Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

[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

That article says,

"So the extraordinary events are oddly absent from the other Gospels"

Ridiculous argument. Why are so many things written in John not written in the other gospels? There are also statements in other gospels that are not found either in John or in any of the other synoptic gospels.

"Fifth, older manuscripts report the events with different words. For example, the words “and the graves were opened” (και τα μνημεία ανεώχθησαν) in verse 52 and the words “and went” (εισήλθον) are missing from the Codex Sinaiticus. This is also very suspicious, and typical of spurious words and passages that we know to be fake."

Says nothing about verse 53.

That site has a long list of "spurious texts" they have removed from the Bible. Who gives them that authority, exactly?

 

[DavidPT]

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.

Maybe the following tends to somewhat explain why?

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.


The way I tend to interpret this, is like such. Verse 23 and 24 are meaning during the NHNE. In verse 24 they are going forth and looking upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against Him that were dealt with at the end of this age(Isaiah 66:15-16), and that they are doing this during the beginning of the NHNE. Which then begs the question, why during the NHNE? If these are spared mortals(Zechariah 14:16 for example) looking at these, why would they be doing this in the beginning of the NHNE? Maybe because it serves as a warning to them, that, the fact I have spared you when I returned, and if you too trangress against me your fate will be the same as these. Then a thousand years later when satan is loosed, keeping in mind satan deceives them, the same thing happens to them as well.

 

[Zao is life]

So in Revelation 20:5 we can substitute “This is the first resurrection” to “This is the physical resurrection”?

No. Changing the wording to suit a particular doctrine is illegitimate

Are those who were resurrected in Matthew 27 currently in the millennium?

Did they refuse to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name?

 

[Zao is life]

Maybe the following tends to somewhat explain why?

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.


The way I tend to interpret this, is like such. Verse 23 and 24 are meaning during the NHNE. In verse 24 they are going forth and looking upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against Him that were dealt with at the end of this age(Isaiah 66:15-16), and that they are doing this during the beginning of the NHNE. Which then begs the question, why during the NHNE? If these are spared mortals(Zechariah 14:16 for example) looking at these, why would they be doing this in the beginning of the NHNE? Maybe because it serves as a warning to them, that, the fact I have spared you when I returned, and if you too trangress against me your fate will be the same as these. Then a thousand years later when satan is loosed, keeping in mind satan deceives them, the same thing happens to them as well.

Good point. Good scripture to compare with Revelation 20. There is also the promise that the nations will bring their wealth into the new Jerusalem (Isaiah 60:3, 5 compared with Revelation 21:24, 26), and the statement regarding nations not having rain in Zechariah etc

 

[DavidPT]

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.

You asked me in an earlier post if I have ever heard of a markan sandwich. Actually I have heard of that before. And as to that link I provided, they never considered that an option, unfortunately. Personally, I'm not the type that is looking for texts in the Bible that are allegedly in there by mistake. Still, I don't have complete faith in all these modern day translations of the Bible that some rely on for their source of Scripture, either. I pretty much trust the KJV, yet, some translations, I have to admit, at times make some verses clearer than what they are in the KJV.

 

[Zao is life]

You asked me in an earlier post if I have ever heard of a markan sandwich. Actually I have heard of that before. And as to that link I provided, they never considered that an option, unfortunately. Personally, I'm not the type that is looking for texts in the Bible that are allegedly in there by mistake. Still, I don't have complete faith in all these modern day translations of the Bible that some rely on for their source of Scripture, either. I pretty much trust the KJV, yet, some translations, I have to admit, at times make some verses clearer than what they are in the KJV.

There is a set of manuscripts or Codexes that all translators compare when translating the New Testament: @DavidPT Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and Textus Receptus. I think about 98% of each is in agreement. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are older than Textus Receptus, and these do not contain certain verses that are found in the Textus Receptus (which is the text used for the KJV).

