PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Armageddon - the armies gather



DurbanDude
Mar 20th 2009, 02:10 PM
I seem to have a unique view of the final war, when Christ intervenes on the Day of the Lord.

You see, I don't believe the armies are gathered to fight against God or a holy Jerusalem in any way.

I believe it is two evil factions fighting against eachother, the one faction rules earth under the control of the antichrist, this is the Western/European faction. The other faction is doing a sudden surprise attack of rebellion. This attack is from the North, South and East.

I have many reasons for believing this, but the main reason is that scripture points to the earlier control and dominance of the antichrist over Israel and the whole world. In other words, there is no reason whatsoever for the antichrist to attack Israel because scripture is 100% clear that he already owns Israel. The attacking countries seem to be Russia/Turkey and other Arabic countries. They may be allied to further eastern countries (China) and they also seem to be allied to Africa.

So this is a surprise , sudden, world war between two evil alliances. The antichrist himself is the enemy of Christ, and the attacking armies are mainly Moslem, who have a twisted prophecy that teaches them to fight against the evil one who will come on the clouds. It is therefore BOTH sides gathered to war at Armageddon that are the enemies of Jesus, and when Jesus intervenes and appears they both turn against Jesus.

The Jews are caught in the middle. They have been deceived by the antichrist just like everyone else, but they have not all supported the antichrist, because some are waiting for their true Messiah. When they see their leader actually losing the battle, and the armies of Gog entering Israel, this is when they cry out to their true Messiah, Jesus. Jesus himself intervenes on the day of the Lord.

Does anyone else have this view? Any comments or interesting debates about this?

Stephen1
Mar 20th 2009, 02:52 PM
The core passages of scripture for understanding the rise and dominance of the little horn king of the northern Middle East are:

Daniel 7:7-12, 7:19-27
Daniel 8:9-12, 8:23-25
Daniel 11:36-45
Daniel 12:7
Micah 5
Revelation 13

The ending conflict of the tribulation period will involve the little horn [beast] and his followers set against the Lord Himself

The key passages of scripture are:

Ezekiel 38:15-23
Ezekiel 39:2-29
Zechariah 14:1-14
Revelation 14:15-20
Revelation 16:1-21
Revelation 19:11-21

markdrums
Mar 20th 2009, 03:01 PM
The battle is already going on. It HAS BEEN since the rebellion of the angels in Heaven.
Armegeddon isn't going to be an actual "fight" between two sides..... it's the final fulfillment of the prophecy, when Satan is given his eternal judment, and the curse of sin & death are no longer.

Satan is still gathering his army to fight against God (on a daily basis.....) so the "war" is in progress.

This is a spiritual war, not a physical one. And the "Great battle at the end" is not going to be a battle in the sense that we normally use.
All it's going to take is a spoken command from God, and the "Battle" is over.

That's how I view it.
:)

DurbanDude
Mar 20th 2009, 03:10 PM
The ending conflict of the tribulation period will involve the little horn [beast] and his followers set against the Lord Himself

The key passages of scripture are:

Ezekiel 38:15-23
Ezekiel 39:2-29
Zechariah 14:1-14
Revelation 14:15-20
Revelation 16:1-21
Revelation 19:11-21

Thanks for the reply Stephen,

I was looking through those verse you quote, and nothing there seems to contradict my own beliefs. Many countries are listed in Ezekiel 38 as attacking armies, the reason given is that they are attacking for spoil and because Israel is unsuspecting.

This fits in with Daniel 11, when the antichrist dwells in Israel (plants his tents there), and yet is surprised from reports to the north and the east. The antichrist, ruler of Israel, is unsuspecting.

Exekiel 39 is just a continuation of 38.

Zechariah 14 gives no indication of why the nations are attcking Israel.

Rev 14 doesn't give much info on the war.


Rev 16 doesn't indicate if the kings of the earth are gathered against eachother or gathered against God.
Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Rev 19 doesn't indicate this either.

What those verses DO show, is that Jesus intervenes in that war, in defense of Israel against Gog. This doesnt mean that the attacking armies were trying to fight Jesus at first, I believe they are rebelling against their world leader, the antichrist.

Stephen1
Mar 20th 2009, 06:10 PM
This passage of scripture definitely sets the Lord against the beast and His followers

Revelation
16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

16:4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

16:10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,

16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

16:12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

L'Ange
Mar 21st 2009, 03:23 PM
Oops. Sorry. Accidentally pushed reply button twice.

DurbanDude
Mar 21st 2009, 08:01 PM
This passage of scripture definitely sets the Lord against the beast and His followers
.

I agree with you on this point. Jesus is against both evil armies. He is against the beast and his allies, and is also against the Gog/Assyrian alliance.

DurbanDude
Mar 21st 2009, 08:08 PM
The battle is already going on. It HAS BEEN since the rebellion of the angels in Heaven.
Armegeddon isn't going to be an actual "fight" between two sides..... it's the final fulfillment of the prophecy, when Satan is given his eternal judment, and the curse of sin & death are no longer.

Satan is still gathering his army to fight against God (on a daily basis.....) so the "war" is in progress.

This is a spiritual war, not a physical one. And the "Great battle at the end" is not going to be a battle in the sense that we normally use.
All it's going to take is a spoken command from God, and the "Battle" is over.

That's how I view it.
:)

Hi Markdrums,

I prefer more literal interpretations. We will just have to see :)

Stephen1
Mar 21st 2009, 08:47 PM
DD,

"I agree with you on this point. Jesus is against both evil armies. He is against the beast and his allies, and is also against the Gog/Assyrian alliance"

>I would suggest to you that these opposers are one and the same

>The beast in the little horn is the Assyrian and the human armies are his followers

.....and gog is actually satan addressed in Ezekiel's vision [Ezekiel 38:17]

iconoclast2012
Mar 21st 2009, 08:55 PM
....But have ya'll noticed yet...The major difference between the seperate battles of "magog" & Armegeddon..? Ezeqiel gives us a clear & distinguished lineup of "MOSLEM nations"...whereas Armegeddon includes all the remaining nations of the earth....and I realize Zeke had a lot on his mind when giving us this role call of "MOSLEM" nations but how could he have possibly omitted,forgotten, or did he just fail to mention the big time ,end time players, "THE KINGS OF THE EAST"... as they are no where to be found in Ezekiel 38-39...any ideas brethren....? well quite simply they are not combatants in the magog battle..thus providing further evidence "magog" & armegeddon are different battles....

DurbanDude
Mar 21st 2009, 09:05 PM
DD,

"I agree with you on this point. Jesus is against both evil armies. He is against the beast and his allies, and is also against the Gog/Assyrian alliance"

>I would suggest to you that these opposers are one and the same


Stephen, your view here is just impossible! If the antichrist lives in Israel, is crowned in Israel, has already taken over Israel earlier, and controls the whole world, why would he ever want to attack Israel?

The attack on the antichrist from the north and the east of Israel happens just before the antichrist dies (Daniel 11:40-45), these are his enemies that attack Israel and take him by surprise. Why do you think Israel is at peace until close to the day of the Lord? Because the world is under the control of the antichrist for the last 3.5 year period until the second coming and day of the Lord.

Stephen1
Mar 21st 2009, 09:17 PM
icon,

"....But have ya'll noticed yet...The major difference between the seperate battles of "magog" & Armegeddon..? Ezeqiel gives us a clear & distinguished lineup of "MOSLEM nations"...whereas Armegeddon includes all the remaining nations of the earth....and I realize Zeke had a lot on his mind when giving us this role call of "MOSLEM" nations but how could he have possibly omitted,forgotten, or did he just fail to mention the big time ,end time players, "THE KINGS OF THE EAST"... as they are no where to be found in Ezekiel 38-39...any ideas brethren....? well quite simply they are not combatants in the magog battle..thus providing further evidence "magog" & armegeddon are different battles..."

>The visions of the Bible prophets must be taken together in order to complete the full explanation of the time of the end

>Each sees different parts

>Ezekiel's vision has two parts .... satan's invasion of Israel .... and then the vision jumps to the battle of Armageddon where the Lord will intervene and destroy his beast, false prophet, and human followers

>This vision includes the same battle of Armageddon described in Revelation

>"All nations" is a term that is used to describe primarily the nations surrounding Israel in the Middle East [Zechariah 14]

>Ezekiel gives the outer nations of the Middle East proper

>Psalms identifies the inner core of Israel's enemies

>The other nations of the world will be subdued by satan's beast and followers

>This beast's base of operations will be centered in the northern Middle East

>He will successfully conquer the Middle East, all opposition from other nations outside of the Middle East [south, far east, and far north], and Israel [Daniel 11:36-44]

>He will even conquer MBG's great city part [a nation] of the western Gentiles just at the beginning of the tribulation period [Revelation 8:1-12; 17:16-18; 18:1-19]

Stephen1
Mar 21st 2009, 09:38 PM
DD,

"Stephen, your view here is just impossible! If the antichrist lives in Israel, is crowned in Israel, has already taken over Israel earlier, and controls the whole world, why would he ever want to attack Israel?"

>The "antichrist" does not live in Israel, but come from the northern Middle East [Daniel 8:9, 11:36] [Micah 5]

>He is called the "Assyrian" in the visions of the Bible prophets

>He will be Israel's arch enemy and will have to conquer the nation in order to occupy it and make it part of His Middle Eastern kingdom

>He will invade Israel at the middle of the 70th week .... this is not the battle of Armageddon [Daniel 9:26-27] [Zechariah 14 1:5] [Revelation 12]

>He will then rule over Israel for 42 months [1,260 days] [Revelation 11:2]

>The believing Israelite remnant will have to flee the nation for protection in the Jordanian wilderness area east of Israel and will be foe the same 1,260 days [last half of the tribulation period]

>The Lord will then force him and his followers to fight at Armageddon

DurbanDude
Mar 21st 2009, 09:57 PM
>The "antichrist" does not live in Israel, but come from the northern Middle East [Daniel 8:9, 11:36] [Micah 5]

Ok, but then how else would you interpret this:
11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain



>He is called the "Assyrian" in the visions of the Bible prophets

There is an Assyrian often mentioned in the bible, but where is any indication that this is the antichrist or beast?



>He will be Israel's arch enemy and will have to conquer the nation in order to occupy it and make it part of His Middle Eastern kingdom

This could be true, no problem here.


>He will invade Israel at the middle of the 70th week .... this is not the battle of Armageddon [Daniel 9:26-27] [Zechariah 14 1:5] [Revelation 12]
I agree he will invade Israel earlier, no problem here.



>He will then rule over Israel for 42 months [1,260 days] [Revelation 11:2]

Agreed!



>The believing Israelite remnant will have to flee the nation for protection in the Jordanian wilderness area east of Israel and will be foe the same 1,260 days [last half of the tribulation period]

Disagree here, as far as I understand it, they will be living peacably in Israel during the last period, which is the period that the antichrist rules earth.To get a real grip on this, you should read the whole chapter of Ezekiel 38, but here are some parts:

38:15 And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:
38:16 And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.


38:18 And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, that my fury shall come up in my face.
38:19 For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel;
38:20 So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.

During the end of the tribulation period, Israel is at peace, and the Jews are living there. When Gog attacks Israel, God intervenes to protect Israel.

markdrums
Mar 21st 2009, 10:05 PM
Hi Markdrums,

I prefer more literal interpretations. We will just have to see :)

Hey DD,
I understand your point of view..... so let me ask you this... just for giggles & for sake of clarification. (Which applies to a literal battle of Armegeddon, or a spiritual battle)

From a LITERAL interpretation standpoint, how do you interpret Daniel's vision & instructions, as well as John's vision & instruction of Revelation?

Daniel: Was told to SEAL UP his vision because the time was "far-off"- which turned out to be a few hundred years.

John: was told NOT TO SEAL UP his vision, because the time was NEAR/AT HAND, and the things must SOON take place.

According to the LITERAL point of view, Daniel's vision should literally be a longer amount of time between the vision and it's fulfillment. Correct? So.... if that's literally the case, then why was Daniel's vision of a few HUNDRED years considered "Far-off"..... if John's vision was considered NEAR, and it's been over 2000 years?

If we're talking abouta strict "literal" interpretation, then you've got to apply those rules all the way through the Bible whenever they make sense that way. Right?

So.... the time frame for "far off" = a few hundred years for Daniel.
"Near/at hand" = 2000+ years for John?...... How does that make sense?

That's why I personally think trying to force a literal interpretation into scripture whenever possible, leads to missing the true meaning.

The "battle" between God & the unrighteous began with Lucifer's rebellion. That "battle" has been going on ever since. And why would there be a need for an actual physical "fight" between God & the angels VS. Satan & the demons?

There's no scriptural support for physical confrontation ever happening between God and any of the fallen angels. Why would Revelation be any different?

;)

DurbanDude
Mar 21st 2009, 10:51 PM
Hey DD,
I understand your point of view..... so let me ask you this... just for giggles & for sake of clarification. (Which applies to a literal battle of Armegeddon, or a spiritual battle);)

markdrums, firstly just a general comment about the literal/figurative approaches. There is a trend that the less literally you take the bible , the more dangerous ground you are on spiritually. You could end up believing that God didn't really create us. Homosexuality isn't really wrong. Great interventions like Noah's flood didn't really happen. The end of the world won't be so dramatic. Hell doesn't really exist. God doesn't really intervene in our lives daily.

Now I don't say that you believe any of these things, but you see how dangerous the less literal approach is to spirituality? And the big problem, is that its virtually impossible to argue against. For example , if I say the whole bible is symbolic of purple aliens that are going to take over the world through peace and love, try and disprove it. I dare you.

Every scripture you give me, I will show how each object mentioned is not literal, but is symbolic of something else altogether and actually proves my point.

The challenge is to try and keep as literal as possible unless the bible itself defines the symbolism.

I find I have this problem when discussing with amillenialists , because they are often less literal (not always, just more often), they can re-interpret just about anything to fit their own views.



From a LITERAL interpretation standpoint, how do you interpret Daniel's vision & instructions, as well as John's vision & instruction of Revelation?

Daniel: Was told to SEAL UP his vision because the time was "far-off"- which turned out to be a few hundred years.

I take it you are referring to Daniel 12:9

Some of Daniel's prophecies turned out to be a few hundred years later. Daniel 11:36 until the end of Daniel 12 has not yet been fulfilled, and did concern the far future.



John: was told NOT TO SEAL UP his vision, because the time was NEAR/AT HAND, and the things must SOON take place.


Both our views agree that some events of Rev are still for the future unless you are a full preterist. I am sure you don't believe that the New Jerusalem has already landed on the New Earth?

So unless you are a full preterist we both agree that some parts of Revelation were for that time(first century AD) and some parts for 1000's of years later. The only difference is that you believe just a bit of Rev is for the far future, but the very bit you believe is for the far future (Rev 22) is the very part where it is written that things "must soon take place".

So I don't get your point here, we both agree that things to "soon take place" have taken thousands of years, like the New Earth to come.




According to the LITERAL point of view, Daniel's vision should literally be a longer amount of time between the vision and it's fulfillment. Correct? So.... if that's literally the case, then why was Daniel's vision of a few HUNDRED years considered "Far-off"..... if John's vision was considered NEAR, and it's been over 2000 years?

It was longer, Daniel 11 and 12 have not been fulfilled, the resurrection (as per Dan 12) has not occurred, so Daniel's period is more than 400 years longer the prophecies of Revelation.



The "battle" between God & the unrighteous began with Lucifer's rebellion. That "battle" has been going on ever since. And why would there be a need for an actual physical "fight" between God & the angels VS. Satan & the demons?


I believe its two evil armies at war, God only intervenes for Israel's sake. I find that amillenialists often start questioning motives instead of taking verses at face value. If you have two interpretations of the bible, the one that fits better should be taken, not the one that explains God's motives better. I could start giving possible motives and was tempted to do so, but why? If the bible says there will be a future war, and the bible has a history of literal fulfilment, I'm certainly not going to start telling people that there won't be a war because God hasn't explained the need for one clearly enough yet.



There's no scriptural support for physical confrontation ever happening between God and any of the fallen angels. Why would Revelation be any different?

I don't get this logic. It's as if you are saying God only repeats old things He has done before, which is very contrary to the nature of God. There is a first for everything, Satan has never been cast into the lake of fire before, but this will happen, only needs to happen once. Believe me, the end-times fulfilments will have no perfect match from the past, there will be a lot of amazing once-off events.

But I believe Armageddon is a battle between earthly armies, with Jesus intervening, and restoring all things.

iconoclast2012
Mar 21st 2009, 11:48 PM
....I think ur doin' a little tap dance there bro...do u see the difference yet between magog & armegedon....no "KINGS OF THE EAST MENTIONED AT MAGOG...!

DurbanDude
Mar 21st 2009, 11:56 PM
You talking to me Icon?

The Rev 19 and the Rev 20 wars, I've always seen as different. The Gog war involves foremost Arab countries. The Magog war of Rev 20 involves the whole earth, the 4 quarters of the world.

Stephen1
Mar 22nd 2009, 12:18 AM
DD,

"11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain"

>He will have a presence in Israel, but only after he invades and his followers occupy

>But he will rule the entire Middle East with 10 other kings and will cause much destruction for all of the other nations on the earth when they oppose him

>The prize will be Jerusalem and the temple mount

>Israel will never be at peace during the tribulation period .... satan's beast and followers will be the nation's arch enemy and these will eventually subdue the nation by midweek

>The reference in Ezekiel is satan's view of Israel's position at the time of the end

>The nation is at "rest" [permanently established] and safe [because the Lord is protecting them for His purposes]

>If this were not the case Israel would have been removed long before now

>Israel is prosperous and dwells in confidence today even with the turmoil and threats from the nations around them

>This is the condition that satan [gog] will evaluate and then plan to up end it by invasion

>He will win temporarily .... but lose to the Lord at Armageddon

> I would suggest that you reference a good concordance like the Blue Letter Bible on line and study the passage with regard to the word definitions of Israel's condition of "rest" and "safety"

Stephen1
Mar 22nd 2009, 12:33 AM
"There is an Assyrian often mentioned in the bible, but where is any indication that this is the antichrist or beast?"

>Daniel's little horn is the man of lawlessness who will be possessed by satan's beast from the abyss

>This human king will come from the northern Middle East just as Daniel's visions all tell

>Read about this king in the setting given in Micah 5

>This passage is about the time of the end when the Assyrian will tread in Israel's borders

>The Lord will respond with devastating force and He will lead the believing remnant part of Israel against the little horn and his followers to victory

>The battle of Armageddon will rage from Israel to the borders of the northern Middle East, the territory of the little horn .... the Assyrian

>The believing remnant will be protected in the Jordanian wilderness east of Jerusalem during the little horn's rule [Zechariah 14:4-5] [Matthew 25:15-16] [Revelation 12:6-14]

>The Lord will come and begin His war at Bozrah [Edom/Jordan/Petra] [Isaiah 63:1]

>The remnant will join Him and the battle will move to Jerusalem

>The little horn and his followers will then be forced to fight the Lord from Jerusalem to the borders of the northern Middle East just as Micah's vision describes

iconoclast2012
Mar 22nd 2009, 01:02 AM
You talking to me Icon?

The Rev 19 and the Rev 20 wars, I've always seen as different. The Gog war involves foremost Arab countries. The Magog war of Rev 20 involves the whole earth, the 4 quarters of the world.
...of course D.D. what I see there is "MAGOG" parts 1..& 2...seperated by about 1007 years....what say ye...

iconoclast2012
Mar 22nd 2009, 01:24 AM
"There is an Assyrian often mentioned in the bible, but where is any indication that this is the antichrist or beast?"

>Daniel's little horn is the man of lawlessness who will be possessed by satan's beast from the abyss

>This human king will come from the northern Middle East just as Daniel's visions all tell

>Read about this king in the setting given in Micah 5

>This passage is about the time of the end when the Assyrian will tread in Israel's borders

>The Lord will respond with devastating force and He will lead the believing remnant part of Israel against the little horn and his followers to victory

>The battle of Armageddon will rage from Israel to the borders of the northern Middle East, the territory of the little horn .... the Assyrian

>The believing remnant will be protected in the Jordanian wilderness east of Jerusalem during the little horn's rule [Zechariah 14:4-5] [Matthew 25:15-16] [Revelation 12:6-14]

>The Lord will come and begin His war at Bozrah [Edom/Jordan/Petra] [Isaiah 63:1]

>The remnant will join Him and the battle will move to Jerusalem

>The little horn and his followers will then be forced to fight the Lord from Jerusalem to the borders of the northern Middle East just as Micah's vision describes
ur right on there stephen, and I do get a serious kick out of Dan.11:45...Is "HE" campin' out here....????? The point being how in the world can he be busy plantin' tabernacles or any thing else for that matter, further evidence "armegeddon" has not happened yet but the battle of "magog" has Dan 11:40-41...

DurbanDude
Mar 22nd 2009, 04:13 PM
DD,

"11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain"

>He will have a presence in Israel, but only after he invades and his followers occupy

>But he will rule the entire Middle East with 10 other kings and will cause much destruction for all of the other nations on the earth when they oppose him

>The prize will be Jerusalem and the temple mount

>Israel will never be at peace during the tribulation period .... satan's beast and followers will be the nation's arch enemy and these will eventually subdue the nation by midweek

>The reference in Ezekiel is satan's view of Israel's position at the time of the end

>The nation is at "rest" [permanently established] and safe [because the Lord is protecting them for His purposes]

>If this were not the case Israel would have been removed long before now

>Israel is prosperous and dwells in confidence today even with the turmoil and threats from the nations around them

>This is the condition that satan [gog] will evaluate and then plan to up end it by invasion

>He will win temporarily .... but lose to the Lord at Armageddon

> I would suggest that you reference a good concordance like the Blue Letter Bible on line and study the passage with regard to the word definitions of Israel's condition of "rest" and "safety"

Hi Stephen,

All of what you say above seems to fit in with what I am saying, that the antichrist invades and rules over Israel for the last 3.5 years.

You still haven't showed me the need for the antichrist to attack Israel at the end, instead you confirm that Israel is under his control for a while, when you say Israel is subdued MIDWEEK. Then who is Gog that attacks Israel just before the day of the Lord, at ENDWEEK? Certainly not the antichrist, who has been in control since midweek (ie for 3.5 years)

DurbanDude
Mar 22nd 2009, 04:16 PM
...of course D.D. what I see there is "MAGOG" parts 1..& 2...seperated by about 1007 years....what say ye...

Close, I am saying 1000 years. I believe the Gog war is when Jesus intervenes at the day of the Lord with the Second coming and resurrection (I am post-trib) and the start of the millenium.

Stephen1
Mar 22nd 2009, 04:35 PM
DD,

"Then who is Gog that attacks Israel just before the day of the Lord, at ENDWEEK? Certainly not the antichrist, who has been in control since midweek (ie for 3.5 years)"

>There is no vision that tells of an invasion of Israel before the beginning of the Day of the Lord

>All unfulfilled content of the visions of the Bible prophets, the Lord's discourse, and His Revelation is confined to the 70th week and beyond .... and there is no invasion of Israel prior to the middle of the 70th week

>Ezekiel's vision in 38, and 39 has two parts the invasion at midweek and the resulting battle of Armageddon 42 months later

>This vision does not include the rule of satan's [gog's] angelic and human agents which is found in other visions .... but jumps to the battle of Armageddon

>One must take all of the related visions of the time of the end for grasping the complete and composite picture

>All passages do not contain every detail and related continuous time lapse .... the book of Revelation has this same visionary structure and this must be recognized for correct rendering

>The Day of the Lord will begin with the Lord's coming judgment of the earth, will last for 2,550 days, and will continue on into the Lord's millennial kingdom on the earth

>Gog is satan himself [the dragon of Revelation]

>It is satan who will give his power and authority to the first beast of Revelation

>This beast is another fallen angelic like satan and is Abaddon-Apollyon who will manifest in the little horn, human king of the northern Middle East who will invade, and occupy Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple mount foer 42 months

>His invasion will come at the middle of the 70th week and he will add Israel to his Middle Eastern kingdom

>He will then rule for the last 1,260 days before the Lord destroys his kingdom

>One must understand this relationship between satan [gog], the beast [Abaddon -Apollyon], and the little horn [the human king called the "Assyrian" in scripture]

DurbanDude
Mar 23rd 2009, 12:02 PM
>There is no vision that tells of an invasion of Israel before the beginning of the Day of the Lord
Most of the prophecies concerning a great invasion occur just before the day of the Lord. Read Ezekiel 38, Joel 2, Rev 19, the gospel accounts about the armies that surround Jerusalem.



>All unfulfilled content of the visions of the Bible prophets, the Lord's discourse, and His Revelation is confined to the 70th week and beyond .... and there is no invasion of Israel prior to the middle of the 70th week

I am going on the assumption that the day of the Lord occurs at the end of the tribulation, that's where we are getting confused.



>Ezekiel's vision in 38, and 39 has two parts the invasion at midweek and the resulting battle of Armageddon 42 months later

No, its just one invasion. Why do you say two?





>One must take all of the related visions of the time of the end for grasping the complete and composite picture

True, that's why I came to the conclusions that I have.



