The rest of the dead live not again

[rwb]

I’m not sure what this has to do with G2198 (zao) being found in both vs 4 and 5 in many Greek manuscripts outside of the textus receptus?

right, but my point was that in many Greek manuscripts, other than the textus receptus, zao is found in vs 5, not anazao.

I’ve never denied that these verbs are in the aorist indicative active form, so I don’t know what you are taking about…..

This is just plainly incorrect. “Live” is in the aorist indicative active from in both verses. This means “live” is a simple past action.

the kjv translates it into English as present tense, but the actual Greek world is past tense. Here’s the literal translation from the ylt:

revelation 2:8 (ylt) And to the messenger of the assembly of the Smyrneans write: These things saith the First and the Last, who did become dead and did live;

christ died and lived. This refers to the resurrection.

You highlighted the wrong verb. Zao is aorist indicative active (simple past tense). This indicates a simple past action. Christ died (simple past action) and Christ lived again (simple past action).

romans 14:9 (ylt) for because of this Christ both died and lived again, that both of dead and of living he may be Lord.

Just so we are clear the imperfect and aorist are secondary tenses, in that they refer to the past. they DIFFER in aspect. The imperfect is not the same as the aorist.

“So far, we have learned verbs in PRIMARY TENSES, meaning that the tenses refer to action in the present or future. We have also learned one of the SECONDARY TENSES (tenses that refer to past): the IMPERFECT tense. This unit introduces us to the most common secondary tense: the AORIST. Both the imperfect and aorist tenses describe actions of the PAST TENSE. They differ in what is called ASPECT. Before discussing how to form the aorist tense, it is important to understand what we mean by the grammatical term, aspect.” (The Aorist Tense: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone)
This is blatantly wrong. There is no such thing as “imperfect aorist” when the aorist is indicative active.

“Lived” is aorist indicative active, not imperfect. It refers to a simple past action.

“The difference in meaning between the imperfect and the aorist is the difference between perfective verbal aspect (action seen as complete: aorist) and progressive verbal aspect (action viewed as being in progress: imperfect).”
Hellenistic Greek: Imperfect Tense and Aspect (Lesson 13)
Aorist is simple not ongoing.
“The difference in meaning between the imperfect and the aorist is the difference between perfective verbal aspect (action seen as complete: aorist) and progressive verbal aspect (action viewed as being in progress: imperfect).”
Hellenistic Greek: Imperfect Tense and Aspect (Lesson 13)

Your understanding is incorrect.

“The difference in meaning between the imperfect and the aorist is the difference between perfective verbal aspect (action seen as complete: aorist) and progressive verbal aspect (action viewed as being in progress: imperfect).”
Hellenistic Greek: Imperfect Tense and Aspect (Lesson 13)

You may not have seen this since it was added after I posted. Since this is really what our difference hinges on, I thought it worthwhile to repeat.

Edit: Revelation 20:5 (KJV) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Lived - (anazáō) Not - (ou) Again -(anazáō)

Why do you suppose the wording shows an absolute negative? Wonder why it wasn't simply translated "lived, no never lived" until the thousand years were finished? Because that is exactly what John means.

ou - adverb; no or not:—+ long, nay, neither, never, no (× man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.

 

[DavidPT]

Sorry but I never said in that post Revelation 20:4 happened in the first century.

Like I initially said, sometimes you are hard to follow, which could mean you are being misunderstood sometimes. Who exactly are you applying the first resurrection to initially? The first resurrection involves martyrs living again bodily, which means they were initially alive bodily, then they bodily died, then are bodily alive yet again, except this time forever.

Premill would basically somewhat look like this, pertaining to the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4---they are initially bodily alive, then eventually are bodily dead and while they are bodily dead they are in a disembodied state until the time of the first resurrection which then results in them being in a bodily state once again.

Amill, or at least some versions of it would basically be somewhat like this---they are initially bodily alive, and while they are still bodily alive they have part in the first resurrection, not bodily but spiritually. Then they eventually bodily die and continue to have part in the first resurrection, but not in a bodily state, but in a disembodied state until they are raised bodily, except some of the rest of us don't have a clue what resurrection that is supposed to be involving in Revelation 20 since these Amills insist it isn't involving the first resurrection.

 

[rwb]

Like I initially said, sometimes you are hard to follow, which could mean you are being misunderstood sometimes. Who exactly are you applying the first resurrection to initially? The first resurrection involves martyrs living again bodily, which means they were initially alive bodily, then they bodily died, then are bodily alive yet again, except this time forever.

