Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
