The gods of amil.

[Spiritual Israelite]

The (First Resurrection) takes place at (The End) when the thousand years are finished "Future", read it again and again

I have read it many times and it does not say that. You need to read it in light of other scripture that contradicts your interpretation of the verse. You are lacking the discernment to recognize that the reference to "the rest of the dead" is to unbelievers in contrast to the believers who have part in the first resurrection. When it says "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" that was a parenthetical statement and then John continued from where he left off in verse 4 when referring to the dead in Christ.

You claim (First Resurrection) pertains to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, this would be the beginning of the 1,000 years, your 100% "Wrong" in your teaching

Revelation 20:5-6KJV
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

How can you be taken seriously when you butcher 1 Thessalonians 4:16 so badly? Explain that. No one with any discernment would try to claim that Paul was giving the order of resurrections in that verse. He was clearly giving the order of events relating to believers after Jesus descends from heaven in this passage:

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

You act as if this says the dead in Christ will rise first and then the unsaved will rise. No, it says the dead in Christ will rise first and then "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. So, Paul was clearly giving the order of events as it relates to believers at that point rather than the order of resurrections. You are just completely ignoring the context of that verse.

You should just become a Premil. Most of your beliefs are more in line with what Premils typically believe than Amils.

 

[PinSeeker]

The (First Resurrection) takes place at (The End) when the thousand years are finished "Future"

You're doing, Truth7t7, exactly what EWQ is doing ~ not understanding it correctly because you're applying a context to it that is different from what it is. As I said to EWQ, I say to you: we have to remember that John quotes Jesus in his vision as saying, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this" (Revelation 4). So John, in his vision, is transported in time to a time after Jesus's return to earth... "after this," which is to say after the current age. So John is "seeing" it as if it's already done and in the past. So the resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6 is seen correctly as, for us now, a progressive reality for more and more individuals over the course of the thousand years (the millennium).

You claim (First Resurrection) pertains to the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

Don't think that's what SI is saying... :)

...this would be the beginning of the 1,000 years...

The beginning of the millennium is the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Don't think that's what SI is saying...

I do believe that Jesus's resurrection itself is the first resurrection, but I don't claim that is all there is to the first resurrection. I believe having part in the first resurrection (Rev 20:6) involves spiritually having part in His resurrection like what is described here:

Colossians 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The beginning of the millennium is the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

According to Peter, that is when the last days began. Or, at least they had already begun at that point (Acts 2:16-21). I tend to see the thousand years as beginning with Christ's resurrection, but I have no problem with seeing it as having started on the day of Pentecost.

 

[PinSeeker]

I do believe that Jesus's resurrection itself is the first resurrection, but I don't claim that is all there is to the first resurrection. I believe having part in the first resurrection (Rev 20:6) involves spiritually having part in His resurrection;

Sure, but there is a real resurrection going on there for every new believer. We are made alive, even having been dead in our sin (Ephesians 2 (and other Pauline quotes), 1 Peter 1).

According to Peter, that is when the last days began. Or, at least they had already begun at that point (Acts 2:16-21). I tend to see the thousand years as beginning with Christ's resurrection, but I have no problem with seeing it as having started on the day of Pentecost.

Cool.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sure, but there is a real resurrection going on there for every new believer. We are made alive, even having been dead in our sin (Ephesians 2 (and other Pauline quotes), 1 Peter 1).

In a sense that is true, of course. No one would deny that we go from being dead in our sins to spiritually alive in Christ when we are saved. But, the Greek word translated as "resurrection" in Revelation 20 is "anastasis" and everywhere else that word is used in scripture it refers to a bodily resurrection. Could that be one exception to the rule? Sure, it could. But, my view is that the first resurrection itself is Christ's resurrection and we all have part in it when we are made spiritually alive after having been dead in our sins. Regardless, we agree on the way in which we have part in the first resurrection, which is what matters.

 

[ewq1938]

See, this was my point, EWQ ~ you seem to be reading Revelation 20 at the exclusion of any other passage of Scripture.

And you seem to be reading Revelation 20 at the exclusion of the Greek language. When a dead person becomes "zao" there was a resurrection. Therefore, the dead beheaded saints in Rev 20 do resurrect, taking part in the first of two resurrections in the chp.

