First Resurrection Debate Regarding Revelation 20
Bobby Boland' Third Affirmation
| Proposition : The Bible
teaches
that the First Resurrection spoken of in Revelation ch. 20 is to be a
literal, bodily resurrection of regenerated persons, which is to
precede the period known as "the thousand years", which period shall
culminate in the general resurrection of all mankind and the final
judgement. affirm - Bobby Boland deny - Mike Blume This will be my third and final Affirmation of the proposition. I will further prove the proposition to be true, and I will also address brother Blume's points that he made in his rebuttal to my second affirmation. After that, I would like to see my brother take the affirmative on his proposition, namely that the First Resurrection spoken of in Rev 20 is to be understood as referring to regeneration, and that the period known as the "thousand years" are referring to the church age, which period shall culminate in the resurrection of all mankind and the Judgement. I certainly do not expect my brother to accept the wording of his affirmative as I have given it, for that of course is his right (and responsibilty) to accurately state his position which he intends to prove. I am aware that much of brother Blume's rebuttal has consisted in positive assertions of his side, however I suggest the flow of this discussion would be greatly benefited if he "officially" stated his proposition and then set about to prove it point by point, at which time I would be in the negative and would raise rebuttals to his points. (I am also aware that we probably should have agreed on all this at the beginning, but hey better late than never, right? ) Of course, much of that will depend on brother Blume's decision, which I will respect however it may turn out. I would also like to propose that after, say three affirmations on his part (with corresponding rebuttals on my part), that we each state a summary conclusion (as attorney's do after they have presented their case, they present a closing argument which functions as a recap). If brother Blume would agree to that, I think we would have the makings of a fine, civil debate that might make it into religious debate history. So, here begins my third affirmation of the proposition. At this point, I wish to defend my proposition concerning the thousand years. At issue is whether the thousand years of Rev 20 are a metaphor for the church age, or whether they are a time statement concerning the reign of the resurrected church on this earth. Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star. Rev 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Here the Lord, in his message to the church of Thyatira, says that "he that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end, to him I will give power over the nations." I have highlighted the important terms. A few remarks are in order about this wonderful promise. 1. It was a message direct from the Lord to a real church through the apostle John. 2. It is not part of those things that constitute the "apocalyptic visions" of John, which begin after Rev 4:1, where John is told he will see things "which must be hereafter". 3. The overcomers are promised that they will receive power over the nations. There must be nations over whom the overcoming saints will rule, otherwise the promise would be void. Yet, in the preterist-amilleniallist scheme, there will be no nations to rule. 4. This is not a ruling that is to happen now, in the church age, because for one the true church has never ruled the nations (whereas the apostate Roman Catholic church and her Protestant state-church daughters have, often with disastrous effect); and for another this promise is to those who "endure to the end". All the other promises made to overcomers in the letters to the seven churches are obviously meant to be fulfilled at the resurrection (or as some have it, at death when the believers supposedly go to heaven). Either way, these promises deal not with the present, but the future state of the church. 5. The word "power" is exousia, and means authority. The saints do not have authority over the nations at this present time, and never have. Otherwise those nations would be regulated by the Scriptures and the Spirit, which it is obvious they are not. 6. The word "rule" in v.27 is "poimanei", and literally means "to pastor", or "shepherd". It is translated many times as "feed", as indicative of the responsibility of a shepherd to feed his flock. This is saying that the overcoming saints will pastor or shepherd the nations. This cannot be true unless there are nations to shepherd, after the resurrection of the saints. 7. We know this must be after the resurrection because the promise is to be given to those who "keep my works unto the end", which must be unto either death or the glorious appearing of our Lord, when he comes at the last trumpet (as per Paul). So we have a promise to believers, that those who keep the works of Jesus unto the end, shall receive authority over the nations and shall rule (shepherd, or pastor) them. This truth is also declared by Paul, here - 1Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? The word judge is krinousin, it is used to describe the activities of a judge or ruler in deciding judicially, to rule, etc. The Bible uses the word "judge" to refer to rulership and decision making, settling of disputes, etc. The saints are not going to judge men's souls at the Final Judgement, for that prerogative belongs to God, not the saints. Therefore, they must "judge" before that time. And that is essentially the same as the promise Jesus gave in Rev 2. So the saints shall judge, rule, or shepherd/pastor the nations/world, and this is a promise made to those who overcome and keep Christ's works unto the end. The fact that it must take place after "keeping Christ's works unto the end" and yet before the final judgement, means there must be a time period in between death and the great white throne judgement. The Millenium answers to this. They must be resurrected, for the Bible is clear that we receive our reward(s) at His great coming in power and glory. So there must be the Coming of the Lord at which time the overcomers shall receive their rewards, which include judging or ruling the world or nations. The Millenium-First Resurrection doctrine dovetails perfectly with this, but amilleniallism and preterism (and postmillenialism as well) do not fit, and in fact deny that these promises shall ever be fulfilled. (The rapture doctrine likewise denies this, but in a different way). Third Affimration part 2
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the
