The "Millenium Rule" SCRIPTURES ONLY thread

[M3n0r4h]

A resurrection of two groups is still two resurrections.

it's not a resurrection of two groups. it's a resurrection of one group, the dead.

then they are separated out into the just and the unjust and rewarded accordingly.

Why did you leaver out John? Isn't that a proof text of Amill??

because we've been discussing John 5 repeatedly which means it wasn't left out, it's been covered thoroughly.

LOL That's the first resurrectioon of the just to life.

the verse in question says the dead. Paul specifies it as the resurrection of the dead.

not just the righteous.

are the unjust who are in the graves/tombs not dead?

Except John 5 and Rev 20. (the poster intentionally did not post those passages because it proves their interpretation wrong)

John 5 has been covered.

Rev. 20 is the topic of contention.

it also speaks of one singular resurrection and it mentions after referencing the rest of the dead that will live by that one resurrection.

your doctrine doesn't have a leg to stand upon.

 

[M3n0r4h]

we read that Abraham is given a land, along with his seed to live in it, for ever!

it is interesting how many people have been taught wrong about who Abraham's seed is,

even as I was and wrongly believed at one time.

who does the consensus here say Abraham's seed is?

I ask all.

 

[ewq1938]

it's not a resurrection of two groups. it's a resurrection of one group, the dead.

then they are separated out into the just and the unjust and rewarded accordingly.

Which is two groups. You are just contradicting yourself.

John 5 has been covered.

And it disproves your one resurrection theory wrong.

Rev. 20 is the topic of contention.

it also speaks of one singular resurrection and it mentions after referencing the rest of the dead that will live by that one resurrection.

The last resurrection is one resurrection. The first resurrection happens before the Mill began.

your doctrine doesn't have a leg to stand upon.

My doctrine proved yours wrong using John 5 and Rev 20, for which you have no response but to evade.

 

[M3n0r4h]

Which is two groups. You are just contradicting yourself.

one group; the dead.

both the just and unjust are dead.

the dead are raised.

And it disproves your one resurrection theory wrong.

that's called a double negative.

you're saying it proves my theory wasn't wrong.

but I know what you meant.

The last resurrection is one resurrection. The first resurrection happens before the Mill began.

it's the only resurrection in scripture, unless you count the spiritual resurrection of all those who believe.

the verse in Rev. 20 states that the final amount of people to be raised are raised in the first resurrection.

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until ... the first resurrection."
Rev. 20:5

that destroys Pre-Mil.

if all the rest are raised prior to the theoretical Millennium, there are none to be raised at the end of the Mill.

you have no response but to evade.

there's nothing to evade.

the scripture is clear.

no Mill.

 

[ElieG12]

Rev. 20:6 Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years.

Some sects of the Christendom claim that their members are already reigning on earth. They say that the Millennium is already happening and that they have been chosen as kings and priests of the world. That belief causes them to act arrogantly and look down on other believers.

However, in the vision John is specified that those resurrected to be kings and priests during the Millennium will never die because they are immortal.

Do members of those sects who believe they are the "resurrected" kings/priests and that the Millennium is happening right now, think they are immortal?

 

[M3n0r4h]

Rev. 20:6 Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years.

Some sects of the Christendom claim that their members are already reigning on earth. They say that the Millennium is already happening and that they have been chosen as kings and priests of the world. That belief causes them to act arrogantly and look down on other believers.

However, in the vision John is specified that those resurrected to be kings and priests during the Millennium will never die because they are immortal.

Do members of those sects who believe they are the "resurrected" kings/priests and that the Millennium is happening right now, think they are immortal?

you're the one presenting that nonsense.

you tell us.

the second death is not the second resurrection.

the Bible specifies no "second resurrection" from Genesis to Revelation.

show us where anybody teaches that their members reign upon the earth. it is Christ who reigns from within all True Christians. none of those who teach that Biblical Truth claim otherwise.

 

[ElieG12]

Logic 101:

IF: the Scripture talks about a "first resurrection"
THEN: there is another one.

 

[M3n0r4h]

Logic 101:

IF: the Scripture talks about a "first resurrection"
THEN: there is another one.

If A: the Bible speaks nowhere of a "second resurrection", ...

then B: it is asinine to create an entire doctrine around the imaginary, unconfirmed by scripture, idea that there is one.

especially when the majority of the Bible contradicts such a theory.

