Gray Areas

[P1LGR1M]

having enjoyed our part in the first resurrection,

The "First Resurrection" is a bodily resurrection, the spiritual resurrection of the new birth is not in view:



Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.

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


"...and they lived."

Clearly these have been put to death, and are brought back to life in the First Resurrection.

In type there are only two resurrections:


John 5:29

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]
29 [/SUP]And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


This is a foundational Old Testament Doctrine:


Daniel 12:1-2

King James Version (KJV)
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

[SUP]2 [/SUP]And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


In terms of events, there are, in Revelation...three resurrections. The resurrection of the Two Witnesses, the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs, and the resurrection of the dead, which is the general resurrection which Daniel and Christ taught.

That does not mean that there will only be one general resurrection, and we know there is not, first, because we understand that Mystery concerning Resurrection was revealed after Daniel and Christ's teachings, and secondly...

...we see three resurrections in Revelation, and the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs is not the "first" in sequence...the resurrection of the Two Witnesses is.

The problem with seeing the word "first" as referring to sequence is that it demands reconciliation of why we see a resurrection prior to the First Resurrection of Revelation 20.

If we simply leave the timeline of events in place, and understand the word "first," we will see that a demand for sequential definition is not only in error, but creates conflict in Scripture (though we know the only conflict is with those who erroneously conclude on this Resurrection).

First (pun intended, lol), the "First Resurrection" in terms of sequence is...

...the Lord Jesus Christ's:


Colossians 1:18

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]18 [/SUP]And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


Secondly, we see that the word "first" does not demand sequence.

See the link for "first" in the passage in view:


Revelation 20:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.

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


For those interested in seeing the Biblical Usage of protos, click on the link and scroll down to see where this word is used.

Here are a few examples:


Matthew 22:36-38

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]36 [/SUP]Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

[SUP]37 [/SUP]Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

[SUP]38 [/SUP]This is the first and great commandment.


While protos can be seen to refer to a sequential meaning, would we impose that meaning here? In the context of the passage?

The answer is no, the man inquires which is the most important. Christ defines the meaning for us.

How about here...


Mark 10:44

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]44 [/SUP]And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.



...?

And my favorite example:



Hebrews 8:7

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]7 [/SUP]For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.


Was the Covenant of Law the first Covenant?

But when we get to the First Resurrection...sequence is imposed by those who refuse to acknowledge that the First Resurrection is not First in sequence (seen even within Revelation itself)...

...but first in type, or quality.

Christ is the First to be raised:


1 Corinthians 15:20-23

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]20 [/SUP]But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

[SUP]21 [/SUP]For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

[SUP]22 [/SUP]For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

[SUP]23 [/SUP]But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


He is the Firstborn from the dead, and while "firstborn" can also refer to rank, we can conclude when we balance all relevant Scripture that His is the first Resurrection in the Biblical Timeline of events.

Then we see the Two Witnesses resurrected and raptured:


Revelation 11:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]11 [/SUP]And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

[SUP]12 [/SUP]And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.


Then we see the First Resurrection of Revelation 20 (and reference to the resurrection of the dead that will occur one thousand years later):


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.

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


Then we see the final Resurrection, the General Resurrection first taught in the Old Testament, then taught by Christ, then further expanded (by Revelation of Mystery and the Prophecy of Revelation itself) by Paul and John:


Revelation 20:12-15

King James Version (KJV)


[SUP]12 [/SUP]And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were
in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

[SUP]14 [/SUP]And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

[SUP]15 [/SUP]And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


It is not, therefore, a gray area when someone misinterprets Revelation 20, but a refusal to calculate all that has to be considered in trying to understand the First Resurrection, which is not first in sequence, but first in rank, type, or quality.

Again, there are only two resurrections taught in Scripture in regards to type:


John 5:29

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]29 [/SUP]And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


And the Resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs is of the First, a resurrection unto life.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

ok, I'm confused... I thought SOG's post was very much related to the OP...

I also thought this thread was to follow-up on the line of discussion that started (imo) with this post from the "Ten Reasons" thread

You are correct. SOG stated there were, and the thread was begun to examine whether there is anything that can legitimately called a loop-hole or gray area, which stands in contradiction to my own belief that God did not give revelation He had no intention of...

...actually revealing.

He tried to redefine the scope of the OP by including issues which are not part of the Bible, but side issues.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

that is the resurrection of Christ.

The full statement was...

What occurs in chapter 20 is a vision of THIS AGE with Christ and His saints reigning in Heaven (whilst we reign with Him in the heavenlies - Eph 2.5-6) having enjoyed our part in the first resurrection, that is the resurrection of Christ.

You are equating the New Birth to the First Resurrection of Revelation 20.

That Resurrection is not our spiritual resurrection which takes place while we are alive. We remain in fallen flesh until either we die or are taken up in the Rapture.

And remember, whether we die or not...we all, the Church, will be caught up in resurrected bodies. Paul's teaching cannot be nullified.

We have been raised with Him (Col 3.1). THAT is the first resurrection.

That is not what Scripture teaches: the First Resurrection is the resurrection of Saints that die during the Tribulation period.

It might interest some to know that the A-millennial view is the view most held in Church History, but...it is not the first view.

Of course it was the first view.

Not at all, we can see that all Jews believed in the Kingdom which God promised.

And we see that Revelation teaches that Christ Returns prior to that Kingdom being established.

And whether you view the Kingdom as being one thousand years or "a long time," you cannot nullify that teaching of Scripture which predates the opinions of men, regardless of whether they are vaunted "Church Fathers" or not.

If you base your Eschatology on the works of Church Fathers that are Post Biblical, you will have the problems (as pointed out in this response).

