Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

[Trusting in Him]

would you please provide scripture to support your above statement, thanks

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.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(Daniel 9:26 to 27)

It's one week of years (Daniels seventieth week), the last three and a half years are the great tribulation, or the times of Jacob's trouble. It's the period of the rule of the anti-christ. I hope that this answers your question.

 

[Zao is life]

Scripture clearly teaches that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, 1 Cor 15:20;22, Rev 1:5). And to have part in His resurrection (the first resurrection) does not require someone to be bodily resurrected first.

This is true. The first resurrection is already called the first resurrection in Acts:

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

New Testament concepts regarding death and resurrection:

1. Adam's death, which came to all mankind.
2. Christ's Resurrection. He IS the Resurrection and the life. Those who are raised from the dead, are raised with (synegeírō) Christ.
3. The second death.

(Please scroll down to beneath the image for the rest of my post)​

Like yourself and @DavidPT I do not believe that all who profess faith in Christ are OSAS, and there are a number of warnings to us about this that are written in scripture, of which the following is one, and it relates to this subject:

Revelation 3
5 The one who overcomes, that one will be clothed in white clothing. And I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Revelation 20
15 And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of Fire.

Revelation 13
8 And all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

From what I can see, DavidPT's argument about OSAS is that Revelation 20:4-6 makes it obvious that these souls spoken of in these verses are now OSAS, whereas OSAS does not necessarily apply to all human beings who lived before this and who professed faith in Christ.

From what I can see (Spiritual Jew's) point about the OSAS/NOSAS thing is that:

(i) All who have already died in Christ and gone to be with Christ are now OSAS (even before their own bodily resurrection from the dead); and that

(ii) Along with all humans who are saved (both the living and the deceased), the same have had part in the first resurrection from the moment they are saved and placed in Christ, because He IS the first resurrection.

Therefore for Amils, a belief in NOSAS does not contradict Amil's understanding of who the souls are that are seen by John in Revelation 20.

I never saw your point before when I was myself looking through Premil spectacles, but I now see your point, and I agree.

However for me, even still, because the words "worshiped the beast"; "mark of the beast on their foreheads or in their hands" are only found in Revelation 13:12-18 and Revelation 20:4, my human intellect does not allow me the liberty to place the thousand-year reign of those spoken of in Revelation 20:4-6 in a time in history before the beast & false prophet have even risen from out of the sea and from out of the earth.

That's my dilemma which, until someone helps me with a solution that does not involve Nero or something that is already history, is going to keep me in the agnosmillennialist camp.

 

[Zao is life]

Why would it matter if Hymenaeus believed that the resurrection had already occured?
Why would this destroy the faith of some?

Because if the resurrection has already occurred then either we are "left behind" and condemned, OR the whole thing is a hoax. (I'm talking from their perspective). This would most certainly be true unless we become determined, for the sake of our own doctrines, to find another reason which has nothing to do with the only possible reason.

 

[Trusting in Him]

My expectation is that as the anti-christ appears on the scene, the way that some of the end time prophecies play out, may be a little different to what some current theories may be suggesting. Also some pretty bad things may be happening in the run up to the reign of the anti-christ.

There also are some things which are prophecied, but we are not told about the actual timing of these things coming to pass. A lot of Mans ideas, could easily be not how things happen. How God's prophecies will come to pass is according to God's will, not man's will and time will tell.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

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.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(Daniel 9:26 to 27)

It's one week of years (Daniels seventieth week), the last three and a half years are the great tribulation, or the times of Jacob's trouble. It's the period of the rule of the anti-christ. I hope that this answers your question.

That is a private interpertation and not supported in the WORD of GOD
Blasphemy is speaking evil of God or denying Him some good which we should attribute to Him.

