MOTB by itself does not always = LOF ??

[Davidpt]

You deny Christ's first resurrection 2000 years ago. That is blasphemy! You apply to man what pertains to God.

What is more, you add onto Scripture continually. Where is the thousand years mentioned here in any of those passages? Nowhere! You force it into these texts. That is heresy. You are corrupting the Word of God.

How in the world is it blasphemy to logically conclude that the dead that rise first = having part in the first resurrection? It's the same thing as saying, the dead in Christ who rise first have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. No one is denying that Christ was raised first. Which then obviously means anyone that has part in the 2nd resurrection after the thousand years, do not have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. Therefore, these shall be judged and sentenced to the LOF, the 2nd death.

Granted, maybe @ewq1938 doesn't see it entirely like I do, I don't know. All I do know is, it would be closer to blasphemy to insist that anyone that has part in the 2nd resurrection after the thousand years, also have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. If that is not contradictory, then I don't know what is?

The most important resurrection of all, next to Christ's, the bodily resurrection of the saved, Amil has it missing altogether in Revelation 20. It's not there. Apparently, to them a spiritual resurrection pertaining to the here and now was far more important to John than a mere bodily resurrection. Therefore, John neglected to mention the bodily resurrection of the saved in Revelation 20. Good luck getting a spiritual resurrection alone pertaining to the here and now providing the means to live bodily forever. Only a bodily resurrection can accomplish that goal. Except Amil has a bodily resurrection of the saints missing entirely in Revelation 20, like I already said.

 

[WPM]

How in the world is it blasphemy to logically conclude that the dead that rise first = having part in the first resurrection? It's the same thing as saying, the dead in Christ who rise first have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. No one is denying that Christ wasn't raised first. Which then obviously means anyone that has part in the 2nd resurrection after the thousand years, do not have part in the fist resurrection, Christ's resurrection. Therefore, these shall be judged and sentenced to the LOF, the 2nd death.

Granted, maybe @ewq1948 doesn't see it entirely like I do, I don't know. All I do know is, it would be closer to blasphemy to insist that anyone that has part in the 2nd resurrection after the thousand years, also have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. If that is not contradictory, then I don't know what is?

The most important resurrection of all, next to Christ's, the bodily resurrection of the saved, Amil has it missing altogether in Revelation 20. It's not there. Apparently, to them a spiritual resurrection pertaining to the here and now was far more important to John than a mere bodily resurrection. Therefore, John neglected to mention the bodily resurrection of the saved in Revelation 20. Good luck getting a spiritual resurrection alone pertaining to the here and now providing the means to live bodily forever. Only a bodily resurrection can accomplish that goal. Except Amil has a bodily resurrection of the saints missing entirely in Revelation 20, like I already said.

Stop defending the indefensible. @ewq1948 denies Christ's first resurrection. That is blasphemy. As for adding onto Scripture - that is a Premil trait. That is heresy.

 

[WPM]

How in the world is it blasphemy to logically conclude that the dead that rise first = having part in the first resurrection? It's the same thing as saying, the dead in Christ who rise first have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. No one is denying that Christ wasn't raised first. Which then obviously means anyone that has part in the 2nd resurrection after the thousand years, do not have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. Therefore, these shall be judged and sentenced to the LOF, the 2nd death.

Granted, maybe @ewq1938 doesn't see it entirely like I do, I don't know. All I do know is, it would be closer to blasphemy to insist that anyone that has part in the 2nd resurrection after the thousand years, also have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. If that is not contradictory, then I don't know what is?

The most important resurrection of all, next to Christ's, the bodily resurrection of the saved, Amil has it missing altogether in Revelation 20. It's not there. Apparently, to them a spiritual resurrection pertaining to the here and now was far more important to John than a mere bodily resurrection. Therefore, John neglected to mention the bodily resurrection of the saved in Revelation 20. Good luck getting a spiritual resurrection alone pertaining to the here and now providing the means to live bodily forever. Only a bodily resurrection can accomplish that goal. Except Amil has a bodily resurrection of the saints missing entirely in Revelation 20, like I already said.

You promote a totally uncorroborated doctrine, which you have not been able to support for years. All you have is twisting OT scripture in order to support your mistaken opinion of Rev 20.