But if you base your Eschatology on Scripture...a consistent harmony is seen. And all Scripture is harmonious with itself.

It was the view of Jesus,

Not even close: Christ used the Kingdom to illustrate His teaching quite often.

Also, we have to say that God reneges on His promises to Israel in regards to that Kingdom.

Even on the Day of Ascension we see the disciples associate that Kingdom with the Promises of God:


Acts 1:4-7

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

[SUP]6[/SUP]When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.


Christ doesn't say "Well we are going to use Plan B," but states the times and the seasons for fulfillment are not something they are to know.

Paul,

Paul does not, I admit, make any specific reference to the Kingdom, but, keep in mind that Paul felt the Rapture of the Church was imminent.

Doesn't change the fact that Old Testament Prophecy and Revelation both teach the Kingdom, and because the Timeline of events is ignored, as well as Old Testament Prophecy (which some think God has abandoned), nullification of Biblical Doctrine takes place.

Peter,

Let's look at the Scripture.

James

Let's look at the Scripture.

and John (where not misinterpreted).

It is very clear:


Revelation 20:4-5

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.

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


It is not interpretation that concludes this doesn't mean what it says.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Just because some later fathers got entangled in Jewish fables

The only Fathers we need to be concerned with are those utilized in God's revelation. That means the entire New Testament as well as the entire Old Testament.

All Post-Apostolic "fathers" are not to be equated to the bible Writers, nor are their words authoritative on a par with Scripture.

And I will throw this in for free: do you believe in the Trinity? Could you give me a Biblical quote of the first Bible Writer who makes the statement "God is Three in One? (and just for the Public Record...I am Trinitarian)

The point is that the Doctrine of the Trinity was developed later by balancing Scripture.

Here is another example from the Old Testament: who in the Old Testament understood that Christ would die for man on an eternal basis? There is enough for us to see it in the Old Testament, but...we would not see it apart from the revelation of the New Testament.

And speaking of fairy tales, lets see a group that designated something a fairy tale:


Luke 24:6-11

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP]He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

[SUP]7 [/SUP]Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

[SUP]8 [/SUP]And they remembered his words,

[SUP]9 [/SUP]And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

[SUP]10 [/SUP]It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

[SUP]11 [/SUP]And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

You understand this is the Disciples of Christ, called Apostles (and this is a hind-sight reference of the writer)...considering the declaration of Christ's Resurrection as idle tales, right?

So my advice would be refrain from trying to make the Early Church Fathers' opinions equal to the Word of God. They are not.

And while we can examine their opinions, and trust that some of it properly represents sound Doctrine, that doesn't mean we use their works as foundational to Biblical Doctrine.

They are not.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

we cannot ignore the fact that Jesus, Paul and Peter were remarkably reticent about any coming future reign on earth.

Where is your Scripture?

An argument from silence is poor foundation for Doctrine, my friend.

It is no wonder you have gray areas.

It bec

ame very popular at the time of the Reformation, and was a view presented as a counter-view to the Catholic view which was pre-millennial.

LOL

Laugh it up. You boast of having a knowledge of the Early Church so do some research.

Then, when you do that...can we get back to Scripture and the revelation of God? And leave behind the opinions and works of men?

you clearly haven't read Augustine (4th century AD).

Haven't followed the teachings of Montanus, either.

Relevance to the Word of God?

The predominant view among the early fathers was amillennial.

I think I pointed out that the A-millennial view is the most embraced view in Church History.

And this means that their view is Biblical?

Not even close.

Ironically, many Catholics have embraced a hermeneutical approach similar to that of the reformers, to where in speaking with both those of Catholic and Reformed Theology, we have a hard time distinguishing between the two. And given the enmity between the two groups, it is not likely that many on either side understand that the similarities they have in their approach is, well...scary.

Not really. It stems back to the early fathers whome they both interpreted.

Doesn't change the fact that there is an opposing view between the Catholic Church and the Reformers.

As most A-Millennials seem to get hung up in the works and opinions of men, and think Church History is an authoritative resource from which Biblical Doctrine can be derived and verified by those works, I will let you work that out for yourself.

In this thread...we are only concerned with what the Word of God has to say.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

So are the conclusions both arrive at in regards to what Scripture makes clear.

what I always admire is spiritual humility LOL

Well, you can also learn to admire confidence in Doctrine built upon the study of the Word of God.

Some will use Peter's statement to nullify Scripture:
2 Peter 3:8 King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Not to nullify Scripture. To exemplify it.


This is thought to render this...


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

[SUP]2 [/SUP]And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

[SUP]3 [/SUP]And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.

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

[SUP]6 [/SUP]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.

[SUP]7 [/SUP]And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,


...as figurative.

No as LITERAL but recognising that the use of large round numbers in those days was a device to indicate a long period of uncertain length.

I agree, a thousand years refers to a long period of time.

Thanks for that concession, it destroys your argument.

Thus in the Old Testament 'a thousand' regularly indicates an uncertain but large number..

Revelation 20 is New Testament, my friend.

So tell me...does the Lord not reign for a specific period? Are not Tribulation Martyrs said to reign with Him?

Actually they are not.

They are:


Revelation 20:4

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.


Those who spiritualize Scripture to the point they nullify what is being taught fail to place this within the context of Revelation.

This is not just a general reference to doing evil, the thoughts and deeds of the wicked being in view, but correlates to what is pretty clear in Revelation in the Timeline of Events.


Revelation 13:16-17

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]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:

[SUP]17 [/SUP]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.


And if you don't mind, if you don't agree, okay. Spare me the various understandings of the Mark of the Beast, lol, this is Prophecy, and it has not taken place yet.

Those who reign with Him are the SOULS of those who have died in Christ from the beginning.

