Scripture Revelation That Many Throw Out About the Future 1,000 Years Reign by Christ

[Timtofly]

Okay. But I think that is in opposition to what Paul says in Ephesians 1:4-5 (not you being opposed to it, of course, but antithetical to what he writes there), and I believe the only names written in the Book of Life are God's elect. I would say Paul is very clear on that ~ what God created some for as opposed to others ~ in Romans 9:22-23, and David in Psalm 139:16 where he says all the days ordained for him were written in His book before one of them came to be. But it's not of terrible importance that we agree on this. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Keraz.

Which is all who are physically born, until their name is blotted out. The elect includes all of Adam and Eve's offspring. The redeemed are Jesus' offspring.

The Lamb was the propitiation for the entire world, not just a select few.

It is both our choice and God's choice to be redeemed. It was God's choice before the foundation of the earth, not at physical birth.

The Lamb's book of life was written and sealed prior to Creation. It cannot be added to, nor edited until the 7 seals are removed. The 7th Seal is not removed until after the Second Coming, which is the 6th Seal being removed.

 

[PinSeeker]

Which is all who are physically born, until their name is blotted out.

Disagree.

The elect includes all of Adam and Eve's offspring.

Disagree. That would be everyone, and would mean God has mercy and compassion not on those whom He will but on everyone, which would mean everyone is saved. And that, unfortunately, is not true. God has made some for honorable use, and some for dishonorable use, and this is according to and the result of His purpose of election. And, as Creator, He has every right to do, and is perfectly just in doing just that.

The redeemed are Jesus' offspring.

No, the redeemed, also God's elect, are co-heirs with Christ, Who in the spiritual sense is our elder brother.

The Lamb was the propitiation for the entire world, not just a select few.

Both, in different senses. His propitiation was sufficient for the entire world, but made effectual only for the elect of God... unlimited in the former sense but limited in the latter.

It is both our choice and God's choice to be redeemed.

Yes, but one precedes... and precipitates, or enables... the other.

It was God's choice before the foundation of the earth...

Right.

The Lamb's book of life was written and sealed prior to Creation.

Agreed.

It cannot be added to, nor edited until the 7 seals are removed. The 7th Seal is not removed until after the Second Coming, which is the 6th Seal being removed.

Hmmmm... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[Davy]

What does that even mean? Some of God's word is written in literal text, some in symbolic text, some poetic, some Apocalyptic and so on. But, you probably mean "as written" as all literal, which is a terrible approach to interpreting scripture since it clearly isn't all literal. You need to learn to differentiate between literal text and symbolic text.

All... of God's written Word is meant literally. It's because even when using symbols, metaphor, analogy, parable, etc., it is ALWAYS pointing to some literal Truth. So I wish some folks would quit trying to use the "literal" term like some virus or weapon, when common sense requires us to realize expressions always point to literal things! All languages do it, and Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are no exceptions.

LOL. I can understand the Bible just fine. You sometimes are another story. Don't try to equate your babbling with scripture itself.

That of course is a stupid remark. It proves absolutely nothing. If you want to at least 'appear' like you know what you're talking about, you need to learn how to debate properly, and that means not throwing out stupid remarks like that.

I absolutely did not. You do nothing but make false claims like this. You have nothing else to offer most of the time.

There again, you are only casting out stupid remarks that make you look foolish. I covered those 1 Cor.15 Scriptures for you again, and you again reject them as written.

You need to try again. Why did you start at verse 23? If you actually read starting at verse 20 you would say that Christ Himself is the firstfruits which means that His resurrection itself was the first resurrection in order. Next in order are those who are His at His second coming.

1 Cor.15:23 is where Paul began the subject about the order of events for the end going into God's future Eternity. How could you not know that?

If you want to get technical about that idea of 'firstfruits', what about the saints that came out of their graves at His resurrection?? As one can easily see just by that, trying to create a requirement for that "firstfuits" idea to meet Old Testament dogma just does not work all the time.

Matt 27:52-53
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.
KJV

You could... be technical straining at a gnat, and say Jesus' resurrection happened first, and then the resurrection of the saints 'immediately' afterwards. I agree with that. All resurrection is through Christ Jesus' Resurrection.

