Jesus's resurrection

DavidPT said:

How am I contradicting myself? I indicated I see the first resurrection as a type of resurrection. It would fit under the category of the resurrection unto life, as in unto eternal life. And that this resurrection always precedes the other resurrection, where that resurrection fits under the category of the resurrection unto damnation.

Christ rose first. Which of these two categories above did He rise in? The category of the resurrection unto life. Did any resurrection having to do with the other category, the resurrection unto damnation, precede His? No.

What about the dead in Christ who rise first? Which resurrection category will they rise in? The resurrection unto life. Does any resurrection having to do with the other category, the resurrection unto damnation, precede this resurrection? No.

If there are 2 categories, the resurrection unto life, where that category refers to the first resurrection, and the resurrection unto damnation being the other category, how can Christ and those that sleep in Him not rise in the first resurrection, regardless that Christ is resurrected before those that sleep in Him are? All of them still rise first. All of them still rise before the damned rise. IOW then, it is first in more ways than one. It is first because Christ rose in this type of resurrection first. It is also first because the dead in Christ also rise in this same type of resurrection, and that they rise before those in the remaining type of resurrection, the resurrection unto damnation, do.


While it's on my mind, speaking of sleeping in Christ, and that they rise first, how is it possible that the martyrs in Revelation 20:4 are not meaning any of these?

Click to expand...

So you accept that Jesus is the first "first resurrection" but you are suggesting that we are the second "first resurrection"? Is that right?

sovereigngrace said:

So you accept that Jesus is the first "first resurrection" but you are suggesting that we are the second "first resurrection"? Is that right?

Click to expand...

Pretty much, though I have to admit that it's somewhat hard for me to convey it in writing. I likely manage to confuse others a good portion of the time, per the manner in which I'm trying to express my thoughts into writing. I never was a skilled writer and have never claimed to be. All I can do is do the best that I can and hope for the best, hoping that at least someone might grasp where I'm coming from and why, regardless that they might still disagree.

DavidPT said:

Pretty much, though I have to admit that it's somewhat hard for me to convey it in writing. I likely manage to confuse others a good portion of the time, per the manner in which I'm trying to express my thoughts into writing. I never was a skilled writer and have never claimed to be. All I can do is do the best that I can and hope for the best, hoping that at least someone might grasp where I'm coming from and why, regardless that they might still disagree.

Click to expand...

This is why I argue for Christ's resurrection; i.e. the first. That way we can understand the resurrection we must partake of to have no fear of the second death is not bodily, but spiritual. When we are born again we have part in the first resurrection, or the resurrection of Christ. We have part in the resurrection of Christ in this life, when we believe. Only those who have part in the resurrection of Christ; the first to be raised from the dead, will not be harmed by the second death. The only resurrection left for all humanity is our bodily resurrection on the last day. Whosoever has partaken of the first resurrection in life, will be bodily resurrected for reward. The rest will be bodily resurrected to stand before God in Judgment to be judged by things written in the books and the book of life.

DavidPT said:

Pretty much, though I have to admit that it's somewhat hard for me to convey it in writing. I likely manage to confuse others a good portion of the time, per the manner in which I'm trying to express my thoughts into writing. I never was a skilled writer and have never claimed to be. All I can do is do the best that I can and hope for the best, hoping that at least someone might grasp where I'm coming from and why, regardless that they might still disagree.

Click to expand...

Please don't say that you are not a skilled writer. I believe you are. You're very able and articulate. I always read your posts. I cannot say that about every poster.

rwb said:

This is why I argue for Christ's resurrection; i.e. the first. That way we can understand the resurrection we must partake of to have no fear of the second death is not bodily, but spiritual. When we are born again we have part in the first resurrection, or the resurrection of Christ. We have part in the resurrection of Christ in this life, when we believe. Only those who have part in the resurrection of Christ; the first to be raised from the dead, will not be harmed by the second death. The only resurrection left for all humanity is our bodily resurrection on the last day. Whosoever has partaken of the first resurrection in life, will be bodily resurrected for reward. The rest will be bodily resurrected to stand before God in Judgment to be judged by things written in the books and the book of life.

