Imagery in Revelation, what should it be based on?

[Timtofly]

Let’s look at the Premil problem of front-running.

Front-running is trading stock or any asset by a broker who has inside knowledge of a future transaction that is about to affect its price substantially. Front-running is a form of deception and since the Premil positon believes that Satan is not yet bound, Satan is certainly aware of it and most likely the instigator of front-running.

Our souls can be looked at as the assets that are going to be involved with a future transaction. According to Premil Satan is not yet bound from anything so he knows what is written in Revelation. Revelation says nothing about faux marks of the beast. So why wouldn’t the Antichrist have multiple marks of the beast with only one of them being genuine? Wouldn’t he be trying to front-run by getting as many believers to receive the mark?

And what about a scenario where Antichrist would make it illegal to behead anyone thus there would be no beheaded souls or only a few souls who were beheaded illegally living and reigning with Christ? It seems to me that Satan tried to front-run Christ’s first coming but because it was not a physical kingdom that was going to be established, Satan failed. If the Premil position is correct then Satan will be successful at front-running Christ’s second coming. Premil doesn’t make logical sense to me, it takes thing too literally.

The mark is not even about the Millennium as you are over thinking it. Not taking the mark will not change how the Millennium happens or does not happen.

You compared this to the stock market. Then claim there is no stock market, we will pretend there is one, just to front run stocks that do not exist.

The Second Coming is before the last 42 months. Those on earth will know who God is. They will see the face of the One sitting on the throne. They will know who Jesus Christ is. They will know who the two witnesses are. These will all be known facts during those 42 months the mark starts to appear on those who worship Satan. The mark is the sign, that God has brought desolation on the earth. Satan will try to manipulate the economy with this fact. People will also know who Satan is, who the FP is, and what the beast is. This is not a time of deception at all. That is a false ideology current philosophical views of eschatology deem necessary to make their private interpretations work.

Those who think evil is good will be convinced that it is still good. They are decieved about that fact now. They will continue in their self deception. That is not being decieved by Satan. That is the current state of affairs.

The point about the Second Coming that happens first is that the church is taken away first. The church will not be around. The gospel will be heard, but not recieved in the same way by faith. Those who recieve the mark will know exactly what they do, just like reprobates today, who reject every thing that is Holy about God. Just like reprobates today, God will remove their ability to even choose God, once the mark is recieved. People today do not accidentally become reprobates. The mark will not be accidental nor given because Satan tricks people.

Any one left on earth will already be tricked by what they think they believe right now. They will know they are doomed, when Jesus Christ appears on earth with God on the throne. How they start to decide during the Trumpets and Thunders will be how they decide to have their heads chopped off. If the 42 months do not even happen, no one will get the ability to be beheaded. They will all die in the winepress of Revelation 14. Those 42 months are not a guarantee people will even get a chance to live in the Millennium. Those 42 months are only given to Satan, to prove to Satan, some humans will still reject him and choose God instead. Yet most think the church is going to face Satan head on, when that is not even the reality of Revelation. That is a false teaching sown in the last 200 years of eschatology, and the confusion of so many different interpretations of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

satan being bound, cast out and making war with the saints as a result of Christ’s fulfillment of the Davidic oath through his resurrection makes no sense to you?

No, you not seeing the thousand years as an actual period of time that began when Christ started to reign and Satan was first bound and won't end until Satan is loosed. Instead, you only associate the thousand years with the time between David and Christ which makes no sense to me at all, as I've indicated to you multiple times now. Just accept that it doesn't make sense to me, okay? You'll get over it.

within the context of literally reading the parable/vision, yes, in the vision the 1,000 years is literally a period of time that begins with Satan being bound and ends with Satan making war on the saints. During the 1,000 years the first resurrection occurs, which = those living and reigning with Christ

How long have people been living and reigning with Christ? Do you believe people stopped living and reigning with Christ at some point? I don't know what your understanding is of people living and reigning with Christ for a thousand years while Satan is bound.

Within the context of the vision, the first resurrection = those living and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years.

And who do you believe lives and reigns with Christ during that time? Did people stop living and reigning with Christ long ago? Of course not, right?

