I will raise them on the last day.

[Spiritual Israelite]

All of those OT saints who came out of the tombs, when Christ died, I don't know what happened to them. No one does as scripture barely mentions anything about them. They either went back to the grave to await the resurrection or they ascended with Christ when He went back to the Father, which if they did no one wrote that down.

They were a miraculous sign testifying to how Christ is the resurrection and the life. And because He died we could have life.

This is not something to get into a big debate about since, as you said, it doesn't mention much about them. But, in my view, if they were resurrected unto bodily immortality then Paul would have mentioned them when giving the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, but he didn't. So, I have to conclude that they died again. Again, I'm not looking to get into a big debate about this, but I'm just giving my view on it.

 

[amigo de christo]

LORD JESUS CHRIST
Before Abraham IAM
IAM the WAY the TRUTH the LIFE
IAM the Resurrection
No one comes to the FATHER but thru ME = ever since the LORD created Adam
IAM the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the BEGINNING and the END
LORD GOD ALMIGHTY who is to Come = JESUS is Coming
"Lo, it is Written in the Volume(Beginning and End) of the Book(all Scripture) "I Come to do Thy Will"
"This is the Will of Him who sent ME, to Raise UP all that who been given to ME at the Last Day"

Exactly . Adam and eve ate from the tree and death came upon them and all mankind .
JESUS came to FINISH the works that would again BRING LIGHT to man
that all who do beleive IN HIM would be reconciled and restored again TO GOD .
HE IS THE LIFE , THE WAY and THE TRUTH
and by HIM were all things created that are .
Yet these whore loving ecumeincal harlots sure seem to love to deny HIM .
But the dead are as the idol , they have NOT THE LIFE in them .
they have ears but hear not , they have eyes but see not .
JESUS is being denied by this whore loving generation who loveth to sip from a harlots ecumenical cup .
And beleive me when i say ,
IF one denies JESUS , well WHO YA THINK they JUST DENIED . and if you said GOD , YOU WOULD BE RIGHT .
GOD gonna get the glory , CHRIST is the glory of GOD .
And i come to rage war against the whores doctrines and her cup of ecumeincal idolatry and halotry fornication
and upmost rebellion against GOD . Sheep dont swallow down WHORES PUNCH .
Sheep drink of the water of life and feast upon HIS WORDS .

 

[Marvelloustime]

What i say to one i say to all .
JESUS HIMSELF ...............
i say again
JESUS HIMSELF
oh let it be said again
JESUS HIMSELF ................IS THE RESSURECTION and THE LIFE .
And all who reject him shall only be ressurected unto ..............THE SECOND death.
So lets never kiss korans and budda statues
lets not ever once s upport these who lead in that interfaith harlots pipe led mad house ecumenical pile of
Feel free to fill in that last word , JUST make sure its nothing good or perhaps too four letter it cannot be read by others .
BUT KNOW THIS , THAT WHORE IS A LIAR and all who entered and do enter into and support in any
way any one who supports such an ecumenical interfaith move
WELL they gonna wail on THE DAY OF JESUS and that is a fact . EXPOSING TIME . cause that is What the LIGHT does .
LIGHT dont find COMMON GROUND with darkness , IT EXPOSES the darkness . SO ON THOSE FEET
and let none who name the name OF JESUS Ever again support these folks , WHICH BOTH SIDES already are doing
its bidding .

@amigo de christo

 

[amigo de christo]

This is not something to get into a big debate about since, as you said, it doesn't mention much about them. But, in my view, if they were resurrected unto bodily immortality then Paul would have mentioned them when giving the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, but he didn't. So, I have to conclude that they died again. Again, I'm not looking to get into a big debate about this, but I'm just giving my view on it.

Then know and understand something very simple my friend .
HOW can those RESSURECTED IN CHRIST , ever die again .
THEY dont .
THE RESSURECTED IN CHRIST do not die .
Now since adam and eve ate , DEATH came upon all mankind
BUT SIN CE JESUS and HIS RESSURECTION , LIFE has come upon ALL who do beleive and they shall never die .
THEM saints who ressurected , RESSURECTED IN CHRIST . they did not die again .
This might seem hard to understand .
But do know this , NEVER SIP from the ecumenical cup of Fornication , cause that whore cannot deliver from death
and in fact is death leading only to the second death . SO lets n ot sip of that cup my friend .
Now to the trenches my friend , we got more and more within even christendom that are now buying
into the LIE that her cup has led them too .

