Spurgeon's View of the MILLENNIUM

Pilgrim Pub. ^ | MARK A. MCNEIL

[RnMomof7]

opps spiritual

[CCWoody]

John 5 doesn't tell when the good come forth and when the evil come forth.

This is a lie against the gospels and you know it:

• The hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

The gospel from the very mouth of Christ Himself says that all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth in a single period of time. The good and the evil will come forth together xzins. This is what John 5 plainly says.

[CCWoody]

Further revelation clarifies the meaning of John 5.

That Jesus was such a cryptic wasn't He. Hey, do any of you Momons want to help xzins clarify the gospel with any of your further revelations?

Aside to RnMom. Do you have a better explaination than that offered by xzins? Evidently, he believes that the gospel is veiled even to believers until the final Revelation of Jesus Christ.

[xzins]

The hour is coming when I will speak with freepers -- with DrStevej about barbeque and with ftD about coleslaw.

I'd like to point out that I could talk to DrStevej next week about barbeque and to ftD the following week about coleslaw. The hour had come when both of those were true. That is a perfectly acceptable use of "time" conventions built into language.

Now, IF I then run across a passage in the book of XzinsPlans Chapter 20, verses 4 - 5 that says the barbeque discussion is separated from the coleslaw discussion by a period of ONE WEEK, then I have sealed the case.

That is precisely what was meant by that use of a linguistic time convention.

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.

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.......11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

[xzins]

Since the canonical John 5 was written before Chapter 20 of the canonical book of Revelation, are you saying that Revelation is not canon and is on a par with the Book of Mormon?????

You are just attacking me now, Woody. Get over it.

In fact, the book was named REVELATION!!! (When you do this kind of thing it makes you look so petty; up 'til then a fine discussion was taking place and your points were decently supported. You shouldn't allow your temper to ruin your posts.)

[CCWoody]

Jean I believe scripture interprets scripture..a word search of the word resurrection shows it speaks of bodiely resurrection consistantly..how can you just change it to a spiritul meaning ?

Is this a spiritual resurrection or a physical bodily resurrection?

• "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

I believe this. I believe that I have already passed from death into eternal life.

• God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
• These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life,...

In Him you were... buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the certificate of debt with its requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us.

If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.

---

There are 2 resurrections and 2 only:

• There is a spiritual resurrection. I have died and now my life is hidden with Christ in God. My life is in God.
• There is a bodily resurrection. When my life appears which is Christ and is in Christ, then I will also appear with Him in glory.

This should make perfect sense to you as man is a 2 part being; spirit and dust. My spirit must experience a resurrection and my body must experience a resurrection in order for my soul to be completely alive and holy. If I only experience a bodily resurrection, then I will live forever dead to God. This is why the Lord removed man from the Garden. If Adam had eaten from the tree of Life, he would have lived forever spiritually dead and hostile to God.

And since I live in Christ right now, I shall never die. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ,....

[CCWoody]

The hour is coming when I will speak with freepers -- with DrStevej about barbeque and with ftD about coleslaw. I'd like to point out that I could talk to DrStevej next week about barbeque and to ftD the following week about coleslaw. The hour had come when both of those were true. That is a perfectly acceptable use of "time" conventions built into language.

There is just one little word which shreds your argument, a word which you completely left out:

The hour is coming when I will speak with all Freepers about BBQ. Those who bring BBQ sauce will sit on the right and the heretic coleslaw bringers will sit on the left.

The problem here is that you think that the Revelation of John is actually the Clarification of John. Evidently Jesus was not clear the first time He spoke and needed to clarify Himself. You should rename your Book appropriately.

And this doesn't even address the fact that you are BBQ'ing the greek word hora to make it fit your reinterpretation of John. The definition of this word speaks about a definite point in time. There is no reason to believe that this is not the case except that you must consult your master "mere 7 verses" from the Clarification of John to change this into 2 definite points in time.

You are embarrassing yourself here.

[CCWoody]

Since the canonical John 5 was written before Chapter 20 of the canonical book of Revelation, are you saying that Revelation is not canon and is on a par with the Book of Mormon?????

Nope, I am saying that you are changing the gospel based upon only an intrepretation, which is essentially what the Mormons do when they change the gospel based upon a revelation. Neither are scripture.

