Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

[Timtofly]

If we were to take it to the extreme then the resurrection of the widow’s son by Elijah would have to be the first resurrection in Revelation 20:5. I don’t think anyone would seriously try to do that.

Christ’s resurrection was the first and this is one of the strongest points for Amil. I personally will not argue against anyone about Christ being the first resurrection, there are just too many verses that show this.

However the statement in Revelation 20:5 “This is the first resurrection” has to be referring to something that was previously said. In 1 Corinthians 15:23 the order is Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. What happened to those that were resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53? Where are they in this order? I see two possibilities here, 1-they are considered to be part of the first order “Christ the firstfruits” or 2-they remained alive until “Christ’s at his coming”. If they are considered #1 then the first resurrection would’ve encompassed those in Matthew 27:52-53.

No matter how I look at it, whether the first resurrection is Christ or if it’s referring to actual people being resurrected then it has to have already happened.

The first resurrection is not even about time.

The first resurrection is physical. The first birth is physical. The first death is physical, and the first resurrection is physical.

The second birth is spiritual, the second death is about the spirit also dying with the physical body which is already dead. The second resurrection would be a spiritual and physical change out of the Lake of Fire. One does not need a physical resurrection to be spiritually dead. But if there is a physical body in the Lake of Fire, it would still be dead.

 

[Timtofly]

You missed the message from Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, that Christ had already received the promise of being seated on David's throne at that time.

Acts 2:29-36. Read the whole thing. Peter announced quite clearly that Christ was presently seated on David's throne at God's right hand. If Peter announced that this prophecy was already fulfilled at Christ's resurrection and ascension, who are we to argue with him?

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

This never says when, it just says He will.

How did David's throne get placed in heaven?

The only seat of David's authority is on the earth, in Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

The resurrection meant is meaning rising from the dead permanently. No one ever did that prior to Christ's resurrection. So, based on this alone, no need to take it to the extreme to begin with like you pointed out.

I'm Premil yet agree that the first resurrection obviously involves Christ's resurrection, but even so, this is what Revelation 20:5 says---this is the first resurrection. It does not say this instead---this is Christ's resurrection.

It is the first resurrection in more ways than one. It is the first resurrection where anyone ever rose to eternal life, meaning Christ in this case. It is the first resurrection because it precedes the resurrection when the the rest of the dead live again after the thousand years. It is the first resurrection because John only mentions two resurrections in Revelation 20, and that those that have part in the first resurrection are raised before anyone not having part in the first resurrection are raised. It is the first resurrection because the dead in Christ rise first(1 Thessalonians 4). It is the first resurrection because it is the resurrection unto eternal life not unto damnation instead, thus why the dead in Christ rise first.

How can Revelation 20:4, 6, not be involving the dead in Christ rising first?

Because first only means physical.

John 3 covers first and second.

 

[Timtofly]

What is recorded in Matthew 27:52-53 undeniably says they came out of their graves bodily. The question is, what happened to them eventually since we are never told one way or the other? If we approach this logically, the fact they came out of their graves bodily rather than disembodied, should we then assume they returned bodily to these same graves eventually, then just laid in them until they bodily died again? Obviously, they would have to bodily die again if they returned to their graves. But one can't bodily return to their grave on their own if they are bodily dead at the time, nor would anyone want to bodily return to their grave if they are still bodily alive at the time.

Or should we assume something different happened to them instead? I vote for the latter. But even so, is, them ascending bodily into heaven, thus they are presently in heaven bodily, the only other option to explain what happened to them eventually? Per this scenario this would mean, pertaining to humans presently in heaven, there would be some humans in heaven already in bodies while there would be other humans in heaven still awaiting a body. I don't see that making much sense.

Christ ascended Sunday morning after meeting with Mary. John 20:17

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Matthew says they come out of their graves twice. Physically at the Cross, but permanently Sunday morning when they ascended to Paradise with Christ.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes, that is currently the case. That is why it is called presently the "NEW HEAVENS", since this condition had never existed in heaven before those bodily-resurrected individuals arrived there.

Except Enoch, Elijah, and Moses came and went to heaven somehow. Moses was not dragged out of Abraham's bosom to appear on the mount of Transfiguration.

