@Steefen @Stephen
I’m focusing on the book of Ephesians as (if?) it relates to Revelation 2:1-7, the church in Ephesus.
Ephesians 2 expresses a Preterist interpretation of Revelations. Basically it’s a hallucination that the rapture has already occurred. They were in the kingdom of heaven at that time. Ephesians 2:6.
Although regarded as a forgery, it might be an accurate description of the views of an early Christian church who wanted to reconcile the problem of marriage with Matthew 22:30 and 1 Peter 3:1-7, with Ephesians 5:14-33.
Wake up, O sleeper, and rise from the dead, Ephesians 5:14
To be “risen from the dead” just means to have the Light of Christ shining on you. These “Revelations” were never intended to be understood as literal events. People, the sons of disobedience are dead because they follow and obey the prince of the world, the prince of the air. They are risen from the dead and become sons of light by following and obeying God, the son of righteousness.
What they were waiting for was Christ to return to do the final judgment. The Parousia. The rapture event had already happened. Revelations 2:1-7.
I think Ephesians renders the views of a community who no longer shares the apocalyptic fervor of the early church and is trying to reconcile their Christian life with larger society. Hence, some traditional values are creeping back into the practice of the community. The author of Ephesians believes that in some sense believers already participate in the resurrection and the kingdom. A view Paul explicitly attacks in his letter to the Corinthians.
@Stephen
So if we can find verses that contradict between two books that claim to be authored by the same person, then we have reason to suspect that one book must be a forgery. Such as Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. So does 1 Corinthians 15:42 contradict with Ephesians 2:6
I haven’t really made up my mind because I’m struggling to understand the theology of Greek tenses used in the 1 Corinthians 15:32. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I think it says that “are raised” is the present tense. So in verse 32, Paul is saying that the dead have been raised. And verse 29.
In 1 Corinthians 15:31 it says “I die every day”. How can Paul die everyday if he has not been raised from the dead?
I’m looking at my Greek Nestle-Aland 28th edition, and a NIV English. Does the NIV contain an interpolation here in verse 29? “Now if there is no resurrection” from “otherwise”. I suppose the NIV is already interpreting “otherwise” for me so I don’t think it applies to verse 27-28 which I interpret as though the Christ is not God. Ephesians 15 is very apocalyptic so I’m not going out of context here with the topic change away from Revelations
Revelation was written about 95 CE.
Revelation: a hallucination that the rapture has already occurred.
What caused the hallucination and how many people had it?
I disagree.
Rev. 6:10
The earth was not judged and whose blood was avenged? Not those who fought against Rome in the late 60s and early 70s.
Rev 18: 8 – The fall of Babylon.
Rome did not fall before 95 CE. There was a volcano but Rome did not fall.and did not fall as vengeance against Rome for putting down the Jewish Revolt.
= = =
rise from the dead just means to have the light of Christ shining on you.
Look at the resurrections in the gospels. Rise from the dead does not just mean what you say.
@Steefen
At some point in the past the church created a theological distinction between being born again, John 3:3, and resurrection of the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:50. My theory is that the early church did not really have such a distinction as it exists today.
I think the letter to the Ephesians and 1 Corinthians is hinting at that some of them had already been raised from the dead (raptured). Revelations however is not. The author of Revelations did not agree with the authors of the Paul letters.
I mean to say that a resurrection of the dead had already occurred before the texts were written and would continue happening like a rapture event. Sorry of I don’t make any sense. Revelations has more details about it than the other texts. I wasn’t much edicated in any of fine details of the End Times and Trinity theology during my youth at church and private school. It was all more about condemning materialism and hedonism. I understand why now, because there’s multiple interpretations possible about the End Times and Trinity.
