Comments on: The First Resurrection http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/10/29/the-first-resurrection/ Theology you can eat and drink Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:01:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41 By: Mike Bull http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/10/29/the-first-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-6976 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:51:16 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=3452#comment-6976 Hi Daniel

I do believe denying a future resurrection and judgment is extremely destructive. Besides prooftexting, a doctrinal tree is known by its fruits.

However, I also find that HP arguments against many (even most) of the FP prooftexts are logical and convincing.

The answer is structural, as displayed in Bible Matrix. Revelation 1-19 follows the feasts pattern as it describes the offering of the firstfruits church. But 20-22 cap off the structure of the entire Bible with Conquest (the gospel age) and final Glorification (judgment).

Here’s some links to other local stuff that expands on it a bit:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/12/17/the-end-is-not-yet/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?s=3REZ%20/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/09/24/big-government/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/07/17/jesus-new-broom/

Let me know what you think…

]]> By: Daniel Franzen http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/10/29/the-first-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-6975 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:03:44 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=3452#comment-6975 Last sentence should be “post,” not “quote.”

]]> By: Daniel Franzen http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/10/29/the-first-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-6974 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:02:29 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=3452#comment-6974 I read that you believed that the first res. was in AD 70 in Bible Matrix. I have to admit that I had never heard that before until I read it in the Matrix. Do you feel like you were forced into that position or it helps explain “problem” passages in the NT or…what?

I am quite interested in researching this view as it seems to make a fair amount of sense. Do you then believe that the only future res. is taught in Rev. 20? I am very leery of hyperpreterism and do not want to go there AT ALL. Sorry for the less than organized quote–it is 0500 in the morning here (Okinawa).

]]>