And in addition to that, you will certainly disagree and possibly take offense to this, but you're not understanding it correctly because you're applying a context to it that is different from what it is. Remember, John says, in Revelation 4, quoting Jesus in his vision, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." So John is sort of ~ not really, but in a manner of speaking ~ transported in time to a time after Jesus's return to earth... "after this," which is to say after the current age. So John is "seeing" it as if it's already done and in the past.

No. John was shown things of the past but mostly things of the future.

And, directly to the bolded text in your quote ("and they lived"), to say someone "lived" can also, depending on the context, be correctly understood ~ and should be here in Revelation 20 ~ as "came to life." When that is understood, then this can be easily understood as a progressive reality for more and more individuals over the course of the thousand years.

The beheaded saints come back to life before the thousands years begins according to the text. It does not say they come to life during the thousand years nor does any part of it support a "spiritual resurrection" ie: being born again. The only possible understanding is that dead people are resurrecting in the physical sense.

Sure, but to think we will immediately be resurrected physically the second we die is ~ sorry; no offense intended here ~ ridiculous.

Yes it is and that is a complete strawman fallacy which is even the more ridiculous. No one thinks anyone is physically resurrected the moment they die. No one.

LOL! Okay, sure, I agree, but they are not physically resurrected yet;

Another strawman fallacy.

Ah! Well, I agree that the saved are judged first and then the unsaved ~ yes,

And Rev has just over a thousand years inbetween the two resurrections and judgments. The saved are always said to be judged before the unsaved. Never are the two groups judged at the same time as Amill normally claims is happening in the middle part of Rev 20, the so-called and fallacious "general resurrection/judgment".

Matthew 25:31-46, John 5:28-29, and Revelation 20:11-14 are very clear on this, but this is one general event at the end of the age.

Nope. All show two separate resurrection/judgment events with the save always before the unsaved. Only Rev 20 tells us how much time happens inbetween the two events.

A college basketball game has two halves, the first half and then the second half, but it is still one college basketball game...

And two college games are not one game.

:)


Yes, they are, EWQ. The outcome ~ what some are resurrected to as opposed to what others are resurrected to... the result of the Judgment ~ for the saved is very different than the outcome for the unsaved, but it is one general event, the resurrection and Judgment.

It is not one event. There are two, separated by a thousand years. The very text shows this when it separates the two days of resurrection, "the rest of the dead lived not until...." This shows that some of the dead did live before the thousand years and since there are two days of resurrection, there are two days of judgment. We see then both a judgment and a resurrection before the thousand years and after it.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

 

[PinSeeker]

In a sense that is true, of course.

It is true. Not "in a sense." It is true. It's just not what a lot of folks would picture when they picture a resurrection. There will be that kind of physical resurrection, but there is a real resurrection of the spirit that happens in the life of the Christian, before which they are not a Christian. Being born again of water and the Spirit, as Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3, is a real resurrection. Nicodemus can't understand it, but nevertheless, it's a real thing.

...the Greek word translated as "resurrection" in Revelation 20 is "anastasis"... everywhere else that word is used in scripture it refers to a bodily resurrection...

I well appreciate your thoughtfulness. However, I think this is an over-analysis. Actually, maybe there's a better way to put it than that... maybe it's actually under-analysis. Yes, okay, so, you and I totally agree on letting Scripture interpret itself... God is certainly His own arbiter. So from there:

Yes, actually, I don't disagree with what you say here at all. But in my exchange with EWQ ~ if you were following (I think you were, at least to some extent ~ you may remember my quoting Paul in Ephesians 2:5-6 and Peter in 1 Peter 1:3-5. The language Paul uses there in Ephesians 2 is "raised us up"...

NOTE: yes, "with Him," Him being Christ, but still, not merely figuratively taking part in something He did 2000 years ago...​

...for which the Greek word used there is 'synegeirō', which literally means, "to rouse from death in company with, i.e. (figuratively); to revivify (spiritually), in resemblance to" Christ Jesus. Peter says it a little differently, saying God "has caused us to be born again... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," but it denotes the same thing. It is a real resurrection ~ just not physical; that will come at the end of the age. It's the same thing Ezekiel says to Israel in Exodus 11:19-20 and 36:26-28... "I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh... they shall be My people, and I will be their God" and "I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh... I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules... you shall be my people, and I will be your God" respectively.

But, my view is that the first resurrection itself is Christ's resurrection and we all have part in it when we are made spiritually alive after having been dead in our sins. Regardless, we agree on the way in which we have part in the first resurrection, which is what matters.

