Replies

There's a whole discussion on the 2 resurrections over on the church/israel thread.

The basic point is that Rev 20 clearly states 2 resurrections that are separated by a thousand years. These control John 5; not the other way around.

And those who hold the Rev 20 view don't have to run around trying to argue that satan is imprisoned (an absurd notion) during the here and now.

The basic point is that Rev 20 clearly states 2 resurrections that are separated by a thousand years. These control John 5; not the other way around.

Hey, Jerry, with arguments like this for your position, I'd stay on the sidelines as well.

Of course, you know that my goal this year was not to find an eschatological view, but to discover what the gospel is.

I just happen to believe that Christ must reign [over the kingdom of God] until He has put all enemies under His feet. And the end will come when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father and He will put an end to all rule and all authority and power.

It is a pity, though, as input from our thoughtful PreMill group would be nice....

The basic point is that Rev 20 clearly states 2 resurrections that are separated by a thousand years. These control John 5; not the other way around.

Another LIE, xzins. There are two parts to your lie.

Revelation 20 does not say that the resurrections are separated by a thousand years. You have merely presupposed that the first resurrection is a literal mass resurrections. But you can't even begin to prove that.

The problem is, Revelation 20 does not say that the first resurrection is a punctiliar episode. It is a phenomenon, but this does not make it a single (punctiliar) episode.

The whole thing is funny to the person who sees why you are confused. Heck, it's not an accident that you are confused. (See Psalm 2:4!)

I am sure you don't like for me to say that, but I am going on record that you incessantly scoff at the amills and you pontificate by accusing me of same--but this is merely because the Lord's trap has worked in your case. You were manifestly appointed to stumble in your carelessness, in your disrespect for God's Word.

Although Revelation 20 can be read in the amillennial way I have described above, John 5:28-29 can't be read as premillennial. Thus, John 5:25-29 doesn't merely offer a spiritually sensible explanation of the only passage in the Bible which explicitly refers to the millennium, it also rules out the premillennial interpretation of that same passage.

In other words, John 5:28-29 CLEARLY CONTRADICTS the premill theory for Revelation 20. You would see this if you weren't so carnally stubborn (1 Corinthians 3 again!).

You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Your hermeneutical judgment is TERRIBLE.

So, the second part of the LIE is your flatfooted claim that Revelation 20 controls John 5. This is idiotic, friend. But it is typical of the careless premills' hermeneutical confusion!

(And your lame comment about the binding of Satan is lame to the point of being blasphemous. Satan cannot prevent the spread of the gospel to the Gentile nations. Although that is a monumentally significant thing, worthy of mention in the prophetic vision, that's also ALL it is. [Ah, but you were appointed to stumble over that point, too. It's all part of a LOVELY trap.])