| Proposition : The Bible
teaches
that the First Resurrection spoken of in Revelation ch. 20 is to be a
literal, bodily resurrection of regenerated persons, which is to
precede the period known as "the thousand years", which period shall
culminate in the general resurrection of all mankind and the final
judgement. affirm - Bobby Boland deny - Mike Blume You note at the start of your final part of your second affirmation the following: I would like to ask you, brother, are you going to take the affirmative side in the proposition "the first resurrection of Rev 20 refers to regeneration"? Or are you affirming "the first resurrection of Rev 20 is not bodily"? The reason I ask is because it will determine what you actually intend to demonstrate. Yes, I propose the first resurrection refers to regeneration. Then you list all the references in which the greek words translated ANASTASIS are found. You thereby attempt to prove that the first "resurrection" cannot be regeneration, because those greek terms never refer to regeneration anywhere else in scripture. My response is that there are other terms in the greek that do refer to the synonymous thought of anastasis that are not restricted to bodily resurrection, but sometimes do refer to bodily resurrection, and to regeneration. "Alive" is the greek term "zao" and "dead" is the greek term "nekros". These terms are found in Romans 6:13 Romans 6:13 KJV Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. I propose this refers to spiritual resurrection as does the following. Does not "alive from the dead" constitute a synonym for "anastasis"? Some may respond, saying, "This is not saying that which was dead had previously lived. Therefore it is not a 'resurrection' but a mere life from a previous state of death. 'Resurrection' implies a previous life that ended, and nothing suggests a previous life that ended in Romans 6:13." I would respond by saying there is indeed a previous life that ended in our spiritual "resurrection". It is noted in Galatians 2. Galatians 2:20 KJV I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Note that the "I" of Paul's life is indicated to have been crucified. That means a life ended. And the same "I" "now lives", and Paul said, "I live by the faith of the Son of God." The same "I" that was crucified is then said to be the "I" that lives by the faith of the Son of God. This constitutes "anastasis", although the greek term is not used. The entire function of a synonym is to use a different word, whether in Greek or English, that says the same thing. Therefore, it is not required that the single Greek word anastasis be found elsewhere to mean regeneration before we can claim it means regeneration in Revelation 20. If the meaning of anastasis is applied to regeneration by way of a synonymous greek word, then that is ample proof that "resurrection" can apply to regeneration in Revelation 20. And there are other synonymous terms that apply to resurrection and regeneration. "Awake" and "Raise" are both translated from the greek term "Egeiro". Definition to arouse, cause to rise to arouse from sleep, to awake to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc. to raise up, produce, cause to appear to cause to appear, bring before the public to raise up, stir up, against one to raise up i.e. cause to be born of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect Strongs list of usage for "Awake/Raise" 1453 Ro 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Ro 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raise d again for our justification. Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Ro 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Ro 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Ro 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raise d up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Ro 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. Youngs Literal Translation Rom. 8:13 11 And this, knowing the time, that for us, the hour already `is' to be aroused out of sleep, for now nearer `is' our salvation than when we did believe; Note that the word "aroused" is synonymous with awake in YLT and KJV. To show that the Old Testament as well uses synonyms for bodily resurrection in spiritualized sense, note that the Old Testament Hebrew term "Revive" (Strong's #02421) is translated from "hyx" a primitive root [compare (02331), (02421)] Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Chayah TWOT - 644 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech khaw-yaw' Verb Note how it is defined as "restoring to life.' This is a synonym for "resurrection." Definition to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life, live prosperously, live for ever, be quickened, be alive, be restored to life or health (Qal) to live 1a to have life 1a to continue in life, remain