>All passages do not contain every detail and related continuous time lapse .... the book of Revelation has this same visionary structure and this must be recognized for correct rendering

True



>The Day of the Lord will begin with the Lord's coming judgment of the earth, will last for 2,550 days, and will continue on into the Lord's millennial kingdom on the earth

Its a day, where is your biblical proof that this day lasts for 2550 days?



>Gog is satan himself [the dragon of Revelation]

You still haven't given me verses to prove this. Gog is involved specifically with regions to the north of Israel.



>It is satan who will give his power and authority to the first beast of Revelation

true



>This beast is another fallen angelic like satan and is Abaddon-Apollyon who will manifest in the little horn, human king of the northern Middle East who will invade, and occupy Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple mount foer 42 months

The beast is an empire, with its leader also being called the beast, commonly known as the antichrist. The little horn is a small country, its leader will dominate earth. true, the antichrist will rule Israel for 42 months.



>His invasion will come at the middle of the 70th week and he will add Israel to his Middle Eastern kingdom

Where's your proof of this, he will take over Israel sometime before the end, this is true, but please show me your biblical evidence that this invasion happens 3.5 years before the end?



>He will then rule for the last 1,260 days before the Lord destroys his kingdom

True

DurbanDude
Mar 26th 2009, 09:51 AM
I'm just noting that no-one has given a valid biblical contradiction to my opening post , very interesting!

And no-one has agreed either, very interesting!

As I've said before,how can the antichrist be attacking Israel at the end, he already rules Israel. The final war is between two evil armies, Gog is attacking Israel, and the antichrist is defending it. It seems that the antichrist is losing this battle, and Gog is entering Jerusalem when Jesus intervenes on the day of the Lord, destroying all the armies gathered, Gog and the beast and their armies.

John146
Mar 26th 2009, 02:46 PM
You talking to me Icon?

The Rev 19 and the Rev 20 wars, I've always seen as different. The Gog war involves foremost Arab countries. The Magog war of Rev 20 involves the whole earth, the 4 quarters of the world.The battle of Armageddon is depicted as involving the whole earth as well. See for yourself:

Rev 16
13And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
15Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
16And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

According to verse 14 the whole world is involved. I believe the battle is the same as the one depicted in Rev 20 and is spiritual in nature rather than physical. It will end in physical destruction for unbelievers but it's all about a worldwide spiritual battle over people's souls.

DurbanDude
Mar 26th 2009, 11:07 PM
The battle of Armageddon is depicted as involving the whole earth as well. See for yourself:

Rev 16
13And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
15Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
16And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

According to verse 14 the whole world is involved. I believe the battle is the same as the one depicted in Rev 20 and is spiritual in nature rather than physical. It will end in physical destruction for unbelievers but it's all about a worldwide spiritual battle over people's souls.

John 146, I agree that the whole world is involved in the first war too.By the whole world I mean every nation, just like WW2 involved most of earth, but not every individual. The difference is that certain individual countries are described in the first war, involving an attack of the northern army on Israel. Countries like Turkey, Russia (the land of the far north), Libya , Egypt, and Assyria (Iraq) are on the one side. I believe Rome (with Europe) and Israel and their allies are on the other side. In Ezekiel, and Joel, and Daniel 11 we get an indication of the two warring factions in the Rev 19 war, with many clues gathered elsewhere. Daniel 11 shows us that the attack on Israel comes from the north, south, and east. The west is excluded from this attack, so I presume will be on Israel's side.

The Rev 20 war is a much simpler war. The whole world (the four quarters of earth) attacks Jerusalem, under the influence of Satan who is released from the bottomless pit.

iconoclast2012
Mar 26th 2009, 11:43 PM
DD,

"Then who is Gog that attacks Israel just before the day of the Lord, at ENDWEEK? Certainly not the antichrist, who has been in control since midweek (ie for 3.5 years)"

>There is no vision that tells of an invasion of Israel before the beginning
of the Day of the Lord

>All unfulfilled content of the visions of the Bible prophets, the Lord's discourse, and His Revelation is confined to the 70th week and beyond .... and there is no invasion of Israel prior to the middle of the 70th week

>Ezekiel's vision in 38, and 39 has two parts the invasion at midweek and the resulting battle of Armageddon 42 months later

>This vision does not include the rule of satan's [gog's] angelic and human agents which is found in other visions .... but jumps to the battle of Armageddon

>One must take all of the related visions of the time of the end for grasping the complete and composite picture

>All passages do not contain every detail and related continuous time lapse .... the book of Revelation has this same visionary structure and this must be recognized for correct rendering

>The Day of the Lord will begin with the Lord's coming judgment of the earth, will last for 2,550 days, and will continue on into the Lord's millennial kingdom on the earth

>Gog is satan himself [the dragon of Revelation]

>It is satan who will give his power and authority to the first beast of Revelation

>This beast is another fallen angelic like satan and is Abaddon-Apollyon who will manifest in the little horn, human king of the northern Middle East who will invade, and occupy Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple mount foer 42 months

>His invasion will come at the middle of the 70th week and he will add Israel to his Middle Eastern kingdom

>He will then rule for the last 1,260 days before the Lord destroys his kingdom

>One must understand this relationship between satan [gog], the beast [Abaddon -Apollyon], and the little horn [the human king called the "Assyrian" in scripture]
really.....?...then what about the battle, attack and "invasion of Israel"...in DAN.11:40....?...hmmmm....? as evienced in the very next scripture...v. 41 "And HE shall enter into the glorious land"...what's "HE" doin' there (IN ISRAEL) & how'd "HE" get there...? This all happens well before the day of the LORD....does it not....? I told u'all there is no getting around DAN.11:40....."AS THE BATTLE OF MAGOG"...!....do u get it yet....

John146
Mar 27th 2009, 03:07 PM
John 146, I agree that the whole world is involved in the first war too.By the whole world I mean every nation, just like WW2 involved most of earth, but not every individual. The difference is that certain individual countries are described in the first war, involving an attack of the northern army on Israel. Countries like Turkey, Russia (the land of the far north), Libya , Egypt, and Assyria (Iraq) are on the one side. I believe Rome (with Europe) and Israel and their allies are on the other side. In Ezekiel, and Joel, and Daniel 11 we get an indication of the two warring factions in the Rev 19 war, with many clues gathered elsewhere. Daniel 11 shows us that the attack on Israel comes from the north, south, and east. The west is excluded from this attack, so I presume will be on Israel's side.

The Rev 20 war is a much simpler war. The whole world (the four quarters of earth) attacks Jerusalem, under the influence of Satan who is released from the bottomless pit.I see a lot of speculation on your part. For some reason you see two sides of unbelievers fighting against each other. That isn't the picture that Revelation paints for us. I think you are mistaken about which two warring factions there are in the battle.

Do you believe the following passage refers to the battle of Armageddon?

Rev 19
19And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

The only sides in this battle are unbelievers against Christ and His army. What you're describing is basically World War 3 but I don't see any description of that in Revelation. You're trying to say they are gathered together to make war against each other. But verse 19 above says they are gathered together "to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.". Revelation repeatedly depicts a spiritual battle between good and evil. Like Rev. 19, the battle in Rev. 20 also depicts unbelievers battling against Christ and His church. I believe it's the same battle. The same battle is depicted in Revelation 12 and 13 as well. The battle has to do with Satan and his beast deceiving people and making war with the saints. The battle ends with Christ destroying those who "know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess 1:7-8).

One interesting thing I learned about the term Armageddon is that in Hebrew it is Har-Magedon, which means mountain of Megiddo. There is a literal valley of Megiddo but no mountain of Megiddo. I think this is further evidence that Armageddon is not meant to be taken literally but instead represents a worldwide spiritual battle.

DurbanDude
Mar 29th 2009, 06:21 AM
Do you believe the following passage refers to the battle of Armageddon?

Rev 19
19And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Yes, I believe it is Armageddon.

From a literal pre-trib view, satan already controls the whole earth, through the rule of the antichrist. Certain countries are described as under the direct control of the antichrist, yet certain countries are described as having escaped that direct control. In Daniel 11 we are told that the antichrist is alarmed from reports to the north and the east. So from a literal viewpoint of all these verses, Rev 19:19 has to be interpreted in context of the other verses, which clearly show two factions. The attacking faction is centred on Gog (a Turkish/Russian region), and the Assyrian (Iraq), end-times verses are clear on these two attackers. This is not speculation or assumption . The defending faction dwells in Israel and is alarmed by reports to the north and the east. Neither is this specualtion, Daniel 11 is clear. Neither is the fact that the antichrist rules the whole earth. It is made clear by the bible that the antichrist has already taken over Israel a few years before this final battle.

So all I've done is piece together a few clues, but have not speculated at all on this, it's all bible-based.

Speculating though, I think the antichrist will garner the support of Islam. Islam will help him come to power, regarding him as their own mahdi to unite the world under Islam. But he is also uniting other religions, and will turn around and deceive the Islamic countries, by declaring himself God. This is against the Islamic belief, because they believe no-one can be God (an antichrist philosophy). But they have already given him their vocal support, and so will secretly plan their attack on the antichrist. But they have a prophecy that Satan will attack from the sky with his demons, and when this happens they are to defeat Satan. (Obviously their Satanic prophecy is back to front, it will be Jesus in the sky). The antichrist is also under the influence of satan. So both armies are the enemies of Jesus, and Satan gathers them there to fight Jesus.

So I believe in this way Satan will gather his armies against Jesus, and to destroy Jerusalem.

John146
Mar 30th 2009, 04:13 PM
Yes, I believe it is Armageddon.

From a literal pre-trib view, satan already controls the whole earth, through the rule of the antichrist.I thought you were post-trib.


Certain countries are described as under the direct control of the antichrist, yet certain countries are described as having escaped that direct control. In Daniel 11 we are told that the antichrist is alarmed from reports to the north and the east. So from a literal viewpoint of all these verses, Rev 19:19 has to be interpreted in context of the other verses, which clearly show two factions.Why don't those other verses need to be interpreted in context of Rev 19? Afterall, Revelation is the book that specifically mentions Armageddon, not those others. Whether or not Daniel 11 has something to do with Armageddon is debatable while it's very clear that Rev. 16 speaks about it as well as Rev. 19 and, IMO, Rev. 12, 13 and 20 as well. Again, Revelation paints a picture of worldwide spiritual warfare rather than physical.


The attacking faction is centred on Gog (a Turkish/Russian region), and the Assyrian (Iraq), end-times verses are clear on these two attackers. This is not speculation or assumption . The defending faction dwells in Israel and is alarmed by reports to the north and the east. Neither is this specualtion, Daniel 11 is clear. Neither is the fact that the antichrist rules the whole earth. It is made clear by the bible that the antichrist has already taken over Israel a few years before this final battle.

So all I've done is piece together a few clues, but have not speculated at all on this, it's all bible-based.It's not based on what Revelation itself says are the two sides in the battle, though. And Revelation speaks a lot about spiritual warfare and about Satan trying to deceive people, just like the rest of the NT.


Speculating though, I think the antichrist will garner the support of Islam. Islam will help him come to power, regarding him as their own mahdi to unite the world under Islam. But he is also uniting other religions, and will turn around and deceive the Islamic countries, by declaring himself God. This is against the Islamic belief, because they believe no-one can be God (an antichrist philosophy). But they have already given him their vocal support, and so will secretly plan their attack on the antichrist. But they have a prophecy that Satan will attack from the sky with his demons, and when this happens they are to defeat Satan. (Obviously their Satanic prophecy is back to front, it will be Jesus in the sky). The antichrist is also under the influence of satan. So both armies are the enemies of Jesus, and Satan gathers them there to fight Jesus.

So I believe in this way Satan will gather his armies against Jesus, and to destroy Jerusalem.I just don't agree with your speculation. I believe Satan is much more interested in waging a spiritual war than a physical one. Much of Revelation talks about spiritual deception rather than physical warfare.

joedelsy
Mar 31st 2009, 03:29 AM
The battle is already going on. It HAS BEEN since the rebellion of the angels in Heaven.
Armegeddon isn't going to be an actual "fight" between two sides..... it's the final fulfillment of the prophecy, when Satan is given his eternal judment, and the curse of sin & death are no longer.

Satan is still gathering his army to fight against God (on a daily basis.....) so the "war" is in progress.

This is a spiritual war, not a physical one. And the "Great battle at the end" is not going to be a battle in the sense that we normally use.
All it's going to take is a spoken command from God, and the "Battle" is over.

That's how I view it.
:)


Wow what channel did you see all this on? The lot of you have been misinformed. the mighty battle of the end is not gonna happen in our time. The Anti must come to power and rule the world first according to Scripture. Hitler would have been the perfect Biblical example of the Anti for the horrendous atrocities he committed. Jesus didnt come then. So common sense should dictate that the Anti will be much more powerful than Hitler, which is sad to say. The end battle of armegheddon is literal, not a figure of speech of Scripture. Millions will be persecuted for an alegiance to Christ. theres no world power living today that could achieve a fraction of what is described of the rise of the Anti in the Scripture.

DurbanDude
Mar 31st 2009, 07:06 AM
I thought you were post-trib.

.
My bad! http://bibleforums.org/images/icons/icon11.gif
Sorry I meant pre-mill.



Why don't those other verses need to be interpreted in context of Rev 19? After all, Revelation is the book that specifically mentions Armageddon, not those others. Whether or not Daniel 11 has something to do with Armageddon is debatable while it's very clear that Rev. 16 speaks about it as well as Rev. 19 and, IMO, Rev. 12, 13 and 20 as well. Again, Revelation paints a picture of worldwide spiritual warfare rather than physical.


In my opinion Revelation is prophesying a lot of very physical events. When Moses warned of plagues, these were not spiritual. It does not need a lot of discernment to decide when Rev is being symbolic and when literal. The final war before the second coming along with the earthquake, hailstones etc sounds very literal to me. each to their own.



It's not based on what Revelation itself says are the two sides in the battle, though. And Revelation speaks a lot about spiritual warfare and about Satan trying to deceive people, just like the rest of the NT.

It is based on this, I believe Satan is gathering his armies against Christ. The fact that they are warring against eachother does not take from Satan's plan to fight Christ, destroy Jerusalem, and bring death and destruction to mankind, all at the same time.



I just don't agree with your speculation. I believe Satan is much more interested in waging a spiritual war than a physical one. Much of Revelation talks about spiritual deception rather than physical warfare


We will just have to keep disagreeing on this. When Jesus predicted the armies surrounding Jerusalem in 70 AD, He was not predicting a spiritual war. He was not talking about a spiritual Jerusalem or temple, He was referring to an actual war. In the same way, other prophecies about wars should be taken literally unless otherwise stated. For example, wars in the heavenlies, are sometimes described , but these wars are clearly spiritual wars between heavenly beings, and are clearly described as such. By this I am referring to the angelic war in response to Daniel's prayer, and the spiritual war of Rev 12, where the saints overcome Satan through the word of their testimony , and Satan is thrown out of heaven.

But we both know our respective positions on literalism and symbolism, I think there is enough literal fulfilment of prophecy in the past to know that prophecies have a literal outworking.

DurbanDude
Mar 31st 2009, 07:16 AM
Wow what channel did you see all this on? The lot of you have been misinformed. the mighty battle of the end is not gonna happen in our time. The Anti must come to power and rule the world first according to Scripture. Hitler would have been the perfect Biblical example of the Anti for the horrendous atrocities he committed. Jesus didnt come then. So common sense should dictate that the Anti will be much more powerful than Hitler, which is sad to say. The end battle of armegheddon is literal, not a figure of speech of Scripture. Millions will be persecuted for an alegiance to Christ. theres no world power living today that could achieve a fraction of what is described of the rise of the Anti in the Scripture.

Right-on joedelsy!

To me the symbolic approach of the amills is just a head-in-the-sand approach to bad times to come. Just like pre-tribs, they don't want to see that we Christians are going to have some bad times physically on earth. It will be physical, way too physical. Only spiritual strength and seeing spiritaulity as more important than the temporary physical problems will see us through.

Raybob
Mar 31st 2009, 07:22 AM
Right-on joedelsy!

To me the symbolic approach of the amills is just a head-in-the-sand approach to bad times to come. Just like pre-tribs, they don't want to see that we Christians are going to have some bad times physically on earth. It will be physical, way too physical. Only spiritual strength and seeing spiritaulity as more important than the temporary physical problems will see us through.

Why wouldn't you think a-mill wouldn't expect Christians going through bad times ahead? The only difference in a-mill and pre-mill is that pre-mill expects a temporary (mere 1000 years) of running around with iron rods ruling on the earth, before spending eternity with Jesus. A-mill believes when Jesus comes, our eternal reign continues on the the new earth that day, not postponed for 1000 years.

Raybob

DurbanDude
Mar 31st 2009, 08:20 AM
Why wouldn't you think a-mill wouldn't expect Christians going through bad times ahead? The only difference in a-mill and pre-mill is that pre-mill expects a temporary (mere 1000 years) of running around with iron rods ruling on the earth, before spending eternity with Jesus. A-mill believes when Jesus comes, our eternal reign continues on the the new earth that day, not postponed for 1000 years.

Raybob

Sorry, maybe I jumped the gun here. Its just that recently when discussing topics with amills I see more and more symbolic interpretation. I don't know of any verses that amills would interpret as referring to an escalated period of persecution and martyrdom before the second coming. Do you believe that there will be some sort of escalation? If so, what are your verses for this?

DurbanDude
Mar 31st 2009, 08:23 AM
Why wouldn't you think a-mill wouldn't expect Christians going through bad times ahead? The only difference in a-mill and pre-mill is that pre-mill expects a temporary (mere 1000 years) of running around with iron rods ruling on the earth, before spending eternity with Jesus. A-mill believes when Jesus comes, our eternal reign continues on the the new earth that day, not postponed for 1000 years.

Raybob

By the way, I am post-trib premill, and also believe our eternal reign on a renewed earth begins when Jesus comes, and is not postponed for 1000 years.

Raybob
Mar 31st 2009, 11:52 AM
Sorry, maybe I jumped the gun here. Its just that recently when discussing topics with amills I see more and more symbolic interpretation. I don't know of any verses that amills would interpret as referring to an escalated period of persecution and martyrdom before the second coming. Do you believe that there will be some sort of escalation? If so, what are your verses for this?

Of course.

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.
(Rev 20:3)

This is one and the same with:

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
(Rev 11:7)


By the way, I am post-trib premill, and also believe our eternal reign on a renewed earth begins when Jesus comes, and is not postponed for 1000 years.

A-mill believes our reign with the King started when we began to live for Christ. It just continues into the new earth.
Raybob

Veretax
Mar 31st 2009, 01:21 PM
....But have ya'll noticed yet...The major difference between the seperate battles of "magog" & Armegeddon..? Ezeqiel gives us a clear & distinguished lineup of "MOSLEM nations"...whereas Armegeddon includes all the remaining nations of the earth....and I realize Zeke had a lot on his mind when giving us this role call of "MOSLEM" nations but how could he have possibly omitted,forgotten, or did he just fail to mention the big time ,end time players, "THE KINGS OF THE EAST"... as they are no where to be found in Ezekiel 38-39...any ideas brethren....? well quite simply they are not combatants in the magog battle..thus providing further evidence "magog" & armegeddon are different battles....


I actually agree with this belief. One of the battles takes place either just before the tribulation, near its middle, or at least right before Christ comes. The other is describing the final Rebellion following the Millennium.

Stephen1
Mar 31st 2009, 02:51 PM
Here is the line up of the end time wars:

There are no pre-70th week wars in the scope of the visions of the time of the end

The first tribulation event will be the destruction of MBG's great city by satan's [gog's]little horn [beast] and the 10 others [Revelation 8, 17, 18]

The little horn will then proceed to conquer the Middle East in his rise to power .... including his invasion and occupation of Israel at midweek .... he will fend of all other opposition to his rule from the south, east, and north that will come from outside of the Middle East [Daniel 11:36-45; 12:7]

He will then rule unopposed for 42 months [last 1,260 days of the tribulation period

During this period he will hunt down and kill all he can find who will not worship him as a god

Then the Lord will destroy His kingdom and followers at Armageddon at the end of the period

Satan's angelic beast and false prophet will then be burned in the lake of fire, the little horn and his followers will become bird food, and satan will be tossed into the abyss so that he cannot deceive the nations during the Lord's millennial kingdom

Satan will be released again and cause another human rebellion [symbolically gog [satan]and magog [the nations who will rebel] at the end of the kingdom

The Lord will quickly destroy those of the rebellion and satan will be tossed in the lake of fire

DurbanDude
Mar 31st 2009, 03:16 PM
Of course.

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.
(Rev 20:3)

This is one and the same with:

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

Do you believe these happen physically, I have had amills insist the warfare is spiritual.



A-mill believes our reign with the King started when we began to live for Christ. It just continues into the new earth.
Raybob

Same here, yet I am definitely premill.

Raybob
Mar 31st 2009, 05:13 PM
Do you believe these happen physically, I have had amills insist the warfare is spiritual.


Satan is a spirit being. He cannot be bound physically by physical chains. He was bound 'spiritually' at the cross and will be unbound for a little season (if he hasn't been already) prior to the Lord's return.


Same here, yet I am definitely premill.If you realize you now reign with Christ and will continue in the new earth, then just what would be the point of a literal 1000 year period on this earth between your reign on earth and the reign in the new earth? After all, when we've been there 10,000 years, we've only just begun. A mere 1000 year reign on this earth before all eternity is really pointless and makes no sense compared to all other 'last day' scriptures.

Raybob

John146
Mar 31st 2009, 05:29 PM
In my opinion Revelation is prophesying a lot of very physical events. When Moses warned of plagues, these were not spiritual. It does not need a lot of discernment to decide when Rev is being symbolic and when literal. The final war before the second coming along with the earthquake, hailstones etc sounds very literal to me. each to their own.I believe the earthquake and hailstones are literal. I wasn't saying otherwise. That is the wrath of God that comes down. Everything ends with physical destruction when Christ returns. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the time before that when Satan goes out to try to deceive people into uniting against Christ and the church. That's a spiritual battle over people's souls. Will people worship Satan and his beast or Christ? I see that battle being depicted throughout Revelation.

I do see a description of physical persecution of the saints as well, but I wouldn't really describe that as physical warfare since we would not be trying to fight a physical war against our enemies.


We will just have to keep disagreeing on this. When Jesus predicted the armies surrounding Jerusalem in 70 AD, He was not predicting a spiritual war. He was not talking about a spiritual Jerusalem or temple, He was referring to an actual war.But neither of us believe that is what Revelation is about, right? Just because 70 AD was about a physical war (a very one-sided one) doesn't mean that's what Revelation is all about.

John146
Mar 31st 2009, 05:38 PM
Right-on joedelsy!

To me the symbolic approach of the amills is just a head-in-the-sand approach to bad times to come. Just like pre-tribs, they don't want to see that we Christians are going to have some bad times physically on earth.Where did you get this from? Just because we see spiritual warfare being portrayed in Revelation doesn't mean we deny physical persecution. It says the beast makes war with the saints and overcomes them.


It will be physical, way too physical. Only spiritual strength and seeing spiritaulity as more important than the temporary physical problems will see us through.I agree. But Revelation also depicts a spiritual battle over people's souls. People need to choose whether to worship Satan and the beast or Christ. You focus so much on the physical that it seems like you are overlooking the spiritual battle depicted in Revelation.

John146
Mar 31st 2009, 05:49 PM
Sorry, maybe I jumped the gun here. Its just that recently when discussing topics with amills I see more and more symbolic interpretation. I don't know of any verses that amills would interpret as referring to an escalated period of persecution and martyrdom before the second coming. Do you believe that there will be some sort of escalation? If so, what are your verses for this?You didn't ask me specifically, but I'd like to answer since you clearly have not yet fully understood our position.

Rev 12
17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 13
7And 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. 8And 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.

I believe what is described here continues to get worse as Christ's second coming approaches. I believe that Revelation 19 and 20 are speaking of the same war against the saints. Here is my evidence:

Rev 19
19And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Rev 20
7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

I believe these are parallel accounts, along with Rev. 16. The only difference is that Rev. 16 doesn't mention specifically who the battle is against. But Rev 12, 13, 19 and 20 all speak of Satan and his followers going up against Christ and the saints, which is the church. Each time a war or battle is mentioned in Revelation it has Satan and his followers on one side and the saints on the other.

Also, there's one thing I want you to notice about Rev 20:9. It says that Satan and the ones he deceives "went up on the breadth of the earth" in order to surround the camp of the saints. If the camp of the saints was in earthly Jerusalem why would it be required for them to go up on the breadth of the earth in order to surround the camp of the saints? If all the saints were in Jerusalem then all that would be required would be for Satan and his followers to go up on the breadth of Jerusalem rather than the whole earth.

DurbanDude
Apr 1st 2009, 10:04 AM
Satan is a spirit being. He cannot be bound physically by physical chains. He was bound 'spiritually' at the cross and will be unbound for a little season (if he hasn't been already) prior to the Lord's return.

If you realize you now reign with Christ and will continue in the new earth, then just what would be the point of a literal 1000 year period on this earth between your reign on earth and the reign in the new earth? After all, when we've been there 10,000 years, we've only just begun. A mere 1000 year reign on this earth before all eternity is really pointless and makes no sense compared to all other 'last day' scriptures.