Click to expand...

So why is it, in Revelation 20:4, it's no one who is still physically alive that is in view, but it is only someone that has already physically died that are in view? Maybe you can point out in the text, but I don't see a single mention of any saints in that verse, pertaining to the first resurrection, where that is being applied to them before they have even physically died.

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 not worshipped 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.

These that John sees have already physically died. John is not seeing anyone in this verse that hasn't even physically died yet. If you disagree, point them out in this verse.

The text says---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. who? These martyrs, obviously. But that is meaning after they have been martyred, not before they have been martyred, and that 'lived'(zao) is meaning because of the first resurrection, as in lived again. If you disagree that zao can be applied in that manner, then you have to also agree it can't be applied in that manner per the following either.

Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive(zao);

Per this context, which came first? First He was dead then He became alive? Or first He was alive then He became dead? Obviously the former. After being dead how did He become alive, then? Obviously from a resurrection. The point being, in Revelation 2:8 (zao) means to live again, and that's exactly what it means in Revelation 20:4 as well.

shilohsfoal said:

You might be new as a babe and that good. Here is what scripture says about th e first resurrection.

Revelation 20:4 Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Revelation 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years were complete. This is the first resurrection.
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.


Now, if you believe you have partaken in this first resurrection, can you tell me how many days was it from the time you was killed for testifying of Christ to the day you came back to life?

Click to expand...

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

I died with Christ the moment I accepted Him. God raised me up at the same. That's the only death and resurrection that matters to me.

claninja said:

You are correct that the NT never explicitly refers to "being born again" as the term resurrection. However, that is not enough of an argument to state that the 1st resurrection does not refer to being born again. For example, the Father, Son, and Spirit are never referred by the term trinity or triune God, should then we thrown out the doctrine of the trinity? No of course not.

According to revelation the 1st resurrection involves those who live and reign with Christ, through being beheaded for Jesus' testimony, for not worshiping the beast, and not receiving the mark of the beast.

revelation 20:4-5 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

Also, according to revelation, those who partake in the 1st resurrection are not affected by the 2nd death, but are a kingdom of priests to God.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

Click to expand...

Yes. This is because they are resurrected from the dead bodily at that point.

claninja said:

Can this be found in other scripture to help us with the meaning of this passage? Yes.

1.) Peter declares that we are ROYAL priesthood to God already.

1 peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light

Click to expand...

Which of course is talking of election and proves neither A-millennialism nor Pre-millennialism. It's because we are born of the Spirit that we become a chosen race and a royal prieshood:

John 3:5 (Young's Literal translation) Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
John 3:6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
John 3:8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

The Greek word translated into English as again is ἄνωθεν (anōthen) and it means "from above", which is why the YLT translates it as "from above".

No one is resurrected before they have died, and you cannot die unless you have been born. No one is born into this world alive spiritually. You have to be born of the Spirit.

Just because A-millennialists have chosen and continue to choose to conflate this with resurrection from the dead, does not make it true, 10 billion Christians may have believed this in 1,600 years. Makes no difference. Consensus is no guarantee of truth - ask all the Jews who don't believe in Jesus.

We did not die before we were born. Christ died, and when He died, we who are born of the Spirit died with Him rose with Him - only because we are in Him through being born from above.

Christ died and rose again nearly 2,000 years ago. When did you die so that you could be "resurrected" when you were born from above? You were not resurrected. Christ was. You are in Him through faith in Him so that when you were born of the Spirit, you died with Him nearly 2,000 years ago, and rose again from the dead bodily with Him nearly 2,000 years ago. With Him. With Him. It's Christ's resurrection - not yours. You now live in hope of your bodily resurrection.

