Resurrection question

[Michelle]

Hi Michelle

Would it be okay if we did a "Rapture Views" thread?
{RickC tries to stay on topic},

sorry

[RickC]

Michelle....as you can see, I edited my post {I do that often, folks, you may not wanna reply right away}, lol. Maybe it's rude of me...but...you guys are fast!!!

So, Michelle, you understand Steve's view, right? (same as mine}.

[Mellontes]

Heya Mellontes and Rick,

Mellontes, you seemed to want Rick to state your definition of the rapture, which I can't blame him for avoiding doing.

Rick, you said you don't want to debate his view vs. your view, which I also can't blame you for avoiding.

I am curious, however, to read both of your views of the rapture and would be very grateful if you both could just give a summary of your position. If you have time, and if you don't mind, that is.

Thanks,
Michelle

Michelle,

I could say mine was the full-preterist rapture position but I know that won't help you much. My position is from the standpoint of covenants. At the second appearing (Hebrews 9:28) the new covenant age inaugurated at the cross would be completely consumated and the old covenant abolished at the destruction of the temple (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9). At this time those who had physically died in faith (either OT saints residing in sheol who had come to a position of faith as Abraham had or those through faith during Christ's earthly ministry) would now be with the Lord. The ones which remained and would be alive at Christ's coming (1 Thess 4:15) would be changed covenantally, NOT physically and they would NOT die physically. Their spiritual redemption in Christ would be made complete since they had been watching and waiting for this event for almost 40 years (at least those who had been around at Calvary). At this time Daniel 12:1-2 would be fulfilled. Notice that Daniel 12:7 signifies the this time as when the power of the holy people shall be scattered that "all these things shall be finished." For me this represents the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple and the killing and selling into slavery of millions of Jews. Jesus Himself said in Luke 21:22 that "these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." He also said in Luke 21:28 "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." This was the "day approaching" for those first century Hebrew Christians (Hebrews 10:25). For them it was such a short time away and persecution was really starting to unfold at this point in time (Hebrews 10:37).

Add to this the "time frame" bookends of Revelation when all these types of events were to take place (Rev 1:1, Rev 1:3, Rev 22:6, Rev 22:12) combined with Peter's "the end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7), Paul saying the end of the ages were to come upon the Corinthians as well (1 Cor 10:11) and Paul stating that satan was to be crushed shortly under the Roman's figurative feet (Romans 16:20) and I think we have a good case as to just when these things happened. Include the "about to" aspect (Strong's 3195) pertaining to judgment in Acts 23:3, 2 Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 10:27 and James 2:12 the case is made stronger. I firmly believe we have gotten the nature of the events wrong and because of exactly that, the time frame has been redefined or explained away completely. To me "shortly" means shortly, "nigh" means nigh, "near" means near, "quickly" means quickly and "at hand" means at hand. Most would disagree.

Please undersatand that not all full-preterists take this exact position. But I am certain that in order to take the basic full-preterist view one must believe that all things truly were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD just after the 3 1/2 years of Jewish wars and rebellion...

Blessings, Ted

[Michelle]

Thank you Ted.

[Michelle]

Michelle....as you can see, I edited my post {I do that often, folks, you may not wanna reply right away}, lol. Maybe it's rude of me...but...you guys are fast!!!

So, Michelle, you understand Steve's view, right? (same as mine}.

sorry....again, Rick

Man, I'm batting 1000 today.

[RickC]

Michelle, I PMd you.

[Mellontes]

Heya Mellontes and Rick,

Mellontes, you seemed to want Rick to state your definition of the rapture, which I can't blame him for avoiding doing.

Michelle,

In going over these posts again I must admit that I fail to see how or even why I would want Rick's definition of what I believe the rapture to be. I think it was made very clear that I was asking him for his definition of what he believed the rapture to be just as you had asked him. Look again at my quote:

...even though I have asked for clarification as to what you mean by the rapture. I can answer only by what I define the rapture to be. So I ask again for the second time, "What do you mean by the rapture?"

I find it "interesting" that he would respond to you but not to me even though the same question was asked.

Blessings, Ted

[RickC]

General comments.

First, I'm not interested in discussing, debating, or thinking about full-preterism "all the time."

Second, I had forgotten that not all full-preterists have the same views on everything. I'm unsure just how many variations there are though I've seen there are at least several. I PMd Michelle saying as much.

Third, Mellontes offered his particular views on the rapture (which is related, though a sub-topic to the thread topic}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mellontes,

Fourth, once again, I don't want to debate you or other full-preterists on this forum.

I don't want to debate full-preterists. For one thing, I think it would be unproductive. For another, I think it might be next to impossible.

