Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

[Zao is life]

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

Yes.

John 11
25 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.

No human's resurrection takes place independent of the above.

If you deny this, you are denying the words of Christ Himself.

@grafted branch

Now can you answer my questions please?

1. When did the beast ascend from the abyss?
2. When did the false prophet ascend from the earth?

 

[Zao is life]

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.

It's totally logical.

 

[Zao is life]

It's become obvious that there are people who, in order to hold onto their own false doctrines, will deny that Christ is the Resurrection and the Life for every human being (the first and only resurrection of Adam and all the sons of Adam whose resurrection is with Christ's resurrection, before the second death takes all the sons of Adam whose names are not written in the Book of Life).

We need to get past this, because there is only one resurrection in the scriptures.

 

[grafted branch]

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?

I believe that those in Matthew 27:53 were the bodily first fruits. If you are including everyone being bodily resurrected in Christ’s resurrection then everyone will be considered first fruits. Where is the logic in that? If not then the first bodily resurrection has occurred.


I don’t pretend to be able to explain all of Revelation. I would say that the beast (Satan) ascends out of the bottomless pit after the 1,000 years. The beast comes out of the earth at the time Satan is transformed into an angel of light.

 

[Zao is life]

I believe that those in Matthew 27:53 were the bodily first fruits. If you are including everyone being bodily resurrected in Christ’s resurrection then everyone will be considered first fruits. Where is the logic in that? If not then the first bodily resurrection has occurred.


I don’t pretend to be able to explain all of Revelation. I would say that the beast (Satan) ascends out of the bottomless pit after the 1,000 years. The beast comes out of the earth at the time Satan is transformed into an angel of light.

Brother, when you spoke to @DavidPT , and now a second time, you admitted that you don't know what you're talking about, and yet you continued "anyway" to argue against DavidPT's totally logical and truthful point.

That sort of thing will only audition you for one of the main actors in the Ridiculousness show, because no one argues against a totally logical and truthful statement in the first place, but especially if he knows that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

But worse than that, you also continued to argue against a basic Christian doctrine, i.e that Christ - our Savior - is the Resurrection and the Life for Adam and all the sons of Adam whose resurrection from the dead takes place with Christ's - the last Adam's - resurrection, before the second death takes all the sons of Adam whose names are not found in (the same book) of Life.

There are already thousands, if not tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Christians about in the world who are deluded by their own strong delusions, due to the fact that they are refusing to allow the Bible to teach them what it is saying and what it means, and instead keep telling the Bible what it is saying and what it means.

The human need to prove we're right about our theological or eschatological dogma should never cloud our thinking.

 

[grafted branch]

But worse than that, you also continued to argue against a basic Christian doctrine, i.e that Christ - our Savior - is the Resurrection and the Life for Adam and all the sons of Adam whose resurrection from the dead takes place with Christ's - the last Adam's - resurrection, before the second death takes all the sons of Adam whose names are not found in (the same book) of Life.

How about showing a brother where he’s wrong.

In post #63 I said this …

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.

In what other post have I denied that Christ is the resurrection and that he was the first resurrection?

 

[3 Resurrections]

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

What claim would that be?

There are no less than THREE different Beasts in Revelation. All three different Beasts had existed before the Matthew 27 resurrection, but the last, third beast of Revelation 17 "IS NOT" in existence at the time John was writing Revelation. However, it was soon "about to ascend out of the abyss and go into destruction". Once it rose briefly to existence again, it would not last long at all before it was destroyed once again in John's days.

 

[Zao is life]

How about showing a brother where he’s wrong.

In post #63 I said this …

In what other post have I denied that Christ is the resurrection and that he was the first resurrection?

There we go. Answered in Post #149

 

[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.

(In other words, the answer to the question was clearly YES, with an explanation of the reason why it is so, provided).

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

It does not disprove Premil, Amil or Postmil. It proves that Christ is the Resurrection and the Life of Adam and all the sons of Adam who are resurrected with Christ's resurrection, and it proves that the second death will take all the sons of Adam whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Your question which prompted my first reply and your answer to my reply shows that you do not believe this. Then you ask,

How about showing a brother where he’s wrong.

In post #63 I said this …

In what other post have I denied that Christ is the resurrection and that he was the first resurrection?

So do you believe the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 is part of the first resurrection and that Christ is the first resurrection, or don't you?

Clearly for you, it depends on whether the Resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 takes place at the return of Christ and the close of this Age, or took place in the first century.

You cannot restrict the efficacy of the Resurrection of Christ to time. Christ is the Resurrection and the Life. There's always only a First Resurrection of Adam (mankind), and there will be no second resurrection following the second death.

You need to explain yourself because you seem to be claiming (or at least strongly implying by your questions and statements) that the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 cannot be the first resurrection if it takes place at the close of this Age.

And if that's what you believe, then you are also claiming that Christ is not the Resurrection and the Life for Adam and all the sons of Adam.

 

[DavidPT]

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.

I'm sticking to what the text states yet you call it speculating on my part. No need to speculate if one is sticking to what the text says.


