The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

Davy said:

Per bishop Ussher's Biblical chronology, and E.W. Bullinger who did the same Bible chronology, Christ's actual year of birth was 4 B.C.

We are at the year 2025 A.D. Add 4 years to that, and it has been 2029 years since Lord Jesus Christ came.

How... then can anyone in their right mind, claim that period of 2029 years is what the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 is about?? Yet that is exactly what some on man's false Amill theory try to do, showing how deceived they are.

Click to expand...

How long do you believe the "one hour" of Revelation 17:12 is in reality? You said you don't believe it's a literal hour (60 minutes). Should we rant at you and ask how anyone in their right mind can deny that "one hour" is a literal hour?

Spiritual Israelite said:

I agree with this, but what I'm saying is that we should already have an established doctrine based on other more clear scripture even before attempting to interpret more difficult passages such as Revelation 20.


Well, maybe to some extent, but Daniel is an undeniably difficult book to interpret as well because of the amount of symbolism it contains. I think the foundation of our doctrine should be based on more clear scriptures that we can then use to help us interpret more difficult passages contained in books like Daniel and Revelation. I'm not saying that there isn't anything clear in Daniel or Revelation. There is. But, there's also undeniably a lot of symbolism which results in many different interpretations of some parts of the book.


I'm trying to tell you that we should understand the rest of scripture before understanding either one of them. At least as it relates to the more highly debatable parts of those books such as Daniel 9:24-27 and Revelation 20.


Sure.


But, what about other scripture? Do they only interpret Daniel by what is written in Revelation and not other scripture?

Click to expand...

I agree with you. There is absolutely no way anyone could begin to understand Revelation unless they had a very good understanding of the rest of the scriptures. Revelation will have many, if not all supporting interpretations found in the 65 books, but that still does not mean we must not determine what the verse in Revelation is asking. Only then should we bring that knowledge forward.

So, if you want to test this out because my comments may be confusing… then, please respond to the timeline example I recently sent to RWB.

This will illustrate was I have been saying. What is the first resurrection comment in the chapter 20 timeline meaning to tell us BEFORE we turn to out knowledge and understandings of the earlier books.

CTK said:

I agree with you. There is absolutely no way anyone could begin to understand Revelation unless they had a very good understanding of the rest of the scriptures. Revelation will have many, if not all supporting interpretations found in the 65 books, but that still does not mean we must not determine what the verse in Revelation is asking. Only then should we bring that knowledge forward.

Click to expand...

I agree. I have said this many times before, but I believe there is no new doctrine introduced in the book of Revelation that we can't find taught anywhere else in the Bible.

CTK said:

So, if you want to test this out because my comments may be confusing… then, please respond to the timeline example I recently sent to RWB.

Click to expand...

I have responded to that, but I think it was in a different thread than this one where you posted the same thing.

Edit: I found the post I made that I referred to here. You can read it here: Scripture Revelation That Many Throw Out About the Future 1,000 Years Reign by Christ

If you keep reading the thread after that post you can see where you said you would try to address it later on.

CTK said:

This will illustrate was I have been saying. What is the first resurrection comment in the chapter 20 timeline meaning to tell us BEFORE we turn to out knowledge and understandings of the earlier books.

Click to expand...

Now you confused me again. Why try to figure out what it's telling us BEFORE referring to our established doctrine that we built from other more clear scripture? On its own without the aid of other scripture, I wouldn't know what Revelation 20 is talking about, so I need to refer to other scripture to help me understand it. In my view, any reference to the first resurrection must refer to Jesus's resurrection, which would mean the reference to having part in the first resurrection (Rev 20:6) is to have part in His resurrection because scripture teaches that His resurrection was the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). But, you're saying I should try to understand Revelation 20 in isolation before I look at other scripture? I don't understand that concept.

CTK said:

1. The Second Coming of Christ and the First Resurrection (the righteous dead)

• The dead in Christ will rise first, and those who are alive in the faith will be caught up together with them.

Click to expand...

Charlie, you begin with the assumption that the first resurrection is physically of the saints that will come to pass when Christ comes the Second time. In this assumption you ignore the FACT that Scripture tells us the first resurrection is the physical resurrection of Christ. Since you assume the first resurrection is of the righteous dead saints who come to life to live and reign with Christ for one thousand literal years, you bring an unbiblical bias into the Word of God! Because you force two separate resurrections, the first for saints, then after the thousand years have finished another resurrection for the rest of the dead unbelievers. Nowhere in Scripture can you
prove two separate resurrections of the dead separated by one thousand years!

You will never understand the first resurrection unless you let go of your bias and accept the first resurrection is NOT of the righteous dead together when Christ comes again. The first resurrection is exclusively the physical resurrection of Christ ALONE. Christ is the first resurrection that man MUST have part in to overcome the second death.

