Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What verse indicates that Jesus returns to Heaven after the reapture of all saints?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Let me give a brief symposia of the anistemi/egeiro debate and how this relates to 1Thess4. I understand the [mis]understanding [of] the difference between the two.

    The usages of them, in itself does not conclusively un-differentiate them, [its]just a plausible view [because it is inconclusive].

    1. I hope everyone CAN see that Jesus went to, ascended, anabaino to the Father, a short time after he met Mary Magdalene, John 20.
    2. I have reported the overwhelming majority usage of egeiro for when Jesus raised someone who was only in the sleep of death. The one account with Jairus's daughter uses anistemi with the following condition. She arose/ anistemi AFTER her spirit returned to her. So, this one account leaves many to doubt whether there truly is a difference between egeiro and anistemi, i.e., they are merely being used synonymously.
    3. Other NT writers have equivocated the anabaino, the ascension of Jesus to the Father, with Jesus receiving and giving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
    4. Paul, synonymous equivocated anistemi with this same assurance of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
    5. So, what we are now left with is this:
    A. Are egeiro and anistemi synonymously used to describe what happened at the resurrection of Jesus? (rising from the dead, not the resurrection itself, But the act of rising)
    B. Anistemi and anabaino are definitely used synonymous to describe the giving of the Holy Ghost, when Jesus rose to the Father.

    If anistemi and egeiro are used synonymously to each other, and anistemi and [anabaino]ARE synonymously used to describe the ascension, we should also be able to find egeiro being synonymously used (in place of anabaino) then to describe how the giving of the Holy Ghost happened, by Jesus "rising" to the Father. Is that what we find? I don't find any such usage.

    What does that all mean?

    Egeiro is in fact NOT being used synonymously for the anistemi, AND anistemi IS synonymously used to describe the anabaino.

    Be Blessed
    The PuP

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
      Then you have a problem with what Jesus does on earth until Rev 19.
      He is not on the Earth before Armageddon and he isn't even on the Earth in Revelation 19. It's not until after Armageddon that he will step foot upon the Earth.



      Well, that's a problem for sure. The beast (antichrist) shows up in ch 13, and he rules the world for 3.5 years, and the 7 last plagues (vials or bowls) occur in ch 15-16,and Babylon falls in ch 18. So again, what will Jesus be doing on earth (your view) between ch 14 and 19, when He RETURNS to earth for the second advent.
      The first part of Revelation 14 happens AFTER Revelation 19. The book isn't fully chronological.
      James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
        He is not on the Earth before Armageddon and he isn't even on the Earth in Revelation 19. It's not until after Armageddon that he will step foot upon the Earth.
        How does this work? You've noted Jesus on earth in Rev 14. So explain how "He isn't even on the earth in Rev 19. Are you suggesting that Jesus comes to earth in the middle of the Trib and then returns to heaven, to return at the end of the Tribulation again??

        The first part of Revelation 14 happens AFTER Revelation 19. The book isn't fully chronological.
        How do you know that? Please explain yourself.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
          How does this work? You've noted Jesus on earth in Rev 14. So explain how "He isn't even on the earth in Rev 19.
          Revelation 14 happens after the events of Revelation 19. At Armageddon Christ fights from the air not from the ground.

          Are you suggesting that Jesus comes to earth in the middle of the Trib and then returns to heaven, to return at the end of the Tribulation again??
          No.

          How do you know that? Please explain yourself.
          Decades of studying Revelation. That can't just be "explained". It takes experience to recognize when the chronology changes in Revelation.


          James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
            These 2 disciple were there because of the reporting of/by the women who went to the tomb early in the morning. These 2 disciples came after that early morning visit. I am not sure of your point that you are making. John says that with this visit by the 2 disciples, Mary Magdalene then remained at the tomb. You gotta remember that there were only a few women who went. To the tomb early. They were responsible for then telling ALL of the disciples what they [didn't] see, but heard tell. The "on the road again" Emmaus disciples were aware of the "vision of angels [at the tomb] " told by the women at the tomb. These women must have organized into smaller segments in going to tell all the disciples. Some of them met Jesus as they were returning. The text in Matthew leaves some doubt as to this exact timing. But when Jesus did appear to them [the 11] that evening, and Jesus upbraided [rebuked] them for not believing "them " who had already seen Jesus; it is likely that these women who had met Jesus were there and/or had told them of their encounter. It is not an absolute certainty because the "them" in the following verse:
            Okay, YES, ... so what I put was the passage about "the women" (Lk24) -

            3 But having entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass that while they are perplexed about this, behold, two men in dazzling garments stood by them; 5 and of them having become terrified and bowing the faces to the ground, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but He is risen [/egeiro]! Remember how He spoke to you, being yet in Galilee, 7 saying, ‘It behooves the Son of Man to be delivered into hands of sinful men, and to be crucified, and the third day to arise [/anistemi].’”

            8 And they remembered His words. 9 And having returned from the tomb, they related all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who were telling these things to the apostles. 11 And their words appeared before them like folly, and they did not believe them.

            12 But Peter having risen up, ran to the tomb, [... <this is what came next, it seems... (and we know that "that other disciple" went along with Peter)>...]



            [this was all before anyone had SEEN Him]


            It seems to make sense (to me, anyway) that the "two men in shining-white/radiant apparel" are saying "REMEMBER" (about the "three days... anistemi") because of what they JUST STATED in the preceding phrase, "He is risen [/egeiro]" (thus making connection between the two, as though identical in meaning / "what has just happened" and what they are presently seeing EVIDENCE of [i.e. the empty sepulchre]).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
              Let me give a brief symposia of the anistemi/egeiro debate and how this relates to 1Thess4. I understand the [mis]understanding [of] the difference between the two.

