper.
H
Howdy
Guest
All those resurrections in the past has been resurrections in the flesh.
John is speaking of the event Paul described I Corinthians 15:49-52.
By the way, I don't need people who do not understand Scripture telling me THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS.
Why don't you just accept what it says and stop twisting the Scripture to fit your belief.
You still have not explains what you belief Revelation 20 says.
I guess since it does not fit into you belief you will just ignore it.
Just a quick note. The first resurrection has several stages as recorded in 1 Cor 15:22, 23. Each group (the Church, the OT saints...) is resurrected in a certain order. Christ is the first fruits of the first resurrection, then those at his coming who belong to him, etc.
Yes, i would like to see where the original language is translated with a word that "actually means the opposite."
Also, what is your background in Greek?
H
Howdy
Guest
Here we go again.
Change the Scripture to fit the belief.
Now you change from sever resurrections to it comes in several stages.
Your a trip!
I can see you (Howdy) are not a serious bible student. You are just looking to defend God's honor by helping God set all the other Christian's straight. Truth alone resides with you. Keep showing us the truth so we can sit at your feet and marvel at your brilliance and how you come to God's rescue.
You bore me. I am going to select to ignore you. I think you just need to grow up from your current babe status. Best of luck!
H
Howdy
Guest
No problem that you ignore me. Does not mean I will not continue to challenge your belief when I belief you are wrong.
There is a lot of things I am not sure about so I continue to study.
Never said I know it all, because I do not.
You still have not explained Revelation 20 to me and how it fits in your belief.
Ok calm down. You can believe anything you want to.
And you've already had your question about revelation 20 answered for you. It's talking about post trib just before the Millenium.
Genesis 10:9
9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord..../KJV
Makes him sound like a good guy, doesn't it? If you keep digging (in a Concordance) you will see that, a better translation would be, he was a mighty hunter, in defiance of the Lord. Pretty much opposite of what it says.
My background in Greek (and Hebrew) is only as far as a good Concordance goes, and the online one too, BlueLetterBible.org
I'm no professor, but I've heard some Greek teachers talk about all the idiosyncrasies of that language, and there's a lot of them.
I don't understand why you would say that to him? You will continue to challenge his debate no matter what...so is it more about winning the debate. I thought the goal was getting to the real truth?
Didn't I just tell you a couple posts ago that, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe? I can accept the fact that others and I disagree on some points, and that's fine. But you're saying that you will troll the thread and wont even let us who believe differently than you because not have conversation without trolling the thread? you say, you right we wrong?
That's Juvenile. That's how you back up your assertions? With troll threats instead of scripture? Why would you do that? It's called, agree to disagree at some point and leave it alone. No!!! I will continue to Challenge You!!! ????
I would be embarrassed if I were you. You don't have to talk like a punk.
Got any other scriptures you think proves a post trib rapture besides Rev. 20? I got quite a few hours into studying this subject and will meet you head on and show you where are you wrong with scripture.
So are you here just to play games or do you actually have a smidgen of academia in there? Ask a good question.
H
Howdy
Guest
I will always point out what I believe is a teaching or belief that not supported by Scripture.
Whether to post is directed to me or not, I can not remain silent when I believe the post is not according to Scripture.
The Lord's churches would be in much better shape if more would stand up against what is believed a wrong teaching.
I do not mean to offend anyone.
I did not put the person on ignore.
If anyone thinks they can silence me by putting me on ignore and still post thing I believe is wrong, they are mistaken.
H
Howdy
Guest
Thanks for agreeing with me that it is posr-trib,
But no one has shown me how they justify a pre-trib rapture when Revelation states the first resurrection is after the tribulation and those beheaded and those who did not take the mark nor worship the beast or his image are in the first resurrection.
If you are serious, just find three scholarly commentaries (and not all from your persuasion) on Genesis and you will have your answer. I personally don't see any problems with the translation.
The concordance is pretty much not going to be of help. Stick with scholarly commentaries.
Well I can post scriptures for you and explain it, but I can't understand it for you.
So you're on some sort of spread chaos and confusion trip instead of seeking the truth within Scripture.
"I do not mean to offend anyone." ?? But you come across like you want to do exactly that.
"If anyone thinks they can silence me by putting me on ignore and still post thing I believe is wrong, they are mistaken."
See what I mean?! You may as well had posted I'm a punk and am here to be an ass. Because that's how you come across. Are you too lazy to actually think? Talk about the scripture? Let us reason together? Hello anybody home?! Can you speak on a higher lever than you have been doing? Because if you can then perhaps someone may actually learn something.
You sound like a 14 year old punk. Your best post about this subject was "UH-UHHH"
I am embarrassed for you. How old are you?
Not in God's eyes. This is a liberal statement of the highest order. I know you didn't mean it that way, but we are only free to interpret scripture in its historical, grammatical, linguistical, cultural, etc. setting. (Paul says, you have to rightly divide the word. Whatever that means, it means at least we have restrictions.)