CTK said:

Key verses:

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout... and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds…”

1 Corinthians 15:51-52
“...we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed... at the last trump... the dead shall be raised incorruptible…”

Revelation 20:4-6
“...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years... this is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection…”

Click to expand...

CTK said:

Above is just the first event in Revelation. The discussion is on the First Resurrection. The interpretation reveals the dead in Christ will rise first and those alive in the faith will be caught up together with them. Then, there are the 3 verses to support that interpretation..

Click to expand...

The verses above do NOT support your assumption of the physical resurrection of the righteous dead to live and reign with Christ for literally one thousand years. Neither of the two verses prove a physical resurrection of the righteous dead to live and reign with Christ for one thousand years. Both of these verses point us to the Second coming of Christ on the last day when the last trumpet sounds and time shall be no longer. There won't be another one thousand years when Christ comes again, because this earth shall be utterly burned up by the fire of God that shall come down from heaven.

Rev 4 tells us Christ is the "first resurrection" that man MUST have part in before they die to be called blessed and holy, overcome the second death, to be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. In this chapter John is showing us that death cannot keep faithful saints from living and reigning with Christ, because the life we receive when we have been born again is FOREVER.

Thinking out loud here.

This is real simple, IMO. Everything labeled 1) below only fits A) below. And everything labeled 2) below only fits B) below.

A) This is the first resurrection(Revelation 20:5)

B) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished(Revelation 20:5)

1) Luke 20:35-36

1) they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life(John 5:29)

2) they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation(John 5:29)

1) there shall be a resurrection of the dead of the just(Acts 24:15)

2) there shall be a resurrection of the dead of the unjust(Acts 24:15)

1) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive(1 Corinthians 15:22). (but let's not interpret this out of context like Universalists typically do. It clearly says 'in Christ'. Clearly, not everyone are in Christ. Every Christian should already know what it is meaning by 'in Christ')

1) they that are Christ's at his coming(1 Corinthians 15:22). (if this verse doesn't make it clear what is meant by 'in Christ' in verse 22, nothing does)

1) 1 Corinthians 15:52-57.

1) and the dead in Christ shall rise first(1 Thessalonians 4:16)



Is anyone going to argue that anything labeled 1) fits B) not A)?

Is anyone going to argue that anything labeled 2) fits A) not B)?

rwb said:

Charlie, you begin with the assumption that the first resurrection is physically of the saints that will come to pass when Christ comes the Second time. In this assumption you ignore the FACT that Scripture tells us the first resurrection is the physical resurrection of Christ. Since you assume the first resurrection is of the righteous dead saints who come to life to live and reign with Christ for one thousand literal years, you bring an unbiblical bias into the Word of God! Because you force two separate resurrections, the first for saints, then after the thousand years have finished another resurrection for the rest of the dead unbelievers. Nowhere in Scripture can you
prove two separate resurrections of the dead separated by one thousand years!

You will never understand the first resurrection unless you let go of your bias and accept the first resurrection is NOT of the righteous dead together when Christ comes again. The first resurrection is exclusively the physical resurrection of Christ ALONE. Christ is the first resurrection that man MUST have part in to overcome the second death.

Click to expand...

Right. That is exactly what Paul taught here.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 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.

What Premills believe is the first resurrection is actually the second resurrection in order according to Paul, with Christ's resurrection itself being the first.

Davidpt said:

Thinking out loud here.

This is real simple, IMO.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. We'll see...

Davidpt said:

Everything labeled 1) below only fits A) below. And everything labeled 2) below only fits B) below.

A) This is the first resurrection(Revelation 20:5)

B) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished(Revelation 20:5)

1) Luke 20:35-36

1) they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life(John 5:29)

2) they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation(John 5:29)

1) there shall be a resurrection of the dead of the just(Acts 24:15)

2) there shall be a resurrection of the dead of the unjust(Acts 24:15)

1) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive(1 Corinthians 15:22). (but let's not interpret this out of context. It clearly says 'in Christ'. Clearly, not everyone are in Christ. Every Christian should already know what it is meaning by 'in Christ')

1) they that are Christ's at his coming(1 Corinthians 15:22). (if this verse doesn't make it clear what is meant by 'in Christ' in verse 22, nothing does)

1) 1 Corinthians 15:52-57.

1) and the dead in Christ shall rise first(1 Thessalonians 4:16)



Is anyone going to argue that anything labeled 1) fits B) not A)?

Click to expand...

I would argue that everything labeled 1) fits neither A) nor B).

I also would like to point out that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 has nothing to do with the first resurrection as you are trying to claim, but instead has to do with the fact that before being caught up to meet Christ in the air together with those who are alive and remain, the dead in Christ have to rise from the dead first. They can't be caught up without first being resurrected.

Davidpt said:

Is anyone going to argue that anything labeled 2) fits A) not B)?

Click to expand...

Not me.