But simply taking text out is not an option for me. If the scholars and textual critics who work on translations such the NIV etc have a valid reason for believing they are spurious verses, then underline the spurious parts. But leave them in there. Footnotes etc are enough to say why they are regarded as spurious.

 

[DavidPT]

There is a set of manuscripts or Codexes that all translators compare when translating the New Testament: @DavidPT Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and Textus Receptus. I think about 98% of each is in agreement. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are older than Textus Receptus, and these do not contain certain verses that are found in the Textus Receptus (which is the text used for the KJV).

But simply taking text out is not an option for me. If the scholars and textual critics who work on translations such the NIV etc have a valid reason for believing they are spurious verses, then underline the spurious parts. But leave them in there. Footnotes etc are enough to say why they are regarded as spurious.

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

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

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

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

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

 

[Zao is life]

@DavidPT I've been looking through this site that you gave the link for:

2001 Translation of the Bible

I think it's a good and legit site, and I see they don't remove verses that have been identified as spurious, they just cross them out, which to me, is satisfactory.

I noticed something they say here:

(quote) "The biggest problem with Bibles is not spurious words. It’s deliberate mistranslation to support various dogmas."

Can you imagine, David, letting loose any and all Amils, Pre-mils, Post-mils, Preterists, Partial Preterists, Futurists etc etc etc on the Bible to come up with a new translation? Different words will be chosen everywhere to suit specific doctrines, changing the meaning of the verse/s. Some things will be added. Some verses will be deleted.

I have a copy of "The Complete Jewish Bible" which I purchased long ago. I've seen parts where exactly the above is done with verses in the New Testament (in Galatians, Romans and elsewhere) that speak about the Law. Different words are chosen to suit the translator's doctrines.

Considering how some of the posters here add meaning to parts of the Bible that are clearly not meant, and change the meaning of other parts to suit their own doctrines, if people with a doctrinal position were let loose on creating new versions of the Bible, then future generations will have a much, much, much tougher job in finding the original and correct translations, if they even could anymore (that is, were this Age to continue for another thousand years or more).

Praise the Lord for our Bible translators, and for sites like the one above (which you first gave the link for). I'm actually happy now to have it, and I've bookmarked it.

I will now add their version to my list of versions that I always compare when reading the Bible.

 

[Zao is life]

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

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

@DavidPT
I C U R determined to get me back into the Premil camp lol.

 

[grafted branch]

No. Changing the wording to suit a particular doctrine is illegitimate

Agreed
Timtofly said this…

The first resurrection is physical.

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

Did they refuse to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name?

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

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

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

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

 

[Zao is life]

Agreed
Timtofly said this…

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



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

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

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

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

1. Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection, and it is the resurrection of the body.
2. Every resurrection of any believer is with Christ's resurrection, and takes place because of Christ - the last Adam's - resurrection, and it is the resurrection of the body.
3. It does not matter when in time Joe's own bodily resurrection compared with Sally's own bodily resurrection takes place (or took place, Matthew 27:53), it is still the first resurrection, and is the resurrection of the body.

1. Adam's death (which came to all mankind).
2. Adam's resurrection (in Christ, the last Adam).
3. The second death.

No second resurrection after the second death.

@grafted branch The question of whether or not the mark of the beast has come and gone makes no difference to THE (Christ's) RESURRECTION, because there is only one "THE (Christ, the last Adam's) RESURRECTION".

Any human born into the world was born into Adam, and inherited Adam's death. Since Christ any human born of the Spirit from above inherits Christ (the last Adam's) resurrection from the dead

- and that includes the saints of the Old Testament because the blood of Christ, i.e the death and resurrection of Christ became necessary for any human to receive grace and be saved from death since Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the qualifying factor for receiving this free gift (grace) has always been faith in the Word of God.

 

[DavidPT]

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

When John received the Revelation visions, which would be post when Matthew 27 is meaning, he indicated this of the beast.


Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


I would think that at the time of these visions, this part---was---would be meaning it's status at one time prior to these visions---and this part---is not---would be meaning at the time of these visions---and this part---shall ascend out of the bottomless pit---is meaning a time post these visions.

As to a mark(Revelation 13), until a beast ascends out of the pit first, and a 2nd beast out of the earth, there is no mark to take or not take. Revelation 13 makes that undeniably clear. Revelation 13 can only be involving a time after the beast has ascendenth out of the pit first. The beast couldn't have done that during the time meant in Matthew 27 nor a time prior to that if it doesn't even ascend out of the pit until a time post that of John having these visions.

The chronology is this---initially the beast is not in the pit(was). Then it is in the pit(is not). Then it is no longer in the pit(ascends out of the pit.) As can be seen, since it is only in the pit one time, it can only ascend from the pit one time. When it's status was 'was', it would have no need to ascend out of the pit because it hasn't even been in the pit yet.

According to Revelation 13 one can't have a beast operating in the earth at the time unless there is also a 2nd beast operating in the earth at the time, meaning the false prophet. When the status of the beast was this--'was'--where is there also a 2nd beast at the time, the false prophet? There was no false prophet operating in the earth together with the beast when it's status was--was and is not--that only happens when it's status is that it has ascended out of the pit.

 

[grafted branch]

The question of whether or not the mark of the beast has come and gone makes no difference to THE (Christ's) RESURRECTION, because there is only one "THE (Christ, the last Adam's) RESURRECTION".

So does the first resurrection in Revelation 20:5 = THE (Christ’s) RESURRECTION?

 

[grafted branch]

When John received the Revelation visions, which would be post when Matthew 27 is meaning, he indicated this of the beast.


Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


I would think that at the time of these visions, this part---was---would be meaning it's status at one time prior to these visions---and this part---is not---would be meaning at the time of these visions---and this part---shall ascend out of the bottomless pit---is meaning a time post these visions.

When I look at Revelation 17:8 I see the beast that was (in the nations being able to deceive them), and is not (not currently in the nations deceiving them) and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit (to deceive them once again).

Revelation 12:3 has the dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns, Revelation 13:1 the beast has 7 heads and 10 horns, and Revelation 17:3 the beast has 7 heads and 10 horns. The beast in Revelation 17 was, is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, the same as Satan in Revelation 20. I would say these are all Satan in one form or fashion. The second beast (false prophet) in Revelation 13 doesn’t have the 7 heads and 10 horns, I think this is just simply Satan transformed into an angel of light.

The only place Satan being transformed into an angel of light can fit into all this is when the beast is not and yet is in Revelation 17:8.

As to a mark(Revelation 13), until a beast ascends out of the pit first, and a 2nd beast out of the earth, there is no mark to take or not take. Revelation 13 makes that undeniably clear. Revelation 13 can only be involving a time after the beast has ascendenth out of the pit first. The beast couldn't have done that during the time meant in Matthew 27 nor a time prior to that if it doesn't even ascend out of the pit until a time post that of John having these visions.

Is there any reason we should speculate that the mark of the beast is only a temporary thing? The dragon (Satan) gives the beast in Revelation 13 his power, seat, and great authority. Are we to assume that the dragon never had the mark of the beast and that the beast created the mark himself? What ever power the mark of the beast has had to have come from Satan.

As to a mark(Revelation 13), until a beast ascends out of the pit first, and a 2nd beast out of the earth, there is no mark to take or not take. Revelation 13 makes that undeniably clear.

Why is this undeniably clear? Can you expound on this?

 

[Zao is life]

So does the first resurrection in Revelation 20:5 = THE (Christ’s) RESURRECTION?

Like every human being's resurrection from the dead, It takes place with (synegeiro) Christ's resurrection, it cannot take place independent of Christ's resurrection. The resurrection is in Christ, the last Adam. Believe Him when He tells you, "I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live." John 11:25.

