Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

[Melach]

For those who hold to an Amillennial position, (usually stated as an indefinite amount of time starting from the cross to Christ's return), who are those in v.4 and are they reigning now with Christ?
Who are those in v.5 (rest of the dead)?
Which of these two is the 'first resurrection'? Both?

can i still answer? here goes:

yes they are reigning now with Christ and are the ones who die in Christ with His testimony.
the rest of the dead are all those who die outside of Christ
the first resurrection is to the christians. a spiritual resurrection mentioned in ephesians 2:5-6 for example.

note: i dont believe this myself. but thats what i know

 

[obedienttogod]

Please stick to the topic without ad hominems. People can dig up dirt on nearly everyone, even Jesus was falsely accused.

Yeshua also was not caught in the act of homosexuality either. Do you actually understand the term sodomy for those days? It meant, they caught another man's manhood in the mouth of Calvin. Either way, what sort of church claiming to be of God builds their principles upon a homosexual, and then preaches against churches pastored by homosexuals? The Baptist do

 

[crossnote]

Yeshua also was not caught in the act of homosexuality either. Do you actually understand the term sodomy for those days? It meant, they caught another man's manhood in the mouth of Calvin. Either way, what sort of church claiming to be of God builds their principles upon a homosexual, and then preaches against churches pastored by homosexuals? The Baptist do

Do you understand the concept of staying on topic these days?

 

[Melach]

Yeshua also was not caught in the act of homosexuality either. Do you actually understand the term sodomy for those days? It meant, they caught another man's manhood in the mouth of Calvin. Either way, what sort of church claiming to be of God builds their principles upon a homosexual, and then preaches against churches pastored by homosexuals? The Baptist do

rumors are rumors. this is offtopic, and most baptists arent reformed(calvinists).

@crossnote is my answer of any help? will there be a follow up question?

 

[obedienttogod]

Do you understand the concept of staying on topic these days?

You put Calvin in the same light as God (Yeshua),in the post of yours I last quoted. No one in their right and sound mind should let that go unnoticed.

And after all, just like the point you are attempting to make in this thread, can also be applied to my posts.

The TRUTH shall set you FREE!!

And you have been shown the TRUTH!!

 

[obedienttogod]

rumors are rumors. this is offtopic, and most baptists arent reformed(calvinists).

AMEN!!
Rumors are just that, Rumors...

But literal court documents are FACTS, which are everything else but a Rumor!!

 

[oldethennew]

Even though vs 25 says after the 1000 years?

The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. (Rev 20:5)

===============================
Cross,
REV. 20:5., at the very END, 'this is the FIRST RESURRECTION, = is a 'mis-statement' to our understanding.
the First Resurrection is CLEARLY explained in 1COR. 15, the whole CHAPTER is about the FIRST RESURRECTION,
it consists of 'those sanctified', but the 'resurrection' mentioned in REV. 20:5, is speaking of 'all humanity',
therefore, YOUNGS Literal Translation, although not exactly 'correct' to our 'English understanding', is
the BEST translation that we have...

the First Resurrection is at the Last-Trumpet, - many Scriptures EXPOUND on this...

 

[oldethennew]

Interesting in regards to the 1st resurrection "already taken place", can you expand on what you are saying here (is this from the amill perspective?)

Explain how Young's literal is helping here.

=================================
No Az,
it's NOT from an amil - when the scripture is speaking in a symbolic manner, it always gives us a
'clear-clue' - 'a 1000 year reign is a 1000 year reign'...

the YLT, although is not a great translation for 'English understanding', is Closer to the 'CORRECT MEANING'..,,
like we shared with Cross; 1COR. 15., is a 'detailed description of the First Resurrection', it only consists
of those that have 'received The Holy Spirit', for this is the guarantee of our 'INHERITANCE'...
there are not TWO FIRST RESURRECTIONS!
the Resurrection mentioned in REV. 20:5., of the Rest of the Dead, is ALL HUMANS that have ever LIVED,
(EXCLUDING those from the FIRST RESURRECTION), so, those called 'the rest of the dead', when they
'arise', it would better be called, to our English Understanding, (The Second Resurrection)...

let us remember, (we have an Hebrew Author, speaking in the Greek language, translated into English -
as it is written:
11TIM. 2:15.
Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing The Word of Truth.

 

[crossnote]

rumors are rumors. this is offtopic, and most baptists arent reformed(calvinists).

