Who, or what, is the dreaded bogey man of prophecy?

[Timtofly]

Except for the fact that scripture doesn't teach that. That's just you and your very active imagination. If you want to practise and believe in a scripture based faith paradigm, then take into account every word of God, and not just one or two that seem to harmonise with your opinion.
The Scripture doesn't say all the saints that ever lived were resurrected. It simply says, quote,
“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. ”
Matthew 27:52-53 KJV
Do you really think the powers that be at the time would have continued in their blind hatred and rejection of Christ's Church if Noah, David, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Methuselah, the prophets, and many thousands of others suddenly wandered the streets of Jerusalem like an army of zombies? Was there anything in the Jerusalem Post to the affect that a zombie army had terrified the populace? No. We don't know how many, but we can presume that it wasn't all.
Paul throughout his letters wrote of the Christian hope... the resurrection.
“16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. ”
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

I have never posted that all were in Jerusalem.

Your rejection of Scripture would mean only those in Israel will be raptured, and the rest of the world would not be raptured.

Your imagination means God is not capable of removing all from Abraham's bosom, or God chose to leave most of humanity in death and will leave most of the church to be destroyed instead of being raptured, because only those in one country will be affected.


Matthew did not say all came out of the graves in Jerusalem. Abraham's grave was not in Jerusalem. David was buried in Jerusalem, but why would Matthew give us hearsay about who was seen. Who is Matthew and was Matthew in Jerusalem at that time?

When it says many came out of their graves in Jerusalem, why would that not be an example of what happened all over the earth, where a redeemed person was buried? They did not travel to Jerusalem. They appeared unto many people, but God did not record the reaction of those who saw these resurrected people. Ask God why He did not name every one who appeared in Jerusalem.

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

This does not even prove one resurrected person appeared to a single disciple. Many appeared unto many. Yet you base your ability to interpret Scripture that they all had to be named, and those who witnessed these people had to have authority and understanding to confirm this event. Why would any of the disciples even be in a correct state of mind to be a reliable witness? Jesus said they all fled and forsook Jesus. Even Peter denied Jesus and yet you claim all of the OT redeemed were not resurrected, because Peter who just denied he even knew Jesus would be your only reliable witness to what happened.

All of Abraham's bosom were not seen in Jerusalem. Many were seen by many in Jerusalem, but that is all we know. My interpretation is not personal imagination. It is based on God's ability to resurrect all in Abraham's bosom, and allow them a physical body in Paradise like Paul teaches that God accomplishes all, not just a partial halfway work.

At the Second Coming those in Paradise do rise first from Paradise, because Jesus brings them with Him. Jesus does not resurrect those alive on the earth, and then goes back to heaven and resurrects those in Paradise, as you imagine, they all need a resurrection.

You do understand that the "dead in Christ" is not literally meaning they are physically dead in Paradise. It is the understanding for those on earth, that they have previously died. What verse has Paul written, that states souls are gathered from sheol in this process? If you claim most redeemed souls are still in sheol, where does it state in Scripture, they are ever gathered from sheol? Even Daniel does not claim all are resurrected at the end, still only many. If "many" does not represent "all" in Matthew 27, why would you be inconsistent and then say "many" does represent "all" in Daniel 12?

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Daniel then implies that even though many came out at the Cross, and though no one needed to leave sheol at the Second Coming, there were still those in sheol who would receive redemption at the GWT, even though they were never redeemed while physically alive. God reserves the right to pardon and offer eternal life to those who never lived under the Law, nor during the New Testament church. You do realize that people were not changed nor necessarily people of God prior to Moses? Romans 5:13-14

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Paul points out that prior to the Law, people still died in sin, but sin was not imputed prior to the Law. Also many have been in darkness not knowing the Law nor the Cross. Those under the Law in the OT, still had to wait in Abraham's bosom until the Cross. No one could physically enter Paradise, until Jesus satisfied the requirement physically on the Cross, even though Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. All were covered by the blood, but could not physically enjoy life back in Paradise, until after Jesus declared, "It is finished".

Matthew implies that not all will be left to resurrect when Daniel happens. Daniel implies that not all are left, because Matthew already happened thousands, at least 3,000 years prior to Daniel.

Your interpretation means both in heaven and on earth need to be resurrected. Do those on earth all die just prior to the Second Coming? If you are so literal that those in heaven are resurrected first, then those on earth need to be resurrected second, meaning all are literally dead and need a resurrection.