Spiritual Israelite said:

I agree. I have said this many times before, but I believe there is no new doctrine introduced in the book of Revelation that we can't find taught anywhere else in the Bible.


I have responded to that, but I think it was in a different thread than this one where you posted the same thing.

Edit: I found the post I made that I referred to here. You can read it here: Scripture Revelation That Many Throw Out About the Future 1,000 Years Reign by Christ

If you keep reading the thread after that post you can see where you said you would try to address it later on.



Now you confused me again. Why try to figure out what it's telling us BEFORE referring to our established doctrine that we built from other more clear scripture? On its own without the aid of other scripture, I wouldn't know what Revelation 20 is talking about, so I need to refer to other scripture to help me understand it. In my view, any reference to the first resurrection must refer to Jesus's resurrection, which would mean the reference to having part in the first resurrection (Rev 20:6) is to have part in His resurrection because scripture teaches that His resurrection was the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). But, you're saying I should try to understand Revelation 20 in isolation before I look at other scripture? I don't understand that concept.

Click to expand...

Again, and using Daniel as background. So many responded to me their interpretation of a verse in Daniel but what they had interpreted a verse in Revelation to be. It is / was a form of circular reasoning. It the supporting interpretations found in the earlier books do give us the correct interpretation of a verse in Revelation, there will be no contradition because it will support it's intended meaning. But the interpretation of say a verse found in Daniel cannot tell us the meaning of the verse in Revelation.

Perhaps this is a bad example -- I don't know but just about 99% of people who study Daniel identify the 10 kings by looking forward to the book of Revelation. Or, they identify the little horn as "an" anti-Christ figure mentioned in John's writings but that is then interpreted to represent one of the evil actors in Revelation. They fail to ask what exactly are these 10 toes, horns, kings, etc., what is their timing, what could they possibly represent.. Because they have attempted to match these actors to our history books, and could not identify them during any period after the kingdom of Greece, they MUST be yet to come and therefore, Revelation will tell us who they are. So, Revelation interprets the Daniel verses.... but when I would argue this is an incorrect process, they return with "you cannot understand Daniel unless you understand Revelation - so, once again, Revelation determines Daniel.

What I think I see here during the discussion of Revelation is the exact same process - but not just using Daniel. They are taking their interpretations found in the other 65 books and then using them to determine what Revelation is telling us. Some times this will work out but many times it will not give us the correct interpretation of the verse in Revelation. I believe I think I see this in your answer (or RWB) where the cross or the resurrection of Christ is the first resurrection that dictates our definition of the "first resurrection" found in chapter
20. It might seem correct because Jesus is certainly the first fruits but in Revelation, the chapter is on the church or believers and non-believers at the end of time.

So, getting back to the "first resurrection" mention in the timeline for chapter 20, the initial question to be answered, is NOT what is the first resurrection or person resurrected, but what is THE DEFINITION OF THIS EVENT - THIS FIRST RESURRECTION. So, as I asked RWB... what is this verse telling / asking of us?

Revelation 20:4-6
“...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years... this is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection…”

1) Is it speaking of Christ's resurrection?
2) Is it spekaing of those who will take part in this first resurrection?
3) Is this "first resurrection" a purely spiritual event? Will it include those raised from the dead and those still living in Christ at His return?
4) Do the answers to these few questions point to the resurrection of Christ or the resurrection of those who have placed their faith in Him?

So, again, what is this event in the timeline speaking about?

rwb said:

Charlie, you begin with the assumption that the first resurrection is physically of the saints that will come to pass when Christ comes the Second time.

Click to expand...

I am not telling you that or assuming anything. Please read the verse - does this event include those who believed in Jesus - those that were sitting in the grave or still alive? Will those believers be with Christ for the 1000 years?

rwb said:

In this assumption you ignore the FACT that Scripture tells us the first resurrection is the physical resurrection of Christ.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. I think we both agree that Jesus is the first person resurrected - He is indeed the first fruits but just because John uses the term in Revelation as the "First resurrection" does not mean is refers to the resurrection of Jesus. The purpose of Revelation is speaking about our resurrection - both good and bad - the two separat resurrections of the wheat and the grape harvests - the scriptures speak often of the two separate harvests.

rwb said:

Since you assume the first resurrection is of the righteous dead saints who come to life to live and reign with Christ for one thousand literal years, you bring an unbiblical bias into the Word of God!

Click to expand...

The only response to this is that we have a different definition of the "first resurrection." If the first resurrection is at His return, then those believers will indeed be with Him for those 1000 years.

However, if you define the "first resurrection" as the time of the cross, then you MUST also include in your interpretaion that there are some who are reigning with Christ now for a 1000 years.... I cannot see that at all..... Is that how you see it?

rwb said:

Because you force two separate resurrections, the first for saints, then after the thousand years have finished another resurrection for the rest of the dead unbelievers. Nowhere in Scripture can you
prove two separate resurrections of the dead separated by one thousand years!