              The usages of them, in itself does not conclusively un-differentiate them, [its]just a plausible view [because it is inconclusive].
              The usage of them IS conclusive that there is nothing substantial to differentiate them as used in the NT.

              1. I hope everyone CAN see that Jesus went to, ascended, anabaino to the Father, a short time after he met Mary Magdalene, John 20.
              2. I have reported the overwhelming majority usage of egeiro for when Jesus raised someone who was only in the sleep of death. The one account with Jairus's daughter uses anistemi with the following condition. She arose/ anistemi AFTER her spirit returned to her. So, this one account leaves many to doubt whether there truly is a difference between egeiro and anistemi, i.e., they are merely being used synonymously.
              3. Other NT writers have equivocated the anabaino, the ascension of Jesus to the Father, with Jesus receiving and giving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
              4. Paul, synonymous equivocated anistemi with this same assurance of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
              Completely agree with point 1. This is an ENTIRELY different word "anabaino" and is used SPECIFICALLY for ascension and NOT for coming alive or rising from the dead. The first use is AFTER He is reported as egeiro (risen) but not yet gone to the Father.

              Point 2 is that though egeiro may be the common usage, anistemi is ALSO used showing that there is NO difference. With ANY coming alive a person's spirit returns to them, so the claim about Jairus' daughter is not a sufficient argument. They are indeed used synonymously.
              Matt 12:41 has anistemi used for the men of nineveh being raised at judgement; Mark 5:42 has the story of Jairus' daughter also, but with NO connection to her spirit returning, AND in the previous verse Jesus says to the girl "egeiro". This means teh COMMAND by Jesus to rise "egeiro" leads to the action of rising "anistemi". They are used TOGETHER as one event; Luke 6:8 has the story of the man with the withered hand. This is not a story about dying and then living BUT it is pertinent because again we have Jesus speak to the man and told him to "egeiro" and the result was the man "anistemi". This shows that the words are used together, the one as a statement for change and the other as an action of change; Luke 16:31 in the parable of the beggar and the rich man, we have anistemi used for anyone rising from the dead;

              Point 3 anabaino is indeed connected with the ascension of Jesus and the subsequent sending of the Holy Spirit. Nothing about anistemi.

              Point 4. Here is the REAL error. I can find NOWHERE in scripture where Paul equivocates anistemi with the assurance of the Holy Spirits gifts. You have NOT provided a SINGLE verse or passage where Paul does this. This is your failing.

              5. So, what we are now left with is this:
              A. Are egeiro and anistemi synonymously used to describe what happened at the resurrection of Jesus? (rising from the dead, not the resurrection itself, But the act of rising)
              B. Anistemi and anabaino are definitely used synonymous to describe the giving of the Holy Ghost, when Jesus rose to the Father.
              Point 5 A. Yes egeiro and anistemi ARE used synonymously for rising from the dead AND for other instances of rising as well.
              Point 5 B No, this is an incorrect claim. NOWHERE are anistemi and anabaino used synonymously to describe the giving of the Holy Spirit when Jesus rose to the Father.

              If anistemi and egeiro are used synonymously to each other, and anistemi and [anabaino]ARE synonymously used to describe the ascension, we should also be able to find egeiro being synonymously used (in place of anabaino) then to describe how the giving of the Holy Ghost happened, by Jesus "rising" to the Father. Is that what we find? I don't find any such usage.

              What does that all mean?
              IF is the KEY word, and what we find is that WHILE we 100% DO have anistemi and egeiro being used synonymously in numerous passages we do NOT have anistemi and anabaino used synonymously in even one passage.
              There is NO reason to think we should find egeiro used in place of anabaino as we don't even have a SINGLE case of anistemi used in place of anabaino.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
                Revelation 14 happens after the events of Revelation 19. At Armageddon Christ fights from the air not from the ground.
                This isn't an explanation or evidence for your claim that Rev 14 occurs after Rev 19. Do you have any?

                Decades of studying Revelation. That can't just be "explained"
                I disagree. Every fact can be explained. And one doesn't need quote marks.

                It takes experience to recognize when the chronology changes in Revelation.
                No, it takes evidence. I've been reading through Rev for nearlly 20 years monthly. How's that for experience?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                  The usage of them IS conclusive that there is nothing substantial to differentiate them as used in the NT.


                  Completely agree with point 1. This is an ENTIRELY different word "anabaino" and is used SPECIFICALLY for ascension and NOT for coming alive or rising from the dead. The first use is AFTER He is reported as egeiro (risen) but not yet gone to the Father.

                  Point 2 is that though egeiro may be the common usage, anistemi is ALSO used showing that there is NO difference. With ANY coming alive a person's spirit returns to them, so the claim about Jairus' daughter is not a sufficient argument. They are indeed used synonymously.
                  Matt 12:41 has anistemi used for the men of nineveh being raised at judgement; Mark 5:42 has the story of Jairus' daughter also, but with NO connection to her spirit returning, AND in the previous verse Jesus says to the girl "egeiro". This means teh COMMAND by Jesus to rise "egeiro" leads to the action of rising "anistemi". They are used TOGETHER as one event; Luke 6:8 has the story of the man with the withered hand. This is not a story about dying and then living BUT it is pertinent because again we have Jesus speak to the man and told him to "egeiro" and the result was the man "anistemi". This shows that the words are used together, the one as a statement for change and the other as an action of change; Luke 16:31 in the parable of the beggar and the rich man, we have anistemi used for anyone rising from the dead;

                  Point 3 anabaino is indeed connected with the ascension of Jesus and the subsequent sending of the Holy Spirit. Nothing about anistemi.

