MOTB by itself does not always = LOF ??

[IndianaRob]

Daniel's prophesy was to be fulfilled at the time when Michael, the great Prince would stand up for the children of Daniel's people. Although there will be a bodily resurrection for all who are in the graves at the end of this time, which is the end of this age, the resurrection is NOT what Daniel is showing us in this passage.



Yes, that's how we might know that Daniel is not writing about the resurrection that shall be in an hour coming when the last trumpet sounds.



This is not "the marker that The Resurrection has come" for all who are in the graves. There was only ONE resurrection at that time, the bodily resurrection of Christ. Christ's resurrection proved to all the world that He was the Son of God, and that death through Him had been defeated for those who believe. Since none of the MANY bodies that came out of the graves after Christ's resurrection were resurrected in physical flesh, this is proof the resurrection that is coming was not what Daniel meant when he writes many of them who had died were awakened as though from sleep.

This is not proving the resurrection had come, rather it proves the Kingdom of God through Christ has come, and now, since He is resurrected from the dead, whosoever lives and believes in Him need not fear death. No man could have entrance into the Kingdom of God in heaven until after Christ came to make atonement for sin, and to defeat death. This is what Daniel's prophesy is showing us.

The many who had died and were awakened were faithful Old Covenant saints who had died in faith before the advent of Christ. They did awake as though from sleeping, not physically but as the spiritual body of Christ. And before ascending to heaven Christ first descended down into the graves to set those captives of the grave free, taking them spiritually alive or as living souls with Him to heaven. Since Christ defeated death the gates of heaven were opened so that now all who physically die in faith go as spiritual body to heaven where they/we shall be until the seventh/last trumpet sounds.

While many were spiritually free from the grave, some shall also be awakened to shame and everlasting contempt. But those awakened to shame and everlasting contempt will be bodily resurrected to life again only to stand before the great white throne judgment of God to give account to all that is found written in the books and the book of life. Their shame and everlasting contempt wait for the hour coming when all who are in the graves shall be bodily resurrected to immortal/incorruptible life or judgment and condemnation.


This is NOT what happened at the cross. Because at the cross the only resurrection was the resurrection of Christ.



The many awakened three days after the cross went to the Kingdom of God in heaven spiritual body or living souls without human form. The final destiny for all of mankind shall not come until the hour that is coming when the last/seventh trumpet sounds that time given this earth wherein man might be saved has ended.

I don't think either of us is going to move the other on this topic, so we'll leave it there. Good discussion.

 

[Davidpt]

Daniel's subject is The Resurrection — the event in which ALL who sleep in the dust are raised and judged, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt. That is the thing being spoken of.

But notice what Daniel actually says. He does not say ALL who sleep in the dust awake. He says MANY. That word is deliberate, and it is doing different work than the subject itself. The awaking of many is not The Resurrection — it is the marker that The Resurrection has come. Daniel is giving us the when.

So the two things sit side by side in the verse:

The Resurrection — all who sleep in the dust raised and judged, life or contempt.
The timing — many awake, and among those, some to life and some to contempt. This is what happened at the cross and resurrection of Christ.

So the many awaking tells you the hour has struck — The cross. The two destinies tell you what hour it is — The Resurrection.

2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


This verse fits you to a T. If you disagree, then explain why it doesn't.

Why do you think these things are something good that every interpreter should seek to do---Who concerning the truth have erred---and overthrow the faith of some?

So what if you are arguing that both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 are involving a resurrection event where both the saved and the damned rise during it, thus not separated by a thousand years like Premils take it mean. These other interpreters are arguing that both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 is a bodily resurrection of both the saved and the damned that take place when Christ initially returns.

You, OTOH, are arguing that both passages do indeed involve a bodily resurrection of both the saved and damned during the same resurrection event, except it's not a future event still, it is an event that was fulfilled 2000 years ago at the cross. Except no one denies that a bodily resurrection occurred 2000 years ago, except in this case, it's not meaning Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29. Both of those passages are future still.

Even if some of these other interpreters are incorrect that John 5:28-29 involves both the saved and damned rising during the same resurrection event, 2 Timothy 2:18 is not applicable to them as well. It is only applicable to you, in this case. These others aren't claiming the bodily resurrection of saved saints is already past, only you are claiming that.

Are you then a full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing like I was initially suspecting all along? I guess only you and God know the real answer to that.


When it comes to the topic of a bodily resurrection, not one single person in here, not even Amils, should be agreeing with you pertaining to this subject, period, the fact 2 Timothy 2:18 fits you to a T.

If you are wrong about the bodily resurrection of saved saints, what else are you wrong about as well, where Amils are liking some of those posts by you?

Truths mixed with untruths do not equal truth. It equals the manner in which satan operates by mixing the two together and calling it it the truth.

For example. You are indeed correct that both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 involve the bodily resurrection of the saved saints, therefore = truth. But are incorrect that both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 have already been fulfilled 2000 years ago at the cross = untruth. Therefore, truth and untruth combined does not equal truth, it equals a trait of satan himself, it equals deception.

