Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

3 Resurrections said:

Same thing for us as resurrected saints, since we are called "joint heirs with Christ". We inherit the very same kind of bodily resurrection that He experienced.

Click to expand...

We are not resurrected saints until we change bodies. We as living are joint heirs born spiritually from above. We have the Holy Spirit as interest until the day of Redemption. That day is when the soul changes bodies from this dead corruptible body into a permanent incorruptible physical body. Since we never taste death, that change is instant upon leaving this physical body.

DavidPT said:

Adam almost lived an entire thousand years, and he was a mortal. To this day not one single mortal has ever lived an entire thousand years. Lifespans of mortals are getting shorter not longer. Is that the way things will end, no mortal will ever live an entire thousand years ever? But if there is a literal thousand years after the 2nd coming, and that Revelation 20:4,6 does not record anyone dying during the thousand years, but that verses 7-9 record death taking place after the thousand years, these obviously having to be mortals since immortals can't die, only mortals can, why then can't the thousand years be when mortals live an entire thousand years?

Click to expand...

Those resurrected are not divine beings. That is why I do not like using Greek connotations.

Those resurrected have permanent incorruptible physical bodies. They cannot die, but they are not glorified sons of God.

The Greeks viewed mortals as human and immortals as gods. Some Amil here, declare immortal as just living a long time, or never dying. Why does a mortal die? Because they ain't God. The Romans were insane deifying their Emperors, who just died anyways.

In the Bible Adam was not made a mortal. He was a god on earth in the image of God. That is what Adam lost. He was dead, no longer a son of God, no longer glorified with an incorruptible sin free body. He went from a permanent incorruptible physical body to a dying corruptible sin nature physical body. Even then he lived over 900 years. Methuselah lived 969 years, and ran out of time. That was the year of the Flood. Then God shortened life to 120 years. Later to 70 years.

grafted branch said:

I have been associating the word “beheaded” in Revelation 20:4 with Daniel 9:26 where Messiah is cut off.

To me the ax that was taken to the root in Matthew 3:10 is also similar to “beheaded” <3990> which means to cut off with an ax. 3990 does not mean to be martyred, it only means to cut off with an ax or beheaded.

Why would those people in Revelation 20:4, who have been cut off with an ax, be treated differently than those who die by other causes for the witness of Jesus?

And yes, people in the Old Testament did have the witness of Jesus. The Old Testament itself testified of the coming Messiah.

Click to expand...

They were beheaded, because that is the only way to avoid the mark of the beast. You cannot remove the mark, because God places that mark, as it signifies one's name is removed from the Lamb's book of life.

Messiah was cut off, by being the Atonement. Having one's head cut off is not really the same thing. Loosing one's head is not the sin atonement.

grafted branch said:

So in Revelation 20:5 we can substitute “This is the first resurrection” to “This is the physical resurrection”? Are those who were resurrected in Matthew 27 currently in the millennium?

Click to expand...

The Millennium is a future event. Those in Matthew 27 are currently in Paradise, with their permanent incorruptible physical bodies. The whole of Abraham's bosom was emptied at the Cross. They ascended with Christ on Sunday morning after He met Mary in the garden. He told Mary not to touch Him, because He had not yet ascended to His Father.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Well I won't argue that point because He did say to Mary,

John 20
17 Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, I ascend to My Father and Your Father, and to My God and your God.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. If you don’t wish to debate the point I won’t belabor it.

I believe the the catholic church is the following:

Ephesians 4
4 There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling,
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.

Click to expand...

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21)

grafted branch said:

Agreed
Timtofly said this…

Revelation 20:5 says this is the first resurrection. If we say the phrase “the first resurrection” is only being used to tell us that a physical resurrection occurred then “the first” = “physical”. This would then imply that there can be multiple “first” resurrection’s through out time.



Good question, there are numerous theories about who or what the beast is. As you have stated before the mark of the beast is only mentioned in two places (at least clearly).

