The difference between The Resurrection and the first resurrection.

[David in NJ]

Exactly, I’m glad someone else can see it for what it is. They are trying to redefine the meaning of the first resurrection that is ONLY mentioned twice in scripture in Rev. 20:5-6.

OK - i SEE where you are coming from

You are looking ONLY from a grammatical sentence standpoint instead of a Foundational TRUTH that is Built Upon

Please review Post 433 and the Scriptures contained therein - ty

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is true, Again the term the first resurrection is limited specifically to Rev. 20:5-6.

Tell me did Jesus have to be born again to be a part of the first resurrection, or did Jesus have to physically die in order to be the first fruits of the first resurrection?

This is not true when it comes to the original Greek manuscript. Do you ever consult any Greek resources when studying the New Testament? The Greek words translated as "first resurrection" are "protos" (first) and "anastasis" (resurrection). Those words are used together in the following verse as well:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first (Greek: protos) that should rise (Greek: anastasis) from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

 

[David in NJ]

This is not true when it comes to the original Greek manuscript. Do you ever consult any Greek resources when studying the New Testament? The Greek words translated as "first resurrection" are "protos" (first) and "anastasis" (resurrection). Those words are used together in the following verse as well:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first (Greek: protos) that should rise (Greek: anastasis) from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

see post 441

 

[David in NJ]

The first resurrection is?

A) the bodily raising of saints

B) being born again

Obviouly, it can't be both. Amils have already decided it is meaning B). Premils have already decided it is meaning A). What have you decided it is meaning? Before you try and answer that, obviously one has to be born again first before they can be part of the first resurrection. No Premil that I know of is arguing with that. Premils are arguing that one is born again first, and because they are they then have part in the first resurrection in the future, the bodily raising of saints.

Amils are arguing that being born again is not something that precedes the first resurrection. They are arguing that it is the first resurrection. Amils have decided it is meaning B) not A), nor B) and A), only B). Notice that they don't think it is meaning both. How then can you agree with them it is meaning B) while insisting it is meaning A)? Even Amils don't agree that it can mean both.

Please examine Post 438

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

YES


You are CORRECT = ABSOLUTE TRUTH = 1 Corinthians 15:20-23

20But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have [d]fallen asleep. 21For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.


You are CORRECT = ABSOLUTELY TRUE, with this TRUTH = We MUST wait for Rev 20:4-6 which only occurs at His Second Coming

I would have given your post a like except for that last statement, which you know I disagree with. But, I agree with the rest of what you said. It's too bad that other premils are not able to even acknowledge that truth that you recognize which is that having part in the first resurrection is to have part in Christ's resurrection, which was the first resurrection from the dead.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

see post 441

I saw post 441. What is your point as it relates to my post 442?

 

[David in NJ]

I saw post 441. What is your point as it relates to my post 442?

@Stewardofthemystery wants/demands that in "one sentence" he can see the words "Born-Again and Resurrection"

He also wants/demands to see in one sentence with exact wording of "JESUS is the First Resurrection"

This was the downfall of the pharisees = always demanding from JESUS to be answered as they desired.

We MUST continually check our hearts before the LORD so we are not blinded by our own desires when reading Scripture.

Therefore, you my Brother must come to SEE that Rev 20:4-6 is not now but only at His Coming = just as the Scriptures say

Corroborative Evidence = 1 John 3:1-3 ( @WPM )
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:
therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not.
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: (FUTURE)
but we know that, when He shall appear(FUTURE) we shall be like Him(FUTURE) for we shall see Him as He is.
And every man that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

 

[David in NJ]

I saw post 441. What is your point as it relates to my post 442?

Post 447 UPdated for our Blessing

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Brother, we are NOT enemies so let us just yield to God's words which are the SAME for you as it is for me and everyone.

My friends don’t falsely accuse me of rejecting the words of Jesus Christ. Good day

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

This is not true….

