Why I believe in the rapture.

[Curtis]

John also says some fairly interesting things, when it comes to life and death, and what believing in Christ means:

John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 8:51
Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”

John 20:31
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 3:15
that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.


What do you suppose all these could mean? Some of them are rather clear, are they not? Outside of Christ, we are currently dead. The life we have, is no life at all…a parody of animation. When we believe in Christ, THEN we truly have life. We have passed from death TO life.
Now…while that does not DEMAND that we interpret Rev 20 and the ‘first resurrection’ in this light, it certainly makes it not just biblically possible, but, in my view, suggests we take it quite seriously.
Why? If…before we even reach Revelation, we have the biblical authors speaking about a spiritual resurrection (life in Christ) AND then a bodily resurrection (at his return)…then why on earth, when we get to Revelation, do we need to find another sort of resurrection to fit into our model? The bible has already given us what we need, so in my mind, we ought to follow it.


I find this unconvincing, sorry. It’s not Daniel or John giving us visions they made up. It’s them writing down “what they saw”. In which case, it’s God who gave the vision. So…unless you believe God just couldn’t quite see 3000 years into the future, I don’t buy it.
Also….fussing about details like “It’s got to be the UN! Look, it’s an exact match!”….I think that is not, perhaps, what Revelation is about. How do you ‘exact match’ something that is given in symbolic visions? It’s fine if they visions have been interpreted very clearly for us, as they were in Daniel…ie: that will be the Kingdom of Greece….but we don’t tend to find that in Revelation. Instead, we are just warned to be on guard against systems and governments who are anti-God. Which are plenty. There will, quite possibly, be a final one which will prop up this Man of Sin, and I suspect once it arrives and does its thing, we’ll know about it, simply because of the severity of it. But until then? Trying to guess and “pin the tail” on certain aspects of the book…not what it was intended for.


Paul clearly speaks about the Man of Lawlessness. And that he will deceive the nations. One might conclude that he deceives the whole world simply to be famous, but if he truly is like most evil men, he’ll want power and to force his will on other men.
It’s not a stretch to link Paul’s “man of lawlessness” to Daniel’s little horn, or John’s Antichrist. Or Revelations first ‘beast’.
Whether you believe it to be a world power or a single man, there seems to be the idea that Christ will have SOMETHING he will need to kill with the breath of his mouth when he returns.


Okay. Let me ask you two questions here. First one: when Satan confronted God about Job, and demanded to torment him, what did God say?
He gave permission, right? Except…he put strict conditions on what Satan could and could not do. So…we know it’s entirely possible for God to limit how Satan works, and Satan has no choice but to obey him. But that does NOT mean Satan is completely helpless; he still made Job’s life woeful.
Second question: when Jesus said this: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.”(Matthew 12:28-29)
Do you think he was just being facetious?
Or do you think he was telling them something profound. Like the fact that the Kingdom of God had come in a very real way, and that it was going to ‘prevail against the gates of hell’ despite everything, because Christ had bound the strong man.

So many people, when they look at Rev 20 say “Satan’s not bound, because he can still do stuff!”

But Rev 20 only says that Satan is bound against deceiving the nation into gathering together against the Saints of the Most High. In other words…Satan is forbidden in making a concerted effort to wipe Christianity from the face of the planet. Which is why he hasn’t, even though he is the ‘Prince of this world’. I mean, think about it…if Satan really was the Prince of this world and it was his to command, all people and demons his to command, why is Christianity still the largest religion there is? Why aren’t we hunted everywhere like they are in North Korea or Iran? That’s what you’d expect, right? Unless….Satan has restrictions placed upon him, so that the whole, in its entirety, may not stand as one against us. The Church will prevail.



Are you speaking of all the times Jesus restored old life to dead people, or are you speaking resurrection…as in, new resurrection bodies, of the sort Paul talks of in 1 Cor 15?
Because nothing in scripture tells us that these other ‘coming to life’ events, where legit ‘resurrections’. In fact, I’d argue against it. The ‘coming out of the graves’ event in Matt 27…that happened before Jesus’ resurrection, right? Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15 that Jesus is the “first fruits” of new resurrections bodies. And that while he has his now, we shall received ours AT his return. So…no…no one gets their resurrection body until the end. Which means anyone else who showed up out of the grave or back from the dead before that, had a miraculous, life extending event happen. But it wasn’t a “real” resurrection. Scripture basically stamps that idea out.

Timtofly needs to realize that when the abomination of desolation reveals the son of perdition, it’s not a revelation that Satan exists - it’s that the false Messiah reveals that he’s the satanic antichrist, when he claims to be God, after entering the 3rd temple and stopping the sacrifice.

