Posted on 05/29/2014 3:27:32 PM PDT by dartuser
Revelation 20:4 identified those of the first resurrection:
1) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:
2) I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands
Which category do you fall into? I personally do not fall into either. When I read that first sentence, I always think of the disciples who Jesus promised would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes; and of course I think of the first century martyrs of Christ when I read the second sentence. I have met some very fine people in my life, but none would fit either of those categories, nor do I.
Let's revisit Paul's statements:
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 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. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1Cor 15:51-55 KJV)
I agree that is the first resurrection, as is this one:
"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: 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. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1Th 4:16-18 KJV)
One thing I have noticed in "Paul's" resurrections is his use of the word "we," as if he expected to be alive at the first resurrection. All the apostles thought the first resurrection was imminent, with good reason. Jesus told them it would occur in their generation.
How about this resurrection from Daniel?
"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 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." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)
That is obviously a partial resurrection since it reads "many" instead of all. It also seems to occur during the great tribulation. But note that both believers and unbelievers are resurrected. Is that also the first resurrection?
This is a resurrection passage from Jesus:
"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." (Jn 5:28-29 KJV)
That is a complete resurrection, since Jesus used the words "all" instead of "many." But, like the resurrection in Daniel, both good and bad are resurrected. Is that also the first resurrection? Jesus didn't mention the tribulation, as Daniel did.
If those last two are not the first resurrection, but the second; then who are the good people who are resurrected, if all Christians were taken away in the first resurrection?
Then there is this, which I have always assumed to be the coming of Christ associated with the first resurrection:
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mt 16:27-28 KJV)
I hope you can see why I cannot reconcile those resurrections with the futurist interpretation of the resurrection.
Philip
>>>Every description of the first resurrection is limited only to the righteous (which means only those saved by Christ, since we have no righteousness to claim from ourselves). The nature of the two resurrections is clearly confirmed in Luke 14:14:<<<
See my post #61 for resurrection passages that do not fit your understanding.
>>>“28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.”<<<
>>>Christ describes two separate events, a resurrection of life (the first resurrection) and a resurrection of judgement (the second resurrection). <<<
Where is the 1000+ year separation of those resurrections? I don't see it. According to Christ, they all come out of their tombs in the same hour.
>>>Also, we have a similar statement in Acts 24:14 :<<<
>>>“15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”<<<
>>>This can only refer to two separate events, as we know there are two separate resurrections, <<<
No WE don't. LOL! That verse is similar to John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:1-2 and Matt 16:27-28. In both the first and second resurrection, both good and bad are resurrected. Recall the parable of the sheep and the goats:
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: . . . Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Mt 25:31-41 KJV)
There is no way that is describing two separate events.
Philip
Yes, God the Fathers throne is in heaven presently ... Jesus is now sitting on His Fathers throne, on His right hand. But Jesus will also have a throne, as the text says (Rev 3) ... and He will sit on it someday ... on the earth ... in Jerusalem ... as He said ... and as the OT predicts.
Therefore, when Christ stated in John 18:36 that his kingdom was not of this world (kosmos, not aeon,) he meant it literally.
I suggest you use your "truck loads of biblical and historical books and commentaries, by legendary authors' and go research the semantic and lexical range of the word (κόσμος) ... there are at least 8 uses of the word κόσμος in NT times ... search on Greek Lexicon, go find them, and look up κόσμος in some of them ... even the lesser ones will have a few meanings.
And for the record, the majority of those legendary authors do not hold your aberrant view, unless of course you are only searching out those who agree with you ... which would be consistent with your style.
I have heard you claim that the early church fathers were of your persuasion ... that is a blatantly false statement. Schaff (go look him up in your vast resources) is the standard translation for the fathers ... go read what he knew was the predominant eschatological view of the early church ... until the RCC came along around 300AD. I won't tell you ... go look it up ... if you have the courage ... or are you just going to claim that Schaff is a lousy historian as well lol; then you might as well just go back to sleep.
