Is the 1st resurrection initially being applied before or after death?

[TribulationSigns]

I agree with you that not everyone needs to be literally beheaded in order to be included among those that have part in the first resurrection.

Well, the Lord did specifically said through John that ALL of the souls were indeed beheaded for the witness of Jesus. All of them! Therefore, that does not mean ALL actually have experienced physically beheaded.

Rev 20:4
(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.

Therefore, we, as Christians, have been beheaded for our witness of Christ.

 

[DavidPT]

The Holy Spirit anointed the Old Testament Saints as well. That is why they had the temple, altar, sheep, etc. that pointed to Christ. They are saved by faith the same way we do. The Holy Spirit as living water that came out of Jerusalem that went forth to the Old Testament, the former sea and the New Testament the hinder sea.

Zec 14:8-9
(8) And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
(9) And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

You don't think verse 9 is already fulfilled do you? I'm pretty certain, with satan still presently being the god of this world, that doesn't add up to the LORD alone being king over all the earth. If that was already the case, that would mean the 7th trumpet has already sounded, thus Revelation 11:15 has already been fulfilled. Zechariah 14:9 can't precede the fulfilling of Revelation 11:15 without it causing a contradiction in more ways than one.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You don't think verse 9 is already fulfilled do you?

Yes.

I'm pretty certain, with satan still presently being the god of this world, that doesn't add up to the LORD alone being king over all the earth.

Sigh. I think you need to read Revelation 20 again. Even as Satan went about as a roaring lion as "god of this world," his gates of hell could not defeat the millennial advance of Christ's kingdom. Because the simple truth is, Satan was bound for the sake of the elect of the world, not for the sake of everyone in the world. That is a biblically untenable idea of man, not of God. The man of God understands his reign is in the Kingdom now, but the man of the world does not understand the kingdom is spiritual. Listen to the witness of the saints:

Revelation 1:9

• "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."

It is true, natural man doesn't understand how John could say he was a companion of saints IN the kingdom of Christ. Indeed, some may retort, "is that the best God can do?" But John understood that though he was in prison, he was reigning with Christ. A king must have a Kingdom. Else all these testimonies and declarations of God are just nonsensical. And God is not the author of confusion, the natural man is! Therefore, believers have been made Kings and Priests, they do reign now, and Christ already has a Kingdom through the church where they have been translated into. Hello!?

It's not a mystery, God plainly said it! Just as God "unambiguously" declared for "he who hath an ear to hear" and receive it, that he must reign NOW until He has put all enemies under His feet. For anyone to deny all these things, is to deny the very Word of God that declares them. So you are warned!

If that was already the case, that would mean the 7th trumpet has already sounded, thus Revelation 11:15 has already been fulfilled. Zechariah 14:9 can't precede the fulfilling of Revelation 11:15 without it causing a contradiction in more ways than one.

You are really confused and misunderstood by jumping around all over these verses without understanding first what God is talking about in Revelation 20. That is why I suggest that you take a break.

Have a good night.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

But from an Amil perspective though, the first resurrection isn't bodily, thus, how then does this person fulfill the part about being a priest after death? Amils have the first resurrection occurring in this age when one is initially born again, then continuing the thousand year reign upon death, in heaven as souls still awaiting glorified bodies.

Well I can't help with that. That view is so ridiculous to me I would not even want to know why.

 

[mkgal1]

If you think these martyrs go to heaven....

.....there was NO "heaven" before Christ died on the cross.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are a few OT saints/prophets that were killed because of their proclamations (martyred). They died before the cross - before death was destroyed and eternal life was possible. They were imprisoned in Sheol.

 

[mkgal1]

You left out this part though---but they shall be priests of God and of Christ. That has to apply to these souls after death, too.

It does apply to them after their deaths (as they died BEFORE Jesus died on the cross).

 

[DavidPT]

You must have forgotten a very important thing. God's grace! What about some babies who have not yet born (stillborn, miscarriage, or abortion) who have not done good or evil. Yet they are saved regardless? Does it mean the babies must perform as priests and kings on earth in order to experience the first resurrection? God already knows who are His before the world even begun. Worry about this question, where do you stand before God. Have you served Christ faithfully? Have you experienced born again? That all it matters and please spare me with "what if" situations.

The person on their deathbed has to fulfill everything in Revelation 20:6 in order to have part in the first 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.

Above is what the text states. Is there anyone that hath part in the first resurrection that are not blessed and holy? Is there anyone that hath part in the first resurrection, where the 2nd death has power over them? Is there anyone that hath part in the first resurrection, who do not reign with him a thousand years?


If the answers to all of those is no, then so must the following be no as well, otherwise it's called cherrypicking.

