To Pastor Blume

[Sandy]

Bro. John, I know you may delete this, but wanted to ask this question of Bro. Blume none the less. And decided to do so here, even though the topic itself got out of hand previously, as that is not my intent.

Bro. I copied this from the other thread you put there, but is now closed. But I wanted to share some thoughts I have considered regarding this issue concerning the following scriptures. At least I hope I can explain what I
mean so that you understand.

But first of all, I want to say, I am in no way saying the resurrection is past for anyone that is still walking in these earthly tabernacles or bodies which we reside within here upon this earth. So as you read this, please keep this in mind if you would. Because this may be where Apostle and I disagree totally regarding this subject. And it is that I am not certain of, therefore asked him about, but did not get a clear answer to before

> Bro. Blume wrote:
> If I died today, my body would be in a grave, sister. And so would your's if
> you died. And that is what Paul spoke about when he spoke of the dead in
> Christ.
>
> 2 Cor 5 mentions IF this body were to be dissolved, meaning saints will die
> and lie in graves until the resurrection... that is, their bodies only, of
> course. And then it says we shall have bodies fashioned by the Lord. That
> speaks of dead saints in the graves.
>
> The CHANGE you are not addressing is the BODY changing INTO another BODY. IT
> is sown and then IT IS raised. THAT is the change.
>
> THIS mortal is altered and changed into an immortal body. That is not
> changing garments for another garment. It is a mortal entity changed and
> altered to be immortal.

My comments:

Where does it say in 2nd Cor. 5 that our bodies have to lie in the grave? Because I do not find it saying that exactly, as I understand it.

Which brings me to what I have considered. And if true, then we that are in the first resurrection do not lie in the graves awaiting the resurrection, but once we have put off these earthly tabernacles we now reside in, we will also receive our new bodies immediately, being resurrected then in them. but individually rather than corporately for all those that die in Christ first. Although again, I am not saying the same thing as they are, which is saying that the resurrection is finished even before one has put off their corruptible body of flesh, ready to put on that incorruptible one. If that indeed is what they are saying. Because that cannot be true at all for many different reasons I can think of other than the scriptures that deal with this subject. But those that deal with the fact that we can sin while in these fleshly bodies, thus falling away from grace eventually as a result even though one has been baptized into Jesus Christ or not. But it could be finished immediately for each individual that is within the first resurrection of Christ Jesus spoken of in Rev. 20:6 once that one has put off these tabernacles they dwell within on this earth. In other words, the 1st Resurrection at least is not a corporate occasion happening for all, all at once, but rather an individual occasion for each one that is in Christ Jesus to begin with, and has remained abiding therein, as they go to be with the Lord in the end once their spirit and soul is no longer encased in their corruptible body, the body no longer being alive.

Bro. Blume also wrote:
>
> If it was a CHANGE as with garments, then the following makes no sense.
>
> 1Co 15:52-53 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for
> the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
> shall be changed. (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and
> this mortal [must] put on immortality.

Mine.
And yes, I realize most see this also as proof that it is a corporate resurrection rather than an individual one, but if you can see this, the above scripture does not prove this idea either. For the last trump for each one that does put on incorruptibility may take place immediately as well once that one has put off these earthly tabernacles as well, rather than corporately. Most believe it is corporate, but if you can see it, it does not have to be at all. IN fact, it does not say it is there at least. Most have simply assumed this instead of recognizing the possibility of what I am trying to say. It is entirely possible we are changed in that moment entirely, thus receiving our new bodies right then. Which would also explain why some were raised immediately when Christ was as well, their receiving there new bodies immediately as well.

Just something I began to consider some time ago.

But again, I am not saying anyone is resurrected until corruption has been put off, which is in our earthly bodies, their never being sanctified at all until they no longer encase the incorrupitble, thus ready to put on that new body that is incorruptible entirely as well.

