Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

[Albion]

(i) I don't know whether or not Revelation 20's thousand years is a literal thousand years that follows the return of Christ.​

(ii) I don't know whether or not Revelation 20's thousand years is a literal thousand years that precedes the return of Christ.

(iii) I don't know whether or not Revelation 20's thousand years is symbolic for the entire Age that precedes the return of Christ.

How would deciding between these alternatives alter the way you live your life as a disciple of Christ?

 

[Zao is life]

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.

Yes, I understand your viewpoint regarding OSAS/NOSAS. I also understand Spiritual Jew's viewpoint. I don't know how but both points of view seem correct (but we're making it very complicated and if you or I believe that NOSAS torpedos Amil, well we obviously need to think again if we can convince Amils regarding that).

Aside from the OSAS/NOSAS question:

I only see one resurrection of mankind that took place 2,000 years ago. In the beginning of mankind God breathed His Spirit into Adam after Adam was created, and Adam became a living soul. Then he sinned, and he died spiritually, leading to his physical death.

All humanity is born of the flesh into the first Adam, and Adam's death came to all humanity.

Christ is the second man (1 Corinthians 15:47), and the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). He became flesh, and as a man, took Adam's (all mankind's) sin upon Himself, died for our sins, and rose again from the dead. He IS the (only) resurrection (there will be a second death, but no second resurrection).

Those who belong to Christ are spiritually regenerated by the Spirit of God, the Spirit who had first breathed life into Adam, and then those who are spiritually regenerated in this way are born into Christ, who is the second man and the last Adam, and in Him they are raised with Him.

The time in history when this takes place is not of essence, because the resurrection of the second man and the last Adam has already taken place. THE resurrection of Adam has already taken place.

I know everyone assumes a resurrection before the GWT - but this is not what the text says. The text says only that death and hades will deliver up the dead in them, and those whose names are not in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire, along with death and hades.

1. Adam's death.
2. Christ's (the last) Adam's resurrection.
3. The second death of those who are not found in Christ.
@DavidPT Even though a second death implies a resurrection just before it, the text does not say it, and 1 Corinthians 15:20-26 does not speak of another group to be resurrected after those who are Christ's at His coming, though it speaks of death as the last enemy to be defeated.

There is no second resurrection from the second death. There is no second resurrection at all. There is only the first resurrection.

The point in time at which those who are raised with Christ will experience the resurrection of their own bodies is not of essence, since the first (and only) resurrection of Adam has already taken place. The resurrection takes place in Him and with His resurrection.

In God's creation of man there are only two Adams: The first Adam and the last Adam. Everyone except the second man and the last Adam is born of the flesh into the first Adam, and is genetically the son of the first Adam. But the last Adam is begotten of God. Those who are born of the Spirit into the last Adam are raised with Him. We partake in his resurrection, just as we all who are born of the flesh into the world would partake in (the first) Adam's death, so we partake in the last's Adam's death, and in His resurrection.

 

[DavidPT]

That is false.

Obviously, both OSAS and NOSAS can't be true since NOSAS contradicts OSAS. That means unless OSAS is Biblical and that NOSAS isn't, Amil can't be Biblical unless OSAS is Biblical. Those of the OSAS camp are obviously going to claim that OSAS is indeed Biblical. Except that's not how truth works. Simply claiming something to be true does not make something true if it is not true. Amil if assuming OSAS does not contradict anything involving the first resurrection since OSAS does not have a single person in Revelation 20:6 having part in the first resurrection one minute, then the next minute losing part in it. Only Amil if assuming NOSAS has this contradiction taking place.

But even so, that Amil if assuming OSAS does not contradict anything recorded in Revelation 20:6, it would still be a moot point since OSAS is not Biblical to begin with.

 

[Zao is life]

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.

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.

Whether or not I agree with it, it does make sense. The same goes for whether or not I agree with the Preterist view, it does make sense.

I believe that though there is only one correct interpretation, interpreting the Revelation with finite minds is like playing with a spring. We can compress it into a literal 42 months in history, or into a literal 42 months in the future, or stretch it across 2,000 years and make it a symbolic 42 months. It will still all make sense. But for me I'm interested not in what makes sense to me, but in what is the only true interpretation, which, when it comes to the millennium, I have yet to discover, if God permits me to ever discover it before I die.

