The Millennium, the 1000 years of Revelation 20...

[Checkpoint]

This thread stems from the following exchange between myself and Pinseeker:

PinSeeker wrote:

The millennium of Revelation 20 is not a future event. It was when Jeremiah prophesied, obviously, but is not anymore. Or, to be more exacting, it's no longer merely a future event.

Checkpoint asked:

Then why do so many believers think of it as yet future only?

Pinseeker explained:

For at least two reasons, I think:

1. A basic misunderstanding of Revelation as a whole, and the Millennium of chapter 20 included.

2. Many believers (primarily western believers) have bought into the heresy of the "rapture," which came about in the early 19th century. It's not that they are heretics, it's just that that's all they've ever been exposed to.

That's one take from one school of thought.

Your take may be similar or be completely different.

Please share it here, and tell us why you hold that position.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 70 by myth-one.com]

I think you missed something, myth. The 120 years refers to the amount of time mankind had before the flood would come. Noah himself lived to 950 years old. (Gen.9:29)

It is also the maximum lifespan of the human body:

Human Longevity Facts

[Checkpoint]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 55 by Checkpoint]

The meaning of verse 5 focuses on the rest of the dead (other than the co-rulers with Christ) "coming to life" when the thousand years were ended. What does "coming to
life" actually mean? Does it mean that the dead are resurrected AFTER the thousand years? Or does it mean that these dead have passed the test, if you will, of accepting the truth about God and Christ during the Millennial Reign, and then living according to the "new scrolls" that were opened when Armageddon was over (Rev.20:12), then making themselves eligible for everlasting life? The fact that these formerly dead people have now proven their faithfulness to God and Christ makes them approved to live forever---thus "coming to life".....the real life, the life that will never end.

This makes the most sense to me, and it's not just because someone said that is what verse 5 means.

Thank you for further explaining what makes the most sense to you, onewithhim.

However, that explanation is only possible when what the verse says is directly contradicted.

The verse says "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were over", doesn't it?

What did you say?

"that these dead have passed the test...during the Millennial Reign", didn't you?

They cannot do that while they remain dead until that reign is over.

Why on earth do I have to spell that out to you?

Where are you, onewithhim?

Grace and peace.

The verse says that the rest of the dead (other than the ones who participated in the first resurrection, who will rule with Christ) "did not come to life" until the thousand years were completed (NASB ). The issue is: What does it mean, that they "did not come to life"? Why does it have to mean "they weren't resurrected" until the thousand years were over"? Why can't it mean that they weren't eligible to LIVE FOREVER (really "coming to life") until the end of the thousand years?

This is not consistent with what 'came to life' meant in the preceding sentence with regard to the first resurrection.

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. (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.


When the verse states, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years", you correctly understand that this coming to life is referring to the first resurrection. Yes?


Came to life = the first resurrection.



Well, the immediate sentence afterward states that the rest of the dead do not come to life until the end of the thousand years. Using the same understanding you applied to the previous sentence and the first resurrection, the rest of the dead are not resurrected until the end of the thousand years.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

If only we knew just who "the rest of the dead" are!

Do you know?

God's grace and Jesus's peace to you, Tam.

[myth-one.com]

If only we knew just who "the rest of the dead" are!

Do you know?

God's grace and Jesus's peace to you, Tam.

It's really simple math.

Let: ALL DEAD HUMANITY = EVERY HUMAN WHO EVER DIED EXCEPT JESUS

Let: THOSE THAT ARE CHRIST'S = ALL DEAD CHRISTIANS

Every human is or is not a believer

Let ALL DEAD CHRISTIANS be resurrected to everlasting life at the first resurrection.

Following the first resurrection:

The Rest of THE Dead would then = ALL DEAD HUMANITY - THOSE THAT ARE CHRIST"S

The rest of the dead would then be (ALL HUMANITY

[tam]

Thank you for your wish of peace, and peace also to you!

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 55 by Checkpoint]

The meaning of verse 5 focuses on the rest of the dead (other than the co-rulers with Christ) "coming to life" when the thousand years were ended. What does "coming to
life" actually mean? Does it mean that the dead are resurrected AFTER the thousand years? Or does it mean that these dead have passed the test, if you will, of accepting the truth about God and Christ during the Millennial Reign, and then living according to the "new scrolls" that were opened when Armageddon was over (Rev.20:12), then making themselves eligible for everlasting life? The fact that these formerly dead people have now proven their faithfulness to God and Christ makes them approved to live forever---thus "coming to life".....the real life, the life that will never end.