Please provide scripture for your gap theory

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

In 27 AD, Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit on the occasion of His baptism which marked the beginning of His ministry (Luke 3:21-23). This baptism marked the event in Daniel’s prophecy “unto the Messiah the Prince.” When Christ proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled” (Mark 1:15), He was referring to this part of the prophecy.iii

The end of the prophecy is 34 AD, 7 day-years after the baptism:
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease (Daniel 9:27).

Christ would confirm the covenant made with Israel for one prophetic week (7 years), but oblation (offerings) would cease in the middle of the week (3 ½ years after 27 AD). This mid-point brings us to 31 AD—the year Christ was crucified. It was at His death that he put an end to the system of offerings practiced by Israel for so many years.

The 70-Week Prophecy | Daniel 70 Weeks Prophecy

 

[Zao is life]

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.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(Daniel 9:26 to 27)

It's one week of years (Daniels seventieth week), the last three and a half years are the great tribulation, or the times of Jacob's trouble. It's the period of the rule of the anti-christ. I hope that this answers your question.

Daniel's seventy weeks prophecy = 70 x 7. Christ the Messiah was crucified (cut off) after the first 69 weeks - in the middle of the 70th week. The covenant that is spoken of in Daniel 9:26-27 is not "a covenant an antichrist is "going to make with Israel". It was the New Covenant Christ was confirming in His own blood.

So how can there be an entire seven years remaining after that? There are only three and a half years remaining after the middle of the week.

The sanctuary of God was Christ Himself, and He bore all the abominable sin of the entire human race (of all time) in His own body, even becoming sin for us, and God could not look on it:

Matthew 27
46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?

The city and the building (Greek hieron), that was no longer the sanctuary where God dwelt, were destroyed only around 40 years later.

Did you know that in the New Testament the last time the word naos (holy sanctuary of God which is consecrated to God, and where God dwells) is used in reference to the holy place and holy of holies of the temple in Jerusalem only until the moment Christ died (the verses telling about the tearing of the veil)?

Since then the word naos is only used in reference to your body as the temple of God, the church, and the temple in heaven.

An abomination of desolation would not be an abomination of desolation unless it is placed in the true holy sanctuary of God (which in the world, is the church).

A hieron is just a building - a church building could be called a hieron. If the saints who congregate in it get a new church building, the hieron (building) is still standing, and the pulpit and the platform on which the pulpit stands will still be there, but the naos has left the premises.

The temple in Jerusalem is only referred to as the hieron after Christ died.

Christ's body is also called the naos in the gospels. After Christ died, the naos was no longer present in the hieron (buildings and complex of the temple in Jerusalem). From then on it was in the church.

The man of sin will seat himself up in the naos (check the Greek word used).

So there are only three and a half years left after the middle of the "week".

 

[Zao is life]

That is a private interpertation and not supported in the WORD of GOD
Blasphemy is speaking evil of God or denying Him some good which we should attribute to Him.

Please provide scripture for your gap theory

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

In 27 AD, Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit on the occasion of His baptism which marked the beginning of His ministry (Luke 3:21-23). This baptism marked the event in Daniel’s prophecy “unto the Messiah the Prince.” When Christ proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled” (Mark 1:15), He was referring to this part of the prophecy.iii

The end of the prophecy is 34 AD, 7 day-years after the baptism:
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease (Daniel 9:27).

Christ would confirm the covenant made with Israel for one prophetic week (7 years), but oblation (offerings) would cease in the middle of the week (3 ½ years after 27 AD). This mid-point brings us to 31 AD—the year Christ was crucified. It was at His death that he put an end to the system of offerings practiced by Israel for so many years.

The 70-Week Prophecy | Daniel 70 Weeks Prophecy

I agree. And this is the covenant He was confirming:

Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,
32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;
33 but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

Matthew 26
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Satan loves the fact that false teachers who crept into the church have people believing the false doctrine that it's an Antichrist "confirming a covenant with Israel".

 

[Original Happy Camper]

I agree. And this is the covenant He was confirming:

Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,
32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;
33 but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

Matthew 26
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Satan loves the fact that false teachers who crept into the church have people believing the false doctrine that it's an Antichrist "confirming a covenant with Israel".

