They will reign with Him a thousand years and making an unknown Greek out of the English New Testament

[PinSeeker]

You can define your terms however you like, just as you did here. But those seeking to know what Jesus and his apostles meant, would not find "dead in spirit" anywhere in the New Testament.

It is what it is. :) At the very least, when Paul says to Christians in Rome, "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience ~ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind..." he is, at the very least, saying the state we were formerly in but no longer is the same state of dead that the rest of mankind is still in.

If a person's spirit should die, that person would physically die.

Disagree. Let me ask you this: Do you (or do you not) believe that Adam (and Eve, of course) died the very day that they partook of the fruit forbidden tree? God told Adam he would in Genesis 2:17. So... did they? If you say they did, then what does it actually mean that they died? Alternatively, if you say that they did not, then, did God lie to Adam in Genesis 2:17?

According to Jesus, evil people don't have dead spirits; they know how to give good gifts to their children, which is an act motivated by the spirits of the parents...

This is a... will, an inadvertent, at least... conflation of two entirely different things.

To be dead in trespasses and sins is not the result of a dead spirit.

Very much disagree. Actually, I agree that the former is not the result of the latter. But the spiritually dead are dead in their sin, which is to be ~ as Paul puts it in Romans 6, slaves to sin and unrighteousness. This is opposed to being set free from sin and made slaves to God and righteousness, which applies to Christians. As Paul says there, we can now consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Grace to peace to you.

 

[Zao is life]

Just a side note: I believe the translation of the part in bold should say "in whom also Noah," speaking about Noah's preaching.

Noah was the one who preached to people while God waited for the ark to be built.

I disagree. The subject is Christ's death and quickening and the long suffering of God.

The long suffering of God when? During the days of Noah.

For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water);

It's not talking about Noah's preaching, just giving a time when the spirits were placed in that prison in hades.

 

[ewq1938]

But that’s my whole point, a resurrection after the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrection would make the first resurrection not the first resurrection.

lol...the first resurrection of Rev 20 is the first of the two groups of the dead resurrections in that chp not the first resurrection of all time, or of any other place in scripture. Mathew 27 isn't when the first person was resurrected anyways and that isn't what the FR means in Rev 20 so it is a contextual fallacy to bring up past resurrections when discussing the two resurrections of Rev 20.

 

[Zao is life]

Doesn’t being literally beheaded also cause a problem for Premil?

There would be no need to traumatize anyone, in the future an option could easily be given to believers where they could go into a clinic, get anesthetized, and painlessly get their head chopped off. Wouldn’t this be something that is highly valued because that would mean you get to reign with Christ for the millennium? This would certainly be the easiest, most efficient route for the beast to take in order to eliminate believers.

If so then the tribulation would be a very peaceful time, families or entire churches could just all go to the clinics at the same time and not have to miss their friends and family.

Tell that to the Christians who were beheaded just a few years ago by ISIS while they video-taped it.

 

[Zao is life]

I don't see that being a valid option based on what the following says.

Ezekiel 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

Assuming this temple is meant here, the text says-- the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever. Can't dwell there forever if it gets built then destroyed. This basically kills 2 birds with one stone. If this temple gets built it can never be destroyed, which then proves a literal built temple can't be meant prior to nor during the millennium, because the temple meant per this passage, assuming that is what is meant here, the text indicates the place of His throne, and the place of the soles of His feet, He shall dwell there in the midst of the children of Israel for ever.

To insist this temple gets built and is there during the millennium is to contradict verse 7 if this same one insists it will no longer be there after the millennium. The same logic applies per the option you submitted. I'm pretty certain forever means never ending. The best bet then, this temple never gets built and is not involving the future.

As to your other option, I don't really know if that might explain things instead or not.

Unless it's symbolically talking about Christ as the temple of God.

 

[PinSeeker]

Being born again is a down payment on our final state, not the final state itself. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

Hmmmm... Well, I would say that being born again is the guarantee of what our final state will be and where we will be and with Whom we will be. Perhaps you will agree...

According to Paul we are resurrected and if we aren't resurrected, we are without hope.

Absolutely. Resurrected in spirit... raised in spirit, and seated with Christ in the heavenly places. Yes! Incidentally, this is how Christ is with us always, just as He said he would be at the end of Matthew's gospel. In the Holy Spirit. This is how we are together... for now.

Since Jesus has been bodily resurrected, then we too shall be bodily resurrected.

