The rest of the dead live not again

[Spiritual Jew]

Either Amill is Biblical, or NOSAS is Biblical. Both can't be Biblical.

That is simply not true as I've proven several times. I believe this is the excuse you have come up with to believe in Premil since you're not able to actually prove Premil with scripture.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Sometimes I have other things I'm focusing on and that I'm not good at trying to focus on numerous things at a time, especially in typing. You might be able to type a thousand words a minute, I can't.

Are you suggesting that you actually have answers to his questions? That would be surprising since I don't see any way you can answer those questions in a convincing way that supports Premil.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

NOSAS would indeed be irrelevant per this scenario. I fully agree. Except this is not the scenario in question. If one dies in a saved state, they can never lose their salvation ever. But, if one is initially in a saved state, then fall into a falling away state, then die while still in a falling away state, this means they lose their salvation before they even had a chance to enter heaven, thus they don't enter heaven at all, but end up among the rest of the dead who don't live again until the thousand years are finished.

You are assuming that one can't have part in the first resurrection and lose their part in the first resurrection even though you do believe that one can be saved and lose their salvation. If the Amil view of the first resurrection is correct, then that just means we who also believe NOSAS believe that losing part in the first resurrection is equivalent to losing salvation. Why is that something you can't accept as a possibility?

Try to look at it from the Amil perspective. Obviously, it can't make sense from the Premil perspective, but you should be looking at it from the Amil perspective since we're talking about something some Amils believe. But, I know you have a lot of trouble trying to look at things from the Amil perspective, so that explains why you don't understand things like this.

 

[Timtofly]

Eternal life is what Christ promises to whosoever lives and believes in Him. He tells us "they shall never die". I tell you this to remind you that there is a requirement for having eternal life, we MUST believe. This is why I don't like the definition once saved always saved, because it implies no responsibility on the part of the one who is eternally secure. But Scripture tells us we must believe, we must repent, and we must turn to Christ for salvation. And all of this by grace through faith that is not our own but the gift of God.

There is no such thing as an in-between state you present. You are either eternally secure in Christ through faith, or you are in unbelief. We don't have a little bit of eternal life, we either have it forever or we don't.

I do agree the second death is after all of humanity is bodily resurrected on the last day, at the same hour. As I've shown you already, we are bodily resurrected to life, or bodily resurrected to condemnation. Those who have part of the first resurrection of Christ in life are eternally secure through His resurrection life that is the first resurrection from the dead. They will be bodily resurrected to life everlasting, being changed physically from mortal to immortal, and corruptible to incorruptible. Those who have not part of the first resurrection through Christ in life, the rest of the dead, without having eternal life because they never believed on Christ will be bodily resurrected to condemnation. So I can see why you raise the question regarding having eternal life before we physically die.

The problem is the Millennium starts with a physical bodily resurrection. All on earth are eternally secure. Only a newborn who is disobedient can experience death. Those resurrected can never disobey God. It is impossible to do so.

 

[claninja]

Don't most Amills insist the first resurrection is meaning to be born again before one dies? No Amill I'm aware of is insisting one is not born again until they die first. Clearly, one is born again first, then they die after that.

And the fact Revelation 20:4 is showing dead ppl living again, thus not showing any ppl living again spiritually via a rebirth while still physically alive, how is it then reasonable to apply the first resurrection spiritually when that would mean one is not born again spiritually until they physically die first?

Either Amill is Biblical, or NOSAS is Biblical. Both can't be Biblical.

I think it depends on the “school of thought” of the Amil. Some Amils believe it refers to believers on earth, while others believe it refers to the souls of believers in heaven.

 

[DavidPT]

Are you suggesting that you actually have answers to his questions? That would be surprising since I don't see any way you can answer those questions in a convincing way that supports Premil.

If I had a different platform to do it in, such as in person with someone, rather than typing things out, having to try and express my thoughts in typing, I could address a lot of these questions and provide answers for them. I'm not suggesting anyone might find my answers convincing, but at least I could adequetly explain what I'm meaning and why I am concluding what I am. It sometimes gets depressing for me because I already know how to a answer a lot of these questions, except to do that is a bit overwhelming for me when I have to do it in typing. It's not just that I'm a slow typer compared to some of the rest of you, I'm old school, even after all of these years of being on the internet, and that we never expressed our thoughts in typing like that at the time. We always did that in person face to face. Meaning after my years in high school when I then started taking an interest in the Bible rather than continuing to have an interest in drugs.