This makes the most sense to me, and it's not just because someone said that is what verse 5 means.

Thank you for further explaining what makes the most sense to you, onewithhim.

However, that explanation is only possible when what the verse says is directly contradicted.

The verse says "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were over", doesn't it?

What did you say?

"that these dead have passed the test...during the Millennial Reign", didn't you?

They cannot do that while they remain dead until that reign is over.

Why on earth do I have to spell that out to you?

Where are you, onewithhim?

Grace and peace.

The verse says that the rest of the dead (other than the ones who participated in the first resurrection, who will rule with Christ) "did not come to life" until the thousand years were completed (NASB ). The issue is: What does it mean, that they "did not come to life"? Why does it have to mean "they weren't resurrected" until the thousand years were over"? Why can't it mean that they weren't eligible to LIVE FOREVER (really "coming to life") until the end of the thousand years?

This is not consistent with what 'came to life' meant in the preceding sentence with regard to the first resurrection.

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. (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.


When the verse states, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years", you correctly understand that this coming to life is referring to the first resurrection. Yes?


Came to life = the first resurrection.



Well, the immediate sentence afterward states that the rest of the dead do not come to life until the end of the thousand years. Using the same understanding you applied to the previous sentence and the first resurrection, the rest of the dead are not resurrected until the end of the thousand years.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

If only we knew just who "the rest of the dead" are!

Do you know?

Christ is the One who knows. We (myself included) can know what is true from Him. So I have been sitting here trying to figure out what to share about the rest of the dead, but then what I received in the spirit is so simple!




The rest of the dead are all (who have died) who did not take part in the first resurrection.



Of course! It's right there in the wording! The REST OF the dead...



Hope that helps!


Peace again to you, as Christ gives peace,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 102 by tam]

Tammy wrote

This is not consistent with what 'came to life' meant in the preceding sentence with regard to the first resurrection.

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. (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.


When the verse states, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years", you correctly understand that this coming to life is referring to the first resurrection. Yes?


Came to life = the first resurrection.



Well, the immediate sentence afterward states that the rest of the dead do not come to life until the end of the thousand years. Using the same understanding you applied to the previous sentence and the first resurrection, the rest of the dead are not resurrected until the end of the thousand years.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Checkpoint replied

If only we knew just who "the rest of the dead" are!

Do you know?

Tammy replied

Christ is the One who knows. We (myself included) can know what is true from Him. So I have been sitting here trying to figure out what to share about the rest of the dead, but then what I received in the spirit is so simple!

e rest of the dead are all (who have died) who did not take part in the first resurrection.



Of course! It's right there in the wording! The REST OF the dead...



Hope that helps!


Peace again to you, as Christ gives peace,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

It does but it doesn't tell us who exactly they are!

I mean, are they the people included in the first resurrection that were not beheaded and/or did not reign with Christ?

Or are they those who are not in the first resurrection but are instead in the second death group?

I am not yet comfortable with either alternative.

Are you?

The grace of God and the peace of Jesus be with you.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 65 by PinSeeker]

I'm sorry, PinSeeker. I can tell that to reason with you would be fruitless. You don't seem to be seeking the truth of matters.

Anyone who can't see clearly that if Christ TOOK BACK the sacrifice of his physical body, we would remain in our sins, doesn't understand the idea of the redemption and the restoration of the fulfillment of God's plan for humans to live on the earth and take care of it (making it into a paradise). You don't see any worth in the first few verses in Genesis, where Jehovah expressed His purpose for mankind and the earth. You seem to have missed what God said to Adam about his death---that he would return to the dust. Nothing about a spirit Adam not really dying but leaving his body to go somewhere else.

The point was missed that it was Satan, not God, who said that people DON'T REALLY DIE when they die. (Genesis 3:4)

But I cannot reason with most of the folks here.

Peace to you.

Um, onewithhim, I think you are attributing some of the things myth-one said in my discussion with him to me. Which, uh... well, uh... please, please, PLEASE don't do that...

