The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[WPM]

While I agree that believers are spiritually raised with Christ and already called a royal priesthood, the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 is clearly described as a future event involving those who died in Christ and are raised to reign with Him for 1,000 years. It comes after Christ’s second coming, and is contrasted with a second resurrection of the wicked. Christ’s resurrection is indeed the first in time — the “firstfruits” — but Revelation 20 uses “first resurrection” to refer to the first of two final, bodily resurrections, not to His. The context, structure, and language all point to this being a literal resurrection of the faithful at the end of the age.




I agree that every believer must have a part in the “first resurrection” in order to escape the second death — but Scripture shows that this isn’t limited to those who physically die before Christ’s return. In 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explains that when Jesus returns, both the dead in Christ will be raised and the living will be transformed. These two experiences together make up the “first resurrection.” So those who are alive and remain aren’t “out of luck” — they’re gloriously included, not through death and resurrection, but through transformation into immortality. Whether raised or changed, all who are Christ’s at His coming will reign with Him — and over them, the second death has no power.



While it’s true that Christ’s resurrection was bodily and that we are spiritually united with Him in new life (Romans 6:4–5; Colossians 2:12–13), the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 is not Christ’s resurrection, and it's not a purely spiritual event.



This "first resurrection":

• Happens after Christ returns in Revelation 19.
• Is applied to those who were killed for their faith (martyrs).
• Brings people back to life after death (“they lived…”).
• Precedes a second resurrection of the wicked (Rev. 20:12–13).

This is clearly describing a bodily resurrection — not symbolic regeneration or spiritual union. Furthermore, as Paul teaches in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, the dead in Christ will rise first, and then those who are alive will be caught up (transformed). This means the "first resurrection" includes:

1. The resurrection of the righteous dead, and​

2. The instant glorification of living believers — all in the same end-time event.​

So yes — the “first resurrection” will include both the dead and the living in Christ at His return, and it is not spiritual-only. It’s the fulfillment of the promise in Philippians 3:20–21, where Christ will “transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body.”


It's important to distinguish between Christ’s resurrection, which is the source of all resurrection life, and the resurrection of His people, which is the effect of His victory:

• Christ’s resurrection is described as the “firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:20–23),
• But the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 is not Christ’s resurrection, and it's not simply “having part in His resurrection” spiritually — it’s the actual resurrection of the faithful, when “they lived and reigned with Christ.”

Revelation 20 even distinguishes between two end-time resurrections:

1. The first resurrection → of the righteous (Rev. 20:5–6)
2. The second resurrection → of the rest of the dead (Rev. 20:12–13)

Christ’s resurrection happened well before either of these and is never called “the first resurrection” in Scripture — instead, He’s the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18), the firstfruits, the guarantee of what’s coming. Revelation 20 points not to Christ’s resurrection, but to the resurrection of those who have placed their faith in Him, at the time of His return — when they will be raised to life and reign with Him.

We agree that Revelation is deeply symbolic but there are the literal events that must take place at His return. Best wishes.

Is that because you say so? You have your opinion of Revelation 20 contradicting the rest of Scripture. You also have zero corroboration for your claims. There is only one first resurrection. That is Christ. Every other resurrection is additional to that.

Christians have their part in His resurrection in salvation

 

[WPM]

The word ezesan is only found in 2 verses in the NT- 20:4 and 20:5 and it only applies to the physical first resurrection.

It is related to zao but not used in these 2 verses— 1st resurrection!

Is that because you say so?

 

[WPM]

You’re absolutely right that our views differ because we’re defining the “first resurrection” and the “1,000 years” differently.

You have to deny that Christ's first resurrection is indeed the first resurrection, as Scripture says. Amils reject that. In Him we have our part in Him.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The word ezesan is only found in 2 verses in the NT- 20:4 and 20:5 and it only applies to the physical first resurrection.

It is related to zao but not used in these 2 verses— 1st resurrection!