 

[Davidpt]

You promote a totally uncorroborated doctrine, which you have not been able to support for years. All you have is twisting OT scripture in order to support your mistaken opinion of Rev 20.

Even when I agree with you that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection, you still find some reason to attack me. Obviously, you literally hate me. You never have anything good to say about me ever.

 

[WPM]

Even when I agree with you that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection, you still find some reason to attack me. Obviously, you literally hate me. You never have anything good to say about me ever.

How is that hate?

 

[David in NJ]

Did he conquered death?

JESUS = IAM the WAY the Truth and the LIFE - no one comes to the FATHER but thru ME
JESUS = IAM the Resurrection

JESUS conquered death for Lazarus and for us.

Lazarus did not receive his glorified body at that time.

Glorified Bodies for the Saints occurs at the Second Coming of Christ = The First Resurrection

 

[David in NJ]

How is that hate?

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

 

[David in NJ]

Even when I agree with you that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection, you still find some reason to attack me. Obviously, you literally hate me. You never have anything good to say about me ever.

i love you my Brother in CHRIST

You post some excellent material.

 

[WPM]

Even when I agree with you that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection, you still find some reason to attack me. Obviously, you literally hate me. You never have anything good to say about me ever.

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

 

[David in NJ]

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

What truth are you telling?

There is:
Only One Gospel
Only One Truth
Only One Salvation
Only One First Resurrection
Only One FATHER
Only One LORD
Only One HOLY SPIRIT

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How in the world is it blasphemy to logically conclude that the dead that rise first = having part in the first resurrection? It's the same thing as saying, the dead in Christ who rise first have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. No one is denying that Christ was raised first. Which then obviously means anyone that has part in the 2nd resurrection after the thousand years, do not have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. Therefore, these shall be judged and sentenced to the LOF, the 2nd death.

Granted, maybe @ewq1938 doesn't see it entirely like I do, I don't know. All I do know is, it would be closer to blasphemy to insist that anyone that has part in the 2nd resurrection after the thousand years, also have part in the first resurrection, Christ's resurrection. If that is not contradictory, then I don't know what is?

The most important resurrection of all, next to Christ's, the bodily resurrection of the saved, Amil has it missing altogether in Revelation 20. It's not there.

You can't be serious here. You are actually complaining that Amil doesn't have the second most important resurrection being referenced in Revelation 20 while Premil doesn't have the MOST important resurrection being referenced in Revelation 20?

Apparently, to them a spiritual resurrection pertaining to the here and now was far more important to John than a mere bodily resurrection.

Using your logic, John must have thought the future bodily resurrection of believers is more important than Christ's bodily resurrection.

Therefore, John neglected to mention the bodily resurrection of the saved in Revelation 20. Good luck getting a spiritual resurrection alone pertaining to the here and now providing the means to live bodily forever. Only a bodily resurrection can accomplish that goal. Except Amil has a bodily resurrection of the saints missing entirely in Revelation 20, like I already said.

And you have the most important bodily resurrection missing entirely in Revelation 20 despite the fact that the bodily resurrection of believers unto bodily immortality wouldn't even be possible without Christ's bodily resurrection unto bodily immortality.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What truth are you telling?

There is:
Only One Gospel
Only One Truth
Only One Salvation
Only One First Resurrection
Only One FATHER
Only One LORD
Only One HOLY SPIRIT

He is telling all of those truths. Do you acknowledge that the "only one first resurrection" is Christ's bodily resurrection because it was the first unto bodily immortality and, without it, we would have no hope of eternal life?

Did you know that the Greek words protos (first) and anastasis (resurrection) are used together in only one other verse in scripture besides in Revelation 20? It's this verse...

Acts 26:23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

 

[David in NJ]

He is telling all of those truths. Do you acknowledge that the "only one first resurrection" is Christ's bodily resurrection because it was the first unto bodily immortality and, without it, we would have no hope of eternal life?

AMEN and 100% TRUTH

Did you know that the Greek words protos (first) and anastasis (resurrection) are used together in only one other verse in scripture besides in Revelation 20? It's this verse...

Acts 26:23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

AMEN and 100% TRUTH

Do you know what this means then???