Raybob

I don't question God's motives. there are enough verses to indicate that there will be mortals after the day of the Lord. My two main verses are Zech 14 and Rev 20, but there are many more. Due to these verses it is safe to interpret this, that after the day of the Lord, there will still be mortals on earth. Rev 20 mentions the martyred saints coming alive at the first resurrection, and then mentions the millenium.

Rev 20 says that those who have already been saved... THEN get martyred.... THEN come alive again and reign for the millenium, so I don't understand how this can be interpreted from an amill perspective.

DurbanDude
Apr 1st 2009, 10:08 AM
I believe the earthquake and hailstones are literal. I wasn't saying otherwise. That is the wrath of God that comes down. Everything ends with physical destruction when Christ returns. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the time before that when Satan goes out to try to deceive people into uniting against Christ and the church. That's a spiritual battle over people's souls. Will people worship Satan and his beast or Christ? I see that battle being depicted throughout Revelation.

I do see a description of physical persecution of the saints as well, but I wouldn't really describe that as physical warfare since we would not be trying to fight a physical war against our enemies.

.

So you believe that the earthquake is physical, the hailstones are physical, and the persecutions are physical, but the actual wars are spiritual. Ok I understand you better, I certainly don't agree with you.

DurbanDude
Apr 1st 2009, 10:18 AM
You didn't ask me specifically, but I'd like to answer since you clearly have not yet fully understood our position.
.
Thanks for explaining, I guess I had it mainly right.


Also, there's one thing I want you to notice about Rev 20:9. It says that Satan and the ones he deceives "went up on the breadth of the earth" in order to surround the camp of the saints. If the camp of the saints was in earthly Jerusalem why would it be required for them to go up on the breadth of the earth in order to surround the camp of the saints? If all the saints were in Jerusalem then all that would be required would be for Satan and his followers to go up on the breadth of Jerusalem rather than the whole earth
To tell you the truth, I don't know what it means to "go up on the breadth of the earth". Are you interpreting it that they all disperse evenly across earth? Or that they go an indirect route, covering the whole earth first? How do you interpret their actions?

NIV: They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people

To me this just means that they marched from all over the world to Jerusalem, they took the direct route, but because they lived all over the world, they had to march from all over the world. I wouldn't make a doctrine just because the language is a bit vague here, I believe there are two wars, and both are physical.

John146
Apr 1st 2009, 05:48 PM
So you believe that the earthquake is physical, the hailstones are physical, and the persecutions are physical, but the actual wars are spiritual. Ok I understand you better, I certainly don't agree with you.There is both a spiritual and physical aspect to the battle. There's a spiritual battle over people's souls. Satan is trying to deceive people into worshiping him and the beast. At the same time, the church is witnessing to people in an effort to lead them to Christ.

The physical aspect of the battle has to do with Satan's followers physically persecuting the saints. But I don't see this physical war between nations that you are seeing in Revelation. There certainly are no verses that specifically speak of such a thing. If you disagree then please tell me which verses in Revelation you believe speak of a physical war between nations. I see plenty of verses speaking of armies gathering together to fight against Christ and His army, but nothing about nations fighting each other.

John146
Apr 1st 2009, 06:16 PM
To tell you the truth, I don't know what it means to "go up on the breadth of the earth". Are you interpreting it that they all disperse evenly across earth? Or that they go an indirect route, covering the whole earth first? How do you interpret their actions? I don't see it as depicting them literally physically traveling across the earth to surround the saints. I believe it is symbolic language. I believe it is symbolically speaking of Satan's effort to deceive people all over the world and to persecute Christians all over the world. To me, it implies that in order to surround the camp of the saints they would have to be everywhere in the world. Christians can be found in every nation in the world, so I see the camp of the saints as being found throughout the entire world.

One other thing for you to consider. It says that the number of those who surround the camp of the saints is "as the sand of the sea". Can you explain to me how that many people could all be at one relatively small location at the same time?

Raybob
Apr 1st 2009, 07:44 PM
I don't question God's motives. there are enough verses to indicate that there will be mortals after the day of the Lord. My two main verses are Zech 14 and Rev 20, but there are many more. Due to these verses it is safe to interpret this, that after the day of the Lord, there will still be mortals on earth. Rev 20 mentions the martyred saints coming alive at the first resurrection, and then mentions the millenium.

Rev 20 says that those who have already been saved... THEN get martyred.... THEN come alive again and reign for the millenium, so I don't understand how this can be interpreted from an amill perspective.

If Zech 14 were about the 2nd coming and not symbolic of the first, being a temporary situation on earth, it would also explain the 3rd coming of the Lord followed by the new earth without the sun. It doesn't.


To tell you the truth, I don't know what it means to "go up on the breadth of the earth". Are you interpreting it that they all disperse evenly across earth? Or that they go an indirect route, covering the whole earth first? How do you interpret their actions?

NIV: They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people

Why not go to the Strong's to see the original word used for "went up"?

anabainō
an-ab-ah'ee-no
From G303 and the base of G939; to go up (literally or figuratively): - arise, ascend (up), climb (go, grow, rise, spring) up, come (up).

In context, Satan was bound in the pit. Then after that:

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
(Rev 20:7-9)

Since Satan is bound in a pit, he has to ascend out of that pit to deceive gentiles (nations) doesn't he?

Raybob

joedelsy
Apr 2nd 2009, 03:24 AM
You guys are thinking waaaaaay ahead of yourselves, all this fighting and persecution of saints and what not does not happen until the Anti comes to power.Dont not second guess Scripture, the "heavenly" description of what is to happen is going to be world wide, nothing hidden. The horsemen with flames coming out of thier mouths and dead rising from the ground, its all literal. Only a fool would believe otherwise. The earth will tremble, skies will turn grey with flames coming from nowhere. Imagine the best Spielburg movie youv'e ever seen with the greatest effects on screen seen by man today!!!!!!!!! Well... thats not even a hint of what will probably happen when all this takes place.Take all your figure of speeches and throwem out the window. Mankind will not be able to comprehend the Biblical prophesies of the end times. But remember this, nothing will happen, according to Scripture, until the Anti comes to power first. I didn't say it, Jesus did.

Raybob
Apr 2nd 2009, 04:42 AM
You guys are thinking waaaaaay ahead of yourselves, all this fighting and persecution of saints and what not does not happen until the Anti comes to power.Dont not second guess Scripture, the "heavenly" description of what is to happen is going to be world wide, nothing hidden. The horsemen with flames coming out of thier mouths and dead rising from the ground, its all literal. Only a fool would believe otherwise. The earth will tremble, skies will turn grey with flames coming from nowhere. Imagine the best Spielburg movie youv'e ever seen with the greatest effects on screen seen by man today!!!!!!!!! Well... thats not even a hint of what will probably happen when all this takes place.Take all your figure of speeches and throwem out the window. Mankind will not be able to comprehend the Biblical prophesies of the end times. But remember this, nothing will happen, according to Scripture, until the Anti comes to power first. I didn't say it, Jesus did.

Joe, you are making some bold statements here. Explain where Jesus told us that "Anti" comes to power? Tell us where horsemen breathe fire. Maybe I have a different bible but I can't find those things in it.

Raybob

joedelsy
Apr 2nd 2009, 05:05 AM
"Then I stood on the sand of the sea.
And I saw a beast (Satanís Anti-christ)
rising up out of the sea,
having seven heads and ten horns,
and on his horns ten crowns,
(The book of Daniel explains these represent 10 nations he will rule)
and on his heads a blasphemous name . . .
The dragon (Satan) gave him his power,
his throne, and great authority."
(Rev 13:1,2)

"The coming of the lawless one (the coming 'Antichrist')
is according to the working of Satan,
with all power, signs (miracles), and lying wonders"
(II Th 2:9-10)

"It was granted to him to make war with the saints
and to overcome them (he will slaughter millions).
And authority was given him
over every tribe, tongue, and nation."
(This "leader" will dominate "World" governments)
(Rev 13:7)




"He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak
and cause as many as would not worship
the image of the beast to be killed."
(Rev 13:15)

joedelsy
Apr 2nd 2009, 05:06 AM
I admit I may have exaggerated a little on the fire breathing thing, I was just giving an example

joedelsy
Apr 2nd 2009, 05:11 AM
In the Olivet Discourse, recorded in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, Jesus outlined for his disciples the major events that would precede the second aspect of his second coming, namely his visible unveiling (apokalupsis) to the world as true Messiah and rightful King of Israel. After speaking to them about the future destruction of the Second Temple then standing across from the Mount of Olives where they were seated, the disciples asked,
"Tell us when will this be, and what will be the sign of your appearing (parousia = presence, that is a period of time when he was back on earth, encompassing seven years) and of the close of the age?" Jesus answered them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the messiah,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the sufferings. Then they will deliver you (disciples) up to tribulation, and put you to death, and you (Jews) will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most men's love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached (once again this time by the 144,000) throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

DurbanDude
Apr 2nd 2009, 06:27 AM
There is both a spiritual and physical aspect to the battle. There's a spiritual battle over people's souls. Satan is trying to deceive people into worshiping him and the beast. At the same time, the church is witnessing to people in an effort to lead them to Christ.

The physical aspect of the battle has to do with Satan's followers physically persecuting the saints. But I don't see this physical war between nations that you are seeing in Revelation. There certainly are no verses that specifically speak of such a thing. If you disagree then please tell me which verses in Revelation you believe speak of a physical war between nations. I see plenty of verses speaking of armies gathering together to fight against Christ and His army, but nothing about nations fighting each other.

You are right, Revelation does not specifically say that the armies are gathering to fight eachother, just that they do gather. It is the OT descriptions of this war leading up to the day of the Lord, that describe the countries involved. Only Rev 19 describes this war as being against Christ, yet these armies are attacking Jerusalem, the seat of the antichrist. We know the antichrist, and the Muslim armies are both anti Christ.

DurbanDude
Apr 2nd 2009, 06:35 AM
I don't see it as depicting them literally physically traveling across the earth to surround the saints. I believe it is symbolic language. I believe it is symbolically speaking of Satan's effort to deceive people all over the world and to persecute Christians all over the world. To me, it implies that in order to surround the camp of the saints they would have to be everywhere in the world. Christians can be found in every nation in the world, so I see the camp of the saints as being found throughout the entire world.

One other thing for you to consider. It says that the number of those who surround the camp of the saints is "as the sand of the sea". Can you explain to me how that many people could all be at one relatively small location at the same time?

So you believe the armies that are coming across the breadth of the earth represent Satan persecuting the saints. Yet when I interpret this as literal armies coming from all over the earth, you somehow think I am mis-interpreting it. I think that your symbolic interpretation is more far-fetched than my literal interpretation. The mental picture of armies gatheed to one place and being destroyed with fire, just does not seem to match a world-wide persecution of the saints.

DurbanDude
Apr 2nd 2009, 06:54 AM
If Zech 14 were about the 2nd coming and not symbolic of the first, being a temporary situation on earth, it would also explain the 3rd coming of the Lord followed by the new earth without the sun. It doesn't.

I commented on Rev 20:4-6, and your interpretation of ths. I notice you haven't giving me a satisfactory answer on Rev 20:4-6 and your interpretation of the order of events. as for your interpretation of Zech14, for you to believe this is a symbolic representation of the FIRST coming of Christ, and not the day of the Lord, is stretching scripture way too far.

Firstly, verse one describes this as the day of the Lord. This phrase is specifically used to describe the end of wordly rule on earth, when the Lord himself rules.

Secondly, a war is described when all nations gather, in 70 AD there were only a few nations in the Roman army., and this was 40 years after the crucifixion.

Thirdly, verse 4 , the mountains are moved to create a valley, what does this symbolise?

Fourthly, verse 5, who fled and who are the saints that come with the Lord?

Its easy to make up symbolic stuff to match each verse, but is this really how the bible is meant to be interpreted? Other battles prophesied about , came about literally, the same applies to Zech 14. Symbolism flows naturally, but I'm sure it will take a lot of thought for you guys to explain each one of these events from a symbolic viewpoint pointing to the first coming or 70 AD.



anabainō
an-ab-ah'ee-no
From G303 and the base of G939; to go up (literally or figuratively): - arise, ascend (up), climb (go, grow, rise, spring) up, come (up).

In context, Satan was bound in the pit. Then after that:

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
(Rev 20:7-9)


The highlighted part applies to the nations, not Satan.

John146
Apr 2nd 2009, 04:02 PM
You are right, Revelation does not specifically say that the armies are gathering to fight eachother, just that they do gather. It is the OT descriptions of this war leading up to the day of the Lord, that describe the countries involved. Only Rev 19 describes this war as being against Christ, yet these armies are attacking Jerusalem, the seat of the antichrist. We know the antichrist, and the Muslim armies are both anti Christ.At least you acknowledge that Revelation makes no specific mention of this physical war between nations that you're talking about. I believe that if there was going to be such a war that fulfilled prophecy then it would have been mentioned in Revelation, but it's not. I think you are misapplying those OT prophecies, but we'll have to just agree to disagree on that.

John146
Apr 2nd 2009, 04:09 PM
....................................

So you believe the armies that are coming across the breadth of the earth represent Satan persecuting the saints. Yet when I interpret this as literal armies coming from all over the earth, you somehow think I am mis-interpreting it.Somehow? I think you're misinterpreting it because you have too much focus on the physical while apparently ignoring the spiritual aspects of the book.


I think that your symbolic interpretation is more far-fetched than my literal interpretation. Of course you do. I think we've established long ago that our approaches to interpreting the book are far different. Let's not act like we're just now discovering this. ;)


The mental picture of armies gatheed to one place and being destroyed with fire, just does not seem to match a world-wide persecution of the saints.2 Peter 3 describes the fire as being worldwide, so why should we think it's only a regional thing? Also, you didn't respond to my question about the reasonableness of a number as the sand of the sea all being gathered together in one relatively small location. Can you please give your explanation of that?

You want to interpret everything literally and that's your choice. Revelation has a lot of symbolic language within it and should be interpreted accordingly.

Searcher1
Apr 2nd 2009, 05:08 PM
Zec 12:2 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/2) Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah [and] against Jerusalem. [/URL]
Zec 12:3 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20dict/3) And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.


Anybody notice that Jerusalem is being laid siege??? All these people round about Israel do not yet enter Jerusalem, they lay siege to it, or surrounded it.

Dan 11:44 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/44)-45 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Notice he does not set up his tabernacle on the Holy Mount until after he hear news from the north and east that disturbs him.

Zec 14:1 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/1) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Zec 14:2 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

[U]Zec 14:3 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20dict/3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And His foot....


Notice the city is not taken until after all nations have been gathered against her.

So how does that work within everyones theory?

DurbanDude
Apr 2nd 2009, 09:32 PM
2 Peter 3 describes the fire as being worldwide, so why should we think it's only a regional thing? Also, you didn't respond to my question about the reasonableness of a number as the sand of the sea all being gathered together in one relatively small location. Can you please give your explanation of that?

.

Hi John146

I think commom sense is a good way to distinguish between what is symbolic and what is not. This does not mean we must limit God in any way, some events prophesied are literal supernatural events, but when we read "as the sand of the sea", we know this means a very large number, because we use our common sense. This does not mean that the whole chapter should be regarded as symbolic. I would like to hear your interpretation of the events of Rev 20:4-6.

John146
Apr 3rd 2009, 05:09 PM
Hi John146

I think commom sense is a good way to distinguish between what is symbolic and what is not.I prefer spiritual discernment to common sense when interpreting a book like Revelation. Common sense is your own understanding. Are we supposed to rely on our own understanding?

5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.


This does not mean we must limit God in any way, some events prophesied are literal supernatural events, but when we read "as the sand of the sea", we know this means a very large number, because we use our common sense. This does not mean that the whole chapter should be regarded as symbolic.That's fine, but I asked about how such a large number would fit in a relatively small location. Can you comment on that?


I would like to hear your interpretation of the events of Rev 20:4-6.Sure. First, I'll quote it for reference.

4And 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.
5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6Blessed 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.

The first thing I want to point out in verse 4 is that John sees souls. Not people in resurrected bodies. Souls. Another thing is that it says "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years". Who lives and reigns with Christ? The souls that John saw. It doesn't say their bodies came to life. It just says they lived. The Greek word for lived in that verse is zaō (Strong's G2198). The word is used 148 times in the NT and not once is it used in the sense of coming to life or being resurrected.

In verse 5, when it says "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished", the Greek word for "lived" there is anazaō (Strong's G326). That word is used in terms of coming back to life or being resurrected. If verse 4 was speaking in terms of the souls John saw coming back to life then it only makes sense that the word anazao would have been used instead of zao. Then at the end of verse 5 it says "This is the first resurrection". I don't know if anyone knows why we see that at the end of verse 5 instead of at the end of verse 4, but I'm sure we agree that it's referring back to verse 4.

So, what is the first resurrection? You believe it's a reference to believers being physically resurrected at the second coming of Christ. But, as I showed, there is no description in verse 4 of the people whose souls that John saw being physically resurrected.

It says in verse 6 that the ones who take part in the first resurrection are blessed and holy and the second death has no power over them. Apparently, taking part in the first resurrection is what causes the second death to not have power over them. What is the second death? We are told exactly what it is in Rev 20:14-15.

14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The second death is being cast into the lake of fire. So, how does one avoid this? Is it our physical resurrection that makes it so that the second death has no power over us? I don't believe so since I don't see that taught anywhere in scripture. So what resurrection do we take part in that gives the second death no power over us and at what point can it be said that the second death has no power over us?

Revelation 2
10Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
11He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

If we overcome and are faithful even unto death then we are promised to receive a crown of life. It is by overcoming even unto death that ensures that we will "not be hurt of the second death". So, if we remain faithful even up to the time of our physical death then the second death has no power over us at that point. Some would say even before that, when we first put our faith and trust in Christ, but that's beyond the scope of this thread. At the very least we are in a state of the second death not having power over us at the time of our deaths. So, it isn't our physical resurrection that makes the second death not have power over us. What resurrection does? Christ's! When we are saved and born again we have part in His resurrection. His resurrection was the first.

1 Cor 15
20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

His was the first resurrection. At His coming, the dead in Christ will be resurrected. So, the resurrection that occurs at His coming is the second, not the first.

Here is more evidence that we have part in His resurrection.

Romans 6
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Having part in His resurrection is what makes the second death no longer have power over us because we are made "alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord". When we die, we go to be with the Lord in heaven. John saw the souls of those who had died in Christ. Where? In heaven. It is the souls of the dead in Christ that live and reign with Christ in heaven.

Lastly, notice that it says the ones who reign with Christ are said to be "priests of God and of Christ". John makes it clear earlier in Revelation that believers are already kings and priests of God and of Christ.

Rev 1
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Beyond all that, I see several references in the NT that indicate that all people will be resurrected and judged at the same time. These include John 5:28-29, Matthew 13:24-30,36-43,47-50, Acts 24:15, John 6:40, John 12:48, and Matthew 25:31-46. In my opinion, to read Rev. 20 in such a way that makes you conclude that only believers are resurrected at Christ's coming while unbelievers are resurrected a thousand years later forces you to ignore what is taught in passages like those.

At the same time, I'm not aware of any scripture, besides the premil interpretation of Rev. 20, that teaches a resurrection of believers at the second coming of Christ followed at a much later time by the resurrection of unbelievers. Are you aware of any? If not, that would mean your understanding that believers are resurrected at the second coming of Christ and that unbelievers are resurrected a thousand years later is based on only one passage of scripture. That's not really a great way to form a doctrine, in my opinion.

DurbanDude
Apr 5th 2009, 06:45 AM
That's fine, but I asked about how such a large number would fit in a relatively small location. Can you comment on that?

.
I didn't say it was a small location, and if the whole population surrounds one area on earth, my assumption is that they would cover a very huge area.



The first thing I want to point out in verse 4 is that John sees souls. Not people in resurrected bodies. Souls. Another thing is that it says "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years". Who lives and reigns with Christ? The souls that John saw. It doesn't say their bodies came to life. It just says they lived. The Greek word for lived in that verse is zaō (Strong's G2198). The word is used 148 times in the NT and not once is it used in the sense of coming to life or being resurrected.

John146, with all due respect you are actually incorrect here. Your statement thatI highlighted above is incorrect because the word is definitely used often in the context of physical death and then physical coming to life again:

Here the word is definitely used in the sense of coming alive after physical death:
Matt 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

Here the same word is used in the context of the resurrection of Jesus:
Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
16:10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

In the context of the resurrection of Jesus:
Luke 24:23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.

Other verses: Acts 25:19 , 1 Thess 5:10

Rather than continue to show that this word is used in the context of coming to life of the pysically dead, let's just look at the definition of the word according to strongs:

1) to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)
2) to enjoy real life
a) to have true life and worthy of the name
b) active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God
3) to live i.e. pass life, in the manner of the living and acting
a) of mortals or character
4) living water, having vital power in itself and exerting the same upon the soul
5) metaph. to be in full vigour
a) to be fresh, strong, efficient,
b) as adj. active, powerful, efficacious

IE, it has much the same meaning as in the English language, it means living, life , being alive, and coming alive, and can be used in any context, as coming alive or being alive spiritually or physicallyRev 20:4-6 we see a clear order of events:
1) Saved Christians are martyred (they are already alive spiritually when martyred for their faith).
2) They come alive (this must mean physically because they are already alive spiritually at this stage.
3) they reign for 1000 years.




So, what is the first resurrection? You believe it's a reference to believers being physically resurrected at the second coming of Christ. But, as I showed, there is no description in verse 4 of the people whose souls that John saw being physically resurrected.


As I showed, the order of events, and the wording can point only to a physical resurrection. A spiritual resurrection after the beheading of believers does not make sense, and does not fit the context.



It says in verse 6 that the ones who take part in the first resurrection are blessed and holy and the second death has no power over them. Apparently, taking part in the first resurrection is what causes the second death to not have power over them. What is the second death? We are told exactly what it is in Rev 20:14-15.

Yes, all the resurrected are the saved, so the second death has no power over them, remember I believe that all saved will be resurrected, as you do. This in no way hints that the resurrection wont be a physical one. It is not the taking part in the resurrection that CAUSES the second death to have no power, but the earlier SALVATION experience, we both know that salvation protects us from the second death.




14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The second death is being cast into the lake of fire. So, how does one avoid this? Is it our physical resurrection that makes it so that the second death has no power over us? I don't believe so since I don't see that taught anywhere in scripture. So what resurrection do we take part in that gives the second death no power over us and at what point can it be said that the second death has no power over us?


Our salvation causes our names to be written in the book of life. This is what causes the second death to have no power over us.


Here is more evidence that we have part in His resurrection.


I completely agree with this doctrine, that we take part in Jesus' first resurrectiuon when we are saved. In ths way, we are spiritually resurrected and have life through Jesus at our salvation. This is by taking part in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. We are crucified with Christ and made alive spiritually at salvation, and our names therefore written in the book of life. BUT none of this can take away from the fact that we will still receive a resurrection body at the second coming. We have to read any verse that refers to a resurrection or coming to life in context to see if it is talking about our salvation, or the physical resurrection of our bodies. Because Rev 20 is talking about souls that have ALREADY BEEN SAVED, and then beheaded, when they come alive we can be sure its talking about the PHYSICAL RESURRECTION:

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.

They were saved, and then witnesses of Jesus, and then were beheaded................and they lived and reigned for 1000 years.

joedelsy
Apr 6th 2009, 05:21 AM
Zec 12:2 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/2) Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah [and] against Jerusalem.
Zec 12:3 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/3) And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.


Anybody notice that Jerusalem is being laid siege??? All these people round about Israel do not yet enter Jerusalem, they lay siege to it, or surrounded it.

Dan 11:44 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/44)-45 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Notice he does not set up his tabernacle on the Holy Mount until after he hear news from the north and east that disturbs him.

Zec 14:1 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/1) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Zec 14:2 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Zec 14:3 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And His foot....


Notice the city is not taken until after all nations have been gathered against her.

So how does that work within everyones theory?


Isreal has been in this state for over a hundred years

Searcher1
Apr 6th 2009, 02:55 PM
Isreal has been in this state for over a hundred years


Hi!

They have had to share the land with people that wish them destroyed but that isn't a siege on the city of Jerusalem. In a seige the city is surrounded and no one may leave and no one may come in. Food soon runs out and they begin to starve, being cut off. This has not happened since the Jews returned to Jerusalem in 1967, but these verses say it will happen in the end days.

Do you see what I mean?

John146
Apr 6th 2009, 04:58 PM
I didn't say it was a small location, and if the whole population surrounds one area on earth, my assumption is that they would cover a very huge area. You said you believe the camp of the saints is in Jerusalem. That's not "a very huge area".


John146, with all due respect you are actually incorrect here. Your statement thatI highlighted above is incorrect because the word is definitely used often in the context of physical death and then physical coming to life again:

Here the word is definitely used in the sense of coming alive after physical death:
Matt 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.But it's not saying "she shall live again" or "she shall be resurrected". It's just saying she shall live. So, it could either be talking about the moment she comes back alive or could be talking about her living in eternity.


