That's true, but if you go link back, you asked for verses showing that they were resurrected, not that they were resurrected AFTER the second death. I think we can agree that this resurrection is prior to the second death.
We're asking this (sorry for all the folks that have read this repeatedly by me - but I still haven't seen it).
Background:
We are given elaborately detailed information on the whole process of judgment - how they're raised up, where they're raised to -- how books are opened up & God judging... then God sentencing certain ones (not found in the book of life) to Gehenna - an eternal place.
The same place Satan, his demons, the false prophet & Antichrist all get thrown into.
We have all that in specific detail.
The Universalists [namely who do agree there is punishment for the sin people committed] are claiming that AFTER they pay for these sins, God lets them back out of Gehenna (the FINAL destination mentioned for the lost) and they're then "saved" becuz they repented of their sins & have Faith now.
We're asking where this detailed doctrine is - teaching us in the SAME elaborate detail that it gave us as to how they got INTO Gehenna -- when they get out, what God judges in what they did to fully pay for their atonement -- & where they are sent after that.
Becuz we have at least 4-5 verses that emphatically say they "WILL NOT ENTER".
Unless the Universalist wants to claim those verses are WRONG, & they DO enter after some punishment (which the verses give NO exemption clauses or specification of any entry later), then God has to send them somewhere if it's not going to be with the compliant Believers.
So where are they released to instead??
This doctrine is based on that theory - yet there isn't ONE mention of this scenario that I know of in the Bible.
I would think if I was basing my belief on a doctrine, that I'd at the very least SEE IT TAUGHT OUTRIGHT in some specification that defines it directly.
Clearly.
What we ARE given are verses that are taken to mean this happens... most of which (if not all so far) have been effectively refuted... not to mention the preponderance of scripture evidence spelling out the opposite.
I cannot fully explain ALL of the bible truths, I cannot know everything to refute every false doctrine - the point being made here is, Universalism is alot flimsier than people are willing to admit.
MOST of it hangs on emotional ploys, lack of understanding God's attributes which work in Unison; rather than cancelling out one another so as to cease to function...
verses taken right out of their contexts, things read into verses that don't even teach what's being interpreted...
I have real big problems with all this.
A few obscure verses do NOT teach an entire doctrine being spun from what we do not know.