The gods of amil.

[PinSeeker]

Hmmm, let's see here...

Adam and Eve were not in a physical Garden...

Yes they were... :)

They were only spiritually in a Garden in their relationship with God.

No, in their whole being, they were in uncorrupted spiritual union with God, alive to Him. Before the Fall of Genesis 3.

...lost spiritual contact with God.

Died in spirit; and thus this spiritual union with God was broken.

According to Genesis they physically had to leave the Garden/Paradise because of their physical condition.

Spiritual condition... dead in their sin, at enmity with God, as the text says...

They were no longer in a state of life, but a state of death.

Agreed, Spiritually, but not physically. Thus they were still able to walk out of Eden (in obedience to God), and subsequently do, well, a lot of things, including having children... :)

It was Adam's dead flesh that was passed down from generation to generation.

Well, his fleshly condition... of the flesh ~ dead in sin and therefore a slave to unrighteousness ~ rather than of the Spirit.

All were corruptible and born to be disobedient to God. There is none who are righteous in God's sight.

Agreed. Except I would take issue somewhat with "born to be disobedient to God," because God certainly didn't create us for that purpose, but I think you agree with that. We are all born in this state of being, which I think is what you are meaning to say.

That is why we don't live in Paradise in permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

Okay, sure.

The first resurrection can only be when the soul enters the permanent incorruptible physical body.

That's the second, and it is general in the sense that all are physically resurrected, but limited in the sense that that the "entering into a permanently incorruptible body" is not the case for all. Again, as Jesus Himself said, "...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" (John 5:28-29). This is the second ~ final ~ resurrection, general to all, but the outcome of which is either one or the other... eternal life or judgment. This seems rather undeniable to me, but to each his own.

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.

Ugh. Pass on this...

Yet that is what you claim of Lazarus.

Ugh... My goodness. No, I'm absolutely sure we'll see Lazarus and join him in the resurrection to eternal life at the end of the age... and thus in eternity in the new heaven and new earth... :) As for Lazarus himself, after he was called out of the tomb by Jesus (as John documents in John 11), Lazarus was eternally grateful, but what Jesus did there was really for the benefit of Mary and Martha and His disciples ~ and by extension us, foreshadowing to us the still-to-come, ultimate reality of our resurrection to eternal life. Maybe Lazarus, at that point, having been actually raised, had a stronger faith than most of us, because his faith had, for a short time at least, been sight, and that it would be again.

There were already plenty of examples of dead people being brought back to life.

Uh, name one, Timtofly. Are you talking about, for example, people that have flatlined on an operating table but then were medically revived? If so, I mean, here I would use the same language that @Spiritual Israelite used and call this an "of a sort resurrection," if you will, but not related to either the first or second resurrections described in the Bible...

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.

Do you mean to say you think Lazarus, when Jesus called him out of the tomb, even after four days, was not sinful anymore? If so, I would disagree, of course, but there is no Scripture that would back you up on this.

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.

Absolutely. Yes, Jesus was ~ and is ~ God made flesh. Not sure why you felt compelled to say this...

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.

Hm, interesting. Well, regarding the thief on Jesus's right, we don't know if this was his conversion-to-Christ story... we don't know if he was already a believer... because we are not told or given any indication either way, but that is certainly possible, that he was resurrected spiritually ~ experienced the first resurrection ~ on his cross, I would tend to think that he was already a believer, mainly because he didn't give any indication of repenting of his sin and believing at that moment, but merely said, "Remember me when you come into Your kingdom," (and Jesus answered in the way that He did). I disagree that he is physically in Paradise; his physical body remains in the grave to this day, but his Spirit is with the Lord in Paradise. Certainly, you're not alone in eschewing the idea with what we call the "intermediate state." If you are so inclined, you might read this little devotional.

The first resurrection is not a location nor time event.

But for each of us Christians, as I've said, it happens somewhere and some way at some point in the course of our (physical) lives.

The first resurrection is blessed because the soul leaves death behind and enters eternal life.

Hmm, it is not that the first resurrection itself is blessed, but that the people who (as John says in Revelation 20) are blessed ~ in this life ~ because they have experienced... shared in... the first resurrection.

A physical body no longer facing death either physically nor spiritually as in the second death, the LOF.

Agreed on this, except that it is appointed to every man (person) to die once ~ physical death, the first death ~ as the writer of Hebrews says ("...it is appointed for man to die once..." ~ Hebrews 9:27).

Only God can cast a person's soul, body, and spirit into the LOF.

