Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[PinSeeker]

So the New Jerusalem has always been in heaven, along with everyone in it, who have had physical bodies?

Noone has a physical body in heaven... yet. One day, heaven and earth will be one. Why do you keep asking such inane questions? Oh, yeah... LOL!

Thus no one up there is waiting for a physical body.

They are... They are waiting for when they ~ spirit though they are now ~ will be reunited with their physical body, which will be "made new," at the second resurrection. Your premises are terribly wrong.

They are actually sitting, or standing, serving God day and night in that heavenly temple, and living in that New Jerusalem?

Their spirits are with Jesus right now. And, in the Holy Spirit, even we Christians living here on earth, are seated with Christ in the heavenly places, as Paul says in Ephesians 2. So, really, Timtofly, "sitting" is correct, but what is really meant by 'seated' is very different than actually having one's butt in a chair or on the ground. :)

You keep inserting that a first resurrection, that you don't call physical, but spiritual , happens twice in Revelation 20.

No, only once, Timtofly... in Revelation 20:4-6. And this happens for every member of God's elect, each at his or her own appointed time, through the course of the millennium, the thousand years. This is the first resurrection.

The second resurrection, Timtofly, which is physical, should be seen to have just occurred when the judgment scene opens in Revelation 20:11. I was very clear about that...

This is at least three or four times now saying something that is not complicated at all, very easy to understand. Yet you still mangle it, time after time after time, which makes it very unlikely to be unintentional.

How can you expect to be taken seriously?

I would ask that same question of you... and it would actually be a valid question. :)

The term first resurrection does not imply a second resurrection.

It does. On top of the fact that it just does (otherwise it would just be called the resurrection rather than the first resurrection), it mirrors the fact that there is a first and second death. And it's a complete reversal of the first and second death. In other words:

• The first death is physical and general to all, and the second death is spiritual and given only to those not in Christ
• The first resurrection is spiritual and given only to the elect, and the second resurrection is physical and general to all.

... In fact some have stated the first resurrection only happens after the thousand years.

Well, many have, but they're wrong. :)

You cannot have two resurrections if you don't even recognize the thousand years between your alleged first resurrection and a second one.

Ah, you know that's not far off; let me restate that in a correct way... :) The total number of 'first resurrections' happens over the course of the "thousand years," the millennium ~ which we are in the midst of now ~ and the second is after it is ended... after Jesus returns and executes the final Judgment.

Was there a physical resurrection in the first century that implies a second one now?

LOL! Why yes, Timtofly, Jesus's... :) Our resurrection will be like His (Romans 6:5)...

...If there was a first resurrection, then all those still have physical bodies that are not subject to nor have experienced a second death.

Well that depends on whether they are still living, like you and I are now, or have died the first (physical) death and are thus deceased. And we are just talking about Christians here. Christians will not experience the second death; the second death will only happen to those not in Christ at the final Judgment, which is yet future.

Which is it?

LOL! <eyeroll> You obviously don't even know what you're asking saying, Timtofly.

You want two resurrections, then deny those in heaven have physical bodies, from a first resurrection.

I mean I get it; you cannot let go of these misguided opinions that you so stubbornly hold onto.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Ah, you know that's not far off; let me restate that in a correct way... :) The total number of 'first resurrections' happens over the course of the "thousand years," the millennium ~ which we are in the midst of now ~ and the second is after it is ended... after Jesus returns and executes the final Judgment.

Hmmm, let me get this { the correct way } straight:

We are now in the midst of "the "thousand years millennium"? Since John wrote the "thousand years"
in the first century, it is now some 1890 to 1920 years later? So does midst mean that the millennium
will last another ~~ 2000+ years?

First time I have ever heard of "a Thousand" years being symbolic for "Four Thousand" eh? ♫ ↑

Grace and Peace to you, as well.

 

[Timtofly]

As I said, the second death is complete ruination, complete removal of any hope of redemption/salvation, complete removal of God's grace and placement under God's judgment, and indeed the loss of life in this sense... and permanent, for all eternity.