I can express what I'm meaning, way better like that, than I can by having to type out what I'm trying to express. Before I got in high school I was pretty much on the honor roll at school, which means I got decent grades. But then when I entered high school, I started experimenting with drugs, thus couldn't care less about much of anything other than getting high. But I did manage to get good grades in Algebra since I liked things that challenge the mind.
Maybe that's why I like what we discuss a lot, since I see it challenging to the mind?

But, since I literally hated my English teacher for various personal reasons, for one he lived across the street where I did and he didn't seem to like our dog, always complaining about her, and the fact I was high as a kite all the way through high school, English was the subject I got the worst grades in, meaning a class having to do with verbs, nouns, adverbs, so on and so on. I just didn't care to pay attention in his class, so I mainly didn't. I basically spaced out and drew pictures since I liked drawing things back then. This would have been in the early to mid 70s.

 

[rwb]

I guess this proves both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical if Amill is Biblical, since there are those who are Amill who are in the OSAS camp, and there are those who are Amill who are in the NOSAS camp. As to Premill, there are those who are in the OSAS camp, and there are those who are who are in the NOSAS camp, except neither of these doctrines affect that position whatsoever. Per Premill, one is either already eternally saved or eternally lost before anyone ever takes part in the first resurrection. Which means one's salvation has already been determined before one is bodily resurrected, the first resurrection. Which means no one can have part in the first resurrection unless they remained saved up until the moment they died. Thus, no one has part in the first resurrection until they are bodily raised first.

NOSAS combined with Amill teaches that one can have part in the first resurrection then lose part in the first resurrection before they die. That's not what John in Revelation 20 is saying. Once one has part in the first resurrection one can't then lose part in it. That's what John in Revelation 20 is saying. Therefore, it is impossible that Amill is Biblical if NOSAS is Biblical. While it's not impossible that Premill is Biblical if NOSAS is Biblical. No contradiction whatsoever.

Since I firmly believe the Bible affirms the doctrine of eternal security, I have no doubt that once a person has part in the first resurrection means that person has been born again. And since they have been born again by partaking of the resurrection of Christ, Who is the first resurrection, they have at the moment of new birth entered into the Kingdom of God, having eternal life.

John 3 shows us that to understand (see) or enter the Kingdom of God we MUST be born again. If we've entered the Kingdom of God through re-birth, which is having part in the resurrection of Christ, there is nothing that will take us from His Kingdom. Why? Because we were admitted into His Kingdom through the work of Christ alone. It was by His perfect life, death and first resurrection from the dead that we were welcomed into the Kingdom of God. Our participation in the first resurrection, i.e., being born again through Him is ALL of Christ and for His glory. Just as we had no part in our physical birth, we have no part in our new birth.

However, after the Holy Spirit has come into our hearts, giving us eternal life through Christ our responsibility is to repent, turn to Christ so the life we have through partaking of His resurrection will be made known by our changed lives. When we have partaken of the resurrection life through Christ, we are not the same and our lives will reflect the new person we've become. But the new eternal life we've received is kept by the power of God in us, (1Pe 4-5) and even though we stumble and fall many times after our new birth, we can never be lost again IF we have truly been born again of Christ.

Now we have entered the Kingdom of God through new birth while alive in this world. What happens to us when we die? We enter into the Kingdom of heaven as living (spirit) soul. But it was in life, when we partook of the first resurrection through Christ that we lived and reigned with Christ in time (likened to a thousand years). That's why John says, "they lived and reigned", with Christ a thousand years. That is during this symbolic time likened to a thousand years we had part in the first resurrection, spiritual re-birth. So, in death the symbolic time of a thousand years has not yet ended, but after believers have died we are no longer living and reigning with Christ a thousand years because we have passed from time that exists on the earth into eternity in heaven.