In fact, the book was named REVELATION!!!

Are you sure it is not named CLARIFACATION or INTREPRETATION?

The problem you are not even addressing is that you must bring the gospel to Revelation. You, OTOH, are taking the Revelation to the gospel and making the gospel fit nothing more than an interpretation of Revelation.

[xzins]

In the following passage about those who rejoice in Jesus light for "a period of time", the word hora (hwpa) is translated: Niv=time; Nasb=while; Kjv=season; and YLT=hour.

However, it really doesn't matter, however, since Rev 20 explains exactly what John 5:28-29 means.

---

John 5:35 :: New International Version (NIV)

John 5
35John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.


John 5:35 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)


John 5
35 "He was (1) the lamp that was burning and was shining and you (2) were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.



John 5:35 :: King James Version (KJV)


John 5
35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.




John 5:35 :: Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

John 5
35 he was the burning and shining lamp, and ye did will to be glad, for an hour, in his light.

[CCWoody]

In the following passage about those who rejoice in Jesus light for "a period of time", the word hora (hwpa) is translated: Niv=time; Nasb=while; Kjv=season; and YLT=hour.

That's right! A single period of time. But you have the hour of John 5:28 as two periods of time, separated by 1000 years. The greek word is never used in this way.

• The single period of time is coming in which all who are in the graves will... come forth.

John 5:25 also speaks about the hour, meaning a season. But, it means a season where people are living throughout the entire season.

However, it really doesn't matter, however, since Rev 20 explains exactly what John 5:28-29 means.

Isn't it amazing that Jesus had to have a Revelation to explain exactly what He meant. The Roman Catholics also have to have something to explain what He meant and the Mormons as well. Isn't it amazing that the gospel is a closed "book" until the Clarification of John was penned.

[RnMomof7]

I do not have it in front of me ..but someone said the word resurrection appears 41 times in scripture and all but one of those times it is bodily...do you know?

[RnMomof7]

The hour is coming when I will speak with all Freepers about BBQ. Those who bring BBQ sauce will sit on the right and the heretic coleslaw bringers will sit on the left.

LOL LOL on another thread there was discussion if I ( yes I:>) was a heretic because I left the RC church...I make a mean coleslaw..but I INTEND to sit on the right

[CCWoody]

I'll get to your resurrection question as I have time...

I have hope in God that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.

[fortheDeclaration]

Since the canonical John 5 was written before Chapter 20 of the canonical book of Revelation, are you saying that Revelation is not canon and is on a par with the Book of Mormon????? You are just attacking me now, Woody. Get over it. In fact, the book was named REVELATION!!! (When you do this kind of thing it makes you look so petty; up 'til then a fine discussion was taking place and your points were decently supported. You shouldn't allow your temper to ruin your posts.)

If you cannot reconcile Scripture with your preconceived ideas, ignore it or twist it!

So much for Sola Scriptura!

[fortheDeclaration]

You have offered absolutely NO evidence! NONE! Only CONJECTURE!

Now 'Jean' screaming about 'evidence' and 'conjecture' that is funny!

[JesseShurun]

This is obscure and not meant for just anyone.

I can't give you diamonds for they aren't mine to give.

[Jean Chauvin]

"How in the world can you say that citing verses specifically saying there are 2 resurrections is conjecture? "

Actually, the passage does ~not~ tell us explicitly what the (assumed) 2nd Resurrection is. The words 2nd Resurrection are not even found in the text. According to the words themselves of Rev 20, we are told that the "living" (~NOT~ 'lived ~again~') and "reigning" with Christ ~IS~ 1st Resurrection. And since John sees two groups of people which is inclusive of people who are alive in the body, this cannot possibly be a reference to a bodily resurrection -only a spiritual resurrection -Regeneration -John 11:25,26!!!

Furthermore, Rev 20:4-6 says ABSOLUTELY ~NOTHING~ about anything taking place on Earth. Furthermore, the Millennium isn't even the point of the passage. It's a sub point. It isn't the main thrust of the text. The insistance of the Pre-Mill position to make the "Millennial Reign" the end-all of Rev 20 is grossly distorting the main point of John's vision at this point. Rev 20:4-6 is all about who John sees, not about the millennial reign.

