All I see two are distinct resurrections in the Revelation separated by a "thousand years." The only way they can fit the futurist agenda of a future "rapture of only Christians" is by spiritualizing the scripture.
>>>How is it possible that saying there are two resurrections, when the Bible describes the two resurrections, names them the first and second resurrection, and gives us details as to who will be part of each, be a misinterpretation? Your only argument for that is to point to less specific verses while ignoring the more specific ones.<<<
There are many verses that contradict your interpretation. Even the ones that you claim justify your interpretation are unspecific.
For example, the fact that Paul doesn't refer to the resurrection of the unjust, as well as the just, in 1st Thessalonians 4 does not mean they were not resurrected at that time. And when John mentions a "second death" in Revelation 20, he could have been implying there is also a "first death." After all, the "first resurrection" implied there was a "second resurrection," and there was, in the same chapter.
However Jesus and Daniel were very specific. Jesus explained that both the good and the evil would be resurrected in "the same hour" (John 5:28-29;) and Daniel, in chapter 12, prophesied that "at that time . . . many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake," both the good and the evil. Both indicate that the good and the evil are resurrected at the same time, or within a very short time of each other. The resurrections in the Revelation are a very long time apart: e.g., a "thousand years."
Why should I believe your interpretation? If you show me clear proof of your interpretation, one that explains why Daniel and Jesus did not say what they clearly said, then I will believe you. Merely restating that you have already shown me the proof is not proof. Post scriptural proof, if you have it.
Philip
“All I see two are distinct resurrections in the Revelation separated by a “thousand years.”
Well, there you go, two distinct resurrections in Revelation that even you can’t explain away.
“The only way they can fit the futurist agenda of a future “rapture of only Christians” is by spiritualizing the scripture.”
You keep talking about this rapture to me and I’m not sure why. I believe in the resurrection of all Christians at Christ’s second coming, just as the Bible teaches.
“For example, the fact that Paul doesn’t refer to the resurrection of the unjust, as well as the just, in 1st Thessalonians 4 does not mean they were not resurrected at that time.”
It sure does when all of the signs mentioned in that verse only match with the description of the first resurrection in Revelation, and Revelation is also clear that only the righteous are resurrected at that time. This leaves no room for your interpretation.
“And when John mentions a “second death” in Revelation 20, he could have been implying there is also a “first death.”
Of course there is a first death, the physical death we all experience (save perhaps a lucky few translated directly to heaven).
“However Jesus and Daniel were very specific. Jesus explained that both the good and the evil would be resurrected in “the same hour” (John 5:28-29;)”
No he didn’t. He said “the hour is coming”, a figure of speech meaning that the time is coming when some prophetic events will unfold. It doesn’t mean they all happen in one hour.
“and Daniel, in chapter 12, prophesied that “at that time . . . many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,” both the good and the evil.”
Which is correct, at that time, the end times, both resurrections happen. This can’t mean they both happen simultaneously, or that would make Revelation untrue, and it would make God a liar. I, for one, prefer the interpretation that does not create contradictions.
“Why should I believe your interpretation?”
Because it doesn’t make God out to be a liar, maybe? Or you can go on believing your interpretation, in which God contradicts himself.