Replies

What Rev 20 literally tells us is that the first resurrection is bodily, not spiritual (as explained in this post and post #1734 and post #1778 and post #1809). It is a resurrection of souls who learned the gospel during the tribulation (as explained in post #1347, post #1382 and post #1391) and rejected a real graven mark of the beast (as explained in post #1068). The 1000 year millennium is real (not merely metaphorically 'vast' as was explained in post #1133 and post #1155), is God's plan, not Satan's (as explained in post #1228), and singular (as was explained in post #1402 and post #1810). None of which has happened yet and Satan is not yet bound and won't be until that future 1000 years.

All of these posts merely assert the premillennial position. They contain your presuppositions twisted around to sound like arguments, whereas they are not true arguments at all. Lurkers are noticing this, even if you don't notice it.

Moreover, you have completely ignored my argument--which is a real argument. Lurkers are noticing this, too.

***

John 5:25 describes Christian conversion itself as involving the dead coming to life. If you are a Christian, you know from experience what He was talking about, so, please don't make this discussion unduly difficult. It's patently obvious that regeneration is being presented as a kind of spiritual resurrection.

(This is precisely what Paul was talking about in Ephesians 1:18-2:7.)

In short, John 5:24 is formally paired to v.25 to show that v.25 is characterizing regeneration as a spiritual resurrection from a state of spiritual death. And please notice that literal/material resurrection from the state of physical death is not covered until vv.28-29.

Notice also that v.25 is stylistically coupled to v.28. This means that the larger passage is contrasting two different senses of resurrection. The first one (v.25) is that spiritual resurrection phenomenon which is regeneration. The second one is the bodily, material resurrection episode at the end of time.

Do you see this? You surely need to see it. It's not all that difficult, IMHO. But people believe only what they want to believe. And premills don't want to believe what they are looking at--precisely because John 5:25-29 is definitely presenting the amillennial position! (It's pretty funny when you realize what is going on!)

FR's premills should be honest enough to admit that John 5:25-29 does stand as at least a potential key for understanding the two "resurrections" in Revelation 20--because there is no hermeneutically solid reason to presuppose that Revelation 20 is to be read in an exclusively literal/materialistic way. (Saying, in effect, "Hey, I believe Revelation 20 is literal!" doesn't impress me even if it impresses you.)

Once the halfway honest premill concedes that John 5:25-29 might be the key to understanding the resurrections in Revelation 20, I have the amillennial clincher for him. It consists in the fact there is only ONE resurrection in John 5:28-29.

This incontrovertible fact utterly destroys the premillennial theory for Revelation 20. John 5:25-29 is emphatically arguing for the amillennial position against the premillennial position.

So is Ephesians 1:18-27 and 2 Peter 3 and Luke 19:11-25.

(And these are just a few of the reasons why our Protestant forefathers were amills.)

I submit that if you continue to be a premill, you do so in flagrant defiance of God. So, I am resolved to be completely unimpressed by your Christianity until you repent of this.

Moreover, you have completely ignored my argument--which is a real argument. Lurkers are noticing this, too.

Dream on doc. Lurkers notice you saying that the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ on earth doesn't exist.

Star and grace have real arguments because they follow the actual words of the text.

The bottom line is the same as it has been for some time: Do you interpret John 5 in light of the further revelation of Revelation 20, or do you interpret Revelation 20 in the light of John 5.

I think God revealed the special information of the book of revelation as a way of further explaining what had been earlier written. Why? Because he had always explained earlier revelation with follow-on revelation.

Moreover, you have completely ignored my argument--which is a real argument. Lurkers are noticing this, too.

Argue this.

(asked of the_doc in post 848: and post 875 and post 894 and post 898 and post 965 and post 971 and now most recently in post 1084

the_doc: The beheading idea in Revelation 20:4 is not necessarily limiting us to physically dead Christians anyway. It definitely includes those who have died physically, certainly including literal martyrs, but the verse may very well be just borrowing a martyrdom scenario for beautiful metaphorical purposes in the vision--including metaphorical purposes involving Christians who are still physically alive!
So, what are those metaphorical purposes and what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?