Gino Jennings End Times

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Saved, being saved and to be saved are in a sense progressive salvation. That's what I meant.

Why are we already saved in one sense, being saved in another, and to be saved in the future? Progressive toward total salvation in every sense. That is what I meant.

Yes, I understand that is what you meant. But that is not what *I* meant, thus I did not agree that the binding of satan is progressive, in the sense you are using the term.

Now , will someone deal with proof that two physical resurrections are seen in Rev 20 despite the fact Paul foretold ONE in our future, and disallowed any more by the way he taught it?

If 2 physical resurrections are seen in Rev 20 "despite the fact that Paul foretold ONE in our future and disallowed any more by the way he taught it" then one or the other is not Scripture. Either that, or you have misunderstood one or the other. Considering Peter specifically mentioned how Paul's words are often "hard to understand", I would suggest you have misunderstood Paul. Especially seeing as his words do NOT in fact "disallow" what you think he is disallowing.

Note what I learned, after the fact, that Paul said about this issue.

ADAM CLARKE:

1Co 15:23 KJV.. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Some think that by them that are Christ's at his coming, "we are to understand Christ's coming to reign on earth a thousand years with his saints, previously to the general judgment;" but I must confess I find nothing in the sacred writings distinctly enough marked to support this opinion of the millennium, or thousand years' reign; nor can I conceive any important end that can be answered by this procedure.

We should be very cautious how we make a figurative expression, used in the most figurative book in the Bible, the foundation of a very important literal system that is to occupy a measure of the faith, and no small portion of the hope, of Christians. The strange conjectures formed on this very uncertain basis have not been very creditable either to reason or religion.

I found it interesting that this man made the same conclusion I did from 1 Cor 15 and also noted that basing a doctrine on a highly figurative book like Revelation, where symbols are NOT interpreted for us in the text, is bad exegesis.

Do you also find it interesting that Clarke was a postmillennial historicist and not an amillennial preterist?

Clarke on the Millennium:

A thousand years - In what this binding of Satan consists, who can tell? How many visions have been seen on this subject both in ancient and modern times! This, and what is said Revelation 20:3-5, no doubt refers to a time in which the influence of Satan will be greatly restrained, and the true Church of God enjoy great prosperity, which shall endure for a long time. But it is not likely that the number, a thousand years, is to be taken literally here, and year symbolically and figuratively in all the book beside. The doctrine of the millennium, or of the saints reigning on earth a thousand years, with Christ for their head, has been illustrated and defended by many Christian writers, both among the ancients and moderns. Were I to give a collection of the conceits of the primitive fathers on this subject, my readers would have little reason to applaud my pains. It has long been the idle expectation of many persons that the millennium, in their sense, was at hand; and its commencement has been expected in every century since the Christian era. It has been fixed for several different years, during the short period of my own life! I believed those predictions to be vain, and I have lived to see them such. Yet there is no doubt that the earth is in a state of progressive moral improvement; and that the light of true religion is shining more copiously everywhere, and will shine more and more to the perfect day. But when the religion of Christ will be at its meridian of light and heat, we know not. In each believer this may speedily take place; but probably no such time shall ever appear, in which evil shall be wholly banished from the earth, till after the day of judgment, when the earth having been burnt up, a new heaven and a new earth shall be produced out of the ruins of the old, by the mighty power of God: righteousness alone shall dwell in them. The phraseology of the apostle here seems partly taken from the ancient prophets, and partly rabbinical; and it is from the Jewish use of those terms that we are to look for their interpretation.

He should deceive the nations no more - Be unable to blind men with superstition and idolatry as he had formerly done.

I saw thrones - Christianity established in the earth, the kings and governors being all Christians.

Reigned with Christ a thousand years - I am satisfied that this period should not be taken literally. It may signify that there shall be a long and undisturbed state of Christianity; and so universally shall the Gospel spirit prevail, that it will appear as if Christ reigned upon earth; which will in effect be the case, because his Spirit shall rule in the hearts of men; and in this time the martyrs are represented as living again; their testimony being revived, and the truth for which they died, and which was confirmed by their blood, being now everywhere prevalent. As to the term thousand years, it is a mystic number among the Jews. Midrash Tillin, in Psalm 90:15, Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, adds, "by Babylon, Greece, and the Romans; and in the days of the Messiah. How many are the days of the Messiah? Rab. Elieser, the son of R. Jose, of Galilee, said, The days of the Messiah are a thousand years."

