PDA

View Full Version : Can the unsaved experience the new earth?



wpm
Apr 28th 2007, 03:19 PM
Bing stated:



we repeatedly come back to the suggestion that the wicked will inherit the new earth, versus my contention that the unsaved will experience the new earth, versus your reply that this would constitute inheritance, versus my comeback "no it wouldn't" and your rejoinder "yes it would." The beat goes on from there. I do not think further investigation of this avenue will prove fruitful.


This is probably one of the main differences between Premil and Amil. Premils populate the new regenerated earth with countless wicked Christ-rejecters - Amils believe the Bible forbids any unsaved from this pristine arrangement. How this Premil concept happens and what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God is never biblically explained (and I contend can never be supported from Holy Writ). Amillennialism on the other hand holds that the wicked are totally and immediately destroyed at Christ's Coming. Amils arrive at this from repeated Scripture. They contend the new glorified earth is exclusively for glorified saints and that corruption is forbidden from corrupting the glorious kingdom on the glorious new earth.

1 Corinthians 15:50 says, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption”

Evidently these unsaved millennial inhabitants in the Premil paradigm are too righteous to be destroyed and too wicked to be caught up!!!

Q 1. Could Premils furnish us with clear explicit Second Coming Scriptures that proves that the wicked survive to enjoy the new earth?

also

Q. 2 Could they outline the criteria for surviving Christ's righteous judgment at the end?

Thanks in anticipation,

Paul

quiet dove
Apr 28th 2007, 08:38 PM
wpm
Q 1. Could Premils furnish us with clear explicit Second Coming Scriptures that proves that the wicked survive to enjoy the new earth?

also

Q. 2 Could they outline the criteria for surviving Christ's righteous judgment at the end?


Not that I want to jump in between the two of your great minds or anything, but just a note from one premiller anyway.

I dont see the unrighteous inheriting the New Earth, or inheriting the earth that will be lived upon during the millenial reign. Rev 19 makes it clear that they will be sent away v 17 that the birds will feast on all the wicked from kings to slaves. So at that point, going into the millenium, only believers are alive. Then the millenial reign, then Satan loosed, and apparently their will be those who rebel against Christ and are then devoured by God. Then the GWT judgment, no one but glorified believers would then inherit the New Heavens and Earth.

Just for the record I dont think there will be two new earths. The best way I can expain it would be a remodeled house versus building a whold new one.

So in answer to your question, I dont need scripture to explain how the unrighteous inherit the earth because I dont believe they do, nor do they survive Chirst righteous judgement. So for me, no scripture is needed because I dont understand it that wayin the first place. I only understand it mean, that men, as always, have the free will to choose, even during the millenial reign.

On second thought, this one verse to backup the "even during the millenial reign" part above. Zechariah 14:16 :)

wpm
Apr 28th 2007, 09:58 PM
Not that I want to jump in between the two of your great minds or anything, but just a note from one premiller anyway.

I dont see the unrighteous inheriting the New Earth, or inheriting the earth that will be lived upon during the millenial reign. Rev 19 makes it clear that they will be sent away v 17 that the birds will feast on all the wicked from kings to slaves. So at that point, going into the millenium, only believers are alive. Then the millenial reign, then Satan loosed, and apparently their will be those who rebel against Christ and are then devoured by God. Then the GWT judgment, no one but glorified believers would then inherit the New Heavens and Earth.

Just for the record I dont think there will be two new earths. The best way I can expain it would be a remodeled house versus building a whold new one.

So in answer to your question, I dont need scripture to explain how the unrighteous inherit the earth because I dont believe they do, nor do they survive Chirst righteous judgement. So for me, no scripture is needed because I dont understand it that wayin the first place. I only understand it mean, that men, as always, have the free will to choose, even during the millenial reign.

On second thought, this one verse to backup the "even during the millenial reign" part above. Zechariah 14:16 :)

So, who are these believers? Are they mortals? Who is this company "who rebel against Christ"? Surely the wicked do inherit your new earth?

Paul

quiet dove
Apr 28th 2007, 10:35 PM
So, who are these believers? Are they mortals? Who is this company "who rebel against Christ"? Surely the wicked do inherit your new earth?




The believers are the ones who survive the trib and yes they are mortal.

Those believers will not be anymore the wicked living on the earth, going into the millenial, than saying we believers are of the wicked on the earth now.
The millenium, there will not be the "New Earth", not until after the millenium, Rev 20:7-15. giving the description of that end. And 21 the "New". Their offspring must make the same choice all men ever born have had to make, obedience to the King or disobedience. Zechariah (during which time Satan is bound) giving a description that indicates there will be a choice to be made, as does Rev 20:7 (after he is loosed again for a little while (Rev 20:3)

Kahtar
Apr 28th 2007, 10:47 PM
Just wanted to point out that, being pretrib, I agree with Quiet Dove's assessment.






That is all.............
bye bye:wave:

wpm
Apr 28th 2007, 11:16 PM
The believers are the ones who survive the trib and yes they are mortal.

Those believers will not be anymore the wicked living on the earth, going into the millenial, than saying we believers are of the wicked on the earth now.
The millenium, there will not be the "New Earth", not until after the millenium, Rev 20:7-15. giving the description of that end. And 21 the "New". Their offspring must make the same choice all men ever born have had to make, obedience to the King or disobedience. Zechariah (during which time Satan is bound) giving a description that indicates there will be a choice to be made, as does Rev 20:7 (after he is loosed again for a little while (Rev 20:3)


I must repeat my questions as I don't feel you addressed my queries.

(1) Who are these believers?
(2) Are they mortals?

If I remember right, you have applied Isa 65 to the millennium. It expressly describes the new earth. Therefore it would seem the wicked inherit the Premil new earth.

Paul

RogerW
Apr 28th 2007, 11:41 PM
I've never really followed the pre-mill view in its various details. So I am curious, do pre-millers read the book of Revelation chronologically? I wonder because Rev 14 describes the hour of Judgment, the wrath of God being poured upon the ungodly, and the harvest of the earth. Seems that all that should be left after Rev 14 (if read chronologically) is casting Satan and all unbelievers into the lake of fire?

RW

Toolapc
Apr 29th 2007, 12:21 AM
all the wicked Go to hell there casted into the lake of fire:idea:



The died that rise populate the new earth with there new Christ like body there is no evil and there is no devil to temp people in the new earth untill the thousand years is up. THe people in the new earth there goal is to make it into Gods house after they have been tempted when the thousand years is up see CHrist rules the New earth for one day or for a thousand years. Christ rules the New earth when all of the faithful are resurrected with a New Christ like Body

The people that were caught up inbody my guess is these people earn the same Crown as the prophets and they get to enter Gods house the New Jerusalem

John146
Apr 29th 2007, 12:35 AM
The believers are the ones who survive the trib and yes they are mortal.

Those believers will not be anymore the wicked living on the earth, going into the millenial, than saying we believers are of the wicked on the earth now.
The millenium, there will not be the "New Earth", not until after the millenium, Rev 20:7-15. giving the description of that end. And 21 the "New". Their offspring must make the same choice all men ever born have had to make, obedience to the King or disobedience. Zechariah (during which time Satan is bound) giving a description that indicates there will be a choice to be made, as does Rev 20:7 (after he is loosed again for a little while (Rev 20:3)


Why don't these mortal surviving believers receive their new immortal, incorruptible bodies at the second coming of Christ? If they don't receive their new bodies at that time then when do they receive their new glorified bodies and where is the Scripture that speaks about it?

It seems to me that at His coming, He will deliver up His spiritual kingdom to the Father rather than establishing an earthly kingdom.

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.
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. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. - 1 Corinthians 15:22-26

At His coming, believers are resurrected and receive new immortal, incorruptible bodies. That is made clear later in the chapter. Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection of the dead. He was the first to be resurrected and receive a glorified body. At His coming, those who are His will also be resurrected and receive immortal bodies. At that time comes the end when He will deliver up His spiritual kingdom to the Father. He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. That happens at His second coming when He comes "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God"(2 Thess 1:8) and "to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe" (2 Thess 1:10). At His second coming, He shall destroy the last enemy, which is death.

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. - 1 Cor 15:51-54

In verse 26, we see that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Verse 54 is clearly the fulfillment of that. Death is swallowed up in victory because it is destroyed at the second coming of Christ. There will be no more death after He comes. You can cross reference Isaiah 25:8 and Revelation 21:4 with 1 Corinthians 15:54 and you can see that to be true. The next verse (1 Cor 15:55) says, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?". Death is defeated at that time and soon after is cast into the lake of fire at the Judgment (Rev 20:14).

Eric

quiet dove
Apr 29th 2007, 02:18 AM
I must repeat my questions as I don't feel you addressed my queries.

(1) Who are these believers?
(2) Are they mortals?

If I remember right, you have applied Isa 65 to the millennium. It expressly describes the new earth. Therefore it would seem the wicked inherit the Premil new earth.






The believers are the ones who survive the trib and yes they are mortal.



Rev 19:17-21 tells us all those who worshiped the Beast are killed. That only leaves believers.


If I remember right, you have applied Isa 65 to the millennium. It expressly describes the new earth. Therefore it would seem the wicked inherit the Premil new earth.



Isaiah's "create" needs to be taken in context, if that is a description of the New Earth and New Heavens and New Jerusalem, Isaiah's description contradicts the description of Rev 21 where it is clearly stated that the old has forever passed away and the New comes. With Christ ruling the earth it will be nothing like what we know now, so He will create a new enviroment for men to dwell.
Are you saying this happens in eternity?
Isaiah 65: 20
“ No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

What infants will be in eternity, what child will die, what sinner will die. And like I already said, those who go into the millenial will be believers, their offspring will be required to make a choice, and neither of them are inheriting the "New" as described in Rev 21, as flesh and blood cant inherit that anyway, saved or unsaved.

quiet dove
Apr 29th 2007, 04:43 AM
john146
Why don't these mortal surviving believers receive their new immortal, incorruptible bodies at the second coming of Christ? If they don't receive their new bodies at that time then when do they receive their new glorified bodies and where is the Scripture that speaks about it?
It seems to me that at His coming, He will deliver up His spiritual kingdom to the Father rather than establishing an earthly kingdom.
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.
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. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. - 1 Corinthians 15:22-26
At His coming, believers are resurrected and receive new immortal, incorruptible bodies. That is made clear later in the chapter. Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection of the dead. He was the first to be resurrected and receive a glorified body. At His coming, those who are His will also be resurrected and receive immortal bodies. At that time comes the end when He will deliver up His spiritual kingdom to the Father. He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. That happens at His second coming when He comes "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God"(2 Thess 1:8) and "to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe" (2 Thess 1:10). At His second coming, He shall destroy the last enemy, which is death.
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. - 1 Cor 15:51-54
In verse 26, we see that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Verse 54 is clearly the fulfillment of that. Death is swallowed up in victory because it is destroyed at the second coming of Christ. There will be no more death after He comes. You can cross reference Isaiah 25:8 and Revelation 21:4 with 1 Corinthians 15:54 and you can see that to be true. The next verse (1 Cor 15:55) says, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?". Death is defeated at that time and soon after is cast into the lake of fire at the Judgment (Rev 20:14).



Matt 27:52 & 53. a resurrection of dead, faithful to God people of the OT, and it is very clear this did not happen until after the resurrection of Jesus.

Rev 20”4 “then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded…who had not worshipped the beast, his image or taken his mark…And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” clearly trib saints and “the rest did not live again until after the thousand years” That is two separate resurrection times right there, and it clearly says the ones to life and the ones to death have a thousand years inbetween them.

1 Thess 4:16 & 17 says those who are dead in Christ and those alive, doesn’t say anything about unbelievers at all. Only those in Christ.

! Cor 15 does not say anything about unbelievers either, it says “and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” This doesn’t say anything about the unbeliever, death certainly isnt swallowed up in victory for them and they are not raised to incorruptible

wpm
Apr 29th 2007, 01:43 PM
Rev 19:17-21 tells us all those who worshiped the Beast are killed. That only leaves believers.



Isaiah's "create" needs to be taken in context, if that is a description of the New Earth and New Heavens and New Jerusalem, Isaiah's description contradicts the description of Rev 21 where it is clearly stated that the old has forever passed away and the New comes. With Christ ruling the earth it will be nothing like what we know now, so He will create a new enviroment for men to dwell.
Are you saying this happens in eternity?
Isaiah 65: 20
“ No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

What infants will be in eternity, what child will die, what sinner will die. And like I already said, those who go into the millenial will be believers, their offspring will be required to make a choice, and neither of them are inheriting the "New" as described in Rev 21, as flesh and blood cant inherit that anyway, saved or unsaved.




You are not answering my enquiry. Could you furnish me with Second Coming passages that clearly show mortals surviving Christ's appearing? Rev 19 depicts no survivors on earth. So you have yet to show who these 'mortal believers' are. Also, what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God?


Isaiah 65: 20 says we are looking at the New Earth and New Heavens and New Jerusalem. You will have to take your objection up with the prophet. Plainly you see two New Earths and New Heavens - Scripture only knows of one. Rev 21 beautifully correlates with the time and detail of Isa 65, only explaining it in more lucid terms.

Paul

third hero
Apr 29th 2007, 05:52 PM
My answer, just as I have wrote in previous threads, is directly tied to what a person calls the Millennium. To Bing and myself, we view the Millennium not as the Kingdom of Heaven coming to all saints, to rule over them froever and ever. He views the Millennium as a transition between the new Heaven and Earth, and this current evil world.

I view the Millennium only slightly different, with the Millennium as the wrap up of God's purpose for this world. Why I say this? I say this because I believe that Jesus's last purpose for coming to this earth, which the Disciples asked him about, the restoration of the Kingdom of David, (Acts 1:8) has not come to pass yet. It seemed that Christ was referring to such a time when He restores the throne of David, with Him at the head, in Matthew 25:31-46. It is parrotted in Revelation 19:15, and also in Daniel 7. According to Daniel 7 and Zechariah 14, there will be a time when Christ will rule over the nations of this world, and Matthew 25 talks of a time when Christ separates the nations, and admits some while destroying others. In other words, this is not the New Jerusalem, or the New heaven and earth that is promised to all believers. Hence the corruptible will not inherit the Kingdom of God, which is New Jerusalem. However, what they get, is the the Kingdom of heaven, ruling over them directly, and not via proxy, aka satan.

The term which I have always used in matters such as these is the term "rod of Iron". Anyone who is ruled over with a rod of iron is being ruled over harshly. Christ is not going to rule over the saints harshly, because they will not be able to sin, let alone die, once He returns because the saints will be living forever with Him. So, who does this statement intended for?

Psalm 2:12a
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.

This is from the same psalm that details the one who will rule over all of the world, where God calls Him Son, and He calls God Father, and He will rule over the nations with a rod of Iron. Who are those who are to perish when the Son of God comes to rule over the nations? Are t hey the saints? Or are they as Zechariah 14 proclaims them to be.

Zechariah 14:16
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

Strange, it talks about the survivors of those who fought against Jerusalem at the time when, "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one". (Zechariah 14:9). According to Zechariah, there will be survivors of those who fought against Jerusalem will still be around to be ruled by the Lord.

But that's not the only place where there is made mention the possibilities of survivors. In Daniel 7, the beast is stripped it it's power, the little horn is thrown into the consuming fire, and the rest of the beast is "they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." (Daniel 7:12b). This suggest that the time when the little horn is destroyed, his kingdom has it's authority taken from it and one reads to find out later on that the saints take over the kingdom of the Beast, with the Son of man leading them. (Daniel 7:13-27).

Now I know the rebuttle is coming, where some in here will say, "the birds are eating the flesh of every soul, from the slave to the kings of the earth", and will look to Revelation 19 to prove that. Well, here's my rebuttle. Look at the first place where it is mentioned in the Bible that God calls the fowl of the air to feast of the flesh of kings of the earth.

Ezekiel 39:11
And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the [noses] of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call [it] The valley of Hamongog.

Verse 17
And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, [even] a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood (v18) Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan (v 19) And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you.

According to Ezekiel, the Son of man calls forth the fowl of the air to feast of the flesh of everything that is found in a place that will be called Hamongog. This is the only place before Revelation that talks of the fowls feasting from the flesh of mankind. So, the birds are gathered to one location to feast on the flesh of the kings of the earth. Is this parrotted in Revelation, or are is the gathering in Revelation 19 the entire earth?

According to Revelation 16, the kings of the earth, and everyone that is equipped for battle is gathered by the beast, the false prophet, and Satan to a place called Armageddon. This place is now known as the valley of Megiddo, just east of Jerusalem. All of the kings of the earth, the free man and slave, and all who are able to fight, meet the beast in the valley of Megiddo. The Lord in Revelation 19 roars from heaven to meet and defeat the kings of the earth, which according to chapter 16, is in the valley of Megiddo. It is there where the kings are slain by the Armies of the Lord, and the fowl are gathered to feast on the flesh of mankind. Not all mankind, but the ones in the Valley of Megiddo, which will at that point be renamed Hamongog, the land where Gog dies.

third hero
Apr 29th 2007, 05:56 PM
You are not answering my enquiry. Could you furnish me with Second Coming passages that clearly show mortals surviving Christ's appearing? Rev 19 depicts no survivors on earth. So you have yet to show who these 'mortal believers' are. Also, what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God?


Isaiah 65: 20 says we are looking at the New Earth and New Heavens and New Jerusalem. You will have to take your objection up with the prophet. Plainly you see two New Earths and New Heavens - Scripture only knows of one. Rev 21 beautifully correlates with the time and detail of Isa 65, only explaining it in more lucid terms.

Paul

Sorry, only your interpretation of the Bible leads to only one new world, whereas the Bible mentions of several earths in the past, wit the flood destroying one earth, this Jerusalem being still around in another earth, which we call the Millennium, and a New heaven and earth where all of sin and death are done away with, and not as Isaiah 65:20 states, where death is still around.

quiet dove
Apr 29th 2007, 05:59 PM
Rev 21 beautifully correlates with the time and detail of Isa 65, only explaining it in more lucid terms.


So this happens in eternity? Or its happening now?
Isaiah 65: 20
“ No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.



You are not answering my enquiry. Could you furnish me with Second Coming passages that clearly show mortals surviving Christ's appearing? Rev 19 depicts no survivors on earth. So you have yet to show who these 'mortal believers' are. Also, what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God?



The end of Rev 20 clearly shows that mortals survive the tribulation, all those who did not worship the beast are not killed at the end of Rev 19.

(1)This takes care of those who did die, saved or unsaved
Rev 20, of those did die also clearly says there is a thousand years inbetween the resurrection of those who did and did not worship the beast
v4 "I saw the souls (so they are alive already)of them who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus....and they lived(resurrected) and reigned with Christ
v5 "But the rest of the dead did not live again until after the thousand years"

(2)this takes care of those who survive the trib up until Christ return and is clearly speaking of those who worshipped the beast. So there is your survivors of the tribulation and it is either only speaking of those who worshipped the beast being killed - or - believers are also on the buffet menu that day,
Rev 19:17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great.”19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

and Rev 20:7 again lets us know there are mortals living on the earth and all who join with the newly released Satan will be devoured by God, there is no bird buffet that time. Then as prophesied, all that are not in the Book of Life are judged at the GWT, after the thousand years

This does answer what you ask of me, accept or not, but I am done with this particualar question. I have aswered it three times.

quiet dove
Apr 29th 2007, 06:49 PM
3H, I have a question

As you can see from my post we are not understanding Rev 19 quite the same. Though we do both agree in the millenail reign of Christ from Jerusalem and the restoration of the nation of Israel.
My question is, from the OT verses you quoted, you think it is indivuals who continue on of the nations, believer and unbeliever? or is it referring to the "nations", in other words, the gentile believers who survive the trib, in my opinion, would be the ones who would then be of those "nations" who once persecuted Jerusalem/Israel, there will still be China, Egypt,...whoever nationality, but they will be believers from those nations and the nation will still exsist.


I go back and forth with Ezekiels Gog/Magog and Rev's. I can see where they are the same but seems like they are different, but I guess thats another thread.

wpm
Apr 29th 2007, 09:56 PM
quiet dove



So this happens in eternity? Or its happening now?
Isaiah 65: 20
“ No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.


Isaiah locates this in the eternal state - we should not argue with that. Isaiah 65:17-21 is clearly a description of the "new heavens and new earth" - nothing could be clearer. Isaiah 65:17-21 says, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

Firstly, the Holy Spirit locates this detail in the “new heavens and a new earth.” That should be good enough for every Bible believing Christian. That is not an issue for debate. It is clear and undeniable. Premils disagree and places in a supposed millennial period 1,000 years+ before the “new heavens and a new earth" is created. You should stop struggling with Scripture. I think you would be well advised to accept the biblical location of this and allow the difficult wording that Isaiah uses to be explained by the rest of the narrative and other clear allusions in Scripture to the “new heavens and a new earth.” The wording is so explicit in relation to the time-period that it removes any ambiguity or uncertainty for the reader on that front. This is the first absolute we can establish with this reading.

