Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
No, I didn't miss it. You often say things that misrepresent what I've said and you were complaining about another person doing that to you in response to things that you said to him.You missed the point then about butchering my post. I ask questions to show how one thing cannot be another thing.
I address them when I can actually understand them, but most of what you say is unintelligible.You have obviously never addressed any points I have made, but totally dismissed them instead of proving them wrong from Scripture.
In what other sense was Jesus's resurrection the first except that it was the first resurrection unto bodily immortality?For starters you claim Jesus had a resurrection to immortality. That is not found in Scripture, and you butcher the Scripture to make a point that does not exist. Then you use that point to claim Lazarus was never raised incorruptible, because of a time difference between his resurrection and the Cross.
Scripture is very clear that His resurrection was the first resurrection of some kind. So, in what sense was it the first resurrection in your opinion?
Acts 26:22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 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.”
I insist no such thing. This is another example of you misrepresenting my beliefs. You do it often. Why? Because you know I don't actually believe those things, but you like to just play games? Or is it because you have poor reading comprehension skills?Not to mention your continued insistence that a physical resurrection is the same exact thing as the second birth into God's family.
The first resurrection was physical. It was Christ's physical, bodily resurrection. But, scripture talks about believers spiritually having part in His resurrection. Such as in this passage:So all those already dead will not experience the second birth until they are physically resurrected, the first resurrection.
You will then complain that I butcher your point, because you say they receive the first resurrection, at the second birth, because it is not physical.
If the first resurrection is not physical, then why is the first birth and first death physical? Is the physical resurrection now the "second" resurrection?
Colossians 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[b] was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
Do you understand that when we become spiritually saved we go from being dead in our sins to being made spiritually alive with Christ by being spiritually "raised with him"?
Right. I've said that many times.Calling the second birth a resurrection is not literal. It is figurative of coming out of sin, into life.
I've never said otherwise. Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection, was a literal resurrection of His physical body.But a physical resurrection cannot be figurative. It has to be literal,
Lazarus, like all believers, had part in the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection) by spiritually being spiritually raised from being dead in sins to spiritually alive with Christ.and it is literally the first resurrection of the physical body. In fact John never used the term in his gospel, but the first use of the term was for those in Revelation 20:4 after the battle of Armageddon. But that does not mean that it cannot apply to those prior to the battle of Armageddon. It applies to Lazarus as well. You claim it applies in the first century, so why can it not apply to Lazarus?