Sanhedrin, fol. 92, 1, cited by the Aruch, under the word אירק says: "There is a tradition in the house of Elias, that the righteous, whom the holy blessed God shall raise from the dead, shall not return again to the dust; but for the space of a thousand years, in which the holy blessed God shall renew the world, they shall have wings like the wings of eagles, and shall fly above the waters." It appears therefore that this phraseology is purely rabbinical. Both the Greeks and Latins have the same form of speech in speaking on the state of the righteous and wicked after death. There is something like this in the Republic of Plato, book x., p. 322, edit. Bip., where, speaking of Erus, the son of Armenius, who came to life after having been dead twelve days, and who described the states of departed souls, asserting "that some were obliged to make a long peregrination under the earth before they arose to a state of happiness, ειναι δε την πορειαν χιλιετη, for it was a journey of a thousand years," he adds, "that, as the life of man is rated at a hundred years, those who have been wicked suffer in the other world a ten-fold punishment, and therefore their punishment lasts a thousand years."

A similar doctrine prevailed among the Romans; whether they borrowed it from the Greeks, or from the rabbinical Jews, we cannot tell.

Thus Virgil, speaking of the punishment of the wicked in the infernal regions, says: -

Has omnes, ubi Mille rotam volvere per annos,

Lethaeum ad fluvium Deus evocat agmine magno:

Scilicet immemores supera ut convexa revisant,

Rursus et incipiant in corpora velle reverti.

Aen., lib. vi., 748.

"But when a thousand rolling years are past,

So long their dreary punishment shall last,

Whole droves of spirits, by the driving god,

Are led to drink the deep Lethean flood

In large, forgetful draughts, to sleep the cares

Of their past labors and their irksome years;

That, unremembering of its former pain,

The soul may clothe itself with flesh again."

How the apostle applies this general tradition, or in what sense he may use it, who can tell?

https://www.studylight.org/commentar...lation-20.html

[mfblume]

Esaias, I was not dialoguing with you since you cut me off a while back, just fyi. I only say that in case you thought you just had to respond to me. Doesn't matter to me if you respond or not.

But since you responded to what I said, the fact remains I don't really care what Adam Clark was, I just know he's a renowned Theologian and he agreed with me about the resurrections of Revelation chapter 20. I know all about what he thinks about a millennium. That is something that I don't agree with. When I say I get a witness and somebody's writings, it doesn't mean everything they believe is what I agree with. It's just showing that my argument saying that there I deny two more physical resurrections is witnessed by Adam Clark denied it.

And I simply do not agree with you and you claim that Paul just simply didn't mention a third Resurrection. I believe Paul's words indeed disallow to Future physical resurrections, because of the very nature of his argument concerning death being defeated when mortality put on immortality.

Some people try to twist Paul's words up into saying that the coming of the Lord at the end is at the end of the Millennium. And that the mortality putting on immortality later on in chapter 15, is actually the Rapture that we're looking forward to. And that's simply unfounded. The resurrection that is at his coming at the end is the same Resurrection as what they refer to as the Rapture later on in the same chapter. And I know this because Paul said in both cases death is defeated.

The very reasoning that Paul is giving for death to be put under Christ feet at the resurrection when immortality swallows up immortality, says that there's absolutely no purpose for another physical Resurrection. If Jesus is defeating death so that it is non-existent when immortality swallows up mortality, and he says that the end occurs at that point when Christ renters up the kingdom to God the Father, then there can't be another age after the Rapture for a third physical Resurrection before it's over with.

So, I completely disagree with your reasoning, and insist that Paul's words do disallow a third physical Resurrection after Christ, and after the resurrection that we're looking for right now.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Esaias, I was not dialoguing with you since you cut me off a while back, just fyi. I only say that in case you thought you just had to respond to me. Doesn't matter to me if you respond or not.