last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. 2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Here we see an interesting statement. It is the only verse in the Bible outside of Rev 20 where we find the expression "thousand years". What is the context of this passage, and what is the apostle Peter trying to tell us? Is it saying, as preterists and amilleniallists claim, that God simply is not bound by time constraints as we are, that God is not slow in his perception of time, although to us it may seem like He is? I agree that God is not "slow" or slack, but I deny that it is because God perceives time differently than we do. Rather, it is because God operates according to a divine Plan, and everything He does He does according to schedule. The Bible is so full of indications that God does everything according to His Divine schedule that I don't think it necessary to quote the numerous Scriptures that show this. We all now that God is "right on time". Whose time? Ours? Or His? I say it is His. Now, Peter tells us of scoffers, who will say "where is the sign of His coming?" In other words, they will feel like it has been so long that perhaps God has forgotten to come as He said He would. But in answer to this, Peter says "a thousand years is with the Lord as a day, and a day as a thousand years." The Millenialist understanding of this is that God uses a "thousand year day" in His schedule. This does not mean that is the only time unit He uses, but it is one of them. Notice that Peter reverses the phrase. Not only are a thousand years as a day, but a day is as a thousand years. Is he saying that in one day, God feels like it's been a thousand years? And that for a thousand years, God barely even notices it? Jesus said that even the very hairs on our head are numbered, so to suggest that God "hardly notices" anything would be a mistake. Is God so absent minded or perhaps so bored that in a 24 hour period He thinks it might as well have been a thousand years? The context indicates otherwise. The context is not about how God could care less how long it seems to us, because He is in no big hurry. In fact, Peter said He is not slack concerning His promises. He is not dawdling, or just "waiting around". When we understand that God works all things according to Plan, then we understand that the reason scoffers are unwise in their "impatience" is because God has a timetable He intends to keep. And this has to do with a thousand years being like a day, and vice versa. In other words, God is operating on a thousand year day principle. Notice what he says - one day with the Lord is as a thousand years... one of God's "days" is a thousand years. Then he says "and a thousand years as a day". Not 1000 of God's years, but ours. A day with the Lord = 1000 years. And that 1000 years is One Day. He switches the terms to emphasise them, not to say God has no sense of time. So then we can apply that to the thousand years of Rev 20, and we see that the entire period there is One Day. It is also interesting to note that the Bible speaks of "the Day of the Lord" at the end of the age. This Day of the Lord is 1000 years long, and includes such events as the destruction of the beast, the resurrection of the church, the rule of the saints with Christ over the earth, the Final Judgement of all men, and the destruction of death itself. All these things are said to be associated with "the day of the Lord". But they are not different days of the Lord, but the same, 1000 year Day of the Lord. I realise there is more than one "day of the Lord" in Scripture, but there is a day of the Lord that is repeatedly mentioned in reference to THESE particular elements. And the Rev describes all those same elements with the thousand years commencing at the coming in judgement and culminating in the destruction of the "last enemy". Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. God told Adam "in the day you eat... you will die." The day that Adam ate the forbidden fruit, did he die? One may say he died spiritually, and that would certainly be true. But, he also physically died in that same "day". We read that Adam lived 930 years, and died (Gen 5:5). If a day with the Lord is a thousand years, then Adam did indeed die within the "day" God spoke of. Back to 2 Peter: Now notice also what Peter says - But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. Notice he said the present heavens and earth are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men, by the same word. What word? "By the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished..." The heavens and the earth were "by" the word of God - created, that is. By the same word the Old World was destroyed by water. And it is by the same word that the world is curently reserved unto a destruction by fire. Notice something - the creation took "seven days". There were six days of work, and then the Sabbath of rest, which was blessed and sanctified. Keep that in mind. Then we get to Noah's day. That world was destroyed with a flood. But hear the word whereby it was destroyed : Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. Peter says that same word dictates the time frame of the destruction of the heavens and the earth. But praise the Lord we look for new heavens and a new earth! Now, Peter pointed out that “the world that then was” was destroyed by the flood. The world of that day was destroyed. Yet Peter then says “the heavens and the earth which are now are reserved unto fire. The world of Noah’s day was destroyed, but not the heavens and the earth. The same heavens and earth which are now are the same]/B] heavens and earth which were then. The heaven and earth that were created in the first week are still here. The flood prevailed upon the earth, yet when the waters receded that same earth was exposed and dried up. So then the “yet seven days and I will destroy”, which referred to the destruction of the [B]world by the flood, is that same word that refers, according to the apostle Peter, to the destruction of the heavens and earth. So the seven days that the heavens and earth have are calculated from the creation, which according to the Scripture was somewhere around 4000 years BC. We cannot know exactly when that was, and therefore we cannot knowexactly when the end shall be, but we can know when it is nigh, even at the door. The destruction of the world took place after the seven days, at the end of the seventh day. The destruction of the heavens and earth by fire will take place at the end of the seventh thousand year day, which would be the Millenium. And in the Revelation, we do not see mention of the new heavens and earth until after the thousand year period. So again, the end of the earth and heavens by fire takes place at the end of the thousand years. This indicates that Christ was crucified around the end of the “4th” day, which leaves two days (or 2000 years) to the beginning of the Thousand years or Millenium. From the time of Christ to the Millenium is 2 days, and the Millenium makes the third day since Christ. Now, Christ was raised on the "third day" according to the Scripture. What scripture says Christ would rise on the third day? Let us search them to see where they testify of Christ. The prophecies of the old testament, often originally applicable to Israel, are in the New Testament often applied to Christ. The prophecy of Hosea, quoted by Matthew, that "Out of Egypt I have called my Son", is applied to Christ returning from Egypt where