According to John (Rev 20:6) there are still others alive on earth during this time symbolized a thousand years. Some of them will be called blessed and holy by partaking of the first resurrection, by re-birth during this time likened to a thousand years, who will also live and reign with Christ during this time of physical life on earth. Since they have part in the first resurrection the second death has no more power over them. Because when they die, they too will enter into eternity as living (spirit) souls, who have passed from time on earth (a thousand years) to eternity in the Kingdom of heaven.

But as John tells us the rest of the dead, or those who have never and will never partake of the first resurrection (new birth) in time likened a thousand years, will not come alive again until time symbolized a thousand years is finished. They will be called to stand before God at the GWT to give account for their lives on earth according to what is written in books. And since their names will not be found written in the Book of Life, they must face the second death that is the LOF.

There is nothing here that I have not told you before David. I suppose to keep repeating myself may serve a purpose, or at least get you to search the Scriptures to see if these things be true. I don't believe by this point you cannot see the problems with the doctrine of Premill. Nor do I believe by this point that you have refuted the doctrine of Amill, though you continue to fight against it by bringing in new arguments.

I will conclude by saying I agree with your assessment of eternal security and the doctrine of Amill, and Premill for that matter. No matter what eschatological position one holds to if we have partaken of the first resurrection through the resurrection life of Christ or have been born again of the Spirit of God we are eternally secure and can never die! Not my words, but the promise of Christ.

 

[claninja]

If there's still any doubt, then I'll just say plainly now that I believe the rest of the dead refer to the resurrection of all of the unjust dead throughout history.

got it. Thanks. I am in agreement.

Look at the Greek words in each verse. The Greek word in verse 4 translated as "lived" (or "did live") is "zaō" (Strong's G2198). That is not a word used to describe the act of rising from the dead, it's a word used to describe people who are alive and are living.

not necessarily true. G2198 is also used for living again after being dead:

From Thayers:
“Meyer at the passage equivalent to be no longer dead, to recover life, be restored to life: Matthew 9:18; Acts 9:41; so of Jesus risen from the dead, Mark 16:11; Luke 24:5, 23; Acts 1:3; Acts 25:19; Romans 6:10; 2 Corinthians 13:4; opposed to νεκρός, Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; ἔζησεν came to life, lived again, Romans 14:9 G L T Tr WH(opposed to ἀπέθανε); Revelation 13:14; Revelation 20:4, 5 (Rec. ἀνέζησεν)”

When it refers to the rest of the dead living again after the thousand years, the Greek word used is "anazao" (Strong's G326). That is a word used to describe people being revived or resurrected from the dead.

So, if Revelation 20:4 is meant to be understood as describing people being bodily resurrected, then why was the word "zao" used to describe them instead of "anazao"? That is a question that Premils struggle to answer.

I think this argument here is a little more complicated, as it involves textual criticism. You would also have to argue for “king James only”. While the textus receptus has g326 in revelation 20:5, many other Greek texts do not. Instead they contain G2198.

Because of this, I don’t find the argument that vs 4 and vs 5 have different verbs for “to live again”, very convincing. And it still doesn’t answer why the alive in vs 4 are not resurrected but the ones in vs 5 are




Berean Greek New Testament 2016
Οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

SBL Greek New Testament 2010
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Westcott and Hort 1881
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. Αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Tischendorf 8th Edition 1872
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνἔζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνἔζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη

Beza Greek New Testament 1598
Οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνἔζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. Αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

But, what about any believers who die during the thousand years and/or during Satan's little season? They would not have part in the first resurrection based on the historic Premil understanding of the first resurrection. So, I disagree with you that my "counter argument doesn't really impact that position".

Why would believers die during the millennium, if they were resurrected/changed in the twinkling of an eye at the 2nd coming?

I don't really understand this question since I believe He will physically destroy all unbelievers when He returns (Matt 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-9, 2 Peter 3:3-13, Rev 19:17-18, Rev 20:9). And it's not like He will just be hanging out up there while giving people a chance to repent. It will all happen quickly if 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 is any indication.