Acts 26:23

It is true, Acts 26:23 is not in the context of Rev. 20:5-6.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

@Stewardofthemystery wants/demands that in "one sentence" he can see the words "Born-Again and Resurrection"

He also wants/demands to see in one sentence with exact wording of "JESUS is the First Resurrection"

This was the downfall of the pharisees = always demanding from JESUS to be answered as they desired.

We MUST continually check our hearts before the LORD so we are not blinded by our own desires when reading Scripture.

Therefore, you my Brother must come to SEE that Rev 20:4-6 is not now but only at His Coming = just as the Scriptures say

Don't tell me what I must see. Don't act like you are in tune with the Lord and I am not. I will never see that Rev 20:4-6 is not now because it's not true. Are believers not priests of God and of Christ right now? Revelation 1:5-6 says we are. Is Jesus not reigning now? Matthew 28:16-18 and Ephesians 1:19-23 say he is. Where do the scriptures say what you're saying? Back up your claims with scripture. You know better than to just make claims without backing them up. That's not going to cut it.

I can't comprehend how you can acknowledge that Jesus's resurrection is the first resurrection from the dead and that we spiritually have part in it by being born again, yet you don't think that has anything to do with Revelation 20:4-6. That boggles my mind. there's only one first resurrection and it is Christ's resurrection. There is only one way to have part in Christ's resurrection and that's by being born again. Not by being bodily resurrected. According to scripture, we we identify with Christ's resurrection when we go from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ.

Colossians 2:12 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. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is true, Acts 26:23 is not in the context of Rev. 20:5-6.

Why do you only quote a small part of my post where people can't even see what I was saying? That is deceptive on your part and shows your unwillingness to honestly address my point.

You said that the term "the first resurrection" is not found anywhere else in scripture and I proved you wrong and you can't even bring yourself to admit that because you are so incredibly arrogant.

The Bible was not written in English. It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. In the Greek manuscript the words "protos" (first) and "anastasis" (resurrection) are not ony used together in Revelation 20, but also in this verse, which is a FACT:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first (Greek: protos) that should rise (Greek anastasis) from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

You can say this is not in the same context as Rev 20:5-6 all you want, but there is not more than one first resurrection in scripture. Scripture explicitly teaches that Christ's resurection was the first resurrection. So, having part in the first resurrection must have to do with having part in His resurrection.

How many hours/times did Jesus say are coming when all of the dead will be resurrected?

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

 

[David in NJ]

My friends don’t falsely accuse me of rejecting the words of Jesus Christ. Good day

A True friend will tell you when you are wrong - which i have shown you in TRUTH

 

[TribulationSigns]

I can't comprehend how you can acknowledge that Jesus's resurrection is the first resurrection from the dead and that we spiritually have part in it by being born again, yet you don't think that has anything to do with Revelation 20:4-6. That boggles my mind. there's only one first resurrection and it is Christ's resurrection.

It is because, as a premillennialist, he automatically sees Revelation 20:4-6 as something in the future instead of the present kingdom. In other words, he has denied that Christ's kingdom has come and we are the kings and priests in His kingdom, preaching His word to the world.

 

[David in NJ]

Don't tell me what I must see. Don't act like you are in tune with the Lord and I am not. I will never see that Rev 20:4-6 is not now because it's not true. Are believers not priests of God and of Christ right now? Revelation 1:5-6 says we are. Is Jesus not reigning now? Matthew 28:16-18 and Ephesians 1:19-23 say he is. Where do the scriptures say what you're saying? Back up your claims with scripture. You know better than to just make claims without backing them up. That's not going to cut it.

I can't comprehend how you can acknowledge that Jesus's resurrection is the first resurrection from the dead and that we spiritually have part in it by being born again, yet you don't think that has anything to do with Revelation 20:4-6. That boggles my mind. there's only one first resurrection and it is Christ's resurrection. There is only one way to have part in Christ's resurrection and that's by being born again. Not by being bodily resurrected. According to scripture, we we identify with Christ's resurrection when we go from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ.

Colossians 2:12 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. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Don't tell me what I must see.