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?

No. My understanding is futurist, and always has been, but I don't identify the beast ascending from the abyss with the beast ascending from the sea. The beast ascended from the earth is exercising all the authority and power of the beast ascended from the sea, and the 10 kings are handing all their power and authority to the beast to ascend from "the abyss". The beast ascended from the earth causes all who dwell on the earth to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed...

I don't have any assumptions or even guesses about identities (of the ten kings, the two witnesses, the beast from earth), nor do I have any assumptions about details, except what the Revelation tells us, which is what the ten kings will be doing with their time, i.e who they will make war with, and what their end will be.

But I have no assumptions about how things are going to play themselves out, let alone "exactly how" things are going to play themselves out. I don't pay much attention to the theories of other futurists when they add details that the Revelation does not add. There are as many beliefs and theories about details as there are futurists.

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 worshiped the beast.

.
The points you make above are valid, but there will be saved saints and those who are not saved in the time that immediately precedes the return of Christ (just as there has always been), and my own human intellect not only allows for things being brought to a head at that time, with Satan being more active than ever since he caused Judas to betray Jesus (because Satan entered into Judas), but I also believe that this period is "the" final 42 (literal) months that precede the return of Christ, which the Revelation speaks such a great deal about.

 

[Zao is life]

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."

OK well I don't see the text referring to anything except the resurrection, and what was being said about it by Hymenaeus. Why you draw the inference you make I can only imagine would have everything to do with the doctrinal platform you use to interpret scripture.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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

Yes, there is, and I've explained it to you several times including in post #10 in this thread. If you're just going to ignore what I say about this then there's no point in discussing it any further.

The first resurrection is simply the resurrection unto eternal life. How can anyone possibly argue with that?

The first resurrection was Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20;22, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). How can anyone argue with that?

If the first resurrection is unto eternal life and no one can lose their part in it then what do you make of verses like this:

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

This says that those who believe in Christ HAVE eternal life and will not be condemned. If you can conclude that someone can lose the eternal life that they HAVE and can end up being condemned, then why can't I conclude that someone can have part in the first resurrection but later lose their part in the first resurrection?

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.

That's only true if the first resurrection refers to the mass resurrection of the dead in Christ that will occur at Christ's second coming. But, I don't believe that. I'm not obligated to be tied down by YOUR understanding of the first resurrection. Why can't you undertsand that? Based on MY understanding of the first resurrection and how someone has part in it, NOSAS is possible. That is a fact. I don't care if it's not possible according to how YOU understand the first resurrection. That means nothing to me and is irrelevant to my understanding of OSAS vs. NOSAS since I have a different understanding of what it means to 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.

Then why isn't the same Greek word describing the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" used to describe the martrys living and reigning with Christ? You have no explanation for that.

Even though John sees them when they're physically dead does that mean what they believed while there were alive has nothing to do with whether or not they reign with Christ? Of course it does. So, believing that someone can have part in the first resurrection while they're still alive does not go against what is taught in Revelation 20. Someone has to put their faith in Christ and belong to them while they are alive first before they can reign with Christ in heaven after they die.

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.

What are you talking about here? I don't call physically dead people coming back to life a spiritual resurrection nor to I call the act of the souls of physically dead people going to heaven a spiritual resurrection. I don't even call spiritually dead people (people dead in their sins) being spiritually saved and brought to spiritual life a resurrection. The Bible describes that as being born again or spiritually regenerated. I believe that the way in which people have part in the first resurrection, which is Christ's resurrection itself (are you reading this carefully?) is by being saved/born again/spiritually regenerated. Do you understand what I'm telling you here? If not, just ask for clarification instead of continuing to misrepresent what I believe.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Whether or not I agree with it, it does make sense. The same goes for whether or not I agree with the Preterist view, it does make sense.

It takes a lot of work on this forum just to get people to understand what I believe, let alone agreeing with it. So, I appreciate that you make the effort to understand what I believe, at least, even if you aren't sure if you agree with it or not.

