Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

grafted branch said:

A couple of things here, 2 Timothy 2:16-18 Hymenaeus and Philetus were in error over their teaching that the resurrection had already happened. We know they couldn’t have been in error if they were teaching that Christ was already resurrected. If they were teaching about a future bodily resurrection then it would have been obvious they were incorrect unless they were referring to the bodily resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 and calling it the final resurrection. I’m sure there are others here that are going to argue the teaching that was in error was about spiritual resurrection (meaning it was past and not an ongoing process)

That would only apply to those who think Nero was the beast. I tend to think the beast was prior to the cross and the 2nd beast (Revelation 13:11) is Satan transformed into an angel of light. The resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 could be the one in Revelation 20:4-6.

I only think this is a possibility and that there are other interpretations that are also possible, so I’m not going to debate or try to convince anyone, just putting it out there.

Click to expand...

Theres no such thing as a spiritual resurrection, because we never die - we are all eternal, which is why per 2 Corinthians 5 we leave our home, the body, and become present with Jesus, or go to the holding tank for the damned called

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

I used to be Pre-millennialist but since then I've moved into the territory of "I really don't know the answer to the above three" (really don't know), so if someone who believes Christ's return is still future comments regarding my OP, then at least I may be able to get a view from an angle I never saw before.

Click to expand...

There’s no way to actually read the whole bible through several times, and not be premillennial, because the scriptures unequivocally state that a future literal and unending reign of Jesus on the earth, will occur in the future.

The New Testament and Old Testament unequivocally prophesied Jesus’ literal unending kingdom on the earth, with Jesus ruling on the throne of David in Jerusalem.


In Acts 1, Jesus literally ascends bodily and visibly from Mount Olive, and the angel said this same Jesus will return in like manner as you have seen Him leave - meaning His literal return bodily and visibly back to Mount Olive.


Did Jesus really leave bodily and visibly on a cloud to ascend to heaven from mount Olive, or does the Amil advocate claim His ascension was not literal, either?


Because the angel said this same Jesus will return in like manner as you have seen Him leave:


Act 1:9And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.


Act 1:10And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,


Act 1:11and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”


Act 1:12Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.


That means literally and visibly returning on a cloud, in the air, back to Mount Olive - which occurs in Zechariah 14:5.


And occurs in Revelation 1:7


Rev 1:7Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.


And occurs in 1 Thessalonians 4:


1Th 4:17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.


And Matthew 24:30:


Mat 24:30Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


It is preposterous to claim He doesn’t literally and visibly return to earth on a cloud exactly as He left.


In Zechariah 14:5Jesus literally returns to Mount Olive with all the saints with Him - where He then remains, and the nations such as Egypt come into the gates of Jerusalem to worship Jesus, (Zechariah14:16-19) who will be literally and bodily sitting on the throne of David, forever.


Both the new and old testaments prophesied His earthly and unending kingdom:


Luk 1:32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the THRONE of his father David:


Luk 1:33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the GOVERNMENT shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


Isa 9:7Of the increase of his GOVERNMENT and peace there shall be no end, upon the THRONE of David, and upon his KINGDOMS, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth evenFOREVER. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.


1Ki 2:45And king Solomon shall beblessed, and the THRONE of David shall be established before the LORD FOREVER.


Jeremiah 23:5-6“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a KING shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS”


In Revelation 21, The New Jerusalem which is above, descends to earth to old Jerusalem, and God and the lamb dwell in it with men forever, and Jesus says this about that city in Revelation 3:12:


Rev 3:12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


It’s Literal fact in scripture that there will be a unending literal and physical reign of Christ on the earth, and not just for a thousand years.


Jesus is currently sitting in heaven at the father’s right hand UNTIL the time is right to return to earth:


Psa 110:1A Psalm of David.The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”


Psa 110:2The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule IN THE MIDST of your enemies!


Note that Jesus will not rule His kingdom from heaven, but on the earth, in the midst of His enemies.


He will return and land on mount Olive with all His saints per Zechariah 14:5, given earlier, where He will rule and reign from Jerusalem on the throne of David, which is established forever:


1Ki 2:45And king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever.


And we shall reign and rule with Jesus in His kingdom, on the earth:


Rev 5:10And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.


The millennium period isn’t a temporary reign of Jesus - it’s the period where Satan is bound for a thousand years at the beginning of His eternal reign on earth, so all of creation, including the angels, get to see the contrast between the world being ran by Satan as it’s god and ruler for 4,000 years, with all the resulting evil, compared with Jesus ruling the nations with a rod of Iron for a thousand years in peace - then Satan is loosed for short time, and thrown into the lake of fire.


