Resurrection, First Resurrection and New Birth

sovereigngrace · Jun 22, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
You keep side-stepping the fact that the words resurrection and references to being raised from death in ALL the verses talking about Christ's resurrection from the dead and about the resurrection of those who believe in Him are speaking only about the bodily resurrection, as well as the fact that JESUS told us we had to be born from above (spiritually) in order to see or enter the Kingdom of heaven - He did not say we needed to be "resurrected", nor did HE call it "the first resurrection" - and neither does any New Testament verse talking about being raised (egeiro) from the dead or resurrection (anastasis) from death.

Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection - Christ's or the resurrection that occurs at the second coming? This is a pretty simply question.

Which is the foremost resurrection in time?
Which is the foremost resurrection in place?
Which is the foremost resurrection in order?
Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
In your theology, Jesus resurrection is ignored/overlooked as if it did not happened. You make man's resurrection the first, rather than Christ's. This is ridiculous, unscriptural and wrong. This is what Premil produces.

False claims x 2.

IN the OP I quote the verses talking about Christ's resurrection, mention the fact that they all are talking about His bodily resurrection, and mention the fact that He is the firsfruits of the resurrection from death and of the resurrection to come.

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (anastasis) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

sovereigngrace · Jun 22, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
False claims x 2.

IN the OP I quote the verses talking about Christ's resurrection, mention the fact that they all are talking about His bodily resurrection, and mention the fact that He is the firsfruits of the resurrection from death and of the resurrection to come.

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

Which resurrection comes first Christ's or ours?

sovereigngrace · Jun 22, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
False claims x 2.

IN the OP I quote the verses talking about Christ's resurrection, mention the fact that they all are talking about His bodily resurrection, and mention the fact that He is the firsfruits of the resurrection from death and of the resurrection to come.

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

Your silence is deafening!

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection - Christ's or the resurrection that occurs at the second coming? This is a pretty simply question.

Which is the foremost resurrection in time?
Which is the foremost resurrection in place?
Which is the foremost resurrection in order?
Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?

You ignore what Paul said.

What did Paul say?

1 Cor 15
20 And now, Christ hath risen out of the dead--the first-fruits (aparche) of those sleeping he became,
for since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again (anastasis, resurrection) of the dead,
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit (aparche), and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;

What fact have you been side-stepping?

The fact that, unlike the thing you have convinced yourself of, nowhere in the New Testament is the new birth equated to the resurrection.

You don't seem to be able to see past your own eisegesis of the words "born from above"

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (anastasis) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

Your silence is deafening!

Even though you are told you won't believe it - because you keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (anastasis) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

You have to crawl before you can walk, brother.

sovereigngrace · Jun 22, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Even though you are told you won't believe it - because you keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

You have to crawl before you can walk, brother.

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

Your silence is deafening!

sovereigngrace · Jun 22, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
You ignore what Paul said.

What did Paul say?

1 Cor 15
20 And now, Christ hath risen out of the dead--the first-fruits (aparche) of those sleeping he became,
for since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again (anastasis, resurrection) of the dead,
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit (aparche), and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;

What fact have you been side-stepping?

The fact that, unlike the thing you have convinced yourself of, nowhere in the New Testament is the new birth equated to the resurrection.

You don't seem to be able to see past your own eisegesis of the words "born from above"

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

Your silence is deafening!

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Which resurrection comes first Christ's or ours?

I'll answer this question too if you can explain to me when our resurrection from the dead will come.

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

Your silence is deafening!

Even though you are told you won't believe it - because you keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

You have to crawl before you can walk, brother.

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

sovereigngrace · Jun 22, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
I'll answer this question too if you can explain to me when our resurrection from the dead will come.

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

Our physical resurrection from the dead will come when Jesus comes. This is a result of our initial spiritual resurrection to newness of life. Now please answer my avoided question.

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Which is the foremost resurrection in time?
Which is the foremost resurrection in place?
Which is the foremost resurrection in order?
Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?