That being said, though, regarding fruitlessness, if you're talking about it from your own point of view, then there's a good possibility of that, as I am very strongly opposed to a good many teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses... But I'm really of the opinion that no discussion is fruitless from God's point of view; His purposes cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2) and are always accomplished; His word never returns to Him empty/void (Isaiah 55:11).

Maybe you can point out a thing or two that I actually said and we can talk about it.

I apologize if I have thought that you said some things myth said, and vice versa. It would be too much for me to try and sort out who said what. It seems, if I can remember correctly, that you say that our physical bodies contain spirit bodies that can come and go from our physical bodies. There really aren't any scriptures that back this up. Would you answer my question in my last post to you, even though it might be aimed at someone else's post? I'd appreciate it.

[onewithhim]

If there are people who go to heaven, which there are, they are made alive in a SPIRIT body. No physical body can survive in heaven, the spirit world (I Corinthians 15: 50).

Right now, that's correct. Right now. But at the resurrection, no.

You say that they are returned to a physical body to be "redeemed and glorified." Aren't they ALREADY redeemed and glorified, once they go to heaven?

No, that's not what I said; you misunderstood, I guess. Yes, they are, but their bodies still await that.

There is no reason whatsoever for them to return to their physical life on Earth.

Oh, but there is. Heaven will actually come down to earth, as I said; earth and heaven will be one. This is the New Jerusalem, the new heavens and the new earth. It will be as physical as can be. Therefore the need for our physical bodies.

Another point I'd like to make....Jesus did not walk the earth, after his resurrection, in the physical body that he had when he died.

I don't think it would be a good idea to say that to Mary Magdelene or the other Mary when you meet those two ladies (Matthew 28:8-10)... or to the two men He spoke to on the road to Emmaus and then had dinner with that evening (Luke 24:13-35) when you meet them... or to Thomas when you meet him (John 20:24-29)... or to any of the other disciples (Luke 24:36-43) when you meet them... or to the other 500+ witnessess (1 Corinthians 15:6) when you meet them... They'd probably get a good -- loving, of course -- laugh.

If he had taken back that physical body, he would have taken back his SACRIFICE, and we would all still be in our sins.

This statement makes no sense at all...

The Scriptures say that he came to life as a spirit person.

• "It is even so written: 'The first man Adam became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (I Corinthians 15:45)
  
  "Even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the SPIRIT." (I Peter 3:18)

The contrast in 1 Corinthians 15 is between the spiritual and the natural/unspritual, not the a spiritual body and a physical body. Therefore, in verse 45, he does not mean an immaterial body but a body animated and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

In 1 Peter 3:18, "in the flesh" means in the visible, physical realm in whichg Jesus was crucified and "in the spirit" means in the invisible, spiritual realm where Christ now lives. This gels perfectly with what Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-6, that we are even now -- spiritually speaking -- saved by grace and thus raised up with Him and seated with Him and in Him in the heavenly places.

If you'll recall....Mary didn't recognize him when she went to see where he had lain in the tomb and he appeared to her, and the disciples he encountered on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him either until he spoke about many things having to do with himself, the Christ.

They were kept from recognizing Him at first, sure. But they eventually did; this happens to us from time to time, too, in our daily lives.

He did not have the same body he died with, and he had to materialize a physical body after his resurrection, just as the angels of ancient times did when they appeared to various ones.

Y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-yeah, I, um, disagree. Grace and peace to you.

PinSeeker, above is the post I thought I was addressing.
The disciples and Mary didn't recognize Jesus at first because he had materialized a different body. Do you not agree that spirit persons in ancient times materialized physical bodies when coming down to interact with such ones as Abraham and Lot? Those angels certainly did not exist in heaven with physical bodies.

You did indicate that "it makes no sense at all" that I said that if Jesus took back the physical body he died with that he would be annulling his bodily sacrifice for our sins. That was you, and I don't remember if myth said anything like that. What sense does it make to sacrifice a body and then take it back?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 102 by tam]

Tammy wrote

This is not consistent with what 'came to life' meant in the preceding sentence with regard to the first resurrection.

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. (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.


When the verse states, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years", you correctly understand that this coming to life is referring to the first resurrection. Yes?


Came to life = the first resurrection.