                  Point 4. Here is the REAL error. I can find NOWHERE in scripture where Paul equivocates anistemi with the assurance of the Holy Spirits gifts. You have NOT provided a SINGLE verse or passage where Paul does this. This is your failing.


                  Point 5 A. Yes egeiro and anistemi ARE used synonymously for rising from the dead AND for other instances of rising as well.
                  Point 5 B No, this is an incorrect claim. NOWHERE are anistemi and anabaino used synonymously to describe the giving of the Holy Spirit when Jesus rose to the Father.


                  IF is the KEY word, and what we find is that WHILE we 100% DO have anistemi and egeiro being used synonymously in numerous passages we do NOT have anistemi and anabaino used synonymously in even one passage.
                  There is NO reason to think we should find egeiro used in place of anabaino as we don't even have a SINGLE case of anistemi used in place of anabaino.
                  Now that I have you on record to say that Christ ascemded/anabaino on resurrection day (AND 40 days later. And denying that anabaino and anistemi are used synonymously. Let look at the scriptures again. Let's start with Peter in Acts 2.

                  Act 2:23-36 KJV 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
                  24 Whom God hath raised up, [anistemi]
                  having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.30 Therefore being a prophet,
                  and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh,
                  he would raise up [anistemi] Christ
                  to sit on his throne;

                  31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
                  32 This Jesus hath God raised up, [anistemi]
                  whereof we all are witnesses.
                  33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
                  34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

                  Looking at verse 31, we see the focal point of Peter's sermon... the resurrection of Christ. In verse 24 he starts by saying that says the Christ was anistemi, via the resurrection, having loosed the pains of death.
                  Then in verse 30, he said that Christ was anistemi, [for] to sit on the throne of David. Then in verse 31, Peter drives home his point, (the first of multiple times), by letting his audience know assuredly,

                  31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,

                  He unequivocally equates the anistemi with the resurrection. He then reiterated his point. Christ is the one who was raised up, anistemi. He goes on to answer the question of how he was raised up. He says, we have proof of this because Jesus is now therefore, sitting at the Father's right hand and exalted. In essence he is saying, going to the Father is how the anistemi occurred. He hasn't even used the word anabaino, YET! So, Peter says, this is why you are seeing and hearing what is going on. You are witnessing the manifesting of the Holy Ghost. Why? Because of the anistemi of Jesus. When? On resurrection day!
                  If that's not enough, Peter then goes to explain why Jesus has been ordained to sit on David's throne. When did this take place? When Jesus ascended, anabaino, to the Father, on resurrection day! Jesus is "Lord and Christ", ala, the heir to the throne of David. Why? Because Jesus has ascended, anabaino, to the heavens... to the Father. When did Jesus ascend to the heavens (to 'sit on his (David's) throne? When the anistemi of Jesus took place on resurrection day. How do we know that David will sit on David's throne? Because, in direct reference to what happened on resurrection day, David saw Jesus sitting at the Father's right hand... the anistemi. How do we know that? The manifestation of the glory of God in the form of the Holy Ghost! We have Peter equivocation the anistemi and the anabaino that took place on resurrection day with the exaltation of Christ to sit on David's throne, as evidence by what you "see and hear", the manifestation of the Holy Ghost!

                  Let's now look at the Paul's sermon in Acts 13.

                  Act 13:29-38 KJV 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.

                  32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up [anistemi] Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

                  34 And as concerning that he raised him up [anistemi] from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. 35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

                  We see egeiro used in verse 30 and 37. But it is used as a timing mechanism, saying, "God raised him from the dead". This is part of Paul's message about the anistemi of Jesus, found in verses 33 and 34. The use of both words, egeiro and anistemi, in this passage, is not just a perchance using of synonymous words. It's because both words are used here that they are NOT synonyms of each other. They are referring to different things. This is illustrated in what anistemi is referring to.

                  In verses 32 & 33, Paul says that this is how God fulfilled his PROMISE made to the fathers, by raising up (anistemi) Christ "from the dead"... on resurrection day. What is that PROMISE? (V.23)

                  Act 13:23 KJV Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

                  Jesus is the promised king, after David, that would fulfill all of God's will. As pointed out earlier in Acts 2, Christ was ordained (raised up) to sit on David's throne when he ascended to the heavens.

                  In verses 34ff, he tells them how Christ was raised up, anistemi.. He was raised up (anistemi) when Jesus was raised up (egeiro) and declares "this day, you are my Son, this day have I begotten thee". What day was that? When Christ was raised up (egeiro) and came to sit by the Fathers right hand... when he ascended, anabaino. Paul, too had equated the anistemi to when Christ came to the Father, on resurrection day. Anabaino=anistemi.

                  I won't rehash Acts 17:31, where Paul again equated the assurance of the Holy Ghost with the anistemi. So you are wrong about how the anabaino is used synonymously with the anistemi. It's now up to you to prove that anabaino and egeiro are synonyms.

                  Be Blessed
                  The PuP

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
                    This isn't an explanation or evidence for your claim that Rev 14 occurs after Rev 19. Do you have any?
                    The 7th trump signals the second coming to commence, Christ leaves heaven and arrives at the clouds of the Earth where the living saints are raptured. He is seen in the air in Revelation 19 so seems correct Armageddon is talking place after the rapture to the clouds. In Revelation 14 he is standing on the ground so that would seem to be after the being in the air at Armageddon. So, heaven, clouds, in the air at Armageddon, then on a mountain outside of Jerusalem where he will rule for a thousand years would seem to be the best chronological understanding.