Couldn't be, because the Rapture has all believers, both alive and dead...being caught up. That is...they are all glorified at the same event.

The First Resurrection of Revelation 20 only has those who died for not receiving the Mark of the Beast.

And they are reigning with Him NOW..

So you have seen the Antichrist and refused his conditions of living?
So could you describe the events of the Supper of the Great God for me?


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Even if it was not specifically a thousand years (as it so clearly states), we still see a separation of time between the two resurrections spoken of here.

LOL

You laugh but even you are forced to acknowledge that separation.

So you are contradicting yourself:

Originally Posted by valiant

No as LITERAL but recognising that the use of large round numbers in those days was a device to indicate a long period of uncertain length.

the Old Testament regularly speaks of 1000 generations.

Great, where is the Scripture?

Only false and erroneous doctrine is forced to give vague references to Scripture, whereas sound Doctrine has nothing to hide and can readily provide the Scripture that supports the view.

But it NEVER means it literally.

What is literal is that there is a period of time separating the two events, and refusing to see "one thousand years" as one thousand years doesn't nullify that separation.

And by your own admission in view is a long period:

Originally Posted by valiant

No as LITERAL but recognising that the use of large round numbers in those days was a device to indicate a long period of uncertain length.

Yes, the first resurrection was the resurrection of Christ

That is correct, but that Resurrection did not take place at the end of the Tribulation as the First Resurrection of Revelation does.

Those elements of a Biblical Timeline are acknowledged by every Bible Student.

in which they as SOULS participated and we also have participated.

A soul is simply a person. The term soul can be used to speak of both spirit and body together, or simply the spirit itself, which has left the physical body.

But that is really another topic of discussion for it's own thread, lol.

The second resurrection is our bodily resurrection.

Scripture doesn't teach a "Second Resurrection." Only Second Death.

And when we can properly pinpoint the time of the First Death, then we can clear up that so-called "gray areas" as well.

Neith

er of which correlate to Paul's teaching of the Rapture of the Church, because when the Church is raptured (caught up), they are caught up as a whole, both living and dead.

Typical premill.

Yup.

Multiply the bodily resurrections when Jesus clearly stated that all were raised in the SAME HOUR (John 5.28-29).

Christ taught within the Law.

He did not reveal the Mystery of the Rapture, just as He did not reveal the Mystery of the Gospel.

And before you kick at that basic Bible Truth, study the Mystery of the Gospel. This will dispel quite a few gray areas many people struggle with.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

So if the Pre-Millennial view is a gray area for anyone, it simply means they have some serious study ahead of them.

Actually it means that they have begun to treat Scripture seriously and not in line with some dogma.

Not sure how spiritualizing Scripture to the point of nullifying it's teachings can be considered to be treating Scripture seriously.

A good example is trying to deny the period which separates the First Resurrection at the beginning of Revelation with the Resurrection of the Dead at the end of Revelation 20.

Even though you have yourself acknowledged that a thousand is used to indicate a long period.

This kind of issue is not understood in casual chats, but is both learned and revealed through (by God) diligent study.

So you O great one have come to the truth,

I'm working at it, young padawan.

and we poor ignorant amillennialists have not diligently studied.

Studied, yes, just using a faulty approach which nullifies Biblical Doctrines.

Your arrogance is unbelievable

Don't hate me because I'm right? lol
There is a trick to "always being right:" all we have to do is refrain from going around saying stupid stuff we haven't properly studied.

Another would be: rely on the Word of God. The minute you place the works of men as authoritative and infallible you are going to have another man show you errors with their works.

It is not arrogance, my friend, it is simply a matter of confidence. I have never presented myself as knowing everything, or said my Doctrine is flawless. That is one of the reason why I engage in debates, that my own views be tested by other brethren.

Scripture will be our Mediator, and so far you are presenting very little that regards to Scripture itself.

We can't expect to have anything settled in our hearts if we do not put forth the effort we are called to in regards tot he Word of God.

True so why not start?

Any time you are ready, lol.

Next time...bring some Scripture. That is a bit of a necessity when trying to understand the Word of God.

We will help you

Who is we?

Call on your friends, that's okay with me. The more the merrier, at least...on one side of the fence.




God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

(this post relates to #33 in "Ten Reasons To Reject Baptismal Regeneration".)

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

Well, let me ask you this: why did God tell Adam and Eve that they were not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

several good points in you post, I'll start here

God gives an answer to why not to eat the fruit... because you will die... but is that the whole answer?

Stop. lol

Would you just acknowledge that in regards to Scripture that God has revealed why Adam and Eve were not to eat of the fruit?

Just how many pages could we fill in providing the "why?"

Eve sees that it will make one wise... wisdom is to be sought in other scriptures... so there may be more to the 'why'...

This is one reason "why."

so, imo, we can know some part of the 'why', but, imo, usually not the whole... not enough to make a formula, imo...

You don't think Scripture sufficiently covers why Adam and Eve were to be obedient to His will?

Who is talking about a "formula?"

You are making the very point this thread began on.

I wou

ld agree with that. The bottom line still remains that for those diligent to seek after God's will...it's right there for them in His Word. He had no intention of confusing us, but to reward us.

again, the whole of God's will?

We do not assume that all of God's will is given in Scripture, which is what is in view.

You are doing exactly what SOG did and trying to change the scope of the OP.

It's very simple...show the gray areas and loop-holes.

Would you agree with SOG that the Gospel of Christ is a...loop-hole?

I think you're assuming you know God's intentions, here...

It's not an assumption, it is what Scripture teaches.

His intentions are made clear in Scripture.

Please present "intentions" of God in Scripture that we cannot dogmatically conclude on.

That's all you have to do.

