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.

 

[IndianaRob]

The passage telling us of the hour coming that now is, speaks of the time when man hears the Word of God (gospel) and through the power of the Holy Spirit all of them who believe on Christ HAVE everlasting life, and shall not be condemned, but is passed from death unto life. The hour is not the hour coming when all who are in the graves shall hear His voice and come forth:; "they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (Jo 5:28-29) That shall be in a single hour when the last trumpet sounds. But hour in vs 25 does not represent a single hour that is coming, but a single hour that would come and now is PAST (cross & resurrection). Since the single hour (cross & resurrection) has come, now whosoever hears the Word of God and believes on Him has everlasting life.

John 5:24-27 (KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

I think you're saying this:

"the hour is coming" - a future bodily resurrection.
"now is" is a spiritual resurrection.

If that is so, then why do think "the hour is coming" is anything other than when Christ went and preached unto the spirits in prison?

 

[IndianaRob]

I agree, a/the thousand years does symbolically represent "time"! Time that began as Dan 12 shows when Michael would stand up for the children of thy (Daniel's) people. Which points to the cross and resurrection of Christ. It was at the beginning when Christ walked the earth a man that this symbolic "time", John writes "a/the thousand years" began. And according to John this symbolic time will come to an end when the thousand symbolic years of time have finished, and time wherein man in this world might be saved shall be no longer.

Where does John write that the thousand years began at the cross? I've never seen that verse or anything close to saying that.

 

[IndianaRob]

Resurrection in every instance is physical/bodily returning to life after physical death. That's why I often make a point of saying man is not resurrected to life again when we have been saved. When our spirit that once was dead in trespasses and sins is awakened it need not be physically resurrected but spiritually enlightened to understand the things of God. This is what is being depicted in Dan 12. I believe it causes confusion when we say being born again is to be resurrected.

In Dan 12 no one (except Christ) was bodily resurrected. Those awakened to everlasting life were spiritually awakened to ascend with Christ to heaven as living souls, not resurrected. And the "some" shall be bodily/physically resurrected to shame and everlasting contempt in an hour coming when the last trumpet sounds. Because none could be bodily resurrected forever before the sounding of the last trumpet.

Do you have any bible verses to support - "Those awakened to everlasting life were spiritually awakened to ascend with Christ to heaven as living souls, not resurrected"?

Are you basing this on what you think the "Last Trump" is?

 

[IndianaRob]

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.

The question to RWB wasn't about the resurrection of everlasting life or the resurrection of everlasting shame. The question to RWB is why is the resurrection the dead in "now is" a different kind of resurrection than the ones in "the hour is coming".

John 5:25
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

 

[IndianaRob]

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



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.

At least that is a logical reason. Nice job! Not agreeing with you though .

 

[Davidpt]

The question to RWB wasn't about the resurrection of everlasting life or the resurrection of everlasting shame. The question to RWB is why is the resurrection the dead in "now is" a different kind of resurrection than the ones in "the hour is coming".

John 5:25
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

It seems simple. The hour that now is, is what prepares one for the hour that is coming, meaning verse 28 and 29. The hour that now is, applies to the here and now and involves being initially saved. The hour that is coming involves what one's fate is when they did or did not respond to the hour that now is while that hour was still in progress. Not to mention, nowhere in verse 28 and 29 does it ever say that that hour now is. Therefore, it can't logically be meaning the same hour meant in verse 25 described as --and now is. Plus, everyone knows that--and now is--speaks of something present, and that ---is coming---speaks of something future. No one could possibly conflate is coming with that of now is. Therefore, since verses 28 and 29 make zero mention of now is, it is then absurd to apply now is to verses 28 and 29 as well.

What's interesting here, is this. For the most part both Premil and Amil understand--and now is-- in the same manner and apply it the same way. But in Revelation 20:4-6, Amil applies---and is now-- to those verses. While Premil, OTOH, applies---And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life--to that of verses 4-6 instead. Therefore, only Premil has the bodily resurrection of the saved being included in Revelation 20. Amil doesn't.

 

[JimKnox]

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.

The Millenial Kingdom is not symbolic.
It is a literal, visible, physical period of time in which Christ as King rules from Jerusalem over the entire earth.

 

[WPM]

The Millenial Kingdom is not symbolic.
It is a literal, visible, physical period of time in which Christ as King rules from Jerusalem over the entire earth.

Where do you get that in Revelation 20?

 

[JimKnox]

Where do you get that in Revelation 20?

Something I learned in 1st grade.
Reading.

 

[IndianaRob]

It seems simple. The hour that now is, is what prepares one for the hour that is coming, meaning verse 28 and 29. The hour that now is, applies to the here and now and involves being initially saved. The hour that is coming involves what one's fate is when they did or did not respond to the hour that now is while that hour was still in progress. Not to mention, nowhere in verse 28 and 29 does it ever say that that hour now is. Therefore, it can't logically be meaning the same hour meant in verse 25 described as --and now is. Plus, everyone knows that--and now is--speaks of something present, and that ---is coming---speaks of something future. No one could possibly conflate is coming with that of now is. Therefore, since verses 28 and 29 make zero mention of now is, it is then absurd to apply now is to verses 28 and 29 as well.

What's interesting here, is this. For the most part both Premil and Amil understand--and now is-- in the same manner and apply it the same way. But in Revelation 20:4-6, Amil applies---and is now-- to those verses. While Premil, OTOH, applies---And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life--to that of verses 4-6 instead. Therefore, only Premil has the bodily resurrection of the saved being included in Revelation 20. Amil doesn't.

"The hour that now is" refers to present conversion, you say. But the same word — "dead" — describes both groups, and the text never signals a change of sense.

@ewq1938 recognized this as well and gave a sound, logically consistent argument for literal death.

The text supports my view and his view too so I don’t think that passage alone can prove one way or another.