Here the same word is used in the context of the resurrection of Jesus:
Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
16:10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.Again, it doesn't say "he was resurrected". It just says that He was alive. He, of course, was resurrected but it could just be saying that He was alive at that moment rather than saying that He previously had come back to life.


In the context of the resurrection of Jesus:
Luke 24:23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.He was alive at that time. Once again, it doesn't say "he was resurrected". You have no clear examples where the word "resurrected" could definitely be used to replace the Greek zao. I believe my point stands. There are other words used for coming back to life or being resurrected and zao is not one of them.


Rather than continue to show that this word is used in the context of coming to life of the pysically dead, let's just look at the definition of the word according to strongs:

1) to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)
2) to enjoy real life
a) to have true life and worthy of the name
b) active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God
3) to live i.e. pass life, in the manner of the living and acting
a) of mortals or character
4) living water, having vital power in itself and exerting the same upon the soul
5) metaph. to be in full vigour
a) to be fresh, strong, efficient,
b) as adj. active, powerful, efficacious

IE, it has much the same meaning as in the English language, it means living, life , being alive, and coming alive, and can be used in any context, as coming alive or being alive spiritually or physically.Notice that none of those definitions says anything about being resurrected or coming back to physical life. It appears that you are giving a definition for the word that just isn't there.


Rev 20:4-6 we see a clear order of events:
1) Saved Christians are martyred (they are already alive spiritually when martyred for their faith).
2) They come alive (this must mean physically because they are already alive spiritually at this stage.
3) they reign for 1000 years.It is your opinion that it says that come alive. I disagree. Again, when it speaks of the rest of the dead living again it uses a different word, anazao. Why wouldn't that word have been used in verse 4 as well if that's what was the intended meaning?


As I showed, the order of events, and the wording can point only to a physical resurrection.I don't belive you've shown that.


A spiritual resurrection after the beheading of believers does not make sense, and does not fit the context. You're not understanding my view. I don't believe it is saying they are spiritually resurrected after being beheaded. I agree that would not make sense. I'm saying the souls of the dead in Christ live and reign with Christ in heaven. By virtue of having been already born again they have part in His resurrection, which is the first.


Yes, all the resurrected are the saved, so the second death has no power over them, remember I believe that all saved will be resurrected, as you do. This in no way hints that the resurrection wont be a physical one.I believe there will be a physical resurrection at His coming. I believe that is the second resurrection while Christ's was the first. I tried showing you this in my previous post.

20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

I believe the first and second resurrections are defined here. Christ's was the first. We have part in His resurrection and reign with Him as kings and priests. At His coming, the dead in Christ will also be resurrected but that isn't the first resurrection.


It is not the taking part in the resurrection that CAUSES the second death to have no power, but the earlier SALVATION experience, we both know that salvation protects us from the second death.How do we have part in Christ's resurrection? By virtue of our salvation and born again experience, right? So, we enter a state of the second death not having power over us well before the resurrection that occurs at Christ's coming takes place.


Our salvation causes our names to be written in the book of life. This is what causes the second death to have no power over us.Yes, exactly. So, if I'm right that having part in the first resurrection is what causes the second death to have no power over us then it can't be our physical resurrection because we are already saved before that event occurs.


I completely agree with this doctrine, that we take part in Jesus' first resurrection when we are saved. In ths way, we are spiritually resurrected and have life through Jesus at our salvation. This is by taking part in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. We are crucified with Christ and made alive spiritually at salvation, and our names therefore written in the book of life. BUT none of this can take away from the fact that we will still receive a resurrection body at the second coming.I never said that it takes away from that. Are you implying that you think I'm saying I don't believe in a future resurrection of our bodies at the second coming of Christ? If so, you're mistaken.


We have to read any verse that refers to a resurrection or coming to life in context to see if it is talking about our salvation, or the physical resurrection of our bodies. Because Rev 20 is talking about souls that have ALREADY BEEN SAVED, and then beheaded, when they come alive we can be sure its talking about the PHYSICAL RESURRECTION:Again, you are assuming that it says they come alive after their physical deaths. I disagree with that and I tried to show why I disagree by showing you the way the Greek word zao is used elsewhere in scripture.


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.

They were saved, and then witnesses of Jesus, and then were beheaded................and they lived and reigned for 1000 years.

Do you believe that the souls of the dead in Christ are in heaven right now? If so, is it unreasonable to think that they could be reigning with Him?

Searcher1
Apr 6th 2009, 06:33 PM
I believe there will be a physical resurrection at His coming. I believe that is the second resurrection while Christ's was the first.

I don't get it.

Rev 20:4 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/4)-5 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. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.


We are being shown two types of dead here. One group is going to be resurrected at the time of the end of this age and be part of the 1000 years.

You are saying this is the second resurrection?



And the second group, the rest of the dead, aren't going to be resurrected until the 1000 years is up.

And this is the third resurrection?.

forum lurker
Apr 6th 2009, 07:02 PM
The first thing I want to point out in verse 4 is that John sees souls. Not people in resurrected bodies. Souls. Another thing is that it says "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years". Who lives and reigns with Christ? The souls that John saw. It doesn't say their bodies came to life. It just says they lived. The Greek word for lived in that verse is zaō (Strong's G2198). The word is used 148 times in the NT and not once is it used in the sense of coming to life or being resurrected.

In verse 5, when it says "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished", the Greek word for "lived" there is anazaō (Strong's G326). That word is used in terms of coming back to life or being resurrected. If verse 4 was speaking in terms of the souls John saw coming back to life then it only makes sense that the word anazao would have been used instead of zao. Then at the end of verse 5 it says "This is the first resurrection". I don't know if anyone knows why we see that at the end of verse 5 instead of at the end of verse 4, but I'm sure we agree that it's referring back to verse 4.


Just a few points: The beheaded in the vision have been only recently been killed by the beast, and they haven't yet recieved their bodies. They can't reign without a body, well I couldn't anyway.

The difference in the words you mentioned is that one is translation for "lived" and one for "lived again". I'm sure you'll agree that neither of those are in past tense as having already happened, and I don't see the logic being any different in Greek.

Raybob
Apr 6th 2009, 07:06 PM
I don't get it.

Rev 20:4 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/4)-5 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. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.


We are being shown two types of dead here. One group is going to be resurrected at the time of the end of this age and be part of the 1000 years.

You are saying this is the second resurrection?



And the second group, the rest of the dead, aren't going to be resurrected until the 1000 years is up.

And this is the third resurrection?.

The first resurrection (spiritual) is the one that saves one from the second death. The "second" resurrection, if you want to call it that, is the physical one at the return of the Lord.

Raybob

John146
Apr 6th 2009, 09:15 PM
I don't get it.

Rev 20:4 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/4)-5 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. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.


We are being shown two types of dead here. One group is going to be resurrected at the time of the end of this age and be part of the 1000 years.

You are saying this is the second resurrection?



And the second group, the rest of the dead, aren't going to be resurrected until the 1000 years is up.

And this is the third resurrection?.Did you read my whole post? I explained my view there. I don't know what more I can do.

Can you tell me how you interpret the following passages:

John 5
28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Daniel 12
1And 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. 2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

John146
Apr 6th 2009, 09:28 PM
Just a few points: The beheaded in the vision have been only recently been killed by the beast, and they haven't yet recieved their bodies. It is your opinion that they were only recently killed and can't reign without a body. I don't share your opinion. This is what it says about the beast:

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

Do you think the beast refers to an individual person? If so, he is really old by now since he existed even before John wrote the book of Revelation.


They can't reign without a body, well I couldn't anyway.
Why not? Where do you think the souls that John sees are located?


The difference in the words you mentioned is that one is translation for "lived" and one for "lived again". I'm sure you'll agree that neither of those are in past tense as having already happened, and I don't see the logic being any different in Greek.My only point was to show that the words don't mean the same thing. Some assume that it says "they came to life and reigned..." but the word that they think means "came to life" is never used that way in scripture. I believe John is saying that the souls he saw live and reign with Christ. Where? In heaven. Souls don't have any need to come to life because they are already alive.

Searcher1
Apr 6th 2009, 09:58 PM
Ah. so it isn't a resurrection of the body. It is being born again.

So that is Amil belief?

I don't look at that as a resurrection since a person can end up rejecting Jesus at a later date. Jesus paid with His blood the price our sins exacted in God's eyes, so He could redeem us at the end of this age. It's like Jesus planted the seeds (and through faith His church continues to grow) and later the harvest is brought in. That is the first resurrection. If we have not rejected Jesus by the time of our physical death we then await the resurrection of the dead in paradise. His redemption draws near. Meaning we have not been fully redeemed/resurrected until the day of His return.

God bless
Norma

Searcher1
Apr 6th 2009, 10:26 PM
John 5
28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Daniel 12
1And 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. 2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


I see both of these taking place at the end of this age.

One reason is because the one from Daniel says "And at that time" The time being spoken of is the king of the North (leader of the beast) Is attacking Israel at the end of this age. The beast will have power for a time, times and half time as it also says elsewhere.

Another reason is that the New Earth is described in Isaiah 65:17. This is what it will be like during the 1000 years on earth. Jesus isn't speaking of something new concerning the 1000 years it was told of by the prophets of old.



Isa 65:17 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/17) "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

Isa 65:18 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/18) "But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem {for} rejoicing And her people {for} gladness.

Isa 65:19 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/19) "I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people; And there will no longer be heard in her The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.
Isa 65:20 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/20) "No longer will there be in it an infant {who lives but a few} days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be {thought} accursed.

Isa 65:21 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/21) "They will build houses and inhabit {them;} They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
Isa 65:22 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/22) "They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, {so will be} the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.

Isa 65:23 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/23) "They will not labor in vain, Or bear {children} for calamity; For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD, And their descendants with them.
Isa 65:24 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/24) "It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear.
Isa 65:25 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/25) "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

It sure ISN'T how it is now. :) It also isn't how it will be in the New city of Jerusalem that John sees coming down out of Heaven.

The third reason would be because Ezekiel's temple has never been built and can't be built in this age. The land partitions also can't take place in this age so it is speaking of the next age, which is the 1000 years.

Just too much that still has to come to pass for Amil theory to work.

God bless,
Norma

Raybob
Apr 6th 2009, 10:53 PM
Ah. so it isn't a resurrection of the body. It is being born again.

So that is Amil belief?

I don't look at that as a resurrection since a person can end up rejecting Jesus at a later date.

First, we don't choose to live for Jesus or not, He choose us.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(Joh 1:12-13)

Second, it's impossible for us to be taken away from living for Him.

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
(Joh 10:29)


Jesus paid with His blood the price our sins exacted in God's eyes, so He could redeem us at the end of this age. It's like Jesus planted the seeds (and through faith His church continues to grow) and later the harvest is brought in. That is the first resurrection. If we have not rejected Jesus by the time of our physical death we then await the resurrection of the dead in paradise. His redemption draws near. Meaning we have not been fully redeemed/resurrected until the day of His return.
The bible speaks of our redemption as a past tense event for all Christians.

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
(Gal 3:13)

Raybob

Searcher1
Apr 7th 2009, 03:59 AM
I am not a Once saved always saved. Yes God draws you and no one can snatch you out of the Lord's hand....but you can choose to walk away.
Read the letters to the churches.

But most of my post was about the three points I made and we should discuss them....yes?

In Him
Norma

DurbanDude
Apr 7th 2009, 07:19 AM
You said you believe the camp of the saints is in Jerusalem. That's not "a very huge area"
They surround the camp, this means they are not in the camp.



But it's not saying "she shall live again" or "she shall be resurrected". It's just saying she shall live. So, it could either be talking about the moment she comes back alive or could be talking about her living in eternity.

Again, it doesn't say "he was resurrected". It just says that He was alive. He, of course, was resurrected but it could just be saying that He was alive at that moment rather than saying that He previously had come back to life.

He was alive at that time. Once again, it doesn't say "he was resurrected". You have no clear examples where the word "resurrected" could definitely be used to replace the Greek zao. I believe my point stands. There are other words used for coming back to life or being resurrected and zao is not one of them.

[COLOR=black]Notice that none of those definitions says anything about being resurrected or coming back to physical life. It appears that you are giving a definition for the word that just isn't there.

Let's agree to disagree on this point, I personally think its obvious that each one of the verses I quoted are talking about specifically the coming back to physical life, so I don't know why we read the same verses , and yet differ so much.




You're not understanding my view. I don't believe it is saying they are spiritually resurrected after being beheaded. I agree that would not make sense. I'm saying the souls of the dead in Christ live and reign with Christ in heaven. By virtue of having been already born again they have part in His resurrection, which is the first.

I do understand what you are saying, I am just saying that the order of the verses does not fit into what you are saying. To say that verse 20:4 is referring back to Jesus' resurrection does not fit the paragraph:
Rev 20:4 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/4)-5 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. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.


Your order seems to go like this:
the souls of the beheaded witnesses
get saved (spiritually resurrected with christ at His resurrection)

They are getting saved after getting saved. This is why it makes no sense to me. How can the souls of the witnesses (already saved Christians) then get spiritually resurrected (saved)?



I believe there will be a physical resurrection at His coming. I believe that is the second resurrection while Christ's was the first. I tried showing you this in my previous post.

I know you believe this. Christ's was the first ever to receive a resurrection body, agreed. But in context of Rev 20, with the reference to the souls of witnesses that are already saved, then coming alive, I feel this is clearly referring to the first general resurrection, not referring back to Christ's resurrection.



20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

I believe the first and second resurrections are defined here. Christ's was the first. We have part in His resurrection and reign with Him as kings and priests. At His coming, the dead in Christ will also be resurrected but that isn't the first resurrection.

I believe this is referring to the resurrection of Christ, and then to the first general resurrection.


I never said that it takes away from that. Are you implying that you think I'm saying I don't believe in a future resurrection of our bodies at the second coming of Christ? If so, you're mistaken

I know you believe in a physical resurrection, I was just making a point that if you are applying the term "resurrection" to the spiritual resurrection, and yet also believe in a physical resurrection, it is the context and not just the word "resurrection" that determines whether it is referring to the physical one or the spiritual one.


Again, you are assuming that it says they come alive after their physical deaths. I disagree with that and I tried to show why I disagree by showing you the way the Greek word zao is used elsewhere in scripture
I think you are misunderstanding me here, I was trying to show you thatthe order of events shows that they are already saved when they come alive, so it a secondary coming alive to the salvation coming alive.

John146
Apr 7th 2009, 09:30 PM
I see both of these taking place at the end of this age.

One reason is because the one from Daniel says "And at that time" The time being spoken of is the king of the North (leader of the beast) Is attacking Israel at the end of this age. The beast will have power for a time, times and half time as it also says elsewhere.

Another reason is that the New Earth is described in Isaiah 65:17. This is what it will be like during the 1000 years on earth. Jesus isn't speaking of something new concerning the 1000 years it was told of by the prophets of old.



Isa 65:17 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/17) "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

Isa 65:18 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/18) "But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem {for} rejoicing And her people {for} gladness.

Isa 65:19 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/19) "I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people; And there will no longer be heard in her The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.
Isa 65:20 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/20) "No longer will there be in it an infant {who lives but a few} days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be {thought} accursed.

Isa 65:21 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/21) "They will build houses and inhabit {them;} They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
Isa 65:22 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/22) "They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, {so will be} the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.

Isa 65:23 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/23) "They will not labor in vain, Or bear {children} for calamity; For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD, And their descendants with them.
Isa 65:24 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/24) "It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear.
Isa 65:25 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/25) "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

It sure ISN'T how it is now. :) It also isn't how it will be in the New city of Jerusalem that John sees coming down out of Heaven.

The third reason would be because Ezekiel's temple has never been built and can't be built in this age. The land partitions also can't take place in this age so it is speaking of the next age, which is the 1000 years.

Just too much that still has to come to pass for Amil theory to work.

God bless,
NormaSo, you see the thousand years as its own age that occurs after the end of this age, correct? That would mean you are saying that you believe John 5:28-29 occurs at the end of this age and before the thousand years.

If you see the unbelievers being resurrected before the thousand years then what do you believe happens to them when they are resurrected? And what about the resurrection that occurs after the thousand years? Who is resurrected then? Didn't Jesus say in John 5:28-29 that there was one hour or time coming when all the dead would be raised and not two separate hours or times coming when the dead would be raised?

Also, Jesus spoke of this age and the age to come. He indicated that in this age people marry and die and in the age to come they will no longer marry or die. This is what He indicated in Luke 20:34-36. How do you reconcile your theory with what Jesus taught regarding this age and the age to come? He didn't ever mention an intermediate age in between this age and the age to come and He never spoke of the age to come as one where people would still die. Instead, He contrasted this age and the age to come in terms of this age being temporal and the age to come being eternal.

John146
Apr 7th 2009, 10:07 PM
I do understand what you are sayingNo, not really. :D


, I am just saying that the order of the verses does not fit into what you are saying. To say that verse 20:4 is referring back to Jesus' resurrection does not fit the paragraph:
Rev 20:4 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/4)-5 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. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.


Your order seems to go like this:
the souls of the beheaded witnesses
get saved (spiritually resurrected with christ at His resurrection)

They are getting saved after getting saved. This is why it makes no sense to me. How can the souls of the witnesses (already saved Christians) then get spiritually resurrected (saved)?Are you sure you're reading my posts carefully? ;)

I never said anything to indicate that I believe the souls are spiritually resurrected after already being saved. They had part in Christ's resurrection when they were saved. Because they were saved at the time they died they went to be with the Lord in heaven and reign with Him there.

Remember, I don't share your opinion that it says "they came to life". The Greek word used does not mean that. It only says "they lived". They were already alive and they have lived and reigned with Him since He ascended to heaven to the right hand of the Father.


I know you believe this. Christ's was the first ever to receive a resurrection body, agreed. But in context of Rev 20, with the reference to the souls of witnesses that are already saved, then coming alive, I feel this is clearly referring to the first general resurrection, not referring back to Christ's resurrection. Again, it is your opinion that it says they come to life. I don't believe that's what it is saying. Souls are already alive and have no need to come to life. Yes, our bodies come to life when Christ returns, but there is no mention of bodies in Revelation 20:4-6. John only sees souls. I believe having part in Christ's resurrection means we become saved even while we're still physically alive but also means that our souls get to go to heaven to be with Him and live and reign with Him there.


I believe this is referring to the resurrection of Christ, and then to the first general resurrection.Okay, but in actuality it is saying that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection. That's what Him being "the firstfruits of them that slept" means. We know this because it says He is the firstfruits and then at His coming those who are His will be resurrected. So, what it's really saying is that He was the first to be resurrected and have His body made immortal. At His coming, the dead in Christ will also be resurrected and have immortal bodies.

Also, where does scripture teach a "first general resurrection"? Jesus taught in John 5:28-29 that there was an hour coming when all the dead would be raised. He didn't say there was an hour coming when believers would be raised and then another hour coming later when the unbelievers would be raised.


I know you believe in a physical resurrection, I was just making a point that if you are applying the term "resurrection" to the spiritual resurrection, and yet also believe in a physical resurrection, it is the context and not just the word "resurrection" that determines whether it is referring to the physical one or the spiritual one.See, you're still not getting my view. It differs a bit from Raybob's. I believe the first resurrection specifically speaks of Christ's physical resurrection. I believe we have part in His resurrection by way of being born again and I know you agree with that. I don't believe the first resurrection is referring specifically to our being born again or spiritually resurrected, but instead refers specifically to His physical resurrection. I believe that when it says the ones who have part in the first resurrection are called blessed and holy it's speaking of having part in Christ's resurrection.


I think you are misunderstanding me here, I was trying to show you thatthe order of events shows that they are already saved when they come alive, so it a secondary coming alive to the salvation coming alive.Again, it is your view that it's saying John sees them coming alive. Not mine. I don't believe it's saying that John sees them come alive at all. I agree that it wouldn't make sense for me to say that He sees them come alive spiritually when they would already be alive spiritually at that point. But that isn't what I'm saying.

The souls are already alive spiritually before John sees them and they live and reign with Christ in heaven. The means by which they are considered worthy to have part in His resurrection and reign with Him in heaven is based on already having been saved before they physically died. Living and reigning with Christ in heaven is the result of having part in His resurrection.

Searcher1
Apr 7th 2009, 10:10 PM
So, you see the thousand years as its own age that occurs after the end of this age, correct? That would mean you are saying that you believe John 5:28-29 occurs at the end of this age and before the thousand years.

Correct. 5:28 at the end of the age And 5:29 at the end of the thousand years. This can be further understood by the Revelation of Jesus where He makes it all clear for us.

What Jesus tells us about the 1000 years is a confirmation of Isaiah 65:17-25.


If you see the unbelievers being resurrected before the thousand years then what do you believe happens to them when they are resurrected?

They reign with Christ for a thousand years, just as Jesus revealed in the Revelation to John

.
And what about the resurrection that occurs after the thousand years? Who is resurrected then?

That is made clear. They are "the rest of the dead." Meaning the first of the dead, those in Christ have been physically resurrected onto eternal life.



Also, Jesus spoke of this age and the age to come. He indicated that in this age people marry and die and in the age to come they will no longer marry or die. This is what He indicated in Luke 20:34-36.

Those that have been resurrected into immortal spiritual being will not marry. Those that enter the 1000 years in a mortal state, because they did not recognize the Messiah until after the rapture (Rev 11. Zec 12-14) will marry and reproduce. That is how after a thousand years the people that will fill the earth will be so many.




How do you reconcile your theory with what Jesus taught regarding this age and the age to come?

In the Revelation He speaks of both. He shows this age ending and the next one beginning.



He didn't ever mention an intermediate age in between this age and the age to come and He never spoke of the age to come as one where people would still die.

That is your opinion. I read that He speaks of a thousand years where we will reign as priests and kings with Him.



Instead, He contrasted this age and the age to come in terms of this age being temporal and the age to come being eternal.


It is eternal once we are resurrected. After the 1000 years, where mortal man lives and Christ (and us as His kings and Priests) rules with an iron hand, we then are part of the New City of Jerusalem where we live with God and Jesus for eternity.

You are only leaving out one part of God's plan it is where things like this take place.

Zec 14:16 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/16) And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Zec 14:17 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/17) And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.


Okay so I answered your questions. So now can you tell me what is being talked about in Isaiah 65:17-25 and in Zec 14:16-21. Verse by verse if you please so I can get a full understanding of your view.

God bless
Norma

Searcher1
Apr 8th 2009, 12:35 AM
Remember, I don't share your opinion that it says "they came to life". The Greek word used does not mean that. It only says "they lived". They were already alive and they have lived and reigned with Him since He ascended to heaven to the right hand of the Father.



I agree that the word is "they lived", meaning this is not the resurrection of the dead at this point in the time-line. We only need to go back to before Jesus was seen coming on His white horse to find when the rapture took place. It is when the Bride is given her wedding clothes.

John is merely seeing that those souls that he saw killed, or dead, during the revelation, that they were no longer dead, but were ruling with Christ for the 1000 years. This is the first resurrection. The rest of the dead, and I am sure John saw a lot of unbelievers dying in these wars and such throughout the revelation also, did not come to life until the 1000 years were over, this is the second resurrection.

But the first resurrection isn't just for people who became believers after the resurrection of Christ. The first resurrection includes those that were faithful before the law and those faithful under the Law, like Moses and all the prophets, and the least of them throughout those times that loved God with all their hearts. And in the second resurrection after the 1000 years are complete are not just the rest of the dead who died since Jesus was resurrected, but includes all the dead that have not been made clean by the Blood of Jesus since the beginning. So by means of both of these resurrections all mankind has been resurrected, judged, and recieved either everlasting life, or everlasting torment.

God bless
In Him
Norma

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 12:36 AM
Correct. 5:28 at the end of the age And 5:29 at the end of the thousand years. This can be further understood by the Revelation of Jesus where He makes it all clear for us.Why can't we think He makes it clear for us in John 5:28-29 itself? What makes it so that we have to base our understanding of John 5:28-29 on our interpretation of Rev. 20 instead of the other way around?

Anyway, there is nothing in John 5:28-29 that says one resurrection is at the end of the age and one is a thousand years later. Let's take a closer look.

John 5
28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

We can see clearly that Jesus says that one hour or time is coming when all that are in the graves will come forth (be resurrected). Some will be resurrected to life and some to damnation. The way you read this is as if it says "the hours are coming..." or "an hour is coming when some in the graves are resurrected and another hour is coming later when the rest in the graves are resurrected". But that is not at all what Jesus said here. This text is very straightforward.

Daniel 12 shows believers and unbelievers being resurrected at the same time as well. Then there are passages like Matthew 25:31-46 that show believers and unbelievers being gathered for judgment or reward at the same time.


What Jesus tells us about the 1000 years is a confirmation of Isaiah 65:17-25. How so? Isaiah 65:17-25 is about the new heavens and new earth. We learn from Revelation 21 that the new heavens and new earth do not appear until after the thousand years.


That is made clear. They are "the rest of the dead." Meaning the first of the dead, those in Christ have been physically resurrected onto eternal life. The rest of the dead are the first of the dead? You lost me here.