But the word zao does not refer to a resurrection. You showed yourself in your post that it means to live or be alive. That's why the KJV says "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" instead of "they came back to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years". But, you believe in soul sleep, so, because of that, you can't accept that the souls of physically dead believers could be reigning with Christ in heaven.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is that because you say so?

He apparently thinks he is the ultimate Greek expert.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have to deny that Christ's first resurrection is indeed the first resurrection, as Scripture says. Amils reject that. In Him we have our part in Him.

Again we see the lack of consistency in how Premills interpret scripture. The rest of scripture says Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection, but for Premils the first resurrection is somehow something different in Revelation 20.

I even saw a post where a Premill tried to use 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 as evidence that the first resurrection refers to the mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ. Apparently, they didn't actually read the passage because that passage indicates that Christ's bodily resurrection was the first in order followed by those who are Christ's at His second coming. So, the resurrection that Premills think is the first resurrection is actually the second resurrection, according to Paul. I have noticed that Premills don't seem to trust what Paul taught.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks, but I do not find the Greek word “ZAO” in these two verses but “EZESAN.”

Pick this up again tomorrow.

You posted this:

20:4
they came to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

Strong's Greek 2198 is "zao". So, what do you mean you don't find it in that verse?

 

[Davidpt]

But the word zao does not refer to a resurrection. You showed yourself in your post that it means to live or be alive. That's why the KJV says "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" instead of "they came back to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years". But, you believe in soul sleep, so, because of that, you can't accept that the souls of physically dead believers could be reigning with Christ in heaven.

Even the Premils that don't believe in soul sleep don't agree with you. So let's not act like that it's only because he believes in soul sleep is why he doesn't agree with you.

There are no souls reigning with Christ in heaven. And the 5th seal recorded in Revelation 6 proves it. But I'm not saying there are no souls in heaven. These souls are seen as resting not reigning. And that they are told to rest until the 42 month reign of the beast back on earth is fulfilled. That's what the little season back on earth is referring to, the 42 month reign of the beast, obviously. And when their brethren back on earth are martyred during this little season, they obviously join those that are resting. After all, it makes zero sense that some martyrs have to rest and other martyrs get to reign once they are martyred.

Unless you can convincingly prove from Scripture that resting and reigning is the same concept, I'm going to keep assuming they are not. Like I already pointed out, even Premils, maybe not all Premils, believe saved souls go to heaven upon death. But that doesn't mean Premils agree they are reigning with Christ. Which begs the question, since we're meaning disembodied. Reigning with Christ over what? Over who? Reigning with Christ doing what? Not to mention, Amils also believe they are priests of His while in a disembodied state. Almost forgot. As if it makes sense that heaven is in need of kings and priests in a disembodied state. Revelation 5:10 already tells us which realm is in need of kings and priests and it's not heaven.

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Maybe this verse is a lie since it doesn't agree with Amil's view that when someone saved dies, they then go to heaven and reign as kings in a disembodied state? Not to mention, it also doesn't agree with Amil's view that they are priests in a disembodied state, either.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Even the Premils that don't believe in soul sleep don't agree with you. So let's not act like that it's only because he believes in soul sleep is why he doesn't agree with you.

LOL! For the millionth time, you have misunderstood something I said because you're constantly making assumptions about what I'm saying and you can't make any effort to ask for clarification first to see if your assumptions are correct or not . I was NOT saying it's only because of that. I'm saying that because he believes in soul sleep, he can't possibly believe in Amill, which is true. Premills have other reasons for not agreeing with Amill, but that particular reason makes it impossible for him to believe in Amill.

There are no souls reigning with Christ in heaven.

Yes, there are. And you have proven many times that you have no proof otherwise.

And the 5th seal recorded in Revelation 6 proves it.

It absolutely does not.

But I'm not saying there are no souls in heaven. These souls are seen as resting not reigning.

