Search results

How does this address what I said in my post? I don't see that it does at all. Are you saying that those who are referenced in Matthew 27:52-53 had immortal bodies? If so, how does that line up with 1 Corinthians 15:22-23? Why did Paul not mention them there if they were resurrected with...

Not unto bodily immortality, but the text is very clear that they were bodily resurrected. Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. This...

You said "they were not raised in them old bodies again", so are you saying you think the ones referenced in Matthew 27:52-53 were resurrected with glorified, immortal bodies? If so, how can that be in light of what Paul said here... 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ...

The book does NOT say everything written in it will happen soon. It contains things about the past (before it was written), the present (as of the time it was written) and the future (after it was written) up until the future second coming of Christ when the new heavens and new earth are ushered...

Please don't waste your time asking questions with obvious answers. Thanks. You are twisting the text to fit your doctrine. Paul did not say "CHRIST is the Beginning/Firstfruits of the First Resurrection and HE is the COMPLETION/End = at HIS COMING". Instead, he pointed out how Christ's...

If you are going to respond to me, then how about actually addressing my points instead of just sharing what you believe? I already know what you believe, but I don't know how you would address the points I made since you didn't bother to do so. Regarding your particular belief, though, even if...

You corrected nothing. You misquoted me. That is a different context than what I was talking about. How about staying on topic? Do you think you can do that? I was talking about the order of resurrections like what Paul referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23. You do see that he references an...

LOL! Why would I be unwilling to grasp your point? Tell me. I'd love to know what you think I could gain from that and why I would be unwilling to grasp your point. I have no reason to be unwilling to grasp your point. If I misunderstood you, it's certainly not on purpose. You OFTEN...

I did not say that. Why did you misquote me? I said His resurrection alone and in and of ITSELF is the first resurrection. In other words, Christ's resurrection alone is the first resurrection and not the resurrection of anyone else. You include the resurrection of the dead in Christ at His...

Again, you act like you agree with me, but you don't. I am saying Christ's resurrection alone in and of itself is the first resurrection. As a Premil, you do not agree with that. So, why act as if you agree with me? He is not just "the Beginning of the FIRST Resurrection". He IS the first...

What is primarily essential for obtaining eternal life is the resurrection of Jesus Christ and being born again and belonging to Him. It is because of those things that the dead in Christ have the assurance that they will be bodily resurrected when He comes again. So, my question for you, since...

This is not something to get into a big debate about since, as you said, it doesn't mention much about them. But, in my view, if they were resurrected unto bodily immortality then Paul would have mentioned them when giving the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality in 1 Corinthians...

You say you agree, but I'm not sure exactly what you are agreeing with. I am saying that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. Do you agree with that? That's what verses like Acts 26:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:20 indicate. And I am saying that we have part in His resurrection...

How do you think this supports your case? Even if the word anazao is not actually used in Revelation 20:5, as whatever source ChatGPT is pulling from claims, the fact is that the word zao simply means to live or to be alive. There is nothing about the word in and of itself which indicates...

Scripture teaches that Christ's 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.” Paul taught that next in order after Christ's first...

Exactly! But, does he understand that? Of course not. Based on what is written in Revelation 20:6, whatever having part in the first resurrection means, the result of it is that it makes the second death have no power over someone. Is it the bodily resurrection from the dead that makes the...

LOL!!! Look at what you said here. If this was some kind of valid argument, then I could make a similar type of argument that is even more valid than yours because I can say that Premils have THE most important resurrection missing from Revelation 20 altogether. So, would you take such an...

The souls and spirits of believers are with Jesus in paradise now. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Him that day in paradise. Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

It's crystal clear to me that you are wrong. It says the tares are "the children of the wicked one". Matthew 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is...

Right. They were not the first resurrection because the first resurrection is the first resurrection of a certain type, which is the resurrection unto bodily immortality. According to scripture (does anyone here care about what scripture says about this?), Jesus Christ's resurrection itself was...