This theory would be that the rapture and 1000 years occurs before the final judgement of Revelation 20:15. They were still awaiting the return of Christ at the time when Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, and Revelations were less than 120 years old. The final judgement should have occurred during the 11th century. Revelation 20:4 is applied to 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 which should have occurred before the 3rd century because the 120 years of Genesis 6:3 is applied to Matthew 24:37. However none of this actually occurred, so it was all false prophecy, unless you want to go extremely symbolic and poetic then we could find a way to suggest it did occur (Preterism views)
The hallucination is just a dopamine reset of the brain people would have after repentance (giving up drunkenness and prostitution). The person would one day afterwards feel a sense of euphoria and dream state, that was the rapture event. If they were taking a afternoon nap they might dream of images they had heard about clouds of heaven and angels and so forth,
Just an uneducated guess and theory.
I was once driving one afternoon and sorta daydreaming and singing along while listening to John Denver “Country Roads” and for a brief second saw something in the clouds and thought I had missed the Rapture. I was completely sober at the time, for several years. At that time in my life I had already been a “born again” and apostate several times. I might’ve been an Atheist at that time. I don’t remember. It was almost 20 years ago.
I’m not really disagreeing with your topic and title statement.
@Steefen
How do you interpret Matthew 22:30-32?
There’s a quote from Exodus 3:6. I’m thinking this saying of Jesus is metaphorically referring back to Egypt in several ways. There’s a parable here that compares being dead to being captive in Egypt. In Ezekiel 32 it seems to describe Egypt as being the land of the dead. Everywhere else is the land of the living.
So is Jesus describing the resurrection as really being about the all the Jews being reunited once again in Israel? To be dead means that a Jew is not following the God of their patriarchs, and does not live freely in the homeland? In other words, being dead means that they are a pagan and captive once again in Egypt.
There hasn’t been a literal rapture event. The kingdom of the Hebrew Son of Man has not come in glory.
When people are in between incarnations, they know who they were married to. People can come back to earth with relatives and friends from past lives. People continue to live after their incarnations. That is what it means that a god can be a god of the living, not the god of the dead.
@Steefen
Interesting, fair, astonishing even
I’m trying to interpret as though I’m a Sadducee, and not a Pharisee.
The Sadducees ask a paradox. Jesus therefore because of the paradox problem answers with common sense, well there is no marriage at the resurrection.
John 1:12-14
Verse 14 is more the less the definition of incarnation but is only applied to the WORD. I don’t think John 1 is trying to suggest that anybody, everyone, (born of blood,will,flesh) has the right to become this (children born God) kind of incarnation as the WORD. Hence, that’s why it says the “unique”
I think this is why traditionally the catholic priests, monks, nuns, etc, do not marry. They are essentially bringing the resurrection and kingdom of heaven here to earth.
@Stephen
I’m attempting to piece verses together as reason that the resurrection of the dead and rapture are the same thing.
Also there’s a linguistic connection (ousia) between receiving the kingdom as inheritance Daniel 12:13, Luke 15:12, and the homoousia between the hypostasis of the Trinity. Because the messiah wars did not result in a kingdom of Israel once again, the idea of the inheritance (ousia), the kingdom of heaven, that word was changed in meaning for use in the development of the Trinity theology. If the messiah wars had been a victory, there would be no such idea as the Trinity, homoousion and hypostasis.
The Old Testament passages about the resurrection of the dead were not literal meanings. Thats why the Sadducees disagreed with the Pharisees about it all. Jesus was using both the symbolic and literal meanings for whatever was more strategic at the moment when debating with the Sanhedrin.
The resurrection of the dead and rapture are symbolic of the Jews once again uniting as a nation as they were during King David, and the final judgement is symbolic of this newly united nation being victorious is the future messiah wars. Then they would have a kingdom and King, the Messiah, as God had judged in their favor which means they had won the war. If they lose the war it means God had judged not in their favor. Thats why obeying the law of Moses is so important.
The Pharisees are really the problem here with their literal supernatural meanings of these events.
Ezekiel 37:25 seems to imply that a literal resurrected King David will the king of Israel forever. Eternity. The immortal King David?
Zechariah 14:9 seems to imply that the LORD will be king over the entire Earth, but doesn’t mention King David.
Revelations does not mention King David.
Thats what it says, it’s not my job to make it all make sense or make it a contradiction. I’m retired,
Contemplations about The Day Of The LORD on this Sunday after the day of rest and the day of dead in the year of the Lord 2024.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)