But since you responded to what I said, the fact remains I don't really care what Adam Clark was, I just know he's a renowned Theologian and he agreed with me about the resurrections of Revelation chapter 20. I know all about what he thinks about a millennium. That is something that I don't agree with. When I say I get a witness and somebody's writings, it doesn't mean everything they believe is what I agree with. It's just showing that my argument saying that there I deny two more physical resurrections is witnessed by Adam Clark denied it.

And I simply do not agree with you and you claim that Paul just simply didn't mention a third Resurrection. I believe Paul's words indeed disallow to Future physical resurrections, because of the very nature of his argument concerning death being defeated when mortality put on immortality.

Some people try to twist Paul's words up into saying that the coming of the Lord at the end is at the end of the Millennium. And that the mortality putting on immortality later on in chapter 15, is actually the Rapture that we're looking forward to. And that's simply unfounded. The resurrection that is at his coming at the end is the same Resurrection as what they refer to as the Rapture later on in the same chapter. And I know this because Paul said in both cases death is defeated.

The very reasoning that Paul is giving for death to be put under Christ feet at the resurrection when immortality swallows up immortality, says that there's absolutely no purpose for another physical Resurrection. If Jesus is defeating death so that it is non-existent when immortality swallows up mortality, and he says that the end occurs at that point when Christ renters up the kingdom to God the Father, then there can't be another age after the Rapture for a third physical Resurrection before it's over with.

So, I completely disagree with your reasoning, and insist that Paul's words do disallow a third physical Resurrection after Christ, and after the resurrection that we're looking for right now.

Once again, I need to clarify, I did NOT claim "Paul just simply didn't mention a third resurrection."

It's almost as if you are just making up what I say in order to fit some narrative you feel you can easily refute.

And now you can get back to dialoguing with Peter and Michael.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Once again, I need to clarify, I did NOT claim "Paul just simply didn't mention a third resurrection."

Not sure what you are saying here. Honestly.

Let me read what I said and correct typos... ...

"And I simply do not agree with you and youR claim that Paul just simply didn't mention a third Resurrection. I believe Paul's words indeed disallow to Future physical resurrections, because of the very nature of his argument concerning death being defeated when mortality put on immortality. "

That was a typo. The next sentence said that Paul disallows TWO future physical resurrections. I was using speech to text. So I missed editing it again. But that second sentence shows what I meant. I meant to say that you claim Paul simply did not mention a millennium, since a third physical resurrection is supposed to occur after a future millennium in the views of those who believe in a future millennium. Unless I am missing something here. I had the understanding you think there is a millennium, and Paul believed in one, but just did not mention it in 1 Cor 15. And if you do not think there is a third physical resurrection, starting from Christ's to the second coming and then one after the millennium, then forgive me. If you do not believe that, then fine. I thought you did.

Anyway, since you have no room to think there might be a typo, but rather me making things up about your beliefs to fit a narrative, then by all means I will continue talking with others. But that is not the case.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by peter83

hey man!!! you only like to speak?

What in the world does that mean?

BLESSED IS THE MAN THAT TAKES PART TO THE FIRST RESURRECTION!!!
ON HIM THE SECOND DEATH HAS NOT POWER!!
Do you understand that this did not came already?

I told you that this refers to salvation, as Paul taught that salvation is a resurrection with Christ from the dead. Eph 2:1-5 says we were dead when we were in trespasses and sins. And salvation is resurrection from that. That's why Paul said we were QUICKENED, past tense. Made alive from the dead, past tense.

I do not believe the first resurrection is one from the grave and physical death. And you have to show me that it has ot be physical resurrection from the grave and physical death.Nothing you said before in your other post proved that it is.

There is a first Resurrection coming in our future that's from the grave, but that's not what the first resurrection is about. The second Resurrection is the one that's from the grave and that's the one you and I are looking for.

Is the forst resurrection (first) ones and for all in the end of ages!!
I dont have anyones theology neither i try to explain on my own words.
1ST AND ONLY RESURRECTION:
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

You still are not proving it is a physical resurrection from the grave. I believe a resurrection from the grave is coming, but that's not what the first resurrection was talking about.