Luk 1:32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:


Luk 1:33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


Zephaniah also describes Jesus ruling on the earth in Jerusalem:


Zep 3:14Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!


Zep 3:15The LORD has taken away the judgments against you; he has cleared away your enemies. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; you shall never again fear evil.


Zep 3:16On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem: “Fear not, O Zion; let not your hands grow weak.


Zep 3:17The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.


There is no reason whatsoever to deny that the thousand year reign of Jesus on the earth in Revelation 20is literal - from the OT to the NT, it is literal fact that He will return physically to earth and rule from the throne of David, on Mount Zion.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Thanks for this reply David.

So yes, the reasons why I have questions regarding Pre-millennialism do not include things like this:

Revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

I can accept the above, because it's straight forward, and I always did accept it.

The reasons for my agnosmillennialism also do not include how long after the beast and FP have been thrown into the LOF, Satan is thrown into the LOF, because - and I'm going to use these words again - my own human intellect sees a clear one-thousand-year gap there, so my own human intellect will not allow me the liberty to assume the latter is cast into the LOF in the same year or month or day or hour as the former, but only after a thousand-year gap.

Also, because of all the statements in the New Testament to the contrary, my own human intellect will not allow me the liberty to assume that (whereas Satan was most certainly utterly defeated by the death and resurrection of Christ), he was also "bound" at the time (or "restricted" or whatever), nor can I believe he has ever been bound (in the history of the entire human race till now).

I also agree with what you're saying about the total lack of logic in the "deceived but not deceived and then deceived" millennium nations.

But at the same time, when I consider the (seemingly) bizarre notion that in the NHNE there will still be mortals around for a thousand literal years, no longer deceived because Satan has been bound, and at least one group of resurrected saints ruling over them, only so that Satan can be released again after a thousand literal years into the NHNE and they be deceived again, then the only three explanations can I think of for such a scenario are:

1. Satan was "released" into the Garden of Eden even while Adam & Eve were still living forever & ever, and permitted to deceive mankind.

2. The NHNE is a restoration of the Garden of Eden.

3. God is 100% just and will be seen to be 100% just to the very end, the last group of humans to be deceived being given the chance for a thousand years to see and to know what the Kingdom of God looks like, but the very end coming only after that thousand-year period.

Even so, those above 3 "reasons" are not good enough for my own human intellect to allow me the liberty to assume the above is the case (and that's aside from the fact that it seems alien and bizarre to my human intellect that such a thing will even be in the NHNE until the time of the GWT).

When I was still under the impression that there would be a thousand years in-between the return of Christ and the ushering in of the NHNE, it made it a lot easier. But not anymore.

But Preterism, Partial Preterism and Amillennialism don't offer explanations that satisfy my own human intellect either, because (as though the beast and the 42 months is a spring for Christians to play with), Preterists have the beast and the 42 months "compressed" into a literal 42-months, but into a time in-between between 66-70 A.D (or somewhere around there); Amillennialists, when they realize that they can't have the thousand-year period beginning before the beast has even risen from the abyss (because of the injury ascribed to those in Revelation 20:4-6), have the beast and the 42-months stretched out across the entire Age, and Satan "bound" during the same period.

Premillennialists and futurists (including myself) have the beast and the 42 months "compressed" into a literal 42-months, but into the time that is to close this Age, which is satisfactory and the way I understand it.

So because I definitely don't have the 42-months in the first century (or any other century till now), and I don't have the 42 months stretched out across the entire Age, and I have the beast and the 42 months at the close of this Age. I'm not going to be helped out of my agnosmillennialism by Amillennilaist or Preterist systems.

So I remain an agnosmilennialist whose own human intellect will not allow me the liberty of assuming anything about the millennium, because we are not told "everything" in the Revelation. We are told only what God wants us to know, and until He allows me to fully "get it" with regards to the NHNE, I'm playing safe from now on, safe in my agnosmillennialist camp.

But thanks for your effort so far in answering those questions I asked you.

Click to expand...

I think it was SJ some years back on another board that first introduced me to Amil. There was a time or two in the past where I almost switched to Amil. But I never did, not because of Premil, but because the more I looked into Amil to try and determine if it could actually work, the more I realized that it couldn't. Granted, in some cases it does appear it can work. But some cases are not all cases.

