Heaven & the Resurrection

[JehovahsWitness]

Many believe that the righteous men and women from bible times such as Abraham, died and went to heaven.

If that is the case for you, how do you reconcile this with the idea of a future resurrection on "the last day"? What do you think this refers to.

JOHN 11: 24
Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 28 by Checkpoint]

Never said you were a robot. You thoughts as were mine formed through life experience. Part of your experience is being brainwashed into a religion. So your thoughts want to strength your beliefs.

Right, you did not say we were robots, but you do say we were brainwashed.

You do not know me, but you think I can be pigeon-holed as part of a stereotype .

I was never brainwashed into any religion. That was not part of my life experience.

You would do well to cease from making gratuitous assumptions about others.

Tell me what your religious beliefs are that differ from your parents.

Intelligent question. Much better than putting strangers in boxes.

Pretty well all that is in my posts.

My dad had no religion, and my mother was anti-religion.

Our family never attended anything religious.

[Yahu]

So, as you do not accept what Martha said, when do you say believers are resurrected, raised up?

Oh, I accept that Martha said what she believed. What I am disputing is whether Martha was correct in that belief. Just being printed as someones speech in scripture doesn't make their statement gospel truth.

Here is an example. A woman blessed the womb that gave Yeshua birth and the breasts that gave him suck. She was saying a blessing on His mother for having Yeshua as a son. Yeshua rebukes her and tells her to bless His Father instead. His earthly mother is of no consequence which is shown later in scripture. (Contrary to what the Catholics think).

Just because scripture records a conversation doesn't imply that a non-anointed speaker is speaking truth. The Pharisees didn't.

My point is 'the last day' OF WHAT? What was the Jewish concept of the 'LAST DAY'? Was that concept correct? Was Martha correct that was when Lazarus would be resurrected. Did she even have a concept of multiple resurrections? Did Lazarus qualify for an earlier resurrection?

Now the tribulation is during the last 7 years of the 6th day of 1000 years. The millennial kingdom is the 1000 year Sabbath completing the 1st week of creation of 1000 year long days. The 'Last Day' can be understood in Hebrew to be a reference to being in that 1000 year period of Sabbath and at the end of that 1000 period that scripture has the unbelievers resurrected to stand judgement. Is that the 'last day' being referenced by Martha? Or is it some other Jewish concept of her day?

By my understanding, everyone that hasn't already been resurrected earlier will be done at the end of that 'last day' but the OT saints, the Martyrs from the tribulation and the NT saints each have there own resurrection as did Yeshua as the 1st fruits of the resurrection. Each resurrection is based on a harvest feast of Israel. The OT saints are the barley harvest. The NT saints are the wheat harvest, ... Of course Yeshua was resurrected on First fruits, a minor feast right after Passover.

Some believe in a pre-trib rapture, other in mid-trib and still other post-trib or post millennial period. What they don't understand is there is more then one. Scripture states that each will be resurrected in their order, as in by military formation.

There are different groups that attend the wedding feast as well. There are the bride, the guests, the friends of the groom and the servants that attend. That feast is going on during the tribulation period with the bride returning with Yeshua so the OT and NT saints are already resurrected. Those martyred during the tribulation are not yet resurrected but have to wait until after the tribulation. They got saved during the tribulation so missed out on the 1st rapture. They are still spirits under the alter during the time of the tribulation but the elders about the throne for example are already there and have their crowns as reward and reference their salvation by the lamb. They are resurrected saints in the heavenly city at the point that John is 'called up' into heaven. They are already resurrected and have gotten their rewards.

So which group is Martha saying Lazarus is resurrected with? Are all of them considered 'the last day' but when during that last day, what last day? IMO she picked the final resurrection that happens because she had no understanding of any earlier resurrections as represented by other harvest feasts. She may have considered Lazarus as lost so had to wait until the final resurrection.

Personally by my understanding, NT believers will be raptured pre-trib, just as the judgments start falling we witness it from Heaven and we will be gaining our reward at the Judgement Seat of Christ while the non-believers miss the Sabbath period and stand judgement at the White Throne judgement after (or at the end of) the 1000 years. The 144,000 get raptured mid-trib after their witness but before the Great tribulation when the wrath begins. You get martyrs resurrected at the end of the tribulation, the fruit and wine harvest. The barley harvest was fulfilled at Passover, the crucifixion.