I believe that though there is only one correct interpretation, interpreting the Revelation with finite minds is like playing with a spring. We can compress it into a literal 42 months in history, or into a literal 42 months in the future, or stretch it across 2,000 years and make it a symbolic 42 months. It will still all make sense. But for me I'm interested not in what makes sense to me, but in what is the only true interpretation, which, when it comes to the millennium, I have yet to discover, if God permits me to ever discover it before I die.

We all need to pray for wisdom (James 1:5-7) in order to have any hope of understanding these things. Some people think that reading the book of Revelation is no different than reading a news article, but we know better than that.

No. My understanding is futurist, and always has been, but I don't identify the beast ascending from the abyss with the beast ascending from the sea. The beast ascended from the earth is exercising all the authority and power of the beast ascended from the sea, and the 10 kings are handing all their power and authority to the beast to ascend from "the abyss". The beast ascended from the earth causes all who dwell on the earth to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed...

I don't have any assumptions or even guesses about identities (of the ten kings, the two witnesses, the beast from earth), nor do I have any assumptions about details, except what the Revelation tells us, which is what the ten kings will be doing with their time, i.e who they will make war with, and what their end will be.

But I have no assumptions about how things are going to play themselves out, let alone "exactly how" things are going to play themselves out. I don't pay much attention to the theories of other futurists when they add details that the Revelation does not add. There are as many beliefs and theories about details as there are futurists.

Okay, fair enough.

The points you make above are valid, but there will be saved saints and those who are not saved in the time that immediately precedes the return of Christ (just as there has always been), and my own human intellect not only allows for things being brought to a head at that time, with Satan being more active than ever since he caused Judas to betray Jesus (because Satan entered into Judas), but I also believe that this period is "the" final 42 (literal) months that precede the return of Christ, which the Revelation speaks such a great deal about.

So, you see the 42 months as being literal then. Okay. You already said that you don't have any guesses about the identity of the two witnesses, but is it your current opinion that it's talking about two individuals? And do you see the 42 months/1260 days referenced in Revelation 11:1-2 as being the same 42 months referenced in Revelation 13:5?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Obviously, both OSAS and NOSAS can't be true since NOSAS contradicts OSAS. That means unless OSAS is Biblical and that NOSAS isn't, Amil can't be Biblical unless OSAS is Biblical.

So, I see that you didn't bother addressing the points that I made in post #39. I'm not going to bother addressing your points on this topic anymore after this post, either, then. It's a waste of time.

Amil if assuming OSAS does not contradict anything involving the first resurrection since OSAS does not have a single person in Revelation 20:6 having part in the first resurrection one minute, then the next minute losing part in it. Only Amil if assuming NOSAS has this contradiction taking place.

Do verses like John 5:24 have anyone having eternal life one minute and then losing it the next? No, right? So, does that then disprove NOSAS? You aren't even realizing that people could use the same kind logic you're using here to refute your belief in NOSAS.

And, with that, I'm done discussing this topic, since you are apparently refusing to address any points that I make about it.

 

[parousia70]

OK well I don't see the text referring to anything except the resurrection, and what was being said about it by Hymenaeus. Why you draw the inference you make I can only imagine would have everything to do with the doctrinal platform you use to interpret scripture.

Well, you do agree that Paul's objection was about the timing alone. That he had lodged no objection to the nature of the resurrection that Hymie insisted. It was ONLY about the timing.

Your task (our task) is to then discover WHY Paul said Hymie's timing was damning and faith destroying.

By comparing scripture with scripture, we find Paul is entirely consistent in his teaching on the damning and faith destroying error his flocks were continually making. That comparison demonstrates that Hymie's error was indeed consistent with the same error, namely that Salvation was attainable through the Old Covenant of works.

You have not provided any similar scriptuiral precident for your "why". It seems you're merely guessing based on your feelings, and not on any scripture.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

@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?

No we are not in agreement, the ten commandments are still with us today, you indicate they have been done away with.

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:20-22 King James Version
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.


The first four tell us how to love God and the last six tell us how to love our neighbor.

Do you have DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF LOVE from the bible?