It doesn't really matter that it is a journey, the destination is still promised to us. And we make that trip a step at a time.

right! and since it's one step at a time, at no point during the journey would one know 'all truth', which would include the whole 'why'... imo...

We can say that Adam and Eve knew all truth relevant to them in relation to God's will.

We can say that Noah did as well.

Same with every Saint of the Old and New Testament, His will is provided, and it is a matter of the Saint to seek it out.

And we do that through study of Scripture.

Perhaps no man will ever know all truth provided in Scripture, but, that doesn't mean...

...it isn't there for us to learn.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

It was suggested that there were loop-holes and gray areas in Scripture, so the general idea here is to examine the loop-holes and gray areas to see if they are to be found.

well, one thing here... loop-holes to be found by us? or God?

back on the "Ten Reasons" thread, I wrote

Originally Posted by Dan_473

...are there loopholes that God knows about but you or I don't?

There are no loop-holes, at least, none that have been reasonably presented in the thread yet.

Would you give an example of what you might view as a loop-hole?


God bless.

 

[valiant]

The "First Resurrection" is a bodily resurrection, the spiritual resurrection of the new birth is not in view:

But that it because you only see the new birth as giving spiritual life. You have missed the grandeur of what God has done for us. He has not only given us new life but introduced us into a whole new spiritual realm (the heavenlies).

Why can 'dead saints' be in Heaven with God? Because their spirits were made alive in Christ. They were raised with Him into new spiritual life and into a new spiritual realm by their being resurrected TOGETHER with Christ. They then experienced the first resurrection. That is why Rev 20 speaks of the SOULS of those who have 'died', a word which in Rev 6 clearly means raised spirits. They are living and reigning with Him and are ALIVE because of their being raised into the spiritual realm in Christ. But they still await the resurrection of their bodies.

This is made clear by Jesus in John 5. In verse 25 we read, 'the hour is coming and NOW IS when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.' This is the first resurrection, the raising from the dead of those who were dead in trespasses and sin.

He then goes on to point to the SECOND resurrection which He patterns on the first, 'the HOUR is coming when ALL who are in the graves will hear His voice, and will come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.' All happening in the same hour.

So there is ONLY ONE bodily resurrection, ALL rising at the same time. Meanwhile they have PREVIOUSLY experienced the spiritual resurrection, their first resurrection. It is this resurrection, and not the bodily resurrection, which enabled the SOULS of the saints to reign with Christ.

Revelation 20
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.

Yes, why did they live? Because of their spiritual resurrection in Christ, the first resurrection.

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

Yes the first resurrection was the resurrection of the soul/spirit. The resurrection of the body takes place AFTER the 'thousand years' (long period of time) for as Jesus said both bodily resurrections occur in the same hour.

"...and they lived."

Clearly these have been put to death, and are brought back to life in the First Resurrection.

Yes it says 'they lived and reigned with Him'. It says nothing about their being raised at that point in time. And why were they able to live and reign with Him as SOULS? Because they had been united with Him in His death and resurrection and had already been raised together with Him into heavenly places (Eph 2.5-6; Col 3.1; Rom 6.2-11).

In type there are only two resurrections:

yes a spiritual one and a physical one.

John 5:29

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]
29 [/SUP]And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

These are ONE resurrection taking place in the SAME HOUR. They are not two resurrections. They are two parts of the same resurrection. LOL this is where the supposed literalists suddenly forget their literalism in order to support their theory

This is a foundational Old Testament Doctrine:

Daniel 12:1-2

King James Version (KJV)
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

[SUP]2 [/SUP]And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

See Daniel agrees with Jesus and with me. ONE BODILY RESURRECTION at the same time.

In terms of events, there are, in Revelation...three resurrections. The resurrection of the Two Witnesses, the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs, and the resurrection of the dead, which is the general resurrection which Daniel and Christ taught.

Those living and reigning with Christ have done so from 1st century AD onwards. They are not Tribulation Martyrs. The Bible does not teach a unique 'great tribulation' That is an invention of Darby and his ilk. Apart from occasional individuals (Enoch, Elijah), there is only ONE BODILY RESURRECTION. The two witnesses took part in that one resurrection. And so will the souls above and us and the wicked. That will be the SECOND resurrection.

That does not mean that there will only be one general resurrection, and we know there is not, first, because we understand that Mystery concerning Resurrection was revealed after Daniel and Christ's teachings,

WOW so poor old Jesus got it WRONG.?

and secondly...

...we see three resurrections in Revelation, and the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs is not the "first" in sequence...the resurrection of the Two Witnesses is.

The resurrection of the two witnesses takes place at the general bodily resurrection. There is only ONE bodily resurrection. JESUS SAID SO.

The problem with seeing the word "first" as referring to sequence is that it demands reconciliation of why we see a resurrection prior to the First Resurrection of Revelation 20.

There is no resurrection prior to the resurrection of Jesus. THAT is the first resurrection.

If we simply leave the timeline of events in place, and understand the word "first," we will see that a demand for sequential definition is not only in error, but creates conflict in Scripture (though we know the only conflict is with those who erroneously conclude on this Resurrection).

LOL the conflict arises because of the convoluted ideas of you lot. In essence it is simple. The FIRST resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus in which His people have their part TOGETHER WTH HIM is the one described in Rev 20. The second resurrection is the general resurrection of all the dead.

First (pun intended, lol), the "First Resurrection" in terms of sequence is...

...the Lord Jesus Christ's:

NOW you have got it. And we were raised TOGETHER WITH HIM in the first resurrection. And the saints are in glory as a result of that first resurrection

Colossians 1:18

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]18 [/SUP]And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

yes and we are raised TOGETHER WTH HIM

Secondly, we see that the word "first" does not demand sequence.

Of course it does. It came FIRST.