Do you notice "we"? WE Me Paul you etc. will be resurrected at Christ SECOND COMING

Yes, but that is not what the first resurrection is talking about in Rev 20 according to how I studied this out. I am not saying I cannot be wrong. But I do not believe the second coming is what the first resurrection is talking about. I believe it is talking about salvation.

(We dont wait 3 comings!

Not sure exactly what that means you just said here. But if it's what I think you're saying, I never said you believe in three comings. You are not reading my posts carefully enough. I said you believe in three physical resurrections. the first one is when Jesus arose 2,000 years ago. The second is at the second coming (rapture). The third is after the millennium. That's three physical resurrections. So, two of them, in your mind, are yet future. The last two. The second coming resurrection, and the resurrection after the millennium. That's like saying there are two more comings of Jesus!

If the rapture and the resurrection after the millennium are two physical resurrections, then it's like two comings of Jesus, not three.

But I said Paul disallowed for two more physical resurrections, with another one two thousand years ago when Jesus arose. Paul said after Jesus' resurrection 2,000 years ago, there IS ONLY ONE MORE resurrection from the grave. And that's the second coming.

was one before Paul and there is Second AND LAST which is at the end:

Right, you believe in THREE physical resurrections. I am saying that Paul disallows us to believe that. And I explained why before.

24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
End , after the SECOND COMING and after the FIRST resurrection nof (WE) is the end.

I cannot completely understand that sentence either.

I believe after the second COMING IS THE END. NO MORE resurrections. And since I believe the first resurrection is salvation, this means the second resurrection is the second coming.

Physical resurrection:
35 But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 [Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
[Thou] fool, you are not resurrected yet except you die.

. 42 So also [is] [B]the resurrection of the dead.[/B] It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
now you are corrupted but then you will be IN-CORRUPTED
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
[Thou] fool you are not quichened of the DEAD. except you die, you put on the grave NATURAL body and then is raised up a SPIRITUAL body.

48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly.
You are earthy now
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
You image [Thou] fool you image is earthy
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption

Right! That is the SECOND COMING when the last and final resurrection takes place... the second coming is when the SECOND RESURRECTION takes place. Why? Because, Like I siad, the FIRST RESURRECTION is salvation, and is not PHYSICAL. The PHYSICAL resurrection is THE SECOND RESURRECTION.

You not yet got the Kingdom except all we DIE and the be resurrected of the dead with new spiritual bodies

Yes, we get new spiritual bodies. But, WRONG, The kingdom is here NOW.

How do you think we enter the kingdom NOW by being born of the water and Spirit? Jesus is KING NOW. He is seated at the right hand throne -- the only throne in Heaven -- and is ruling now. Paul said He MUST REIGN UNTIL all enemies are made his footstool. That's from Psalm 110:1. That Psalm says "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." So, if he is SITTING til his enemies are made his footstool, and Paul said he is REIGNING until his enemies are his footstool, then HE IS SITTING ON THE THRONE RULING NOW.

1 Corinthians 15:25.. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

He is reigning now.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, ALL BE CHANGED
When?
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
In a moment as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one [part] under heaven, shineth unto the other [part] under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day
at the last trump for the trumpet shall sound
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:
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, fro one end of heaven to the other.
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, the corruptible will raise incorruptible,
and we shall be changed. change! change! CHANGE!Thou fool your earthy corrupt phisycal body will CHANGE (if you live) and if you are dead ? and the dead shall be raised incorruptible

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.
How? Thou fool your corrupt earthy dirty fleshy body must pout on the new spiritual ,incorrupt IMMORTAL body. Yes your MORTAL must put on the IMMORTAL
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory
Death is defeated thou fool? that will only happen when your corrupt mortal (falsing thinking and speaking ) body will raise up and you will be put on the New Immortal , only then and after you put on the immortal ,we can say Death is swallowed up in Victory

]

Amen. THAT is the only physical resurrection that is going to happen in our future3. Not another one after a millennium. Nothing you said just above here is anything I disagree with. But it is the SECOND resurrection, because, again from the fifth time, the FIRST resurreciton is salvation.

as you see i dont gave you mint or anyone else opinion,theology etc.It is all Scripture.