I have no doubt that during the general tribulation of the first 42 months, there’s continuing controversy about whether the AC is really the AC or not - just like the speculation for the first year or so of WW2 whether Hitler was the Antichrist- but when he dies from a head wound, rises from the dead possessed by Satan, then goes into the temple and declares himself God, it will remove all doubt.

 

[Naomi25]

First of all, I do not label books by genre. That is your argument. The Bible is the Word of God, and that is how I view it.

You know, when I went to school, that started teaching this sort of thing early. You know, the whole idea of ‘know what you are reading’ idea. That way if you pick up a news article, you know you’re not reading fiction (debatable today, I know), or if you pick up a history book, you know you’re not reading poetry. Because it totally changes how we read the text…how we understand it.
Now…clearly the bible, and ALL the books within it are God’s word, all 100% true, and right and precious. Genre doesn’t change that. But its absolutely clear that the people God had write his book, he had them write it in different styles, different genres. Moses wrote in historical genre. David wrote poetry, wisdom, as did Solomon. The prophets…well, obvious. The disciples wrote letters. All these things matter for our understanding of the text. And it’s just silliness to pretend they don’t. Which, quite frankly, is why so many people get to Revelation, claim it has to be read “literally” and then go on to insist a hoard of demonic host is actually helicopters with women behind the wheel.

.
The book of Revelation being deemed only as one genre is again your argument, not mine. I have never claimed the book is using literal terms to describe literal phenomenon. John uses symbolic terms to describe literal phenomenon. You claim even the phenomenon itself can only be figurative. So you claim John in essence is using figures to describe more figures, thus leading to the point nothing is real any more.

See, now, you’re getting into specifics that I don’t know we’ve actually gone into…so it’s not exactly fair to start making claims such as these. Yes, I do think the book is apocalyptic…mostly. However, most people can see and agree that it starts off in clear epistle format…as letters. It’s written to 7 Churches, and the address to these churches are, mostly, clear. But the rest of the content, sent to these churches, falls into the apocalyptic format…
This is not uncommon. We see the same in the book of Daniel…he wavers from historic recounting to apocalyptic visions.
Also…I never said you’d claimed the book to be literal, just that too many do.
You say that “I claim even the phenomenon itself can only be figurative”. Sir, I do not know where you got this idea, but I have not said it, and it is a misrepresentation of what I believe.
I believe very much that what John is describing is symbolic representations of real things or events. They may not be what people insist they must be (that has to be a giant comet falling into the sea!!), but I do not discount the possibility. I think the book describes a very real, ongoing battle in the realms we cannot see. John was given a glimpse and wrote it down, giving us fair warning that this battle can, does, and will spill over into our world.

.
Example: the day of the Lord is the symbolism for a literal 1000 years. 1000 years is not a symbolic phrase meaning the Lord is not bound by time. The Day of the Lord is not the literal point. The Day of the Lord is the symbolism. The 1000 years is the literal time, that the Day of the Lord is symbolizing. There is the symbolic term, Day of the Lord. Then there is the literal time frame of 1000 years. If a literal Day of the Lord is a literal 24 hour day, it would make the 1000 years meaningless. If a day on earth was 1000 years in heaven, it would make the thought meaningless.

You know what? It would take an entire, separate post to go into the whole 1000 years thing. Maybe later. But…There seems to be some confusion mixing the 1000 years up with “the day of the Lord”. So, lets look at the Day of the Lord, for a moment, see what scripture says about it:
You seem to believe this ‘day’ will last 1000 years. Dispensationalists think it is ‘the tribulation’…the time of God’s wrath. However, NT teaching does not seem to support this reading. I’ll attempt to support this claim.

There is no doubt that in the OT ‘the day of the Lord’ was used frequently, both in regards to a future final day of eschatological judgment, and of closer times when God would use other nations (usually) to judge Israel, or other evil Kingdoms. However, once in the NT, we see the second particular use of ‘day of the Lord’ abandoned and only used in the eschatological sense. The thought behind this is; the New Covenant has bought grace and mercy…there is but one more ‘day of the Lord’…the final one.

Let’s look at some of the references in the NT for ‘this day’, ‘that day’ or references to ‘the day of Christ’:

Matthew 7:22: On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
Matthew 10:15: Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
John 6:39: And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Romans 2:5:But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
Romans 2:16: on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Jude 1:6: And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—
2 Peter 3:7: But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
2 Peter 3:12: waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
1 Thessalonians 5:4: But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief.
2 Timothy 4:8: Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.
1 Corinthians 3:13: each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
2 Corinthians 1:14: just as you did partially understand us—that on the day of our Lord Jesus you will boast of us as we will boast of you.
Philippians 1:6: And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 6:17: for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”


We can see that the NT unwaveringly places the “Day” as a final eschatological event….the Day of Judgment, the Day of wrath, the Day of disclosure, the Day of fire, the Day of surprise, the Day of God, the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ….