I answered those questions in my OP already. You need to go back and read properly. Everyone else that has posted so far understood saw it and understood it.

sovereigngrace said:
Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection - Christ's or the resurrection that occurs at the second coming? This is a pretty simply question.

Do you agree that Christ is the firsfruit (aparche) of the resurrection? (I hope so - because scripture teaches that).

Do you agree that Paul says each one will be resurrected from the dead in his own order - Christ, the firsfruit (aparche), then afterward those who are Christ's at His coming?

How can you understand what the Revelation is talking about in chapter 20 when it mentions the fact that those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Christ and for the Word of God and who had refused the mark of the beast will be part of the first (protos) resurrection following Christ's return, because He is the firsfruits (aparche) of the resurrection?

This basic truth eludes you because you keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

sovereigngrace · Jun 22, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
I answered those questions in my OP already. You need to go back and read properly. Everyone else that has posted so far understood saw it and understood it.

Do you agree that Christ is the firsfruit (aparche) of the resurrection? (I hope so - because scripture teaches that).

Do you agree that Paul says each one will be resurrected from the dead in his own order - Christ, the firsfruit (aparche), then afterward those who are Christ's at His coming?

How can you understand what the Revelation is talking about in chapter 20 when it mentions the fact that those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Christ and for the Word of God and who had refused the mark of the beast will be part of the first (protos) resurrection following Christ's return, because He is the firsfruits (aprache) of the resurrection?

This basic truth eludes you because you keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

Ok, so you agree with the following?

Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in time.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in place.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in order.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in importance.

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Our physical resurrection from the dead will come when Jesus comes. This is a result of our initial spiritual resurrection to newness of life. Now please answer my avoided question.

I have not avoided answering it. You have been machine-gunning me again and I can only answer one post at a time. I answered you in Post #52.

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Ok, so you agree with the following?

Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in time.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in place.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in order.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in importance.

Why must I answer you when I already told you that the Bible teaches us that Christ is the firsfruits (aparche) of the resurrection from the dead?

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

Why are you still side-stepping this fact?

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Our physical resurrection from the dead will come when Jesus comes. This is a result of our initial spiritual resurrection to newness of life. Now please answer my avoided question.

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

PS: I was not avoiding your question and have answered it. You have failed to prove anything you say regarding the first resurrection because you keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

nolidad · Jun 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
It is both! These are 2 similar analogies used to impress the miracle of new life. How else are we translated from death to life spiritually?

By being born spiritually! Just as Jesus said in JOhn 3:

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

We are not resurrected spiritually at salvation- we are born spiritually at salvation!

grafted branch · Jun 22, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
The words resurrection and references to being raised from death in ALL the verses talking about Christ's resurrection from the dead and about the resurrection of those who believe in Him are speaking only about the bodily resurrection.

JESUS told us we had to be born from above spiritually in order to see or enter the Kingdom of heaven - He did not say we needed to be "resurrected", nor did HE call it "the first resurrection" - and neither does any New Testament verse talking about being raised (egeiro) from the dead or resurrection (anastasis) from death.

I’m not trying to prove that the first resurrection was spiritual. SG has been making that case and I’m not arguing that.

You are claiming the first resurrection has to be a bodily resurrection. Can you simply answer my question; is the bodily resurrection in Matthew 27 the first resurrection?

Zao is life · Jun 22, 2020

grafted branch said:
I’m not trying to prove that the first resurrection was spiritual. SG has been making that case and I’m not arguing that.

You are claiming the first resurrection has to be a bodily resurrection. Can you simply answer my question; is the bodily resurrection in Matthew 27 the first resurrection?

Those whose resurrection occurred after Christ was resurrected were part of the first resurrection - but unless the word after doesn't actually mean after, they were not resurrected when He was:

Mat 27:52-53

and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose,

and coming out of the tomb after His resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

grafted branch · Jun 22, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
No - those whose resurrection occurred after Christ was resurrected were not part of the first resurrection - not unless the word after doesn't actually mean after:

So you are admitting that Christ was the first resurrection? And any resurrection after that can’t be considered the first?

Resurrection, First Resurrection and New Birth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads