1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

The rest of the dead live not again

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by claninja, Jun 23, 2022.

  1. rwb

    rwb Well-Known Member

    +302
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You may not have seen this since it was added after I posted. Since this is really what our difference hinges on, I thought it worthwhile to repeat.

    Edit: Revelation 20:5 (KJV) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

    Lived - (anazáō) Not - (ou) Again -(anazáō)

    Why do you suppose the wording shows an absolute negative? Wonder why it wasn't simply translated "lived, no never lived" until the thousand years were finished? Because that is exactly what John means.

    ou - adverb; no or not:—+ long, nay, neither, never, no (× man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2022
  2. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,816
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Like I initially said, sometimes you are hard to follow, which could mean you are being misunderstood sometimes. Who exactly are you applying the first resurrection to initially? The first resurrection involves martyrs living again bodily, which means they were initially alive bodily, then they bodily died, then are bodily alive yet again, except this time forever.

    Premill would basically somewhat look like this, pertaining to the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4---they are initially bodily alive, then eventually are bodily dead and while they are bodily dead they are in a disembodied state until the time of the first resurrection which then results in them being in a bodily state once again.

    Amill, or at least some versions of it would basically be somewhat like this---they are initially bodily alive, and while they are still bodily alive they have part in the first resurrection, not bodily but spiritually. Then they eventually bodily die and continue to have part in the first resurrection, but not in a bodily state, but in a disembodied state until they are raised bodily, except some of the rest of us don't have a clue what resurrection that is supposed to be involving in Revelation 20 since these Amills insist it isn't involving the first resurrection.
     
  3. rwb

    rwb Well-Known Member

    +302
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    David if these martyred souls have been resurrected with physical body why does John say he sees them in heaven? How do you reconcile a bodily resurrection when it says in Hebrews none will be perfect until all the saints are perfected together?

    Hebrews 11:39 (KJV) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
    Hebrews 11:40 (KJV) God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

    These Old Testament saints had resisted to bloodshed, even death, therefore when Christ ascended to heaven, taking them with Him they became spirits of just men made perfect. By faith they did not receive the promise of immortality and incorruptible bodies of flesh, but through spirit they became living souls in heaven, and the flesh will not be made perfect for any man until we are all perfected together. And immortality and incorruption, otherwise perfection is the reason for the bodily resurrection.

    Hebrews 12:23 (KJV) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

    These verses show us the first resurrection is of spirits of just men made perfect, with the promise of the bodily resurrection together with all the saints will come later after the seventh trumpet sounds.

    Yes, it is in life we must partake of the first resurrection through the resurrection of Christ. So, we, like the saints of old, after death become spirits of just men made perfect. Not bodily perfect, but spirits are perfect.

    Yes, the verses I quoted from Hebrews show that Old Testament faithful saints had been faithful unto death. In death their spirits, being made perfect through faith while alive were raised living (spirit) soul after Christ defeated death, and resurrected, ascending to heaven taking them as living (spirit) soul to heaven with Him.
     
  4. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +504
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    The physical act of chopping their head off was the spiritual birth into God's family.

    The first resurrection is always physical, not spiritual. In Revelation 20:4 they experienced a physical bodily resurrection and lived on earth, never to die physically nor spiritually ever again.

    Amil don't have a physical resurrection in their eschatology. They call the physical resurrection symbolically Christ's spiritual resurrection from the bondage of sin.

    Amil claim that on the "last day" all humans are judged. Some to eternal life, and some to eternal damnation.


    The first resurrection is the last physical process for humans. The first birth is at conception. The first death is the soul leaving Adam's dead flesh. The first resurrection is the soul entering God's permanent incorruptible physical body. Every "first" deals with the physical body. Only those redeemed in Christ enter Paradise into the first resurrection. The OT redeemed left Abraham's bosom and experienced permanent incorruptible physical bodies. That was their first resurrection at the Cross. The thief had a first resurrection when his soul left the dead body on the Cross, and his soul entered Paradise that instant into a permanent incorruptible physical body, a first resurrection. Stephen had a first resurrection while seeing Jesus standing next to God on the throne. The first resurrection is ongoing. The dead in Christ have been rising first, and we cannot prevent that, as the living, waiting for our first resurrection.