Yes, 1st Thess. 4:16 says the dead in Christ rises first. But does that mean the dead in Christ are resurrected all at once. It does not say that at all, but again most have assumed it. Just as they have assumed the blowing of the trumpet is a one time deal only for all time as well, when it could be your individual one time deal once you are one of the dead in Christ yourself instead.

Am interested on your thought on this, that is provided I have explained this accurately, and you have considered it as well.

[witness4jesus]

Sandy, I understand you are hesitant to hear me because of what I have said about trinity, but I would like to say this.

We are not saying that once we receive Christ in the Holy Ghost that our resurrection is accomplished. Hardly. We still must be
perfected, still must be caught up to Him. Apostle is not saying the resurrection is past nor is he saying that it is accomplished.
When Christ puts His spirit in us, the work has begun.

Much of what you have said above, I would agree with.
In the Old Testament, when people died, they were gathered unto their people. Then, they were gathered in the graves.
Now, we are brought together as a people through the church
and when we die, we are gathered unto Him in the clouds, in
the Holy Ghost. THAT IS WHERE THE DEAD IN CHRIST ARE.
The dead in Christ are not in the graves. They, like Lazarus,
are carried to the bosom of the Father.

We dont believe the saints of God are waiting in the graves,
but are with Jesus Christ right now in the Holy Ghost. They
are a great cloud of witnesses, and when Jesus comes, He
comes with ten thousands of His saints.

sis pam

[witness4jesus]

Sandy, do you believe that we put off this body
and receive a new one? How do you see
THE CHANGE?

sis pam

[Adoniyah]

Witness, you said:

"We dont believe the saints of God are waiting in the graves,
but are with Jesus Christ right now in the Holy Ghost. They
are a great cloud of witnesses, and when Jesus comes, He
comes with ten thousands of His saints."

There is not an Apostolic nor a Trinitarian that I know of would disagree with that statement.

What pollutes the Word is all that other stuff that you and Apostle says.

However, the question was not asked of me, nor was it asked of you, let us be courteous enough to let Brother Blume answer Sister Sandy with his clear understanding of the Revelation that he has...which is diametrically opposed to the error that you and Apostle promote.

[John Atkinson]

Carry the discussion on here fine. No more teaching of ANY doctrine that says the ressurection is passed already and no there is no ressurection to look forward to. If an inkling of that pops up here I will shut down the thread and delete it.

[witness4jesus]

Brother Atkinson, please please read our posts.
We have NEVER said that the resurrection of the
saints is past. We have never said THAT there
is no more hope of the resurrection. That is
what people are accusing us of, but if people
would read what we are saying, we are not
saying that at all.

Please read my post above and you will see
that I am not even saying that when we get
the Holy Ghost that the work is completed in
us. I am think I posted it pretty clearly above,
not what people are accusing us of.

sis pam

[mfblume]

Hi all,

Let me first say that Apostle and Witness are beautiful people and precious souls. I am sure we all love them!

Let's stay on track with what we are dealing with.

Because "resurrection" only occurs when something that was alive, and died is made alive again, these folks have NO RESURRECTION in their entire theology.

This is what is completely absent in Witness' and Apostles' doctrine. Notice they could never, or would never, answer that.

It' not an issue that the resurrection is past in Apostle's and Pam's view. It is that THERE WAS NEVER A RESURRECTION in their view. And there never will be!

Oh, they do believe Jesus' earthly body resurrected from the grave. But they say it was an earthly body when it came out of the grave, and was dropped off AGAIN somewhere (Apostle says in the clouds), and is NOT the body He now has!

In other words, THAT resurrection is not the resurrection we shall experience.

Yet this makes Jesus' experience one of TWO DEATHS.

We know His Spirit and Soul did not die when He was crucified. He told the thief they would be together in paradise, and that was OUT-OF-THE-BODY. So what DIED was the earthly body. And since they believe this body was thrown away in the clouds after it resurrected (at least according to Apostle), then HE DIED A SECOND TIME!!!!!

(Twice dead?)

And since this is not part of our experience, NOTHING in Christ's experience from that tomb is akin to our experience yet to come! So, their gospel is resurrection-less.

