FreeGrace

Actually, there is no assumption at all. Rev 20 CLEARLY states that martyrs from the Tribulation will "reign with Christ for 1,000 years. ps: that is a "millennium". "There are (Two) resurrections on this (Last Day) the righteous are blessed to be in the (First Resurrection) to eternal life, on such the (Second Death) resurrection has no power. 1.) (First Resurrection) To Life 2.) (Second Death) Resurrection To Damnation Revelation 20:6KJV 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." You skipped from v.4 to v.6. In v.5 we see there will be 1,000 years between the first and second resurrections. "John 5:28-29KJV 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." You talk about posters "assuming" stuff and here you are, assuming, yourself. The verses don't say the 2 resurrections occur at the same time, and Rev 20:5 says they are 1,000 years apart. So why do you ignore the verse that doesn't fit your scheme of things? "The (Last Day) Resurrection Of All Below Daniel 12:1-2KJV 1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." v.2 isn't about "the last day". v.1 shows that Michael stands up, THEN "there shall be a time of trouble", which is the 7 year Tribulation. You must explain why Daniel wrote "many of them that sleep (are dead) will wake up, some to life and others to shame, etc". It is clear this wording doesn't include all of humanity. So, where is the resurrection of everyone else? "John 6:39-40KJV 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." These 2 verses are about the resurrection of the saved only. So, the "last day" would be the last day before the MK. When Jesus comes back to earth. "1 Corinthians 15:21-24KJV 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." This is about the resurrection of the saved ONLY. Not about the unsaved. "24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." So you seem to assume that "the end" will occur immediately after the resurrection of the saved then. Why? v.24 clearly speaks of the MK which Jesus will "deliver up to God" after finally defeating Satan. "The (Last Day) Judgement John 12:48KJV 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." My hunch is that you think every mention of "last day" means the same thing. That would be another assumption. There is a "last day" of life on earth when Jesus comes. When He comes, all believers will receive glorified bodies, and the MK begins. That will be a different life on earth, with glorified believers having bodies higher than angels. And reigning with Christ. There will be a "last day" of the MK, when Jesus Christ defeats Satan at the battle of Gog and Magog. Context is king.

This is just getting kinda weird. This is exactly what the Bible says: Rev 20:4 - I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. I don't know what you might think "came to life" means, but it clearly means they were resurrected. And then John wrote that they "reigned with Chrit a thousand years". What do you think John meant by writing v.4? What metaphors do you think he was using? "as the Greek word "Zao"for "They Lived" was used and not the Greek "Anastasis" for resurrection, Strongs G386 Strongs G2198, Greek "Zao" for "They Lived" was used in Revelation 20:4 below in bold underline Mark 12:27 below is just one example in the translation of the Greek "Zao" simply showing the Christian Martyrs in Revelation 20:4 are of the living in God,they aren't resurrected as claimed Strongs G2198 "Zao" (The Living)" When a BEHEADED person then LIVES, what ELSE would you call it but a resurrection from the dead. I don't think you are being in the least reasonable. The verse clearly describes them as having been beheaded for Christ and refusing the mark of the beast or his image. All of this refers directly to the Great Tribulation. So, they DIED in the Tribulation, and "lived again" at the Second Advent and "reigned with Christ for 1,000 years". But you don't believe v.4, from all you've posted. It is too clear to ignore or reject.

It's the easiest way to "explain away" passages that don't fit one's personal opinion of what the Bible says.

What I deny is the totally unacceptable notion that the MK is only figurative and not literal. So whatever ELSE one may say about Scripture is clouded in that huge error. Since you can't explain Rev 20:5 about "the rest of the dead" being resurrected 1,000 years later, you are not in a position to explain anything else. Rev 20 is as clear as can be. Tribulational martyrs are resurrected and will reign with Christ for 1,000 years. I can't imagine how to explain all that as a metaphor for something else. It's straightforward and clear. And all of it makes sense. For one who is confused, facts are confusing to them. I reject the notion of "soul sleep" as well. The Bible uses "sleep" figuratively for physical death. That is made clear in John 11 and the death of Lazarus. Jesus said he was sleeping. And Jesus had to explain to His dullard disciples what He meant; Lazarus is DEAD. ie: not sleeping. DEAD. Big difference.