I personally try to eliminate things and ideas that are impossible first then think about how probable the remaining is.

If we can know that the first resurrection has already occurred in circa AD 30 then we can go from there. If the first resurrection is an on going process (Amil) or future (Premil) then it becomes more difficult to pin down exactly what’s going on.

I would say those resurrected in Matthew 27 being people who lived at the time of the beast and had not received the mark goes in the “it’s possible” file and until I understand more I wouldn’t move it into the “more than likely” file.

Click to expand...

Amil do not claim any ongoing resurrection. They claim the second birth is a resurrection. The second birth is an ongoing phenomenon. Death is an ongoing phenomenon. Not tasting death is an ongoing phenomenon for those in Christ. If all of this is ongoing, why not the resurrection?

Amil claim only one resurrection of all time. Amil claim only Christ experienced the "first" resurrection. Even Revelation 20:4 is not about actual humans. It is only symbolic of Christ's "first resurrection" period, because it has the word "first" in it. Amil are not even going to say there is a second resurrection. There is only one resurrection period, no need to first and second a single resurrection. They claim the two times Jesus repeats Himself in John 5, is that the first time is spiritual and the second time it is physical.

Folks there are 2 births, 2 deaths, and 1 resurrection. The first birth is physical, the first death is physical, the first resurrection is physical. The second birth is spiritual into God's family. The second death is not dropping out of God's family because one looses their salvation. The second death happens to those who never had the second birth. One does not have to be spiritually born from above to enter the Lake of Fire. One enters the Lake of Fire because they were never spiritually born from above. So a second resurrection is literally nothing. No second resurrection can happen, unless it is getting out of the Lake of Fire. So saying there is a first, second, or third resurrection is not using the word the same as "firstfruits" or "first" in the Bible. There are no second fruits. No second borns, and no second resurrections as biblical terms.

Do you not accept at the Cross all came out of the part of the grave, sheol, called Abraham's bosom? The firstfruits of the Cross included the whole OT church. The disciples may have been the living chosen elect as firstfruits. But the whole church is in Christ, both OT and NT. David called that death, "sleep". It was still tasting death. They still had to wait for that Last Day bodily resurrection. The soul could not take a body, and enter Paradise, until the physical Atonement of the Cross, and Christ led that assembly in full body procession into Paradise and the temple of God, that heavenly city. So yes there was a first resurrection at the Cross, and that first resurrection incorporated several aspects the OT redeemed were looking forward to. It was literally the only resurrection of the church, as in bodies coming out of their graves. It was the primary and singular resurrection, that many claim will not happen until the Second Coming/GWT. Post mil and amil have them as the same event. Then they claim that final event not as the first resurrection, but the only resurrection. Amil claim the first resurrection was not about us, but only Christ. So amil do not see Revelation 20:4 as the first in time with a second one later. They change the word first to mean "Christ's". Of course they do not deny a bodily resurrection, they just refuse to see the difference between the first resurrection and the second birth. They symbolically mean the same thing to Amil.

Obviously they have to totally ignore those resurrected were just beheaded in the prior 42 months. That is not relative. They hold human opinion called recapitulation, and Revelation 20 automatically starts the narrative back to 30AD, even though no other recap in Revelation goes back to 30AD.

So no, "first" does not have to mean "physical". It just makes sense that John is separating the physical resurrection from the spiritual aspect of the second death. John is not even implying 2 resurrections. Just that no one could live again, until judged at the GWT. Those in this physical resurrection (Revelation 20:4) did stand before thrones and were judged. They do not need to be judged again, so need not fear another death nor another judgment. There are several reasons this resurrection is physical other than the word first. The context calls for a physical resurrection, and calling it a first resurrection fits the context. For those that see the first glance as just a first resurrection followed by a second, 1000 years later, the first view, especially in this book of Revelation, is not always the one we are supposed to see. People complain the book is too symbolic. How is adding literal words and details into the text helping the issue? By that, I mean adding a second resurrection. Then beyond adding that either literally or symbolically, they then claim that is the only resurrection of humans to ever occur in human history. Amil then fo away with the word first altogether, and claim it means Christ.

