Matthew 24:30 may have a significant mistranslation

[David in NJ]

So you're afraid to elaborate.

lol x101

you just beat your old record

E-Lab-Oration = they fled the Romans and there was no first resurrection on that day.............because it was not "the LAST DAY"

 

[covenantee]

lol x101

you just beat your old record

E-Lab-Oration = they fled the Romans and there was no first resurrection on that day.............because it was not "the LAST DAY"

They were Christians and had already experienced the First Resurrection.

John 5
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

[kdx]

And you know that those Daniel prophecies included a bodily resurrection in Daniel 12:2 at that "time of the end".

The "last day" of that first-century "time of the end" resulted in a resurrection of all who belonged to Christ at Christ's second coming back then.

Question: Daniel 12:2 speaks of a resurrection of both the just and unjust. But it seems like you believe (according to the second quote) that only the just were resurrected at that day. Could you help me out here?

 

[David in NJ]

They were Christians and had already experienced the First Resurrection.

John 5
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Now you are conflating the Second Birth with the Resurrection of dead saints bodies in the earth

 

[covenantee]

Now you are conflating the Second Birth with the Resurrection of dead saints bodies in the earth

Now you are confusing Jesus' plain words with your own misconceptions.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are forgetting the symbolism of the Mosaic ritual of the "First-fruits" being waved in the temple back in Leviticus 23:10-12. The barley harvest would have a "First-fruits" sheaf handful of grain offered in the temple ALONG WITH a single he-lamb without blemish. This was meant to foreshadow the resurrection of the 144,000 Matt. 27:52-53 First-fruits saints on the same day as Christ the Lamb was also raised from the dead. Together, these comprised the "First-fruits" offering. It was not a single stalk of grain that was harvested. Neither was it the single he-lamb. It was a sample portion of the entire harvest, ALONG WITH the single he-lamb.

Paul referred to Christ Himself as being the firstfruit and that is because He was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality. Next in order to be bodily resurrected from the dead, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, are those who belong to Him at His second coming So, your doctrine contradicts what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23. Period. You can't convince me otherwise.

 

[David in NJ]

Now you are confusing Jesus' plain words with your own misconceptions.

lol x102

another new record

come on @covenantee, you should know better then that

@3 Resurrections

Here are the 3 Resurrections

#1 - BORN-AGAIN = John 3:1-10 and Ephesians 2:1-7

#2 - JESUS Rises from the Dead

#3 - The Second Coming and the FIRST Resurrection: John 6:35-40 , 1 Thess 4:13-18 , 1 Cor ch15 , Revelation chapters 19 and 20

 

[3 Resurrections]

The "Last Day" is the Second Coming of Christ and the FIRST Resurrection

The "Last Day" was the second coming of Christ back in AD 70. Daniel 12:11-13 had predicted the 1,335-day countdown to this, which ended with a resurrection in AD 70. But NO, that wasn't the "FIRST resurrection". The "first resurrection" was of "Christ the First-fruits" in AD 33, along with that "remnant of the dead" which came to life again that day - the Matthew 27:52-53 saints which were raised by Christ.

 

[David in NJ]

Paul referred to Christ Himself as being the firstfruit and that is because He was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality. Next in order to be bodily resurrected from the dead, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, are those who belong to Him at His second coming So, your doctrine contradicts what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23. Period. You can't convince me otherwise.

AGREE = You can't convince me of 70AD Coming of Christ and resurrection

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You MISSED OUT again = CHRIST is the firstfruits of those who SLEEP = One CROP that are in CHRIST who is the RESURRECTION

I missed nothing. Christ Himself is the firstfruit. That is what Paul said. You are trying to make those who He is the firstfruit of part of the first resurrection, but that is not what Paul said. That contradicts Paul saying that there is an order to the resurrections. If Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of those who belong to Him were both part of the first resurrection, then what is the second resurrection in order? Why did Paul talk about an order of resurrections if he was only referring to a first resurrection and not a second in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23? That's what you need to explain and, so far, you have not done so.

 

[David in NJ]

The "Last Day" was the second coming of Christ back in AD 70.

No it wasn't - who placed that misconception in your head

Daniel 12:11-13 had predicted the 1,335-day countdown to this, which ended with a resurrection in AD 70.