Now, Not from literally reading the vision, but instead what/who do you “interpret” the first resurrection as?

Jesus Himself is the first resurrection, which is indicated in verses like Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5. The souls John saw spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection. But, the first resurrection itself does not refer to their bodily resurrections, but to Christ's.

how so? Can you elaborate by what you mean?

You asked me this in relation to my claim that you have something in common in relation to your literal understanding of Satan's binding. I said that based more on what I remember you saying in the past than what you've said in this thread. What I recall you saying before was that you don't believe Satan was still bound after he was cast out of heaven and you talked about how it indicates he makes war with the saints after that and you referenced verses where it talks about him roaring as a lion seeking who he may devour and such.

So, what I meant is that you seem to understand his binding in a literal sense, as in his binding prevented him from doing anything at all, which is how premils see it. Let me know if I'm not remembering correctly. I know your understanding of his binding is different than mine, so if I'm not remembering correctly, please tell me exactly how you understand the nature of his binding. In your view, what was he bound from doing and for how long?

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus Himself is the first resurrection, which is indicated in verses like Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5. The souls John saw spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection. But, the first resurrection itself does not refer to their bodily resurrections, but to Christ's.

This claim is typing the first resurrection. It is not a when. If Jesus Christ is the type of first resurrection, then there will never be another first resurrection.

People, according to this claim, will only recieve a body at the "second" resurrection. There is not a second resurrection ever named in God's Word. That means there will never be a physical body ever. Revelation 20:12-15 gives us only dead people cast into the lake of fire. There is no proof of a second resurrection here. That is a big assumption to leave at the last chance before the NHNE. That is a leap of faith, though.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This claim is typing the first resurrection. It is not a when.

What does that mean? Jesus Christ did actually rise from the dead at a certain time in history which was 3 days after He died.

If Jesus Christ is the type of first resurrection, then there will never be another first resurrection.

Scripture says Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection (Acts 26:23). It doesn't say He was the type of first resurrection, whatever that even means.

People, according to this claim, will only recieve a body at the "second" resurrection. There is not a second resurrection ever named in God's Word.

Doesn't a first resurrection imply a second? Of course it does. So, why does the second resurrection have to be mentioned specifically when we know a first resurrection implies a second? Scripture mentions a "second death" (Rev 2:11, Rev 20:6,14, Rev 21:8), but never specifically a "first death" (in those words). Does that mean there is no first death that comes before the second death? Of course not. Do you always need scripture to spell everything out for you in order to understand what it's saying?

That means there will never be a physical body ever. Revelation 20:12-15 gives us only dead people cast into the lake of fire. There is no proof of a second resurrection here. That is a big assumption to leave at the last chance before the NHNE. That is a leap of faith, though.

It's a big assumption to believe that a first resurrection implies a second? Really? Why call it the first resurrection if there isn't a second resurrection? I'd love to see you try to answer that.

 

[DavidPT]

Premil doesn’t make logical sense to me, it takes thing too literally.

That's a fair point. And to a degree I tend to agree with you . My problem is, assuming I am wrong about where the thousand years fit, I don't know how to get my mind to quit reasoning these events in a chronological manner. In my mind, there is no way chronology doesn't play a major role. It seems to me, every other time, such as pertaining to the Discourse, for example, pretty much everyone is reasoning things in a chronological manner in order to arrive at what they end up concluding. Why should it be different with Revelation 20? If Revelation 20:4 is already undeniably proving, regardless that some deny that it is, that the beast has already ascended out of the pit way before satan is ever loosed from the pit, why are some contradicting that fact by insisting he doesn't even ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years? That's not what Revelation 20:4 indicates, though. We need to stick with the text and see where that leads to. By not sticking with the text, that could not possibly lead to where one needs to end up.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That's a fair point. And to a degree I tend to agree with you . My problem is, assuming I am wrong about where the thousand years fit, I don't know how to get my mind to quit reasoning these events in a chronological manner. In my mind, there is no way chronology doesn't play a major role. It seems to me, every other time, such as pertaining to the Discourse, for example, pretty much everyone is reasoning things in a chronological manner in order to arrive at what they end up concluding. Why should it be different with Revelation 20?

