When will the "sudden destruction" from which "they will not escape" referenced in 1 Thess 5:2-3 occur and what is the scope of it?

[WPM]

No they don't.

Satan's little season is after the 1,000 years.

"And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."

You are thinking of:

“Therefore, rejoice, heaven and you who live there! But woe to you, land and sea,
for the Adversary has come down to you,
and he is very angry, because he knows that his time is short!”

When the dragon saw that he had been hurled down to the earth, he went in pursuit of the woman who had given birth to the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where she is taken care of for a season and two seasons and half a season, away from the serpent’s presence. The serpent spewed water like a river out of its mouth after the woman, in order to sweep her away in the flood; but the land came to her rescue — it opened its mouth and swallowed up the river which the dragon had spewed out of its mouth. The dragon was infuriated over the woman and went off to fight the rest of her children, those who obey God’s commands and bear witness to Yeshua. Then the dragon stood on the seashore;"

During the 7th Trumpet, Satan and company are hurled to the earth.

Satan is standing there when the declaration is made ready to start his Babylonian empire in the very next verse.

That 42 months correlates to Satan's short time after being kicked out of heaven.

The little season is after Satan is loosed out of the pit.


Being loosed out of the pit is the exact opposite of being cast out of heaven.

One direction comes from under the earth. The other direction comes from heaven down to earth.

Satan is headed in a different direction for each time period that follows what just happened to Satan.

Obviously Satan was not bound up in heaven nor cast out of the pit. He was cast out of heaven and then 42 months later bound in the pit.

Exactly. That comes in the current age. Your imaginary future age full of billions of wicked is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Timtofly]

Exactly. That comes in the current age. Your imaginary future age full of billions of wicked is a figment of your imagination.

Death is the current age. Living forever is the Millennium age.

 

[WPM]

Death is the current age. Living forever is the Millennium age.

Where you have sin you have death. You have the same billions of wicked rebels to deal with as we have. You have both that overwhelm your millennium.

 

[Timtofly]

Where you have sin you have death. You have the same billions of wicked rebels to deal with as we have. You have both that overwhelm your millennium.

No. All sinners are dead at the beginning. Only ressurected sons of God are on earth during the Millennium.

After the millennium, the sons of God are deceived just like Eve was in the Garden.

No sin is allowed in the Millennium. That is the definition of no sin, and everlasting righteousness.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The first resurrection happened to Lazarus. That is the point you are avoiding. You demand that only Christ rose first, and all others are secondary.

I have stated many times that "first" is not a chronological statement. It is a type. But you avoid addressing that, and call it my "original nonsense".

Are you even capable of saying anything that isn't complete nonsense? I'm starting to wonder. If "the first resurrection happened to Lazarus" (what?!!), then how do you explain this verse:

Acts 26:23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

This verse very specifically says that the Messiah (Jesus Christ, obviously) was "the first to rise from the dead". And you are saying this is not chronological? LOL. So, what does it mean then? You have no idea. So, let me tell you. It means that He was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality. That was not the case for Lazarus. If it was then that would mean verses like Acts 26:23 are a lie. According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, Christ was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality and next in order are the dead who belong to Christ and they will be resurrected unto bodily immortality when He comes again (1 Cor 15:23-23) and that will occur at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:51-52).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Instead of making scripture fit into your theology - try allowing scripture and the Holy Spirit to have the preeminence.

This was an unbelievably weak response. Why did you not address anything that he said in his post? I have to assume it's because you can't. You'd rather believe what you want to believe instead of considering the points that he made in his post that you are apparently unable to refute.

 

[David in NJ]

This was an unbelievably weak response. Why did you not address anything that he said in his post? I have to assume it's because you can't. You'd rather believe what you want to believe instead of considering the points that he made in his post that you are apparently unable to refute.

i have already communicated with him on his misguided symbolism of scripture.

Here is the Authority, Strength and Judgment of God that you do not want to challenge or disregard.

Every word of God is flawless;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words,
lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.

I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

i have already communicated with him on his misguided symbolism of scripture.

You do not use scripture to refute what anyone says. You just give opinions. That isn't convincing at all.

Here is the Authority, Strength and Judgment of God that you do not want to challenge or disregard.

What are you talking about?

Every word of God is flawless;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words,
lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.

So, you are saying that he (or Amils in general) is adding to God's words? You understand that it's talking about people PURPOSELY doing so and not about people mistakenly misinterpreting scripture, right?