Is there anyone that hath part in the first resurrection, who shall not be priests of God and of Christ?

Now we are back to post #92 again and how that person fulfills everything in Revelation 20:6 after death.


In order for something to be a possibility, it needs to at least be logical first. And I'm seeing zero logic in post # 92 when assuming Amil. I can see post # 92 working with Premil though.

 

[Douggg]

The man of God understands his reign is in the Kingdom now, but the man of the world does not understand the kingdom is spiritual. Listen to the witness of the saints:

The Kingdom of God will be brought to earth to replace all earth kingdoms as being the sovereign Kingdom on earth, that Jesus will rule with a rod of iron over the nations. Daniel 2, Psalms 2, Revelation 2:27, 12:5.

Not here yet.

It will be here on earth, physically present in it's sovereignty when Jesus the King returns, and the heathen will not run wild like they do now.

Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

 

[Douggg]

It is true, natural man doesn't understand how John could say he was a companion of saints IN the kingdom of Christ. Indeed, some may retort, "is that the best God can do?" But John understood that though he was in prison, he was reigning with Christ. A king must have a Kingdom. Else all these testimonies and declarations of God are just nonsensical. And God is not the author of confusion, the natural man is! Therefore, believers have been made Kings and Priests, they do reign now, and Christ already has a Kingdom through the church where they have been translated into. Hello!?

John, nor any Christian, will be in prison, when the Kingdom of God becomes the sovereign Kingdom present here on earth.

 

[DavidPT]

You are really confused and misunderstood by jumping around all over these verses without understanding first what God is talking about in Revelation 20. That is why I suggest that you take a break.

Have a good night.

You're just not being logical about some of these things and that I am. You therefore confuse that with me being confused, even though I'm not confused. I like to reason through things in order to see if there is any logic to it. That's not the same as being confused about things.

Take the following in Zechariah 14.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.


What happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD? Wasn't it pretty much utterly destroyed at the time? What does that tell us about the above verse then? Doesn't that logically tell us the fulfilling of Zechariah 14:11 is meaning a time post 70 AD? Because if it isn't, how can there not be a contradiction if Zechariah 14:11 is fulfilled first, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD? The way some of you spiritualize stuff at times though, it wouldn't surprise me if you did have the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:11 illogically preceding 70 AD somehow.

The same kind of reasoning I use above is the same kind of reasoning I use for Zechariah 14:9. With satan still alive and well on the planet, and that satan is lord of many, IOW Jesus is not their Lord, satan is. Meaning the lost of course. That doesn't add up to that the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one, when satan is still alive and well on planet earth at the same time. The truth, whatever it might be, can't contain contradictions and still be the truth. I would think everyone at least knows that and would agree.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You're just not being logical about some of these things and that I am. You therefore confuse that with me being confused, even though I'm not confused. I like to reason through things in order to see if there is any logic to it. That's not the same as being confused about things.

The Pharisees thought so when dealing with Christ in regarding His Kingdom. Nothing new under the sun.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

What happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD? Wasn't it pretty much utterly destroyed at the time? What does that tell us about the above verse then?

First, you go wrong Jerusalem. God did not talk about the physical city of Jerusalem here.

Gal 4:25-26
(25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
(26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

This is Jerusalem who is our mother where we dwell safely in Christ. Not a physical city.

Second, please deal your concern regarding Jerusalem in 70AD with Preterists. I do not support their 70AD theory nonsenses anyway.

 

[DavidPT]

.....there was NO "heaven" before Christ died on the cross.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are a few OT saints/prophets that were killed because of their proclamations (martyred). They died before the cross - before death was destroyed and eternal life was possible. They were imprisoned in Sheol.

We're on the same page here then.

 

[TribulationSigns]

John, nor any Christian, will be in prison, when the Kingdom of God becomes the sovereign Kingdom present here on earth.

This verse refutes you.

Rev 1:9
(9) I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

John was already in the kingdom when he penned it in prison. And he warned that all other Saints will also suffer tribulation as well. Christ already established His Kingdom through the Church which will be realized when Christ returns.

Aren't the believers already in the kingdom of God right now?

Col 1:12-14
(12) Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
(13) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
(14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Note the past tense.

Next time Doug, if you want to prove me AND the Scripture wrong, please show the Scripture, not speculation or private opinions.

 

[DavidPT]

Aren't the believers already in the kingdom of God right now?

Of course believers are. But there are two aspects to this kingdom though. We experience the spiritual aspect of it in the here and now. We will experience the literal physical aspect of it once Jesus returns.