God's Covenant | Plan of Salvation | Jesus Christ
God's Covenant | Old Covenant | New Covenant | God's Law
A covenant is a type of agreement that is made between two parties. It is a promise.

Without Jesus, who came and fulfilled the promise, none of the ceremonies and sacrifices would have done any good or meant anything. They simply were a foreshadowing of the true remedy for sin—Jesus Christ.
Some people claim that the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New Testament and that Israel was under law and we are under grace. But if we study the sanctuary, which we did only briefly in the last article, we can see that the Gospel was preached to the Jews through type.

Once Jesus fulfilled this promise the representations were no longer needed. They were done away with at the cross:

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come (Colossians 2:14-17).

 

[parousia70]

Because if the resurrection has already occurred then either we are "left behind" and condemned, OR the whole thing is a hoax. (I'm talking from their perspective).

Why would the resurrection of the dead have any bearing on whether the living are left behind or not.
It’s called the resurrection of the dead. It’s only for one class of people, namely, the dead. You have to be dead before you can achieve resurrection from the dead.

This would most certainly be true unless we become determined, for the sake of our own doctrines, to find another reason which has nothing to do with the only possible reason.

My question was, was Paul’s argument against their view one of timing or one of nature?

And, what damning, faith destroying error was Paul continually addressing in His epistles..?

 

[Zao is life]

God's Covenant | Plan of Salvation | Jesus Christ
God's Covenant | Old Covenant | New Covenant | God's Law
A covenant is a type of agreement that is made between two parties. It is a promise.

Without Jesus, who came and fulfilled the promise, none of the ceremonies and sacrifices would have done any good or meant anything. They simply were a foreshadowing of the true remedy for sin—Jesus Christ.
Some people claim that the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New Testament and that Israel was under law and we are under grace. But if we study the sanctuary, which we did only briefly in the last article, we can see that the Gospel was preached to the Jews through type.

Once Jesus fulfilled this promise the representations were no longer needed. They were done away with at the cross:

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come (Colossians 2:14-17).

@Original Happy Camper Added:
I think we are in agreement here. Let me know if I'm wrong about us being in agreement:

What is God's Law?

Matthew 22
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?
37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Romans 13
8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 For: "Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not lust;" and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Galatians 5
14 For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Romans 2
27 And the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills [τελέω teléō] the Law, shall it not judge you, who through letter and circumcision become transgressors of the Law?

John 19
30 Then when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! [τελέω teléō] And He bowed His head and gave up the spirit.

Matthew 5
17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.

John 15
13 No one has greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
23 meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

In the New Covenant, obedience to the laws, commandments and statutes contained in the Old Covenant is replaced by the fruit of the Spirit being produced by Christ in those who walk in the Spirit, abiding in the vine, who is Christ.

This fulfills the Law and the Ten Commandments. Obedience to the letter of the Law is replaced by obedience to Christ, through faith in Christ. This is not antinomianism or a licence to sin, because the fruit of the Spirit fulfills the Law:

John 15
4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5 I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

The fruit of the Spirit of Christ is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law, because it fulfills the Law.

The above is the Law which Christ writes on the hearts of those who believe in Him and abide in His love:

Jeremiah 31
33 but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

The Law given to the people through Moses, including the priests, the sacrifices & offerings, the sabbaths, the feast days and the new moon observances, was just a shadow of this, and the shadow is no more.

The 10 Commandments hangs on the law to love God and neighbor. The Law of Moses is summed up in the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were written on tablets of stone.

But the fruit of the Spirit of Christ is the law written on the heart.

 

[Zao is life]

My question was, was Paul’s argument against their view one of timing or one of nature?

And, what damning, faith destroying error was Paul continually addressing in His epistles..?

The context is the timing of the resurrection from the dead.
The context has nothing to do with anything else Paul was continually addressing in his epistles. The suggestion that it did, is a deliberate red herring needed by a false doctrine.