"How can you say that citing a passage that 5 times uses "1000 years" in 7 verses is conjecture? It's not conjecture; it's simply reading what's there."

No! You bastardize the text by insisting that this passage is mainly about a millennial reign -on earth- when there is no mention of earth until vs 8. John knows very well how to say "on earth". He does so in 5:10 and again in Ch. 22 which is a vivid description of the News Heavens and the New Earth. I would suggest to you to you, that if John had intended to convey that this '1000' years was to take place on earth, he would have said so. That he didn't tells us we shouldn't read that thought into the passage!

Furthermore, there are ~two~ millennia, as I have already pointed out. vs 4 mentions the millennial reign which is concurrent to John's vision. vs 6 mentions a future millennial reign with an all together different description of this reign.

There are also two groups of people John sees. John sees the souls of those who were beheaded and he sees those who did not worship the beast. This is inclusive, quite obviously, of people who are alive in the body and have yet to die. According to 1 Cor 15:51,52, not all will sleep, but all shall be changed. Resurrection of the ~dead~ is NOT applicable to living people. Therefore, this is the resurrection of regeneration spoken of by Christ and recorded by John in John 11:25,26. It cannot possibly be a reference to the Resurrection of the Body. It doesn't say so (remember, Rev 20 does not mention the Resurrection of the ~DEAD~. It never mentions that these folks that John sees "rise again". It just says that they "lived" and "reigned".)

~YOU~ are the one insisting that this verse says things it doesn't remotely say..."earth"...."lived ~again~".... CONJECTURE!

And you are ~not~ reading Rev 20 for what it says! You are completely disregarding what the words themselves say and you continue to insist on inserting words not found in the Greek!

Jean

[xzins]

Sorry, John, but the case is closed. Rev 5:10 says the bloodbought will be priests reigning on earth. Rev 20:1-10 says that after his reign Christ will reign a 1000 years with those same bloodbought priests on the earth.

It's clear. There's really not any more to say about it. Everyone can read the bible and see I'm telling the truth.

The case is closed. I'll get over your being ashamed of me.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Jean I believe scripture interprets scripture..a word search of the word resurrection shows it speaks of bodiely resurrection consistantly..how can you just change it to a spiritul meaning ? "

Woody already hit this, but I need to reiterate it:

Your presumption that the word resurrection:

Greek anastasis
a 'standing up' again, i.e. (lit.) a resurrection from death (individual, gen. or by impl. [its author]), or (fig) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth): -raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.

It is ~not~ consistantly spoken of as the bodily resurrection.

John 11:25,26 is just such a 'spiritual' resurrection. Jesus calls himself the "resurrection" "I am the resurrection". Now, is Jesus trying to tell us that he ~is~ the literal resurrection of body? No, of course not. He is the source of life -and the point of John 11:25,26 -the source of spiritual life. Is a "spiritual resurrection" any less literal???

Paul echo's this same thought in Eph 2:

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Paul is speaking of the very same "first resurrection"! Paul tells us that we "were dead" in our sins and that God has "quickened" us (made us alive).

No, Paul doesn't use the same words John does in John 11:25,26 or Rev 20:4,5, but it is the very same idea!

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"Sorry, John, but the case is closed. Rev 5:10 says the bloodbought will be priests reigning on earth. Rev 20:1-10 says that after his reign Christ will reign a 1000 years with those same bloodbought priests on the earth. "

Here we go again....

Rev 20:1-6 says absolutely nothing about a reign "on earth".

Furthermore, Rev 20:6 is speaking of a future millennial reign. One that is distinct and differentiated from John's point in the vision. 20:4,5 are past/present tense and 20:6 is future tense. It has not yet happened. It ~will~ happen in 22:5 (same 'saints' reigning!) -but this time -explicitly on EARTH for ever and ever!

"It's clear. There's really not any more to say about it. Everyone can read the bible and see I'm telling the truth."

LOL! With you continually insisting Rev 20 says things it doesn't remotely say???? John 5's "hour" is a thousand years long? ROTFLMAO!

"The case is closed. I'll get over your being ashamed of me. "

Ummmm...it wasn't ~I~ who was ashamed of you, I was merely commenting that ~YOU~ ought to be ashamed of ~YOURSELF~! (reading comprehension classes, x....go for it!)

Jean