he spent a good part of His childhood. Christ was baptised and anointed with the Spirit, then went into the wilderness for 40 days, just as the children of Israel went through the Sea and were under the cloud (see 1 Cor 10), and then spent 40 years in the wilderness, enduring many temptations, primarily concerned with food, doubt concerning God's promises, and demon worship. Christ was tempted with food, doubt concerning the promises of God, and worshipping satan. The difference, of course, is that Christ prevailed in all these temptations, whereas Israel failed every time. The point is, that the Life of Christ was actually played out in the history of Israel. Israel's history was a prophetic picture of Christ's history. Scholars have even found that Messianic expectations in those days prior to the first coming of the Lord included the idea that Christ would re enact the history of Israel in his life, which in a sense He did! And he was raised the third day. Which brings up an interesting scripture - Hsa 6:1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. Hsa 6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Here is a prophecy concerning Israel that was amazingly fulfilled by Christ - that He was torn and smitten, but he was healed and bound (as in recovered), and this reviving took place on the third day. What is even more interesting is that the church is the Body of Christ. We share in His inheritance, which means the prophecies made concerning Him apply to the church in a certain sense. Could this be indicating that after two thousand years, in the third "day" or thousand years, we the church will be "revived" as in raised, or resurrected? Consider it is nearly 2000 years (or 2 "Days") since the resurrection of our Lord. We are on the eve of the third day. Will we be resurrected on this Day? Will Christ's life, death, and resurrection be re enacted in His Body here on the earth? For 2000 years the church - the true church - has been practically torn and smitten in this world. We have been the outcasts, the victims of seemingly limitless satanic hatred and persecution. Yet, we shall one Day "rule the nations". We will revive, and it is said by the prophet to happen "on the third day". Notice further in this same chapter : Hsa 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Compare to this - Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. Jesus quotes from the same prophecy where we read about the third day "raising", and then says this is because He is "Lord of the sabbath day". The Millenium, as I have been pointing out, functions as the thousand year "sabbath day". About this "sabbath day", remember it was "blessed, and sanctified", or made holy? Let's peek at Revelation 20 real quick... Rev 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. See that? Blessed and holy, that is, "sanctified". When Moses was born, the king commanded all baby boys to be killed. When Christ was born, once again a wicked king commanded all baby boys to be killed. Let us look at another incident in the life of Moses, that may have some bearing on all this - Exd 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, Exd 19:11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. Here, the people had been gathered to the mountain of God, and had committed to serving God. Then God says they had 2 days to sanctify themselves, and on the third day God would come down "in the sight of all the people." Remember, we are told "without holiness (or, "sanctification"), no man shall see the Lord", and also that "unto those who look for Him, He will appear the second time..." If Moses turn out to be prophetically indicative of Messianic events (which he already has, for example his birth and the slaughter of the children), and if a thousand years are a Day with God, then could this be saying that the church has 2000 years to sanctify herself, and that on the "third day", ie after the 2000 years, God will "come down" in their "sight"? In verse 16, we read of the events heralding His descent in the sight of the people. Exd 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that [was] in the camp trembled. Exd 19:17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. Exd 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. Exd 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. Exd 19:20 And the LORD came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the LORD called Moses [up] to the top of the mount; and Moses went up. Brethren, this is not poetic imagery, this is what actually happened. It is historical fact. And it just so happens to be extremely close to what the rest of scripture says about the Coming of the Lord, in fire and in glory, with the sound of the archangel, at the sounding of the trumpet, coming in fire. At the sounding of the trumpet Moses brought the people out to meet God, just as at the sounding of the Last Trumpet our captain, Jesus Christ, will bring us to meet God face to face. That is why it is called the "appearing of our Great God and Savior"! On the third day the trumpet sounded and the sanctified ones went out to meet Him as He descended in fire and smoke (cloud?). Another parallel is in the life of Abraham, specifically in chapter 22. Abraham and his son Isaac, and "two friends", go on a journey to a mountain to worship God. The intent, of course, was for Isaac (the son) to be sacrificed. But the son was spared on the third day (delivered). This event took place, by the way, on Mount Moriah which is where the Temple was later built. On this third day, God promises to Abraham that in his seed shall "all the nations be blessed", and that his seed would "possess the gates of their enemies" - a promise of rulership and shepherding, if you will, connected with this third day. In Genesis 40 we read of how the royal cupbearer (the one who waits as a servant on his lord) was restored on the third day, while the baker (whose business it is to deal with leaven) lost his head in judgement. This parallels how the saints who faithfully serve and wait on their Lord will be lifted up while those who have been "leavened" with false doctrine and ungodliness will not be lifted up, but find themselves facing judgement. 