Because the book of Revelation is written in an entirely different type of language than the Olivet Discourse. It's written largely in apocalyptic language, which often does not follow normal literary structure. Which means it does not always talk about events in chronological order. Clearly, not all of Revelation is in chronological order and you know that. At the very least, we all know that Revelation 11 and Revelation 12 are not in chronological order unless someone wants to believe that the birth and ascension of Christ somehow happened after the seventh trumpet. So, why can't there be other parts of the book that aren't chronological as well?

If Revelation 20:4 is already undeniably proving, regardless that some deny that it is, that the beast has already ascended out of the pit way before satan is ever loosed from the pit, why are some contradicting that fact by insisting he doesn't even ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years? If some deny it then it's not undeniable, is it? That's not what Revelation 20:4 indicates, though. We need to stick with the text and see where that leads to. By not sticking with the text, that could not possibly lead to where one needs to end up.

Of course, Amils can say the same about how Premils interpret some passages as well, so you're not proving anything by saying things like this.

 

[grafted branch]

That's a fair point. And to a degree I tend to agree with you . My problem is, assuming I am wrong about where the thousand years fit, I don't know how to get my mind to quit reasoning these events in a chronological manner. In my mind, there is no way chronology doesn't play a major role. It seems to me, every other time, such as pertaining to the Discourse, for example, pretty much everyone is reasoning things in a chronological manner in order to arrive at what they end up concluding. Why should it be different with Revelation 20? If Revelation 20:4 is already undeniably proving, regardless that some deny that it is, that the beast has already ascended out of the pit way before satan is ever loosed from the pit, why are some contradicting that fact by insisting he doesn't even ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years? That's not what Revelation 20:4 indicates, though. We need to stick with the text and see where that leads to. By not sticking with the text, that could not possibly lead to where one needs to end up.

I can’t answer for anyone else but I think the first beast in Revelation 13 is prior to the cross and the second beast (false prophet) is Satan transformed into an angel of light. I think it is possible for Satan to cast out Satan and this is a “good cop/bad cop” scenario taking place in Revelation 13.

The first beast has a deadly wound that is healed. Whatever that wound is, it has to be temporal because it gets healed. I don’t think that wound occurred on the cross because the work done on the cross is not temporal. I don’t have a good answer for what the wound is, at least not an answer that I’ve done enough research on.

If someone does place this wound happening at the cross and it also being related to Satan being bound then I see your point. I think the worshiping of the beast and his mark could happen simultaneously with the 1,000 years depending on how it’s interpreted but the straight forward chronological reading would be that it happens prior to the 1,000 years.

 

[DavidPT]

I can’t answer for anyone else but I think the first beast in Revelation 13 is prior to the cross

That conclusion is easily debunked though, thus not even a possibility. And here is one way that it is debunked.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Regardless when one thinks John received these visions, it is doubtful that anyone would disagree that it was post the time of the cross. With that in mind what did John have to say about the first beast in Revelation 13? He said, at that present time, meaning then, it is not. The logic would have to be this. If this same beast is to ascend out of the pit in the future, that means this beast has to first already be in the pit in order to ascend from it in the future. That should mean that when it's status was 'is not' that is meaning this same beast was in the pit at the time. When it's status was 'was' that is meaning when this beast was not in the pit yet.

Involving this beast then, the chronology would be this. Initially the beast is not in the pit. Then it is in the pit. Then it is no longer in the pit. And once it is no longer in the pit it's final days are numbered, where at the end of that it is cast into the LOF.

Let's fast foward to the thousand years.

and I saw the souls of them---and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

Here is what we need to ask ourselves and also find answers for if we are being intellectually honest concerning the text above.

which had not worshipped the beast---what beast?

a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast(Revelation 13:1-3).

How can it not be this beast? If not this beast, what beast then? The next question we need to ask ourselves concening this beast in question, what is it's status at the time, meaning as of Revelation 13:1-3? This---'was'---or this--'is not'---or this---'ascends out of the bottomless pit'.