But that's not really the subject I was talking about in 1 Cor.15, so you've already gotten off the main subject of those 1 Cor.15:23-28 verses, which is that Christ MUST reign over all His enemies first, before the END will come with death being destroyed. And His reign over His enemies, happens AFTER His future return, which proves the "thousand years" of Rev.20 is meant to be a literal period of time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

All... of God's written Word is meant literally. It's because even when using symbols, metaphor, analogy, parable, etc., it is ALWAYS pointing to some literal Truth.

I agree that it all refers literal truth, of course, but your first statement can be confusing without clarifying what it means. I don't advise ever making a statement like that without clarifying what it means.

So I wish some folks would quit trying to use the "literal" term like some virus or weapon, when common sense requires us to realize expressions always point to literal things! All languages do it, and Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are no exceptions.

You are making the words "literal" and "truth" synonyms, but they're not. The blame is on you for making things confusing.

That of course is a stupid remark.

You are the expert here on making stupid remarks.

It proves absolutely nothing. If you want to at least 'appear' like you know what you're talking about, you need to learn how to debate properly, and that means not throwing out stupid remarks like that.

LOL. I can't take this seriously from the King of Stupid Remarks.

There again, you are only casting out stupid remarks that make you look foolish.

All you have to offer are insults. You are horrible at debating. Just utterly terrible at it. You are unable to use scripture to back up your claims so you draw attention away from that with your foolish, stupid personal insults.

I covered those 1 Cor.15 Scriptures for you again, and you again reject them as written.

No, I absolutely do not. Unlike you, I do not try to add a thousand year gap between what Paul said in 1 Cor 15:23 and 24. I accept what he said, as written, not you.

1 Cor.15:23 is where Paul began the subject about the order of events for the end going into God's future Eternity. How could you not know that?

How do you think I don't know that? He shows that the end comes when He comes. how could you not know that when that's what he said? You try to add to what he said, but I accept what he said as written, unlike you.

If you want to get technical about that idea of 'firstfruits', what about the saints that came out of their graves at His resurrection?? As one can easily see just by that, trying to create a requirement for that "firstfuits" idea to meet Old Testament dogma just does not work all the time.

Matt 27:52-53
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.
KJV

You could... be technical straining at a gnat, and say Jesus' resurrection happened first, and then the resurrection of the saints 'immediately' afterwards. I agree with that. All resurrection is through Christ Jesus' Resurrection.

I don't know what you're intending to say here. Scripture is clear that Jesus's resurrection was the first resurrection, so what is the issue here exactly?

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

Paul indicated that the order of resurrections was Christ's first and then next in order those who are Christ's at His second coming (1 Cor 15:20-23). The context of that is that His resurrection was the first unto bodily immortality. So, tell me, do you think anyone in Christ will die during the supposed future thousand years? If so, where did Paul reference their resurrection in his description of the order of resurrections? He didn't. So, was he somehow not aware of this future earthly millennial kingdom? Are you another in a long line of people who think that Paul didn't really know what he was talking about?

But that's not really the subject I was talking about in 1 Cor.15, so you've already gotten off the main subject of those 1 Cor.15:23-28 verses, which is that Christ MUST reign over all His enemies first, before the END will come with death being destroyed.

Right. Where did I say otherwise? I didn't. He reigns over all of His enemies which exist right now (Ephesians 1:19-23) and will continue to do so until He comes at the last trumpet and destroys the last enemy, death, at which point death will have been swallowed up in victory (1 Cor 15:50-54).

And His reign over His enemies, happens AFTER His future return, which proves the "thousand years" of Rev.20 is meant to be a literal period of time.

Paul did not teach this at all. He said the end will come when Jesus comes, not 1,000+ years later.

 

[Davy]

I agree that it all refers literal truth, of course, but your first statement can be confusing without clarifying what it means. I don't advise ever making a statement like that without clarifying what it means.

You ever consider that confusion might be because of how YOU are thinking of things? Why project that onto me, my statements are clear enough, for those who actually take the time to read them as written, and not assume I'm saying something I did not write.

You are making the words "literal" and "truth" synonyms, but they're not. The blame is on you for making things confusing.

Nah... you are trying to re-write the definition of the word 'literal'...

