Short post: The blissful ignorance of Amillennialism's lack of End-Times-Tables

[DavidPT]

what do you believe the throne of David is or means? It’s obviously not David’s literal earthly, material throne, as that is long gone.

Notice, both David, Solomon, and Christ sat on the Lord’s throne:


1 chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

revelation 3:21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


Maybe Amils only see one throne here. I see two. This verse clearly tells us which throne Christ is currently set down in---even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

The other throne is this one---To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne

Jesus' throne couldn't possibly be the Father's throne. Because if it is that would mean overcomers would be granted with sitting in the Father's throne as well. No one but Jesus could possibly be worthy of that honor. The throne Jesus is talking about here, He is not even sitting in it yet. The following proves He is not sitting in it yet, thus shows when He will be.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


The throne meant here is what I'm assuming is meaning David's throne. Otherwise I have to assume the Father's throne is meaning David's throne, which is ludicrous. Revelation 3:21, Matthew 19:28, and Matthew 25:31, all make it crystal clear that Jesus is currently set down with His Father in His throne, and won't be set down in His own throne until He returns bodily to the earth first.

BTW, until Jesus sits in His own throne, no one could possibly already be reigning with Him like Revelation 20:4 and verse 6 shows. This has to be fulfilled first---To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne(Revelation 3:21).

 

[claninja]

The throne meant here is what I'm assuming is meaning David's throne. Otherwise I have to assume the Father's throne is meaning David's throne, which is ludicrous.

I don’t think it’s ludicrous. What does the author of chronicles call the throne that Solomon and David sat on?

1 chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

Jesus' throne couldn't possibly be the Father's throne. Because if it is that would mean overcomers would be granted with sitting in the Father's throne as well. No one but Jesus could possibly be worthy of that honor.

how then did David and Solomon sit on the Yahweh’s throne?

1 chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

 

[claninja]

Some of it is future.

John was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. And we aren't talking about some day of the week, (man's tradition, not the Word's) John never called any day of the week the Lord's Day. He always said, the "first day of the week", etc.

He heard a voice as if a "trumpet" I think common sense alone should tell us the 7th trump has just sounded. That's what ushers in the Lord's Day/Day of the Lord.
And we can see that this - Rev 1:16 ..out of his mouth went a twoedged sword is the same as this - Rev 19:15 "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword. This is a future event and he was told to write about the past, present and future of "that" time frame -the Lord's day. So even some past events of the Lord's day would still be future to us, etc. And of course present in the Lord's Day is future to us as well.

This is one of the keys to understanding the time frame.

And I don't have a problem being a watchman.

Sorry, I’m not following, can you elaborate:

if John was in the spirit “on the Lord’s day” why wouldn’t that mean John was alive on the actual day of the Lord, seeing visions of past, present, and things “soon” to happen?

 

[DavidPT]

I don’t think it’s ludicrous. What does the author of chronicles call the throne that Solomon and David sat on?

1 chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.




how then did David and Solomon sit on the Yahweh’s throne?

1 chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

If you think the Father's throne and David's throne are one and the same, you're free to think what you wish.

Still related to what we are discussing, here's another angle to consider, this pertaining to mostly the reigning with Christ a thousand years.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Which came first, in regards to this---even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne?

A) Jesus overcame first, then He was set down with His Father in His throne

Or?

B) Jesus was set down with His Father in His throne first, then He overcame

Would anyone think it is B) rather than A)? Surely not.

Let's look at this next.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne

Based on the path Jesus took, that He overcame first, then was rewarded later on with being set down with His Father in His throne, which of the following should we assume is correct?

A) One overcomes first, then is rewarded later on with being granted sitting with Jesus in His throne

Or?

B) One is rewarded first with being granted sitting with Jesus in His throne, then they overcome later

While Jesus was in the process of overcoming, He was never rewarded with sitting down with the Father in His throne during that ordeal. Why would fallen man get something that even Jesus didn't get? Why would fallen man already get rewarded with sitting down with Jesus in His throne while in the process of overcoming? The Bible says Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. If He had to fully overcome first then be rewarded later, but that fallen man is rewarded before even fully overcoming first, in a sense that seems to make Jesus even lower than fallen man.

Amil theology has some being more privileged than others. It has fallen man more privileged than Christ since Christ had to fully overcome first, then be rewarded later, but that fallen man can be rewarded before they even fully overcome first. Amil theology has the souls in the 5th seal less privileged than Amils. Those souls are depicted as being under the altar, not depicted as sitting on thrones instead, and are told to rest a little season, not reign a little season, while Amils, when they die, they get to sit on thrones reigning with Christ, not under the altar as well, being told to rest also.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hebrews 10:12-13 Christ; having offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, took His seat at God's right hand. Where He now waits for His enemies to be made His footstool.
The truth of where Jesus is and what He waits for.