In Revelation, John tries to bow down to what he thinks is an angel but that individual is just a resurrected saint, OT or NT we don't know but he is already present during those events.

So I hope that helps explain it. My mother is a major author on a study of Revelation with several books published on the topic. It is a topic I have been familiar with all my life.

[Yahu]

[Replying to Yahu]

I am thinking of the reference to the shades trembling in Job. I don't think the Bible has in mind any sprit-matter or mind-body dualism, which I believe came into Christianity via Hellenic philosophy. In the Bible, everything has a physical dimension, including God, which is why God is attributed so many body parts. So I don't think of the shades as immaterial beings. They are physical realities, frail as they may be.

Ah, no. Body parts are used in Hebrew to mean things. The Face, means 'in the presence of' while the arm means 'the strength of'. That is common in Hebrew. That does not mean a physical face or arm is being referenced.

While I agree that some dualism was taken out of Greek philosophy by people like Augustine, that doesn't imply that there is no distinction between phycial and spiritual beings. But individuals like Augustine rejected the concept that angels, the 'ben Elohyim' of Gen 6, could have children because he claimed angels are ONLY spiritual therefore have no body to impregnate women yet scripture has Abraham feeding angels a meal, the men of Sodom try to grab angels for sexual purposes, Jacob wrestles an angel and gets his hip dislocated, mana is called 'angels food' so that sounds pretty physical to me. There is also references to 'evil spirits' that have no body.

Augustine presented a doctrine that the 'ben Elohyim' of Gen 6 were sons of Seth that married daughters of Cain. What non-sense. How did that create giants and mighty men and required the flood to wipe them from existence?

So I agree that the spiritual dualism from the Greeks did cause some problems but not as you are suggesting.

On top of that, Enoch is clear that the spirits that proceed from the dead giants, the children of the heavenly Watchers, are assigned as 'evil spirits' to torment mankind because their abode is the earth, not heaven and they proceeded from women. That was the Jewish concept of 'evil spirits' and Jude quotes from that book of Enoch.

[marco]

Here is an example. A woman blessed the womb that gave Yeshua birth and the breasts that gave him suck. She was saying a blessing on His mother for having Yeshua as a son. Yeshua rebukes her and tells her to bless His Father instead. His earthly mother is of no consequence which is shown later in scripture. (Contrary to what the Catholics think).

Well in this case Catholics show more compassion than Jesus SEEMS TO. In fact Christ's REPORTED attitude to his mother is appalling by decent standards and the boy who was lost and replied as he ALLEGEDLY did should have got a clip on the ear. But maybe Joseph felt unequal to the challenge of striking God.

If we are to take Scripture as it is written, then the lady of no consequence was visited by Gabriel and referred to as most highly favoured. Catholics give her this honour that the angel bestowed on her. Or is Scripture wrong?

[Yahu]

Here is an example. A woman blessed the womb that gave Yeshua birth and the breasts that gave him suck. She was saying a blessing on His mother for having Yeshua as a son. Yeshua rebukes her and tells her to bless His Father instead. His earthly mother is of no consequence which is shown later in scripture. (Contrary to what the Catholics think).

Well in this case Catholics show more compassion than Jesus SEEMS TO. In fact Christ's REPORTED attitude to his mother is appalling by decent standards and the boy who was lost and replied as he ALLEGEDLY did should have got a clip on the ear. But maybe Joseph felt unequal to the challenge of striking God.

If we are to take Scripture as it is written, then the lady of no consequence was visited by Gabriel and referred to as most highly favoured. Catholics give her this honour that the angel bestowed on her. Or is Scripture wrong?

Oh, she was blessed as having the privileged to know Yeshua from birth and to be chosen as worthy and of the right lineage. But being the blessed mother of the blessed child is right out of paganism. She was a woman like any other and certainly not sinless. The sin nature is passed from the father, not the mother. She didn't need to be sinless.

Later when she and Yeshua's brothers came to visit, He gave her no more acknowledgement that anyone else and didn't give any special privilege to her for being His mother. She certainly isn't someone that is to be prayed to or worshiped as having any special status in heaven and absolutely NOT the Queen of Heaven. That title belongs to a pagan goddess, the mother of Nimrod at Babel.

You would have as much success praying to a dead grandmother as praying to Mary. She is just another dead woman. Praying to the Queen of Heaven on the other hand is a form of witchcraft calling on a pagan goddess for aid.