And years later here I still am trying to determine if Amil can actually work, and I still haven't found a way for it to work since it has to also work with passages that would involve extra time after the 2nd coming, yet not involve all of eternity, and that Amil has no place for these things to fit. Such as overcomers being granted authority over certain things when Christ returns, and that having to mean more than just 24 hours or less, yet not for all eternity either. Amil has no period of time for these things to be fulfilled in.

Unfortunately, Amils such as SJ think I'm not being objective about any of these things when it seems to me Amils such as SJ are the ones not being objective about some of these things instead. I can admit there are problems with Premil. But try getting Amils, such as SJ, to equally admit there are also problems with Amil. He, and Amils like himself, just seem unwilling to at least admit there are also problems with Amil, where Premils for ages now have pointed out numerous times again and again. Maybe it's a pride thing, I don't know?

DavidPT said:

If we were to get technical here though--Christ rose first, then those recorded in Matthew 27:52-53 rose sometime afterwards, IOW, not simultaneously. That would only make Christ's resurrection the first since you are arguing that there can't be a first resurrection in the future since there was already one in the past, except you are applying it to a resurrection that occurred after Christ's resurrection, which would be true of any resurrection in the future as well. It too would occur after Christ's resurrection. Thus your argument is moot.

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection , and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Click to expand...

If we were to take it to the extreme then the resurrection of the widow’s son by Elijah would have to be the first resurrection in Revelation 20:5. I don’t think anyone would seriously try to do that.

Christ’s resurrection was the first and this is one of the strongest points for Amil. I personally will not argue against anyone about Christ being the first resurrection, there are just too many verses that show this.

However the statement in Revelation 20:5 “This is the first resurrection” has to be referring to something that was previously said. In 1 Corinthians 15:23 the order is Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. What happened to those that were resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53? Where are they in this order? I see two possibilities here, 1-they are considered to be part of the first order “Christ the firstfruits” or 2-they remained alive until “Christ’s at his coming”. If they are considered #1 then the first resurrection would’ve encompassed those in Matthew 27:52-53.

No matter how I look at it, whether the first resurrection is Christ or if it’s referring to actual people being resurrected then it has to have already happened.

chad kincham said:

There is no reason whatsoever to deny that the thousand year reign of Jesus on the earth in Revelation 20is literal - from the OT to the NT, it is literal fact that He will return physically to earth and rule from the throne of David, on Mount Zion.

Click to expand...

You missed the message from Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, that Christ had already received the promise of being seated on David's throne at that time.

Acts 2:29-36. Read the whole thing. Peter announced quite clearly that Christ was presently seated on David's throne at God's right hand. If Peter announced that this prophecy was already fulfilled at Christ's resurrection and ascension, who are we to argue with him?

3 Resurrections said:

You missed the message from Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, that Christ had already received the promise of being seated on David's throne at that time.

Acts 2:29-36. Read the whole thing. Peter announced quite clearly that Christ was presently seated on David's throne at God's right hand. If Peter announced that this prophecy was already fulfilled at Christ's resurrection and ascension, who are we to argue with him?

Click to expand...

You missed th fact that Jesus irrefutably returns literally to earth and reigns from Zion, from Jerusalem from the throne of David, forever, per the many scriptures I gave.

Try reading my post in its entirety, instead of skimming it and missing relevant scripture.

I covered your Acts 2 so-called proof.

First of all it doesn’t say what you claim in Acts 2, secondly Jesus is now in heaven on a throne UNTIL God makes Jesus’ enemies Hi footstool - then is when Jesus returns literally and bodily back to Mount Olive from where He ascended, in Zechariah 14:5.

Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Jesus is currently sitting in heaven at the father’s right hand UNTIL the time is right to return to earth:


Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David.The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, UNTILL I make your enemies your footstool.”

Psa 110:2 The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule IN THE MIDST of your enemies!


Note that Jesus will not rule His kingdom from heaven, but on the earth, in the midst of His enemies.


He will return and land on mount Olive with all His saints per Zechariah 14:5, given earlier, where He will rule and reign from Jerusalem on the throne of David, which is established forever:


1Ki 2:45 And king Solomon shall beblessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever.


And we shall reign and rule with Jesus in His kingdom, on the earth:


Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

grafted branch said:

If we were to take it to the extreme then the resurrection of the widow’s son by Elijah would have to be the first resurrection in Revelation 20:5. I don’t think anyone would seriously try to do that.

Christ’s resurrection was the first and this is one of the strongest points for Amil. I personally will not argue against anyone about Christ being the first resurrection, there are just too many verses that show this.