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.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


Apparently, none of these martyrs recorded in verse 4 can be meaning saints prior to Jesus' first coming. No saints were ever martyred for the witness of Jesus before Jesus was born and walked the earth first. No saint was ever martyred for not worshiping the beast, neither his image, before the beast ascends out of the pit and a 2nd one out of the earth, and then demands these things.

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.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

How can anyone possibly apply this to all of human history since the beginning of man? Verse 8 says---And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him. All that dwell upon the earth when? How can it not be once verse 3 comes to pass and then during verse 5? Doesn't verse 3 indicate that all the world wondered after the beast that has one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed?

Did all the world do that in Adam's day? In Noah's day? In Abraham's day? Did all the world do that before the beast ascends out of the pit first?

The beast is not satan, yet you think it is according to one of your posts. If I agreed the beast and satan were one and the same, I would then have to agree that the beast ascends out of the pit after the thousand years. If I agreed that the beast is satan I would then have to agree with nonsense since Revelation 20:10 has the beast already being tormented in the LOF before satan is even cast into it himself.

But let's just ignore that fact and insist satan and the beast are one and the same, regardless. That way one can't claim the beast ascends out of the pit prior to the thousand years expiring, but instead has to agree it doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years. And who is claiming the beast ascends out of the pit before the thousand years expires, in the first place? John is claiming that in Revelation 20:4 and some of us are simply agreeing with him is all.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No saints were ever martyred for the witness of Jesus before Jesus was born and walked the earth first.

Not true. Stephen's testimony to the Jews who were about to martyr him refutes your point. "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers." (Acts 7:52).

 

[DavidPT]

Not true. Stephen's testimony to the Jews who were about to martyr him refutes your point. "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers." (Acts 7:52).

Maybe you have a valid point here when looking at it like that. I may rethink what I said and change my position accordingly. But only in regards to that and not also in regards to worshiping the beast, which is something one does not do until it ascends out of the pit first. Which means there can't already be martyrs for not worshiping the beast, neither it's image, unless the beast ascends out of the pit, and another one out of the earth first. Which then debunks that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years expire.

 

[DavidPT]

Thinking out loud here.

Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

If I recall, this is one of the verses Amils use to support that the first resurrection meant in Revelation 20 is not meaning bodily.

In this verse it involves similies. Everyone pretty much know what similies are. Obviously then, His death is meaning His literal death and that His resurrection is meaning His literal bodily resurrection. Therefore, even in this verse it is still proving that everywhere anastasis is used in a verse it is always involving a literal resurrection.

How then can anastasis mean something different in Revelation 20?

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.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Verse 5 says this---This is the first resurrection. What is the first resurrection? Is it not this---and they lived? Who lived? Ppl that were already still physically alive and not even dead yet? Or ppl that were already physically dead? How can verse 5 say the rest of the dead lived not again, without it meaning that some of the dead already lived again before they get to? Why do those in verse 5 get to live again but those in verse 4 don't?

Some Amils argue that if verse 4 means live again it would have said so by using the same Greek word it does in verse 5. Yet, it doesn't need to say in verse 4 they live again when it's already plainly obvious that that is what they do if they are physically dead first then live. Since when does a resurrection not mean live again?

 

[parousia70]

So do you believe the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 is part of the first resurrection and that Christ is the first resurrection, or don't you?

I do.

Jesus Christ was, plainly, the first resurrection. This fact forms the basis of St. John's depiction of the tribulation martyr saints becoming full partakers of the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20--everything Christ received by his death and resurrection is granted to them. Revelation 20:4-6, therefore, depicts the reality of Pauline theology concerning the identity Christ's followers had "in Him." Paul had taught that the saints were to become partakers of Christ's own reign and victory over death. Paul, with his detailed theology of our baptism into the very death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom 6:3-14), taught that the saints had co-resurrection and co-enthronement in the realized resurrection and enthronement of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 20:4-6 is a narrative depiction of the saints' realization of the glorious promise Paul held out for them in his teachings--the saints are depicted as having attained the goal for which they all strove. As Paul taught, their resurrection and reign was "in Christ," and their sufferings and martyrdoms were honored by God with the reward of partaking in Christ's own resurrection, enthronement, and reign. They realized the promise of Paul's teaching that the saints were truly to take part in the first resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Truly, on these the second death has no power (Rev 20:6).

 

[parousia70]

Thinking out loud here....
Since when does a resurrection not mean live again?

Though I would agree, in the broadest of sense, resurrection does always carry the connotation of new life, or Living again, The Bible uses the idea of "resurrection" more specifically to discuss national restorations (Isa 26:13-14,19-20/ Ez 37), personal salvation/baptism (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12), the transfer of departed souls in the O.T. Hades/Sheol into God's heaven, and the final state of all things.

For example, I would characterize Luke 2:34-35 as speaking of Israel's first-century destruction and re-constitution via the Nazarene sect of King Jesus under the foretold NEW covenant.

How would you characterize the resurrection spoken of in that passage?

 

[grafted branch]

So do you believe the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 is part of the first resurrection and that Christ is the first resurrection, or don't you?