 

[parousia70]

My answer was (now repeated) here:

The context is the timing of the resurrection from the dead.
The context has nothing to do with anything else Paul was continually addressing in his epistles. The suggestion that it did, is a deliberate red herring needed by a false doctrine.

I agree. Paul’s disagreement was was about the timing (for the reasons I stated) NOT about the nature. Paul had no disagreement with them about the nature, only the timing.

 

[Zao is life]

Why would the resurrection of the dead have any bearing on whether the living are left behind or not.

Because Paul taught that at the time of the return of Christ the dead would rise first.

It's clear you don't believe the teaching of Paul in that regard. You have given it another interpretation which was quite clearly not meant by Paul.

This is why you argue that a plain, unambiguous and easy to understand statement in scripture does not mean what it says.

.. which is always a sure sign of false doctrine twisting scripture to suit the doctrine.

The context is the timing of the resurrection from the dead.
The context has nothing to do with anything else Paul was continually addressing in his epistles. The suggestion that it did, is a deliberate red herring needed by a false doctrine.

 

[Zao is life]

Why would it matter if Hymenaeus believed that the resurrection had already occured?
Why would this destroy the faith of some?
What precisely is the error of Hymenaeus that Paul is rebuking?

1)Is it timing that Paul has problems with? If yes, why?

2)Is it the nature of the event Paul has problems with? If yes, how do you know this from the passage?

Many, maybe even you, have chosen #2, the Nature. (They were denying a "Bodily" resurrection)

However, The passage explicitly says it's not about the nature, but it's about timing. (if it had been about the nature of the event, as you pointed out, their error would have been obvious, and Paul could have simply pointed to unopened graves to debunk Hymenaeus. He does not do this--for he wasn't debating the nature of their claim but rather the timing.)

What damning, faith-destroying error did Paul continuously have to address in his epistles? The answer links right up to the error of Hymenaeus:

Galatians 3:1-2,10
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?...as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse

Galatians 2:16,21
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified....I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly

Galatians 5:2-4
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

I could post a dozen other Pauline verses that repeat what was damming everyone in that generation, but those suffice. The belief that justification/salvation came from the Law Covenant of Moses was the damning, faith-destroying error Paul continuously had to address in his epistles.

It was for this same error that Hymenaeus was also being condemned by Paul, for Hymenaeus claimed that the release of the OT dead from Hades occurred within the Mosaic Covenant era. Hymenaeus was thus boldly claiming that the OT dead were saved through the Law Covenant of Moses. Hymenaeus was teaching salvation by the works of the Mosaic Law. He thus was "bewitched," "under a curse," had "fallen from grace," and was, in essence, saying "Christ died needlessly."

The context has nothing to do with anything else Paul was continually addressing in his epistles. The suggestion that it did, is a deliberate red herring.

 

[DavidPT]

From what I can see, DavidPT's argument about OSAS is that Revelation 20:4-6 makes it obvious that these souls spoken of in these verses are now OSAS, whereas OSAS does not necessarily apply to all human beings who lived before this and who professed faith in Christ.

From what I can see (Spiritual Jew's) point about the OSAS/NOSAS thing is that:

(i) All who have already died in Christ and gone to be with Christ are now OSAS (even before their own bodily resurrection from the dead); and that

(ii) Along with all humans who are saved (both the living and the deceased), the same have had part in the first resurrection from the moment they are saved and placed in Christ, because He IS the first resurrection.

Therefore for Amils, a belief in NOSAS does not contradict Amil's understanding of who the souls are that are seen by John in Revelation 20.

I never saw your point before when I was myself looking through Premil spectacles, but I now see your point, and I agree.