This is your same tired argument that you've made many times before. It is not saying they are literally resting as if they are just laying down up there and doing nothing. LOL! Hello?

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

When they are told to "rest yet for a little season" that is not a case of telling them to lay down and rest or go take a nap or something. LOL!Where is your discernment? No, it's talking about them resting easy and being patient about their deaths being avenged. That's it. There's no reason to read any more into it than that. It has nothing to do with telling them to literally sit back and rest and do nothing while they wait for their deaths to be avenged. Good grief. You may not believe in soul sleep, but you believe in soul rest. That isn't much better. If you believe that their souls are not sleeping and are conscious, then why would you think they are literally doing nothing? What is the point of them being conscious if they are not able to do anything? They might as well be sleeping then. Your belief is not much different than soul sleep.

The same Greek word translated as "rest" in Revelation 6:11 is used in Matthew 11:28:

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Greek: anapauō). 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Do you think Jesus is telling people He will give them the opportunity to just sit back and relax and do nothing if they come to Him? Or is He telling them He will give them peace of mind even while they are actively doing things? It's the latter, right?

The same Greek word is used in this verse:

Luke 12:19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease (Greek: anapauō), eat, drink, and be merry.

Do you think this verse is talking about someone resting and doing nothing when it says "take thine ease"? Clearly not because it's followed up by saying "eat, drink, and be merry". It's not talking about literally resting and doing nothing, but about having peace of mind and no worries even while eating, drinking and being merry.

So, read Revelation 6:9-11 again with the understanding of the word "rest" as it is used in the verses I referenced.

And that they are told to rest until the 42 month reign of the beast back on earth is fulfilled. That's what the little season back on earth is referring to, the 42 month reign of the beast, obviously.

Obviously not. The 42 months/1260 days represents the time period of the preaching of the gospel of the church, which is what the two witnesses represent. The beast does not come out of the pit until the end of the 42 months/1260 days (Revelation 11:7). You instead have the beast coming out of the pit at the beginning of the 42 months/1260 days.

If you want to be taken seriously about anything you say about the beast, then tell me who or what the beast is. Otherwise, I will ignore anything you say about the beast. How can I trust anything you say about the beast if you don't even know who or what the beast is?

In Revelation 17:10 it indicates that five of the beasts heads had fallen before that was written, one of the heads IS at the time it was written and one was yet to come. Why do you think that the beast was inactive at the time the book was written when it says one of its heads existed at the time?

And when their brethren back on earth are martyred during this little season, they obviously join those that are resting. After all, it makes zero sense that some martyrs have to rest and other martyrs get to reign once they are martyred.

Scripture teaches that we, the church, are "a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) and that Jesus "hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father" (Rev 1:5-6). Why would you think that we would stop being "kings and priests unto God and his Father" when we physically die?

Unless you can convincingly prove from Scripture that resting and reigning is the same concept, I'm going to keep assuming they are not.

This is the problem. Your beliefs are based enitrely on assumptions. You don't make the effort to dig deeper to see what scripture teaches. For example, you clearly made no effort at all to see what the word "rest" in Revelation 6:11 actually means. Why is that? Are you afraid of what you might discover? But, now you know becauseI told you. So, you have no excuse now for continuing to misinterpret Revelation 6:9-11.

Like I already pointed out, even Premils, maybe not all Premils, believe saved souls go to heaven upon death. But that doesn't mean Premils agree they are reigning with Christ. Which begs the question, since we're meaning disembodied. Reigning with Christ over what? Over who? Reigning with Christ doing what?

Over all things. Do you agree that Jesus reigns now over all things as He Himself said (Matthew 28:18) and as Paul said in Ephesians 1:19-23? If so, what does that mean to you? I'm not going to pretend I know exactly what goes on in heaven, but what I do know is that scripture teaches that Jesus reigns over all things and that we are His priests in His kingdom, so whatever He reigns over, which is all things, we reign over as well. And there's no reason to think that stops when we physically die.