However the statement in Revelation 20:5 “This is the first resurrection” has to be referring to something that was previously said. In 1 Corinthians 15:23 the order is Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. What happened to those that were resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53? Where are they in this order? I see two possibilities here, 1-they are considered to be part of the first order “Christ the firstfruits” or 2-they remained alive until “Christ’s at his coming”. If they are considered #1 then the first resurrection would’ve encompassed those in Matthew 27:52-53.

No matter how I look at it, whether the first resurrection is Christ or if it’s referring to actual people being resurrected then it has to have already happened.

Click to expand...

The resurrection meant is meaning rising from the dead permanently. No one ever did that prior to Christ's resurrection. So, based on this alone, no need to take it to the extreme to begin with like you pointed out.

I'm Premil yet agree that the first resurrection obviously involves Christ's resurrection, but even so, this is what Revelation 20:5 says---this is the first resurrection. It does not say this instead---this is Christ's resurrection.

It is the first resurrection in more ways than one. It is the first resurrection where anyone ever rose to eternal life, meaning Christ in this case. It is the first resurrection because it precedes the resurrection when the the rest of the dead live again after the thousand years. It is the first resurrection because John only mentions two resurrections in Revelation 20, and that those that have part in the first resurrection are raised before anyone not having part in the first resurrection are raised. It is the first resurrection because the dead in Christ rise first(1 Thessalonians 4). It is the first resurrection because it is the resurrection unto eternal life not unto damnation instead, thus why the dead in Christ rise first.

How can Revelation 20:4, 6, not be involving the dead in Christ rising first?

DavidPT said:

How can Revelation 20:4, 6, not be involving the dead in Christ rising first?

Click to expand...

I think it does, those who were resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53 were defiantly dead and they are referred to as saints.

Where do you see those who were resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53 fitting into other scriptures such as 1 Thessalonians 4? We can’t just ignore them, they were resurrected.

grafted branch said:

I think it does, those who were resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53 were defiantly dead and they are referred to as saints.

Where do you see those who were resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53 fitting into other scriptures such as 1 Thessalonians 4? We can’t just ignore them, they were resurrected.

Click to expand...

What is recorded in Matthew 27:52-53 undeniably says they came out of their graves bodily. The question is, what happened to them eventually since we are never told one way or the other? If we approach this logically, the fact they came out of their graves bodily rather than disembodied, should we then assume they returned bodily to these same graves eventually, then just laid in them until they bodily died again? Obviously, they would have to bodily die again if they returned to their graves. But one can't bodily return to their grave on their own if they are bodily dead at the time, nor would anyone want to bodily return to their grave if they are still bodily alive at the time.

Or should we assume something different happened to them instead? I vote for the latter. But even so, is, them ascending bodily into heaven, thus they are presently in heaven bodily, the only other option to explain what happened to them eventually? Per this scenario this would mean, pertaining to humans presently in heaven, there would be some humans in heaven already in bodies while there would be other humans in heaven still awaiting a body. I don't see that making much sense.

chad kincham said:

And we shall reign and rule with Jesus in His kingdom, on the earth:


Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Click to expand...

(Actually, that verse reads about those 24 elders before heaven's throne that they "... shall reign OVER the earth...", which is a reign they exercised over the earth from heaven's location.)

You are underestimating the position you and I are currently in. We are presently while in this life raised up with Christ and "seated in heavenly places" with Him (Ephesians 2:6). Christ's kingdom reign in heaven is a reign shared with believers while they are alive on earth. You and I bodily contain the Holy Spirit which dwells within us. Everywhere we go, we carry with us the kingdom of God's indwelling Spirit. It is called "reigning in life by one, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17).

Of course, this does not negate a bodily return of Christ to the Mount of Olives. I haven't denied that at all. But you are mistaken that on that particular occasion, Christ was then going to remain on earth to sit bodily on a physical throne in Jerusalem. Instead, the promise was that the resurrected believers would meet Him in the air on that occasion, to be forever with the Lord - in heaven. This was Christ's promise to the disciples, that He would bodily return and "receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." Resurrected saints gathered from earth and taken to heaven with Christ.

This was going to be the second resurrection event, according to 1 Corinthians 15:23. "But every man in his own order: Christ the First-fruits" (the "First resurrection in AD 33); "AFTERWARD they that are Christ's at His coming." (the second resurrection at Christ's second coming, when He would gather the resurrected saints and return to heaven with them.)