The second birth is not even about a restoration of the physical. The second birth is getting into the family of God. The second death is not because of the second birth, as it is the complete separation in the opposite "direction" of the second birth. That is why it is spiritual. One is already spiritually separated from God. The second death is the irreversible state from the second birth. The second birth is permanent. The second death is permanent. But the second death does not imply nor result from the second birth. That is why there is no second resurrection.

That is why one should not call the second birth, the first resurrection. The first resurrection should always be the restored physical body that will never face the second death. The first resurrection has nothing to do with the spiritual. But obviously, one with the second birth prior to physical death will experience the first resurrection upon physical death, because one can enjoy Paradise with a physical body, because they already experienced the second birth. The spiritual restoration results in the physical restoration immediately, not something put on hold for thousands of years.

 

[Timtofly]

Galatians 4

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”[e]

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”[f] 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

So there is a physical place in heaven?

 

[Timtofly]

They are... They are waiting for when they ~ spirit though they are now ~ will be reunited with their physical body, which will be "made new," at the second resurrection. Your premises are terribly wrong.

They are not spirit. They are soul. You are not a spirit on earth, but a soul. If you have no physical body in heaven, all you are in heaven is still a naked soul. But Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5, no one is a naked soul in heaven. They are a soul in a physical body.

 

[PinSeeker]

Hmmm, let me get this { the correct way } straight:

We are now in the midst of "the "thousand years millennium"? Since John wrote the "thousand years"
in the first century, it is now some 1890 to 1920 years later?

Yes.

So does midst mean that the millennium
will last another ~~ 2000+ years?

We don't know. In the fullness of God's time, whatever that is in years to you and me, this age will be brought to a close... when the fullness of the Gentile elect have been brought into God's Israel, and the partial hardening that is now on Israel (the Jewish elect), and together all true Jews of God's Israel... and Christ will return, defeat sin and death, execute the final Judgment, and then consummate the marriage between Himself and His Bride and usher in the New Heaven and New Earth. In a nutshell. :)

First time I have ever heard of "a Thousand" years being symbolic for "Four Thousand" eh? ♫ ↑

Not symbolic of four thousand... Symbolic of a completeness, a fullness of His time. See above. I can understand how hard it can be to get out of a hard numbers box... :) This is God's millennium, not ours. God is not within His creation, He is over it, and our time, which we measure in minutes, hours, days, and years, is part of that creation. We cannot put Him within our linear time. As hard as it is for us to wrap our finite minds around this, it's actually always now to our infinite God; He is the Great I AM. As the hymn-writer says in "Crown Him with Many Crowns," God is the potentate of time. We can get that in concept, but cannot really fathom it. But, rest assured that God knows how many "earth years" will make up His millennium.

Grace and Peace to you, as well.

Thank you. The Lord bless you and keep you, and lift His countenance to you (and) cause His face to shine upon you and give you peace (Numbers 6).

 

[PinSeeker]

The second birth is not even about a restoration of the physical

I... never said it was... Is that what you heard me say? No, quite the opposite, actually.

The second birth is getting into the family of God.

Sure. But we've been talking about the first and second resurrection, Timtofly.

The second death is not because of the second birth...

Right, those who experience the second birth are exempted from the second death.

One is already spiritually separated from God.

Well, separated from God's grace... His grace absolutely removed. Only judgment remains, having been on the wrong end of the final Judgment, executed by Christ.

The second death is the irreversible state from the second birth.

The second death is the irreversible eternal state of those who did not receive/experience the second birth.

The second birth is permanent.

Yes, I've said as much several times...

The second death is permanent.

Yes, I've said as much several times...

But the second death does not imply nor result from the second birth.

Agree; see above...

That is why there is no second resurrection.

LOL! That's equivalent to saying a batter (in baseball) hit the ball out of the park (in fair territory) with the bases loaded, but nobody scored...

That is why one should not call the second birth, the first resurrection.