And so what does that mean to you? All credited commentators recognize the symbolism of characteristics of the Church down through the ages. If you were to take everything in Revelation literally I can see how difficult it would be to make heads or tails out of it.
“Where is the 1000+ year separation of those resurrections? I don’t see it. According to Christ, they all come out of their tombs in the same hour.”
The problem with this argument is that it relies on the Bible, and therefore God, being inconsistent. When we have a less detailed description in one section, and a more detailed description in another section, of the same events, then we should read them in such a way as to assume the author was trying to be consistent, because the ultimate author is incapable of contradicting Himself. You are doing the opposite, trying to find any way to read a contradiction into them, just so that you can cast doubt on what they say.
“No WE don’t. LOL! That verse is similar to John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:1-2 and Matt 16:27-28. In both the first and second resurrection, both good and bad are resurrected. Recall the parable of the sheep and the goats:”
Again, you are relying on trying to insist the verses are inconsistent, in order to justify your preferred reading. The more detailed descriptions tell us that there are two separate events, and they tell us exactly who is resurrected in each event. There is no reason to try to set the less detailed descriptions against them, unless you are unwilling to believe the more detailed descriptions.
“There is no way that is describing two separate events.”
Of course it is. Unless you are arguing that there are really three resurrections, it must be. Otherwise, you are saying the descriptions of two separate resurrections are a lie, and thus God is a liar.
“Which category do you fall into? I personally do not fall into either.”
Where does Revelation say that everyone who is part of the first resurrection was a martyr? It doesn’t say that. It says he saw those that sat upon the thrones AND those who were martyred. It doesn’t say “I saw those who sat upon the thrones, who were martyred”. Since we know from the other descriptions of the first resurrection that it includes the entire church, living and dead, there is no reason to try to read such a contradiction into this verse, except to serve your own purposes.
“One thing I have noticed in “Paul’s” resurrections is his use of the word “we,” as if he expected to be alive at the first resurrection. All the apostles thought the first resurrection was imminent, with good reason. Jesus told them it would occur in their generation.”
Nonsense. He’s teaching the church, and saying we, in the sense of the entire body of the church. He knew some would be alive, but there is no suggestion that he thought he would be alive. That is really stretching.
“That is obviously a partial resurrection since it reads “many” instead of all.”
Does it know? Maybe you should check out the Hebrew word that is translated there as “many” and see how it is normally translated in the various other passages in the OT:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/elleh_428.htm
Note that the vast majority of the translations of that word actually show it to mean “these”, not “many”. It seems to be a word which specifies a group more than summarizing that groups’ size. Unless you are trying to create contradictions in the Bible, it only makes sense to read it that way, rather than the way you are trying to read it.
“That is a complete resurrection, since Jesus used the words “all” instead of “many.” But, like the resurrection in Daniel, both good and bad are resurrected. Is that also the first resurrection?”
It’s both the first and the second, described in short succession, as they are closely related events. Obviously that is more likely than that God has lied in His descriptions of the events in other passages to confuse us.
“Then there is this, which I have always assumed to be the coming of Christ associated with the first resurrection:”
Again, a compound, less detailed description of the entire sequence of events. You seem to be under the impression that if God didn’t describe the entire sequence in exact detail in every passage, we should assume His other more detailed descriptions can just be dispensed with, but that is an unreasonable position.
“I hope you can see why I cannot reconcile those resurrections with the futurist interpretation of the resurrection.”
No, I can’t. I can see why you don’t want to reconcile them, because that would not support your view. You are perfectly able to reconcile them, though, if you cared to.
The problem with that interpretation is that the opening of the graves at the time of Jesus’ resurrection was already in the past when the NT writers spoke of the first resurrection as a future event, so they simply cannot be the same event.
The problem with that interpretation is that the opening of the graves at the time of Jesus’ resurrection was already in the past when the NT writers spoke of the first resurrection as a future event, so they simply cannot be the same event.
Did you consider the other scriptures I quoted?
also
1 cor 1520 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Many translations say sleeping but considering what Paul said in Romans ch 8 slept is the only thing that fits.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
Jesus only comes to earth twice, the first time to set up his Church ( the kingdom of God )and at the last day to gather his elect.