Your sole foundation is supposedly one challenging phrase that you feel doesn't fit where it is explicitly said to belong. Because of this, you up-root it from its home and dump it in an imaginary parenthesis period in-between this age and the age to come. The language of Isaiah 65:20 seems to be used in order to impress the idea that there will be no more growing old and no dying during this time. Anyway, if a natural child was to live to be a hundred years old then it would no longer be a child. So, it seems to be a hyperbole statement used to underscore the spiritual truth that there will be no more death or sorrow.

As enlightening as Isaiah’s revelation of the new earth is, it is surely dim, vague and veiled compared to that unveiled by Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament. We are particularly assisted in our understanding of this much-debated reading before us by John in the book of Revelation as he actually refers to Isaiah 65 – only in clearer terms. In fact, he removes most, if not all, the haze surrounding this Old Testament revelation of the new heavens and a new earth and points us to its time of fulfilment. He removes any existing confusion by outlining in simpler and more comprehensible language the sense and meaning of the text. The fuller revelation, as is common in Scripture, better explains the hyperbole description in this Old Testament passage and explains more wholly the full meaning of this familiar passage.

Revelation 21:1-4 says, “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. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband … 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.”



The end of Rev 20 clearly shows that mortals survive the tribulation, all those who did not worship the beast are not killed at the end of Rev 19.

(1)This takes care of those who did die, saved or unsaved
Rev 20, of those did die also clearly says there is a thousand years inbetween the resurrection of those who did and did not worship the beast
v4 "I saw the souls (so they are alive already)of them who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus....and they lived(resurrected) and reigned with Christ
v5 "But the rest of the dead did not live again until after the thousand years"

(2)this takes care of those who survive the trib up until Christ return and is clearly speaking of those who worshipped the beast. So there is your survivors of the tribulation and it is either only speaking of those who worshipped the beast being killed - or - believers are also on the buffet menu that day,
Rev 19:17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great.”19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

and Rev 20:7 again lets us know there are mortals living on the earth and all who join with the newly released Satan will be devoured by God, there is no bird buffet that time. Then as prophesied, all that are not in the Book of Life are judged at the GWT, after the thousand years

This does answer what you ask of me, accept or not, but I am done with this particualar question. I have aswered it three times.



I see this as the major weakness in the Premil position. Every passage is re-interreted in the light of the Premil position on Rev 20. It is as if it is the central passage to understand all Scripture. All apart from those that partake in the marriage unuion are destroyed in Rev 19 - thus negating the Premil interpretaion of Rev 20.

Paul

wpm
Apr 29th 2007, 10:21 PM
3H



According to Daniel 7 and Zechariah 14, there will be a time when Christ will rule over the nations of this world, and Matthew 25 talks of a time when Christ separates the nations, and admits some while destroying others. In other words, this is not the New Jerusalem, or the New heaven and earth that is promised to all believers. Hence the corruptible will not inherit the Kingdom of God, which is New Jerusalem. However, what they get, is the the Kingdom of heaven, ruling over them directly, and not via proxy, aka satan.

The term which I have always used in matters such as these is the term "rod of Iron". Anyone who is ruled over with a rod of iron is being ruled over harshly. Christ is not going to rule over the saints harshly, because they will not be able to sin, let alone die, once He returns because the saints will be living forever with Him. So, who does this statement intended for?

Psalm 2:12a
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.

This is from the same psalm that details the one who will rule over all of the world, where God calls Him Son, and He calls God Father, and He will rule over the nations with a rod of Iron. Who are those who are to perish when the Son of God comes to rule over the nations? Are t hey the saints? Or are they as Zechariah 14 proclaims them to be.

Zechariah 14:16
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

Strange, it talks about the survivors of those who fought against Jerusalem at the time when, "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one". (Zechariah 14:9). According to Zechariah, there will be survivors of those who fought against Jerusalem will still be around to be ruled by the Lord.

But that's not the only place where there is made mention the possibilities of survivors. In Daniel 7, the beast is stripped it it's power, the little horn is thrown into the consuming fire, and the rest of the beast is "they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." (Daniel 7:12b). This suggest that the time when the little horn is destroyed, his kingdom has it's authority taken from it and one reads to find out later on that the saints take over the kingdom of the Beast, with the Son of man leading them. (Daniel 7:13-27).

Now I know the rebuttle is coming, where some in here will say, "the birds are eating the flesh of every soul, from the slave to the kings of the earth", and will look to Revelation 19 to prove that. Well, here's my rebuttle. Look at the first place where it is mentioned in the Bible that God calls the fowl of the air to feast of the flesh of kings of the earth.

Ezekiel 39:11
And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the [noses] of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call [it] The valley of Hamongog.

Verse 17
And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, [even] a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood (v18) Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan (v 19) And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you.

According to Ezekiel, the Son of man calls forth the fowl of the air to feast of the flesh of everything that is found in a place that will be called Hamongog. This is the only place before Revelation that talks of the fowls feasting from the flesh of mankind. So, the birds are gathered to one location to feast on the flesh of the kings of the earth. Is this parrotted in Revelation, or are is the gathering in Revelation 19 the entire earth?

According to Revelation 16, the kings of the earth, and everyone that is equipped for battle is gathered by the beast, the false prophet, and Satan to a place called Armageddon. This place is now known as the valley of Megiddo, just east of Jerusalem. All of the kings of the earth, the free man and slave, and all who are able to fight, meet the beast in the valley of Megiddo. The Lord in Revelation 19 roars from heaven to meet and defeat the kings of the earth, which according to chapter 16, is in the valley of Megiddo. It is there where the kings are slain by the Armies of the Lord, and the fowl are gathered to feast on the flesh of mankind. Not all mankind, but the ones in the Valley of Megiddo, which will at that point be renamed Hamongog, the land where Gog dies.


Firstly, none of the passages you submit mentions a millennium.

Secondly, re Ezekiel, you have the Gog/Magog war at the beinning of the millennium whereas Rev 20 has it at the end. Again everything is moved around to fit the Premil theory. Nothing seemed concrete or certain.

Thirdly, as I have stated, Rev 19 shows the total destruction of the wicked as QD concedes.

Fourthly, Dan 7 and Zech 14 was fulfilled along time ago. I have repeatedly shown you this - but you carefully circumvent it.

Fifthly, you have yet to show any survivors in a Second Coming passage. Until you do I can only assume that you have no clear biblical support for your belief on Rev 20.

Paul

third hero
Apr 29th 2007, 10:45 PM
3H, I have a question

As you can see from my post we are not understanding Rev 19 quite the same. Though we do both agree in the millenail reign of Christ from Jerusalem and the restoration of the nation of Israel.
My question is, from the OT verses you quoted, you think it is indivuals who continue on of the nations, believer and unbeliever? or is it referring to the "nations", in other words, the gentile believers who survive the trib, in my opinion, would be the ones who would then be of those "nations" who once persecuted Jerusalem/Israel, there will still be China, Egypt,...whoever nationality, but they will be believers from those nations and the nation will still exsist.


I go back and forth with Ezekiels Gog/Magog and Rev's. I can see where they are the same but seems like they are different, but I guess thats another thread.

Ok.
The Millennium, according to the scriptures that I have studied, is a time where the Lord and the tribulation saints rule the world with a rod of Iron. (Rev 2:26-27, 19:15). Therefore, since I believe that every believer is taken at the point of Christ's return, (Rev 16:15; 14:14-16; Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27), the only people left at that point are those in the mountain valley under the protection of Christ and the 144,000 (Revelation 14:1-5, Zechariah 14:3-5), and the rebels, the onles who have rebelled against God. (The Bible calls them those who attack against Jerusalem.)

So, at the time of the battle at Armageddon, there are only two peoples still on earth. The sinners and the protected ones in Israel. The saints are with Christ. Therefore, the kings of the earth and the fighting men and women on earth will assemble at Megiddo to thwart Christ from doing what He is going to do anyway, conquere the entire earth.

As to whom the Lord rules over, I would have to say that it is the sinners in whom Christ will rule over. It would seem that it would be rather unfair for God to have His Son rule over His own people with a rod of Iron. Not only that, when we see the Millennium in the context of God's promise to David, we see that the only peoples who God will rule over tyranically would be the sinners, because for starters, the Saints are with Him, in immortal, incorruptible bodies. So they, like Christ, would be incapable of sinning against God. therefore, to whom is the Lord going to have perish if they are immortal? The only ones in whom the Lord will have said that he will destroy has to be the wicked, which in Zechariah 14 are those who survive from the nations that attacked Israel. The phrase, "rod of Iron" is the key. Understanding what that phrase means is what determines what the Millennium holds to those who are the ones subject to His dominion.

It seems to me that the Ezekiel's and John's account is the same event, because the birds are assembled at one place, and that is the valley near Jerusalem. It just seems to me that the valley that is mentioned in Ezekiel is the same one as in Revelation 16. Which is where Christ descends to destroy the armies of the world that Satan assembled.

third hero
Apr 29th 2007, 10:54 PM
3H



Firstly, none of the passages you submit mentions a millennium.

Secondly, re Ezekiel, you have the Gog/Magog war at the beinning of the millennium whereas Rev 20 has it at the end. Again everything is moved around to fit the Premil theory. Nothing seemed concrete or certain.

I am sorry to tell you this, wpm, but the birds and the slaughter of men happen in Chapter 19, not chapter 20. According to chapter 20, God sends fire from the heavens and destroys all those who surround "the beloved city" and then casts Satan into the lake of Fire, to join his beast and false prophet. It is not the other way around as you suggest.


Thirdly, as I have stated, Rev 19 shows the total destruction of the wicked as QD concedes.

According to you, the birds are everywhere devouring all peoples everywhere, when Revelation 16:17 have the kings and all the fighting men and women assemble to the beast, Satan and the false prophet at the valley of Megiddo, which is called Armageddon. So, how can the fowl of the air assemble at one place, which is everywhere according to your assertion and kill everyone everywhere when the kings of t6he earth and all of the fighting people are at one valley? The point is that I do not concede Revelation 19 as the total destruction of the wicked, for as you would say, there is nothing saying that every human being is beaten by the fowl of the air.


Fourthly, Dan 7 and Zech 14 was fulfilled along time ago. I have repeatedly shown you this - but you carefully circumvent it.

Fifthly, you have yet to show any survivors in a Second Coming passage. Until you do I can only assume that you have no clear biblical support for your belief on Rev 20.

Paul

Again Paul, we are going around in circles. We have had this debate a long time ago, where I have disproven the idea that Daniel 7 and Zechariah 14 are fulfilled prophecies just by looking at the Mount of Olives, and also the evening news. Jesus's reign on earth will be much MUCH better than this garbage. and honestly, those who think that CHrist is instigating all of the nations to rebel against His Father ought to rethink their logic. Jesus does nothing to go against His Father. Not ever. So here we go with the Merry-go-round. Zechariah 14, Daniel 7, and Psalm 2, right along with 2 Samuel 7 are unfulfilled prophecies. They wil be fulfilled when the time comes, but they have not happened before this time period. No matter how many times you try to twist word definitions to suit your purposes, I still will not buy it.

wpm
Apr 29th 2007, 10:57 PM
the only people left at that point are those in the mountain valley under the protection of Christ and the 144,000 (Revelation 14:1-5, Zechariah 14:3-5), and the rebels, the onles who have rebelled against God. (The Bible calls them those who attack against Jerusalem.)



The 144,000 are here found (in total) in heaven before the Lord's return. Revelation 14:4-5 says, “These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.”

So the mortals that inhabit the millennium are all Christ-haters that have attacked Jerusalem??? You reward these evil minions for challenging 'the city of God'? This doesn't quite add up. Surely God destroys such evil people at His return?

Paul

wpm
Apr 29th 2007, 11:08 PM
3H


I am sorry to tell you this, wpm, but the birds and the slaughter of men happen in Chapter 19, not chapter 20. According to chapter 20, God sends fire from the heavens and destroys all those who surround "the beloved city" and then casts Satan into the lake of Fire, to join his beast and false prophet. It is not the other way around as you suggest.

Rev 19 (6th cycle) correlates with the end of the millennium/Satan's little season in Rev 20. Revelation 19:11-15 refers says, “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Andout of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall shepherd them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

Christ destroys the wicked by the word of His mouth. None survive. Even Premil QT admits that.


According to you, the birds are everywhere devouring all peoples everywhere, when Revelation 16:17 have the kings and all the fighting men and women assemble to the beast, Satan and the false prophet at the valley of Megiddo, which is called Armageddon. So, how can the fowl of the air assemble at one place, which is everywhere according to your assertion and kill everyone everywhere when the kings of t6he earth and all of the fighting people are at one valley? The point is that I do not concede Revelation 19 as the total destruction of the wicked, for as you would say, there is nothing saying that every human being is beaten by the fowl of the air.

You mightn't concede it but Scriptures states it. This passage powerfully and solemnly reveals the full extent of the devastation that is to be focused upon the wicked on the day of God’s wrath. In perfect keeping with the rest of Scripture, this narrative graphically shows us that the destruction that occurs will be immediate, absolute and total and that, at this stage – after “the marriage of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7) – everyone left behind will be completely consumed; the birds of heaven filling themselves with “the flesh of all men.” Significantly, the suffix “both free and bond, both small and great” is added in order to fully impress the enormity and all-inclusive nature of this feast.


Again Paul, we are going around in circles. We have had this debate a long time ago, where I have disproven the idea that Daniel 7 and Zechariah 14 are fulfilled prophecies just by looking at the Mount of Olives, and also the evening news. Jesus's reign on earth will be much MUCH better than this garbage. and honestly, those who think that CHrist is instigating all of the nations to rebel against His Father ought to rethink their logic. Jesus does nothing to go against His Father. Not ever. So here we go with the Merry-go-round. Zechariah 14, Daniel 7, and Psalm 2, right along with 2 Samuel 7 are unfulfilled prophecies. They wil be fulfilled when the time comes, but they have not happened before this time period. No matter how many times you try to twist word definitions to suit your purposes, I still will not buy it.

Psalm 2 is already fulfilled also. You need to let Scripture interpret Scripture. Paul directly exegetes Psalm 2 in Acts 13. He confirms its fulfilment and shows that the phrase “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” related expressly to the resurrection of Christ. Paul said, “as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee [quoting from Psalm 2]. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise [His glorious rise to the throne], I will give you the sure mercies of David [quoting Isaiah 55:3]” (vv 32-34).

Paul

third hero
Apr 30th 2007, 12:31 AM
The 144,000 are here found (in total) in heaven before the Lord's return. Revelation 14:4-5 says, “These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.”

So the mortals that inhabit the millennium are all Christ-haters that have attacked Jerusalem??? You reward these evil minions for challenging 'the city of God'? This doesn't quite add up. Surely God destroys such evil people at His return?

Paul

Correction, the 144,000 were not in heaven in chapter 14, they are with Jesus, and where would Jesus be at that point?

Revelation 14:!
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

The 144,000 follow the Lamb wherever He goes. Therefore, they are not in heaven, they are at Mount Sion, in Jerusalem, with Christ, at chapter 14.

third hero
Apr 30th 2007, 12:47 AM
3H



Rev 19 (6th cycle) correlates with the end of the millennium/Satan's little season in Rev 20. Revelation 19:11-15 refers says, “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Andout of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall shepherd them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

Christ destroys the wicked by the word of His mouth. None survive. Even Premil QT admits that.

I do not see, "destroy the nations". I see, smite and shepherd. That does not equate total destruction. It does equate to violence against the nations, and then a shepherding of those nations, which again, proves my point.

A side note, I do not know of this "6 cycle". No where in the Bible is that phrase, let alone concept, made known. How about it, Paul, concepts that only are mentioned in the Bible? If I am to accept "6th cycle" in your debates, then you must accept "the Davidic Kingdom", in my rebuttles. Fair is fair, and not foul as the Macbeth witches proclaimed.


You mightn't concede it but Scriptures states it. This passage powerfully and solemnly reveals the full extent of the devastation that is to be focused upon the wicked on the day of God’s wrath. In perfect keeping with the rest of Scripture, this narrative graphically shows us that the destruction that occurs will be immediate, absolute and total and that, at this stage – after “the marriage of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7) – everyone left behind will be completely consumed; the birds of heaven filling themselves with “the flesh of all men.” Significantly, the suffix “both free and bond, both small and great” is added in order to fully impress the enormity and all-inclusive nature of this feast.

Again, where are they? If we are to ignore Revelation 16, then I would accept that, but I can't ignore scripture. And Revelation 16 has the bewast, the false prophet, and Satan sending demons like frogs with miraculous signs and wonders to bring the kings of the earth to a place that is called Armageddon. Therefore, the birds do gorge themselves of the flesh of all men, the catch is, they are only gathered to eat all of the flesh of all of the men in Armageddon. I can not ignore Revelation 16.


Psalm 2 is already fulfilled also. You need to let Scripture interpret Scripture. Paul directly exegetes Psalm 2 in Acts 13. He confirms its fulfilment and shows that the phrase “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” related expressly to the resurrection of Christ. Paul said, “as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee [quoting from Psalm 2]. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise [His glorious rise to the throne], I will give you the sure mercies of David [quoting Isaiah 55:3]” (vv 32-34).

Paul

So Jesus is...

1. King over Jerusalem.
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion (Psalm 2:6)

2. Ruling over all of the nations of the earth.
Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession. (Psalm 2:8)

3. Breaking the nations with a Rod of Iron
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. (psalm 2:9)

4. Having all of the kings of the earth serving Him
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. (psalm 2:11)

5. Destroying people if he is angered but a little. (psalm 2:12)

Well, if Christ is in Jerusalem, then take me to Him. If He is ruling the nations with a rod of Iron, then that rod is very pliable, since the nations are actively seeking to rebel totally against God. If all of the kings of the world are serving Him, then tell that to Iran, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, China, USA, Canada, the EU, the AU, Australia, and every other nation that is promoting some form of abomination, including but not limited to abortion, homosexuality, and my personal favorite, butchering believers in Him. Yup, now that's what I call ruling, when the people around the world who are believing in Him are being executed due to the fact that the kings of the world are serving the Lord in which they are being executed for serving. Yeah, that, like the last sentence, does not make much sense.

So, unless Jesus is in Jerusalem right now, the prophecy in Psalm 2 is now unfulfilled. Sorry, but the rules are, if one is not where it is prophecied that he is to be, then that prophecy has not been fulfilled.

quiet dove
Apr 30th 2007, 01:13 AM
wpm
I see this as the major weakness in the Premil position. Every passage is re-interreted in the light of the Premil position on Rev 20. It is as if it is the central passage to understand all Scripture. All apart from those that partake in the marriage unuion are destroyed in Rev 19 - thus negating the Premil interpretaion of Rev 20.




That statment is purely opinion. You state this as if somebody before us had it 100% no questions asked – right, and somehow we changed it to suit our premil needs.
The ones in fine linen, white and clean who come with Christ of Rev 19, angels or souls,or resurrected saints. They cant be resurrected saints if your understanding is correct, but the white and clean clearly describes the redeemed, resurrected redeemed following their resurrected Savior. It takes more re-interpretation skills to make this fit amil while a simple reading gives premil understanding, simply reading a simply given truth. There is clearly mortals still on earth when this happens.



Your sole foundation is supposedly one challenging phrase that you feel doesn't fit where it is explicitly said to belong.


My sole foundation? I didnt say anything didnt fit, I said it was the understanding in what creating new means in this verse as opposed to what it means in Revelation

Isaiah 65:20 No more shall an infant from there live but a few days
So there will be infants in eternity
“for the child shall die one hundred years old”
this clearly says when a person dies at one hundred, so not only will there be infants in your eternity, but some will die at one hundred and still be considered a child dieing.
“But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed”
All that worry about whether or not there would be sinners in my supposed millenial, when you have sinners in your eternity.
v21 They shall build houses, plant vineyards
In John it says “In my Fathers house are many mansions”. I would ask if maybe that would be one of our first task in eternity, but Christ says, they are already there.
For the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people
And we are going to live as long as trees?? I guess that is long enough not to bring up children for trouble (v23)

It takes a lot more re-interpretation skill to make verses 18-23 describe eternity than it does to understand the word “create” in verse 17 as something new and wonderful but not eternity as spoken of in Rev 21.

quiet dove
Apr 30th 2007, 02:25 AM
Third Hero,

I didn’t requote everything but I see why we are understanding it differently, it depends on the timing of the rapture. The thing that throws me even with thinking only sinners will be on earth is that in Rev 19they are on the menu for the birds, then Satan bound and the millenium.
I would tend to agree that Christ would not have need of ruling His own with a rod of iron, but at the same time if there is to be a new environment created for mankind, it seems these Christ rejecters, beast worshipping ones would not be here so start things off. It seems to me the ones ruled with a rod of iron will be the decendents of those believers that start off and repopulate the nations. They will still have to make the choice of obedience or disobedience. For me the saints who rule with Christ will be the ones raptured pre trib and the ones martyrd in the trib. That is the only understanding to me that fits with there still being believeing mortals to be the nations during the millenial, including the 144, of the tribes of Israel, they will also be there as mortals in the millenium, I agree with you there. However I am not sure the 144, of 14 are the same as the 144 of 7 but we can save that for latter. I am still waiting on that along with my Ezekiel questions.