There is no more expectation that these things will dribble out over years and multiple punishments. Indeed, there is no proof at all that this ‘day’ mentioned will last 7 years, or 1000. In fact, if this ‘day’ is the one spoken of in 2 Peter 3:12, then are we to expect the heavenly bodies to melt and burn for 1000 years? Where are we as we watch the renewing of the cosmos for this time?

.
The coming Day of the Lord starts out in judgment, but it still will last for 1000 years. Not the Judgment part. The reign Christ comes to do, at the Second Coming, will last for 1000 years. Christ has to rid the world of sin first. Coming as Messiah was a 3.5 year ministry, that ended with Christ being the annoited Lamb of God. God Himself provided the sacrifice of Atonement for Adam's disobedience. Even when the Law was given, God reminded us that work would only be for 6 days. Yet no one remembers the Sabbath nor what even went on during the Sabbath after the 6 days of Creation. The punishment given to Adam would be no longer than the 6 days of Creation itself. That is why the Holy Spirit reminded us in 2 Peter 3:8 when pointing out how patient God was with the length of sin being present on the earth.

There is no way this will last 1000 years.

1 Corinthians 15:50-57
[50] I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. [51] Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [53] For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. [54] When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
[55] “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
[56] The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. [57] But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

This ‘rapture’ event occurs at Christ’s return (1 Cor 15:23), when we are all given our first fruit bodies. The sting of death is sin. And death…and therefore sin, will be ‘swallowed up in victory’ AT the rapture, AT the resurrection, AT the return of Christ. So…no way this takes 1000 years to come to pass. Indeed, we are told it will happen “in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye”. That doesn’t sound like 1000 years to me.

 

[Naomi25]

Personally, I think of the Revelation mostly as Prophetic Narrative, and Vision.

Hebrew Apocalyptic was a genre of non-spiritual writing before the time of Christ. It found meaning in the interpretations of humanly devised symbols and narratives, and it is not spiritually discerned.

But for the most part I'd say what you've said about genre.

And I agree, all symbols are interpretted for us, and if they are not, then our interpretations lack Scriptural authority.

Much love!

Daniel is classically described by most scholars as apocalyptic. It’s definitely not ‘interpreted by humanly devised symbols’, and has a clear connection to Revelation. Even Christ himself references the book, which he does no other OT by name.

I think so many people get twitchy when the genre of ‘apocalyptic’ is used…perhaps because many people do use it as an excuse to wave away the content in such figurative mannerisms that the book becomes effectively useless. That ought not be the case, and is not truly what apocalyptic means.
It differs from ‘prophectic’ books in that prophetic discourse tends to be both straight foretelling as well as forth-telling. If you look through some of the classic prophetic books, there is not such heavy use of the strange symbology.
People just need to keep in mind that behind the strange symbology is very real and true meanings. We can see this clearly in Daniel as the visions are interpreted for us. They’re interpreted clearly as earthly Kingdoms, clashing and defeating one another. We also see heavenly scenes in Daniel, and I think we get more of that in Revelation. The spiritual realm is ever present and very real…an ongoing battle raging around us. The war is won, but Revelation gives us a glimpse into that heavenly reality, and, I think, describes to us how it spills over into this world.

 

[Naomi25]

I like your posts and your attention to detail!

I'd still say Matthew recorded Jesus' prophecy of the AOD at the end of the age, while Luke recorded Jesus' prophecy of "but before all these", the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Much love!

The Olivet Discourse is hard, isn’t it? I’ve wavered over it for years. And, to be honest, I can’t say I’m 100% decided.
I don’t know if we can allow that Matthew and Luke recorded different time periods. Wouldn’t that mean that the “discourse” they are recording is not the same? And yet, apart from some small details, they appear to be the same conversation. In fact, its almost exactly what we’d expect from different witnesses recording the same thing…slightly different details that they’d picked up on…honed in on.
That’s why I think it more likely to be a foreshadowing event…referencing one, closer event, but also allowing for another, future one.
I think, ultimately, we must watch closely. If another Jewish temple is built, it lets us know which interpretation is perhaps more accurate. I’m not keen on doing ‘newspaper exegesis’, but I think we need to let events like that inform us just a little. The original audience would not have understood things in a vacuum, and so it cannot be said we must block everything around us out as well…especially when the things we are reading speak, potentially, of life around us.
So, I’m usually happy to form my opinions, but always keep an eye out.