So tell me, since Christ was resurrected bodily nearly 2,000 years ago, why are you not now resurrected bodily, since you claim to have been resurrected?

claninja said:

2.) Jesus specifically states that the one who "overcomes" will not be hurt by the 2nd death, just as the one who partakes in the 1st resurrection, according to revelation 20, will not be hurt by the 2nd death. So what does it mean to "overcome"?
Revelation 2:10-11 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.

Click to expand...

It's quite telling how you either isolate one scripture apart from the rest or only quote one part of what Jesus said in order to try to make your eisegesis of scripture fit. Here is what Jesus said:

Rev 2:10 `Be not afraid of the things that thou art about to suffer; lo, the devil is about to cast of you to prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days; become thou faithful unto death, and I will give to thee the crown of the life.
Rev 2:11 He who is having an ear--let him hear what the Spirit saith to the assemblies: He who is overcoming may not be injured of the second death.

You keep proving that you're only (and consistently practicing eisegesis - reading into scripture what is not there. In this case, reading the word "resurrection" into the words "born from above". And this is how you've chosen to quote only one part of what Jesus said in the Revelation regarding overcoming in order to twist and bend other scripture in failed attempts to get scripture to fit with your eisegesis:

claninja said:

Well, according to John, to be "overcome" means to be born of God through our faith in believing that Jesus is the son of God.
1 John 1:4-5 everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Click to expand...

As you have seen, what you say above is based only on your eisegesis of scripture which you have as a result of changing the meaning of other scriptures. Nowhere does scripture call the new birth the "resurrection" or "the first resurrection".

DavidPT said:

So why is it, in Revelation 20:4, it's no one who is still physically alive that is in view, but it is only someone that has already physically died that are in view? Maybe you can point out in the text, but I don't see a single mention of any saints in that verse, pertaining to the first resurrection, where that is being applied to them before they have even physically died.

Click to expand...

John is given a vision of the souls (living spirits) in heaven. In life they were born again, partaking of the resurrection of Christ; i.e. the first resurrection, so in death as spirit body they went to be with the Lord in heaven. The fact that John sees only martyred believers in heaven, does not mean that all believers from earth after death will not join them.

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 not worshipped 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.

These that John sees have already physically died. John is not seeing anyone in this verse that hasn't even physically died yet. If you disagree, point them out in this verse.

Click to expand...

That's because John is only seeing those martyred in heaven. But the passage does not limit the number that will be in the Kingdom of Heaven to only them. The destiny for all believers is spiritual in Heaven after they have died on this earth. Saying "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years", shows that during this time likened to a thousand years, all believers after physical death live and reign with Christ throughout the Gospel Age. It could be literally from the first day of this symbolic time, like we find with the death of the thief on the cross (Today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise), or the last day of this symbolic time likened to a thousand years. The actual number of days, months, years matters not, for whosoever has part in the resurrection of Christ in life, in death will live and reign with Him for a thousand years. Or during this time likened to a thousand years. Living and reigning anytime within this age is living and reigning in this time from the first Advent of Christ to the end of the thousand years.

The text says---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. who? These martyrs, obviously. But that is meaning after they have been martyred, not before they have been martyred, and that 'lived'(zao) is meaning because of the first resurrection, as in lived again. If you disagree that zao can be applied in that manner, then you have to also agree it can't be applied in that manner per the following either.

Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive(zao);

Per this context, which came first? First He was dead then He became alive? Or first He was alive then He became dead? Obviously the former. After being dead how did He become alive, then? Obviously from a resurrection. The point being, in Revelation 2:8 (zao) means to live again, and that's exactly what it means in Revelation 20:4 as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, zao means to live again. But living again is not what John says. John sees believers, who were martyred for their faith ALIVE in heaven. It does not say, but I suspect John was filled with joy at seeing these faithful saints ALIVE in heaven after their bodies had died on earth. What joy to fully comprehend the words Christ spoke when He was alive. Now John knows and understands that physical death is not to be feared by Christians, because death of our body simply means we go to Heaven to be with the Lord as living souls.