That the resurrected saints ruling with Christ will not be rebelling against him I also agree with, don’t find that possible, so the rebelling ones of Rev 20:7 cant be resurrected saints.

I do see Revelation for the most part being chronological, but at the same time it must be determined if the scene is in heaven or earth, I think you would agree with that. But also I think some of those verses describe what will happen, then it goes back to the things that happen while to getting to the point described happening. I see some of Rev 14 and 16 in that light because even thought they describe the return of Christ in judgment, there is still wrath being poured out. 11:14 says that third woe is coming and we don’t see anymore judgments until chapter 16 and then “it is done” in v 17. That seems to complete the pouring out of the wrath and chapter 14 and 16 relate to chapter 19 with the descriptions of reaping. In chapter 16 I am not sure about “thief in the night”, the element of surprise seems to be lost at that point. But those verses in 14 and 16 seem to show the end and then it goes back to show how it gets to that described end. Hope that came out right.

Anyway,thanks for explaining it, I didn’t know how you arrived at it due to my lack of understanding of post trib.

John146
Apr 30th 2007, 03:29 AM
Matt 27:52 & 53. a resurrection of dead, faithful to God people of the OT, and it is very clear this did not happen until after the resurrection of Jesus.

Rev 20”4 “then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded…who had not worshipped the beast, his image or taken his mark…And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” clearly trib saints and “the rest did not live again until after the thousand years” That is two separate resurrection times right there, and it clearly says the ones to life and the ones to death have a thousand years inbetween them.

1 Thess 4:16 & 17 says those who are dead in Christ and those alive, doesn’t say anything about unbelievers at all. Only those in Christ.

! Cor 15 does not say anything about unbelievers either, it says “and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” This doesn’t say anything about the unbeliever, death certainly isnt swallowed up in victory for them and they are not raised to incorruptible








You didn't answer my questions. Why don't these mortal surviving believers you talked about receive their new immortal, incorruptible bodies at the second coming of Christ? If they don't receive their new bodies at that time then when do they receive their new glorified bodies and where is the Scripture that speaks about it?

Also, just because 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1 Cor 15 don't mention unbelievers is not evidence that unbelievers are not resurrected at the same time. We have other passages that tell us that everyone, saved and lost, is resurrected at the same time.

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. - John 5:28-29

The hour is coming when all the dead will be resurrected. It doesn't say the hours are coming. They are raised at the same hour or time and not over a thousand years apart. That is the one singular general physical resurrection of all the dead that is mentioned repeatedly in Scripture. It is the second resurrection. The first resurrection has to do with taking part in Christ's resurrection, which occurs when we are born again and raised to new spiritual life which continues in heaven even after we physically die. John 5:29 is not saying there is a resurrection of life followed over a thousand years later by a resurrection of damnation. We can see what it really means by looking at the following passages:

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. - Acts 24:15

There will be a singular resurrection of all the dead that includes both the just and the unjust. We can see that this is a singular resurrection of the dead rather than separate resurrection by what he says a few verses later:

Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. - Acts 24:21

Clearly, Paul knew of only one future general physical resurrection of all the dead.

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. - Daniel 12:2

Again, we see one resurrection with some being resurrected to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt. One resurrection of the just and unjust. The wheat (saved) and the tares (lost) both are around until the harvest when Jesus Christ returns.

27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. - Matthew 13:30

Clearly, the saved and the lost both remain in the world until the harvest. The parable of the wheat and tares is clear evidence against a pretrib Rapture and also against the premil theory.

John146
Apr 30th 2007, 04:17 AM
My answer, just as I have wrote in previous threads, is directly tied to what a person calls the Millennium. To Bing and myself, we view the Millennium not as the Kingdom of Heaven coming to all saints, to rule over them froever and ever. He views the Millennium as a transition between the new Heaven and Earth, and this current evil world.

I view the Millennium only slightly different, with the Millennium as the wrap up of God's purpose for this world. Why I say this? I say this because I believe that Jesus's last purpose for coming to this earth, which the Disciples asked him about, the restoration of the Kingdom of David, (Acts 1:8) has not come to pass yet. It seemed that Christ was referring to such a time when He restores the throne of David, with Him at the head, in Matthew 25:31-46. It is parrotted in Revelation 19:15, and also in Daniel 7. According to Daniel 7 and Zechariah 14, there will be a time when Christ will rule over the nations of this world, and Matthew 25 talks of a time when Christ separates the nations, and admits some while destroying others. In other words, this is not the New Jerusalem, or the New heaven and earth that is promised to all believers. Hence the corruptible will not inherit the Kingdom of God, which is New Jerusalem. However, what they get, is the the Kingdom of heaven, ruling over them directly, and not via proxy, aka satan.

What would determine whether a nation is allowed into the kingdom or cast into everlasting fire? That kind of terminology does not apply to nations, but rather individuals. You are misinterpreting the passage. He was not saying that entire nations fed the hungry, gave something to drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, visited the sick and those in prison. What nations would qualify for that? All nations have individuals within them that fall under the sheep or goat designations. There are no nations that have all sheep or all goats. What would be the criteria for an entire nation to be considered a sheep nation or a goat nation? One does not receive eternal life (Matt 25:46) or everlasting punishment in everlasting fire (Matt 25:41) based on their nationality.

So, what it is saying is that the sheep found within all the nations are separated from the goats that are found within all the nations. It is not reasonable to think that it is the nations themselves being separated. Clearly this is the time when the believers inherit the eternal new earth kingdom and the unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire. You can't ignore the references to "everlasting fire" in verse 41 and the references to "everlasting punishment" and "life eternal" in verse 46. What else could everlasting fire be referring to except for the lake of fire? Compare Matthew 25:41 to Revelation 20:15. They speak of the same thing. There is only one day of Judgment spoken about in Scripture, not two. All are judged at Christ's second coming (Matthew 25:31, 2 Timothy 4:1). There will be no mortal survivors of His judgment. People will either inherit the eternal new earth kingdom after already receiving their immortal, incorruptible bodies or they will be cast into the lake of fire.

John146
Apr 30th 2007, 04:49 AM
Correction, the 144,000 were not in heaven in chapter 14, they are with Jesus, and where would Jesus be at that point?

Revelation 14:!
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

The 144,000 follow the Lamb wherever He goes. Therefore, they are not in heaven, they are at Mount Sion, in Jerusalem, with Christ, at chapter 14.

Mount Zion is referenced only one other time in the New Testament and its location is said to be in heaven. Hebrews 12:18 says that we do not "come unto the mount that might be touched". Instead, it is pointed out in Hebrews 12:22 that we "come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.". Clearly, Mount Zion is portrayed as being in heaven in this verse because it is contrasted with the "mount that might be touched".

Also, you asked where Jesus would be at the point of Revelation 14:1. In heaven, of course. His second coming hasn't occurred yet at that point. Why would you have Him being on the earth? The harvest that occurs at His second coming doesn't happen until later in Revelation 14:14-20. Another thing that you are missing in Revelation 14 is the fact that the 144,000 are said to have been redeemed from the earth. If they are redeemed from the earth, then they are no longer on the earth. Also, they are said to be the firstfruits. You have them as being the lastfruits. Yet another thing you missing is that they are said to be before the throne of God (Rev 14:5). The throne of God is in heaven.

wpm
Apr 30th 2007, 11:21 AM
3H



I do not see, "destroy the nations". I see, smite and shepherd. That does not equate total destruction. It does equate to violence against the nations, and then a shepherding of those nations, which again, proves my point.


John says, “heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns …out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords” (Revelation 19:11-16).

You need to read what is being described. This is totally destructive. Nothing is left behind.

Revelation 2:26-27 correlates, “he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power (authority or jurisdiction) over the nations: And he shall poimanei (or) rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.”

The rod of iron comes from the Greek word rhabdos meaning a sceptre, a staff or a rod. It can also describe a stick, a wand, a cudgel, a cane or a baton. It is often used to describe the royalty sceptre which is sign of power and sovereignty. When Jesus finally appears as King of kings and Lord of lords to exercise righteous judgment upon the nations the rebellious nations will finally be under the rule and sceptre (rod of iron) of Jesus. Satan will be stripped of his kingdoms and men will be brought to account for their lives. Christ will then smite the rebellious, striking them down with the rod of His power. Hebrews 1:8 records, “unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”

The detail of the narrative here in Revelation 2 shows Christ totally destroying the wicked totally. The manner of which will be “as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers.”Whilst those that reject Christ will be put down at His Coming there is no teaching throughout the Word that this would last 1,000 years.

John is directly referring here to Psalms 2:9, which declares, “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." The wording of this passage is clear and climactic. There is no protracted survival of the wicked suggested, but rather the decisive destruction of these rebels forever; they are broken in pieces as God hands out His final righteous judgement. When a pot is broken with an iron rod it is destroyed, not subjugated. It's state changes completely and it does not continue in its prior state. When therefore the wicked are broken and dashed to pieces, it will not simply be an exercise in rulership, subjugation, or discipline, but rather their total obliteration; thus, the meaning of the analogy of the rod and the pottery. The vivid picture painted is of the potter destroying an unwanted useless vessel.


A side note, I do not know of this "6 cycle". No where in the Bible is that phrase, let alone concept, made known. How about it, Paul, concepts that only are mentioned in the Bible? If I am to accept "6th cycle" in your debates, then you must accept "the Davidic Kingdom", in my rebuttles. Fair is fair, and not foul as the Macbeth witches proclaimed.

I didn't say it was a biblical term as you suggest the 'Davidic Kingdom' is. I am simply using a gramatical description to outline the fact that there are parallels in Revelation - this is a common occurrence in Scripture. This is completely different from your suggestion that the millennial kingdom is the 'Davidic Kingdom'. This is unknown to the sacred pages. I feel you are comparing apples with oranges. I am not insisting upon the idea that the cycles are event or age or that it is a biblical term - you are with this supposed Davidic idea.


Again, where are they? If we are to ignore Revelation 16, then I would accept that, but I can't ignore scripture. And Revelation 16 has the bewast, the false prophet, and Satan sending demons like frogs with miraculous signs and wonders to bring the kings of the earth to a place that is called Armageddon. Therefore, the birds do gorge themselves of the flesh of all men, the catch is, they are only gathered to eat all of the flesh of all of the men in Armageddon. I can not ignore Revelation 16.

I believe Revelation 16:17-21 describes the end of the 5th recapitulation. Again its conclusion is climactic. It declares, “And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; andthere came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, ‘It is done’(or ‘Gegonen’).And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. . And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.”

The End!!!



So Jesus is...

1. King over Jerusalem.
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion (Psalm 2:6)


He is. Hebrews 12:22 says, “ye are come (plural perfect active indicative) unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.”

He reigns now.



2. Ruling over all of the nations of the earth.
Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession. (Psalm 2:8)


He is since the cross. We Gentiles are the evidence.



3. Breaking the nations with a Rod of Iron
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. (psalm 2:9)


He is Sovereign now. He speaks the Word and nations fall. However, when He returns He will finally eliminate all rebellion.



4. Having all of the kings of the earth serving Him
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. (psalm 2:11)

5. Destroying people if he is angered but a little. (psalm 2:12)


The heathen have been embracing Christ for near 2,000 yrs.



Well, if Christ is in Jerusalem, then take me to Him. If He is ruling the nations with a rod of Iron, then that rod is very pliable, since the nations are actively seeking to rebel totally against God. If all of the kings of the world are serving Him, then tell that to Iran, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, China, USA, Canada, the EU, the AU, Australia, and every other nation that is promoting some form of abomination, including but not limited to abortion, homosexuality, and my personal favorite, butchering believers in Him. Yup, now that's what I call ruling, when the people around the world who are believing in Him are being executed due to the fact that the kings of the world are serving the Lord in which they are being executed for serving. Yeah, that, like the last sentence, does not make much sense.

So, unless Jesus is in Jerusalem right now, the prophecy in Psalm 2 is now unfulfilled. Sorry, but the rules are, if one is not where it is prophecied that he is to be, then that prophecy has not been fulfilled.


Scripture adequately interprets itself.

Paul

wpm
Apr 30th 2007, 11:25 AM
Correction, the 144,000 were not in heaven in chapter 14, they are with Jesus, and where would Jesus be at that point?

Revelation 14:!
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

The 144,000 follow the Lamb wherever He goes. Therefore, they are not in heaven, they are at Mount Sion, in Jerusalem, with Christ, at chapter 14.

This can't be earth or Christ-rejecting temporal Jerusalem (as you suggest) - which the NT describes as Sodom and Egypt. It is the heavenly Mount Sion. Revelation 14:1-3 says, “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.”

They are in heaven - being "redeemed from the earth.”

Please note:

The first thing we note here is that it is speaking of the heavenly mount Sion.
The second thing we note is that the 144,000 are "before the throne."
The third thing we note is that the 144,000 are the “redeemed FROM the earth.”
The fourth thing we note is that this scene occurs well before the Second Advent not after.

Paul

wpm
Apr 30th 2007, 11:35 AM
That statment is purely opinion. You state this as if somebody before us had it 100% no questions asked – right, and somehow we changed it to suit our premil needs.
The ones in fine linen, white and clean who come with Christ of Rev 19, angels or souls,or resurrected saints. They cant be resurrected saints if your understanding is correct, but the white and clean clearly describes the redeemed, resurrected redeemed following their resurrected Savior. It takes more re-interpretation skills to make this fit amil while a simple reading gives premil understanding, simply reading a simply given truth. There is clearly mortals still on earth when this happens.

My sole foundation? I didnt say anything didnt fit, I said it was the understanding in what creating new means in this verse as opposed to what it means in Revelation

Isaiah 65:20 No more shall an infant from there live but a few days
So there will be infants in eternity
“for the child shall die one hundred years old”
this clearly says when a person dies at one hundred, so not only will there be infants in your eternity, but some will die at one hundred and still be considered a child dieing.
“But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed”
All that worry about whether or not there would be sinners in my supposed millenial, when you have sinners in your eternity.
v21 They shall build houses, plant vineyards
In John it says “In my Fathers house are many mansions”. I would ask if maybe that would be one of our first task in eternity, but Christ says, they are already there.
For the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people
And we are going to live as long as trees?? I guess that is long enough not to bring up children for trouble (v23)

It takes a lot more re-interpretation skill to make verses 18-23 describe eternity than it does to understand the word “create” in verse 17 as something new and wonderful but not eternity as spoken of in Rev 21.

I will repeat some thoughts I have previously presented. The age cannot be questioned as it is identified by the Holy Ghost. It is expressly "the new heavens and a new earth" which comes after the millenium not before. You are trying to amend that or alternatively create 2 new heavens and earths - which are unknown to Scripture. This cannot be.

Scripture makes clear that the new heavens and a new earth are free of all the fruit of the bondage of corruption. Despite what some would suggest, this passage does not contradict repeated Scripture that states there is no vestige of the fall in the new heavens and a new earth. It says, “the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” This verse has divided theologians over the years because of its unusual wording. Premillennialists normally advance Isaiah 65 and 66 to support their millennial viewpoint; however, neither chapter makes the slightest reference to an earthly millennium kingdom after the Second Coming. Rather, both commence by speaking of this presence age and terminate by speaking of the new heaven and the new earth. Neither chapter knows anything of a future millennium. Whilst it is difficult to dissect every minute detail in passages like this, we know that the information in view is definitely describing the period of the “new heavens and a new earth.”

So what is the meaning of this phrase? Isaiah 65:20 seems to be a metaphor which is presented in such a way as to indicate that there will be no ageing or death during the eternal state. It cannot in any way indicate that righteous children will die in eternity – a fact that few would deny. Such an absurd notion would obviously disregard plain truth, and contradict repeated Scripture to the contrary. Scripture tells us, death is totally and finally destroyed at the Second Coming for the believer. As we have said, it must therefore be viewed as a metaphor rather than a literal happening. This assumption is reinforced by the introductory language of same passage in question, which says, “there shall be no more thence an infant of days.” This seems to be worded in such a way as to in some way explain the great mystery of eternity. It appears to be contrasting what we on earth would deem long-life to what in eternity would be considered mere infancy.


As we have already stated, we can be assured Scripture never in any place contradicts itself. Therefore, it is either our understanding that is limited or the original that is imperfect. We know it can’t be the latter. Even though there is a difficulty in reconciling both statements, commonsense alone tells us there must either be infants after Christ’s coming or else no infants. There are plainly no in-betweens. Such an absurd notion is impossible. The language of Isaiah 65:20 seems to be used in order to impress the idea that there will be no more growing old and no dying during this time. Anyway, if a natural child was to live to be a hundred years old then it would no longer be a child. So, it seems to be a hyperbole statement used to underscore the spiritual truth that there will be no more death or sorrow.

Further grounds for believing this phrase in Isaiah 65:20 is a hyperbole statement is found in the preceding verse of the chapter – Isaiah 65:19 – which says, “the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.” This confirms that there will never again be sadness or weeping in the kingdom that follows Christ’s Coming. Commenting on this passage Robert B. Strimple, says, “were it literally true that a man who died at a hundred would be considered a mere youth (65:20), then tears would be shed at his passing.” This raises another difficulty for the Premillennialist; there can be no more tears during the whole duration of their supposed future millennial kingdom. Not another tear from a mother in childbirth, nor another cry from a child receiving correction, no more weeping from the penitent sinner under conviction, no more mourning during bereavement. Evidently, either weeping and tears terminate on the new earth or they don’t. If there is no sorrow and crying, how then could there be death? Are people just going to be totally immune to the pain and gravity of death? Premillennialists interpret this passage in such a way that would suggest that there will be weeping on the new earth, thus contradicting Isaiah 65:19. But this cannot be so. We all know that there is no contradiction here. Such a proposal is absurd.

Paul

wpm
Apr 30th 2007, 11:57 AM
3H



the only people left at that point are those in the mountain valley under the protection of Christ and the 144,000 (Revelation 14:1-5, Zechariah 14:3-5), and the rebels, the onles who have rebelled against God. (The Bible calls them those who attack against Jerusalem.)


Please clarify. So the millennial mortals consist of 144,000 Jews + the rebels that sought to destroy Jersusalem at the end?

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
Apr 30th 2007, 12:02 PM
WPM QUOTES AND SAYS:



John says, “heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns …out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords” (Revelation 19:11-16).

You need to read what is being described. This is totally destructive. Nothing is left behind.



I see this as a time of Christ bringing the Gospel of Christ to the nations of the world. The sword has always been the word of God and the white horse is depicted as the people carrying the Gospel. The Gospel certainly does rule with authority and might. If we are to believe (although it does not fit anyway) that this is the 2nd coming of Christ then the angels were wrong when they said that Jesus who asscended into heaven would return in the same manner. I don't recall reading that Jesus left on a white horse with a sword protruding from His mouth.

wpm
Apr 30th 2007, 12:44 PM
WPM QUOTES AND SAYS:



I see this as a time of Christ bringing the Gospel of Christ to the nations of the world. The sword has always been the word of God and the white horse is depicted as the people carrying the Gospel. The Gospel certainly does rule with authority and might. If we are to believe (although it does not fit anyway) that this is the 2nd coming of Christ then the angels were wrong when they said that Jesus who asscended into heaven would return in the same manner. I don't recall reading that Jesus left on a white horse with a sword protruding from His mouth.

This whole passage is (like the whole book) figurative. These are mere symbols describing the triumpant of Christ's return. It would be folly to take a literalist approach to this.

Paul

third hero
Apr 30th 2007, 03:49 PM
This can't be earth or Christ-rejecting temporal Jerusalem (as you suggest) - which the NT describes as Sodom and Egypt. It is the heavenly Mount Sion. Revelation 14:1-3 says, “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.”

They are in heaven - being "redeemed from the earth.”

Please note:

The first thing we note here is that it is speaking of the heavenly mount Sion.
The second thing we note is that the 144,000 are "before the throne."
The third thing we note is that the 144,000 are the “redeemed FROM the earth.”
The fourth thing we note is that this scene occurs well before the Second Advent not after.

Paul

Where did you get all of this from? I see Mount Sion, that is a place on earth. They are redeemed, so that means that they have received the promise that we all await, incorruptible bodies. They are with the Lamb, and they follow Him wherever He goes. Lastly, we are in agreement on one issue, that this happens before His second advent.

third hero
Apr 30th 2007, 04:13 PM
wpm,
you know, it puzzles me how you can take one passage which had one context, and add that context to another scripture to make that context the same as the former. Hebrews have nothing to do with Revelation, and since not only was there two separate authors, but two separate eras, the two can not be interchangable. I do not look to some abstract phrase in one paragragh highlighting what we have done be accepting the grace of God to define a prophetic passage in another book. I say, let the books speak for themselves. Mount Sion, in Revelation is not the same Mount Sion in Hebrews.

Now I could use this arguement against you as well. It says "heavenly", which means like heaven. It does not mean that Mount Sion is heaven. It just means that it is like heaven, and this description has been used inth e OT alot. Many Jews considered Jerusalem to be the city of God. It is called the city of the Great King, the City of God, and God's Holy Mountain. This is the same Jerusalem that still sits on Mount Zion today. Again, if we use your logic, wpm, then we would have to say that the Hebrew's usage of the term, Heavenly Jerusalem, in order to maintain consistancy, would have to mean the same Jerusalem that housed the temple of God. This is using all of the scriptures to interpret scripture. Otherwise, we would have to say that every time Jerusalem is mentioned, that it has to refer to New Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in all of the Bible before Revelation 21. Using your logic, Jesus died in Heaven, people went to heaven to worship God, and the temple in which thne Romans desecrated was also located in heaven. I am sorry, but I cannot accept this line of resoning.