 

[ElieG12]

Logic 101: The word FIRST would not be added to the text if there is not OTHER ONE at least. (Reading comprehension)

 

[M3n0r4h]

Logic 101: The word FIRST would not be added to the text if there is not OTHER ONE at least. (Reading comprehension)

I'll be patiently waiting for you to present text from anywhere in the entire Bible that specifies a "second" resurrection.

until I have found the Bible's teaching of it, I will not accept it.

I don't freely accept teachings of men as so many do.

it is a very weak argument that just because you believe the Bible "implies" more than one resurrection, that somehow proves an entire contrived doctrine of the Millennium post-Christ and a "second resurrection" at the end of that mythical time period.

if you can't produce scripture that declares a "second" resurrection, your case is dismissed for woeful lack of evidence.

 

[ElieG12]

Logic 101: The word FIRST would not be added to the text if there is not OTHER ONE at least. (Reading comprehension)

There are teachings in the words. That is why Jehovah God used men to write his thoughts and not other heavenly creatures. He used humans for us to understand the language, directly or by rational thinking.

If: the Scriptures teach about a first resurrection, it means that there is another one at least.

There is not need of more, just to accept the message directly, by logic. If anyone is claiming for more it means that person does not want to accept the truth.

Besides that, there are a lot of other reasonings that have been posted ... but who does not want to see, won't see. The truth is for the ones who want to accept it.

 

[ElieG12]

Rev. 20:5 is not the only biblical quote that shows that there will be a first one, and later a general resurrection, and that both resurrections have very different characteristics. That teaching runs deep and is made clearer with additional Biblical knowledge... that not everyone has.

For example, if Jesus said that John the Baptist will not be with other resurrected in the Kingdom in heaven (Luke. 7:28), it is obvious that he has to resurrect on another occasion and NOT with those who will be with Jesus there ... but it is certain that John the Baptist will be part of this other group of faithful who will live on earth forever:

Mat. 5:5 Happy are the mild-tempered, since they will inherit the earth.

Another demonstration of two resurrections is to consider that the servants of God of old are not going to resurrect in heaven but on earth, because that was the hope that was given to them (Dan. 12:13; Heb. 11:8-10; 13-16; 39), and life in heaven was only given from the time of Jesus onwards (Mat. 11:12; John 3:3). That implies that they, pre-Christian worshipers of God, will not be resurrected to live there, but on earth (Psal. 37:10,11,29; Rev. 7:16,17; 21:3,4).

A third argument consists of the fact that if the Bible speaks of people who will live forever on earth and Jesus himself spoke of such people in Mat. 5:5 and yet there is a diferent group that will go to live in heaven with Jesus and will NEVER return to live on the planet, but instead have citizenship in heaven (Heb. 12:14,22-24; 13:14; Eph. 2:19; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 5:12; Col. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:4) ... This implies that their resurrection is different from, and prior to, the general resurrection, especially if one takes into account that in heaven they will not have bodies of flesh like the ones that those who live on the planet will have (1 Cor. 15:50; 1 Pet. 1:10-13).

In Heb. 2:5 and then in Heb. 3:1 Paul speaks of the difference between "the inhabited earth to come" and the "partakers of the heavenly calling"... earth and heaven are two different places, since it is a terrestrial part that serves the Creator and a selection of humans taken from earth to participate from heaven in the reunification of humanity in general with the Creator (Eph. 1:9,10). In Rom. 8:20 Paul says that "the creation" awaits for the revelation of these humans who will be part of the heavenly family of God up there.

The matter can also be seen from a chronological perspective: for a group to reign over the planet's inhabitants for a thousand years, it is necessary and obligatory that they have already been resurrected before the inhabitants who will resurrect to join the survivors of the great tribulation. The resurrection of the future kings allows the blessings that their reign with Jesus brings to the rest of humanity on the planet in the future, that is, the perfection of humanity depends on the work of the kings/priests who have already had to be in heavens and performing their priesthood on behalfof of the human race before God. Paul says that the servants of God of old when they are resurrected, cannot be perfected without the function that the kings/priests will perform from heaven.

Heb. 11:39 And yet all of these, although they received a favorable witness because of their faith, did not obtain the fulfillment of the promise, 40 because God had foreseen something better for us, so that they might not be made perfect apart from us.