Inarguably true.

Humans can only cause the soul to leave one's physical body.

Inarguably false. But it'll certainly happen... :)

God gave us the choice freely to accept or reject.

Ah, free will... I should have seen this coming (and did)... I agree, but our choice, which we certainly make, and freely, is in the context of His choice ~ whether Has mercy/compassion upon the individual or not; as Moses and Paul both say, quoting God Himself, "(He) has mercy on whom He will have mercy, compassion on whom He will have compassion," and Paul fleshes it out, saying "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy... He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:14-18)

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

You understand I'm saying that as well, right? I, too, see the act of having part in the first resurrection as going from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ. But is it an "anastasis"? I'm not so sure about that. Does that really matter? No, it does not.

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

I thought you had said previously that you believe Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection? In my view there are not two different first resurrections. So, I see someone having part in the first resurrection as them spiritually having part in His resurrection, as passages like Ephesians 2:1-6, Romans 6:4-5 and Colossians 2:12-13 talk about.

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


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.

There's just no need to go to great lengths to explain your view to me when we agree on how someone has part in the first resurrection. We disagree on small details which isn't worth going into a lengthy discussion about, in my opinion.

Okay, sure. Understood.

Glad you understand. It takes a lot of work sometimes just to get someone else to understand my view. Of course, some don't make much of an effort to understand it.

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.

Haha. This type of communication can be funny sometimes. I was not "worked up". Mildly annoyed maybe. But, that's all.

My goodness.

You have no goodness (and neither do I). ;)

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.

When did I give any impression that I don't see it for what it is?

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.

Good grief, man. When I say "of sorts" I'm not saying it's not a resurrection. It is. But, just not the type of resurrection that we normally think of, which would be a bodily resurrection. That's all I'm saying.

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.

Let me tell you how I see it instead of you making assumptions about how I see it. Agree? I do see it as a resurrection. You get thrown off just because I say "of sorts" when all I meant by that is that it's not the typical resurrection we think of (a bodily resurrection) and it isn't as if our spirit is literally dead and then is resurrected from the dead. It could also be described as a figurative resurrection.

Well, the first to rise physically from the dead, for sure. That's what Paul is saying in Acts 26:23.

The first to rise physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality, to be more exact. Obviously, there were others, like Lazarus, who had been physically/bodily resurrected from the dead before Him.

But Revelation 20:4-6 is speaking of a different thing altogether, SI.

In terms of having part in the first resurrection, sure. But, my view is that it's talking about spiritually having part in His resurrection. I'm not saying that having part in the first resurrection is only referring to His resurrection. Do you understand what I'm saying? In other words, we agree on how someone has part in the first resurrection. You understand that, don't you? So, our understanding of what the first resurrection itself is (only talking about the first resurrection itself here and not about having part in it), is secondary to that as far as I'm concerned.

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).

Good grief. Did this really need to be said? Of course I agree with that. I'm not convinced that you fully understand my view at this point if you felt the need to say this to me. But, what I'm trying to get you to understand is that, regardless of these other things, the bottom line is that we agree on the way in which someone has part in the first resurrection (by way of being saved and going from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ).

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

I never said it was.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

You should try reading the rest of the passage before coming to this conclusion. Verse 34 comes before verse 41, doesn't it? The righteous are "dealt with" in verse 34 and the unsaved are "dealt with" in verse 41. So, if that is any indication of the order in which the righteous and the unsaved are dealt with, then that means the righteous are dealt with first.

Of course, I think this will happen in the realm of eternity so it really won't be a matter of one happening before the other since time won't even exist at that point. If it did, then how long do you suppose it would take to judge who knows how many billions of people? Do you really think that is what will happen (billions of people being judged one at a time)?

As far as resurrections go, the order is opposite with the saved resurrecting first. Neither cited passage says both take place the same day.

Matthew 25:31-46 makes it very clear that the saved and the unsaved are gathered before the throne at the same time, so there is no basis whatsoever for thinking that the resurrection of the saved and the resurrection of the unsaved won't occur on the same day.

Why does Amill always ignore what Rev 20 says?

LOL. We don't ignore it, of course. We interpret it in light of other scripture while being careful to not interpret it in such a way that contradicts other scripture. You interpret it in such a way that contradicts other scripture. Should I ask why Premils always ignore what passages like Matthew 28:16-18, Ephesians 1:19-23, 2 Peter 3:10-13, John 5:28-29, Acts 17:30-31, 2 Thess 1:7-10, Matthew 24:35-39, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 19:17-18 say?