Here's one example of what I am talking about.

Psalm 48:1-2
[[A Song [and] Psalm for the sons of Korah.]] Great [is] the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, [in] the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, [is] mount Zion, [on] the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

IN this case, Jerusalem is not only the city of God, but the city of the great King. This is some of the descriptions of Jerusalem even in the OT. Remember, according to your logic, we must use scripture to interpret scripture. So now that we have another scripture that talks about Jerusalem in the same light as Hebrews does, then we have go to interpretation in order to gain our own doctrines, which I am so very much against. This is why I tend to take scripture at face value. If Mount Sion in Revelation is New Jerusalem, then I am sure, the author would have said so. Instead, John writes that the 144,000 are at Mount Sion with Christ.

Also, consider this. Instead of looking up the term rod, look up the phrase, Rod of Iron. You will find that this phrase typically means to rule harshly, tyrannically. This is not total destruction, but rather a smiting, just as the Bible says. The nations are broken, and if nations are without leaders, then they are broken. Liike I have said before, the Lord returns to kill the kings of the earth, who will be assembled at Armageddon, and then He goes to enact Matthew 25:31-46. In order for Christ to rule harshly, there must be survivors of those who attacked Israel to be ruled over. otherwise, there is no one on earth to rule over. And hence, God's promise to David goes unfulfilled. God's Words are yea and amen, so therefore this can not happen. God, just from His nature, has to fulfill His promise, which is stated not only in Psalm 2, but also in 2 Samuel 7.

third hero
Apr 30th 2007, 04:14 PM
This whole passage is (like the whole book) figurative. These are mere symbols describing the triumpant of Christ's return. It would be folly to take a literalist approach to this.

Paul

it is even more folly to interpret a book of prophecy as totally figurative, which is what I find many preterists and amils do.

John146
Apr 30th 2007, 04:41 PM
WPM QUOTES AND SAYS:



I see this as a time of Christ bringing the Gospel of Christ to the nations of the world. The sword has always been the word of God and the white horse is depicted as the people carrying the Gospel. The Gospel certainly does rule with authority and might. If we are to believe (although it does not fit anyway) that this is the 2nd coming of Christ then the angels were wrong when they said that Jesus who asscended into heaven would return in the same manner. I don't recall reading that Jesus left on a white horse with a sword protruding from His mouth.

How does your view explain the depiction of Christ treading the winepress of the wrath of God (Rev 19:15) and the destruction of all people who reject Christ (Rev 19:18)? Their rejection of the gospel, the Word of God (the sword of the Spirit - Eph 6:17) that comes from Christ's mouth (His Spirit inspired the Word of God) is what brings God's wrath upon them. They are judged by their rejection of the Word of God (Eph 6:17) that came forth from God. Those who reject the Word of God are rejecting Christ because He is the Word of God (John 1:1-17, Revelation 19:13). He returns in the same manner He left in that He returns in the clouds of heaven just as He left in a cloud of heaven. Clearly, when Christ returns, He will bring wrath and judgment and that is what Revelation 19:15-21 is speaking about. It is speaking about the same thing spoken about in passages such as 1 Thess 4:13-5:4, 2 Thess 1:6-10, and 2 Peter 3:4-13.

John146
Apr 30th 2007, 04:54 PM
Where did you get all of this from? I see Mount Sion, that is a place on earth.

It is also a place in heaven as is made very clear in Hebrews 12:22. In Hebrews 12:22, Mount Sion is contrasted with the mount that can be touched (Hebrews 12:18).



They are redeemed, so that means that they have received the promise that we all await, incorruptible bodies. They are with the Lamb, and they follow Him wherever He goes. Lastly, we are in agreement on one issue, that this happens before His second advent.

No one receives their incorruptible bodies until Christ's second coming. 1 Corinthians 15 is all about the time when we receive our incorruptible bodies. Surely, if anyone receives their incorruptible body before His second coming, then it would be mentioned there. The only one who is said to have received a glorified body before His second coming is Christ Himself. At His coming, we will receive glorified, incorruptible bodies as well (1 Cor 15:23).

Also, you have Christ returning to the earth before His second advent? That is simply unbiblical.

wpm
Apr 30th 2007, 06:39 PM
wpm,
you know, it puzzles me how you can take one passage which had one context, and add that context to another scripture to make that context the same as the former. Hebrews have nothing to do with Revelation, and since not only was there two separate authors, but two separate eras, the two can not be interchangable. I do not look to some abstract phrase in one paragragh highlighting what we have done be accepting the grace of God to define a prophetic passage in another book. I say, let the books speak for themselves. Mount Sion, in Revelation is not the same Mount Sion in Hebrews.

Now I could use this arguement against you as well. It says "heavenly", which means like heaven. It does not mean that Mount Sion is heaven. It just means that it is like heaven, and this description has been used inth e OT alot. Many Jews considered Jerusalem to be the city of God. It is called the city of the Great King, the City of God, and God's Holy Mountain. This is the same Jerusalem that still sits on Mount Zion today. Again, if we use your logic, wpm, then we would have to say that the Hebrew's usage of the term, Heavenly Jerusalem, in order to maintain consistancy, would have to mean the same Jerusalem that housed the temple of God. This is using all of the scriptures to interpret scripture. Otherwise, we would have to say that every time Jerusalem is mentioned, that it has to refer to New Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in all of the Bible before Revelation 21. Using your logic, Jesus died in Heaven, people went to heaven to worship God, and the temple in which thne Romans desecrated was also located in heaven. I am sorry, but I cannot accept this line of resoning.

Here's one example of what I am talking about.

Psalm 48:1-2
[[A Song [and] Psalm for the sons of Korah.]] Great the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, [is] mount Zion, [on] the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

IN this case, Jerusalem is not only the city of God, but the city of the great King. This is some of the descriptions of Jerusalem even in the OT. Remember, according to your logic, we must use scripture to interpret scripture. So now that we have another scripture that talks about Jerusalem in the same light as Hebrews does, then we have go to interpretation in order to gain our own doctrines, which I am so very much against. This is why I tend to take scripture at face value. If Mount Sion in Revelation is New Jerusalem, then I am sure, the author would have said so. Instead, John writes that the 144,000 are at Mount Sion with Christ.

Also, consider this. Instead of looking up the term rod, look up the phrase, Rod of Iron. You will find that this phrase typically means to rule harshly, tyrannically. This is not total destruction, but rather a smiting, just as the Bible says. The nations are broken, and if nations are without leaders, then they are broken. Liike I have said before, the Lord returns to kill the kings of the earth, who will be assembled at Armageddon, and then He goes to enact Matthew 25:31-46. In order for Christ to rule harshly, there must be survivors of those who attacked Israel to be ruled over. otherwise, there is no one on earth to rule over. And hence, God's promise to David goes unfulfilled. God's Words are yea and amen, so therefore this can not happen. God, just from His nature, has to fulfill His promise, which is stated not only in Psalm 2, but also in 2 Samuel 7.

Our hermeunetics are diamentrically oppossed. I believe one can only interpret Scripture with Scripture. You try to divorce similar NT passages and keep trying to take us back to the old economy which is abolished. You are trying to place the old covenant Zion at the centre of the new covenant arrangement. I believe this to be in error. The NT points us to the New Jerusalem as our focal-point. Old Jerusalem has been long superceded. The substance has replaced the shadow, the type the anti-type, the earthly with the literal, the imperfect with the perfect. You are looking to the wrong Jerusalem.

Galatians 4:25-26 confirms the fact that there are two distinct Jerusalems in the New Testament era, which are the total antithesis of the other, [I]“Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

The free is the focus of the redeemed today.

Our understanding of Hebrews 12 is corroborated by Ephesians 2:5-6, which says, speaking of God, [I]“Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” We belong to Christ and are therefore spiritually seated with Him today. Ephesians 1:3 also supports, saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”

We have left the old, imperfect, temporal arrangement forever and have entered into the fulfilment and reality of the New. The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant. The New economy isn’t simply an upgrade of the Old, but a comprehensive replacement of it.

Finally you have ignored my point that shows that the 144,000 are redeemed "from the earth." This reinforces the Amil position.

Paul

quiet dove
Apr 30th 2007, 09:44 PM
john146
You didn't answer my questions. Why don't these mortal surviving believers you talked about receive their new immortal, incorruptible bodies at the second coming of Christ? If they don't receive their new bodies at that time then when do they receive their new glorified bodies and where is the Scripture that speaks about it?

Also, just because 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1 Cor 15 don't mention unbelievers is not evidence that unbelievers are not resurrected at the same time. We have other passages that tell us that everyone, saved and lost, is resurrected at the same time.

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. - John 5:28-29

The hour is coming when all the dead will be resurrected. It doesn't say the hours are coming. They are raised at the same hour or time and not over a thousand years apart. That is the one singular general physical resurrection of all the dead that is mentioned repeatedly in Scripture. It is the second resurrection. The first resurrection has to do with taking part in Christ's resurrection, which occurs when we are born again and raised to new spiritual life which continues in heaven even after we physically die. John 5:29 is not saying there is a resurrection of life followed over a thousand years later by a resurrection of damnation. We can see what it really means by looking at the following passages:



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. - Acts 24:15

There will be a singular resurrection of all the dead that includes both the just and the unjust. We can see that this is a singular resurrection of the dead rather than separate resurrection by what he says a few verses later:

Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. - Acts 24:21

Clearly, Paul knew of only one future general physical resurrection of all the dead.


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. - Daniel 12:2

Again, we see one resurrection with some being resurrected to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt. One resurrection of the just and unjust. The wheat (saved) and the tares (lost) both are around until the harvest when Jesus Christ returns.

27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. - Matthew 13:30

Clearly, the saved and the lost both remain in the world until the harvest. The parable of the wheat and tares is clear evidence against a pretrib Rapture and also against the premil theory.


These verses let us know that there will be a resurrection of the dead, some to eternal life some to condemnation, just like Rev 20:7. So irreguardless of any prior resurrection, there will be this final time and that would be when all those who have not yet received their glorified bodies do. The verses I listed are clearly speaking of the resurrection of the saved and with out mention of the unsaved. Rev 20 alone lets us know that there is more than one resurrection. The attempt at trumping the scripture I gave is without explanation of the discrepancies found in the understanding of there being one and only one time of resurrection.

Either we must:
(1)be awaiting that final resurrection of saved and unsaved and the GWT judgment and are in the millenium with the beheaded ones having been resurrected, as Rev 20 says clearly of the unjust “they did not live again until” – or -
(2)there is more than one time men will be resurrected, and we are still awaiting
-the trib,
-the resurrection of those beheaded,
-the thousand years
- and then another resurrection which will include the unsaved.

Rev 20:7 says those not found in the Book of Life, making a strong suggestion that there will also be those resurrected who will be found in the Book of Life. That is your resurrection of both. The hour that they hear His voice. Revelation, Matthew, and Thessalonians all cause discrepancy for only having one resurrection for all who ever lived but the only explanation you have is that you say it doesn’t matter that the unjust are not mentioned. But they are mentioned in Rev 20, very clearly and the discrepancy caused by that one passage you cannot reconcile with the explanation you have given thus far.

quiet dove
Apr 30th 2007, 09:45 PM
I
wpm
will repeat some thoughts I have previously presented.

The word create in Isaiah can be applied either way, to created from scratch or created as in renewing, David uses in the context of renewing in Psalms 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

I agree that in the New Heaven and Earth that John sees in Rev all the old is passed away and there is new, That does not contradict what I am saying about Isaiah. That there would be an infant at all is only the first discrepancy of eternity. When we consider that at one time men lived to be nearly a thousand years old, one hundred would still be a child even though fully grown, just like now a twenty five year old is grown but still a child to the one who is fifty or sixty.

It is much less complicated to understand the new created environment of the millenial in which Christ is ruling over earth from Jerusalem in the context of restored Israel. No more tears in this new environment, verses the history of tears of persecution and exile the Jews have suffered, not to mention the suffering they endure in Jerusalem presently. It is your application of the no more tears of Rev 21 to these verses that is complicated and out of context of the restore nation of Israel. Adding to this the other scripture that cleary teach God will not forget the nation of Israel and Israel as a nation will be restored. But you reject that understanding of the many verses I have quoted elsewhere, from Christ ruling from the throne of David to the 144 thousand being those who are the citizens of the restored nation of Israel.

Simply reading Isaiah at face value is sufficient, no metabolphorisms are required.

David Taylor
Apr 30th 2007, 10:16 PM
Either we must:
(1)be awaiting that final resurrection of saved and unsaved and the GWT judgment and are in the millenium with the beheaded ones having been resurrected, as Rev 20 says clearly of the unjust “they did not live again until” – or -
(2)there is more than one time men will be resurrected, and we are still awaiting
-the trib,
-the resurrection of those beheaded,
-the thousand years
- and then another resurrection which will include the unsaved.



I agree with (1). The beheaded ones have not been resurrected yet....they are awaiting the final GWT resurrection, that will occur at the 2nd Advent. The thief on the cross, as well as Paul, Peter, Silas, and all the redeemed who have died are awaiting with them.

Daniel, Isaiah, Job, Luke, John, Acts, I Thessalonians, I Corninthians, Romans all only teach of one resurrection of the redeemed. Not many separate ones.

wpm
Apr 30th 2007, 11:21 PM
QD


The word create in Isaiah can be applied either way, to created from scratch or created as in renewing, David uses in the context of renewing in Psalms 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

If we are to dilute the meaning of the creation of the "new heavens and a new earth" in Isaiah 65:17-21 then the same could be done with Rev 21.


I agree that in the New Heaven and Earth that John sees in Rev all the old is passed away and there is new, That does not contradict what I am saying about Isaiah.

I feel it does. Isaiah and John say the same thing - only John says it in clearer terms. They both talk about the creation of the new and the removal of the former. In your scenario there is the remainder of the old for a prolonged period (1,000 yrs). However, it is not just that 1saiah 65:17-21 is describing creation of the "new heavens and a new earth" it is the fact the old is completely removed - "the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." In the Premil paradigm the former is remembered. Isaiah words carry no real meaning.


That there would be an infant at all is only the first discrepancy of eternity. When we consider that at one time men lived to be nearly a thousand years old, one hundred would still be a child even though fully grown, just like now a twenty five year old is grown but still a child to the one who is fifty or sixty.

A hundred year man was never classed as an infant - never - he was classed as a hundred year man. An infant is an infant, a child a child a man a man and an old man an old man. Your reasoning here does not make sense.


It is much less complicated to understand the new created environment of the millenial in which Christ is ruling over earth from Jerusalem in the context of restored Israel.

In Pretrib thinking, not from where I am looking. Your doctrine requires this.


No more tears in this new environment, verses the history of tears of persecution and exile the Jews have suffered, not to mention the suffering they endure in Jerusalem presently. It is your application of the no more tears of Rev 21 to these verses that is complicated and out of context of the restore nation of Israel.

Isaiah and John agree on this.


Adding to this the other scripture that cleary teach God will not forget the nation of Israel and Israel as a nation will be restored.

I can't agree. The fig tree has been cursed for ever. The kingdom has been taken off Israel and given to a spiritual nation - the NT Church. In the NT Israel is classed as Sodom and Egypt. She is under bondage - she is not free. Her people overwhelmingly reject Christ and therefore God. There is a remnant of Christians amongst them - the rest are lost. Nowhere in the NT is salvation by race but grace. The Christ-rejecting Jews today are not the chosen people - they are of their father the devil, the elect of all nations are. 2 John 7 declares, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ (or Jesus the Messiah) is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”

Judaism without Christ is a counterfeit religion. Any belief that denies Christ His rightful place as man's sole Redeemer is destined for destruction.



But you reject that understanding of the many verses I have quoted elsewhere, from Christ ruling from the throne of David to the 144 thousand being those who are the citizens of the restored nation of Israel.

Simply reading Isaiah at face value is sufficient, no metabolphorisms are required.


Christ assumed David's throne from the resurrection (Acts 2:25-36, Acts 13:22-23). Christ now carries the authority of David (Revelation 3:7) and that He is now Judah's king (Revelation 5:5-6), again you circumvent these clear NT passages.


The 144,000 are the firstfruits of God, not the last-fruits as Pretrib suggests

Paul

quiet dove
May 1st 2007, 04:44 AM
I agree with (1). The beheaded ones have not been resurrected yet....they are awaiting the final GWT resurrection, that will occur at the 2nd Advent. The thief on the cross, as well as Paul, Peter, Silas, and all the redeemed who have died are awaiting with them.



When are the ones who John sees already sitting on thrones in Rev 20 resurrected. That verse says nothing about anyone being resurrected except the ones beheaded, no other people are said to be resurrected, the only other ones mentioned are the ones already on thrones and they are distiguished from the beheaded ones. It seems to me to make more sense to me if the ones already on the thrones are the same resurrected ones who came with Christ in Rev 19.

quiet dove
May 1st 2007, 04:56 AM
Judaism without Christ is a counterfeit religion. Any belief that denies Christ His rightful place as man's sole Redeemer is destined for destruction


Revelation is very clear about the ones sealed from the tribes of Israel and that they are protected. As I have said, these are the ones who will be the restored nation of Israel. Those 144 thousand are redeemed through Christ not Judaism. There is no confusion in premil with Christ being the "sole" Redeemer.


The 144,000 are the firstfruits of God, not the last-fruits as Pretrib suggests


There are other possibilities for the 144 thousand of chapter 14 other than being the same as the 144, in chapter 7. For that matter, the 144, from the tribes of Israel could be the first fruits of the restore nation of Israel. For them to be first fruits, does that mean when we are all resurrected they are at the front of the line? If we are all resurrected at once, wouldnt we all be first fruits and number many more than 144 thousand?

third hero
May 1st 2007, 05:11 AM
Our hermeunetics are diamentrically oppossed. I believe one can only interpret Scripture with Scripture. You try to divorce similar NT passages and keep trying to take us back to the old economy which is abolished. You are trying to place the old covenant Zion at the centre of the new covenant arrangement. I believe this to be in error.

I agree. we come from diametrically opposing positions. You intend to erase the Old Testament, saying that it is nevertheless void now because of the Blood of Christ. I contend that the sacrifices and the dietary laws and the old interpretations of the Law are definitely done away with, but the crux of the law is still in effect. The purpose of the Law is to reveal sin. It still does that today, and hence the scriptures from the Law are still very important to every believer today. I can not divorce the precursor of the Nt with the Nt, because without the one, one does not have the other.

Where did you think the disciples, and especially Paul, taught scripture from? The New Testament was written by them, but before there was a set of scriptures called the New Testament, there were the Hebrew scriptures, and these scriptures are what the original disciples taught from and highlighted. Notice how heavily influenced the disciples were to the Old Testament, as there are many references to it in the book of Acts alone. Did you think that Paul taught to abolish the Words that God gave to Moses when he was talking about the Law versus the laws of Grace? Absolutely not! He taught that the Laws of Moses have their purpose, and that purpose was, and still is, to reveal sin. The Laws of Moses excells at this, and in essence, it is still perfect, perfect in showing the world what is sin, and what is not. Jesus took the Laws and added to them, as referenced in Matthew 5-7. He furthered the perfection of the laws by showing what the roots of sin is, therefore completing the Law in it's entirety. Remember the words of Christ in Matthew 5.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If all are fulfilled, then we can discard the OT altogether, because Christ would be ruling over all of the earth from Jerusalem, and the battle at Armagedon would have already happened. However, it has not, and therefore we must not ignore the OT. Besides, how else would we know that murdering someone is wrong and God hates divorce? Yes, Jesus said it, but he was not the first one to say it.

Am I saying abandon the laws of grace and follow after the laws of Moses? No. That's foolishness. Why let go of salvation for the bondage of sin? No, I am not saying ignore what Christ said. What I am saying is that we get a much clearer understanding of what Christ taught by looking back to the written scriptures of the OT. In this light, foreign concepts, like heaven being called Jerusalem, does not enter the framework of interpretation. Without the wisdom of the OT, then the NT is completely up to interpretation, and we can all follow you wpm. However, we have the OT as well as the New for a reason, and that reason is to understand that the NT without the OT is incomplete, as is the OT without the NT. This is why the Bible contains both testaments, so that the truth can be thoroughly exposed, not just by some rudamentary interpretation, but by the interpretations of the Holy Men of the past, those who have experienced God in ways that most of us would only dream of.

wpm
May 1st 2007, 10:34 AM
3H


I agree. we come from diametrically opposing positions. You intend to erase the Old Testament, saying that it is nevertheless void now because of the Blood of Christ.

That is a false accusation. No one on this forum quotes more from the OT. What I believe is that the NT is the fuller revelation - it removes a lot of the haze that was hampered those from before the cross of seeing a clear picture. The OT and NT fit beautifully together to reveal the two Comings of Christ - the first as Saviour the last as judge.