DavidPT said:

Per this scenario this would mean, pertaining to humans presently in heaven, there would be some humans in heaven already in bodies while there would be other humans in heaven still awaiting a body.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is currently the case. That is why it is called presently the "NEW HEAVENS", since this condition had never existed in heaven before those bodily-resurrected individuals arrived there.

3 Resurrections said:

These Matthew 27:52-53 saints were that "multitude of captives" in Ephesians 4:8, which Christ led out of the grave and gave as "gifts to men". When a high priest officiated in his duties, he by the Mosaic law needed to offer gifts, according to Hebrews 8:3. "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man" (Jesus) "have somewhat also to offer." Which Christ actually did.

On that day of the "First resurrection" in AD 33, this event included all the First-fruits (both "Christ the First-fruits" and the "144,000 First-fruits" raised by Him on that day). As a newly-ordained high priest after the order of Melchizedek, Christ Jesus then turned around and gave those resurrected Jewish 144,000 First-fruits individuals as "gifts to men". The purpose for their being given to men as gifts was to edify the church by acting in those roles of apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors, and teachers, "for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Ephesians 4:10).

Does it matter if Christ came out of the grave first, if He was the leader of that multitude of captives coming out of the grave on that same day after His own resurrection? This is still considered all the same "First resurrection" event on that single day, because they all shared the same title of "the First-fruits". It was a fulfillment of the Mosaic sheaf handful of First-fruits barley grain in Leviticus 23:10-12 being offered along with the single, year-old, blemish-free he-lamb. Both of these offerings being presented to the Lord together on the same day represented Christ the Lamb and the "remnant of the dead" Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints raised on that same day as being the 144,000 Jewish First-fruits.

Click to expand...

Does this mean you are taking the 144,000 in a literal sense? All I know is, the text says saints came bodily out of their graves. I take that to mean in that particular region. Take Adam, for instance. I see no reason he would not be classified as a saint. I don't know where he might be buried, though. He wouldn't have been a Jew and that you indicated this only involves Jews, yet, he would have been a saint, though.

DavidPT said:

What is recorded in Matthew 27:52-53 undeniably says they came out of their graves bodily. The question is, what happened to them eventually since we are never told one way or the other? If we approach this logically, the fact they came out of their graves bodily rather than disembodied, should we then assume they returned bodily to these same graves eventually, then just laid in them until they bodily died again? Obviously, they would have to bodily die again if they returned to their graves. But one can't bodily return to their grave on their own if they are bodily dead at the time, nor would anyone want to bodily return to their grave if they are still bodily alive at the time.

Or should we assume something different happened to them instead? I vote for the latter. But even so, is, them ascending bodily into heaven, thus they are presently in heaven bodily, the only other option to explain what happened to them eventually? Per this scenario this would mean, pertaining to humans presently in heaven, there would be some humans in heaven already in bodies while there would be other humans in heaven still awaiting a body. I don't see that making much sense.

Click to expand...

I think those in Matthew 27:52-53 are the 144,000 and they are called redeemed from the earth in Revelation 14:3. After Jesus arose in John 20:17, Jesus tells Mary not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to the Father. I’m speculating here but I think the 144,000 followed the Lamb withersoever he went which was to the Father.

You are correct in that the Bible doesn’t clearly point out what eventually happened to those in Matthew 27:52-53 but it is appointed unto men once to die so I don’t think they died a second time.

@3 Resurrections I know we agree on the 144,000 but differ on what happens after they were resurrected. If you want to chime in here with your view that would be fine with me, it’s always good to get more than one perspective.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

I find this interesting.

Click to expand...

The Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints of the "First resurrection" are an absolutely riveting subject to study in scripture. They are mentioned in more places than you would think. As of last count, I believe I had located at least a couple dozen texts which spoke about them and their activities in those NT days - until they left the planet.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

I don't see why it shouldn't make sense. I'm sure "heaven" is a "big place".

Click to expand...

I don't see why the size of heaven would matter. This seems similar to Amil theology involving souls who are told to rest for a little season, thus are not depicted as sitting on thrones and co-reigning with Christ instead, but when souls enter heaven during the alleged thousand years taking place on earth, instead of them joining these other souls that are told to rest, they instead get to sit upon thrones and co-reign with Christ, thus some in heaven more privileged than others in heaven. Thus if some are already bodily in heaven and some are still disembodied, this makes the former more privileged than the latter since the goal is to eventually achieve bodily immortality and that some have already done that but everyone else has to wait.