This passage does not say that Jesus is not reigning now. Not at all. Paul indicated that Jesus reigns now and must continue to "reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor 15:25). It is at that point that He will have "destroyed all dominion, authority and power" and He will hand over the kingdom to the Father.

1 Cor 15:23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

You're thinking that He can't reign until all His enemies are under His feet, but scripture says that He must reign until all His enemies are under His feet. So, you have it completely wrong. Again, His reign is ongoing until all His enemies are made His footstool rather than not beginning until His enemies are made His footstool as you falsely believe.

So, you failed to keep other scripture in mind when interpreting Hebrews 10:12-13 which has caused you to interpret it in such a way that contradicts other scripture. Which is something you do often.

The fact that He is at God the Father's right hand shows that He reigning now. He is both reigning and waiting for the day when every one of His enemies will be made His footstool, which will happen on the day He returns (1 Cor 15:22-28).

Read the following:

Ephesians 1:19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

This says that when God the Father raised Christ from the dead and sat Him at His right hand in heaven He placed all things under His feet and positioned Him "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked". How could Jesus be "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked" without reigning? That makes no sense.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you think the Father's throne and David's throne are one and the same, you're free to think what you wish.

How do you interpret the scripture he referenced?

1 Chronicles 29:23 So Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king in place of his father David. He prospered and all Israel obeyed him.

This verse speaks of the David's throne as also being the throne of the Lord. Do you disagree? If so, explain why. If you agree then why would you deny that the Father's throne and David's throne can be the same?

 

[Bob_1000]

For anyone interested, the tabernacle of David isn’t a literal building, it’s a veiled reference to the body of Christ. More specifically it refers to the Old Testament saints that were raised with Christ at his resurrection.

 

[eclipsenow]

I do not ignore any part of the Bible.
Revelation is the Words of Jesus. John wrote them down.

Except that ignores the human component in the writing of God's word. God didn't dictate to John, but gave him truth about the persecution that was coming and John wrote in his culture's most dynamic form - apocalyptic symbolism. Move over Marvel - apocalyptic symbolism was the comic book imagery of the time.

1/ 'soon' is a relative word. To us; it is next week, maybe. To the Lord, who inhabits Eternity, to us earth people, it can be a very long time. In fact; nearly 2000 years.
Jesus DID open the first Five Seals a soon as He Ascended to heaven.
Now, in His timing, we will soon experience the end time events, commencing with the Sixth Seal world changer.

I kind of agree with you here? That word on its own can be like that - there's an instance near the end of Revelation. But in the context of the first chapter, when surrounded by the other evidence I have listed, there's just no way! It's soon, the time is near, he wants them to take to heart what is written in the letter and obey it - for he already SHARES in their TRIBULATION! It is not only soon, it has already started.

2/ Actually very few of the early Church had access to the Book of Revelation. If they could even read it...

You're going to have to prove that assertion with a quote from a history professor. The various books of the bible were copied abundantly and distributed for reading to the church. Not everyone had to own their own version, because in an auditory culture people were accustomed to being read to and trying to memorise vast chunks of text by ear.

3/ But the 'time wasn't near' at all. Nothing from Revelation 6:12 to the end has happened yet. If people think it has; they are deceived, there is no proof of any of it in the historical record.

Yeah, I don't have any evidence of camels going through the eye of a needle either - but I believe even rich Christians can be saved by the grace of God. It's just because you simply do not respect the difference between your culture and the ancient world. You think you're allowed to read the words 'your own way' - whatever that is. The truth is otherwise. Professor L. M. White of the University of Texas says:

Because of intricate and unusual symbolic language, the Book of Revelation is hard for modern people to read. They are not used to this kind of literature. Not so for people in the ancient world who would have been more accustomed to the complex nature of apocalyptic literature. The very fact that an apocalypse was a common type of literature meant that if followed certain conventions of style, and people knew more what to expect from it. Because there were many other examples of apocalyptic writing, these conventions would have seemed less strange and cryptic. Also, apocalyptic literature was almost always a kind of literature for "insiders," that is to say, it was written for people who already knew something of the situation and of the symbols that were used to portray it. So, for the original audience of the Revelation of John, all these strange scenes would have been immediately intelligible. What the modern reader or biblical scholar has to do is to try to read the text with "ancient eyes," by being informed about the way the literature worked and the situation out of which it came.
Book Of Revelation | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS​

4/ The 'tribulation' of the early Christians was persecution, nothing like what Revelation describes when the Seven Trumpets and Seven Bowls are opened.