David if these martyred souls have been resurrected with physical body why does John say he sees them in heaven? How do you reconcile a bodily resurrection when it says in Hebrews none will be perfect until all the saints are perfected together?

Hebrews 11:39 (KJV) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Hebrews 11:40 (KJV) God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

These Old Testament saints had resisted to bloodshed, even death, therefore when Christ ascended to heaven, taking them with Him they became spirits of just men made perfect. By faith they did not receive the promise of immortality and incorruptible bodies of flesh, but through spirit they became living souls in heaven, and the flesh will not be made perfect for any man until we are all perfected together. And immortality and incorruption, otherwise perfection is the reason for the bodily resurrection.

Hebrews 12:23 (KJV) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

These verses show us the first resurrection is of spirits of just men made perfect, with the promise of the bodily resurrection together with all the saints will come later after the seventh trumpet sounds.

Amill, or at least some versions of it would basically be somewhat like this---they are initially bodily alive, and while they are still bodily alive they have part in the first resurrection, not bodily but spiritually.

Yes, it is in life we must partake of the first resurrection through the resurrection of Christ. So, we, like the saints of old, after death become spirits of just men made perfect. Not bodily perfect, but spirits are perfect.

Then they eventually bodily die and continue to have part in the first resurrection, but not in a bodily state, but in a disembodied state until they are raised bodily, except some of the rest of us don't have a clue what resurrection that is supposed to be involving in Revelation 20 since these Amills insist it isn't involving the first resurrection.

Yes, the verses I quoted from Hebrews show that Old Testament faithful saints had been faithful unto death. In death their spirits, being made perfect through faith while alive were raised living (spirit) soul after Christ defeated death, and resurrected, ascending to heaven taking them as living (spirit) soul to heaven with Him.

 

[Timtofly]

Like I initially said, sometimes you are hard to follow, which could mean you are being misunderstood sometimes. Who exactly are you applying the first resurrection to initially? The first resurrection involves martyrs living again bodily, which means they were initially alive bodily, then they bodily died, then are bodily alive yet again, except this time forever.

Premill would basically somewhat look like this, pertaining to the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4---they are initially bodily alive, then eventually are bodily dead and while they are bodily dead they are in a disembodied state until the time of the first resurrection which then results in them being in a bodily state once again.

Amill, or at least some versions of it would basically be somewhat like this---they are initially bodily alive, and while they are still bodily alive they have part in the first resurrection, not bodily but spiritually. Then they eventually bodily die and continue to have part in the first resurrection, but not in a bodily state, but in a disembodied state until they are raised bodily, except some of the rest of us don't have a clue what resurrection that is supposed to be involving in Revelation 20 since these Amills insist it isn't involving the first resurrection.

The physical act of chopping their head off was the spiritual birth into God's family.

The first resurrection is always physical, not spiritual. In Revelation 20:4 they experienced a physical bodily resurrection and lived on earth, never to die physically nor spiritually ever again.

Amil don't have a physical resurrection in their eschatology. They call the physical resurrection symbolically Christ's spiritual resurrection from the bondage of sin.

Amil claim that on the "last day" all humans are judged. Some to eternal life, and some to eternal damnation.


The first resurrection is the last physical process for humans. The first birth is at conception. The first death is the soul leaving Adam's dead flesh. The first resurrection is the soul entering God's permanent incorruptible physical body. Every "first" deals with the physical body. Only those redeemed in Christ enter Paradise into the first resurrection. The OT redeemed left Abraham's bosom and experienced permanent incorruptible physical bodies. That was their first resurrection at the Cross. The thief had a first resurrection when his soul left the dead body on the Cross, and his soul entered Paradise that instant into a permanent incorruptible physical body, a first resurrection. Stephen had a first resurrection while seeing Jesus standing next to God on the throne. The first resurrection is ongoing. The dead in Christ have been rising first, and we cannot prevent that, as the living, waiting for our first resurrection.

The first resurrection should not be confused with the second birth which is spiritual into God's family/kingdom. The second birth frees us from the spiritual chains of sin and death. Quickened is a form of being made alive. But as a resurrection, how? We were never spiritually alive, and then spiritually dead. A birth is a brand new experience of spiritual life, not a return after a death. The spiritual birth is not of ourselves any way, but done by the Holy Spirit working in us. It is an adoption more than the physical birth which is not merely an adoption.