Right, you, an Amil, believe he will destroy all unbelievers at the 2nd coming. But I’m not sure or not if that is the position of the historic premil. @DavidPT has quoted Zachariah 14’s “survivors of the nations that came against Israel” in regards to unbelievers during the millennium.

 

[claninja]

NOSAS would indeed be irrelevant per this scenario. I fully agree. Except this is not the scenario in question. If one dies in a saved state, they can never lose their salvation ever. But, if one is initially in a saved state, then fall into a falling away state, then die while still in a falling away state, this means they lose their salvation before they even had a chance to enter heaven, thus they don't enter heaven at all, but end up among the rest of the dead who don't live again until the thousand years are finished.

Then this just leads us down another philosophical rabbit hole. The “OSAS” doesn’t believe in “NOSAS” because they believe the one that was saved and then fell away, was never really saved in the first place.

In other words “osas” only ever refers to the one who overcomes to the end, it never refers to the one that was “saved” and then fell away.

 

[rwb]

not necessarily true. G2198 is also used for living again after being dead:

Rev 20:4 the Greek word is more than simply coming to life again. ζάω záō, dzah'-o is translated from "they lived", and the definition confirms this - a primary verb; to live (literally or figuratively):—life(-time), (a-)live(-ly), quick.

Where vs 5 the Greek word is translated "lived". ἀναζάω anazáō, an-ad-zah'-o doesn't say anything about a life time of living but implies only that the dead come to life again. Defined - to recover life (literally or figuratively):—(be a-)live

The different Greek words show a vital living person, "they lived" and reigned with Christ in time symbolized a thousand years. Where the Greek word translated "lived" shows only that the dead will recover life, or will live again, but when we read the fate of the dead we understand why the two Greek words were not the same. Because a life time of living as opposed to recovering life to stand in the GWT Judgment is not recovering to live a life time again, but recovering life to die the second death (LOF).

 

[claninja]

Where vs 5 the Greek word is translated "lived". ἀναζάω anazáō, an-ad-zah'-o doesn't say anything about a life time of living but implies only that the dead come to life again. Defined - to recover life (literally or figuratively):—(be a-)live

not In all Greek manuscripts. You’ll have to argue “king James only”.

repeating what i wrote in post #88 in case you didn’t read it:

“I think this argument here is a little more complicated, as it involves textual criticism. You would also have to argue for “king James only”. While the textus receptus has g326 in revelation 20:5, many other Greek texts do not. Instead they contain G2198.

Because of this, I don’t find the argument that vs 4 and vs 5 have different verbs for “to live again”, very convincing. And it still doesn’t answer why the alive in vs 4 are not resurrected but the ones in vs 5 are”




Berean Greek New Testament 2016
Οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

SBL Greek New Testament 2010
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Westcott and Hort 1881
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. Αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Tischendorf 8th Edition 1872
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνἔζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνἔζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη

Beza Greek New Testament 1598
Οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνἔζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. Αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

The different Greek words show a vital living person, "they lived" and reigned with Christ in time symbolized a thousand years. Where the Greek word translated "lived" shows only that the dead will recover life, or will live again, but when we read the fate of the dead we understand why the two Greek words were not the same. Because a life time of living as opposed to recovering life to stand in the GWT Judgment is not recovering to live a life time again, but recovering life to die the second death (LOF).

but let’s say the textus receptus is the true Greek manuscript, and g326 is found in revelation 20:5 and not G2198:

Of course the resurrection to “life” is different than the resurrection to “condemnation”

vs 4 is about the physically dead (righteous) living and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years.

vs 5 is about the rest of physically dead(unrighteous) living after the 1,000 years to face judgement.

That leaves us with:

1.) both words for “live” in vs 4 and 5 are the same and simple refer to coming to life after being physically dead (whether for life or judgement)

Or

2.) your argument of different verbs isn’t air tight because vs 4 could also be about being made alive to live with Christ, while vs 5 is a different Greek verb to demonstrate being made alive to face judgement. Why would vs 5 use the same verb about being made alive to face judgement?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I think it depends on the “school of thought” of the Amil. Some Amils believe it refers to believers on earth, while others believe it refers to the souls of believers in heaven.