I don't see how your view stands in light of Rev 20:5,6. It is very plain that the two resurrections are 1,000 years apart. "All that are in the Graves shall come forth, to the final judgment (The End) The Resurrection To Eternal Life The Resurrection To Eternal Damnation John 5:28-29KJV 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." There is nothing in these 2 verses that says both resurrections occur together. And Rev 20 refutes that in plain words. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. Do you notice that the resurrection mentioned in v.5 is called the FIRST resurrection? Words mean things. Then, in v.6 the FIRST resurrection is mentioned again. So the parenthesis in v.5 is the SECOND resurrection. The resurrection of the saved and unsaved CANNOT be at the same time. Unless you want to cut v.5 and 6 out of the Bible. I'm not willing to do that. You are fighting against the Bible.

Since 1 Cor 15:23 is very clear about there being just ONE resurrection of the saved, and we know that Jesus comes back at the Second Advent, all references to resurrection or "His coming", "gathering" or "caught up" are about the Second Advent, when the single resurrection of the saved will occur.

I am not deceived. Rev 20 couldn't be any more clear about a literal reign for 1,000 years.

<sigh>

I haven't "falsely assumed" anything. Based on Rev 20 it is you who falsely assume that Rev 20 isn't literal. It most assuredly is. So there is no reason for further discussion. I won't persuade you and you certainly won't persuade me. I hope you have a nice day.

Sorry, but you just really misunderstand Rev 20, which is crystal clear. I proved there will be one resurrection for the saved, which is at the Second Advent, and one for the unsaved, 1,000 years later, which means the end of the MK. What I find interesting is that at the end of your post you quote Rev 20:9 - And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. So who do you think this verse is referring to, if not the earth dwellers at the end of the MK?

The answer is rather simple, as Scripture is clear about who and when. First, the Bible teaches that there will be two resurrections; one for the saved and one for the unsaved. Dan 12:2 - Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. John 5:29 - and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. Acts 24:15 - and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 1 Cor 15:23 tells us WHEN the resurrection of the saved will occur. "But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him." In the NT, all references to the "coming of the Lord" refer to the Second Advent. Because the OT prophesies of TWO advents of the Lord. First was as a baby to become the "suffering servant", and the second will be as King of king and Lord of lords. So 1 Cor 15:23 specificlly places the resurrection at the Second Coming. Also, 2 Thess 2:1 - Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, And this verse also places the resurrection and gathering at the Second Advent. Rev 20- 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. This passage also places the resurrection at the Second Advent, by noting the Tribulatonal martyers "coming to life" and "reigning with Christ for 1,000 years. In v.5 the parenthesis is a reference to the single resurrection of all unbelievers, which will occur after the MK, or 1,000 years. So we know that the two resurrections are 1,000 years apart. The saved will be resurrected at the Second Advent, and the unsaved will be resurrected to appear before the GWT judgment, and then be cast into the LOF. The LOF is also called the "second death". This refers to their physical and still mortal bodies, which will die again when cast into the LOF. However, their souls will "be tormented day and night, for ever and ever" per Rev 20:10.

Scripture is always a very good idea!

All believers will be in the resurrection, which will be "in the air" or "in the cloud". But that's not the issue. The common view of "rapture" means a glorified trip to heaven. But the Bible never describes such a trip. If this forum does polls, why not have a poll on what people think the 'rapture' is?

Given all the facts surrounding the singular resurrection of the saved, I view Rev 14 as a "look-ahead" of what's coming. Therefore, those "caught up to the clouds" would simply be a reference to the coming resurrection including the living believers joining the huge crowd of saints from heaven. I think the word "rapture" shouldn't be used, because of the common understanding that living believers will be caught up to heaven. They won't be.

There have been no clear verses presented that shows Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven, if that is what you mean by rapture. Since there is only one resurrection and it includes ALL believers from Adam forward, and we know from Rev 20:4-6 that the resurrection of believers is after the Tribulation, every verse/passage that mentions being "caught up" or "gathered together" refers to the Second Advent.

Paul was comparing the Jews, who were given the LAW with Gentiles who had the LAW "written on their hearts". What's the difference? Nothing. iow, God makes sure that everyone has a conscience. From your statement it seems you believe that only Gentiles have a conscience, and not the Jews. "We are conformed to be like Christ through the Holy Spirit working with in us, not be human reasoning, including having the mind of Christ." So you discount the God given conscience? "You have given me your theology, which is not restricted to what is written in scripture." No, I gave you my opinion, not my theology. My theology is exactly what Scripture SAYS. "How many worldly kings are God?" Never mind. You really missed the point. You want me to believe that Jesus could very well rule from heaven, or make trips to heaven during the MK. I asked a question that is relatively LIKE your view. Why would a king rule from a far country? I think you are just punting. You won't answer my question because you probably see how silly such an arrangement looks But what ever.