Furthermore, if we chronologically coordinate the words of Jesus in Mat. 24:31 and Matt. 19:28, we find that when all of today's humanity is finally judged, Jesus' brothers stand with him as judges. It is obvious that they would have had to be resurrected by that time (1 Cor. 6:2). However, the general resurrection of the rest of the humans is yet to take place at a time after that judgment, proving once again that there is an earlier resurrection than the general one, which is for the future judges/kings/priests to be together with Jesus for when the terrestrial Millennium begins (Dan. 7:22,27).

All these arguments and others show that there is a first resurrection and then, later, another of a different nature.

PS: Please read the biblical quotes to get the teaching out of the Scriptures and learn from them.

There you have other reasoning that show there is one special resurrection that is FIRST, and another one that is later.

One clear example in short words: pre-Christ servants of God won't participate on the FIRST RESURRECTION, but they will be resurrected in another one, later. For that reason it is written: "the dead in Christ will rise FIRST" (1 Thess. 4:16). Read the biblical quotes in this comment.

No one can help another to see what they do not want to see. No matter how much it is shown to him, he will close his eyes so as not to see it if he thinks it does not suit him... It is called "cognitive dissonance".

PS: do not demand again what has already been given to you... it is disrespectful, not with the person who already answered, but with God who teaches us through his written Word. Don't play with sacred things, respect God.

 

[PinSeeker]

it's the only resurrection in scripture...

The only physical resurrection, yes.

...unless you count the spiritual resurrection of all those who believe.

Right, and this is the first resurrection. Paul talks about it in Ephesians 2, Peter talks about it in 1 Peter 1, and this is what John "sees" in his Revelation (20:4-6).

if all the rest are raised prior to the theoretical Millennium, there are none to be raised at the end of the Mill.

If all the rest are physically raised prior to ~ or during, which is really the case ~ the millennium, then, right, the can't be physically raised again at the end of the millennium. Which only suggests ~ says ~ that the raising of believers during the millennium is not physical, but spiritual.

the scripture is clear. no Mill.

Well, not "no millennium," as the term 'amillennial' might suggest, but that the nature of it is very different than many people think. It's... going on right now. :) The more correct term is 'nunc-millennial' (the 'nunc' prefix means now). People are being raised ~ spiritually, and seated with Christ and reigning with Him in spirit ~ right now, since Pentecost, and until Christ's return, when the fullness of the Gentiles has been brought in and the partial hardening that has come upon Israel has been removed.

I'll be patiently waiting for you to present text from anywhere in the entire Bible that specifies a "second" resurrection. until I have found the Bible's teaching of it, I will not accept it.

Hmmm, well, do you not see one resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6, which is actually called the first resurrection, strongly implying that there must be a second ~ and another resurrection having just occurred prior to what is described in Revelation 20:12-13? As I said above, the nature of the two is quite different, but two there are.

Grace and peace to you!

 

[ElieG12]

The Scripture teaches:

"The dead in Christ SHALL RISE FIRST" (1 Thess. 4:16).

To study:

1) who are the dead "in Christ"?

2) what does it mean that THEY will rise FIRST?

3) if pre-Christ servants of God are not "dead in Christ", WHEN they will rise?

 

[JunChosen]

it is interesting how many people have been taught wrong about who Abraham's seed is,

even as I was and wrongly believed at one time.

who does the consensus here say Abraham's seed is?

I ask all.

I don't know what the consensus here say who is Abraham's seed.

But I do know it is Jesus!

To God Be The Glory

 

[ElieG12]

I'll be patiently waiting for you to present text from anywhere in the entire Bible that specifies a "second" resurrection.

until I have found the Bible's teaching of it, I will not accept it.

(...)

That is what you are pretending ... However, Scripture clearly speaks of the thousand years or Millenium, and you do not wish to believe the teaching.

And when I quoted the blessings of the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon the earth in Rev. 21:3,4 you answered this:

using any verse from Revelation as a proof text about anything that is, or is not, happening in the world presently is a rookie mistake.

the words of Hosea and Paul come to mind:

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..."
Hosea 4:6

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the Truth, ... for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
2 Thess. 10-11

You are using the Word of God AGAINST the Word of God.

Obviously you only accept out of the Bible what you want to.

 

[ElieG12]

When we see the order of events that Jesus describes to us in the visions of Rev. 19-21, we realize that these three events follow each other:

1) Armageddon
2) THE THOUSAND YEARS
3) the final test

Since understanding it as we are told involves several biblical truths that Christendom's theologians do not accept, they make an attempt to merge event 3 with event 1 and make the Millennium in between disappear.