Do you know of any Amils on this forum who believe that it refers to the souls of believers on earth? I'd like to ask them what their understanding is of them being beheaded. Seems like a clear reference to physical martyrdom, even if it's not meant to be understood that he only saw the souls of those who were literally beheaded. Also, if they were still bodily alive on earth, why would he say that he saw their souls? That doesn't really make any sense.

 

[rwb]

not In all Greek manuscripts. You’ll have to argue “king James only”.

repeating what i wrote in post #88 in case you didn’t read it:

“I think this argument here is a little more complicated, as it involves textual criticism. You would also have to argue for “king James only”. While the textus receptus has g326 in revelation 20:5, many other Greek texts do not. Instead they contain G2198.

Because of this, I don’t find the argument that vs 4 and vs 5 have different verbs for “to live again”, very convincing. And it still doesn’t answer why the alive in vs 4 are not resurrected but the ones in vs 5 are”

Yes, it does explain why those of vs 4 are already alive but the ones in vs 5 are only made to live again to be judged and partake of the second death. Those of vs 4 lived (past tense), and therefore did not have to be made to live again as in vs 5. In vs 4 they lived and reigned with Christ is TIME, which is what a thousand years are. In this passage from the Amill point of view we believe a thousand years symbolizes time on this earth that spans from the first advent of Christ to His second coming.

John made the distinction between those who lived and reigned and those who will live again deliberately. He did this to prove (1) partaking of the first resurrection is what man must do while living on the earth (2) to prove there is not life, but only judgment and death for those who have no part in the first resurrection while alive on this earth.

but let’s say the textus receptus is the true Greek manuscript, and g326 is found in revelation 20:5 and not G2198:

Of course the resurrection to “life” is different than the resurrection to “condemnation”

vs 4 is about the physically dead (righteous) living and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years.

vs 5 is about the rest of physically dead(unrighteous) living after the 1,000 years to face judgement.

That leaves us with:

1.) both words for “live” in vs 4 and 5 are the same and simple refer to coming to life after being physically dead (whether for life or judgement)

Or

2.) your argument of different verbs isn’t air tight because vs 4 could also be about being made alive to live with Christ, while vs 5 is a different Greek verb to demonstrate being made alive to face judgement. Why would vs 5 use the same verb about being made alive to face judgement?

What you are missing is that the text in vs 4 does not say those of the first resurrection need to be made alive again. I know many modern translations imply this. But I can show several translations, and the Strong's Concordance that do not agree. Because like the KJV they interpret past tense lived and reigned. So, the modern versions in my opinion may be bringing a Premill bias to the text.

Those of vs 4 do not have to be made to live again after physical death because they did not die. Instead of dying when they breathed their last, having lived and reigned with Christ in time (a thousand symbolic years) they simply leave behind, as Paul informs us, their flesh, and as living (spirit) soul go to be with the Lord in the Kingdom of heaven.

There is no other reason, that I can think of, for John writing of those in vs 4 as having lived and reigned, and those in vs 5 as necessarily needing to be made alive again, because in death their body went into the grave and their spirit returned to God who gave it (Ec 12:7), but without the Holy Spirit Who gives us life everlasting, and promises never to leave us until the redemption of our body on the last day (Eph 1:14). Therefore, the Psalmist was true when he said the dead know nothing and in silence and darkness go down to the pit. (Ps 115:17; 143:3)

 

[Spiritual Jew]

not necessarily true. G2198 is also used for living again after being dead:

From Thayers:
“Meyer at the passage equivalent to be no longer dead, to recover life, be restored to life: Matthew 9:18; Acts 9:41; so of Jesus risen from the dead, Mark 16:11; Luke 24:5, 23; Acts 1:3; Acts 25:19; Romans 6:10; 2 Corinthians 13:4; opposed to νεκρός, Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; ἔζησεν came to life, lived again, Romans 14:9 G L T Tr WH(opposed to ἀπέθανε); Revelation 13:14; Revelation 20:4, 5 (Rec. ἀνέζησεν)”

You misunderstood my point. Yes, it can be used to refer to someone who is living and is alive after previously being dead, but that is not a word used to describe the actual act of someone being resurrected (coming back to life) while anazao is a word that can refer to the actual act of someone being resurrected.