                    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post

                      Now that I have you on record to say that Christ ascemded/anabaino on resurrection day (AND 40 days later. And denying that anabaino and anistemi are used synonymously. Let look at the scriptures again. Let's start with Peter in Acts 2.

                      Act 2:23-36 KJV 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
                      24 Whom God hath raised up, [anistemi]
                      having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.30 Therefore being a prophet,
                      and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh,
                      he would raise up [anistemi] Christ
                      to sit on his throne
                      ;

                      31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
                      32 This Jesus hath God raised up, [anistemi]
                      whereof we all are witnesses.

                      33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
                      34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

                      Looking at verse 31, we see the focal point of Peter's sermon... the resurrection of Christ. In verse 24 he starts by saying that says the Christ was anistemi, via the resurrection, having loosed the pains of death.
                      Then in verse 30, he said that Christ was anistemi, [for] to sit on the throne of David. Then in verse 31, Peter drives home his point, (the first of multiple times), by letting his audience know assuredly,

                      31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,

                      He unequivocally equates the anistemi with the resurrection. He then reiterated his point. Christ is the one who was raised up, anistemi. He goes on to answer the question of how he was raised up. He says, we have proof of this because Jesus is now therefore, sitting at the Father's right hand and exalted. In essence he is saying, going to the Father is how the anistemi occurred. He hasn't even used the word anabaino, YET! So, Peter says, this is why you are seeing and hearing what is going on. You are witnessing the manifesting of the Holy Ghost. Why? Because of the anistemi of Jesus. When? On resurrection day!
                      If that's not enough, Peter then goes to explain why Jesus has been ordained to sit on David's throne. When did this take place? When Jesus ascended, anabaino, to the Father, on resurrection day! Jesus is "Lord and Christ", ala, the heir to the throne of David. Why? Because Jesus has ascended, anabaino, to the heavens... to the Father. When did Jesus ascend to the heavens (to 'sit on his (David's) throne? When the anistemi of Jesus took place on resurrection day. How do we know that David will sit on David's throne? Because, in direct reference to what happened on resurrection day, David saw Jesus sitting at the Father's right hand... the anistemi. How do we know that? The manifestation of the glory of God in the form of the Holy Ghost! We have Peter equivocation the anistemi and the anabaino that took place on resurrection day with the exaltation of Christ to sit on David's throne, as evidence by what you "see and hear", the manifestation of the Holy Ghost!

                      Let's now look at the Paul's sermon in Acts 13.

                      Act 13:29-38 KJV 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.

                      32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up [anistemi] Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

                      34 And as concerning that he raised him up [anistemi] from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. 35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

                      We see egeiro used in verse 30 and 37. But it is used as a timing mechanism, saying, "God raised him from the dead". This is part of Paul's message about the anistemi of Jesus, found in verses 33 and 34. The use of both words, egeiro and anistemi, in this passage, is not just a perchance using of synonymous words. It's because both words are used here that they are NOT synonyms of each other. They are referring to different things. This is illustrated in what anistemi is referring to.

                      In verses 32 & 33, Paul says that this is how God fulfilled his PROMISE made to the fathers, by raising up (anistemi) Christ "from the dead"... on resurrection day. What is that PROMISE? (V.23)

                      Act 13:23 KJV Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

                      Jesus is the promised king, after David, that would fulfill all of God's will. As pointed out earlier in Acts 2, Christ was ordained (raised up) to sit on David's throne when he ascended to the heavens.

                      In verses 34ff, he tells them how Christ was raised up, anistemi.. He was raised up (anistemi) when Jesus was raised up (egeiro) and declares "this day, you are my Son, this day have I begotten thee". What day was that? When Christ was raised up (egeiro) and came to sit by the Fathers right hand... when he ascended, anabaino. Paul, too had equated the anistemi to when Christ came to the Father, on resurrection day. Anabaino=anistemi.

                      I won't rehash Acts 17:31, where Paul again equated the assurance of the Holy Ghost with the anistemi. So you are wrong about how the anabaino is used synonymously with the anistemi. It's now up to you to prove that anabaino and egeiro are synonyms.

                      Be Blessed
                      The PuP
                      [BEAR IN MIND as you read my post... that I also am one who believes Jesus ASCENDED TWICE, once ON FF/His Resurrection Day, and again VISIBLY in the Acts 1 context some "40 days" LATER]

                      ... BUT... I want to point out again what I'd pointed out in a previous post...


                      ...about how Peter spoke of TWO "RAISE" issues (esp in chpt 3, but I believe this carries over into the OTHER RELATED passages on this...)



                      The "Amill-teachings" (for example) MISS Peter's point here, because they BLUR TOGETHER these TWO DISTINCT "RAISE" issues (Peter is covering) re: Jesus :


                      --ONE "RAISE" referring to His earthly ministry BEFORE Death, that is, His being "RAISED to a position of PROMINENCE" BEFORE His Death / BEFORE the Cross (like in Acts 3:22 "a PROPHET shall the Lord your God RAISE UP UNTO YOU of your brethren, like unto me/Moses; Him shall YE HEAR in all things whatsoever He shall SAY UNTO *YOU*" 26 "Unto you FIRST God, having RAISED UP His SERVANT Jesus, SENT Him to bless you...";<--THESE kinds of verses (re: RAISE) speak of His earthly ministry (esp to Israel) BEFORE His Death/Cross--Peter is speaking of this BECAUSE the "ye men of Israel" he was addressing in Acts 3 [as-yet unsaved persons] had OVERLOOKED the parts about His "SUFFERING SERVANT"[and His "rejection"]-role/prophecies and had anticipated ONLY His "REIGNING KING" aspect/prophecies...
                      and BTW, Peter is NOT making the point that David's throne is now "UP IN HEAVEN" (as some suggest)... he's saying, "I know you think, 'that dead guy CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN our anticipated Messiah [coz, look, DUH, he's DEAD!],' but here's where you are WRONG / what you were MISSING / OVERLOOKING / BYPASSING in your 'expectations' of Him" [missing/overlooking His "SUFFERING SERVANT" aspects of the prophecies--which prophecies were ALSO NECESSARY (to have been fulfilled, and to have effectuated certain other things)])


