Your many, many, many words are always fodder for thought. "
But the fact that all believers will receive glorified bodies before/at the rapture is a distinct concept from the definition of "resurrection of the dead".
1 Corinthians 15 tells us this!
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:
Clearly stated in 1 Corinthians is the fact that "resurrection of the dead" and "we shall be changed" are two completely distinct ideas.
If the "resurrection of the dead" ~NECESSARILY~ results in a "glorified" body, why does Paul tell us that the dead will be raised "incorruptable"? Isn't that a little redundant?
No. Paul realizes that "resurrection of the body" is a different concept that receiving a "glorified body".
He understands that there have been several "resurrections of the body" in which a "glorified body" was not received. (Goodness, he, through the power of Christ, raised one to life himself!) Thus, he is compelled to note that these who are raised will be raised "incorruptable". Likewise, he notes, that in addition to the dead being raised, "we shall ~ALL~ be changed."
He specifically and explicitly notes in vs 52 that ~ONLY~ the "dead" will be raised, but we will "all" be changed!
Obviously, then, there is a distinction between "resurrection of the dead" and those of us alive at Christ's return receiving "glorified" bodies!
Likewise, it is just as obvious that it is bankrupt and shameful for you to attempt to change the definition "resurrectin of the dead" in response to the the problem Premil's have when noting that John sees people who are yet alive in their bodies in Rev 20:4 and noting that John tells us in Rev 20:4 that ~ALL~ he sees "lived and reigned" (i.e. take part in the Premil's understanding that this is a bodily resurrection).
People who are alive in the body at Christ's return do not get "resurrected from the dead". Paul has explicitly told us this in 1 Corinthians 15:51,52. Shame on you for attempting to change the definition of "resurrection of the body" to solve the premillennial problem in Rev 20:4.
Better yet, why don't you simply accept that the people who are alive in their bodies which John sees in Rev 20:4 will not be "resurrected from the dead". Oh, I understand, that would ~REQUIRE~ you to reject Premillennialism and see clearly that John can ~ONLY~ be referring to a spiritual resurrection in Rev 20:4.
This can only be a spiritual resurrection (John 11:25,26) in 20:4 because the people that John sees who are alive in their bodies cannot possibly be resurrected from the dead because people who are alive in their bodies do not die. Paul tells us this in 1 Cor 15. But, we know that people who are alive in their bodies ~are~ brought to spiritual life! They ~DO~ experience spiritual resurrection!
1 John 3
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
We "have passed" (Past Tense) -already happened!
from death unto "life" (spiritual resurrection)
Obviously a reoccurring theme of the Apostle John is to note that we were formerly dead and now have life!
John 5
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 11
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Revelation 20
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.
If only you would allow Revelation 20 to speak on its own without editing it and then claiming a "literal" interpretation, things would be clearer.
Ah! But that would require you to reject Premillennialism. You are stubborn and you do not ~want~ to do that!
Jean