Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It does not say what nations the beheaded saints come from.



No. The nations of the thousand years are unsaved mortals who had not died and thus had no resurrection.

The first resurrection is when all the dead in Christ resurrect. They will rule over unsaved mortal people of various nations. The people of those nations during the thousand years did not yet experience a death so no resurrection is related to them during that time. They have to die first before they can have a resurrection.

The only other resurrection is at the GWTJ when all the unsaved dead are resurrected.
No souls are left alive in Adam's flesh and blood after Armageddon. In the Seals 2 billion are dead. In the Trumpets another 2 billion. The assumption is that if the Thunders are consistent with the Seals and Trumpets another 2 billion are dead. That only leaves 2 billion on earth for the last 42 months. That is not counting the Christians. How many do you think will have their heads cut off? If the numbers of Christians nearly account for that last 2 billion, who is literally left?

Since nobody seems to be pre-trib any more, if they were, then it would go:

Seals 2 billion killed.

The rapture 2 billion Christians gone.

The Trumpets 2 billion killed.

The Thunders would be the last 2 billion killed.

If you count the Seals as being that the Christians are killed, and no Christians survive, but a handful, you still have most being killed off later, but maybe 2 billion left. If all the males are killed in Armageddon, you claim God is going to wait until the children grow up? Why would children not be allowed in heaven, even if only children were left? You think old decrepit men are going to have offspring?

The whole point of Revelation where humanity is systematically being killed off in each set of judgments, is proof it is the end of Adam's flesh and blood. 25% then 33%. The next percentage in the Thunders would be 50% then at Armageddon it is 100%.

"That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

"And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."

The remnant after the all at Armageddon? Why not? Even those who could not fight is the remnant of those who took the mark and worshipped Satan. God is not going to let those with the mark of the beast who joined Satan to live in the Millennium. Those type of people are consumed by fire at the end. So saying God let's them all live before the Millennium even starts, is not being consistent. BTW, most nations today see women in positions of combat. So saying many are left out of the combat after all the judgments would only be the elderly. And if you go by only the strong are left after 6 billion have been killed, they will all be fighting at Armageddon who are able to produce offspring. More will be resurrected than left alive. You have to revert back to Israel being the majority nation any way. It is not the church that is Israel on earth. It is the Israel God decides as the sheep out of the goats who lives during the Millennium. Matthew 25:31-32. Revelation 19 clearly says the remnant, all left on earth, are dead.

Then Satan is bound. Then there is a resurrection. That is how the Millennium starts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
We identify with His death in baptism, right? And we identify with His resurrection when we're saved after putting our faith in Him and we go from being spiritually dead in our sins to spiritually alive in Him (Eph 2:1-6). We are then "raised with Him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead". What is so terrible about believing that having part in the first resurrection has to do with spiritually identifying with His resurrection when we are "raised with him" spiritually through faith which allows us to pass from being spiritually dead in our sins to being spiritually alive in Him?
This is the point of the second birth, not the first resurrection.

The second birth is spiritual. The first resurrection is physical. Only those in Paradise have the physical (first) resurrection. They are literally in permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

This is why you cannot call the second birth the first resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I am saying they are in Christ along with NT believers and they will all together be resurrected at His second coming. That is what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23.

I made the point that your preferred translation, the CJB, says "the Messiah is the firstfruits" in 1 Cor 15:23, which means that Jesus Himself is the firstfruits. Why did you not respond at all to that? I've shown you several times now where your beliefs contradict what is said in your preferred translation. It makes me wonder why you use that translation when you often don't even agree with the translators of that version.
The OT firstfruits were resurrected at the Cross in 30AD. Matthew 27 points out they had bodies. Last I checked bodies in Scripture are physical. A soul is not a body. A body is not a soul. You cannot even use Revelation 6:9-11 as proof of a fact.

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

That is a figurative symbolic perspective. You cannot claim he only saw a soul and not a body. It is a figure of speech. They had bodies, and they were glorified. That is the literal interpretation. The symbolic is what is written by John. If your interpretation claims only souls, you are missing both the symbolism and the literal interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
As I've told you multiple times before, you don't care that your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5 contradicts what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15. You should come up with an interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5 that doesn't contradict any other scripture, but you just ignore 1 Corinthians 15, which teaches that all of the dead in Christ will be resurrected and changed at Christ's future coming at the last trumpet.
No it does not say one single resurrection. The order of Resurrection goes:

At the Cross.

At the Second Coming.

