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?