Getting to the heart of the Amil confusion

[Ritajanice]

Right, but Amils have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.


As far as I can understand,Jesus was the first to be resurrected...maybe @David in NJ can help me out....to be resurrected as Jesus was resurrected ,we must be Born Again....our spirit must be resurrected/regenerated/Born of the Spirit....which is a supernatural birth.

 

[Ritajanice]

Revelation 20:5-6

King James Version

​

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
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

 

[grafted branch]

Here's my thinking on it, right or wrong. It obviously can't be involving what is recorded in Revelation 20 pertaining to the first resurrection if John hadn't even seen these visions yet. Duh! Right? IOW, they couldn't be trying to confuse anyone about Revelation 20 if Revelation 20 didn't even exist yet. Therefore, we can rule that out. What I'm thinking then, is this.

Matthew 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


This resurrection event included Christ rising from the dead and also included many bodies of the saints rising from the dead. This is the resurrection event they are saying is in the past. The err is not with that since they would be correct that this resurrection event was in the past. The err would be that they were teaching no other bodily resurrection needs to take place in the future as well since it already took place in the past, thus fulfilled entirely.

Whether I'm right or wrong that's what tends to make the most sense to me. Therefore, assuming I might be right, one can't apply 2 Timothy 2:18 to anyone in our day and time except for maybe full Preterists. Certainly not to Amils, since Amils, regardless how they are interpreting Revelation 20:4-6, keeping in mind also, that when 2 Timothy 2:18 is meaning Revelation 20 didn't even exist yet, Amils are not even remotely insisting there is not a bodily resurrection event in the future, because it was already entirely fulfilled in the past when Christ and when the many bodies of saints rose, therefore, no one needs to also bodily rise in the future because everyone that was to rise bodily already rose 2000 years ago.

I agree with you on this, however I think John was seeing somethings that already took place in the visions he had in Revelation.

Think about this, John himself was obviously involved in some of the visions he had yet he doesn’t record that he sees himself. Revelation 21:14 has the twelve apostle names in the twelve foundations but John doesn’t acknowledge himself. So it’s very plausible that John also doesn’t acknowledge things that were in the past that he himself witnessed in the visions he had.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Right, but Amils have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

AMEN!

Ephesians 2:6

• "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

True or not true? Authoritative or private interpretation? This is the first resurrection!

Colossians 1:13

• "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:"

This only occurs when we are born again, right now. This is why we can't be translated into Christ's spiritual kingdom now WITHOUT the first resurrection!

Much wisdom!

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

The err would be that they were teaching no other bodily resurrection needs to take place in the future as well since it already took place in the past, thus fulfilled entirely.

Right, but they were still talking about the first resurrection being done and in the past. That is also what Amils are saying, but with a twist by saying the dead in Christ are not bodily resurrected until the second resurrection at the great white throne judgment.

Paul did not agree with the view that the first resurrection was done and in the past, and neither do I.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

This only occurs when we are born again, right now.

This topic is not about being born again, it is about “the first resurrection” as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6

 

[Marty fox]

Right, but Amils have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

I don't believe that myself and i'm amil

 

[WPM]

Right, but Amils have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

... and our part in it constitutes salvation. Those who partake in the same enter into eternal life in the here-and-now and are delivered from the second death. Simple! Biblical! True!

Hope this dispels your confusion.

 

[Marty fox]

That is the firstfruits (plural) of Israel that were raised right after Jesus was resurrected.

These are shown here…

Revelation 14:4
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Jesus is the first of the firstfruits (plural)

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

But again the firstfruits of a harvest is not the entire harvest/resurrection.

Romans 11:16
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Where does the bible says that they are Israel or that they are even the first fruits?

 

[Ritajanice]

Ah, I just got this.

Without the resurrection of Jesus, there would be no Born Agains...because our spirit has been resurrected into his Spirit.Born Of The Spirit.Born Again,

Sorry @Stewardofthemystery if I’m off topic.

 

[grafted branch]

Paul did not agree with the view that the first resurrection was done and in the past, and neither do I.

That’s not correct, Paul didn’t disagree with a resurrection taking place, only that “the resurrection” was past already. Whatever resurrection Hymenaeus and Philetus were talking about was not in question, it was only that that resurrection was past already. Therefore Paul seems to be in agreement that a resurrection did already take place, it just wasn’t the resurrection that Hymenaeus and Philetus were talking about.