At the end after the 1000 years is given back to God. Which would be the end. At the end, at the GWT, John saw the dead judged. So the end could imply some dead come to life, and are not cast into the LOF.

But of course, Amil place all the eggs in one proverbial basket, the battle of Armageddon. Which incidentally has no resurrection mentioned explicitly. There is a parenthetical talking about coming as a thief, yet showing up in judgment in full force.

Certainly the resurrection a few verses away in Revelation 20:4 can not be included by amil, as they claim that resurrection is the one in 30AD, not the one immediately after Armageddon.

Since the Second Coming is not in Revelation 19, neither can "post Armageddon" ideology use the Revelation 20:4 resurrection either as the Second Coming resurrection. In fact the church is already sitting on those thrones, not the one's being resurrected. As the Second Coming was already years prior to Armageddon.

Seems the evolution of some amil, is that very fact that post trib cannot work. The chronology is all wrong. So change the chronology of Revelation to fit belief, instead of allowing what is written in Revelation to mold belief. Changing the order and meaning of Revelation can then force fit Revelation to make claims it does not, like Satan was bound in the first century, "that" resurrection was in the first century, but instead of literally, "we" will change the facts into symbolism. Sorry, but Revelation was written to change the symbolism into fact. And keep the literal points literal.

Thus the resurrection in Revelation 20:4 has no literal application at all now for Amill. It is not physical at all. The Millennium is not physical, but spiritual. Amill can still claim only one singular resurrection.

But Paul gives us 3 in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits (the OT at the Cross); afterward they that are Christ's at his coming (those alive and remain). Then cometh the end (heaven and earth pass away in the presence of the GWT), when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign (on earth during the Millennium), till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is Death."

Death are all those who side with Satan and remove their names from the Lamb's book of life. Death is just the symbolic term for those type of humans. They are in open rebellion. Not having a sin nature of Adam's offspring confined as souls in sheol. These are as Adam knowing full well God, face to face and literally rebelling against God to His face.

That started at the 6th Seal:

"And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:"

At the point of the Second Coming before the first Trumpet even sounds, all see the face of God sitting on the GWT. Paul does not write that point in, in 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Thessalonians 4. He does mention it in Titus 2:12-14

"Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

You can argue all you like that unless certain verses say certain things, then it cannot be assumed, or we cannot accept it, unless spiritually discerned. That is why one cannot just settle on Scripture and into theology or doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is the point of the second birth, not the first resurrection.

The second birth is spiritual. The first resurrection is physical. Only those in Paradise have the physical (first) resurrection. They are literally in permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

This is why you cannot call the second birth the first resurrection.
I don't call the second birth the first resurrection. I call Christ's resurrection the first resurrection and the way someone shares in it is by way of the second birth. Do you even make any effort at all to read what I actually say?

The OT firstfruits were resurrected at the Cross in 30AD. Matthew 27 points out they had bodies. Last I checked bodies in Scripture are physical. A soul is not a body. A body is not a soul. You cannot even use Revelation 6:9-11 as proof of a fact.

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

That is a figurative symbolic perspective. You cannot claim he only saw a soul and not a body. It is a figure of speech. They had bodies, and they were glorified. That is the literal interpretation. The symbolic is what is written by John. If your interpretation claims only souls, you are missing both the symbolism and the literal interpretation.
You just ignore everything I say. I'll try one more time.

I made the point that your preferred translation, the CJB, says "the Messiah is the firstfruits" in 1 Cor 15:23, which means that Jesus Himself is the firstfruits. Why did you not respond at all to that?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I have something written about that whole chapter but I think it's a bit off topic from discussing the verb tenses in Revelation 19 and what is happening at that time and what is not happening at that time. We cannot just ignore the verb tenses.

Start a thread on 2 Peter and tag me and I will post what I have there. Let's stick with the verb tenses in Revelation 19 because they support a future rule over the nations which proves the idea of all unsaved humanity dying at Armageddon to be false.

Also, you can still be an Amill but drop the part about everyone on Earth dying at the second coming...
How?

Amil are supposed to let all those with the mark of the beast go into the NHNE?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah really hard for each individual Christian to rule and reign when there's nobody to reign over, everyone's a king, and all subject to the king of king's then I guess ... everyone... is king over themselves.. but not king over themselves because they're all subjects of Jesus.
have to have a very allegorized view of "ruling" to go with the everyone dies in Revelation 19 interpretation, but then again, Amills believe we're ruling right now, even when we will get handcuffed and dragged away to camps to die we're "ruling" over those people who are arresting us I guess.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture who was Adam and Eve supposed to rule over?