I don't see it being reasonable that it's status at the time would be 'is not', IOW still in the pit at the time. I also don't see it being reasonable that it's status is 'was' at the time, IOW before it was ever in the pit. Revelation 13 is prophecy. Prophecies typically predict future events not past events. Meaning from John's perspective at the time, that he would not be submitting events already fulfilled prior to him seeing these visions, he would instead be submitting events that are still future to the time of these visions when he initially received them.

That means we only have one logical conclusion to come to concerning the status of the beast per Revelation 13:1-3, and that is this is meaning that the beast has ascended out of the pit.

This post is already getting rather lengthy and I haven't even gotten around to what we should be asking ourselves in regards to what image, what mark upon one's forehead, or in their hand? It should be crystal clear by now that we already know the answers to those questions. All we have to do is continue reading on in Reveation 13 since there are more verses after verse 3.

What all this means in regards to Revelation 20:4, in order for those saints to be martyred for the reasons given, that they did not worship the beast, neither his image, etc, the beast that they refuse to worship, it has to obviously ascend out of the pit first. As to the image and the mark they also refuse, that requires that a 2nd beast obviously has to rise up out of the earth first. And since it seems ludricrous that this beast would ascend out of the pit more than one time, that means it can't ascend out of the pit after the thousand years if it has already ascended out of the pit way prior to that time in order to be the reasons behind some of the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4.

One more point I would like to bring up.

and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority----And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast

This couldn't possibly be meaning during the thousand years since it makes zero sense that anyone would be worshiping the dragon in any sense while it is depicted as bound in a pit.

 

[grafted branch]

That conclusion is easily debunked though, thus not even a possibility. And here is one way that it is debunked.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

I don’t think it’s as easily debunked as you say.

Revelation 17:8 has the beast that was - which I place prior to the cross. The beast that is not – Satan was currently bound from utilizing the nations to destroy Jerusalem. The beast that shall ascend out of the bottomless pit – when Satan is released he gathers the nations to destroy Jerusalem.

I don’t think Satan is cast into the pit due to the work on the cross although he may have been cast into the pit at that time. I believe he was cast into the pit prior to the completion of Daniel’s 70th week (I don’t see a gap in between the 69th week and 70th week). Also notice the phrase in Revelation 17:8 “the beast that was, and is not, and yet is” doesn’t this point to Satan being restrained in a manner but yet he still is present?

Looking at Revelation 13 the first beast rises up out of the sea. I think the sea is also the waters in Revelation 17:15 peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. I don’t think it means that this beast rose out of the bottomless pit here.

As for the mark of the beast and the buy and selling; examine Matthew 21:12 Jesus went into the temple and cast out all that sold and bought. That statement means every single person that bought and every single person that sold. Matthew 21:13 you have made it a den of thieves. Every person that bought and every person that sold was making the temple a den of thieves. The buying and selling had to do with the buying and selling of salvation. I think a person has the mark of the beast if they truly believe that they can either buy or sell salvation. So yes this was going on prior to the cross.

 

[Timtofly]

It's a big assumption to believe that a first resurrection implies a second? Really? Why call it the first resurrection if there isn't a second resurrection? I'd love to see you try to answer that

You already answered that. You claim only Jesus was resurrected. Adam experienced the first death.

We experience the first death in Adam. We experience the first resurrection in Christ. The issue is that you claim it will not be experienced until this world ends. My claim is those in Paradise already experience that resurrection.

A second resurrection is after the second death. If the second death is the lake of fire, the second resurrection is out of the lake of fire.

 

[DavidPT]

I don’t think it’s as easily debunked as you say.

Revelation 17:8 has the beast that was - which I place prior to the cross. The beast that is not – Satan was currently bound from utilizing the nations to destroy Jerusalem. The beast that shall ascend out of the bottomless pit – when Satan is released he gathers the nations to destroy Jerusalem.

I don’t think Satan is cast into the pit due to the work on the cross although he may have been cast into the pit at that time. I believe he was cast into the pit prior to the completion of Daniel’s 70th week (I don’t see a gap in between the 69th week and 70th week). Also notice the phrase in Revelation 17:8 “the beast that was, and is not, and yet is” doesn’t this point to Satan being restrained in a manner but yet he still is present?