 

[Davidpt]

All of those OT saints who came out of the tombs, when Christ died, I don't know what happened to them. No one does as scripture barely mentions anything about them. They either went back to the grave to await the resurrection or they ascended with Christ when He went back to the Father, which if they did no one wrote that down.

They were a miraculous sign testifying to how Christ is the resurrection and the life. And because He died we could have life.

Obviously, when they came out of their tombs they were bodily alive at the time. Some of them could have even been in a dust state at the time, depending on how long they have been dead. If nothing else, all of them would at least be in a decaying skeleton state. And since it would be absurd that skeletons are walking around and appearing to many in the holy city, this tells us that they obviously put on bodies that resemble humans---IOW, something like what the following depicts.

Ezekiel 37:7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.
8 And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them

I'm not suggesting 27:52-53 was necessarily the fulfillment Of Ezekiel 37. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Regardless, I bring up this passage to point out that the following obviously happened to them at the time---the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above. Because, once again, it is absurd that they appeared to many while still in a decaying skeleton state. And then if they eventually ascended into heaven, they obviously ascended into heaven in a bodily state. Since it would be absurd that the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above, then to return back to the state they were initially in before their tombs opened. And if they did ascend to heaven eventually, they didn't ascend to heaven in mortal bodies, they ascended to heaven in immortal bodies.

 

[amigo de christo]

This is not something to get into a big debate about since, as you said, it doesn't mention much about them. But, in my view, if they were resurrected unto bodily immortality then Paul would have mentioned them when giving the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, but he didn't. So, I have to conclude that they died again. Again, I'm not looking to get into a big debate about this, but I'm just giving my view on it.

that is true my friend this is nothing we want to seriously strive over .
However THAT HARLOTS Ecumenical cup , THAT IS DEADLY .
Do you realize that we have many already within christendom that have bought into the lie
That ALL religoins be serving the same GOD we do . THAT Just DENIED THE DIRE NEED to BELIEVE ON JESUS to be saved .
I mean more an d more are buying into this . so what does it matter if they knew a few meats or not .
IF THEY DONT EVEN BLEIEVE the GOSPEL anymore , GUESS where they end up . LOF . and i dont mean a loaf of bread .
LAKE OF FIRE . so many now beleive in another gospel that is no gospel .
the gospel of unbelief , the gospel that says oh i believe but its not necessary for all to have had to beleive
AND THAT JUST means THEY BELEIVE IN UNBELEIF . so lips can flap but i aint hearing their ............
i think we both know what rhymes with flap . and beleive me their gospel of unbeleif is Dung and worse than dung, because
at least dung can fertlize . this lie is the LIE and it leadeth all to ONLY the lake of fire . think about that .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If Amils agree a bodily resurrection is essential to eternal life, and clearly they do agree, why isn’t it in Revelation 20 at all under their view? If 'the first resurrection' recorded in Revelation 20 is not meaning the bodily resurrection of saints, what resurrection in Revelation 20 is meaning the bodily resurrection of saints?

What is primarily essential for obtaining eternal life is the resurrection of Jesus Christ and being born again and belonging to Him. It is because of those things that the dead in Christ have the assurance that they will be bodily resurrected when He comes again.

So, my question for you, since Christ's resurrection is the most important essential bodily resurrection to make eternal life possible, what resurrection in Revelation 20 is meaning the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Using scripture to interpret scripture, that would be the first resurrection since His resurrection was the first unto bodily immortality.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Can one live forever and ever via a spiritual resurrection alone? Of course not. And of course Amils fully agree. Per Amil then, what is a valid reason that John is not seeing the bodily resurrection of saved saints anywhere in Revelation 20?

Can one live forever bodily if Jesus was never bodily resurrected? Of course not. And, of course, Premils fully agree. Per Premil then, what is a valid reason that John is not seeing the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ anywhere in Revelation 20?

Why isn't there 3 resurrections depicted in Revelation 20, rather than only 2, assuming Amils are interpreting the first resurrection correctly in ch 20?