Obviously, if one dies in a saved state, they never lose or are ever in jeopardy of losing their salvation at that point. My argument involving NOSAS and Amil has never been about the souls John sees in Revelation 20:4. But they are not the only ones who have part in the first resurrection if assuming Amil and their version of the first resurrection. Would not anyone when they are saved then have part in the first resurrection? What happens if they fall away before they die, thus NOSAS? That's what I'm arguing against since this would make everything recorded in Revelation 20:6 true about them one minute, then the next minute none of it is any longer true about them.

Per Amil, those that have part in the first resurrection, when they die they continue reigning a thousand years in heaven with Christ, which means they initially start reigning with Him once they are saved, thus have part in the first resurrection at that point. But throw NOSAS into the mix, how do they continue reigning with Christ a thousand years after they die if they fell away before they die? Does not Revelation 20:6 indicate that everyone that has part in the first resurrection, they shall reign with Christ a thousand years? Shouldn't that at least mean that they, meaning every single person who has part in the first resurrection, reign in that manner until the thousand years expire? Amil and NOSAS contradicts that, though.

Like I have pointed out, the only possible way Amil can be Biblical, OSAS is Biblical and NOSAS is not.

Unless I'm missing something, if assuming Premil instead, none of these above problems plague that view once one has part in the first resurrection.

As to the first resurrection, I simply see it as a type of resurrection that only involves those that have done good, being raised to eternal life in this resurrection. This resurrection always precedes the other type of resurrection that only involves those that have done evil, being raised to eternal damnation in that resurrection.

Christ's resurrection involved being raised to eternal life. No one's resurrection involving being raised to eternal damnation preceded His. And the same will be true of the 2Ws and the dead in Christ who rise first, as a few more examples. Their resurrection will precede the resurrection of damnantion, making it the first resurrection in comparison to the 2nd resurrection. IOW, there can be multiple resurrections at different times involving being raised unto eternal life, and it will always be the first resurrection every single time since John only mentions 2 resurrections total, and that the first precedes the 2nd.

 

[parousia70]

The context has nothing to do with anything else Paul was continually addressing in his epistles. The suggestion that it did, is a deliberate red herring.

Rather, It was for this same faith destroying error Paul cintinually addresses that Hymenaeus was also being condemned by Paul, for Hymenaeus claimed that the release of the OT dead from Hades occurred within the Mosaic Covenant era, instead of at the destruction of the Law Covenant at AD 70. Hymenaeus was thus boldly claiming that the OT dead were saved through the Law Covenant of Moses, in direct contradiction to Paul's and Christ's teaching about the significance of the destruction of the Temple and OT priesthood and sacrifices. Hymenaeus was teaching salvation by the works of the Mosaic Law. He thus was "bewitched," "under a curse," had "fallen from grace," and was in essence saying "Christ died needlessly."

 

[DavidPT]

.."those who were beheaded.. witness to Jesus .. did not receive his (the beast's) mark..."

1. Where are all the other saints who were not around anymore at the same time the above things were taking place, but who Paul said would be resurrected when Christ returns?

2. What does "reigning with Christ" mean when used in Revelation 20? Bearing in mind that those who overcome are said to reign forever and ever in Revelation 22:5, can we legitimately assume that the word "reign" in Revelation 20 means "rule over the nations"? (Because it would have to be an assumption).

3. Then there's also the fact that all this can only be taking place in the NHNE (which I think we both agree on). But because of this:

(a) It would make no sense if only some were reigning .. over whom? and others not.
(b) Where are the other New Testament statements explicitly stating (or at least strongly implying) that there are going to be mortals going into the NHNE? Because in the total absence of any, we cannot assume that the word reign in Revelation 20 means reigning over others.

( c) The reason why I say this, is because delivering us from the dominion of sin and our overcoming sin is one of the reasons Christ shed His blood for us, and the Lord's closing statement to each one of the seven churches contains the words, "to him who overcomes.."

So can we assume that the word "reigning" in Revelation 20 means they will be calling the shots over other humans?

It can only be the resurrection of all the saints if it takes place at the time of the return of Christ (i.e IF it takes place at the time of the return of Christ).