Looking at Revelation 13 the first beast rises up out of the sea. I think the sea is also the waters in Revelation 17:15 peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. I don’t think it means that this beast rose out of the bottomless pit here.

As for the mark of the beast and the buy and selling; examine Matthew 21:12 Jesus went into the temple and cast out all that sold and bought. That statement means every single person that bought and every single person that sold. Matthew 21:13 you have made it a den of thieves. Every person that bought and every person that sold was making the temple a den of thieves. The buying and selling had to do with the buying and selling of salvation. I think a person has the mark of the beast if they truly believe that they can either buy or sell salvation. So yes this was going on prior to the cross.

You are free to reason things however you wish, yet, I don't see how you can possibly think you are going to arrive at a lot of correct conclusions by disregarding certain details present in the text. Such as the following.

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

The detective nature in me looking for clues in order to try and get to the bottom of something, tells me that we are looking for a time period where someone or something at the time is performing great wonders and miracles in the sight of men, in whatever sense that might be meaning. These of course involving lying wonders(One should at least be thinking 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 and Matthew 24:23-26, to name a few).

If this is connected with Matthew 24:23-26, regardless when one thinks that is meaning, no one that I know of would propose that it involves a time period when Jesus walked the earth prior to the cross. Everyone that I know of thinks it involves a time period post the cross. What you brought up about the money changers, that is meaning before the cross and there were not lying wonders and lying miracles taking place at the time nor prior to that. Any miracles taking place at the time were legit and of God.

The point being, before we even get to the time involving not being able to buy or sell unless one has the mark, lying wonders are already taking place, which means if you are correct to connect the buying and selling with the money changers in the temple that time, that same era of time has to also be involving lying wonders and lying miracles, yet it clearly wasn't.

Even though you disagree, yes, what you initially proposed is easily debunked and I did just that, not only in that post but this post as well.

 

[grafted branch]

What you brought up about the money changers, that is meaning before the cross and there were not lying wonders and lying miracles taking place at the time nor prior to that.

So let’s look at Revelation 13:13. The second beast which has two horns like a lamb makes fire come down from heaven. In Luke 10:18 Jesus said he beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. This occurred while the 70 were sent out. Mark 6:13 says that the 70 cast out many devils during that time. I would say the lightning falling from heaven was the result of Satan being cast out.

If Satan can cast out Satan then he can make fire come down from heaven. In Matthew 12:27 Jesus asked the Pharisees “by whom do your children cast them out”; it appears that the children of the Pharisees were casting out devils during the time Jesus was on earth. So I think it is possible that Revelation 13:13 did happen prior to the cross.

Any miracles taking place at the time were legit and of God.

Were the children of the Pharisees legit when they cast out devils?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You already answered that. You claim only Jesus was resurrected. Adam experienced the first death.

We experience the first death in Adam. We experience the first resurrection in Christ. The issue is that you claim it will not be experienced until this world ends. My claim is those in Paradise already experience that resurrection.

A second resurrection is after the second death. If the second death is the lake of fire, the second resurrection is out of the lake of fire.

A resurrection out of the lake of fire? Where do you get your beliefs from? Just from your own mind or from someone else? You believe things that no one else does and make no sense whatsoever.

 

[DavidPT]

A second resurrection is after the second death. If the second death is the lake of fire, the second resurrection is out of the lake of fire.

Let's first make sure we're on the same page about what is being meant about a 2nd resurrection.

Revelation 20:6 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.


A first resurrection implies that another resurrection happens at a later time. It would be the 2nd resurrection in this case.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished---this is meaning the 2nd resurrection, the one that happens at a later time after the first resurrection happened at an earlier time.

No one who has part in the 2nd resurrection also has part in the first resurrection. Because if they did, they wouldn't need to have to wait to live again until after the thousand years finish first, they would have already lived again when the first resurrection took place. No one needs to live again twice. Jesus certainly didn't need to, neither shall anyone else need to.