Well, the immediate sentence afterward states that the rest of the dead do not come to life until the end of the thousand years. Using the same understanding you applied to the previous sentence and the first resurrection, the rest of the dead are not resurrected until the end of the thousand years.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Checkpoint replied

If only we knew just who "the rest of the dead" are!

Do you know?

Tammy replied

Christ is the One who knows. We (myself included) can know what is true from Him. So I have been sitting here trying to figure out what to share about the rest of the dead, but then what I received in the spirit is so simple!

e rest of the dead are all (who have died) who did not take part in the first resurrection.



Of course! It's right there in the wording! The REST OF the dead...



Hope that helps!


Peace again to you, as Christ gives peace,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

It does but it doesn't tell us who exactly they are!

I mean, are they the people included in the first resurrection that were not beheaded and/or did not reign with Christ?

1 - The 'rest of the dead' do not take part in the first resurrection at all.

2 - All who are described here in the first resurrection reign with Christ.

**

(Some who are in Christ are still alive on the earth when He returns. They are not technically resurrected, because they did not actually die. But they are caught up and changed, in a twinkling as Paul describes it:

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 1 Corinth 15:51-52


Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that [Jesus] died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with [Jesus] those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 1 Thess 4:13-17


Those in Christ who have died, as well as those in Christ who are still alive when Christ returns, are all changed, and reign with Him in His Kingdom, as kings and priests.)

Or are they those who are not in the first resurrection but are instead in the second death group?

They are those who have died and who are not in the first resurrection. (I do not know what you mean when you say 'second death group'.) They are described here:


Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Rev 20:11-13


These are non-Christians who have died (from the beginning until this point). Some are resurrected to LIFE, and some are resurrected to judgment and the second death, all depending upon what they had done (as recorded in their scrolls).



Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[PinSeeker]

Okay, I'm going to combine your last two posts addressed to me, and I'll try to keep it concise...

I apologize if I have thought that you said some things myth said, and vice versa. It would be too much for me to try and sort out who said what. It seems, if I can remember correctly, that you say that our physical bodies contain spirit bodies that can come and go from our physical bodies. There really aren't any scriptures that back this up. Would you answer my question in my last post to you, even though it might be aimed at someone else's post? I'd appreciate it.

Well, I've never made a differentiation regarding human beings and spiritual vs physical bodies, much less said anything about our spiritual bodies "coming and going" from our physical bodies. That's all myth-one's, uh... conjecture, or, uh, assertions (to put it nicely... ).

I've always said, and will continue to say, that we do possess spirits; we have a spirit within our physical body. It seems to me that anyone with any modicum of understanding of Scripture would agree with that Scripture affirms this many, many times, even if they don't believe it. This is true even of unbelievers; all human beings have a soul, do they not? And would you not agree that your physical body and your soul are two different things? We can reference specific Scriptures that back me up on this; it seems to me that's not even necessary... but you tell me (if it's necessary).

If there are people who go to heaven, which there are, they are made alive in a SPIRIT body. No physical body can survive in heaven, the spirit world (I Corinthians 15: 50).

Right now, that's correct. Right now. But at the resurrection, no.

You say that they are returned to a physical body to be "redeemed and glorified." Aren't they ALREADY redeemed and glorified, once they go to heaven?

No, that's not what I said; you misunderstood, I guess. Yes, they are, but their bodies still await that.

There is no reason whatsoever for them to return to their physical life on Earth.

Oh, but there is. Heaven will actually come down to earth, as I said; earth and heaven will be one. This is the New Jerusalem, the new heavens and the new earth. It will be as physical as can be. Therefore the need for our physical bodies.

Another point I'd like to make....Jesus did not walk the earth, after his resurrection, in the physical body that he had when he died.

I don't think it would be a good idea to say that to Mary Magdelene or the other Mary when you meet those two ladies (Matthew 28:8-10)... or to the two men He spoke to on the road to Emmaus and then had dinner with that evening (Luke 24:13-35) when you meet them... or to Thomas when you meet him (John 20:24-29)... or to any of the other disciples (Luke 24:36-43) when you meet them... or to the other 500+ witnessess (1 Corinthians 15:6) when you meet them... They'd probably get a good -- loving, of course -- laugh.

If he had taken back that physical body, he would have taken back his SACRIFICE, and we would all still be in our sins.

This statement makes no sense at all...

The Scriptures say that he came to life as a spirit person.

