The "Millenium Rule" SCRIPTURES ONLY thread

[M3n0r4h]

Maybe you think you are a king/priest ... in your dreams.

your lack of knowledge of the Bible is a bit embarrassing,

but I had already decided we'd gone round and round on this topic enough for me.

 

[ElieG12]

Another forumer (@PinSeeeker) told you the same before (post #93):

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.

Interesting others can see what you can not. Why do you think that is happening to you?

 

[M3n0r4h]

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

right.

and knowing that, who would you say should be living in the land forever?

I'll give you a hint: Jesus is most certainly not living there now.

 

[ElieG12]

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.

... which you have never proved

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.

It is just your belief, an opinion, something you have not proved

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.

That's only happening in your mind, since you haven't proved anything with the Bible.
I did.

You want me to stop believing what I have proved with the Scriptures to believe what you are saying without proving. I am not your follower. ;)

 

[ElieG12]

right.

and knowing that, who would you say should be living in the land forever?

I'll give you a hint: Jesus is most certainly not living there now.

That is truth. But since he taught me to pray to the Father: "Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth." (Matt. 6:10) ... I believe God has a purpose to earth and its inhabitants. You don't understand what Jesus is saying there.

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

 

[ewq1938]

one group; the dead.

both the just and unjust are dead.

And they are two different groups which is why John 5 speaks literally of two resurrections.

the dead are raised.

Which is a strawman argument. Of course they are but not all at the same time. The dead in Christ rise first, not with the dead not in Christ.

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

No, it doesn't. You are misreading it. The first resurrection is before the Mill, and only after the Mill do "the rest of the dead" resurrect. That will forever validate Premill and prove Amill wrong.

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

that destroys Pre-Mil.

That isn't what the bible says so you are just adding to the destruction of Amill.

no Mill.

lol, Amill believes in a Mill though. Didn't you know that?

 

[ewq1938]

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.

That is called the Argument from Silence fallacy.

An argument from silence (in Latin 'argumentum ex silentio') is a conclusion based on the absence of an exact statement or exact term or exact word, rather than their presence. It is often found in the example of a question asking for something the asker already knows does not exist. Example, "Where is the word "Trinity" found in the bible?". The fallacy is the requirement for that exact word to be found somewhere rather than the concept of the Trinity being found. People unfamiliar with this fallacious tactic might consider the type of question valid when it is in fact invalid.

 

[M3n0r4h]

The dead in Christ rise first, not with the dead not in Christ.

you're just forever confused.

the dead not in Christ do not resurrect at all.

they cannot hear the Shepherd's voice - only Jesus' sheep can hear His voice.

if you can't hear His voice, as He so clearly says the jews cannot on John 8, you do not hear His call, His shout, when He comes for His people.

plain and simple.

No, it doesn't. You are misreading it.

there's no misreading it.

here it is again straight from the Bible:

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

lol, Amill believes in a Mill though. Didn't you know that?

actually, no, they don't.

they believe that the time period that is symbolically referred to as a thousand years in Rev. 20 is taking place right now, but they actually do not believe it is a literal thousand years so no, ...

they do not believe in a Mill.

 

[M3n0r4h]

That is called the Argument from Silence fallacy.

An argument from silence (in Latin 'argumentum ex silentio') is a conclusion based on the absence of an exact statement or exact term or exact word, rather than their presence. It is often found in the example of a question asking for something the asker already knows does not exist. Example, "Where is the word "Trinity" found in the bible?". The fallacy is the requirement for that exact word to be found somewhere rather than the concept of the Trinity being found. People unfamiliar with this fallacious tactic might consider the type of question valid when it is in fact invalid.

 

[ewq1938]

you're just forever confused.

the dead not in Christ do not resurrect at all.

Yes they do. Do you disagree with John 5?


Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

You don't agree with that?

they do not believe in a Mill.

Yes they do. Amill teaches the Mill is happening now, with a minority believing the Mill already happened. They all believe in a Mill before the second coming, denying a Mill after the second coming. Saying they don't believe in a Mill is untrue.

 

[M3n0r4h]

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they (in Christ) that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they (in Christ) that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

yes, I agree with that.

proven by:
Matt. 7:23
John 15:2, 6

 

[ewq1938]

yes, I agree with that.

proven by:
Matt. 7:23
John 15:2, 6

The second group, the damnation ones are not "in Christ" as you claimed in the edits you made to my post.

 

[keithr]

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.

Perhaps you didn't notice ElieG12's underlining part of Rev. 20:6?

(6) Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him one thousand years.​

Later it describes the second resurrection:

(13) The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works.​

(14) Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.​

(15) If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.​

Notice that there are some in this second reurrection who will suffer the second death. The underlined part of verse 6 says that nobody that has a part in the first resurrection will suffer the second death - it has no power or authority over them. Therefore verse 13 has to be describing a different (second and final) resurrection from verse 6, which it says was the first resurrection.

 

[M3n0r4h]

The second group, the damnation ones are not "in Christ" as you claimed in the edits you made to my post.

they have to be.

per scripture.

 

[M3n0r4h]

Perhaps you didn't notice ElieG12's underlining part of Rev. 20:6?

(6) Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him one thousand years.​

Later it describes the second resurrection:

(13) The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works.​

(14) Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.​

(15) If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.​

Notice that there are some in this second reurrection who will suffer the second death. The underlined part of verse 6 says that nobody that has a part in the first resurrection will suffer the second death - it has no power or authority over them. Therefore verse 13 has to be describing a different (second and final) resurrection from verse 6, which it says was the first resurrection.

yes, that can be a very compelling interpretation of Rev. 20, and sadly has fooled many sincere Christians.

unfortunately, there is zero support for that interpretation anywhere else in scripture.