The first resurrection is the point we actually receive God's permanent incorruptible physical body. That is not how Amil interpret the process. They rule out the physical altogether, denying we have a physical body making us a natural son of God. Instead they have us as mere souls without a family of any kind. Only symbolic idealistic wishful thinking waiting for eternity. Some claim "immortality", but not a physical body, a new type of spirit form, a third birth?

 

[claninja]

You may not have seen this since it was added after I posted. Since this is really what our difference hinges on, I thought it worthwhile to repeat.

Edit: Revelation 20:5 (KJV) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Lived - (anazáō) Not - (ou) Again -(anazáō)

Why do you suppose the wording shows a double negative? Wonder why it wasn't simply translated "lived, no never lived" until the thousand years were finished? Because that is exactly what John means.

ou - adverb; no or not:—+ long, nay, neither, never, no (× man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.

i don’t see a double negative, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

revelation 20:5 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνέζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

(But the rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand
years were finished.)This is the first resurrection.

 

[rwb]

i don’t see a double negative, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

revelation 20:5 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνέζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

(But the rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand
years were finished.)This is the first resurrection.

That's not an answer. My apologies I meant to say an absolute negative even if you don't see it.

Revelation 20:5 (KJVSL) But δέ the rest λοιποί of the dead νεκρός lived ἀναζάω not οὐ again ἀναζάω until ἕως the thousand χίλιοι years ἔτος were finished τελέω. This οὗτος is the first πρῶτος resurrection ἀνάστασις.

Yes, they stand in physical life again, not to resurrection life, but resurrection to condemnation.

Resurrection after the thousand years have ended is being raised to life to die, and that's why John says "lived but never lived". In other words, being raised to life for them as John says is not for resurrection life but resurrected to condemnation.

anástasis -a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):—raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.

Not:
ou, - a primary word; the absolute negative adverb; long, nay, neither, never, no (× man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but

 

[DavidPT]

You may not have seen this since it was added after I posted. Since this is really what our difference hinges on, I thought it worthwhile to repeat.

Edit: Revelation 20:5 (KJV) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Lived - (anazáō) Not - (ou) Again -(anazáō)

Why do you suppose the wording shows a double negative? Wonder why it wasn't simply translated "lived, no never lived" until the thousand years were finished? Because that is exactly what John means.

ou - adverb; no or not:—+ long, nay, neither, never, no (× man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.

Roger, we have something similar in verse 4, which has somewhat been puzzling to me.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had(proskuneo) not(ou) worshipped(proskuneo) the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Which means we basically have the following via these two verses.


Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had(proskuneo) not(ou) worshipped(proskuneo) the beast, neither his image, neither(ou) had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived(zao) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived(anazao) not(ou) again(anazao) until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


The question is, what does it all mean? Meaning this----had(proskuneo) not(ou) worshipped(proskuneo)---and then this---lived(anazao) not(ou) again(anazao)

 

[rwb]

Roger, we have something similar in verse 4, which has somewhat been puzzling to me.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had(proskuneo) not(ou) worshipped(proskuneo) the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Which means we basically have the following via these two verses.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had(proskuneo) not(ou) worshipped(proskuneo) the beast, neither his image, neither(ou) had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived(zao) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived(anazao) not(ou) again(anazao) until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

The question is, what does it all mean? Meaning this----had(proskuneo) not(ou) worshipped(proskuneo)---and then this---lived(anazao) not(ou) again(anazao)

Not in both verses is a particle, primary word, absolute negative. I believe it could be read "worshipped no never worshipped" the beast...

I never noticed this because we were focused on vs 5. Thanks for pointing it out. I think it helps to confirm my argument.

 

[Timtofly]

That's not an answer. My apologies I meant to say an absolute negative even if you don't see it.

Revelation 20:5 (KJVSL) But δέ the rest λοιποί of the dead νεκρός lived ἀναζάω not οὐ again ἀναζάω until ἕως the thousand χίλιοι years ἔτος were finished τελέω. This οὗτος is the first πρῶτος resurrection ἀνάστασις.

Yes, they stand in physical life again, not to resurrection life, but resurrection to condemnation.

Resurrection after the thousand years have ended is being raised to life to die, and that's why John says "lived but never lived". In other words, being raised to life for them as John says is not for resurrection life but resurrected to condemnation.

anástasis -a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):—raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.

Not:
ou, - a primary word; the absolute negative adverb; long, nay, neither, never, no (× man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but

Yet at the end of the 1,000 years, John still does not give us any resurrection. They are still dead, just that Death and sheol were literally dumped out, and they were cast into the LOF. That is not symbolic of a resurrection. That is symbolic of throwing the trash bins into the garbage heap, along with the dead trash.