Hm. Okay. To me, this is a discounting of the very real resurrection that we (Christians) all ~ individually ~ experience. But, okay, one final thought. We are both saved and being saved. I think you believe that. So we have eternal life now, but also not yet. In Scripture, with all prophecy, there is an immediate fulfillment and an ultimate fulfillment. I could espound on that, and will if you would like, but I'm going to leave it there for now, but with that said, if we are Christians, we have been resurrected ~ spiritually, but not figuratively, it's a real thing ~ and we will be resurrected ~ physically, bodily (our spirits will be reunited with our bodies) ~ at the end of the age, when Jesus returns (as will everyone else, but, as John quotes Jesus as saying, "...all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29)

Grace and peace to you!

 

[PinSeeker]

And you seem to be reading Revelation 20 at the exclusion of the Greek language.

Absolutely not...

John was shown things of the past but mostly things of the future.

Well, to us, in our temporal view, sure.

The beheaded saints come back to life before the thousands years begins according to the text. It does not say they come to life during the thousand years nor does any part of it support a "spiritual resurrection" ie: being born again. The only possible understanding is that dead people are resurrecting in the physical sense.

In your opinion; yeah, I get you loud and clear, over and over and over.

Yes it is and that is a complete strawman fallacy ...

Think what you will; you're certainly your own person.

No one thinks anyone is physically resurrected the moment they die. No one.

But that seemed to be what you were propagating. Yes, I hope not. :)

Another strawman fallacy.

The saved are always said to be judged before the unsaved.

Any "Amill" worth his or her salt would agree with this. I do. But there is never any indication that there is any separation of the two events for any significant length of time. The second immediately follows the first.

Never are the two groups judged at the same time as Amill normally claims is happening in the middle part of Rev 20, the so-called and fallacious "general resurrection/judgment".

That's not what "Amill" claims at all, EWQ. That's a big part of the issue here, that you have erroneous ideas about what "Amills" really "claim"... how they read Revelation 20.

Nope. All show two separate resurrection/judgment events with the save always before the unsaved. Only Rev 20 tells us how much time happens inbetween the two events.

I think you're going back and forth between two different things, EWQ, and, well, confusing yourself.

And two college games are not one game.

Well no, but this is a total non sequitur...

It is not one event. There are two, separated by a thousand years. The very text shows this when it separates the two days of resurrection, "the rest of the dead lived not until...." This shows that some of the dead did live before the thousand years and since there are two days of resurrection, there are two days of judgment. We see then both a judgment and a resurrection before the thousand years and after it.

Okay, well, as I have said, I respect your opinion regarding this and everything else you have said. But I disagree. No need to keep going in circles, right?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Only spiritually, Timtofly. Physically, he was still alive. God said to Adam, in Genesis 2:17, that he would "surely die... in the day that (he) ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," and he (and Eve) did, as documented in Genesis 3. Yes, physically, they were still alive, but they had indeed died spiritually. I agree with you that this is the condition from birth of all who have come after ~ except Jesus, of course, as He was and is God made man. So yes, naturally (first comes the natural, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15) dead spiritually ~ but not physically ~ slaves to unrighteousness, as Paul says in Romans 5, children whose father is the devil, as Jesus says in John 8 of the Jews to whom He was speaking there. From birth we are in need of spiritual redemption and resurrection, which is a raising from death to life, and this is exactly what Moses and the prophets and the apostles speak of regarding the first resurrection.

That is what Satan argued. So if you want to agree with Satan, fine.

Adam physically died. His soul left a permanent incorruptible physical body, and entered a temporal corruptible physical body. He went from life to death as fast as we will go from death back to life. The term mortal literally means physical death. Yes that was the moment their new physical body started to die. Adam still lived for hundreds of years, but in death as a mortal.

Being physically alive as a dead person is not the point. The point is that the soul was placed in a body of death, where it had just been in a body of life.

The first resurrection is out of this physical body of death into a physical body of life. Because the first birth placed the soul into a body of death. The first is never spiritual so calling the first resurrection spiritual is as wrong as calling the first birth spiritual.

 

[Timtofly]

A college basketball game has two halves, the first half and then the second half, but it is still one college basketball game...

The Day of the Lord is a thousand years.

A basketball game is a couple of hours.

The rest of the bench warmers did not come to life until the final buzzer.

