Soul Sleep

But you have to admit that it is kind of convenient to say that "Lazarus is dead" is not a reference to the "person" but "Lazarus sleeps" IS.

It is the same author and the same context. I would agree with you that Lazarus the "PERSON" is asleep is a reference to the soul in a state where the spirit has returned to God who gave it and the body is turning to dust.

That "state" is the state of being dead -- as Paul calls them in 1Thess 4 "the Dead in Christ".

Rev 20 does not say they "were already alive" it says that they "come to life" and then it shows that they were included as "dead" for it says "THE REST of the dead did not COME to life" until after the 1000 years was finished.

The point is you have to insist that they "were not among the dead who had not yet come to life" before the first resurrection - in spite of the wording of the text that shows that in fact they were.

Once you accept the dormant state of the person "Lazarus sleeps" during death - as you stated above - you have the truth of the doctrine already.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I guess I see the "rest of the dead" different than most. When it says "I saw the souls (of them), I believe it is saying he saw a part of a whole and when he says the (rest of the dead), I believe he is talking about the bodies of those souls he had just spoken of. I realize this does not conform with the 1000 years being in the future but in the past.
It is hard for me to accept a 1000 years to come when Jesus never did mention anything about it and really none of the other writers did either, at least in the sense of a "thousand years". Also, the scripture says a 1000 years with Him is as yesterday, in other words without time.

 

I agree completely with this. The dialog between these souls and the Lord is very interesting. They are free to speak there minds and the Lord answers. Very cool.

 

I see so you read into the "part of a dead person comes to life and reigns with Christ for 10000 years then the rest of the dead person comes to life". In that case you must also read it as "part-A of a dead person comes to life and the 2nd death has no power over it. Then 1000 years later the other parts of a dead person come to life -- parts over which the 2nd death DOES have power".

That would be a gospel about "various parts of a person coming to life at different times -- and some parts being subject to the 2nd death while other parts of the SAME person are not".

But what we find in the Bible is really a discussion about the wicked vs the saved. And the fact that the saved are raised - and the 2nd death has no power over them (not merely PARTS of them).

Reworking that into "parts of a person" that come to life and are exempt from the 2nd death - vs - other "parts of the same person" that are not resurrected - but remain as "the dead" until the 2nd resurrection where they ARE subjected to the 2nd death - is a pretty good stretch in Rev 20.

Jesus never mentioned the 7 last plagues in Rev 16 - was John wrong about that?

Jesus never mentioned the 7 churches in Rev 2-3 - was John wrong about that?

Jesus never mentioned the rapture "catching up into the air" of 1Thess 4 - was Paul wrong about that?

Jesus never mentioned the apostacy coming from inside the Christians church that Paul mentioned in Acts 20 - was Paul wrong about that?

Can you honestly take such a direct teaching as the 1000 years that happen AFTER the Rev 19 2nd coming event - and say "I don't believe it since Christ did not mention that detail"?

What about Christ's own words in John 16 "I have many MORE things to teach you but you can not bear them now --" saying that the Holy Spirit would come later and teach them? Can we discount all that the Holy Spirit revealed later if it can be shown the Christ did not already teach it??

The idea that "no matter what God says about actual time existing -- there is no time message God can give" is not exegesis. The text in 2Pet 3 does not say "1000 years is yesterday" it says that with God 1000 years is AS a day and A DAY is AS 1000 years. If you think that days and years are not abolished with that text then we have some problems. Even a 7 year 3.5 year tribulation message would be "deleted" by such a view.

I don't see how that is exegesis at all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Doesn't say those souls came to life. It says they lived and reigned with Christ a 1000 years.

I take it as telling of the first resurrection and Blessed and Holy is he that hath a part in First Resurrection (Jesus Christ) for on such the second death hath not power. You have to have a part in Jesus which is the First Resurrection.

Psalms, psalm 90

"4": For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.


2Pet 3 does not say "1000 years is yesterday" it says that with God 1000 years is AS a day and A DAY is AS 1000 years

I take it as God's time being without measure and it is a exegesis if you believe the thousand years are already fulfilled and you must have a part in Jesus Christ (First Resurrection) to escape the second death. As John Baptist said "who hath warned ye to flee the wrath of God which is to come".

 

If we could use Psalms 90 to obliterate the acceptance of time in the Bible - from the point of Ps 90 on -- then the 70 years of Jeremiah (mentioned in Dan 9:1-4) would be "null" or "non-time" or "not-countable time".

The 70 weeks of Dan 9 would also be "null" or "non-time" or "not countable time" and yet these are they that point specifically to the appearing of the Messiah.

The 3 days and 3 nights predicted by Christ would have become "non-time" or "not countable" not reliable not quantifiable "non-time" etc.

If you are claiming that God only goes into 'non-time" when he speaks of 1000 years but all other time is real time - you still have a tough position to defend both from scripture and from logic and reason.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Rev 19 we see the second coming "future event" described clearly.