Well okay, but who in the world is doing such a thing? :)

The first resurrection should always be the restored physical body that will never face the second death.

Nope. The first resurrection is the raising up of the person who has just been brought from death in sin and made alive (born of the Spirit) (Ephesians 2:5-6).

The first resurrection has nothing to do with the spiritual.

Well, this is terribly wrong. But again, you're welcome to your opinion.

But obviously, one with the second birth prior to physical death will experience the first resurrection upon physical death, because one can enjoy Paradise with a physical body, because they already experienced the second birth.

That's the second resurrection. But again, the second resurrection is general to all, as Jesus says in ~ yet again ~ 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.") I've posted that several times now and you keep skipping by it... ignoring it, I guess, maybe pretending it's not there... So be it.

The spiritual restoration results in the physical restoration immediately...

Spiritual restoration results in spiritual restoration... and ensures the future physical restoration (and avoidance of the second death).

, not something put on hold for thousands of years.

Hmm... this is interesting. Those who die having experienced the first resurrection are then in what we call the intermediate state... and they are outside of creation, of which our minutes, hours, years are ~ time itself ~ is a part. We cannot know what the passage of time is like for them.

They are not spirit.

In the intermediate state ~ after this life ~ we are. And someday, our spirits will be reunited with our physical bodies. But you and I are not in this intermediate state yet... and may never be, if Jesus returns before we die.

They are soul. You are not a spirit on earth, but a soul. If you have no physical body in heaven, all you are in heaven is still a naked soul.

Ugh... The Bible uses these terms in different contexts, so we can't just wantonly make blanket statement like this. All we can really say is, if we have no physical body in heaven, we ~ we ~ have no physical body in heaven. Which is kind of a ridiculous thing to have to say, but that's all we can really say.

But Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5, no one is a naked soul in heaven. They are a soul in a physical body.

Again, ugh...

You know, yes, I agree in part ~ except for the "soul in a physical body in heaven" thing, of course... But you're thinking of this wrong, it seems. Paul says, "For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened ~ not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee." Paul is talking, Timtofly, about being clothed in righteousness, and if you are in Christ, you are clothed in that righteousness now... Christ's righteousness, which has been imputed to you. This is our heavenly dwelling, and by putting it on ~ putting on Christ, as Paul says in Romans 13:14 ("put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires") and Galatians 3:27 ("as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ") ~ we will never be found naked.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL! Why yes, Timtofly, Jesus's... :) Our resurrection will be like His (Romans 6:5)...

That is not what Revelation 20 states. It says the first resurrection were those beheaded.

 

[Timtofly]

Right, those who experience the second birth are exempted from the second death.

Not what Revelation 20 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."

It never mentions the second birth. Now you see, that you have to change the first resurrection to something else?

The first resurrection is to physical life. It was for Jesus. It was for Lazarus. It was for those beheaded before the "indefinite" time you call a millennium. If I asked for a thousand dollars, would you stop at a million or keep giving me money, until I was ready to quantify that thousand?

No verse states that beheaded people coming to life was an ongoing phenomenon. I would hate to be the beheaded person who had to wait for the first resurrection until the very last day.

You keep implying a second to go with the first, then call the first a second birth. That would imply another birth.

Do you not see that you state one thing, but call that something else. In your opinion the second birth happens a second time.

You cannot call something not found in Scripture a second resurrection that is physical when you claim the first resurrection was not physical. Then you say Jesus had a first resurrection, because obviously that is physical, but then call that what leads to Jesus having the second birth instead. Are you then saying that Jesus experienced the second resurrection?

Pre-mill at least say two physical resurrections as that is allegedly implied.

Then you say no. You say the second resurrection implied is not based on a physical resurrection, but a second birth. Then you deny that and say we are wrong in pointing that out.

How can the second birth imply a second resurrection?

 

[Timtofly]

That's the second resurrection. But again, the second resurrection is general to all, as Jesus says in ~ yet again ~ 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.") I've posted that several times now and you keep skipping by it... ignoring it, I guess, maybe pretending it's not there... So be it.