And I agree with all that scripture.

Come now and tell me that your father is defeated or bounded...he is free right now and as Csripture says "is the master and god of this world" ,right now is trying to deceive you that he dont have power thou fool..

You cannot follow what I am saying so you call my father the devil. People reading this know you are totally misunderstanding everything I said. I agree the second coming is physical from the grave, dude!

Come not to tell me that forst resturection happened and we wait the seocnd (thou fool):

Okay, you're way out of line.. You called me fool and said my father is the devil..

Admins need to deal with you.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?2 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
1)They were waiting for the Lord First Coming ,the same as Peter did
2)In which the heavens will be on fire and the elements shal melt with fervent
3) And after that New Earth is coming ...
Peace be to you (after repenting and reading a second time what i wrote ,but without anger now )

You need to repent again after calling me a fool and saying my father is the devil.

You need to take some reading lessons while you're at it.

Mat_5:22.. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What in the world does that mean?



I told you that this refers to salvation, as Paul taught that salvation is a resurrection with Christ from the dead. Eph 2:1-5 says we were dead when we were in trespasses and sins. And salvation is resurrection from that. That's why Paul said we were QUICKENED, past tense. Made alive from the dead, past tense.

I do not believe the first resurrection is one from the grave and physical death. And you have to show me that it has ot be physical resurrection from the grave and physical death.Nothing you said before in your other post proved that it is.

There is a first Resurrection coming in our future that's from the grave, but that's not what the first resurrection is about. The second Resurrection is the one that's from the grave and that's the one you and I are looking for.



You still are not proving it is a physical resurrection from the grave. I believe a resurrection from the grave is coming, but that's not what the first resurrection was talking about.



Yes, but that is not what the first resurrection is talking about in Rev 20 according to how I studied this out. I am not saying I cannot be wrong. But I do not believe the second coming is what the first resurrection is talking about. I believe it is talking about salvation.



Not sure exactly what that means you just said here. But if it's what I think you're saying, I never said you believe in three comings. You are not reading my posts carefully enough. I said you believe in three physical resurrections. the first one is when Jesus arose 2,000 years ago. The second is at the second coming (rapture). The third is after the millennium. That's three physical resurrections. So, two of them, in your mind, are yet future. The last two. The second coming resurrection, and the resurrection after the millennium. That's like saying there are two more comings of Jesus!

If the rapture and the resurrection after the millennium are two physical resurrections, then it's like two comings of Jesus, not three.

But I said Paul disallowed for two more physical resurrections, with another one two thousand years ago when Jesus arose. Paul said after Jesus' resurrection 2,000 years ago, there IS ONLY ONE MORE resurrection from the grave. And that's the second coming.



Right, you believe in THREE physical resurrections. I am saying that Paul disallows us to believe that. And I explained why before.



I cannot completely understand that sentence either.

I believe after the second COMING IS THE END. NO MORE resurrections. And since I believe the first resurrection is salvation, this means the second resurrection is the second coming.



Right! That is the SECOND COMING when the last and final resurrection takes place... the second coming is when the SECOND RESURRECTION takes place. Why? Because, Like I siad, the FIRST RESURRECTION is salvation, and is not PHYSICAL. The PHYSICAL resurrection is THE SECOND RESURRECTION.



Yes, we get new spiritual bodies. But, WRONG, The kingdom is here NOW.

How do you think we enter the kingdom NOW by being born of the water and Spirit? Jesus is KING NOW. He is seated at the right hand throne -- the only throne in Heaven -- and is ruling now. Paul said He MUST REIGN UNTIL all enemies are made his footstool. That's from Psalm 110:1. That Psalm says "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." So, if he is SITTING til his enemies are made his footstool, and Paul said he is REIGNING until his enemies are his footstool, then HE IS SITTING ON THE THRONE RULING NOW.

1 Corinthians 15:25.. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

He is reigning now.