From Webster's Dictionary - Literal:
c: free from exaggeration or embelishment
d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts

So since when are FACTS not about the TRUTH?

You're just straining at a gnat, just like the blind Pharisees.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You ever consider that confusion might be because of how YOU are thinking of things? Why project that onto me, my statements are clear enough, for those who actually take the time to read them as written, and not assume I'm saying something I did not write.

Yes, I considered that and determined that is not the case here. It's definitely a case of you not being clear. Which is nothing unusual for you.

Nah...

Yah...

you are trying to re-write the definition of the word 'literal'...

From Webster's Dictionary - Literal:
c: free from exaggeration or embelishment
d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts

So since when are FACTS not about the TRUTH?

You're just straining at a gnat, just like the blind Pharisees.

LOL. You are such a comedian. Look at you having to resort to definition d when you know darn well that when people think of the word literal they think of these definitions of the word:

adjective
adjective: literal; adjective: literal-minded

1.
taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

2.
(of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.

But, leave it to you to assume that people will think of definition d instead of a, b or c whenever the word literal is used.

 

[Davy]

Yes, I considered that and determined that is not the case here. It's definitely a case of you not being clear. Which is nothing unusual for you.


Yah...


LOL. You are such a comedian. Look at you having to resort to definition d when you know darn well that when people think of the word literal they think of these definitions of the word:

adjective
adjective: literal; adjective: literal-minded

1.
taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

2.
(of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.

But, leave it to you to assume that people will think of definition d instead of a, b or c whenever the word literal is used.

I got the definition of 'literal' from Webster's Dictionary. Where did you get yours from?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I got the definition of 'literal' from Webster's Dictionary. Where did you get yours from?

You only included the last 2 of the 4 definitions from Webster's. Why? I got mine from the first one that came up in a search which was the Google Dictionary provided by Oxford Languages. Those definitions from there are valid definitions of the word, so I'm not sure why you're questioning where I got them from.

Here are the first 2 definitions from Webster's dictionary that you didn't include for some reason.

a: according with the letter of the scriptures

b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

When people think of the term "literal" in relation to scripture the first thing that comes to mind is that it's not symbolic, figurative, etc. but literal, straightforward text. But, leave it to you to assume that people will know you mean something else when you use the term.

 

[Davy]

You only included the last 2 of the 4 definitions from Webster's. Why?

Did those definitions I included define that word 'literal' or not in comparison with the idea of Truth? It did, didn't it? Yes, it did, and you well know it. Amazing that you would try to scoot those definitions.

I got mine from the first one that came up in a search which was the Google Dictionary provided by Oxford Languages. Those definitions from there are valid definitions of the word, so I'm not sure why you're questioning where I got them from.

I doubt that Google example was actually from the Oxford dictionary. That's why I bypassed it, because its source was doubtful. And the Cambridge was just Leftist junk.

And by the way, the REASON... why various sections of definitions of a word exists in Dictionaries is because a word can have DIFFERENT MEANINGS depending on the CONTEXT of how it is used. How could you not know that? Ever been to school to learn how... to use a Dictionary?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Did those definitions I included define that word 'literal' or not in comparison with the idea of Truth? It did, didn't it? Yes, it did, and you well know it. Amazing that you would try to scoot those definitions.

Is that what people think of when they see the term "literal"? No, it is not and that's my point. People think of things that are real and straightforward and not symbolic when they see the term "literal". So, with that in mind it's better to use a term where people will know what you're talking about.

I doubt that Google example was actually from the Oxford dictionary. That's why I bypassed it, because its source was doubtful. And the Cambridge was just Leftist junk.

LOL. Those definitions are quite similar to two of the definitions in the Webster's dictionary, so you have no idea of what you're talking about.

And by the way, the REASON... why various sections of definitions of a word exists in Dictionaries is because a word can have DIFFERENT MEANINGS depending on the CONTEXT of how it is used. How could you not know that? Ever been to school to learn how... to use a Dictionary?

No kidding, bud! Congratulations on completely missing the point I've been trying to make. I'm not talking about all the possible definitions of the word, I'm talking about what people think of when they see the term literal. That should be taken into account when you decide what terms to use.

 

[Davy]

No kidding, bud! Congratulations on completely missing the point I've been trying to make. I'm not talking about all the possible definitions of the word, I'm talking about what people think of when they see the term literal. That should be taken into account when you decide what terms to use.