alive 1a to sustain life, to live on or upon 1a to live (prosperously) to revive, be quickened 1a from sickness 1a from discouragement 1a from faintness 1a from death (Piel) to preserve alive, let live to give life to quicken, revive, refresh 1b to restore to life 1b to cause to grow 1b to restore 1b to revive (Hiphil) to preserve alive, let live to quicken, revive 1c to restore (to health) 1c to revive 1c to restore to life Strongs list of usage for revive 1Ki 1:25 For he is gone down this day, and hath slain oxen and fat cattle and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the king's sons, and the captains of the host, and Abiathar the priest; and, behold, they eat and drink before him, and say, God save king Adonijah. 1Ki 1:31 Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and did reverence to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live for ever. 1Ki 1:34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon. 1Ki 1:39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon. 1Ki 17:22 And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revive d. But let us stick to the term anastasis for a moment. G386 anastasis an-as'-tas-is From G450; a standing up again, that is, (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, general or by implication (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth): - raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again. Strong's Greek Lexicon states clearly that "anastasis" can be interpreted "figuratively a moral recovery of spiritual truth." Robertson's Word Pictures states this about Revelation 20:6's use of the term anastasis: "Some think that John here pictures the 'Regeneration' (palingenesia) of Mat_19:28 and the 'Restoration' (apokatastasis) of Act_3:21. No effort is here made to solve this problem, save to call attention to the general judgment out of the books in Rev_20:12 and to the general resurrection in Joh_5:29; Act_24:15." And I state that Jesus DID refer to regeneration when using the term "resurrection". John 11:25 KJV(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: Is this not speaking about regeneration? And the salvation that is associated with resurrection in the above verse is also clearly noted as salvation in the context of the following: John 3:15 KJV (15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 1 John 5:13 KJV (13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:11 KJV (11) And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Those verses state what Jesus said! The plain fact is the New Testament has many greek terms that apply both to Christ's resurrection and our spiritual resurrection with Him, which is not a type but an actuality. That is so much so that we are to actually yield ourselves to God as those alive from the dead. (Luk 2:34) And2532 Simeon4826 blessed2127 them,846 and2532 said2036 unto4314 Mary3137 his846 mother,3384 Behold,2400 this3778 child is set2749 for1519 the fall4431 and2532 rising again386 of many4183 in1722 Israel;2474 and2532 for1519 a sign4592 which shall be spoken against;483 (1Pe 3:21) The like figure499 whereunto3739 even baptism908 doth also2532 now3568 save4982 us2248 (not3756 the putting away595 of the filth4509 of the flesh,4561 but235 the answer1906 of a good18 conscience4893 toward1519 God,)2316 by1223 the resurrection386 of Jesus2424 Christ:5547 Above we see the Strongs word numbers as 386 to refer to both resurrection of the body and a raising up that need not be restricted to bodily resurrection. It is the reference to Christ as a stumblingstone to some and a raiser of others. This implies far more than bodily resurrection. Robertson's Word pictures shows a verse in Romans 6:4 as evidence of this truth about Jesus. Luk 2:34 - Is set for the falling and the rising up of many in Israel (Keitai is ptō?sin kai anastasin pollō?n en tō?i Israē?l). Present indicative of the old defective verb appearing only in present and imperfect in the N.T. Sometimes it is used as the passive of tithē?mi as here. The falling of some and the rising up of others is what is meant. He will be a stumbling-block to some (Isa_8:14; Mat_21:42, Mat_21:44; Rom_9:33; 1Pe_2:16.) who love darkness rather than light (Joh_3:19), he will be the cause of rising for others (Rom_6:4, Rom_6:9; Eph_2:6). “Judas despairs, Peter repents: one robber blasphemes, the other confesses” (Plummer). Jesus is the magnet of the ages. He draws some, he repels others. This is true of all epoch-making men to some extent. Spoken against (antilegomenon). Present passive participle, continuous action. It is going on today. Nietzsche regarded Jesus Christ as the curse of the race because he spared the weak. Romans 6:4 speaks of us walking in newness of life with Christ, being synonymous -- not a mere type -- with Christ raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. And