Mellontes wrote:
You made some good points Mike. But I disagree that the "latter" "where Jesus was among man in a body" has anything to do with resurrection. Jesus was resurrected when his soul was raised from Hades/Sheol/Hell. Period. This is the resurrection. The placement back of His resurrected soul into His prior body is not resurrection - it is placement. We have way too much emphasis on the "physical" nature. Redemption is a spiritual act. We as believers today partake of a reserrection in that we are quickened in spirit, that is we have been raised from our dead spiritual nature unto life. There are many examples of this in the NT. But the resurrection as proposed by Paul as something that was taught by the law and the prophets (Acts 24:14-15) is a little different and applies as a promise to Israel, not the nation, by an Israel of faith...
Hmm. I thought Jesus said "in three days I shall raise up this temple." The significance was that of resurrection in 3 days. Maybe the NT writers got carried away by this 3 day idea (John 2:19). You haven't shown anything to place emphasis differently.
And when you talk of resurrection, you seem to treat four ideas of resurrection as one --the born again exprience, the dan 12:2 resurrection (you mention in connection with redemption), the Israel resurrection( i'm not sure about the scripture basis for this), and the resurrection of the Last Day.
Some of the stuff you blur together are just begging the questions: Is the Church is Israel?, Is there just one idea of resurrection? Is the born again experience the only resurrection?
mikew wrote:Alas, if I am explaining the right understanding, then any application of 1Thess 5:8-9 toward us today would have to be explained as an extension of the original meaning.
I know what you are trying to say, but it is not an
extension, it is the original interpretation. Thessalonians was written to the first century believers. The "US" in the "
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ," points to those first century believers. And no, I am not saying that there are not some spiritual applications to be made to us, but so often the application is made to represent the original interpretation. I call it "teleportational exegesis" because of a strong desire to stick 21st century Christianity into a passage and claim the context for ourselves. This is the highest form of eisegesis known to man, in my opinion...
Clear as mud???
Sorry. I was clear as mud. My statements only make sense if applied to the broader passage 1Thes 4 and 5.
So, if the resurrection of 1Thes 4 was applicable to the first century Christians, some explanation would have to be given to explain how that idea of resurrection applies or relates to Christians today. The important idea here is that the "wrath of God" was a first century event, as I had try to explain. This would of course be a problem for the Full Preterist -- that the resurrection was only a first century event.