Since they can't make the Millennium disappear from the Word of God, they transfer it to a time before Armageddon, so that they can unite the Judgement of this system of things in Armageddon with the judgement of the inhabitants of the earth at the end of the Millennium, saying that both of them are the same thing. Some have even dared to say that there will not come a day of judgment on living humanity before the Millennium begins.

They try to forcefully twist what the Bible says... because they cannot explain these, among other things:

a) that the earth will not be destroyed
b) that there will be survivors of the great tribulation upon the earth
c) that humanity that is loyal to Jehovah throughout the Millennium will live in an earthly paradise forever
d) that kings and priests are the only ones who will be taken to heaven with Christ... AND NO ONE ELSE.

The Scriptures were not given to change what they say to fit what we believe, BUT for us to ADJUST what we believe according to what it reveals to us.

2 Pet. 1:19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place (until day dawns and a daystar rises) in your hearts. 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.

PS: We, JWs, believe that the Millenium is a Thousand years Day of judgement when the survivors of the great tribulation and resurrected on earth will have the chance to show their loyalty to God and his Son. It is a time of hope, not like Armageddon before the Millenium starts.

 

[M3n0r4h]

There are teachings in the words. That is why Jehovah God used men to write his thoughts and not other heavenly creatures. He used humans for us to understand the language, directly or by rational thinking.

If: the Scriptures teach about a first resurrection, it means that there is another one at least.

There is not need of more, just to accept the message directly, by logic. If anyone is claiming for more it means that person does not want to accept the truth.

Besides that, there are a lot of other reasonings that have been posted ... but who does not want to see, won't see. The truth is for the ones who want to accept it.

There you have other reasoning that show there is one special resurrection that is FIRST, and another one that is later.

One clear example in short words: pre-Christ servants of God won't participate on the FIRST RESURRECTION, but they will be resurrected in another one, later. For that reason it is written: "the dead in Christ will rise FIRST" (1 Thess. 4:16). Read the biblical quotes in this comment.

No one can help another to see what they do not want to see. No matter how much it is shown to him, he will close his eyes so as not to see it if he thinks it does not suit him... It is called "cognitive dissonance".

PS: do not demand again what has already been given to you... it is disrespectful, not with the person who already answered, but with God who teaches us through his written Word. Don't play with sacred things, respect God.

some really strange behavior from you here.

first, you won't quote my posts directly.

now, you'll only quote ... your own??

what you are pushing is a teaching of man; it is not taught in scripture.

putting one's faith in fabrications of man won't serve one very well in the end.

 

[ElieG12]

I don't mind your judgementalist attitude ... I don't serve you. Maybe you think you are a king/priest ... in your dreams.

 

[M3n0r4h]

The only physical resurrection, yes.


Right, and this is the first resurrection. Paul talks about it in Ephesians 2, Peter talks about it in 1 Peter 1, and this is what John "sees" in his Revelation (20:4-6).


If all the rest are physically raised prior to ~ or during, which is really the case ~ the millennium, then, right, the can't be physically raised again at the end of the millennium. Which only suggests ~ says ~ that the raising of believers during the millennium is not physical, but spiritual.

Well, not "no millennium," as the term 'amillennial' might suggest, but that the nature of it is very different than many people think. It's... going on right now. :) The more correct term is 'nunc-millennial' (the 'nunc' prefix means now). People are being raised ~ spiritually, and seated with Christ and reigning with Him in spirit ~ right now, since Pentecost, and until Christ's return, when the fullness of the Gentiles has been brought in and the partial hardening that has come upon Israel has been removed.


Hmmm, well, do you not see one resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6, which is actually called the first resurrection, strongly implying that there must be a second ~ and another resurrection having just occurred prior to what is described in Revelation 20:12-13? As I said above, the nature of the two is quite different, but two there are.

Grace and peace to you!

half of this post you're actually arguing my own case.

I agree that the only Millennium (thousand years) referenced in scripture is taking place now.

as far as the Rev. 20 verse, see my post #84 again where I show how the Bible specifically states that ALL THE REST OF THE DEAD are included in what it terms the "first resurrection" of Rev. 20:5. therefore your point does not align with what the Bible specifically declares.

all of this is not to even mention that Revelation is a book of signs and symbols, it is a symbolic work of related visions. it is not 100% literal.