 

[Naomi25]

This corruptible body is dead and needs resurrection, that is the bottom line. Not many are changed without going through the physical process, referred to as sleep, or the valley of the shadow of death.

Enoch was the first to be translated without physical death. Adam and Eve were translated from life to death. They had incorruptible bodies, immediately after Adam disobeyed, they had corruptible bodies. They literally physically died, as God promised. So thus physical life is still physical death. We are in dead corruptible physical bodies.

That is the state that needs to be changed and resurrected. John 11 and the resurrection of Lazarus is proof that Jesus was the Resurrection and Life. That is what Jesus was describing in this verse:

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

And this verse:

"all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Because both the living and those in their graves are both dead.

The living are born into life. Not resurrected into life. Salvation is the second birth, not the first resurrection. The first resurrection is physical into an incorruptible permanent physical body.

The point is who Jesus calls and when. The hour started while Jesus was still on earth even before the Cross. This is an ongoing calling by Jesus from death into life. The last call will be at the GWT. The heavens and earth will be no more. The dead will stand before God.

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with your interpretations here. As I’ve plotted out in other posts, I believe the bible is clear on a couple of things:
1 Corinthians 15:20-23
[20] But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. [21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

Jesus is the only one to have a new, resurrection body. He is the first fruits of this harvest. This is the order of things. THEN the rest of us, those who have fallen asleep in him, as well as those remaining alive, AT his coming, will receive our new, resurrection bodies.

I also think that the bible is clear that in Christ we have moved from death to life:

John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.

And if it teaches this, a clear rebirth when we come to Christ, as well as a clear resurrection at Christ’s return…why look for other resurrections or births? Not only does there not seem the need, I would posit that there is no biblical leeway for it.

More, Rev 20 tells us that those who experience the “first resurrection”, the ‘second death’ cannot hurt.
That tells us something of the what these things are. The second death is destruction in the Lake of fire, Rev 20 tells us. So, the ‘first death’ is normal, physical death. Which is something we all, even believers, face. So, the ‘first resurrection’ will not save us from the first death, only the second. Which fits with the first resurrection being a spiritual birth.
If the ‘first resurrection’ was just a “first batch” of people being raised before a whole bunch of others…wouldn’t you think the bible would specify time, rather than what it was? Because ultimately, the resurrection body we all receive after death, will be exactly the same.
Just some food for thought.

 

[Naomi25]

Timtofly needs to realize that when the abomination of desolation reveals the son of perdition, it’s not a revelation that Satan exists - it’s that the false Messiah reveals that he’s the satanic antichrist, when he claims to be God, after entering the 3rd temple and stopping the sacrifice.

I have no doubt that during the general tribulation of the first 42 months, there’s continuing controversy about whether the AC is really the AC or not - just like the speculation for the first year or so of WW2 whether Hitler was the Antichrist- but when he dies from a head wound, rises from the dead possessed by Satan, then goes into the temple and declares himself God, it will remove all doubt.

Well, when we read texts that talk about ‘great deception’ or ‘he comes with lying power and great deception’…or even ‘he will lead astray even the elect…if possible’….we must suppose that he’s not going to be wearing a badge that reads “Satan sent me”. I mean…all we have to do is look at the state of things now. At how HARD it is to know what is true about what on earth we’re hearing….in the news, online…anywhere. Fake new, conspiracies, lies…they’re everywhere. Stick in a fellow who can truly back up his rather marvellous claims, then yes…I’ll just bet people fall for him…even many “Christians”.

 

[Jay Ross]

Do you not place the rapture at the Second Coming?

Yes, I did state that but I also qualified that the second coming was at the end of the next age and not at the beginning of the last age as you believe.

The tares and wheat where Satan's followers are the tares happens during the GT, the Trumpets and Thunders. Satan gets 42 months after the final harvest. He gains more followers because many were already killed in the 7 Thunders. At Armageddon all those who followed Satan will also be killed. Revelation 19:20-21

Sadly, your timeline of the events in the Book of Revelation is screwed up, in that you place the Armageddon gathering of the Kings of the earth at the end of the Millennium Age, i.e. your reference to Rev 19:20-21, which is actually the Gog Magog led battles at the end of the last age.

Now if you want a conversation on the Book of Revelation, then I would advise you to firstly get your time line of all of the events in order first.

Otherwise any conversation will be pointless, and I am not interested in having a conversation that is pointless.