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Do away with the law then no sin, if no sin then no need of a savior therefor, Jesus would have died for no reason

Judgement

We know that Christ will judge everyone before He returns. What tool will He use as a standard of judgment?

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak, ye and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty (James 2:10-12).

The standard of judgment is the law of God, because “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).

Ten Commandments is the standard of judgment. It is also called the law of liberty because we can only be free of our sinful habits when we follow that law. God has appointed a day for judgment and Jesus Himself will judge using this law:

I said in my heart, “God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, For there is a time there for every purpose and for every work” (Ecclesiastes 3:17 NKJV).

The Standard of Judgment - Law of God or Ten Commandments

 

[DavidPT]

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.

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? You are the one denying that Revelation 20:6 is meaning when one is in an immortal body. If you thought Revelation 20:6 means they are in immortal bodies at the time you wouldn't even be arguing against me here. 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.

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. 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.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 could be the one in Revelation 20:4-6.

Yes, it definitely was. I'm with you on this one. That was a "remnant of the dead" which came to life again at that time, and was called "the First Resurrection".

 

[grafted branch]

Yes, it definitely was. I'm with you on this one. That was a "remnant of the dead" which came to life again at that time, and was called "the First Resurrection".

Yes, I think the resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 gets overlooked far too often.

To me the first resurrection in Revelation 20:5 is an event that encompassed both Christ and those in Matthew 27.

There definitely can’t be any future resurrection that’s called the first resurrection.

 

[DavidPT]

Yes, I think the resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 gets overlooked far too often.

To me the first resurrection in Revelation 20:5 is an event that encompassed both Christ and those in Matthew 27.

There definitely can’t be any future resurrection that’s called the first resurrection.

If we were to get technical here though--Christ rose first, then those recorded in Matthew 27:52-53 rose sometime afterwards, IOW, not simultaneously. That would only make Christ's resurrection the first since you are arguing that there can't be a first resurrection in the future since there was already one in the past, except you are applying it to a resurrection that occurred after Christ's resurrection, which would be true of any resurrection in the future as well. It too would occur after Christ's resurrection. Thus your argument is moot.

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection , and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

[Zao is life]

We all need to pray for wisdom (James 1:5-7) in order to have any hope of understanding these things. Some people think that reading the book of Revelation is no different than reading a news article, but we know better than that.

Yes. God knows, and I have come to believe, that even though we pray for understanding, we must understand and be thankful for the fact that God will only give us as much as He chooses to in His wisdom. Some things are too much for one individual to handle, whereas another individual may be ripe for it.

You already said that you don't have any guesses about the identity of the two witnesses, but is it your current opinion that it's talking about two individuals?

There aren't a whole lot of possibilities so I bear these possibilities in mind:

i. It refers to the church (all Christians).
ii. It refers symbolically to the law and the prophets.
ii. It's referring to two individuals.

In my mind they are all possibilities, but because of the biblical type found in Moses and Aaron in Egypt, I lean more toward two individuals who are not identified as yet, though my mind is not made up, because I know that I may be wrong. I also know that sitting waiting for two witnesses to do the job is never going to get the job of sharing the gospel with the world done, if everyone had that approach. So in that sense the two witnesses are the church, the lamp stands.

And do you see the 42 months/1260 days referenced in Revelation 11:1-2 as being the same 42 months referenced in Revelation 13:5?

Yes.

Let's compare the Revelation with the Olivet Discourse: With regard to the Olivet Discourse, I believe it's totally plausible that Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse with all generations of Christians in mind, but especially two generations in mind: The A.D 70 generation, and the close of the Age generation (Matthew 24:29-31).

(all generations because keeping the the promise of His return in our hearts and minds and watching for His return is what He wants all saints to be doing, at all times).

Likewise, the Revelation I see as generally applying to all generations, but specifically to the end of the Age generation, after all, the Lord gave His Revelation to the churches of the first generation, through the last surviving apostle.

 

[Zao is life]

No we are not in agreement, the ten commandments are still with us today, you indicate they have been done away with.

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:20-22 King James Version
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

I'm not going to spend more time on this because it's not a subject I'm prepared to debate about. It's dishonoring to Christ if we debate this too much.