Given you're a 21st century Kiwi - how can you be sure? (Man I had a strong nostalgia for New Zealand when I wrote Kiwi then - I've never been but my son has and the photos really make me want to save up for a holiday in the next few years.)

So, Kiwi brother-in-Christ, what if - for a moment - you come into my world where these symbols have clear-ish meanings, possibly refer to horrors committed by Rome specifically, but written in a way that also generally apply throughout the ages as different tyrants and natural disasters happen?

Then you end up in a world where giant hailstones make sense - as they are probably Roman trebuchet boulders mined from a b-grade marble quarry. They would have looked like giant marbles!

Back to Professor White:

What results from this is a kind of composite picture created by the cumulative effect of all the material laid out this way. It's been likened to "chinese boxes" where one opens up a box only to discover another box inside. In the final analysis one gets the sense that we (that is, the ancient "reader") are always in the sixth, just on the verge of the seventh thing happening. That's what gives the book its sense of urgency and feel that something important is just about to happen. The overall impact of Vision II, then, is to show the dire and precarious position in which the faithful are now standing, as they await the final things to take place. It is described as a time of famine, plague, oppression, and woe. But all of this probably comes out of a retrospection on the First Revolt and the devastation that occurred when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. That is precisely the reflection that one sees in the description of the "two witnesses" (or martyrs) who are said to have been slain in the very city where Jesus was killed (11.1-13). So, the sense of desperation and suffering that is so central to Vision II is a direct commentary on the outcome of the War of 66-70 CE.
Book Of Revelation | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS​

May I request that those who agree with this post, please tick; agree or like.
If you don't agree, then tick; optimistic.

Sounds fair. One more note: White agrees with Barnett in the cyclic nature of Revelation. The middle of the book (beasts) explains the why of the earlier chapters. And it describes what was happening to the readers of that generation.

Now we see another important component of how Revelation works by thinking about its sense of the time-line of the story. The various visions of Revelation are not a linear progression, so that the events in chapter 12, for example, do not follow in time after the events in chapter 11. Quite the contrary. In the way they set up, the events described in chapters 12-13 are meant to explain how those circumstances in chapters 5-11 came about. So the time-line of the story moves in a kind of cyclical fashion so that we keep coming back to the "present situation" as it stood for the ancient readers of Revelation.​

 

[eclipsenow]

Complete error.
There is only 1260 days from the AoD to the Return.
You can't even do math; the difference between 1260 and 1335, is 75 days.
Which is the exact time from the Return to the re-dedication of the Temple.

What if the math is symbolic?
Ever wondered why it's half of 7?
It means a limited time - it will not go on for ever - and the quality is not perfect like God's perfection but somehow diminished, cut off. The worst of it will only last a short while. It's not literal, but it sure is literary. Just like Jesus being a Space-Lamb with 7 eyes and 7 horns.

 

[JulieB67]

if John was in the spirit “on the Lord’s day” why wouldn’t that mean John was alive on the actual day of the Lord, seeing visions of past, present, and things “soon” to happen?

When Christ returns that ushers in the Day of the Lord/The Lord's Day. We know Christ hasn't returned so obviously John wouldn't be alive at that time, so that's why he's there in the "Spirit" not his physical body.

Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"

Again, we aren't talking about a day of the week. That is men's tradition, not the Word. John always said first day of the week, etc. He never called any day of the week the Lord's day. We are talking about the Lord's Day/Day of Christ/Day of the Lord, it's the same day. He hears the trumpet and he states that out of Christ's mouth is that two edged sword. This is the same sword in Revelation 19. Leaving no doubt that he is indeed in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. He then is told to write what has been, what is and what will be. That is future to us for sure.[/QUOTE]

 

[eclipsenow]

When Christ returns that ushers in the Day of the Lord/The Lord's Day. We know Christ hasn't returned so obviously John wouldn't be alive at that time, so that's why he's there in the "Spirit" not his physical body.

Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"

Again, we aren't talking about a day of the week. That is men's tradition, not the Word. John always said first day of the week, etc. He never called any day of the week the Lord's day. We are talking about the Lord's Day/Day of Christ/Day of the Lord, it's the same day. He hears the trumpet and he states that out of Christ's mouth is that two edged sword. This is the same sword in Revelation 19. Leaving no doubt that he is indeed in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. He then is told to write what has been, what is and what will be. That is future to us for sure.

The gospel promise "Repent and you will be saved, because the Lord will return one day" has elements past, present, and future.