Even if some accept there were other sons of God spread across the earth, Adam and Eve did not rule over them.

The point was Adam and Eve would rule over their offspring for a thousand generations.

In the Millennium there would be representatives of every former nation allowed to rule over their offspring for over 20 or 30 generations.

The same argument that all in Christ are equal contradicts the very fundamental principle of the Millennium. The church is not even on earth during the Millennium. It would be redundant for that very reason you are giving. Why would it take billions of the church in Paradise to rule over a few million on earth?

The point is that Adam's flesh and blood have all been redeemed and in Paradise. The past 6000 years already accomplished what Adam and Eve were supposed to do.

The church is not ruling and reigning on earth during the Millennium, and they are not the resurrected in Revelation 20:4.

Revelation 20:4 is still future and still those beheaded during the previous 42 months. I doubt that is all who are alive though. You have the 144k. Then you have the sheep, who are not part of the church, but chosen after the Second Coming. Then during the Trumpets, Seed is being sown by Christ and the 144k. That harvest is carried out during the Thunders. The parable of the wheat and tares is a future tribulation scenario. Because the angels are involved. The angels are on earth at the Second Coming. This harvest is prior to the 42 months and those beheaded. The only reason for the 42 months is because there are still souls to be harvested by refusing the mark and being decapitated.

Except most posters have spiritualized the 144k and the sheep and the wheat and claim they are the church, when clearly they are not. They are the ones who rule and reign with Christ. They are the firstfruits of the Millennium.

Those who spiritualize Revelations may fall into the trap of accepting Revelation is only about the church and thus Preterist in view. Even Amil are Preterist if they claim the sheep, wheat, and 144k are just symbolic of the church.

But it is the offspring of the firstfruits that is being ruled over. Just like Adam and Eve were supposed to fill Eden and rule over their offspring.

Satan thought he destroyed it all with Adam and Eve. Then he thought putting Christ on a Cross would be the grand finali. Now some want to end it at the Second Coming. When the church is glorified at the Second Coming, the 6th Seal, the church remains in Paradise with the Lord. Who is the Lord? The church is in the NHNE as the New Jerusalem. Those who live on earth during the Millennium will still live on earth ruling over themselves on the NE.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, we are. Your understanding of what it means to reign with Christ is completely flawed.

Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You naively think that being dragged away to camps to die would change our status in Christ. No, it would not. Paul made it clear that no matter what we go through "we are more than conquerors through him who loved us".
Being conquerors over our own flesh and this corruptible body. Not being a conqueror over other people's flesh and their corruptible bodies.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Tell me, David, if Matthew 24:15-22 has a future fulfillment then why did Jesus say it would be dreadful for nursing mothers and pregnant women at that time? Why would that be a problem in today's day and age? He also said to pray that their flight would not be in the winter. Again, why would that be a problem in today's day and age?
There have been more times, than the one time in 70AD, that fleeing from persecution allowed people to live and fight another day, instead of being killed.

I think Jesus was indirectly inferring 70AD, but was not being specific. At least not the way it was written down. Perhaps the actual words stated at the time was arranged different than how it was actually recorded. That Luke and Matthew are stated differently should suffice in making that point.

Being dogmatic on the issue is what causes "contradiction". Does being overly dogmatic help one's case?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for once again showing that you don't know what it means to reign with Christ. You clearly don't understand what Romans 8:35-39 means. If you did you would know that it says we are more than conquerors even if we are being arrested and dragged away.
Are we "more than" prior to death or after death?

Which by the way, is not death at all. It is leaving death behind for eternal life.

We are not more than conquerors because of this corruptible flesh. We are more than conquerors despite this corruptible flesh.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Maybe in a very technical sense that could be true, but not really. All Amills believe that Christ is reigning now, for example. That's a core belief of Amillennialism. So, for you to say that nothing else is required to be an Amill except to believe that there is no future Millennium is not really true
One does not even need Revelation 20 to declare Christ is reigning now. That is a fact before any one even reads Revelation, unless one starts reading in Revelation and then reads the Bible in reverse order. The only common denominator of amil is denying a future millennium. When Christ reigns is hardly a foundation stone of Amil. Christ reigning now and then is a fact of Premil. Just a different type of reign is happening now as opposed to then. Most of humanity do not know God as He sits on the GWT. Some believe there may be a God. At the Second Coming all spiritual blindness will be gone. All will know God on the GWT. They will know Jesus as the Messiah and the Prince. That is what the Millennium reign is about. Knowledge right now that is hidden because of sin and the curse on this earth because of Adam's disobedience.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,683
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,689.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Yes, there are some prophecies (not all) that have a 'near-far' fulfillment. Undoubtedly, those experiencing the collapse of the Jewish nation would have heard those words and understood them to apply at that dreadful time.