 

[Scott Downey]

We're in agreement on two resurrection groups — the just, the unjust. Where we disagree is what "the first resurrection" means. You take it as ordinal — slot one in a numbered sequence, with a second one following later. My argument is that it's a name. "The first resurrection" is a title for the resurrection of the just, the way "the resurrection of damnation" is a title for the unjust. Neither one is a calendar position.

Now take the three passages you cited, because each one describes a single event:

Acts 24:15 — "there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Singular. One resurrection containing two classes. Paul could have written "resurrections" and did not.

John 5:28–29 — "the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth." One hour. One voice. All the dead in the graves. Then, and only then, two destinations. The division Jesus draws is in where they go, not when they rise.

Daniel 12:2 — "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." One verb of awakening governing the whole group, then "some… some." Again: one event, two outcomes.

That's the pattern in all three. The two-ness is never in the rising. It's always in what follows the rising — life or damnation, just or unjust. "Resurrection of life" and "resurrection of damnation" are names for outcomes, not slots on a calendar. And that's exactly how "the first resurrection" reads: a name for the company of the just, not the first entry in a numbered series.

So all three of the passages you brought forward cut against the reading you're putting on Revelation 20. You cited them as support for a two-stage sequence, but each one describes a single rising with two outcomes. Revelation 20 has to be read alongside them, not against them.

Christ's doctrine has the preeminence, Revelation should be interpreted according to the words of Christ, not as an independent book of doctrines.
Example, we are warned not to add to His words.

1 Timothy 6
3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the [a]doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 [b]useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. [c]From such withdraw yourself.

 

[IndianaRob]

2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


This verse fits you to a T. If you disagree, then explain why it doesn't.

Why do you think these things are something good that every interpreter should seek to do---Who concerning the truth have erred---and overthrow the faith of some?

So what if you are arguing that both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 are involving a resurrection event where both the saved and the damned rise during it, thus not seperated by a thousand years like Premils take it mean. These other interpreters are arguing that both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 is a bodily resurrection of both the saved and the damned that take place when Christ intitially returns.

You, OTOH, are arguing that both passages do indeed involve a bodily resurrection of both the saved and damned during the same resurrection event, except it's not a future event still, it is an event that was fulfilled 2000 years ago at the cross. Except no one denies that a bodily resurrection occured 2000 years ago, except in this case, it's not meaning Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29. Both of those passages are future still.

Even if some of these other interpreters are incorrect that John 5:28-29 involves both the saved and damned rising during the sane resurrection event, 2 Timothy 2:18 is not applicable to them as well. It is only applicapble to you, in this case. These others aren't claiming the bodily resurrection of saved saints is already past, only you are claiming that.

Are you then a full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing like I was intially suspecting? I guess only you and God know the real answer to that.


When it comes to the topic of a bodily resurrection, not one single person in here, not even Amils, should be agreeing with you pertaining to this subject, period, the fact 2 Timothy 2:18 fits you to a T.

If you are wrong about the bodily resurrection of saved saints, what else are you wrong about as well, where Amils are liking some of those posts by you?

Truths mixed with untruths do not equal truth. It equals the manner in which satan operates by mixing the two together and calling it it the truth.

For example. You are indeed correct that both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 involve the bodily resurrection of the saved saints, therefore = truth. But you incorrect that both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 have already been fulfilled 2000 years ago at the cross = untruth. Therefore, truth and untruth combined does not equal truth, it equals a trait of satan himself, it equals deception.

Those verses fit you to a T. Your belief about the resurrection is exactly the same as theirs, and that belief is why they erred when they said "the resurrection is past already". They thought it meant dead bodies rising, so when they saw bodies come out of the ground and stand to their feet at the resurrection of Christ, they said the resurrection was done and over with.

 

[IndianaRob]

Christ's doctrine has the preeminence, Revelation should be interpreted according to the words of Christ, not as an independent book of doctrines.
Example, we are warned not to add to His words.

1 Timothy 6
3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the [a]doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 [b]useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. [c]From such withdraw yourself.

The entire bible is Christ's doctrine. Besides that, Revelation 20 in no way contradicts Daniel 12 or any of the other resurrection passages. Revelation 20 adds one detail about the resurrection that the other passages don't and that's the thousand years. The thousand years do not contradict anything given in Daniel, its the same account as the rest with the millennial kingdom added in.

 

[Scott Downey]

The entire bible is Christ's doctrine. Besides that, Revelation 20 in no way contradicts Daniel 12 or any of the other resurrection passages. Revelation 20 adds one detail about the resurrection that the other passages don't and that's the thousand years. The thousand years do not contradict anything given in Daniel, its the same account as the rest with the millennial kingdom added in.

The 1000 years reign is kicked all over the place doctrinally.
It best fts as one that is in Heaven where Christ is seated at God's right hand.

Where Christ must remain until... all His enemies are his footstool, and the last enemy to be destroyed is death...