I contend that the sacrifices and the dietary laws and the old interpretations of the Law are definitely done away with, but the crux of the law is still in effect. The purpose of the Law is to reveal sin. It still does that today, and hence the scriptures from the Law are still very important to every believer today. I can not divorce the precursor of the Nt with the Nt, because without the one, one does not have the other.

I too agree with that. When have I said different? The law never saved anyone - it was signpost to Christ.



Where did you think the disciples, and especially Paul, taught scripture from? The New Testament was written by them, but before there was a set of scriptures called the New Testament, there were the Hebrew scriptures, and these scriptures are what the original disciples taught from and highlighted. Notice how heavily influenced the disciples were to the Old Testament, as there are many references to it in the book of Acts alone. Did you think that Paul taught to abolish the Words that God gave to Moses when he was talking about the Law versus the laws of Grace? Absolutely not! He taught that the Laws of Moses have their purpose, and that purpose was, and still is, to reveal sin. The Laws of Moses excells at this, and in essence, it is still perfect, perfect in showing the world what is sin, and what is not. Jesus took the Laws and added to them, as referenced in Matthew 5-7. He furthered the perfection of the laws by showing what the roots of sin is, therefore completing the Law in it's entirety. Remember the words of Christ in Matthew 5.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If all are fulfilled, then we can discard the OT altogether, because Christ would be ruling over all of the earth from Jerusalem, and the battle at Armagedon would have already happened. However, it has not, and therefore we must not ignore the OT. Besides, how else would we know that murdering someone is wrong and God hates divorce? Yes, Jesus said it, but he was not the first one to say it.

Am I saying abandon the laws of grace and follow after the laws of Moses? No. That's foolishness. Why let go of salvation for the bondage of sin? No, I am not saying ignore what Christ said. What I am saying is that we get a much clearer understanding of what Christ taught by looking back to the written scriptures of the OT. In this light, foreign concepts, like heaven being called Jerusalem, does not enter the framework of interpretation. Without the wisdom of the OT, then the NT is completely up to interpretation, and we can all follow you wpm. However, we have the OT as well as the New for a reason, and that reason is to understand that the NT without the OT is incomplete, as is the OT without the NT. This is why the Bible contains both testaments, so that the truth can be thoroughly exposed, not just by some rudamentary interpretation, but by the interpretations of the Holy Men of the past, those who have experienced God in ways that most of us would only dream of.


You are trying to prove something that I have never disputed. It would do well if you read my posts more careful. Maybe after diverting you would now address my previous points. :)

Paul

David Taylor
May 1st 2007, 01:40 PM
When are the ones who John sees already sitting on thrones in Rev 20 resurrected. That verse says nothing about anyone being resurrected except the ones beheaded, no other people are said to be resurrected, the only other ones mentioned are the ones already on thrones and they are distiguished from the beheaded ones. It seems to me to make more sense to me if the ones already on the thrones are the same resurrected ones who came with Christ in Rev 19.

They are dead...(now), and reigning on thrones with Him in Heaven....awaiting the resurrection of the Body (that occurs at the 2nd Advent).

"Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord".

'They lived and reigned with him' because they partook of the 'First Resurrection' which is a term John used to analogize being born-again of the Spirit during their lives.

Jesus told Martha that if she liveth and believeth in Him, She would never die.

When anyone during their lives, becomes born again, they liveth and begin to reign with Him. This continues after their deaths, when they are taken to Heaven to be with Christ, as they await the 2nd Advent and the resurrection of the body.

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

The 2nd Death is spiritual death; spiritual separation forevermore from the Lord.

The 1st Resurrection likewise, is spiritual life; spiritual unity forevermore with the Lord.

Neither of those terms speak of the resurrection of the Body. Revelation only speaks of the resurrection of the body, here:

Rev 20:11-13 "Then I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose presence the earth and the heaven fled away, so that they disappeared. and I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the throne; 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. the sea gave up the dead which were in it; death and the grave delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every one according to their works."

Romulus
May 1st 2007, 03:02 PM
They are dead...(now), and reigning on thrones with Him in Heaven....awaiting the resurrection of the Body (that occurs at the 2nd Advent).

"Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord".

'They lived and reigned with him' because they partook of the 'First Resurrection' which is a term John used to analogize being born-again of the Spirit during their lives.

Jesus told Martha that if she liveth and believeth in Him, She would never die.

When anyone during their lives, becomes born again, they liveth and begin to reign with Him. This continues after their deaths, when they are taken to Heaven to be with Christ, as they await the 2nd Advent and the resurrection of the body.

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

The 2nd Death is spiritual death; spiritual separation forevermore from the Lord.

The 1st Resurrection likewise, is spiritual life; spiritual unity forevermore with the Lord.

Neither of those terms speak of the resurrection of the Body. Revelation only speaks of the resurrection of the body, here:

Rev 20:11-13 "Then I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose presence the earth and the heaven fled away, so that they disappeared. and I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the throne; 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. the sea gave up the dead which were in it; death and the grave delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every one according to their works."

Hi David,

What always perplexed me was the idea that when we die we are in heaven, with our Lord yet awaiting the resurrection of our body. Without getting into the Full Preterism argument, I wanted to know what does most of the Church believe would be different as far as 1) heaven after we die, and 2) heaven with our resurrected body after the second coming?

I by no means wish to address my belief, but rather what is the belief of most of Christianity concerning this issue which I am honestly not quite clear on. If it is more appropriate to address this privately, I am by all means willing to do so rather then the open forum.

third hero
May 1st 2007, 10:17 PM
You are trying to prove something that I have never disputed. It would do well if you read my posts more careful. Maybe after diverting you would now address my previous points. :)

Paul

My friend, I have been addressing your points. You contend that all versions of descriptions that talk of Jerusalem in the Nt is to be as it is in Hebrews. I offered a counter, saying that all scripture, both from OT and NT are relevant in discipkhering definitions of terms. I had just proven using OT scripture that the "Heavenly Jerusalem" that you use to attempt to make Revelation 14:1 sound as if the 144,000 are in heaven is actually the same Jerusalem that Jesus steps His foot on and causes the Mount to be split in half.

Now that we are on the same page, let the debate continue.

quiet dove
May 2nd 2007, 06:45 PM
David T
They are dead...(now), and reigning on thrones with Him in Heaven....awaiting the resurrection of the Body (that occurs at the 2nd Advent).

"Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord".

But this passage makes no reference to reigning or not reigning, it is no less a wonderful passage that contains a promise that is comfort and hope, I love this verse. I believe a 100% absent from the body present with the Lord, I’d be terrified otherwise even. I love this verse.


'They lived and reigned with him' because they partook of the 'First Resurrection' which is a term John used to analogize being born-again of the Spirit during their lives.
It doesn’t say “because they had part in the first resurrection” it says “this is the first resurrection” it defines first resurrection, In the context of the verses it is all relating to the ones who did not worship the beast, it then says who doesn’t have part in this “first resurrection”, the ones who did worship the beast and also makes reference to the second death, the first death being the physical death as the souls of those who worship the beast never had life in Christ, nor at the moment of physical death did their souls cease to exsist. In that context I cant find reason to think John was referring to being spiritually reborn with his use of the word resurrection.

As we both understand--Jesus says that all who believe in Him shall never die, we were spiritually dead, then we accept Christ and are spiritually alive, this happens in our physical body, prior to our physical body dieing. We basically start off spritually dead and then are made spiritually alive through Christ all while still in our physical body. Therefore Jesus says, all who believe in Him shall never die, they shall never face the second death, judgment.

Since John says in Rev “they lived again”, I had to ask myself, what lived again? The soul was given life while still in the physical body and never died, how, after salvation and already in heaven, could it be said to live again because it was already living (in Christ in the physical body of the believer and never had died in the first place) How can John be saying the soul lives again, when (for the purpose of our conversation) the soul started dead then was made alive in Christ and after that never died nor will die, only the physical body died, the live again must apply to the body which lives again in glorified resurrection. I just cant find any reason in scripture to reason that John was here speaking of a soul “living again” , not after salvation which was prior to their presence in heaven and heaven being where John is seeing them.

Since resurrection basically means to rise and born again means born again to spiritual life in Christ. I’m forgiven and no longer separated from God. (I am not trying to say this like you don’t have this understanding, just keeping my thoughts) Where is born again used synonmously with rise or resurrection? it is used to describe “live” than “rise”. I searched verse after verse and I could not find support for resurrection referring to being spiritually born again. It would be different if the context of Rev supported a reason to understand it differently, but it doesn’t.

It seems that our souls reigning in heaven after our physical death would also be dependent on Christ being on His promised throne of glory.
God tells Christ “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”, (Mark 12:36)since Christ went to the right hand of God when He ascended to heaven, His enemies being made His footstool had not yet happened as He is to stay at the right hand of God until they are.
What makes Christ enemies His footstool? Or puts them under His feet? Would it not be judgement at His Second Coming?
Matt 25:31 says “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. And this is still future,as He is still at the right hand of the Father and His awaiting His enemies to be —put under His feet. So if Christ is at the right hand of God awaiting this time when His enemies are under His feet, then He will “sit on His throne of glory”, how could we now or our souls in heaven, after our physical death, be upon a throne reigning with Him in the context of Rev 20? Would we not also be waiting with Him, for Him to take His throne of glory and then all resurrected believers to reign with Him>

When anyone during their lives, becomes born again, they liveth and begin to reign with Him. This continues after their deaths, when they are taken to Heaven to be with Christ, as they await the 2nd Advent and the resurrection of the body.

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"


Doesn’t this mean we now have access through Christ to God the Father? Is not this passage speaking of those who have not yet physically died and their souls gone to heaven.

Ephesians 1:3 seems to give explanation of our being seated with Christ
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. I understand Christ resurrected glorified body (that’s probably not putting very well as Christ is always glorified) but my soul is still in my physical body, covered by the blood of Christ and so God sees His righteouness covering me, and I have access to the Father covered by the blood of His Son. But my soul, though I have access is still in me and not sitting in heaven? I am blessed through Christ with all spiritual blessing but my soul is still in me, and I am not in heaven. How can my soul be in heaven if my physcial body isnt and how can being saved equate to the first resurrection. I have access to heaven through Christ and much blessing, but I am obviously not there in my physical body and my soul is still stuck in my physical body.


The 2nd Death is spiritual death; spiritual separation forevermore from the Lord.

Wouldn’t the first death be the physical? As spirituall speaking a mans souls starts off spirituall dead in that he is separated from God by the sin nature we all have within us. That would make the second death and being separated from God in judgment something the believer does not have to fear. The ones of Rev 20:11-13 are raised from the dead to face death a second time and in a worse way.

The 1st Resurrection likewise, is spiritual life; spiritual unity forevermore with the Lord.
Spiritual life isnt a rising, it is living, but not rising. Since we are together with the Lord forever, starting at the moment of salvation. But upon salvation we are not released from the confines of the physical or the confines that our sinnful nature can cause. We are certainly freed to choose to follow that sinful nature and freed to choose to live according to God’s will which would take us to walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Our soul has everlasting life through Christ, but it still groans withing the confines of the physical until death and after death our soul in heaven awaits, being with Christ, for Him to take His throne of glory.

And since I know this is getting long and you are tired of reading ……later

wpm
May 2nd 2007, 10:47 PM
Since resurrection basically means to rise and born again means born again to spiritual life in Christ. I’m forgiven and no longer separated from God. (I am not trying to say this like you don’t have this understanding, just keeping my thoughts) Where is born again used synonmously with rise or resurrection? it is used to describe “live” than “rise”. I searched verse after verse and I could not find support for resurrection referring to being spiritually born again. It would be different if the context of Rev supported a reason to understand it differently, but it doesn’t.

... Spiritual life isnt a rising, it is living, but not rising. Since we are together with the Lord forever, starting at the moment of salvation. But upon salvation we are not released from the confines of the physical or the confines that our sinnful nature can cause. We are certainly freed to choose to follow that sinful nature and freed to choose to live according to God’s will which would take us to walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Our soul has everlasting life through Christ, but it still groans withing the confines of the physical until death and after death our soul in heaven awaits, being with Christ, for Him to take His throne of glory.


And since I know this is getting long and you are tired of reading ……later

Romans 6:3-6 says,“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up (or) egeiro (Strong’s 1453) from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (or) anastasis (Strong’s 386): Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”

I don’t think anyone with the slightest spiritual insight would suggest that this passage is referring to a believer’s physical death and physical resurrection. Whilst there is no doubt it makes reference to Christ’s physical death, burial and resurrection, it is plain from the text that we are viewing figurative language relating to the believer, used to describe the supernatural spiritual change that occurs to a Christian upon salvation. That experience is carefully (and deliberately) portrayed as an identification with Christ. He demonstrates that he is speaking of an experience in this life that lifts a man from the reality of spiritual death into spiritual life. The means by which this is secured is spiritual resurrection.

Baptism clearly relates to our burial with Christ; resurrection relates to our rising into newness of life with Him. Paul uses these metaphors to depict the nature and significance of salvation. He likens salvation to a death, burial and resurrection. In spiritual baptism one enters into the death and burial of Christ; in spiritual resurrection one enters into the resurrection, life and victory of Christ. Baptism therefore refers to the first aspect of salvation which is death and burial with Christ; this burial being a spiritual experience in this life. The resurrection element of salvation immediately follows, being part of the one overall experience. It lifts a man out of his hopeless state into the resurrection life.

Whilst all men are dead in their sin prior to conversion, not all men realise it. Baptism relates to the realisation that one is dead. It is admitting our hopeless spiritual state before God. Notwithstanding, it is important to emphasis that salvation is more than a death and burial, it is also a resurrection into a new life – a regenerated life. Resurrection refers to a rising with Christ; this resurrection also being a spiritual experience in this life. Our spiritual resurrection is inextricably linked to Christ’s triumphant physical resurrection. At conversion, the Christian dies to the desires, control and governance of the “old man” or the old nature, and enters into the new man – Christ. He loses all rights to self-rule and yields to the impulses and authority of the Holy Spirit, who’s office it is to conform us to the image of Christ. Paul describes the method by which we are brought from this awful state of spiritual death into the glory of spiritual life, which is spiritual resurrection.

Paul

John146
May 2nd 2007, 11:34 PM
The word create in Isaiah can be applied either way, to created from scratch or created as in renewing, David uses in the context of renewing in Psalms 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

I agree that in the New Heaven and Earth that John sees in Rev all the old is passed away and there is new, That does not contradict what I am saying about Isaiah. That there would be an infant at all is only the first discrepancy of eternity. When we consider that at one time men lived to be nearly a thousand years old, one hundred would still be a child even though fully grown, just like now a twenty five year old is grown but still a child to the one who is fifty or sixty.

It is much less complicated to understand the new created environment of the millenial in which Christ is ruling over earth from Jerusalem in the context of restored Israel. No more tears in this new environment, verses the history of tears of persecution and exile the Jews have suffered, not to mention the suffering they endure in Jerusalem presently. It is your application of the no more tears of Rev 21 to these verses that is complicated and out of context of the restore nation of Israel. Adding to this the other scripture that cleary teach God will not forget the nation of Israel and Israel as a nation will be restored. But you reject that understanding of the many verses I have quoted elsewhere, from Christ ruling from the throne of David to the 144 thousand being those who are the citizens of the restored nation of Israel.

Simply reading Isaiah at face value is sufficient, no metabolphorisms are required.

Okay, let's read the following verse at face value.

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

How do you explain this verse if it's referring to the supposed future millenium? Do you think that the survivors of Christ's coming will not remember the old heavens and old earth? Don't you believe that they continue living their lives after Christ returns? What would make them forget about the past? Do you think Christ will wipe out their memory of the past when He returns? Are they going to forget the day they were married or the day they graduated from high school or college and other memories from before Christ returned?

quiet dove
May 3rd 2007, 04:41 AM
Okay, let's read the following verse at face value.

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


How do you explain this verse if it's referring to the supposed future millenium? Do you think that the survivors of Christ's coming will not remember the old heavens and old earth? Don't you believe that they continue living their lives after Christ returns? What would make them forget about the past? Do you think Christ will wipe out their memory of the past when He returns? Are they going to forget the day they were married or the day they graduated from high school or college and other memories from before Christ returned?


Are you not taking them at face value when you apply to eternity and tell me thats why they cant apply to the millenial? Your senerio here is a problem for the millenial but not eternity?

Look at it differently. Are we all in eternity without any memory of this life, forgetting all you mention above? Seems like there might be a little bit differnt logic needed for either that verses application to either one, the millenial or eternity?

Have you not suffered difficult times in life that later, after God brought you through them were "forgotten" when things were better and the suffering ended? Doesnt mean your mind is erased, just means your heart is healed.

John146
May 3rd 2007, 04:21 PM
Are you not taking them at face value when you apply to eternity and tell me thats why they cant apply to the millenial? Your senerio here is a problem for the millenial but not eternity?

Look at it differently. Are we all in eternity without any memory of this life, forgetting all you mention above? Seems like there might be a little bit differnt logic needed for either that verses application to either one, the millenial or eternity?

Have you not suffered difficult times in life that later, after God brought you through them were "forgotten" when things were better and the suffering ended? Doesnt mean your mind is erased, just means your heart is healed.

See, you're not reading the verse at face value despite saying earlier that "reading Isaiah at face value is sufficient, no metabolphorisms are required". Maybe your definition of face value is different than mine. Let's say that it means to read it completely literally with no figurative or symbolic meaning to it at all. That would mean that it says the former, as in the old heavens and old earth in contrast to the new heavens and new earth, shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Your last statement is not taking that at face value, but rather you are saying that it is a symbolic reference to not dwelling on and remembering past suffering. Yet we can remember our past. But the verse literally says the former shall not be remembered or come into mind. So, you are doing the very thing (interpreting symbolically or figuratively) that you criticize amils for doing.

I believe that particular verse (Isaiah 65:17) is being literal because when the new heavens and new earth appear, the old/first heaven and old/first earth first pass away (Revelation 21:1), which means they are not remembered nor come into mind. In the eternal new earth kingdom, we will not have memory of our lives on this earth as we know it. Not of specifics, at least. I'm not saying we won't recognize loved ones and things like that. I'm not trying to depress anyone here. :) What I'm saying is that it would be ludicrous if we could actually remember negative things that happened in this life, which for most of us are many. No, we will not remember this life. God will make everything new (Rev 21:5). There will be no more death, sorrow, crying or pain (Rev 21:4) or even the memory of those things in the new heavens and new earth.

quiet dove
May 3rd 2007, 09:29 PM
So, you are doing the very thing (interpreting symbolically or figuratively) that you criticize amils for doing.


I have not said in the Bible there is nothing symbolic or figurative, I just usually disagree with which parts are which, as far as amil goes. Plus, most everything symbolic describes something literal. It seems we could almost go through a lot of what makes up our end views and what I see as literal you see as figurative and vice vera, just kinda seems that way anyway:hmm:

And just becuase something is literal doesnt mean to throw out common sense.



we will not have memory of our lives on this earth as we know it.


Is "as we know it" still taking the verse at face value? When I tried to add some logic and common sense to it you accused me of no longer taking the passaga at face value??

John146
May 3rd 2007, 09:38 PM
I have not said in the Bible there is nothing symbolic or figurative, I just usually disagree with which parts are which, as far as amil goes. Plus, most everything symbolic describes something literal. It seems we could almost go through a lot of what makes up our end views and what I see as literal you see as figurative and vice vera, just kinda seems that way anyway:hmm:

And just becuase something is literal doesnt mean to throw out common sense.

That's the core issue and I'm glad you can acknowledge this, unlike some others on here. The issue isn't that amills spiritualize Scripture too much. Premils spiritualize plenty of Scripture as well. The issue is that the different views sometimes disagree on which passages are figurative and which are literal. We all believe it's speaking of something literal. It's just that sometimes it speaks of it in a symbolic way. It doesn't mean that the symbolism turns it into fiction. It just means it's symbolizing a literal truth.





Is "as we know it" still taking the verse at face value? When I tried to add some logic and common sense to it you accused me of no longer taking the passaga at face value??




What is your definition of "face value"? I gave you mine. Is it similar to that or something else? I think the literal or face value argument isn't valid and shouldn't be used because it's obvious that there are both literal and figurative portions of Scripture, especially in the prophetic books.

quiet dove
May 3rd 2007, 10:21 PM
john146
The issue is that the different views sometimes disagree on which passages are figurative and which are literal.


I am glad you agree because I was wondering if I wasnt truly crazy to be thinking and wondering that. I mean I know I'm kinda nuts and tettering on the edge, I might have fallen off and not know it. So if I fell off you went with me:lol:



What is your definition of "face value"? I gave you mine. Is it similar to that or something else? I think the literal or face value argument isn't valid and shouldn't be used because it's obvious that there are both literal and figurative portions of Scripture, especially in the prophetic books.