I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book.

Again, you understand that this is talking about PURPOSELY adding to the words of prophecy in the book of Revelation. Are you accusing WPM (or Amils in general) of doing that?

 

[David in NJ]

You do not use scripture to refute what anyone says. You just give opinions. That isn't convincing at all.


What are you talking about?


So, you are saying that he (or Amils in general) are adding to God's words? You understand that it talking about people PURPOSELY doing so and not about people mistakenly misinterpreting scripture, right?


Again, you understand that this is talking about PURPOSELY adding to the words of prophecy in the book of Revelation. Are you accusing WPM (or Amils in general) of doing that?

It applies to everyone.
Whether through ignorance, or even worse through religious zeal, we can never add or take away from God's words.

If we apply this to our hearts it will protect us from harm.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It applies to everyone.
Whether through ignorance, or even worse through religious zeal, we can never add or take away from God's words.

Were you under the impression that I didn't know that? Why did you quote those passages to me?

If we apply this to our hearts it will protect us from harm.

Are you implying that you think that I don't apply this to my heart?

 

[Timtofly]

Are you even capable of saying anything that isn't complete nonsense? I'm starting to wonder. If "the first resurrection happened to Lazarus" (what?!!), then how do you explain this verse:

Acts 26:23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

This verse very specifically says that the Messiah (Jesus Christ, obviously) was "the first to rise from the dead". And you are saying this is not chronological? LOL. So, what does it mean then? You have no idea. So, let me tell you. It means that He was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality. That was not the case for Lazarus. If it was then that would mean verses like Acts 26:23 are a lie. According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, Christ was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality and next in order are the dead who belong to Christ and they will be resurrected unto bodily immortality when He comes again (1 Cor 15:23-23) and that will occur at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:51-52).

Do you think Moses and the prophets had a clue that Lazarus would be resurrected?

Was the resurrection of Lazarus after the Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus?

Paul was saying that Moses and the prophets prophesied that Jesus would raise from the dead first.

There is no such thing as bodily immortality, and you claim I post nonsense. Greek mythology is nonsense, and you preach Greek mythology 100% calling people mortals and immortals.

Paul states immortality is put on. Paul did not say we are given your made up bodily immortality. The body puts on immortality, that is the spirit image of God. Which is a robe of white, or the bright light seen on the mount of Transfiguration. The spirit covers the body, not is the body.

Paul did not say Jesus was the first resurrection. Paul said Moses and the prophets claimed Jesus would have to rise first.

"the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

This could be interpreted, that the resurrection had to happen before the gospel could go to the Gentiles, just as easily as Jesus had to rise first among humans.

Then when the Cross happened, many came out of their graves the moment Jesus said it is finished, and yielded His body to death. Jesus was instantly alive, but He told everyone that He would raise up His body 3 days later.

The whole point was that Jesus did have to die to have a resurrection. But Jesus was already the Resurrection and the Life years prior to the Cross. If Lazarus was not resurrected then no one can be. Lazarus was in the grave longer than Jesus was.

You are taking Luke's quote of Paul, quoting the OT, and then you are contradicting other Scripture in an attempt to prove your Amil bias.

The first resurrection makes all who experience blessed, not just Jesus, who then second handedly passes that blessing on to everyone else. You just teach a single resurrection at a future time, and that bias makes you refuse to see that the Resurrection was already available prior to the Cross.

Lazarus was the first to be brought out of Abraham's bosom never to return. Don't call it a resurrection, call it a change into a permanent incorruptible physical body, if it won't fit your narrow definition of the first resurrection. Jesus stated in John 3 the first birth was physical, the first death is physical, and it follows that the first resurrection is physical. That does not contradict any Scripture. Just your narrow band of interpretation, that limits Jesus as only the Resurrection and the Life at the Second Coming.

Besides, why would Jesus call Himself the Life, and then turn around and sentence Lazarus to a second physical death? Why would a person be resurrected to prove who Jesus was, still be a sinner and still need to experience death? Lazarus was not glorified, he was just made perfect, after being dead for 4 days. His rewards and judgment would be the same time as the rest of the church. He would have ascended with all the rest of those resurrected from Abraham's bosom. It would have been agony enough to live on a sin cursed earth with Adam's death a constant reminder for a few months. You claim Lazarus came out just as sick with leprosy, having rotten flesh, and assume he just died again a few days later. How is that proof that Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life? That Lazarus could walk around in agony for a few hours and succumb to death again?