Coming to life is not a basketball game. There is not any death expected in the Day of the Lord. That is the entire point of the Day of the Lord. Sin and death is removed, even though death is the last enemy defeated. Do you play a basketball game expecting the enemy to score all the points, any points?

 

[Timtofly]

You're doing, Truth7t7, exactly what EWQ is doing ~ not understanding it correctly because you're applying a context to it that is different from what it is. As I said to EWQ, I say to you: we have to remember that John quotes Jesus in his vision as saying, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this" (Revelation 4). So John, in his vision, is transported in time to a time after Jesus's return to earth... "after this," which is to say after the current age. So John is "seeing" it as if it's already done and in the past. So the resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6 is seen correctly as, for us now, a progressive reality for more and more individuals over the course of the thousand years (the millennium).


Don't think that's what SI is saying... :)


The beginning of the millennium is the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. :)

Grace and peace to you.

The first Amil who seems to get the point John is a witness at the time, to write a future event as past tense. Most just think a vision of the future is enough.

Of course some Amil posters here call Revelation 20:4, not a literal resurrection, but the ongoing spiritual birth they claim is both a birth and resurrection without a difference. They think the beheaded are not literal beheaded, but just a symbolic term for the church.

Do you think every one is going to take the mark, thus no one will be beheaded? What is the point if this is an ongoing resurrection? No one believes in that, and that is why this literal resurrection is turned into a symbolic second birth phenomenon.

I accept that there is an ongoing physical resurrection. The thief on the Cross was the first one whose soul left the body at physical death and entered a permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise. He was given the second birth by Jesus while they were hanging there. Thus we can see that the second birth and first resurrection are two distinct things. For the thief it was a death bead confession, but salvation and a full pardon even prior to the literal point of the Atonement when Jesus declared "It is finished" and gave up His life on His own terms.

Revelation 20 did not start at any point in the first century. John the Baptist was beheaded. But if I used the verse where that is stated and Revelation 20:4 and claim it was the same event, I would be called crazy. Yet that is how some compare Scripture to Scripture using the same words even though totally out of context with each other. John the Baptist is not the soul mentioned in Revelation 20:4. Yet no Amil will use that point to prove their point. But now if the word "first" is used enough times, then certainly that must mean something even if the word beheaded is totally dismissed.

 

[ewq1938]

Any "Amill" worth his or her salt would agree with this. I do.

Most believe all are judged at the same time, and cite the second resurrection in Rev 20.

But there is never any indication that there is any separation of the two events for any significant length of time. The second immediately follows the first.

This is a false assumption. Most of the examples do not mention how much time is inbetween and most Amills like you just assume it's immediate despite the text not saying that. However, one text does say how much time happens inbetween the two resurrections and that's Rev 20. There is more than a thousand years between the first resurrection and the second resurrection. All Amills ignore that because it contradicts their beliefs.

That's not what "Amill" claims at all, EWQ. That's a big part of the issue here, that you have erroneous ideas about what "Amills" really "claim"... how they read Revelation 20.

Been discussing these things with them for years. I am not incorrect. Amill believes the GWTJ and resurrection at that time is for all the dead, saved and unsaved.

 

[PinSeeker]

Most believe all are judged at the same time, and cite the second resurrection in Rev 20.

Right, because they are, the same general event, but believers first, as described vividly in Matthew 25:31-46, and generally in John 5:28-29. In the latter, Jesus Himself said, "Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

All Amills ignore that because it contradicts their beliefs.

Well no "Amills" don't ignore anything. If you want to change "ignore" to "reject," then I would accept that... :) Maybe "reject" is too strong a word; maybe it's more appropriate to say, "restate" or "rectify." :)

You said, "one text does say how much time happens in between the two resurrections and that's Rev 20," to which I, as an "Amill," rather than "ignoring it," would say that I agree, but only in a sense. I would restate/rectify that and say, "one text does say how much time elapses for the first resurrection to occur to all God's elect, and then the second resurrection occurs, the latter being upon Jesus's return and final defeat of Satan."

And you said "There is more than a thousand years between the first resurrection and the second resurrection," again to which I, as an "Amill," rather than "ignoring it," would say that I agree, but only in a sense. I would restate/rectify that and say, "The millennium, the time in which the first resurrection happens for each and every member of God's elect, spans from the beginning of the Church Age ~ Pentecost, actually, the coming of the Holy Spirit ~ up to Jesus's return and final defeat of Satan and the time of the second resurrection."