1 John 2
5 But whoever keeps His word, truly in this one the love of God is perfected. By this we know that we are in Him.
6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk even as He walked.

1 John 2
4 He who says, I have known Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1 John 3
23 And this is His commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

Only Christ can produce His fruit in us, causing us to produce the fruit of the Spirit, but only if we abide in the vine. The fruit of the Spirit fulfills the Law of God and the 10 Commandments. It is not lawless.

Human effort (obedience to 10 Commandments) may get you far in man's sense of where the mark lies, but it will keep you far further from the mark than anyone realizes, because it's your fruit, it belongs to you, it is not the fruit of the Spirit, which only Christ can produce in those who through faith in Hm, abide in Him, and the fruit of the Spirit is not lawless, it fulfills the Law and the 10 Commandments .

And this is His commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

 

[Zao is life]

You have not provided any similar scriptuiral precident for your "why". It seems you're merely guessing based on your feelings, and not on any scripture.

It's actually clear by now to most people who have read this debate (except the ones who want you to be right) that neither you or I are basing anything on our feelings. I'm basing it on the text alone, and on the context of the text alone. You're basing your guess upon the doctrinal platform that demands it must be interpreted in a different way, so you are guessing and saying that Paul's battles against another false doctrine is what the text regarding the false teaching that the resurrection had already passed, is referring to.

I haven't made any guesses like that. I simply acknowledge what the text is talking about.

 

[DavidPT]

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?

That's a valid question, not only for Premils to try and answer in regards to a bodily resurrection, but also for Amils to try and answer in regards to a spiritual resurrection. A bodily resurrection obviously would involve more that just the martyrs listed in verse 4. The same in regards to a spiritual resurrection.

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).

Let's look at a few things then.

Revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Jesus is the speaker in the verses above and it seems that the coming meant in verse 25 is meaning after everyone has overcome first, and after everyone has endured unto the end. To these He gives power over the nations once He has returned.

Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

This parable appears to further prove the timing meant Revelation 2:25-27 is post the 2nd coming since being given authority over 10 cities, 5 cities, etc, might be what is meant by having power over the nations.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

This passage is in regards to Jesus, the same one that gives overcomers certain authority over things when He returns, eventually putting down all rule and all authority and power Himself, in order to fulfill verse 28. Does it make sense that Jesus puts down all rule and all authority and power that the Father gave Him following His resurrection, but that the overcomers who Jesus gives authority over things when He returns, they maintain that for all of eternity rather than putting down those things themselves at some point?

We have to keep in mind that the saints only reign with Christ a thousand years in this manner. If the reign meant more than a thousand years John would not have limited it to just a thousand years. Something happens once the thousand years expire that puts an end to reigning in this manner. And that being satan's little season. There is zero in Revelation 20:7-9 concerning the beast and false prophet, yet, some Amils would have us believe that this involves both because when satan is loosed from the pit, so is the beast at that time. That totally ignores the fact that verse 4 already proves the beast ascended out of the pit sometime before satan is ever loosed. But not to get into that discussion/debate again.

The same ones being ruled over during the thousand years are the same ones being deceived after the thousand years. Which brings up another point I have brought up in other threads. If assuming Premil this would mean that those satan deceives after the thousand years were deceived before the thousand years, then no longer deceived during the thousand years, then once again deceived after the thousand years.

If assuming Amil instead, this would mean that those satan deceives after the thousand years are already deceived during the thousand years, thus satan sets out to deceive the masses already deceived. Amils can't argue that they are not deceived during the thousand years, because if that was true they would be among the saved and wouldn't be coming against the saved after the thousand years expire.

I haven't finished my thoughts regarding question 2 nor have I got to question 3 yet. This is all I have for now.


Maybe my approach to things is entirely wrong? I tend to try and determine what and when something is meaning by seeing if there are any contradictions if it is meaning this or if it is meaning that. Such as what I'm arguing concerning Amil and NOSAS. That view contradicts what is recorded in Revelation 20:6. But if assuming Premil and NOSAS instead, there is no contradiction with that of Revelation 20:6.