In Rev 20 we see the resurrection of the righteous "the first resurrection" described at that same 2nd-coming event AND we see it also meantioned in 1Thess 4 "dead in Christ rise FIRST" and in Rev 20 "This is the FIRST resurrection".

It is absolutely impossible to miss.

Rev 20 ends with events after the 1000 years that INCLUDEs the lake of fire and the New Earth literally created here.

To accept Rev 19 and future, and Rev 21 as future and yet toss Rev 20 back 2000 years - right in the middle of Rev 19 and 21 -- you have to read into it - a prior conviction.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am not sure that your "NASB must be wrong" argument will last long when it comes to Rev 20:4.

It must be noted that these sources share your view of an immortal soul - and they they can not bring themselves to your position on Rev 20:4 due to the clear language in the text.

 

#1. The texts makes specific mention of those slain due to the actions of the beast and the mark of the beast - future. So the future event has to be included here.

#2. Never is the act of accepting salvation called "the first resurrection". In fact in 1Cor 15 we are explicitly told that all saints look to the fUTURE resurrection at Christ's coming -- just as Paul also states in 1Thess 4. "The dead IN Christ SHALL rise FIRST" --

The future context can not be ignored.

 

Well if God's time and man's time were the same I guess we could Bob.

 

I realize that I am in the minority in my belief but I am not alone. I respect the beliefs of those above but notice they also add their own to the existing scriptures.

I wonder if we are not receiving the mark of a Christian and the mark of the beast as we live today.

No, but most seem to be ignoring that there has been a resurrection already and Jesus Christ was the firstfruits of them that slept that arose and MANY of the bodies of the saints that slept arose after He did and went into that Holy City.

Bob, I notice many on here call you names and say things they shouldn't say. I have a lot of respect for you and know you are very well knowledgeable in the scriptures. The reason I believe as I do is because Jesus the Son of God never advocated such a time to come. He told us exactly how the end will be and it will be a quick work He will do when He comes again. One thing for sure what we are discussing had nothing to do with our Salvation for we will meet the Lord in the air and ever how it is will be alright with me.
We agree on a lot, probably most but I knew we differed in Rev but I don't know if anyone else on here agrees with me or not, but try to put the teaching of Christ with Rev to understand it.

 

Understood Bob - and I agree with you on that point. I really don't mind discussing differences - I kind of enjoy it actually.

I also did not mean to imply that "majority makes right". Certainly Jesus and Paul could never have promoted that as a way to tell right from wrong.

My point is that in Rev 20:4 the point about the "souls coming to life" seems be be a valid one - I did not think I was getting into the "is the Millennium real" topic.

Rev 20
4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls[/b] of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and [b]they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

And they lived (kai ezhsan).
First aorist active indicative of zaw. If the ingressive aorist, it means "came to life" or "lived again" as in 2:8 and so as to verse 20:5.


But in 1Cor 15 this "future context" for the resurrection is just as clear as we see the future Rev 19 event of the 2nd coming, the future Rev 20 event of the binding of satan, resurrection of the saints, 1000 years and then great white throne judgment ending in the lake of fire "the 2nd death".

What we don't see is that in that future wicked people "get converted" and they then call that conversion "the first resurrection".

IF the text had said "The soul of Him who gave His life for the World came to life and this is the first resurrection" then we could pair it with 1Cor 15 showing again how HE came to life at HIS resurrection FIRST and then all the REST of the saints come to life in the future at His appearing - and your case would have a context for being made.

But with the text pointing to the 2nd coming AND the resurrection of the saints - instead of Christ -- I don't see how you get out of the fact that the souls of the saints are "coming to life".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well, I believe its the same souls under the altar of God and they were given White Robes. I think the meaning of "coming to life" could mean coming to life with Christ and reign or come from the state they are in under the altar to living with Christ.
For me to accept that it is yet to come then it would open up a whole new avenue for me of which Jesus never told me.

 

Rev 20 makes it clear that those sould who come to life - were already saints - had already given their lives for Christ were already classed among the "blessed and holy" even when they were fully joined with 'the rest of the dead".

Agreed?

Rev 19 is a future event - the 2nd coming -- Agreed?

Rev 20 and 21 area all showing future events -- agreed?

The "only reason" that you are moving Rev 20:4-8 to the past is that you want to see the literal 1000 years mentioned in the Gospels first - it has nothing to do with a plain exegetical reading of Rev 20 -- agreed?

What if we could use such a rule to delete every detail - every fact given in the NT that was not specifically given first in the Gospels???

Jesus never mentioned the 7 last plagues in Rev 16 - was John wrong about that?

Jesus never mentioned the 7 churches in Rev 2-3 - was John wrong about that?

Jesus never mentioned the rapture "catching up into the air" of 1Thess 4 - was Paul wrong about that?

Jesus never mentioned the apostacy coming from inside the Christians church that Paul mentioned in Acts 20 - was Paul wrong about that?