Absolutely.

Being born again is a down payment on our inheritance which is physical resurrection.

Well, yes, the sealing we have received in and by the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it (Ephesians 1:14), right? But yes.

The first resurrection is when all of Christ's followers are bodily resurrected.

Ah. Disagree. I say the first resurrection is our raising up in and by the Spirit and seated in the heavenly places in and with Christ (Ephesians 2).

The second resurrection is when everyone else is resurrected to face judgment.

Ah. Well... half agree... :) Everyone will be physically/bodily resurrected to face the final Judgment. As Jesus said in John 5:28-29, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." So, one final, physical/bodily resurrection, but resurrection to... two very different outcomes.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

lol...the first resurrection of Rev 20 is the first of the two groups of the dead resurrections in that chp not the first resurrection of all time, or of any other place in scripture. Mathew 27 isn't when the first person was resurrected anyways and that isn't what the FR means in Rev 20 so it is a contextual fallacy to bring up past resurrections when discussing the two resurrections of Rev 20.

Ok, got it. When we see something that says “first” we know that there could be others that are truly first but just not first in that chapter of the Bible.

Using this logic, looking at Revelation 21:1 it says the first heaven and first earth were passed away. We can know that there very well could’ve been maybe three or four other heavens and earths that had already passed away prior to this chapter.

 

[grafted branch]

Tell that to the Christians who were beheaded just a few years ago by ISIS while they video-taped it.

Were they killed by the beast?

 

[Davidpt]

Doesn’t being literally beheaded also cause a problem for Premil?

There would be no need to traumatize anyone, in the future an option could easily be given to believers where they could go into a clinic, get anesthetized, and painlessly get their head chopped off. Wouldn’t this be something that is highly valued because that would mean you get to reign with Christ for the millennium? This would certainly be the easiest, most efficient route for the beast to take in order to eliminate believers.

If so then the tribulation would be a very peaceful time, families or entire churches could just all go to the clinics at the same time and not have to miss their friends and family.

As to be being beheaded, my thinking on this, right or wrong, I tend to think it is not literally meaning that in every case. What would a beheading accomplish? Wouldn't it accomplish silencing someone? And if a saint is martyred by other means rather than being literally beheaded, isn't the same thing accomplished, that it silenced this person? IOW, beheaded equals silencing someone, where in some cases some are literally beheaded, while in other cases they are killed via other means. Either way it involves physical death. I do not think, though there are apparently some Amils that do, that to be beheaded does not equal physical death, that it is meaning in a spiritual sense or something, I instead think it is meaning physical death, period. Is there even an example in the Bible where someone has been beheaded but that it didn't involve the physical death of them?

 

[Zao is life]

But that’s my whole point, a resurrection after the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrection would make the first resurrection not the first resurrection.

The first resurrection is Christ's resurrection.

Adam's death: "Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:" -- Romans 5:12.

The last Adam's resurrection: "For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming" -- 1 Corinthians 15:21-23.

"I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live." -- John 11:25.

Adam's death is shared by all the sons of Adam because of sin.
The last Adam's resurrection is shared by all the sons of Adam because of His righteousness.

But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming.

There will be a second death. There will be no second sacrifice for sin and no second resurrection from the second death.

 

[grafted branch]

Is there even an example in the Bible where someone has been beheaded but that it didn't involve the physical death of them?

The word “beheaded” in Revelation 20:4 is only used once and it means to cut off with an axe. I think John the Baptist is the only person in the Bible that was beheaded, but I’m not sure, there might be others.

I’ve seen some people suggest that it means circumcision of the heart. I think it is referring to when Messiah is cut off as seen in Daniel 9:26 and in Matthew 3:10 where the axe is laid to the root of the trees.

 

[grafted branch]

The first resurrection is Christ's resurrection.

Adam's death: "Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:" -- Romans 5:12.

The last Adam's resurrection: "For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming" -- 1 Corinthians 15:21-23.

"I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live." -- John 11:25.

Adam's death is shared by all the sons of Adam because of sin.
The last Adam's resurrection is shared by all the sons of Adam because of His righteousness.

But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming.

There will be a second death. There will be no second sacrifice for sin and no second resurrection from the second death.