Here is what Paul also said:

"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."

You're saying there is a soul walking around seperate from a body setting somewhere, and then the spirit is waiting as well. We are soul, body, and spirit, but is you claim accurate? Is everything still separated until one final moment in time, and then the 3 will find each other, and the soul will put on the body, and the body will put on the spirit?

Scripture points out that the soul was waiting in Abraham's bosom for the Cross and the physical resurrection of Jesus, that is why Moses and the prophets declared that Christ had to come first before the soul could have a physical body.

Then right before the Cross, Jesus actually demonstrates the physical resurrection, by calling Lazarus out of Abraham's bosom. At the Cross all in Abraham's bosom were released into Paul's permanent incorruptible physical body. That is what Paul said, and I did not make it up. God gives those who experience the first resurrection the same permanent incorruptible physical body, without sin and without death, and it cannot be touched by the second death, and cast into the LOF.

If it was waiting for Paul, why would God not also have had this permanent incorruptible physical body for all those in Abraham's bosom waiting for the birth of Jesus? That He would be obedient to God in all things even the Cross, and that He would physically rise, showing that now it was possible to have a physical resurrection? But then Amil postpone it until the Second Coming?

Then Paul also points out that in Paradise the church is waiting in physical bodies for the putting on of the spirit, because at the Second Coming is when this death handed down from Adam puts God back on. That is the term this mortal will put on immortality, Paul used, but it is the body putting on the spirit. The part about glorification is the entire image of God restored that Adam lost the day he died, when he disobeyed God.

When Adam disobeyed he went from a permanent incorruptible physical body, to a temporal corruptible physical body. He had a spirit around that body, that was stripped away, and he was left naked. Adam was dead both physically and spiritually. He was no longer in the image of God, but in the image of Adam. He passed that image on to Seth, and the rest of adamkind/mankind.

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"

No longer in God's image, soul, body, nor spirt. This soul was headed for the LOF, unless God steps in and redeems this fallen image of death.

Nonsense is holding on to hundreds of years of Greek philosophy mixed in with Christian theology. Nonsense is having a few pet verses that make you think you have an air tight theology. When there are many more verses in Scripture that your theology contradicts or never takes into consideration.

Amil fail to see more than one first resurrection, which does not indicate chronology at all, but first is physical, and second is spiritual. One has to be born first physically or they would never exist. Then they have to be born spiritually into God's family. But the full restoration will not be complete until the Second Coming. That is for all, even those physically in Paradise. Paradise is a physical place with the physical tree of life. It is that physical city in the heavens. Abraham has been enjoying it physically for 1993 years. Unless it has only been 47 physical hours.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Here is the passage I'm referencing with some surrounding verses for context:

1 Thess 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, Paul was writing about the second coming of Christ here and he first focused on what will happen to believers when Christ returns. The dead in Christ will be resurrected and those who are still alive at the time will be caught up with them to meet the Lord in the air.

Then Paul shifts the focus to what will happen to unbelievers at that point. He talks about how they are in spiritual darkness, unlike believers who "are all children of the light". And he indicates that the day of the Lord, which is the day Christ returns, will come like a thief in the night (Jesus Himself said this as well - Matthew 24:42-44, Revelation 16:15). Which means He will come suddenly and unexpectedly, which is what Jesus Himself indicated when He said that no one knows the day or hour of His second coming (Matt 24:36,42-44; Matthew 25:13). And destruction will come upon believers at that time and it will be such that "they will not escape" it. And, based on 1 Thess 5:9, we can deduce that this destruction Paul was talking about is a result of God's wrath that believers, of course, will not have to experience.

So, it should be clear that 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 is talking about something that will happen on the day Christ returns. I think most of us here agree with that, whether we are pre-trib or post-trib and whether we are premil or amil. But, we don't all agree on what exactly Paul is saying in that passage in terms of who exactly will be experiencing the destruction resulting from God's wrath that he references there.

And this leads me to the main point that I'm intending to make in this thread. Those of us who are Amillennialists (except for some partial preterists who relate 1 Thess 4-5 to what happened in 70 AD) believe that the sudden and unexpected destruction that Paul wrote about will come upon all unbelievers in the world. That is why he said "they will not escape". None of them will. If any of them could escape it, then I don't believe he would have said "they will not escape". But, does it say that no unbelievers can escape it specifically? No. Is there any other scripture we can use to support that claim? Yes, there is.