I'm not going to waste time on this convoluted tosh. Anyone who wants the truth can look above.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

Please pick a page and show the gray areas.

I see gray areas on X-Files, but not in Scripture, lol.

Don't be absurd. We are thinking from man's viewpoint not God's. If we cannot agree on the meaning of a verse for men it is a grey area It is in fact simply a matter of definition. Of course it isn't really a grey area to me. I know that I and the Holy Spirit are right. But in the eyes of others it is a grey area.

Speak for yourself, I am doing all I can to have the Mind of Christ.


1 Corinthians 2:4

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:



1 Corinthians 2:13

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.


Those who think it is arrogance to actually think one can understand Scripture deny some pretty basic promises of God.

There is a difference between Sound Doctrine and false, God's Wisdom (which in regards to the Gospel of Jesus Christ I will once again remind you was hidden, secret, unrevealed) and man's wisdom.

You quote Early Church Fathers, and I will quote Bible Writers, thus presenting the will of God and the Revelation of the Holy Spirit through men to men.

No, we have the potential for either one being right, the other wrong, or...both being wrong.

Or even sometimes both being right with differing slants. But in men's eyes that is a grey area.

That is the very error this thread is designed to deal with, the ridiculous notion that two people can have opposing views...and still be right.

I am astounded that you believe that, especially when you are given specific examples such as what we see in the following quotes:

Do you feel that all debates between opposing views create a gray area?

yes unless they agree.

How can opposing views agree?

Is there a gray area between the Mormon and the Christian when they debate whether God was once a man in eternity past, and became a god because He was "very good?"

From the point of view of the disinterested external observer yes. Its a matter of definition.

And that is what SOG tried to do...change the scope of the OP.

We are not talking about man's perspective...we are talking about God's Perspective as revealed in the Scriptures.

Now tell me you think that Mormons and Christians...

...can both be right.

Or that whether God was once a man is a "Gray Area."

Tell me.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Me too. There is nothing quite as rewarding in this life than to know that the Living God has enlightened your mind.

But equally important is that we recognise how little we know when all is done. Our minds are finite.

This is irrelevant.

No-one is demanding that anyone know all truth, just that the truth is right there in Scripture, and we have God's promise that He will lead us into all truth.


John 16:13

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

On of the sad things to me about chat is how little real humility there is on here. Each thinks of himself as a little god.

Okay, going to use a great Theological term here...

...baloney.

This is an erroneous opinion of yours which is not representative of the members here. I have seen quite a bit of humility and have not seen the first member who thinks they are a "god."

Want to post a few names? Want to let the Public know who it is that you say this of?

That is true of those recently converted as well as for the diligent Bible Student. Most of us have had "A-Ha! moments" where we are convinced that God Himself has just opened our eyes a little more to truth.

That is true. But when He does we must beware of getting over exalted and recognise that He is doing it equally for our opponents..

No, Valiant, He is not leading believers into different and opposing truths.

That is false.


2 Timothy 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

[SUP]16 [/SUP]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[SUP]17 [/SUP]That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul does not make this exclusive to Himself:
1 Corinthians 13:12

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP]For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

No one said he did. It is people on here who seem to think that it was limited to Paul

You did:

Originally Posted by valiant

It was clearly only poor old Paul who could only see through a glass darkly.

Sarcasm or no...that is the point addressed.

We can't make this to mean that the understanding of the Revelation provided is not certain.

That is precisely what it means. We see but the outskirts of His ways.

And you equate "see(ing) through a glass darkly" to...we cannot understand Scripture.

That is error. We can understand Revelation and all revelation of God. And there is not going to be two opposing views that are both right.

Paul's point is that there is coming a day where full revelation will replace our prophesying (speaking forth of the Word of God) and current knowledge.

Precisely. And how we will all laugh at ourselves when we realise how little we knew.

Doesn't mean we can't understand the revelation provided to us in this day.

That is why many under Law failed, because they did not understand what Christ expected them to.

Take the opposing sides between the Pharisees and Sadducees, the former believed in the Resurrection of the Dead and the latter did not.

Here is Christ's conclusion about the Sadducees:


Matthew 22:29

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.


He did not present your philosophy, that Scripture is unknowable, nor that there is an excuse men can present in regards to Scripture.

Just isn't representative of Biblical Doctrine.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

We don't nullify the fact that the Mystery of the Gospel has been revealed in this Age, and that we can, by reason of New Testament Revelation, understand it to the point God means for us to understand it.

Ah that is the crunch. To the point that God means for us to understand it. Unfortunately we have a higher opinion of ourselves than God has

Well, some of us, apparently.




But, there are those of us that recognize that revelation from God was always for the purpose of speaking to us, not above us.

The Gospel is not a gray area.

But views about what the Gospel is are a grey area from man's point of view as we see on here

Now you redefine the scope of the OP.

In view is not man's perspective, it is the Word of God and whether we can understand it or not.

And while there is debate about the Doctrine of Christ, debate will reveal one of the two groups mentioned above: one of the parties being right, or both parties being wrong.

Do you fully understand the doctrine of Christ.?

Well, Which Doctrine of Christ do you want to discuss?

The Foundational Principles of the Doctrine of Christ as presented in the Old Testament?

Or the revelation of that which is made Complete?

I have my doubts you have ever really considered a contextual understanding of All Doctrine of Christ.

I think not.

I know, but that is what I am trying to help you with, my friend.

I'll guarantee that you have all kinds of ideas which one day you will laugh at yourself for.

Perhaps, but I can tell you this: the Doctrines I hold to are not "ideas" but the result of study, and if you want to show that I am in error I am okay with that.

I am not afraid to challenge my own doctrine, nor to have it challenged.

But you had better back up your objections with Scripture.