                      --the OTHER "RAISE" referring to His being "RAISED from the dead" AFTER His Death / AFTER the Cross




                      Of the "anistemi [G450]" verses--like Acts 3:22,26 speak of the FORMER (of these two, above--"to a POSITION of PROMINENCE" *before* His Death/Cross);
                      whereas the latter (of these two, above--"from the dead") are what these are speaking of: Acts 2:24,32... Acts 13:34... Acts 17:3,31 ...


                      (and note: I am not listing ALL of them exhaustively here... just providing a SAMPLE of the "anistemi [G450]" word in these types of CONTEXTS, where they speak of TWO distinct aspects of "RAISE" regarding Him)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post

                        [BEAR IN MIND as you read my post... that I also am one who believes Jesus ASCENDED TWICE, once ON FF/His Resurrection Day, and again VISIBLY in the Acts 1 context some "40 days" LATER]

                        ... BUT... I want to point out again what I'd pointed out in a previous post...


                        ...about how Peter spoke of TWO "RAISE" issues (esp in chpt 3, but I believe this carries over into the OTHER RELATED passages on this...)



                        The "Amill-teachings" (for example) MISS Peter's point here, because they BLUR TOGETHER these TWO DISTINCT "RAISE" issues (Peter is covering) re: Jesus :


                        --ONE "RAISE" referring to His earthly ministry BEFORE Death, that is, His being "RAISED to a position of PROMINENCE" BEFORE His Death / BEFORE the Cross (like in Acts 3:22 "a PROPHET shall the Lord your God RAISE UP UNTO YOU of your brethren, like unto me/Moses; Him shall YE HEAR in all things whatsoever He shall SAY UNTO *YOU*" 26 "Unto you FIRST God, having RAISED UP His SERVANT Jesus, SENT Him to bless you...";<--THESE kinds of verses (re: RAISE) speak of His earthly ministry (esp to Israel) BEFORE His Death/Cross--Peter is speaking of this BECAUSE the "ye men of Israel" he was addressing in Acts 3 [as-yet unsaved persons] had OVERLOOKED the parts about His "SUFFERING SERVANT"[and His "rejection"]-role/prophecies and had anticipated ONLY His "REIGNING KING" aspect/prophecies...
                        and BTW, Peter is NOT making the point that David's throne is now "UP IN HEAVEN" (as some suggest)... he's saying, "I know you think, 'that dead guy CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN our anticipated Messiah [coz, look, DUH, he's DEAD!],' but here's where you are WRONG / what you were MISSING / OVERLOOKING / BYPASSING in your 'expectations' of Him" [missing/overlooking His "SUFFERING SERVANT" aspects of the prophecies--which prophecies were ALSO NECESSARY (to have been fulfilled, and to have effectuated certain other things)])


                        --the OTHER "RAISE" referring to His being "RAISED from the dead" AFTER His Death / AFTER the Cross




                        Of the "anistemi [G450]" verses--like Acts 3:22,26 speak of the FORMER (of these two, above--"to a POSITION of PROMINENCE" *before* His Death/Cross);
                        whereas the latter (of these two, above--"from the dead") are what these are speaking of: Acts 2:24,32... Acts 13:34... Acts 17:3,31 ...


                        (and note: I am not listing ALL of them exhaustively here... just providing a SAMPLE of the "anistemi [G450]" word in these types of CONTEXTS, where they speak of TWO distinct aspects of "RAISE" regarding Him)
                        Just a couple quick comments. I agree that Christ has not already assumed the throne of David. [I think I said something to the effect that BECAUSE he has risen/ anistemi to the Father, this is why Christ is the heir apparent, to [----- important---->ETERNALLY<------important) sit on David's throne. Said another way, the result of the anistemi is Christ shows that He is the heir apparent. This stems from Peter and Paul AND especially Jesus in Matt 22, quoting from Psalm 110, where it says "the LORD said unto my Lord..." So Jesus asked them, how does David call him LORD, if he is his son (offspring)? David, in this vision, recognized him as both 'my Lord' and as his promised offspring that would sit on his throne. Do you get what I'm saying? David knew that "my Lord" was but a man that had ascended/ anabaino/anistemi to that position... to sit at the Father's right hand. It was the ascension, the anistemi that was the "proof in the pudding" that ordained Christ to be the everlasting Son of David that would reign forever on David's throne. It was his perfect sinless, and the only one who did (he didn't suffer corruption) that entitles him to inherit that position. Think back to when Jesus said, "... no man had ascended to heaven, save him who came down from heaven, even the Son of man". Jesus is the only one who was, and is, and retains the right to sit at the Father's right hand. He proved that when the anistemi took place... and came back and gave gifts unto men... the gift of the Holy Ghost! John said it in advance [in parentheses of John 7:39]... because Jesus was not yet glorified. How did that glory get conveyed? When the anistemi=anabaino took place.