I think this argument here is a little more complicated, as it involves textual criticism. You would also have to argue for “king James only”. While the textus receptus has g326 in revelation 20:5, many other Greek texts do not. Instead they contain G2198.

Because of this, I don’t find the argument that vs 4 and vs 5 have different verbs for “to live again”, very convincing. And it still doesn’t answer why the alive in vs 4 are not resurrected but the ones in vs 5 are

I believe the KJV has it right in this case. But, I have no interest in arguing over which original Greek text or which translation of the verse is correct.

Why would believers die during the millennium, if they were resurrected/changed in the twinkling of an eye at the 2nd coming?

Obviously, I'm not talking about them. Would no mortal, living unbelievers become believers during the millennium? I don't see how that makes any sense. Surely, some would become believers in that scenario.

And it's clear that at least some of them who became believers would die during that time. And they would be resurrected for the judgment like everyone else. But, they would not have had part in the first resurrection in that case, even though it seems that Revelation 20:6 indicates that having part in the first resurrection is necessary in order to avoid the second death.

Right, you, an Amil, believe he will destroy all unbelievers at the 2nd coming. But I’m not sure or not if that is the position of the historic premil. @DavidPT has quoted Zachariah 14’s “survivors of the nations that came against Israel” in regards to unbelievers during the millennium.

I'm not sure, either. Maybe some believe that and some don't. If they don't then I'm not sure what the reason would be that some believers are not changed at that point. Paul did say we will ALL be changed at that point (1 Cor 15:50-54). So, that particular argument is one to make more to dispensational Premils, I suppose.

 

[Trivalee]

The problem is the Millennium starts with a physical bodily resurrection. All on earth are eternally secure. Only a newborn who is disobedient can experience death. Those resurrected can never disobey God. It is impossible to do so.

I concur. But thinking out loud does it mean that those who survive the GT in mortal bodies and repopulate the earth during the millennium will not die, but live until the GWTJ?

As you aptly said, the saints would have received their spiritual bodies via the rapture/resurrection by the time the millennial kingdom starts. They will neither marry nor reproduce. There are two categories of mortals that will live in this age;

• Believing Jews who run into the wilderness and succoured by the Lord until his return (Rev 12:6 & 14)
• A handful of unbelievers from different parts of the world, called the 'nations' (Zech 14:16)
• Isaiah 65:20 refers to the death of some of the offspring of these mortals, albeit at 100 years old.

I haven't found anything in the scriptures that suggests when their parents will die. Any idea?

 

[DavidPT]

Do you know of any Amils on this forum who believe that it refers to the souls of believers on earth? I'd like to ask them what their understanding is of them being beheaded. Seems like a clear reference to physical martyrdom, even if it's not meant to be understood that he only saw the souls of those who were literally beheaded. Also, if they were still bodily alive on earth, why would he say that he saw their souls? That doesn't really make any sense.

It makes sense if Premill is the correct posistion, if those who John initially sees in Revelation 20:4 in a disembodied state are in that state because they have been bodily martyred, but it doesn't make sense that they are still in a disembodied state when they are seen living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. Why would they still need to be in a disembodied state at that point? Even most Premils agree the souls of the saved enter heaven and are in a disembodied state until they are bodily resurrected.

Some Amills, which might or might not include you, give the impression, if one disagrees with, to live and reign with Christ a thousand years in heaven in a disembodied state, this is to then somehow deny that saints go to heaven and live with Christ while in a disembodied state. No one is denying that. What some of us are denying is this. Going to heaven then resting there while waiting to be bodily raised does not equal going to heaven to reign there on thrones as kings and being priests of God and Christ while waiting to be bodily raised.

Your doctrine seems to be saying this in regard to the first resurrection. The first resurrection does not initially lead to a bodily immortal state, it initially leads to a disembodied state followed later by a bodily immortal state.

Would any of the following be wrong concerning your doctrine? A person is born. Eventually this same person is saved, thus they now have part in the first resurrection, spiritually. Thus, they are living and reigning with Christ a thousand years while they are still physically alive. And then this person dies for whatever reason. Which means they are now in heaven in a disembodied state, therefore, them reigning with Christ a thousand years has transitioned from them physically reigning with Him, meaning while they were still alive, to that of them now reigning with Him a thousand years in a disembodied state, a spiritual state.