It makes sense to me that Jesus took his first fruits with him other wise what in the world is Paul talking about in Romans 8?
What was it talking about in Hosea 6?
Mat 27:53
The people who came out of their graves after the resurrection?
Rev 7:4 tells us exactly who these first fruits are.
So if the first fruits are from the tribes of Israel there is no way that Christians could be in the first resurrection.
So if nothing fits the idea of the Christians waiting for the first resurrection then maybe we need to start looking at it in a different light.
I would suggest you take a course in Bible interpretation. Pay attention when it comes to types/anti-types and prophecy. There is a pattern to events that is not always obvious to the casual reader/observer. In other words similar events happen in different ages for the same reasons. History repeats itself. Therefore we get "There is no new thing under the sun". So the warning to the early Churches was valid to them but also to the Churches in subsequent ages which fit the same traits and characteristics. Therefore the studious and alert can be forewarned of upcoming events and be prepared.
“Actually I have saw nothing in the apostles writing to indicate they were talking about a first resurrection but only a resurrection..”
There sure is evidence of that. They mention the same events associated with the first resurrection, Christ descending from the heavens, the last trumpet, Christ’s army in the clouds, etc. Unless you have evidence that all those events are going to happen multiple times, then we have to assume they were speaking of the first resurrection described in Revelation.
“Jesus only comes to earth twice, the first time to set up his Church ( the kingdom of God )and at the last day to gather his elect.
It makes sense to me that Jesus took his first fruits with him other wise what in the world is Paul talking about in Romans 8?”
Well, it’s certainly possible that the ones resurrected along with Jesus at the opening of the graves were the ones Paul was talking about, but that doesn’t make them part of the first resurrection.
I think the key here is that just because they are called the “first” and “second” resurrections, and those are the only resurrections we have a lot of specific teaching on, does not necessarily mean God never resurrects anyone else in separate events. The first and second resurrections are not the only resurrections, they are just the only general resurrections, of entire classes of people, rather than specific acts of resurrections, such as the one that happened when Christ rose again. We are taught about the first and second more specifically because, for most people reading the Bible, those are the only resurrections they will ever have to worry about being a part of.
“So if the first fruits are from the tribes of Israel there is no way that Christians could be in the first resurrection.”
Christians are grafted in as heirs to the promise, so God sees us as Israel. The firstfruits are said to be of Israel, but they were beheaded for their witness of Christ, so they are obviously not religiously Jewish, they were/are Christians.
“So if nothing fits the idea of the Christians waiting for the first resurrection then maybe we need to start looking at it in a different light.”
Well, we had better hope that we are waiting for the first resurrection, otherwise we don’t have much hope. Those who are part of the second resurrection are judged on their works, and no man can possibly be judged righteous based on his works, as Paul quite thoroughly explained. This is why the second resurrection is also called the resurrection of the unrighteous or the resurrection of the wicked.
OK, so tell me was the Bible written to us, or for us? Furthermore, if a prophecy was fulfilled why look for it to be again?
Furthermore, if a prophecy was fulfilled why look for it to be again?
A prophecy can fulfilled in a general sense and in a specific sense. Gods promises can be claimed again and again throughout history. But referring to last days prophecies, some of the people of Jesus' time were in their last days in 70AD and like NOW the earth itself may be in its last days before the Return of the King.
The firstfruits are said to be of Israel, but they were beheaded for their witness of Christ, so they are obviously not religiously Jewish, they were/are Christians.
I believe those who went with Christ actually did live again and have been with us for hundreds of years as kings and priests, though they were Jews in the resurrection they would be Christians in the kingdom of God.
As pail states in Roman 8 they were conformed to the image of his son.
Rev 20
4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6Blessed 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.
The Bible shows clearly that the kingdom of God is within us but many people has looked for a literal kingdom of God, I believe the above is how it is happening.
The secular kingdom is to lead us to the spiritual kingdom.
Oh well, I am just rambling but that is the only way I can see it.