The word "rise" does not literally mean resurrected. One group rises alive from Paradise first, the other group rises from earth next.

However those on earth do need to change physical bodies, because this body of corruption cannot enter heaven, and that is where the church is told to wait until the final harvest is over and the rest of those alive on the earth are redeemed just like the church in heaven is. The church is not waiting on the earth. The church is waiting in Paradise. If those alive and remain on the earth are changed without physically dying, can you see any reason why the entire church waiting in Paradise ever tasted death, and why you think they are still dead, in need of a resurrection. You have those in Paradise more dead than those on the earth. You have them as souls in a state of death without spirit nor physical body. Other SDA claim they do not even exist but in God's mind. They are more dead than those alive on the earth. Meaning you allege God is the God of the dead, and He only stores the dead in His mind. That is a more vivid imagination than just pointing out that God removed all from Abraham's bosom at the Cross, and they have physically enjoyed Paradise for almost 2,000 years.

And according to Romans 5, and Daniel 12, many are still in sheol until the GWT who have no sin imputed to them, but were physically dead without the Law (the OT Covenant) and without Grace (the NT Covenant).

Edit: Why would you think that God is the God of a zombie army? Are we zombies after the Second Coming also? You have a vivid imagination of God.

 

[Timtofly]

David:
"For David is not ascended into the heavens..." It doesn't say "the body of David" - it says "David" which refers to the complete, entire David who was comprised of a Body and the Breath of Life (Genesis 2:7 KJV) and will be again on resurrection morning.

Job:
Says he'll be in the grave "until Thy wrath be past". Was "the wrath of God which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation" poured out upon mankind way back at the Cross? No - that is future when for the first time in history the pure wrath of God unmixed with divine mercy will be poured out upon mankind during the 7 Last Plagues just before the Second Coming.

So, once again, the Bible itself exposes the doctrine of Innate Immortality of the Soul as unBiblical.

David claims he could not ascend on his own. Are you arguing he could?

Peter is quoting David from the OT. From the OT perspective he was not ascended.

Peter’s point was, that from David, it was not David left in Abraham's bosom, but it was Jesus who was not left in Abraham's bosom.


You cannot use the same phrase to argue both points. You say David was left in Abraham's bosom. David said Jesus was not left in Abraham's bosom. You cannot then say Jesus was left because David was left. Or David was not left, because Jesus was not left. Who was not left? Who was left? David was left not ascended until the Cross, and did not have to be left in sheol, after the Cross. Peter was not declaring that David had not ascended at that point. Peter was declaring that it was Jesus of whom David was speaking about and not himself. Did Peter know that all had been removed from Abraham's bosom?

"For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,"

This point was the point from the OT that David was referring to Jesus not David.

Peter was not creating a doctrinal statement that David had not ascended at that point. In fact Peter was not talking about the church being resurrected at all. Peter was preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, and that they just crucified their Messiah per David.

David was not saying he was the one who would ascend and sit next to God. David was saying it was Jesus who would not be left in the grave, but would ascend to God.

Paul is the one who declares captivity was led captive, set free from Abraham's bosom. Matthew is the one who said many came out of sheol to never return to sheol, but did not name names, nor said who even saw those who were resurrected. Peter did not see those people, because he denied Christ and wanted nothing to do with Christ at that moment. He went back to fishing.


We see the same in Paul when he said we who are alive and remain. Paul was not creating a doctrinal statement that he himself would never die, but would still be alive on earth at the Second Coming.

You are free to twist Scripture and declare single verses as doctrine. God will not strike one dead for doing that. Or you can compare Scripture with Scripture to get a clearer understanding. Even Peter claimed he did not understand all that Paul taught.


Then you quote Job as an authority on the Second Coming? Or was Job referring to the Cross and God's wrath poured out on Jesus Christ? Job 14:13

"O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!"

That is not even God's wrath on mankind in general. That is God's wrath against Job. Job expected to be in the grave until God's wrath was satisfied against Job. Can you explain when God's wrath was satisfied against Job? Job did not live under the Law. Job did not live under the NT Covenant. Do you expect to be treated as Job or those in the OT under the Law? Did you miss the point Jesus made at the Last Supper?

Jesus' blood covered all those previously who had ever lived, not just those who would physically die after the Cross. You may be trying to interpret Job using the book of Revelation, then using Revelation's interpretation of Job to interpret Matthew. That is not the only Scripture that can be connected together for an interpretation.