Click to expand...

Sure I can.... does it not say that after 1000 years, those who are in the graves for the past 1000 years (those who do not take part in the 1000 years with Christ - non'believers) will be brought out of their graves to be judged?

rwb said:

You will never understand the first resurrection unless you let go of your bias and accept the first resurrection is NOT of the righteous dead together when Christ comes again. The first resurrection is exclusively the physical resurrection of Christ ALONE. Christ is the first resurrection that man MUST have part in to overcome the second death.

Click to expand...

I am sorry you feel this way... again, it is our interpretations brought forward that are having us lean this way or that way for our understanding of the verses in Revelation - which is why I have been saying - first, what is the verse in Revelation asking or telling us, and then go back to the Scriptures for help us identify the symbol or relevant event found in them.

rwb said:

The verses above do NOT support your assumption of the physical resurrection of the righteous dead to live and reign with Christ for literally one thousand years. Neither of the two verses prove a physical resurrection of the righteous dead to live and reign with Christ for one thousand years. Both of these verses point us to the Second coming of Christ on the last day when the last trumpet sounds and time shall be no longer. There won't be another one thousand years when Christ comes again, because this earth shall be utterly burned up by the fire of God that shall come down from heaven.

Rev 4 tells us Christ is the "first resurrection" that man MUST have part in before they die to be called blessed and holy, overcome the second death, to be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Click to expand...

Right here you are agreeing the believers will be with Him for 1000 years. But this verse in chapter 4 is symbolic - we must accept Jesus the the first fruits, the first resurrected... only by this acceptance will we be included in the "first resurrection" in Revelation.

rwb said:

In this chapter John is showing us that death cannot keep faithful saints from living and reigning with Christ, because the life we receive when we have been born again is FOREVER.

Click to expand...

Davy said:

Per bishop Ussher's Biblical chronology, and E.W. Bullinger who did the same Bible chronology, Christ's actual year of birth was 4 B.C.

We are at the year 2025 A.D. Add 4 years to that, and it has been 2029 years since Lord Jesus Christ came.

How... then can anyone in their right mind, claim that period of 2029 years is what the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 is about?? Yet that is exactly what some on man's false Amill theory try to do, showing how deceived they are.

Click to expand...

It represents a long period of time, just like the 1 hr represents a short period of time. At least Amillennialists are consistent. Pre-millennialists are not.

CTK said:

Again, and using Daniel as background. So many responded to me their interpretation of a verse in Daniel but what they had interpreted a verse in Revelation to be. It is / was a form of circular reasoning. It the supporting interpretations found in the earlier books do give us the correct interpretation of a verse in Revelation, there will be no contradition because it will support it's intended meaning. But the interpretation of say a verse found in Daniel cannot tell us the meaning of the verse in Revelation.

Perhaps this is a bad example -- I don't know but just about 99% of people who study Daniel identify the 10 kings by looking forward to the book of Revelation. Or, they identify the little horn as "an" anti-Christ figure mentioned in John's writings but that is then interpreted to represent one of the evil actors in Revelation. They fail to ask what exactly are these 10 toes, horns, kings, etc., what is their timing, what could they possibly represent.. Because they have attempted to match these actors to our history books, and could not identify them during any period after the kingdom of Greece, they MUST be yet to come and therefore, Revelation will tell us who they are. So, Revelation interprets the Daniel verses.... but when I would argue this is an incorrect process, they return with "you cannot understand Daniel unless you understand Revelation - so, once again, Revelation determines Daniel.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I see what you're saying here. Well, one obvious mistake they are making is isolating themselves to just looking at those 2 books when they should be looking at all of scripture and making sure that their interpretations of Daniel line up with all of scripture instead of thinking that the book of Revelation alone determines how they should interpret the book of Daniel. That can easily lead to doctrinal bias because they are just cherry picking which parts of scripture to look at while ignoring the rest.

CTK said:

What I think I see here during the discussion of Revelation is the exact same process - but not just using Daniel. They are taking their interpretations found in the other 65 books and then using them to determine what Revelation is telling us. Some times this will work out but many times it will not give us the correct interpretation of the verse in Revelation.

Click to expand...

Why not? Why would my interpretation of the other 65 books not be a reliable guide for interpreting Revelation 20? It seems that this would only be the case if some new doctrine is introduced in Revelation 20 that is not taught in any of the other 65 books. But, I don't believe that is the case.

CTK said:

I believe I think I see this in your answer (or RWB) where the cross or the resurrection of Christ is the first resurrection that dictates our definition of the "first resurrection" found in chapter
20. It might seem correct because Jesus is certainly the first fruits but in Revelation, the chapter is on the church or believers and non-believers at the end of time.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this. Why should I just ignore what the rest of scripture indicates is the first resurrection as if that doesn't exist? Why should I not take that knowledge into my study of Revelation 20 to help me interpret that passage? Why would the first resurrection in Revelation 20 be something different than what it is in the rest of scripture? I suppose it technically could be, but I certainly don't think it makes sense to not at least take what the rest of the scripture says about the first resurrection into consideration when going into my study of Revelation 20 instead of just acting as if the rest of scripture does not reference a first resurrection at all.

