Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Ed O. | 239219 | ||
During the Great Tribulation souls will be saved but will be beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and who rejected the mark. Rev 20:5b states, "this is the first resurrection." Could this be better understood by saying these are the last group of people who are saved in the first resurrection since many people who died prior to this time would have already been resurrected in the rapture. ( pre-trib) In other words I take this to mean the first resurrection is for the saints, while the second resurrection is for the lost. |
||||||
2 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239227 | ||
Ed.O. You ask a good question but a hard question. The question can be answered by a simple yes or no, but the reason it is so hard is because the way one answers your question is determined by how I first understand a great multitude of other texts. So when I answer, it is going to tell you a lot about how I have already made up my mind prior to coming to this text. Let me give you two reasons this isn't a bad thing. First, it is not so bad of a thing because revelation naturally comes at the end of the entirety of all other inspired authoritative revelation given by God. In other words, the original readers of the letter were 'suppose' to already have many issues of doctrine already established in their mind. This includes many notions about what happens upon Christ's return. These may not have been horribly specific ideas, but they at least had broad brush-strokes such as resurrection, judgment, new creation etc. So we are suppose to have much in place before this passage. Secondly, it is not a bad thing because we 'ought' to interpret unclear texts in light of clear texts. This is not irresponsible reading but good hermeneutics. Yes, first seek to understand the passage on its own merits, but other scripture ought to interpret scripture. Having given those statements I'll give an attempt to sort of kind of answer you. 1.) You are not the firs to suggest your answer. For whatever its worth, other Christians have put the pieces together in the way you have. 2.) I disagree with the premise that there will be a resurrection before the final tribulation. In this case also, I am not the first Christian to suggest this notion. I believe the first resurrection happens at the end, not seven years prior to the end. This of course would allow you to simply read the "first resurrection" as the first resurrection. I encourage you to study, make your educated guesses, and then test those theories further against scripture. It will only lead to further understanding, but I invite you to agree with me that two believers who truly love their Lord can disagree on such difficult issues. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
3 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Ed O. | 239239 | ||
Beja, Thanks for your reply. However; I'm a pri-trib believer relying upon these verses. Rev 3:10,which states, "Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth." Also I believe 1Thes 4:13-18 and 5:1-3 takes place prior to the Great Tribulation because it says, Christ will come as a thief in the night, while people are saying "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly. In other words the rapture came and destruction hasn't come yet. Also Christ is to come as a thief in the night (meaning un-expecting). Should he come at the end of the seven year period, one would know exactly when to expect Him. | ||||||
4 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239243 | ||
Ed.O. Well articulated. Its good to see you have scriptures in mind rather than popular fictions, sir! You also have illustrated my point very well. You come to the passage already certain that my particular interpretation can not be correct based on how you have previously interpreted these other verses. I also come to this passage having already determined that some interpretations aren't possible due to my take on other scriptures. Though I do hope we both would be willing to change our view should the passage be plain enough, it is apocalyptic literature which is rarely plain. This is why I said that the answer would not be able to be a simple one, when we ask what Rev 20 means we necessarily press upon ourselves a great many passages concerning end times. Let me give you some examples of where we disagree before we ever come to that passage. 1.) Do a search on the greek word for "keep" in Rev 3:10 and see the only other place where John uses the word. Does it mean that he will remove them from the problem or keep them through the midst of it? 2.) You say that it could not be at the end of 7 years because then we would know just when to expect him. But that would only allow believers to know when to expect him and doesn't Paul plainly say, contrasting believers to unbelievers, "But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a theif. For you are all children of the light, children of the day." 1 Thessalonians 5:4,5. 3. I disagree with a 7 year period of tribulation at the end. In this we have most likely interpreted Daniel chapter 9 differently. This again would make it such that Christ could come post tribulation and yet still surprise us. And these are all me simply responding to the verses you put forward, we then must look at the verses that a post-trib rapture thinks prove their point. I'm not actually trying to sway you to my view at this point, I'm simply attempting to persuade you that the answer to what Revelation 20 means is going to necessarily be tied to a discussion of the entirety of your end-times framework. But on the other hand as I said in my first post: Given all your assumptions a double first resurrection is one way to see it. If I'm not mistaken my father-in-law- holds that view. Your brother in Christ, Beja |
||||||
5 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Searcher56 | 239246 | ||
Greetings in our Lord, Beja and Ed O, I am teaching the book of Revelation in Sunday School. I am presenting all views: Tribulation: Pre Mid Post and others Millennium: Premillennial, Postmillennial, Amillennial Timing: Preterist, Historicist, Futurist and Spiritualist I usually don't give my side. On this matter is the rapture concurrent with the resurrection? If not which happens first? Jesus was resurrected first, then went to heaven. Here we have a select group of saints being resurrected ... and have not gone to heaven. Searcher |
||||||
6 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | EdB | 239249 | ||
Searcher56 If I may I would like to suggest a book for you to consider in your teaching endeavor. Revelations Four views A Parallel Commentary edited by Steve Gregg and published by Nelson. ISBN 0-8407-2128-5 This is an excellent book that presents the four views of Revelation, Historicists, Preterist, futurists, Spiritualist view along with discussions on pretrib, midtrib, postrib and no trib along with Premillennial, Postmillennial, and Amillennial. The book does this in a fair and balanced way and anyone from any of the above schools of thought will find their position was thoroughly represented in an unbiased manner. |
||||||
7 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Searcher56 | 239255 | ||
EdB, I am using Steve Gregg's book. Before I started I looked at the choices I had and thought his was the best. He is very fair, because he just presents the views without much or any commentary. I have also secured resources for each view, to see if I can add anything. When I present views, I research secular sources to see if what is said is true. I present the views with my research ... then we discuss what the text says im an inductive method. S |
||||||