You tell us. What is your answer to that question? Surely, you would not claim that Christ's resurrection is not essential for the dead in Christ to be resurrected unto eternal bodily life, so why do you think it's not mentioned in Revelation 20? No matter how you look at it, there is one important resurrection that is related to determining if people are bodily resurrected to eternal life or eternal death not mentioned in Revelation 20 for whatever reason. This line of argument proves nothing, yet it's the only type of argument you seem to ever use.

If 3 resurrections were depicted in Revelation 20, hmmm...that could maybe support that the first of them is spiritual, the remaining 2 are bodily. It might look like this in Revelation 20. First, saints come alive spiritually, then later bodily. That takes care of 2 resurrections. And that the 3rd resurrection is meaning when the unsaved come to life bodily. Except, unfortunately for Amil, only 2 resurrections are depicted in Revelation 20, not 3.

The first resurrection is bodily. Christ's bodily resurrection is the first resurrection, according to scripture. If interpreting scripture with scripture meant anything to you, you would understand this.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Having part in the first resurrection and the first resurrection itself do not have to be the same thing. That's what you don't understand. Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection and we have part in it spiritually when we are saved.

Passages like the following refer to how we have part in Christ's bodily resurrection in a spiritual way when we are spiritually "quickened together with him" after putting our faith in Him.

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

 

[David in NJ]

You say you agree, but I'm not sure exactly what you are agreeing with. I am saying that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. Do you agree with that? That's what verses like Acts 26:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:20 indicate. And I am saying that we have part in His resurrection (the first resurrection) when we are spiritually saved, as passages like Colossians 2:12-13 talk about. Do you agree with that? What I am NOT saying is that the first resurrection has anything to do with the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ when He comes again. Do you agree with that?

YES = CHRIST is the FIRST Resurrection = Beginning and End

CHRIST is the Beginning of the FIRST Resurrection and HE is the END = 1 Cor 15:20-22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

CHRIST Completes the Resurrection of His Body/the Saints when HE Comes with them = 1 Thess 4:13-18

Romans 6:8
we have been united together in the likeness of His death, we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection

Example: the Gospel = God is still Saving men & women and Placing them in CHRIST

For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
When Christ who is our life appears, then you/we also will appear with Him in glory. - Colossians 3:3

A person is either in CHRIST or outside of CHRIST = only TWO resurrections = the FIRST is unto Eternal Life

 

[Scott Downey]

This is not something to get into a big debate about since, as you said, it doesn't mention much about them. But, in my view, if they were resurrected unto bodily immortality then Paul would have mentioned them when giving the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, but he didn't. So, I have to conclude that they died again. Again, I'm not looking to get into a big debate about this, but I'm just giving my view on it

Exactly, and what about those Jesus raised during His earthly ministry? Lazarus, widows son, the little girl. Did they die again? I think so.
The first death, to die once is referring to this earthly physical body. The second death is the death in the Lake of Fire after the judgment.
So they could have died again before the judgment.

Hebrews 9
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

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

1. 
   
2. Revelation 2:11
   He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
3. Revelation 20:6
   Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second deathhath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
4. Revelation 20:14
   And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
5. Revelation 21:8
   But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[David in NJ]

Have you or any, perhaps considered how this confirms the Amill or 'Realized Millennial' view?

" and raised us up together, "

Ephesians 2
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus

Showing that the saints are alive with Him in Heaven right now with Christ, SEATED in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, and reign there with Him right now? (Seated on thrones)

Absolutely and HalelluYAH to the glorious truth of Ephesians chapter 2

Only our spirit have been "raised UP and Seated with CHRIST" = your flesh body and mine are still here on earth
If we die before the LORD's Coming, our flesh bodies go back to the earth from which they came = waiting for the Resurrection


We now wait for His Second Coming and the Completion of the First Resurrection

Did you see post 376 and 393 ?

Example: the Gospel = God is still Saving men & women and Placing them in CHRIST

For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
When Christ who is our life appears, then you/we also will appear with Him in glory. - Colossians 3:3

A person is either in CHRIST or outside of CHRIST = only TWO resurrections = the FIRST is unto Eternal Life

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

YES = CHRIST is the FIRST Resurrection = Beginning and End

Again, you act like you agree with me, but you don't. I am saying Christ's resurrection alone in and of itself is the first resurrection. As a Premil, you do not agree with that. So, why act as if you agree with me?