Pride

Don't act like you are in tune with the Lord and I am not.

Pride

I will never see that Rev 20:4-6 is not now because it's not true.

Boastful pride against the TRUTH

 

[David in NJ]

It is because, as a premillennialist, he automatically sees Revelation 20:4-6 as something in the future instead of the present kingdom. In other words, he has denied that Christ's kingdom has come and we are the kings and priests in His kingdom, preaching His word to the world.

FALSE

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Why do you only quote a small part of my post where people can't even see what I was saying?

Because all one needs to do is look at the context between Acts 26:23 and Rev. 20:5-6.

You said that the term "the first resurrection" is not found anywhere else in scripture and I proved you wrong .

No you didn’t Acts 26:23 is talking about Jesus being the first to be resurrected from the dead. Jesus is the first fruits OF the first resurrection.

Amils claim Jesus ALONE is the first resurrection as defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

But Jesus said he was not going to be ALONE if He die….

John 12:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit

Jesus is just the first fruit of the much fruit to be gathered later at the great harvest at the last day.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

A True friend will tell you when you are wrong - which i have shown you in TRUTH

Falsely accusing someone is not showing them they are wrong. You didn’t even know the point I was making from the start until I said this….

Stewardofthemystery said:
Exactly, I’m glad someone else can see it for what it is. They are trying to redefine the meaning of the first resurrection that is ONLY mentioned twice in scripture in Rev. 20:5-6.

Prior to this you were trying to prop up straw man arguments acting like I don’t know what it means to be born again of the Holy Spirit. All you have shown me so far is how you do not understand what it is I am talking about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Pride

Pride


Boastful pride against the TRUTH

Useless comments with nothing to back them up. Is it not pride that you think everything you believe is correct and that you can't possibly be wrong about anything, which is obviously the case for you? Look in the mirror.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because all one needs to do is look at the context between Acts 26:23 and Rev. 20:5-6.

It's not just Acts 26:23 that I base my belief on, but also scriptures like Colossians 2:12-13, Ephesians 2:4-6 and Romans 6:9-11 that talk about how we spiritually have part in Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection.

Jesus taught that all of the dead will be resurrected at the same hour or time (John 5:28-29), so your interpretation of Revelation 20 does not line up with that. But, you don't want to deal with that. You would rather change it to multiple hours that are coming when the dead will be resurrected instead of accepting what Jesus taught which is that a singular hour or time is coming when all of the dead will be resurrected.

No you didn’t Acts 26:23 is talking about Jesus being the first to be resurrected from the dead. Jesus is the first fruits OF the first resurrection.

So, His resurrection was the first resurrection from the dead. Hello? How many first resurrections are there? I believe only one. And it does not say that Jesus is the first fruits of the first resurrection anywhere. It says He is the first fruits "of them that slept" (of the dead in Christ). The dead in Christ are resurrected second in order, according to Paul, with Christ's resurrection being the first in order (1 Cor 15:22-23). You have resorted to making things up in order to keep your doctrine afloat.

Amils claim Jesus ALONE is the first resurrection as defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

His resurrection was undeniably the first resurrection from the dead, as Acts 26:23 and 1 Cor 15:20 make clear. So, having part in the first resurrection is to have part in His resurrection which all believers do when they are born again/saved (Col 2:12-13, Eph 2:4-6, Rom 6:9-11, etc.).

But Jesus said he was not going to be ALONE if He die….

John 12:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit

Jesus is just the first fruit of the much fruit to be gathered later at the great harvest at the last day.

His resurrection was the first resurrection from the dead. Agree or not? You know that's true since it explicitly says so in Acts 26:23 and that is what it means for Him to be "the firstfruits of them that slept". Because He was resurrected, the dead in Christ will also be resurrected when He comes again at the last day. That resurrection is NOT the first resurrection in order, according to Paul. Christ's resurrection was the first in order according to Paul (1 Cor 15:22-23) with the next resurrection event in order being "they that are Christ's at his coming".