No, we have both fallen off the edge:bounce: . I think our definition of face value is literal with common sense?? Only you apply the same face value with common sense to eternity while I am taking the same verse, literal with common sense and applying to the millenial. SO...............maybe we should get some kind of group forum therapy:hug:

quiet dove
May 4th 2007, 05:12 AM
Romans 6:3-6 says,“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up (or) egeiro (Strong’s 1453) from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (or) anastasis (Strong’s 386): Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”

I don’t think anyone with the slightest spiritual insight would suggest that this passage is referring to a believer’s physical death and physical resurrection. Whilst there is no doubt it makes reference to Christ’s physical death, burial and resurrection, it is plain from the text that we are viewing figurative language relating to the believer, used to describe the supernatural spiritual change that occurs to a Christian upon salvation. That experience is carefully (and deliberately) portrayed as an identification with Christ. He demonstrates that he is speaking of an experience in this life that lifts a man from the reality of spiritual death into spiritual life. The means by which this is secured is spiritual resurrection.


I don’t think the issue is really whether Romans here is physical or “spiritual resurrection”, but the issue for our conversation is whether or not spiritual resurrection is “first resurrection”. So I am trying to move from one to the other and appologize for the length of the post.

To me it seems the main point of what is taught here is that we should be walking in the newness of life, we are new creatures, we should be walking that way. Since we are now in Christ, our “place”, spiritually speaking, is in Christ, in His death and in His resurrection, we should be striving to walk in the newness of being spiritualy alive as opposed to where we were out side of Christ, which was spirituall dead. So I will conceed that much with Romans in this verse on saying “spiritual resurrection”. Spritually speaking we have been raised from dead to alive in Christ. Whether or not that is the point in Romans I wont quibble about.

The spirit and the flesh are two different things
Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Easton’s dictionary/for our topic at hand, I think this sums it up.
“Flesh - In the New Testament, besides these it is also used to denote the sinful element of human nature as opposed to the "Spirit" (Rom. 6:19; Matt. 16:17). Being "in the flesh" means being unrenewed (Rom. 7:5; 8:8, 9), and to live "according to the flesh" is to live and act sinfully (Rom. 8:4, 5, 7, 12).”
The question now would be, is the soul and body for our purpose here “the flesh”, I believe it is. The soul and the body(the flesh) are at enmity with God(Rom 8:7)
Romans 8: 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; nor it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be 8 So those who are in the flesh cannot please God 9 But you are not in flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.

the soul and the body are not the same thing
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell

the soul and the spirit are not the same thing
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper that any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit,…..

the soul, body and spirit are three separate things.
1 Thess 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely; and may your whol spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus

I know this is making my post longer but I think it is important. I did try to condense it, got if off this website: http://www.gotquestions.org/ I thought they captured it pretty well (and I would have written a book trying to get it written.)
Difference between the spirit and the soul.
-The word "spirit," refers only to the immaterial facet of man. Mankind has a spirit, but we are not a
-spirit. The spirit is the element in man which gives him the ability to have an intimate relationship with God.
- soul refers not only to the immaterial part of man but the also material part.
- man is a soul. In its most basic sense the word "soul" means "life."
-man's eagerness to sin
-soul is removed at the time of physical death
- The soul refers to man's walk in the world, both material and immaterial.
-spirit refers to the man's walk with God.
What the soul and spirit have in common
-they are both at the center of many spiritual and emotional experiences
-soul is can refer to the whole person, alive or after death.
-they both refer to the immaterial part of man

I think we both agree that the “body” will not be resurrected until the rapture, Second Coming, whenever. If Romans is a spiritual resurrection, that would be our sprit, correct, so we will say that they when we are born again, and are “in” Christ, our spirit, in Him, as been raised from dead to alive, that would be “spiritual resurrection”. We are now spiritually alive (in Him) Our “place” in Christ, which now we have spiritual life is how we have access to the Father (Eph 1:3), our resurrected spirit in Chirst is how the Holy Spirit communicates with and teaches us.(Rom 8:16)
Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ
Galatians 5:16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh

This kinds sheds some light on just what happened when Adam ate the apple. The spiritual connection, for lack of knowing how to put it, between God and Adam was broken, leaving the mans spirit “dead” and at the mercy, so to speak, of the kingdom of darkness, his spirit went from alive in the light to dead in the darkness. Adam lost the authority he had over himself in terms of the abililty to be obedient (with his soul, body and spirit) to his Creator and to have the relationship he was created to have with his Creator.
When that happened, the spirit of the man no longer was capable or willing to be obedient and the “flesh” the body and soul(in this context, the flesh), took over and did what was against God’s will. Men were spiritually dead and in bondage to sin, helpless, until they accept Christ and are freed and in Him.
Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jeus Christ.

v So far we have the spirit, soul, and body are three different things,(1 Thess 5:23) I am not saying these terms cant be and are not used differently, but for this conversation, to understand the differences is important and I have supported that they are all separate and three things with scripture. (Matt 26:41)
v The spirit of man, in Christ, is spirituall resurrected at the time he believes on Christ, he is now in Christ and indwelt with the Holy Spirit and to live led by the Spirit, no longer led by the flesh. The man is sealed with the Holy Spirit and is not his own(1 Cor 6:19)
v The flesh includes both soul and body but soul and body are two separate things (Matt 10:28)
v soul and spirit are two different things, (Heb 4:12) the spirit being our connection to our Creator, and when in Christ, we are no longer separated from our Creator. Body and soul (the flesh) are however still separated(Rom 8:7) and we are expected to keep them both under control, being led by the Spirit and not the flesh (soul and body)(Gal 5:16)
v the soul and the spirit do have some things in common, desire, feeling, emotions and so on…

Back to Rev 20, does “first resurrection” equal “spiritual resurrection”.
If this “they lived” of the saved implies spiritual resurrection and is the first resurrection, how can the “dead did not live again” apply to “spiritual resurrection”? They either both apply to spiritual resurrection or they both apply to resurrection of the flesh(soul and body). And if they apply to spiritual resurrection which you say is the same thing as first resurrection; that is something that cannot apply to those spiritually dead.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years

Sorry for the length, I really did cut it down as much as I could. - QD

wpm
May 4th 2007, 02:56 PM
[COLOR=navy]I don’t think the issue is really whether Romans here is physical or “spiritual resurrection”, but the issue for our conversation is whether or not spiritual resurrection is “first resurrection”. So I am trying to move from one to the other and appologize for the length of the post.

To me it seems the main point of what is taught here is that we should be walking in the newness of life, we are new creatures, we should be walking that way. Since we are now in Christ, our “place”, spiritually speaking, is in Christ, in His death and in His resurrection, we should be striving to walk in the newness of being spiritualy alive as opposed to where we were out side of Christ, which was spirituall dead. So I will conceed that much with Romans in this verse on saying “spiritual resurrection”. Spritually speaking we have been raised from dead to alive in Christ. Whether or not that is the point in Romans I wont quibble about.

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]The spirit and the flesh are two different things
Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Easton’s dictionary/for our topic at hand, I think this sums it up.
“Flesh - In the New Testament, besides these it is also used to denote the sinful element of human nature as opposed to the "Spirit" (Rom. 6:19; Matt. 16:17). Being "in the flesh" means being unrenewed (Rom. 7:5; 8:8, 9), and to live "according to the flesh" is to live and act sinfully (Rom. 8:4, 5, 7, 12).”
The question now would be, is the soul and body for our purpose here “the flesh”, I believe it is. The soul and the body(the flesh) are at enmity with God(Rom 8:7)
Romans 8: 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; nor it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be 8 So those who are in the flesh cannot please God 9 But you are not in flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.

the soul and the body are not the same thing
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell

the soul and the spirit are not the same thing
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper that any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit,…..

the soul, body and spirit are three separate things.
1 Thess 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely; and may your whol spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus

I know this is making my post longer but I think it is important. I did try to condense it, got if off this website: http://www.gotquestions.org/ I thought they captured it pretty well (and I would have written a book trying to get it written.)
Difference between the spirit and the soul.
-The word "spirit," refers only to the immaterial facet of man. Mankind has a spirit, but we are not a
-spirit. The spirit is the element in man which gives him the ability to have an intimate relationship with God.
- soul refers not only to the immaterial part of man but the also material part.
- man is a soul. In its most basic sense the word "soul" means "life."
-man's eagerness to sin
-soul is removed at the time of physical death
- The soul refers to man's walk in the world, both material and immaterial.
-spirit refers to the man's walk with God.
What the soul and spirit have in common
-they are both at the center of many spiritual and emotional experiences
-soul is can refer to the whole person, alive or after death.
-they both refer to the immaterial part of man

I think we both agree that the “body” will not be resurrected until the rapture, Second Coming, whenever. If Romans is a spiritual resurrection, that would be our sprit, correct, so we will say that they when we are born again, and are “in” Christ, our spirit, in Him, as been raised from dead to alive, that would be “spiritual resurrection”. We are now spiritually alive (in Him) Our “place” in Christ, which now we have spiritual life is how we have access to the Father (Eph 1:3), our resurrected spirit in Chirst is how the Holy Spirit communicates with and teaches us.(Rom 8:16)
Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ
Galatians 5:16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh

This kinds sheds some light on just what happened when Adam ate the apple. The spiritual connection, for lack of knowing how to put it, between God and Adam was broken, leaving the mans spirit “dead” and at the mercy, so to speak, of the kingdom of darkness, his spirit went from alive in the light to dead in the darkness. Adam lost the authority he had over himself in terms of the abililty to be obedient (with his soul, body and spirit) to his Creator and to have the relationship he was created to have with his Creator.
When that happened, the spirit of the man no longer was capable or willing to be obedient and the “flesh” the body and soul(in this context, the flesh), took over and did what was against God’s will. Men were spiritually dead and in bondage to sin, helpless, until they accept Christ and are freed and in Him.
Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jeus Christ.

v So far we have the spirit, soul, and body are three different things,(1 Thess 5:23) I am not saying these terms cant be and are not used differently, but for this conversation, to understand the differences is important and I have supported that they are all separate and three things with scripture. (Matt 26:41)
v The spirit of man, in Christ, is spirituall resurrected at the time he believes on Christ, he is now in Christ and indwelt with the Holy Spirit and to live led by the Spirit, no longer led by the flesh. The man is sealed with the Holy Spirit and is not his own(1 Cor 6:19)
v The flesh includes both soul and body but soul and body are two separate things (Matt 10:28)
v soul and spirit are two different things, (Heb 4:12) the spirit being our connection to our Creator, and when in Christ, we are no longer separated from our Creator. Body and soul (the flesh) are however still separated(Rom 8:7) and we are expected to keep them both under control, being led by the Spirit and not the flesh (soul and body)(Gal 5:16)
v the soul and the spirit do have some things in common, desire, feeling, emotions and so on…

Back to Rev 20, does “first resurrection” equal “spiritual resurrection”.
If this “they lived” of the saved implies spiritual resurrection and is the first resurrection, how can the “dead did not live again” apply to “spiritual resurrection”? They either both apply to spiritual resurrection or they both apply to resurrection of the flesh(soul and body). And if they apply to spiritual resurrection which you say is the same thing as first resurrection; that is something that cannot apply to those spiritually dead.

Rev 20:4And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years

Sorry for the length, I really did cut it down as much as I could. - QD

The same word in the same tense is used to describe both the righteous and the wicked during the millennium. Both parties remain in their current state until the one final future climactic Coming of Christ. Then they will receive their eternal reward.

The word rendered “lived” in the King James Version is ézeesan, and like the associated word ebasíleusan which is interpreted “reigned” in the reading, it is active, meaning the subject continues to exist in the state indicated by the verb.

(1) The dead in Christ, “ezeesan (or) lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (Revelation 20:4-5).

(2) The rest of the dead (namely those not “in Christ” – the wicked) simply “ouk ezeesan (or) lived not while the thousand years were finished / completed” (Revelation 20:6).

This simply reiterates the oft repeated scriptural truth that those that are Christ’s are viewed as having life and as ruling in with Christ in this kingdom period whereas those that are outside of Christ are viewed as dead or not living.

Paul

quiet dove
May 4th 2007, 07:21 PM
This simply reiterates the oft repeated scriptural truth that those that are Christ’s are viewed as having life and as ruling in with Christ in this kingdom period whereas those that are outside of Christ are viewed as dead or not living.


If as you say those in Christ "lived" is about there spritual state in Christ, what does it mean when is says "they did not live again until" in reguards to the unsaved if this refers to spiritual life?

Those not saved are dead spiritually, how in your understanding can "they live again"?

What you say about the saved in your understanding of "lived" in this verse, contradicts what I know you believe about the unsaved when you apply this "lived" to the spiritual condition of both groups.

ravi4u2
May 4th 2007, 07:28 PM
If we will do just the math...many queries will be answered....

wpm
May 5th 2007, 12:17 AM
If as you say those in Christ "lived" is about there spritual state in Christ, what does it mean when is says "they did not live again until" in reguards to the unsaved if this refers to spiritual life?

Those not saved are dead spiritually, how in your understanding can "they live again"?

What you say about the saved in your understanding of "lived" in this verse, contradicts what I know you believe about the unsaved when you apply this "lived" to the spiritual condition of both groups.



I feel you are placing a meaning into this that is not intended by the writer or that can be supported by one other writer in Scripture. This does not suggest as soon as the thousand yrs are over the wicked will experience the life being spoken of, but that they do not expereince it at all. The word translated "until" also means "while." I feel it better corresponds with repeated Scripture which shows that the wicked are destroyed at His return.

Paul

quiet dove
May 5th 2007, 02:56 AM
wpm
I feel you are placing a meaning into this that is not intended by the writer or that can be supported by one other writer in Scripture. This does not suggest as soon as the thousand yrs are over the wicked will experience the life being spoken of, but that they do not expereince it at all. The word translated "until" also means "while." I feel it better corresponds with repeated Scripture which shows that the wicked are destroyed at His return


It very cleary says
"...And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until ..."

"live(d)" is either spiritual life for both or resurrection of the soul and body, for both. "But the rest of the dead did not live again while..." doesnt change that.

wpm
May 5th 2007, 09:54 AM
It very cleary says
"...And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until ..."

"live(d)" is either spiritual life for both or resurrection of the soul and body, for both. "But the rest of the dead did not live again while..." doesnt change that.

(1) I did not suggest the living in view related to spiritual resurrection.
(2) I do not believe company that have experienced life are restricted to living for only 1,000 yrs.

In case you have misunderstood anything I have said, their coming to life does not refer to salvation, but to their entry into the presence of God upon death. I believe this is a heavenly scene in the here-and-now. This is a picture of the disembodied elect intra-Advent. They have been caught up to God upon death. Whilst this is describing the dead in Christ that have experienced the first resurrection (salvation), it is not describing the first resurrection per se. I could be wrong, but I feel you are misunderstanding the Amil position on this.

Paul

quiet dove
May 5th 2007, 02:59 PM
I am trying to understand it but I guess I am not getting it.



their coming to life does not refer to salvation, but to their entry into the presence of God upon death. their coming to life does not refer to salvation, but to their entry into the presence of God upon death.


If is the case, how does it relate to those who worshipped the beast, not living again until or while ......?



Whilst this is describing the dead in Christ that have experienced the first resurrection (salvation), it is not describing the first resurrection per se.


So first resurrection and spiritual resurrection(being born again) are the same thing or not the same thing?


Paul describes the method by which we are brought from this awful state of spiritual death into the glory of spiritual life, which is spiritual resurrection.

David Taylor made this statement that I responded to, and you then responded to me "The 1st Resurrection likewise, is spiritual life; spiritual unity forevermore with the Lord. " What is John describing, I did understand you to be using what Paul said to support you understanding of what John said, (and to be backing up what David said :) ) Did I misunderstand you? That is certainly possible.

And I dont understand amil in what you are saying,
-is thefirst resurrection being born again
-and if they are not the same, what is first resurrection
-is "live(d)" in Rev, the spiritual resurrection, first resurrection or both if they are the same?
-or is "live(d) the resurrection of body and soul?

wpm
May 5th 2007, 08:42 PM
I am trying to understand it but I guess I am not getting it.



If is the case, how does it relate to those who worshipped the beast, not living again until or while ......?



So first resurrection and spiritual resurrection(being born again) are the same thing or not the same thing?



David Taylor made this statement that I responded to, and you then responded to me "The 1st Resurrection likewise, is spiritual life; spiritual unity forevermore with the Lord. " What is John describing, I did understand you to be using what Paul said to support you understanding of what John said, (and to be backing up what David said :) ) Did I misunderstand you? That is certainly possible.

And I dont understand amil in what you are saying,
-is thefirst resurrection being born again
-and if they are not the same, what is first resurrection
-is "live(d)" in Rev, the spiritual resurrection, first resurrection or both if they are the same?
-or is "live(d) the resurrection of body and soul?



Amils take the first resurrection to be Christ's resurrection; they take our "part" in it to be our identifying with Christ in spiritual resurrection.

They take 'those that are dead' to be the dead in Christ now in heaven. Whilst these have experienced spiritual resurrection, the living and reigning is not the first resurrection but the victory over the grave upon death.

You seem to think that Amils believe that the phrase "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” is describing salvation, but it isn't. It is describing those that have entered the presence of God upon death. Obviously these have all experienced the first resurrection on earth in salvation but that is not the living and reigning described.

Paul

quiet dove
May 5th 2007, 10:24 PM
wpm
You seem to think the phrase "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” is describing salvation, but it isn't. It is describing tghose that have entered the presence of God upon death. Obviously these have all experienced the first resurrection on earth in salvation but that is not the living and reigning described.

No, I have never said that so I will make myself clear. I believe “ lived and reigned with Christ” means:
-“lived” the resurrection of the body and soul, with the saved that means resurrection to life
incorruptable
-“reigned with Christ” what the save and resurrected to life- incorruptable, will be doing with Christ.

It is clear, the souls of the saved “live” and the souls of the unsaved later “lived”. You said that “the living and reigning is not the first resurrection but the victory over the grave upon death”.

You are dancing all around my question, but you are not answering it. How can “victory over the grave upon death” your understanding of “live” apply to the unsaved who are said to also live again, just at a later time?

wpm
May 5th 2007, 10:34 PM
wpm
You seem to think the phrase "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” is describing salvation, but it isn't. It is describing tghose that have entered the presence of God upon death. Obviously these have all experienced the first resurrection on earth in salvation but that is not the living and reigning described.

No, I have never said that so I will make myself clear. I believe “ lived and reigned with Christ” means:
-“lived” the resurrection of the body and soul, with the saved that means resurrection to life
incorruptable
-“reigned with Christ” what the save and resurrected to life- incorruptable, will be doing with Christ.

It is clear, the souls of the saved “live” and the souls of the unsaved later “lived”. You said that “the living and reigning is not the first resurrection but the victory over the grave upon death”.

You are dancing all around my question, but you are not answering it. How can “victory over the grave upon death” your understanding of “live” apply to the unsaved who are said to also live again, just at a later time?

It doesn't necessarily say the wicked will experience the life in view. It just says that the redeemed experience that life during the millennium, the wicked don't. I have said that the word until also interprets while - thus showing that they simply don't experience this life. Your argument can only be built upon 'by implication'.

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct future physical resurrections (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years?

Paul

quiet dove
May 5th 2007, 10:46 PM
It doesn't necessarily say the wicked will experience the life in view. It just says that the redeemed experience that life during the millennium, the wicked don't. I have said that the word until also interprets while - thus showing that they simply don't experience this life. Your argument can only be built upon 'by implication'.


I said this before "while" or "until" is not the question
It is clear, the souls of the saved “live” and the souls of the unsaved later “lived”. You said that “the living and reigning is not the first resurrection but the victory over the grave upon death”.

How can “ victory over the grave upon death” your understanding of “live” apply to the unsaved who are said to also live again, just at a later time?

wpm
May 5th 2007, 10:52 PM
I said this before "while" or "until" is not the question
It is clear, the souls of the saved “live” and the souls of the unsaved later “lived”. You said that “the living and reigning is not the first resurrection but the victory over the grave upon death”.

How can “ victory over the grave upon death” your understanding of “live” apply to the unsaved who are said to also live again, just at a later time?

The wicked don't live later. It doesn't say it. This Premil theory enjoys no other biblical corroboration. I have asked for evidence if I am wrong.

Paul

quiet dove
May 5th 2007, 11:22 PM
What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct future physical resurrections (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years?

The wicked don't live later. It doesn't say it. This Premil theory enjoys no other biblical corroboration. I have asked for evidence if I am wrong.


Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones(one group of people), and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them(group one, already had judgment committed to them/reigning). Then I saw the souls(second group of people) of those who had been beheaded(2nd group) . And they lived (2nd group)and reigned(2nd group) with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead(3rd group-unsaved) did not live again until/while the thousand years were (being) finished.

"While" or "until" does not make any difference, it is only after the thousand years the the 3rd group lives again. They are dead, spiritually and physically during the "while" or "until" the thousand years is finished.

How can “ victory over the grave upon death” your understanding of “live” apply to the unsaved who are said to also live again, just at a later time?

RogerW
May 5th 2007, 11:22 PM
I said this before "while" or "until" is not the question
It is clear, the souls of the saved “live” and the souls of the unsaved later “lived”. You said that “the living and reigning is not the first resurrection but the victory over the grave upon death”.

How can “ victory over the grave upon death” your understanding of “live” apply to the unsaved who are said to also live again, just at a later time?

… “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.”

