Search results

Christ is a single individual. The term "First-fruits" in this text refers to a group that is "harvested" by being resurrected at the same time. Did you ever see a harvest consisting of only a single stalk of grain? That makes no sense. "First-fruits" is a PLURAL word. Paul was perfectly...

Christ said the fate of the wicked was to "perish", unlike the believers who "shall NOT perish", either body or soul. The mortal remains of the wicked dead never leave the dust of the grave, contrary to the children of God who DO bodily rise in a changed form made immortal and incorruptible...

All those Jewish tribe members of "those who pierced Him" who were still alive to see Christ's bodily return to the Mount of Olives in AD 70 mourned and gnashed their teeth on that occasion. That is because they saw all the prophets and the righteous and the fathers entering the kingdom of God...

Absolutely true. But the word "First-fruits" is NOT indicative of a single stalk of grain being harvested. It is a group harvested on the same day. Christ was one of these "First-fruits", but there were also 144,000 other Jewish "First-fruits" raised that same day. The 144,000 "First-fruits"...

I have already said I agree that this "END" in 1 Cor. 15:24 is in our future at the culmination point of fallen mankind's history. But this "END" is THIRD on the list of THREE consecutive resurrection events which Paul lists, one after another, in 1 Cor. 15:22-24. The "rule and authority and...

Yep, I agree. All the dead were to be included in this resurrection and judgment in "the hour is coming" that Christ spoke about. But Paul told Felix that this particular judgment and resurrection of both just and unjust was "about to be" in his own time frame (as he was speaking in Acs 24:15...

Yes, I agree that 1 Cor. 15:23 shows two resurrections. But the next verse 24 shows us the third. "THEN the end..." etc. This does not tell you that at that same time of the second resurrection, the end would come. IF that were Paul's intent, he would have chosen the Greek word "tote"...

I prefer the Interlinear myself. This verse reads as follows: "...whether [he] first through resurrection of [dead] light is about to announce to the people and to the nations." The word "first" modifies the verb phrase "is about to announce". It does not say Christ was the first to rise from...

1 Cor. 15:22 does NOT say that Christ was the first to be resurrected. It calls Him "Christ the FIRST-fruits". This is NOT a unique title. There were also 144,000 who were likewise called "FIRST-fruits" in Revelation 14. In other words, there were also 144,000 who were bodily-resurrected...

Give me the verse that says ONLY the twelve were with Christ at the Last Supper. This is an artificial limitation that you are putting on the text that isn't found in Scripture at all. I have given several Scripture evidences above that John the son of Zebedee could not possibly have been the...

There absolutely was a bodily resurrection of the dead in AD 70. Daniel gave us the exact day in which it would happen in Daniel 12:11-13. I believe Daniel, Christ, and all the other NT writers concerning this.

BAD translation. The intent of this verse is to say that Christ was the FIRST to proclaim light to the Jewish people AND to the Gentiles - NOT that He was the first to rise from the dead. Try the ERV. "How that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead...

No, the mount of transfiguration was not a "preview" of Christ's return. We are told the subject which Elijah and Moses were speaking with Christ about. "Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." (Luke 9:31). There was no preview of...

It's rather simple language which James 5 used about the coming of the Lord having already drawn near in those first-century days. Only the experts try to complicate the language into something far-distant from those first-century times. But this second coming being fulfilled already doesn't...

To be more precise, the prediction of "every eye" who would see Christ's second coming return was specifically "those who pierced Him". Nobody today is guilty of that charge of piercing Christ. That was strictly a first-century Jewish generation which had been accused of being "the betrayers...

Preterists are absolutely convinced that "the coming of the Lord has drawn near" in the time that James 5 was written. "Behold, the judge standeth before the door" was a clear indication that the Lord's hand was "on the doorknob", as it were, before He bodily returned in those days when James...

I suppose that wasn't so much that the author of the fourth gospel was being dismissive or neglectful in not mentioning John the Apostle as being the son of Zebedee. That was probably more of a protective measure to keep his references to the Apostle John rather vague, seeing that the Jewish...

Not so. I wouldn't present this viewpoint of there being THREE bodily resurrection events scheduled for mankind over the span of fallen man's history unless there were Scriptures which back this up. But it is off-topic of this post, don't you think? Better for me to start a totally new post...

Yes, I have heard this very same point being raised before concerning Christ's question in John 21:23. The writer of the fourth gospel, (the disciple whom Jesus loved), was trying to draw attention to the main point Christ was making, which was not really about his own resurrected status at...

What we do have in the fourth gospel is the one-and-only description in all the gospels of the account of Christ resurrecting Lazarus: namely, "He whom thou lovest" (John 11:3). We then read about the feast given in Lazarus's home in Bethany in John 12:1. "There they made him a supper; and...