Your phrase Innate Immortality of the soul is a contrived phrase to discredit what a soul is at conception and how God designed a soul into creation according to His Sovereign will. Greek Philosophy has it wrong, and the "Christian" response of some is also wrong.

God forms the soul at birth, and yes by placing it in the physical body from two human parents. The soul is you, and you never cease to exist, period. Life and death while not opposite, even though many see them as opposite through the terms mortal and immortal, are part of creation since Adam's disobedience. But Life was constant and eternal prior to the introduction of death. There is nothing Innate and physical about life. Life is not the reproduction process, so cannot be innate.


Mortal and immortal is just a philosophical way of saying life and death. Death is not the opposite of life despite the human logic conditioned to think that way. Death is the punishment of disobedience. Life is not the opposite, being the reward of obedience. Life is never ending until God's purposes are fulfilled. We have no clue what God's final purpose is or if there is an end at all.

How can one understand the soul if they cannot even comprehend life without death? The soul was never designed to die, period. Then you all say that because of sin, the soul is not even supposed to exist? A little over kill, no? The soul is not how you describe; as merely a body and God's Spirit (The Holy Spirit) coming together. The soul was never designed to be reliant on the Holy Spirit. While creation as a whole, itself relies on God, God designed the soul as everlasting, so the introduction of death, cannot be used to contradict God's purpose, as you assume, such the soul having the innate ability to cease to exist at any given time.

 

[CTK]

David claims he could not ascend on his own. Are you arguing he could?

Peter is quoting David from the OT. From the OT perspective he was not ascended.

Peter’s point was, that from David, it was not David left in Abraham's bosom, but it was Jesus who was not left in Abraham's bosom.


You cannot use the same phrase to argue both points. You say David was left in Abraham's bosom. David said Jesus was not left in Abraham's bosom. You cannot then say Jesus was left because David was left. Or David was not left, because Jesus was not left. Who was not left? Who was left? David was left not ascended until the Cross, and did not have to be left in sheol, after the Cross. Peter was not declaring that David had not ascended at that point. Peter was declaring that it was Jesus of whom David was speaking about and not himself. Did Peter know that all had been removed from Abraham's bosom?

"For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,"

This point was the point from the OT that David was referring to Jesus not David.

Peter was not creating a doctrinal statement that David had not ascended at that point. In fact Peter was not talking about the church being resurrected at all. Peter was preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, and that they just crucified their Messiah per David.

David was not saying he was the one who would ascend and sit next to God. David was saying it was Jesus who would not be left in the grave, but would ascend to God.

Paul is the one who declares captivity was led captive, set free from Abraham's bosom. Matthew is the one who said many came out of sheol to never return to sheol, but did not name names, nor said who even saw those who were resurrected. Peter did not see those people, because he denied Christ and wanted nothing to do with Christ at that moment. He went back to fishing.


We see the same in Paul when he said we who are alive and remain. Paul was not creating a doctrinal statement that he himself would never die, but would still be alive on earth at the Second Coming.

You are free to twist Scripture and declare single verses as doctrine. God will not strike one dead for doing that. Or you can compare Scripture with Scripture to get a clearer understanding. Even Peter claimed he did not understand all that Paul taught.


Then you quote Job as an authority on the Second Coming? Or was Job referring to the Cross and God's wrath poured out on Jesus Christ? Job 14:13

"O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!"

That is not even God's wrath on mankind in general. That is God's wrath against Job. Job expected to be in the grave until God's wrath was satisfied against Job. Can you explain when God's wrath was satisfied against Job? Job did not live under the Law. Job did not live under the NT Covenant. Do you expect to be treated as Job or those in the OT under the Law? Did you miss the point Jesus made at the Last Supper?

Jesus' blood covered all those previously who had ever lived, not just those who would physically die after the Cross. You may be trying to interpret Job using the book of Revelation, then using Revelation's interpretation of Job to interpret Matthew. That is not the only Scripture that can be connected together for an interpretation.

Your phrase Innate Immortality of the soul is a contrived phrase to discredit what a soul is at conception and how God designed a soul into creation according to His Sovereign will. Greek Philosophy has it wrong, and the "Christian" response of some is also wrong.