CTK said:

So, getting back to the "first resurrection" mention in the timeline for chapter 20, the initial question to be answered, is NOT what is the first resurrection or person resurrected, but what is THE DEFINITION OF THIS EVENT - THIS FIRST RESURRECTION.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this approach. I think we need to first determine what the rest of scripture says about the first resurrection and then ask whether this passage is talking about the same first resurrection or not. I don't think we need to come into the study of Revelation 20 with a blank slate as if we know nothing going into it.

CTK said:

So, as I asked RWB... what is this verse telling / asking of us?

Revelation 20:4-6
“...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years... this is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection…”

1) Is it speaking of Christ's resurrection?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is, and I'll tell you why. In my view, the key is to look at Revelation 20:6 because it says some critical things to indicate the timing of the first resurrection and the thousand years.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

So, what can we glean from what it says here? Well, it says that those who have part in the first resurrection are blessed and holy. Do we need to be bodily resurrected in order to be considered blessed and holy? I don't believe so.

It says that the second death has no power over those who have part in the first resurrection. To me, it is saying that one must have part in the first resurrection in order for the second death to not have power over them. Do we need to be bodily resurrected in order for the second death to not have power over us? No. Does the second death have power over you? I don't believe so. Does it have power over me? I don't think so. Does it have power over the souls of the dead in Christ that John saw? No. The fact that the second death does not have power over those who belong to Christ even now should tell you something about the timing of having part in the first resurrection.

The next question we should answer in relation to this verse is at what point is it the case that Christ's followers are considered to be "priests of God and of Christ" and are reigning with Him? Let's look at other scripture to get the answer to that question.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

This is a verse addressed to believers and it says we are "a royal priesthood". That means right now we are priests of God and of Christ and reigning with Christ. The following passage confirms that He reigns now and we reign with Him now as priests.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice in this passage also that it says Jesus is "the first begotten of the dead". Like Acts 26:23 and 1 Cor 15:20, that means His resurrection from the dead was the first. So, that again shows His resurrection as being the first resurrection. And it says He IS "the prince of the kings of the earth" and He "HATH MADE us kings and priests", so consider that when reading Revelation 20.

So, using other scripture as an aid, I have shown that what is described in Revelation 20:6 is a current reality. You might ask how is it that we have had part in the first resurrection? Well, with Jesus's resurrection being the first resurrection, that means those who have part in the first resurrection have part in His resurrection. How do people have part in His resurrection? Like this....

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;

We have part in His resurrection in the sense that we rise from the dead spiritually by having our sins forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ which makes us no longer dead in our sins, but instead spiritually alive in Christ and we are then His priests in His kingdom as part of His "royal priesthood".

CTK said:

2) Is it spekaing of those who will take part in this first resurrection?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. And, in my view, literally all believers have part in the first resurrection and, as I said above, I believe it is a requirement to have part in the first resurrection in order for the second death to not have power over you. If it was referring to the mass bodily resurrection that occurs when Christ returns, then those who are alive and remain would be out of luck since they would not be dead and would not have part in that resurrection.

CTK said:

3) Is this "first resurrection" a purely spiritual event? Will it include those raised from the dead and those still living in Christ at His return?

4) Do the answers to these few questions point to the resurrection of Christ or the resurrection of those who have placed their faith in Him?

Click to expand...

3) No, the first resurrection itself is Christ's resurrection, which was obviously a bodily resurrection. Having part in the first resurrection, which in this case means having part in Christ's resurrection, is a spiritual event as I described above. It includes all believers from all time.

4) Obviously, I believe they point to the resurrection of Christ and all believers having part in His resurrection.

WPM said:

It represents a long period of time, just like the 1 hr represents a short period of time. At least Amillennialists are consistent. Pre-millennialists are not.

Click to expand...

Amen, bro. That really sums up the difference in the methods of interpretation that Amills use compared to what Premills use. We are far more consistent with our approach to interpreting the text.

We don't just say one time period in Revelation is literal and the rest are symbolic the way they saw only one time period is symbolic while the rest are literal. Seeing only one as symbolic and the rest is literal or seeing most as literal and a few as symbolic shows doctrinal bias. Where is the consistency in that? What basis is there for not seeing them either all as literal or all as symbolic? It's not consistent to see it any other way.

CTK said:

No, I don't think so. I think we both agree that Jesus is the first person resurrected - He is indeed the first fruits but just because John uses the term in Revelation as the "First resurrection" does not mean is refers to the resurrection of Jesus. The purpose of Revelation is speaking about our resurrection - both good and bad - the two separat resurrections of the wheat and the grape harvests - the scriptures speak often of the two separate harvests.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me which scriptures you are talking about here exactly? Are you talking about the resurrection of the dead who are saved and the resurection of the dead who are lost?