CHRIST is the Beginning of the FIRST Resurrection and HE is the END = 1 Cor 15:20-22

He is not just "the Beginning of the FIRST Resurrection". He IS the first resurrection. His bodily resurrection IS the first resurrection because He was the first to bodily rise from the dead unto bodily immortality. That is what 1 Corinthians 15:20 indicates and is what is indicated here as well..

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Notice that this doesn't say Christ is the beginning of the first that should rise from the dead. It says He is the first to rise from the dead, with the context being unto bodily immortality. Obviously, others, like Lazarus, were bodily resurrected before Him, so it's not talking about Him literally being the first to rise from the dead in any sense.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

CHRIST Completes the Resurrection of His Body/the Saints when HE Comes with them = 1 Thess 4:13-18

You are adding your own words to the text. Nowhere does it combine the resurrection of His saints with His resurrection as one resurrection (the first resurrection) the way you are trying to do. If that was the case then Paul would not have talked about there being an order to the resurrections in 1 Cor 15:22-23. The order is Christ's was first and then next in order are those who belong to Him at His second coming. So, that resurrection at His second coming is a second resurrection in order after the first resurrection in order, which was Christ's resurrection.

 

[David in NJ]

Again, you act like you agree with me, but you don't.

i DO AGREE with this which you said: "I am saying Christ's resurrection alone in and of HIMSELF is the first resurrection."

My posts always declare the Truth = CHRIST is the First Resurrection

CHRIST is the Beginning and the End of the First Resurrection

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive = who are the "all in Christ"???

 

[David in NJ]

@Spiritual Israelite @Scott Downey

Is God still Saving souls? = YES

Where does God Place the souls who He brings to Christ = HE Places them/us in CHRIST
Col 3:4 - For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
When Christ who is our life Appears, then you/us also will appear with Him in glory.

in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming

CHRIST is the Beginning/Firstfruits of the First Resurrection and HE is the COMPLETION/End = at HIS COMING

CHRIST is the Alpha and Omega = the Beginning and the End

 

[Davidpt]

Right. So, my Amil view is consistent with my NOSAS view since I relate having part in the first resurrection directly with salvation. So, if someone can lose their salvation because of losing their faith then it only follows that they also lose their part in the first resurrection since I relate someone having part in the first resurrection directly with being saved.


That is dependent on what having part in the first resurrection means. Based on how I understand what it means, NOSAS is compatible. Based on how some other Amils understand it, it wouldn't be compatible. But, for you to try to make a blanket statement that it can't be compatible with the view of any Amil is ludicrous. It is compatible with my particular Amil view and not with how some other Amils see it. So what? I couldn't care less if NOSAS is incompatible with other Amil views. I only care if it's compatible with my view.


There is no logic to you trying to lump all Amils together as if we all agree on everything. Some Amils who see having part in the first resurrection as being directly related to salvation believe OSAS and some believe NOSAS. Amil would only be incompatible with NOSAS if OSAS was true. You try to claim that it can't be compatible no matter what. That just shows your lack of understanding of what Amils believe. If having part in the first resurrection is directly related to salvation and one can lose their salvation, then why wouldn't it follow that they can also lose their part in the first resurrection? The two things go hand in hand if having part in the first resurrection is something that occurs when someone becomes saved.


LOL. Where do you come up with this nonsense? This shows your lack of understanding of what Amils believe and nothing more. If you actually understood Amil, you would not claim that you can't believe both Amil and NOSAS. But, as you've proven over and over again, you don't understand Amil.


How does Revelation 20:6 undeniably prove that? Explain that. You are being so incredibly vague in this post. Be specific and explain what you're talking about in a way that actually makes sense.


Look how vague you are being here. You're just making claims with no explanation. Explain exactly why you think NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6. Explain why it would contradict Revelation 20:6 in the case where having part in the first resurrection relates directly to salvation. So far, you have done nothing to back that up.


Why? All you do is make claims while doing NOTHING to back them up. How can anyone take you seriously when that is the case?


LOL! Based on MY understanding of Amil, NOSAS is completely compatible with Amil. Even WPM has acknowledged before that the NOSAS view can be compatible with Amil if it's true. He is OSAS, but he understands that if NOSAS is true it can be compatible with Amil. Why can't you understand that? There's nothing about Amil that makes it so that NOSAS can't be true.


Are you as ignorant as you come across or are you playing games? You try to get Amils to agree with you that Amil can only be compatible with NOSAS, so how do you think you're not trying to turn Amils against each other in that case? You try to turn the Amil vs. Premil debate into a OSAS vs. NOSAS debate, which is completely ridiculous.