Spiritual restoration results in spiritual restoration... and ensures the future physical restoration (and avoidance of the second death).


Hmm... this is interesting. Those who die having experienced the first resurrection are then in what we call the intermediate state... and they are outside of creation, of which our minutes, hours, years are ~ time itself ~ is a part. We cannot know what the passage of time is like for them.


In the intermediate state ~ after this life ~ we are. And someday, our spirits will be reunited with our physical bodies. But you and I are not in this intermediate state yet... and may never be, if Jesus returns before we die.


Ugh... The Bible uses these terms in different contexts, so we can't just wantonly make blanket statement like this. All we can really say is, if we have no physical body in heaven, we ~ we ~ have no physical body in heaven. Which is kind of a ridiculous thing to have to say, but that's all we can really say.

You know, yes, I agree in part ~ except for the "soul in a physical body in heaven" thing, of course... But you're thinking of this wrong, it seems. Paul says, "For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened ~ not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee." Paul is talking, Timtofly, about being clothed in righteousness, and if you are in Christ, you are clothed in that righteousness now... Christ's righteousness, which has been imputed to you. This is our heavenly dwelling, and by putting it on ~ putting on Christ, as Paul says in Romans 13:14 ("put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires") and Galatians 3:27 ("as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ") ~ we will never be found naked.

Grace and peace to you.

The very first verse says a soul leaves the earthly body for the heavenly one. Both are physical.

One is Corruptible. One is Incorruptible.

One is temporal. One is eternal.

The point is not having one in heaven.

You point is those currently in physical Paradise, cannot enjoy physical Paradise, but float around as ethereal beings. That is based on placing all on hold until the fulness of the Gentiles. They had bodies coming out of their tombs at the time of the Cross, but God forbid those bodies can enjoy physical Paradise.

How do ethereal bodies do this:

"a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands."

"they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters."

You do understand this all has been going on since the Cross, and the thief was allowed in Paradise, that day, not promised in some indefinite future, thousands of years later.

Even if you state the millennium started at the Cross, surely you cannot deny them those promises they have been experiencing since the Cross?

Paul never inserts this "out of time spiritual holding place" anywhere in this verse:

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

A building and a tabernacle are both physical symbols. One temporal and one eternal. So why add human opinion that "God's body" is less physical than our current body of sin and death? Did Jesus not have that building more permanent than a tabernacle/tent when He left earth? Why would not all redeemed have that same body then? Because human theology is better than what Paul wrote?

 

[strepho]

Revelation chapter 20

Is about the millennium. It's time of teaching and discipline for the spirtualty dead. Jesus will appoint priests as judges and teachers.

Cross reference, Isaiah chapter 29.

Whats really sad. Many people will at the end of millennium, will still choose satan and follow him into lake of fire.

We're in the flesh currently. People don't have prayer of chance with many false preachers running around.

That's why the millennium will start at the 7th trump.

 

[Douggg]

Revelation 20:4
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Paul spoke in current and past tense in the verses below that we even though we are still alive on earth we have been seated with Christ spiritually thus we reign on thrones with Jesus now


Ephesians 2:4-6

4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,
5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

What it means in those Ephesians verses is that because Jesus loves us we are in His heart as He is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father.

Revelation 20:4-6 is about the physical resurrection of the bodies of them who will be martyred during the great tribulation, for not worshiping the beast, his image, nor taking his mark. To reign with Jesus for the 1000 year millennium here on this present earth.

Paul did not teach that Revelation 20:4-6 was a current reality. Revelation 20:4-6 is yet to come.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How can you expect to be taken seriously?

LOL. This is hilarious coming from you. No one on this entire site puts out more incoherent gibberish than you, and yet you are asking how anyone can take him seriously?

The term first resurrection does not imply a second resurrection.