 

[farouk]

Well, when we read texts that talk about ‘great deception’ or ‘he comes with lying power and great deception’…or even ‘he will lead astray even the elect…if possible’….we must suppose that he’s not going to be wearing a badge that reads “Satan sent me”. I mean…all we have to do is look at the state of things now. At how HARD it is to know what is true about what on earth we’re hearing….in the news, online…anywhere. Fake new, conspiracies, lies…they’re everywhere. Stick in a fellow who can truly back up his rather marvellous claims, then yes…I’ll just bet people fall for him…even many “Christians”.

@Naomi25 I remember I heard a sermon with hard-hitting, fine sounding quotes from worthy men, and assertions. (Just one thing: Scripture seemed to be fairly absent...)

 

[Timtofly]

Whet do you think Jesus rose in? A mortal body? What kind of body do those raised at the resurrection have? A mortal body?

Obviously no, to both questions.

Paul calls it an incorruptible body. Paul claims two things. One is physical the other spiritual.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

The physical body is changed from corruption to incorruption. So the spiritual body is a physical body incorruptible. So what is putting on immortality? Our spirit is not a physical body. Our spirit is when we put on immortality.

Adam was in the full image of God, body, soul, and spirit. Why does Paul not point out that Adam was also a quickened spirit? Paul was describing Adam's fallen sinful state. We have the Holy Spirit instead of our spirit, until we put on immortality. We have to wait to put on this immortality, our spirit, which we are separated from.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

We do not become immortal. We become the image of God. The soul puts on an incorruptible body and the spirit, a robe of white. We do not become divine or God. We become sons of God. Our spirit is the part that is the putting on of immortality. The body is what is incorruptible. Putting on of the spirit is the part where we are glorified.

 

[Naomi25]

FALLACY #1: COMBINING THE RAPTURE AND THE SECOND COMING

The Resurrection/Rapture is strictly for the saints where Christ comes in "the air" and returns with all the saints in their resurrected and/or transformed glorified bodies. The Second Coming and the judgment of the unsaved and ungodly are two different events AFTER the Resurrection/Rapture. So you have made a mishmash of four different things.

Those who know their Bibles will not see that as "opinions". Everything is based upon Bible facts. No need for lengthy quotations.

It tickles me just a little bit that we’re supposed to take you at your word here. Most other people on this board take the time out of their lives to carefully present the evidence for their arguments or views. They do this for two reasons; because they want to show to others that they are not making their views up, that they see them in scripture. They also do it to show others that it matters. The topics under conversation matter, they are weighty, because they are based…or should be…on the word of God and what HE has said. We quote scripture because we want to show others that HIS word matters to us more than their opinions, but also more than our own.
That you cannot bother to take the time to back your opinion with scripture, dismissing it with a simple “people who know their bibles know I’M right” speaks, to me, of laziness, and a disregard for the careful study of God’s word, and a respect of what it truly says, and a respect of others, to return the favour of their own hard work.
It also tells me I can’t take your “opinion” at all seriously. If you can’t be bothered to do the work now, what makes me at all confident that you’ve done it at any stage?

 

[Timtofly]

John also says some fairly interesting things, when it comes to life and death, and what believing in Christ means:

John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 8:51
Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”

John 20:31
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 3:15
that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.


What do you suppose all these could mean? Some of them are rather clear, are they not? Outside of Christ, we are currently dead. The life we have, is no life at all…a parody of animation. When we believe in Christ, THEN we truly have life. We have passed from death TO life.
Now…while that does not DEMAND that we interpret Rev 20 and the ‘first resurrection’ in this light, it certainly makes it not just biblically possible, but, in my view, suggests we take it quite seriously.
Why? If…before we even reach Revelation, we have the biblical authors speaking about a spiritual resurrection (life in Christ) AND then a bodily resurrection (at his return)…then why on earth, when we get to Revelation, do we need to find another sort of resurrection to fit into our model? The bible has already given us what we need, so in my mind, we ought to follow it.


I find this unconvincing, sorry. It’s not Daniel or John giving us visions they made up. It’s them writing down “what they saw”. In which case, it’s God who gave the vision. So…unless you believe God just couldn’t quite see 3000 years into the future, I don’t buy it.
Also….fussing about details like “It’s got to be the UN! Look, it’s an exact match!”….I think that is not, perhaps, what Revelation is about. How do you ‘exact match’ something that is given in symbolic visions? It’s fine if they visions have been interpreted very clearly for us, as they were in Daniel…ie: that will be the Kingdom of Greece….but we don’t tend to find that in Revelation. Instead, we are just warned to be on guard against systems and governments who are anti-God. Which are plenty. There will, quite possibly, be a final one which will prop up this Man of Sin, and I suspect once it arrives and does its thing, we’ll know about it, simply because of the severity of it. But until then? Trying to guess and “pin the tail” on certain aspects of the book…not what it was intended for.