LOL at you thinking you are more mature than Amils. Hilarious.

Why are you unwilling to grasp my point? My point is simple, and the fact we both agree NOSAS is Biblical, you would think we would be on the same page here at least.

Revelation 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.

My point has to do with this verse in particular. Obviously, since we both agree that NOSAS is Biblical this means we both understand this to be involving falling away, for one. But look what happens if we place this in verse 6---the first resurrection---before that of anyone falling away.

Instead of verse 6 still saying and meaning what it says above, now we are left with adding and taking away from the text what the text plainly says and mean. Now we have it saying and meaning this instead--Not everyone is blessed and holy that hath part in the first resurrection: On some, the 2nd death still has power, and that some of these can and will be cast into LOF.

Which, BTW, even contradicts your Amil view, that when one has part in the first resurrection, thus reign with Christ a thousand years that begins in the here and now, that when they die they then go to heaven and continue this reigning with Christ a thousand years there, while in a disembodied state. As if it makes sense, per this scenario, that if anyone falls away while reigning with Christ a thousand years back on earth, that when they die, rather than going to hell and being among the lost, they go to heaven instead, in order to continue reigning with Christ a thousand years.

Like I pointed out, your NOSAS position even contradicts your Amil position in regards to what Amils, such as you, insists happens to saints who are reigning with Christ a thousand years during the here and now, when they die. Amil doctrine says they continue their reign in heaven in a disembodied state. NOSAS contradicts Amil doctrine and says some of them go to hell when they die. I don't dispute that they do go to hell when they die. But that does not agree with Amil doctrine, since Amil doctrine has everyone in verse 6 going to heaven and continuing the thousand year reign there when they die.

But look what happens if we place this in verse 6---the first resurrection---after that of anyone falling away. Nothing changes about verse 6. It still says and still means what it already says and means. And that NOSAS can still be Biblical without contradicting anything in verse 6. Except the problem is this, in your case. This scenario can only work with Premil, certainly not with Amil.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

i DO AGREE with this which you said: "I am saying Christ's resurrection alone in and of HIMSELF is the first resurrection."

I did not say that. Why did you misquote me? I said His resurrection alone and in and of ITSELF is the first resurrection. In other words, Christ's resurrection alone is the first resurrection and not the resurrection of anyone else. You include the resurrection of the dead in Christ at His second coming as part of the first resurrection, but I don't because I believe His Christ's resurrection alone is the first resurrection. We all have part in His resurrection spiritually, as passages like Colossians 2:12-13 and Romans 6:4-5 talk about.

My posts always declare the Truth = CHRIST is the First Resurrection

You also say that the resurrection of the dead in Christ as His resurrection is the first resurrection.

CHRIST is the Beginning and the End of the First Resurrection

What does this even mean and where is this stated in scripture?

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive = who are the "all in Christ"???

It's a waste of time to ask questions with obvious answers that don't address my point. The all in Christ are...get this...all of the dead who are in Christ. But, that is the second resurrection in order that Paul referenced. Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection in the order of resurrections that Paul referenced. If you think Paul only referenced the first resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, then why did he talk about there being an order of resurrections? What do you think is the order of resurrections that he referenced?

 

[David in NJ]

I did not say that. Why did you misquote me? I said His resurrection alone and in and of ITSELF is the first resurrection. In other words, Christ's resurrection alone is the first resurrection and not the resurrection of anyone else. You include the resurrection of the dead in Christ at His second coming as part of the first resurrection, but I don't because I believe His Christ's resurrection alone is the first resurrection. We all have part in His resurrection spiritually, as passages like Colossians 2:12-13 and Romans 6:4-5 talk about.


You also say that the resurrection of the dead in Christ as His resurrection is the first resurrection.


What does this even mean and where is this stated in scripture?


It's a waste of time to ask questions with obvious answers that don't address my point. The all in Christ are...get this...all of the dead who are in Christ. But, that is the second resurrection in order that Paul referenced. Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection in the order of resurrections that Paul referenced. If you think Paul only referenced the first resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, then why did he talk about there being an order of resurrections? What do you think is the order of resurrections that he referenced?

i corrected your "itself" as there is no "itself" in the Resurrection.