Yes, it most certainly does. Since when is something ever referred to as the first without there also being a second? That's ludicrous. Of course it implies a second resurrection. Saying that the first resurrection doesn't imply a second resurrection is like saying the second death doesn't imply a first death. And you are the one asking how he (PinSeeker) can expect to be taken seriously when you say ridiculous things like this?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What it means in those Ephesians verses is that because Jesus loves us we are in His heart as He is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father.

Revelation 20:4-6 is about the physical resurrection of the bodies of them who will be martyred during the great tribulation, for not worshiping the beast, his image, nor taking his mark. To reign with Jesus for the 1000 year millennium here on this present earth.

Paul did not teach that Revelation 20:4-6 was a current reality. Revelation 20:4-6 is yet to come.

Revelation 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 (Greek: zao) and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again (lived..again = Greek anazao) until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

If Revelation 20:4 was talking about a physical bodily resurrection of martyred believers, then why is the Greek word "zao" used in reference to them while the Greek word "anazao" is used in reference to the rest of the dead? The Greek word "zao" is not used to refer to a bodily resurrection anywhere else in scripture, but the Greek word "anazao" is.

The word "zao" refers to someone living their lives and being alive while the word "anazao" refers to someone going from life to death. If Revelation 20:4 was referring to the bodily resurrection of martyrs then we should expect the Greek word "anazao" would have been used instead. But, it uses the word "zao" because it's not referring to their bodily resurrection, but rather is referring to the fact that they had previously had part in the first resurrection spiritually and are now reigning and living with Christ in heaven.

Here is an example of the word "anazao" being used in reference to Jesus coming back to life:

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived (anazao), that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

The word "zao" is never used in the sense of referring to the act of someone coming back to life, so it is not a word that would be used to describe someone being bodily resurrected.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Revelation chapter 20

Is about the millennium. It's time of teaching and discipline for the spirtualty dead. Jesus will appoint priests as judges and teachers.

Cross reference, Isaiah chapter 29.

Whats really sad. Many people will at the end of millennium, will still choose satan and follow him into lake of fire.

We're in the flesh currently. People don't have prayer of chance with many false preachers running around.

That's why the millennium will start at the 7th trump.

Revelation 20:6 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.

You referenced Isaiah 29 without specifying why, but I think in this case it makes more sense to reference a verse contained within the same book at the verse above. What does it mean to be "priests of God and of Christ"? You say it means to be appointed as judges and teachers in the future. But, is that how it should be understood? Look at this passage:

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

If we allow this passage to tell us what it means to be "priests of God and of Christ", then it means to be part of His kingdom while serving God. And it means every one of us are priests right now. Notice that it says Jesus "has made us to be a kingdom and priests". Past tense. It is something that He has already done and is ongoing, not something that will be done in the future.

 

[PinSeeker]

That is not what Revelation 20 states....

In your opinion. Fair enough, but it is what it is.

...Revelation 20... never mentions the second birth.

I never said it did.

Now you see, that you have to change the first resurrection to something else?

No, because the second birth and the first resurrection, though very, very close together, are not the same thing. That they are so very close together makes it acceptable to say that they are together one event, but really, they are two different things. The first resurrection is the inevitable result of the second birth.

The first resurrection is to physical life. It was for Jesus. It was for Lazarus. It was for those beheaded before the "indefinite" time you call a millennium. If I asked for a thousand dollars, would you stop at a million or keep giving me money, until I was ready to quantify that thousand?

No verse states that beheaded people coming to life was an ongoing phenomenon. I would hate to be the beheaded person who had to wait for the first resurrection until the very last day.

Sigh... :)

You keep implying a second to go with the first, then call the first a second birth. That would imply another birth.

Do you not see that you state one thing, but call that something else.

LOL! I see that you think, that, yes. Or that you are possibly just saying that in a failing effort to discredit what I'm saying...

In your opinion the second birth happens a second time.

Um, no... LOL!

You cannot call something not found in Scripture a second resurrection that is physical when you claim the first resurrection was not physical.

Then you say Jesus had a first resurrection...