Jesus tells us in John 5:28-29 that there is only one resurrection, one raising of the dead, with two different outcomes for the SINGLE group that is raised at the same hour of time.

Revelation does not follow a linear timeline, it is a symbolic sharing of visions by John.

how many resurrections do you see in Matt. 24:31?

and in 2 Thess. 4:16-17 we see ALL THE DEAD IN CHRIST being raised, followed by ALL THE ALIVE IN CHRIST without the slightest implication of any significant period of time dividing them.

now, do you find anywhere else in ALLLLLLL of scripture where there are two separate resurrections, divided by a period of time, specifically detailed, or do you find the words ANYWHERE "second resurrection"?

no, you do not.

I have studied and debated this for many years. the texts you would need to confirm your interpretation of Rev. 20 DO NOT EXIST in the Bible.

 

[ElieG12]

The Millennium of which we are given information in Rev. 20, is AS REAL as real are ALL EVENTS that are related to that period:

1) the great tribulation: a period that includes a brief time of suffering on humanity and that ends in the destruction of all the governments of the world at Armageddon ... It is survived by the great crowd of which Revelation speaks and then those thousand years begin.

2) The first resurrection: which occurs exclusively to the brothers of Christ who are taken to heaven; the last phase of that resurrection occurs just before the beginning of the Millennium, as they will rule from heaven during that time with Jesus.

3) The Devil is abyssed for a thousand years, so that the government of Christ is not hindered. But he is not destroyed at that moment; he is only put in a situation or state where he cannot act, in inactivity; Revelation calls this state: "the abyss";

4) Another resurrection that occurs on earth later in the Millennium, and that allows some time after resurrection, for these people to live and learn with the survivors of Armageddon;

5) At the end of the thousand years the Devil is released from the state in which he was put, and manages to deceive an indeterminate number of people who have been living after Armageddon ON THE EARTH.

6) The Devil is destroyed along with all the new rebels;

7) Jesus hands over the kingdom of humanity to God.


If the thousand years of Apoc. 20 were not LITERAL, nothing that we are told to occur within that timeframe would make sense. Those things are not symbolic, but very LITERAL and very precise.

Some sects of Christendom want to choose what to accept out of the Bible and reject what doesn't fit them.

 

[M3n0r4h]

Perhaps you didn't notice ElieG12's underlining part of Rev. 20:6?

(6) Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him one thousand years.​

Later it describes the second resurrection:

(13) The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works.​

(14) Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.​

(15) If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.​

Notice that there are some in this second reurrection who will suffer the second death. The underlined part of verse 6 says that nobody that has a part in the first resurrection will suffer the second death - it has no power or authority over them. Therefore verse 13 has to be describing a different (second and final) resurrection from verse 6, which it says was the first resurrection.

how many resurrections did Jesus teach?

seems like a super important topic.

did He forget to mention a second resurrection altogether?

 

[ElieG12]

Jesus knew, and told his disciples, that "the lesser person in the kingdom of heaven would be greater than John the Baptist".

Matt. 11:11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women, there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist, but a lesser person in the Kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it. 13 For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John

If you apply logic, you would realize that he is stating openly that John the Baptist will not be in heaven, but will be resurrected on earth because that hope of being king with him was not given to John and his disciples, but to Jesus' followers.

Logic 101: Imagine there is a line and over the line is the lesser in the Kingdom of heavens. John is under the line, because the other guy is greater than him, for being in the other place: with the kings in heaven.

Jesus explains why John won't be over the line:

Luke 16:16 The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it.

OBVIOUSLY John won't be resurrected in the FIRST resurrection because he won't be over the line, but below.

People who cannot understand what they read should not discuss the Scriptures. It happens to you when you read about a FIRST resurrection, and you don't understand the implications of using the word FIRST there. Now you cann't get what it means that the lowest one over a line is higher than the highest one under the line.

 

[PinSeeker]

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

I'm not arguing anything, M3n0r4h. I do recognize ~ and did even before I replied to you ~ that you and I are not far apart, and maybe fairly close together in our understandings of God's Word.

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

Great. Yes, I thought I was understanding that. Yeah, good.

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.

Hm. Right, and what I'm saying is that since it refers to these people having experienced the first resurrection, it implies that there must be a second resurrection, in which some ~ or all ~ are not blessed or holy. over whom the second death has power, who will not be priests of God and of Christ... everything contrary to what Revelation 20:6 goes on to say. Do you dispute that?

What I would submit to you, M3n0r4h, is that what is described in Revelation 20:4-6, is a spiritual resurrection that happens to each individual member of God's elect sometime during the course of their lives here on earth. It is not general, but specific to God's elect, their conversion to Christ, being raised from the dead spiritually. This happens through the course of the millennium, and is complete when the "thousand years," which is not literally a thousand-year period, but the fullness of God's time in saving all of His Israel. Perhaps you agree.

Then, there is a physical resurrection upon Jesus's return, after He finally defeats Satan (Revelation 20:7-10). Then the final Judgment ensues, the Judgment before the Great White Throne. This is the hour in which, as Jesus says in John 5:28-29, "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." Again, perhaps you agree.

therefore your point does not align with what the Bible specifically declares.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion... :)

...Revelation is a book of signs and symbols, it is a symbolic work of related visions. it is not 100% literal.

I... absolutely agree. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ewq1938]

they have to be.

per scripture.

It is not per scripture in the slightest. It's per your own personal imagination. The damned are in Christ?? Foolishness.