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.

Other scripture, which you apparently ignore, teaches that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, 1 Cor 15:20, Rev 1:5) and we all spiritually have part in it (Eph 2:1-6, Romans 6:4-5, Col 2:12-13, etc.). We interpret Revelation 20 in light of those other scriptures that you apparently ignore.

 

[ewq1938]

"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 ~​

Yes, judged...before the Millennium begins.

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.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 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.

Thrones and judgment and a resurrection, the first of two resurrections and judgments in the chapter.

before the final resurrection and judgment. All will be judged at the final Judgment, as clearly seen in Matthew 25:31-46,​

Nope. No judging is there, just the result of judgment, first punishment then reward which is the opposite of the order of Judgments where the righteous are judged first, then the unrighteous last.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

"(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;​

Which isn't what is being described. What Rev 20 speaks of is those who died in faith being physically resurrected back to life to reign with Christ a thousand years.

 

[PinSeeker]

I, too, see the act of having part in the first resurrection as going from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ. But is it an "anastasis"? I'm not so sure about that.

Right, this is the problem. It is a spiritual resurrection ~ anastasis ~ which is necessary to bring us from death in sin to life in Christ. It is what it is. We are resurrected in spirit.

Does that really matter?

Yes.

I thought you had said previously that you believe Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection?

Actually, I thought you said that at some point. Or maybe it was EWQ, bless his heart... :) But no, I think I've been very clear that I think the first resurrection to be an individual experience for each member of God's elect... being brought from death in sin to life in Christ.

I see someone having part in the first resurrection as them spiritually having part in His resurrection...

Yes, I understand. But you seem ~ and I'm not "putting words in your mouth" or "making assumptions about how you see this or that" ~ you seem to be insisting on putting it that way and avoiding acknowledging this spiritual resurrection ~ 'anastasis' ~ as a real thing. And I speak to this below regarding Revelation 20:4-6. The text is clear there, saying, "they came to life... (t)his is the first resurrection." It does not say "they had a part in His coming to life," or "He came to life and they had a part in it," or anything like that. They did, and we have and there will certainly be more before Jesus comes back ~ come to life. This is what is happening all through God's millennium.

NOTE: You say you're "not saying it's not a resurrection. It is. But, just not the type of resurrection that we normally think of, which would be a bodily resurrection," (which I've said before in the course of this conversation, pretty much in those words)​

Back to the point, in Ephesians 2, Paul says "you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked..." (vv.1-2). And then, "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him..." (vv.5-6). This resurrection is a real thing. Spiritual, yes, but a real thing.

So. Again. If you agree with that, then we're good. :) I mean, if you don't, well then we're still good, but in disagreement. :) If you're saying, SI, that someone "having part..." ~ sharing ~ "...in the first resurrection" is synonymous with that someone's having been spiritually resurrected from death in sin and then great. :)

The first to rise physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality, to be more exact. Obviously, there were others, like Lazarus, who had been physically/bodily resurrected from the dead before Him.

Do you believe Lazarus was raised physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality in what John documents in John 11? We don't have to discuss this, but if so, I would disagree. We don't know how, obviously, but I think we can know that Lazarus, at some point subsequent to Jesus's calling him out of the tomb, died. And he'll be resurrected bodily with all of us when Jesus returns.

...my view is that (Rev. 20:4-6) is talking about spiritually having part in His resurrection.

Sorry; repeating myself here... Again, it says, SI, "they came to life... (t)his is the first resurrection." It does not say, SI, that "they had a part in His coming to life," or "He came to life and they had a part in it," or anything like that. They did ~ we have (and there will certainly be more before Jesus comes back) ~ come to life. This is what is happening all through God's millennium. If you're saying that someone "having part..." ~ sharing ~ "...in the first resurrection" is synonymous with that someone's having been spiritually resurrected from death in sin and then great.

...the bottom line is that we agree on the way in which someone has part in the first resurrection (by way of being saved and going from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ).

Right, by being resurrected in the spirit. Great. :) We could have avoided most or all of this back and forth if you had just said that from the beginning... :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Yes, judged...before the Millennium begins.