Your interpretation of Revelation 20:5 is based on speculation about the end of the 1,000 years that is never even documented. John never gives us a second resurrection.

Revelation 20:5 should be interpreted as potential for a future resurrection, but not a guarantee there would be a future resurrection. As we do see, John never witnessed a future resurrection.

If you only speculate a resurrection at the end of the 1,000 years, then your speculation drives your interpretation of Revelation 20:5. Even if you demand a future resurrection you still have to speculate what that even entails according to Revelation 20:5.

So some will be blessed at the end of the 1,000 years and be resurrected, no?

Certainly we were never told who got that chance. But to say it means a resurrection to damnation, how is damnation ever a form of being blessed and avoiding the second death?

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power"

There is no "second" resurrection implied nor specified. The first resurrection would also be afforded some after the 1,000 years and they would be blessed with a first resurrection. Some even claiming the first resurrection is not until after the 1,000 years. That is as wrong as a "second resurrection". What John is indicating is that some would not have this first resurrection, until after the 1,000 years, while those who were beheaded experienced the first resurrection before the 1,000 years. Then later in the chapter John totally left out a blessed first resurrection. All he recorded was the final judgement of the dead. It seems all were placed in the LOF. No one took advantage of a first physical resurrection into a permanent incorruptible physical body. If they did, John did not tell us, so only a speculative guess.

Of course those resurrected after the 1,000 years would not enjoy that 1,000 years, but they would avoid the second death, the LOF.

Not in both verses is a particle, primary word, absolute negative. I believe it could be read "worshipped no never worshipped" the beast...

I never noticed this because we were focused on vs 5. Thanks for pointing it out. I think it helps to confirm my argument.

How? There were many beheaded people who never worshipped Satan during the 3.5 years prior to the Cross and physical resurrection of Jesus?

 

[DavidPT]

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power"

There is no "second" resurrection implied nor specified. The first resurrection would also be afforded some after the 1,000 years and they would be blessed with a first resurrection.

To arrive at some of the conclusions you do is to disregard what it just said in verse 6---Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection---and shall reign with him a thousand years.


How do you propose one can still reign with Him a thousand years after the thousand years are in the past? Verse 6 indicates of every single person having part in the first resurrection, they each shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,


It can't get any clearer than this, the thousand years end eventually, and once they end, that era of time is entirely in the past to never get repeated again. This alone presents a problem for Amill. Meaning depending on which version of Amill one is considering. Those they have reigning in heaven a thousand years in a disembodied state, they still have them reigning a thousand years even though the thousand years are no longer relevant once they are expired.

Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7, since they apparently see that as the better option. Instead of them agreeing with the text, they deny that the text says the thousand years expire since they have the thousand years continuing in heaven even though it has expired on earth. Nowhere does verse 7 say the thousand years have both expired and not expired. That is a contradiction.

 

[Timtofly]

To arrive at some of the conclusions you do is to disregard what it just said in verse 6---Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection---and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The first resurrection only happens to the dead.

Your contradiction is based on a reason some were resurrected. If some were resurrected after the 1,000 years, did the reason for their resurrection change?

Of course it changes after the 1,000 years, and assumes they will not be alive during the 1,000 years. Why would reigning for 1,000 years still be a valid reason after the 1,000 years are over?

The only valid reason after the 1,000 years is still being blessed and avoiding the second death. That reason is not affected by the 1,000 years.

 

[Trivalee]

They are dead after disobedience. A sinner post death. If you are dead, you are a sinner. There is a difference. Adam was not a sinner before he disobeyed God. Adam's flesh and blood were declared sinners after death occured.

If you claim Adam was a sinner prior to his disobedience, what proof do you have?

Isaiah was not calling children sinners. He was calling them accursed and dead because they disobeyed, not sinners because they had Adam's flesh and blood. Adam's flesh and blood was eradicated at the end of the 7th Trumpet. The end of Daniel's 70th week. Daniel 9:24

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

Everlasting righteousness would mean no one is born a sinner. But one can disobey thus become a sinner. But not allowed to live in death like Adam. They were literally placed in Death. Their name removed from the Lamb's book of life.

Disobedience would not be the norm. That is why they are considered accursed.

You are all over the place and it is difficult to understand where you stand. Now I understand why some brothers here have raised concerns that it's hard to follow your reasoning. And if you can learn to use fewer words to make a point, you will be more concise and logical. As most of your analogies don't fit, your argument ends up as nebulous.