Can you honestly take such a direct teaching as the 1000 years that happen AFTER the Rev 19 2nd coming event - and say "I don't believe it since Christ did not mention that detail"?


I don't see how such a rule would be a principle of exegesis at all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Gotta go to church will answer when I get back.

 

1. Jesus never mentioned the 7 last plagues in Rev 16 - was John wrong about that?

Luk 3:7 ¶ Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.


2. Jesus never mentioned the 7 churches in Rev 2-3 - was John wrong about that?

1Cr 16:19 ¶ The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.


3. Jesus never mentioned the rapture "catching up into the air" of 1Thess 4 - was Paul wrong about that?

Jhn 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.


4. Jesus never mentioned the apostacy coming from inside the Christians church that Paul mentioned in Acts 20 - was Paul wrong about that?

Paul did

5. Can you honestly take such a direct teaching as the 1000 years that happen AFTER the Rev 19 2nd coming event - and say "I don't believe it since Christ did not mention that detail"?

Its not that I don’t believe it I think surely such an event the Lord would of mentioned it if it were still to come.


6. I don't see how such a rule would be a principle of exegesis at all.

I think it makes very good sense when you accept there has already been a Resurrection Jesus being the firstfruits and many of the bodies of the saints arose after He did and went into that Holy City.

I don't know how some deny there has already been a resurrection?

BBob

 

4. Jesus never mentioned the apostacy coming from inside the Christians church that Paul mentioned in Acts 20 - was Paul wrong about that?

Paul did

t 7:15¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

If looking at the Rev 19 picture of God destroying all humans left on earth is "not the wrath to come" then I don't know what is.

If looking at the 2Thess 1 picture of Christ revealed in flaming fire "dealing out retribution" at His second coming - consuming the wicked - is not "the wrath to come" I don't know what is.

STILL in all of that you do not get "darkness, boils, sun-scortching" (along with the details of the other plagues in Rev 16) and you don't get the wicked wiped out on a devastated desolated earth for the 1000 years millennium. All those "Details" are missing.

But if it is your claim that ALL those "details" can be assumed under the title "wrath to come" -- I am happy to go along with you on that.

After all -- ALL of that is in the Bible!

in Christ,

Bob

 

I agree about the "wrath to come" you quoted Bob.
Don't you think sometimes in Rev: that it is talking about the same time but in a different manner such as Rev 16 and Rev 19?
I think the scripture is plain that the wrath is the seven vials but it seems to me that it is told in different veiws but I could be wrong. Rev is very hard to understand. After all this then the "City is divided in three parts" that has thown me for years.


How or where can I find this at Bob?
(and you don't get the wicked wiped out on a devastated desolated earth for the 1000 years millennium)

 

Consider this - what if Rev 14 is literal and true - Rev 15 is literal and true - Rev 16 is literal and true - Rev 19 then follows 16 and Rev 20 follows 19 and Rev 21 follows Rev 20 etc?

What does that break for you?

What it means for me is that the work of Rev 15 happens in heaven prior to the Rev 19 second coming event AND prior to the Rev 16 out pouring of the 7 last plagues.

It means that the plagues are real and that they happen in sequence just as the text says -- and that sequence happens before the Rev 19 appearing of Christ.

I don't deny that the Rev 19 event killing all of mankind except the righteous that are raptured is in fact "wrath".

I don't deny that the 2Thess 1 event where Christ "appears in flaming fire" with many of His Holy ones "dealing out retribution" is the event of Rev 19 with Christ and the Armies of heaven appearing for battle at the 2nd coming.

2Thess 1 (the wrath of God)
5 This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.
6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you,
7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,
8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction[/b], away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed for our testimony to you was believed.

I don't deny that the "wrath of God" not ONLY spans all those details but ALSO spans the details of Rev 16 and the sequence of the seven last plagues.

I agree with you that the except for the 7 last plagues - the "sequence of sevens" in revelation often span the same 2000 years of time only it addresses religious, political, social views covering the same 2000 year span of literal time.

But in the case of the 7 last plagues they are a real sequence that really happens at the end of time - after the real Rev 14 and Real Rev 15 events take place. (Of course Rev 14 does jump right into the end of time with the lake of fire event starting in vs 12 - but aside from that leap forward in that chapter...). That tendancy of John to jump ahead of his story and show how it all ends now and then makes it confusing.

But in Rev 19 we see the "fierce wrath of God almighty" that consumes all people of all the earth - and forms the context where the wrath of God also results in the earth destroyed - cities ruined - all mankind wiped out "I looked and behold there was no man" as the OT says. Then the wrath of God continues at the end of the 1000 years with the lake of fire event. ALL of these judgment events are included under the one heading "the wrath of God".

Rev 19
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.
12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.


14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.
15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "" KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.''

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, [b]saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, "" Come, assemble for the great supper of God,
18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great.''
19 And I saw [b]the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies[/b] assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.[/b]


In Christ,

Bob