                        The use of the word, "resurrection", (not just in Acts 2:31) encompasses both the egeiro and anistemi. Even though some can only see them as synonymous terms, the resurrection of the body, our bodies, Jesus' body, involved both aspects. Not only is the body to be raised/ egeiro to new life, but it is to be glorified as well. The egeiro, when used in the context of "being raised from the dead, as found in the ministry of Jesus", merely gives life back to someone who is "only sleeping". Glorification is the result of the anistemi. Think back to the mount of transfiguration, the glorification of Jesus, shining as brightly as the sun. What did Jesus tell the disciples, after it was over? Tell no man until the Son of man be risen/ anistemi from the dead. So, looking back at Acts 2:31 again, with the view that the resurrection consists of both egeiro and anistemi

                        NOTE: I am temporarily taking the position that egeiro and anistemi are synonymous and refer only to one event involved in the resurrection, rather than two aspects, i.e., Jesus was both egeiro and anistemi when Mary Magdalene FIRST saw Jesus. So now think of the "resurrection, as both being egeiro and anistemi, and interject that thought into Acts 2:31.

                        Act 2:31 KJV HE seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

                        Who is the "he" in that verse? None other than David. David recognized, in his vision of "my Lord" that Christ was at the Father's right hand because of the "resurrection"... because of the egeiro and anistemi, as a combination event. And so we continue:

                        The completion of the resurrection, includes the ascension, the anabaino, of Jesus at the Father's right hand. Because of the (completed) resurrection event [both egeiro AND anistemi] we see this:


                        "...he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear..." THE HOLY GHOST! We have the Holy Ghost BECAUSE OF the resurrection! So, with the view that the "resurrection" is both egeiro and anistemi, as a singular, combination, synonymous event, this is saying that Jesus was in possession of the Holy Ghost [at the resurrection] when Mary Magdalene met him. But John told us plainly, that the Holy Ghost could not be given UNTIL Jesus was glorified, or as Peter said, "... being by the right hand of God, EXALTED..." Jesus was not exalted or glorified until he went to the Father. Here's the rub. The result of the "resurrection" was:
                        1. Jesus was glorified,
                        2. The saints get the Holy Ghost.

                        Jesus must be both egeiro and anistemi before the Holy Ghost could be given to the saints. How does Jesus get glorified? By ascending to the Father. Why do the saints get the Holy Ghost? To give us assurance that God "resurrected" raised (anistemi) him from the dead. Acts 17:31.

                        Act 17:31 KJV Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

                        David said, "speaking of the 'Resurrection of Christ', "thou shalt make me full of joy with THY COUNTENANCE".

                        Whose countenance?
                        None but the glorified countenance of Christ!
                        WHAT IS that countensnce?
                        The presence of the Holy Ghost!
                        The Holy Ghost is the presence of the glorified countenance of Jesus Christ!
                        When was Christ glorified?
                        At the "resurrection" of Christ.
                        When was Christ glorified?
                        At the anistemi.
                        When was Christ glorified?
                        At the anabaino!

                        The glorification of Christ came with the egeiro, anistemi and anabaino, all rolled up into the complete package of THE RESURRECTION!
                        THE RESURRECTION! THE RESURRECTION!

                        I can't explain it any better than that. If you are to define the resurrection of Christ as both the egeiro and the anistemi, you must include the glorification, that came at the anabaino.

                        Be Blessed
                        The PuP


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post

                          [BEAR IN MIND as you read my post... that I also am one who believes Jesus ASCENDED TWICE, once ON FF/His Resurrection Day, and again VISIBLY in the Acts 1 context some "40 days" LATER]

                          ... BUT... I want to point out again what I'd pointed out in a previous post...


                          ...about how Peter spoke of TWO "RAISE" issues (esp in chpt 3, but I believe this carries over into the OTHER RELATED passages on this...)



                          The "Amill-teachings" (for example) MISS Peter's point here, because they BLUR TOGETHER these TWO DISTINCT "RAISE" issues (Peter is covering) re: Jesus :


                          --ONE "RAISE" referring to His earthly ministry BEFORE Death, that is, His being "RAISED to a position of PROMINENCE" BEFORE His Death / BEFORE the Cross (like in Acts 3:22 "a PROPHET shall the Lord your God RAISE UP UNTO YOU of your brethren, like unto me/Moses; Him shall YE HEAR in all things whatsoever He shall SAY UNTO *YOU*" 26 "Unto you FIRST God, having RAISED UP His SERVANT Jesus, SENT Him to bless you...";<--THESE kinds of verses (re: RAISE) speak of His earthly ministry (esp to Israel) BEFORE His Death/Cross--Peter is speaking of this BECAUSE the "ye men of Israel" he was addressing in Acts 3 [as-yet unsaved persons] had OVERLOOKED the parts about His "SUFFERING SERVANT"[and His "rejection"]-role/prophecies and had anticipated ONLY His "REIGNING KING" aspect/prophecies...
                          and BTW, Peter is NOT making the point that David's throne is now "UP IN HEAVEN" (as some suggest)... he's saying, "I know you think, 'that dead guy CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN our anticipated Messiah [coz, look, DUH, he's DEAD!],' but here's where you are WRONG / what you were MISSING / OVERLOOKING / BYPASSING in your 'expectations' of Him" [missing/overlooking His "SUFFERING SERVANT" aspects of the prophecies--which prophecies were ALSO NECESSARY (to have been fulfilled, and to have effectuated certain other things)])


                          --the OTHER "RAISE" referring to His being "RAISED from the dead" AFTER His Death / AFTER the Cross




                          Of the "anistemi [G450]" verses--like Acts 3:22,26 speak of the FORMER (of these two, above--"to a POSITION of PROMINENCE" *before* His Death/Cross);
                          whereas the latter (of these two, above--"from the dead") are what these are speaking of: Acts 2:24,32... Acts 13:34... Acts 17:3,31 ...