For example, you posited that Isaiah 65:20 did not imply that those that die at 100 years are sinners, but accursed. According to you, they disobeyed. To be accursed suggests they are in transgression, isn't it? I would have thought that everyone knows that every act of disobedience is a sin before God? Perhaps you see how confusing it is as you claim they are not sinners but in disobedience?

Still trying to make sense of your reasoning, if all of Adam's flesh ie, (all humanity) is destroyed at the 7th trump, would please explain who gave birth to the mortals that will live in the millennium. The ones that may die at 100 years for disobedience according to you?

Matthew 13. Jesus explains the wheat and tares are harvested by the angels at the end of the world. Jesus and the angels come to earth at the 6th Seal. During the Trumpets the Nation of Israel has sheep and goats harvested. The sheep harvested as firstfruits of the Millennium. This is time Jesus is also sowing the seed in Matthew 13. The Thunders will cover the harvest of the wheat and tares, all the other Nations as firstfruits of the Millennium. This is the final harvest of Adam's flesh and blood.

The last 42 months is after the Trumpets and Thunders. Armageddon is the end of those 42 months. There will still be some gleanings, those beheaded. So it seems even those beheaded after the sheep and after the wheat would also represent those nations alive in the Millennium.

Your first error: the sheep and goat judgment is for the whole world, not only Israel. Matt 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Notice that the text says "nations", plural - not singular?

Second error: how in the world did you make the judgment that the parable of the sower (seed) in Matt 13 will be sowed in the millennium? Of all the ambiguous parables in scripture, this is the only one Jesus explained to the disciples, thus making it easy for all to understand. The seed is the gospel of the kingdom that has been preached since the 1st century. So would say that "Jesus will sow the seed in the millennium?"

Your chronology of the eschaton needs a lot of work. Please clarify what you mean here: "So it seems even those beheaded after the sheep and after the wheat would also represent those nations alive in the Millennium?"

The way I understand it is that the beheading of believers would have ended BEFORE Armageddon. So, it's impossible to place them AFTER the sheep and goat judgment. Finally, how can the beheaded represent the nations alive in the millennium?

 

[rwb]

To arrive at some of the conclusions you do is to disregard what it just said in verse 6---Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection---and shall reign with him a thousand years.

How do you propose one can still reign with Him a thousand years after the thousand years are in the past? Verse 6 indicates of every single person having part in the first resurrection, they each shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

It can't get any clearer than this, the thousand years end eventually, and once they end, that era of time is entirely in the past to never get repeated again. This alone presents a problem for Amill. Meaning depending on which version of Amill one is considering. Those they have reigning in heaven a thousand years in a disembodied state, they still have them reigning a thousand years even though the thousand years are no longer relevant once they are expired.

Now you understand what we Amills have been trying to tell you for years. lol

Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7, since they apparently see that as the better option. Instead of them agreeing with the text, they deny that the text says the thousand years expire since they have the thousand years continuing in heaven even though it has expired on earth. Nowhere does verse 7 say the thousand years have both expired and not expired. That is a contradiction.

In this you err David. Amill doesn't have souls in heaven experiencing Satan's "little season". It is those who are still physically alive on the earth after the thousand years have ended that will have part in Satan's "little season". They are the believers (Church) alive on the earth when Satan and his minions surround them, thinking they will finally rid the world of every last Christian on earth. That's when fire comes down out of heaven from God, i.e., Christ returns, and the believers are caught up to be with the Lord in heaven until the wrath of God has past.

Then all who are with the Lord come down with Him to the new earth to live with Him, not for a thousand years, but for eternity.

 

[Trivalee]

All of Adam's flesh eradicated, not just Gentiles.

The Millennium starts out with a resurrection. But the firstfruits are also the 144k, the sheep, and the wheat. There could be millions in that first generation of millennials. For 1,000 years they do have offspring. Isaiah 65 states children and offspring are born.

"And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear."

Remember in Matthew 13, Jesus is planting the seed of the wheat?

If humans average a new generation every 30 years that is 3 every 100 years. If every 20 years that is 5 every 100 years. 30 generations during those 1,000 years is conservative. Even 20 generations. There has been less than 7 in the last 200 years, to go from millions to almost 8 billion. That is with plagues and world wars. That has been with mass genocide, and population control.

The church is not even on earth in the Millennium. They are in Paradise not procreating. Those on earth, the firstfruits of the GT are the one's procreating per Isaiah 65.