When we break all of that down it might look like this.

When one is reigning with Christ physically, meaning while they are still physically alive, they are doing that spiritually since Christ isn't physically present at the time. But when one dies, the roles are somewhat reversed. Instead of the former, now this person is reigning in the presense of a bodily present Christ, since Christ is obviously boldily in heaven, except this one is not in a bodily state as well, but is in a disembodied state, a spiritual state, though the former, per this scenario, is showing that, one is in a bodily state when reigning with Christ, not a spiritual state, and that it is Christ that is in a spiritual state to them, since He isn't bodily present at the time.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If I had a different platform to do it in, such as in person with someone, rather than typing things out, having to try and express my thoughts in typing, I could address a lot of these questions and provide answers for them. I'm not suggesting anyone might find my answers convincing, but at least I could adequetly explain what I'm meaning and why I am concluding what I am. It sometimes gets depressing for me because I already know how to a answer a lot of these questions, except to do that is a bit overwhelming for me when I have to do it in typing. It's not just that I'm a slow typer compared to some of the rest of you, I'm old school, even after all of these years of being on the internet, and that we never expressed our thoughts in typing like that at the time. We always did that in person face to face. Meaning after my years in high school when I then started taking an interest in the Bible rather than continuing to have an interest in drugs.

I can express what I'm meaning, way better like that, than I can by having to type out what I'm trying to express. Before I got in high school I was pretty much on the honor roll at school, which means I got decent grades. But then when I entered high school, I started experimenting with drugs, thus couldn't care less about much of anything other than getting high. But I did manage to get good grades in Algebra since I liked things that challenge the mind.
Maybe that's why I like what we discuss a lot, since I see it challenging to the mind?

But, since I literally hated my English teacher for various personal reasons, for one he lived across the street where I did and he didn't seem to like our dog, always complaining about her, and the fact I was high as a kite all the way through high school, English was the subject I got the worst grades in, meaning a class having to do with verbs, nouns, adverbs, so on and so on. I just didn't care to pay attention in his class, so I mainly didn't. I basically spaced out and drew pictures since I liked drawing things back then. This would have been in the early to mid 70s.

Despite your struggles with typing, you still have over 7,000 posts. So, you still post a lot. So, is your struggle with typing really the only reason you haven't responded to that particular post? He asked questions that I can't even imagine that you can answer adequately at all even in person. Please don't take offense by that statement. I don't think any Premil can adequately answer those questions, so I'm not singling you out.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It makes sense if Premill is the correct posistion, if those who John initially sees in Revelation 20:4 in a disembodied state are in that state because they have been bodily martyred, but it doesn't make sense that they are still in a disembodied state when they are seen living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. Why would they still need to be in a disembodied state at that point?

Why can't they be? I'm not really seeing your point here.

Even most Premils agree the souls of the saved enter heaven and are in a disembodied state until they are bodily resurrected.

Obviously.

Some Amills, which might or might not include you, give the impression, if one disagrees with, to live and reign with Christ a thousand years in heaven in a disembodied state, this is to then somehow deny that saints go to heaven and live with Christ while in a disembodied state.

That does not include me. When you're talking to me I'd prefer you to make comments that relate to my particular beliefs if you don't mind. Your thoughts on what others believe, including other Amils, is not something that interests me very much.

No one is denying that. What some of us are denying is this. Going to heaven then resting there while waiting to be bodily raised does not equal going to heaven to reign there on thrones as kings and being priests of God and Christ while waiting to be bodily raised.

I have addressed this with you several times before. Have you forgotten that? Do you understand that we are kings and priests of God and Christ now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9)? Does that require us to literally sit on thrones?

And there is nothing that says all the souls of the dead in Christ are doing in heaven is resting and nothing else, which I have pointed out to you before several times as well. In Rev 6:9-11, they are were told to wait patiently for their deaths to be avenged, but it does not say they are doing nothing at all except waiting for that to happen.