 

[DavidPT]

The Pharisees thought so when dealing with Christ in regarding His Kingdom. Nothing new under the sun.



First, you go wrong Jerusalem. God did not talk about the physical city of Jerusalem here.

Gal 4:25-26
(25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
(26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

This is Jerusalem who is our mother where we dwell safely in Christ. Not a physical city.

Second, please deal your concern regarding Jerusalem in 70AD with Preterists. I do not support their 70AD theory nonsenses anyway.

My point had zero to do with Preterists. No one can deny that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. You indicate I have the wrong Jerusalem in mind. That verse in Zechariah 14 indicates there will be no more utter destruction, which obviously implies there was utter destruction in the past. You therefore are being illogical yet again unless you can provide some passages showing the Jerusalem in Gal 4:25-26 has been involved in the utter destruction of it in the past.

 

[TribulationSigns]

We're on the same page here then.

You both are wrong. Old Testament Saints did go into heaven the moment they died before Christ was even born! Didn't Elijah and Moses appeared with Christ at the Mount of Transfiguration before Christ even went to the Cross! Did Christ send them back into so-called sheol for a little longer?

No, every chosen Elect is saved through Christ. He died for the sins of the world (All elect is what the world qualified). For them in the Old Testament, it was future. For us in this New Testament, it is past, but it was still through Christ. It was His death, His sacrifice. It atoned for the sins of the OT saints as well as the NT saints. Period. And, every time the Jews of Old Testament sacrificed a lamb, and every time they sacrificed a ram, etc., it was the picture of Christ, the picture of Christ, the picture of Christ. So, they had to know that there was coming one who would pay the penalty for their sins, one ultimate sacrifice. Christ, alone, can save.

Now, the means for salvation has always been the same: Faith. And, at any given point in the unfolding revelation of the Word of God, salvation came through faith, believing God. Abraham believed God. It was already counted him for righteousness. What did he believe? He believed as much as God had revealed. And, God had revealed even by that time that he was a sinner and that the only savior was God, and that God would pay the penalty for his sin. Now, he didn’t understand all there was to know about Jesus Christ, but he understood enough to know that he was a sinner and needed a savior and God would provide a savior. That is why it says in Hebrews 12, that Moses could foresee Christ, even Moses.

So, I believe, the OT people were saved by faith in God. They believed God’s word as much as was revealed to them and knew their own sinfulness. In fact, the reason they would carry out the sacrifices, and the reason they would do all the things God told them to do was an outworking of inward faith. It was not to earn salvation. It was to demonstrate the reality of it. They were saved by faith in Christ. They didn’t know who Christ was. And, they didn’t know specifically when and how and all of that, but they believed God. They were sinful, and God would have to provide a sacrifice for them.

The same promise repeated throughout the Old Testament—that God will be our God and we will be his people—is also repeated in the New Testament. At the end of the age, when Old Testament and New Testament believers alike stand before their Redeemer, we are told that “He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” (Revelation 21:3).

 

[DavidPT]

First, you go wrong Jerusalem. God did not talk about the physical city of Jerusalem here.

Gal 4:25-26
(25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
(26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

This is Jerusalem who is our mother where we dwell safely in Christ. Not a physical city.

Does it look like folks are going to be dwelling safely in it when the beast in Revelation 13 wages war against it, then overcomes the saints, killing many in the process? That doesn't sound like my idea of dwelling safely.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

This is when Zechariah 14:11 is fulfilled, and not before that time.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Of course believers are. But there are two aspects to this kingdom though. We experience the spiritual aspect of it in the here and now. We will experience the literal physical aspect of it once Jesus returns.

Again, incorrect. There won't be physical stones, building, city or kingdom. Because all Elect are NEW JERUSALEM themselves. Consider wisely:

Rev 3:12-13
(12) Him 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.
(13) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Rev 21:1-2
(1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
(2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Will Elect become animated object as pillar or stone in the kingdom. No. The kingdom is spiritual. It always was and always will. The old and new testament congregation ON EARTH as Israel and the Church are only a physical representation of that kingdom! But with first heaven and first earth passed away, there is no need for the physical kingdom.

 

[TribulationSigns]

My point had zero to do with Preterists. No one can deny that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.

I do not deny that Jerusalem as a city was destroyed in 70AD but it has no biblical signification since this was not prophecied by God in Scripture despite protests from preterism and premillennialism.

You indicate I have the wrong Jerusalem in mind.

You definitely do.

That verse in Zechariah 14 indicates there will be no more utter destruction, which obviously implies there was utter destruction in the past.

Don't be lazy and try to learn to quote verses to back up your claim next time.