 

[Zao is life]

Okay, will do. Ask and ye shall receive...

Thank you

So, here's kind of a bare-bones list of most (not all) of the texts that refer to the identity and activity of the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected Jewish saints. Matthew is not the only one who wrote about them or predicted their coming.

Leviticus 23:10-12 - The "Sheaf Handful" of barley First-fruits, offered along with a single he-lamb without blemish. This was a picture foreshadowing "Christ the First-fruits" as the Passover Lamb and the many Matthew 27:52-53 saints resurrected that day by Christ.

This is the first part of what you say above that I find very interesting.

I was always aware that Jesus was crucified on Passover, and rose again on the third day, and the Holy Spirit came and rested upon the new church on the day of Pentecost.

I was aware that firstfruis is seven days after Passover, so I could never understand how firstfruits fits into the picture. But I'm a person who takes note of certain specific words when used in scripture, because often just one word or phrase is extremely important, and a clue as to a correct understanding of something. So I've always taken note of the words "firsftuit" in the following verse:

Revelation 14
4 These are those who were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are those who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, as a firstfruit to God and to the Lamb.

I've also wondered before (but only as a very vague thought) whether or not these may be referring to those who we see resurrected after Christ's resurrection (Matthew 27:52-53).

So I find the link you have obviously made interesting, though I still do not see more biblical evidence, even though you do (I will come to that).

IMHO though, "Mount Zion" in Revelation 14:1 is not referring to the city of Jerusalem on earth, because the Bible interprets the Bible (our own ideas should never interpret the Bible), and it becomes 100% clear that Revelation 14:1 is referring to the heavenly Jerusalem, because

(A) we are told in Hebrews 12:22-24 that we (all believers) "have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are written in Heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel."; and

(B) the firsfruits being spoken about in Revelation 14:1-4 are seen in heaven:

Revelation 14
1 And I looked, and lo, the Lamb stood on Mount Zion. And with Him were a hundred and forty-four. thousands, having His Father's name written in their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from Heaven, like the voice of many waters and like the voice of a great thunder. And I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps.
3 And they sang as it were a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. And no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousands who were redeemed from the earth.
4 These are those who were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are those who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, as a firstfruit to God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no guile, for they were without blemish before the throne of God.

The above facts makes the idea that these 144,000 may be those who were the first to be resurrected with Christ's resurrection plausible, and it's also plausible that this occurred on the day of firsfruits, fulfilling the day of the firsfruits (Leviticus 23:6-14).

The following is also plausible (and therefore also possible), but as for the rest of what you've said though, this is something I hate doing when someone is so keen on his subject as you are and has gone to all the trouble you have to share it with me:

I don't agree with a lot of the rest of what you are saying, because I find some of it not biblical, and some of it, though plausible, too much of a jump using the pole-vault of assumption from what is biblical to what actually took place, for example where you say:

Psalms 68:18-20 - The "multitude of captives" which would be led by the ascending Christ, and be received as "gifts for men". This text attributes to God the power of bringing about "the exodus from death".

Matthew 9:37-38 - The "laborers" sent into the harvest. In Christ's days, the "fields" were already white, and ripe for "harvesting". Christ told the disciples to pray the Lord of the harvest to "send forth laborers" into that harvest. When the group of Matthew 27:52-53 saints were raised and given as "gifts to men" (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers), this was an answer to that prayer, and a real benefit to the disciples' evangelistic efforts in those days. This resurrected group would have had evangelistic capabilities far beyond that of normal living believers hampered by weakness, aging bodies, sickness, death, sinful temptations, dependent children, wives' and husbands' needs, etc.

It's plausible and very interesting, because in Numbers 18:6-7 God says concerning the Levites,

Numbers 18 (NETfree) version)
6 I myself have chosen your brothers the Levites from among the Israelites. They are given to you as a gift from the LORD, to perform the duties of the tent of meeting.
7 But you and your sons with you are responsible for your priestly duties, for everything at the altar and within the curtain. And you must serve. I give you the priesthood as a gift for service; but the unauthorized person who approaches must be put to death."

Young's Literal Translation (1898) translates it as "a gift they are given by Jehovah".