he quotes Ephesians 2:6, Eph 2:6 (6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: The word found there is also here: (Rom 6:5) For1063 if1487 we have been1096 planted together4854 in the3588 likeness3667 of his848 death,2288 we shall be2071 (235) also2532 in the likeness of his resurrection:386 Then we have another greek term: (Col 2:12) Buried with4916 him846 in1722 baptism,908 wherein1722, 3739 also2532 ye are risen with4891 him through1223 the3588 faith4102 of the3588 operation1753 of God,2316 who hath raised1453 him846 from1537 the3588 dead.3498 (Eph 2:6) And2532 hath raised us up together,4891 and2532 made us sit together4776 in1722 heavenly2032 places in1722 Christ5547 Jesus:2424 G4891 sunegeiro soon-eg-i'-ro From G4862 and G1453; to rouse (from death) in company with, that is, (figuratively) to revivify (spiritually) in resemblance to: - raise up together, rise with. The above is a RISING TOGETHER WITH. And our spiritual resurrection is a RISING TOGETHER with Christ's bodily resurrection. Nothing about a type is neither implied nor inferred. It's actual. Does this deny a physical resurrection of the church later? By no means. But it simply states His physical resurrection is CONJOINT with our spiritual one. And Strong noted a spiritual involvement as well. A spiritual resurrection with Christ for saints in the here and now. Similarly we see quickening conjointly. (Col 2:13) And2532 you,5209 being5607 dead3498 in1722 your sins3900 and2532 the3588 uncircumcision203 of your5216 flesh,4561 hath he quickened together4806 with4862 him,846 having forgiven5483 you5213 all3956 trespasses;3900 G4806 suzoopoieo̅ sood-zo-op-oy-eh'-o From G4862 and G2227; to reanimate conjointly with (figuratively): - quicken together with. (Eph 2:5) Even2532 when we2248 were5607 dead3498 in sins,3900 hath quickened us together4806 with Christ, by5547 (grace5485 ye are2075 saved4982 These are not types. We were given LIFE by Jesus. And our former lives in Adam died, and we are resurrected from those deaths of our FORMER LIVES into life IN CHRIST now. There are more Greek words: (Joh 2:19) Jesus2424 answered611 and2532 said2036 unto them,846 Destroy3089 this5126 temple,3485 and2532 in1722 three5140 days2250 I will raise it up.1453, 846 (Mat 3:9) And2532 think1380 not3361 to say3004 within1722 yourselves,1438 We have2192 Abraham11 to our father:3962 for1063 I say3004 unto you,5213 that3754 God2316 is able1410 of1537 these5130 stones3037 to raise up1453 children5043 unto Abraham.11 Above we see a word explicitly noted in John 2:19 as Christ's bodily resurrection, and then Matthew 3:9 where we read of spiritual resurrection since it is what makes us Children of Abraham. And that childhood in Abraham is spiritually true RIGHT NOW! It is not a type. It is an actuality! Here are more instances of physical resurrection implied in the term. (Mat 11:5) The blind5185 receive their sight,308 and2532 the lame5560 walk,4043 the lepers3015 are cleansed,2511 and2532 the deaf2974 hear,191 the dead3498 are raised up,1453 and2532 the poor4434 have the gospel preached to them.2097 (Mat 14:2) And2532 said2036 unto his848 servants,3816 This3778 is2076 John2491 the3588 Baptist;910 he846 is risen1453 from575 the3588 dead;3498 and2532 therefore1223, 5124 mighty works1411 do show forth1754 themselves in1722 him.846 (Mat 16:21) From575 that time forth5119 began756 Jesus2424 to show1166 unto his848 disciples,3101 how that3754 he846 must1163 go565 unto1519 Jerusalem,2414 and2532 suffer3958 many things4183 of575 the3588 elders4245 and2532 chief priests749 and2532 scribes,1122 and2532 be killed,615 and2532 be raised again1453 the3588 third5154 day.2250 (Mat 27:52) And2532 the3588 graves3419 were opened;455 and2532 many4183 bodies4983 of the3588 saints40 which slept2837 arose,1453 (Act 3:15) And1161 killed615 the3588 Prince747 of life,2222 whom3739 God2316 hath raised1453 from1537 the dead;3498 whereof3739 we2249 are2070 witnesses.3144 (Act 10:40) Him5126 God2316 raised up1453 the3588 third5154 day,2250 and2532 showed him openly;1325, 846, 1096, 1717 And so the very same term referring to Christ's resurrection (1453) is used to describe spiritual resurrection in being made a child of Abraham. That will not occur when we are physically resurrected. It has already occurred! And the next use of the term is applied in more than a type to our spiritual resurrection: (Rom 6:4) Therefore3767 we are buried4916 with him846 by1223 baptism908 into1519 death:2288 that2443 like as5618 Christ5547 was raised up1453 from1537 the dead3498 by1223 the3588 glory1391 of the3588 Father,3962 even2532 so3779 we2249 also2532 should walk4043 in1722 newness2538 of life.2222 Walking in newness of life is not a type, nor is it a thought of our future bodily resurrection. Romans is teaching truth concerning the fact that we are resurrected WITH CHRIST