Christ spoke truth when He said John 11:26 (KJV) And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? And Paul too when he said 2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. and: Php 1:20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.
Php 1:21 ¶ For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
Php 1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
Php 1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The Kingdom of God that flesh and blood cannot inherit is the Kingdom of Heaven. Because when believers body dies, as spirit body we go to be with the Lord in heaven until our body is raised on the last day. Then the Kingdom of God in Heaven will come down from Heaven with the Lord with resurrected incorruptible and immortal body to be re-united with our eternal spirit or living soul.

This truth is confirmed for John and for us when we read of these martyred souls ALIVE in heaven, just as Christ promised we would be.

Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Joh 14:4 ¶ And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Yes. This is because they are resurrected from the dead bodily at that point.


Which of course is talking of election and proves neither A-millennialism nor Pre-millennialism. It's because we are born of the Spirit that we become a chosen race and a royal prieshood:

John 3:5 (Young's Literal translation) Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
John 3:6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
John 3:8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

The Greek word translated into English as again is ἄνωθεν (anōthen) and it means "from above", which is why the YLT translates it as "from above".

No one is resurrected before they have died, and you cannot die unless you have been born. No one is born into this world alive spiritually. You have to be born of the Spirit.

Just because A-millennialists have chosen and continue to choose to conflate this with resurrection from the dead, does not make it true, 10 billion Christians may have believed this in 1,600 years. Makes no difference. Consensus is no guarantee of truth - ask all the Jews who don't believe in Jesus.

We did not die before we were born. Christ died, and when He died, we who are born of the Spirit died with Him rose with Him - only because we are in Him through being born from above.

Christ died and rose again nearly 2,000 years ago. When did you die so that you could be "resurrected" when you were born from above? You were not resurrected. Christ was. You are in Him through faith in Him so that when you were born of the Spirit, you died with Him nearly 2,000 years ago, and rose again from the dead bodily with Him nearly 2,000 years ago. With Him. With Him. It's Christ's resurrection - not yours. You now live in hope of your bodily resurrection.

So tell me, since Christ was resurrected bodily nearly 2,000 years ago, why are you not now resurrected bodily, since you claim to have been resurrected?



It's quite telling how you either isolate one scripture apart from the rest or only quote one part of what Jesus said in order to try to make your eisegesis of scripture fit. Here is what Jesus said:

Rev 2:10 `Be not afraid of the things that thou art about to suffer; lo, the devil is about to cast of you to prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days; become thou faithful unto death, and I will give to thee the crown of the life.
Rev 2:11 He who is having an ear--let him hear what the Spirit saith to the assemblies: He who is overcoming may not be injured of the second death.

You keep proving that you're only (and consistently practicing eisegesis - reading into scripture what is not there. In this case, reading the word "resurrection" into the words "born from above". And this is how you've chosen to quote only one part of what Jesus said in the Revelation regarding overcoming in order to twist and bend other scripture in failed attempts to get scripture to fit with your eisegesis:

As you have seen, what you say above is based only on your eisegesis of scripture which you have as a result of changing the meaning of other scriptures. Nowhere does scripture call the new birth the "resurrection" or "the first resurrection".

Click to expand...

You totally avoid all the Scripture listed above that proves total depravity. This is 101 Christianity. I know you do not get this. But every Christian should know it.

The Psalmist outlines man’s grim state: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). That’s why the Bible says in

Ephesians 2:3: "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

We are rebels against God and His plan and purpose for our lives. This is crystal clear for those who do not have to impose their private interpretation on the sacred pages.

Ephesians 2:1 reveals we are “dead in trespasses and sins.” Colossians 2:13 personalises this truth to the individual, saying, “you, being dead in your sins.”