I realise that you may not be humble enough to see that yet. Hopefully you will in due time

What does my humility have to do with anything?

So far I have seen quite a bit of accusation coming from you. Directed at me, and others on this Forum.

Can I ask that you try to focus on the topic? No need to waste time dealing with your insults.

Let's keep it doctrinal, my friend.


God bless.

 

[valiant]

...

You are equating the New Birth to the First Resurrection of Revelation 20.

more than the new birth. That is only a small part of what happened when we became Christians. We not only received new life in the Spirit but we were raised together with Christ and seated with Him in the spiritual realm (Eph 2.5-6). That is the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection) as it applies to us.

That Resurrection is not our spiritual resurrection which takes place while we are alive. We remain in fallen flesh until either we die or are taken up in the Rapture.

Why do our souls/spirits go to be with Christ when we die? Because we have ALREADY taken part in the first resurrection. We are spiritually alive. That is why Rev 20.4 speaks of the SOULS of men living and reigning with Him.

And remember, whether we die or not...we all, the Church, will be caught up in resurrected bodies. Paul's teaching cannot be nullified.

I suggest you read Paul again. I gather you are careless in your exegesis. The dead in Christ, Christ will bring with Him. Then they will be united with their bodies in the second resurrection, the bodily resurrection experienced by all both believer and unbeliever at the same time.

That is not what Scripture teaches: the First Resurrection is the resurrection of Saints that die during the Tribulation period.

Nonsense

Not at all, we can see that all Jews believed in the Kingdom which God promised.

And so do we, the everlasting kingdom which will never be destroyed.

And we see that Revelation teaches that Christ Returns prior to that Kingdom being established.

Of course. Christ's return issues in the everlasting kingdom following this age in which Christ has ruled over the earth.

And whether you view the Kingdom as being one thousand years or "a long time," you cannot nullify that teaching of Scripture which predates the opinions of men, regardless of whether they are vaunted "Church Fathers" or not.

Nor do I. Jesus introduced the Kingly Rule of God to which the Jews were looking forward. It has been going on for a long period of time. Soon when Christ comes it will issue in the everlasting kingdom.. Simple

If you base your Eschatology on the works of Church Fathers that are Post Biblical, you will have the problems (as pointed out in this response).

I base my eschatology on Scripture as illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

But if you base your Eschatology on Scripture...a consistent harmony is seen. And all Scripture is harmonious with itself

.

Yes I have just presented you with that harmony. Not the twisted pretrib distortion of Scripture.

Not even close: Christ used the Kingdom to illustrate His teaching quite often.

Not even once. You just read it into parables which were never meant to be taken like that.

Also, we have to say that God reneges on His promises to Israel in regards to that Kingdom.

The true Israel are enjoying that kingdom now, and will enjoy the everlasting kingdom. You just invent this idea of reneging out of your own head.

Even on the Day of Ascension we see the disciples associate that Kingdom with the Promises of God:

And Jesus WAS bringing that kingly rule to Israel. Why do you think they proclaimed entry into the kingly rule (basileia) of God? AndHe also promised the everlasting kingdom (kingly rule)

 

[valiant]

Well, some of us, apparently.




But, there are those of us that recognize that revelation from God was always for the purpose of speaking to us, not above us.




Now you redefine the scope of the OP.

In view is not man's perspective, it is the Word of God and whether we can understand it or not.




Well, Which Doctrine of Christ do you want to discuss?

The Foundational Principles of the Doctrine of Christ as presented in the Old Testament?

Or the revelation of that which is made Complete?

I have my doubts you have ever really considered a contextual understanding of All Doctrine of Christ.




I know, but that is what I am trying to help you with, my friend.






Perhaps, but I can tell you this: the Doctrines I hold to are not "ideas" but the result of study, and if you want to show that I am in error I am okay with that.

I am not afraid to challenge my own doctrine, nor to have it challenged.

But you had better back up your objections with Scripture.




What does my humility have to do with anything?

So far I have seen quite a bit of accusation coming from you. Directed at me, and others on this Forum.

Can I ask that you try to focus on the topic? No need to waste time dealing with your insults.

Let's keep it doctrinal, my friend.


God bless.

you are so arrogant it is unbelievable. I knew more theology when I was thirty than you will ever know in your life.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

The "First Resurrection" is a bodily resurrection, the spiritual resurrection of the new birth is not in view:

But that it because you only see the new birth as giving spiritual life. You have missed the grandeur of what God has done for us. He has not only given us new life but introduced us into a whole new spiritual realm (the heavenlies).

Why can 'dead saints' be in Heaven with God? Because their spirits were made alive in Christ. They were raised with Him into new spiritual life and into a new spiritual realm by their being resurrected TOGETHER with Christ. They then experienced the first resurrection. That is why Rev 20 speaks of the SOULS of those who have 'died', a word which in Rev 6 clearly means raised spirits. They are living and reigning with Him and are ALIVE because of their being raised into the spiritual realm in Christ. But they still await the resurrection of their bodies.

This is made clear by Jesus in John 5. In verse 25 we read, 'the hour is coming and NOW IS when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.' This is the first resurrection, the raising from the dead of those who were dead in trespasses and sin.

He then goes on to point to the SECOND resurrection which He patterns on the first, 'the HOUR is coming when ALL who are in the graves will hear His voice, and will come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.' All happening in the same hour.

So there is ONLY ONE bodily resurrection, ALL rising at the same time. Meanwhile they have PREVIOUSLY experienced the spiritual resurrection, their first resurrection. It is this resurrection, and not the bodily resurrection, which enabled the SOULS of the saints to reign with Christ.

Revelation 20
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.

Yes, why did they live? Because of their spiritual resurrection in Christ, the first resurrection.