Fifth, if you don't know the amillennial view of the rapture, I recommend Steve Gregg's Revelation 20 lectures. I agree with virtually everything Steve believes on eschatology and don't want to contest it with any full-preterists....

Sixth, you could start threads as "Debate" the Rapture {or what have you, so others know you want to}. You could also invite people to Public Debate: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=57

Other threads could be "Discuss" the Kingdom {or whatever, as in "explain your view" as you did for Michelle on the rapture, but the thread's purpose isn't for debate}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On that note, I'm think I'm probably finished on this thread & have a good week, everybody.

[Michelle]

Heya Mellontes and Rick,

Mellontes, you seemed to want Rick to state your definition of the rapture, which I can't blame him for avoiding doing.

Michelle,

In going over these posts again I must admit that I fail to see how or even why I would want Rick's definition of what I believe the rapture to be. I think it was made very clear that I was asking him for his definition of what he believed the rapture to be just as you had asked him. Look again at my quote:

...even though I have asked for clarification as to what you mean by the rapture. I can answer only by what I define the rapture to be. So I ask again for the second time, "What do you mean by the rapture?"

I find it "interesting" that he would respond to you but not to me even though the same question was asked.

Blessings, Ted

I just reread the posts as well, and I think you are right; I must have missed a few posts on the first reading of this. I'm sorry that I misunderstood your question for Rick. Anyway, thanks for your interesting reply to me; it was very informative.

[Douglas]

A resurrection snippet I found online that seems to make a lot of sense... what do you guys think?

A point that some detractors of the Amillennialist position condemn is that we say that the scripture teaches that "The First Resurrection" is the new birth. But again, either that is true, or our God is not telling the truth when He says it! One or the other, take your pick. God's Word teaches us that Christ is the first born from the dead that in all things he might have preeminence. That's the first resurrection from the dead. So the question is, "is Christ the first born from the dead or not?" Because if that's not true, then the resurrection wherein God says "we were raised up in His death," is frankly all a monumental deception. If it is true, then as Christ is the first raised from the dead, and we who were raised up with Him have part in the first resurrection. And if it's not true, then when Jesus told Martha (who thought that Lazarus would be first raised up in the last day) that, "HE was the Resurrection," it was all a lie, and all those raised in Him are not really raised up in His First Resurrection. We must then ask ourselves, "are believers raised up with Christ in a Pretend Resurrection, or was it with Christ as the first born from the dead?" Were we ever dead and raised up before Christ raised us up? The answer is no. So then this must of necessity be the "first" resurrection, just as we are told Christ is the first raised from the dead. If we really believe that Christ was the "first" from the dead, then the answers are obvious. We were raised up with Christ in his "First Resurrection." Again, maybe not according to some theologians, but according to the Holy Scriptures we were. And interpretations do belong to God.
Colossians 2:13

"And you being Dead in your sins, and the un-circumcision of your flesh, hath he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespass."
Ephesians 2:5-6
"Even when we were Dead in sins, hath He made us Alive together with Christ (by Grace ye are saved).
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"
And so according to "scripture alone," it would seem that many are really missing the whole point about both the first resurrection from the dead, and our being raised up to reign with Him in heaven. For if it's not the first (in God's defining of the first), then we have chaos, confusion, and a contradiction in the scriptures which sticks out like a sore thumb.
Colossians 1:18

"And He is the Head of the Body, the Church; who is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead that in all things He might have Preeminence."
Colossians 2:12
"Buried with Him in Baptism, wherein also ye were Risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the Dead."
Scripture teaches us of two principle resurrections of the dead. It speaks of the resurrection in Christ (John 11:25, Ephesians 2:5) which is the called the first. But it also speaks of another resurrection at the last day (John 11:24, 1st Corinthians 15:52). Only one can be the first resurrection of the saints. And I want to say that again for emphasis. ONLY ONE can be the first Resurrection. And that is what many theologians cannot seem to comprehend. You cannot have two separate events, both called the first resurrection in scripture. That is confusion and God is not the author of confusion. In Revelation 20:5, the First Resurrection refers to what has occurred that made those souls who have died able to live and reign with Christ, while the souls of those who were unsaved (the rest of the dead) could not go to live and reign with Christ. The rest of the dead (unsaved who died) "they lived not again" until the second resurrection when they must be raised from death to stand for judgment before the throne of God. What the chapter is doing is contrasting the souls of the saved, which though they are dead, yet they still live and reign with Christ in heaven, with the souls of the "rest of the dead" (the unsaved) who didn't have life again until the second Resurrection. The ones who reign with Christ after death are those who have had part in the first resurrection. The expression, the First Resurrection clearly refers to the souls of the saints that are raised first, in distinction from the raising of these wicked (rest of the dead) that occurs after the millennium. This is at the the second resurrection. It is totally consistent with the Amillennial view.
There are those who attempt to split hairs, who say that Christ's "resurrection" is not the exact same phrase as "first resurrection." And so they conclude Christ's resurrection is not the same as a first resurrection. But besides from this logic being self-serving, since Christ clearly says He's the Firstborn from the dead that He might have preeminence, it's also inaccurate. If (as righteous Joseph says), "God shall give an answer of peace, and interpretations belong to Him," then God (Sola Scriptura) must define the First Resurrection, not man. And Graciously, He does. But again, "if we will receive it!" And again, He does it unambiguously.