How about we get some help from Jesus to determine the timing of the resurrection of the saved and the resurrection of the lost? Can you tell me how you interpret this 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.

It does not seem that Jesus believe in two separate hours/times that the dead would be resurrected 1,000+ years apart. He only spoke of one hour that is coming when all of the dead will be resurreted. So, I'm wondering how you reconcile your understanding of Revelation 20 with this passage.

WPM said:

At least Amillennialists are consistent.

Click to expand...

Prove it, that that is true in every case. And use the following to prove it.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


I'll go first and let's see who is being consistent in this case since you seem to be implying that Amillennialists are always consistent. Let's see if that is true then.

A) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is obviously pertaining to a bodily resurrection.

B) This is the first resurrection. And since the former is pertaining to a bodily resurrection it then stands to reason so must this one be as well. Thus an example of remaining consistent.

Who's resurrection is A) not involving? These---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Who's resurrection is B) involving? These---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

IOW, these per B) don't need to live again after the thousand years since they already began living again at the beginning of the thousand years. And that no one needs to live again multiple times. 1 time is sufficient. Christ undeniably proves that point.

In a disembodied state, though? As if they can live forever in that state. If B) is not meaning when they begin living forever in a bodily state, what do you propose in Revelation 20 is meaning when they do begin living forever in a bodily state?

I'm not asking about anything outside of Revelation 20, so don't try and pull a fast one and offer passages outside of Revelation 20 and think that is going to cut it. I'm asking, in Revelation 20 itself, what resurrection supports when these in verse 4 and 6 begin living forever in a bodily state? LOL, this shouldn't be difficult. After all, there is only A) and B) to chose from.

To make it even easier for you to decide, as if it's not already super easy enough to decide already, well there is this.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. That's what the text says.

Nowhere does the text say this instead---But the rest of the dead and those that have part in the first resurrection lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

CTK said:

I am not telling you that or assuming anything. Please read the verse - does this event include those who believed in Jesus - those that were sitting in the grave or still alive? Will those believers be with Christ for the 1000 years?

Click to expand...

The souls according to John were complete physical people alive on this earth before being physically martyred for their faith. John writes that "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" before being faithful unto death. They were beheaded for their faithfulness, yet John writes AFTER they physically died, they are still living souls. John does not say they came to PHYSICAL life at the beginning of a thousand years. He says they lived and reigned during this period of time before they were martyred. John did NOT see them as physically alive humans they had been before they died. There cannot be physical life without a head, and John says they were "beheaded." John is proving true what Christ had said during the time He walked this earth a man. That death of our body cannot take away the eternal spirit life (souls) of faithful saints, because after the body of faithful saints has died, our spirit as living soul returns to God in heaven, belonging to the spiritual body of Christ there. Physical death kills the body, but it cannot kill our soul.

This is why Christ tells us not to fear them which kill our body of flesh, Christ also says that whosoever lives and believes in Him shall NEVER die! When Christ spoke these words, He was alluding to Lazarus who was physically dead, but indicating his death was NOT the end because Lazarus died a man of faith.

CTK said:

No, I don't think so. I think we both agree that Jesus is the first person resurrected - He is indeed the first fruits but just because John uses the term in Revelation as the "First resurrection" does not mean is refers to the resurrection of Jesus. The purpose of Revelation is speaking about our resurrection - both good and bad - the two separat resurrections of the wheat and the grape harvests - the scriptures speak often of the two separate harvests.

Click to expand...

There is NO OTHER "first resurrection"! There can be only ONE FIRST! It is only through partaking (spiritually) of the resurrected life of Christ that man may overcome the second death and live forever. There shall be only ONE bodily resurrection for ALL who are dead. And that will not be until an hour coming, when the last trumpet sounds, and time is no longer.

CTK said:

The only response to this is that we have a different definition of the "first resurrection." If the first resurrection is at His return, then those believers will indeed be with Him for those 1000 years.

However, if you define the "first resurrection" as the time of the cross, then you MUST also include in your interpretaion that there are some who are reigning with Christ now for a 1000 years.... I cannot see that at all..... Is that how you see it?

Click to expand...

How can a thousand years be literal, since John writes of saints who have lived and died during this time, and also writes of others who are blessed and holy who shall also reign with Christ during this same period of time? This is how we can know with blessed assurance that "a" and "the" thousand years are NOT literally ONE thousand years but symbolize an unspecified amount of time that began with the first advent of Christ and will end when the last (seventh) trumpet sounds (Rev 10). A thousand years is all time given this earth from Christ's first coming to the sounding of the voice of the seventh angel.