Not to mention, Amils also believe they are priests of His while in a disembodied state. Almost forgot. As if it makes sense that heaven is in need of kings and priests in a disembodied state. Revelation 5:10 already tells us which realm is in need of kings and priests and it's not heaven.

It doesn't make sense to think otherwise. You agree that people in a disembodied state have consciousness, but for some reason you can't fathom the concept of them actually doing anything? Why? Do you not believe that we are priests now? Scriptures says we are (1 Peter 2:9, Rev 1:5-6). Tell me why that would stop in heaven.

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Maybe this verse is a lie since it doesn't agree with Amil's view that when someone saved dies, they then go to heaven and reign as kings in a disembodied state? Not to mention, it also doesn't agree with Amil's view that they are priests in a disembodied state, either.

LOL. That verse does not say you can't reign in heaven as well as kings and priests. Where does that say being kings and priests means you can only reign on the earth? Nowhere. You are again just making assumptions which means nothing.

 

[ewq1938]

Thanks, but I do not find the Greek word “ZAO” in these two verses but “EZESAN.”

Pick this up again tomorrow.

ZAO is in verse 4 as "lived". They were dead then they LIVED/ZAO. When you are ZAO after having been dead a resurrection took place. Jesus died, then he was alive/ZAO because he was resurrected. ZAO itself just means to live/be alive. It does not mean a resurrection specifically but if the dead become ZAO a resurrection did happen. Teh word for resurrection is used in verse 5, anaZAO.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

ZAO is in verse 4 as "lived". They were dead then they LIVED/ZAO. When you are ZAO after having been dead a resurrection took place. Jesus died, then he was alive/ZAO because he was resurrected. ZAO itself just means to live/be alive. It does not mean a resurrection specifically but if the dead become ZAO a resurrection did happen. Teh word for resurrection is used in verse 5, anaZAO.

You can live (ZAO) even while physically dead, as we can see here:

Revelation 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.

 

[ewq1938]

There are no souls reigning with Christ in heaven.

Because the reign is over the nations of the Earth, mentioned in Rev 19. There of course are no unsaved, mortal nations in heaven so no reign in heaven is possible or needed.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Another thing Amill is silent on is the fact that rule, one of three verbs here, is in the future tense so the ruling over the nations happens in the future AFTER the second coming which proves Premill to be correct.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because the reign is over the nations of the Earth, mentioned in Rev 19. There of course are no unsaved, mortal nations in heaven so no reign in heaven is possible or needed.

Oh, really? So, when scripture tells us that Jesus reigns at the right hand of the Father in heaven (Ephesians 1:19-23), we should not believe that?

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Another thing Amill is silent on is the fact that rule, one of three verbs here, is in the future tense so the ruling over the nations happens in the future AFTER the second coming which proves Premill to be correct.

This is yet another ridiculous argument that you make. That is written in the future tense because it hasn't happened yet. Hello? It does not mean it happens during an imaginary thousand year period of time after His return. Scripture is clear that He uses the rod of iron to break/destroy His enemies (Psalm 2:9), not rule over them like an earthly king would. How can He rule over those who He has smited (destroyed) and tread in the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God? Is He going to rule over their dead bodies? What nonsense.

 

[CTK]

ZAO is in verse 4 as "lived". They were dead then they LIVED/ZAO. When you are ZAO after having been dead a resurrection took place. Jesus died, then he was alive/ZAO because he was resurrected. ZAO itself just means to live/be alive. It does not mean a resurrection specifically but if the dead become ZAO a resurrection did happen. Teh word for resurrection is used in verse 5, anaZAO.

Revelation 20:4

And
καὶ (kai)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 2532: And, even, also, namely.

they came to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

and
καὶ (kai)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 2532: And, even, also, namely.

reigned
ἐβασίλευσαν (ebasileusan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 936: (a) I rule, reign, (b) I reign over. From basileus; to rule.