Zec 14:2-3
(2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
(3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

But who said Zechariah 14 was at His second coming? Was it God's word itself or you and your teachers? Did you not read my previous posts, or better yet the passage in question? Where does it say the Lord defeated the nations? Look at the verse you quoted--do you think the Lord went forth against those nations and didn't defeat them? Doesn't the context show He defeated them? So your question seems contrived. We can see from comparing Scripture with Scripture that to understand the symbolism we need to recognize that Jerusalem, the holy city and bride of God, is representative of the congregation, the People of God. In the Old Testament, that was the Jews. Zechariah 14 is in reference to their captivity, the apostasy that had gripped that congregation, and this warfare in His congregation (Matthew 11:12) that ushers in the Messiah Himself and His messianic peace, comfort and the (millennial) Kingdom age. This time of Christ's first advent is when the Lord defeated the nations/gentiles that came against his people. Not Roman armies, not every physical nation in the world, and not at the end times in His second advent, but these nations were defeated by the Lord and by His army in their testimony. That's not rhetoric but confirmed by Scripture. It was by the shedding of His blood that they were defeated.

Daniel 9:26

• "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Indeed the people of the Prince (Jews) did destroy the city and sanctuary, and consequently, the kingdom was taken from them and given to another. This was the fall of Old Testament Congregation. These were the nations (unsaved people) that came against Jerusalem, as Christ this Prince, was delivered to the Gentiles for crucifixion by His own people, the Jews! This language of delivering to the Gentiles is not coincidental, as it illustrates His people were working as Gentiles against their own Prince. Understand this... The Gentiles simply mean "anyone not a Jew, an alien or foreigner from Israel." Anyone who is not the true Jews in Christ or children of God are spiritually Gentiles (Revelation 3:9) and at war in Jerusalem! Selah! Doesn't matter if you say you are a Jew by bloodline, you are not one in God's eyes! There was no physical war going on in Jerusalem when Christ came, so why do you think God prophesied Christ's coming to end Jerusalem's "warfare" (Isiah 40:1-2) and to bring comfort to her? These are questions that you like many teachers ignore because it illustrates vividly that the Lord spoke this way! While you want to keep holding to an idea that understanding ar and city spiritually is of men rather than of God. But the Biblical fact is, Jerusalem indeed was at war, but not warfare as the world defines it, but as God's word does. Not by all the literal/physical nations battling against her with horsemen, guns or missiles as the world defines it, but as God does. There are TWO DIFFERENT GENERATIONS or FAMILIES spoke of here. One the messengers and children of Satan against the messengers or children of God, at war. Even as Revelation 12 also depicts! The end result was that Christ came to the mount of Olives (signifying the anointed kingdom), came to Jerusalem as King, freed the children who were held in captivity, in the bondage of Satan and his minions, and judged those who fought against Him. Not in worldly Premillennialists or Preterism terms, but spiritual. Consider wisely:

Zechariah 12:89

• "In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
• And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
• And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

The only real question is when Christ poured out His Spirit of grace upon the house of David (Pentecost), how was Jerusalem under siege by all the nations, and how did God seek to destroy all the nations that came against Jerusalem? Humm? When you answer that question honestly, you know that this never spoke of a physical/literal war or nations. The Lord did defend HIS inhabitants of Jerusalem and did destroy the nations that came up against her and He did pour out His spirit upon the house of David and upon us, and they, including us, did look upon Him whom they had pierced. Could it be any more clearer? It is Done! Christ accomplished this at the cross. And they (and us) did mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, as also confirmed yet again in John 19.

John 19:36-37

• "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
• And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced."

It's not scripture yet to be fulfilled, it's Scripture already fulfilled. We just need to take God's word as authoritative, rather than listen to the self-serving denials of men snared in Premillennial/Judaism/Zionism/Preterism.

 

[DavidPT]

The Pharisees thought so when dealing with Christ in regarding His Kingdom. Nothing new under the sun.



First, you go wrong Jerusalem. God did not talk about the physical city of Jerusalem here.

Gal 4:25-26
(25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
(26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

This is Jerusalem who is our mother where we dwell safely in Christ. Not a physical city.

Second, please deal your concern regarding Jerusalem in 70AD with Preterists. I do not support their 70AD theory nonsenses anyway.

'
I initially addressed some of this in post # 115 I think. I'm having 2nd thoughts about how I responded to you. I indicated you were being illogical because this would imply a previous utter destruction. Then I realized you and I are seeing the same Jerusalem here. Where you go wrong is with the timing is all. The fulfilling of Zechariah 14:11 can't precede the time of the NHNE. That is the only time Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited, literally. In the meantime there is the beast of Revelation 13 to contend with, so on and so on.