Our justification by God, our being declared righteous in Christ, happened for each of us Christians when we were brought from death in sin to life in Christ ~ resurrected spiritually ~ and ensures that we will stand in the final judgment (as opposed to the unrighteous; "the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous" ~ Psalm 1). But this individual spiritual resurrection ~ the first resurrection ~ is what has been happening and is continuing to happen, and will continue to happen "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" and the "partial hardening that has come upon Israel" is removed, and "in this way all Israel will be saved," as Paul says in Romans 11:25-26.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:

Hm, I'd like to know the version you are reading from. I like the ESV ("Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed"). You may be reading from the NASB, which is a good translation, but in that particular verse easier to misconstrue, but should be understood in the same way, that authority to judge was given to them. It's surely not that they were judged.

the first of two resurrections and judgments in the chapter.

We agree that there are two resurrections described in Revelation 20. Different in scope and nature, but yes, two resurrections... :)

No judging is there (Matthew 25:31-46), just the result of judgment...

Both. All are judged according to what they have (or have not) done, according to their works, by the Son of Man, Jesus, who will come in His glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. And then, He deals with the righteous first (the sheep, the ones on His right), and then the unrighteous (the goats, the ones on His left).

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

This should not be taken as woodenly sequential; this is a summation statement that accentuates stark difference in the outcome of the two groups of people (thus the conjunction 'but' as translated there).

What Rev 20 speaks of is those who died in faith being physically resurrected back to life to reign with Christ a thousand years.

Disagree. Specifically, verses 4-6 speak of those brought from death to life spiritually (as Paul and Peter speak of, as I've said) at some point in their lives, each at his/her appointed time (as Luke says in Acts 13:48), and, as I said above, this individual spiritual resurrection ~ the first resurrection ~ is what has been happening and is continuing to happen, and will continue to happen "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" and the "partial hardening that has come upon Israel" is removed, and "in this way all Israel will be saved," as Paul says in Romans 11:25-26... over the course of God's millennium. And, if you say we can't be in the midst of the millennium now because Jesus is not with us, well, then you would be inadvertently refuting what Jesus said in Matthew 28, that "I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

We... don't get to change God's Word into something other than it is, ewq. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right, this is the problem. It is a spiritual resurrection ~ anastasis ~ which is necessary to bring us from death in sin to life in Christ. It is what it is. We are resurrected in spirit.

It seems that you are not getting my point. Let's take a passage like the following that we use to support our shared belief that having part in the first resurrection relates directly to being spiritually saved, as in going from being dead in our sins to spiritually alive in Christ.

Ephesians 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Okay, so the Greek word translated as "made us alive with" in verse 5 is syzōopoieō and here is the only other verse where it is used:

Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

As you can see, it's used in the same exact context as in Ephesians 2:5. But, it's not the word "anastasis", which is the word used in the phrase "the first resurrection" in Revelation 20.

Then in Ephesians 2:6 is says "God raised is up with Christ...". The Greek word translated as "raised us up with" is synegeirō and here are the only other verses where that word is used:

Colossians 2:12 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.

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

So, again, it talks about a resurrection in the sense of going from being dead in sins to alive with Christ, but it's not using the word "anastasis" to describe that. Every other place where the word "anastasis" is used in scripture besides Revelation refers to a bodily resurrection, so that's why I believe the first resurrection refers to Christ's resurrection, which was the first unto bodily immortality, specifically and when it talks about having part in the first resurrection it's talking about spiritually having part in His resurrection. Do you see my point? I don't even care if you agree with it, I'm just trying to help you understand my point.

Yes.

This was your answer to my question of whether or not it really matters if the resurrection of us going from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ was an "anastasis". Why does that matter? We can see from the above passages our resurrection from being dead in sins to alive in Christ is described as a "syzōopoieō" and a "synegeirō", which were the words Paul used to describe going from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ, but he didn't use the word "anastasis" to described that. So, why does it matter if I say that experience was "a "syzōopoieō" and a "synegeirō", but not an anastasis"?

It does not matter because what matters is what actually took place, not the words used to describe it. And, as I've said multiple times now, we agree on the way in which someone has a part in the first resurrection, so why does it matter if we agree on the meaning of the word anastasis or not? It doesn't.

Actually, I thought you said that at some point. Or maybe it was EWQ, bless his heart... :) But no, I think I've been very clear that I think the first resurrection to be an individual experience for each member of God's elect... being brought from death in sin to life in Christ.

I didn't say otherwise. I believe that as well in terms of how people have part in the first resurrection. Which I believe is what matters, but it seems that what matters more to you is how we interpret the word "anastasis" for some reason.

Yes, I understand. But you seem ~ and I'm not "putting words in your mouth" or "making assumptions about how you see this or that" ~ you seem to be insisting on putting it that way and avoiding acknowledging this spiritual resurrection ~ 'anastasis' ~ as a real thing.