In the same way, no one who has part in the first resurrection also has part in the 2nd resurrection. They don't need to wait until after the thousand years end in order to live again. They already lived again once they take part in the 1st resurrection. And once again, no one needs to live again more than one time. One time is all it takes unless one wants to argue that Jesus needed to live again more than one time rather than just one time.

The 2nd death does not precede the 2nd resurrection. The 2nd resurrection is what leads to the 2nd death. The 2nd resurrection is in order for them to be brought before God bodily, then tried, then sentenced, the sentence being the 2nd death.

 

[Timtofly]

A resurrection out of the lake of fire? Where do you get your beliefs from? Just from your own mind or from someone else? You believe things that no one else does and make no sense whatsoever.

That is why no one will ever find a second resurrection any where in Scripture. So stop trying. Do you really think a second resurrection has nothing to do with a second death?

You call the new birth a resurrection. The first resurrection is not the second resurrection, just because you claim the new birth is the first resurrection.

The first birth and first resurrection deal only with the physical body, either corruptible or incorruptible. Those bodies seen at the Cross were incorruptible, they were the first resurrection and physical bodies. The soul and spirit are separate from the body. Not that we are separate from the generic term, "spiritual". Do you not accept that Adam was created with an incorruptible body, prior to sin, and his disobedience to God?

Why would God create Adam with a corruptible body in anticipation for sin? God clearly explained to Adam he would die, the moment he ate. Adam did die, and went from an incorruptible to a corruptible body.

Our soul is separated from our incorruptible body and living spirit, because they cannot be subjected to sin. If the spirit is made reprobate, it flees God's presence as a demon. The soul that sins will die, and cause the spirit to die spiritually as well. It will not cease to exist. But it is the basis for the Second Death, where soul and spirit are dead to God.

 

[Timtofly]

Let's first make sure we're on the same page about what is being meant about a 2nd resurrection.

Revelation 20:6 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.


A first resurrection implies that another resurrection happens at a later time. It would be the 2nd resurrection in this case.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished---this is meaning the 2nd resurrection, the one that happens at a later time after the first resurrection happened at an earlier time.

No one who has part in the 2nd resurrection also has part in the first resurrection. Because if they did, they wouldn't need to have to wait to live again until after the thousand years finish first, they would have already lived again when the first resurrection took place. No one needs to live again twice. Jesus certainly didn't need to, neither shall anyone else need to.

In the same way, no one who has part in the first resurrection also has part in the 2nd resurrection. They don't need to wait until after the thousand years end in order to live again. They already lived again once they take part in the 1st resurrection. And once again, no one needs to live again more than one time. One time is all it takes unless one wants to argue that Jesus needed to live again more than one time rather than just one time.

The 2nd death does not precede the 2nd resurrection. The 2nd resurrection is what leads to the 2nd death. The 2nd resurrection is in order for them to be brought before God bodily, then tried, then sentenced, the sentence being the 2nd death.

If you think the first resurrection can happen before the first death, makes sense to me.

Otherwise to assume a second resurrection is not properly interpreting what the first resurrection even is. This is not even the first resurrection in the NT. Do you call the resurrection at the Cross .0 resurrection, so the one in the future is the first? Or are both resurrections first resurrections implying a better view for both resurrections?

Jesus in John 3 did not imply chronology but types of births, deaths, and by implication resurrections. John did not name the resurrection in Revelation 20:4

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

A resurrection is implied with "they lived". It is not specified.


"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

While a resurrection is implied for both times, both could be a first resurrection, and if the dead live again the next time would be a first resurrection as well. It would be a first for those at the beginning, and a first for those at the end. It is not a second resurrection at the end because those already experiencing a first resurrection do not need a second one. Those still dead never had a first, so at the end would still be a first resurrection. Those at the Cross had a first resurrection as well and are still blessed that the second death can not touch them.

If John was declaring a first and second resurrection, he would have said the first resurrection was then. There will be a second resurrection where those standing before God will be blessed as well. There would be no confusion about first and second. Some at the GWT would be blessed just as all the other first resurrections.