However, IMO we need to guard ourselves against employing the pole-vault of assumption to jump from the above to this:

Ephesians 4:8-13 - The "multitude of captives" led out of the grave by the ascending Christ, and given as "gifts for men" in those first-century days. They would act in the roles of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to help build up the early church, until they all came into the state of a "perfected man".

This is what Ephesians 4:8-14 says:

7 But to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8 Therefore He says, "When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive and gave gifts to men."
9 (Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He who descended is the same also as He who ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things.)
11 And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
12 for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
13 And this until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit.

The above is speaking only about Christ giving each person "grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ", and it's speaking only about Christ leading captivity captive and giving various gits, and according to the context, these gifts are given "to every one of us", therefore He has given "some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

So though what you are saying is very interesting, plausible and possible, there is no real biblical evidence for it, certainly not enough to make such a leap from one to the other (when we do that with scripture, we're employing the pole-vault of assumption).

I'll come to the rest of what you said in your post (which I'm truly grateful you took the time to lay out so clearly for me), as I go through each scripture you quote.

 

[Zao is life]

Those beheaded after the Second Coming have not been spiritually born from above. Amil are just as confused, because they do not put these people dying after the Second Coming. According to Amil, literally no one can physically die after the Second Coming. All death takes place immediately before or at the Second Coming. There is no after the Second Coming.

Amil will say that is only because premill are biased and Revelation 20:4 actually happened at the Cross in the first century, not after the Second Coming. Amil are biased and see nothing happening after the Second Coming relating to death, even though the GWT is after, but that is not even a resurrection. Yet contrary to their bias, they claim this is the last resurrection, even though it is after the Second Coming and called the second death.

I understand those mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 to be speaking about those who were beheaded by the beast before the second coming, and resurrected at the time of the second coming.

It's clear that the resurrection they have experienced is not referring to a "spiritual" resurrection because whereas without exception there is always a resurrection of the body attached to the word "resurrection" in the New Testament (and never a "resurrection of the spirit"), there is a spiritual regeneration spoken about in the New Testament, which is the work of the Holy Spirit and occurs at the time that those who are in Christ became born of the Spirit from above.

I'm agnosmillennialist when it comes to whether or not there will be mortals dying in the thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20. There are no statements in the gospels or epistles saying there will be, but there are statements either stating or implying there will be none. I'm basically agnosmilennialist about the words "thousand years" because there are too many questions I have in my mind about all three schools of thought regarding the millennium.

 

[Zao is life]

That is an enormous amount of work. You are a driven man.

Alas, I am already seated with Christ in the heavenly realms.

I care not for interpretations or viewpoints in eschatology.

Good for you.

 

[Zao is life]

@3 Resurrections I wish my responses to the rest of your post (seen below) did not have to be so bad. I was the one who asked you for biblical support for what you were saying and you went to a lot of trouble to give me what I asked for, with a good spirit. I hate having to respond to the things you are saying in the way I have done below, but I don't have a choice. There is no other option but for me to lie.

Matthew 24:24 - The "elect" which could not be deceived. Though intense deception would be rife in those days surrounding the "Great Tribulation", with "false Christs" and "false prophets" leading many astray, it wasn't even possible for these resurrected "elect" saints in a state of incorruptibility to be deceived by this.

3 Resurrections it's a big jump (made using the pole-vault of assumption) to arrive at the conclusion that the elect being referred to in Matthew 24:24 is the same group of resurrected saints. There is nothing in the context of the passage to suggest that. Nothing at all.

Same here:

Hebrews 13:1 - The "strangers" or "messengers" entertained unawares by the early church ("messengers" of the human variety).

The text does not say they are strangers or messengers of the human variety. We cannot assume this to be the case.

Same here:

Hebrews 12:1 - The "cloud of witnesses" surrounding the early church. This was a great number of witnesses bodily present in the assemblies, similar to the other faithful ones who had also died and had just been listed in the "Hall of Faith". These others had not been "made perfect" yet, but would receive the "better resurrection" along with the Hebrews believers who would be "made perfect" along with them, just like the "cloud of witnesses" who had already been perfected with a bodily resurrection.

