Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

sovereigngrace said:

This is totally nonsensical. The millennium starts with an identifiable event (the resurrection of Jesus – the first resurrection) and ends with an identifiable event (the one final future coming of the Lord to resurrect mankind and judge them). This has absolutely nothing to do with David. You force that into the text.

Rev 20 is not typology but biblical prophecy being fulfilled. Full (extreme) Preterism explains away NT facts to justify its heretical denial of a future coming of Christ and the physical resurrection/judgment. As Spiritual Jew states: this is the most farfetched explanation possible of Rev 20 and a sign of how bereft Preterism really is of evidence and its knowledge of unfolding history. For Preterists, the coming of Titus and 70 AD "is the most significant event in our history." For the rest of us, we are obsessed with Christ's sinless life, atoning death and victorious resurrection. The cross is at the center of our faith. It is the most significant event in our history.

What or who is the "first resurrection"?

Click to expand...

No one can put Revelation 20 in the first century. You both have that chapter wrong. The first resurrection is physical. The first birth is physical, the first death is physical. First can never be applied to the Second birth which is spiritual. This physical first resurrection in Revelation 20 means people physically alive on earth which is physical. If it happened 1991 years ago, these people would still be alive today, and can never die the Second death. Notice the verse does not say they cannot die. That is the interpretation.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

It says the Second death has no power over them. That means the spiritual death can never be applied period. It is not that they cannot just die physically again. They can never die spiritually period. If they died, the soul would cease to exist, because it cannot experience spiritual death. Not only does this resurrection keep them forever physical. They are forever saved from death spiritually. They are not glorified, because that would be adding to the words of Revelation. It never claims that. In fact it has more claims about being on earth than they are being glorified. At the end these people are encompassed on earth by Satan and people born at least 900 years after these people were physically resurrected.

There are no verses that says humanity after the Cross are only souls without bodies. Abraham's bosom was emptied. However Revelation 20 is not the OT resurrection for those souls. That is taking the apocalyptic nature of Revelation and applying it to soteriology about what God did on the Cross. It is a spiritual misapplication. It is not talking about a second, spiritual resurrection. There was no spiritual death. It was a physical death and a physical resurrection.

The only thing about second, spiritual life is birth. Accepting the Atonement is not spiritual resurrection. Jesus clearly told Nicodemus in John 3 one had to be born a second time to be spiritual. One has to be born physically to even exist. You cannot be spiritually resurrected before one dies spiritually or is even born spiritually. Many try to put spiritual resurrection as the first step. That is impossible. Many try to put physical resurrection as the first step, claiming the soul existed prior and was in need of a "resurrection".

Birth is the first step period, both physical and spiritual. No one born since Seth has spiritually died, nor can they be spiritually resurrected. That would be coming back from the Lake of fire. Because Revelation 20, at the GWT, is the second death, spiritually dead in the Lake of Fire.

Now since the Flood, we have had demons and devils as a spiritual application of death and separation from God. Except finding verses in Scripture to prove what they are may not be so forthcoming. A demon would be an example of spiritual death. And there is literally no resurrection of a demon ever mentioned in Scripture. So many want to claim verses about the first resurrection deal with spirits to explain away the physical nature of what first entails, to explain the spiritual nature of our spirit. This is just begging the question, and forcing a made up explanation that only conflates the physical into the spiritual. The word soul does not indicate spiritual. The soul is what happens because of physical birth, not spiritual birth. Spiritual birth is when the soul and physical body is glorified. Spiritual birth prior to glorification is being controlled by the Holy Spirit as an interest, or credit from God, until the time all of the church or Adam's redeemed offspring are glorified at one time at the Second Coming.

Paul explains that in 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Thessalonians 4. John puts it into context in the 5th and 6th Seal. John only gives this scenario one time. Revelation 20 is not a recap of Revelation 6. It is not even in the same order. At the Second Coming those in dead corruptible bodies are resurrected and join the church as one. In Revelation 20, it is a physical resurrection of earth bound humans, by the church seated on thrones doing the judgment. The church is not resurrected and judged in Revelation 20. Christ is not resurrected in Revelation 20. The only souls resurrected in Revelation 20 are the firstfruits that come after the Second Coming happens. They are Revelation firstfruits of the Second Coming. The church both OT and NT were the firstfruits of the First Coming.

Only after the end of the 1000 years comes the end were the kingdom on earth is handed back to God and Death is defeated. Not 1000 years after the first century. Not some indefinite time like 40 years or 1991 years. God specifically declared 1000 years.

sovereigngrace said:

You and your extreme Preterist colleagues make Revelation 20 a typological OT-type chapter instead of being a current unfolding of NT end-time events. Because the duration (a thousand years) exposes Full Preterism, which is captivated with making all prophecy fulfilled, Preterist has to dismiss the relevancy of the period to a by-gone age. The fact is: this has nothing to do with David. David is not even mentioned. This is spiritualization gone crazy. Origen did the same and discredited the veracity and inerrancy of Scripture.