Every man since Adam is born with original sin and completely guilty before a righteous God. He is spiritually dead. Romans 5:12, 15, 18-19 confirms, “as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ... For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many ... as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

This is talking about inherent sin. Spiritual death was the nature that was passed on from Adam. We are all born with it. Man – in all generations – inherited Adam’s awful sinful nature, which ultimately separates man from a holy God. I prefer to give all the glory to God on every issue. Until you grasp that you will never see that salvation is eternal. Faith in Scripture is supernatural. (1) It comes from God. (2) It regenerates. It changes a dead man into an alive man. (3) It changes a man from a lover of sin to a hater of sin, a hater of righteousness to a lover of it.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Yes. This is because they are resurrected from the dead bodily at that point.

Click to expand...

Please provide gospel and epistolic evidence that there are 2 bodily resurrections separated by a millennium in order to support that your interpretation of Revelation 20 is not eisegesis.

Also, are you non-trinitarian because the term trinity is never mentioned in scripture? Just trying to understand if you are consistent in your theology, or if you are eschatalogically biased.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

It's because we are born of the Spirit that we become a chosen race and a royal prieshood:

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. So why don't you use that passage in 1 Peter 2:9 to interpret Revelation 20:6?

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

The Greek word translated into English as again is ἄνωθεν (anōthen) and it means "from above", which is why the YLT translates it as "from above".

Click to expand...

No disagreements

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

No one is resurrected before they have died, and you cannot die unless you have been born. No one is born into this world alive spiritually. You have to be born of the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Just because A-millennialists have chosen and continue to choose to conflate this with resurrection from the dead, does not make it true, 10 billion Christians may have believed this in 1,600 years. Makes no difference. Consensus is no guarantee of truth - ask all the Jews who don't believe in Jesus.

Click to expand...

By this, it seems that you may be misunderstanding the Amil position. Many Amils believe Jesus is the first resurrection.

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies. And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

It is because of the 1st resurrection (Jesus), that those that are now in Christ have been raised.

Colossians 2:12 And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Thus being born again/from above is intimately tied to the 1st resurrection (Jesus). If it wasn't for the bodily resurrection of Christ, we coudn't be spiritually raised to be a kingdom of priests to God.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

So tell me, since Christ was resurrected bodily nearly 2,000 years ago, why are you not now resurrected bodily, since you claim to have been resurrected?

Click to expand...

I never stated I was resurrected bodily, so I can't really answer this loaded/strawman question.

Jesus is the 1st resurrection which resulted in all those who believe never having to face the 2nd death. The 1st resurrection resulted in all those who are born again/from above to be a kingdom of priests, as even you seem to agree. Therefore, the believer being raised spiritually (being born again/from above) is tied directly to resurrection of Christ.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

It's quite telling how you either isolate one scripture apart from the rest or only quote one part of what Jesus said in order to try to make your eisegesis of scripture fit. Here is what Jesus said:

Rev 2:10 `Be not afraid of the things that thou art about to suffer; lo, the devil is about to cast of you to prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days; become thou faithful unto death, and I will give to thee the crown of the life.
Rev 2:11 He who is having an ear--let him hear what the Spirit saith to the assemblies: He who is overcoming may not be injured of the second death.

You keep proving that you're only (and consistently practicing eisegesis - reading into scripture what is not there. In this case, reading the word "resurrection" into the words "born from above". And this is how you've chosen to quote only one part of what Jesus said in th

e Revelation regarding overcoming in order to twist and bend other scripture in failed attempts to get scripture to fit with your eisegesis:

Click to expand...

It's eisegesis to take Jesus and John at their words that those who overcome (born of God and faith in Christ) will not face the 2nd death?

1 John 5:4 because everyone born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith.

revelation 2:11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who overcomes will not be harmed by the second death.

John 11:26 And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

As you have seen, what you say above is based only on your eisegesis of scripture which you have as a result of changing the meaning of other scriptures.

Click to expand...

As my point was that those who are born again/believe in Jesus will never face the 2nd death, it seems that your argument disagrees with that.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

. Nowhere does scripture call the new birth the "resurrection" or "the first resurrection".

Click to expand...

I've already agreed with this..........

My understanding is that the 1st resurrection is Jesus, which RESULTED in us being born again/from above to become a kingdom of priests and to never be hurt by the 2nd death. Do you disagree that Jesus' resurrection resulted in this?

claninja said:

Please provide gospel and epistolic evidence that there are 2 bodily resurrections separated by a millennium in order to support that your interpretation of Revelation 20 is not eisegesis.

Click to expand...

"Epistolic"?

Please provide proof that Jesus was speaking figuritively.

Please also provide proof that the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is a spiritual resurrection that happens millions upon millions upon millions of times over a period of 2,000 or more years each time someone is born of the Spirit.

sovereigngrace said:

You totally avoid all the Scripture listed above that proves total depravity.

Click to expand...

Firstly, you're talking absolute nonsense. I don't and have never denied total depravity. Unless you're practicing your usual eisgesis, this time now reading things into what I have said. Since you do this for my posts, it's no wonder you do it with scripture.

Secondly, total depravity has nothing to do with the subject.

John 3:6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;

Where is your "resurrection" in born of the Spirit? You were never alive spiritually. You were born dead and subject to total depravity You needed to be born of the Spirit.

You were raised with Christ who was raised almost 2,000 years ago because you were born of His Spirit over 1,900 years later. He was resurrected from the dead - not you.

I don't think you will ever understand because you won't read all the scriptures without reading things into them. You're clinging to your eisegesis as though your salvation depends on it.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Firstly, you're talking absolute nonsense. I don't and have never denied total depravity. Unless you're practicing your usual eisgesis, this time now reading things into what I have said. Since you do this for my posts, it's no wonder you do it with scripture.

Secondly, total depravity has nothing to do with the subject.

John 3:6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;

Where is your "resurrection" in born of the Spirit? You were never alive spiritually. You were born dead and subject to total depravity You needed to be born of the Spirit.

You were raised with Christ who was raised almost 2,000 years ago because you were born of His Spirit over 1,900 years later. He was resurrected from the dead - not you.

I don't think you will ever understand because you won't read all the scriptures without reading things into them. You're clinging to your eisegesis as though your salvation depends on it.

Click to expand...

I have given you multiple Scripture that shows that man is brought from death unto life by means of resurrection, whether naturally or spiritually. That is a no-brainer! It is demonstrated throughout the sacred text.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

"Epistolic"?

Please provide proof that Jesus was speaking figuritively.

Please also provide proof that the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is a spiritual resurrection that happens millions upon millions upon millions of times over a period of 2,000 or more years each time someone is born of the Spirit.

Click to expand...

You overlook the phrase "hath part." Whatever that refers to will seal this debate. The unfortunate thing for Premils is that it is present tense. So whatever resurrection it is speaking of, believers currently have their "part" in it. Whatever “the first resurrection” is, participation in it qualifies humans’ to escape the horrors of eternal punishment (the second death). In this experience Christians identify with Christ’s victorious resurrection.

The Greek for “that hath part” is echo méros. The Greek verb echo correctly interpreted “that hath” in the King James Version is written in the present tense and in the active voice. Therefore, we can view the relevance and vitality of “the first resurrection” as being both current and ongoing. Christ’s victory over death is not simply a past event that has no active bearing upon what we are today; it is ongoing reality in the lives of God’s people. The Greek word translated “part” in the text is the word meros meaning share, allotment or portion. This reading tells us that all those that have come to the joy of saving faith in Christ have become partakers in the resurrection life, and through this will escape the horrors of the second death – eternal wrath.

This passage is describing the reality and result of our mystical union with Christ. The expression “in Christ” [Gr. en Christo] is found 216 times in the New Testament and refers to our federal and covenantal standing. It shows us that our spiritual status is totally derived from and dependent upon relationship with Christ.

claninja said:

Also, are you non-trinitarian because the term trinity is never mentioned in scripture? Just trying to understand if you are consistent in your theology, or if you are eschatalogically biased.

Click to expand...