The context of what the author of the Hebrews was still talking to us about in Hebrews chapter 11 through 12:1-4 is faith. Hebrews 12:1 is referring only to "the great cloud of witnesses" who are those who were all of faith, who the author had just listed for us and given as our examples in Hebrews chapter 11. There are no other witnesses implied until then, and Christ Himself is added to the list of witnesses of people of faith in Hebrews 12:1-4.

You've made a huge assumption, and this time it's clearly a totally false assumption, because you have added to the text what the text is not telling us at all.

Romans 8:23 - The "First-fruits of the Spirit". This is not the "fruit of the Spirit". Paul said the church had these "First-fruits" among them (who came from the 144,000 First-fruits group). These "First-fruits" were also patiently waiting along with the rest of the believers for Christ's return. This would bring about the hoped-for redemption of the rest of the believers' bodies in the next bodily resurrection event, when the First-fruits would join them in meeting the Lord together in the air.

No, this is not whom Paul is speaking about. He is speaking only about the people who he is writing to, and again, this is the context:

Romans 8
11 But if the Spirit of the One who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the One who raised up Christ from the dead shall also make your mortal bodies alive by His Spirit who dwells in you.
15 For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption by which we cry, Abba, Father!
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.
17 And if we are children, then we are heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; so that if we suffer with Him, we may also be glorified together.
23 And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruit of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, awaiting adoption, the redemption of our body.

There is no mention or hint of Paul speaking about anyone except the saints in the church at Rome. Again, you've made a giant leap using the pole-vault of (this time once again most definitely false assumption).

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 - The "alive and remaining" saints. These saints had already been made alive by a resurrection process, (like Lazarus and Dorcas and the 144,000 First-fruits), but Paul said they had "remained" on earth until that time in a sort of sealed, reserved status. They were waiting on the next, second resurrection event, when they would together meet the Lord in the air with the other newly-resurrected saints. Only resurrected individuals would take part in this "rapture"

No, that's clearly not who Paul is speaking about. You're pushing things into the scriptures that the scriptures do not say to us, using the pole-vault of (again this time, completely false) assumptions.

- there would be no so-called "translated" living believers included, since that would contradict Hebrews 9:27 where it is "appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment."

That's not true. Hebrews 9:27 is simply telling us that once someone has died there is no more chance to repent of unbelief, because after death follows the judgment. You have again chosen to falsely insert a meaning into Hebrews 9:27 which is clearly not meant.

John 5:25 - The "hour is coming" when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. Jesus told the Jews that "the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." In those days, the disciples and Christ were bodily raising people from the dead (the "now is" part of His statement). Yet an hour was coming in which the dead would live after hearing the voice of the Son of God (the Matthew 27 resurrected saints). Yet as marvelous as that was, there would be another hour coming in which ALL of the dead in the graves (John 5:28-29) would hear the voice of the Son of God - not just the many righteous Matthew 27 saints.

Hymeneus and Philetus' heresy mistook this past, "first resurrection" of the Matthew 27 saints as being the only bodily resurrection that would ever take place.

Again this is an assumption you are making with absolutely zero basis.

Did Paul say that Hymeneus and Philetus had "mistaken this past, first resurrection of the Matthew 27 saints as being the only bodily resurrection that would ever take place."?

No, He did not say that, and unless Paul said that, you have zero evidence on which to base such a claim.

Matthew 20:16 - "The last shall be first, and the first last". In the parable about the servants which served a full day compared to those who served only an hour, they all received the same reward for their service. This was a parable about the resurrection. No matter what point of history, or how rigorously God's servants were tasked to serve Him, and for whatever varying lengths of time, they all would receive the same reward of a bodily resurrection.

The "first" group to be resurrected (the Matthew 27 saints) would not get to heaven first. They would have to wait and "remain" on the earth until the other dead saints in the grave had been raised from the dead.

Then and only then would they be caught up, and together "meet the Lord in the air". The "last" to rise from the dead would be the "first" to be raptured, and the "first" to be resurrected would be the "last" to be caught up.

3 Resurrections I appreciate all the effort you have gone to. But I have to be frank with you now:

What you have done is go beyond a mere misinterpretation of scripture. You are actually twisting the doctrine of Christ and the apostles by inserting a meaning into text after text that is not there and is not intended by the Lord or by His apostles.