Revelation 20:5

dead
νεκρῶν (nekrōn)
Adjective - Genitive Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 3498: (a) adj: dead, lifeless, subject to death, mortal, (b) noun: a dead body, a corpse. From an apparently primary nekus; dead.

{did} not
οὐκ (ouk)
Adverb
Strong's Greek 3756: No, not. Also ouk, and ouch a primary word; the absolute negative adverb; no or not.

come back to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

until
ἄχρι (achri)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 891: As far as, up to, until, during. Or achris akh'-rece; akin to akron; until or up to.

the
τὰ (ta)
Article - Nominative Neuter Plural
Strong's Greek 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

thousand
χίλια (chilia)
Adjective - Nominative Neuter Plural
Strong's Greek 5507: A thousand. Plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand.

years
ἔτη (etē)
Noun - Nominative Neuter Plural
Strong's Greek 2094: A year. Apparently a primary word; a year.

were complete.
τελεσθῇ (telesthē)
Verb - Aorist Subjunctive Passive - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's Greek 5055: (a) I end, finish, (b) I fulfill, accomplish, (c) I pay. From telos; to end, i.e. Complete, execute, conclude, discharge.



First, just to be clear:

• ζάω (zaō) is the lexical (dictionary) form of the verb — meaning “to live.”
• ἔζησαν (ezēsan) is a specific tense and form of zaō — it is the:
  • Aorist (past tense),
  • Active (they did the action),
  • Indicative (a simple statement of fact),
  • Third-person plural (they),
  • So it literally means: “they lived” or “they came to life.”

In other words: ezēsan is the word zaō — just in the aorist tense, applied to “they.” John is describing a completed action — a moment when those who had been dead came to life (i.e., were resurrected).

Greek verbs are inflected, which means they take different forms to express tense, voice, mood, person, and number. So when Revelation 20:4–5 says:

“They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years...”
“The rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished...”​

…it uses ezēsan (ἔζησαν), because it is the correct past tense form of zaō for that context,

• Zaō is the root word (like “to live” in English),
• Ezēsan is the appropriate grammatical form of zaō for the narrative — "they lived," referring to a resurrection event.

Because ezēsan is used for both the righteous in verse 4 and the wicked in verse 5, it shows that both groups “come to life” in the same way — bodily, not spiritually. Thus, this favors interpreting the first resurrection as literal, just like the second.

 

[ewq1938]

Because ezēsan is used for both the righteous in verse 4 and the wicked in verse 5

Esword and Blueletter bible have Zao/Ezesan in verse 4 but a different Greek word, G326 Anazao in verse 5. Verse 4 is speaking of being alive after having been dead so the word for life is used rather than a word meaning a resurrection though a resurrection is implied, while verse 5 strictly speaks of a resurrection so uses the word which means to live again.

lived

G326
ἀναζάω
anazaō
an-ad-zah'-o
From G303 and G2198; to recover life (literally or figuratively): - (be a-) live again, revive.
Total KJV occurrences: 5


g326 ↓
ἀνἔζησαν ἀναζάωanazaō

V-AAI-3P

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Revelation 20:4

And
καὶ (kai)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 2532: And, even, also, namely.

they came to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

This makes no sense whatsoever. You say it says "they came to life", but then look at what you reference there. Strong's Greek 2198, which is the word "zao" and you even show there that it means "to live, be alive". What gives here? To live and be alive does not require someone to be bodily resurrected.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Esword and Blueletter bible have Zao/Ezesan in verse 4 but a different Greek word, G326 Anazao in verse 5. Verse 4 is speaking of being alive after having been dead so the word for life is used rather than a word meaning a resurrection though a resurrection is implied, while verse 5 strictly speaks of a resurrection so uses the word which means to live again.

lived

G326
ἀναζάω
anazaō
an-ad-zah'-o
From G303 and G2198; to recover life (literally or figuratively): - (be a-) live again, revive.
Total KJV occurrences: 5


g326 ↓
ἀνἔζησαν ἀναζάωanazaō

V-AAI-3P

What Premills need to answer is why the word "zao" is used in verse 4, but the word "anazao" is used in verse 5 if they are both talking about people being bodily resurrected? The word "zao" is NOT a word used to described someone being resurrected, but the word "anazao" is. This cannot be ignored.