I agree the first resurrection is Christs resurrection. I just don’t think the Amil view of the millennium works.
I personally don’t like any of the millennium views and I don’t have some great answer that can solve all the problems.
There is a view that basically replaces the word “first resurrection” with “Christ’s resurrection”. Meaning the thousand years is Christ’s resurrection and that is the only time Satan is bound. I’m not convinced of this view but it does seem to have fewer problems.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Ah. Disagree. I say the first resurrection is our raising up in and by the Spirit and seated in the heavenly places in and with Christ (Ephesians 2).

Why would you say that? Paul doesn't mention resurrection in that passage, first or otherwise. Rather, when Paul says that we were raised with him, he speaks about the Ascension of Christ. We were ascended with Christ in the sense that when Christ was raised up to sit at the Father's right hand, he was able to make intercession for the saints. (Hebrews 9:11-12, Hebrews 10:11-15)

So, one final, physical/bodily resurrection, but resurrection to... two very different outcomes.

Agree, two different outcomes.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I don't know if that's true. Here are the biblical reasons why I disagree with you:-

Just to be clear, my comment about a loss of hope came out of 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.

Paul taught that all who dwell in Christ are already spiritually in heaven, where He is:

Why spiritually? What if Paul is talking about vicarious participation in the Ascension? That is. What if Paul is talking about the fact that Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father to make our appeal for pardon? Do we need to be present in heaven to enjoy that blessing?

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3).

The term "places" isn't in the Greek text. The translators provided an English word to help the reader (in their opinion.) The literal translation would be "in the heavenlies" except "heavenlies" isn't a proper English word. It is an adjective, which was made into a plural noun. The "heavenlies" is an idealistic place where everything is eternal, indestructible, and can't be lost.

Paul says that our "supernatural" blessings will never fail, and can't be lost. He doesn't say that we exist spiritually in heaven. He says our blessings are as permanent and eternal as the heavenly bodies. In fact they are more eternal than that as Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my word will never pass away." Our blessings are as sure and solid as a promise of Jesus.

Jesus promised the following reality for those who believe in Him:

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak of Myself, but the Father who dwells in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the very works themselves." (John 14:10-11).

Yes, his promise is more secure than the courses of the celestial bodies.

So in reality, Paul could teach that "(God) hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6).

"True, however, Paul was not placing us in heaven directly. Instead, we have a vicarious ascension, which is an indirect and proxy experience. Paul ascended to the right hand of the Father, so that he could make an appeal for our pardon on our behalf."

Then Paul implied, without any ambiguity, that those who die dwelling in Christ remain in Christ after death, when he added,

"For to me to live [záō] is Christ, and to die [apothnesko] is gain. But if I live [záō] in the flesh [sarx], this is the fruit of my labor.
Yet I do not know what I shall choose. For I am pressed together by the two:
having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more needful for you." (Philippians 1:20-24).

The question is whether Paul meant to say that he would immediately be with Christ after death. After all, he tells the Thessalonian church that those who are dead in Christ will rise and those who are alive will join together with them to meet the Lord in the air. Presumably Paul will be included in that number.

In another letter, written to a different congregation of Christians in another place, Paul wrote,

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our dwelling-place out of Heaven; if indeed in being clothed, we shall not be found naked.

For we who are in this tabernacle groan, being burdened; inasmuch as we do not wish to be unclothed, but to be clothed, so that the mortal might be swallowed up by the life.

And He who has worked in us for this same thing is God, who also is giving to us the earnest (guarantee) of the (Holy) Spirit. Then being always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body, we are away from home from the Lord; for we walk by faith, not by sight; then we are confident and we are pleased rather to go away from home out of the body, and to come home to the Lord.
Therefore we are also laboring to be well-pleasing to Him, whether at home or away from home." (2 Corinthians 5:1-9).

Those who fall asleep in Christ are clothed with Christ's immortality, who alone is immortal (1 Timothy 6:16).

Again, the question remains. Does Paul mean to suggest that the dead in Christ immediately go to be with the Lord? According to his letter to the Thessalonians, they don't.

Nevertheless, until their own bodily resurrection, those who have died in Christ will not be found in a body (the way Jesus is), but Christ is risen.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you reword it. :)

 

[Davidpt]

I agree the first resurrection is Christs resurrection. I just don’t think the Amil view of the millennium works.
I personally don’t like any of the millennium views and I don’t have some great answer that can solve all the problems.
There is a view that basically replaces the word “first resurrection” with “Christ’s resurrection”. Meaning the thousand years is Christ’s resurrection and that is the only time Satan is bound. I’m not convinced of this view but it does seem to have fewer problems.