    The first resurrection should not be confused with the second birth which is spiritual into God's family/kingdom. The second birth frees us from the spiritual chains of sin and death. Quickened is a form of being made alive. But as a resurrection, how? We were never spiritually alive, and then spiritually dead. A birth is a brand new experience of spiritual life, not a return after a death. The spiritual birth is not of ourselves any way, but done by the Holy Spirit working in us. It is an adoption more than the physical birth which is not merely an adoption.

    The first resurrection is the point we actually receive God's permanent incorruptible physical body. That is not how Amil interpret the process. They rule out the physical altogether, denying we have a physical body making us a natural son of God. Instead they have us as mere souls without a family of any kind. Only symbolic idealistic wishful thinking waiting for eternity. Some claim "immortality", but not a physical body, a new type of spirit form, a third birth?
     
  5. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +2,049
    Christian
    Married
    i don’t see a double negative, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

    revelation 20:5 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνέζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

    (But the rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand
    years were finished.)This is the first resurrection.
     
  6. rwb

    rwb Well-Known Member

    +302
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That's not an answer. My apologies I meant to say an absolute negative even if you don't see it.

    Revelation 20:5 (KJVSL) But δέ the rest λοιποί of the dead νεκρός lived ἀναζάω not οὐ again ἀναζάω until ἕως the thousand χίλιοι years ἔτος were finished τελέω. This οὗτος is the first πρῶτος resurrection ἀνάστασις.

    Yes, they stand in physical life again, not to resurrection life, but resurrection to condemnation.

    Resurrection after the thousand years have ended is being raised to life to die, and that's why John says "lived but never lived". In other words, being raised to life for them as John says is not for resurrection life but resurrected to condemnation.

    anástasis -a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):—raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.

    Not:
    ou, - a primary word; the absolute negative adverb; long, nay, neither, never, no (× man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but
     
  7. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,816
    United States
    Christian
    Married

    Roger, we have something similar in verse 4, which has somewhat been puzzling to me.

    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(proskuneo) not(ou) worshipped(proskuneo) 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.

    Which means we basically have the following via these two verses.


    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(proskuneo) not(ou) worshipped(proskuneo) the beast, neither his image, neither(ou) had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived(zao) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
    5 But the rest of the dead lived(anazao) not(ou) again(anazao) until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


    The question is, what does it all mean? Meaning this----had(proskuneo) not(ou) worshipped(proskuneo)---and then this---lived(anazao) not(ou) again(anazao)
     
  8. rwb

    rwb Well-Known Member

    +302
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Not in both verses is a particle, primary word, absolute negative. I believe it could be read "worshipped no never worshipped" the beast...

    I never noticed this because we were focused on vs 5. Thanks for pointing it out. I think it helps to confirm my argument.
     
  9. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +504
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Yet at the end of the 1,000 years, John still does not give us any resurrection. They are still dead, just that Death and sheol were literally dumped out, and they were cast into the LOF. That is not symbolic of a resurrection. That is symbolic of throwing the trash bins into the garbage heap, along with the dead trash.

    Your interpretation of Revelation 20:5 is based on speculation about the end of the 1,000 years that is never even documented. John never gives us a second resurrection.

    Revelation 20:5 should be interpreted as potential for a future resurrection, but not a guarantee there would be a future resurrection. As we do see, John never witnessed a future resurrection.

    If you only speculate a resurrection at the end of the 1,000 years, then your speculation drives your interpretation of Revelation 20:5. Even if you demand a future resurrection you still have to speculate what that even entails according to Revelation 20:5.

    So some will be blessed at the end of the 1,000 years and be resurrected, no?

    Certainly we were never told who got that chance. But to say it means a resurrection to damnation, how is damnation ever a form of being blessed and avoiding the second death?