 

[Zao is life]

When John received the Revelation visions, which would be post when Matthew 27 is meaning, he indicated this of the beast.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

That is again 100% true and I must really try and remember it, because it torpedoes the Preterist claim, exposing it as false.

 

[DavidPT]

Why is this undeniably clear? Can you expound on this?

Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death ; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth ; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed .
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast ; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live .
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed .
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name .


There is no mark to take or not take until everything I have underlined is true first. None of that can be true until the beast ascends out of the pit, and that a 2nd beast comes up out of the earth, where the 2nd one then causes everything recorded in verses 12-17 to come to pass.

Notice that it is the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live, that they should make an image to. This deadly wound that is healed only makes sense when the status of the beast is that it has ascended out of the pit. When it's status was 'was', it wouldn't be involving a head where it's deadly wound is healed, nor would it be involving that when it's status was 'is not'.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

This verse proves Premil not Amil. which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. How can the image meant here not be meaning the same image they should make according to Revelation 13:14? How can that image to the beast not be meaning the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live? How can this same beast ascend out of the pit after the thousand years, like some Amils claim(maybe not you though, I don't know), if Revelation 20:4 is already proving it ascends out of the pit before the thousand years even begin?

If we place the beginning of the thousand years at the cross, that means we then have to place everything recorded in Revelation 13 before the time of the cross if that chapter is meaning before the thousand years begin. Revelation 13 belongs in the end of this age because both the beast and false prophet have to be active at the time in order to be dealt with when Christ returns in Revelation 19. That means the thousand years don't begin until after Christ returns. That means the first resurrection is bodily since it would make zero sense to take it to be meaning in another sense, such as spiritual, once Christ has returned.

 

[grafted branch]

Like every human being's resurrection from the dead, It takes place with (synegeiro) Christ's resurrection, it cannot take place independent of Christ's resurrection. The resurrection is in Christ, the last Adam. Believe Him when He tells you, "I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live." John 11:25.

I think you realize that to answer that question with a simple yes disproves Premil and exposes it as false.

 

[grafted branch]

There is no mark to take or not take until everything I have underlined is true first. None of that can be true until the beast ascends out of the pit, and that a 2nd beast comes up out of the earth, where the 2nd one then causes everything recorded in verses 12-17 to come to pass.

That is speculation, it doesn’t state anywhere in the text you quoted that the mark didn’t exist prior to Revelation 13, you are only assuming it didn’t to try to prove your point.

Notice that it is the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live, that they should make an image to. This deadly wound that is healed only makes sense when the status of the beast is that it has ascended out of the pit. When it's status was 'was', it wouldn't be involving a head where it's deadly wound is healed, nor would it be involving that when it's status was 'is not'.

I personally will admit I don’t understand exactly what all is being conveyed by all the symbolism in Revelation 13 but Revelation 17:9 says the heads are mountains. Matthew 17:20 shows that those that have faith can remove mountains. I would say the deadly wound by the sword was the very words of those that had faith.

If we place the beginning of the thousand years at the cross, that means we then have to place everything recorded in Revelation 13 before the time of the cross if that chapter is meaning before the thousand years begin.

Exactly

Revelation 13 belongs in the end of this age because both the beast and false prophet have to be active at the time in order to be dealt with when Christ returns in Revelation 19. That means the thousand years don't begin until after Christ returns. That means the first resurrection is bodily since it would make zero sense to take it to be meaning in another sense, such as spiritual, once Christ has returned.

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

 

[Zao is life]

I think you realize that to answer that question with a simple yes disproves Premil and exposes it as false.

By your illogical answer you show that you believe that the resurrection of those spoken of in Matthew 27:53, which the text says took place after Christ's resurrection, took place independently of Christ's resurrection, and the resurrection of those mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 occurs independently of Christ's resurrection.

@grafted branch

When did the beast ascend from the abyss?

And can you also tell us when the beast rose from out of the earth?