Keep in mind that Paul is writing about the day of the Lord coming like a thief in 1 Thess 5:2-3. If the following isn't speaking of the same event, then I don't know how two scriptures can ever be related together. It's clear to me that Peter wrote about the same event here:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

When I read 2 Peter 3:10-13 and then I read 1 Thess 5:2-3, it occurs to me that it's no wonder that Paul said "they will not escape". How could anyone escape fire coming down upon the entire earth? Obviously, they couldn't. Only believers who will be changed and have immortal bodies could survive that.

So, with all of this in mind, how exactly is it possible that anyone could survive the sudden destruction resulting from God's wrath that will come down on the earth when Christ returns? Jesus Himself indicated that no unbelievers will survive that just as none survived the flood (Peter makes this same point in 2 Peter 3:5-7).

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

It seems clear to me that Paul and Peter taught the same thing that Jesus taught, which was that no unbelievers will survive His wrath when He comes again. As Jesus Himself indicated, just as "the flood came and took" all unbelievers away and killed them, "That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man". No unbelievers will survive His second coming, either. As Peter said in 2 Peter 3:13, we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth in accordance with the promise of Christ's second coming. So, why look forward to an earthly millennial kingdom in accordance with the promise of His second coming instead? Especially when scripture indicates that no mortals will survive His return?

It might appear like there is only one Day of the Lord. But the term "Day of the Lord" is not one (24 hour day) of Judgment for the entire planet! There are many days of Judgment. 2 Peter 3:10 is a specific period of time after the Millennial Kingdom. That particular event that describes the destruction of the entire universe, could happen in a flash, in seconds or minutes ... no argument there. But why would all the other events be written about or be necessary if it was only one day? The Great Tribulation period of time is 3 1/2 years, at which time judgment occurs to people, but the earth is not entirely destroyed. We see a worldwide earthquake ( that no one can escape), prior to His Second Coming, with smoke filled skies that block out the sun, moon and star light. But prior to that event, we see much destruction from wars, famine, pestilence, that affect portions of the earth where 1/4 of the population dies as these events accumulate. Further into this GT we see another 1/3 cut off, but still some survive until the Bowls of wrath are unleashed towards the final days of destruction.
The Great Tribulation specifically states in several areas to be 3 1/2 years, with many events occurring within 1260 days/ 42 months, and likely the wrath up until day 1335. Blessed are those who make it to day 1335, when it is over. See, some make it through.
1 Thes. 4:16-17 happens within this Judgment period and many argue before or after and few of us state that it happens at the last trumpet (#7).
In Noah's time, the Flood lasted for 40 days; and the Coming of the Lord is likened to that time.
If it was only one day, Rev. 6-20 would not be written. Matthew 24 and other passages in Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, Isaiah and many more make references to this period of time. After this, peace, harmony, restoration, an earth where only Christians live, a Paradise reborn where physical life is still generated. Babies are born, grow and die but life is extended for hundreds of years. This is still the First Earth, where sin has been almost entirely eradicated until towards the end of that periid of 1000 years , Satan is released, some are lost but once again Judgment comes, which the final judgment. This is when the first heavens and first earth are destroyed.

 

[David in NJ]

Do you think Moses and the prophets had a clue that Lazarus would be resurrected?

Was the resurrection of Lazarus after the Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus?

Paul was saying that Moses and the prophets prophesied that Jesus would raise from the dead first.

There is no such thing as bodily immortality, and you claim I post nonsense. Greek mythology is nonsense, and you preach Greek mythology 100% calling people mortals and immortals.

Paul states immortality is put on. Paul did not say we are given your made up bodily immortality. The body puts on immortality, that is the spirit image of God. Which is a robe of white, or the bright light seen on the mount of Transfiguration. The spirit covers the body, not is the body.

Paul did not say Jesus was the first resurrection. Paul said Moses and the prophets claimed Jesus would have to rise first.

"the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

This could be interpreted, that the resurrection had to happen before the gospel could go to the Gentiles, just as easily as Jesus had to rise first among humans.

Then when the Cross happened, many came out of their graves the moment Jesus said it is finished, and yielded His body to death. Jesus was instantly alive, but He told everyone that He would raise up His body 3 days later.