Nothing in His experience that WE SHALL SHARE "resurrected"! That is VERY subtle... but it's absolute error.

Apostle might smear me and Adoniyah, personally, yet we do not smear their person. However, their doctrine is "resurrection-less"

They use the term "resurrection" in the same manner the Mormons use the term "new birth" and the trinitarians use the term "ONE God." But they do not believe in actual "resurrection" any more than the trinitarians actually believe in "One God" or Mormons actually believe in genuine "New Birth."

RESURRECTION ONLY EXISTS WHEN SOMETHING WAS ALIVE, AND DIED AND IS MADE ALIVE A SECOND TIME! So, they actually say there never was a resurrection anyway!!!!

Bro Atkinson, if you were to restrict this board to those who believe "resurrection" is something that lived, died and lived a second time, these folks would not be here, as wonderful as these people are in our hearts!

[Adoniyah]

Brother Blume:

That is a fantastic treatise. Thoughtful and well written. If one cannot see the truth in that statement, I would have to say all is hopeless.

Thanks for a great job. I know that it must have taken a good deal of time to be as thorough.

[mfblume]

Anyway, Sandy,

Thanks for your post.

My whole precedent for all that I say about new bodies, is based upon the definition of the term "resurrection," and also upon Jesus' example as the "firstfruits" of our resurrection.

Since He is the firstfruits, and since He experienced a CHANGE and ALTERING of His once earthly body into a spiritual, immortal body, then so shall our bodies be ALTERED. That is what occurred when He was RAISED or AROSE if you note that term in the first few verses of 1 Cor 15.

The actual "body" changed characteristics.

The reason Paul stressed so much that Christ arose and was seen, was to show us the pattern for our resurrections, since Christ's was firstfruits.

Therefore, nothing we interpret from scripture, including 1 Thess 4, can contradict that thought. We cannot forget THAT issue as we intepret scriptures that may not necessarily particularly express that point. We must ensure that we incorporate that point into these other scriptures, understanding that Paul had that point in mind, as well.

Plainly put, since Christ arose and was visibly seen, having his body changed from mortality to immortality, THAT is how the resurrection, of which His was firstfruits, will be.

So, upon that precedent, the dissolving of bodies is speaking about the decaying and degradation of the physical body in 2 Cor 5. Dissolving only refers to the decaying.

If the resurrection is individualistic rather than corporate, the lacking element, then, is the precedental element of Christ's body being changed.

In other words, if the hypothesis of an instant resurrection occurring upon death is true, then Christ's experience is not really a "firstfruits" of our's.

Firstfruits means the first of identical ones to follow.

We, then, are not at all "changed" in the sense that His body was changed. The CHANGE regards the BODY BEING MADE DIFFERENT.

And to say that a change DOES occur whenever any one of us dies, is to, yet, dismiss the thought of Christ's physical body being changed to exist in a supernatural manner. Once again, He had mortal wounds that an earthly body could not live with. That was the same body CHANGED into a different body!

But when we die today, and are resurrected in an individualistic sense, the body remains in this world, and is not MADE DIFFERENT.

The JW'S, for instance, say that His body dissolved in gas in the tomb and God recreated a new body. And the wounds which He showed to the disciples were FAKE, just to identify Himself with the One with whom they walked in His pre-cross natural life, and Who was crucified. That would make Christ a deceiver, because He used those nailprints to show Thomas it indeed was Him!

And to look at 1 Thess 4 and consider the quesiton of corporate experience in resurrection, I note that Paul distinguished the dead in Christ from those which would be alive and remaining. In other words, if the dead in Christ would rise first, and then "we which are alive and remain" would be next, to say it is individual and not corporate is to demand that all individual resurrections are in two categories.

Either:

(1) Not until we die physically or

(2) When we are alive our bodies are changed ("made different", Gr.).

How would that fit, though?

So, if the dead in Christ are NOT raised all at once, then it stands to reason that the ones who are alive and remain are also not resurrected at once.