Christ HIMSELF is the Resurrection = John 11:25 "I am the Resurrection"

You will not find a single verse that declares Christ as "itself"

Paul NEVER referred or stated any such thing as "the second resurrection"

JESUS said the second resurrection is only for those who will suffer the Second Death = Revelation

 

[Douggg]

You say you agree, but I'm not sure exactly what you are agreeing with. I am saying that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. Do you agree with that? That's what verses like Acts 26:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:20 indicate. And I am saying that we have part in His resurrection (the first resurrection) when we are spiritually saved, as passages like Colossians 2:12-13 talk about. Do you agree with that? What I am NOT saying is that the first resurrection has anything to do with the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ when He comes again. Do you agree with that?

Revelation 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.

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

The first resurrection in Revelation 20:5 will be the first of two mass resurrections relative to the millennium (the thousand years following Jesus's return).

The first resurrection will be for martyred great tribulation saints as stated in Revelation 20:4, as the thousand years begin..

After the thousand years are over, the second resurrection will be a mass resurrection of the remainder of the dead. It will take place right before the Great White Throne Judgment in Revelation 20:11-15.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why are you unwilling to grasp my point?

LOL! Why would I be unwilling to grasp your point? Tell me. I'd love to know what you think I could gain from that and why I would be unwilling to grasp your point. I have no reason to be unwilling to grasp your point. If I misunderstood you, it's certainly not on purpose. You OFTEN misunderstand me and misrepresent my beliefs. Should I assume it's because you're unwilling to grasp my points or is it just that you think very differently from me and that causes you to not see my points sometimes?

My point is simple,

Only in your mind. You understand that we don't think alike, right? So, expecting me to agree that your point is simple is unreasonable. There are many times where I felt like I've made simple points and you didn't get them, either. Should I claim that it's because you were unwilling to grasp them? I don't think that would be fair for me to claim that, do you?

and the fact we both agree NOSAS is Biblical, you would think we would be on the same page here at least.

Don't assume that you and I are ever on the same page. Do you understand that we often think very differently?

Revelation 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.

My point has to do with this verse in particular. Obviously, since we both agree that NOSAS is Biblical this means we both understand this to be involving falling away, for one. But look what happens if we place this in verse 6---the first resurrection---before that of anyone falling away.

Instead of verse 6 still saying and meaning what it says above, now we are left with adding and taking away from the text what the text plainly says and mean. Now we have it saying and meaning this instead--Not everyone is blessed and holy that hath part in the first resurrection: On some, the 2nd death still has power, and that some of these can and will be cast into LOF.

I have tried to point something out to you about this several times before and you never respond. I will try one more time.

Let's use similar logic that you're using in relation to Revelation 20:6 and apply it to John 3:16. We both believe that some who believe in Christ can later lose their faith and fall away, right? So, let's look at what it says in John 3:16.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Now, you are accusing me of changing the text of Revelation 20:6 to say "Not everyone is blessed and holy that hath part in the first resurrection: On some, the 2nd death still has power, and that some of these can and will be cast into LOF" because of my understanding of what it means to have part in the first resurrection and my belief in NOSAS.

If that was a valid argument, then that would mean someone could accuse you (and anyone who believes NOSAS, including me) of changing the text of John 3:16 to say this instead: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that some who believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, but some who believeth in Him will perish and will not have everlasting life.".

Do you think that would be a valid argument to make against your NOSAS belief? I'm sure you would not. And that's how I feel about the argument you're making relating to Revelation 20:6.

Which, BTW, even contradicts your Amil view, that when one has part in the first resurrection, thus reign with Christ a thousand years that begins in the here and now, that when they die they then go to heaven and continue this reigning with Christ a thousand years there, while in a disembodied state. As if it makes sense, per this scenario, that if anyone falls away while reigning with Christ a thousand years back on earth, that when they die, rather than going to hell and being among the lost, they go to heaven instead, in order to continue reigning with Christ a thousand years.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you said here correctly or not, but if I am, then it seems, based on what is written in John 3:16, that would be like saying when one believes in Christ they will have eternal life even if they fall away. You don't seem to understand that interpreting Revelation 20:6 in isolation from the rest of scripture the way you do leads to a false interpretation of the verse. If we interpreted John 3:16 in isolation from the rest of scripture, would we conclude that anyone who believes in Christ could fall away and perish rather than having eternal life? No. That's why it's a bad idea to interpret any verse or passage in isolation from the rest of scripture. But, for some reason, you have decided to do that when it comes to Revelation 20:6.