So no, "Amills" don't ignore what you said. But there is surely a difference in opinion, and we can leave it at that.

I'll offer this:

Generally speaking, John's Revelation, starting in Revelation 4, is a series of what we'll call cycles, and these cycles parallel one another; they all cover the same period leading up to the Second Coming., each cycle doing so from its own distinct vantage point, and each cycle progressively concentrating more and more on the most intense phases of conflict and on the Second Coming itself. There are seven of these cycles, and the seventh is from Revelation 20:1 to Revelation 21:8. The overall structure of Revelation is as follows:

I. Prologue 1:1-3
II. Greeting 1:4-5a
III. Body 1:5b-22:20

A. Thanksgiving 1:5b-8​

B. Main part 1:9-22:6​

1. What you have seen 1:9-20​

2. What is 2:1-3:22​

3. What is to be 4:1-22:5​

a. Cycle 1: 7 seals 4:1-8:1​

b. Cycle 2: 7 trumpets 8:2-11:19​

c. Cycle 3: symbolic figures and the harvest 12:1-14:20​

d. Cycle 4: 7 bowls 15:1-16:21​

e. Cycle 5: judgment of Babylon 17:1-19:10​

f. Cycle 6: white horse judgment 19:11-21​

g. Cycle 7: white throne judgment 20:1-21:8​

4. The 8th and culminating act: new Jerusalem 21:9-22:5​

C. Final instructions and exhortations 22:6-20​

IV. Closing salutation 22:21

Regarding the seventh cycle in particular ~ because that's the one we're focusing on here ~ the millennium is not a wooden 1000 years (365-day periods); the millennium a symbolic representation of the fullness of God's time in building His Isreal and bring it to completion, and as such is the span of time in which the first resurrection happens for each of God's elect. This is Revelation 20:1-6. When Israel is complete, Jesus returns and resolves all conflict once and for all, as symbolically told in Revelation 10:7-10. Then the Great White Throne Judgment occurs, where Jesus gathers everyone together and judges them all, first the ones on His right (Matthew 25:31-40), and then the ones on His left (Matthew 25:41-46). And finally we have the new Heaven and the new Earth in Revelation 21:1-8, where Jesus renews everything.

It's simple and clean; no need to complicate things... :)

Been discussing these things with them for years.

Okay, well then I would question who exactly you've been discussing it with... :) Either that or your manner of discussion, which has been on display throughout our exchange, either purposefully or inadvertently misunderstanding or misrepresenting things I have said repeatedly to you...

I am not incorrect.

LOL! Well, in your opinion... :)

Amill believes the GWTJ and resurrection at that time is for all the dead, saved and unsaved.

Yes, because that's exactly what the text says in Revelation 20:11-13, and because it is the same event described in Matthew 25:31-46 and John 5:28-29.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

That is what Satan argued. So if you want to agree with Satan, fine.

LOL! Wow...

Adam physically died.

Eventually, he did, yes, but he was still physically living directly after he (and Eve) partook of the forbidden fruit and ostensibly for a good period of time after that, considering, among other things, that he knew Eve thus and had some kiddos... :) But he did die that very day, Just as God told him he would. So, logically, he must have died that day in some way other than physically. Else we have to call God a liar, which... I wouldn't recommend.

Okay, I'm leaving it at that.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is true. Not "in a sense." It is true.

You responded before you even got to where I explained what I meant by that. Of course it is true that we go from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ and that can be looked at as a spiritual resurrection, but what I went on to explain is that the Greek word "anastasis" is otherwise always used to refer to bodily resurrections. Is Revelation 20 the one exception to that? I suppose it could be, but I don't believe so. I believe it's talking about Christ's resurrection itself because the only other place where the Greek words "protos" and "anastasis" are used together are in Acts 26:23 which refers specifically to Christ being the first to be resurrected from the dead.

And, again, this really doesn't matter. The fact that you went to the length you did to disagree with me on this, even though we agree on the way in which someone has part in the first resurrection, tells me that you just like to argue. I'm sorry, but that's how this comes across.

It's just not what a lot of folks would picture when they picture a resurrection. There will be that kind of physical resurrection, but there is a real resurrection of the spirit that happens in the life of the Christian, before which they are not a Christian. Being born again of water and the Spirit, as Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3, is a real resurrection. Nicodemus can't understand it, but nevertheless, it's a real thing.