into a life that is as different from our previous lives in sin as a new creature is from an old one. We are new creatures in Christ. That is an actuality. Rom 6:5 (5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: This explicitly states that our baptism is explicitly a burial into His death. That is NOT A TYPE. You would have to contend that baptism does not render not an actual spiritual experience, since the same "spirit" of it's actuality in burying us into Christ's death demands that we be consistent, and realize the subsequent situation in the likeness of his resurrection is actual and NOT A TYPE. If our likeness of his resurrection is presently ONLY A TYPE and NOT ACTUAL, then our baptism into His death IS ONLY A TYPE AND NOT ACTUAL. And that means that OUR BAPTISM ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING SPIRITUAL IN OUR LIVES!! NOTHING! It renders baptism a mere TYPE or ACT that holds no spiritual effectiveness in our lives. What is true of the latter, must be held true for the former. John 5:25 KJV 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. This is not a resurrection of the physical, as I indicated in my former rebuttals to you. But, all in all, to use the reasoning that a word cannot mean something in a particular instance, although the definition of the term certainly allows for us, if the word is never used elsewhere in the Bible about such a thought is flawed reasoning. You see, that same principle would require us to never be able to state that "Shiloh" refers to Jesus Christ in Genesis 49:10. Genesis 49:10 KJV The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. The term is never used to explicitly refer to Jesus elsewhere. So we cannot use such a strict reasoning that simply because a word in one instance that is open for possibility to mean spiritual resurrection cannot be regarded so because it is never used elsewhere for such a thought. That would necessitate that we never accept any term used in any single occasion towards a particular thought that is never used elsewhere for the same thought. In other words, terms like "Shiloh" cannot be said to refer to Christ since no other instance of the term refers to Christ, such as Joshua 18:1 Joshua 18:8 Joshua 18:9 Joshua 18:10 ...basically, every other reference to Shiloh in Joshua. ... and Judges You get the picture. You have done the same thing with anastasis. Who is to say that the single instance I refer to in Revelation 20 does not speak about spiritual resurrection? The single instance of Shiloh in Genesis 49 speaks of Jesus Christ when no where else is that indicated! You said, That is as much ill reasoning as me saying, "So, the word SHILOH is used in Scripture everywhere else to speak of a town or region. Therefore there is no reason not to believe that is what it is speaking of in Genesis 49:10." You might note that the greek term Shiloh in Gen 49:10 is Strong's number 7886 whereas it is 7887, implying two different words, in the scriptures speaking of it as a location. However, Strong's definition of 7887 explicitly states it is the same as 7886. And even if it was not, my point is still valid in saying Jesus Christ is never referred to explicitly as Shiloh anywhere else. After I stated that I did vindicate my claim that there is a physical resurrection immediately before the Great White Throne judgment, you said I did not show from the text in Rev 20 that this is a bodily resurrection. And you then said if "living again" refers to bodily resurrection, then the reference to the dead who experienced a first resurrection, in contrast, must also be a physical resurrection. In other words, you claim, the reference to the rest of the dead living again later in physical resurrection, implies the resurrected of the first resurrection to have been physically resurrected. That is not necessary to reason this way, and you should agree. Is it not possible for us to say that although one person may experience something spiritual that the other person may later experience the same thing in a physical way? I already showed that the terms RAISED UP refer both to both spiritual regeneration and physical resurrection. I understand you are speaking about grammatical consistency here in the pertinent context. You may find it interesting to know that some people feel the living again in Revelation 20 after the 1000 years is also spiritual since the term is the same, and they argue the first resurrection is clearly spiritual. BUT consider this. The second death is contrasted from the first death as spiritual as opposed to physical. Although you mentioned the body is involved in the thought of a second death, we both know the body does not die twice, and is not implied to die twice simply by the term "second death". "It is appointed unto man to die once." Heb 9:27. So, if the second death is