There is absolutely no biblical basis to say, "The "first" group to be resurrected (the Matthew 27 saints) would not get to heaven first. They would have to wait and "remain" on the earth until the other dead saints in the grave had been raised from the dead."

It's your imagination, devoid of any biblical evidence whatsoever, and you have inserted it into the text. It's neither what Christ was saying, nor is it the Lord's or the apostles' doctrine.

Luke 18:6-8 - The "elect" begging for vengeance. In this context about the unjust judge parable, Christ was comparing it to the patient waiting of those martyred saints who were persistently begging God for vengeance for their shed blood. Christ said He was going to avenge them "speedily". We see this same martyred group of souls again under the altar in ...

Revelation 6:9-11 - The martyred souls under the altar. Martyred for the word of God, these souls were begging God's vengeance for their shed blood. White robes (representing the righteousness of a perfected, resurrected body) were given to each one of them (to the Matthew 27:52-53 saints).

It's you, 3 Resurrections, who wrote "Christ said He was going to avenge them "speedily".

It's not written in the Bible. The martyrs under the altar John saw in a vision when the 5th seal was opened were told to "rest a while longer UNTIL.."

You keep adding to the scriptures like this to propagate and reinforce a whole lists of false assumptions based on nothing but imagination which you have created in your own mind.

3 Resurrections, please,

As Christians we must, at all times, zealously and jealously guard the scriptures against our own leaps that we make using a combination of our own imaginations and the pole-vault of assumption,

which in your case, has been a completely false assumption 99.99% of the time.

They were then told to "rest for a little season" (when Satan was loosed for his "little season" starting in AD 33 at the end of the millennium)

Revelation 6
11 And white robes were given to each one of them. And it was said to them that they should rest yet for a little time, until both their fellow servants and their brothers (those about to be killed as they were) should have their number made complete.

See what I mean? More leaps based on false assumptions mixed with human imagination and changing of the meaning of scriptures by ever so subtly changing the wording of what is written, and what was actually said.

I'm not going to go further.

The only thing I agree with you on is the POSSIBILITY that the firstfruits mentioned in Revelation 14:1-5 are those who were resurrected circa A.D 30, soon after Christ's resurrection, and the POSSIBILITY that this resurrection of theirs occurred on the Day of Firsfruits, seven days after Passover.

However, in the total absence of any biblical statements in this regard, I do not ASSUME that it's the case just because it's a POSSIBILITY (we must guard the scriptures against our false assumptions and human imagination).

I also agree that these who were then resurrected appeared unto others in Jerusalem for a while (because the scriptures tell us that they do).

 

[3 Resurrections]

See what I mean? More leaps based on false assumptions mixed with human imagination and changing of the meaning of scriptures by ever so subtly changing the wording of what is written, and what was actually said.

What you are calling "subtle changes" of scripture wording is me examining scripture in the original languages very carefully. NOTHING of what I wrote is fabricated. It is ALL comparing scripture with scripture to come to these conclusions. The Greek for "angels" can mean either human or angelic messengers, which in Heb. 13:2 and Rev. 14:10 were human messengers. The "elect" that God would avenge "speedily" were the "elect" who could not possibly be deceived by false prophets. Being "made perfect" is being given an incorruptible resurrected body. Etc., etc..

But let's say for the sake of argument that everything I wrote is false. Okay, now you have the problem of figuring out just what happened to those resurrected Matthew 27 saints. The usual proposal is that they simply died again. That's not even remotely possible for a resurrected saint, because it opens up the false doctrine that even Christ could conceivably die again after being resurrected, and we know that is impossible..."He being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him". Same thing for us as resurrected saints, since we are called "joint heirs with Christ". We inherit the very same kind of bodily resurrection that He experienced.

The second option is that the Matthew 27 saints are still living on the planet (which I have heard proposed before). In that case, we would need to have evidence of these 144,000 still living today, which is at best difficult if not impossible to prove.

The third option is that the Matthew 27 saints ascended to heaven. But when would that ascension have happened? We know from the time of John 3:13 being written that no man had yet ascended into heaven - not even Enoch or Elijah who was taken "as it were into heaven" (LXX). And Revelation 15:8 tells us that "no man was able to enter into the temple" (in heaven) "till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." That means no access for resurrected mankind to enter heaven's temple until that particular point.