Those that have been resurrected into immortal spiritual being will not marry. Those that enter the 1000 years in a mortal state, because they did not recognize the Messiah until after the rapture (Rev 11. Zec 12-14) will marry and reproduce. That is how after a thousand years the people that will fill the earth will be so many. What qualifies a mortal unbeliever to survive the second coming of Christ? What unbelievers will not fall into the descripton given here:

2 Thess 1
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Will those who you think survive the second coming of Christ be those who know God and obey the gospel of Christ? If not, how are they not included among those who are mentioned in the passage above?

And what about this passage:

2 Peter 3
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

How do any mortals survive that?

Did Jesus indicate that anyone would survive His second coming?

Matthew 24
37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


In the Revelation He speaks of both. He shows this age ending and the next one beginning. He spoke of the age to come as being eternal because no one dies in the age to come. That is what He taught in Luke 20:34-36.


That is your opinion. I read that He speaks of a thousand years where we will reign as priests and kings with Him. Don't we reign as kings and priests with Him now?

Rev 1
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


It is eternal once we are resurrected. After the 1000 years, where mortal man lives and Christ (and us as His kings and Priests) rules with an iron hand, we then are part of the New City of Jerusalem where we live with God and Jesus for eternity.

You are only leaving out one part of God's plan it is where things like this take place.

Zec 14:16 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/16) And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Zec 14:17 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/17) And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

Okay so I answered your questions. So now can you tell me what is being talked about in Isaiah 65:17-25 and in Zec 14:16-21. Verse by verse if you please so I can get a full understanding of your view. That will require a lot of time. All I can say for now is that Isaiah 65:17-25 speaks of the new heavens and new earth. We know from Revelation 21 that there is no more death on the new earth and we also know that the new heavens and new earth appear after the thousand years. There is no reason to read Isaiah 65:17-25 in such a way that you make it somehow speak of a different time period than Revelation 21 is speaking about.

I don't have time to go in depth on Zechariah 14 right now. I'll give you a link to a discussion that took place on here in the past regarding that chapter and you can read it and see what you think. It's mostly David Taylor giving his interpretation and I agree with it.

Here it is: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=905911&mode=linear&highlight=banjo+solos+Zechariah#post905911

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 12:41 AM
I agree that the word is "they lived", meaning this is not the resurrection of the dead at this point in the time-line. We only need to go back to before Jesus was seen coming on His white horse to find when the rapture took place. It is when the Bride is given her wedding clothes.

John is merely seeing that those souls that he saw killed, or dead, during the revelation, that they were no longer dead, but were ruling with Christ for the 1000 years. This is the first resurrection. The rest of the dead, and I am sure John saw a lot of unbelievers dying in these wars and such throughout the revelation also, did not come to life until the 1000 years were over, this is the second resurrection.

But the first resurrection isn't just for people who became believers after the resurrection of Christ. The first resurrection includes those that were faithful before the law and those faithful under the Law, like Moses and all the prophets, and the least of them throughout those times that loved God with all their hearts. And in the second resurrection after the 1000 years are complete are not just the rest of the dead who died since Jesus was resurrected, but includes all the dead that have not been made clean by the Blood of Jesus since the beginning. So by means of both of these resurrections all mankind has been resurrected, judged, and recieved either everlasting life, or everlasting torment.

God bless
In Him
NormaI agree that all believers from all-time have part in the first resurrection. I disagree that the first resurrection is speaking of the physical resurrection of believers. I also agree that all unbelievers from all-time will be resurrected and judged at the same time.

Searcher1
Apr 8th 2009, 02:18 AM
Quote:
What Jesus tells us about the 1000 years is a confirmation of Isaiah 65:17-25.
How so? Isaiah 65:17-25 is about the new heavens and new earth. We learn from Revelation 21 that the new heavens and new earth do not appear until after the thousand years.


Have you compared what is said of the new earth in Isaiah to that of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21? Not alike at all. Just the words.; For as the lifetime of a tree, {so will be} the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands. Should make that clear to you.

There is the new earth and new heaven and then there is the New Jerusalem. The new earth lasts only 1000 years. The New Jerusalem is a dwelling place for eternity.



That is made clear. They are "the rest of the dead." Meaning the first of the dead, those in Christ, have been physically resurrected onto eternal life. end quote


The rest of the dead are the first of the dead? You lost me here.


The rest of the dead are resurrected in the second resurrection.

The dead in Christ have already been resurrected (first resurrection), which leaves only "the rest of the dead" to be in the second resurrection.



2 Thess 1
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Will those who you think survive the second coming of Christ be those who know God and obey the gospel of Christ? If not, how are they not included among those who are mentioned in the passage above?

It won't be mortal Unbelievers that enter the mill. It will be those that see Him when His foot touches down on the mount of Olives. (satellite allows for those in other countries to see Him also) that will mourn Him whom they pierced Zec 12-14. They have missed the rapture. That door is closed. But they will enter the mill as believers.


2 Peter 3
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

How do any mortals survive that?

Did Jesus indicate that anyone would survive His second coming?

God says some will survive. As you read in the scripture I put up (Zec 14) about those in Egypt. How did they survive? God allowed them to. You don't think no rain would bother immortal beings do you?

Anyway, because of these things i certainly don't see us in the 1000 years now. No one is going up to Jerusalem from the nations who survived once a year and if they don't send someone the country gets no rain. No one now has the life span of a tree or a hundred year old being called a youth.

God bless

DurbanDude
Apr 8th 2009, 01:00 PM
No, not really. :D

Are you sure you're reading my posts carefully? ;)

.
:idea: :blush: Aaah, ok so I catch on now. Sorry, preconceived notions got in the way.

But then, if I know understand you correctly now , there are varying periods for each believer. For the original disciples their souls have been reigning for 2000 years. For the final beheaded saints, they may only reign for a few months, yet Rev 20 says 1000 years. So 1000 years can mean 2000 years for some, and a few days for others, is this right?



Okay, but in actuality it is saying that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection. That's what Him being "the firstfruits of them that slept" means. We know this because it says He is the firstfruits and then at His coming those who are His will be resurrected. So, what it's really saying is that He was the first to be resurrected and have His body made immortal. At His coming, the dead in Christ will also be resurrected and have immortal bodies.


This particular discussion is related to the usage of language. To me, both views can fit the language used. In other words to describe Jesus' resurrection as the first resurrection can be correct. Yet Jesus was regarded as the forerunner of what is to happen to us, so to regard Jesus as the firstfruits, and our resurrection as the first resurrection is also a possible interpretation. Therefore we must look at context because the phrase itself has alternative interpretations. And even in context we have differing views, so this doesn't help either.



Also, where does scripture teach a "first general resurrection"? Jesus taught in John 5:28-29 that there was an hour coming when all the dead would be raised. He didn't say there was an hour coming when believers would be raised and then another hour coming later when the unbelievers would be raised.

True, but maybe the "hour" is thousands of years long, because Jesus was raised nearly 2000 years ago. If he didn't explain this fully enough, that one of the dead (Himself) would be raised a lot earlier , it shows here that He wasn't trying to give a perfect detailed sequence of events.

Basically He was saying that there would come a time when even the dead would get their destiny, either good or bad. His teaching was more abut listening to Jesus than an end-times list of events. Most of the second half of John 5 is expounding on the following two sentences:

5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

In other words, hearing the word of Jesus gives life in this present age , and will result in life after the grave. Every mention of the end-times can add to doctrine, but we must differentiate when lessons of various destinies are being described, and when there is a specific teaching about the order of events.




The souls are already alive spiritually before John sees them and they live and reign with Christ in heaven. The means by which they are considered worthy to have part in His resurrection and reign with Him in heaven is based on already having been saved before they physically died. Living and reigning with Christ in heaven is the result of having part in His resurrection

I must admit that I quickly went to Rev 20 to check the tenses after reading this. But then I saw the tenses are all over the place. eg Rev 20:5 speaks of the post-mill resurrection in the past tense as well.

Then 20:6a is present tense (fitting your view well)
Then 20:6b is future tense (fitting my view well)

So the tenses jump around too much for any conclusions here of what has happened and what is still to happen.

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 03:21 PM
Have you compared what is said of the new earth in Isaiah to that of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21? Not alike at all. Just the words.; For as the lifetime of a tree, {so will be} the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands. Should make that clear to you.

There is the new earth and new heaven and then there is the New Jerusalem. The new earth lasts only 1000 years. The New Jerusalem is a dwelling place for eternity. The New Jerusalem comes down from heaven to the new earth. The new earth lasts for eternity, not a thousand years.

Rev 21
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Can you tell me how you conclude that the new earth only lasts 1,000 years in light of what it says in the passage above?


The rest of the dead are resurrected in the second resurrection. I agree. According to Jesus in John 5:28-29, all the dead will be resurrected at the same time.


The dead in Christ have already been resurrected (first resurrection), which leaves only "the rest of the dead" to be in the second resurrection. All the dead are going to be raised at the same time, according to Jesus in John 5:28-29.


It won't be mortal Unbelievers that enter the mill. It will be those that see Him when His foot touches down on the mount of Olives. (satellite allows for those in other countries to see Him also) that will mourn Him whom they pierced Zec 12-14. They have missed the rapture. That door is closed. But they will enter the mill as believers.That can't be because all believers will be changed and will have immortal bodies when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:51-54, 1 Thess 4:13-17).


God says some will survive. As you read in the scripture I put up (Zec 14) about those in Egypt. How did they survive? God allowed them to. You don't think no rain would bother immortal beings do you?You think He says that, but I think for you to conclude that requires you to ignore or overlook what Jesus says in Luke 17:26-30 and Matthew 24:37-39, what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:10-12, what Paul says in 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Thess 1:7-8 and what John says in Rev 19:18.


Anyway, because of these things i certainly don't see us in the 1000 years now. No one is going up to Jerusalem from the nations who survived once a year and if they don't send someone the country gets no rain. No one now has the life span of a tree or a hundred year old being called a youth.

God blessWould a hundred year old be a youth even during a future literal thousand years? Even when men used to live hundreds of years a 100 year old wouldn't have been considered a youth. I believe you're missing the symbolism in Isaiah 65. There is no reason to not think that Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21 are speaking of the same time period because each speaks of the time when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in. Your view tries to say that the new heavens and new earth exist before the thousand years, but Rev. 21 makes it clear that the new heavens and new earth don't appear until after the thousand years. You can't just ignore that.

Here is a post that wpm once made regarding Isaiah 65:17-25 that explains it better than I can: http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1903276&postcount=32

Searcher1
Apr 8th 2009, 03:54 PM
Rev 21
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Can you tell me how you conclude that the new earth only lasts 1,000 years in light of what it says in the passage above?

The first earth and first heaven is referring to the earth and heaven in the "state of being" talked about in Isaiah 65. It will pass away when the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven.



It won't be mortal Unbelievers that enter the mill. It will be those that see Him when His foot touches down on the mount of Olives. (satellite allows for those in other countries to see Him also) that will mourn Him whom they pierced Zec 12-14. They have missed the rapture. That door is closed. But they will enter the mill as believers.



That can't be because all believers will be changed and will have immortal bodies when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:51-54, 1 Thess 4:13-17).


Tell that to the Lord, because He is the one that says there will be survivers in the different nations of the world that must send a representitive to Jerusalem for the feast of booths every year or will get no rain. Which means there will be Jews that have been saved and yet mortal doing the feasts in the Temple, as per Eze 40-44. Meaning not all people will be immortal during the 1000 years.

God says some will survive. As you read in the scripture I put up (Zec 14) about those in Egypt. How did they survive? God allowed them to. You don't think no rain would bother immortal beings do you?



You think He says that, but I think for you to conclude that requires you to ignore or overlook what Jesus says in Luke 17:26-30 and Matthew 24:37-39, what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:10-12, what Paul says in 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Thess 1:7-8 and what John says in Rev 19:18.


No, because God doesn't say one thing and then another against it. All scripture works together. There is a rapture for the living believers at His return, but people become believers after the fact. (millions could become believers in one day because they have seen Him) To them the door is closed (have missed the rapture) but they are believers after the fact and will survive into the mill.

In your way of thinking if we say all people in the mill are immortal then none could die again. Yet we know those that are turned against Jesus by satan at His release will be killed.



Would a hundred year old be a youth even during a future literal thousand years? Even when men used to live hundreds of years a 100 year old wouldn't have been considered a youth.

They will have a lifespan of a tree. A tree can reach the age of a thousand years. :) Remember this is a new earth that might support humans to live very long lives. Simalar to pre-flood conditions which allowed for Methuselah, to live 969 years. In that case a person of 100 years old would be considered a youth.




Your view tries to say that the new heavens and new earth exist before the thousand years, but Rev. 21 makes it clear that the new heavens and new earth don't appear until after the thousand years. You can't just ignore that.

What? My view believes the new heaven and new earth that Isaiah prophesied about IS the 1000 year kingdom.
Followed by Rev 21.

Raybob
Apr 8th 2009, 04:13 PM
Tell that to the Lord, because He is the one that says there will be survivers in the different nations of the world that must send a representitive to Jerusalem for the feast of booths every year or will get no rain. Which means there will be Jews that have been saved and yet mortal doing the feasts in the Temple, as per Eze 40-44. Meaning not all people will be immortal during the 1000 years.

You are trying to use the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament. Not a good idea. You should try to use the NT to interpret the OT. The OT references you use don't mention any temporal period of 1000 years. You won't find one scripture of the many about resurrection day in the NT that mentions anyone survives that day.

Raybob

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 04:15 PM
:idea: :blush: Aaah, ok so I catch on now. Sorry, preconceived notions got in the way.

But then, if I know understand you correctly now , there are varying periods for each believer. For the original disciples their souls have been reigning for 2000 years. For the final beheaded saints, they may only reign for a few months, yet Rev 20 says 1000 years. So 1000 years can mean 2000 years for some, and a few days for others, is this right?That's right. I think there's a couple ways of looking at it. If John only saw the souls who were in heaven at that time then those souls would reign with Christ for the same amount of time. As each person physically dies and their souls go to be with the Lord the amount of time they reign with Him in heaven until His second coming would vary.

If John is seeing the souls of all the dead in Christ then he could just be saying they reign with Him during the thousand years without implying that they all reign for the same amount of time.


This particular discussion is related to the usage of language. To me, both views can fit the language used. In other words to describe Jesus' resurrection as the first resurrection can be correct. Yet Jesus was regarded as the forerunner of what is to happen to us, so to regard Jesus as the firstfruits, and our resurrection as the first resurrection is also a possible interpretation. Therefore we must look at context because the phrase itself has alternative interpretations. And even in context we have differing views, so this doesn't help either.I agree.


True, but maybe the "hour" is thousands of years long, because Jesus was raised nearly 2000 years ago. If he didn't explain this fully enough, that one of the dead (Himself) would be raised a lot earlier , it shows here that He wasn't trying to give a perfect detailed sequence of events.

Basically He was saying that there would come a time when even the dead would get their destiny, either good or bad. His teaching was more abut listening to Jesus than an end-times list of events. Most of the second half of John 5 is expounding on the following two sentences:

5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

In other words, hearing the word of Jesus gives life in this present age , and will result in life after the grave. Every mention of the end-times can add to doctrine, but we must differentiate when lessons of various destinies are being described, and when there is a specific teaching about the order of events. No offense, but I have no idea what you're saying there. I think the best thing we can do in this case is to look and see if there are any other examples where the phrase "the hour is coming" or something similar is used (without the inclusion of the phrase "and now is"). And there are examples, so let's look at them.

19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Here, Jesus is telling the Samaritan woman at the well that the hour was coming when she would need to worship the Father at a certain place. Instead she would worship in spirit and in truth, which can be done wherever someone may be at any particular time. He wasn't speaking of a long period of time that was coming. He was speaking of a particular moment in time that was coming for her in particular and that had already come for those who already believed and would come for those who believed in the future as well.

John 12
22Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. 23And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
24Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
25He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
26If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
27Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

Is the term hour used in terms of thousands of years here? No. He was speaking of the time of His death.

John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

This is what Jesus said to the disciples. He was informing them beforehand that they would go away from Him when they came to kill Him and that is exactly what happened. Was he speaking of a long period of time coming when the disciples would scatter of a particular moment in time or short period of time? Obviously He was speaking of a specific event and not a long period of time.

Here is the hour that was coming that He was speaking about:

Mark 14
40And when he returned, he found them asleep again, (for their eyes were heavy,) neither wist they what to answer him.
41And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

So, your understanding of the phrase "the hour is coming" in John 5:28-29 does not match how the phrase is used elsewhere in scripture. It is not a reference to a thousand years, but is a reference to a specific future event that would occur when all the dead in the graves would be raised at the same hour or time. If there was going to be two different times when the dead would be raised then Jesus would have said "the hours are coming" or "the hour is coming when the saved are raised and another hour is coming when the lost are raised".


I must admit that I quickly went to Rev 20 to check the tenses after reading this. But then I saw the tenses are all over the place. eg Rev 20:5 speaks of the post-mill resurrection in the past tense as well.

Then 20:6a is present tense (fitting your view well)
Then 20:6b is future tense (fitting my view well)

So the tenses jump around too much for any conclusions here of what has happened and what is still to happen.I agree. That's why we need to refer to other scripture for clarity. In this case we can refer to Revelation itself. It's made clear in Revelation 1:5-6 that at the time John wrote the book believers had already been made kings and priests of God.

Searcher1
Apr 8th 2009, 04:25 PM
You are trying to use the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament. Not a good idea. You should try to use the NT to interpret the OT. The OT references you use don't mention any temporal period of 1000 years. You won't find one scripture of the many about resurrection day in the NT that mentions anyone survives that day.



That almost leaves me speechless. :o


Glad you are not my Sunday school teacher. :hmm:

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 04:37 PM
That almost leaves me speechless. :o


Glad you are not my Sunday school teacher. :hmm:Why is that? Isn't it a good idea to interpret the OT in light of the NT? In the NT there are several examples where interpretations of OT prophecies are given. And they certainly don't always line up with what we would expect if we weren't given those explanations. Which is more clear and speaks more about events like the second coming, the resurrection of the dead and the day of judgment?

Can you tell me which NT scripture, besides Rev. 20, that you believe specifically refers to a future earthly millennial kingdom? I'm not aware of any. If you also don't know of any then why would the rest of the NT be silent about that period of time?

forum lurker
Apr 8th 2009, 05:15 PM
Can you tell me which NT scripture, besides Rev. 20, that you believe specifically refers to a future earthly millennial kingdom? I'm not aware of any. If you also don't know of any then why would the rest of the NT be silent about that period of time?

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15)

It doesn't say for how long, but it speaks of Christ's temporary reign, or would you disagree?

Searcher1
Apr 8th 2009, 05:17 PM
Why is that? Isn't it a good idea to interpret the OT in light of the NT?


As long as the OT prophecies are still valid and work within the NT prophecies. All of God's prophecies will come to pass. Including survivors after Jesus' foot touches down on the Mount of Olives, just as that prophecy says there will be. And as long as the new heaven and new earth takes place on earth as it says in Is 65:17. And all of the Prophecy of Ezekiel 40-44. If the way you are interpreting NT prophecy either ignores or cancels out what God said previously through the OT prophets......then something is wrong in your interpretation of the NT prophecy.


Can you tell me which NT scripture, besides Rev. 20, that you believe specifically refers to a future earthly millennial kingdom?

Any that speak of His ruling in an earthly realm.


I don't believe satan has been locked in the pit for the last 2000 years. If that were true then these warnings would be meaningless;

1Cr 7:5 (http://bibleforums.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&c=7&v=5&t=KJV/l5) Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

2Cr 2:11 (http://bibleforums.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr&c=2&v=11&t=KJV/l11) Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

1Th 2:18 (http://bibleforums.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Th&c=2&v=18&t=KJV/l18) Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us.

How could satan hinder Paul if satn were locked in the bottomless pit?

Satan was not in the pit in the time of Paul and has not yet been locked in the pit, and The 1000 years to follow that event is still yet to come.

In Him
Norma

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 06:26 PM
The first earth and first heaven is referring to the earth and heaven in the "state of being" talked about in Isaiah 65. It will pass away when the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. Where do you see this in the text itself? Let's compare.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Can you explain how these are not speaking of the same thing? The new heavens and new earth appear once the first heaven and earth pass away. What follows those verses in each passage describes conditions of the new earth, not the old or first earth.


Tell that to the Lord, because He is the one that says there will be survivers in the different nations of the world that must send a representitive to Jerusalem for the feast of booths every year or will get no rain. Which means there will be Jews that have been saved and yet mortal doing the feasts in the Temple, as per Eze 40-44. Meaning not all people will be immortal during the 1000 years.

God says some will survive. As you read in the scripture I put up (Zec 14) about those in Egypt. How did they survive? God allowed them to. You don't think no rain would bother immortal beings do you? I don't believe Zechariah 14 or Ezekiel 40-44 have anything to do with a future earthly millennial kingdom. Do you believe that animal sacrifices for sin will be reinstituted? If so, don't you know that God takes no pleasure in them and that Christ did away with them by His once and for all sacrifice on the cross, as is taught in the book of Hebrews?


No, because God doesn't say one thing and then another against it. All scripture works together. There is a rapture for the living believers at His return, but people become believers after the fact. (millions could become believers in one day because they have seen Him) To them the door is closed (have missed the rapture) but they are believers after the fact and will survive into the mill.

In your way of thinking if we say all people in the mill are immortal then none could die again. Yet we know those that are turned against Jesus by satan at His release will be killed. Can you tell me where the following passages indicate that anyone can believe after the fact?

2 Thess 1
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Matt 24
37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

2 Peter 3
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Rev 19
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Each of these passages clearly speaks of the second coming of Christ and the fate of unbelievers on that day. Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 40-44 don't even mention the second coming of Christ. So which passages should we rely on more for understanding of what occurs on the day Christ returns?


They will have a lifespan of a tree. A tree can reach the age of a thousand years. :) Remember this is a new earth that might support humans to live very long lives. Simalar to pre-flood conditions which allowed for Methuselah, to live 969 years. In that case a person of 100 years old would be considered a youth. I disagree. Do you think people who were 100 years old were considered youths back in those days? If so, is there any scriptural support for that idea?


What? My view believes the new heaven and new earth that Isaiah prophesied about IS the 1000 year kingdom.
Followed by Rev 21.But that isn't what it says. Isaiah 65:17-25 is about the new heavens and new earth and not about an earthly 1000 year kingdom.

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 06:52 PM
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15)

It doesn't say for how long, but it speaks of Christ's temporary reign, or would you disagree?First of all, that passage says absolutely nothing about an earthly millennial kingdom. Also, does Christ not reign in heaven even now at the right hand of the Father?

Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Here we see a reference to Christ's enemies being made His footstool. Same concept that is mentioned in 1 Cor 15:25 above. What event is Psalm 110:1 speaking about? We can see that here:

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

It's about the resurrection and subsequent ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father. He will be there at the right hand of the Father in heaven until His foes are made His footstool and put under His feet. So, the reign that 1 Cor 15:25 mentions must be speaking of Him reigning from heaven since He will be at the right hand of the Father in heaven until His enemies are all put under His feet.

Maybe you don't think He is currently reigning at the right hand of the Father in heaven? Look at Acts 2:33. He is at the right hand of God exalted. Then look at Acts 2:36. The result of Him ascending to the right hand of the Father was Him being made "both Lord and Christ". Can He be both Lord and Christ without reigning? I don't believe so.

What about passages like this one:

Ephesians 1
20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

He was set at the right hand of the Father "Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named". Sounds like a king to me. He is "the head over all things to the church". Doesn't that mean He reigns over the church? Sure it does.

So, what 1 Cor 15:25 is saying is that He must continue to reign (since He was already reigning at that time) "until he has put all his enemies under his feet.". It's not speaking of a future earthly reign. He already reigns at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 07:10 PM
As long as the OT prophecies are still valid and work within the NT prophecies. All of God's prophecies will come to pass.The problem with your view, in my opinion, is that some of the prophecies you think have not yet come to pass have already come to pass or they apply to the eternal new earth rather than an earthly millennial kingdom.


Including survivors after Jesus' foot touches down on the Mount of Olives, just as that prophecy says there will be. And as long as the new heaven and new earth takes place on earth as it says in Is 65:17.The earth as we know it now has to pass away before the new earth is ushered in. The new earth is ushered in at the time of what is described in Isaiah 65:17-25.


And all of the Prophecy of Ezekiel 40-44. If the way you are interpreting NT prophecy either ignores or cancels out what God said previously through the OT prophets......then something is wrong in your interpretation of the NT prophecy. Did you know that Ezekiel 40-44 was a conditional prophecy?

Ezekiel 43
10Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

The prophecy would only be fulfilled if the house of Israel repented of their ways. But they did not. So, the prophecy never came to pass and never will because animal sacrifices for sin will never be reinstituted.


Any that speak of His ruling in an earthly realm.

I don't believe satan has been locked in the pit for the last 2000 years.Neither do I. I don't believe it is saying he is literally locked away in a pit. Is Satan a physical being? Can he be bound with a physical chain?

Here is my understanding of the binding of Satan. I've posted this before:

The binding of Satan has to do with him being restrained and not being able to deceive the nations as he did before Christ came the first time, rather than being completely restrained and unable to deceive at all. He was bound at the cross. After the cross, he was not able to deceive the nations as He did before then.