Nope. Not at all. If you actually read everything that I've said, which it seems maybe you haven't, then you'd know I've made it clear multiple times that I believe that having part in the first resurrection involves going from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ, which I acknowledge can be described as a resurrection.

And I speak to this below regarding Revelation 20:4-6. The text is clear there, saying, "they came to life... (t)his is the first resurrection." It does not say "they had a part in His coming to life," or "He came to life and they had a part in it," or anything like that.

No, it actually doesn't say they came to life, it says they lived and reigned with Christ. It's talking about them being alive and reigning with Christ because they had part in the first resurrection. The Greek word used there that you think means "come to life" is translated as "lived" in other translations like the KJV. The Greek word is "zao" and is not a word that means "to come to life". It's instead a word used to describe people living or being alive. In Revelation 20:5, however, when it talks about the rest of the dead coming to life after the thousand years, the word "anazao" is used instead. That word does refer specifically to people coming to life, unlike the word "zao" used in verse 4 to describe the souls who live and reign with Christ in heaven.

They did, and we have and there will certainly be more before Jesus comes back ~ come to life. This is what is happening all through God's millennium.

Just give me another example from scripture where the word "anastasis" refers to someone spiritually coming to life and then I will agree with you on this. I do agree that they spiritually come to life, but I don't believe the first resurrection, in and of itself, is talking about that because the first resurrection is Christ's resurrection. It's having part in the first resurrection that involves coming spiritually to life.

NOTE: You say you're "not saying it's not a resurrection. It is. But, just not the type of resurrection that we normally think of, which would be a bodily resurrection," (which I've said before in the course of this conversation, pretty much in those words)

So, why did you question whether I think a spiritual resurrection is a real thing when you were aware that I had said this? That doesn't make sense.

Back to the point, in Ephesians 2, Paul says "you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked..." (vv.1-2). And then, "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him..." (vv.5-6). This resurrection is a real thing. Spiritual, yes, but a real thing.

I have never said otherwise.

So. Again. If you agree with that, then we're good.

I've already said more than once that I do. Yet, you're still saying "IF" I agree with that. I can't help but think that you're not really reading everything I'm saying carefully if you're still wondering about this.

:) I mean, if you don't, well then we're still good, but in disagreement. :) If you're saying, SI, that someone "having part..." ~ sharing ~ "...in the first resurrection" is synonymous with that someone's having been spiritually resurrected from death in sin and then great.

Of course I'm saying that because I have said that multiple times to you already.

Do you believe Lazarus was raised physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality in what John documents in John 11? We don't have to discuss this, but if so, I would disagree.

This again makes me wonder if you're reading everything I'm saying carefully or not. I very specifically said that I believed Lazarus and others who were resurrected before Jesus died again. I said that must be the case because scripture very specifically says that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). In what sense was He the first to rise from the dead? He was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality. Which I have already said. But, for some reason, you're still asking me if I believed Lazarus was raised physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality.

We don't know how, obviously, but I think we can know that Lazarus, at some point subsequent to Jesus's calling him out of the tomb, died. And he'll be resurrected bodily with all of us when Jesus returns.

Of course. I already said that myself.

Right, by being resurrected in the spirit. Great. :) We could have avoided most or all of this back and forth if you had just said that from the beginning...

I did already say that not long after the beginning of this discussion. Goodness sakes. Please read more carefully.

 

[ewq1938]

Hm, I'd like to know the version you are reading from. I like the ESV ("Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed"). You may be reading from the NASB, which is a good translation, but in that particular verse easier to misconstrue, but should be understood in the same way, that authority to judge was given to them. It's surely not that they were judged.

No, they weren't judged. They did the judging of the beheaded saints which proves there was a throne judgment taking place of the saved dead before the thousand years began.

We agree that there are two resurrections described in Revelation 20. Different in scope and nature, but yes, two resurrections...

Two physical resurrections of two separate groups of the dead. That's what is found in chp 20.

:)


Disagree. Specifically, verses 4-6 speak of those brought from death to life spiritually

No, not spiritually because that happened before they were beheaded. After the beheading the only resurrection left is the physical resurrection.

(as Paul and Peter speak of, as I've said) at some point in their lives, each at his/her appointed time (as Luke says in Acts 13:48), and, as I said above, this individual spiritual resurrection ~ the first resurrection ~ is what has been happening and is continuing to happen, and will continue to happen

Wrong. The first resurrection of Rev 20 is the physical resurrection of the saved dead.