Those who are part of the second resurrection are judged on their works, and no man can possibly be judged righteous based on his works,
15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that?
17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
This is exactly what Jesus taught.
Paul was only saying that we could not work our way to salvation through the law because works with out faith is also dead.
Regardless of who was in the first Resurrection, At the last day Jesus is going to raise the believers.
Rev 20
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Jesus is going to raise all of those whose name is written in the book of life, the names written in the book of life are there or not there depending on their works.
>>>“And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”<<<
>>>So, the existence of war demonstrates that Christ has not yet returned, despite your assertions to the contrary.<<<
The exegesis of Isaiah 2:4 is rather involved, so I have posted a new thread with my interpretation for all to see.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3162459/posts
Thanks,
Philip
Impactplayer quotes Jesus in Matt. 24:34, in the KJV, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled,” complaining that futurists don’t agree with his preterist interpretation of this verse.
The reason we don’t is because of a different hermeneutic. The right hermeneutic has to be applied to this verse. In Matt. 24:34, Jesus wasn’t speaking to Gentiles, he was speaking to “the children of the prophets,” Acts 3:25, the foundation of the church.
I am referring to what some expositors call the “prophetic precursory phenomena,” or “the near-far prophetic phenomena,” very common to Jews in the OT. God could speak to a particular situation, yet beyond it having a future fulfillment in mind. Examples abound:
When God spoke to Eve in Gen. 3:15, the first prophecy in the Bible, He had a future woman in mind. The tremendous far into the future things that would be fulfilled in 3:15, were not fulfilled in Eve. What was said to Eve was precursory, the “near” projecting far into the future to Christ the seed of the “woman,” who would receive a minor wound at the hand of the serpent, the cross, but would ultimately crush the serpent’s head.
Another well known example is 2 Sam. 7:14, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” A superficial reading of the situation at hand would be Solomon, David’s son, was the son God had in mind, but Heb. 1:5, says no, God had Christ in mind. Solomon was the precursory near fulfillment, Christ the ultimate “far” fulfillment.
In Isa. 7, the situation at hand was dire, the kings of Syria and Israel (the northern ten tribes) were threatening war against Ahaz king of Judah. God said the alliance would not stand, nor come to pass, v. 7, the sign He gave in v. 14 was amazing indeed, the very famous prophecy that Christ would be virgin born, his name Immanuel (see Matt. 1:23). God used the situation at hand as the “near” projecting far into the future to the “far” fulfillment – Christ.
In Isa. 14:13-15, the subject was the king of Babylon, v. 4, lifted up in his pride, God used this king as prophetic of the devil’s ultimate destiny, “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit,” v. 15. God had something else in mind, much bigger fish to fry than this king, something future.
One more OT example, Hos. 11:1 quoted by Matthew (2:15). Jews bitterly remonstrate against Matthew’s hermeneutic, saying this verse refers only to the Israelites being called out of Egypt, apart from the prophetic hermeneutic we have been using, yes, that is how the Hosea verse reads, but Matthew saw Christ in it, and interpreted it so in his gospel. Matthew had a futurist interpretation of this verse.
And it is this same Matthew, who records Jesus on mount Olivet, namely the verse at issue here, the one preterists claim can ONLY be referring to 70 AD (v. 34). We have already seen that Matthew, in his interpretation of Hosea 11:1, full well understood the prophetic precursory phenomena. And this is Jesus, the greatest prophet of all, the inspiration behind the OT examples we cited – we could cite many more - WHO SPOKE VERSE 34.
For a lot reasons (many brought out on this thread), Jesus could not have possibly meant ONLY the immediate situation. That “generation” he spoke of was precursory of the end time generation, the generation that would see “all these things,” ALL of the things he had described, fulfilled.
Jesus being the greatest prophet, like the prophets before him, simply looked beyond 70 AD to the end time. He used the prophetic projection used by the inspired prophets. AD 70 was but the precursory “near” fulfillment.
Neither did I.
>>>It says he saw those that sat upon the thrones AND those who were martyred. It doesn’t say “I saw those who sat upon the thrones, who were martyred”.<<<
That is what I said. Read my post again. I specifically labelled them by number, so there would be no misunderstanding.