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. - Hebrews 2:14-15

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. - Col 2:13-15

8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. - 1 John 3:8

One of the reasons Jesus came was to destroy the works of the devil and set people free from sin. Did He fail? Did the gospel not go out into nations where they never had a relationship with God before? Did He not succeed in delivering the Gentile nations from Satan's grasp? Before Christ came there were very, very few Gentiles that were saved. But things changed after He came. Millions and millions of Gentiles have been saved as a result of His sacrifice for them on the cross. Jesus took the power of death away from Satan that Satan used to use to keep people in bondage to the fear of death. The Gentile nations had no hope for eternal life because they had no relationship with God. That changed once Christ came.

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. - 1 Peter 2:9-10

11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. - Ephesians 2:11-13

People from the Gentile nations had virtually no relationship with God before Christ came. They were not the people of God. After He came, they could be called the people of God because of Christ. They used to aliens from the commonwealth of Israel but are brought near by the blood of Christ. No longer did Satan have the grip on them that he once had.

The following passages also speak about the binding of Satan:

28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. - Matthew 12:28-29

26And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
27No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. - Mark 3:26-27

20But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
21When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: 22But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. - Luke 11:20-22

The strong man is Satan. The one stronger than him that came and overcame him is Jesus. Jesus came and took the power of death away from Satan. Jesus spoiled Satan's goods and his house (his kingdom, the world). He divided his spoils by setting free many who had been under Satan's grasp.

The gospel made a huge impact on the Gentile nations compared to the way they were before. Millions of Gentiles have come to know Christ in the New Testament time period compared to relatively few having a relationship with God in Old Testament times. After His Spirit came upon the believers at Pentecost, the gospel went out in full force into the world, starting in Jerusalem. This was unprecedented. It was evidence that Satan could no longer stop the spread of God's Word to the Gentile nations.

Searcher1
Apr 8th 2009, 07:18 PM
Where do you see this in the text itself? Let's compare.


Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

The earth that has passed away (into the past) is this very earth we live in now. It will pass away after armageddon.


Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.


In this view John has just been viewing the souls of the dead and how they lived with Christ for a 1000 years. So he is viewing the earth of the 1000 years. He will see that earth pass away as the New city of Jerusalem comes down.

The New Jerusalem has no sea. Rain comes from the sea. If you will notice that in Zec 14 when it speaks of those that survive the day of Armageddon in the nations it speaks of rain. I am sure you know that the rain comes from the evaporation of the sea. If there is no sea then there is no rain. In the new city there is no sun or moon. In other words no time. Yet in the New earth there is time and aging. In Eze 40-44 there are seasons and harvests that are decided by a calendar according to the cycle of the moon. So NO these are not the same new earths.




I don't believe Zechariah 14 or Ezekiel 40-44 have anything to do with a future earthly millennial kingdom. Do you believe that animal sacrifices for sin will be reinstituted? If so, don't you know that God takes no pleasure in them and that Christ did away with them by His once and for all sacrifice on the cross, as is taught in the book of Hebrews?


Zec 14 goes straight from the day of Armageddon into speaking of these survivors that will be on the earth after that event. So if you don't believe it then I'll paste it so you can reread it. Yes there will be sacrifices in the Mill and a Temple and the city will be called the city of the Lord. There will not be a day of Atonement because Jesus fulfilled it. You should check out all the differences in the Temple and the Law to see that this is speaking of something very different than any Temple or sacrifices that have ever been. And it says the Lord will fill that Temple. People still have to eat and they won't just have slaughter house as we have today giving no thanks to God while sacrificing animals.

The land partitions given in that Eze prophecy have never been before in such a way. They will actually take place.
The way the city is to be laid out and where the city of the Lord will be situated within the land will be a real thing.


Eze 43:2 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/2) And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice [was] like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.

Eze 43:5 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/5) So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.

Eze 43:6 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/6) And I heard [him] speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.



Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 40-44 don't even mention the second coming of Christ. So which passages should we rely on more for understanding of what occurs on the day Christ returns?


All of them.

Zec 14:1 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/1) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Zec 14:2 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Zec 14:3 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zec 14:4 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Zec 14:9 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/9) And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Zec 14:10 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/10) All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and [from] the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

Zec 14:11 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/11) And [men] shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Zec 14:16 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/16) And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

These Prophecies will come to pass.

And not only do all these prophecies speak of the new earthly kingdom but you also must explain how satan was locked up and yet still a problem for the Apostles and the early church. The binding of satan in any situation is not the same as an angel locking him in the bottomless pit. While in the pit he has absolutely no influence on man.



In Him
Norma

forum lurker
Apr 8th 2009, 07:19 PM
First of all, that passage says absolutely nothing about an earthly millennial kingdom. Also, does Christ not reign in heaven even now at the right hand of the Father?

No, it doesn't, and yes, He does. However, in 1 Cor. 15 Paul is talking about resurrection and the end-times (15:50-54.)

Christ is reigning currently together with the Father, but according to 1. Cor 15 there will be a time when Christ reigns and after that the reign will be subjected to the Father:

27 For he "has put everything under his feet."[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28730c)] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1. Cor. 15)

I see verse 28 referring to New Jerusalem:

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. (Rev. 21)

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 08:49 PM
The earth that has passed away (into the past) is this very earth we live in now. It will pass away after armageddon.This earth has to pass away in order for the new earth to be ushered in. Once again, the text in Isaiah 65:17-25 clearly has to do with the new earth and not this earth as we know it.


In this view John has just been viewing the souls of the dead and how they lived with Christ for a 1000 years. So he is viewing the earth of the 1000 years. He will see that earth pass away as the New city of Jerusalem comes down.

The New Jerusalem has no sea. Rain comes from the sea. If you will notice that in Zec 14 when it speaks of those that survive the day of Armageddon in the nations it speaks of rain. I am sure you know that the rain comes from the evaporation of the sea. If there is no sea then there is no rain. In the new city there is no sun or moon. In other words no time. Yet in the New earth there is time and aging.According to Revelation 21 there will be no more death, pain or sorrow in the new earth so how could there be time and aging?


In Eze 40-44 there are seasons and harvests that are decided by a calendar according to the cycle of the moon. So NO these are not the same new earths.

Zec 14 goes straight from the day of Armageddon into speaking of these survivors that will be on the earth after that event. So if you don't believe it then I'll paste it so you can reread it. Yes there will be sacrifices in the Mill and a Temple and the city will be called the city of the Lord. There will not be a day of Atonement because Jesus fulfilled it. You should check out all the differences in the Temple and the Law to see that this is speaking of something very different than any Temple or sacrifices that have ever been. And it says the Lord will fill that Temple. People still have to eat and they won't just have slaughter house as we have today giving no thanks to God while sacrificing animals.

The land partitions given in that Eze prophecy have never been before in such a way. They will actually take place.
The way the city is to be laid out and where the city of the Lord will be situated within the land will be a real thing.


Eze 43:2 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/2) And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice [was] like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.

Eze 43:5 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/5) So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.

Eze 43:6 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/6) And I heard [him] speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me. I guess you either missed where I showed you that the prophecy is conditional or you chose not to comment on those verses.


All of them.

Zec 14:1 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/1) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Zec 14:2 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Zec 14:3 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zec 14:4 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Zec 14:9 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/9) And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Zec 14:10 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/10) All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and [from] the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

Zec 14:11 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/11) And [men] shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Zec 14:16 (http://bibleforums.org/l%20comm/16) And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

These Prophecies will come to pass.

And not only do all these prophecies speak of the new earthly kingdom but you also must explain how satan was locked up and yet still a problem for the Apostles and the early church. The binding of satan in any situation is not the same as an angel locking him in the bottomless pit. While in the pit he has absolutely no influence on man. The new earth is eternal and there will be no more death there. So, Zechariah 14 cannot be speaking of the new earth. Also, didn't Jesus already stand on the mount of Olives and isn't He already king over all the earth?

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Ephesians 1
20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Rev 1
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

John146
Apr 8th 2009, 09:00 PM
No, it doesn't, and yes, He does. However, in 1 Cor. 15 Paul is talking about resurrection and the end-times (15:50-54.) He is also talking about Christ reigning until that time. In verse 26 he says that the last enemy to be defeated is death. When does that happen? He gives us the answer later in the chapter.

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Since death will be swallowed up in victory when we are all changed and put on incorruption and immortality doesn't that mean it will have been defeated? I believe so.


Christ is reigning currently together with the Father, but according to 1. Cor 15 there will be a time when Christ reigns and after that the reign will be subjected to the Father:


27 For he "has put everything under his feet."[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28730c)] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1. Cor. 15)

I see verse 28 referring to New Jerusalem:

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. (Rev. 21)I believe Paul tells us when Christ will become subject to the Father. It will be at the time that He delivers the kingdom to the Father. When does Paul say that happens?

23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

It happens at His coming which is when the end comes. The end doesn't come a thousand years later. This passage indicates that the end comes at Christ's coming and that is when He will deliver the kingdom to the Father. We are in Christ's kingdom even now.

Col 1
12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Searcher1
Apr 8th 2009, 09:32 PM
Also, didn't Jesus already stand on the mount of Olives


He ascended up from the Mount. It did not split half to the north and half to the south at that time. The Lord did not gather all nations to battle and did not go forth and do battle with the nations at that time. And there sure wasn't "No more utter destruction in Jerusalem" from that time forth. It was completely destroyed just 40 years after Jesus ascended up from the Mount of Olives.

Well, no sense discussing these things further since you won't even acknowleged that the gathering of the nations when Jesus shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations and stand on the Mount of Olives is still a future event. :dunno:

DurbanDude
Apr 9th 2009, 07:11 AM
That's right. I think there's a couple ways of looking at it. If John only saw the souls who were in heaven at that time then those souls would reign with Christ for the same amount of time. As each person physically dies and their souls go to be with the Lord the amount of time they reign with Him in heaven until His second coming would vary..

OK, I understand. I don't really like that interpretation, because of the varying lengths of time, and also because the actual bunch being referred to, those beheaded by the beast, would only have at most a few years of reigning, and to refer to this as 1000 years seems stretching interpretation. Obviously not everyone believes the beast persecution is future, some believe its past. What do you believe regarding the beast, future or past? Not to debate this, just to get a hold on your view.



If John is seeing the souls of all the dead in Christ then he could just be saying they reign with Him during the thousand years without implying that they all reign for the same amount of time.


Ok I get you.



No offense, but I have no idea what you're saying there. I think the best thing we can do in this case is to look and see if there are any other examples where the phrase "the hour is coming" or something similar is used (without the inclusion of the phrase "and now is"). And there are examples, so let's look at them.


Let me quote the verses again:
5:25 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.
5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
5:29 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.

So I agree with your quotes about the "hour" meaning something is about to happen soon in those particular cases, but in John 5:25-29 the hour does span a wide period.
The hour starts from when people heard Jesus' actual words, right until the physical resurrection of the unrighteous, when people still hear the voice of Jesus. The theme of these paragraphs being hearing the voice of Jesus. Assuming the resurrection occurs soon, this "hour" seems to be 2000 years long by your view, and 3000 years long by my view, going by the start date (is coming and now is) until the end date (the coming forth from the graves - resurrection of damnation). You could argue that tey are two separate hours, but the phrase refers to the future and the present at the same time, and does not say "hours are coming":

The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God




I agree. That's why we need to refer to other scripture for clarity. In this case we can refer to Revelation itself. It's made clear in Revelation 1:5-6 that at the time John wrote the book believers had already been made kings and priests of God

I agree, I have no problem with believing our souls currently reign. This does not mean I believe this is the interpretation of Rev 20. There are enough verses to demonstrate a more physical reign of Christ from Mount Zion, after the day of the Lord, and I believe these scriptures, which speak of the RETURN of Christ to Mount Zion, or a physical reign on earth which I believe starts off the 1000 reign of Rev 20.

forum lurker
Apr 9th 2009, 07:26 AM
Since death will be swallowed up in victory when we are all changed and put on incorruption and immortality doesn't that mean it will have been defeated? I believe so.

I believe this is true for those who have part in the first resurrection, but not for those who are born after that. (Isa 65:22). Everything in the scripture will come into place, including the unfulfilled prophecies of the OT.


I believe Paul tells us when Christ will become subject to the Father. It will be at the time that He delivers the kingdom to the Father. When does Paul say that happens?

23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The world currently isn't Christ's kingdom, it's Satan's. Christ is reigning over it by allowing it to exist. According to Revelation there are people who will share the reign with Christ, that can't be the case now.


Col 1
12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

You can be in a kingdom without reigning in it. You can see that in Rev. 6:9, they are not reigning yet with Christ.

The situation is different in Rev. 20:4.

forum lurker
Apr 9th 2009, 07:41 AM
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

It happens at His coming which is when the end comes. The end doesn't come a thousand years later. This passage indicates that the end comes at Christ's coming and that is when He will deliver the kingdom to the Father. We are in Christ's kingdom even now.

I don't believe the word 'then' here refers to the previous sentence:

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Raybob
Apr 9th 2009, 12:04 PM
I don't believe the word 'then' here refers to the previous sentence:

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Why not check the Strong's concordance?

G1534
εἶτα
eita
i'-tah
Of uncertain affinity; a particle of succession (in time or logical enumeration), then, moreover: - after that (-ward), furthermore, then. See also G1899.

Raybob

forum lurker
Apr 9th 2009, 01:07 PM
Why not check the Strong's concordance?

G1534
εἶτα
eita
i'-tah
Of uncertain affinity; a particle of succession (in time or logical enumeration), then, moreover: - after that (-ward), furthermore, then. See also G1899.


There are 2 phrases starting with "when", they have to point to somewhere. What is your opinion, where do they point to unless to the word "then", or with a proper translation to "after that"?

Here's the NIV translation, which to me is a little clearer but the message is the same:

24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

John146
Apr 9th 2009, 04:47 PM
OK, I understand. I don't really like that interpretation, because of the varying lengths of time, and also because the actual bunch being referred to, those beheaded by the beast, would only have at most a few years of reigning, and to refer to this as 1000 years seems stretching interpretation. Obviously not everyone believes the beast persecution is future, some believe its past. What do you believe regarding the beast, future or past? Not to debate this, just to get a hold on your view.The beast is both past and future. Look at this:

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

Whatever the beast represents exactly, it was around even before John wrote the book of Revelation because the angel says it "was" which means it existed even before the time when the angel spoke to John. The beast gets its power from Satan (Rev 13:4) so I believe it refers to Satan's kingdom in general. Satan and his kingdom of darkness were dealt a major blow at the cross. It resulted in the gospel going out to people all over the world with Satan being powerless to stop that from happening the way he was able to do before.

I believe the beast has existed ever since but it talks about the beast later ascending out of the bottomless pit. I believe that happens in conjunction with Satan coming out of the bottomless pit. I don't believe the bottomless pit is a literal physical bottomless pit but refers to Satan's status of being unable to stop the spread of the gospel. Once the restraint is lifted and he is loosed then the beast will be in power again to the same extent it was before Christ came the first time.


Let me quote the verses again:
5:25 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.
5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
5:29 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.

So I agree with your quotes about the "hour" meaning something is about to happen soon in those particular cases, but in John 5:25-29 the hour does span a wide period.

The hour starts from when people heard Jesus' actual words, right until the physical resurrection of the unrighteous, when people still hear the voice of Jesus. The theme of these paragraphs being hearing the voice of Jesus. Assuming the resurrection occurs soon, this "hour" seems to be 2000 years long by your view, and 3000 years long by my view, going by the start date (is coming and now is) until the end date (the coming forth from the graves - resurrection of damnation). You could argue that tey are two separate hours, but the phrase refers to the future and the present at the same time, and does not say "hours are coming":

The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of GodI believe you are way off base here. We need to include at least one more verse for context.

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Verses 28 and 29 are not speaking of the same thing as verses 24 and 25. No one has yet been physically resurrected unto immortality (except Christ, of course). So, that can't possibly be what He is talking about in verses 24 and 25.

Instead, what He is talking about in verses 24-25 is going from spiritual death to spiritual life when we are saved. The same thing that Paul talks about here:

Ephesians 2
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved )
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Notice that before we are saved and quickened (made spiritually alive) we are considered to be "dead in sins". So, when Jesus is saying that the time was coming and even was at that time that people who heard and believed would pass from death to life He was speaking of passing from spiritual death to spiritual life. That is the only sense in which anyone passed from death to life at that time. Only in the future will we pass from physical death to physical life.

Regardless of what you believe He was talking about in verses 24 and 25 it had to be something that was already happening even then because He said "the hour is coming, and now is...". In verses 28 and 29 He does not include "and now is" because He is only referring to a future event there, which is the physical resurrection of all the dead.


I agree, I have no problem with believing our souls currently reign. This does not mean I believe this is the interpretation of Rev 20. There are enough verses to demonstrate a more physical reign of Christ from Mount Zion, after the day of the Lord, and I believe these scriptures, which speak of the RETURN of Christ to Mount Zion, or a physical reign on earth which I believe starts off the 1000 reign of Rev 20.Where does it say anything about the RETURN of Christ? I don't see any mention of His RETURN there.

One thing that I believe is misunderstood about Zechariah 14 is the thinking that it is referring to the same future day of the Lord that we see mentioned in 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. How could it be? The descriptions are very different. The NT references to the day of the Lord indicate that it brings worldwide destruction and even the burning up of the earth itself. We don't see any reference to that in Zechariah 14. Shouldn't scripture agree with itself?

The KJV does translate it in Zechariah 14:1 as "the day of the Lord", but other translations differ. Young's Literal Translation has "a day hath come to Jehovah". The NIV and HCSB have "a day of the LORD". The NASB and ESV have "a day is coming for the LORD". So, it's questionable at best that "the day of the Lord" is the best translation and it's also debatable whether it's speaking of the same future day of the Lord that we see mentioned in the NT. I believe the evidence is there that it's not, especially based on the description we see in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

John146
Apr 9th 2009, 05:15 PM
There are 2 phrases starting with "when", they have to point to somewhere. What is your opinion, where do they point to unless to the word "then", or with a proper translation to "after that"?

Here's the NIV translation, which to me is a little clearer but the message is the same:

24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.When the same word, which is the Greek eita (Strong's G1534), is used elsewhere in scripture it almost always means "immediately after that" or "shortly after that". One exception I found is when it is used in 1 Cor 12:28 ("then the gifts of healing, helps,", etc.) it's used in the sense of order of significance and not in the sense of timing. But whenever it's used in the sense of timing it's always used in the sense of something taking place immediately or shortly after what was previously mentioned and never in the sense of something taking place much later.

Let me give you a few examples so you can see I'm not just making this up.

Mark 8
22And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. 23And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
24And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
25After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

In verse 25, the word is translated "after that". Clearly, Jesus put His hands upon the blind man's eyes immediately after the man said what he did in verse 24.

Here's another example:

John 13
1Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
2And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
3Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
4He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
5After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

Again, it's used in the context of something taking place immediately after something else took place. In this case, He poured water into the bason right after He "took a towel, and girded himself".

Here's one more example:

John 19
25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Again, He clearly said what He did in verse 27 right after he said to Mary "Woman, behold thy son!".

I can't find any examples where the word is used in the same context as you see it being used in 1 Cor 15:24. So, if we read it in 1 Cor 15:24 the way it's used elsewhere in scripture then it should be understood that the end comes immediately or shortly after His coming and not at a time long after His coming.

John146
Apr 9th 2009, 05:20 PM
I don't believe the word 'then' here refers to the previous sentence:

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.When that word "then" (eita in Greek) is used elsewhere in scripture it always is used in reference to the previous sentence or to what was previously said just prior to it.

The word "when" is used in that verse to describe what happens at the end which comes right after His coming. At the end, which comes right after His coming, He will deliver up the kingdom to the Father and will put down all rule and all authority and power.

John146
Apr 9th 2009, 05:34 PM
I believe this is true for those who have part in the first resurrection, but not for those who are born after that. (Isa 65:22). Everything in the scripture will come into place, including the unfulfilled prophecies of the OT.Can you show me where Paul indicates that any believers will be resurrected or changed after the last trumpet?

1 Cor 15
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

When he says we will all be changed at the last trumpet how do you conclude that he's not including all believers from all-time? Also, if people will still die after this how can it be said that "death is swallowed up in victory" at that time?


The world currently isn't Christ's kingdom, it's Satan's. Christ is reigning over it by allowing it to exist. According to Revelation there are people who will share the reign with Christ, that can't be the case now.Rev. 20 doesn't say anything about Christ reigning on the earth over the world. We reign with Christ now as kings and priests in His church. The souls of those who have physically died are in heaven reigning with Him.


You can be in a kingdom without reigning in it. You can see that in Rev. 6:9, they are not reigning yet with Christ.

The situation is different in Rev. 20:4.Where does it say in Rev 6:9 that they are not reigning with Him? We are priests and kings of God even now, according to Rev 1:5-6. Does that stop once someone's soul goes to heaven?

forum lurker
Apr 9th 2009, 06:25 PM
When the same word, which is the Greek eita (Strong's G1534), is used elsewhere in scripture it almost always means "immediately after that" or "shortly after that". One exception I found is when it is used in 1 Cor 12:28 ("then the gifts of healing, helps,", etc.) it's used in the sense of order of significance and not in the sense of timing. But whenever it's used in the sense of timing it's always used in the sense of something taking place immediately or shortly after what was previously mentioned and never in the sense of something taking place much later.

I'm not sure what it is you are arguing against. There is a number of events Paul mentions must happen before the end. You can't be saying they won't take place before the end? (1 Cor. 24-25).


When he says we will all be changed at the last trumpet how do you conclude that he's not including all believers from all-time? Also, if people will still die after this how can it be said that "death is swallowed up in victory" at that time?Why should he include all believers of all time? What Paul says about the resurrection body is true, it's immortal. Death has no power over it. After the resurrection, people who are born don't have a resurrection body until they have once died.


Where does it say in Rev 6:9 that they are not reigning with Him? We are priests and kings of God even now, according to Rev 1:5-6. Does that stop once someone's soul goes to heaven?They are under the altar, not sitting on a throne. They are crying for the Lord, because they can't do what they want by themselves yet. Can you explain what you mean by your last question?

John146
Apr 9th 2009, 09:09 PM
I'm not sure what it is you are arguing against.Against you suggesting that the end doesn't take place when 1 Cor 15:23-24 says it does, which is right after the second coming of Christ.


There is a number of events Paul mentions must happen before the end. You can't be saying they won't take place before the end? (1 Cor. 24-25).I've never said that. They will take place before the second coming, which is the event that brings us to the end of the age.


Why should he include all believers of all time?Why shouldn't he? He does say all and not some.


What Paul says about the resurrection body is true, it's immortal. Death has no power over it. After the resurrection, people who are born don't have a resurrection body until they have once died.Where does scripture speak about believers being physically resurrected to immortality after the resurrection that occurs at the last trumpet? Please be specific.


They are under the altar, not sitting on a throne. They are crying for the Lord, because they can't do what they want by themselves yet. They are in heaven with the Lord. It's not as if souls could sit on physical thrones. I don't know what you mean when you say that they can't do what they want yet. Can you explain what you mean by that?


Can you explain what you mean by your last question?Sure. I said that we are priests and kings of God even now. Do you disagree? If so, read Revelation 1:5-6. Since we are priests and kings of God even now, I'm asking whether we stop being priests and kings when we physically die and our souls go to be with the Lord in heaven?

forum lurker
Apr 10th 2009, 07:06 AM
Against you suggesting that the end doesn't take place when 1 Cor 15:23-24 says it does, which is right after the second coming of Christ.

All I'm suggesting is to read it in the context.


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

24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.



25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
I have no reason to not assume that the word "then" here is a correct translation. It could also be translated to "after that" as Raybob kindly pointed out. It doesn't change the context. The events that Paul talks about in 24-25 must take place before the end.


Why shouldn't he? He does say all and not some.He says "We shall not all sleep". I assume that what he means is that everyone isn't going to die once, like most people. Thus it may refer to all people, afterall.


Where does scripture speak about believers being physically resurrected to immortality after the resurrection that occurs at the last trumpet? Please be specific.Do you have an objection to 1 Cor. 51-52?

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


They are in heaven with the Lord. It's not as if souls could sit on physical thrones. I don't know what you mean when you say that they can't do what they want yet. Can you explain what you mean by that?I'm saying they are crying for the Lord to help their cause. Which I think they wouldn't, if they already reigned with the Lord.


Sure. I said that we are priests and kings of God even now. Do you disagree? If so, read Revelation 1:5-6. Since we are priests and kings of God even now, I'm asking whether we stop being priests and kings when we physically die and our souls go to be with the Lord in heaven?No, I don't disagree, and yes, I believe our status will change dramatically. You could think it this way: King of Spain goes to Sweden to visit the king of Sweden. The king of Spain will still be a king when he gets to Sweden, but he doesn't have a say how to run Sweden.

I think we now have the status of king of Spain in Sweden, but it'll change when we get out. (no offense Sweden.)

John146
Apr 10th 2009, 07:44 AM
All I'm suggesting is to read it in the context.I am doing that.