I well appreciate your thoughtfulness. However, I think this is an over-analysis. Actually, maybe there's a better way to put it than that... maybe it's actually under-analysis. Yes, okay, so, you and I totally agree on letting Scripture interpret itself... God is certainly His own arbiter. So from there:

Yes, actually, I don't disagree with what you say here at all. But in my exchange with EWQ ~ if you were following (I think you were, at least to some extent ~ you may remember my quoting Paul in Ephesians 2:5-6 and Peter in 1 Peter 1:3-5. The language Paul uses there in Ephesians 2 is "raised us up"...

NOTE: yes, "with Him," Him being Christ, but still, not merely figuratively taking part in something He did 2000 years ago...​

...for which the Greek word used there is 'synegeirō', which literally means, "to rouse from death in company with, i.e. (figuratively); to revivify (spiritually), in resemblance to" Christ Jesus. Peter says it a little differently, saying God "has caused us to be born again... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," but it denotes the same thing. It is a real resurrection ~ just not physical; that will come at the end of the age. It's the same thing Ezekiel says to Israel in Exodus 11:19-20 and 36:26-28... "I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh... they shall be My people, and I will be their God" and "I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh... I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules... you shall be my people, and I will be your God" respectively.

Again, I have no problem with seeing the act of going from being dead in one's sins to spiritually alive in Christ as a resurrection. Okay? I don't see it that way exactly because I don't think the word "anastatis" would be used to described that, but if Revelation 20 is the one exception to that, that's fine with me. It doesn't change my understanding of how someone has part in the first resurrection.

Hm. Okay. To me, this is a discounting of the very real resurrection that we (Christians) all ~ individually ~ experience.

That's nonsense. I'm not discounting that at all. You are taking a very slight, minor disagreement and turning it into more than that. How we label that experience is not what is important. We both see it as having part in the first resurrection. To me, that is what matters. But, you apparently cannot be satisfied unless someone agrees with you on every minute detail.

But, okay, one final thought. We are both saved and being saved. I think you believe that.

Yes, I do.

So we have eternal life now, but also not yet. In Scripture, with all prophecy, there is an immediate fulfillment and an ultimate fulfillment. I could espound on that, and will if you would like

No, please don't. You are overanalyzing all of this, in my opinion.

, but I'm going to leave it there for now, but with that said, if we are Christians, we have been resurrected ~ spiritually, but not figuratively, it's a real thing ~ and we will be resurrected ~ physically, bodily (our spirits will be reunited with our bodies) ~ at the end of the age, when Jesus returns (as will everyone else, but, as John quotes Jesus as saying, "...all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29)

We have been brought from being spiritually dead in our sins to spiritually alive in Christ and that is a resurrection of sorts. Yet, it's also a birth. I don't have any problem with seeing it as a resurrection. I just question whether the word "anastasis" would be used to describe that when elsewhere it always describes a bodily resurrection, including in Acts 26:23 where it describes Christ's resurrection itself as being the first resurrection.

Grace and peace to you!

And to you as well.

 

[PinSeeker]

Of course it is true that we go from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ and that can be looked at as a spiritual resurrection...

Cool. So we agree. Except for the "can be looked at" thing; I would much rather that be "is." :) Because it is. :)

, but what I went on to explain is that the Greek word "anastasis" is otherwise always used to refer to bodily resurrections. Is Revelation 20 the one exception to that? I suppose it could be, but I don't believe so. I believe it's talking about Christ's resurrection itself because the only other place where the Greek words "protos" and "anastasis" are used together are in Acts 26:23 which refers specifically to Christ being the first to be resurrected from the dead.

I don't think Christ's resurrection is in view in Revelation 20, SI. See my post above to Timtofly.

And, again, this really doesn't matter.

Well... it's not reason to get sideways at all, no.

The fact that you went to the length you did to disagree with me on this, even though we agree on the way in which someone has part in the first resurrection, tells me that you just like to argue. I'm sorry, but that's how this comes across.

Okay, well, this is a discussion forum, and that's what I treat it as; I assume you do, too. Discussions can get a little argumentative at times for sure, but I haven't been argumentative... that was never my intention. I went to a bit of length in explaining why I see it as I do because I thought it worth doing so, and I do like to give objective reasons for my understandings. because I feel it insufficient to just... say stuff with nothing behind it. You seem at least a bit irritated that I did so, but that surely was not my intention.