So, you have 2 choices. Either the resurrected Matthew 27 saints are still alive on earth today waiting for the 7 plagues of Revelation to be fulfilled, or those plagues have already been fulfilled at some point in the past, and the Matthew 27 saints ascended to heaven at that point. Take your pick.

 

[Zao is life]

What you are calling "subtle changes" of scripture wording is me examining scripture in the original languages very carefully. NOTHING of what I wrote is fabricated. It is ALL comparing scripture with scripture to come to these conclusions. The Greek for "angels" can mean either human or angelic messengers. The "elect" that God would avenge "speedily" were the "elect" who could not possibly be deceived by false prophets. Etc., etc..

But let's say for the sake of argument that everything I wrote is false. Okay, now you have the problem of figuring out just what happened to those resurrected Matthew 27 saints. The usual proposal is that they simply died again. That's not even remotely possible for a resurrected saint, because it opens up the false doctrine that even Christ could conceivably die again after being resurrected, and we know that is impossible..."He being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him". Same thing for us as resurrected saints, since we are called "joint heirs with Christ". We inherit the very same kind of bodily resurrection that He experienced.

The second option is that the Matthew 27 saints are still living on the planet (which I have heard proposed before). In that case, we would need to have evidence of these 144,000 still living today, which is at best difficult if not impossible to prove.

The third option is that the Matthew 27 saints ascended to heaven. But when would that ascension have happened? We know from the time of John 3:13 being written that no man had yet ascended into heaven - not even Enoch or Elijah who was taken "as it were into heaven" (LXX). And Revelation 15:8 tells us that "no man was able to enter into the temple" (in heaven) "till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." That means no access for resurrected mankind to enter heaven's temple until that particular point.

So, you have 2 choices. Either the resurrected Matthew 27 saints are still alive on earth today waiting for the 7 plagues of Revelation to be fulfilled, or those plagues have already been fulfilled at some point in the past, and the Matthew 27 saints ascended to heaven at that point. Take your pick.

There's no such choice given us in the New Testament, or in the Old Testament. The choice exists in your own imagination.

Scripture tells us nothing, and you've had to add meaning to a lot of verses in the New Testament that isn't meant by the teacher who spoke or wrote it, and change the plain meaning of many others by adding your own false assumptions to them.

You've already taken your pick between scripture and your own imagination regarding where the resurrected ones are today, so I can't tell you to take your pick.

@3 Resurrections I've taken my pick on the side of scripture, not on the side of added fables. I implore you to take make the same choice. Why continue to bluff yourself?

 

[DavidPT]

I'm agnosmillennialist when it comes to whether or not there will be mortals dying in the thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20. There are no statements in the gospels or epistles saying there will be, but there are statements either stating or implying there will be none. I'm basically agnosmilennialist about the words "thousand years" because there are too many questions I have in my mind about all three schools of thought regarding the millennium.

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

I realize you question if a literal thousand years are meant. I don't question this myself since the pattern throughout the entire Bible, without exception, when a cardinal number is followed by years it is always meaning the literal amount of years specified. Why would that apply to all other numbers followed by years except for 1000 when it is followed by years? That pretty much throws a monkey wrench into this pattern throughout the Bible, which then makes one wonder why it is always true of any other number when it is followed by years, but not true if that number is a thousand? There can be no such thing as a literal thousand in the Bible, is that what we are to believe?

When one gets into a debate with Amils about this, without fail they never stick to examples using years, they always bring up the cattle upon a thousand hills, things of that nature. Comparing years with hills is ludicrous. No one denies that a thousand in the Bible at times is not meaning in a literal sense. Instead, why not prove that when numbers are followed by years, that at times they are not meaning the literal amount specified, so that one no longer has to assume a thousand years are literal, because there are examples of other numbers followed by years that are not literal? But not to get into a debate about any of this. I only brought all this up because of what I'm proposing in the first paragraph.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There's no such choice given us in the New Testament, or in the Old Testament. The choice exists in your own imagination.