If you place the church on earth, it would be you contradicting Isaiah 65, not me. Those in the first century will not live on earth, and they who heard those words are still in sheol and remain there. So unless they procreate in the LOF, it will still hold true for them as well. Jesus was not talking to nor about those alive at the Second Coming. Where does it really say the sheep and wheat ever die? Would not God change them from Adam's dead flesh into permanent incorruptible physical bodies, just like those changed at the rapture, the church, at the Second Coming?

Not sure why any one thinks God would allow sin and corruption in the Millennium? Is that not one reason why some Pre-mill switch to Amil and deny the Millennium altogether? They reject God's ability to change humans whom God chooses to live on earth into permanent incorruptible physical bodies. They totally deny a physical resurrection in Revelation 20:4. They in essence deny Jesus is the Resurrection and Life, unless one physically dies? Jesus can change vial sinners and give them a new physical body, just as easily as a new mind and attitude.

I have a question. How do you interpret 1 Corinthians 15:23-25?

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."

There is only one resurrection out of sheol, Abraham's bosom, mentioned in those verses. Christ the firstfruits. Those were still people with an OT mindset who asked about marriage. That resurrection, "like the angels", started at the Cross, not some future Day of Judgment. The Second Coming is not even a resurrection of the dead. It is a physical change of those alive on earth who are redeemed. It is an instantaneous without pain "resurrection". But Paul was not really talking about resurrections any way. He was talking about the order in which Jesus presents Adam's redeemed flesh and blood to God. There is no death nor resurrection at all at the end of the Millennium. No one is in Adam's dead flesh and blood. But yet Death is the last enemy. Unfortunately some still listen to Satan after those 1,000 years and are consumed by fire and end up in Death any ways. If no one listens to Satan and no one is consumed by fire, then Deaths defeat will be the same. It would seem more victorious as all those alive also defeated Death, and ignored Satan. But God shows a free will choice even to those born on earth during the millennium. Death is only given to those who choose to follow Satan, not the rest of humanity on earth.

1-The mortals in the millennium are not only the 144K which scripture says are ethnic Jews Rev 7:4-8. And Zech 14:16-17 debunks your theory as it proves that some Gentiles will also survive the GT.

2- You claimed that the church will not be on earth during the millennium, this is untrue. You pointed out that the Lord will judge the sheep and goat on earth in the millennium, which places the resurrected/raptured church (now immortal) on earth also during the millennium. Jesus told the disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them and that when he returns for them, where he is, there they will be also John 14:3.

There are two resurrections; the first is for the Just 1 Thess 4:16 and the second for the wicked occurs at the end of the millennium Rev 20:5.

 

[claninja]

That's not an answer. My apologies I meant to say an absolute negative even if you don't see it.

it says the rest of the dead “lived not”. I still have no idea what you mean by “lived, but not lived”.

There is no “lived but not lived” found in the textus receptus. It’s says “not lived”

revelation 20:5 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ (rest) τῶν (of the) νεκρῶν (dead) οὐκ (not) ἀνέζησαν (lived) ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη

the rest of the dead “lived not” until the completion of the 1,000 years.

Resurrection after the thousand years have ended is being raised to life to die, and that's why John says "lived but never lived". In other words, being raised to life for them as John says is not for resurrection life but resurrected to condemnation.

Revelation 20:5 doesn’t state “lived but never lived”.

The phrase is “the rest of the dead lived not again until the completion of the 1,000 years”.

anástasis -a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):—raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.

I have no disagreement with the definition of G326. But again G326 is not found in revelation 20:5 in the critical or majority text. So your argument must contain an element of textual criticism, IOW, why is the textus receptus better than the critical or majority text?

 

[claninja]

Not in both verses is a particle, primary word, absolute negative. I believe it could be read "worshipped no never worshipped" the beast...

I never noticed this because we were focused on vs 5. Thanks for pointing it out. I think it helps to confirm my argument.

Where are you getting your information on the Greek? It doesn’t say “worshipped, no never worshipped”

 

[DavidPT]

In this you err David. Amill doesn't have souls in heaven experiencing Satan's "little season".

I don't recall saying Amill does.

This is what I said.

"Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7, since they apparently see that as the better option".

Maybe I should have worded it a bit different, maybe like such? Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven since there is no logic to that and that they know there is no logic to that, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7 instead, since they apparently see that as the better option of the two.