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

JESUS = IAM the WAY the Truth and the LIFE - no one comes to the FATHER but thru ME
JESUS = IAM the Resurrection

JESUS conquered death for Lazarus and for us.

Lazarus did not receive his glorified body at that time.

Glorified Bodies for the Saints occurs at the Second Coming of Christ = The First Resurrection

Paul gave the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality and listed Christ's resurrection first in order with the resurrection of the dead in Christ at His second coming being second in order.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

If the resurrection of the dead in Christ was part of the first resurrection, then what order do you think Paul is talking about here? Your view has a first resurrection and no second resurrection, so it doesn't make sense of Paul saying "each one in his own order".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

AMEN and 100% TRUTH


AMEN and 100% TRUTH

Do you know what this means then???

It means that Christ's bodily resurrection was the first resurrection. As the text says. No other resurrection but His is the first resurrection. His resurrection unto bodily immortality was first and made it possible for the dead in Christ to also be bodily resurrected at His second coming.

 

[David in NJ]

Paul gave the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality and listed Christ's resurrection first in order with the resurrection of the dead in Christ at His second coming being second in order.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

If the resurrection of the dead in Christ was part of the first resurrection, then what order do you think Paul is talking about here? Your view has a first resurrection and no second resurrection, so it doesn't make sense of Paul saying "each one in his own order".

Whoever is not in CHRIST when HE Returns has no place in the First Resurrection.

Do you understand this???

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To summarize, my view is that the sheep and goats judgment is involving the ones meant in Daniel 12:2 but is not involving anyone meant in Revelation 20:11-15. And that the sheep and goats judgment is meaning before/or the beginning of the millennium, and That Revelation 20:11-15 is meaning after the millennium.

Do you not think that the goats represent those whose names are not written in the book of life? How can the following two verses not be describing the same thing? They clearly are.

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

You have some whose names are not written in the book of life being cast into the lake of fire when Jesus returns and the rest being cast there 1,000+ years later. How does that make any sense?

How do you interpret the following passage?

Matthew 13:47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind, 48 which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away. 49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

Jesus said that the wicked will be cast into the furnace of fire at the end of the age. Who are the wicked except for unbelievers? Does Jesus indicate here that only some of the wicked and not all of the wicked will be cast into the furnace of fire at the end of the age? No. Why would the wicked be cast into the fire on multiple occasions?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Whoever is not in CHRIST when HE Returns has no place in the First Resurrection.

Do you understand this???

Of course they don't. Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection and the only ones who spiritually have part in His resurrection are believers (Ephesians 2:4-6, Colossians 2:12-13, Romans 6:9-11, etc.). Do you understand that Acts 26:23 says that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection and that 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 teaches that Christ's resurrection was the first in order?

 

[David in NJ]

Of course they don't. Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection and the only ones who spiritually have part in His resurrection are believers (Ephesians 2:4-6, Colossians 2:12-13, Romans 6:9-11, etc.). Do you understand that Acts 26:23 says that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection and that 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 teaches that Christ's resurrection was the first in order?

ALL GOOD

And since CHRIST is the Resurrection = "IAM the Resurrection"
HE also i s the First Resurrection = the First to rise from the dead and Ascend Bodily to Heaven
This makes CHRIST the Firstfruits unto God

We who are in CHRIST are also firstfruits unto God = 1 Cor 15:20-23

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so 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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

ALL GOOD

And since CHRIST is the Resurrection = "IAM the Resurrection"
HE also i s the First Resurrection = the First to rise from the dead and Ascend Bodily to Heaven
This makes CHRIST the Firstfruits unto God

We who are in CHRIST are also firstfruits unto God = 1 Cor 15:20-23

In terms of the context of 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, only Christ himself is said to be the firstfruits. It should say "firstfruit" since it's only Him. He is the firstfruit of the dead in Christ. It's not saying they are the firstfruits. It's saying Christ is the firstfruit(s) of those who slept (the dead in Christ).

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so 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.

If the dead in Christ are part of the first resurrection, then there is no second resurrection and no order to the resurrections. Yet, Paul said "each in his own order". Without Christ's first resurrection there would be no second resurrection in order at His second coming. A first resurrection implies a second. So, what is the second resurrection in your view?