We... don't get to change God's Word into something other than it is, ewq. :)

Say that to yourself.

 

[PinSeeker]

It seems that you are not getting my point.

Not the case. To your point ~ or at least one of them; yes, I have read everything you have written to me, even carefully... :) ~ my point is that the exact same word does not have to be used for it to be the same thing. There is, for sure, a difference between the spiritual and the physical, and that's not a small difference, but the thing itself ~ resurrection ~ is the same. We call these things synonyms (or in adjectival form synonymous, which is more appropriate in the case of anastasis and synegeirō, as the former is translated to a specific English word and the latter is translated to an English phrase conveying the same thing). :) I think, Spiritual Israelite, that you are unnecessarily parsing words. I'm sure you don't mean to, and probably will strongly disagree, but, based on what you have written, that's what I think.

One thing I want to clarify. And this may actually be the heart of the matter... You said, "...that's why I believe the first resurrection refers to Christ's resurrection, which was the first unto bodily immortality, specifically and when it talks about having part in the first resurrection it's talking about spiritually having part in His resurrection." You're referring to "the first resurrection" in Revelation 20:5, right? That's what we've been talking about. So do you see the resurrection spoken of in Revelation 20:6 as a different resurrection (Jesus's) than that of "those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands" (Revelation 20:4) and that this latter group of folks only "share in" (Revelation 20:6)?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

No, they weren't judged. They did the judging of the beheaded saints which proves there was a throne judgment taking place of the saved dead before the thousand years began.

LOL!

Two physical resurrections of two separate groups of the dead. That's what is found in chp 20.

Well, yes, but as such, it is one general resurrection inclusive of the two groups ~ thus my earlier analogy of the first half and the second half making up one college basketball game... :) ~ "seen" by John in Revelation 20:11-13. So, in a way (I guess), you could say there are three resurrections in view in Revelation 20, but that would be kind of silly. :)

No, not spiritually because that happened before they were beheaded. After the beheading the only resurrection left is the physical resurrection.

I agree... Wow. But yes, I agree, and this physical resurrection will happen at the end of the age, when Jesus returns and just prior to executing the final Judgment.

The first resurrection of Rev 20 is the physical resurrection of the saved dead.

Well... LOL! ...the first part (half... :)) of the second (final) resurrection described in Revelation 20:11-13.

Round and round and round we go... :)

I think I've said it before, but... you're an interesting fellow, ewq.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not the case. To your point ~ or at least one of them; yes, I have read everything you have written to me, even carefully.

Have you really? Then why did you ask me "Do you believe Lazarus was raised physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality in what John documents in John 11?". I never once said anything to imply that I believed Lazarus was raised physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality. I did say things to indicate otherwise more than once. I very specifically pointed out that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality, so how could I possibly think that Lazarus, who obviously was resurrected before Jesus, was resurrected unto bodily immortality?

.. :) ~ my point is that the exact same word does not have to be used for it to be the same thing. There is, for sure, a difference between the spiritual and the physical, and that's not a small difference, but the thing itself ~ resurrection ~ is the same. We call these things synonyms (or in adjectival form synonymous, which is more appropriate in the case of anastasis and synegeirō, as the former is translated to a specific English word and the latter is translated to an English phrase conveying the same thing). :) I think, Spiritual Israelite, that you are unnecessarily parsing words. I'm sure you don't mean to, and probably will strongly disagree, but, based on what you have written, that's what I think.

I did say at least once that it's possible that anastasis could be used to describe a spiritual resurrection even though it isn't used that way anywhere else in scripture. I just don't currently think that is the case, so that's why I interpret it the way I do. And I think the way I interpret "the first resurrection" (protos anastasis) is quite reasonable since the only other place the Greek words "protos" and "anastasis" are used together is in Acts 26:23 where it speaks of Christ as being the first to rise from the dead. I really don't think it matters either way since we do agree on what has to take place in order for someone to have part in the first resurrection.

One thing I want to clarify. And this may actually be the heart of the matter... You said, "...that's why I believe the first resurrection refers to Christ's resurrection, which was the first unto bodily immortality, specifically and when it talks about having part in the first resurrection it's talking about spiritually having part in His resurrection." You're referring to "the first resurrection" in Revelation 20:5, right? That's what we've been talking about.