]

Amen. THAT is the only physical resurrection that is going to happen in our future3. Not another one after a millennium. Nothing you said just above here is anything I disagree with. But it is the SECOND resurrection, because, again from the fifth time, the FIRST resurreciton is salvation.



And I agree with all that scripture.



You cannot follow what I am saying so you call my father the devil. People reading this know you are totally misunderstanding everything I said. I agree the second coming is physical from the grave, dude!



Okay, you're way out of line.. You called me fool and said my father is the devil..

Admins need to deal with you.



You need to repent again after calling me a fool and saying my father is the devil.

You need to take some reading lessons while you're at it.

Mat_5:22.. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

There are is one second coming. The first was when Christ lived . (Then did died and lived again but not everyone saw him).
At the second coming there is the 1st resturection of all the saints. Emidiatly after we change bodies there is a second resturection of all dead in order to be condemned and then this earth will pass away.
The millennium kingdom is between first and second resturection. Is one coming but for the Lord one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years like one day. So all those events will happen at the Day of the Lord.
I don't quote again the scriptures that proove VB all that, because i did before and i am sure you know the Scriptures but you try interpret them vy your own
Now tell me if you like with just 2-3 words what you agree or disagree.
Amen.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by peter83

There are is one second coming. The first was when Christ lived . (Then did died and lived again but not everyone saw him).

I agree

At the second coming there is the 1st resturection of all the saints. Emidiatly after we change bodies there is a second resturection of all dead in order to be condemned and then this earth will pass away.

Here is where I disagree. I believe the second coming is not the first resurrection but is the second resurrection.

The millennium kingdom is between first and second resurrection. Is one coming but for the Lord one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years like one day. So all those events will happen at the Day of the Lord.

I disagree with that, I just believe there is a second coming when the resurrection takes place and no more millennium or another resurrection. Everything ends at the second coming. Everything.

I don't quote again the scriptures that proove VB all that, because i did before and i am sure you know the Scriptures but you try interpret them vy your own
Now tell me if you like with just 2-3 words what you agree or disagree.
Amen.

I just did.

Now, can you apologize for saying my father is the devil and that I am a fool?

[peter83]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree


Here is where I disagree. I believe the second coming is not the first resurrection but is the second resurrection.



I disagree with that, I just believe there is a second coming when the resurrection takes place and no more millennium or another resurrection. Everything ends at the second coming. Everything.



I just did.

Now, can you apologize for saying my father is the devil and that I am a fool?

Αctually i did not told you fool, Paul did but i apologise for using it for you specifically ,Forgive me please.
Look

Here is where I disagree. I believe the second coming is not the first resurrection but is the second resurrection.

This come because you believe a Resurrection happen as "first" when Jesus resurrected? or of a "rapture" after His resurrection?
Like you see the first resturection (and last) did nto came yet. Thats vlear enough.

I disagree with that, I just believe there is a second coming when the resurrection takes place and no more millennium or another resurrection. Everything ends at the second coming. Everything.

Brother the Bible says about 1.000 years. Yes everything end at the second coming and actually is only One Resurrection.
how this happen?
1) tthe "first resurrection" is the only really resurrection , from dead to life again! The "resurrection of the rest people" is called ssecond death. So yes they dont really resurrected for life but for be judged and enter to the second death.
2) those two events are on the same day. The Day of the Lord.
What you dont understand is that for the Lord 1.000 years is like One Day.
yes when Jesus come in His Day we will be resurrected for eternal life and the rest of the people will be judged and condemned and finally punished in the lake of fire, That is called second death.
The 1.000 years between are not like you think, we will be in the presence of Lord and so can be said that "all happens on the same day"
peace to you.

[Praxeas]

This is an Admin Warning. Try to dialog without insults and name calling. If it continues it will result in a temporary ban

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is an Admin Warning. Try to dialog without insults and name calling. If it continues it will result in a temporary ban

Sorry brother.(i suppose you say that because of the word "fool"? or something else that i did not know, if is something else please inform me in order to correct it.
(but if you ban me ,can you also delete all my posts please?)