Again, I have no problem with seeing the act of going from being dead in one's sins to spiritually alive in Christ as a resurrection. Okay? I don't see it that way exactly because I don't think the word "anastatis" would be used to described that, but if Revelation 20 is the one exception to that, that's fine with me. It doesn't change my understanding of how someone has part in the first resurrection.

Okay, sure. Understood.

I'm not discounting that at all.

Good. It just seemed that way to me, that's all. I honestly don't get why that seems to have gotten you worked up. I apologize for giving you the impression I seem to have given you.

You are taking a very slight, minor disagreement and turning it into more than that. How we label that experience is not what is important. We both see it as having part in the first resurrection. To me, that is what matters. But, you apparently cannot be satisfied unless someone agrees with you on every minute detail.

My goodness. All I would say to this is, yes, it may be a minor disagreement, but it is important that we see it for what it is, at least because we begin to realize how amazing God's grace is, and also because it's a foreshadow and foretaste of the bodily resurrection to eternal life that we will experience when Jesus returns.

You are overanalyzing all of this, in my opinion.

Hmm, okay. It's okay if I disagree with this, I guess? Sorry, being a little facetious. :)

We have been brought from being spiritually dead in our sins to spiritually alive in Christ and that is a resurrection of sorts.

Well, not "of sorts"... :) Again, Paul says we who have been saved through faith have been raised from death in sin to life in Christ. That is a resurrection. I don't mean to be corrective, but it seems to me that's how you are seeing it, and that's why you're irritated.

Yet, it's also a birth.

Sure. Absolutely.

I don't have any problem with seeing it as a resurrection. I just question whether the word "anastasis" would be used to describe that when elsewhere it always describes a bodily resurrection, including in Acts 26:23 where it describes Christ's resurrection itself as being the first resurrection.

Well, the first to rise physically from the dead, for sure. That's what Paul is saying in Acts 26:23. But Revelation 20:4-6 is speaking of a different thing altogether, SI. I'm sure you will agree that Jesus didn't need to be saved from His sins; He did not need what Paul is speaking of in Ephesians 2 or Peter is speaking of in 1 Peter 1 (raised from death in sin and born again, respectively).

Sorry to offend. That was never my intent. Grace and peace to you.

 

[ewq1938]

Right, because they are, the same general event, but believers first, as described vividly in Matthew 25:31-46, and generally in John 5:28-29.

As vivid as blindness. Matthew 31 isn't about resurrection, and it's the unsaved that are dealt with first. Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


As far as resurrections go, the order is opposite with the saved resurrecting first. Neither cited passage says both take place the same day. Why does Amill always ignore what Rev 20 says? It is the only passage that explains how much time happens inbetween the two resurrections. The dead saints rider BEFORE the thousand years and then it says, "the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years ended". That's a resurrection before and after the thousand years but since that goes against Amill doctrine, just ignore that part.

Then the Great White Throne Judgment occurs, where Jesus gathers everyone together and judges them all, first the ones on His right (Matthew 25:31-40), and then the ones on His left (Matthew 25:41-46).

Except all the saved were judged long before that final resurrection and judgment, known in the other passage as the resurrection unto damnation.

Yes, because that's exactly what the text says in Revelation 20:11-13

There are no saved ones being judged there. None judged first because none are there. The saved are resurrected and judged first, and that happens at the timeframe of the first part of Rev 20. Thje passage you cite is the resurrection unto damnation, all judged to the LOF.

 

[ewq1938]

I don't think Christ's resurrection is in view in Revelation 20, SI.

It's not, nor is people being born again. What is in view is the resurrection unto life. The physical resurrection of the saved dead, who died as born again Christians but being born again in a symbolic Millennium is not being discussed. Nor is their resurrection happening at anytime during the actual Millennium since they resurrect before it starts. They are resurrected so that they can participate in the Millennium.

 

[PinSeeker]

"Except all the saved were judged long before that final resurrection and judgment"

They were justified by God (declared/made righteous before God) and thus saved ~ but not judged ~ before the final resurrection and judgment. All will be judged at the final Judgment, as clearly seen in Matthew 25:31-46, but some ~ many; those on Jesus's right ~ will have an Advocate, having been resurrected to eternal life.​

"(Christ's resurrection is) not (in view in Revelation 20), nor is people being born again. What is in view is the resurrection unto life."