@crossnote is my answer of any help? will there be a follow up question?

It sounded approximately what the Amills believe, but since you don't believe it yourself, I'll take that into consideration

 

[crossnote]

You put Calvin in the same light as God (Yeshua),in the post of yours I last quoted. No one in their right and sound mind should let that go unnoticed.

And after all, just like the point you are attempting to make in this thread, can also be applied to my posts.

The TRUTH shall set you FREE!!

And you have been shown the TRUTH!!

Actually I put you in the same category as the smut news reporters. All I said was that they even accused Jesus of wrong doing. Of course He was sinless whereas Calvin wasn't. Now please, I'll report you if you keep this off topic stuff up.

 

[oldethennew]

Actually I put you in the same category as the smut news reporters. All I said was that they even accused Jesus of wrong doing. Of course He was sinless whereas Calvin wasn't. Now please, I'll report you if you keep this off topic stuff up.

============================================
this is just to ridiculous - come on Cross, where's your sense of humor???

 

[crossnote]

===============================
Cross,
REV. 20:5., at the very END, 'this is the FIRST RESURRECTION, = is a 'mis-statement' to our understanding.
the First Resurrection is CLEARLY explained in 1COR. 15, the whole CHAPTER is about the FIRST RESURRECTION,
it consists of 'those sanctified', but the 'resurrection' mentioned in REV. 20:5, is speaking of 'all humanity',
therefore, YOUNGS Literal Translation, although not exactly 'correct' to our 'English understanding', is
the BEST translation that we have...

the First Resurrection is at the Last-Trumpet, - many Scriptures EXPOUND on this...

You know, I have heard some amills explain the first resurrection as when we received Christ and the 2nd as everyone.

When you say 'all humanity', I assume you mean 'all unsaved humanity', correct?

 

[oldethennew]

You know, I have heard some amills explain the first resurrection as when we received Christ and the 2nd as everyone.

When you say 'all humanity', I assume you mean 'all unsaved humanity', correct?

===================================
Absolutey!!!

 

[dcontroversal]

Jesus will reign a 1000 years on the throne of his father David as the LION of JUDAH

NEXT

 

[crossnote]

============================================
this is just to ridiculous - come on Cross, where's your sense of humor???

If you see posts #16 &22 as humorous, then we have a different definition of humor.

 

[UnderGrace]

If you see posts #16 &22 as humorous, then we have a different definition of humor.

Nothing funny there.

 

[obedienttogod]

I don't see an Eschatology section, so I'll post this here...(Mods, if there is a more appropriate section, please move the thread there).

Revelation 20:4-5 NASBS
[4] Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls 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 they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. [5] The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

For those who hold to an Amillennial position, (usually stated as an indefinite amount of time starting from the cross to Christ's return), who are those in v.4 and are they reigning now with Christ?
Who are those in v.5 (rest of the dead)?
Which of these two is the 'first resurrection'? Both?

1. those on the thrones judging are the Bride of Yeshua
2. those beheaded were martyrs from the 7 year Tribulation
3. Both are reigning with Yeshua for 1,000 years
4. Both are part of the First Resurrection

Not sure how being a Calvinist or Amill makes any difference here at all?
In all Biblical versions, what is stated above ^ is found in every other version.

 

[crossnote]

1. those on the thrones judging are the Bride of Yeshua
2. those beheaded were martyrs from the 7 year Tribulation
3. Both are reigning with Yeshua for 1,000 years
4. Both are part of the First Resurrection

Not sure how being a Calvinist or Amill makes any difference here at all?
In all Biblical versions, what is stated above ^ is found in every other version.

Because an Amillennialist wouldn"t hold to #3, as he sees no literal 1000 years even though the Scriptures use that #.

 

[obedienttogod]

Because an Amillennialist wouldn"t hold to #3, as he sees no literal 1000 years even though the Scriptures use that #.

I think I need to study both views, or at least the Biblical principals each one stands for. I have never heard of this argument until I joined this site and noticed literally a ton of threads on it. It's hard to believe something like the views of John Calvin, and the views of the Amill's, have caused such a separate between members of the Baptist faith.

 

[Didymous]

Yeshua also was not caught in the act of homosexuality either. Do you actually understand the term sodomy for those days? It meant, they caught another man's manhood in the mouth of Calvin. Either way, what sort of church claiming to be of God builds their principles upon a homosexual, and then preaches against churches pastored by homosexuals? The Baptist do

You're seriously twisted.