Clearly for you, it depends on whether the Resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 takes place at the return of Christ and the close of this Age, or took place in the first century.

You cannot restrict the efficacy of the Resurrection of Christ to time. Christ is the Resurrection and the Life. There's always only a First Resurrection of Adam (mankind), and there will be no second resurrection following the second death.

You need to explain yourself because you seem to be claiming (or at least strongly implying by your questions and statements) that the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 cannot be the first resurrection if it takes place at the close of this Age.

And if that's what you believe, then you are also claiming that Christ is not the Resurrection and the Life for Adam and all the sons of Adam.

Absolutely! Revelation 20:5 says this is the first resurrection. Revelation 20:5 does not say this is a person participating in the first resurrection; you would have to add that to the scriptures if you wanted to make that point.

Christ was literally resurrected approx. AD 30. This is the first resurrection and I don’t anticipate Christ being resurrected again.

Revelation 20:5 says the rest of the dead lived not again till the 1,000 years were finished. Are these folks taking part in the first resurrection? Do you see every resurrection (physical or spiritual) being the first resurrection? If so then those who do receive the mark of the beast will take part in the first resurrection.

 

[grafted branch]

The beast is not satan, yet you think it is according to one of your posts. If I agreed the beast and satan were one and the same, I would then have to agree that the beast ascends out of the pit after the thousand years. If I agreed that the beast is satan I would then have to agree with nonsense since Revelation 20:10 has the beast already being tormented in the LOF before satan is even cast into it himself.

In Revelation 20:10 the word “are” is not in the original text. Some translations such as the amplified Bible use the word “were” instead. If we use the word were then the beast, false prophet, and Satan can all be one and the same.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Maybe you have a valid point here when looking at it like that. I may rethink what I said and change my position accordingly. But only in regards to that and not also in regards to worshiping the beast, which is something one does not do until it ascends out of the pit first. Which means there can't already be martyrs for not worshiping the beast, neither it's image, unless the beast ascends out of the pit, and another one out of the earth first. Which then debunks that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years expire.

Thank you, DavidPT, that is gracious of you to do some reconsidering. Not everybody is willing to do that. Also, scripture never says that worship was given to the Revelation 17 Scarlet Beast that was "about to ascend out of the pit" in John's days. It was the other Revelation 13 Sea Beast that the Revelation 13 Land Beast compelled those in the earth to worship, along with its image.

There were no less than three different Beasts written about in Revelation. Worship of the Sea Beast had been going on before the millennium's end in AD 33. It is entirely valid that the millennium had already expired before John wrote Revelation, according to Revelation 12:12 compared with Revelation 20: 3 and 7. This ending of the millennium in AD 33 had taken place before the Scarlet Beast revived its existence; when it was "about to ascend out of the abyss and go into destruction" - in John's immediate future.

 

[Zao is life]

The beast is not satan, yet you think it is according to one of your posts. If I agreed the beast and satan were one and the same, I would then have to agree that the beast ascends out of the pit after the thousand years. If I agreed that the beast is satan I would then have to agree with nonsense since Revelation 20:10 has the beast already being tormented in the LOF before satan is even cast into it himself.

Copy @grafted branch

Besides that, The Revelation itself makes a very clear distinction between the beast and Satan.

* Revelation 13:2 has the dragon giving the beast his seat, his power and great authority.
* The crowns that were seen on the dragon's seven heads in Revelation 12:3 have shifted to the ten horns of the beast in Revelation 13:1, thus confirming that the dragon is giving this beast his seat, his power and great authority.

Unless Satan is giving power to himself, Satan and the beast are not the same.

 

[Zao is life]

I do.

Jesus Christ was, plainly, the first resurrection. This fact forms the basis of St. John's depiction of the tribulation martyr saints becoming full partakers of the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20--everything Christ received by his death and resurrection is granted to them. Revelation 20:4-6, therefore, depicts the reality of Pauline theology concerning the identity Christ's followers had "in Him." Paul had taught that the saints were to become partakers of Christ's own reign and victory over death. Paul, with his detailed theology of our baptism into the very death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom 6:3-14), taught that the saints had co-resurrection and co-enthronement in the realized resurrection and enthronement of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 20:4-6 is a narrative depiction of the saints' realization of the glorious promise Paul held out for them in his teachings--the saints are depicted as having attained the goal for which they all strove. As Paul taught, their resurrection and reign was "in Christ," and their sufferings and martyrdoms were honored by God with the reward of partaking in Christ's own resurrection, enthronement, and reign. They realized the promise of Paul's teaching that the saints were truly to take part in the first resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Truly, on these the second death has no power (Rev 20:6).

Good. Then we are at least on the same page with regard to the fact that After Adam's death, death came to all mankind, and, and mankind's resurrection is with Christ's (the last Adam's) resurrection from the dead, and that He rose from the dead bodily with a glorified, spiritual, tangible body, and ascended into heaven bodily.

1. Do you believe in a general bodily resurrection for all mankind who belong to Christ?
2. If so, do you believe this general bodily resurrection is still coming, or has come already?

(Obviously if your answer to question 1 is "NO", question 2 is not applicable).