Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
(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.
How would deciding between these alternatives alter the way you live your life as a disciple 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.
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).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.
That is false.
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.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.
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...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 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.
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.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."
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.There is no way to reconcile Amil if also assuming NOSAS with that of Revelation 20:6. It is impossible.
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?The first resurrection is simply the resurrection unto eternal life. How can anyone possibly argue with that?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Okay, fair enough.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.
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?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, 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.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.
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.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.
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.
@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?
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 resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 could be the one in Revelation 20:4-6.
Yes, I think the resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 gets overlooked far too often.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.
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.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.
There aren't a whole lot of possibilities so I bear these possibilities in mind: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?
Yes.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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).
Thanks for this reply David.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?