So they do not even use the meaning of the word first to indicate a non existing "second" which is not even an implied resurrection, but now, to them, is the only resurrection to ever exist, because first means Christ. A circle of inconsistency.

Timtofly said:

Amil do not claim any ongoing resurrection. They claim the second birth is a resurrection. The second birth is an ongoing phenomenon. Death is an ongoing phenomenon. Not tasting death is an ongoing phenomenon for those in Christ. If all of this is ongoing, why not the resurrection?

Click to expand...

I don't think you are fully grasping Amil because on ongoing resurrection is implied assuming that view. Assuming Amil, until one gets saved first they don't have part in the first resurrection yet. Not everyone gets saved at the same time. Those that never get saved never have a part in the first resurrection.

And since common sense alone says if there is a first, that this then implies there at least must be a 2nd, what seems unreasonable is that the first is not the same type of resurrection that the 2nd is, thus Amil. If this is true, and the fact only two resurrection events are recorded in Revelation 20, where is the bodily resurrection of saved saints recorded in Revelation 20, and why would it not be recorded in this chapter?

Timtofly said:

That was the year of the Flood. Then God shortened life to 120 years. Later to 70 years.

Click to expand...

Yet, some ppl still live to see almost 100 years. And some ppl don't even live to see 70 years.

grafted branch said:

When you try to place these things in the future you have a conflict with the first resurrection. The first bodily resurrection took place in Matthew 27.

Click to expand...

The only bodily resurrection took place in Matthew 27. After that it was a change, not a resurrection. That physical resurrection were for those in Abraham's bosom. The NT church does not go to Abraham's bosom. They go to heaven, where Paradise is, the temple of God. The OT redeemed tasted death. After the Cross, the NT redeemed do not taste death.

Those beheaded were not redeemed, until they acted by faith to have their head chopped off. They were not trusting in the Atonement. They were trusting in the fact having their head chopped off would save them. The resurrection in Revelation 20, was not Christ's resurrection, it was the resurrection of beheaded humans. The reason why it was called first was because it was a physical resurrection.

People who are beheaded today, are not doing it as an act off faith. They are literal martyrs. Those who place the church on the earth, after the Second Coming, and after the church is glorified are missing the point. The Second Coming does not bring the church to earth. The New Jerusalem, 1000 years later, brings the church to earth. Paradise literally comes down as the New Jerusalem.

Timtofly said:

Do you not accept at the Cross all came out of the part of the grave, sheol, called Abraham's bosom?

Click to expand...

I do not.

The firstfruits of the Cross included the whole OT church. The disciples may have been the living chosen elect as firstfruits. But the whole church is in Christ, both OT and NT. David called that death, "sleep". It was still tasting death. They still had to wait for that Last Day bodily resurrection. The soul could not take a body, and enter Paradise, until the physical Atonement of the Cross, and Christ led that assembly in full body procession into Paradise and the temple of God, that heavenly city.

Click to expand...

If you are appealing to this passage to support this view, it does not mean what you think it does.

Ephesians 4:8
Therefore He says: “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.”

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them (Col 1:15 uses this concept too). That is why bible expositors discussing Eph 4:8 often point to the broken dominion of the enemies Satan (1 Jn 3:8; Col 1:15), sin (Rom 6:14), and death (Rom 6:9 ) -- these were the "captivity" that Christ led away as his captives. So the "captivity" one leads captive are one's enemies who have been triumphed over. This notion is also the sense of Psalm 68:17-18 concerning the exodus, Sinai and the defeat of the pagans in the promised land.