Those living and reigning with Christ a thousand years are those who have experienced the first resurrection (believers who physically died being in Christ). How do I know this? Because the following verse says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

The rest of the dead live again for one purpose, “And I saw the dead , small and great, stand before God: and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” “…This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

RW

quiet dove
May 5th 2007, 11:31 PM
Roger, I appreciate that, but being pre trib I agree that

"Those living and reigning with Christ a thousand years are those who have experienced the first resurrection"

And I consider that the millenial reign of Christ from Jerusalem upon David's throne.
And the rest of the dead are only resurrected after the thousand years and they are resurrected to judgment. The second death.

RogerW
May 5th 2007, 11:50 PM
Roger, I appreciate that, but being pre trib I agree that

"Those living and reigning with Christ a thousand years are those who have experienced the first resurrection"

And I consider that the millenial reign of Christ from Jerusalem upon David's throne.
And the rest of the dead are only resurrected after the thousand years and they are resurrected to judgment. The second death.

Since the first resurrection is spiritual and you agree those who die in Christ reign with Him spiritually for 1000 years, how many millenial reigns do you find in Scripture? Those who die in Christ reign with Him spiritually for 1000 years, therefore since believers have been dying and reigning since the cross this 1000 years reign must be symbolic, and not literal.... would you agree? If not, are you saying there is another physical 1000 years reign?

RW

quiet dove
May 6th 2007, 12:18 AM
Since the first resurrection is spiritual and you agree those who die in Christ reign with Him spiritually for 1000 years, how many millenial reigns do you find in Scripture? Those who die in Christ reign with Him spiritually for 1000 years, therefore since believers have been dying and reigning since the cross this 1000 years reign must be symbolic, and not literal.... would you agree? If not, are you saying there is another physical 1000 years reign?



You must have missed my earlier post:)


No, I have never said that so I will make myself clear. I believe “ lived and reigned with Christ” means:
-“lived” the resurrection of the body and soul, with the saved that means resurrection to life
incorruptable
-“reigned with Christ” what the save and resurrected to life- incorruptable, will be doing with Christ.

for the thousand years and there will be just one

RogerW
May 6th 2007, 01:47 AM
You must have missed my earlier post:)
No, I have never said that so I will make myself clear. I believe “ lived and reigned with Christ” means:
-“lived” the resurrection of the body and soul, with the saved that means resurrection to life
incorruptable
-“reigned with Christ” what the save and resurrected to life- incorruptable, will be doing with Christ.

for the thousand years and there will be just one

Now I am perplexed by what you believe. You believe that lived and reigned with Christ 1000 years is speaking of the resurrection of the incorruptible body and soul. In other words you believe that believers live and reign with Christ in our incorruptible bodies for this 1000 years duration of time? How else could we reign in both body and soul, unless we have received our incorruptible bodies?

Scripture tells me that when we are resurrected in our incorruptible bodies to be with the Lord there is no time limit. When we receive our incorruptible glorified bodies time will be no more, we will be dwelling with Christ eternally, or outside of time. Either we cannot be reigning with Christ in our incorruptible bodies for 1000 years or eternal life isn’t really eternal, but only 1000 years.

1Jo 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

This passage in Corinthians says as in Adam we all die, but we are made alive in Christ. Every man in order, Christ first, then we who are His are made alive AT HIS COMING…THEN COMETH THE END!

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
1Co 15:24 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.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
Our bodies are sown in corruption and raised in incorruption, when we are quickened or made alive at the end of time.

1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

1Co 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
1Co 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened (made alive), except it die:

RW

John146
May 6th 2007, 03:23 AM
wpm
You seem to think the phrase "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” is describing salvation, but it isn't. It is describing tghose that have entered the presence of God upon death. Obviously these have all experienced the first resurrection on earth in salvation but that is not the living and reigning described.

No, I have never said that so I will make myself clear. I believe “ lived and reigned with Christ” means:
-“lived” the resurrection of the body and soul, with the saved that means resurrection to life
incorruptable
-“reigned with Christ” what the save and resurrected to life- incorruptable, will be doing with Christ.

It appears to me that it is saying that the souls lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. It only mentions souls. It gives no indication that they have been resurrected and received their new immortal bodies. I see it saying that the souls, who are already living (The souls of Christians never die) live and reign with Christ in heaven for a thousand years. If there is even a hint of these souls being united with their immortal bodies, please show me where that is. Also, if you see anything in that chapter that says something about the reign being on the earth, please show me that as well.

quiet dove
May 6th 2007, 03:39 AM
Now I am perplexed by what you believe. You believe that lived and reigned with Christ 1000 years is speaking of the resurrection of the incorruptible body and soul. In other words you believe that believers live and reign with Christ in our incorruptible bodies for this 1000 years duration of time? How else could we reign in both body and soul, unless we have received our incorruptible bodies?


Yep, thats what I believe


Scripture tells me that when we are resurrected in our incorruptible bodies to be with the Lord there is no time limit. When we receive our incorruptible glorified bodies time will be no more, we will be dwelling with Christ eternally, or outside of time. Either we cannot be reigning with Christ in our incorruptible bodies for 1000 years or eternal life isn’t really eternal, but only 1000 years.


I didnt say our incorruptible bodies had an expiration date, just that during the thousand year millenial reign of Christ, on earth, from Jerusalem, upon the throne of David,--we reign with Him during that time. Never said anything about eternity, of course I believe we will live in eternity with our resurrected bodies.

John146
May 6th 2007, 03:48 AM
I didnt say our incorruptible bodies had an expiration date, just that during the thousand year millenial reign of Christ, on earth, from Jerusalem, upon the throne of David,--we reign with Him during that time. Never said anything about eternity, of course I believe we will live in eternity with our resurrected bodies.

When it says in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, which kingdom do you believe that is referring to? The millenial kingdom or the eternal kingdom where there is no more death, crying, sorrow or pain? Or some other kingdom?

quiet dove
May 6th 2007, 04:14 AM
john146
It appears to me that it is saying that the souls lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. It only mentions souls. It gives no indication that they have been resurrected and received their new immortal bodies. I see it saying that the souls, who are already living (The souls of Christians never die) live and reign with Christ in heaven for a thousand years. If there is even a hint of these souls being united with their immortal bodies, please show me where that is. Also, if you see anything in that chapter that says something about the reign being on the earth, please show me that as well.


john, we have been through this, the thread about the millenial reign and David's throne? It all goes together.


I am asking a question that you, wpm and RW have not answered.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones(one group of people), and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them(group one, already had judgment committed to them/reigning). Then I saw the souls(second group of people) of those who had been beheaded(2nd group) . And they lived (2nd group)and reigned(2nd group) with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead(3rd group-unsaved) did not live again until/while the thousand years were (being) finished.


I see it saying that the souls, who are already living (The souls of Christians never die) live and reign with Christ in heaven for a thousand years.


These living souls that John sees are said to live, and like you said the soul of the believer never dies, (I knew that;) ).

It says the unbelievers will live when the thousand years is finished. So does that mean the unbelievers souls are dead until then? Since when did the unsaved souls die when their physical body dies?

If this applies to spiritually living, then yes, the souls of the unbelievers are dead, If that is the case they are said to live again when the thousand years are finished. So spiritually speaking and the believer being alive in Christ, how is it said that the unbelievers "live again", they were never spiritually alive to start with and since they died unsaved, they stay unsaved, there is no hope of spiritual life in Christ for those who die without Him.



wpm
The wicked don't live later. It doesn't say it. This Premil theory enjoys no other biblical corroboration. I have asked for evidence if I am wrong.



And I have asked how in v4 and 5 live applies to each when live is clearly meaning the same for both. They either both live spiritually or they both live resurrected.

It says they live again about the unsaved at the end of the thousand years, clearly in reference to the saved living during the thousand years and that being the first resurrection. Whether it is a thousand year millenial, or whether it is an abstract time frame that we are living in now "live" is applied to mean the same thing for both.

How can “ victory over the grave upon death” your understanding of “live” apply to the unsaved who are said to also live again, just at a later time?

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones(one group of people), and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them(group one, already had judgment committed to them/reigning). Then I saw the souls(second group of people) of those who had been beheaded(2nd group) . And they lived (2nd group)and reigned(2nd group) with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead(3rd group-unsaved) did not live again until/while the thousand years were (being) finished.

Which brings me to another question, if "while" replaced "until" as wpm suggest, how is it the unsaved dont live again "while" the thousand years are finished. Does that mean they are living "while" we wait for the Second Coming, since you guys say we are in the abstract time frame of a millenial exsistence now?

wpm
May 6th 2007, 12:40 PM
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones(one group of people), and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them(group one, already had judgment committed to them/reigning). Then I saw the souls(second group of people) of those who had been beheaded(2nd group) . And they lived (2nd group)and reigned(2nd group) with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead(3rd group-unsaved) did not live again until/while the thousand years were (being) finished.

"While" or "until" does not make any difference, it is only after the thousand years the the 3rd group lives again. They are dead, spiritually and physically during the "while" or "until" the thousand years is finished.

How can “ victory over the grave upon death” your understanding of “live” apply to the unsaved who are said to also live again, just at a later time?




The living mentioned here is neither spiritual or physical resurrection. It is simply referring to the dead in Christ now in heaven. You have created two options and have forbidden the Amil view that it is simply talking about the entry of our spirit's into heaven upon death. This is not the first resurrection, but all those who have experienced the first resurrection.

Paul

wpm
May 6th 2007, 12:53 PM
quiet dove



And I have asked how in v4 and 5 live applies to each when live is clearly meaning the same for both. They either both live spiritually or they both live resurrected.

It says they live again about the unsaved at the end of the thousand years, clearly in reference to the saved living during the thousand years and that being the first resurrection. Whether it is a thousand year millenial, or whether it is an abstract time frame that we are living in now "live" is applied to mean the same thing for both.

How can “ victory over the grave upon death” your understanding of “live” apply to the unsaved who are said to also live again, just at a later time?

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones(one group of people), and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them(group one, already had judgment committed to them/reigning). Then I saw the souls(second group of people) of those who had been beheaded(2nd group) . And they lived (2nd group)and reigned(2nd group) with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead(3rd group-unsaved) did not live again until/while the thousand years were (being) finished.


But it says that the wicked lived not. You are trying to make it say the opposite. Your thesis can only be built upon - 'by implication'. They did not go into the presence of the Lord. Nowhere does it say that they will then be regenerated at the end of the millennium. They simply live not during this kingdom age. We need add nothing more to this.


Which brings me to another question, if "while" replaced "until" as wpm suggest, how is it the unsaved dont live again "while" the thousand years are finished. Does that mean they are living "while" we wait for the Second Coming, since you guys say we are in the abstract time frame of a millenial exsistence now?

First it is not an "abstract time frame" but a symbolic period. 'A thousand' is regularly used to describe an indefinite amount or time-period.

Second, this is not saying that the wicked then live after the millennium. If they do it is not clearly taught in the reading.

Third, a question. What do you suggest "until" denotes? Please enlarge.

Paul

quiet dove
May 6th 2007, 03:32 PM
But it says that the wicked lived not. You are trying to make it say the opposite. Your thesis can only be built upon - 'by implication'. They did not go into the presence of the Lord. Nowhere does it say that they will then be regenerated at the end of the millennium. They simply live not during this kingdom age. We need add nothing more to this.



Implication is just a word you are throwing at me because you lack an answer. It clearly says "Do not live again until the thousand years are finished" It does not say "Do not live again while the thousand years are finished" and even if it did, that is an incomplete thought and even at that implies they would be to live again. No, it isnt by implication.

wpm
May 6th 2007, 04:06 PM
Implication is just a word you are throwing at me because you lack an answer. It clearly says "Do not live again until the thousand years are finished" It does not say "Do not live again while the thousand years are finished" and even if it did, that is an incomplete thought and even at that implies they would be to live again. No, it isnt by implication.



I am still waiting to discover where it actually says the wicked live again 1,000 years after the Coming of Christ by way of a physical resurrection.

Paul

RogerW
May 6th 2007, 06:00 PM
Yep, thats what I believe

I didnt say our incorruptible bodies had an expiration date, just that during the thousand year millenial reign of Christ, on earth, from Jerusalem, upon the throne of David,--we reign with Him during that time. Never said anything about eternity, of course I believe we will live in eternity with our resurrected bodies.

Christ became a man, died in the flesh and was buried. God raised Christ from the dead, He ascended to heaven and became the representative of His people. But Christ was not raised bodily immediately, He was three days in the tomb before being resurrected. Yet Christ tells the thief on the cross that on the same day that they die, they will be together in heaven (paradise). “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Lu 23:43 How could Christ promise the thief that he would be with Him in heaven on the same day they both died since Christ was not resurrected until three days after His death?

You may argue that paradise is not heaven, but Paul speaking to us in 2Corinthians says otherwise.

2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven (the abode of God).
2Co 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

From this we know that Christ and the thief both went to heaven at the moment of death, but NOT bodily. They went to heaven in the spirit, or in their soul essence. This is how every believer at physical death is living and reigning with Christ for 1000 years. Only Christ is resurrected physically prior to the fullness of time, or before the end of this symbolic 1000 years. Read the whole passage in 1Co 15 carefully, it is speaking of the bodily resurrection of believers at Christ’s Second coming, as the end of TIME.

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s AT HIS COMING.
1Co 15:24 THEN COMETH THE END,

The point you miss is that you cannot have believers resurrected in their incorruptible glorified bodies in time. One thousand years signifies time still exist, in eternity time ceases to exist. The believers are resurrected and given their incorruptible glorified bodies for reigning in the Eternal Kingdom forever, not for 1000 years, and not while time still exists. This Everlasting, Eternal Kingdom exists outside of time. We are not resurrected in incorruptible bodies for a period of time, i.e. one thousand years. It could not be said that we are resurrected unto ETERNAL life, if there is still 1000 years of time left. You can’t have believers resurrected in time and eternally together because that makes no sense. We are first resurrected and living and reigning with Christ IN TIME, i.e. 1000 years, then we are resurrected in our incorruptible glorified bodies to live and reign with Him ETERNALLY in the fullness/end of time.

1Co 15:52 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.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

RW

John146
May 6th 2007, 06:20 PM
Christ became a man, died in the flesh and was buried. God raised Christ from the dead, He ascended to heaven and became the representative of His people. But Christ was not raised bodily immediately, He was three days in the tomb before being resurrected. Yet Christ tells the thief on the cross that on the same day that they die, they will be together in heaven (paradise). “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Lu 23:43 How could Christ promise the thief that he would be with Him in heaven on the same day they both died since Christ was not resurrected until three days after His death?

You may argue that paradise is not heaven, but Paul speaking to us in 2Corinthians says otherwise.

2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven (the abode of God).
2Co 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

From this we know that Christ and the thief both went to heaven at the moment of death, but NOT bodily. They went to heaven in the spirit, or in their soul essence. This is how every believer at physical death is living and reigning with Christ for 1000 years. Only Christ is resurrected physically prior to the fullness of time, or before the end of this symbolic 1000 years. Read the whole passage in 1Co 15 carefully, it is speaking of the bodily resurrection of believers at Christ’s Second coming, as the end of TIME.

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s AT HIS COMING.
1Co 15:24 THEN COMETH THE END,

The point you miss is that you cannot have believers resurrected in their incorruptible glorified bodies in time. One thousand years signifies time still exist, in eternity time ceases to exist. The believers are resurrected and given their incorruptible glorified bodies for reigning in the Eternal Kingdom forever, not for 1000 years, and not while time still exists. This Everlasting, Eternal Kingdom exists outside of time. We are not resurrected in incorruptible bodies for a period of time, i.e. one thousand years. It could not be said that we are resurrected unto ETERNAL life, if there is still 1000 years of time left. You can’t have believers resurrected in time and eternally together because that makes no sense. We are first resurrected and living and reigning with Christ IN TIME, i.e. 1000 years, then we are resurrected in our incorruptible glorified bodies to live and reign with Him ETERNALLY in the fullness/end of time.

1Co 15:52 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.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

RW

Good post. 1 Corinthians 15:50 says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Yet, premill has billions of people with flesh and blood populating the kingdom of God when Christ returns at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:52). Clearly, 1 Corinthians 15:50 is not speaking of the millenial kingdom. Yet, it clearly implies that at the time we receive our immortal, incorruptible bodies it is the time that we inherit the kingdom of God where no flesh and blood can enter. That is clearly a reference to the eternal new earth kingdom when the new Jersusalem comes down from heaven to the new earth. The place where there is no more death(Rev 21:4). The place where death is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor 15:54).

RogerW
May 6th 2007, 07:00 PM
john, we have been through this, the thread about the millenial reign and David's throne? It all goes together.


I am asking a question that you, wpm and RW have not answered.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones(one group of people), and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them(group one, already had judgment committed to them/reigning). Then I saw the souls(second group of people) of those who had been beheaded(2nd group) . And they lived (2nd group)and reigned(2nd group) with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead(3rd group-unsaved) did not live again until/while the thousand years were (being) finished.


These living souls that John sees are said to live, and like you said the soul of the believer never dies, (I knew that;) ).

It says the unbelievers will live when the thousand years is finished. So does that mean the unbelievers souls are dead until then? Since when did the unsaved souls die when their physical body dies?

If this applies to spiritually living, then yes, the souls of the unbelievers are dead, If that is the case they are said to live again when the thousand years are finished. So spiritually speaking and the believer being alive in Christ, how is it said that the unbelievers "live again", they were never spiritually alive to start with and since they died unsaved, they stay unsaved, there is no hope of spiritual life in Christ for those who die without Him.


Why are you separating group one and two? You are making them two separate groups without good reason for doing so. I think you may be seeing them as two separate groups because of the translation you are using. The phrase “THEN I saw” may be leading you to believe the souls that were beheaded are a different group. When you read the passage in other translations you find “and” instead of “then,” which according to the Concordance “and” is the proper translation.

Also notice the word “again” in vs. 5. My research favors the CVS (Concordant Version), where “again” has been left out. Though I have limited knowledge of the Greek, in the Restored Greek Text “again” is also NOT found.

KJV Re 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. (all one group, living and reigning with Christ, and judgment is given them 1Co 6:3) 5 But the rest of the dead lived not [again] until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. (2nd group, inclusive of all unbelievers, not given life until the 1000 years expires, in which time they are resurrected to life to be Judged)

CVS Re 20:4 And I perceived thrones, and they are seated on them, and judgment was granted them. And the souls of those who have been executed because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who do not worship the wild beast or its image, and did not get the emblem on their forehead and on their hand; they also live and reign with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead live not until the thousand years should be finished.) This is the former resurrection.

YLT Re 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years; 5 and the rest of the dead did not live [again] till the thousand years may be finished; this is the first rising again.

RW

quiet dove
May 6th 2007, 08:38 PM
Why are you separating group one and two? You are making them two separate groups without good reason for doing so. I think you may be seeing them as two separate groups because of the translation you are using. The phrase “THEN I saw” may be leading you to believe the souls that were beheaded are a different group. When you read the passage in other translations you find “and” instead of “then,” which according to the Concordance “and” is the proper translation.

Also notice the word “again” in vs. 5. My research favors the CVS (Concordant Version), where “again” has been left out. Though I have limited knowledge of the Greek, in the Restored Greek Text “again” is also NOT found.
RW
I use the NKJV usually, on my computer I have the KJV so use it also, easy to copy and paste from.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones(one group of people), and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them(group one, already had judgment committed to them/reigning). Then (And) I saw the souls(second group of people) of those who had been beheaded(2nd group) . And they lived (2nd group)and reigned(2nd group) with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead(3rd group-unsaved) did not live------- until/whilethe thousand years were finished.

I put those words in and just don’t see that it changes anything. (other than it is quite colorful) I do however agree that group 1 and group 2 are both resurrected and reigning with Christ during the thousand years that I believe are the millenial reign of Christ. Group one from the rapture and group two from the tribulation.
I am not familiar with either the CVS (other than the pharmacy) or the YLT

I don’t know Greek either, I use an online Greek Interlinear,
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

this is the Hebrew OnlineInterlinear
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

Greek Lexicon
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532

Hebrew Lexicon
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/

And one with both Greek and Hebrew Lexicon
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html


this one has several different version of the Bible to choose from
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&version=50


just in cast you ever want to use any of them. At least these are some that I have found, there is probably many more out there but these are easy to use.

it has (and this is so fun to try and read)
4And I percieved thrones and they are seated on them and judgment was given to them ( and)the souls of the one having been hatcheted thru the witness of jesus ….. not got the carve effect on the forehead and on the hand of them and they live and reign with the Annointed thousand years
5 the rest of the dead not live( ) until should be finished the thousand years …

quiet dove
May 6th 2007, 08:47 PM
When it says in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, which kingdom do you believe that is referring to? The millenial kingdom or the eternal kingdom where there is no more death, crying, sorrow or pain? Or some other kingdom?

As far as the kingdom of God goes, the fact that flesh and blood can inherit it does not effect the millenial as we are said to be citizens of the kingdom of God and have been sealed as his by His Spirit. I would think the same would pertain to any mortal living during the millenial that was either one of the saved that survived the trib or born during the millenial that believes and is faithful to Christ.

