RC,
Why are you twisting my words?
It appears to me that you really don't want to understand me, but that you just want to argue your point.
It's not about winning a debate. It's about understanding what people are really saying. To do this you need to pay attention to their words, especially when they inform you that they aren't saying what you are trying to convince them of having said.
With that said, nowhere in what I had said did I even imply that I was attempting to give a definitive meaning for the term 'logic'. So your argument from another post in here, which suggests that I did not define the word properly, is moot.
Furthermore, I did not intend to set a new standard for exegesis in using the idiomatic expression of 'reading between the lines'. Rather, I used this expression within the context of disclosing that a phrase can contain both an intended message, as well as an implied truth. To get at the implied truth of such phraseology one needs to use deductive reasoning. Hence 'reading between the lines', or extracting truth that is present, but not necessarily emphasized.
Instead of jumping to conclusions you should have just asked me what I had meant. But that probably wouldn't have worked anyway, since I had already informed you of what I meant; but here you are still trying to convince me that I meant something other than what I had said.
As for my scriptural correlation, it does make perfect sense to me that 'we which are alive and remain' (see 1Thess. 4:16-17) implies that no other terrestrial party but the one to which the passage speaks of will be living at that time. Hence my reason for juxtaposing the passage to the thought of the wicked being consumed by the "brightness of His coming" (see 2Thess. 2:8). Now, I do realize that the singular pronoun, 'him', is used here, thus referring t the man of lawlessness. However, as mentioned already we are using deductive reasoning to make sense of these things.
Having said that, according to the implied truths of Revelation 20:4-6, this will take place before the 1000 year period, since it will be at that time that the wicked will first be consumed at "His coming"; and so also it will be at that time that the "first resurrection" will take place. Thus it is logical to conclude that the lawless one spoken of in 2Thess. 2:8 will likewise be consumed prior to this thousand year time period. After this period of time however (1000 years), at some point the wicked will be resurrected unto the "second death" via the lake of fire.
Now then, a "second death" implies a 'first death', as well as a 'resurrection' at some point.
When will this resurrection take place?
According to Rev. 20:5 it will take place after the 1000 year period. Hence there are two separate resurrections--one for the righteous, and one for the wicked. Both are separated by a 1000 year time period. Thus this answers the question of the OP.
Why you would attempt to introduce other ideas into this thread when the Bible makes this so very clear makes no sense at all, especially since the OP is looking for an answer that discloses what SDAs believe on the matter...
Perhaps you are just simply informing us of the heresies that are out there, but in this part of the forum only the traditional views of what SDAs believe on this matter are acceptable as an answer to such questions.
Upvote
0