Revelation 10:5-7 (KJV) And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

CTK said:

Sure I can.... does it not say that after 1000 years, those who are in the graves for the past 1000 years (those who do not take part in the 1000 years with Christ - non'believers) will be brought out of their graves to be judged?

Click to expand...

Read the passage again without a preconceived opinion a thousand years are literally one thousand years. Explain how the martyred saints have already lived and died during this time, but also during the same time others called blessed and holy and overcome the second death shall also reign with Christ for a thousand years???

This is becoming an exercise in futility! Unless you come to understand and believe the first resurrection represents only the bodily resurrection of Christ, you will never be able to understand a/the thousand years are not literally ONE thousand years, but rather symbolic language representing TIME that began with Christ and will end when the seventh trumpet sounds. This understanding of Rev 20 takes away all the inconsistencies and contradictions your literal one thousand years tries to force into the Word of God.

WPM said:

It represents a long period of time, just like the 1 hr represents a short period of time. At least Amillennialists are consistent. Pre-millennialists are not.

Click to expand...

And that is exactly why... those on Amill have SO MANY THEORIES of how many that "thousand years" of Revelation 20 represents! Doing that kind of thing shows all the earmarks of a FALSE DOCTRINE FROM MEN.

Davidpt said:

Prove it, that that is true in every case. And use the following to prove it.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


I'll go first and let's see who is being consistent in this case since you seem to be implying that Amillennialists are always consistent. Let's see if that is true then.

Click to expand...

It is true and we have proven that over and over and over again. Tell me, which scenario is consistent.

1) To see all of the time periods in the book of Revelation as either all being literal or all being symbolic.

or

2) To see most of them as being literal and maybe one of them as being symbolic (the "one hour" of Rev 17:12) as many Premills do?

Davidpt said:

A) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is obviously pertaining to a bodily resurrection.

B) This is the first resurrection. And since the former is pertaining to a bodily resurrection it then stands to reason so must this one be as well. Thus an example of remaining consistent.

Click to expand...

No, it is not. Your view of Revelation 20 is so narrow! Why do you try to interpret it in isolation from the rest of scripture? To be consistent, you can't just ignore the rest of scripture. Amils are consistent in seeing all references in scripture to the first resurrection as referring to the same first resurrection.

So, Amils are consistent by seeing the first resurrection taught in the following scriptures as being the same first resurrection referenced in Revelation 20.

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.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 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.

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.

Revelation 1:5 nd from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

So, to be consistent, the reference to having part in the first resurrection in Revelation 20:6 must refer to having part in Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection. How does someone have part in Christ's resurrection? Like this...

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;

Davidpt said:

I'm not asking about anything outside of Revelation 20, so don't try and pull a fast one and offer passages outside of Revelation 20 and think that is going to cut it.

Click to expand...

My goodness. This is just completely unreasonable. Why would we want to try to interpret Revelation 20 without making sure we are not interpreting it in a way that contradicts other scripture? How is it possible to be consistent that way? We're talking about consistency with how we interpret all of scripture.

Davidpt said:

I'm asking, in Revelation 20 itself, what resurrection supports when these in verse 4 and 6 begin living forever in a bodily state? LOL, this shouldn't be difficult. After all, there is only A) and B) to chose from.

Click to expand...

LOL at not wanting other scripture to be taken into consideration, which is ludicrous.

rwb said:

Read the passage again without a preconceived opinion a thousand years are literally one thousand years. Explain how the martyred saints have already lived and died during this time, but also during the same time others called blessed and holy and overcome the second death shall also reign with Christ for a thousand years???

Click to expand...

Premils, such as me, and I can't speak for all Premils, tend to understand the following like such.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
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.

-------------------------
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them

Compare with the following.

Daniel 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

(which would mean that this---the Ancient of days came---is meaning the 2nd coming)
----------------------------

and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God

Compare with the following.

I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held(Revelation 6:9)

(these would be including saints martyred before the time of the little season meant in Revelation 6:11. Which means while this little season is taking place back on earth, these continue to rest until that little season has been fulfilled. But not to be confused with the little season meant in Revelation 20. That little season is after the thousand years. The little season meant in Revelation 6:11 is before the thousand years begin and explain how and when the following were initially martyred---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. Where I go into more detail per the next section)
------------------------

I saw under the altar the souls of them that which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

Compare with the following.

a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled(Revelation 6:11)

Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
------------------------

but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him (as kings) a thousand years.

Compare with the following.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne(Revelation 3:21). To determine when this initially begins, see Matthew 25:31, Matthew 19:28

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

And when it comes to this portion of Revelation 20:6, Amils typically bring up passages such as Revelation 1:6 to support this while neglecting to also bring up Revelation 5:10 to support this. I wonder why? Could it possibly have to do with what I underlined in verse 10? For an example of what I'm meaning, consult post #1,771. Where is there any mention of Revelation 5:10 in that post?)
----------------------------------

This is the first resurrection.