Or...

Another reason that causes me to disagree with individual resurrection...

To contrast the "dead in Christ" and their resurrection from the "we which are alive and remain" and their resurrection, demands a corporate note. The term "REMAIN" is a qualifier to that end. To what would the term "REMAIN" otherwise point?

Watch this:

The term "REMAIN" points to a certain point in time. THE COMING OF THE LORD.

The resurrection of the "dead in Christ" and those "which are alive and remain" all circle that event of His coming.

1Th 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and >>REMAIN UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD<< shall not prevent them which are asleep. (16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (17) Then we which are >>ALIVE AND REMAIN<< shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The ALIVE AND REMAIN in verse 17 is, of course, speaking of the remaining "UNTIL THE COMING OF THE LORD" from verse 15.

If the resurrection is individual, then CHRIST'S COMING occurs everytime someone dies!

However....

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

He shall appear the SECOND TIME. Is the personal death of each saint the scene of a SECOND COMING every single time? In other words, are there potentially billions of second comings?

In that respect....

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

...does the Lord come with a shout and the voice of the archangel everytime a saint of God dies?

I think not. And here is the reason:

He came the first time ONCE to corporately deal with the issue of humanity. And he shall come the second time ONCE to corporately deal with the resurrection of those who accepted Him since His first coming.

This setting of the SINGLE FIRST COMING coincides with the nature of the SECOND COMING, making it likewise SINGLE. It is in a corporate manner.

The day the saints arose with Him the day He arose is not to be considered a prototype, I think, of the possibility of there being many many resurrections after the cross. Otherwise, we should read of resurrections occurring every so often throughout the book of Acts as well as the days of the epistles.

But the apostles were SILENT about such events.

I could imagine, if that DID happen, that Paul would remark every now and then, in an epistle, "And lo, another saint was resurrected in Corinth and was seen walking the city upon his death, as were many of the saints of Christ's resurrection day."

Anyway, the main points I see prohibiting an individual resurrection each time a saint dies are as follows:

1) Christ's firstfruit resurrection involved body His earthly body being MADE DIFFERENT (changed) into an immortal one, taking upon itself the characteristics best suited for existence in HEAVEN. And reference to that being the "FIRSTFRUITS" demands identicality in our experiences.

2) The qualifying note of corporateness in this resurrection is seen in the association with the COMING OF THE LORD A SECOND TIME, in contrast to His First coming.

Note this also:

1Co 15:22-23 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

That note points out the coming of the Lord as being the point of when that NEXT resurrection occurs.

Good questions, Sandy! And GOOD SPIRIT most of all!

Would to God all people would not take this issue personally when they attack the people they disagree with rather than the disagreed doctrine!

By the FRUIT we shall know them! Very enlightening if you ask me!

[Xerf]

Bro. Blume, what happened to the first discourse you posted? I would like a copy of that. Is it a web site article of yours?

[mfblume]

Thanks, Bro Adoniyah!

Xerf,

I think you will find it is now there just immediately before your post here. I truncated my first segment from it and put it in its own post, since the two segments were better left separated.

[Adoniyah]

Wow!!!

I must have read your post in a vision. I responded to it before you actually posted it, brother Blume.

?????????????????

[Xerf]

Yes, thanks I saw it appear after I refreshed the page. BTW--I concur with your very insightful article. Thanks much!

[John Atkinson]

Witness, Apostle - i know you weren't. I don't want any confusion, there are places where it looks like that is what you are saying.

Please read you posts in light of how it might be intepreted and clarify

[Sandy]

Bro. Blume,

Thanks for your reponse.

I had looked at the possibility some time ago I just shared. But do see your point regarding the way it is worded in the scriptures.

The one reason I questioned the thought I wrote above was because I believe their is some significance to the fact that Jesus body did not resurrect immediately, but was in the grave until the 3rd day, which may have some significance to what you are saying regarding this not taking place until His second coming.

