MOTB by itself does not always = LOF ??

[Davidpt]

What’s you’re rationale for saying the two are different types of resurrections? I mean in those verses what changes the context?

Obviously, those who rise to everlasting life does not include anyone that rises to everlasting shame. Equally, those who rise to everlasting shame does not include anyone that rise to everlasting life. Therefore, 2 types of resurrections are meant. Both involve rising from the dead. The Bible reveals the resurrection of the just, no matter how many resurrection events there might be, that until all of the just are raised first, none of the unjust are raised in the meantime

For example. Christ's resurrection. No unjust person rose before that resurrection nor doing it. In the future, when the dead in Christ rise first, this is equally true of them as well. No unjust person rose before they do. Nor do any unjust persons rise when they do, since it would contradict what 'first' means. 'First' makes no sense unless there is something of the same nature, in this case a rising from the dead, that follows it. But it doesn't have to immediately follow it. As long as it follows it eventually, is all that is required. And once the dead in Christ rise in future, there are no more resurrections of the saved after that. Any resurrections after that are a resurrection of the damned.

 

[Davidpt]

Dan 7:22 I believe shows us the beginning of the symbolic thousand years, because that is when the door to the Kingdom of God in heaven was open for all those who died in faith waiting for the Messiah/Christ to come and make atonement for sin and defeat death. Rev 20 depicts all those who came out of the graves after Christ's resurrection and ascended to heaven with Christ a spiritual body/living soul without human form.

I believe this is why John writes the martyred souls as having lived and reigned with Christ (past tense) a thousand years. A thousand years for living and reigning with Christ began with His first advent and will end when the seventh/last trumpet sounds.

Since you are on record that you agree, this then logically means Daniel 7:22 is when the millennium initially begins.

But guess what? Amil has the beginning of the millennium somewhere around the time of the resurrection of Christ or soon afterwards.

Guess what else? Daniel 7:21 has to precede Daniel 7:22. And that it is because of verse 22 that verse 21 comes to an end eventually. After all, we simply cannot ignore, thus disregard, the 'until' plainly written in verse 22. It clearly means verse 21 continues in that manner until the Ancient of days comes in order to put a stop to it once and for all. The first coming did not accomplish that by itself. It is the 2nd coming that fully accomplishes it.

Therefore, the context of verse 22 is the 2nd coming. And if meaning Revelation 20:4-6, it equally means the 2nd coming is the context of that as well. Otherwise, we end up with a contradiction. Daniel 7:22 = 2nd coming = Revelation 20:4-6. But Revelation 20:4-6 does not = the 2nd coming. And what a blatant contradiction that causes. Contradictions make nonsense out of the texts involved, not sense out of instead. And this is a perfect example of exactly that.

And the fact Amil places the beginning of the millennium 2000 years ago, and that Daniel 7:21 has to precede the beginning of the millennium, per a scenario that agrees Daniel 7:22 = Revelation 20:4-6, that means Amil is forced to place Daniel 7:21 before the time of the cross in order to not contradict the chronology of verse 21 and 22.

Except Amil doesn't place Daniel 7:21 before the time of the cross. But Amils, such as yourself, so maybe not all Amils, since not Amils might agree to begin with that Daniel 7:22 = Revelation 20:4-6, do gymnastics with the texts instead. So instead of placing verse 21 before the millennium per this scenario, where it logically fits to begin with, you place it somewhere else altogether.

Premil does not have this problem, not even remotely. If Premil places Daniel 7:21 before the millennium, it means Daniel 7:21 fits the end of this age exactly where it logically belongs. And that it is Christ's 2nd coming that puts an end to Daniel 7:21 once and for all.

If the millennium began 2000 years ago, and that Daniel 7:21 MUST logically precede the beginning of the millennium if Daniel 7:22 = Revelation 20:4-6, guess what else was not true 2000 years ago? That the 2nd coming happened. The same coming that puts an end to Daniel 7:21 once and for all.

 

[rwb]

But guess what? Amil has the beginning of the millennium somewhere around the time of the resurrection of Christ or soon afterwards.

Exactly! Which is why I am Amil. Yes, at the time of the resurrection of Christ, who is the "first resurrection" even the saints living and dying before the cross and resurrection of Christ must have part in. Dan 7:22 depicts the timing for when these Old Covenant faithful saints (((spiritually))) possessed the Kingdom of God in heaven because they too have part in Christ's resurrection through FAITH, believing Messiah the Christ would come, and keeping the faith unto death.

Guess what else? Daniel 7:21 has to precede Daniel 7:22. And that it is because of verse 22 that verse 21 comes to an end eventually.

Do you realize that Daniel 7 depicts not only things that would come to pass in time before the first advent of Christ, as well as things that would come to pass after the advent of Christ come to earth a man?

 

[ewq1938]

So what is John 5:25 talking about, if it is not the resurrection?

It's talking about resurrections that will happen during that time and the future resurrection verse 28 speaks about.

Who are the dead in that verse that were hearing his voice at that exact time?

People like Lazarus and those who rose at the cross and went into town. There are many resurrections mentioned in the bible. The future one both speak of is the resurrection of the saved dead.

 

[Davidpt]

Do you realize that Daniel 7 depicts not only things that would come to pass in time before the first advent of Christ, as well as things that would come to pass after the advent of Christ come to earth a man?

Equally, do you realize that when the 'until' is fulfilled in verse 22, that it means the following comes to a complete end to never continue nor be repeated in the future--- the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them?

Something else to keep in mind is this.

Daniel 7:16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.

Which means everything after verse 16 is the interpretation of things before verse 15. Therefore, Daniel 7:21-22 is the interpretation of Daniel 7:9-12. And take note, this---I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. Which is then fulfilled when the 'until' meant in verse 22 comes to pass. Which then proves once the 'until' is fulfilled in verse 22, it puts an end to verse 21 for good. After all, if this same horn is given to the burning flame when this 'until' is fulfilled at the time, it would be absurd that this same horn that is in the LOF at this point, continues or repeats in the future what it has been doing before the 'until' in verse 22 comes to pass. No one gets out of the LOF once they are cast into it. Nor is anyone waging war on anyone outside of the LOF while they are in the LOF.

Per Amil, this can't fit the beginning of the millennium nor prior to it, but fits the Premil view to a T---the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. IOW, involving Revelation 19:20 and the 2nd coming.

Keeping in mind that---the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame---is meaning just prior to the beginning of the millennium or at the beginning if the 'until' in verse 22 means Revelation 20:4-6. In which you already agree it does, unless you are planning on moving the goal post or something.