                          (and note: I am not listing ALL of them exhaustively here... just providing a SAMPLE of the "anistemi [G450]" word in these types of CONTEXTS, where they speak of TWO distinct aspects of "RAISE" regarding Him)
                          It's getting late but I want to make another skirt reply here. It will explain why we see the two "raisings" of Jesus differently, and why is so hard to come to an agreement. We must consider David's perspective. David didn't see the "40 days" from the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene and his ascension from the mount of olives. David only saw Jesus awaking to life in a new body, and then saw Jesus "at" the right hand of the Father. This process of a beginning and an end , is labeled by Peter as the "resurrection "of Christ. Jesus rose from his sleep of death, and then he (David) sees Christ at the Father's right hand. He arose, then he arose. David didn't see HOW Jesus got from earth's point A to heavens point B. It was like it was all one event. But David recognized that we receive "joy with thy countenance" because Christ sits sits at God's right hand. David didn't see two ascensions of Christ. This "joy with thy countenance" is the gift of the Holy Ghost. I think what you need to see is that we receive the Holy Ghost (from Christ), NOT because Christ NOW SITS at God's right hand, but we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost because Christ was able (HE WENT TO THE FATHER. He did not suffer his holy one to see corruption. He didn't leave his soul in hell. Christ received the gift of the Holy Ghost because he was worthy to receive. He was perfect in all of his ways while he lived on this earth. The evident that we (right now) have that Christ was worthy is that He now is sitting at God's right hand. It only takes his ascension on resurrection day that proved his worthiness to give the Holy Ghost to all who believe that he rose (anistemi) to the Father. The result of the 2nd ascension, the anabaino is that Christ now sits at the Father's right hand.
                          The result of the first ascension, the anistemi, demonstrated his worthiness to receive the Holy Ghost.
                          How does it demonstrate his worthiness?
                          He was glorified!
                          Does this help?

                          Be Blessed
                          The PuP
                          Last edited by Pesachpup; Jan 20 2021, 09:04 AM. Reason: Added last two questions.

                          Comment


                          • I get what you're saying, but I'm not yet convinced by how you're explaining this...(and by the way, I wasn't saying that YOU believe that David's throne is NOW UP IN HEAVEN, but that "Amill-teachings" say this BECAUSE they are missing the point of [edit] Peter's address here in Acts 3 and the TWO distinct "RAISE" aspects he's covering in this text: one BEFORE the Cross, the other AFTER the Cross).



                            I'll just put the following here, for now, and try to be back late tomorrow... I gotta hit the pillow...


                            Acts 17 -

                            31 For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising [anistemi G450 ('having raised')] Him from the dead.” 32 When they heard about the resurrection [anastasis G386] of the dead, some began to mock him, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this topic.”


                            Both of these verses seem to refer to the aspect of "raising [or, resurrection] FROM THE DEAD"



                            Back later tonight, Lord willing... g'night all! = )

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
                              Now that I have you on record to say that Christ ascemded/anabaino on resurrection day (AND 40 days later. And denying that anabaino and anistemi are used synonymously. Let look at the scriptures again.
                              I was ALREADY on record for this. Anabaino and anistemi are NOT used synonymously.

                              Let's start with Peter in Acts 2.
                              Act 2:23-36 KJV 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
                              24 Whom God hath raised up, [anistemi]
                              having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.30 Therefore being a prophet,
                              and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh,
                              he would raise up [anistemi] Christ
                              to sit on his throne;
                              31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
                              32 This Jesus hath God raised up, [anistemi]
                              whereof we all are witnesses.
                              33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
                              34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
                              Looking at verse 31, we see the focal point of Peter's sermon... the resurrection of Christ. In verse 24 he starts by saying that says the Christ was anistemi, via the resurrection, having loosed the pains of death.
                              Then in verse 30, he said that Christ was anistemi, [for] to sit on the throne of David. Then in verse 31, Peter drives home his point, (the first of multiple times), by letting his audience know assuredly,
                              31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,
                              He unequivocally equates the anistemi with the resurrection. He then reiterated his point. Christ is the one who was raised up, anistemi. He goes on to answer the question of how he was raised up. He says, we have proof of this because Jesus is now therefore, sitting at the Father's right hand and exalted. In essence he is saying, going to the Father is how the anistemi occurred. He hasn't even used the word anabaino, YET! So, Peter says, this is why you are seeing and hearing what is going on. You are witnessing the manifesting of the Holy Ghost. Why? Because of the anistemi of Jesus. When? On resurrection day!
                              I AGREE 100% that Peter equates anistemi with resurrection. What is the word for resurrection? Is it anabaino? No it is NOT:
                              G386
                              ἀνάστασις
                              anastasis
                              an-as'-tas-is
                              From G450; a standing up again, that is, (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, general or by implication (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth): - raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.

                              As Strongs notes anastasis is a word that is based on anistemi. Same root meaning which is to rise up.
                              So far therefore you have NOT provided a SINGLE scripture which has anistemi or anastasis being used synonymously with anabaino.
                              The resurrection IS the rising from the DEAD.

                              Where you go completely WRONG is your leap that Peter is saying the proof is Jesus sitting at the Father's right hand.
                              What Peter states is the proof is that Peter saw the risen/resurrected Jesus on earth. This is stated in verse 32.

                              Now Jesus being exalted is a FURTHER step and for this Peter notes that David was NOT anabaino (v 34). Peter is NOT saying that anistemi IS anabaino, but rather that AFTER Jesus anistemi THEN the Father raised Him up.