God forms the soul at birth, and yes by placing it in the physical body from two human parents. The soul is you, and you never cease to exist, period. Life and death while not opposite, even though many see them as opposite through the terms mortal and immortal, are part of creation since Adam's disobedience. But Life was constant and eternal prior to the introduction of death. There is nothing Innate and physical about life. Life is not the reproduction process, so cannot be innate.


Mortal and immortal is just a philosophical way of saying life and death. Death is not the opposite of life despite the human logic conditioned to think that way. Death is the punishment of disobedience. Life is not the opposite, being the reward of obedience. Life is never ending until God's purposes are fulfilled. We have no clue what God's final purpose is or if there is an end at all.

How can one understand the soul if they cannot even comprehend life without death? The soul was never designed to die, period. Then you all say that because of sin, the soul is not even supposed to exist? A little over kill, no? The soul is not how you describe; as merely a body and God's Spirit (The Holy Spirit) coming together. The soul was never designed to be reliant on the Holy Spirit. While creation as a whole, itself relies on God, God designed the soul as everlasting, so the introduction of death, cannot be used to contradict God's purpose, as you assume, such the soul having the innate ability to cease to exist at any given time.

In Genesis 2:7, God gave us the formula for His creation of Adam. He took the dust from the earth and breathe into him.... and Adam became a living SOUL. God had placed HIs Holiness / Righteousness / Spirit into Adam and this separated him from all other living creatures that were created and of cours, breathe one way or another. God did not breathe anything into any other animal, fish, bird, etc.,
They were already created but God would create man in His own image and place His Holiness within Adam.

When Adam sinned, that same "holiness" given / imparted into him at his creation could no longer be / stay within Adam since sin and God's holiness can not coexit together. Thus, God's holiness had to return to God and Adam was now a "human being." And since he no longer could be within the presence of God, he had to leave the Garden. He would be sent out into the world and breathe, work, etc., and have to do all the things to survive that were not required in the Garden. And an important issue is that Eve also had to leave the Garden with Adam. God did not breathe His holiness within Eve since she was created from Adam. Therefore, she also had God's holiness within her from Adam's rib - again, not from God's breathing anything into her. But she too, had to give up the holiness of God that was within her and leave the Garden with Adam.

So the "breathing" into Adam was certainly not air but God's righteousness. Adam and Eve did not possess their own holiness or righteousness apart from God placing HIS holiness within them. But they would both have it taken from them and out of the Garden.

Outside of the Garden,. Adam and Eve still functioned and breathed as they had before they left. They still had their awareness and consciousness about them. They were no different that any other human being that would come upon the earth over the next 6000 years.... and at no time would or could they place or obtain God's holiness that was lost after they sinned. And this is what God's plan of salvation is all about... How will He restore HIS holiness / righteousness / spirit back into mankind so we can be with HIm. And of course, the only way is to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior and at the time of the resurrection, He will no longer see / remember our sins and will be

1 Corinthians 15:52, "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

For those that have accepted Jesus, we will be perfected in Him.

 

[ewq1938]

In Genesis 2:7, God gave us the formula for His creation of Adam. He took the dust from the earth and breathe into him.... and Adam became a living SOUL. God had placed HIs Holiness / Righteousness / Spirit into Adam

If He did that, it was a failure because Adam fell and sinned much like satan did. No, God did not put his own spirit nor his righteousness or Holiness in Adam because Adam did not display those characteristics.

and this separated him from all other living creatures that were created and of cours, breathe one way or another. God did not breathe anything into any other animal, fish, bird, etc.,

Animals have the breath of life in them according to scripture.

Man has the "breath of life".


Genesis 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.


Animals also have the breath of life.


1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.


Man and animals have different flesh, but both are a living soul and have the breath of life.


Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
Ecclesiastes 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath [ru^ach]; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
Ecc 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

What befalls the flesh of animals will also befall the flesh of man. Animals and man have the same breath! Breath here is ru^ach meaning spirit!

 

[CTK]

If He did that, it was a failure because Adam fell and sinned much like satan did. No, God did not put his own spirit nor his righteousness or Holiness in Adam because Adam did not display those characteristics.

No, God did not remove or take away man's ability to choose.

Animals have the breath of life in them according to scripture.

Man has the "breath of life".


Genesis 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.


Animals also have the breath of life.

I agree, all animals breathe... I mentioned that. Adam breathed both before and after he left the Garden.

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.


Man and animals have different flesh, but both are a living soul and have the breath of life.