Paul clearly speaks about the Man of Lawlessness. And that he will deceive the nations. One might conclude that he deceives the whole world simply to be famous, but if he truly is like most evil men, he’ll want power and to force his will on other men.
It’s not a stretch to link Paul’s “man of lawlessness” to Daniel’s little horn, or John’s Antichrist. Or Revelations first ‘beast’.
Whether you believe it to be a world power or a single man, there seems to be the idea that Christ will have SOMETHING he will need to kill with the breath of his mouth when he returns.


Okay. Let me ask you two questions here. First one: when Satan confronted God about Job, and demanded to torment him, what did God say?
He gave permission, right? Except…he put strict conditions on what Satan could and could not do. So…we know it’s entirely possible for God to limit how Satan works, and Satan has no choice but to obey him. But that does NOT mean Satan is completely helpless; he still made Job’s life woeful.
Second question: when Jesus said this: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.”(Matthew 12:28-29)
Do you think he was just being facetious?
Or do you think he was telling them something profound. Like the fact that the Kingdom of God had come in a very real way, and that it was going to ‘prevail against the gates of hell’ despite everything, because Christ had bound the strong man.

So many people, when they look at Rev 20 say “Satan’s not bound, because he can still do stuff!”

But Rev 20 only says that Satan is bound against deceiving the nation into gathering together against the Saints of the Most High. In other words…Satan is forbidden in making a concerted effort to wipe Christianity from the face of the planet. Which is why he hasn’t, even though he is the ‘Prince of this world’. I mean, think about it…if Satan really was the Prince of this world and it was his to command, all people and demons his to command, why is Christianity still the largest religion there is? Why aren’t we hunted everywhere like they are in North Korea or Iran? That’s what you’d expect, right? Unless….Satan has restrictions placed upon him, so that the whole, in its entirety, may not stand as one against us. The Church will prevail.



Are you speaking of all the times Jesus restored old life to dead people, or are you speaking resurrection…as in, new resurrection bodies, of the sort Paul talks of in 1 Cor 15?
Because nothing in scripture tells us that these other ‘coming to life’ events, where legit ‘resurrections’. In fact, I’d argue against it. The ‘coming out of the graves’ event in Matt 27…that happened before Jesus’ resurrection, right? Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15 that Jesus is the “first fruits” of new resurrections bodies. And that while he has his now, we shall received ours AT his return. So…no…no one gets their resurrection body until the end. Which means anyone else who showed up out of the grave or back from the dead before that, had a miraculous, life extending event happen. But it wasn’t a “real” resurrection. Scripture basically stamps that idea out.

The second birth is being born into the family of God. One is not resurrected into the family of God.

A resurrection is only physical. It is the process of the soul entering a permanent incorruptible body.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 I remember I heard a sermon with hard-hitting, fine sounding quotes from worthy men, and assertions. (Just one thing: Scripture seemed to be fairly absent...)

Forgive me, but…are you suggesting that the quotes I gave were not from scripture? Because I can most certainly list the verses they came from if you wish. I do agree, that one must back ones claims with scripture. I did not in the above case because during the conversation I’d been having, the verses had previously been used, I believe, and therefore ought to have been recognised.

 

[Timtofly]

But Rev 20 only says that Satan is bound against deceiving the nation into gathering together against the Saints of the Most High. In other words…Satan is forbidden in making a concerted effort to wipe Christianity from the face of the planet. Which is why he hasn’t, even though he is the ‘Prince of this world’. I mean, think about it…if Satan really was the Prince of this world and it was his to command, all people and demons his to command, why is Christianity still the largest religion there is? Why aren’t we hunted everywhere like they are in North Korea or Iran? That’s what you’d expect, right? Unless….Satan has restrictions placed upon him, so that the whole, in its entirety, may not stand as one against us. The Church will prevail.

Are you saying no nation is currently decieved by Satan. All are in direct obedience to God?

The Second Coming is a physical event, exactly like the first coming. At the Second Coming all that is viewed as spiritual will be exposed and nothing spiritual will be hidden from our view.

Satan will certainly make himself known this time, and not hide in the shadows. Thus will be the only time Satan is allowed full control and access. Revelation 13 shows us how much power and authority Satan is given for 42 months. Satan did not earn that. Satan did not get that for good behaviour.


It was the failure of the church right before the Second Coming to bring in a full harvest. Too many souls will be left, and Satan gets the gleanings. Even then many will choose to be beheaded instead of following Satan.

People do not follow Satan now because he has a lot to offer. They choose Satan, because that is what this sinful flesh desires. All Satan had to do was to figure out how to get Adam to disobey God. The rest was fairly easy after that point.