 

[Davidpt]

Those verses fit you to a T. Your belief about the resurrection is exactly the same as theirs, and that belief is why they erred when they said "the resurrection is past already". They thought it meant dead bodies rising, so when they saw bodies come out of the ground and stand to their feet at the resurrection of Christ, they said the resurrection was done and over with.

Christ's resurrection is not the subject of 2 Timothy 2:18. Otherwise, they would have been correct, not incorrect, that the resurrection is already past. The subject is the resurrection of saved saints.

How can you not see, that if Christ's resurrection is meant per 2 Timothy 2:18, that this verse would be a contradiction, in that case? When 2 Timothy 2:18 was penned, was Christ's resurrection already in the past? Of course it was. Yet the text says---Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already. The verse should instead be saying, if Christ's resurrection is meant---Who concerning the truth have not erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; thus do not overthrow the faith of some. But it doesn't say that. It says the exact opposite, and then you are saying it fits me to a T instead, though I'm not arguing that the bodily resurrection of saved saints is in the past, you are the one arguing that. Nor am I arguing that Christ's resurrection is not in the past. Except Christ's resurrection is not the subject of 2 Timothy 2:18.

I may have been born at night but I wasn't born last night. Therefore, I don't naively fall for these truths mixed with untruths = truth that you are peddaling in here and elswehere in this forum.

 

[IndianaRob]

The 1000 years reign is kicked all over the place doctrinally.
It best fts as one that is in Heaven where Christ is seated at God's right hand.

Where Christ must remain until... all His enemies are his footstool, and the last enemy to be destroyed is death...

I agree and that's why I say "thousand" represents God's ownership or God' people while they're here on earth. The cattle on a thousand hills are God's cattle (sheep, believers). The thousand year reign is "time" believers spend on this earth under the dominion of God's authority.

 

[IndianaRob]

Christ's resurrection is not the subject of 2 Timothy 2:18. Otherwise, they would have been correct, not incorrect, that the resurrection is already past. The subject is the resurrection of saved saints.

How can you not see, that if Christ's resurrection is meant per 2 Timothy 2:18, that this verse would be a contradiction, in that case? When 2 Timothy 2:18 was penned, was Christ's resurrection already in the past? Of course it was. Yet the text says---Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already. The verse should instead be saying, if Christ's resurrection is meant---Who concerning the truth have not erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; thus do not overthrow the faith of some. But it doesn't say that. It says the exact opposite, and then you are saying it fits me to a T instead, though I'm not arguing that the bodily resurrection of saved saints is in the past, you are the one arguing that. Nor am I arguing that Christ's resurrection is not in the past. Except Christ's resurrection is not the subject of 2 Timothy 2:18.

I may have been born at night but I wasn't born last night. Therefore, I don't naively fall for these truths mixed with untruths = truth that you are peddaling in here and elswehere in this forum.

Why do you say Christ's resurrection like Christ was the only one to rise? There were thousands or maybe even millions that were raised with Christ.

 

[rwb]

So what is John 5:25 talking about, if it is not the resurrection? Who are the dead in that verse that were hearing his voice at that exact time?

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.

 

[rwb]

I don't think either of us is going to move the other on this topic, so we'll leave it there. Good discussion.

I don't post in these forums to move anyone! It is my desire and hope that the Scriptures I use to present my arguments would help some to come to a fuller understanding of biblical doctrine. If one does not gain better understanding when presented with Scripture, there are various reasons for why. Sometimes it may be because I have not been clear enough in my arguments. But what I often find in these forums is that pride often keeps us from accepting that what we have been taught or learned is not from the Bible, but being read into the Bible. My only desire is to bring forth the truth. Knowing that I do not possess perfect knowledge of biblical doctrine, I am open to hearing counter arguments IF IF IF I can be shown from the Bible why the biblical arguments I've presented are not truth. Since you have not been able to prove from the Bible why you think my doctrine is error, you've shown nothing as you say to "move me on this topic." If you're happy to leave it at that, that's entirely your decision.

 

[rwb]

I agree and that's why I say "thousand" represents God's ownership or God' people while they're here on earth. The cattle on a thousand hills are God's cattle (sheep, believers). The thousand year reign is "time" believers spend on this earth under the dominion of God's authority.

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.

 

[Davidpt]

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.

Do you agree or disagree that Daniel 7:22 = Revelation 20:4-6?

 

[rwb]

Do you agree or disagree that Daniel 7:22 = Revelation 20:4-6?

I believe Dan 7:22 pertains to the Old Covenant faithful saints Christ rescued from the graves after His resurrection. Yes, I believe they are the martyred souls who have reigned with Christ for a thousand symbolic years (there would be others). They have part in the first resurrection through Christ, being the spiritual body of Christ, first fruits SPIRITUALLY, not physically. They are the first to ascend to heaven the spiritual body of Christ through the Spirit of Christ sealing them, the first fruits of the Spirit.

 

[JimKnox]

......receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
Yet the verse states OR not AND
Based on that verse, if a Christian receives the mark in his hand OR in his forehead yet does NOT worship the beast/image then he has not met all 3 conditions required to be sent to the LOF

Baloney.

 

[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.

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