 

[TribulationSigns]

This topic is not about being born again, it is about “the first resurrection” as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6

Yes, it talks about the born again of the souls in Christ per Revelation 20:5-6, Selah!

1st Peter 1:3

• "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

The list goes on and on. How can we ignore them all? We were begotten, born again from the dead in the resurrection of 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."

We can't just ignore them all, because as conscientious Christians we finally have to "surrender" to the unadulterated divine authority of the word of God and confess:

"Yes, we were resurrected with Christ, and His resurrection (according to God) was the First Resurrection" as He was the Firstborn from the dead.​

Again:

Colossians 1:18

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

Those who make the claim that the First Resurrection is not in Christ's rising first, are contradicting God's Word. God tells us point blank that Christ "IS" THEE First Resurrection. He who hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches, receive it as authoritative.

Acts 26:23

• "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the First Resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

So then, who are we going to believe has written it faithful and true? God's word or man's word? God's interpretation, or our own personal views? This is not a personal opinion or private interpretation. Nor is it my spin on it. It's a direct unadulterated quote, a faithful testimony to the word of God. That Christ should suffer and be the 'First Resurrection' from the dead. And we, having been raised up in him, are those who have part in that First Resurrection. We indeed are the church of the Firstborn from the dead. As it is written:

Hebrews 12:23

• "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect."

Just men made perfect by being resurrected in Christ without sin. So again, what sin can perfect men stand before God to receive according to their works, except the FULL Reward in Christ. Selah!

Much Wisdom!

 

[TribulationSigns]

Ah, I just got this.

Without the resurrection of Jesus, there would be no Born Agains...because our spirit has been resurrected into his Spirit.Born Of The Spirit.Born Again,

Sorry @Stewardofthemystery if I’m off topic.

Bingo!!

 

[Davidpt]

Right, but they were still talking about the first resurrection being done and in the past. That is also what Amils are saying, but with a twist by saying the dead in Christ are not bodily resurrected until the second resurrection at the great white throne judgment.

Paul did not agree with the view that the first resurrection was done and in the past, and neither do I.

No doubt about it Amils are clearly twisting what the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is pertaining to, that being the bodily resurrection of saints in the future. In regards to that you and I are on the same page. I'm just not seeing, at least not yet anyway, the alleged connection with that of 2 Timothy 2:18, though. I can see someone applying that to full preterists, though.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Where does the bible says that they are Israel or that they are even the first fruits?

For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

In context Paul is talking about the good Olive tree of Israel, which the Gentile converts are also grafted into and made fellow citizens of Israel. Christ is the root of the good Olive tree Israel.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Therefore Paul seems to be in agreement that a resurrection did already take place, it just wasn’t the resurrection that Hymenaeus and Philetus were talking about.

No, Paul knew the first resurrection/harvest was not complete until ALL who are of the first resurrection/harvest are raised up at the last day.

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

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Yes, it talks about the born again of the souls in Christ per Revelation 20:5-6, Selah!

Amils are always trying to divert from the context of Rev. 20:1-6 and run to out of context verses about being born again of the Spirit. This is sleight of hand smoke and mirrors tactic meant to distract from the context in Rev. 20:5-6 that defines the meaning of the first bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ at the last day.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Hope this dispels your confusion.

The root of the Amil confusion is in thinking Jesus alone is the entire first resurrection/harvest of those who physically died in the faith.

The first fruit is not the entire harvest that is yet to be harvested/ reaped at the last day.

 

[grafted branch]

No, Paul knew the first resurrection/harvest was not complete until ALL who are of the first resurrection/harvest are raised up at the last day.

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

1 Corinthians 15:23 is an incomplete list of all those who are resurrected. The word “order” <5001> means ranking, as in Christ is ranked first then those who are Christ’s at His coming are ranked next. Unbelievers are not shown in this ranking so as you can see it is not meant as a complete list of where everyone ranks, only that Christ is first.

 

[Ritajanice]

There is order to the Resurrection. Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected, thus preparing the way for all others (see 1 Corinthians 15:20; 2 Nephi 2:8; Alma 40:2–4). There are two major resurrections, one for the just and one for the unjust (see John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15; D&C 76:17).

Jesus prepared the way for the unsaved to become Born Again... without his resurrection we would all still be in darkness and sin.

Jesus was the first to be resurrected,Gods children have been resurrected with him, in spirit ,our spirit is Alive in Christ.