I should add one more option to the other 3 options: Matthew simply made up this story about the Matthew 27:52-53 saints being resurrected, and lied about it, since he is the only one who recorded this event happening. Is that the option you would choose? By your comments, that would seem to be the case.

 

[DavidPT]

I should add one more option to the other 3 options: Matthew simply made up this story about the Matthew 27:52-53 saints being resurrected, and lied about it, since he is the only one who recorded this event happening. Is that the option you would choose? By your comments, that would seem to be the case.

If it is a mistake, and I'm not saying it is or that it isn't, I simply don't know, it wouldn't have been Matthew that caused it. I found the following article yesterday that is attempting to deal with this passage. If nothing else, some interesting theories at least.

Spurious text: Matthew 27:52-53 - 2001 Translation of the Bible

 

[grafted branch]

Now those in Revelation 20:4 are beheaded after the Second Coming. They physically die and are physically resurrected later. But that was the first day of the millennium, not a last day resurrection.

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

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

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

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

The first resurrection is not even about time.

The first resurrection is physical. The first birth is physical. The first death is physical, and the first resurrection is physical.

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

 

[DavidPT]

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

I have to admit, this is somewhat a clever argument.

 

[Zao is life]

..why then can't the thousand years be when mortals live an entire thousand years?

.. And even though they did, even giving them an entire thousand years didn't save them in the end since they rebel in the end instead.

That would agree with what I said when I said that the only reason I can come up with when asking myself why the thousand years would take place in the NHNE and I said the only reasons I can think of is that God "released" Satan into the Garden of Eden on the sabbath day (because God had finished His work) and God will be 100% just, and seen to be 100% just until the very end (but the very end is maybe not where for a very long time I thought it would be).

I realize you question if a literal thousand years are meant.

No, I don't for one second question the meaning of the Greek word chilioi (a thousand). I don't know where a thousand lietral (chilioi) years fits in. I'm not Amillennialist in that regard. I don't take that solid piece of metal and stretch it out like it's rubber across thousands of years.

But I don't understand exactly how or why a thousand literal years during which Satan is bound and mortals are still living, Satan being released, a judgment of the final rebellion and only after this Satan, death & hades and all those not found in the book of life being thrown into the LOF, would be taking place in the NHNE.

But I also cannot place the commencement of the thousand years before the rise of the beast & FP who behead those who are seen living & reigning with Christ for a literal thousand years.

Catch 22 = erect for yourself a tent and fly an agnosmillennilialist flag on the top of it.

 

[Zao is life]

I should add one more option to the other 3 options: Matthew simply made up this story about the Matthew 27:52-53 saints being resurrected, and lied about it, since he is the only one who recorded this event happening. Is that the option you would choose? By your comments, that would seem to be the case.

No. I just haven't invented religious ideas about what happened to them or where they went to after that, because the New Testament is silent about it.

Inventing religious ideas about what happened to them or where they went to after that is what you have made it your business to do, even though you've had to change the meaning or context of all the scriptures you quoted - and I showed in my post #109 exactly how you have done that.

 

[Zao is life]

If it is a mistake, and I'm not saying it is or that it isn't, I simply don't know, it wouldn't have been Matthew that caused it. I found the following article yesterday that is attempting to deal with this passage. If nothing else, some interesting theories at least.

Spurious text: Matthew 27:52-53 - 2001 Translation of the Bible

THANKS David!
@DavidPT
Actually I take that back. I just read the article. We need to be very, very, very careful before removing verses from scripture just because we do not like them. I just read that article and in no way do I regard their reasons as sufficient for removing ANY verse from scripture.

If that sort of removal of verses takes hold, it will be a free-for-all and there will be no scriptures left, because everyone with a problem with any part of scripture will simply remove it, the way some Messianics have removed all Paul's epistles already just because they don't like it.

But thanks for the link. At least it provides more balance.

Whether or not the verses were inserted later, I have no problem with the idea that there was a resurrection at that time.

The only resurrection of Adam takes place in the last Adam. Adam (i.e the last Adam) has risen from the dead, and all Adam (mankind) with him. He IS the resurrection and the life, and the point in time of Joe's own bodily resurrection compared to Sally's own bodily resurrection does not matter.

 

[Zao is life]

Duplicate post