Of course that's what I'm talking about. And it's referenced in Revelation 20:6 as well. Where else does scripture specifically reference a first resurrection (protos anastasis) except for Acts 26:23? Nowhere that I know of. But, keep in mind that I differentiate between the first resurrection itself and having part in the first resurrection. You don't. So, we differ in that sense even though we do agree on what event occurs that makes someone have part in the first resurrection which is when someone is spiritually saved and goes from being dead in sins to spiritually alive with Christ.

So do you see the resurrection spoken of in Revelation 20:6 as a different resurrection (Jesus's) than that of "those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands" (Revelation 20:4) and that this latter group of folks only "share in" (Revelation 20:6)?

No, I see every reference to "the first resurrection" as being a reference to the same resurrection. But, again, in my view Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection and those who belong to Him all have part in His resurrection, which was the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5).

 

[PinSeeker]

Have you really?

Yes.

Then why did you ask me "Do you believe Lazarus was raised physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality in what John documents in John 11?".

Because that's what you seemed to be saying. I asked that in response to this statement of yours:

"The first to rise physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality, to be more exact. Obviously, there were others, like Lazarus, who had been physically/bodily resurrected from the dead before Him."​

Just on it's face, you seemed to be attributing all of what you said about Jesus's resurrection ~ including "bodily immortality" ~ to Lazarus and others. I don't think you can accuse me of being unreasonable in at least entertaining the possibility that you were doing so, and thus my asking you to clarify.

I never once said anything to imply that I believed Lazarus was raised physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality.

Good. He will be eventually, and you agree with that, I'm sure, and along with all us Christians ~ this is the second resurrection... well, the first of two parts of the second resurrection (@ewq1938 :)). But good.

I did say at least once that it's possible that anastasis could be used to describe a spiritual resurrection even though it isn't used that way anywhere else in scripture.

Right, implying that for that reason, it shouldn't be ~ or at least suggesting it might not be ~ implied in Paul's and Peter's words in Ephesians 2 and 1 Peter 1.

I just don't currently think that is the case, so that's why I interpret it the way I do.

Right, understood. Now, and before now. :) And this is what I've been trying to get you to understand differently... :)

And I think the way I interpret "the first resurrection" (protos anastasis) is quite reasonable...

Yes, it's reasonable, but... :)

I really don't think it matters either way since we do agree on what has to take place in order for someone to have part in the first resurrection.

Okay, by all means, think what you want. :)

keep in mind that I differentiate between the first resurrection itself and having part in the first resurrection.

Oh, I'm very well aware of that... :)

...we differ in that sense...

Right, and it's a big sense... :) And that's been what I've been getting at through this whole conversation. It's a big sense. You say you "really don't think it matters either way," and in the sense that it doesn't make either one of us in any way "less Christian than" or "subordinate to" or "less saved than" the other, that's true, but still, it's a very important difference. I wish we could resolve it, but unfortunately, that kind of thing happens very, very infrequently in these venues.

No, I see every reference to "the first resurrection" as being a reference to the same resurrection.

Good.

But, again, in my view Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection and those who belong to Him all have part in His resurrection, which was the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5).

Right, and again, I think you're inadvertently conflating two very much the same and very different things (the same in one sense, and much different in another), as surely you know by now.

I'll stick around if you want, but I suggest we let this thing go. Grace and peace to you,

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because that's what you seemed to be saying. I asked that in response to this statement of yours:

"The first to rise physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality, to be more exact. Obviously, there were others, like Lazarus, who had been physically/bodily resurrected from the dead before Him."​

Just on it's face, you seemed to be attributing all of what you said about Jesus's resurrection ~ including "bodily immortality" ~ to Lazarus and others.

Not at all. Not even close. I specifically referred to Jesus as being "the first to rise physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality". Knowing that Lazarus was resurrected before Jesus was, how could I possibly think that Jesus was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality and also believe that Lazarus was resurrected unto bodily immortality before Him? That would mean He was not the first, right?

I don't think you can accuse me of being unreasonable in at least entertaining the possibility that you were doing so, and thus my asking you to clarify.

I can and I did. And I still do. It can't possibly be reasonable for me to first say that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality and follow that up by saying that someone who was resurrected before Him was resurrected unto bodily immortality. That would mean I was contradicting myself. And that is not reasonable.

Good. He will be eventually, and you agree with that, I'm sure, and along with all us Christians

Of course I agree that Lazarus will eventually be resurrected unto bodily immortality.

Right, understood. Now, and before now. :) And this is what I've been trying to get you to understand differently...

Why does that matter so much to you when we agree on what is required of someone to have part in the first resurrection? That makes no sense to me.