I don't know if 'type' is the right word or not to describe the following, but in my mind, if we make the first resurrection a type of resurrection, a resurrection of the just, in this case, it doesn't matter how many resurrection events there are involving the just, the fact all these events obviously precede the resurrection of the unjust. Therefore, making it the first resurrection no matter how you look at it if there are only two types of resurrection events, that of the just and of the unjust.

The two types of resurrection events.

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.

Type 1, the resurrection of the just.

they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life

Type 2, the resurrection of the unjust.

they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
-------------------------------------------
Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Type 1, the resurrection of the just.

of the just

Type 2, the resurrection of the unjust.

of the unjust
------------------------------------------
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Type 1, the resurrection of the just.

This is the first resurrection.

Type 2, the resurrection of the unjust.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.
-------------------------------------------------
IOW, until everyone that are just, are raised, no one that is unjust, are raised in the meantime. That makes it the first resurrection no matter how many different resurrection events there are involving the just. The first resurrection event began with Christ's resurrection and is not finished until there are no more just people to be raised. After that the only resurrection event remaining is the resurrection of the unjust.

What can't be denied, regardless of when the unjust are raised, whether that be the same day Christ returns, or whether it be a thousand years later, there is obviously a gap between the resurrection of the just and of the unjust. BTW, all these examples above involving the resurrection of the just, these are all meaning the same bodily resurrection of the saved when Christ returns in the end of this age.

 

[Timtofly]

Bible tells us not shall be bodily resurrected before an hour coming when the last trumpet sounds?

No, that is not what the Bible states.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is."

Nothing in that verse about waiting for a single hour.

"when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live."

You say, but wrong verse:

"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; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Still the same hour as the first verse, no?

Jesus used His voice to call Lazarus out of his grave, meaning the hour was then, so an ongoing resurrection from that moment on. The dead going into the LOF are the last to be called. Lazarus was given the first resurrection even before the Cross. He would never experience the second death. He is currently in Paradise, enjoying everything physical with a physical body he was given when he was no longer in a state of death, ie a mortal corruptible body. His soul did not come out of the grave without a physical body. Lazarus still has, and will continue to have, that same first resurrection, physical body, after 2,000 years.

In Revelation 20:4, those resurrected into that same first resurrection, physical body, will live a thousand years in that physical body, and then into the NHNE. While Lazarus will have had that physical body for 3,000 years.

You want an ongoing first resurrection in theory, but not one in practice. You call this first resurrection, merely spiritual, when it is not about the spirit, but the physical body. The spirit is always with God, unless banned from God's presence. Only a reprobate soul has a banned spirit, and that spirit is called a demon.

Many talk about Satan and his demonic army. That army is made up of the tens of millions of reprobate human's spirits over the last almost 6000 years, since sin entered the world. That is why Paul said to keep blameless the whole, soul, body, and spirit. One's spirit can be turned into a demon, and that demon will be cast into the LOF along with the soul. Many also claim the body is cast into the LOF as well. That would make it permanent and not temporal like this current physical body that only returns to dust.

 

[PinSeeker]

Why would you say that? Paul doesn't mention resurrection in that passage, first or otherwise.

Yes, he does... :) We have been raised up with Christ...

Rather, when Paul says that we were raised with him, he speaks about the Ascension of Christ.

The physical resurrection and ascension of Christ, yes, but we have been spiritually resurrected ~ by the Spirit, in Christ ~ and thus are, again, spiritually speaking, by the Spirit and in spirit, seated with Him in the heavenly places. Not physically/bodily, obviously.

We were ascended with Christ in the sense that when Christ was raised up

Right, and resurrected ~ actually resurrected and then ascended, but not physically in either. But made alive, having been formerly dead in our sin. This is a resurrection. Not physical yet, but a resurrection from the dead. It is a raising up from death (in sin) to life (in Christ), and this is indeed a resurrection.

Agree, two different outcomes.

Great! I'm really not sure how anyone could disagree with that, to be honest.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It is what it is. :) At the very least, when Paul says to Christians in Rome, "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience ~ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind..." he is, at the very least, saying the state we were formerly in but no longer is the same state of dead that the rest of mankind is still in.

I agree with that and so the question is, what kind of dead is the rest of the world in? I have postulated two possible interpretations: 1) condemned to death, and 2) spreading death.