    "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power"

    There is no "second" resurrection implied nor specified. The first resurrection would also be afforded some after the 1,000 years and they would be blessed with a first resurrection. Some even claiming the first resurrection is not until after the 1,000 years. That is as wrong as a "second resurrection". What John is indicating is that some would not have this first resurrection, until after the 1,000 years, while those who were beheaded experienced the first resurrection before the 1,000 years. Then later in the chapter John totally left out a blessed first resurrection. All he recorded was the final judgement of the dead. It seems all were placed in the LOF. No one took advantage of a first physical resurrection into a permanent incorruptible physical body. If they did, John did not tell us, so only a speculative guess.

    Of course those resurrected after the 1,000 years would not enjoy that 1,000 years, but they would avoid the second death, the LOF.

    How? There were many beheaded people who never worshipped Satan during the 3.5 years prior to the Cross and physical resurrection of Jesus?
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2022
  10. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,816
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    To arrive at some of the conclusions you do is to disregard what it just said in verse 6---Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection---and shall reign with him a thousand years.


    How do you propose one can still reign with Him a thousand years after the thousand years are in the past? Verse 6 indicates of every single person having part in the first resurrection, they each shall reign with him a thousand years.

    Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,


    It can't get any clearer than this, the thousand years end eventually, and once they end, that era of time is entirely in the past to never get repeated again. This alone presents a problem for Amill. Meaning depending on which version of Amill one is considering. Those they have reigning in heaven a thousand years in a disembodied state, they still have them reigning a thousand years even though the thousand years are no longer relevant once they are expired.

    Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7, since they apparently see that as the better option. Instead of them agreeing with the text, they deny that the text says the thousand years expire since they have the thousand years continuing in heaven even though it has expired on earth. Nowhere does verse 7 say the thousand years have both expired and not expired. That is a contradiction.
     
  11. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +504
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    The first resurrection only happens to the dead.

    Your contradiction is based on a reason some were resurrected. If some were resurrected after the 1,000 years, did the reason for their resurrection change?

    Of course it changes after the 1,000 years, and assumes they will not be alive during the 1,000 years. Why would reigning for 1,000 years still be a valid reason after the 1,000 years are over?

    The only valid reason after the 1,000 years is still being blessed and avoiding the second death. That reason is not affected by the 1,000 years.
     
  12. Trivalee

    Trivalee Active Member Supporter

    423
    +118
    United Kingdom
    Pentecostal
    Married
    You are all over the place and it is difficult to understand where you stand. Now I understand why some brothers here have raised concerns that it's hard to follow your reasoning. And if you can learn to use fewer words to make a point, you will be more concise and logical. As most of your analogies don't fit, your argument ends up as nebulous.

    For example, you posited that Isaiah 65:20 did not imply that those that die at 100 years are sinners, but accursed. According to you, they disobeyed. To be accursed suggests they are in transgression, isn't it? I would have thought that everyone knows that every act of disobedience is a sin before God? Perhaps you see how confusing it is as you claim they are not sinners but in disobedience?

    Still trying to make sense of your reasoning, if all of Adam's flesh ie, (all humanity) is destroyed at the 7th trump, would please explain who gave birth to the mortals that will live in the millennium. The ones that may die at 100 years for disobedience according to you?

    Your first error: the sheep and goat judgment is for the whole world, not only Israel. Matt 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

    Notice that the text says "nations", plural - not singular?

    Second error: how in the world did you make the judgment that the parable of the sower (seed) in Matt 13 will be sowed in the millennium? Of all the ambiguous parables in scripture, this is the only one Jesus explained to the disciples, thus making it easy for all to understand. The seed is the gospel of the kingdom that has been preached since the 1st century. So would say that "Jesus will sow the seed in the millennium?"

    Your chronology of the eschaton needs a lot of work. Please clarify what you mean here: "So it seems even those beheaded after the sheep and after the wheat would also represent those nations alive in the Millennium?"

    The way I understand it is that the beheading of believers would have ended BEFORE Armageddon. So, it's impossible to place them AFTER the sheep and goat judgment. Finally, how can the beheaded represent the nations alive in the millennium?
     