Hm, well, I agree, except to clarify that the resurrection unto life, which, yes, is what is in view, is a result of having been born again of the Spirit; the former (resurrection unto life) is not possible without the latter (rebirth in the Spirit) been effected. And as I have said, when that happens, there is the immediate (resurrection in spirit) and the ultimate (resurrection of the body, with with the spirit is reunited).​

Otherwise... opinions noted and understood.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL! Wow...


Eventually, he did, yes, but he was still physically living directly after he (and Eve) partook of the forbidden fruit and ostensibly for a good period of time after that, considering, among other things, that he knew Eve thus and had some kiddos... :) But he did die that very day, Just as God told him he would. So, logically, he must have died that day in some way other than physically. Else we have to call God a liar, which... I wouldn't recommend.

Okay, I'm leaving it at that.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

So this would have happened:

Adam and Eve were not in a physical Garden. They lived next door to Frank and Susan. They were only spiritually in a Garden in their relationship with God. They continued to live next door to Frank and Susan for hundreds of years, but lost spiritual contact with God.

According to Genesis they physically had to leave the Garden/Paradise because of their physical condition. They were no longer in a state of life, but a state of death. That is being physically dead. The difference between a corruptible body, and an incorruptible body. The body was not what you say, physically dead. The soul left one body that could not die, nor could it be considered sinful, and entered a body that was now dead in sin.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

It was Adam's dead flesh that was passed down from generation to generation. All were corruptible and born to be disobedient to God. There is none who are righteous in God's sight. That is why we don't live in Paradise in permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

The first resurrection can only be when the soul enters the permanent incorruptible physical body. Those in Abraham's bosom were souls waiting to enter a permanent incorruptible physical body.

You consider God a failure if all that can be hoped for is to leave Abraham's bosom and enter Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Yet that is what you claim of Lazarus. God literally punished Lazarus by making him leave the comforts and sin free environment of Abraham's bosom, and sent His soul back into Adam's dead corruptible flesh full of sin and unrighteousness. How is that a resurrection of God, and life? What is the point of having a slightly better dead body, that would just decay as an example of Jesus being the Resurrection and the Life? There were already plenty of examples of dead people being brought back to life. Yet Jesus waited until Lazarus was already in Abraham's bosom for 4 days, not just as it is called a "near death experience", where the body is still healthy enough to restore life to. Sure Jesus could have changed the physical body as well. The point is that it was not the same dead corruptible flesh.

Jesus raised up his same body that was crucified on the Cross. Jesus did not have Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Jesus was physically born a son of God, without Adam's sinful baggage.

Jesus did not need the Atonement. Jesus was the Atonement. The thief on the cross did not need to wait as a soul for some future resurrection. He physically entered Paradise that very day, when his soul left Adam's dead corruptible flesh for God's permanent incorruptible physical body as a son of God. That is what a first resurrection is. The first resurrection is not a location nor time event. The first resurrection is blessed because the soul leaves death behind and enters eternal life. A physical body no longer facing death either physically nor spiritually as in the second death, the LOF.

Only God can cast a person's soul, body, and spirit into the LOF. Humans can only cause the soul to leave one's physical body. Only you have the ability to send your soul to death or life, upon having the second birth, a personal choice. Not even God can make that choice for you. God gave us the choice freely to accept or reject. But the second birth does not instantly give you the first resurrection as some imagine, the first resurrection to be. Leaving Adam's flesh grants you the first resurrection as long as you have chosen the second birth.

The second birth cannot be the first resurrection, because all of the OT were waiting in Abraham's bosom, for the Cross to physically happen. They already had the second birth, or they would not be waiting in Abraham's bosom, but in sheol instead. Throughout the OT, they experienced the second birth, but certainly not the first resurrection.

Some seem to have this rule that only Jesus could resurrect first, and all others still have to wait until some future last day. Of course they will deny Lazarus had a first resurrection. They will deny that the OT came out of their graves at the Cross in permanent incorruptible physical bodies to enter Paradise when Jesus ascended that Sunday morning. Even though Jesus claimed to already be the Resurrection and the Life prior to the Cross. Jesus was certainly not waiting until after the Cross to be the Resurrection and the Life. Jesus was not waiting until after the Cross to be transfigured as proof of being spiritually alive. Jesus did not say the resurrection will be available thousands of years into the future. Paul did not even say that, yet that is what some teach and believe.