Jesus did not need a first resurrection; He never needed to be redeemed to God, as He is God and thus remained sinless. His physical resurrection makes possible our first resurrection and points generally for all and specifically to us as Christians the eventual second.

....but then call that what leads to Jesus having the second birth instead.

Jesus never had a second birth, as He did not need to be born of the Spirit after having been previously dead in sin. I've said this numerous times.

Are you then saying that Jesus experienced the second resurrection?

No, the second resurrection will take place upon His return. I've said this numerous times.

Pre-mill at least say two physical resurrections as that is allegedly implied.

They do not. The sane ones, anyway. :)

You say the second resurrection implied is not based on a physical resurrection, but a second birth.

No, Timtofly, that's not what I say at all. The second resurrection is general to all, as I've said numerous times. And the second resurrection is a physical resurrection. Good Lord, are you for real? I mean, "the second resurrection implied is not based on a physical resurrection, but a second birth"... that doesn't even make sense. LOL!

Then you deny that and say we are wrong in pointing that out. How can the second birth imply a second resurrection?

I never said anything of the sort, Timtofly. I can't even make sense of that question. Do you even know what it means to imply something? Or for something to be implied?

You point is those currently in physical Paradise, cannot enjoy physical Paradise...

Paradise is not physical at present... Paradise will be restored after the Judgment. But I think those in paradise now, with Jesus, are enjoying it (to put it mildly). :)

...float around as ethereal beings.

We cannot know what the intermediate state is.

How do ethereal bodies do this:

"a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands."

"they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters."

Revelation 7 speaks of the age to come, Timtofly. After the second resurrection (which is physical). We see in Revelation 6:12-17 the second coming of Christ, and Revelation 7 speaks of those present at this second coming, having been physically resurrected.

You do understand this all has been going on since the Cross, and the thief was allowed in Paradise, that day, not promised in some indefinite future, thousands of years later.

So glad you pointed this out. Yes, the thief crucified on Jesus's right was in paradise with Jesus that very day, just as Jesus said he would be. But his dead physical body was buried in a tomb, just like Jesus's and that of the thief crucified on Jesus's left. Do you somehow think he was physically resurrected that day? If so, then based on... what?

Even if you state the millennium started at the Cross, surely you cannot deny them those promises they have been experiencing since the Cross?

Right; surely I do not. And would not, even if I could...

...So why add human opinion that "God's body" is less physical than our current body of sin and death?

I would refer you to what Jesus says in John 4:24, here: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Please stop, Timtofly.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. This is hilarious coming from you. No one on this entire site puts out more incoherent gibberish than you, and yet you are asking how anyone can take him seriously?


Yes, it most certainly does. Since when is something ever referred to as the first without there also being a second? That's ludicrous. Of course it implies a second resurrection. Saying that the first resurrection doesn't imply a second resurrection is like saying the second death doesn't imply a first death. And you are the one asking how he (PinSeeker) can expect to be taken seriously when you say ridiculous things like this?

The first resurrection is physical, not spiritual. What you are implying is two seperate physical resurrections, which is ironic, because you only allow one physical resurrection.

Your post to me refutes your own eschatological viewpoint. In other words, you contradict your own teaching, because you deny a first physical resurrection in the first century, which would imply another first resurrection at the Second Coming, if you are being honest with your point.

The first physical resurrection would imply a second spiritual resurrection, because the first birth (physical) implies a second birth (spiritual). A first death (physical) implies a second death (spiritual). See how that works? No, you don't, because you call the first resurrection, spiritual, and thus no physical resurrection ever.

You twist that to say a first spiritual resurrection implies a second physical resurrection, which no pre-mill will agree with, so you are not arguing the same thing. Because if there is a second resurrection, it is not just to get back a physical body, it is to have everlasting life. The lost will have another resurrection to eternal life at the GWT Judgment, thus avoiding the second death. That is the implied second chance spiritual resurrection that you should be arguing, not a physical one just back into death.