Click to expand...

Ironic that an amill uses 1000 as a literal argument against Preterism. I wonder if any one in archeology has hidden David's throne from public view? Does it matter if the glorious throne set up in Jerusalem at the Second Coming is David's original or Christ's the Son of David?

At the least was the physical throne of David taken to heaven and Jesus has been separating sheep and goats for 1991 years? Jesus clearly indicates in Matthew 25 this is a future coming, and it did not start at the Cross nor ascension. Revelation 20 was not the Cross, and not a recap of history, nor was this throne set up in 70AD.

sovereigngrace said:

The first resurrection is the start of the events in Revelation 20. Those who experience that partake in that resurrection spiritually rule and reign for a thousand years. This cannot relate to David or a period before Christ. That would be nonsensical. It has to relate to a period after - namely the-here-and-now.

Click to expand...

Can you explain how a physical resurrection equates to a spiritual existence? One has to be born spiritually to reign spiritually. These people had a first resurrection. That is a physical resurrection. Where does it point out they experienced a spiritual birth to spiritually reign?

claninja said:

Where do the gospels and epistles, excluding revelation, place the millennium ?

Click to expand...

They do not place it prior to the Second Coming.

Gundy22 said:

I think the OP of this thread was about evidence whether Revelation was written early or late.

Now it has morphed into speculations about the Millennium. It is interesting to speculate on the Millennium - I myself do not know whether it should be taken literally or not - perhaps that should have its own thread.

But this one was about evidence for Revelation being written either before Jerusalem fell in 70 AD or well after that, circa 95 AD.

Click to expand...

The Millennium did not start prior to 70AD regardless. Christ was not resurrected after 70AD regardless of when John was on Patmos. John did not witness the past, nor 70AD.

The point is how long would it have taken John to even deliver what he wrote to each of the seven Churches. When was John released? Jerusalem was not even one of those 7 churches. Not sure how one can force the issue that Revelation is about 70AD. Revelation more than likely was never read by those in Jerusalem. If it was a warning about 70AD, would not have Jerusalem been the first place the letter should have gone? The timing of Patmos is not relevant to the events in Jerusalem of 70AD.

Timtofly said:

Can you explain how a physical resurrection equates to a spiritual existence? One has to be born spiritually to reign spiritually. These people had a first resurrection. That is a physical resurrection. Where does it point out they experienced a spiritual birth to spiritually reign?

Click to expand...

Do you reject the fact that Jesus is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5)?

claninja said:

External Evidence for dating Revelation.

1.) It is true that Irenaeus' qoute in the greek is ambiguos when it comes "it was seen". This verb can refer to John "was seen" or the Vision "was seen". However, when Eusebius translated the quote into the latin, the "it was seen" refers to the Vision, and not John, thus seemingly confirming a post 70ad dating.

“Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced at the present time, it would have been stated by the one who saw the actual revelation. For it was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign.” (Against Heresies, 5.30.3)

However, this did not stop Eusebius from believing the New heavens and New Earth and New Jerusalem were realized on earth in 70ad. And it most likely won't change the mind of preterists either, due to internal evidence.

EUSEBIUS Bishop of Caesarea (c. 265 - 340) Extract from the 'Theophania' "All authorities concur in the declaration that "when all these things should have been done" "The End" should come : that "the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets" : it should be completed : time should now be no more : the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass : in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets : or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done : the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem--all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realized on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations ; God's holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world. His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished; and, from that day to the extreme end of time, it will be the duty, as indeed it will be the great privilege of the Church, to gather into its bosom the Jew, the Greek, the Scythian, the Barbarian, bond and free; and to do this as the Apostles did in their days--in obedience, faith and hope.'

2.) Epiphanus places the dating of John's banishment to Patmos during the time of Claudius (Epiphanius Heresies 51.12, 33.)

3.) The syriac prologue of the Revelation includes "“The Revelation which was made by God to John the evangelist on the island of Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar.”"


Some Internal Evidence for pre-70ad.

1.) Soon

Revelation 1:1-3 This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw. This is the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.3Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and obey what is written in it, because the time is near.

2.) Desolation of Jerusalem in 70ad.

Revelation 11:2 But exclude the courtyard outside the temple. Do not measure it, because it has been given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for 42 months

Luke 21:24 And Jerusalem will be trampled by the nations, until the times of the nations are fulfilled.