The whole point was that Jesus did have to die to have a resurrection. But Jesus was already the Resurrection and the Life years prior to the Cross. If Lazarus was not resurrected then no one can be. Lazarus was in the grave longer than Jesus was.

You are taking Luke's quote of Paul, quoting the OT, and then you are contradicting other Scripture in an attempt to prove your Amil bias.

The first resurrection makes all who experience blessed, not just Jesus, who then second handedly passes that blessing on to everyone else. You just teach a single resurrection at a future time, and that bias makes you refuse to see that the Resurrection was already available prior to the Cross.

Lazarus was the first to be brought out of Abraham's bosom never to return. Don't call it a resurrection, call it a change into a permanent incorruptible physical body, if it won't fit your narrow definition of the first resurrection. Jesus stated in John 3 the first birth was physical, the first death is physical, and it follows that the first resurrection is physical. That does not contradict any Scripture. Just your narrow band of interpretation, that limits Jesus as only the Resurrection and the Life at the Second Coming.

Besides, why would Jesus call Himself the Life, and then turn around and sentence Lazarus to a second physical death? Why would a person be resurrected to prove who Jesus was, still be a sinner and still need to experience death? Lazarus was not glorified, he was just made perfect, after being dead for 4 days. His rewards and judgment would be the same time as the rest of the church. He would have ascended with all the rest of those resurrected from Abraham's bosom. It would have been agony enough to live on a sin cursed earth with Adam's death a constant reminder for a few months. You claim Lazarus came out just as sick with leprosy, having rotten flesh, and assume he just died again a few days later. How is that proof that Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life? That Lazarus could walk around in agony for a few hours and succumb to death again?

Here is what Paul also said:

"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."

You're saying there is a soul walking around seperate from a body setting somewhere, and then the spirit is waiting as well. We are soul, body, and spirit, but is you claim accurate? Is everything still separated until one final moment in time, and then the 3 will find each other, and the soul will put on the body, and the body will put on the spirit?

Scripture points out that the soul was waiting in Abraham's bosom for the Cross and the physical resurrection of Jesus, that is why Moses and the prophets declared that Christ had to come first before the soul could have a physical body.

Then right before the Cross, Jesus actually demonstrates the physical resurrection, by calling Lazarus out of Abraham's bosom. At the Cross all in Abraham's bosom were released into Paul's permanent incorruptible physical body. That is what Paul said, and I did not make it up. God gives those who experience the first resurrection the same permanent incorruptible physical body, without sin and without death, and it cannot be touched by the second death, and cast into the LOF.

If it was waiting for Paul, why would God not also have had this permanent incorruptible physical body for all those in Abraham's bosom waiting for the birth of Jesus? That He would be obedient to God in all things even the Cross, and that He would physically rise, showing that now it was possible to have a physical resurrection? But then Amil postpone it until the Second Coming?

Then Paul also points out that in Paradise the church is waiting in physical bodies for the putting on of the spirit, because at the Second Coming is when this death handed down from Adam puts God back on. That is the term this mortal will put on immortality, Paul used, but it is the body putting on the spirit. The part about glorification is the entire image of God restored that Adam lost the day he died, when he disobeyed God.

When Adam disobeyed he went from a permanent incorruptible physical body, to a temporal corruptible physical body. He had a spirit around that body, that was stripped away, and he was left naked. Adam was dead both physically and spiritually. He was no longer in the image of God, but in the image of Adam. He passed that image on to Seth, and the rest of adamkind/mankind.

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"

No longer in God's image, soul, body, nor spirt. This soul was headed for the LOF, unless God steps in and redeems this fallen image of death.

Nonsense is holding on to hundreds of years of Greek philosophy mixed in with Christian theology. Nonsense is having a few pet verses that make you think you have an air tight theology. When there are many more verses in Scripture that your theology contradicts or never takes into consideration.

Amil fail to see more than one first resurrection, which does not indicate chronology at all, but first is physical, and second is spiritual. One has to be born first physically or they would never exist. Then they have to be born spiritually into God's family. But the full restoration will not be complete until the Second Coming. That is for all, even those physically in Paradise. Paradise is a physical place with the physical tree of life. It is that physical city in the heavens. Abraham has been enjoying it physically for 1993 years. Unless it has only been 47 physical hours.

Excellent post.