I missed nothing about what you originally said regarding the word 'literal'. You applied it OUTSIDE my context of how I used it! When I'm claiming that allegory, metaphor, symbols, analogy, parable, is STILL... about something that is LITERAL, the context is that 'literal' means REAL, exists as TRUTH.

Is this NOT so in Lord Jesus' parable of the sower? Did He not first give allegories and symbols first, and then only later explained what they represented in the LITERAL (REALITY) sense?

How can your mind be so daft as to not understand this simple matter?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I missed nothing about what you originally said regarding the word 'literal'. You applied it OUTSIDE my context of how I used it! When I'm claiming that allegory, metaphor, symbols, analogy, parable, is STILL... about something that is LITERAL, the context is that 'literal' means REAL, exists as TRUTH.

You completely miss the point. I'm not saying the word literal can't mean that in that context, but if you just use the term without also explaining that, then what people will think of is non-allegorical, non-metaphorical and non-symbolic things. So, all I'm saying is that if you choose to use that term and want people to know what you mean when you use it, then you should always indicate which definition of that word you're using since that is not the definition that people normally think of when they see that term.

Is this NOT so in Lord Jesus' parable of the sower? Did He not first give allegories and symbols first, and then only later explained what they represented in the LITERAL (REALITY) sense?

How can your mind be so daft as to not understand this simple matter?

LOL. Look what you're doing here. You're CONTRASTING the words of the parable with the LITERAL (REALITY) sense. I thought you try to say that the words of parables themselves are literal? My point is that the words of the parable themselves are not literal, but are rather allegorical and they reflect literal reality. And it seems that you agree with that, so your daft mind cannot even comprehend that we actually agree on this. But, your mind is so daft that you can't even comprehend your own thoughts about this.

 

[Douggg]

The fact that the unsaved dead will ALSO be in resurrection bodies on the day of Christ's return, per John 5:28-29, is hard evidence of this.

The unsaved dead will also be resurrected (6.). But not on the day of Christ's return.

1. resurrection/rapture event of Christians before the great tribulation.
2. resurrection of the martyred great tribulation saints who professed Christ after the great tribulation, at Christ's return.
3. the 1000 year millennium reign of Christ.
4. the last rebellion of the nations.
5. Satan cast into the lake of fire.
6. the resurrection of the rest of dead (them who did not participate in either 1. or 2. ).
7. the destruction of this present earth and its heaven.
8. the Great White Throne Judgement for the rest of the dead.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The unsaved dead will also be resurrected (6.). But not on the day of Christ's return.

Yes, they will. Can you tell me how you interpret the following passage?

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.

What is the hour that is coming when all that are in the graves will be resurrected if not the day and hour of Christ's return? How can you say it's not the day of His return when we know that the dead in Christ will be resurrected on that day? Jesus said that ALL who are in the graves will be resurrected at the same hour without exception, so how can that not include both the dead in Christ and the unsaved dead?

1. resurrection/rapture event of Christians before the great tribulation.
2. resurrection of the martyred great tribulation saints who professed Christ after the great tribulation, at Christ's return.
3. the 1000 year millennium reign of Christ.
4. the last rebellion of the nations.
5. Satan cast into the lake of fire.
6. the resurrection of the rest of dead (them who did not participate in either 1. or 2. ).
7. the destruction of this present earth and its heaven.
8. the Great White Throne Judgement for the rest of the dead.

In terms of the dead who belong to Christ in particular, why does your timeline not match what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, which is that Christ's resurrection was the first in order followed by those who are Christ's at His coming? He did not refer to a separate resurrection of "Christians before the great tribulation" and "martyred great tribulation saints who professed Christ after the great tribulation" the way you're doing here. And what about any who profess Christ during the supposed future thousand years? When do you have them being resurrected? Paul makes no mention of that separate resurrection, either.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Do you not accept the order of resurrections that Paul gave here which indicates that all who are in Christ will be resurrected at the same time? Do you think that Paul didn't know what he was talking about?

 

[Douggg]

Yes, they will. Can you tell me how you interpret the following passage?

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.

What is the hour that is coming when all that are in the graves will be resurrected if not the day and hour of Christ's return?

The resurrection in John 5:28 is referring to the resurrection of both saved and unsaved persons for the Great White Throne Judgment.

1. resurrection/rapture event of Christians before the great tribulation.
2. resurrection of the martyred great tribulation saints who professed Christ after the great tribulation, at Christ's return.
3. the 1000 year millennium reign of Christ.
4. the last rebellion of the nations.
5. Satan cast into the lake of fire.
6. the resurrection of the rest of dead (them who did not participate in either 1. or 2. ).
7. the destruction of this present earth and its heaven.
8. the Great White Throne Judgement for the rest of the dead.

How can you say it's not the day of His return when we know that the dead in Christ will be resurrected on that day?

It is only the great tribulation martyred saints who professed Christ that will be resurrected on the day of Christ's return, in Revelation 20:4-6.

Jesus said that ALL who are in the graves will be resurrected at the same hour without exception, so how can that not include both the dead in Christ and the unsaved dead?

When Jesus spoke in John 5:48, it was before the gospel of salvation was revealed. So Jesus was speaking in terms without giving away what the gospel of salvation was, and that it would be based on His death and resurrection.

And what about any who profess Christ during the supposed future thousand years? When do you have them being resurrected? Paul makes no mention of that separate resurrection, either.

For persons who become Christians during the one thousand years, should they die during that time, they will be resurrected with the rest of the dead for the Great White Throne judgment. Should they be alive when the final rebellion is over, their bodies will be changed into incorruptible everlasting bodies.

In terms of the dead who belong to Christ in particular, why does your timeline not match what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, which is that Christ's resurrection was the fist in order followed by those who are Christ's at His coming? He did not refer to a separate resurrection of "Christians before the great tribulation" and "martyred great tribulation saints who professed Christ after the great tribulation" the way you're doing here.

We don't have all of the resurrections nor translations (of the living) in any one place in the bible. That's why it becomes to necessary to make a list from the various scriptures, like I did .

Actually, as far as resurrections are concerned, we have 3 for Christians(1.2.6.), and 1 for the unsaved (6.).

1. resurrection/rapture event of Christians before the great tribulation.
2. resurrection of the martyred great tribulation saints who professed Christ after the great tribulation, at Christ's return.
3. the 1000 year millennium reign of Christ.
4. the last rebellion of the nations.
5. Satan cast into the lake of fire.
6. the resurrection of the rest of dead (them who did not participate in either 1. or 2. ).
7. the destruction of this present earth and its heaven.
8. the Great White Throne Judgement for the rest of the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Do you not accept the order of resurrections that Paul gave here which indicates that all who are in Christ will be resurrected at the same time? Do you think that Paul didn't know what he was talking about?

Paul did not distinguish that Christ's coming - would be in two parts (1) His coming for the rapture/resurrection event (2) His coming to end the great tribulation and to execute judgement on the wicked who will have persecuted and martyred the great tribulation saints who professed Christ.

There are many, many verses to put everything together. So we have to make a list that everything fits together to get the big picture.

1. resurrection/rapture event of Christians before the great tribulation.
2. resurrection of the martyred great tribulation saints who professed Christ after the great tribulation, at Christ's return.
3. the 1000 year millennium reign of Christ.
4. the last rebellion of the nations.
5. Satan cast into the lake of fire.
6. the resurrection of the rest of dead (them who did not participate in either 1. or 2. ).
7. the destruction of this present earth and its heaven.
8. the Great White Throne Judgement for the rest of the dead.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The resurrection in John 5:28 is referring to the resurrection of both saved and unsaved persons for the Great White Throne Judgment.

Agree. It's somewhat shocking that you even say this since most futurists would disagree with you.

Anyway, Jesus specifically said it will include "ALL that are in the graves". So, why do you not have it including "ALL that are in the graves"? You don't think Jesus knew what He was talking about since you say that it's NOT all that are in the graves being resurrected, as He said?

For persons who become Christians during the one thousand years, should they die during that time, they will be resurrected with the rest of the dead for the Great White Throne judgment.

Yet, the rest of the dead are contrasted with believers in Revelation 20, so it makes no sense to think the rest of the dead include believers. And, again, this contradicts what Jesus said in John 5:28-29 bout ALL who are in the graves being resurrected at the same time. It's sad when I see people not accept what Jesus taught.