Like I pointed out, your NOSAS position even contradicts your Amil position in regards to what Amils, such as you, insists happens to saints who are reigning with a thousand years during the here and now, when they die.

No, it doesn't. You just don't understand my beliefs. That's the real problem here. As well as the fact that you can use your same faulty logic you use in relation to Revelation 20:6 to refute NOSAS by using a verse like John 3:16.

But look what happens if we place this in verse 6---the first resurrection---after that of anyone falling away. Nothing changes about verse 6. It still says and still means what it already says and means. And that NOSAS can still be Biblical without contradicting anything in verse 6. Except the problem is this, in your case. This scenario can only work with Premil, certainly not with Amil.

LOL. You just have no idea how faulty your reasoning is.

But, let's again use similar reasoning from another standpoint in relation to Revelation 20:6.

You read Revelation 20:6 as if it says that everyone who has part in the first resurrection are guaranteed to reign with Christ for a thousand years with no chance of falling away. And that's because you read it in a woodenly literal fashion without taking other scripture into account.

Now, what if we did that same thing in relation to what it says in relation to the second death not having any power over someone?

Revelation 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.

If we interpret this verse in isolation from the rest of scripture the way you are doing and if you were correct that the first resurrection refers to the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ when Christ returns, then we could conclude that the only way to avoid the second death is to be bodily resurrected when Christ returns. Which would mean that those who are alive and remain until His second coming would be out of luck since they would obviously not be resurrected since they would not be dead. Do you see how interpreting the verse in such a wooden literal fashion in isolation from the rest of scripture like you do can cause contradictions with the rest of scripture?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

i corrected your "itself" as there is no "itself" in the Resurrection.

You corrected nothing. You misquoted me.

Christ HIMSELF is the Resurrection = John 11:25 "I am the Resurrection"

That is a different context than what I was talking about. How about staying on topic? Do you think you can do that? I was talking about the order of resurrections like what Paul referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23. You do see that he references an order to resurrections, right?

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

What is the ORDER of resurrections that Paul gave here? He first mentions Christ's resurrection when he said that Christ was risen from the dead and became the firstfruits of them that slept. So, that is the first resurrection in order that Paul referenced. Christ's resurrection itself. That's what he's talking about when he says "Christ the firstfruits" in 1 Cor 15:23. What is the next resurrection in order that Paul referenced? The resurrection of "they that are Christ's at his coming". He indicated that after Christ's resurrection, that is the next resurrection in order. So, what you are claiming is the end of the first resurrection is actually a second resurrection in order, according to Paul. Christ's resurrection itself and only His resurrection, is the first resurrection in order. THAT is my point. Can you see my point, regardless of whether you agree with it or not? I think I'm making my point clear. What I am NOT saying is that Christ is not Himself the resurrection. In a sense, He is the resurrection and the life, because He said so. But, that has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

You will not find a single verse that declares Christ as "itself"

And I never said there was. You are wasting your time making a strawman argument.

Paul NEVER referred or stated any such thing as "the second resurrection"

He referred to an order of resurrections in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 when he referred to the resurrection of "every man in his own order". What is your understanding of that?

JESUS said the second resurrection is only for those who will suffer the Second Death = Revelation

Where did he say that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Revelation 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.

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

The first resurrection in Revelation 20:5 will be the first of two mass resurrections relative to the millennium (the thousand years following Jesus's return).

The first resurrection will be for martyred great tribulation saints as stated in Revelation 20:4, as the thousand years begin..

After the thousand years are over, the second resurrection will be a mass resurrection of the remainder of the dead. It will take place right before the Great White Throne Judgment in Revelation 20:11-15.

If you are going to respond to me, then how about actually addressing my points instead of just sharing what you believe? I already know what you believe, but I don't know how you would address the points I made since you didn't bother to do so.

Regarding your particular belief, though, even if the first resurrection referred to a mass bodily resurrection, that would contradict your particular belief. You believe there will be a mass bodily resurrection that occurs 7 years (or however long) before the time when you think the first resurrection will take place. So, in your view, the mass bodily resurrection that will take place when Christ returns is not the first mass bodily resurrection that will take place, but instead would be the second.