You've just proved that you are just grasping at straws and throwing false accusations at the person who has proved to you than you cannot prove "spiritual resurrection" in "new birth"

claninja said:

I absolutely agree. So why don't you use that passage in 1 Peter 2:9 to interpret Revelation 20:6?

Click to expand...

Because that's your eisegesis, not mine.

claninja said:

By this, it seems that you may be misunderstanding the Amil position. Many Amils believe Jesus is the first resurrection.

Click to expand...

No I'm not misunderstanding your a-mill position on what the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is referring to. You've just repeated it below:

claninja said:

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies. And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

It is because of the 1st resurrection (Jesus), that those that are now in Christ have been raised.

Colossians 2:12 And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Thus being born again/from above is intimately tied to the 1st resurrection (Jesus). If it wasn't for the bodily resurrection of Christ, we coudn't be spiritually raised to be a kingdom of priests to God.

Click to expand...

You will not die spiritually because at first you were dead spiritually but then by the grace of God you were born of the Spirit of Christ. And because you were born of the Spirit over 1,900 years later than Christ's death and resurrection, you were raised with Him who was raised from the dead almost 2,000 years ago (key words are with Him who is risen) - and this because you are now IN Him who is risen - and this is through your new birth. Not through a "spiritual resurrection". You never died spiritually so that you could be "resurrected" spiritually. You were born spiritually when you accepted Jesus.

But you will still die, physically - and the word anastasis is always to do with the bodily resurrection in the scriptures. Over and over again scripture teaches that those who are born of the Spirit live with Him now (spiritually) and therefore will be raised bodily from the dead by the same power which raised Him from the dead.

Your misunderstanding of this is the foundation of your eisegesis of Revelation 20's reference to the first resurrection.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Epistolic"?

Click to expand...

yes, the epistles. Revelation in symbolic and apocalyptic in nature. It is a series of visions. What gospel and epistolic scripture do you use to support 2 resurrections separated by a millennium, or are you forming a doctrine off a lone controversial passage in scripture?

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Please provide proof that Jesus was speaking figuritively.

Click to expand...

If there was absolute proof, there wouldn’t be division in the church in regards to this topic.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Please also provide proof that the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is a spiritual resurrection that happens millions upon millions upon millions of times over a period of 2,000 or more years each time someone is born of the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Are you going to provide what I asked for or is this a one way converstaion?
What biblical support do you use for 2 resurrections separated by a millennium as taught in the gospels and epistles? Just trying to confirm that your interpretation of a very symbolic book is The correct one.

As to your question. I believe Jesus is the first resurrection. Any resurrection after Jesus would not be the first.


But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:20 - Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 15:20 - English Standard Version

sovereigngrace said:

You overlook the phrase "hath part." Whatever that refers to will seal this debate. The unfortunate thing for Premils is that it is present tense. So whatever resurrection it is speaking of, believers currently have their "part" in it. Whatever “the first resurrection” is, participation in it qualifies humans’ to escape the horrors of eternal punishment (the second death). In this experience Christians identify with Christ’s victorious resurrection.

The Greek for “that hath part” is echo méros. The Greek verb echo correctly interpreted “that hath” in the King James Version is written in the present tense and in the active voice. Therefore, we can view the relevance and vitality of “the first resurrection” as being both current and ongoing. Christ’s victory over death is not simply a past event that has no active bearing upon what we are today; it is ongoing reality in the lives of God’s people. The Greek word translated “part” in the text is the word meros meaning share, allotment or portion. This reading tells us that all those that have come to the joy of saving faith in Christ have become partakers in the resurrection life, and through this will escape the horrors of the second death – eternal wrath.

This passage is describing the reality and result of our mystical union with Christ. The expression “in Christ” [Gr. en Christo] is found 216 times in the New Testament and refers to our federal and covenantal standing. It shows us that our spiritual status is totally derived from and dependent upon relationship with Christ.

Click to expand...

Again you're talking nonsense. The reason why Young's literal translation translates it as "Happy and holy is he who is having part in the first rising again;" is because the word means "who holds possession of"

That does not mean that the Lord's words are not a PROPHECY of something to take place FOLLOWING His return - UNLESS (for those who choose to) you CHOOSE to "hold the words in the past tense" (if you'll pardon the pun) - but you still have not provided proof of what you say just because you have CHOSEN to read into it what the Lord told us about our spiritual BIRTH.

G2192 ekh'-o
A primary verb: To hold (used in very various applications literally or figuratively direct or remote; such as possession ability contiguity relation or condition): - be (able × hold possessed with) accompany + begin to amend can (+ -not) × conceive count diseased do + eat + enjoy + fear following have hold keep + lack + go to law lie + must needs + of necessity + need next + recover + reign + rest return × sick take for + tremble + uncircumcised use.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

You've just proved that you are just grasping at straws and throwing false accusations at the person who has proved to you than you cannot prove "spiritual resurrection" in "new birth"

Click to expand...

so is that a yes or no that you are a trinitarian? Again just trying to determine if your theology is consistent or eschatologically biased.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Because that's your eisegesis, not mine.

Click to expand...

So your eisegesis is different?

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

No I'm not misunderstanding your a-mill position on what the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is referring to. You've just repeated it below:

Click to expand...

if you understand that many Amils believ that the first resurrection is Jesus, why are you arguing that Amils believe the 1st resurrection is something else? That would be known as a straw man argument.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

You will not die spiritually because at first you were dead spiritually but then by the grace of God you were born of the Spirit of Christ. And because you were born of the Spirit over 1,900 years later than Christ's death and resurrection, you were raised with Him who was raised from the dead almost 2,000 years ago (key words are with Him who is risen) - and this because you are now IN Him who is risen - and this is through your new birth. Not through a "spiritual resurrection". You never died spiritually so that you could be "resurrected" spiritually. You were born spiritually when you accepted Jesus.

But you will still die, physically - and the word anastasis is always to do with the bodily resurrection in the scriptures. Over and over again scripture teaches that those who are born of the Spirit live with Him now (spiritually) and therefore will be raised bodily from the dead by the same power which raised Him from the dead.

Click to expand...

I can agree. This is my position. Thus the first resurrection is Christ and those that partake in it are raised spiritually to become a kingdom of priests to God.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Your misunderstanding of this is the foundation of your eisegesis

Click to expand...

and your misunderstanding appears to the foundation of your straw man argument.

claninja said:

yes, the epistles. Revelation in symbolic and apocalyptic in nature. It is a series of visions. What gospel and epistolic scripture do you use to support 2 resurrections separated by a millennium, or are you forming a doctrine off a lone controversial passage in scripture?

If there was absolute proof, there wouldn’t be division in the church in regards to this topic.

Are you going to provide what I asked for or is this a one way converstaion?
What biblical support do you use for 2 resurrections separated by a millennium as taught in the gospels and epistles? Just trying to confirm that your interpretation of a very symbolic book is The correct one.

As to your question. I believe Jesus is the first resurrection. Any resurrection after Jesus would not be the first.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:20 - Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 15:20 - English Standard Version

Click to expand...

None (NOT ONE) of those statements of the apostles in the epistles which you quoted is even implying that the new birth = "spiritual resurrection". It's what you have CHOSEN to believe so you will continue to read what you have CHOSEN to believe into every verse in scripture that mentions living with Christ and rising with Christ (which only happens by virtue of our birth by the Spirit).

You had to have been alive spiritually and have died spiritually in order to have been resurrected spiritually - but you were not - you were not even born spiritually alive when you came into the world so you had to be born of the Spirit.

claninja said:

I can agree. This is my position.

Thus the first resurrection is Christ and those that partake in it are raised spiritually to become a kingdom of priests to God.

Click to expand...

That's where you have gone wrong, and where we disagree. The Bible does not call the new birth a "resurrection".

PS: Yes, I believe in the Trinity and know how to defend the fact of the Trinity from the Bible because I have searched the scriptures myself and found the Trinity there.