We don't have all of the resurrections nor translations (of the living) in any one place in the bible.

That's nonsense and an insult to both Jesus and Paul, as if they didn't really know what they were talking about as it relates to the resurrection of the dead. You apparently think that Jesus was mistaken to say that all of the dead would be resurrected in the same hour and that Paul was mistaken to say that all who belong to Christ would be resurrected at the same time at His second coming.

But, they were not mistaken. We can trust what they said to be true. It's foolish not to trust that what they said was true instead of acting like they didn't really know what they were talking about and didn't have the whole story. We're talking about Jesus and Paul here. They had the whole story and didn't leave anything out. If Jesus says that all of the dead will be resurrected in the same hour, which He did, then we should believe it. If Paul says that all who belong to Christ will be resurected at the same time, which he did, then we should also believe that.

That's why it becomes to necessary to make a list from the various scriptures, like I did .

Wrong. You make things far more complicated than they actually are. To the point where you have a doctrine all to yourself that no one else can even fully understand because it's so convoluted.

Actually, as far as resurrections are concerned, we have 3 for Christians(1.2.6.), and 1 for the unsaved (6.).

LOL. No. you are blatantly contradicting what Jesus and Paul taught, which is shameful.

Paul did not distinguish that Christ's coming - would be in two parts (1) His coming for the rapture/resurrection event (2) His coming to end the great tribulation and to execute judgement on the wicked who will have persecuted and martyred the great tribulation saints who professed Christ.

He didn't do that because it's not true. You think Paul didn't know what he was talking about and didn't have the whole truth. He was inspired by the Holy Spirit, was he not? Does the HOly Spirit know the whole truth? Of course. So did Paul. I don't share your low opinion of Paul and his understanding of end times doctrine.

There are many, many verses to put everything together.

In your opinion because you make everything far more complicated than it actually is. To the point that it can't even be understood except in your own mind. But, the truth is never that complicated.

 

[Douggg]

Anyway, Jesus specifically said it will include "ALL that are in the graves". So, why do you not have it including "ALL that are in the graves"? You don't think Jesus knew what He was talking about since you say that it's NOT all that are in the graves being resurrected, as He said?

What does this sentence in Revelation 20:5 mean to you ?

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished."

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What does this sentence in Revelation 20:5 mean to you ?

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished."

Can you please address what I said first before I address your question? How many times do I need to tell you that I'm not interested in having a discussion where I address your points and questions but you don't address mine?

Why did Jesus say that ALL who are in the graves will be resurrected at the same time if that isn't true? Break John 5:28-29 down for me and tell me exactly how it should be interpreted. Maybe you can paraphrase it for me so I can see how you interpret it.

 

[Jay Ross]

Why did Jesus say that ALL who are in the graves will be resurrected at the same time if that isn't true? Break John 5:28-29 down for me and tell me exactly how it should be interpreted. Maybe you can paraphrase it for me so I can see how you interpret it.

Perhaps what Christ was saying, when He said this, "for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth," was that the hour is coming, when the time of the final judgement will occur, all who are in the graves at the time when the final judgement will occur, "will hear his voice and come forth."

The question that is being addressed by you is when is Christ's second coming?

Does Christ's second coming occur in the near future such that He will rule the earth as the High Priest for the face of the earth or does He exercise His Priestly Rule in Heaven?

If we have this second advent of Christ wrong, then our understanding of the End Time will be screwed.

 

[Timtofly]

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Jesus says to us the ONLY ones who are worthy to obtain that world, as in survive in that world to come and live in it, do not marry and have kids. They are like the angels.

You cannot have any people who do not know God attaining to that age. Who does Jesus return for anyway?

There is no procreation in heaven. Those verses are not talking about any thousand year period on earth. There will be birth and generations in the millennium. See Isaiah 65. Isaiah 65 is not talking about heaven.

People already live and reign in heaven in the world to come. That has been true since 30AD. There will always be life on earth. But humans will not always have offspring. Some humans may always have offspring. Having offspring is not sinful. God told those on the earth on the 6th day to be fruitful and multiply. That is what life on earth is all about, regardless of sin and death.