Are there two results of sinful behavior, or are there three? When we sin against God, we are guilty and as such we are under the curse of death. But as God said to Adam, "dying you shall die" meaning that when Adam dies, he has no hope of continuation. The same goes for us, apart from God's grace, we have no chance to exist in the "aion" the final age. For some people, they die once and then comes the judgment. For others, they die once, but then comes the free gift of existing in life everlasting.

That is one result of sin -- exclusion from the final age. In defining life, we find that sin can have a negative impact on it. According to the New Testament, we were meant to experience well-being, happiness, fulfillment, and human flourishing. Any actions we take that support life promote these positive outcomes. However, when we sin, it often opposes these positive outcomes and results in a lack of well-being, happiness, fulfillment, and human flourishing.

So then, those who practice sin are not only deserving of the death penalty (exclusion from the final age), the also spread death everyway they can.

Disagree. Let me ask you this: Do you (or do you not) believe that Adam (and Eve, of course) died the very day that they partook of the fruit forbidden tree?

No. They did not die that day. And God didn't say that they would die that day. He said, On the day that you eat of the tree, "dying you shall die." In other words, the day that they died, they would be lost forever. If someone is dead in their transgressions, the day they die they will be lost forever. If someone is alive in Christ, then the day they die is not the end of their story.

God told Adam he would in Genesis 2:17. So... did they? If you say they did, then what does it actually mean that they died? Alternatively, if you say that they did not, then, did God lie to Adam in Genesis 2:17?


This is a... will, an inadvertent, at least... conflation of two entirely different things.


Very much disagree. Actually, I agree that the former is not the result of the latter. But the spiritually dead are dead in their sin, which is to be ~ as Paul puts it in Romans 6, slaves to sin and unrighteousness. This is opposed to being set free from sin and made slaves to God and righteousness, which applies to Christians. As Paul says there, we can now consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Grace to peace to you.

A slave to sin is not dead.

 

[rwb]

When it says we "have" eternal life, we "have" it in the same way we "have" an inheritance. We "have" it because it belongs to us and we are trusting the promise of a trustworthy person to give it to us when the time comes.

I don't entirely disagree C&Z. But I do disagree about when we receive eternal everlasting life. I don't think that any doctrine could be made more clearly than the fact that we have everlasting or eternal life when we believe in Christ for salvation. Christ has already made us eternally alive through His Spirit within us. What makes people disavow this is that they cannot see this life is through our spirit by His Spirit within us. When we know and enter the Kingdom of God through the Spirit of Christ when we are born again or from above it is not physically that we enter there, but spiritually. How can we be certain of this truth? Because Christ has told us that the Kingdom of God is not NOW of this world, nor can it be seen through physical sight because the Kingdom of God is within us. The reason it is so hard to accept this truth is because most are too focused on a physical or material Kingdom of God they think shall be on this earth.

I'm confused and I apologize if I got you wrong. I thought you were saying that we are promised a spirit body of some kind.

Our spirit is the breath of life within our flesh, giving physical life to our body. Man's physical body of flesh and bone was created from the dust of the earth, and through the breath of life from God which is spirit, man became a living soul. We possess NOW, from the moment we are born again of Christ's Spirit, eternal everlasting spiritual life or life in our spirit through the Holy Spirit, and that is the part of faithful mankind that shall NEVER die. When our body dies as we are all destined to, our spirit is raised (not resurrected) a spiritual body of believers to the heavenly Kingdom of God, where we shall be until time given this earth for man to be born again has ended. And that will be when the seventh trumpet begins to sound. That's why both John and Paul tell us that death of our body is not the death of our spirit. In heaven we shall still be living souls there.

"I respectfully disagree with the idea that one can exist as a spirit or soul without a body. Although in conversations concerning spirituality we may refer to ourselves as having three parts - body, soul, and spirit - it's important to understand that each part is interconnected. If the body dies, so does the soul and spirit. If the spirit dies, the body and soul die with it. And if the soul dies, the entire being dies. Therefore, it's incorrect to assume that one part can live without the others."

This is not true! Man became a living soul through flesh & bone together with spirit (breath of life). When the spirit in man is born again through the Spirit from Christ, our spirit has everlasting life and can never die. Our body of flesh & bone dies, but our spirit still a living soul is alive forever IF before death we were born again through Christ's Spirit. When Paul writes in 1Cor 15 that the body dies and is then raised (not resurrected) a spiritual body in heaven, it is not only individual believer but corporately. Just as we are a physical body of believers on earth, so too in heaven we continue to be a spiritual body of believers there.