3.) Church in Philadelphia to be protected from the hour of trial to come on the whole world.

revelation 3:10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.



4.) 6th seal is in regards to the desolation of Jerusalem when comparing to gospel scripture.

Revelation 6:12-14 And when I saw the Lamb open the sixth seal, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black like sackcloth of goat hair, and the whole moon turned blood red, 13and the stars of the sky fell to the earth like unripe figs dropping from a tree shaken by a great wind. 14The sky receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved from its place.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days: ‘The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Revelation 6:16 And they said to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.

Luke 23:28-29 But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. Look, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore, and breasts that never nursed!’ At that time
‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ’c


5.) harlot of Babylon is 1st century Jerusalem.

a.) The harlot is the great city, which is Jerusalm

Revelation 17:18 And the woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”
Revelation 11:8 Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city—figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where their Lord was also crucified.

b.) the harlot is responsible for all the righteous blood shed, which Jesus put on 1st century Jerusalem.

Revelation 18:24 And there was found in her the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who had been slain on the earth.

Matthew 23:35-36 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation.

c.) After the harlot is destroyed, the wedding feast is ready. Jesus states the wedding feast would be ready following the destruction of Jerusalem.

Revelation 9:19 Then the angel told me to write, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”

Matthew 22:7-9 The king was enraged, and he sent his troops to destroy those murderers and burn their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the crossroads and invite to the banquet as many as you can find.’


I have no disagreements that some things in revelation can be about a future still to us, But I would argue it is mainly in regards to the victory of Christ and the New bride and the destruction of the 1st century Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

If you claim Eusubius was correct, when did the New Jerusalem leave? If you claim the New Jerusalem is only spiritual and not physical, what is even the point of a physical second Coming. This is eternity. This is all we get. There is no second Second Coming. You cannot have the end, and then claim a new future beginning. The safest thing to say is Eusubius was wrong. He claims it all should be completed, and then changes tune and said it was. This does not add up to a logical conclusion.

Jeffwhosoever said:

I don't know what that is, but the Statement of Purpose for this subforum and I think for all of Christian Forums at least the parts marked "Christian Only" do not allow full preterism. If extreme preterism is code for full preterism, it is not an allowed view. I think the reason is that it is so far outside orthodox Christianity that it is considered like the Book of Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses or Universal Unitarians, or like the rumors running around that Jesus never came in the flesh that was an early heresy in the church.

V. Additional Rules

• Full preterism is not allowed.

If you click on "Full preterism" one line above, it spells it out in vivid detail.

Click to expand...

Some of that should apply to all who claim Revelation is only spiritual and does not pertain to physical earth. Like amil call Revelation 20 spiritual and not physical. Then they claim Satan's little season is the only physical thing mentioned. Inconsistent interpretation cannot work on Revelation 20.

sovereigngrace said:

Do you reject the fact that Jesus is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5)?

Click to expand...

Jesus is not specified in Revelation 20:4. Jesus was not beheaded. To claim I reject your false interpretation and equate it to the Resurrection in the Gospels is disingenuous.

You claim the first resurrection is spiritual. It is not spiritual in the Gospels. It is not spiritual in Revelation 20:4. The first resurrection is only physical. The second birth is spiritual. The second death is spiritual. If there is such a thing as the second resurrection it is spiritual dealing only with the spirit.

The first resurrection is not the second birth. Two totally different phenomenon.

Timtofly said:

Some of that should apply to all who claim Revelation is only spiritual and does not pertain to physical earth. Like amil call Revelation 20 spiritual and not physical. Then they claim Satan's little season is the only physical thing mentioned. Inconsistent interpretation cannot work on Revelation 20.

Click to expand...

You have no answer to Amil and you now want it banned? That is telling! I will take that as a compliment. That is exactly the spirit of this day: don't let anyone think for themselves. Accept the party-line or else we will silence you. Stop the truth by any means.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Timtofly said:

Jesus is not specified in Revelation 20:4. Jesus was not beheaded. To claim I reject your false interpretation and equate it to the Resurrection in the Gospels is disingenuous.

You claim the first resurrection is spiritual. It is not spiritual in the Gospels. It is not spiritual in Revelation 20:4. The first resurrection is only physical. The second birth is spiritual. The second death is spiritual. If there is such a thing as the second resurrection it is spiritual dealing only with the spirit.

The first resurrection is not the second birth. Two totally different phenomenon.

Click to expand...

The first resurrection is Christ and the second resurrection is the general resurrection of man at the end which ushers in the end. Through Christ's victorious "first resurrection" the dead in Christ (the souls) are seen in heaven reigning with Christ. Basically, as Satan was banished and the elect were welcomed.