Why is the word "anazao" not used in verse 4 instead of the word "zao" since the word "anazao is used to describe someone being resurrected? In my view that is because verse 4 is talking about the souls of the dead in Christ living in heaven and reigning with Christ there. The word "zao" only refers to people being alive and living, not to them being resurrected, so it does not say they are bodily resurrected. They have spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20) and that's why their souls went to heaven where John saw them and they reign with Christ there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Esword and Blueletter bible have Zao/Ezesan in verse 4 but a different Greek word, G326 Anazao in verse 5. Verse 4 is speaking of being alive after having been dead

The dead in Christ do not have to be bodily resurrected in order to be alive (zao). I don't think you are one who believes in soul sleep and I believe you know that souls can be alive without bodies because that is exactly what is portrayed here:

Revelation 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.

 

[Davidpt]

What Premills need to answer is why the word "zao" is used in verse 4, but the word "anazao" is used in verse 5 if they are both talking about people being bodily resurrected? The word "zao" is NOT a word used to described someone being resurrected, but the word "anazao" is. This cannot be ignored.

Why is the word "anazao" not used in verse 4 instead of the word "zao" since the word "anazao is used to describe someone being resurrected? In my view that is because verse 4 is talking about the souls of the dead in Christ living in heaven and reigning with Christ there. The word "zao" only refers to people being alive and living, not to them being resurrected, so it does not say they are bodily resurrected. They have spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20) and that's why their souls went to heaven where John saw them and they reign with Christ there.

It doesn't matter because the following undeniably 100% proves that those meant in verse 4 and 6 already live again bodily at the beginning of the thousand years---------- But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

This is the trump card that can't be trumped. And it's been in front of our nose the entire time. I can't believe I never even noticed until a day or two ago that this alone debunks Amil 100%.



I saw the souls of them---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years---this is the first resurrection. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished

There is only one way and one way only that Amil can be correct about the first resurrection. Verse 5 also needs to say that those of the first resurrection don't live again until the thousand years are finished.

If verse 5 had said this instead---the rest of the dead, nor those that have part in the first resurrection, lived again until the thousand years were finished---I would absolutely 100% agree with Amils in regards to verse 4 and 6. It would be 100% undeniable that they have to be right in that case.

With that in mind, seriously then, how can the following be the same? Explain that one.


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

The rest of the dead, nor those that have part in the first resurrection, lived again until the thousand years were finished

And yes I know what's coming my way. A reply filled with LOLs since you are unable to take anyone seriously but yourself and other Amils like yourself.

 

[rwb]

• ζάω (zaō) is the lexical (dictionary) form of the verb — meaning “to live.”
• ἔζησαν (ezēsan) is a specific tense and form of zaō— it is the:
  • Aorist (past tense),
  • Active (they did the action),
  • Indicative (a simple statement of fact),
  • Third-person plural (they),
  • So it literally means: “they lived” or “they came to life.”

This is a poor translation. John doesn't say "they came to life", that's an unbiblical assumption. John simply writes "the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." IOW John proves that even though they physically died, they still "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

This is what millennialists continue to ignore. The martyred saints did NOT have to come to life because they possessed eternal/everlasting life by grace through faith believing in Christ's resurrected life (the first resurrection) and knowing that death of the body could only take their flesh but could not keep them from being living souls in heaven as the spiritual body of Christ. Christ is NOT a liar! When He tells us that whosoever lives and believes in Him shall NEVER die, why do millennialists doubt that believers continue to have life after death?