contrasted from the first as physical is contrasted from spiritual, then consistency would require us to state the first resurrection is contrasted in the same manner from a second one. But we must also consider that there are unique things mentioned in Revelation. One is the "first resurrection". This term is not found anywhere else. Your proposition that states the rest of the dead not living again until the thousand years are finished means there is a gap of one thousand years between a physical resurrection of the saints and a physical resurrection of the sinners is not found anywhere else in scripture. And brother, this Book is the testimony of a vision. It is apocalyptic, or symbolic, in nature. We cannot base doctrines out of it. Suffice it to say that we must therefore base this scripture upon plain understanding given elsewhere. Show me one single vision that formed a doctrine rather than supported one. Also, this is the second time SOULS were seen in John's visions. The first time was souls beneath the altar in the fifth seal. Does that demand BODIES be involved? I think not. They are dead. Why would BODIES be beneath an altar with those bodies' mouths speaking the words therein? By watching the series of elements in question throughout the entire Revelation, we can better understand what each one specifically refers to, seeing there is an obvious pattern evolving by seeing the series. The souls in the fifth seal were people SLAIN for the testimony of Jesus. Compare: Revelation 20:4 KJV 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. Revelation 6:9 KJV And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: There is no reason to argue these SOULS beneath the altar are including bodies. So why emphasize it in Rev 20? Nothing implies the Lord's coming at this time, though you claim Rev 19's coming of the Lord is chronologically preceding Revelation 20. That cannot be proven, though. Also, the terms "first" and "second" do not necessarily describe chronology of two events of the exact same nature. They are often used in scripture to distinguish different "orders", or different "natures" of two things. There was a "first Adam" and the "second man" (1 Cor 15:45,47). That does not stress chronology, but distinction in classes. There was a new order of man with Christ. A new creation. And since I already noted we do not die twice, the first death and second death are contrasted by two different sorts of deaths altogether. If THAT is the obvious implication in mentioning the "second death", then we must be consistent and say it is so with the "first resurrection". There is a different sort of resurrection distinguished between the first and second resurrections. Otherwise, you imply there are two physical deaths we each shall experience, contrary to Hebrews 9:27's reference to one death appointed to man. You said, Quote:
But I contend that Revelation is a series of visions. And so we would not find such things in explicit teachings about the coming of the Lord outside a vision setting. Revelation is a unique New Testament book based entirely upon visions. I understand that just because the phrase "coming of the Lord" can mean a non visible coming in judgement, that does not mean that Rev 19 is not describing a visible coming of the Lord. I am only saying this option is plausible and a possibility. My greater foundation is in saying Revelation is not totally written in chronological order. And that because it is Apocalyptic in content, and comprised of visions, we cannot base doctrines upon it's contents. It is "profitable" for doctrine, but not foundational. You then ask the questions: Quote:
Quote:
Yes, at the Great White Throne's preceding resurrection. The totality of the information regarding that thought is not in Revelation 20, any more than the thought of the details of how our bodies are changed at all are mentioned there. But that is why we have the rest fo the Bible. We do not limit our understanding of this resurrection when the rest of the dead live again to the words in Revelation 20, when we know it is related to us elsewhere in more detailed manner. Quote:
I am so shocked I have to deal with this issue as often as you require it of me. Brother, some things are a given. Do you need an explicit statement in the bible stating that explicit teachings are not to be found in visions rife with symbolism, in which we are not told what is symbolic and what is not? Do you need the term "explicit" in the bible in order to accept the fact that there is explicit teaching in the Bible? Same principle! Brother, Revelation is Apocalyptic. It is a series of visions. Show me one instance outside of Revelation where a vision gave forth teachings that were never found in any explicit teaching sessions of the Prophets, Jesus or the apostles. Quote:
Romans 6:3-11 KJV Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: (6) 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. (7) For he that is dead is freed from sin. (8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: (9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. (10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. The truth about resurrection involves the implication that we are alive and then die and live again. Resurgence. Here we read that we are buried into Christ's death. This makes His death our deaths. And this is done so we can experience the other elements of what occurred after Christ died. He resurrected. This corresponds to walking in newness of life. "Newness of life" implies an older one existed and is now over, and a new one is now present in it's place. I would say that regards resurrection, wouldn't you? Why say "newness of life" if there is not a contrast of life lived beforehand and now? Verse 6 teaches that we are crucified. You do not crucify something already dead. Crucifixion does the killing. And the same "WE" that are crucified, is the "WE" that should later not serve sin. In other words, a life after crucifixion is a life free from sin. And then we read a parallel of how we should consider ourselves based upon Christ's experience. He was alive and was crucified, as were we WITH HIM. And as Christ resurrected to never have to die unto sin again, in respect to sin, we LIKEWISE (note this term -- "in the same manner") consider or reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God. And Romans 6:13 specifically notes "alive from the dead" which is synonymous with resurrection. Romans 6:13 KJV Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. However, a more clear reference is found in Gal . Galatians 2:20 KJV I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. The same "I" that is crucified, is the "I" that lived by the specified faith later. Only a resurrection can accomplish that. I just realized I failed to address some points. Apologies. You claim I make a proposal with no explanation that the resurrection noted in John 5 is spiritual and is salvation, and the condemnation noted there is the second death noted in Revelation 20. My point is that the pattern is identical to Revelation 20. You did not discuss John's first resurrection in verses 24-26. Why? And when I said, "You agree we cannot determine that there is a time delay between the two, nor can we determine there is NOT a time delay between the two," you responded saying, Quote:
Brother, forgive me, but I still fail to see what I missed. You said "delay". Not "sequence". I meant to say that you stated we cannot determine there is time delay between the two. And my response is that we also cannot determine there is NOT a time delay between the two. You said what you said. When I mentioned that if there are two resurrections in verses 28-29, then there must be three altogether, since 24-26 notes one as well, you simply said you did not believe that. And the reason I said it does harm to your thinking is because I do not think you would propose there are three resurrections. You claim John 5:24-29 does not propose in explicit terms "there shall only be two resurrections." But I am stating that the pattern here fits Rev 20 if there are only two resurrections implied. You must agree it CAN mean what I propose, and I admit it MAY NOT mean what I suggest. So we are depending more upon what agrees with other references. When I imply there are not three events in 1 Cor 15, you ask me to demonstrate that. I already stated that 1 Cor 15 speaks of two resurrections. (1) One of Christ the firstfruits, (2) and then those at His coming. Where is another one mentioned? That speaks of only two resurrections. You note Paul established the context in stating "as in Adam all die, so shall in Christ all live." And that is supposed to prove everyone will live, so to enable you say that there is indeed the resurrection of sinner involved here. Brother, how does Christ affect all men so that they will live physically in the physical resurrection, including sinners in the resurrection of the unjust? What difference did Christ's work do to enable sinners to resurrect? I see no connection to Christ's work that affects sinners to one day resurrection in a resurrection of damnation. You said Quote:
You claim Quote:
And you make a common futurist error when you claim that after Christ comes, He begins reigning, as though the coming is when He starts to reign. And futurists everywhere seem to slip up on this very note every time. The bible clearly states here that Christ ENDS His reigning when He comes. The end occurs when He comes. Quote:
These scriptures state that Christ makes all alive. But it is implied in context that it is speaking about all saved people, distinctly. As I said, Christ does not affect whether or not unjust sinners will resurrect unto damnation or not. Nothing hints that. This life is not physical life, but salvation! We died spiritually in Adam. Not physically, although the SIN which accompanied spiritual death did bring physical death as well as an implication. So when Christ comes, and the remainder of the people to be resurrected, in contrast to His resurrection as firstfruits, are resurrected, the end occurs. At that time the end is marked. And Christ ends his ruling because when He comes, He will have put down all other authority. He does not BEGIN to rule then, but on the contrary He CEASES to rule then. This is reflected in Ephesians 1. Quote:
Jesus is sitting on the throne now. He is OVER all other powers IN THIS WORLD and the world to come. In case you state this is not a throne, at the right hand of God, let me quote this next scripture to prove it is. Quote:
He sits on the THRONE UNTIL, and NOT AFTER, He makes enemies His footstool. And we know this is a throne, because verse 2 repeats the idea as a synonymous thought by saying He RULES in the midst of his enemies. They are not yet submitted. But the main point is that the right hand is a seat from which He rules! And Ephesians stated this is ruling IN THIS WORLD and the world to come. Futurism has a propensity to say Jesus is NOT ruling now, and will not rule UNTIL He comes. But correlating 1 Cor 15 with Ephesians 1 and Psalm 110 reveals that to be the opposite of the situation. Death is destroyed at Christ's coming, when the rest of the folks are resurrected, because this is the white throne judgment. And death is cast into the lake of fire. Paul did not say the reigning occurs after the end. He said it occurs UNTIL the end, because He already started ruling now. And most every futurist thinks He cannot rule now due to the presence of enemies. But Paul stated that He rules UNTIL enemies are made his footstool. You claim your view is consistent with Rev's mentioning of a "first" resurrection (implying a second physical one to come later), however we must admit we BOTH are basing our thoughts upon our present understanding of prophecy. But your view lacks because you fail to note that Christ rules UNTIL enemies are made footstool, and not after, in agreement with Psalm 110. You claim "a resurrection... both of the just and the unjust" meaning only one event is irrational. Then you attempt to prove that accusation by saying a statement "I will give a prize, to both Peter and to Paul" does not imply it is the exact same actual prize. You are making a comparison statement by reading these verses through a futurist perceptual grid and misinterpreting the verse in Acts. The statement comparison is flawed. I can just as easily make a statement saying, "Here is a car, both blue and black in colour," implying a two-tone coloured vehicle. Notice alternative translations: Quote:
Quote:
I have yet to read any writing that states it speaks of two different episodes. You claim you do not need to show how John 5:24-26 is not a spiritual one. I beg to differ! I have already shown passages in the rest of the bible using the same words that refer to salvation and not physical resurrection. You claim empty claims when you state you are unable to find where it reads, "there is not another resurrection of dead saints before this" in Acts 24:15. Who said it must? One would only write that if one knew there were others who believed there might be another resurrection of the physical beforehand. Brother, some scriptures are not referenced clearly in the bible. For example, 1 Corinthians 15 is in answer to a letter that Paul took for granted the Corinthians were aware of. So he does not repeat what they, themselves, wrote to him. And that is somewhat hard for us to sometimes deal with, because had we read the letter they originally sent, much controversy about the book we do have would be removed. So we cannot assume anything. We take what the Bible DOES say and not assume anything else about the issue. What did his readers have in mind as common knowledge leading Atcs to leave out both your and my possible given thoughts? And I can just as easily say to you that the Bible does not say there IS a physical resurrection before the one noted in Acts 24:15. It's a two-way street. So what I do lay claim on is that the pattern noted in John 5:24-29 is identical to the pattern in revelation 20, using verses 24-26, which you did not use. And I also consider that 1 Cor 15 speaks of Christ ruling UNTIL all enemies are put down, and not after, and how that the pattern here must also fit Revelation 20. My view fits! And I am weighing out on the positive side more than you are, because you distorted the contrast between the resurrected saints at his coming and the proper target of contrast. The proper element of contrast is Christ the firstfruits. Your errors