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

Yes the first resurrection was the resurrection of the soul/spirit. The resurrection of the body takes place AFTER the 'thousand years' (long period of time) for as Jesus said both occur in the same hour.

"...and they lived."

Clearly these have been put to death, and are brought back to life in the First Resurrection.


Yes it says 'they lived and reigned with Him'. It says nothing about their being raised at that point in time. And why were they able to live and reign with Him as SOULS? Because they had been united with Him in His death and resurrection and had already been raised together with Him into heavenly places (Eph 2.5-6; Col 3.1; Rom 6.2-11).

In ty

pe there are only two resurrections:

yes a spiritual one and a physical one.

John 5:29

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]
29 [/SUP]And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


These are ONE resurrection taking place in the SAME HOUR. They are not two resurrections. They are two parts of the same resurrection. LOL this is where the supposed literalists suddenly forget their literalism in order to support their theory

This is a foundational Old Testament Doctrine:

Daniel 12:1-2

King James Version (KJV)
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

[SUP]2 [/SUP]And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

See Daniel agrees with Jesus and with me. ONE BODILY RESURRECTION at the same time.

I see it is important people agree with you.

It is only important we all agree with Scripture.

And there are three Resurrections listed in Revelation, my friend, that has been pointed out several times now.

In terms of events, there are, in Revelation...three resurrections. The resurrection of the Two Witnesses, the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs, and the resurrection of the dead, which is the general resurrection which Daniel and Christ taught.

Those living and reigning with Christ have done so from 1st century AD onwards. They are not Tribulation Martyrs.

Whereas those resurrected in the First Resurrection of Revelation 20...are.

You're not going to change that fact.

The Bible does not teach a unique 'great tribulation' That is an invention of Darby and his ilk.

It's right there in Revelation, a period which is unique in Redemptive History.

That is precisely what Christ taught:


Matthew 24:21

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP]For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.



My friend, your doctrine demands that you deny the teachings of Scripture, which includes that taught by Christ.

And by the way...

The Bible does not teach a unique 'great tribulation' That is an invention of Darby and his ilk.

First, I have never read anything by Darby, just as I have never read anything by Augustine.

Secondly, to say that Darby invented the Rapture is like saying that Catholics invented the Trinity.

Lastly, try to realize that Christ revealed that the great tribulation to come. That is what the thread is focusing on...revelation and whether we are meant to understand it..

Your teaching nullifies Christ's teaching in Matthew 25.

You are literally fulfilling this:

1 Thessalonians 5:3

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP]For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.


A Historical, Idealist, and Preterist view all obscure Prophecy to the point of detriment to the Student.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Apart from occasional individuals (Enoch, Elijah), there is only ONE BODILY RESURRECTION.

Oh, so Enoch and Elijah are now the "First Resurrection?"

The two witnesses took part in that one resurrection.

Not possible, the Two Witnesses are resurrected and caught up in the middle of the Tribulation, whereas the Tribulation Martyrs are resurrected at the end of the Tribulation.

It is quite clear that the Antichrist's reign is not concurrent with their ministry.

And so will the souls above and us and the wicked. That will be the SECOND resurrection.

So now the First and Second Resurrection are the same?

Can you see that your doctrine is splitting apart at the seams?

That's what happens when we try to piece together bits and pieces that don't fit.

That

does not mean that there will only be one general resurrection, and we know there is not, first, because we understand that Mystery concerning Resurrection was revealed after Daniel and Christ's teachings,

WOW so poor old Jesus got it WRONG.?

Not sure I would speak of the Lord in such a manner.

And no, the Lord didn't get it wrong, you have. You deny His specific teaching that there is a unique period in Redemptive History which He calls great tribulation. This follows the events that precede it.

That would include the Abomination of Desolation, if you would care to look at it (Matthew 24).

and secondly...

...we see three resurrections in Revelation, and the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs is not the "first" in sequence...the resurrection of the Two Witnesses is.

The resurrection of the two witnesses takes place at the general bodily resurrection. There is only ONE bodily resurrection. JESUS SAID SO.

Not accurate: Christ reveals through John that the Two Witnesses' resurrection and rapture precede the First Resurrection.

You have Antichrist ruling while Christ Returns.

Antichrist is cast into Hell before the First Resurrection.

The p

roblem with seeing the word "first" as referring to sequence is that it demands reconciliation of why we see a resurrection prior to the First Resurrection of Revelation 20.

There is no resurrection prior to the resurrection of Jesus.

Not according to you:

Apart from occasional individuals (Enoch, Elijah), there is only ONE BODILY RESURRECTION.

Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

There is no resurrection prior to the resurrection of Jesus. THAT is the first resurrection.

In sequence, yes, and that was covered in detail in the post you have responded to.
But Christ's Resurrection does not take place at the end of the Tribulation.

Your timeline is unbiblical.

If we simply leave the timeline of events in place, and understand the word "first," we will see that a demand for sequential definition is not only in error, but creates conflict in Scripture (though we know the only conflict is with those who erroneously conclude on this Resurrection).

LOL

I'm just not getting the impression you are having fun, Valiant.

the conflict arises because of the convoluted ideas of you lot. In essence it is simple. The FIRST resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus in which His people have their part TOGETHER WTH HIM is the one described in Rev 20. The second resurrection is the general resurrection of all the dead.

Who is "you lot?"

I have not appealed to someone else to address your doctrine. I do not represent a group. Please leave off the false arguments, okay?

It's just you and me...and Scripture.

And again, sorry, but the First Resurrection is clearly the resurrection of those who die in the Tribulation.

Are you going to tell me that you think Christ is resurrected at the end of the Tribulation? That you are waiting for the Tribulation to be over so you can be born again?