"For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."

But now we hear those same words and there is obviously an ultimate fulfillment to come. I wish part-preterists and futurists would give this precursor concept a fair go. It would explain a lot for them.
I have near term, long term, and end times on my Olivet discourse charts.

upload_2021-11-21_6-8-17.jpeg


upload_2021-11-21_6-9-21.jpeg


upload_2021-11-21_6-7-11.jpeg
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I don't call the second birth the first resurrection. I call Christ's resurrection the first resurrection and the way someone shares in it is by way of the second birth. Do you even make any effort at all to read what I actually say?

You just ignore everything I say. I'll try one more time.

I made the point that your preferred translation, the CJB, says "the Messiah is the firstfruits" in 1 Cor 15:23, which means that Jesus Himself is the firstfruits. Why did you not respond at all to that?
I did: the whole OT group of believers were physically resurrected in permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

They did not recieve the second birth. They physically died over the former 4000 years, with faith in that last day resurrection of the Cross. They were literally the firstfruits. They were resurrected, given the second birth and a physical body, because that is what God promised as their redemption.

If you deny that, and claim they have to have the second birth without even having a physical body, what was the point of them waiting for the Cross? Do you have to wait for the second birth, until you die, and obtain a resurrection?

Christ's resurrection was the first because it is physical. All physical resurrections are first resurrections. Being born of the spirit is separate from the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. "First" was not a single moment in time. First happens every time a soul enters a permanent incorruptible physical body. An ongoing phenomenon for all the redeemed since 30AD.

After the Cross, we could accept the Holy Spirit and obtain the second birth as spiritually in the heavenly family. Something those in the OT did not have access to. Though most Christians do not take advantage of the second birth in this life. Then they argue about loosing the second birth.

Is God really going to kick out the jealous older brother, or deny the prodigal son from coming home?

Is the church viewed as being cast off like the natural branch, Israel?

A person shares in the second birth by allowing the Holy Spirit full access. Yes the Atonement made that possible. The focus on the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is the full knowledge that all those souls in Abraham's bosom now enjoy a physical permanent incorruptible body in Paradise.

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."

Paul already pointed out the dead were raised. Who are the them "that slept"? Are we still stuck in soul sleep in Abraham's bosom, while the OT are enjoying Paradise? How can one enjoy Paradise, a physical place, without a physical body? Is Christ the only one with a physical body while the souls just sit and enjoy the view of that physical body?


OK, you are going to say, BUT:

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed"

Nope, no contradiction here. Not all will die but all will be changed. This is a negative statement. Who is the we? Obviously the majority of the redeemed have already "died". By that logic the majority have all already been changed. If those "we" were not meant to die, they would still be changed either way. They had to be changed from corruptible to incorruptible.

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

The point is natural inheritance. Now we can interpret the part next as no one will die period. Because the we is no longer under Adam's inheritance but the inheritance of Christ.

Then we see the one verse that many claim "makes us wait".


"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

It does not make those already changed wait. The only one's left to change are those on earth at the Second Coming. Who are the dead in this verse? It certainly is not those in Paradise they have been changed and are alive. They never tasted death. Because Christ said there would be those who never taste death after the Cross. The only dead, are those in corruptible bodies. We are dead in Adam's flesh and have not been changed. No one even slept. Paul said we shall not all sleep. Christ said no one would taste death, which is sleep.

Do you interpret Paul's negative phrase as, "that many will sleep", or as written, "no one shall sleep"? "We shall not all sleep" does seem to imply that some will, but that contradicts Jesus when He declared no one will taste death.

The point is the OT did indeed sleep, and waited in Abraham's bosom until the Cross. But after the Cross no one in Christ actually slept, which was the point of entering Abraham's bosom, or as David called it the valley of the shadow of death.

We all have been taught that all must walk through the valley of the shadow of death. But is that true since the Cross. No! That only applied to those OT redeemed whose souls had to wait in Abraham's bosom. The early church at one point even initiated purgatory as a place between earth and Paradise. That is as false as claiming that physical death is death, when in reality it is simply the soul going from death to life, as Jesus claimed. No taste of death period!

Only those left on earth are waiting to be changed. Those in Paradise have already been changed.
 
Upvote 0