But there is an even better option, simply agree with what Revelation 20:7 states, that the thousand years expire. It can't expire if it is still in progress in heaven, though. for example, would anyone propose that when Abel died he entered heaven and began reigning with Christ a thousand years and has been reigning with Him a thousand years for almost 6000 years? Of course no one would propose that since that would obviously be out of sync with what is recorded in Revelation 20. In a similar way it would also be out of sync with what is recorded in Revelation 20 pertaining to the thousand years expiring if the thousand years are still in progress in heaven though they are no longer in progress on earth.

 

[Timtofly]

You are all over the place and it is difficult to understand where you stand. Now I understand why some brothers here have raised concerns that it's hard to follow your reasoning. And if you can learn to use fewer words to make a point, you will be more concise and logical. As most of your analogies don't fit, your argument ends up as nebulous.

For example, you posited that Isaiah 65:20 did not imply that those that die at 100 years are sinners, but accursed. According to you, they disobeyed. To be accursed suggests they are in transgression, isn't it? I would have thought that everyone knows that every act of disobedience is a sin before God? Perhaps you see how confusing it is as you claim they are not sinners but in disobedience?

Still trying to make sense of your reasoning, if all of Adam's flesh ie, (all humanity) is destroyed at the 7th trump, would please explain who gave birth to the mortals that will live in the millennium. The ones that may die at 100 years for disobedience according to you?



Your first error: the sheep and goat judgment is for the whole world, not only Israel. Matt 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Notice that the text says "nations", plural - not singular?

Second error: how in the world did you make the judgment that the parable of the sower (seed) in Matt 13 will be sowed in the millennium? Of all the ambiguous parables in scripture, this is the only one Jesus explained to the disciples, thus making it easy for all to understand. The seed is the gospel of the kingdom that has been preached since the 1st century. So would say that "Jesus will sow the seed in the millennium?"

Your chronology of the eschaton needs a lot of work. Please clarify what you mean here: "So it seems even those beheaded after the sheep and after the wheat would also represent those nations alive in the Millennium?"

The way I understand it is that the beheading of believers would have ended BEFORE Armageddon. So, it's impossible to place them AFTER the sheep and goat judgment. Finally, how can the beheaded represent the nations alive in the millennium?

I take Revelation 6-13 in chronological order.

Seals are for the church. The Second Coming is the 6th Seal. The church is removed. Jesus as Prince comes to the Mount of Olives.

The 144k are sealed. The throne in the temple in Jerusalem is set up by Jesus the Prince.

Jesus calls out Israel from all Nations for judgment in Jerusalem, during the first 6 Trumpets. The sheep and goats are harvested removed from the earth.

Jesus is personally sowing seed for the harvest of the Gentiles. Satan is sowing seed for the tares. During the 7 Thunders is when the angels harvest the wheat and tares.

Then the 7th Trumpet sounds. The harvest is finished. Revelation 14 all humanity left is killed.

The Millennium starts with the 144k, the sheep, and the wheat as firstfruits. They are without sin or a sin nature. They are given God's permanent incorruptible physical body, not made from human genetics from Adam, but a physical resurrection body.

Adam was not a sinner when he disobeyed God. Is that a hard concept to grasp? Only after Adam disobeyed God, was he a dead sinner.

During the Millennium people who disobey will immediately die. No excuses, no rehab, no grace, no redemption. That is what Death is for.

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and Death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

During the Millennium a person dies, and is placed in Death. Not because they are a sinner. Not because they sin. They are the same as Adam before Adam disobeyed God. After they disobey one time they are dead. They are a sinner now, but dead. They do not live on earth. They are confined by Death. Until they disobey they are not defined as dead. They are not living in Death. Why would they be considered cursed or a sinner while being obedient?

Isaiah 65 has never happened in the historical record. There certainly will be no Death after the Millennium. If there is no Millennium, then Isaiah 65 will never be fulfilled.

 

[rwb]

I don't recall saying Amill does.

This is what I said.

"Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7, since they apparently see that as the better option".

Maybe I should have worded it a bit different, maybe like such? Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven since there is no logic to that and that they know there is no logic to that, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7 instead, since they apparently see that as the better option of the two.

I apologize for not more carefully reading what you said. I'm not sure about what you mean when you say Amil contradicts vs. 7 Satan's little season? The souls are in heaven, but the little season for Satan is to come against the physically living, not those who have already died and gone to heaven. But I think you understand that.