Is it actually possible since both Premil and Amil can't be true, that there is no contradiction in either view involving Amil and NOSAS and Premil and NOSAS with that of Revelation 20:6? I wouldn't think that is possible, therefore, the safe bet would be to go with the view that doesn't contradict Revelation 20:6.

 

[Zao is life]

That's a valid question, not only for Premils to try and answer in regards to a bodily resurrection, but also for Amils to try and answer in regards to a spiritual resurrection. A bodily resurrection obviously would involve more that just the martyrs listed in verse 4. The same in regards to a spiritual resurrection.

Let's look at a few things then.

Revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Jesus is the speaker in the verses above and it seems that the coming meant in verse 25 is meaning after everyone has overcome first, and after everyone has endured unto the end. To these He gives power over the nations once He has returned.

Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

This parable appears to further prove the timing meant Revelation 2:25-27 is post the 2nd coming since being given authority over 10 cities, 5 cities, etc, might be what is meant by having power over the nations.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

This passage is in regards to Jesus, the same one that gives overcomers certain authority over things when He returns, eventually putting down all rule and all authority and power Himself, in order to fulfill verse 28. Does it make sense that Jesus puts down all rule and all authority and power that the Father gave Him following His resurrection, but that the overcomers who Jesus gives authority over things when He returns, they maintain that for all of eternity rather than putting down those things themselves at some point?

We have to keep in mind that the saints only reign with Christ a thousand years in this manner. If the reign meant more than a thousand years John would not have limited it to just a thousand years. Something happens once the thousand years expire that puts an end to reigning in this manner. And that being satan's little season. There is zero in Revelation 20:7-9 concerning the beast and false prophet, yet, some Amils would have us believe that this involves both because when satan is loosed from the pit, so is the beast at that time. That totally ignores the fact that verse 4 already proves the beast ascended out of the pit sometime before satan is ever loosed. But not to get into that discussion/debate again.

The same ones being ruled over during the thousand years are the same ones being deceived after the thousand years. Which brings up another point I have brought up in other threads. If assuming Premil this would mean that those satan deceives after the thousand years were deceived before the thousand years, then no longer deceived during the thousand years, then once again deceived after the thousand years.

If assuming Amil instead, this would mean that those satan deceives after the thousand years are already deceived during the thousand years, thus satan sets out to deceive the masses already deceived. Amils can't argue that they are not deceived during the thousand years, because if that was true they would be among the saved and wouldn't be coming against the saved after the thousand years expire.

I haven't finished my thoughts regarding question 2 nor have I got to question 3 yet. This is all I have for now.


Maybe my approach to things is entirely wrong? I tend to try and determine what and when something is meaning by seeing if there are any contradictions if it is meaning this or if it is meaning that. Such as what I'm arguing concerning Amil and NOSAS. That view contradicts what is recorded in Revelation 20:6. But if assuming Premil and NOSAS instead, there is no contradiction with that of Revelation 20:6.

Is it actually possible since both Premil and Amil can't be true, that there is no contradiction in either view involving Amil and NOSAS and Premil and NOSAS with that of Revelation 20:6? I wouldn't think that is possible, therefore, the safe bet would be to go with the view that doesn't contradict Revelation 20:6.

Thanks for this reply David.

So yes, the reasons why I have questions regarding Pre-millennialism do not include things like this:

Revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

I can accept the above, because it's straight forward, and I always did accept it.

The reasons for my agnosmillennialism also do not include how long after the beast and FP have been thrown into the LOF, Satan is thrown into the LOF, because - and I'm going to use these words again - my own human intellect sees a clear one-thousand-year gap there, so my own human intellect will not allow me the liberty to assume the latter is cast into the LOF in the same year or month or day or hour as the former, but only after a thousand-year gap.

Also, because of all the statements in the New Testament to the contrary, my own human intellect will not allow me the liberty to assume that (whereas Satan was most certainly utterly defeated by the death and resurrection of Christ), he was also "bound" at the time (or "restricted" or whatever), nor can I believe he has ever been bound (in the history of the entire human race till now).

I also agree with what you're saying about the total lack of logic in the "deceived but not deceived and then deceived" millennium nations.