  13. rwb

    rwb Well-Known Member

    +302
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Now you understand what we Amills have been trying to tell you for years. lol

    In this you err David. Amill doesn't have souls in heaven experiencing Satan's "little season". It is those who are still physically alive on the earth after the thousand years have ended that will have part in Satan's "little season". They are the believers (Church) alive on the earth when Satan and his minions surround them, thinking they will finally rid the world of every last Christian on earth. That's when fire comes down out of heaven from God, i.e., Christ returns, and the believers are caught up to be with the Lord in heaven until the wrath of God has past.

    Then all who are with the Lord come down with Him to the new earth to live with Him, not for a thousand years, but for eternity.
     
  14. Trivalee

    Trivalee Active Member Supporter

    423
    +118
    United Kingdom
    Pentecostal
    Married
    1-The mortals in the millennium are not only the 144K which scripture says are ethnic Jews Rev 7:4-8. And Zech 14:16-17 debunks your theory as it proves that some Gentiles will also survive the GT.

    2- You claimed that the church will not be on earth during the millennium, this is untrue. You pointed out that the Lord will judge the sheep and goat on earth in the millennium, which places the resurrected/raptured church (now immortal) on earth also during the millennium. Jesus told the disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them and that when he returns for them, where he is, there they will be also John 14:3.

    There are two resurrections; the first is for the Just 1 Thess 4:16 and the second for the wicked occurs at the end of the millennium Rev 20:5.
     
  15. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +2,049
    Christian
    Married
    it says the rest of the dead “lived not”. I still have no idea what you mean by “lived, but not lived”.

    There is no “lived but not lived” found in the textus receptus. It’s says “not lived”

    revelation 20:5 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ (rest) τῶν (of the) νεκρῶν (dead) οὐκ (not) ἀνέζησαν (lived) ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη

    the rest of the dead “lived not” until the completion of the 1,000 years.



    Revelation 20:5 doesn’t state “lived but never lived”.

    The phrase is “the rest of the dead lived not again until the completion of the 1,000 years”.





    I have no disagreement with the definition of G326. But again G326 is not found in revelation 20:5 in the critical or majority text. So your argument must contain an element of textual criticism, IOW, why is the textus receptus better than the critical or majority text?
     
  16. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +2,049
    Christian
    Married
    Where are you getting your information on the Greek? It doesn’t say “worshipped, no never worshipped”
     
  17. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,816
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I don't recall saying Amill does.

    This is what I said.

    "Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7, since they apparently see that as the better option".

    Maybe I should have worded it a bit different, maybe like such? Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven since there is no logic to that and that they know there is no logic to that, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7 instead, since they apparently see that as the better option of the two.


    But there is an even better option, simply agree with what Revelation 20:7 states, that the thousand years expire. It can't expire if it is still in progress in heaven, though. for example, would anyone propose that when Abel died he entered heaven and began reigning with Christ a thousand years and has been reigning with Him a thousand years for almost 6000 years? Of course no one would propose that since that would obviously be out of sync with what is recorded in Revelation 20. In a similar way it would also be out of sync with what is recorded in Revelation 20 pertaining to the thousand years expiring if the thousand years are still in progress in heaven though they are no longer in progress on earth.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2022
  18. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +504
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    I take Revelation 6-13 in chronological order.

    Seals are for the church. The Second Coming is the 6th Seal. The church is removed. Jesus as Prince comes to the Mount of Olives.

    The 144k are sealed. The throne in the temple in Jerusalem is set up by Jesus the Prince.

    Jesus calls out Israel from all Nations for judgment in Jerusalem, during the first 6 Trumpets. The sheep and goats are harvested removed from the earth.

    Jesus is personally sowing seed for the harvest of the Gentiles. Satan is sowing seed for the tares. During the 7 Thunders is when the angels harvest the wheat and tares.

    Then the 7th Trumpet sounds. The harvest is finished. Revelation 14 all humanity left is killed.