Acts 26:23

"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."
Christ is the "First Resurrection" from the dead according To God. From the context it should be clear to anyone with no preconceived ideas that Christ is the first resurrection, the first that should rise from the dead. And note, it's according to God's Word, not according to Amillennialists, or Augustine, or Origen. So who would dare to declare that these things are untrue? The sad truth is that many will dare to declare it, but unambiguously this is the raising of Christ from death to life. And God defines Him as the first. And so, as saith the scriptures, "Let God be True, and every man a liar (Romans 3:4)". Once again, Amillennialism triumphs biblically and is found to be nothing more than what is defined by the Word of God. The first resurrection was instituted at Christ's preeminent resurrection. His ascension to the throne was the start of the Millennial Kingdom reign, and all those who have part in that resurrection are they who reign with Him in the Kingdom. And upon these, the second death hath no part. And that is what Revelation 20 is declaring.
Revelation 20:6

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."
Blessed are those who have part in the first resurrection, because they are now made Kings and Priests unto God, the Children of the Kingdom, and they never lie, they live and reign with Him, and the second death cannot harm these.
And this is only a natural progression of scripture, because when we study prophecy we find that most of the prophecies concerning Israel and the millennial kingdom reign are now being fulfilled through the Church. The New Covenant is with spiritual Israel, and is being extended by the body of Christ. Peace has been brought, we have no fear of our enemies, the government is upon Christ's shoulders, He rules and we serve, we live and reign with Him in his kingdom, we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to God's Promises. All those prophecies are fulfilled. But again, this is (incredibly) railed upon by many theologians as both unbiblical and as unrighteous spiritualizing. But, in all honesty, there cannot be much question about the truth of it. The New Testament or Covenant (same word) is with Israel (according to scripture) and so unless the scriptures are wrong, or the Church isn't a part of this New Covenant in Christ's blood, then once again, Premillennialists are barking up a tree with a Lion in it. The Gentiles are as branches grafted "into" the Covenant tree Israel. This is clearly signified in Romans chapter 11. The Olive tree symbolizes Covenant Israel, and there are Gentiles that are grafted into this Covenant Israel on the New Testament side of the cross. So, what's to debate? We who were once Gentiles, are as branches taken from our wild Gentile tree, and grafted into the tree representing Covenant Israel, and are after spoken of as the New Covenant/Testament Congregation. This body is the new Covenant children of God. To deny this I believe is to deny the very scriptures that proclaim it. So again, what Bible are these detractors not reading concerning God's people being one body, New Covenant Israel? Moreover:

Ephesians 2:11-12

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh who are called un circumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made with hands,
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.
but Now ye who were sometimes far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ."
In times past, before we were in Christ, we were Gentiles, the uncircumcision, aliens or foreigners from the commonwealth of Israel. That's what we were before, but are not anymore. By being in Christ, we are reconciled together with God and the Jews, one commonwealth or [politeia] citizenship in Israel. We are now all one people in Christ Jesus. All of these scriptures become null and void in the humanist Judaic views, but they are totally consistent with what is called Amillennialism. By a believer having been raised up in the "First Resurrection" with Christ, he is by that new birth, brought into the Israel of God. Jew and Gentile reconciled into one body. There is One Body, which is Christ, not two. There is one Israel of God, not two. There is one Olive Tree of God, not two. There is one everlasting Covenant with the Israel of God, not two. And one man strengthened or confirmed that Covenant in His blood at the cross (for all), and He is not going to do it again in the future. The redemption of New Covenant Israel has already been accomplished. Their king has already come, and He reigns and continues to reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. This is the Millennial reign of Christ present in our day. And when Christ returns, it will be to usher in the second resurrection. It will be the time of the raising of the dead, and the judgment. But because we had part in the first resurrection, we have no part in that judgment. There is no second death for those who have part in the first resurrection.