Additionally, in the spectacle of the public parade the King receives gifts in homage (Ps 68:18,29,31) and he generously distributes the spoils of war to his own citizens (Ps 68:19). With Christ, he distributes the spoils of his war unto the Church in the form of the charismata given unto mankind, making them Chosen apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers with him (Eph 4:8,11)

Here's Matthew Henry with some fine scholarship on the subject:

"As great conquerors, when they rode in their triumphal chariots, used to be attended with the most illustrious of their captives led in chains, and were wont to scatter their largesses and bounty among the soldiers and other spectators of their triumphs, so Christ, when he ascended into heaven, as a triumphant conqueror, led captivity captive. It is a phrase used in the Old Testament to signify a conquest over enemies, especially over such as formerly had led others captive; see Jdg. 5:12. Captivity is here put for captives, and signifies all our spiritual enemies, who brought us into captivity before. He conquered those who had conquered us; such as sin, the devil, and death. Indeed, he triumphed over these on the cross; but the triumph was completed at his ascension, when he became Lord over all, and had the keys of death and hades put into his hands."

The "captivity" that Christ "lead away captive" were His defeated enemies, and not the saved souls in Hades.

Resurrection is the ONLY vehicle by which the saved dead are RAISED from Hades into the Heights of Heaven. That does not happen, indeed CAN NOT HAPPEN, until 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 and Revelation 20:12-15 are FULFILLED.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

It's become obvious that there are people who, in order to hold onto their own false doctrines, will deny that Christ is the Resurrection and the Life for every human being (the first and only resurrection of Adam and all the sons of Adam whose resurrection is with Christ's resurrection, before the second death takes all the sons of Adam whose names are not written in the Book of Life).

We need to get past this, because there is only one resurrection in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Are you saying there is only one means of resurrection? I agree that being in Christ is being redeemed. So is being in the Lamb's book of life. However until the Lamb's book of life is unsealed at the 7th Seal, no one can be removed. They are not in Christ, but even those currently in sheol are still named in the book of life, and still covered by the Atonement until the day their names are officially removed. Only Christ can call them by name and give them the Resurrection and the Life. That is why Christ as Prince will confirm the Atonement Covenant at the 7th Trumpet. It is to determine if any left on earth alive will still remain in the Lamb's book of life. Those 42 months of desolation will determine the choices of many. Take the mark and be removed from the Lamb's book of life. Reject the mark and have one's head chopped off instead. The act of faith is having one's head chopped off. That is also physical death, and they will need a physical resurrection. They are still then redeemed, still in the Lamb's book of life, but definitely not the church, and definitely not glorified. They only escape the second death in the Lake of Fire. These are those who enjoy earth with the promises of Daniel 9:24.

3 Resurrections said:

What claim would that be?

There are no less than THREE different Beasts in Revelation. All three different Beasts had existed before the Matthew 27 resurrection, but the last, third beast of Revelation 17 "IS NOT" in existence at the time John was writing Revelation. However, it was soon "about to ascend out of the abyss and go into destruction". Once it rose briefly to existence again, it would not last long at all before it was destroyed once again in John's days.

Click to expand...

John was writing at the time the event was happening, whenever that was. John was not writing "in between" visions, like Daniel did. John was there in person at these events. So if you claim it was 70AD, John was there in person in Jerusalem writing down the events as they happened. That is why the events were literal, even if the words John used was symbolical narrative.

This beast is just the relationship between human government and Satan. Human government that has been nonstop since at least the Babylonian captivity. Since John saw it as 10 basic heads, human government as the beast currently does not exist as there are several hundred governments currently. At the Second Coming that will change. Billions of humans will be dead and dying. So the last 10 major rulers, will be defined by Satan, himself.

DavidPT said:

The verse you bring up, above, is meaning before Revelation 20:6 is even true. Revelation 20:6 hasn't even been fulfilled yet. Why would I want to interpret John 5:24 like I do Revelation 20:6 when Revelation 20:6 means they are in immortal bodies at the time and that John 5:24 doesn't?

Click to expand...