    The Millennium starts with the 144k, the sheep, and the wheat as firstfruits. They are without sin or a sin nature. They are given God's permanent incorruptible physical body, not made from human genetics from Adam, but a physical resurrection body.

    Adam was not a sinner when he disobeyed God. Is that a hard concept to grasp? Only after Adam disobeyed God, was he a dead sinner.

    During the Millennium people who disobey will immediately die. No excuses, no rehab, no grace, no redemption. That is what Death is for.

    "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

    "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and Death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

    During the Millennium a person dies, and is placed in Death. Not because they are a sinner. Not because they sin. They are the same as Adam before Adam disobeyed God. After they disobey one time they are dead. They are a sinner now, but dead. They do not live on earth. They are confined by Death. Until they disobey they are not defined as dead. They are not living in Death. Why would they be considered cursed or a sinner while being obedient?

    Isaiah 65 has never happened in the historical record. There certainly will be no Death after the Millennium. If there is no Millennium, then Isaiah 65 will never be fulfilled.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2022
  19. rwb

    rwb Well-Known Member

    +302
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I apologize for not more carefully reading what you said. I'm not sure about what you mean when you say Amil contradicts vs. 7 Satan's little season? The souls are in heaven, but the little season for Satan is to come against the physically living, not those who have already died and gone to heaven. But I think you understand that.

    Time doesn't exist once one dies and goes to heaven. Time continues on earth, but the living souls in heaven have already lived and reigned with Christ in time (1000 yrs). Since the cross and resurrection, and Christ's ascension to heaven, whoever had died by faith before the advent of Christ, now since He came can go to heaven as living (spirit) soul, where time on earth for them has stopped.

    But even though Abel lived and physically died before the advent of Christ, as a man of faith, believing Messiah would come to redeem Him from the grave he lived and died. According to Rev 6 while Abel was in the grave, he was still under the altar, or still covered by the atoning blood of Christ through Old Covenant promise. So though physically dying spiritually he lived and reigned with Christ during time. This must be true, because we have Christ's promise that whosoever lives and believes in Him will never die! And all the Old Covenant faithful saints, according to Heb 11 believed God and hoped for the promise of everlasting life to come by grace through faith when the Messiah came.

    I believe this is why we find the angels of heaven celebrating when Christ was born, and Satan was cast out of heaven. The celebration was that those of Old Covenant faith with Abraham were given white robes symbolizing righteousness and told their redemption was very near and they had only to wait a "little season" until the remaining remnant of faithful souls from Old Covenant times died as they had, including Christ Himself, their brethren (brother) then they would be taken from the place of death, the grave called in the parable Abraham's bosom, and ascend with Christ to heaven as living (spirit) souls.

    Even though the Old Covenant faithful saints physically lived and died before the thousand years of time that began with the advent of Christ's birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, according to Old Covenant promise the Messiah's blood covered them and gives assurance they too never die because in life they too had part in the first resurrection through the blood and resurrection of Christ through promise. Though physical death took their bodies it was not able to kill their spirit (living) souls.

    Hebrews 11:4 (KJV) By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

    Hebrews 11:13-16 (KJV) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

    Hebrews 11:35 (KJV)
    Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

    Hebrews 11:39-40 (KJV) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2022
  20. Trivalee

    Trivalee Active Member Supporter

    423
    +118
    United Kingdom
    Pentecostal
    Married
    For a start, I am Premil and don't but into the theory that the church will be removed before the GT. It is bizarre to claim that the 6th seal is the Second Coming when the seven trumpets only begin from the 7th seal, Rev 8:1-2. If you are to be believed, Jesus will already be on earth when the trumpet call begins???

    Jesus is not a prince. He will be a King when he returns and a prince is lower in rank than a king. Trust me, I know because I am English.

    Your doctrine is so out of place that I don't know how to help you. Most of your claims are so preposterous and unbelievable. For example, to apply the seed sowed in Matt 13 to the millennium makes no sense.

    Adam did not die before he sinned, so why would those in the millennium die if they are not in sin?
     
Loading...