First (pun intended, lol), the "First Resurrection" in terms of sequence is...

...the Lord Jesus Christ's:

NOW you have got it.

Now? My doctrine has been consistent.

You don't seriously think you have responded to the post, do you? You have completely ignored what was said.

The Lord's Resurrection took place approximately 2000 years ago, Valiant, and only He was resurrected.

You were not, I was not, and no-one to date has taken part in the Resurrection in which we will be glorified. If you don't believe me...look in the mirror.

And we were raised TOGETHER WITH HIM in the first resurrection.

Even in regards to the spiritual resurrection of New Birth, no...

...you were not. I don't know when you were born again, my friend, but I can narrow it down to probably the last 100 years.

It is this kind of approach to Scripture which destroys the possibility of understanding Scripture properly. You don't understand how you have to completely skew so many doctrines in order to try to maintain your allegiance to a System of Theology.

And the saints are in glory as a result of that first resurrection

Well, I am not in glory yet. I am still here, still in unredeemed flesh, and still holding out for the Rapture in my lifetime.

Colossians 1:18

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]18 [/SUP]And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

yes and we are raised TOGETHER WTH HIM

Sorry, no: Christ died alone on the Cross, no man stood or hung with Him. No man was raised with Him.

He walked out of that tomb alone, unless you want to include Angels...who didn't contribute to His Death, Burial, and Resurrection either.

Secondly, we see that the word "first" does not demand sequence.

Of course it does. It came FIRST.

Sorry, but no: the first Resurrection in sequence is the Lord's (and no man was raised with Him them); the second is the resurrection of the Two Witnesses; the third is the First Resurrection of Revelation 20 in which only Tribulation Martyrs are raised, and the final, the fourth, is the general resurrection of the dead, which takes place after the thousand years following the First Resurrection takes place.

Now I have the Public Record where you acknowledge this is a long time, so why don't you how how your doctrine interprets a thousand years as a long time, yet still try to deny a separation of events from which we can logically create a Biblical Timeline?

I'm not going to waste time on this convoluted tosh. Anyone who wants the truth can look above.

Of course, you have the truth, despite the fact that your doctrine has split apart at the seams.

So you promote your truth, I will stick with the truth as presented in Scripture.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Somehow one of the posts got messed up in regards to the quoting, so wanted to go back and briefly address these points:

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

The "First Resurrection" is a bodily resurrection, the spiritual resurrection of the new birth is not in view:
But that it because you only see the new birth as giving spiritual life. You have missed the grandeur of what God has done for us. He has not only given us new life but introduced us into a whole new spiritual realm (the heavenlies).

Why can 'dead saints' be in Heaven with God? Because their spirits were made alive in Christ. They were raised with Him into new spiritual life and into a new spiritual realm by their being resurrected TOGETHER with Christ. They then experienced the first resurrection. That is why Rev 20 speaks of the SOULS of those who have 'died', a word which in Rev 6 clearly means raised spirits. They are living and reigning with Him and are ALIVE because of their being raised into the spiritual realm in Christ. But they still await the resurrection of their bodies.

And you are deliberately ignoring the difference between spiritual resurrection and bodily resurrection.

You are the only one that is going to buy this kind of interpretation.

The First Resurrection of Revelation 20 as well as the Resurrection of the Dead, two clearly different Resurrections separated by a thousand years, or in your own interpretation "A long time," are both bodily resurrections.

This is made clear by Jesus in John 5. In verse 25 we read, 'the hour is coming and NOW IS when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.' This is the first resurrection, the raising from the dead of those who were dead in trespasses and sin.

Here is the verse:


John 5:25

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]25 [/SUP]Verily, verily, I say unto you, 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.


The Two Witnesses are not raised at the First Resurrection.

The dead are not raised at the First Resurrection, but a thousand years later.

You were not raised at the same time, spiritually, that I was. The First Resurrection did not take place in early 1995 when I was raised unto life through regeneration.

I have not been raised bodily yet.

Please, what you are teaching is simply so riddled with error it should be embarrassing.

He then goes on to point to the SECOND resurrection which He patterns on the first, 'the HOUR is coming when ALL who are in the graves will hear His voice, and will come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.' All happening in the same hour.

There is no term anywhere in Scripture that teaches a "Second REsurrection." There is only the Second death.

That is what the First Resurrection is contrasted with:


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.

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




Revelation 20:13-15

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

[SUP]14 [/SUP]And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

[SUP]15 [/SUP]And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The latter is when those who were not resurrected are resurrected and suffer the Second Death. These are they who "lived not again until the thousand years were finished."

So there is ONLY ONE bodily resurrection, ALL rising at the same time. Meanwhile they have PREVIOUSLY experienced the spiritual resurrection, their first resurrection. It is this resurrection, and not the bodily resurrection, which enabled the SOULS of the saints to reign with Christ.

Sorry, but that is not supported by Scripture. You have Christ being resurrected at the end of the Tribulation.

Revelation 20
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.



Yes, why did they live? Because of their spiritual resurrection in Christ, the first resurrection.

No, because they are brought back from the dead physically.

We see they are killed physically, then resurrected. Men are born dead in trespasses and sins, they don't have to go through tribulation or The Tribulation to die spiritually.

This is getting ridiculous. Is it that important to you...not to be wrong? To maintain loyalty to a System of Theology and completely throw the Word of God out the window?

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


Yes the first resurrection was the resurrection of the soul/spirit. The resurrection of the body takes place AFTER the 'thousand years' (long period of time) for as Jesus said both bodily resurrections occur in the same hour.

I see you are creating doctrine as you go, Valiant. You are only digging yourself in deeper, and taking yourself further away from a reasonable interpretation of Prophecy.


God bless.