I'm asking you to compare it to how I interpret Revelation 20:6 as an Amil, not to how you interpret it as a Premil. You come to conclusions about Amil without even trying to look at things from the Amil perspective.

You are the one denying that Revelation 20:6 is meaning when one is in an immortal body.

Click to expand...

Yeah? So?

If you thought Revelation 20:6 means they are in immortal bodies at the time you wouldn't even be arguing against me here.

Click to expand...

No kidding. But, I don't, so it's pointless to even bring that up.

You would fully agree that once one is in an immortal body, one can't lose that at a later time. That is the perspective I'm coming from.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the perspective you're coming from which is a Premil perspective. So what? You're concluding that Amil can't be compatible with NOSAS without even look at this from the Amil perspective. That makes no sense.

Your version of the first resurrection, the fact you are also of the NOSAS camp, one can lose part in it after already having part in it. That couldn't remotely happen if the resurrection meant in Revelation 20:6 is bodily, though.

Click to expand...

Of course! When did I say otherwise? But, that isn't how I interpret it, so with the way I personally interpret Revelation 20:6, NOSAS can work. You can't say otherwise. All you can say is it can't work with NOSAS if I interpreted Revelation 20:6 the way you do. Well, yeah. Obviously. But that means nothing since I don't interpret Revelation 20:6 the way you do.

And NOSAS doesn't contradict this either since it is already determined before one rises from the dead whether they remained saved or not when they died.

Click to expand...

NOSAS doesn't contradict MY interpretation of Revelation 20:6. Period. That's the bottom line. I don't care if it contradicts yours.

parousia70 said:

Revelation 20:4-6 is a narrative depiction of the saints' realization of the glorious promise Paul held out for them in his teachings--the saints are depicted as having attained the goal for which they all strove. As Paul taught, their resurrection and reign was "in Christ," and their sufferings and martyrdoms were honored by God with the reward of partaking in Christ's own resurrection, enthronement, and reign. They realized the promise of Paul's teaching that the saints were truly to take part in the first resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Truly, on these the second death has no power (Rev 20:6).

Click to expand...

Those beheaded were not living a life striving to obey Christ. They chopped their heads off to obey God, and avoid the mark. Where does Paul teach Christians need to go out and chop their heads off to avoid the mark of the beast? Why are you claiming Revelation 20:4-6 is the inspiration Paul used in his own writings? Did one of those 7 churches send Paul a copy of the letter?

DavidPT said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Why can't eternal rewards be given out at Christ's return? It makes no sense whatsoever for you to come to that conclusion.

Unfortunately, Amils such as SJ think I'm not being objective about any of these things when it seems to me Amils such as SJ are the ones not being objective about some of these things instead.

Click to expand...

You can't think you're being objective when you don't look at things from the Amil perspective and try to force things to work partially through the Amil perspective and partially through the Premil perspective. You never try to look at things fully through the Amil perspective, so that's why I say that you're not objective. You allow Premil bias to affect all of your interpretations.

I can admit there are problems with Premil. But try getting Amils, such as SJ, to equally admit there are also problems with Amil. He, and Amils like himself, just seem unwilling to at least admit there are also problems with Amil, where Premils for ages now have pointed out numerous times again and again. Maybe it's a pride thing, I don't know?

Click to expand...

No, it is not a pride thing at all. That couldn't be further from the truth. You clearly don't like it when other people are more confident about what they believe than you are about what you believe. I can't help that. Just because you see problems with your view doesn't mean you should expect others to view their own views the same way.

I certainly wouldn't be on a forum like this defending and promoting Amil if I thought it had as many problems as you think Premil does. Why would I waste my time supporting a doctrine that I feel unsure about and that has a number of problems? That makes no sense. I wouldn't even be an Amil if I thought it had as many problems as you think Premil does. I'd be an agnosmillennialist like FotG.

To me, scripture clearly teaches that Christ has been reigning since His resurrection, that there is only one day/event when all the dead will be resurrected and that there is one judgment day. And it clearly indicates that all believers will be caught up to the Lord when He returns while all unbelievers are killed on the day He returns. So, that's why I'm Amil.