>>>Since we know from the other descriptions of the first resurrection that it includes the entire church, living and dead, there is no reason to try to read such a contradiction into this verse, except to serve your own purposes.<<<
We don't know that. We only know certain individuals in the generation of Paul were to be resurrected. They were identified in Revelation 20, as stated in my post #61. Your assumption that it will occur in the future is simply that: an assumption.
>>>Nonsense. He’s teaching the church, and saying we, in the sense of the entire body of the church. He knew some would be alive, but there is no suggestion that he thought he would be alive. That is really stretching.<<<
Why would I be "stretching" it, when historians throughout the centuries (and the Christian haters) have concurred that all the apostles were expecting an imminent coming of Christ? Maybe you are "stretching it" by reading a futuristic fulfillment into a promise to that generation. Have you ever considered that?
>>>Does it know? Maybe you should check out the Hebrew word that is translated there as “many” and see how it is normally translated in the various other passages in the OT:<<<
How about these?
"Gen 21:34 And Abraham sojourned in the Philistines' land many days."
"Gen 24:25 She said moreover unto him, We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in."
"Deu 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;"
"Jos 11:18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings."
"1Sam 14:19 And it came to pass, while Saul talked unto the priest, that the noise that was in the host of the Philistines went on and increased: and Saul said unto the priest, Withdraw thine hand."
"Job 36:28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly."
I examined about half of the 441 verses where I found that Hebrew word, and not once did it mean "all," or "everyone," or "complete," or anything that would imply what you claim. Perhaps you could show us the passages you are referring to. BTW, I believe the Hebrew word for "many" is "rab," as in:
rab, rab; by contracted from 7231; abundant (in quantity, size, age, number, rank, quality)
>>>Note that the vast majority of the translations of that word actually show it to mean “these”, not “many”. It seems to be a word which specifies a group more than summarizing that groups’ size. Unless you are trying to create contradictions in the Bible, it only makes sense to read it that way, rather than the way you are trying to read it.<<<
I checked the following translations, and none use "these" in the place of "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." (Dan 12:2 KJV)
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt and abhorrence." (Dan 12:2 AMP)
"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." (Dan 12:2 ASV)
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame, to everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:2 DARBY)
"And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always." (Dan 12:2 DRA)
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:2 ESV)
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to shame and eternal contempt." (Dan 12:2 HCSB)
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some shall live forever, others shall be an everlasting horror and disgrace." (Dan 12:2 NAB)
" Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:2 NASB)
"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:2 NIV)
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:2 NKJV)
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:2 NRSV)
"And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches and to indefinitely lasting abhorrence." (Dan 12:2 NWT)
"And rabbim of them that sleep in the admat aphar (dust of the ground) shall awake, some to Chayyei Olam (Everlasting Life), and some to reproaches (shames) and Dera’on Olam (Everlasting Contempt, Abhorrence, Aversion, i.e., Everlasting Gehinnom.[T.N. Onesh Olam is here made more fearsome in light of the prevalent neglect of Scripture in favor of non-Biblical studies])." (Dan 12:2 OJB)
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:2 RSV)
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:2 WEB)
"And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches--to abhorrence age-during." (Dan 12:2 YLT)
I think I understand what happened. I believe you accidentally picked the wrong Hebrew word, saw what you perceived was an error on my part, and ran with it. No problem.
>>>It’s both the first and the second, described in short succession, as they are closely related events.<<<
Where does it say that?
>>>Again, a compound, less detailed description of the entire sequence of events. You seem to be under the impression that if God didn’t describe the entire sequence in exact detail in every passage, we should assume His other more detailed descriptions can just be dispensed with, but that is an unreasonable position.<<<
As is your "rapture of the church" notion.
>>>You are perfectly able to reconcile them, though, if you cared to.<<<
If I say I cannot reconcile them with a futurist position, then I cannot, whether I care to, or not. I do not discard verses because I don't happen to like them.
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.