Remember that you're talking to someone who was a Premillennialist, who has his mind open to the idea of a literal thousand years but in the NHNE, so therefore also bearing in mind that the realization that there are problems with that idea also, keeps me well within the agnosmillennialist camp I established all for myself recently.

As to these 3 questions you raise, I somewhat address question 1 per my post prior to this one.

As to question 2 and 3, since they seem similar to me, I'm still in the process of typing something up in Notepad that might address some of that. I got started on that yesterday but haven't finished it yet.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This is true. The first resurrection is already called the first resurrection in Acts:

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

New Testament concepts regarding death and resurrection:

1. Adam's death, which came to all mankind.
2. Christ's Resurrection. He IS the Resurrection and the life. Those who are raised from the dead, are raised with (synegeírō) Christ.
3. The second death.

(Please scroll down to beneath the image for the rest of my post)​

View attachment 311039

Like yourself and @DavidPT I do not believe that all who profess faith in Christ are OSAS, and there are a number of warnings to us about this that are written in scripture, of which the following is one, and it relates to this subject:

Revelation 3
5 The one who overcomes, that one will be clothed in white clothing. And I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Revelation 20
15 And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of Fire.

Revelation 13
8 And all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

From what I can see, DavidPT's argument about OSAS is that Revelation 20:4-6 makes it obvious that these souls spoken of in these verses are now OSAS, whereas OSAS does not necessarily apply to all human beings who lived before this and who professed faith in Christ.

From what I can see (Spiritual Jew's) point about the OSAS/NOSAS thing is that:

(i) All who have already died in Christ and gone to be with Christ are now OSAS (even before their own bodily resurrection from the dead); and that

(ii) Along with all humans who are saved (both the living and the deceased), the same have had part in the first resurrection from the moment they are saved and placed in Christ, because He IS the first resurrection.

Therefore for Amils, a belief in NOSAS does not contradict Amil's understanding of who the souls are that are seen by John in Revelation 20.

I never saw your point before when I was myself looking through Premil spectacles, but I now see your point, and I agree.

Thanks. If you can see the point I was making about that then there's no reason why DavidPT can't. But, that requires not looking at it only through Premil glasses, so I'm not sure if he'll ever get the point.

However for me, even still, because the words "worshiped the beast"; "mark of the beast on their foreheads or in their hands" are only found in Revelation 13:12-18 and Revelation 20:4, my human intellect does not allow me the liberty to place the thousand-year reign of those spoken of in Revelation 20:4-6 in a time in history before the beast & false prophet have even risen from out of the sea and from out of the earth.

That's my dilemma which, until someone helps me with a solution that does not involve Nero or something that is already history, is going to keep me in the agnosmillennialist camp.

So, you obviously believe that the beast and false prophet have not yet risen out of the sea and the earth, respectively. Is it your assumption that the beast rising out of the sea is the same as the beat rising out of the bottomless pit/abyss? I don't see it that way. I think many assume that the beast and false prophet are either past entities (preterist) or future entities, but I don't see that as being the case. I don't see the 42 months/1260 days as being a literal period of time. I see the 42 months/1260 days of the two witnesses as being the same 42 months referenced in Revelation 13:5. I see the two witnesses as figuratively representing the church, so I can't see the 42 months/1260 days as being literal since the church has been witnessing and preaching the gospel for much longer than that, obviously.

Revelation 13:8 indicates that "all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life" worship the beast, so I take that very literally to mean that all whose names are not written in the book of life from all-time have worshipped the beast. I see the beast as being the world system led by Satan at any given time in history. In ancient times it was led by different world empires like the Babylonian, Greek, Medo-Persian and Roman empires. Since the fall of the Roman empire it has not really been led by a world empire, but still represents this evil world led by its god, Satan, in whatever form it takes at any given time in history. So, I have more of an idealist and partly historicist view of the book of Revelation rather than preterist or futurist.