It seems there are a number of things that are NOT obvious to you as well. " If everyone treated scripture according to what seems obvious to them when it's not written, there would be as many theories as the sand in the sea, but we are not called to follow such theories, but the truth He has provided us through His word." When Scripture is silent on a specific issue, all we have is what is obvious. I gave you my explanation. You are free to do with it as you wish.

Oh, you're gonna just love my response here. You are assuming the "last trumpet" is the 7th trumpet. Says who? Why can't the "last trumpet" be just that, the LAST THING that occurs just before Jesus returns. Remember that the 7th trumpet is a judgment trumpet. iow, that means the Tribulation is STILL under God's wrath. Do you think that Jesus will return to earth DURING the wrath of God being poured out on earth? I don't think so. "If you look for the last time a trumpet is claimed to be blown in scripture it is the 7th trumpet of Revelation 11:15." 1 Thess 4 1 Thess 15:52 both mentions the "last trumpet" at Christ's return. Where do you get that the "last trump" is the 7th. I believe that Jesus doesn't return until ALL of God's wrath has been poured out on the earth. So the trumpet that announces Christ's return is AFTER the 7th trumpet.

Let's just turn this around a bit: I'm asking you to provide Scripture for your suggestion that Jesus may rule from heaven, or at least make trips to heaven during the MK. Do you have any? "You made claims you call truth and I ask for proof. It really is that simple, yet we continue to go in the same circles after pages of discussion. If there is proof, I'd love to read it in scripture. If they are just a theory you have, that's fine too, but at least admit they are just a theory and not treat them as if they were facts from scripture without providing the scripture. That would put an end to running in circles." Where did I call my beliefs "truth". It should be obvious to anyone who reads my posts that I am explaining what I think will be, since the Bible doesn't make definitive statements. Obviously it is my opinion. But my opinion has more reasonableness than your opinion about Jesus taking trips to heaven or ruling from heaven. Kind of like having not having to argue the need to breathe. It's obvious. If it's not obvious to you that Jesus rules ON earth, that's fine.

Did I say that Jesus "must rule" from earth? I believe that He does because that is quite reasonable. But you are free to believe that He WILL rule from anywhere. Aren't you trying to "fill in the gaps" by suggesting that He could rule from heaven. This isn't even a real debate anyway. "And once again we can agree that those who are resurrected in the rapture will always be with Jesus, as scripture comes right out and says that. What it does not say is that those believers who are alive and remain at the time of the rapture never go to heaven, as you claim, yet they are always with Jesus. So if they can never go to heaven, then the bi-product of what you are saying is that Jesus can never return to heaven either since they are always with Him." What makes sense? You believe that Jesus COULD rule from heaven. OK. Fine. So what? What does it matter where He rules EARTH from? I believe that the living believers won't see the 3rd heaven because there are no verses that even suggest that they will. And I'm reasonable. Certainly, they will remain with Jesus. But if your suggestion that Jesus COULD rule from heaven, that would mean, from what Scripture says, is that ALL believers "will be with Him forever". So who's watching "the store", so to speak? Since the MK is ON earth, it only makes sense that Jesus will be ON earth and all believers with Him will be ON earth. Your last sentence is a bit of a twist. You are putting the emphasis on the wrong part. Yes, believers will always be with Jesus forever. If you can prove that Jesus WILL go to heaven during the MK, make your case. If you can't there's no reason to even consider it. There is no reason why Jesus would rule from heaven. There is EVERY reason he will rule ON earth.

But why would one "guess"? Seems you are about as guilty of what you claim I am guilty of.

OK. And my human reasoning comes from my God given conscience, from Rom 2:14,15. That's why God gave humanity the ability to know right from wrong. Of course God is not limited to what humans are limited to. That is a silly question. How have I "limited God to time or space" as you charge? Please quote me on that. I have given you much but you seem to need what doesn't need to be written. How many kings do you know who rule their country from a far away country?

OK, I guess some things are just not very obvious to you. But the Bible wasn't written for the ones who demand, require, request, or want everything spelled out. Didn't happen.

There is NO doubt that Jesus CAN "rule where He wants", but again, common sense and a functioning reason will agree that since those He rules will be ON earth, He will rule ON earth. Does the Bible tell us that we need to breathe? No. It's obvious that we need to breathe. I think your "arguments" are on that line of "reasoning".