The Saints in Heaven will only receive their Glorified Immortal Body at the Second Coming - 1 Thess 4:13-18
But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 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 we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
Therefore comfort one another with these words.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It might appear like there is only one Day of the Lord. But the term "Day of the Lord" is not one (24 hour day) of Judgment for the entire planet!

Where is this taught in scripture? I'm not interested in your opinions if you can't back them up with scripture.

There are many days of Judgment.

In terms of people being judged and eternal rewards or eternal sentences being given, there is only one day of judgment.

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

That one day of judgment that God has set is portrayed in passages like Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:11-15.

2 Peter 3:10 is a specific period of time after the Millennial Kingdom. That particular event that describes the destruction of the entire universe, could happen in a flash, in seconds or minutes ... no argument there.

Show me where Peter indicated that this is something that would occur long after the return of Christ. Do you also believe the following, which is speaking of the same event as 2 Peter 3:10, will occur at "a specific period of time after the Millennial Kingdom"?

1 Thessalonians 5:2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

If you're going to try to claim that this day of the Lord that will come as a thief in the night and result in mass destruction is different than the day of the Lord that will come as a thief resulting in mass destruction described in 2 Peter 3:10-12, then you can't be taken seriously. There is no basis whatsoever for thinking these are talking about two different days of the Lord. None. The reason that Paul said "they will not escape" is because fire will come down on the entire earth at that point, as we can see from 2 Peter 3:10-12. If we can't relate 2 Peter 3:10-12 and 1 Thess 5:2-3 directly together, then we can't relate any two passages of scripture directly together.

But why would all the other events be written about or be necessary if it was only one day?

Because those other events are not the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord is the day Christ returns at which point we believers will all be caught up to Him while He then destroys all of His enemies.

The Great Tribulation period of time is 3 1/2 years, at which time judgment occurs to people, but the earth is not entirely destroyed. We see a worldwide earthquake ( that no one can escape), prior to His Second Coming, with smoke filled skies that block out the sun, moon and star light. But prior to that event, we see much destruction from wars, famine, pestilence, that affect portions of the earth where 1/4 of the population dies as these events accumulate. Further into this GT we see another 1/3 cut off, but still some survive until the Bowls of wrath are unleashed towards the final days of destruction.
The Great Tribulation specifically states in several areas to be 3 1/2 years, with many events occurring within 1260 days/ 42 months, and likely the wrath up until day 1335. Blessed are those who make it to day 1335, when it is over. See, some make it through.

Where does scripture ever call all of that "the day of the Lord"?

1 Thes. 4:16-17 happens within this Judgment period and many argue before or after and few of us state that it happens at the last trumpet (#7).
In Noah's time, the Flood lasted for 40 days; and the Coming of the Lord is likened to that time.

The coming of the Lord is not likened to Noah's time in every way. The way in which it is compared to Noah's time is that the days leading up to His return will be similar to the days leading up to the flood and Jesus said just as all unbelievers were killed by the flood "so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man" (Matt 24:37). There's no basis whatsoever for making any other comparisons between the coming of Christ and Noah's day beyond what Jesus Himself did and what Peter did in 2 Peter 3:5-7.

If it was only one day, Rev. 6-20 would not be written.

What is this comment based on? Where does it indicate that everything written about in Revelation 6-20 is part of "the day of the Lord"? Nowhere. I'm sorry, but you're just making things up.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you think Moses and the prophets had a clue that Lazarus would be resurrected?

What kind of question is this? Scripture says that Jesus was the first to be resurrected. Why don't you want to believe that? Is Acts 26:23 in your Bible? In what sense was He the first? He was the first to be resurrected with an immortal body. This should not be hard to understand.

Was the resurrection of Lazarus after the Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus?

No. Why do you ask?

Paul was saying that Moses and the prophets prophesied that Jesus would raise from the dead first.

But, His resurrection wasn't the first in a literal sense. Others were resurrected with their mortal bodies before Him. So, the obvious conclusion (to those who actually have discernment) is that He was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality.

There is no such thing as bodily immortality, and you claim I post nonsense. Greek mythology is nonsense, and you preach Greek mythology 100% calling people mortals and immortals.

This right here illustrates just how clueless you really are. To the point where it is impossible to take you seriously. This is nonsense of the highest order. Is the following passage not in your Bible?

1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

There it is. It couldn't be more clear. We will all be changed at the last trumpet and we will all then have immortal bodies. We know he was talking about our bodies here because of what he had been talking about just prior to this passage. It could not possibly be more clear and you're still missing it. If you can't even understand something as elementary as this, what can you understand?