I don't know if what I'm saying is making sense to you, since it seems that most people assume that the preterist and futurist views are the only valid options for understanding the book of Revelation, but I'm just giving you another way of looking at all of this for you to consider.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Obviously, if one dies in a saved state, they never lose or are ever in jeopardy of losing their salvation at that point. My argument involving NOSAS and Amil has never been about the souls John sees in Revelation 20:4. But they are not the only ones who have part in the first resurrection if assuming Amil and their version of the first resurrection. Would not anyone when they are saved then have part in the first resurrection? What happens if they fall away before they die, thus NOSAS? That's what I'm arguing against since this would make everything recorded in Revelation 20:6 true about them one minute, then the next minute none of it is any longer true about them.

Per Amil, those that have part in the first resurrection, when they die they continue reigning a thousand years in heaven with Christ, which means they initially start reigning with Him once they are saved, thus have part in the first resurrection at that point. But throw NOSAS into the mix, how do they continue reigning with Christ a thousand years after they die if they fell away before they die? Does not Revelation 20:6 indicate that everyone that has part in the first resurrection, they shall reign with Christ a thousand years?

That's what you think, but you're drawing conclusions from limited information. Look at the following verse:

John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.".

Should we interpret this verse in a similar way that you interpret Revelation 20:6? If we did then we would have to conclude that EVERYONE who ever believes in Christ has eternal life and can't lose it because it says they have eternal life and says nothing about the possibility of them ever losing it. Do you see my point? We should never interpret verses in isolation from the rest of scripture or we end up drawing false conclusions. So, if we can't interpret John 5:24 in a similar way to how you interpret Revelation 20:6 (which we can't if NOSAS is true) then you need to reconsider how you interpret Revelation 20:6.

Like I have pointed out, the only possible way Amil can be Biblical, OSAS is Biblical and NOSAS is not.

That is false.

Unless I'm missing something, if assuming Premil instead, none of these above problems plague that view once one has part in the first resurrection.

Of course you're missing something and I have pointed that out to you several times. But, you will never see what you're missing unless you look at this objectively instead of only through Premil glasses.

 

[DavidPT]

You always bring this up, but have you noticed that no one agrees with you on this? Even those who believe in OSAS don't agree with your argument that someone can't be both Amil and believe in NOSAS. That should tell you something.

In my view the requirement for having part in the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection) and for being saved are the same because I believe that someone spiritually has part in Christ's resurrection upon being spiritually saved. With that in mind, how does believing that someone can lose their part in the first resurrection any different than believing that someone can lose their salvation? In my view it's not any different, so that means in my view it's viable to believe in both Amil and NOSAS no matter what you say.

There is no way to reconcile Amil if also assuming NOSAS with that of Revelation 20:6. It is impossible.

The same can't be said of Premil, that there is no way to reconcile Premil if also assuming NOSAS, with that of Revelation 20:6.

The first resurrection is simply the resurrection unto eternal life. How can anyone possibly argue with that? Is it instead the resurrection unto damnation? Of course not. When looking at it this way it is simply meaning taking part in the same resurrection Christ took part in, a resurrection unto eternal life. That means every single person that has ever lived, that if they are raised unto eternal life when they rise, they have part in the first resurrection.

In Revelation 20:4 that verse does not record one single still physically alive person. It records physically dead ppl who live again by having part in the first resurrection. Maybe the reason is, since God is all knowing, thus He knew in advance that there would be this ongoing debate between Premil and Amil, He then allowed John to only see saints that have been martyred then coming back to life so that it would be clear what type of resurrection is meant here. Except it still isn't clear to Amils though it should be, that a bodily resurrection is what is being meant here.

You don't use examples of physically dead ppl coming back to life if a spiritual resurrection is meant rather than a bodily one. Even the lost when they die, unless one believes in soul sleep, live on somewhere in a disembodied state while awaiting a bodily resurrection. No one would call that the first resurrection nor think that means they are reigning with Christ a thousand years after they die, yet, they are just as much alive as anyone in heaven would be.