Daniel prophesied of the Resurrection unto Eternal Glorified Bodies = Daniel 12:1-3

You should be able to SEE at this point how that 70AD doctrine of men needs to be flushed for GOOD out of your head

i say this to you in the LOVE of Christ to only believe "It is written" and never violate God's words = Proverbs 30:5-6

SHALOM to you @3 Resurrections

 

[3 Resurrections]

Question: Daniel 12:2 speaks of a resurrection of both the just and unjust. But it seems like you believe (according to the second quote) that only the just were resurrected at that day. Could you help me out here?

Yes, Dan. 12:2 does speak of a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. This is the same as Paul telling Felix in Acts 24:15 that there was "ABOUT TO BE a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust". This was soon to happen in Paul's first-century generation.

But Christ put a difference in what would happen to the just and the unjust at that resurrection event. For the righteous, it would be "unto the resurrection of life". For those who had done evil, that event would be a "resurrection of destruction" (John 5:29). The wicked perish, both body and soul, in the resurrection process.

 

[David in NJ]

I missed nothing. Christ Himself is the firstfruit. That is what Paul said. You are trying to make those who He is the firstfruit of part of the first resurrection, but that is not what Paul said. That contradicts Paul saying that there is an order to the resurrections. If Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of those who belong to Him were both part of the first resurrection, then what is the second resurrection in order? Why did Paul talk about an order of resurrections if he was only referring to a first resurrection and not a second in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23? That's what you need to explain and, so far, you have not done so.

Love you my Brother in Christ

JESUS is the firstfruit of part of the first resurrection = 100% TRUTH = Paul said so and wrote it down by the Holy Spirit

Paul talked about an "order" because their is a Lineage of Saints = the Lineage is the Spiritual NEW BIRTH

There is no "second resurrection order" because all of the Saints are in CHRIST = CHRIST is the First-Fruits of those/Saints

 

[kdx]

But Christ put a difference in what would happen to the just and the unjust at that resurrection event. For the righteous, it would be "unto the resurrection of life". For those who had done evil, that event would be a "resurrection of destruction" (John 5:29). The wicked perish, both body and soul, in the resurrection process.

Wait a minute, let’s be precise here. So those just resurrected at that day (70 AD) went to heaven, and the unjust resurrected at that day (70 AD) went to hell?

The "first resurrection" was of "Christ the First-fruits" in AD 33, along with that "remnant of the dead" which came to life again that day - the Matthew 27:52-53 saints which were raised by Christ.

Isn’t it better to refer to the resurrection at 70 AD as the first resurrection? I mean the Revelation of Saint John refers to the first resurrection in the future from John’s point of view. But Christs resurrection was then already past.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Love you my Brother in Christ

Love you, too, brother. None of this is personal, of course. I'm still praying for your son. That's of much more importance than this particular discussion. But, this discussion is important, so there will be some PASSION going on here, right? You bet.

JESUS is the firstfruit of part of the first resurrection = 100% TRUTH = Paul said so and wrote it down by the Holy Spirit

Scripture says that His resurrection itself was the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

I use verses like this to help understand what 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 is about. Paul talks about an order of the resurrections. You don't seem to want to address that. A first resurrection implies a second. What, in your view, would be the second resurrection in order after the first resurrection? For me, it's simple. Christ's resurrection was the first in order. Next in order is the resurrection of those who belong to Christ at His second coming.

Paul talked about an "order" because their is a Lineage of Saints = the Lineage is the Spiritual NEW BIRTH

Where is the spiritual new birth referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23? I don't see that as being part of the context of that passage. I only see bodily resurrections being referenced there.

There is no "second resurrection order" because all of the Saints are in CHRIST = CHRIST is the First-Fruits of those/Saints

Why is it called "the first resurrection" if there is no second resurrection? A first implies a second. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this because we have talked about this multiple times before already and nothing has changed.

 

[David in NJ]

Love you, too, brother. None of this is personal, of course. I'm still praying for your son. That's of much more importance than this particular discussion. But, this discussion is important, so there will be some PASSION going on here, right? You bet.


Scripture says that His resurrection itself was the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

I use verses like this to help understand what 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 is about. Paul talks about an order of the resurrections. You don't seem to want to address that. A first resurrection implies a second. What, in your view, would be the second resurrection in order after the first resurrection? For me, it's simple. Christ's resurrection was the first in order. Next in order is the resurrection of those who belong to Christ at His second coming.


Where is the spiritual new birth referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23? I don't see that as being part of the context of that passage. I only see bodily resurrections being referenced there.