We have already been through the issue of no more tears, no point in repeating ourselves

I do have a question, unrelated,--how is this font. I am worried what I was using was to small for some people to see, how is this or is it to big??

BeOfGoodCourage
May 6th 2007, 09:00 PM
As far as the kingdom of God goes, the fact that flesh and blood can inherit it does not effect the millenial as we are said to be citizens of the kingdom of God and have been sealed as his by His Spirit. I would think the same would pertain to any mortal living during the millenial that was either one of the saved that survived the trib or born during the millenial that believes and is faithful to Christ.

We have already been through the issue of no more tears, no point in repeating ourselves

I do have a question, unrelated,--how is this font. I am worried what I was using was to small for some people to see, how is this or is it to big??


The font is great.
I would have to agree that flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom but we are citizens of the kingdom right now. When we die or when we are changed then the no flesh or blood criteria is fully realized.

We amillers believe we are in the millennial reign right now and right now is the kingdom of heaven as well, and last I looked at my glorious body (cough) I was still in the flesh.

quiet dove
May 6th 2007, 09:14 PM
The font is great.
I would have to agree that flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom but we are citizens of the kingdom right now. When we die or when we are changed then the no flesh or blood criteria is fully realized.

We amillers believe we are in the millennial reign right now and right now is the kingdom of heaven as well, and last I looked at my glorious body (cough) I was still in the flesh.

I also believe we are citizens of the kingdom of God right now. But sometimes I write things like people can read my mind.:D

Thanks for the font, I prefer smaller, but as I can relate to the vision changes the old flesh and blood body can succumb to I have been worried about it so am trying this. :)

wpm
May 6th 2007, 10:31 PM
As far as the kingdom of God goes, the fact that flesh and blood can inherit it does not effect the millenial as we are said to be citizens of the kingdom of God and have been sealed as his by His Spirit. I would think the same would pertain to any mortal living during the millenial that was either one of the saved that survived the trib or born during the millenial that believes and is faithful to Christ.

We have already been through the issue of no more tears, no point in repeating ourselves

We have entered the kingdom spiritual now, but we will one day inherit it at Christ's climactic Coming. 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 plainly declares, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 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. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So 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. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

This reading speaks of that time when the sons of God (the elect of God) shall be finally free from all corruption and glorified. Significantly, this occurs at the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is at this all-consummating Coming of Christ that the desire of the whole of creation is finally realised. It is only at this final concluding event of history that creation is finally and eternally freed from corruption and therefore the awful groaning and travailing it feels. The thought of all creation having to endure a re-run of the same after the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ for another 1,000+ is clearly preposterous and strongly contradicts the expressed teaching of Scripture.

Paul first outlines the terms, qualifications and restrictions involved in inheriting the new perfect environment: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15:50). The first fact we see in this reading is: the new earth that ushers in the kingdom of God is totally incorrupt. In doing so, he makes it crystal-clear that corruptible mortals are forbidden access to the new earth. Man in his sinful state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth.

Paul

RogerW
May 7th 2007, 01:42 PM
I use the NKJV usually, on my computer I have the KJV so use it also, easy to copy and paste from.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones(one group of people), and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them(group one, already had judgment committed to them/reigning). Then (And) I saw the souls(second group of people) of those who had been beheaded(2nd group) . And they lived (2nd group)and reigned(2nd group) with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead(3rd group-unsaved) did not live------- until/whilethe thousand years were finished.


4And I percieved thrones and they are seated on them and judgment was given to them ( and)the souls of the one having been hatcheted thru the witness of jesus ….. not got the carve effect on the forehead and on the hand of them and they live and reign with the Annointed thousand years
5 the rest of the dead not live( ) until should be finished the thousand years …

Sometimes reading the passage without the additions that make for proper English grammar, and easier reading we get greater understanding of certain passages of Scripture. I believe it may help in reading Rev 20:4-5.

From the Greek Lexicon you use: (Thank you for the links)

4And I percieved thrones and they are seated on them and judgment was given to them ( and)the souls of the one having been hatcheted thru the witness of jesus ….. not got the carve effect on the forehead and on the hand of them and they live and reign with the Annointed thousand years
5 the rest of the dead not live( ) until should be finished the thousand years …

From the Restored Greek Text that I use. It is a uniform sublinear based upon an English equivalent for each Greek element. Translation comes from Codex Alexandrinus.

4 And I perceived thrones and they are seated on them and judgment was given to them and the souls of the (ones) having (been) hatcheted thru the witness of Jesus and thru the saying of the God and who any not worship the wild beast not yet the image of it and not got the carve (effect) on the forehead and on the hand of them and they live and reign with the Anointed thousand years 5 the rest of the dead not live until sh’d-be-being finished the thousand years this the up-standing the before most

Interestingly when you read the passage now you find judgment is given to those seated on thrones (and) the souls that were killed for their witness of Christ. This shows us they are not two groups as you say, but inclusive of one group living and reigning one thousand years with Christ. We also see the rest of the dead are not living (again) as you thought, but are simply given life after the thousand years is finished. This is the second group, not a non-existent third group.

This passage in Rev 20 shows us two separate groups of humans who have physically died. One group who died in Christ is living and reigning with Him, the other group those who died in unbelief, and are now being resurrected for Judgment.

Looking at this passage of Scripture from the English equivalent of the Greek does it change how you interpret Rev 20?

RW

quiet dove
May 7th 2007, 09:23 PM
RW
This shows us they are not two groups as you say, but inclusive of one group living and reigning one thousand years with Christ.


When I say two groups, it is two groups that become one group, some are already on thrones which to me seems to indicate they are already resurrected, then the souls who are said to live and riegn, "live" indicating resurrection. But the two both being resurrected will be one group reigning with Christ during the millenium. At least that is how I understand it.

The word "live" is what clears it up in my mind as to whether of not is speaks of spiritual life or resurrected life. Since only believers "live" spiritually the unbelievers cannot "live" spiritually. The only way "live" can apply to both groups, those beheaded and those who worshipped the beast, is if it is resurrection of body and soul, the former to life to latter to judgment; and with the thousand years inbetween.

If it is saying "while" as opposed to "until" and we are in the thousand years presently,that would mean we and those beheaded should be resurrected, then, when the thousand years is complete, the unsaved will be resurrected, because though we are "alive" spiritually, the unsaved will never be "alive" spiritually. And they are very cleary said to "live again". The only way "live again" can apply to these unsaved is the physical being the first time and the resurrection to the "again". And that also harmonizes with second death. They died physically and will be resurrected to judgment and the second death. And of course the second death we as believers will not see because we are resurrected to life, (and I know you agree with that last part).:)

wpm
May 7th 2007, 09:42 PM
When I say two groups, it is two groups that become one group, some are already on thrones which to me seems to indicate they are already resurrected, then the souls who are said to live and riegn, "live" indicating resurrection. But the two both being resurrected will be one group reigning with Christ during the millenium. At least that is how I understand it.

The word "live" is what clears it up in my mind as to whether of not is speaks of spiritual life or resurrected life. Since only believers "live" spiritually the unbelievers cannot "live" spiritually. The only way "live" can apply to both groups, those beheaded and those who worshipped the beast, is if it is resurrection of body and soul, the former to life to latter to judgment; and with the thousand years inbetween.

If it is saying "while" as opposed to "until" and we are in the thousand years presently,that would mean we and those beheaded should be resurrected, then, when the thousand years is complete, the unsaved will be resurrected, because though we are "alive" spiritually, the unsaved will never be "alive" spiritually. And they are very cleary said to "live again". The only way "live again" can apply to these unsaved is the physical being the first time and the resurrection to the "again". And that also harmonizes with second death. They died physically and will be resurrected to judgment and the second death. And of course the second death we as believers will not see because we are resurrected to life, (and I know you agree with that last part).:)

I have addressed this and explained that the believers entrance into the presence of God upon death is what this is speaking of. This is describing the souls of the saints in heaven enjoying Christ and reigning in glory. Even if we accepted your assertion that the word "until" is the better rendering it does not need to suggest that they come to spiritual life. The believer's entrance into the Lord's presence is upon death to receive blessing whereas the unsaved's entrance into the presence of God is at the Lord's return where he will receive is judgment. Whilst both enter into the Lord's presence, it is for totally opposing reasons.

Paul

quiet dove
May 7th 2007, 10:09 PM
I have addressed this and explained that the believers entrance into the presence of God upon death is what this is speaking of. This is describing the souls of the saints in heaven enjoying Christ and reigning in glory. Even if we accepted your assertion that the word "until" is the better rendering it does not need to suggest that they come to spiritual life. The believer's entrance into the Lord's presence is upon death to receive blessing whereas the unsaved's entrance into the presence of God is at the Lord's return where he will receive is judgment. Whilst both enter into the Lord's presence, it is for totally opposing reasons.


When is the resurrection since you tell me that there is only one time of resurrection for the just and unjust. How does "live" in these verses pertain to believers being spiritually alive before God at there physical death and then the spiritually dead before Him to judgement, since you say there is only one resurrection and then judgement.
I agree that we are with Christ when we die but within this verse is my question pertaining to.

ShirleyFord
May 8th 2007, 02:39 PM
The word "live" is what clears it up in my mind as to whether of not is speaks of spiritual life or resurrected life. Since only believers "live" spiritually the unbelievers cannot "live" spiritually. The only way "live" can apply to both groups, those beheaded and those who worshipped the beast, is if it is resurrection of body and soul, the former to life to latter to judgment; and with the thousand years inbetween.

QD,

If we interpret "lived" in Rev. 20:4 is the physical resurrection of the saved by the fact that "lived" of the unsaved in v. 5 could only mean physical resurrection for the unsaved a thousand years later, we would contradict many Scriptures that clearly says first of all that the physical resurrection of the saved is on the last day and also that all, both the saved and the unsaved, are physically resurrected at the same time.

Jesus said that He would raise the righteous on the last day:

John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

These verses would not be true if the righteous were raised and then 1000 literal years pass before "the last day."

Jesus said that the physical resurrection of both the saved and the unsaved is at the same time:

Physical Resurrection

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

John 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.

1. the hour is coming (happens in the future)
2. all in the graves
3. all shall hear
4. all shall come forth

Paul said that the physical resurrection of the saved and the unsaved is at the same time.

I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of (1)the just and (2)the unjust. (Acts 24:15)

Daniel prophecies that the physical resurrection of the saved and the unsaved is at the same time.

Daniel 12:2 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.



Shirley

wpm
May 8th 2007, 02:48 PM
When is the resurrection since you tell me that there is only one time of resurrection for the just and unjust. How does "live" in these verses pertain to believers being spiritually alive before God at there physical death and then the spiritually dead before Him to judgement, since you say there is only one resurrection and then judgement.
I agree that we are with Christ when we die but within this verse is my question pertaining to.

I believe there is one physical resurrection day in which there are two types of raising, (1) unto life, (2) unto damnation. Acts 24:15 says, “there shall be a resurrection of the dead (singular), both of the just and unjust.”

This verse speaks of a singular “resurrection of the dead” not multiple resurrections (plural) of the dead as Premillennialists contend. The fact that Paul differentiates between the wicked and the righteous in no way proves that these are two separate resurrections coming at the end of two separate ages split by 1,000 years+ of history (filled with all the produce of the curse – sin, death and corruption). No, it simply demonstrates that there are two types of resurrection in the one final resurrection of the dead at the end.

Jesus said in Matthew 12:42, “The queen of the south shall rise up (or) egeiro (Strong’s 1453) in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.” The righteous Old Testament Gentile saint – the queen of the south – is raised at the same time as the wicked Pharisees of Christ’s day to stand before the same judgment seat of Christ.

This is further impressed in the parallel portion in Luke 11:31, only with an additional example, saying, “The queen of the south shall rise up (or) egeiro (Strong’s 1453) in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh shall rise up (or) anistemi (Strong’s 450) in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.”

Here, the two main words used throughout the New Testament for resurrection are applied to the general resurrection that occurs on Judgment Day when the Old Testament time saints and wicked join the New Testament saints and wicked at the judgment. Remember the queen of the south and Nineveh are presented as Old Testament Gentile saints that will “rise up in the judgment with” the wicked unbelieving Jews of Christ’s day. There is no prolonged parenthesis period separating the resurrection of the wicked dead and the resurrection of the righteous dead. They both “rise up” at the same time. The Old Testament Gentile city of Nineveh is shown to “rise up in the judgment with” (or meta) the religious Jewish world of Christ’s day and “condemn it.” The Greek word meta (3326) is described in Strong’s concordance as “a primary preposition (often used adverbially); properly, denoting accompaniment; ‘amid’.”

Daniel 12:1-3 reveals, “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. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.”

This reading shows a general resurrection involving two types of people – the righteous and the wicked; one group rises "to everlasting life" the other to "everlasting contempt." The fact that we see a clear description of the general resurrection of the righteous and the wicked tells us that this is a tribulation that occurs prior to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is at this great concluding event that both the righteous and the wicked will be raised to face the great final judgment. Notwithstanding, there are two aspects to the one all-consummating resurrection day. Jesus explains in John 5:28-29, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth.” Evidently there is only one resurrection albeit involving two separated aspects: “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

This reading expressly speaks of a time in history when the dead (both good and evil) “shall hear his (Christ’s) voice, and shall come forth.” Notwithstanding, this perfectly correlates with every explicit reference to the judgment in Scripture that shows both the righteous and wicked being brought to account at the same time. Therefore, both parties must of necessity be raised around the same time to fulfil such. The reading before us substantiates this requirement in the most explicit language possible.

Paul

John146
May 8th 2007, 04:20 PM
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

John 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.

1. the hour is coming (happens in the future)
2. all in the graves
3. all shall hear
4. all shall come forth

Paul said that the physical resurrection of the saved and the unsaved is at the same time.

I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of (1)the just and (2)the unjust. (Acts 24:15)

Daniel prophecies that the physical resurrection of the saved and the unsaved is at the same time.

Daniel 12:2 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.



Shirley



Well said, Shirley. If John 5:28-29 was speaking of two resurrections over a thousand years apart it would be worded as "the hours are coming" rather than "the hour is coming". It's translated in other versions as "the time is coming". If there was going to be more than one time when the dead were physically resurrected, Jesus would have said so. Daniel 12:2 and Acts 24:15 verify that this is a singular resurrection of all the dead, with the believers (they that have done good, the just) being resurrected to one fate of everlasting life and the unbelievers (they that have done evil, the unjust) being resurrected to another fate of everlasting contempt and damnation.

Here are other verses where the phrase "the hour" is used:

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. - Matthew 25:13

Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. - Matthew 26:45

And 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. - Mark 14:41

And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. - Luke 22:14

And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. - John 12:23

In each case, "the hour" refers to a time that is at hand or signifying that the time had come for something to occur. In no way could it be interpreted as a long period of time such as over a thousand years. Whenever the phrase is used to communicate an extended ongoing period of time, it was accompanied by a phrase like "and now is" such as in these verses:

But 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. - John 4:23

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. - John 5:25

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. - John 16:32

Eric

ShirleyFord
May 8th 2007, 05:04 PM
Well said, Shirley. If John 5:28-29 was speaking of two resurrections over a thousand years apart it would be worded as "the hours are coming" rather than "the hour is coming". It's translated in other versions as "the time is coming". If there was going to be more than one time when the dead were physically resurrected, Jesus would have said so. Daniel 12:2 and Acts 24:15 verify that this is a singular resurrection of all the dead, with the believers (they that have done good, the just) being resurrected to one fate of everlasting life and the unbelievers (they that have done evil, the unjust) being resurrected to another fate of everlasting contempt and damnation.

Here are other verses where the phrase "the hour" is used:

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. - Matthew 25:13

Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. - Matthew 26:45

And 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. - Mark 14:41

And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. - Luke 22:14

And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. - John 12:23

In each case, "the hour" refers to a time that is at hand or signifying that the time had come for something to occur. In no way could it be interpreted as a long period of time such as over a thousand years. Whenever the phrase is used to communicate an extended ongoing period of time, it was accompanied by a phrase like "and now is" such as in these verses:

But 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. - John 4:23

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. - John 5:25

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. - John 16:32

Eric

Exactly Eric. The "hour" doesn't even imply, much less state literally, a gap of a thousand years between the resurrection of the just and the unjust in John 5:28-29, as some modern biblical scholars would have us believe, when we accept the plain reading of what the text actually says. No one that I'm aware of would think of interpreting "the hour" in the references you provide as two different time periods with a gap of time in between. So why then would some treat "the hour" in John 5:28-29 any differently? :dunno:


Shirley

quiet dove
May 8th 2007, 09:22 PM
If we interpret "lived" in Rev. 20:4 is the physical resurrection of the saved by the fact that "lived" of the unsaved in v. 5 could only mean physical resurrection for the unsaved a thousand years later,


This much I agree with and was my whole point v 5 could only mean physical resurrection for the unjust.


we would contradict many Scriptures that clearly says first of all that the physical resurrection of the saved is on the last day and also that all, both the saved and the unsaved, are physically resurrected at the same time.


but there is still contradiction here in my mind because if the ones on the throne and the beheaded ones of v4 are said to be resurrected and the ones of verse 5 are said to be resurrected physically. The only option for the just of v4 is also physical resurrection." But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished" which indicates after the thousand years (but the believers on the thrones and the beheaded are already resurrected) even with the word "while" instead of "until". Those unsaved are either resurrected after the thousand years are complete or during (while)the the thousand years are being completed..

My whole point is, that "live" here used and in context, means the same for both, the just and the unjust. Physiclal resurrection is the only choice in my mind. And that the unjust are not resurrected until after the thousand years, having them resurrected while the thousand years is happening I just cant get to compute in my understanding.

It does very cleary say both will be resurrected in the last day, my next question is, how come "last day" is so adamately said to be "a day" as we know "a day" but a thousand years is just a symbolic statement?

Hebrews says "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son," so we are in "the last days and have been". But, it is also clear from Rev 21, there will be a last day and there will be a resurrection of the just and unjust on that last day. The final moment in time prior to "eternity". That does not however elimiate the possiblity that there have been previous resurrections of the just; as Rev 20:4 and 5 seem to clearly inidicate.

This causes no contradiction with the verses stating that the just and unjust will be resurrected on the last day, because they will be, but it does leave room for the possibility that at different times, the just have been resurrected prior to that "last day" such as the rapture (those already on thrones), those beheaded (and who "live" and are also said to reign with Christ during the 1000 years).

ShirleyFord
May 9th 2007, 12:02 AM
Hebrews says "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son," so we are in "the last days and have been". But, it is also clear from Rev 21, there will be a last day and there will be a resurrection of the just and unjust on that last day. The final moment in time prior to "eternity". That does not however elimiate the possiblity that there have been previous resurrections of the just; as Rev 20:4 and 5 seem to clearly inidicate.

This causes no contradiction with the verses stating that the just and unjust will be resurrected on the last day, because they will be, but it does leave room for the possibility that at different times, the just have been resurrected prior to that "last day" such as the rapture (those already on thrones), those beheaded (and who "live" and are also said to reign with Christ during the 1000 years).

QD,

I was pretrib for 59 years. And during that time I was taught the multiple raptures/resurrections theory beginning with Enoch and Elijah. But the Bible proves that theory wrong. Jesus was the first to have his body changed from a mortal body to an immortal body at His resurrection. He was the first resurrection, the firstborn from the dead, the firstfruits of those who die in Christ.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:


Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

And if we are to go by only what the Bible cleary says, no one will be physically resurrected into their changed incorruptible, immortal bodies until He returns.

1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

And nowhere do we read that there is a resurrection beyond the one at our Lord's coming.


but there is still contradiction here in my mind because if the ones on the throne and the beheaded ones of v4 are said to be resurrected and the ones of verse 5 are said to be resurrected physically. The only option for the just of v4 is also physical resurrection." But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished" which indicates after the thousand years (but the believers on the thrones and the beheaded are already resurrected) even with the word "while" instead of "until". Those unsaved are either resurrected after the thousand years are complete or during (while)the the thousand years are being completed..


QD, it would be impossible for me to determine what the clear meaning was of v. 4 "they lived" by v.5 "lived not again until the thousand years were finished". V. 5 is as unclear as v. 4 is. We must interpret unclear passages by clear passages.

Another clue though that we have is "the first resurrection" in vs. 5-6. We find the physical resurrection mentioned many times in the Bible but it is never called "the first resurrection". And neither is the resurrection of the unsaved ever called the second resurrection, although I was taught incorrectly that it was. If the first resurrection was the physical resurrection, why then is it not called just "resurrection"?

I have shown you many Scriptures that prove that the first resurrection in Rev 20 couldn't be the physical resurrection of the righteous since the righteous are resurrected on the last day of time and at the same time that the unrighteous wicked are resurrected.

Shirley

quiet dove
May 9th 2007, 12:27 AM
OK,
another plea from a very tired moderator, please, no more insults, no more accusations. We must debate the issues without assuming to know anothers heart and making it personal. We must give our brothers and sisters the respect of one who is also searching the scriptures with a heart of desire to understand God's truth.
Remember, your example is the best teacher, love is the greatest gift

James 3:13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom.

Colossians 3:12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.

Romans 12:15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

1 Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.