It is easy to see that all flesh is not the same... man's flest v. that of a lizard or a whale... but no only God breathed into Adam / man not the animals His spirit.

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
Ecclesiastes 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath [ru^ach]; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
Ecc 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

What befalls the flesh of animals will also befall the flesh of man. Animals and man have the same breath! Breath here is ru^ach meaning spirit!

All men, animals, fish, birds, etc., die. They all return to the dust. All of course stop breathing the air they need. However, Adam was not meant to die or return to the dust. As long as he was in the Garden, in the presence of God and had His spirit within him, he would never die. But once he sinned, God's spirit had to leave him and return to Him who only has it to give.

Let me ask you... If we were to look at Adam while he was in the Garden and then outside the Garden, would he still breath, still function, etc., But Adam was not naked in the Garden until he lost God's spirit. That holy covering showed it was God's spirit that was placed within him not simply air. He lost that holiness and was now naked.... Could no longer be in the presence of God.
What did he loose after he sinned? Eve lost it too but God did not breathe anything into her... where did she get that holiness / covering?

 

[ewq1938]

However, Adam was not meant to die or return to the dust.

Nope. Adam was created human, a mortal which is why he died. His sin caused him to die a different death before his physical death.

Let me ask you... If we were to look at Adam while he was in the Garden and then outside the Garden, would he still breath, still function, etc., But Adam was not naked in the Garden until he lost God's spirit.

Wrong again. Adam was naked before his sin. He simply did not know he was naked until after the sin.

 

[Brakelite]

I have never posted that all were in Jerusalem.

Your rejection of Scripture would mean only those in Israel will be raptured, and the rest of the world would not be raptured.

Your imagination means God is not capable of removing all from Abraham's bosom, or God chose to leave most of humanity in death and will leave most of the church to be destroyed instead of being raptured, because only those in one country will be affected.


Matthew did not say all came out of the graves in Jerusalem. Abraham's grave was not in Jerusalem. David was buried in Jerusalem, but why would Matthew give us hearsay about who was seen. Who is Matthew and was Matthew in Jerusalem at that time?

When it says many came out of their graves in Jerusalem, why would that not be an example of what happened all over the earth, where a redeemed person was buried? They did not travel to Jerusalem. They appeared unto many people, but God did not record the reaction of those who saw these resurrected people. Ask God why He did not name every one who appeared in Jerusalem.

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

This does not even prove one resurrected person appeared to a single disciple. Many appeared unto many. Yet you base your ability to interpret Scripture that they all had to be named, and those who witnessed these people had to have authority and understanding to confirm this event. Why would any of the disciples even be in a correct state of mind to be a reliable witness? Jesus said they all fled and forsook Jesus. Even Peter denied Jesus and yet you claim all of the OT redeemed were not resurrected, because Peter who just denied he even knew Jesus would be your only reliable witness to what happened.

All of Abraham's bosom were not seen in Jerusalem. Many were seen by many in Jerusalem, but that is all we know. My interpretation is not personal imagination. It is based on God's ability to resurrect all in Abraham's bosom, and allow them a physical body in Paradise like Paul teaches that God accomplishes all, not just a partial halfway work.

At the Second Coming those in Paradise do rise first from Paradise, because Jesus brings them with Him. Jesus does not resurrect those alive on the earth, and then goes back to heaven and resurrects those in Paradise, as you imagine, they all need a resurrection.

You do understand that the "dead in Christ" is not literally meaning they are physically dead in Paradise. It is the understanding for those on earth, that they have previously died. What verse has Paul written, that states souls are gathered from sheol in this process? If you claim most redeemed souls are still in sheol, where does it state in Scripture, they are ever gathered from sheol? Even Daniel does not claim all are resurrected at the end, still only many. If "many" does not represent "all" in Matthew 27, why would you be inconsistent and then say "many" does represent "all" in Daniel 12?

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Daniel then implies that even though many came out at the Cross, and though no one needed to leave sheol at the Second Coming, there were still those in sheol who would receive redemption at the GWT, even though they were never redeemed while physically alive. God reserves the right to pardon and offer eternal life to those who never lived under the Law, nor during the New Testament church. You do realize that people were not changed nor necessarily people of God prior to Moses? Romans 5:13-14

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Paul points out that prior to the Law, people still died in sin, but sin was not imputed prior to the Law. Also many have been in darkness not knowing the Law nor the Cross. Those under the Law in the OT, still had to wait in Abraham's bosom until the Cross. No one could physically enter Paradise, until Jesus satisfied the requirement physically on the Cross, even though Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. All were covered by the blood, but could not physically enjoy life back in Paradise, until after Jesus declared, "It is finished".