But it's still not a timetable - and does not predict when

 

[claninja]

If you think the Father's throne and David's throne are one and the same, you're free to think what you wish.

I didn’t make this up out of thin air. The author of chronicles literally calls the throne that Solomon and David sat on, “the throne of the Lord”

1 chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

Which came first, in regards to this---even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne?

A) Jesus overcame first, then He was set down with His Father in His throne

Or?

B) Jesus was set down with His Father in His throne first, then He overcame

Would anyone think it is B) rather than A)? Surely not.

Obviously A. But this doesn’t address:

1 chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

Based on the path Jesus took, that He overcame first, then was rewarded later on with being set down with His Father in His throne, which of the following should we assume is correct?

A) One overcomes first, then is rewarded later on with being granted sitting with Jesus in His throne

Or?

B) One is rewarded first with being granted sitting with Jesus in His throne, then they overcome later

obviously A.

revelation 2-3 offer several rewards to the one who overcomes (“to the end” on some of them): right to the tree of life, hidden manna, white stone with new name, authority to rule the nations, being dressed in white, never removed from the book of life, pillar in the temple of God, right to sit on the throne with Christ.

so the question is, when does the believer receive these rewards? During this earthly life? Upon death? At the resurrection?

While Jesus was in the process of overcoming, He was never rewarded with sitting down with the Father in His throne during that ordeal. Why would fallen man get something that even Jesus didn't get? Why would fallen man already get rewarded with sitting down with Jesus in His throne while in the process of overcoming? The Bible says Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. If He had to fully overcome first then be rewarded later, but that fallen man is rewarded before even fully overcoming first, in a sense that seems to make Jesus even lower than fallen man.

The traditional Amil would argue that in Ephesians, Paul uses the past tense verb to show that we have already been seated in heaven with Christ in a figurative sense, during this earthly life:

ephesians 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated (aorist) us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

However, the traditional Amil also argues that in a literal sense the believer is seated with Christ when their soul goes to heaven upon physical death, prior to the final resurrection of the dead

Revelation 20:4 And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years


I am not a traditional Amil. So if you are arguing against traditional Amil points. Your arguing against the wrong person.

1.) I believe Ephesians 2:6 is a prophetic perfect idiom, which was common among Hebrews. In other words, Paul is writing of future events as so certain to happen (being seated in heaven with Christ) that he writes as if they are already fulfilled.

2.) revelation 20 states the souls “come to life” and reign with Christ. The traditional Amil believes this occurs upon physical death when the soul goes to heaven. However, this contradicts the 5th seal of revelation 6, which has the souls under the alter until crying out for their blood to be avenged and being told to rest for a little while after being given white robes.

3.) the verb tenses of the overcoming of the believer, in revelation 2-3, are present tense. The giving of rewards are in future tense. Christ rewards at his coming (revelation 22:12, Matthew 16:27). But are some of these rewards given prior to Christ’s coming?


So when do the overcoming saints sit down with Christ on his throne according to revelation 3?

Those souls are depicted as being under the altar, not depicted as sitting on thrones instead, and are told to rest a little season, not reign a little season, while Amils, when they die, they get to sit on thrones reigning with Christ, not under the altar as well, being told to rest also.

Wow, wrote the above part before even getting to this. Our observations on the 5th seal are on the same level.

As someone who was raised in a traditional Amil church, but is not, I can agree there are many inconsistencies. Although to be fair. Dispensationalists/premil has far more inconsistencies than Amil.

This is because the first resurrection in revelation 20 is clearly Christ.

therefore, I would argue the saints coming to life and reigning with Christ, are simply the future realized promises, seen in the vision, as fulfilled because of Christ’s resurrection in the same manner that Paul stated the saints have already been seated in heaven with Christ.

 

[claninja]

When Christ returns that ushers in the Day of the Lord/The Lord's Day. We know Christ hasn't returned so obviously John wouldn't be alive at that time, so that's why he's there in the "Spirit" not his physical body.

Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"

Again, we aren't talking about a day of the week. That is men's tradition, not the Word. John always said first day of the week, etc. He never called any day of the week the Lord's day. We are talking about the Lord's Day/Day of Christ/Day of the Lord, it's the same day. He hears the trumpet and he states that out of Christ's mouth is that two edged sword. This is the same sword in Revelation 19. Leaving no doubt that he is indeed in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. He then is told to write what has been, what is and what will be. That is future to us for sure.

[/QUOTE]

the passage doesn’t say he was transferred to a future day of lord in spirit. It says “on the Lords day” I was in the spirit. Your argument doesn’t make any sense

 

[Douggg]

This is because the first resurrection in revelation 20 is clearly Christ.