Then to top it all off, he never mentioned a resurrection at all at the GWT. He could have easily said, and now the second resurrection at the GWT, blessed are those not going into the Lake of Fire.

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Nothing about life, living, nor resurrection at all. One can only imply they were given resurrection bodies, but to then be cast into the Lake of Fire. I thought John said blessed are those with a first resurrection? They cannot go into the second death. Now some want me to think a second or their first resurrection is not blessed? They will be cast into the Lake of Fire with a first resurrection body?

I still think one needs to experience the second death before a second resurrection. The first birth, death, and resurrection is physical about a body. The second birth, death, and resurrection is of the spirit.

Most can go on their assumptions, implications, but John did not write down anything about there being a resurrection at the GWT.

Yes there are verses in both the OT and NT that say out of the dust, and graves, many will stand before the GWT, as in a resurrection. They are still dead, according to John.

Many take his use of the word "soul" literally. Why not take the word "dead" literally? Did John not see their souls? What about bodies or spirits? Everything about them was dead. That is why I would not call this a second nor first resurrection. The resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 is the second resurrection. To some, the third resurrection. I include Lazarus, so the fourth. John was not counting up resurrections. It was either the firstfruits resurrection of the Millennium like the Cross was the firstfruits resurrection of the NT church, and that is why it is a first, or it is a first because it was a physical bodily resurrection. I also think the Cross was the last day resurrection of the OT. Not ever again would any be resurrected from Abraham's bosom. That was their last day resurrection. The Second Coming/rapture is the 6th Seal. If that is a resurrection to you, it is also a first. It covers the physical body for those physically alive. All resurrections are first resurrections.

For those who claim a post second coming rapture, Revelation 20:4 would be it, except most would have to move this resurrection to the Cross. It can not be post Millennium. It happens after Satan is bound. It would be a pre-bound resurrection. Those people still alive somewhere, should have bodies, if those at the GWT do. Should have incorruptible bodies regardless. Where are all these bodies resurrected pre-bound Satan, today? How can this be a second coming event if the resurrection is after Satan is bound at the Cross?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That is why no one will ever find a second resurrection any where in Scripture. So stop trying.

A first resurrection implies a second. That is undeniable. Just like the second death implies a first death. Is there a first death in scripture? Of course. Just because the phrase "first death" isn't there doesn't mean a first death isn't talked about in scripture.

So, your claim that there isn't a second resurrection in scripture is baseless. It can easily be seen in this passage:

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Christ's resurrection was first, which can be seen in this verse as well:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

There is another resurrection after the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection) and that is the resurrection of "they that are Christ's at His coming". That can seen as the second resurrection. It doesn't have to be specifically mentioned as such in order for that to be the case just like the first death doesn't have to specifically be called "the first death" in order for it to be the first death.

Do you really think a second resurrection has nothing to do with a second death?

Unbelievers will be resurrected before the GWT judgment and then will experience the second death by being cast into the lake of fire. You have them somehow being resurrected after being cast into the lake of fire, which makes no sense whatsoever and is not taught in scripture.

You call the new birth a resurrection.

Actually, I don't. Some Amils see it that way in the sense of the fact that before we become saved we are spiritually dead in our sins and then when we're saved we become spiritually alive in Christ (Eph 2:1-6). But, I look at it as the new birth being the way in which believers have part in the first resurrection, which was Christ's bodily resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5).

 

[DavidPT]

But, I look at it as the new birth being the way in which believers have part in the first resurrection, which was Christ's bodily resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5).

Even looking at it like that, and assuming the thousand years and satan's little season happen in this age prior to the 2nd coming, it is impossible for the new birth to initially happen to anyone during satan's little season. Everyone that has part in the first resurrection, they all reign with Christ a thousand years. If someone doesn't already have part in the first resurrection by the time the thousand years have ended, it is then impossible to still have a chance to have part in it after the thousand years end. It is undeniable, no one who has part in the first resurrection does not get to reign with Christ a thousand years. They all do. It would be a blatant lie to insist that someone can have part in the first resurrection without having to reign with Christ a thousand years.


Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection---and shall reign with him a thousand years.(Revelation 20:6 )

Everyone can see what this clearly and plainly says. Everyone knows what this clearly and plainly means. No one can have part in the first resurrection without also reigning with Christ a thousand years. Therefore, regardless whether the thousand years are meaning in this age or meaning post the 2nd coming, it is 100% impossible to still have an opportunity to have part in the first resurrection during satan's little season if they already missed out on that opportunity before his little season.

Anyone that insists otherwise is lying because the text clearly and plainly already proves there are no more opportunities to have part in the first resurrection after the thousand years have come and went, period. That would be like saying that the lost, when they stand in front of God at the great white throne judgment, they still have one last opportunity to have part in the first resurrection before they are cast into the LOF instead.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Even looking at it like that, and assuming the thousand years and satan's little season happen in this age prior to the 2nd coming, it is impossible for the new birth to initially happen to anyone during satan's little season. Everyone that has part in the first resurrection, they all reign with Christ a thousand years. If someone doesn't already have part in the first resurrection by the time the thousand years have ended, it is then impossible to still have a chance to have part in it after the thousand years end. It is undeniable, no one who has part in the first resurrection does not get to reign with Christ a thousand years. They all do. It would be a blatant lie to insist that someone can have part in the first resurrection without having to reign with Christ a thousand years.


Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection---and shall reign with him a thousand years.(Revelation 20:6 )

Everyone can see what this clearly and plainly says. Everyone knows what this clearly and plainly means. No one can have part in the first resurrection without also reigning with Christ a thousand years. Therefore, regardless whether the thousand years are meaning in this age or meaning post the 2nd coming, it is 100% impossible to still have an opportunity to have part in the first resurrection during satan's little season if they already missed out on that opportunity before his little season.

Anyone that insists otherwise is lying because the text clearly and plainly already proves there are no more opportunities to have part in the first resurrection after the thousand years have come and went, period. That would be like saying that the lost, when they stand in front of God at the great white throne judgment, they still have one last opportunity to have part in the first resurrection before they are cast into the LOF instead.

So, it's lying for someone to disagree with an OPINION you formed from something you see implicitly stated rather than explicitly? If it explicitly stated that no one can be saved during the little season and someone said otherwise, then you could safely call that a lie. But, not otherwise. No matter how strongly you feel about your OPINION here, it's still just an OPINION, so disagreeing with your OPINION is not a case of lying.

Also, I've already addressed what you said here before in another post (can't recall if it was this thread or another one) where you claimed that no one can be saved during Satan's little season. Did you not see that? If no one can be saved during that time to join those who reign with Christ, then does that mean you believe Christ stops reigning at the end of the thousand years, even though scripture teaches that He will reign right up until "the end, 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, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." (1 Cor 15:24-25)?

 

[Timtofly]

A first resurrection implies a second. That is undeniable. Just like the second death implies a first death. Is there a first death in scripture? Of course. Just because the phrase "first death" isn't there doesn't mean a first death isn't talked about in scripture.

So, your claim that there isn't a second resurrection in scripture is baseless. It can easily be seen in this passage:

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Christ's resurrection was first, which can be seen in this verse as well:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

There is another resurrection after the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection) and that is the resurrection of "they that are Christ's at His coming". That can seen as the second resurrection. It doesn't have to be specifically mentioned as such in order for that to be the case just like the first death doesn't have to specifically be called "the first death" in order for it to be the first death.

Unbelievers will be resurrected before the GWT judgment and then will experience the second death by being cast into the lake of fire. You have them somehow being resurrected after being cast into the lake of fire, which makes no sense whatsoever and is not taught in scripture.

Actually, I don't. Some Amils see it that way in the sense of the fact that before we become saved we are spiritually dead in our sins and then when we're saved we become spiritually alive in Christ (Eph 2:1-6). But, I look at it as the new birth being the way in which believers have part in the first resurrection, which was Christ's bodily resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5).

You said the first death implies the second death. I agree, the second death comes first, then the second resurrection. The lake of fire is the second death. Coming back out of the lake of fire is the second resurrection.

Death always comes before a resurrection.