You have one resurrection avoiding death, then imply the next resurrection equals death. That is not being consistent, so your first resurrection cannot imply an inconsistent second resurrection. Do you think those coming out of sheol get a second chance receiving the first resurrection given prior to the millennium?

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power."

So all your lost people get the same first resurrection as implied after the Millennium and also avoid the second death? You would have to call both resurrections spiritual to be consistent. But you don't, do you?

 

[Timtofly]

No, because the second birth and the first resurrection, though very, very close together, are not the same thing. That they are so very close together makes it acceptable to say that they are together one event, but really, they are two different things. The first resurrection is the inevitable result of the second birth.

If the first resurrection is the result of the second birth, how can the dead ever have the first resurrection, without a second birth? That means redeemed people are being cast into the LOF having received the second birth, but still condemned, because they did not receive the second birth while physically alive but received the second birth while physically dead. You literally then have no term for an actual physical resurrection.

A first resurrection is still physical, because of the second birth. Which is consistent with premill, because some at the GWT Judgment may be granted the second birth, and then receive the first resurrection (physical) as the result of the second birth.

We know the second birth was available after the Cross. The OT redeemed were waiting in Abraham's bosom to receive the second birth and in conjunction, the first resurrection. They have been physically enjoying Paradise since the Cross.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus did not need a first resurrection;

Yes, He was physically dead. He did not need a new body, but His physical body experienced the first resurrection after 3 days and 3 nights.

Jesus did not need the second birth.

 

[strepho]

Revelation 20:6 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.

You referenced Isaiah 29 without specifying why, but I think in this case it makes more sense to reference a verse contained within the same book at the verse above. What does it mean to be "priests of God and of Christ"? You say it means to be appointed as judges and teachers in the future. But, is that how it should be understood? Look at this passage:

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

If we allow this passage to tell us what it means to be "priests of God and of Christ", then it means to be part of His kingdom while serving God. And it means every one of us are priests right now. Notice that it says Jesus "has made us to be a kingdom and priests". Past tense. It is something that He has already done and is ongoing, not something that will be done in the future.

Hello friend. I don't have time to type in verses and chapters.
Isaiah chapter 29
Verse 17 to 24 is about the millennium.
The priests will do the teaching and discipline, and judging. Jesus will appoint them on the 7 th trump.

Zechariah chapter 3 :8. These are God's Elect. No gender applies. In the Dimension Jesus is in, all angels are masculine. There's no female in the Dimension Jesus is in.

8:9. This stone laid before Jesus with seven eyes. Are God's Elect.

Who are the Election ??

God judged the election in the first earth age. Lucifer led one third of God's children in rebellion against God. The election stood against satan and one third.

Romans chapter 11:4. God has reserved seven thousand who bow knee to baal. These are same people from zechariah chapter 3. The election will not worship satan as antichrist near future. They have seal of God.

Romans chapter 11:7 to 11:10. The Election have holy spirit, seal of God. Many people have spirit of stupor.

Revelation chapter 12:3. Lucifer had a political system in the first earth age. The dragon is satan. Behind Jesus back, in first earth age, Lucifer was sitting on Mercy seat when Jesus wasn't around. One third of God's children worshipped satan in first earth age.

Currently, we're in the flesh, the 5th trump.
Revelation chapter 13. God will test people by one world religious system. Satan as antichrist will lead this system near future. Jesus wants them Tested !!.

Jesus want's to know if they will worship satan again. Easy to understand.
Revelation chapter 12:4. One third of the stars were cast to earth.
These are the one third of God's children from first earth age, they are here now. God is using satan as antichrist to test people at the 6th trump.

Second thessalonians chapter 2. The son of perdition is satan. He comes 6th trump to Jerusalem, pretending to be messiah.

If you have difficulty understanding this. I recommend shepherds chapel on YouTube. They have videos that cover this.

Election
3 world ages
Antichrist
Seal of God
Mark of beast
Pastor dennis murray teaches chapter by chapter, and verse by verse. He tells us the truth.

It's your decision.
Take care.