Your doctrine seems to be saying this in regard to the first resurrection. The first resurrection does not initially lead to a bodily immortal state, it initially leads to a disembodied state followed later by a bodily immortal state.

Would any of the following be wrong concerning your doctrine? A person is born. Eventually this same person is saved, thus they now have part in the first resurrection, spiritually. Thus, they are living and reigning with Christ a thousand years while they are still physically alive. And then this person dies for whatever reason. Which means they are now in heaven in a disembodied state, therefore, them reigning with Christ a thousand years has transitioned from them physically reigning with Him, meaning while they were still alive, to that of them now reigning with Him a thousand years in a disembodied state, a spiritual state.

None of that is wrong. I'm frankly surprised that you got it right since it seems like you forget a lot of things that I tell you about what I believe.

When we break all of that down it might look like this.

When one is reigning with Christ physically, meaning while they are still physically alive, they are doing that spiritually since Christ isn't physically present at the time. But when one dies, the roles are somewhat reversed. Instead of the former, now this person is reigning in the presense of a bodily present Christ, since Christ is obviously boldily in heaven, except this one is not in a bodily state as well, but is in a disembodied state, a spiritual state, though the former, per this scenario, is showing that, one is in a bodily state when reigning with Christ, not a spiritual state, and that it is Christ that is in a spiritual state to them, since He isn't bodily present at the time.

Yeah, I guess that's accurate, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

 

[DavidPT]

Despite your struggles with typing, you still have over 7,000 posts. So, you still post a lot. So, is your struggle with typing really the only reason you haven't responded to that particular post? He asked questions that I can't even imagine that you can answer adequately at all even in person. Please don't take offense by that statement. I don't think any Premil can adequately answer those questions, so I'm not singling you out.

The main problem for me is all this back and forth that this can involve. Something like that is not an issue if doing that in person with someone. I can do that all day long with a person since that doesn't involve me having to express my thoughts in typing over and over. While I do have over 7000 posts, they are not 7000 posts in a manner like they would be if you had 7000 posts. Your 7000 posts would likely be inlvolving plenty of going back and forth with someone since you are good at that in typing, that it comes natural to you.

The majority of my posts are not like that, unfortunetely, meaning unfortunately for some of the rest of you since I realize this comes across as I'm not being fair to others by not going back and forth involving what they are arguing. It's not that I can't, it is just too overwhelming for me to have to do this over and over in regard to whatever the argument might be. Then for me to have to explain certain things, which might involve things I have deduced via numerous passages in both the OT and NT, that is not easy to do in typing, at least not for me. And then the times I have done that, it was all a waste of time on my part since nothing I presented, the other person found convincing. I'm not a writer. I could never write a book. Some of you though, I can see writing books since you are clearly skilled in 'writing'.

 

[claninja]

You misunderstood my point. Yes, it can be used to refer to someone who is living and is alive after previously being dead, but that is not a word used to describe the actual act of someone being resurrected (coming back to life) while anazao is a word that can refer to the actual act of someone being resurrected.

G2189 can also refer to the process of being made alive, when In the aorist indicative active and contrasted with physical death. It’s important to understand that the aorist indicative active refers to a simple past event, not an ongoing event.

for example, Romans 14:9. It’s translated as “lived again” and not “lived” because Christ lives forever more (continuous). Same thing in revelation 2:8. It’s describing a simple event in the past of Christ coming to life from being physically dead.


Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living

revelation 2:8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.

I believe the KJV has it right in this case. But, I have no interest in arguing over which original Greek text or which translation of the verse is correct.

right, but it might not be, and so your entire argument hangs on textual criticism

Would no mortal, living unbelievers become believers during the millennium? I don't see how that makes any sense. Surely, some would become believers in that scenario

exactly, that’s the premise of my question, how could unbelievers witness Christ descending and the dead rising, and then not believe?

Which opens another whole Pandora’s box of questions….

I'm not sure, either. Maybe some believe that and some don't. If they don't then I'm not sure what the reason would be that some believers are not changed at that point. Paul did say we will ALL be changed at that point (1 Cor 15:50-54). So, that particular argument is one to make more to dispensational Premils, I suppose.

agreed