***
I say it is simpler to see the souls as disembodied until the second resurrection. I furthermore say that the only reason why it is necessary for you to believe that they somehow became embodied by the end of v.4 (despite the fact that it doesn't actually say that they did) is because you are presupposing that the first resurrection was materialistic (desite the fact that this is only a presupposition and despite the fac that the first resurrection in John 5:25-29 was not materialistic).
Whew!
You see, my approach, comparing Revelation 20 with John 5, really is a lot simpler--for the oddly obvious reason that I'm not trying to make the passage agree with unproven presuppositions of literalism.
Furthermore, the Apostle Paul himself offers the very idea which I am proposing as the explanation of disembodied spirits being seated with Christ right now. In Ephesians 2, Paul says that all regenerate sinners are already seated in heaven with Christ.
I maintain that John saw THAT.
(You see, my explanation is simpler than yours AND it is apostolically supported by an explicit teaching from yet another apostle.)
But is there evidence in Paul's text that these spirits who are with Christ on His throne in heaven are to be regarded as resurrected souls? You bet there is. In Ephesians 1, Paul says that these are souls who have been regenerated by the Power of Jesus's Own RESURRECTION.
So, that would argue that the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is the regeneration-unto-conversion of which Paul speaks--and, of course, is the first resurrection mentioned in John 5:25-29. It's the one which you have ignored in John 5:25.
Please notice also that I don't have to invoke an idea of a thousand-year delay in John 5:28-29--which delay isn't really there in the text anyway.
So, I submit that my explanation is simpler and more elegant; I submit that it is hermeneutically disciplined; I honestly believe that it is exegetically carefully. Alas, I am forced to regard your position as complicated, tortured, hermeneutically dubious, and eisegetical--all in the name of defending a literal presupposition which you can't prove.
And 2 Peter 3 finishes you off (grin).
I don't intend any offense in this. But I think you ought to get away from premillennialism. I think it's one of the nastiest frauds in the history of Christianity. I think it is a Judaizing mess.
I forgot to mention that I honestly believe that my Occam's Razor approach has a much better apostolic precedent than your explanation.
If you say so.
I say it is simpler to see the souls as disembodied until the second resurrection. I furthermore say that the only reason why it is necessary for you to believe that they somehow became embodied by the end of v.4 (despite the fact that it doesn't actually say that they did) is because you are presupposing that the first resurrection was materialistic (desite the fact that this is only a presupposition and despite the fac that the first resurrection in John 5:25-29 was not materialistic).
You do know don’t you that when we speak of first and second resurrections that we are speaking of TYPES of resurrections, not necessarily the TIMING of the resurrections.
For example, the first resurrection is the resurrection of the Righteous. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the beginning of the first resurrection. Those who are resurrected at the Rapture are part of the first resurrection as well as those who are resurrected at Christ’s Second Coming in order to enter the Kingdom.
The second resurrection is the resurrection of the Unrighteous, those people who died without accepting Christ as their Saviour.
So you see, we aren’t speaking of two isolated incidents that happen at a specific point in time and the first resurrection is first merely because it occurs before the second resurrection.
One other thing, was Jesus materially risen from the grave? I mean did He rise from the grave with a physical body, or was it a spiritual resurrection?
Whew!
I agree. ;^)
You see, my approach, comparing Revelation 20 with John 5, really is a lot simpler--for the oddly obvious reason that I'm not trying to make the passage agree with unproven presuppositions of literalism.
No, you are trying to make it agree with the unproven presuppositions of Amillenialism.
Furthermore, the Apostle Paul himself offers the very idea which I am proposing as the explanation of disembodied spirits being seated with Christ right now. In Ephesians 2, Paul says that all regenerate sinners are already seated in heaven with Christ.
Well sure, God is outside of time. So it is no surprise that those who are Christ’s should appear to be with Him when viewed from the Eternal perspective.
I maintain that John saw THAT.
Ok.
(You see, my explanation is simpler than yours AND it is apostolically supported by an explicit teaching from yet another apostle.)
I understand you are saying that, but I don’t think you have proven that.
But is there evidence in Paul's text that these spirits who are with Christ on His throne in heaven are to be regarded as resurrected souls? You bet there is. In Ephesians 1, Paul says that these are souls who have been regenerated by the Power of Jesus's Own RESURRECTION.
Of course they are regenrate, otherwise they wouldn’t be in the presence of Christ in Heaven. What does that have to do with our present discussion?
So, that would argue that the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is the regeneration-unto-conversion of which Paul speaks--and, of course, is the first resurrection mentioned in John 5:25-29. It's the one which you have ignored in John 5:25.
I think if you go back to my #42 you will see that I did not ignore John 5:25. In fact, so you don’t have to scroll back there, here is what I said:
From #42John 5:
[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.
[26] For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
[27] And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.The hour is here when the [spiritually] dead will hear Jesus’ voice. Those that hear will live [become born-again].
Please notice also that I don't have to invoke an idea of a thousand-year delay in John 5:28-29--which delay isn't really there in the text anyway.
Did you take the time to read my #42? I didn’t posit a thousand year delay in John 5:28-29. Here is what I said back in #42 about these two verses:
To continue with 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.The time frame has switched from “hour is coming, and now is” to just the “hour is coming.” This portion is still future.
The subject has changed, it is no longer “the dead” it is now all those who are “in the graves.” That would indicate that it has to be those who are physically dead.
Those in the grave shall hear Christ’s voice when He returns. When He does the graves will open and those who are righteous(saved) shall enter into the Kingdom. Those who are unrighteous shall be set aside in Hell to await the Great White Throne judgment.
So you are partially correct. There will be a general resurrection at the coming Christ. The saved to enter the Kingdom, and the unsaved to wait in Hell for the final judgment.
So either you are not reading my responses to you, or you are misrepresenting what I have said. I choose to believe the former which is why I posted my comments again.
So, I submit that my explanation is simpler and more elegant; I submit that it is hermeneutically disciplined; I honestly believe that it is exegetically carefully. Alas, I am forced to regard your position as complicated, tortured, hermeneutically dubious, and eisegetical--all in the name of defending a literal presupposition which you can't prove.
I am not surprised you regard my [as misrepresented by you] position complicated, etc. Now that I have corrected your misinterpretation of my position maybe you can reconsider it.
And 2 Peter 3 finishes you off (grin).
I don’t see how it does, since I maintain that after the Millenial reign of Christ this world will be destroyed by fire in order to make way for the New Heavens and New Earth.
I don't intend any offense in this.
Neither do I.
But I think you ought to get away from premillennialism. I think it's one of the nastiest frauds in the history of Christianity. I think it is a Judaizing mess.
Why do you consider Premillenialism to be Judaizing?
Didn't Jesus have just ONE resurrection and that bodily, and are we not to be raised "in the likeness of his resurrection" [Romans 6:5]? Do you see the kind of nonsense your amillenial allegorical replacement theology gets you. Now you're replacing the bodily resurrection with only a soulish one.
Wake up from your deep sleep, you great theological wizards, and if nothing else, smell the Scriptures for a change..