But there is an even better option, simply agree with what Revelation 20:7 states, that the thousand years expire. It can't expire if it is still in progress in heaven, though. for example, would anyone propose that when Abel died he entered heaven and began reigning with Christ a thousand years and has been reigning with Him a thousand years for almost 6000 years? Of course no one would propose that since that would obviously be out of sync with what is recorded in Revelation 20. In a similar way it would also be out of sync with what is recorded in Revelation 20 pertaining to the thousand years expiring if the thousand years are still in progress in heaven though they are no longer in progress on earth.

Time doesn't exist once one dies and goes to heaven. Time continues on earth, but the living souls in heaven have already lived and reigned with Christ in time (1000 yrs). Since the cross and resurrection, and Christ's ascension to heaven, whoever had died by faith before the advent of Christ, now since He came can go to heaven as living (spirit) soul, where time on earth for them has stopped.

But even though Abel lived and physically died before the advent of Christ, as a man of faith, believing Messiah would come to redeem Him from the grave he lived and died. According to Rev 6 while Abel was in the grave, he was still under the altar, or still covered by the atoning blood of Christ through Old Covenant promise. So though physically dying spiritually he lived and reigned with Christ during time. This must be true, because we have Christ's promise that whosoever lives and believes in Him will never die! And all the Old Covenant faithful saints, according to Heb 11 believed God and hoped for the promise of everlasting life to come by grace through faith when the Messiah came.

I believe this is why we find the angels of heaven celebrating when Christ was born, and Satan was cast out of heaven. The celebration was that those of Old Covenant faith with Abraham were given white robes symbolizing righteousness and told their redemption was very near and they had only to wait a "little season" until the remaining remnant of faithful souls from Old Covenant times died as they had, including Christ Himself, their brethren (brother) then they would be taken from the place of death, the grave called in the parable Abraham's bosom, and ascend with Christ to heaven as living (spirit) souls.

Even though the Old Covenant faithful saints physically lived and died before the thousand years of time that began with the advent of Christ's birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, according to Old Covenant promise the Messiah's blood covered them and gives assurance they too never die because in life they too had part in the first resurrection through the blood and resurrection of Christ through promise. Though physical death took their bodies it was not able to kill their spirit (living) souls.

Hebrews 11:4 (KJV) By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Hebrews 11:13-16 (KJV) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Hebrews 11:35 (KJV) Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

Hebrews 11:39-40 (KJV) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

 

[Trivalee]

I take Revelation 6-13 in chronological order.

Seals are for the church. The Second Coming is the 6th Seal. The church is removed. Jesus as Prince comes to the Mount of Olives.

The 144k are sealed. The throne in the temple in Jerusalem is set up by Jesus the Prince.

Jesus calls out Israel from all Nations for judgment in Jerusalem, during the first 6 Trumpets. The sheep and goats are harvested removed from the earth.

Jesus is personally sowing seed for the harvest of the Gentiles. Satan is sowing seed for the tares. During the 7 Thunders is when the angels harvest the wheat and tares.

Then the 7th Trumpet sounds. The harvest is finished. Revelation 14 all humanity left is killed.

The Millennium starts with the 144k, the sheep, and the wheat as firstfruits. They are without sin or a sin nature. They are given God's permanent incorruptible physical body, not made from human genetics from Adam, but a physical resurrection body.

Adam was not a sinner when he disobeyed God. Is that a hard concept to grasp? Only after Adam disobeyed God, was he a dead sinner.

During the Millennium people who disobey will immediately die. No excuses, no rehab, no grace, no redemption. That is what Death is for.

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and Death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

During the Millennium a person dies, and is placed in Death. Not because they are a sinner. Not because they sin. They are the same as Adam before Adam disobeyed God. After they disobey one time they are dead. They are a sinner now, but dead. They do not live on earth. They are confined by Death. Until they disobey they are not defined as dead. They are not living in Death. Why would they be considered cursed or a sinner while being obedient?

Isaiah 65 has never happened in the historical record. There certainly will be no Death after the Millennium. If there is no Millennium, then Isaiah 65 will never be fulfilled.

For a start, I am Premil and don't but into the theory that the church will be removed before the GT. It is bizarre to claim that the 6th seal is the Second Coming when the seven trumpets only begin from the 7th seal, Rev 8:1-2. If you are to be believed, Jesus will already be on earth when the trumpet call begins???

Jesus is not a prince. He will be a King when he returns and a prince is lower in rank than a king. Trust me, I know because I am English.

Your doctrine is so out of place that I don't know how to help you. Most of your claims are so preposterous and unbelievable. For example, to apply the seed sowed in Matt 13 to the millennium makes no sense.

Adam did not die before he sinned, so why would those in the millennium die if they are not in sin?