Only the spirit in those who die in unbelief are said to be in the grave in silence and darkness, but the spirit of those who physically die in faith, returns to God who gave it a living (spirit) soul.

The body of flesh and bone cannot continue to have life without a breath of life (spirit) and so it is a corpse. And the spirit within man without the Holy Spirit is also called "the dead" and is in the grave in silence and darkness. But the spirit within man that has the Spirit from Christ continues to be alive after our flesh & bone has died, and returns to God in heaven a living soul, a spiritual body of believers there.

Including John the Apostle as we can see in Revelation 20. :) John says that thrones were set up and that some were raised from the dead. These people are the first resurrection.

John NEVER, nor does anyone else speak of the "first resurrection" as anything or anyone other than Jesus Christ. He is the first resurrection from the dead and shall never die again. It is by partaking of Him before our physical death, that we have partaken of His resurrection life and are of the first resurrection through Him. That's why when we are baptized it is written that we are buried with Him into death, and risen with Him through faith that is of the operation of God who raised Him from the dead.

Colossians 2:12 (KJV) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Romans 6:4 (KJV) 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.

Where in this verse does John write that some were raised from physical death? It says only that these martyred saints during their lifetimes, symbolized a thousand years, lived and reigned with Christ, and after they were martyred for their faithfulness they were still souls alive in heaven after physical death. There will be only one physical resurrection for all who have died in an hour coming when the last trumpet sounds. Nowhere in Scripture can we find there will be two bodily resurrections separated by one thousand years.

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 20 reads that way to me. The thousand-year reign of Christ is recorded in Luke 17. In that context, Jesus refers to the millennial kingdom as "the days of the Son of man."

No, sadly many, like you read the passage in this way. It's called reading our doctrine into the passage. Luke 17 is of no help for you, Jesus gives no indication for a millennial Kingdom. In fact He says that His Kingdom if NOT of this world when the Pharisees demanded to know when the Kingdom of God should come. His answer is that His Kingdom does not come with observation and that we should not look for the Son of man on the earth, for we shall not see Him or His Kingdom here now, because the Kingdom of God is within you.

Luke 17:20-23 (KJV) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

We are living in the days of the Son of man. We have been since He came to earth in human flesh. All the prophets of Old have written about this time when the promised Messiah/Redeemer would come, and since He has come we are now and have been living in these last days known as the age/day/time of the Gospel of grace. The time given the Church on earth for building the spiritual Kingdom of God as the Gospel is proclaimed unto all the nations of the world through the power of the Holy Spirit. This time shall come to an end when the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven is complete and the seventh trumpet begins to sound.

 

[grafted branch]

I don't know if 'type' is the right word or not to describe the following, but in my mind, if we make the first resurrection a type of resurrection, a resurrection of the just, in this case, it doesn't matter how many resurrection events there are involving the just, the fact all these events obviously precede the resurrection of the unjust. Therefore, making it the first resurrection no matter how you look at it if there are only two types of resurrection events, that of the just and of the unjust.

The two types of resurrection events.

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.

Type 1, the resurrection of the just.

they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life

Type 2, the resurrection of the unjust.

they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
-------------------------------------------
Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Type 1, the resurrection of the just.

of the just

Type 2, the resurrection of the unjust.

of the unjust
------------------------------------------
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Type 1, the resurrection of the just.

This is the first resurrection.

Type 2, the resurrection of the unjust.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.
-------------------------------------------------
IOW, until everyone that are just, are raised, no one that is unjust, are raised in the meantime. That makes it the first resurrection no matter how many different resurrection events there are involving the just. The first resurrection event began with Christ's resurrection and is not finished until there are no more just people to be raised. After that the only resurrection event remaining is the resurrection of the unjust.

What can't be denied, regardless of when the unjust are raised, whether that be the same day Christ returns, or whether it be a thousand years later, there is obviously a gap between the resurrection of the just and of the unjust. BTW, all these examples above involving the resurrection of the just, these are all meaning the same bodily resurrection of the saved when Christ returns in the end of this age.

That does make sense, what about the resurrection in Daniel 12:2? It does list the resurrection to everlasting life first, then everlasting contempt second, but it looks like it’s considered one resurrection.

Where do Premil place this resurrection? After the millennium?