But at the same time, when I consider the (seemingly) bizarre notion that in the NHNE there will still be mortals around for a thousand literal years, no longer deceived because Satan has been bound, and at least one group of resurrected saints ruling over them, only so that Satan can be released again after a thousand literal years into the NHNE and they be deceived again, then the only three explanations can I think of for such a scenario are:

1. Satan was "released" into the Garden of Eden even while Adam & Eve were still living forever & ever, and permitted to deceive mankind.

2. The NHNE is a restoration of the Garden of Eden.

3. God is 100% just and will be seen to be 100% just to the very end, the last group of humans to be deceived being given the chance for a thousand years to see and to know what the Kingdom of God looks like, but the very end coming only after that thousand-year period.

Even so, those above 3 "reasons" are not good enough for my own human intellect to allow me the liberty to assume the above is the case (and that's aside from the fact that it seems alien and bizarre to my human intellect that such a thing will even be in the NHNE until the time of the GWT).

When I was still under the impression that there would be a thousand years in-between the return of Christ and the ushering in of the NHNE, it made it a lot easier. But not anymore.

But Preterism, Partial Preterism and Amillennialism don't offer explanations that satisfy my own human intellect either, because (as though the beast and the 42 months is a spring for Christians to play with), Preterists have the beast and the 42 months "compressed" into a literal 42-months, but into a time in-between between 66-70 A.D (or somewhere around there); Amillennialists, when they realize that they can't have the thousand-year period beginning before the beast has even risen from the abyss (because of the injury ascribed to those in Revelation 20:4-6), have the beast and the 42-months stretched out across the entire Age, and Satan "bound" during the same period.

Premillennialists and futurists (including myself) have the beast and the 42 months "compressed" into a literal 42-months, but into the time that is to close this Age, which is satisfactory and the way I understand it.

So because I definitely don't have the 42-months in the first century (or any other century till now), and I don't have the 42 months stretched out across the entire Age, and I have the beast and the 42 months at the close of this Age. I'm not going to be helped out of my agnosmillennialism by Amillennilaist or Preterist systems.

So I remain an agnosmilennialist whose own human intellect will not allow me the liberty of assuming anything about the millennium, because we are not told "everything" in the Revelation. We are told only what God wants us to know, and until He allows me to fully "get it" with regards to the NHNE, I'm playing safe from now on, safe in my agnosmillennialist camp.

But thanks for your effort so far in answering those questions I asked you.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If we were to get technical here though--Christ rose first, then those recorded in Matthew 27:52-53 rose sometime afterwards, IOW, not simultaneously. That would only make Christ's resurrection the first since you are arguing that there can't be a first resurrection in the future since there was already one in the past, except you are applying it to a resurrection that occurred after Christ's resurrection, which would be true of any resurrection in the future as well. It too would occur after Christ's resurrection. Thus your argument is moot.

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection , and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

These Matthew 27:52-53 saints were that "multitude of captives" in Ephesians 4:8, which Christ led out of the grave and gave as "gifts to men". When a high priest officiated in his duties, he by the Mosaic law needed to offer gifts, according to Hebrews 8:3. "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man" (Jesus) "have somewhat also to offer." Which Christ actually did.

On that day of the "First resurrection" in AD 33, this event included all the First-fruits (both "Christ the First-fruits" and the "144,000 First-fruits" raised by Him on that day). As a newly-ordained high priest after the order of Melchizedek, Christ Jesus then turned around and gave those resurrected Jewish 144,000 First-fruits individuals as "gifts to men". The purpose for their being given to men as gifts was to edify the church by acting in those roles of apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors, and teachers, "for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Ephesians 4:10).

Does it matter if Christ came out of the grave first, if He was the leader of that multitude of captives coming out of the grave on that same day after His own resurrection? This is still considered all the same "First resurrection" event on that single day, because they all shared the same title of "the First-fruits". It was a fulfillment of the Mosaic sheaf handful of First-fruits barley grain in Leviticus 23:10-12 being offered along with the single, year-old, blemish-free he-lamb. Both of these offerings being presented to the Lord together on the same day represented Christ the Lamb and the "remnant of the dead" Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints raised on that same day as being the 144,000 Jewish First-fruits.