[PhilipFreneau]

>>>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.<<<

I don't "read contradictions" into the bible. But when I see what I perceive as misinterpretations, such as the "rapture" theory of futurism, I point them out. It is nothing personal. I simply don't believe the rapture theory is biblically sound.

>>>>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.<<<

You have been making those claims, over and over again; but I tend to believe that if you had proof, you would show it, over and over again. Your opinions are simply opinions, and not fact. Show me the facts.

>>>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.<<<

No. I am simply saying that I believe you are misinterpreting the scriptures; and I have been saying that all along. Nothing personal.

Philip

[Boogieman]

“You have been making those claims, over and over again; but I tend to believe that if you had proof, you would show it, over and over again. “

I’ve already posted the proof, it’s in the verses that you can read as well as anyone else. Revelation clearly describes two events, as well as other verses. How can you explain those away by pointing to a verse that isn’t as specific? It’s impossible, all you can do is try to intentionally misread verses to cast doubt on others.

“I am simply saying that I believe you are misinterpreting the scriptures; and I have been saying that all along.”

How is it possible that saying there are two resurrections, when the Bible describes the two resurrections, names them the first and second resurrection, and gives us details as to who will be part of each, be a misinterpretation? Your only argument for that is to point to less specific verses while ignoring the more specific ones.