See post #1,765. No need for me to repeat all of that again in this post.

Spiritual Israelite said:

It is true and we have proven that over and over and over again. Tell me, which scenario is consistent.

1) To see all of the time periods in the book of Revelation as either all being literal or all being symbolic.

or

2) To see most of them as being literal and maybe one of them as being symbolic (the "one hour" of Rev 17:12) as many Premills do?


No, it is not. Your view of Revelation 20 is so narrow! Why do you try to interpret it in isolation from the rest of scripture? To be consistent, you can't just ignore the rest of scripture. Amils are consistent in seeing all references in scripture to the first resurrection as referring to the same first resurrection.

So, Amils are consistent by seeing the first resurrection taught in the following scriptures as being the same first resurrection referenced in Revelation 20.

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.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 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.

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.

Revelation 1:5 nd from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

So, to be consistent, the reference to having part in the first resurrection in Revelation 20:6 must refer to having part in Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection. How does someone have part in Christ's resurrection? Like this...

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;


My goodness. This is just completely unreasonable. Why would we want to try to interpret Revelation 20 without making sure we are not interpreting it in a way that contradicts other scripture? How is it possible to be consistent that way? We're talking about consistency with how we interpret all of scripture.


LOL at not wanting other scripture to be taken into consideration, which is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished(Revelation 20:5)

This 100% trumps any and all arguments Amil has, period. Amil cannot get around this part. And that this part undeniably proves that those who have part in the first resurrection already lived again before the thousand years are finished. Otherwise, they too would have been mentioned per this part, like such---the rest of the dead and those that have part in the first resurrection lived not again until the thousand years were finished. After all, the context pertaining to this part is in regard to rising from the dead bodily, where Amils are not refuting this. Amils agree a bodily resurrection is meant per this part.

And since Premils hold the trump card here, to then consider any of Amil's arguments would be like 2 ppl arguing what 2 + 2 equals. One person says it equals 4, the other person says it equals 5. The former is already holding the trump card that can't be trumped. period. It would be absurd for the former to consider any of the arguments per the latter, per this scenario.

Davidpt said:

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished(Revelation 20:5)

This 100% trumps any and all arguments Amil has, period.

Click to expand...

Total nonsense. It absolutely does not. You can make all the claims you want, but you have to back them up. You try to make the rule that we can't use other scripture to back up our claims about Revelation 20, which is utterly ridiculous.

Davidpt said:

Amil cannot get around this part.

Click to expand...

Why would we want to? It lines up perfectly with our beliefs.

Davidpt said:

And that this part undeniably proves that those who have part in the first resurrection already lived again before the thousand years are finished. Otherwise, they too would have been mentioned per this part, like such---the rest of the dead and those that have part in the first resurrection lived not again until the thousand years were finished. After all, the context pertaining to this part is in regard to rising from the dead bodily, where Amils are not refuting this. Amils agree a bodily resurrection is meant per this part.

And since Premils hold the trump card here,

Click to expand...

They do not. Amills hold the trump card because everywhere else the first resurrection is referenced in scripture, it refers to Christ's resurrection. Also, Jesus said that the saved will be resurrected in the same hour as the lost (John 5:28-29). So, your imaginary Premill trump card is in the trash.

Davidpt said:

to then consider any of Amil's arguments would be like 2 ppl arguing what 2 + 2 equals. One person says it equals 4, the other person says it equals 5. The former is already holding the trump card that can't be trumped. period. It would be absurd for the former to consider any of the arguments per the latter, per this scenario.

Click to expand...

Since you don't want to address anything I say and you unwisely don't want to take other scripture into consideration, I will just ignore what you say as well and just expand further on what I already said. Let's look at Revelation 20:6 and see if it gives us an indication of the timing of the thousand years.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

What does scripture say about the timing of Jesus reigning and His followers being "priests of God and of Christ"? We don't even have to look at any other books in scripture to figure that out. Compare Revelation 20:6 to this passage...

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Using the wise and consistent method of interpreting scripture with scripture, we can see here that Jesus Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection, just like is stated in other scripture (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18). And we can see here that He is currently "the prince of the kings of the earth" and "glory and dominion" belong to Him now and forever. So, He reigns now. And it says He "HATH MADE us kings and priests unto God and his Father" so being "priests of God and of Christ" is a current reality. Therefore, Revelation 20:6 is referring to a current reality. Jesus reigns now. We are His priests now. The second death has no power over us now.

Oh, but you will say that it's talking about believers who are dead, not those who are still alive. That does not matter. One's status in Christ as His priest in His kingdom does not change when someone physically dies. Their soul goes to heaven to be with Him. So, unless you believe in soul sleep, there is no basis at all for trying to claim that Christ's reign and His followers being priests in His kingdom is not a current reality and not a reality that has been in place since His resurrection, which is the first resurrection.