Paul states immortality is put on. Paul did not say we are given your made up bodily immortality. The body puts on immortality, that is the spirit image of God.

Right. The body will put on immortality. At the last trumpet. What is hard to understand about this? You even said it yourself right here and you still deny it will happen in the future. Unbelievable.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Excellent post.

The Saints in Heaven will only receive their Glorified Immortal Body at the Second Coming - 1 Thess 4:13-18

You must not have read his post very carefully. Did you miss where he said "There is no such thing as bodily immortality"?

 

[David in NJ]

You must not have read his post very carefully. Did you miss where he said "There is no such thing as bodily immortality"?

i missed it - thank you

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Where is this taught in scripture? I'm not interested in your opinions if you can't back them up with scripture.

>> "Now as to the periods and times, brothers and sisters, you have no need of anything to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord is coming just like a thief in the night. NASB
Other versions say "seasins and times".
Seasons and times = Day of the Lord
His wrath occurs over many days. Certainly the Rapture is in an instant.
A day is usually a 24 hour period. The Day of the Lord is a period of time when His will is fully realized by all. Throughout history, many do not believe in Him, nor yield to His will. They live the own way, every day is theirs. But in the Day of the Lord, everyone will realize the Lord.

Do you also believe the following, which is speaking of the same event as 2 Peter 3:10, will occur at "a specific period of time after the Millennial Kingdom"?

Yes. Rev. 20 distinguushes the dirat resurrection with the second death. Rev. 20:13-15and Rev. 21:8 is the same event as 2 Pet. 3:10

 

[Timtofly]

But, His resurrection wasn't the first in a literal sense. Others were resurrected with their mortal bodies before Him. So, the obvious conclusions (to those who actually have discernment) is that He was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality.

Jesus never needed to be resurrected into bodily immortality. Jesus was born the Resurrection and the Life. No where does it say Jesus became the Resurrection and the Life after Sunday morning.

Moses and the prophets were saying that Jesus had to come, live, and suffer the Cross, and a resurrection was included, before they could be resurrected. No one in Scripture is saying Jesus had to be resurrected before Lazarus was.

The OT came out of their graves at the Cross. That is when Matthew declared they were resurrected. They ascended to Paradise Sunday morning with Jesus. Lazarus would have ascended with them as he was the first to be called out of the grave out of Abraham's bosom. You have no proof in Scripture he ever physically died, again. We know the OT ascended with Christ because Paul stated such. Before they could ascend, Jesus had to die and descend into Abraham's bosom.

"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. )"

Jesus was capable of hiding his true form while on earth. He showed it to James, Peter, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration before the Cross even happened. So your discernment is lost when it comes to a plausible conclusion, because it is pointless.

The resurrection of Lazarus was when God turned and started to harden the hearts of those who would cry for the crucifixion of Jesus.


"Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death."

It is plausible and logical that they saw a very changed Lazarus and a permanent incorruptible physical body would look the same outward as Adam's dead corruptible flesh, which was dead inwardly. They claimed it was a miracle, not just coming back to life, but with a newness of life that could not be described by a mere physician.

The obvious conclusion if one had discernment is that Lazarus would not live until today on earth, in a permanent incorruptible physical body, but would go to Paradise with the rest of those resurrected out of Abraham's bosom, when Jesus ascended to the Father.

"Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her."

Would this not be when Jesus presented the firstfruits to God, per 1 Corinthians 15? They were made alive and the whole group were the captivity led captive. Paul said firstfruits plural, not that Jesus was the firstfruit singular. The Cross opened Paradise to all mankind who would enter by faith and accept the gift of the Atonement Covenant.

"And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

The thief asked in faith, and the answer was immediate, not thousands of years later.

They were not given mortal bodies to ascend into Paradise. Mortal bodies were not allowed in Paradise. Adam's dead corruptible flesh was not allowed in Paradise. They were given permanent incorruptible physical bodies and ascended with Jesus as the firstfruits, and presented to God.

 

[rwb]

This was an unbelievably weak response. Why did you not address anything that he said in his post? I have to assume it's because you can't. You'd rather believe what you want to believe instead of considering the points that he made in his post that you are apparently unable to refute.

I know! It's very frustrating, and I'm beginning think dishonest. He won't address the problems shown with His doctrine, his typical reply is to post verses that are not help for him.