So, it was only after the first resurrection (when sin, death, Satan and hell were defeated) and the consequential binding of Satan that the dead in Christ could be released to enter the presence of the Lord in heaven. Their part and had been secured under penalty have been paid in full.

Revelation 20:6 says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

Here, the first resurrection is outlined as the means by which men gain victory over the second death and enter into the great company that reign in Christ – both dead and alive; the redeemed reign in life and in death. In life, they are spiritually positioned in the heavenly Jerusalem, in death, they enter into the immediate presence of God and reign through Him that sits upon the throne.

This corresponds to what Jesus taught in John 11:25, saying, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

This is speaking of the resurrection life that can be enjoyed in this life through faith.

sovereigngrace said:

You have no answer to Amil and you now want it banned? That is telling! I will take that as a compliment. That is exactly the spirit of this day: don't let anyone think for themselves. Accept the party-line or else we will silence you. Stop the truth by any means.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Click to expand...

I was not talking about being banned. I was talking about being outside of Orthodox teachings. You are free to be outside of Orthodoxy. No one will burn you at the stake.

sovereigngrace said:

The first resurrection is Christ and the second resurrection is the general resurrection of man at the end which ushers in the end. Through Christ's victorious "first resurrection" the dead in Christ (the souls) are seen in heaven reigning with Christ. Basically, as Satan was banished and the elect were welcomed.

So, it was only after the first resurrection (when sin, death, Satan and hell were defeated) and the consequential binding of Satan that the dead in Christ could be released to enter the presence of the Lord in heaven. Their part and had been secured under penalty have been paid in full.

Revelation 20:6 says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

Here, the first resurrection is outlined as the means by which men gain victory over the second death and enter into the great company that reign in Christ – both dead and alive; the redeemed reign in life and in death. In life, they are spiritually positioned in the heavenly Jerusalem, in death, they enter into the immediate presence of God and reign through Him that sits upon the throne.

This corresponds to what Jesus taught in John 11:25, saying, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

This is speaking of the resurrection life that can be enjoyed in this life through faith.

Click to expand...

Second death is not second resurrection. One has to die spiritually to be resurrected spiritually.

Timtofly said:

I was not talking about being banned. I was talking about being outside of Orthodox teachings. You are free to be outside of Orthodoxy. No one will burn you at the stake.

Click to expand...

Amil is not only the biblical truth but also the preeminent eschatological position for 2000 years. The founders of early Premil were mainly heretics.

Jeffwhosoever said:

The second death is only for the lost, following the great white throne judgement. Believers will not die a second time, ever.

My son is struggling with the idea that the lost will be tormented forever and forever in a lake of fire. I'm not sure exactly what to tell him. I know Satan and demons, being eternal evil beings, have to be burned forever and deserve every bit of it. But what about the poor African native who just never heard the Scripture? My son is troubled with how a good and fair God could punish someone for ever in terrible agony, so he wants to believe that Scripture is really talking about just dying the second death and that lost humans will simply cease to exist after the final white throne judgement, but all my life I've been taught otherwise that sinners join Satan and the demons in an eternal lake of fire. I do not want my son to stumble, but I also am trapped in what to do. Any advice is appreciated. And don't say just preach hell fire and brimstone. My son is in medical school, is a believer, and has an IQ of 146. So simple stuff won't influence him at all, so put some thought into what you write if you are to be of any help to me.

Hitler, Stalin, and other evil men deserve something akin to hell. Is Dante's inferno biblical at all with degrees of hell or is it pure fiction?

Click to expand...

Try the following thread, maybe some good answers in there. A forever hell

Jeffwhosoever said:

I think that is a stretch to claim Amillenialism has been the defacto position for 2000 years. At least since 1900 it has fallen into a minority opinion based on the research i've found, and there was a lot of early church followers of a future millennial and not amillenial interpretation of Revelation.

And I personally find biblical support for Amilleniailism to be weak

Click to expand...

You advance a lot of opinion in your posts as facts. You state them with zero evidence. That does not cut it in discussion forums. Where is your evidence? Where is your research. All i see you quoting is websites you find online. This is a common (but questionable) Premil practice. This was one of the reasons I started to research this as a Premil. The evidence simply didn't line up. Which ECFs believed what you believe as a Premil today? I am happy to present the Amil fathers with attached beliefs if you do.

100 years of modern theology in America does not represent the whole world at this time. 1900 years of mainly Amil doctrine is not negated by 100 years of Dispensational preeminence in America.

Jeffwhosoever said:

And I personally find biblical support for Amilleniailism to be weak.

Click to expand...

The opposite is the truth. Premil is a non-corroborative doctrine. It emanates from a false literal reading of one passage in Scripture and a faulty chronological approach to Revelation. Take that away and Premil has nothing.