Timtofly said:

Those beheaded were not living a life striving to obey Christ. They chopped their heads off to obey God, and avoid the mark. Where does Paul teach Christians need to go out and chop their heads off to avoid the mark of the beast? Why are you claiming Revelation 20:4-6 is the inspiration Paul used in his own writings? Did one of those 7 churches send Paul a copy of the letter?

Click to expand...

LOL. You think Revelation 20:4 is referring to people who chop their own heads off to avoid the mark of the beast? That's a new one.

parousia70 said:

I do.

Jesus Christ was, plainly, the first resurrection. This fact forms the basis of St. John's depiction of the tribulation martyr saints becoming full partakers of the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20--everything Christ received by his death and resurrection is granted to them. Revelation 20:4-6, therefore, depicts the reality of Pauline theology concerning the identity Christ's followers had "in Him." Paul had taught that the saints were to become partakers of Christ's own reign and victory over death. Paul, with his detailed theology of our baptism into the very death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom 6:3-14), taught that the saints had co-resurrection and co-enthronement in the realized resurrection and enthronement of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 20:4-6 is a narrative depiction of the saints' realization of the glorious promise Paul held out for them in his teachings--the saints are depicted as having attained the goal for which they all strove. As Paul taught, their resurrection and reign was "in Christ," and their sufferings and martyrdoms were honored by God with the reward of partaking in Christ's own resurrection, enthronement, and reign. They realized the promise of Paul's teaching that the saints were truly to take part in the first resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Truly, on these the second death has no power (Rev 20:6).

Click to expand...

Though I like your thinking here, why does all of those things have to apply to a spiritual resurrection but can't apply to a bodily resurrection? One can't take part in the resurrection of Christ if they do that bodily? They can only do that if meaning spiritually?

What about someone such as the thief on the cross? How do you apply all of those same things to him when he wasn't even saved until he was on his deathbed? And that he was saved before Christ resurrected, not after Christ resurrected. And since deathbed salvation is something that still happens at times, which means they are saved after Christ resurrected, the opposite of what happened in the thief's case, how do you then apply any of these same things to them?

Timtofly said:

You know Amil do not even accept most of what Revelation 20 is about, just that it is a place holder of words, but really no information at all.

Click to expand...

That is complete nonsense. The only thing you're able to do is make false accusations. You can't back up your beliefs with scripture, which is why you rarely quote scripture. You add nothing of value to any of these discussions.

DavidPT said:

In regards to translations in general, I am convinced that the KJV is the most clever translation there is. Other translations hide some of these facts. For example, when doing exact phrase searches in the KJV. Such as---and judgment was given

That English rendered phrase only shows up two times in the KJV, one time in the OT, the next time in the NT. In my mind, someone is trying to tell us something here.

Daniel 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

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.

Daniel 7:22 is the angel's interpretation of earlier verses in Daniel 7. The only other place in Daniel 7 in earlier verses that judgment is taking place at the time is Daniel 7:9-12. And interestingly enough verses 9-12 involve thrones as does Revelation 20:4. Since Scripture interprets Scripture we know Daniel 7:9-12 can't be involving the great white throne judgment because Revelation 20:4 is not involving the great white throne judgment and that Revelation 20 places the great white throne judgment after the thousand years, not during it. Yet, Amils and maybe even some Premils as well, ignore any of this and still insist Daniel 7:9-12 is involving the great white throne judgment.

Click to expand...

Your Premil bias is evident once again. You say "Daniel 7:9-12 can't be involving the great white throne judgment". Really? So, there will be two future judgments when the books will be opened and people will be judged? Where does scripture teach that there will be two future judgment days instead of one?

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. 10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. 11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. 12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 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. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

You mentioned interpreting scripture with scripture. Why would we think that two scriptures mentioning a judgment at which the books are opened are speaking of two different judgments?