The first resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 is the martyred great tribulation saints - who having become Christians after the resurrection/rapture event are "in Christ". It applies to a large number of persons - not yet Christians.

Jesus is metaphorically the firstfruits of the Kingdom of God which He is the seed placed in the ground and the Kingdom of God coming forth when Jesus resurrected from the grave.

Jesus was the first to be resurrected into the Kingdom of God, and came into that Kingdom, given to Him in Daniel 7:13-14.

When Jesus returns, He brings the Kingdom of God to be the ruling Kingdom over the nations for His millennial rule. Which them resurrected in Revelation 20:4-6 will rule with Him, as well as them taking part in the resurrection/rapture event who will be spared from the great tribulation.

 

[JulieB67]

But it's still not a timetable - and does not predict when

It's a timetable in the fact that the Lord's day has not transpired yet, Christ hasn't returned. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, the day he returns and was told to write what he has seen, what is, and what will be from that time frame -the Lord's day. No prediction here other than knowing that this is a future timeframe.

the passage doesn’t say he was transferred to a future day of lord in spirit. It says “on the Lords day” I was in the spirit. Your argument doesn’t make any sense

Again the day that Christ returns is the Lord's day. The Lord's day has never been described as a day of the week in the bible. In Hebrew the Lord's day would be described as day of the Lord.

And he has just heard a great voice as if a trumpet. We have to put these facts together and realize that he is in the Spirit on the Lord's day. That's future. He's not in his physical body. If he was, he wouldn't be in the Spirit.

 

[claninja]

The first resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 is the martyred great tribulation saints - who having become Christians after the resurrection/rapture event are "in Christ". It applies to a large number of persons - not yet Christians.

Jesus is metaphorically the firstfruits of the Kingdom of God which He is the seed placed in the ground and the Kingdom of God coming forth when Jesus resurrected from the grave.

Jesus was the first to be resurrected into the Kingdom of God, and came into that Kingdom, given to Him in Daniel 7:13-14.

When Jesus returns, He brings the Kingdom of God to be the ruling Kingdom over the nations for His millennial rule. Which them resurrected in Revelation 20:4-6 will rule with Him, as well as them taking part in the resurrection/rapture event who will be spared from the great tribulation.

Jesus is not only the first born of the dead, he IS the resurrection.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies.

Any resurrection after Christ’s is not the first.

As Eusebius puts it about those who believe in a literal future 1,000 years:

"[Papias] says that after the resurrection of the dead [invariably linked with the return of the resurrected Christ] there will be a period of a thousand years, when Christ's kingdom will be set up on this earth in material form. I suppose he got these notions by misinterpreting the apostolic accounts and failing to grasp what they had said in mystic and symbolic language. For he seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books. But it is partly due to him that the great majority of churchmen after him took the same view, relying on his early date [i.e., on the fact that he lived early enough to hear the Apostle John in person]." - Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea

 

[claninja]

It's a timetable in the fact that the Lord's day has not transpired yet, Christ hasn't returned. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, the day he returns and was told to write what he has seen, what is, and what will be from that time frame -the Lord's day. No prediction here other than knowing that this is a future timeframe.

Again the day that Christ returns is the Lord's day. The Lord's day has never been described as a day of the week in the bible. In Hebrew the Lord's day would be described as day of the Lord.

And he has just heard a great voice as if a trumpet. We have to put these facts together and realize that he is in the Spirit on the Lord's day. That's future. He's not in his physical body. If he was, he wouldn't be in the Spirit.

Again, doesn’t say John was transferred to a future day of the Lord in spirit. That’s your interpretation. It plainly says on the day of the Lord he was in the spirit.

 

[Douggg]

Any resurrection after Christ’s is not the first.

You are rationalizing erroneously, yielding a misinterpretation of the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20:4-6.

 

[claninja]

You are rationalizing erroneously, yielding a misinterpretation of the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20:4-6.

I could say the same of you

 

[DavidPT]

Any resurrection after Christ’s is not the first.

It all depends on how one looks at it. This would certainly be true of any resurrection after Christ's if it involves a resurrection unto damnation. But if the first resurrection is a type of resurrection, a resurrection involving waking to eternal life rather than waking to damnation, there could be a million resurrection events all happening at different times, like that, after Christ's resurrection, and it would still be the first resurrection. I'm not literally suggesting millions of resurrection events all happening at different times, I'm just using that as an example in order to try and make a point.


No matter how you look at it, none of the lost are ever raised before all the saved are first. It also makes it the first resurrection when looking at it like that as well.