Yes, it's reasonable, but...

But nothing. It's either reasonable or it isn't. And it is.

Okay, by all means, think what you want.

Of course I will. I don't need your permission. ;)

Oh, I'm very well aware of that...

I can't ever be sure with you since you thought I might have believed that Lazarus was already resurrected unto bodily immortality.

Right, and it's a big sense... :)

No, it really isn't. As I keep saying, what matters the most here is that we agree on what is required in order for someone to have part in the first resurrection.

And that's been what I've been getting at through this whole conversation. It's a big sense.

No, it isn't. Period. You will never convince me otherwise.

You say you "really don't think it matters either way," and in the sense that it doesn't make either one of us in any way "less Christian than" or "subordinate to" or "less saved than" the other, that's true, but still, it's a very important difference.

No, it is not. You keep saying that, but why is it so important, keeping in mind again that we agree on the way in which someone has part in the first resurrection? Would it be too much trouble for you to explain that?

I wish we could resolve it, but unfortunately, that kind of thing happens very, very infrequently in these venues.

It's not that important no matter how much you think it is. Why you think it matters so much is still a mystery to me since you aren't really explaining that.

Right, and again, I think you're inadvertently conflating two very much the same and very different things (the same in one sense, and much different in another), as surely you know by now.

I'll stick around if you want, but I suggest we let this thing go. Grace and peace to you,

No, thanks. I've grown very tired of this discussion. But, thanks for talking to me about this, anyway. Grace and peace to you as well.

 

[PinSeeker]

Not at all. Not even close. I specifically referred to Jesus as being "the first to rise physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality". Knowing that Lazarus was resurrected before Jesus was, how could I possibly think that Jesus was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality and also believe that Lazarus was resurrected unto bodily immortality before Him? That would mean He was not the first, right?

That's easy to say now, but you were not clear in not attributing that "bodily immortality" to Lazarus. Thus, the reasonable misunderstanding on my part.

No, it really isn't (a big sense). You will never convince me otherwise

Okay, we disagree on that, too, and yes, obviously you will not be convinced otherwise. I can't really be concerned about either, and am not.

No, thanks. I've grown very tired of this discussion.

Ah yes, same here. I passed that point some time ago... :)

...thanks for talking to me about this, anyway.

:)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's easy to say now, but you were not clear in not attributing that "bodily immortality" to Lazarus. Thus, the reasonable misunderstanding on my part.

Easy to say now? Explain to me how it was possible for me to believe that Lazarus had already been raised unto bodily immortality after saying that Jesus was "the first to rise physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality"? By saying that Jesus was the first to rise unto bodily immortality clearly implies that I didn't believe anyone had previously been resurrected unto bodily immortality. But, for some reason, you're saying I was not clear. Oh well.

 

[PinSeeker]

Easy to say now? Explain to me how it was possible for me to believe that Lazarus had already been raised unto bodily immortality after saying that Jesus was "the first to rise physically/bodily from the dead unto bodily immortality"? By saying that Jesus was the first to rise unto bodily immortality clearly implies that I didn't believe anyone had previously been resurrected unto bodily immortality. But, for some reason, you're saying I was not clear. Oh well.

All I was saying, Spiritual Israelite, was that you explicitly attributed bodily immortality to Jesus after His resurrection, which of course I agree with, but then you seemed to be attributing the exact same thing to Lazarus when Jesus called him out of the tomb. I understand now that you were not ~ which is easy to say and understand now, in retrospect upon clarification, but what you originally posted was not clear, and in fact ambiguous. But you have clarified since then. Great! :)

For the life of me, I fail to see why this has been such a problem. I'm really at a loss to understand your... defensiveness. Please... please drop it. Please. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

All I was saying, Spiritual Israelite, was that you explicitly attributed bodily immortality to Jesus after His resurrection, which of course I agree with, but then you seemed to be attributing the exact same thing to Lazarus when Jesus called him out of the tomb. I understand now that you were not ~ which is easy to say and understand now, in retrospect upon clarification, but what you originally posted was not clear, and in fact ambiguous. But you have clarified since then. Great! :)

For the life of me, I fail to see why this has been such a problem. I'm really at a loss to understand your... defensiveness. Please... please drop it. Please. :)

Grace and peace to you.

What makes you think that I haven't dropped it? I made that post a week ago and you might notice that I haven't posted in this thread since. You're acting as if I've been pestering you to reply to that post. I actually had forgotten about it, so your assumption that I haven't dropped it was......wrong.