The church seems convinced they get to face Satan head on after the Second Coming. If they are not already doing that now, why would it be different after the Second Coming?

 

[Timtofly]

Timtofly needs to realize that when the abomination of desolation reveals the son of perdition, it’s not a revelation that Satan exists - it’s that the false Messiah reveals that he’s the satanic antichrist, when he claims to be God, after entering the 3rd temple and stopping the sacrifice.

I have no doubt that during the general tribulation of the first 42 months, there’s continuing controversy about whether the AC is really the AC or not - just like the speculation for the first year or so of WW2 whether Hitler was the Antichrist- but when he dies from a head wound, rises from the dead possessed by Satan, then goes into the temple and declares himself God, it will remove all doubt.

The church also needs to figure out that the 6th Seal is the Second Coming. Christ and God on the throne will totally change this world around by fire. It will be totally different than Noah's Flood.

 

[Timtofly]

You know, when I went to school, that started teaching this sort of thing early. You know, the whole idea of ‘know what you are reading’ idea. That way if you pick up a news article, you know you’re not reading fiction (debatable today, I know), or if you pick up a history book, you know you’re not reading poetry. Because it totally changes how we read the text…how we understand it.
Now…clearly the bible, and ALL the books within it are God’s word, all 100% true, and right and precious. Genre doesn’t change that. But its absolutely clear that the people God had write his book, he had them write it in different styles, different genres. Moses wrote in historical genre. David wrote poetry, wisdom, as did Solomon. The prophets…well, obvious. The disciples wrote letters. All these things matter for our understanding of the text. And it’s just silliness to pretend they don’t. Which, quite frankly, is why so many people get to Revelation, claim it has to be read “literally” and then go on to insist a hoard of demonic host is actually helicopters with women behind the wheel.


See, now, you’re getting into specifics that I don’t know we’ve actually gone into…so it’s not exactly fair to start making claims such as these. Yes, I do think the book is apocalyptic…mostly. However, most people can see and agree that it starts off in clear epistle format…as letters. It’s written to 7 Churches, and the address to these churches are, mostly, clear. But the rest of the content, sent to these churches, falls into the apocalyptic format…
This is not uncommon. We see the same in the book of Daniel…he wavers from historic recounting to apocalyptic visions.
Also…I never said you’d claimed the book to be literal, just that too many do.
You say that “I claim even the phenomenon itself can only be figurative”. Sir, I do not know where you got this idea, but I have not said it, and it is a misrepresentation of what I believe.
I believe very much that what John is describing is symbolic representations of real things or events. They may not be what people insist they must be (that has to be a giant comet falling into the sea!!), but I do not discount the possibility. I think the book describes a very real, ongoing battle in the realms we cannot see. John was given a glimpse and wrote it down, giving us fair warning that this battle can, does, and will spill over into our world.



You know what? It would take an entire, separate post to go into the whole 1000 years thing. Maybe later. But…There seems to be some confusion mixing the 1000 years up with “the day of the Lord”. So, lets look at the Day of the Lord, for a moment, see what scripture says about it:
You seem to believe this ‘day’ will last 1000 years. Dispensationalists think it is ‘the tribulation’…the time of God’s wrath. However, NT teaching does not seem to support this reading. I’ll attempt to support this claim.

There is no doubt that in the OT ‘the day of the Lord’ was used frequently, both in regards to a future final day of eschatological judgment, and of closer times when God would use other nations (usually) to judge Israel, or other evil Kingdoms. However, once in the NT, we see the second particular use of ‘day of the Lord’ abandoned and only used in the eschatological sense. The thought behind this is; the New Covenant has bought grace and mercy…there is but one more ‘day of the Lord’…the final one.

Let’s look at some of the references in the NT for ‘this day’, ‘that day’ or references to ‘the day of Christ’:

Matthew 7:22: On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
Matthew 10:15: Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
John 6:39: And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Romans 2:5:But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
Romans 2:16: on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Jude 1:6: And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—
2 Peter 3:7: But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
2 Peter 3:12: waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
1 Thessalonians 5:4: But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief.
2 Timothy 4:8: Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.
1 Corinthians 3:13: each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
2 Corinthians 1:14: just as you did partially understand us—that on the day of our Lord Jesus you will boast of us as we will boast of you.
Philippians 1:6: And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 6:17: for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”


We can see that the NT unwaveringly places the “Day” as a final eschatological event….the Day of Judgment, the Day of wrath, the Day of disclosure, the Day of fire, the Day of surprise, the Day of God, the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ….