I have no reason to not assume that the word "then" here is a correct translation. It could also be translated to "after that" as Raybob kindly pointed out. It doesn't change the context. The events that Paul talks about in 24-25 must take place before the end.I didn't say they didn't. The point I'm making is that it says the end comes right after His coming.


He says "We shall not all sleep". I assume that what he means is that everyone isn't going to die once, like most people. Thus it may refer to all people, afterall.Those who are alive and remain unto the coming of Christ won't die. Everyone else will. The dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain when He comes will all be changed.


Do you have an objection to 1 Cor. 51-52?

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. Of course not. Why do you ask? I asked you "Where does scripture speak about believers being physically resurrected to immortality after the resurrection that occurs at the last trumpet? Please be specific.". So, I'm asking you where scripture speaks of anyone being resurrected or changed at any time after the event spoken of in 1 Cor 15:51-52.


I'm saying they are crying for the Lord to help their cause. Which I think they wouldn't, if they already reigned with the Lord.They are asking the Lord when He is going to avenge their blood. I don't know how you can conclude they're not reigning with Him from that. And, again, if they were already kings and priests of God before their souls went to heaven, as Rev 1:5-6 indicates, then are they not still kings and priests of God in heaven?


No, I don't disagree, and yes, I believe our status will change dramatically. You could think it this way: King of Spain goes to Sweden to visit the king of Sweden. The king of Spain will still be a king when he gets to Sweden, but he doesn't have a say how to run Sweden.

I think we now have the status of king of Spain in Sweden, but it'll change when we get out. (no offense Sweden.)You lost me there. In terms of the difference between our status now while we are still physically alive and what our status will be when our souls go to heaven when we die, what is the difference?

forum lurker
Apr 10th 2009, 08:15 AM
I didn't say they didn't. The point I'm making is that it says the end comes right after His coming.

I can see that's your point, but I can't see where it says so. I'm only seeing an order of events.


Those who are alive and remain unto the coming of Christ won't die. Everyone else will. The dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain when He comes will all be changed.
Alright, I can agree with this. It's a matter of timing where we disagree.


Of course not. Why do you ask? I asked you "Where does scripture speak about believers being physically resurrected to immortality after the resurrection that occurs at the last trumpet? Please be specific.". So, I'm asking you where scripture speaks of anyone being resurrected or changed at any time after the event spoken of in 1 Cor 15:51-52.Ok, sorry. I don't think it does, but surely believers who are born after the first resurrection will be resurrected. I assume it's not worth providing scripture from the OT where it describes people being born in a future age who will have a much longer lifespan than people of today.


They are asking the Lord when He is going to avenge their blood. I don't know how you can conclude they're not reigning with Him from that. And, again, if they were already kings and priests of God before their souls went to heaven, as Rev 1:5-6 indicates, then are they not still kings and priests of God in heaven?What in your opinion is needed in order to reign? Doesn't it imply having control over something? Can't priests and kings go to prison and have their authority removed in your view?


You lost me there. In terms of the difference between our status now while we are still physically alive and what our status will be when our souls go to heaven when we die, what is the difference?
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Rev. 21)

We are still subjected to sin and death. We are not yet completely removed from their infuence. There's one difference.

DurbanDude
Apr 10th 2009, 09:04 AM
The beast is both past and future. Look at this:

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
.
Thanks, like I said , don't want to debate this point, but wanted to know what you believe here.




Verses 28 and 29 are not speaking of the same thing as verses 24 and 25. No one has yet been physically resurrected unto immortality (except Christ, of course). So, that can't possibly be what He is talking about in verses 24 and 25.

Instead, what He is talking about in verses 24-25 is going from spiritual death to spiritual life when we are saved. The same thing that Paul talks about here:


You said I am way off base, and yet you have said nothing to contradict my view. I agree that they are speaking of two different things. I agree too that verse 24-25 is talking about spiritual life (and now is). This "hour" speaks of the whole period , church age and beyond, from when people first took Jesus words seriously (now is) , right until the actual physical resurrection when the bodies of the unrighteous come from their graves (verse 28/29). BOTH are referred to as "the hour", the spiritual life of hearing the words of Jesus, and the resurrections from the graves.



Where does it say anything about the RETURN of Christ? I don't see any mention of His RETURN there.


I hadn't referred to any specific verse yet, so I don't know where you were looking. :). Its in Zech 8:

8:3 Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain.
8:4 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age.
8:5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof.
8:6 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in these days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts.
8:7 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country;
8:8 And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.

If the Zion referred to here is a spiritual place, I don't understand how Zech 8 can be interpreted from a symbolic amill viewpoint.



One thing that I believe is misunderstood about Zechariah 14 is the thinking that it is referring to the same future day of the Lord that we see mentioned in 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. How could it be? The descriptions are very different. The NT references to the day of the Lord indicate that it brings worldwide destruction and even the burning up of the earth itself. We don't see any reference to that in Zechariah 14. Shouldn't scripture agree with itself?

I have often tried to get amills to describe the symbolism of Zech 14. You would need each of the following to be symbols of something else, relating to Jesus first coming:

v1 spoil divided v2 city taken, houses rifled v4 the reason for the specific description of the placement of the mount of Olives (on the east), the cleaving of the mount of olives, v5 what does the fleeing represent v6/7 what about the light/dark v10 what does "the land shall be turned as a plain" mean, specific areas are mentioned, why are specific gates mentioned v11 why the mention of no more utter destruction? v12 why the specific description of the plague? what does this plague represent? v13 who attacks eachother? v14 what wealth is gathered?

I'm not asking you to comment on all this, its just that if Zech 14 is symbolic of the first coming of Christ, it involves a lot of various types of events that have to have a symbolic interpretation. And yet the description of the war, and the following rule of Christ fits with a day of the Lord scenario from a literal sense.

Revelator
Apr 11th 2009, 11:42 PM
The Battle of Armageddon is a misnomer...the actual battle is to take place at Jerusalem:
"the war of the great day of God, the Almighty" (Revelation 16:14 NASB) or the "Battle of That Great Day of God Almighty" (KJV).


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

The angel is unfolding a mystery of the beast here in verse 8 through 17, in verse 18 the identity of the woman is revealed. Notice the "that thou sawest" this is [past tense]....and is not [present tense], agian [shall ascend] is future tense out of a bottomless pit.

DurbanDude
Apr 12th 2009, 07:20 AM
The Battle of Armageddon is a misnomer...the actual battle is to take place at Jerusalem:
"the war of the great day of God, the Almighty" (Revelation 16:14 NASB) or the "Battle of That Great Day of God Almighty" (KJV).
.

If you look at other scripture, the battle stretches from the eastern sea (Dead Sea) to the western sea (Meditteranean) and includes Jerusalem. The attacking army is so large its columns stretch across Israel, and across the valley of Megiddo.




The angel is unfolding a mystery of the beast here in verse 8 through 17, in verse 18 the identity of the woman is revealed. Notice the "that thou sawest" this is [past tense]....and is not [present tense], agian [shall ascend] is future tense out of a bottomless pit


true

Raybob
Apr 12th 2009, 07:46 AM
I have often tried to get amills to describe the symbolism of Zech 14. You would need each of the following to be symbols of something else, relating to Jesus first coming:

v1 spoil divided v2 city taken, houses rifled v4 the reason for the specific description of the placement of the mount of Olives (on the east), the cleaving of the mount of olives, v5 what does the fleeing represent v6/7 what about the light/dark v10 what does "the land shall be turned as a plain" mean, specific areas are mentioned, why are specific gates mentioned v11 why the mention of no more utter destruction? v12 why the specific description of the plague? what does this plague represent? v13 who attacks eachother? v14 what wealth is gathered?

I'm not asking you to comment on all this, its just that if Zech 14 is symbolic of the first coming of Christ, it involves a lot of various types of events that have to have a symbolic interpretation. And yet the description of the war, and the following rule of Christ fits with a day of the Lord scenario from a literal sense.

If you are curious how amills see Zech. 14 as the first coming of Christ, it would be good to search online for commentaries of bible scholars prior to Darby (<1825). Matthew Henry has a good explanation as does the Geneva Bible in it's footnotes. I don't want to cut and paste too much here but for a few examples, the Geneva Bible says:

Zec 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be (a) divided in the midst of thee.

(a) He arms the godly against the great temptations that would come, before they enjoyed this prosperous estate promised under Christ, that when these dangers came, they might know that they were warned of them before.

Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he (b) fought in the day of battle.

(b) As your fathers and you have had experience both at the Red Sea, and at all other times.

Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the (c) mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst of it toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great (d) valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

(c) By this manner of speech the Prophet shows God's power and care over his Church, and how he will as it were by a miracle save it.

(d) So that out of all the parts of the world, they will see Jerusalem, which was before his with this mountain: and this he means of the spiritual Jerusalem the Church.

Zec 14:5 And ye shall flee [to] the (e) valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal: yea, ye shall flee, as ye fled from before the (f) earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD (g) my God shall come, [and] all the saints with thee.

(e) He speaks of the hypocrites, who could not abide God's presence, but would flee into all places, where they might hide themselves among the mountains.

(f) Read (Amo_1:1).

(g) Because they did not credit the Prophet's words, he turns to God and comforts himself in that that he knew that these things would come, and says, "You, O God, with your angels will come to perform this great thing."

etc.
Raybob

DurbanDude
Apr 13th 2009, 08:20 AM
If you are curious how amills see Zech. 14 as the first coming of Christ, it would be good to search online for commentaries of bible scholars prior to Darby (<1825). Matthew Henry has a good explanation as does the Geneva Bible in it's footnotes. I don't want to cut and paste too much here but for a few examples, the Geneva Bible says:

Zec 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be (a) divided in the midst of thee.

(a) He arms the godly against the great temptations that would come, before they enjoyed this prosperous estate promised under Christ, that when these dangers came, they might know that they were warned of them before.

Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he (b) fought in the day of battle.

(b) As your fathers and you have had experience both at the Red Sea, and at all other times.

Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the (c) mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst of it toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great (d) valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

(c) By this manner of speech the Prophet shows God's power and care over his Church, and how he will as it were by a miracle save it.

(d) So that out of all the parts of the world, they will see Jerusalem, which was before his with this mountain: and this he means of the spiritual Jerusalem the Church.

Zec 14:5 And ye shall flee [to] the (e) valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal: yea, ye shall flee, as ye fled from before the (f) earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD (g) my God shall come, [and] all the saints with thee.

(e) He speaks of the hypocrites, who could not abide God's presence, but would flee into all places, where they might hide themselves among the mountains.

(f) Read (Amo_1:1).

(g) Because they did not credit the Prophet's words, he turns to God and comforts himself in that that he knew that these things would come, and says, "You, O God, with your angels will come to perform this great thing."

etc.
Raybob

Thanks Raybob for the reply.

In my opinion the explanations don't seem very fitting. The examples you have listed above are explanations that appear very vague to me, and in most cases with no symbolic precedents.

John146
Apr 13th 2009, 09:34 PM
You said I am way off base, and yet you have said nothing to contradict my view. I agree that they are speaking of two different things. I agree too that verse 24-25 is talking about spiritual life (and now is). This "hour" speaks of the whole period , church age and beyond, from when people first took Jesus words seriously (now is) , right until the actual physical resurrection when the bodies of the unrighteous come from their graves (verse 28/29). BOTH are referred to as "the hour", the spiritual life of hearing the words of Jesus, and the resurrections from the graves.So, you agree that John 5:28-29 speaks of the future physical resurrection of all the dead, right? Now, can you explain to me why you see two different hours or times when the dead will be physically raised when Jesus mentioned only one hour or time that was coming when the dead would be raised?

If I told you that the hour or time was coming when all your relatives were going to come to your house would you not think they would all come at the same time or at least on the same day? Then let's say I said that those who are adults would arrive and go inside the house and those who are children would go to the backyard to play. Would you think I was telling you that the adults would arrive on a certain day and then the children would arrive at a much later time? If so, how could that be when I already mentioned only one particular hour or time that was coming when all the relatives would be coming over?

third hero
Apr 13th 2009, 09:46 PM
So, you agree that John 5:28-29 speaks of the future physical resurrection of all the dead, right? Now, can you explain to me why you see two different hours or times when the dead will be physically raised when Jesus mentioned only one hour or time that was coming when the dead would be raised?

If I told you that the hour or time was coming when all your relatives were going to come to your house would you not think they would all come at the same time or at least on the same day? Then let's say I said that those who are adults would arrive and go inside the house and those who are children would go to the backyard to play. Would you think I was telling you that the adults would arrive on a certain day and then the children would arrive at a much later time? If so, how could that be when I already mentioned only one particular hour or time that was coming when all the relatives would be coming over?

I'm not durbandude, but I can answer this one for you.

First. I believe that both the book of John and Revelations came from the same author.

Second. I believe that both books were inspired and breathed from the Holy Spirit, complete and flawless in every way.

Third. I believe that the Lord knew what He was saying in both books.

Therefore, if John 5:28-29 talks about a single day when both the righteous and the unrighteous are raised, and Revelation 20 has two resurrections, one dealing solely with the Tribulation saints and the other for everyone else (Revelation 20:4-15 highlighting verses 5-6), then the Last Day will happen after the first resurrection has taken place, as defined by the writer of both the book of John and Revelation.

MY question to you is this:
Why is it so difficult for you to believe that there are two resurrections, especially since both books, (John and Revelation), unlike many other books of the New Testament, and written by the same person?

Raybob
Apr 13th 2009, 11:11 PM
Therefore, if John 5:28-29 talks about a single day when both the righteous and the unrighteous are raised, and Revelation 20 has two resurrections, one dealing solely with the Tribulation saints and the other for everyone else (Revelation 20:4-15 highlighting verses 5-6), then the Last Day will happen after the first resurrection has taken place, as defined by the writer of both the book of John and Revelation.


John's writing of the first resurrection in Revelation is speaking of resurrected souls only, not complete people (body, soul and mind). John's quotation of Jesus in John 5:28-29 is quite plain about the same hour for the resurrection of all dead people.

Raybob

rom826
Apr 14th 2009, 05:52 AM
If I told you that the hour or time was coming when all your relatives were going to come to your house would you not think they would all come at the same time or at least on the same day?

Your analogy here seems to blow your whole case. If you told me "the time is coming when all your relatives were going to come to your house", I certainly would not know whether it is at the same time or the same day or weeks apart especially since you did not clarify for me if it were the same day or at the same time. If you later clarify for me later that it was going to be at different times that they were going to come to my house, then I know for sure that it is at different times.

Raybob
Apr 14th 2009, 07:10 AM
Your analogy here seems to blow your whole case. If you told me "the time is coming when all your relatives were going to come to your house", I certainly would not know whether it is at the same time or the same day or weeks apart especially since you did not clarify for me if it were the same day or at the same time. If you later clarify for me later that it was going to be at different times that they were going to come to my house, then I know for sure that it is at different times.

What if he said "the hour" is coming when the relatives will come? That pretty much nails it down, doesn't it?

I believe Jesus nailed it quite plainly to "the hour". Daniel did the same thing too.

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. 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.
(Dan 12:1-2)

That "hour" or that "time" or that "day" still marks the event when good and bad arise, clearly not two separate events at two different days separated by many years in between.

Raybob

DurbanDude
Apr 14th 2009, 09:49 AM
So, you agree that John 5:28-29 speaks of the future physical resurrection of all the dead, right? Now, can you explain to me why you see two different hours or times when the dead will be physically raised when Jesus mentioned only one hour or time that was coming when the dead would be raised?


I believe it is only one hour, that is my whole point, that it is a very long hour with a very clear starting point and end point. The dead live spiritually when the unsaved hear the words of Jesus during His ministry, and the dead are raised physically when those in the graves hear His voice. Both happen in the same hour, yet historically Jesus ministry was 2000 years ago (nearly) and the physical resurrection is still to come. Therefore this all fits in with my argument about a long hour with events that are described together in the same hour, actually being thousands of yeas apart.

The example you use is therefore irrelevant, because we are talking about a symbolic hour. In normal conversation we would confuse anyone if we start talking in symbolism.

third hero
Apr 14th 2009, 02:26 PM
John's writing of the first resurrection in Revelation is speaking of resurrected souls only, not complete people (body, soul and mind). John's quotation of Jesus in John 5:28-29 is quite plain about the same hour for the resurrection of all dead people.

Raybob

That is your interpretation only. What I read from chapter 20:4 is that the souls of those beheaded because they refused the Mark are resurrected, while the rest, as mentioned in verse 6, have to wait until after the 1000 years are completed. These people, the ones in verse 4, are raised from the dead and become rulers with Christ.

I know you want to figurate the first resurrection, but the actual scriptures point to a literal resurrection that includes a specific group of people.

Unlike most POV, I believe that when the Lord returns, not all of the believers from all ages will be resurrected. I believe that, as Revelation 20:4-6 plainly states, only those who have died during the Great Tribulation are resurrected when the Lord destroys the Beast's army and takes over the earth, (Revelation 19:15). The others, although their salvation is assured, they will not be resurrected until AFTER the final opponent of God is defeated, Death. That happens after the 1000 years of perpetual peace, after the release of Satan, and after the last revolt that causes God to not only destroy humanity, but the world shortly after that.

With that said, I see no contradictions between what the Lord said in John 5, and what He had John write down in Revelation 20. Revelation 20 specifies when the event in John 5 happens, when all of humanity, the saved and the wicked, are resurrected at the same time. That time is when Judgment Day happens, which will be at least 1000 years AFTER the Lord returns.

John146
Apr 14th 2009, 02:52 PM
I'm not durbandude, but I can answer this one for you.

First. I believe that both the book of John and Revelations came from the same author. So do I.


Second. I believe that both books were inspired and breathed from the Holy Spirit, complete and flawless in every way. Absolutely.


Third. I believe that the Lord knew what He was saying in both books. Of course.


Therefore, if John 5:28-29 talks about a single day when both the righteous and the unrighteous are raised, and Revelation 20 has two resurrections, one dealing solely with the Tribulation saints and the other for everyone else (Revelation 20:4-15 highlighting verses 5-6), then the Last Day will happen after the first resurrection has taken place, as defined by the writer of both the book of John and Revelation.Wait a minute. If the first resurrection is a physical resurrection of what you call "Tribulation saints" and the second resurrection is the physical resurrection of everyone else then where does 1 Cor 15:51-54 fit in? And where does John 5:28-29 fit into that? Neither of those say anything about a resurrection of only "Tribulation saints".


MY question to you is this:
Why is it so difficult for you to believe that there are two resurrections, especially since both books, (John and Revelation), unlike many other books of the New Testament, and written by the same person?I have already answered this with what I've said in this thread. I have explained my view in detail. If you read through my posts in the whole thread then you should have your answer.

John146
Apr 14th 2009, 03:46 PM
Your analogy here seems to blow your whole case. If you told me "the time is coming when all your relatives were going to come to your house", I certainly would not know whether it is at the same time or the same day or weeks apart especially since you did not clarify for me if it were the same day or at the same time.Why is that? I mentioned a singular time that was coming when they all would come over. Or a singular hour that was coming. How do you get multiple hours or times from that? In John 5:28-29 when Jesus says "the hour is coming" He is speaking of a specific event that will arrive. The Greek word for hour is hōra (Strong's G5610). When you look at how that word is used in scripture you can see that it refers to a singular specific moment in time or to an event that was taking place or would take place.

Here is how the word is used in some other verses:

Matt 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

Matt 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Matt 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

Matt 14:15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.

Matt 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Matt 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

We can see that the word is not used in scripture the way you think it's used in John 5:28-29. In that passage Jesus is speaing of a certain time or event that was coming in the future which is known as the resurrection of the dead. Jesus and Paul only ever mentioned a singular future resurrection of the dead.

Here is one verse where Paul refers to it:

Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Notice that Paul doesn't say there shall be resurrections (plural) of the dead. He said there will be a resurrection (singular) of the dead. It will include both the just and the unjust.

third hero
Apr 14th 2009, 03:50 PM
Wait a minute. If the first resurrection is a physical resurrection of what you call "Tribulation saints" and the second resurrection is the physical resurrection of everyone else then where does 1 Cor 15:51-54 fit in? And where does John 5:28-29 fit into that? Neither of those say anything about a resurrection of only "Tribulation saints".

1 Corinthians 15:15-54 deals with the idea that those who are alive when the Lord returns are transformed. As you are aware, that transformation fits into the "and I saw thrones" in Revelation 20:4, and they represent those who are alive when the Lord returns. (See 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 for more information). John 5:28-29 goes where it is suppoe to go, right in Revelation 20:11-15.


I have already answered this with what I've said in this thread. I have explained my view in detail. If you read through my posts in the whole thread then you should have your answer.

Actually, I should already know, since I have debated you so many times in the past. That wasn't for my benefit that I asked you that question. If it was so obvious in your previous posts in this thread, then why am I asking it again? I know that you, like others here, tend to figurate the whole of chapter 20 in Revelation, mainly because the main bits of information there do not agree with your desired position on the end times. I was just hoping that you would write it down. Guess that's not going to happen.

John146
Apr 14th 2009, 03:52 PM
I believe it is only one hour, that is my whole point, that it is a very long hour with a very clear starting point and end point.What is your basis for believing that? That word (Greek hora) is not used in that way anywhere else in scripture. Look at my previous post and you can see the examples of that word being used in other verses and it's never used in the way you think it is used in John 5:28-29.


The dead live spiritually when the unsaved hear the words of Jesus during His ministry, and the dead are raised physically when those in the graves hear His voice. Both happen in the same hour, yet historically Jesus ministry was 2000 years ago (nearly) and the physical resurrection is still to come.What do you mean here? No one has been physically raised yet. That is an hour that is still coming in the future. In terms of people being made spiritually alive or spiritually resurrected that time is coming and now is, which means it's an ongoing thing that happens every day. John 5:24-25 has nothing to do with the physical resurrection of the dead. Jesus did not refer to the physical resurrection of the dead in terms of an hour that was coming, and now is. He only said that an hour was coming when the dead would be physically raised.

John146
Apr 14th 2009, 04:01 PM
1 Corinthians 15:15-54 deals with the idea that those who are alive when the Lord returns are transformed. As you are aware, that transformation fits into the "and I saw thrones" in Revelation 20:4, and they represent those who are alive when the Lord returns. (See 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 for more information). John 5:28-29 goes where it is suppoe to go, right in Revelation 20:11-15.This didn't answer my question so I'll ask it another way. Who exactly do you believe will be resurrected when Christ returns at the last trumpet? You seem to be saying that you think 1 Cor 15:51-54 only deals with those who are alive when Christ returns being transformed? Let's take a look at it.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Look at the part I bolded in particular. Clearly, this is the time when all believers will be changed. Not just those who are alive at the time but also those who are dead. The dead in Christ will be resurrected and changed.

And I agree with you about John 5:28-29 being related to Rev 20:11-15. But what does John 5:28-29 say? It says ALL who are in the graves will be resurrected at that future hour that is coming. Why do you only have SOME being raised at that time?


Actually, I should already know, since I have debated you so many times in the past. That wasn't for my benefit that I asked you that question. If it was so obvious in your previous posts in this thread, then why am I asking it again?Did you read the entire thread?


I know that you, like others here, tend to figurate the whole of chapter 20 in Revelation, mainly because the main bits of information there do not agree with your desired position on the end times. I was just hoping that you would write it down. Guess that's not going to happen.I already have and it already has happened. Tell me what you want to know that I haven't already gone into in this thread. If it will help, you can look at post #66 in this thread to see what I said about Rev 20:4-6. I gave an explanation of what I believe the first resurrection is and how one has part in it. I've shown scripture that indicates all of the dead are raised at the same time. I shown scripture that indicates that all unbelievers will be destroyed at Christ's coming. If you still don't understand my view, I don't know what more I can do to help you understand it.

Raybob
Apr 14th 2009, 05:16 PM
That is your interpretation only. What I read from chapter 20:4 is that the souls of those beheaded because they refused the Mark are resurrected...

Wouldn't it be better if you read what is actually written? Yes, the souls of those beheaded are mentioned but so are all the souls of those martyred for the witness of Christ. That would include those beheaded in Fox's Book of Martyrs too wouldn't it? Notice in that one verse you see the words "and I saw".

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.
(Rev 20:4)

Raybob

quiet dove
Apr 14th 2009, 08:35 PM
We know there is a lot of disagreement here, so everyone, please show caution in the way you word yourselves with each other so unintended insults don't happen. I'm not fussing, just reminding. We are all reading the Bible and we are all sincerely understanding our understanding.:)

third hero
Apr 14th 2009, 11:13 PM
Wouldn't it be better if you read what is actually written? Yes, the souls of those beheaded are mentioned but so are all the souls of those martyred for the witness of Christ. That would include those beheaded in Fox's Book of Martyrs too wouldn't it? Notice in that one verse you see the words "and I saw".

I am showing what I actually read.


And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:

This is what I actually saw. Tell me, who are those who sat on those thrones? Who are those whose judgement was given to them? In case you forgot, there are two groups of people that the Lord retrieves when He returns.

1. the saints still alive when He returns
2. Those who were beheaded because of their refusal to take the Mark.
(1 Thesalonians 4:15-18).