2 Kings 20:5 tells us about how sickly king Hezekiah heard from God that "he would be healed and that on the third day he would "go up unto the house of the Lord", that is, into God's presence. Leviticus 7 tells us that a voluntary offering is only good for two days. On the third day, it is too late to partake of it. If you don't partake of Christ's voluntary offering in the two "days" allotted, you will bear your iniquity and it shall not be imputed unto you. (v. 18) [In B]Numbers 19:12[/B] we have the fact that if an unclean man isn't pure on the third day, he won't be clean on the seventh day, or sabbath. Those who are pure on that third day, will be clean on that sabbath day. (Both refer to the Millenial day, but emphasise that those on the third day, that is, when the reviving takes place, who are NOT pure, will not be “clean” in that sabbath-Millenium, ie will not participate in it). So we see that the idea of a thousand year reign of Christ with His saints is not without any merit in Scripture. In fact, it is alluded to and hinted at and even prophetically declared numerous times. Unfortunately, all too often our own pre conceived ideas get in the way of our hearing God's Word to us. Jhn 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: Here is the place where Jesus performed His first known miracle - at a “wedding” party taking place on "the third day". Again, the testimony of Scripture is consistent with the thousand year Millenial Day concept. Not to mention John specifically says the first resurrection is 1000 years before the general resurrection of the "rest of the dead", in his explanation of the vision he had seen of this first resurrection, immediately after he saw the Lord coming and visiting destruction on the forces of the beast and his supporters. Now, some perhaps will not take any stock in all this testimony. Perhaps brother Blume will chalk it all up to "chiliasm" (as though that is a bad word!). But let it be remembered that prior to the rise of the Roman catholic central hierarchy, and the establishment of ritualistic religion in place of the true Holy Ghost Way of Jesus, specifically with the influence of a certain Bishop, of the city of Hippo, named Augustine... prior to that this "chiliasm" was the near universal belief of the entire professing Christian world. There is no record of any polemics or debate among Christians about the existence of the Millenium during those first, what, 200 hundred years? There were some differences of opinion as to what it would be like during the Millenium, of course. But only the gnostics could deny the literal Millenium! That is, until catholicism had thoroughly blossomed. By getting rid of the Millenium, and making it present, they claimed that the church was to rule the nations now. The result was the Dark Ages. It was the doctrine of the so called Reformers, chief of whom were John Calvin who murdered Servetus for "teaching heresy", and Luther who saw to the extermination of some 50,000 Anabaptists whose only crime was they refused to join Luther's new state church. Many of them were "accused" of being "dreaded chiliasts", as well. The Millenium makes sense with the rest of Scripture. "A"millenialism, and its derivative preterism, do not make sense with the rest of Scripture, and requires its adherents to mold scripture to fit the theology, rather than allowing Scripture alone to create theology. Now I will address brother Blume's objections he has raised to my second affirmation. In post 314, you again suggest that since there are other terms used to describe resurrection, we may with all propriety use resurrection to describe regeneration. Your argument of course hinges on the idea that anastasis is a word that refers to the act of "rising again" from "death to life", and therefore anything that can be described as a rising again from death to life may be properly called "resurrection" - or anastasis. However, I pointed out the logical flaw in this reasoning, which you failed to address. Namely, that although we may use different terms for resurrection, it does not follow that we may use resurrection for different things. This is proven by the analogy I supplied, of an escalator. An escalator is a conveyance. However, not any conveyance can be called an escalator. Who would call their pick up an escalator? An escalator is a specific type of conveyance. Likewise, anastasis (resurrection) is a specific type of "rising again". And so is regeneration. But we cannot say that regeneration is resurrection, anymore than we can say that resurrection is regeneration. The two concepts are distinct concepts in the new testament. They parallel each other, of course. But they are not the same. In addition, the inspired writers never used anastasis as a term for new birth or conversion. This tells us that we should not either, for anastasis in their understanding was a distinct thing from regeneration. You attempt to get around that by saying since anastasis is a rising again, and since regeneration si a rising again, they are synonymous terms. But if that be the case, then we have confusion as to what the apostles meant when they talked bout anastasis - is it regeneration, or bodily resurrection? This concept introduces an unheard of ambiguity in the term anastasis. When the apostles spoke of the resurrection, there was no need for them distinguish between regeneration and bodily resurrection. They simply spoke of "the resurrection". As for Mr Strong and Mr Robertson, they may provide insight into things, but they are not inspired. They can be mistaken. But the scriptures are not mistaken, and therefore when men say anastasis can be used for regeneration, they are wrong. The Scriptures never do such. Also, Mr Strong says that if anastasis is used of regeneration, it is only figuratively - that is by way of metaphor. This is something you denied, when you said this in post 218: Quote:
But Strong's sides with me, in saying that resurrection may be used of regeneration by way of metaphor. It is interesting, however, that the apostles never used "resurrection" as even a metaphor of regeneration. They used the concept of "death to life", yes, but not anastasis. Quote:
John 11:25 does not say regeneration is resurrection. It says Jesus is the resurrection, and that the believer will live, even though he were dead. It cannot mean regeneration, because that would mean a believer (regenerated already) is still dead, and shall live - in the future. Quote:
You then referenced John 3:15, 1 John 5:13, and 1 John 5:11. These verses certainly speak of salvation. But it is an assumption on your part that this salvation "is associated with resurrection". You assume that salvation is associated with resurrection in such a sense that resurrection is a synonymous term for regeneration, then you refer to these verses which in no way suggest that resurrection is a synonym for regeneration. You are seeing things that are simply not there, brother. You then proceed to mention numerous terms in scripture that are used to describe either our regeneration or the resurrection. Yet you failed to provide one instance where anastasis is used to refer to regeneration. Such an example cannot be found. You also return again to Baptist scholar Robertson, and since he agrees with you, you claim this establishes your case. But brother, Scripture must agree with us, not some worldly-wise man. Quote:
I think you failed to see the point I clearly demonstrated. Just because another word is used for resurrection, does not mean resurrection can be used for another word. You yourself believe "rapture" can be used for the resurrection of saints. So when do you ever use the word "rapture" to refer to being born again? Is not a person "caught up" by the Spirit of God into the heavenlies when they are born again? So by your reasoning, we are also raptured when we are regenerated! Quote:
I do not have to contend any such thing. (I will deal with your presentation of Romans 6 later. Suffice to say, at the present, you have not shown how Romans 6 refutes the truth that the First resurrection of Rev 20 is a bodily resurrection). A Quote:
Yes, you have repeatedly indicated that, but you have not however shown that this verse means regeneration and not resurrection of the body. Also, it does not use the word anastasis. This is consistent with my entire case, that regeneration is never referred to as anastasis in Scripture. One verse would settle the issue forever - one verse that clearly and unambiguously refers to regeneration as "anastasis". Quote:
Ah, but you need to first establish that Shiloh is indeed a direct reference to the person of Jesus Christ. Tradition may demand that "until Shiloh come" be a reference to Christ, but that does not prove anything except that people believe a certain thing. If you will demonstrate that Shiloh as used by Jacob means Jesus Christ then I will be better able to address that point. Quote:
At the present time, you are supposed to be showing how it does not refer to bodily resurrection. In making your case, you must show that it does refer to regeneration. It will not do to ask "who says it can't?" Nor will it do to merely assert that it can. That in itself does not disprove my proposition, nor does it prove yours. Quote:
Some people are obviously wrong. And as for saying someone may experience something spiritual and then another later experiences the same thing in a spiritual way - give me an example of what you are talking about. Also, you are off track here, because the text does not say that what the people in the first resurrection experience "spiritually" is the same thing the next group experiences "in a physical way". Do the second group experience regeneration "in a physical way"? That is the implication of your logic. You are again assuming th einterpretaion you have when you come to the text, rather than letting the text determine what it is saying. It says the first group, which included those who were killed, lived again. It says "the rest of the dead lived not again until" after the thousand years. Two groups, both physically dead. One group lives again first, then the second group lives again after the thousand years. You are not consistent, brother. The text clearly uses "live" in the same sense - physical life. Simply saying that we can find somewhat of a parabolic, allegorical meaning here does not mean that is the interpretation of the text. Otherwise, we have no way of knowing the meaning of any text, and we will wind up with all sorts of nonsense, like for example Blavatsky's "Theosophy" approach, or any number of New Age distortions of Scriptural interpretations. Quote:
You will need to prove this assertion, brother. Quote:
Let me remark : 1. It does not say "it is appointed unto man's body to die once". It says it is appointed unto man once to die". But we know that men die twice, for it says "and after that the Judgement. It does not say man can only die once. If that were the case, then all who die would be safe from the second death, which is universalism. 2. The Bible speaks of the second death. Not a unique "spiritual" death, but a second death. There is no need to allegorise the second death. 3. Jesus said God is able to destroy both body and soul in gehenna. Therefore, the body is destroyed in gehenna. This is the second death, and therefore the body is destroyed in the second death (as well as the soul). I would be careful about denying the very words of our Lord. He says the body is destroyed in gehenna, you say it is not. Quote:
That does not mean it is not true. It is found in Scripture, that is the point. Do not belittle the Revelation, it is the Word of God also. The Bible elsewhere teaches there is a resurrection of the just, and of the unjust. There is nothing in my proposition that contradicts any other part of Scripture. You claim, however, contradicts Scripture and its uses of the very terms you use. The Revelation also says "whoever takes away from the words of the prophecy of this book will have their part in the book of Life taken away". Where else is that taught in Scripture? Nowhere. But it is nevertheless true. Where else in Scripture does it say that Jesus is sat down in his father's throne? Only in the Revelation. Where else does it say that Jesus is the "alpha and omega"? Only in the Revelation. Where else does it say there will be a last day world wide rebellion against God? Only in the Revelation. Where else does Jesus promise that he who overcomes will be His "son"? Only in the Revelation. Where else does it say that Jesus is the Root of David? Only in the Revelation. Come to think of it, if your "principle" be true, that anything true must be found in at least two different books of the Bible, we have more problems. In how many different books does it say long hair is a shame to a man?, but a glory to a woman? Or that if an unbelieving spouse departs from a believer, the believer is not under bondage in such a case? Or for that matter that supernatural manifestation of the Spirit is promised to all believers (1 Cor 12)? Such a principle leads to ridiculous conclusions, therefore the principle must be ridiculous and unfounded. But let me ask - where did the apostles teach that a doctrine must be taught in at least two books of the Bible for it to be true? Quote:
Another unproven assumption. We cannot just simply assume things like this, brother. The book is not symbolic in nature. The book is called "Revelation" meaning unveiling. It is not meant to obscure the truths behind a fog of incomprehensible symbolism, but is meant to reveal truths not otherwise understood. Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: The word "signified" is from semaino, number 4591. It means "to give a sign, to signify, to indicate, to make known". It does not "to hide truth under codes and ciphers". When it says he sent and signified it by His angel to John, it simply means he made this revelation known to John, through His angel. The word appears in Acts 11:25, and means that Agabus declared, or indicated, or made known that a famine was coming. The word does not mean "to cloud by means of symbolism". It means to indicate, show, make known. There are symbols in Revelation, of course. But the book itself is not a "code book" meant to be deciphered in some allegorical sense. This is the approach the Jewish mystics took to Ezekiel and other books, resulting in Gnosticism, which gave rise to trinitarianism, and (amazingly) Origen's amillenialism! Quote:
I suppose you mean by this that the souls mentioned in Rev 20 are therefore bodiless? That is not the case. The souls in Rev 5 are those clearly who have died. It does not say they "lived". In Rev 20 it says they lived, and that the rest of the dead did not live again until later. Therefore, these in Rev 20 are not bodiless souls. To even entertain the idea that they could be bodiless souls is to contradict the Bible doctrine of what a soul is. It is a person. Adam was formed of the dust of the ground, and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and Adam became a living soul. Spirit and flesh when joined together produce a living soul. The soul is not some immaterial "thing" that can be detached from the body and continue its existence without a body! The souls under the altar are doing what? Crying out "how long until we are avenged?" What does this mean? It means they died, and justice and vengeance are waiting. It is a parallel to God telling Cain that his brother Abel's blood "crieth from the ground". Was Abel's blood literally screaming? No, it means that Abel's death demanded retribution. Remember, "the life - soul - is in the blood". So the souls under the altar are not conscious disembodied people, this is a vision of the justice due to the wicked for the murder of the saints. But in Rev 20, the souls are said to "live" - that is, they have resurrected. Adam was a "living soul" - when? When spirit and flesh were joined together. So too, no one dead shall be a living soul until spirit and flesh are once again joined together. This is the whole point of the bible doctrine of resurrection. Quote:
I already did prove it. Please respond to the points I made about Rev 19 and the glorious coming of the Lord. You yourself admit it is a coming of the Lord. The question is, which one? The pattern does not fit AD 70, which I proved. It does however fit the rest of the New Testament's witness concerning the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ when He comes and resurrects His saints. Quote:
However, the second group is said to not live again until "after" the thousand years, which means they live "after" the first group. Therefore the chronology of the two is undeniably clear from the text itself. I had asked you if the Revelation describes or mentions the glorious, visible return of the Lord, and you said : Quote:
had asked you the following question : "Since you say only the explicit teaching of the apostles is doctrine, and that Revelation contains no explicit teaching, where do the apostles say this?" And you replied by saying you were so shocked that you had to keep dealing with this issue. Brother, don't be shocked, just answer the question! If only the explicit teaching of the apostles is doctrine, then for you to have that as doctrine, you must have the explicit teaching of the apostles to that effect. And if you teach that Revelation "contains no explicit doctrine", you must of course have explicit teaching from the apostles to that effect as well. I am simply asking you to support your assertions with evidence. I do not mean to be difficult. I just do not accept somebody's claims without any evidence being offered that the claims are valid. I am sorry, but I do not "just take your word for it", I must see Scripture to that effect, since you are claiming only explicit teachings of the apostles are doctrine. Demonstrate that doctrine with quotes showing this is an "explicit teaching" of the apostles. Quote:
Perhaps, but those "some things" are not necessarily your presuppositions. That would be a gross example of question begging. It is not "a given" that the Revelation contains no explicit teaching. I have already showed that if you were actually consistent with your doctrine here, you would not be able to teach, for example, that speaking with tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, now would you? Where did any apostle explicitly teach that speaking with tongues is the universal, initial evidence of receiving the Spirit of God? You are inconsistent here once again. Quote:
Brother, it is you who have the burden of proof to demonstrate uour assertion that there is no explicit teaching in the Revelation. It is also your burden to prove that the Revelation as a whole is "a vision". I already showed that the vision in Rev 20 is explained by the apostle John as "the first resurrection". His statement is not a vision, symbol, or code or cipher. It is an explicit teaching of John, that we are to interpret his vision as "the first resurrection", and that the "rest of the dead" do not live again until after the thousand years are finished. How much more explicit do you need? We have a plain statement of an apostle of the Lord Jesus. That is good enough for me. And my proposition does not provide an erroneous understanding of his words, because my proposition nowhere contradicts any scripture whatsoever, and is consistent with them all, Your interpretation, however, does contradict the Scripture. Your interpretation is in no way consistent with the vision you claim to interpret, nor is it consistent with the rest of Scripture in its use of the term "anastasis". And I already proved several times that just because other words are used for anastasis, does not mean that anastasis may be used for other things as well. Before I deal with Romans 6, I need to know if you are going to make a distinct affirmative of your proposition, and give me opportunity to respond to your points? Or are you simply flowing into your affirmative now? Once I know that, I wil know how to proceed. The reason is, because at the moment, I am in the affirmative and you are in the negative, which means it is my burden to prove my case, and yours to raise objections to it and point out my errors. It is not, at this time, while I am in the affirmative, to disprove your case. I mention this simply so we can get established the proper format to proceed with. We probably should have decided on these things before hand, but you know how that goes :P Let me say also a word about my assertion concerning whether or not we can see a time delay or not in John 5. My assertion was, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is that in that text alone we cannot determine whether there is or is not a time delay between the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust. You continue to reinterpret my statement as meaning that "we cannot determine a time delay between the two resurrections". That is not what my position is. It is, once gain, that a time delay cannot be determined, either way, pro or con, from that text alone. I do assert that a time delay can be determined from other sources in Scripture. Quote:
No, I said I do not believe that it does harm to my position. You said "I believe it does harm to your position" and I said "I do not believe that". Perhaps I should have been clearer. Forgive me. Quote:
The pattern here does not fit, if your interpretation of the first resurrection is regeneration. The reason is actually obvious. The pattern in Revelation 20 is of believers, having been killed, living again. Thus, they were regenerated before they were killed. That would mean they partook of your supposed "first" resurrection before they were killed. But they are said to live, after having been killed, and this is the "first resurrection". So it does not fit the pattern you propose. It does however fit the pattern I propose, namely that there is are two resurrections, one of the just, and one of the unjust. The just are raised at His coming, and then after the thousand years the rest are raised. My proposition fits both passages, yours does not. Quote:
This amazes me. Will not Jesus raise everyone from the dead? Did He himself not say this is what would happen? Hear His words - Jhn 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, Jhn 5:29 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. This says that it is by the command of Jesus that the dead rise, including the wicked, not the saints only. So that is the answer to your question, "Brother, how does Christ affect all men so that they will live physically in the physical resurrection, including sinners in the resurrection of the unjust?" And your question about the work of the cross in relation to the resurrection of the unjust is a misdirection. I never said the "work of Christ" enables them to rise from the dead. I said that Christ will make all men to live again. that is Resurrection doctrine, and to deny that is to deny the resurrection of the unjust, which is to deny the explicit teaching of Jesus Christ. As Adam was the federal head of the human race, and therefore all the human race experience death, so now Jesus, the "Second Adam", is the federal head of the human race, and He will cause all to resurrect. Again, if you deny this, you deny the resurrection of the unjust, which denies the rest of Scripture. Quote:
You failed to show how I did that, beyond merely asserting it. The subject matter of Paul's discourse is "the resurrection of the dead, and how are they raised". Then Paul says "but everyman in his own order". Thus, Paul is talking about the order of the resurrection, who gets resurrected when. Quote:
What futurists do or the mistakes they make has no bearing on this discussion. I am not a futurist, therefore this objection is merely a straw man. But concerning the reigning. The Bible nowhere says that Christ "ends" His reign when He comes. It says He ends His reign when the last enemy (death) is destroyed. You once again are begging the question of when He comes. He comes, He reigns, then death is destroyed, then He hands the kingdom over to the Father (that is, He ceases to reign as the Son). And I never said "the coming is when he starts to reign". That is another straw man. Quote:
Unfortunately, that is not what he said. He said when Christ comes "those that are His" are resurrected, not "the remainder of the people to be resurrected". Once again, a case of eisegesis. And he said "then, the end", and "for He must reign until his enemies are subdued" and the "last enemy that shall be destroyed is death". You have still failed to actually show that "the end" occurs at the same time as "at His coming". 1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 1Cr 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Cr 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 1Cr 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death. I will summarize the apostle Paul's teaching once again. 1. Christ is resurrected. 2. His saints are resurrected when He comes. 3. The end - but notice, the end must be after the reigning. This reigning involves the putting down of all authority, rule, and power. The very last enemy to be destroyed is death. Now, has Christ put down all authority, rule, and power, already? No, for otherwise the saints would not be involved in the warfare that Paul speaks of in Ephesians. So when does it happen? It must be between His coming and "the end". This is what Revelation 19-20 depict - the coming of the Lord, the Saints resurrected, and the reigning until the end of the thousand years, culminating in the destruction of Gog and Magog, the final Judgement, and the destruction of the devil and death and hell themselves. I refer you back to Rev 2:26-27. The overcomers must rule the nations. when does this take place? Certainly it is not happening now. When Revelation mentions that the resurrected saints "rule and reign" with Christ, and they are to be priests as well, this matches the idea of ruling or reigning over the nations. This promise is not fulfilled until the resurrection, for the promise is to those who keep His works "unto the end". Since we are to rule after "the end" of our lives, but only until the destruction of death, then it follows the rule is to take place between our death (or the Coming of the Lord if it happens before then) and the great white throne judgement and destruction of death itself. The preterist - amilleniallist position makes this promise unfulfillable, for if Christ's return ends His reign, and abolishes death itself, then the saints never will have ruled the nations. And brother, if you suggest we are to rule now, in this life, over the nations, before He returns, I suggest you look back at the history of all those who thought the same, and see where such doctrine will lead. It leads to what history books call "the Dark Ages". And the reason they were so dark is not just because "the wrong people happened to be in charge". It is because those who rule the nations are those who "keep His works to the end", those who are overcomers, those who learn in this life how to be servants, and who are purified and holy. Which means that until the resurrection, the church will not rule over the nations. We cannot even treat one another right in the church, how shall we rule the nations in righteousness? Only until the tares are weeded out will there be people truly fit to rule the nations. And only God has enough wisdom and holiness to do that. Men, seeking to establish the Kingdom of God themselves in this life, have only produced evil as a result. Quote:
Christ is ruling now, and will continue to rule, and will subdue all authority and power and rule. He rules now and His rule will increase, until it is established firmly (with a rod of iron) over all the nations of this earth. That will be consummated during the Millenium. Then death itself will be destroyed. You assume that if Christ reigns (with us, a key thought you seem to be forgetting) during the Millenium, that must somehow mean He is not reigning now. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are presenting a false dilemma - either Christ reigns now and not in any Millenium, or Christ is not reigning now and will in the Millenium. The alternative - the truth - is that Christ reigns now, and He will also reign in the Millenium. The key difference is we will reign with Him over the nations. Quote:
You make an error. The analogy should have been more like "There will be a death, both of the righteous and the unrighteous." Does this imply the same event, at the same time? No. It does not imply that at all. It could go either way, I admit that. You would have to admit that as well. What then shall determine the correct way to understand this? Well, Jesus said there would be a resurrection unto life, and a resurrection unto damnation. Revelation speaks of a first resurrection (obviously unto life) implying a second (in connection with the second death, or damnation). The pattern is consistent. But your pattern is inconsistent with the simple, straightforward reading of both Jesus' words and the Revelation that He gave to John. Remember this is a revelation, not a veiling, of truth. I notice you seem to rely on Mr. Robertson to give you the correct understanding of things here. Why is that? Mr. Robertson is obviously an amilleniallist (or at least perhaps a post millenialist). Do not tell me that because Mr Robertson says it is "apparently at the same time", that therefore I should believe it. You have to show from Scripture that it is at the same time. All you have done is shown that there is a resurrection of all the dead, not that the resurrection unto life is at the same time as the resurrection unto damnation. Quote:
The Revelation should be good enough. Why do you need an uninspired man to "confirm" Bible truth? I am saying that it can be consistent with two resurrection. You are saying it can't. I already proved it can, by showing the grammar does not forbid two resurrections. But I notice, that if you are correct, and anastasis can refer to regeneration, then how do we know he is not talking about regeneration? Why is that nobody ever thinks he might be talking about regeneration here? Because everyone knows that resurrection of the dead is never regeneration as used in Scripture, but always bodily resurrection. Quote:
The burden of proof is not on me to prove all your claims are false. It is my job to make my case, and to show how your objections do not overthrow my case. It is not my burden to prove that a verse does not speak of regeneration when you claim it does. You must prove it does - that was your claim. Therefore it is only fair that you do more than assert, and not try to shift the burden of proof onto me. It is not right to say "Here I make a claim, now you must prove it wrong". I did show how it need not be regeneration. You never did show how it must be regeneration. And even if it were referring to regeneration, it still does not prove anastasis is used in Scripture for regeneration, nor does it pose an impossible difficulty in a first resurrection and thousand year reign of the saints. Quote:
Apparently you forgot what you yourself said. So I again remind you of your own words - Quote:
This is from post 296. You claimed "he says there is not another resurrection of dead saints before this". Yet, he did not say that at all. Quote:
Besides the fact that I am not a futurist, I do think you are basing your interpretation of 1 Cor 15 upon your preterist theology, rather than allowing the bible to determine your eschatology. You have repeatedly claimed that the Revelation canot inform us as to eschatology. I believe the Revelation is just as much Scripture as any other book, and that it is designed to indicate or inform us as to many things, including the last things. And therefore I understand 1 Cor 15 and Rev 20 together. They speak of the same thing, but show different elements involved. Do you not believe in the historical, progressive revelation of Scripture? That is, that what is written previously is expanded upon in what is written later, in Scripture? Therefore, if that is true, if God's revelation in Scripture is progressive, then Revelation gives previously unrevealed information. Otherwise, there is no point in having the book at all, and more importantly the title "apocalupsis" is a lie, for it would "reveal" nothing at all! John was not writing "a paticular genre of 1st century literature". He was simply passing on what Jesus revealed to Him. "Apocalyptic literature" is simply uninspired imitation of the real thing. Quote:
Brother, if you make a claim, you must prove it. That is how it works. But I showed that your interpretation of 2 Thess 1 as applying to the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem is an impossibility, because the promised vengeance in 2 Thess was upon the persecutors of the Thessalonians, and 1 Thessalonians proves those persecutors were fellow Thessalonians, not Jews of Jerusalem. So, I did in fact make my case about that and refute your objection, even though you do not take notice of it. Quote:
This makes no sense to me. The Romans were agents of God's wrath against Jerusalem. But that has nothing at all to do with Paul's words to the Thessalonians. Are you carrying on another debate with some dispensationalist pre tribber or something, and getting their remarks confused with mine? It sure seems like it brother. I don't know why you create these straw men, about "my reasoning" concerning 70 AD. My reasoning is simple - 70 AD was punishment on Jews, but 2 Thessalonians promises punishment on Thessalonian persecutors, not Jewish persecutors. Case closed. Quote:
How do you know that? Or did you just assume that? Quote:
A given is an "assumption" by definition. And it is not a given. You may claim that your assumptions are a given, and therefore that you have no reason to prove your claims. That is fine, they remain unproven then. But I simply showed that the text does not require the two events to be simultaneous, that is all. Nothing is a given, we must examine all our assumptions. I can say "that resurrection is bodily is a given", which honestly I believe it is, because I understand what the Bible teaches about life, death, the soul, and the concept of resurrection. However, I never claimed it was a "given", because that is simply avoiding the burden of proof. You claim the two events are simultaneous. Okay, nice claim, but can you demonstrate it? Quote:
It makes no sense to you because your theology prevents you from understanding these things, brother. The rest given is victory. The Israelites were promised "rest", and that "rest" was a successful, total conquest of Canaan and all the blessings that would follow, including being the Covenant People of God. The Millennial "rest" (or SABBATH) is the victory we will enjoy over the nations of this ungodly Christ-hating world, when we (and those Thessalonians) will reign with Him for a thousand years. They understood that their suffering in this life is to be outdone by the glory that shall be revealed in us in the next Age. As for their persecutors, it simply says God will recompense tribulation to them. Simple. As for the Coming of the Lord in fiery vengeance, that will be upon "them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel" - the wicked in the Day when He returns. You are conflating things mightily, and unnecessarily. You say this promise is no consolation. But this text has been consolation to many Christians suffering under persecution, and has been since it was written. Perhaps it wouldn't make sense to you. I can only say that someday, it definitely will make sense, for it will come to pass as it is written. Quote:
Hmm, I have never thought about two comings, separated by the Millenium. An interesting thought. At the present, I cannot say that I believe the Final Judgement is a visible "coming" of the Lord, although it might be called a coming in a metaphorical or poetical sense. I still don't see how that bears on the issue, however. There are many "comings" of the Lord. Some are in fact conditional. |