                              If that's not enough, Peter then goes to explain why Jesus has been ordained to sit on David's throne. When did this take place? When Jesus ascended, anabaino, to the Father, on resurrection day! Jesus is "Lord and Christ", ala, the heir to the throne of David. Why? Because Jesus has ascended, anabaino, to the heavens... to the Father. When did Jesus ascend to the heavens (to 'sit on his (David's) throne? When the anistemi of Jesus took place on resurrection day. How do we know that David will sit on David's throne? Because, in direct reference to what happened on resurrection day, David saw Jesus sitting at the Father's right hand... the anistemi. How do we know that? The manifestation of the glory of God in the form of the Holy Ghost! We have Peter equivocation the anistemi and the anabaino that took place on resurrection day with the exaltation of Christ to sit on David's throne, as evidence by what you "see and hear", the manifestation of the Holy Ghost!
                              Nope Jesus did NOT sit on David's throne when He ascended on the day of His resurrection. He did anabaino, but he then descended once again to see His disciples. Again David does NOT reference the Resurrection Day itself but simply states something he was given to prophesy, which Peter notes.
                              Also Peter does NOT say that Jesus is seated on David's throne, but actually says Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father.

                              Let's now look at the Paul's sermon in Acts 13.
                              Act 13:29-38 KJV 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
                              32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up [anistemi] Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
                              34 And as concerning that he raised him up [anistemi] from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. 35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
                              We see egeiro used in verse 30 and 37. But it is used as a timing mechanism, saying, "God raised him from the dead". This is part of Paul's message about the anistemi of Jesus, found in verses 33 and 34. The use of both words, egeiro and anistemi, in this passage, is not just a perchance using of synonymous words. It's because both words are used here that they are NOT synonyms of each other. They are referring to different things. This is illustrated in what anistemi is referring to.
                              Anistemi is used as a timing mechanism as much as egeiro - in fact they are being used synonymously in this passage.
                              They are referring to the SAME thing and it is a bit bizarre to claim they are not.

                              In verses 32 & 33, Paul says that this is how God fulfilled his PROMISE made to the fathers, by raising up (anistemi) Christ "from the dead"... on resurrection day. What is that PROMISE? (V.23)
                              Act 13:23 KJV Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
                              Jesus is the promised king, after David, that would fulfill all of God's will. As pointed out earlier in Acts 2, Christ was ordained (raised up) to sit on David's throne when he ascended to the heavens.
                              In verses 34ff, he tells them how Christ was raised up, anistemi.. He was raised up (anistemi) when Jesus was raised up (egeiro) and declares "this day, you are my Son, this day have I begotten thee". What day was that? When Christ was raised up (egeiro) and came to sit by the Fathers right hand... when he ascended, anabaino. Paul, too had equated the anistemi to when Christ came to the Father, on resurrection day. Anabaino=anistemi.
                              Nope again NOWHERE here is Paul equating anabaino and anistemi. The promise was a resurrection from the dead, which is what egeiro/anistemi/anastasis ALL refer to.
                              We live BECAUSE He lives, and the forgiveness of sins is because He died. The ENTIRE connection is with those who are raised to life AGAIN.

                              I won't rehash Acts 17:31, where Paul again equated the assurance of the Holy Ghost with the anistemi. So you are wrong about how the anabaino is used synonymously with the anistemi. It's now up to you to prove that anabaino and egeiro are synonyms.
                              I can understand why you won't rehash Acts 17:31 as there is NO assurance of the Holy Spirit in connection with anistemi in this verse:
                              Act 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
                              The assurance we have that we will be raised from the dead is because there are witnesses who saw Jesus raised from the dead.
                              When you FIND a SINGLE passage which actually equates anabaino with anistemi please do provide it. I am still waiting.
                              It is 100% clear that anistemi and egeiro are synonyms including the passage from Acts 13 that you provided (and the many passages I gave). Moreover IF Acts 13 is your proof text about anistemi and anabaino, egeiro is part of that proof text and so the SAME of anistemi from that passage is also true of egeiro.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
                                The 7th trump signals the second coming to commence,
                                This assumes that the "last trump" of Matt 24:31, 1 Cor 15;52, and 1 Thess 4:16 is the 7th trumpet. But there is evidence for that. Since then 7 trumpet judgments occur in the first half of the Tribulation, according to a number of scholars, you still have Jesus coming to earth WAY BEFORE the end of the Tribulation.

                                Christ leaves heaven and arrives at the clouds of the Earth where the living saints are raptured.
                                The better word for "raptured" is "resurrected" since when He comes, He resurrects ALL who belong to Him. 1 Cor 15;23 - But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

                                I'l like to point out that Paul didn't write "when He comes, some/most of whose who belong to Him". He said "those who belong to Him". That would obviously include EVERYONE who has believed in Christ for salvation, both among the living and the dead. Everyone is resurrected at the same time.

                                He is seen in the air in Revelation 19 so seems correct Armageddon is talking place after the rapture to the clouds.
                                Revelation 19 is obviously His Second Advent.

                                In Revelation 14 he is standing on the ground so that would seem to be after the being in the air at Armageddon.
                                This is a vision of John that relates the 144,000 as belonging to Jesus. Since ch 14 occurs during the last half of the Tribulation, and you have noted that Revelation isn't chronological, there is no problem understanding that Jesus will be standing with His 144,000 when He returns at the end of the Trib.

                                So, heaven, clouds, in the air at Armageddon, then on a mountain outside of Jerusalem where he will rule for a thousand years would seem to be the best chronological understanding.
                                I don't disagree with this. Just that all this occurs at His Second Coming.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X