here are distorting the overall picture, and it seems to be because you are basing your interpretation of 1 Cor 15 upon your futurist theology, rather than allow the bible to determine your theology concerning prophecy. I do not believe you do this intentionally, though. When I stated that nothing in 2 Thess 1 mentions a resurrection, and you do not seek to even try to prove there is a resurrection inferred here. Instead you put the burden of proof off your shoulders and demand that the thoughts of a 70 AD reference cannot be implied since the Roman sword came down in 70 AD upon Jerusalem, and not Christ's sword. Brother, you must become familiar with the rest of the Bible and it's implications here. Isaiah foretold the wrath of God upon Israel using the instrumentality of Assyria who was regarded as God's rod. Quote:
It was God's anger, but Assyria's attack. Assyria was a rod. A rod of correction and discipline and wrath. This is simply the way God is proven to speak of His wrath. You must reason here that it was not God's wrath but Assyria's wrath, to be consistent with your reasoning about 70 AD. Was God physically seen according to this scripture: Quote:
Being revealed would be similar to being seen. However, nobody physically saw God in the events described in 2 Samuel 22. Do you not consider an awareness of something to be a revelation? Tacitus and Josephus describe angels and chariots of war in the clouds over atop Jerusalem in 70 AD, anyway. You give a weak argument when you state that Christ would give the Thessalonians rest when he comes, and not the same time as the tribulation meted forth. You claim I am assuming they occur at the same time. Brother, it is a given, not an assumption. What kind of rest would be given to the Thessalonians in regards to their tribulation 2000 years ago over knowing Christ shall come in our future, at least 2000 years later, in wrath? It makes no sense. It relegates the offer for them to rest to be ridiculous. And you claim the coming of the Lord in 70AD was not judgement on the Thessalonian believers persecutors. The 70 AD judgment dealt with Jewish persecution everywhere, for the home base of the temple and it's rituals. Somehow Paul knew that the persecution against the Thessalonians would end when Christ comes. Lessons learned from what God did in Jerusalem would comfort the church in their own troubles. God will give them rest from their persecutors as well. He did it for the church in Jerusalem and surrounding regions where Jerusalem was the HQ of persecution. And so the destruction upon Jerusalem was the same SORT OF DESTRUCTION Paul implied would come upon the Thessalonians' persecutors. Otherwise the thought of resting due to the Lord's coming in wrath 2000 years later makes no sense. The rest was related to the Lord's coming in wrath. You must address this. I asked you if the Lord comes when the rest of the dead live again, because it has bearing on a thought that you might have two second comings. You hesitate to answer me saying it is not related to the first resurrection. Brother, you brought up the picture of 2 Thessalonians 2. 2 Thessalonian 2 mentions Christ's coming, which you claim demands a resurrection. You are saying that is the second coming of Christ. And Revelation 20 states "the rest of the dead" live again at the end of the millennium. So I am asking you if this is a coming of the Lord when the dead live again, or not. You then state : Quote:
It cannot be Pentecost, since Hebrews reads about it in it's future, while Pentecost was in it's past. Quote:
Do you not believe this above statement regards His coming? And why does it say He will appear a second time? Is not the coming of Jesus in the future, His appearance? This states he will appear a second time. What about this? Quote:
When I stated "The thousand years is noted in many other places, indicating simply a very long time," you said: Quote:
I made an error in my statement. I should have said the term "thousand" is used many other times, and indicates in conjunction with the term "years" a very long time. Apologies. I said it would be irrelevant for the Lord to tell the Thessalonians that the fiery wrath poured out in the earth upon people, as well as hell to follow, will fall upon people in our day or our future, while discussing their ancient persecutors who would get punishment by only hellfire, if you are correct. And you said Quote:
Of course it is NOT irrelevant seeing it IS God's word. Do not miss my point. Your doctrine makes it irrelevant. And you cannot pass that accusation off by simply saying it's the Word of God so it is not irrelevant. Many verses in scripture is rendered useless due to imposing upon the scriptures a false doctrine and misinterpretation. I am saying partial preterism, not amillennialism by the way, makes these verses very relevant. |