Matthew implies that not all will be left to resurrect when Daniel happens. Daniel implies that not all are left, because Matthew already happened thousands, at least 3,000 years prior to Daniel.

Your interpretation means both in heaven and on earth need to be resurrected. Do those on earth all die just prior to the Second Coming? If you are so literal that those in heaven are resurrected first, then those on earth need to be resurrected second, meaning all are literally dead and need a resurrection.

The word "rise" does not literally mean resurrected. One group rises alive from Paradise first, the other group rises from earth next.

However those on earth do need to change physical bodies, because this body of corruption cannot enter heaven, and that is where the church is told to wait until the final harvest is over and the rest of those alive on the earth are redeemed just like the church in heaven is. The church is not waiting on the earth. The church is waiting in Paradise. If those alive and remain on the earth are changed without physically dying, can you see any reason why the entire church waiting in Paradise ever tasted death, and why you think they are still dead, in need of a resurrection. You have those in Paradise more dead than those on the earth. You have them as souls in a state of death without spirit nor physical body. Other SDA claim they do not even exist but in God's mind. They are more dead than those alive on the earth. Meaning you allege God is the God of the dead, and He only stores the dead in His mind. That is a more vivid imagination than just pointing out that God removed all from Abraham's bosom at the Cross, and they have physically enjoyed Paradise for almost 2,000 years.

And according to Romans 5, and Daniel 12, many are still in sheol until the GWT who have no sin imputed to them, but were physically dead without the Law (the OT Covenant) and without Grace (the NT Covenant).

Edit: Why would you think that God is the God of a zombie army? Are we zombies after the Second Coming also? You have a vivid imagination of God.

You've succeeded in totally confusing me with a baffling mix of presumption with regards my beliefs, a failure to recognise sarcasm, and an array of beliefs that bear little or no relation to scripture, all based on a blind rejection of at least 2 biblical truths... there is no immortal sinner, and that resurrection 2000 years ago was limited as they were the first fruits that Jesus presented to His Father. The first fruits were not the full crop. The resurrection at the second coming is the final harvest. Full crop.

 

[Timtofly]

He simply did not know he was naked until after the sin.

That would contradict this verse:

"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

They knew they were naked but not ashamed. No, the reason they hid was not because of their nakedness, but because they lost the spiritual covering that hid that nakedness. That is why they tried to make their own covering that was not the same as God's original. God then covered them by killing an animal the first type mentioned in Scripture.

"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

Not sure why people don't get that Paul said we put something on. God does not transfer human manufactured clothing into Paradise. That they looked clothed is because they are clothed, but not with human clothes, nor animal skims.

Adam did physically die, and did spiritually die, and his soul went from God's permanent incorruptible physical body to a temporal corruptible physical body, and the spirit was removed from that physical body leaving it unclothed.

"And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

How were they naked when they just put on a bunch of leaves as clothing? If they had on leaves, they were not naked, correct? They were naked because the leaves were not that which they were originally clothed in, the spirit. God already knew all this but played along with their attempts to hide themselves now that life had changed for them.

They were naked, because when Adam disobeyed God, both Adam and Eve physically died, changed bodies, and spiritually died, were no longer clothed with their spirit. Yes God, Adam did eat in disobedience, would be the answer. God already knew that, as He changed their bodies and took away their spirits, the instant Adam disobeyed.

So, no, the Holy Spirit did not leave them. They would be lost eternally without hope, if they had no wooing from the Holy Spirit to repent and submit to God.

What changed is that they were no longer sons of God, but the parents of dead humanity, forever in a state of physical and spiritually death, until God restores them back into a permanent incorruptible physical body and gives them back their spirit to put on over that physical body, that allows them to be naked, and not to be ashamed.

No, I don't know how that works. But to explain it any other way does not make sense or contradicts Scripture. Most of how people explain Adam's disobedience seems like human understanding grasping at anything, but the truth.