The one reason for my thoughts on this possibly not being corporate had to do with Paul saying to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord. But that does take place anyway, which you did mention already regarding ones spirit and soul none the less. Which is likely what he was talking about there, having nothing to do with receiving the new body at all. but it was also that remark you wrote that made me question the above being right as well. So thanks for that.

Also, thanks for answering. In behalf of this Bro. I have known on the net for actually 6 years or more now, I believe it is, I will say that he has been one of the kindest and most helpful persons I have had the pleasure of knowing, as well as having many discussions with too. And has always been helpful to take the time to explain whenever asked of him to do so, in detail, no matter how busy he was. And I know there have been times I am sure, that he was very busy too, because of what God has Him doing. And I do feel I know him even though we have never met. I know he treats everyone this way too, because of the love of God He walks in. And Bro., I don't mean to embarrass you. But I just want to give credit where credit is due. And you deserve every bit of it and more.

And Bro. John, thanks for allowing me to bring this subject up too. As I did hesitate. But felt it to be important enough to be discussed a little further, even though it was a hot issue previously.

Witness, I am not against you or Apostle either. Both of you have said many things I have agreed with before. But it is true, we do not agree on many issues, as you and I both know. But because I believe people can be wrong about Biblical issues, I also believe that anyone can come into correction at any time. But I also know I can be wrong too.

As for the Trinitarians issue, I know they are not right, having been one of them at one time. But I also know that God dealt with me a little here and a little there, and therefore I believe this is the best way to deal with them too. Maybe I am wrong. But I have to tell you, so far it has worked very well for us anyway. Because we have been instrumental in bringing others into the truth, not only on the net, but also off as well. And I am not out to prove myself right before anyone, but to bring them into the righteousness of Christ, doing whatever works to accomplish that.
But I will tell you, we have been doing just that ever since we saw our own error 18 years ago. So we are not novices at it either, which was the reason for my suggestions to you regarding what we have learned over those years. Nor are we likely experts as well, above taking someone elses advise regarding what has also been successful for them. As none of us IMHO knows everything either. Which is why I believe probably every one of us might just be in error regarding something somewhere too. Because we are human. And we all have sinful flesh too even if we are completely cleansed inwardly. Which is why we need and still do need the Savior to begin with.

[mfblume]

Sandy,

Your note was so very gracious and kind to all who were addressed!

You said, " The one reason I questioned the thought I wrote above was because I believe their is some significance to the fact that Jesus body did not resurrect immediately, but was in the grave until the 3rd day, which may have some significance to what you are saying regarding this not taking place until His second coming. "

That is quite a thought! I never asked myself why Jesus chose three days and nights for the duration of the time between His body's death and resurrection. Hmmm... There is a reason. And I certainly never thought about that in light of our resurrections awaiting his second coming.

I will delve into that some more!

Anyway, your note about all of us being in error somewhere is echoed by myself! Amen! It's simple and blatant pride and blindness for one to say that one knows no error. In fact, I think that is what Paul referred to as follows:

1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

We cannot call ourselves "deeper" than the next person. That is a sure giveaway of 1 Cor 8:2. Not even Jesus blew his own horn in His incarnation.

[dllong]

Bro. Blume:

Many months ago I emailed you at your web site. I told you how much my son (Jeremy 18) who is blind, loves to read your messages and loves your insight. I doubt you remember the email, but he just asked me to let you know that he really enjoys reading (hearing) your posts on the Cafe'.

I may not agree with everything you post brother, but you have a follower in my son.

In Jesus

Dave

[mfblume]

Wow, Bro Long. Thanks for the note!

I do remember that email you sent!

I was amazed at a blind person enjoying my studies online. Does he use JAWS?

[dllong]

Yes, that's the program he uses!

He tells me that the newest version is great in Windows...

Dave

[ddc101]

Bro.Blume think about what creation account says of the third day:

Gen 1:13-17
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
(KJV)

Gen 1:18
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
(KJV)

sis.c

[mfblume]

Actually , DDC, you read the account of the fourth day. :)