There is no more expectation that these things will dribble out over years and multiple punishments. Indeed, there is no proof at all that this ‘day’ mentioned will last 7 years, or 1000. In fact, if this ‘day’ is the one spoken of in 2 Peter 3:12, then are we to expect the heavenly bodies to melt and burn for 1000 years? Where are we as we watch the renewing of the cosmos for this time?




There is no way this will last 1000 years.

1 Corinthians 15:50-57
[50] I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. [51] Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [53] For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. [54] When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
[55] “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
[56] The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. [57] But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

This ‘rapture’ event occurs at Christ’s return (1 Cor 15:23), when we are all given our first fruit bodies. The sting of death is sin. And death…and therefore sin, will be ‘swallowed up in victory’ AT the rapture, AT the resurrection, AT the return of Christ. So…no way this takes 1000 years to come to pass. Indeed, we are told it will happen “in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye”. That doesn’t sound like 1000 years to me.

Because the 1000 year reign with Christ is the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord is not the Second Coming.

God brings the judgment of fire with Him. There is no 3.5 years of peace leading up to the Second Coming. The Second Coming is the unexpected part of the whole book of Revelation. Should any one be able to pinpoint when the 6th Seal is about to be opened?

 

[Timtofly]

And if it teaches this, a clear rebirth when we come to Christ, as well as a clear resurrection at Christ’s return…why look for other resurrections or births? Not only does there not seem the need, I would posit that there is no biblical leeway for it.

How is what I posted multiple births or even rebirth? Nicodemus asked the same point about being born again. We are born into the family of God only one time, and it does not come and go as constantly loosing one's salvation.

Not sure why you think I claim multiple births. I said the birth into God's family is not a resurrection from a dead corruptible body into an incorruptible one. It is not a spiritual resurrection either. It is the second birth, by the Holy Spirit and is of a spiritual nature. We do not rebirth our own spirit.

The soul goes from this corruptible body immediately to a permanent incorruptible body. 2 Corinthians 5:1-8

1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight)

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

No where does Paul say we have to wait for the Second Coming for this to happen.

 

[Naomi25]

The second birth is being born into the family of God. One is not resurrected into the family of God.

A resurrection is only physical. It is the process of the soul entering a permanent incorruptible body.

Semantics.
Look again at HOW it is describes we are given life when we “born again”:


John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 8:51
Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”

John 20:31
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 3:15
that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

1 Peter 1:23
since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

It is not simply a matter of ‘second birth’, as you would want to dismiss it in such a term. It is describes at “passing from death to life”…”eternal life”. As “never seeing death”, as “passing out of death and into life”, as the “new has come”.
And lastly, an interesting correlation between Paul’s passage with resurrection…Peter tells us that we have been “born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable”.
Let’s have a quick look at Paul’s description of the “actual”, physical resurrection:


1 Corinthians 15:42-46
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. [43] It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. [44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. [45] Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [46] But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

So, Peter speaks about being “born again”, not of “perishable see, but of imperishable seed” and Paul speaks of the resurrection of the dead as being “sown perishable, raised imperishable”…we have a direct correlation between the two.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes, I did state that but I also qualified that the second coming was at the end of the next age and not at the beginning of the last age as you believe.



Sadly, your timeline of the events in the Book of Revelation is screwed up, in that you place the Armageddon gathering of the Kings of the earth at the end of the Millennium Age, i.e. your reference to Rev 19:20-21, which is actually the Gog Magog led battles at the end of the last age.

Now if you want a conversation on the Book of Revelation, then I would advise you to firstly get your time line of all of the events in order first.

Otherwise any conversation will be pointless, and I am not interested in having a conversation that is pointless.

Armageddon is not Gog Magog. I never mixed up Gog Magog at the end of the Millennium with Armageddon at the start of the Millennium.

Still not seeing how Christ reigns on earth for 1000 years, but does not come to earth until after finishing the 1000 year reign on earth. If Christ is present, then He already came the second time.

Are we supposed to twist around the chronological order to be correct? Who determines which twisted chronological order is the correct order, if John did not give us the correct chronology?

 

[Enoch111]

It tickles me just a little bit that we’re supposed to take you at your word here.

No. You are not supposed to take my word for it. You are supposed to take God's Word for what it says. The distinction between the Resurrection/Rapture and the Second Coming has been presented many times with the relevant Scriptures. So no one should be making a mishmash out of those two events. And if someone simply dismisses the Rapture altogether, there is no need to waste time trying to set that straight.

 

[Curtis]

Timtofly: Christians are born again and spiritually reborn - and do not remain spiritually dead:

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,

Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—

Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Spiritually, we are reborn, and since we become part of His body through marriage- the two become one - we sit with Jesus in heaven, spiritually.