Genesis 1 explains how sons of God were created in God's image, which is a trinity. Genesis 2 gives slightly more detail on the process involved, but cannot contradict Genesis 1. The soul, body and spirit are the three parts to what makes up a son of God. After Adam disobeyed, he and Eve only had the soul left, and that soul was placed into a physical body of death, making the soul physically dead, but still housed in a physical body. But there is no restoration of the spirit until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as King. Those currently in Paradise have a soul clothed in a physical body, but temporally clothed in God fashioned garments. Prior to the Cross, the redeemed had to wait in sheol to be clothed upon with a physical body. The soul was prohibited from Paradise, until the physical was restored. The physical act of the Cross restored the physical body.

The restoration of creation itself is the purpose of the Millennial Kingdom on earth. There will not be any souls in a physical state of death. However the church has been glorified per the 5th Seal, and will not be on the earth as sons of God, but will still wait in Paradise, until the final act of restoration is accomplished. That is when Jesus hands back creation as complete. The work finished by Jesus, where Adam failed.

 

[Timtofly]

The first fruits were not the full crop. The resurrection at the second coming is the final harvest. Full crop.

Which is just mere assumptions without Scripture to back them up.

 

[Brakelite]

Which is just mere assumptions without Scripture to back them up.

True, but with a few exceptions. Revelation14. Every single teaching in the NT regarding the resurrection and the second coming. Every single parable that treats of the same. Every single teaching/doctrine in the NT that speaks of angels gathering the elect together. Every single teaching/doctrine that speaks of the dead sleeping in their graves until the resurrection. Except them. So yeah, apart from those few exceptions I've got nothing to support my theory that the vast majority of the righteous redeemed will be resurrected at the second coming.

 

[Timtofly]

True, but with a few exceptions. Revelation14. Every single teaching in the NT regarding the resurrection and the second coming. Every single parable that treats of the same. Every single teaching/doctrine in the NT that speaks of angels gathering the elect together. Every single teaching/doctrine that speaks of the dead sleeping in their graves until the resurrection. Except them. So yeah, apart from those few exceptions I've got nothing to support my theory that the vast majority of the righteous redeemed will be resurrected at the second coming.

None of those verses you vaguely mentioned, declare that all are in a state of death waiting for a resurrection. The church is already physically enjoying Paradise and have been for 1994 years. Every day the harvest has been gathered since then, here a little, and there a little, or sometimes a lot. I don't think you nor I can say whether those currently alive on earth, out number those currently physically enjoying Paradise. So those verses that you are assuming do not support your interpretation of a general resurrection at the Second Coming.

The general resurrection is not even at the Second Coming, but over a thousand years later. None of the dead are resurrected, who will be tossed into the LOF, at the Second Coming.

We don't know how many souls were waiting for the Cross in Abraham's bosom, do we? The Cross was the last day resurrection for the entire OT church. They were the resurrected firstfruits in Christ who physically ascended in Christ, and with Christ on resurrection Sunday. The entire OT body of believers were made alive, as the firstfruits in Christ that day. Yet you claim those were not firstfruits but the final crop in some distant future event, that you assume from Scripture, but cannot prove.

You have no firstfruits, because you call them dead, and dead fruit means rotten and not fruit at all. Your assumptions conclude that only those alive and remain are the firstfruits, and the dead are the final crop.

The first fruits were not the full crop. The resurrection at the second coming is the final harvest. Full crop.

The firstfruits are not the full crop, but neither are they dead, waiting for a resurrection. Matthew 27 and Ephesians 4 should clearly indicate all the OT redeemed were the firstfruits in Christ, not some. What verse do you have that God only promised the redeemed a partial resurrection? Do you also think that only some of the alive and remain will be caught up, or will all be caught up?

Being alive and remain does not imply the rest of the redeemed are dead. Being alive and remain means those not on earth are physically in Paradise, as those in Christ never taste death, but they do leave earth, and are with Christ physically. The rapture is the final harvest, when the rest leave death and enter eternal life. Those in Paradise have already left death, and have entered eternal life.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live."

Those with the second birth can never experience death, as they are already alive. But to enter eternal life, one must leave this temporal body of death, and put on the permanent body of life to complete the process of eternal life. That is not waiting in death somewhere. This physical body of death returns to dust, and is not God's permanent incorruptible physical body, not even at the rapture. Those alive have to leave that body of death and put on the body of life. The two bodies are contrasted in 2 Corinthians 5:1. And you cannot use Paul to negate what Jesus said.

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Are you part of the "we" that knows this? That verse does not say we have to wait until the body turns to dust. Paul is saying when the union with death is over, the union of life is immediate, because that is what Jesus taught.