Why is it called "the first resurrection" if there is no second resurrection? A first implies a second. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this because we have talked about this multiple times before already and nothing has changed.

THANK YOU for your love and those glorious prayers for Daniel = this is IMPORTANT and THANK YOU

"that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead" = first MAN to rise Eternally Glorified

The First Resurrection of Revelation ch20:4-6 is ONLY for the Saints

CHRIST is the First Resurrection of ALL the Saints who are in Him = 1 Cor 15:20-22 and 1 Thess 1:10 & 4:13-18

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Daniel prophesied of the Resurrection unto Eternal Glorified Bodies = Daniel 12:1-3

Of course Daniel 12:1-3 prophesied of a resurrection with eternal glorified bodies for the saints. But that AD 70 bodily resurrection was not the last resurrection event. There is yet another one in our distant future.

Paul talked about an "order" because their is a Lineage of Saints = the Lineage is the Spiritual NEW BIRTH

There is no "second resurrection order" because all of the Saints are in CHRIST = CHRIST is the First-Fruits of those/Saints

Christ was not a first-fruits of a spiritual new birth, because He had never died spiritually as we have. He participated in the "First-fruits" / "first resurrection" which was a bodily resurrection out of the grave.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Wait a minute, let’s be precise here. So those just resurrected at that day (70 AD) went to heaven, and the unjust resurrected at that day (70 AD) went to hell?

Yes. But "hell" simply means "the grave". The physical mortal remains of the wicked dead as Christ said are "cast away" by being abandoned in the dust of the grave. The wicked dead never rise bodily (check out Isaiah 26:14 which says of the wicked dead that "they shall not rise"), but their souls come before God for judgment in the "resurrection of destruction". The souls of the wicked dead also perish after that judgment. We are to fear Him who, after our physical death, "has power to destroy both body and soul...". In contrast, only those who are "in Christ" can share in His immortality of both body and soul in the "resurrection unto life".

Isn’t it better to refer to the resurrection at 70 AD as the first resurrection? I mean the Revelation of Saint John refers to the first resurrection in the future from John’s point of view.

The "first resurrection" of Rev. 20:5 was not talking about the future from John's point of view. In Rev. 20:1-6, John was rehearsing past events so that his first-century readers could better understand the background setting for Satan's then-present activity of deceiving the nations at that time. Satan in "great wrath" at that time John was writing had only a "short time" / "little season" left to deceive the nations in the four quarters of the land of Israel. He was gathering them across the breadth of the land Israel to deceive them into doing battle in Judea and at Jerusalem. This last battle when Gog was to be destroyed in Jerusalem was in the very near future for John's readers, since Revelation was written between late AD 59 or early AD 60 at the very latest.

Christ as the "First-born" and the "First-begotten" of the "First-fruits" was part of that "first resurrection" event in AD 33. Plenty of "FIRSTS" to make sure we know which event John was talking about in Rev. 20:5. There were only "blessed and holy" ones who took part in that "First resurrection" of Christ and the "remnant of the dead" (the many Matt. 27:52-53 saints). The next second resurrection event at Christ's second coming followed in AD 70 for both the just and the unjust this time. And there will be a third resurrection event for us in our future yet to come, which will also include the just and the unjust in a final judgment.

 

[ewq1938]

Hello I’m curious: what about Jesus statements in John’s Gospel that he will raise up all who belong to him “on the last day”? How do you deal with that?

There are a lot of last days.

There is the last day of the church age. The last day of the great tribulation. The last day before the thousand year age begins. The last day of the thousand year age. The last day of Satan's little season. The last day before the eternity begins.


*********************

Gen_49:1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.

Isa_2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

Mic_4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

Act_2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

2Ti_3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

Heb_1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

2Pe_3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Joh_6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Joh_6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh_6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh_11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Joh_12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[grafted branch]

Yes, Dan. 12:2 does speak of a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. This is the same as Paul telling Felix in Acts 24:15 that there was "ABOUT TO BE a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust". This was soon to happen in Paul's first-century generation.

The resurrection in Daniel 12:1-2 does seem to line up with the mello resurrection in Acts 24:15 which puts it in 70AD, and I’m not trying to argue against that.

However in Daniel 12:1 it says at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people. And in Revelation 12:7 we have the war in heaven where Michael fights the dragon. Wouldn’t the time that Michael stands up (takes a stand) in Daniel 12:1 be the same event as when he fights the dragon? I would think fighting the dragon would fulfill the meaning of “at that time shall Michael stand up”.