So she was visited by an angel and so was John the Baptists father. That is rare but not unique.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 23 by JehovahsWitness]

You don't seem to understand, EVERYTHING in the BIBLE is being interpreted though your religious upbringing, your knowledge of history, etc. In your case, you were brainwashed by your up bringing in the JW cult.

In modern day usage the term CULT is highly offensive and I strongly take exception to its usage in regard to my religion. I don't make derogatory or blanket remarks about any group and do not expect to be subjected to them in curtious exchange here on this forum.

If your intension was simply to refer to being part of a "religious movement" feel free to use those or any equivalent alternative terms.

JEHOVALS WITNESS

The word CLUT is a fine word to describe many religious organizations. Following is the definition would you please how the JWs don't fit the definition.

cult
klt/
noun
noun: cult; plural noun: cults
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
"a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
synonyms:
sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
"a religious cult"
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
synonyms:
obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of
"the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood"
a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, especially amon


You seem to be very sensitive and don't understand the definition of some words.

[marco]

She was a woman like any other and certainly not sinless. The sin nature is passed from the father, not the mother. She didn't need to be sinless.

Yes, this is your private view. Others who have explored the subject see it differently. That's a nice view of how the disease of sin is passed via the father. I wonder where all these wonderful ideas spring from.

Later when she and Yeshua's brothers came to visit, He gave her no more acknowledgement that anyone else and didn't give any special privilege to her for being His mother.

You are right to point out this flaw. Jesus disobeyed the command to honour thy father and thy mother.

Praying to the Queen of Heaven on the other hand is a form of witchcraft calling on a pagan goddess for aid.

Many would say prayer is pointless. Your superstition regarding Queens of Heaven is a private opinion, nothing to do with Mary.

So she was visited by an angel and so was John the Baptists father. That is rare but not unique.

Uniqueness was never mentioned. The visit by an angel is important in its communication: that Mary was to be the receptacle of an incarnate God. If you think this confers nothing special on her, I believe you err. The word Catholic is not synonymous with "constant error" as you seem to imagine. You will be wrong about lots of theological matters and no doubt the RC church, despite having clever Jesuits to guide her, will be in error too, in places. Humanum est errare.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

My interpolation just you have yours. I guess Jesus did not know how to make clear and concise stuff.

Jesus was quite clear, if you read what he said without preconceived ideas. "Jesus said to her [Martha], 'Your brother will rise again.' Martha said to him, 'I KNOW THAT HE WILL RISE AGAIN IN THE RESURRECTION ON THE LAST DAY.' Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:23-26, NASB)

So, when would the dead rise again? ON THE LAST DAY. That day hasn't come yet.

[/u][/b]

Martha said that. It was her understanding, not a teaching of Yeshua. You can't take her opinion as a gospel truth. That is not how we are to interpret scripture.

That would be like taking one of Job's friends as speaking truth when we are told that they are in error directly by Yah in later chapters.

You have to look at the speaker, the audience, and the context first and then you best find conformation in some other passage. Building entire doctrines off a single reference is foolishness.

Her understanding was based on the teaching of Yeshua, which he had given earlier.

John 6:

39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 52 by Yahu]

Did she even have a concept of multiple resurrections?

No.

Neither did Yeshua. Neither did Paul.

[Yahu]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

My interpolation just you have yours. I guess Jesus did not know how to make clear and concise stuff.

Jesus was quite clear, if you read what he said without preconceived ideas. "Jesus said to her [Martha], 'Your brother will rise again.' Martha said to him, 'I KNOW THAT HE WILL RISE AGAIN IN THE RESURRECTION ON THE LAST DAY.' Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:23-26, NASB)

So, when would the dead rise again? ON THE LAST DAY. That day hasn't come yet.

[/u][/b]

Martha said that. It was her understanding, not a teaching of Yeshua. You can't take her opinion as a gospel truth. That is not how we are to interpret scripture.

That would be like taking one of Job's friends as speaking truth when we are told that they are in error directly by Yah in later chapters.

You have to look at the speaker, the audience, and the context first and then you best find conformation in some other passage. Building entire doctrines off a single reference is foolishness.

Her understanding was based on the teaching of Yeshua, which he had given earlier.

John 6:

39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Yes, I realize that now. I didn't know at the time she was quoting Yeshua. Why wouldn't the 1st to quote use Yeshua as the speaker? Why Martha?