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Now some want to say that Jesus, then contradicts Himself, and the righteous are only resurrected at the very end. Are you basing your eternal life on doing good, or in Christ, relying on Him? The rest of the dead not in Christ are those who do good, but doing good has never ever saved a person. Jesus is just pointing out that some will be redeemed at that point. Jesus did not say the redeemed were waiting in death. Jesus said those that have done good, will have the resurrection of life, at that point.

You can continue to say that you have everything in favor of your assertion that all will be raised on some last day. All the dead will be, who have never had the second birth. The OT waiting in Abraham's bosom are not still waiting in death, because they were the firstfruits in Christ, and were physically resurrected at the Cross, not those still waiting who have done good, for thousands of years later. Those in Abraham's bosom were those of faith, not those who merely do good. Hebrews 11 comes to mind. But we have no clue, the total number who all had faith in the OT. Just because they were always a remnant does not mean there were not great multitudes waiting for the resurrection of the Cross.

 

[Brakelite]

None of those verses you vaguely mentioned, declare that all are in a state of death waiting for a resurrection. The church is already physically enjoying Paradise and have been for 1994 years. Every day the harvest has been gathered since then, here a little, and there a little, or sometimes a lot. I don't think you nor I can say whether those currently alive on earth, out number those currently physically enjoying Paradise. So those verses that you are assuming do not support your interpretation of a general resurrection at the Second Coming.

The general resurrection is not even at the Second Coming, but over a thousand years later. None of the dead are resurrected, who will be tossed into the LOF, at the Second Coming.

We don't know how many souls were waiting for the Cross in Abraham's bosom, do we? The Cross was the last day resurrection for the entire OT church. They were the resurrected firstfruits in Christ who physically ascended in Christ, and with Christ on resurrection Sunday. The entire OT body of believers were made alive, as the firstfruits in Christ that day. Yet you claim those were not firstfruits but the final crop in some distant future event, that you assume from Scripture, but cannot prove.

You have no firstfruits, because you call them dead, and dead fruit means rotten and not fruit at all. Your assumptions conclude that only those alive and remain are the firstfruits, and the dead are the final crop.



The firstfruits are not the full crop, but neither are they dead, waiting for a resurrection. Matthew 27 and Ephesians 4 should clearly indicate all the OT redeemed were the firstfruits in Christ, not some. What verse do you have that God only promised the redeemed a partial resurrection? Do you also think that only some of the alive and remain will be caught up, or will all be caught up?

Being alive and remain does not imply the rest of the redeemed are dead. Being alive and remain means those not on earth are physically in Paradise, as those in Christ never taste death, but they do leave earth, and are with Christ physically. The rapture is the final harvest, when the rest leave death and enter eternal life. Those in Paradise have already left death, and have entered eternal life.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live."

Those with the second birth can never experience death, as they are already alive. But to enter eternal life, one must leave this temporal body of death, and put on the permanent body of life to complete the process of eternal life. That is not waiting in death somewhere. This physical body of death returns to dust, and is not God's permanent incorruptible physical body, not even at the rapture. Those alive have to leave that body of death and put on the body of life. The two bodies are contrasted in 2 Corinthians 5:1. And you cannot use Paul to negate what Jesus said.

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Are you part of the "we" that knows this? That verse does not say we have to wait until the body turns to dust. Paul is saying when the union with death is over, the union of life is immediate, because that is what Jesus taught.

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Now some want to say that Jesus, then contradicts Himself, and the righteous are only resurrected at the very end. Are you basing your eternal life on doing good, or in Christ, relying on Him? The rest of the dead not in Christ are those who do good, but doing good has never ever saved a person. Jesus is just pointing out that some will be redeemed at that point. Jesus did not say the redeemed were waiting in death. Jesus said those that have done good, will have the resurrection of life, at that point.

You can continue to say that you have everything in favor of your assertion that all will be raised on some last day. All the dead will be, who have never had the second birth. The OT waiting in Abraham's bosom are not still waiting in death, because they were the firstfruits in Christ, and were physically resurrected at the Cross, not those still waiting who have done good, for thousands of years later. Those in Abraham's bosom were those of faith, not those who merely do good. Hebrews 11 comes to mind. But we have no clue, the total number who all had faith in the OT. Just because they were always a remnant does not mean there were not great multitudes waiting for the resurrection of the Cross.

Okay.