Since the "raptured" people are not specifically mentioned, I had to figure out who the Lord is talking about in the first portion of verse 4. The only example that I have is Daniel 7. The ones whom the Lord gives judgment to are the saints. They are the only ones who fit the bill here. We know that even in Daniel 7, the saints are hunted down and murdered by the little horn, the one who will devour the earth and trample on it. I have made the connection that the little horn in Daniel 7 is the Beast in Revelation 13-20. If that is true, then the saints that are talked about in Revelation 13-20 are the same as the ones in Daniel 7. Therefore, the saints are those who are on the thrones.

Now, because the saints are those who are ruling with the Lord, we have to answer one question. What happens to the raptured saints? Well, verse 4 answers that question. Since they do not experience death at all, they are the ones who are enthroned first, with the Tribulation saints being grouped right along with them. See, no figuration required.


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.
(Rev 20:4)

Raybob

See, two groups of people in verse 4, and both of them are identified. So, verse 4 tells us that both the raptured saints and the Tribulation saints will rule this world with Christ during the 1000 years of perpetual peace. They are also mentioned in verse 9 as the saints, the same saints that were persecuted during the Great Tribulation. The saints in this case are those people who survive the Great Tribulation, and those who died during it.

See, there is nothing wrong with my eyesight.

BTW
So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them [their] hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

And when they came that [were hired] about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

And when they had received , they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, [B]I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take [that] thine [is], and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. [I]Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. Matthew 20:8-16.

This is exactly what Revelation 20:4-6 shows us. This "parable" isn't a parable at all, but something that Matthew picked up on, and something that the rest of us should as well. This is why there are two resurrections. The first is the resurrection of the last, with the final resurrection happening at Judgement Day. So you see, my eyes are fine, and so are these words that are in this post. But thanks anyway raybob, you made this conversation interesting. Now any other rude comments like this one:

Wouldn't it be better if you read what is actually written?
will be reported. I usually go into bickering mode, but I am tired of the infractionfest that I was party to. Besides, arguing against Amils really isn't worth the effort. You will believe as you will, despite what is written on a page of paper, and I will believe as I will, believing what I have seen written in the pages of the Bible, no figuration required.

God Bless, and have a good day.:D

John146
Apr 15th 2009, 03:43 AM
This is what I actually saw. Tell me, who are those who sat on those thrones? Who are those whose judgement was given to them? In case you forgot, there are two groups of people that the Lord retrieves when He returns.

1. the saints still alive when He returns
2. Those who were beheaded because of their refusal to take the Mark.
(1 Thesalonians 4:15-18).What about 1 Cor 15:51-54?

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Do you think the dead who shall be raised incorruptible at the last trumpet are only those who were beheaded? Is that what Paul says here? No. He says all will be changed at the last trumpet. Not some. All. You do believe that Christ returns at the last trumpet, right?

What about what Jesus says in John 5:28-29? He says that all who are in the graves will hear His voice and be resurrected. Why do you say that some will be resurrected at that time instead of all, like Jesus and Paul taught?


Since the "raptured" people are not specifically mentioned, I had to figure out who the Lord is talking about in the first portion of verse 4. The only example that I have is Daniel 7. The ones whom the Lord gives judgment to are the saints. They are the only ones who fit the bill here. We know that even in Daniel 7, the saints are hunted down and murdered by the little horn, the one who will devour the earth and trample on it. I have made the connection that the little horn in Daniel 7 is the Beast in Revelation 13-20. If that is true, then the saints that are talked about in Revelation 13-20 are the same as the ones in Daniel 7. Therefore, the saints are those who are on the thrones.

Now, because the saints are those who are ruling with the Lord, we have to answer one question. What happens to the raptured saints? Well, verse 4 answers that question. Since they do not experience death at all, they are the ones who are enthroned first, with the Tribulation saints being grouped right along with them. See, no figuration required.1 Thess 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Are you saying that you believe the dead in Christ that Paul mentions here are only what you call the tribulation saints who were beheaded?


BTW
So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them [their] hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

And when they came that [were hired] about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

And when they had received [it], they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, [B]I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take [that] thine , and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. [I]Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. Matthew 20:8-16.

This is exactly what Revelation 20:4-6 shows us. This "parable" isn't a parable at all, but something that Matthew picked up on, and something that the rest of us should as well. This is why there are two resurrections. The first is the resurrection of the last, with the final resurrection happening at Judgement Day. So you see, my eyes are fine, and so are these words that are in this post. But thanks anyway raybob, you made this conversation interesting. I believe you are missing something from Matthew 20:1-16. In no way, shape or form does it suggest that the last are rewarded a thousand years before the first are resurrected or rewarded. Look at verse 8 again.

8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
The laborers are all called over at the same time. The last receive their reward first but that doesn't mean the first aren't there with them. Again, they are all called over at the same time. It gives no indication whatsoever that the last are called to come receive their reward and then the first are called at a much later time to receive theirs. It doesn't say to call the last laborers and give them their hire and then later call the first hires and give them their hire. No, it says to call all the laborers and give them their hire, but in a certain order: begining from the last unto the first.

DurbanDude
Apr 15th 2009, 09:14 AM
What do you mean here? No one has been physically raised yet. That is an hour that is still coming in the future. In terms of people being made spiritually alive or spiritually resurrected that time is coming and now is, which means it's an ongoing thing that happens every day. John 5:24-25 has nothing to do with the physical resurrection of the dead. Jesus did not refer to the physical resurrection of the dead in terms of an hour that was coming, and now is. He only said that an hour was coming when the dead would be physically raised.

We seem to be going in circles here, I believe these are the same hour, do you believe they are the same or different?

5:25 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.


5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
5:29 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.

Because I believe they are the same hour, I believe the hour stretches from Jesus ministry (and now is) until the physical resurrection.

John146
Apr 15th 2009, 03:14 PM
We seem to be going in circles here, I believe these are the same hour, do you believe they are the same or different?

5:25 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.


5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
5:29 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.

Because I believe they are the same hour, I believe the hour stretches from Jesus ministry (and now is) until the physical resurrection.They are clearly different. In verses 24 and 25 He speaks of something that was a current reality and would be ongoing. You seem to have overlooked the phrase "and now is" in verse 25, which is not found in verse 28. You don't seem to understand that the phrase "the hour is coming, and now is" means something entirely different than when the phrase "the hour is coming" is used on its own. In verse 25 He was speaking of something that was a current reality and would continue into the future. And that reality was that people were passing from spiritual death to spiritual life. But if the phrase "the hour is coming" is used by itself then that is only speaking of a future event and not something that is a current reality and ongoing.

Do you believe anyone has been resurrected from the grave yet or do you believe that no one will be resurrected until Christ returns? I think it's clear that no one will be resurrected until He returns. That hour or time is coming in the future. So, how can you try to say that verses 28 and 29 speak of something that stretches from Jesus' ministry until the physical resurrection? Verses 28 and 29 only speak of the physical resurrection while verses 24 and 25 only speak of a spiritual resurrection.

third hero
Apr 15th 2009, 03:51 PM
What about 1 Cor 15:51-54?

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Do you think the dead who shall be raised incorruptible at the last trumpet are only those who were beheaded? Is that what Paul says here? No. He says all will be changed at the last trumpet. Not some. All. You do believe that Christ returns at the last trumpet, right?

You do realize that this is only going to go downhill from here, Eric. I have answered this question a couple of posts ago, and then answered it again during my last post, some of which you had included in the post where you quoted me. So, this will be the last time I will answer this question for you, simply because you already know my answer before I write it down, and further pushing will only cause this thread to be shut down, sonething that I do not want. Besides, I grow weary debating Amils like you, mainly because you guys seem to fish for the words that you want to use against me instead of reading my answers. That's frustrating.

1 Corinthians 15:51-54 talk about who? Is Paul talking about those who are dead in Christ, or those who will not see death?

We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (verse 51b)

Since Paul tells us that he is focused at that point on the ones who do not see death, then he must be talking about the ones who are gathered when the Lord returns. Remember, the Lord promised that there will be survivors that He will gather to Himself when He returns. (Matthew 24:22, 29-31) Paul reiterates this point in 1 Thesalonians 4:13-18. Even in Revelation, we see that the Lord does indeed gather His people to Himself, (Revelation 14:14-16; 16:15), but after that, we have no idea what happened to them.... or do we?

Paul states in 1 Thes 4 that when we meet the Lord in the air, that we will ALWAYS be with the Lord. That would mean that wherever the Lord is, there we will be also.

Now, fast forward to Revelation 20. We see in verse 4 a place where there are thrones and there are people on those thrones. Who are these people? Well, the only clue we have is what the Lord shows John next. In the same verse, we find that the Tribulation saints are resurrected, and that they will rule the world with Christ for at leasty 1000 years. We know that the Tribulation saints who died are not the only ones that the Lord brings to Himself. We know that the "raptured" (for lack of a better word) must be there with the Tribulation Saints, because they, those who are transformed as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15, are forever with the Lord. Therefore, theonly group that is there on thrones have to be the Raptured saints.

Where do they fit in as far as the timeline of the end of days is concerned? Simple. Revelation 20:5 tells us that the Tribulation saints are the first to be resurrected. The Raptured saints fall into the same category as the Tribulation saints for the simple fact that they will not need to be resurrected because they would never see death. After the Lord rules this planet for 1000 years, Satan will be released, and he will challenge the Lord for control of the earth. God the Father will destroy them all at the gates of Jerusalem right before the Lord gives His Father this plqanet back. When that happens, all of the dead will be raised, fulfilling John 5:28-29. Those whose names are found in the Lamb's Book of Life will be raised to eternal life, in New Jerusalem. Everyone else will be sent to the Lake of Fire, the second death, a place designed for angels who have rebelled against God, where no one can escape.

Now, according to you, you say that Paul states that all of the saints will be resurrected at the Lord's return. He is not saying that at all. He IS saying that all will be changed, but the focus is on those who are living when the Lord returns, and not the dead. Remember, it is this chapter where Paul explains to us that mortal flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is also the place where he states that when the Lord comes, we who are mortal will gain imortal bodies. And concerning the death, their corruptible bodies have to wither and die before they would gain immortal bodies. Therefore, those who are dead can not have their bodies changed, for their bodies are gone. They will instead be given spiritual bodies, immortal bodies that will never corrode or die.

So the only ones who will be changed are those who are alive when the Lord returns. The Dead in CHrist are raised, and when they are raised, they are not raised in their old, dead bodies, but new, Spirit bodies. Paul does not, however, deal with the point in time when both the saved and the lost are resurrected in this chapter. His focus is eternal life for believers, and his prose sought to cause us to understand what the resurrection at the return of the Lord means to us. He is not dealing with John 5, not in the least. Therefore, if another portion of the Bible tells us that only the Tribulation Saints are resurrected during the first resurrection, I am inclined to believe it, even if others reject it.


What about what Jesus says in John 5:28-29? He says that all who are in the graves will hear His voice and be resurrected. Why do you say that some will be resurrected at that time instead of all, like Jesus and Paul taught?

1 Thess 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I am not saying anything that is contrary to what the Lord taught. The Lord did show John Revelation 20, which puts everything as far as the resurrections into a certain sequence. It is the Lord's teaching that tells us that there are two resurrections. It is the Lord's teachings that tell us that only the Tribulation Saints are resurrected when He returns. It is the Lord's teachings that tell us that a day is coming when both the righteous and the wicked dead will be resurrected. It is also the Lord's teachings that tell us when this will happen.

I know you are attempting to link Judgment Day with the return of the Lord, but scriptures tend to lean against that notion. Even in 1 Thes 4, nowhere does it say that ALL of the dead in Christ shall rise. It only says that the dead in Christ shall rise. This goes right along with Revelation 20, which tells us which of the dead in CHrist shall rise. This also goes along with what the Lord had taught in Matthew 20, where He explicitly tells us that He is going to reward the last first, and then the first. He even goes so far as to say that He is good for doing this. From all of the scriptures that i have read, and all of the research that the Lord led me to do, I have yet to find one scripture that links the return of the Lord to Judgment day. Revelation 20 is the key to understanding all of it.


Are you saying that you believe the dead in Christ that Paul mentions here are only what you call the tribulation saints who were beheaded?

No. Revelation 20:4-6 is saying it. I am only believing it.


I believe you are missing something from Matthew 20:1-16. In no way, shape or form does it suggest that the last are rewarded a thousand years before the first are resurrected or rewarded. Look at verse 8 again.

8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
The laborers are all called over at the same time. The last receive their reward first but that doesn't mean the first aren't there with them. Again, they are all called over at the same time. It gives no indication whatsoever that the last are called to come receive their reward and then the first are called at a much later time to receive theirs. It doesn't say to call the last laborers and give them their hire and then later call the first hires and give them their hire. No, it says to call all the laborers and give them their hire, but in a certain order: begining from the last unto the first.

I am not missing anything. You seem to not realize that time passes between the time when the last are rewarded and the first. If they were rewarded at the same time, then why would the first ones grumble when their reward was the same as those who were last to enter in? The answer is because the first received their reward last, just as Revelation 20 shows us that the Tribulation saints, the last of the workers in the vineyard of the earth, were raised first, while the others had to wait until after the 1000 years were completed. There is an order, and the book of Revelation gives us that set sequence.

John146
Apr 15th 2009, 05:41 PM
You do realize that this is only going to go downhill from here, Eric.Why is that? Do you feel that you are not able to have a civil discussion with me? I know we can do it, Doug. I am not trying to push your buttons or whatever you may think I'm doing. I'm only trying to understand your view of the first resurrection.


I have answered this question a couple of posts ago, and then answered it again during my last post, some of which you had included in the post where you quoted me. So, this will be the last time I will answer this question for you, simply because you already know my answer before I write it down,That isn't true. I couldn't understand from what you said how you reconcile 1 Cor 15:51-54 with what you said about who you believe is resurrected in the first resurrection.


and further pushing will only cause this thread to be shut down, sonething that I do not want.Neither do I. I'm not pushing anything. I'm looking for clarification. There's nothing wrong with that.


Besides, I grow weary debating Amils like you, mainly because you guys seem to fish for the words that you want to use against me instead of reading my answers. That's frustrating.That is not what I'm doing. I feel that you are judging me and other amils by saying that. We're not out to get you, Doug. I know I'm not. I'm only trying to see how you reconcile your understanding of Rev. 20 with other scriptures that, to me, seem to say something different than what you have concluded.


1 Corinthians 15:51-54 talk about who? Is Paul talking about those who are dead in Christ, or those who will not see death?

We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (verse 51b) Clearly both. You can see for yourself:

1 Cor 15
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

There it is. The dead shall be raised incorruptible at the last trumpet and will be changed along with those who are still alive. The text is clear about this, but you seem to be denying it for some reason. And since it says we shall all be changed, I take it to mean just that: all believers will be changed at the last trumpet, including the dead in Christ.

Can you see that he clearly includes the dead when he speaks about who will be changed at the last trumpet? He specifically says "the dead will be raised incorruptible". Pretty clear, right? Honestly, I don't think it could be more clear. So Paul is saying that we, believers, will not all physically die. But we will all be changed, whether we die or not. When? At the last trumpet. And we both agree that Jesus returns at the last trumpet, right?

So, the point I'm trying to get across to you is that in order for your understanding of Rev 20 to fit with what is taught in passages like 1 Cor 15:51-54 you would have to conclude that the dead that Paul mentions are raised at the last trumpet are only what you call "tribulation saints". But I believe He is referring to all the dead in Christ from throughout history.


Since Paul tells us that he is focused at that point on the ones who do not see death, then he must be talking about the ones who are gathered when the Lord returns. Remember, the Lord promised that there will be survivors that He will gather to Himself when He returns. (Matthew 24:22, 29-31) Paul reiterates this point in 1 Thesalonians 4:13-18. Even in Revelation, we see that the Lord does indeed gather His people to Himself, (Revelation 14:14-16; 16:15), but after that, we have no idea what happened to them.... or do we?

Paul states in 1 Thes 4 that when we meet the Lord in the air, that we will ALWAYS be with the Lord. That would mean that wherever the Lord is, there we will be also. 1 Thess 4:13-17 confirms what is taught in 1 Cor 15:51-54. It speaks of both the dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain being caught up together to meet the Lord in the air.


Now, fast forward to Revelation 20. We see in verse 4 a place where there are thrones and there are people on those thrones. Who are these people? Well, the only clue we have is what the Lord shows John next. In the same verse, we find that the Tribulation saints are resurrected, and that they will rule the world with Christ for at leasty 1000 years. We know that the Tribulation saints who died are not the only ones that the Lord brings to Himself. We know that the "raptured" (for lack of a better word) must be there with the Tribulation Saints, because they, those who are transformed as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15, are forever with the Lord. Therefore, theonly group that is there on thrones have to be the Raptured saints.According to 1 Cor 15:51-54 and 1 Thess 4:13-17 it is the dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain until His coming who are gathered and caught up to meet Him in the air. Neither of those passages limit it to only "tribulation saints who died" and "raptured saints".


Where do they fit in as far as the timeline of the end of days is concerned? Simple. Revelation 20:5 tells us that the Tribulation saints are the first to be resurrected. The Raptured saints fall into the same category as the Tribulation saints for the simple fact that they will not need to be resurrected because they would never see death. After the Lord rules this planet for 1000 years, Satan will be released, and he will challenge the Lord for control of the earth. God the Father will destroy them all at the gates of Jerusalem right before the Lord gives His Father this plqanet back. When that happens, all of the dead will be raised, fulfilling John 5:28-29. Those whose names are found in the Lamb's Book of Life will be raised to eternal life, in New Jerusalem. Everyone else will be sent to the Lake of Fire, the second death, a place designed for angels who have rebelled against God, where no one can escape.John 5:28-29 says all who are in the graves will be resurrected at that future hour that is coming. But you have only some who are in the graves being resurrected at that hour. I just can't agree with that because I believe that when Jesus said all He literally meant all.


Now, according to you, you say that Paul states that all of the saints will be resurrected at the Lord's return. He is not saying that at all. He IS saying that all will be changed, but the focus is on those who are living when the Lord returns, and not the dead.Not according to 1 Cor 15:52, as I showed earlier.


Remember, it is this chapter where Paul explains to us that mortal flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is also the place where he states that when the Lord comes, we who are mortal will gain imortal bodies. And concerning the death, their corruptible bodies have to wither and die before they would gain immortal bodies. Therefore, those who are dead can not have their bodies changed, for their bodies are gone. They will instead be given spiritual bodies, immortal bodies that will never corrode or die.

So the only ones who will be changed are those who are alive when the Lord returns.That's not what it says in 1 Cor 15:52. The dead in Christ will be raised from the dead and changed.


The Dead in CHrist are raised, and when they are raised, they are not raised in their old, dead bodies, but new, Spirit bodies. Now you are acknowledging that the dead in Christ are raised. You're confusing me. :D You had just said that only those who are alive when the Lord returns will be changed. Now that you acknowledge that it is not only those who are alive that are changed, how do you conclude that the dead who are raised and changed are only the tribulation saints? Paul says we'll all be changed at the last trumpet, not just some.


Paul does not, however, deal with the point in time when both the saved and the lost are resurrected in this chapter.

His focus is eternal life for believers, and his prose sought to cause us to understand what the resurrection at the return of the Lord means to us. He is not dealing with John 5, not in the least. Therefore, if another portion of the Bible tells us that only the Tribulation Saints are resurrected during the first resurrection, I am inclined to believe it, even if others reject it. That's true. In 1 Cor 15:51-54 his focus is believers. This doesn't mean that he is implying that only believers are resurrected at that time.


I am not saying anything that is contrary to what the Lord taught. The Lord did show John Revelation 20, which puts everything as far as the resurrections into a certain sequence. It is the Lord's teaching that tells us that there are two resurrections.Yes, but Paul taught what they are:

1 Cor 15
20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

The first resurrection is Christ's. At His coming we too will be resurrected. Notice who it says is resurrected at His coming. Not just dead tribulation saints as you try to claim. It says "they that are Christ's". That would include all believers. It says "blessed are those who have part in the first resurrection". We have part in Christ's resurrection when we are saved. When we die our souls go to be with the Lord in heaven, so that is where John sees the souls who live and reign with Christ.


It is the Lord's teachings that tell us that only the Tribulation Saints are resurrected when He returns.All of scripture is the Lord's teachings. I see scriptures that say all are raised when He returns and Rev 20 should agree with those.


It is the Lord's teachings that tell us that a day is coming when both the righteous and the wicked dead will be resurrected. It is also the Lord's teachings that tell us when this will happen. Based on passages like John 6:40, John 12:48, Matthew 25:31-46 and Matthew 13:36-43 it will be when Christ returns on the last day at the end of the age.


I know you are attempting to link Judgment Day with the return of the Lord, but scriptures tend to lean against that notion.Not really.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Matt 25
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Look at the last one. When will the Lord "give every man according as his work shall be"? From that verse we can see it will be when He comes. But where else does it speak of Him giving "every man according as his work shall be"?

Rev 20
11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12And 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.
13And 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.
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Those two passages tie His coming and the day of judgment together. He is coming on the day of judgment to judge/reward every man according to their works.


Even in 1 Thes 4, nowhere does it say that ALL of the dead in Christ shall rise. It only says that the dead in Christ shall rise.But 1 Cor 15:51-54 says we shall all be changed at the last trumpet and it includes the dead in Christ. So does all mean all in that passage or not? I see no basis for believing that it doesn't literally mean all believers. In 1 Cor 15:23 it says they that are Christ's will be resurrected. That seems all-inclusive to me.


This goes right along with Revelation 20, which tells us which of the dead in CHrist shall rise. This also goes along with what the Lord had taught in Matthew 20, where He explicitly tells us that He is going to reward the last first, and then the first. He even goes so far as to say that He is good for doing this. From all of the scriptures that i have read, and all of the research that the Lord led me to do, I have yet to find one scripture that links the return of the Lord to Judgment day. Revelation 20 is the key to understanding all of it. I showed you from Matthew 20:8 that all are called over to be paid at the same time and not at two different times, so I really don't think that Matthew 20:1-16 supports your view at all.


No. Revelation 20:4-6 is saying it. I am only believing it.I believe in what it says, too. It just so happens that we don't agree on what it says.


I am not missing anything. You seem to not realize that time passes between the time when the last are rewarded and the first.Where does it say that in the text itself? Can you show me specifically? All I see is that all the laborers are called at the same time. Just because they are given their pay in a certain order doesn't mean that there's a thousand years between the time when the last are rewarded and the first are rewarded. There's nothing in the text itself that indicates a gap like that and nothing that indicates that they are brought over to be rewarded at different times.


If they were rewarded at the same time, then why would the first ones grumble when their reward was the same as those who were last to enter in? The answer is because the first received their reward last, just as Revelation 20 shows us that the Tribulation saints, the last of the workers in the vineyard of the earth, were raised first, while the others had to wait until after the 1000 years were completed. There is an order, and the book of Revelation gives us that set sequence.No, the reason that the first ones grumble is that they worked longer than those who were last and they feel as though they should receive a bigger reward than those who were last and didn't work as long. But Jesus points out that they all get paid the same and that it's up to Him to decide what reward is fair and not them.

DurbanDude
Apr 19th 2009, 08:09 AM
Verses 28 and 29 only speak of the physical resurrection while verses 24 and 25 only speak of a spiritual resurrection.

If you read my posts carefully you will see that I have agreed with this view the whole time. Our difference is that I feel that these two verses are speaking about the same hour, even though they are separate events.

But even if you just focus on the "hour" of verse 24,25, we both agree that this is an ongoing hour. The "hour is coming, and now is" speaks of an ongoing hour, so just this verse is enough to prove that a biblical hour can be a long period, which negates your point that the two resurrections of verse 28 have to be at one moment because of the word "hour".

John146
Apr 20th 2009, 09:51 PM
If you read my posts carefully you will see that I have agreed with this view the whole time. Our difference is that I feel that these two verses are speaking about the same hour, even though they are separate events.How can you think they are speaking of the same hour when the ongoing hour he's speaking of in verse 25 already began a long time ago and has been ongoing and the hour he speaks of in verse 28 is still future?


But even if you just focus on the "hour" of verse 24,25, we both agree that this is an ongoing hour. The "hour is coming, and now is" speaks of an ongoing hour, so just this verse is enough to prove that a biblical hour can be a long periodOnly in the case where a phrase like "the hour is coming, and now is" is used. I've already shown you that the word is not used in scripture to denote a long period of time unless the phrase "the hour is coming, and now is" is used. When used by itself without an accompanying phrase like "and now is" it never refers to a long period of time. You can see this for yourself here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5610&t=KJV


which negates your point that the two resurrections of verse 28 have to be at one moment because of the word "hour".It doesn't negate my point at all. Verse 28 only says "the hour is coming". That phrase used by itself implies a moment or time in the future that will arrive and not to a long period of time. Again, look up how the Greek word hora is used in scripture and see for yourself. If you think the word is used the same way in verses 25 and 28, then do you think people will be physically resurrected on a daily basis for a thousand years once Jesus returns? I ask that because what He is talking about in verse 25 is people coming to spiritual life, which of course takes place every day.

Beyond all of this, we can see that all people are gathered for judgment at the same time from passages like Matthew 25:31-46. It only makes sense that all the dead are raised at the same time for judgment if all people are gathered at the same time for judgment/reward.