• "It is even so written: 'The first man Adam became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (I Corinthians 15:45)
  
  "Even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the SPIRIT." (I Peter 3:18)

The contrast in 1 Corinthians 15 is between the spiritual and the natural/unspritual, not the a spiritual body and a physical body. Therefore, in verse 45, he does not mean an immaterial body but a body animated and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

In 1 Peter 3:18, "in the flesh" means in the visible, physical realm in whichg Jesus was crucified and "in the spirit" means in the invisible, spiritual realm where Christ now lives. This gels perfectly with what Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-6, that we are even now -- spiritually speaking -- saved by grace and thus raised up with Him and seated with Him and in Him in the heavenly places.

If you'll recall....Mary didn't recognize him when she went to see where he had lain in the tomb and he appeared to her, and the disciples he encountered on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him either until he spoke about many things having to do with himself, the Christ.

They were kept from recognizing Him at first, sure. But they eventually did; this happens to us from time to time, too, in our daily lives.

He did not have the same body he died with, and he had to materialize a physical body after his resurrection, just as the angels of ancient times did when they appeared to various ones.

Y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-yeah, I, um, disagree. Grace and peace to you.

PinSeeker, above is the post I thought I was addressing.
The disciples and Mary didn't recognize Jesus at first because he had materialized a different body. Do you not agree that spirit persons in ancient times materialized physical bodies when coming down to interact with such ones as Abraham and Lot? Those angels certainly did not exist in heaven with physical bodies.

Hmmmmm... a lot to chew on, here, in just a few words. I'll address the angels first:

I agree that angels do not have physical bodies; they do not have flesh and blood, although God can give them bodily form, and this He did, in instances described in the Old and New Testaments. They are spirits, not in the sense that God is Spirit, but created spirits. This was true in the past and will always be the case.

And now to Mary and the men on the road to Emmaus concerning their not recognizing him at first:

I strongly disagree that Mary didn't recognize Jesus at first "because He had materialized a different body." There is no Scriptural backup for this that I know of; all we know is that she didn't recognize Him at first (this is true also of the two men Jesus spoke to on the road to Emmaus shortly after His resurrection; more on that in a moment). In John 20, all we know about Mary is that she didn't know it was Jesus. You say it was because He had "materialized a different body," but nothing in Scripture indicates this, either in John 20 or elsewhere; there is really no reason given for why she didn't know it was Him.

In Luke 24, however, we read that the two men Jesus talked to on the road to Emmaus had their eyes "opened" (v.31) and were only then able to recognize Him. This was obviously the Lord's doing; He kept them from recognizing Him and then "opened their eyes" at the time of His choosing for a specific purpose.

I am inclined to say that the case with Mary is exactly the same -- He "opened her eyes" -- not immediately but at the time of His choosing -- for a specific purpose. What is that purpose? Well, we know from Scripture that only God can make the blind see (Isaiah 35, and more relevantly the three different occasions of Jesus healing blindness (Mark 8, Mark 10, and John 9). Each time, he physically healed the blindness of the men, but obviously, His purpose was much deeper than that, extending into the metaphorical as it pertained to spiritual blindness. In John 9, He affirmed this explicitly by saying, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind" (John 9:39).

The point is, in neither case -- Mary's or the men on the road to Emmaus, the initial inability to recognize Jesus was not "because Jesus had a different body." The Lord purposed not to allow them to recognize Him until the time he saw fit to "open their eyes" and cause them to recognize Him. With Mary, it was when she heard Him call her by name ("My sheep hear my voice" [John 10]); with the men on the Emmaus road when He broke bread and blessed it ("I am the bread... the living bread..." [John 6])

You did indicate that "it makes no sense at all" that I said that if Jesus took back the physical body he died with that he would be annulling his bodily sacrifice for our sins. That was you, and I don't remember if myth said anything like that. What sense does it make to sacrifice a body and then take it back?

Well, as a Jehovah's Witness, you will not accept my answer, but I will give it to you anyway: Jesus is God in the flesh:

• "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us... full of grace and truth... grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1)

He even said it:

• "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

And in taking on flesh, He did not become less than or unequal with God the Father in any way; Philippians 2 is crystal clear about this. Likewise, being raised from the dead -- in His physical body -- He is still not less than God the Father, either in holiness or in any other divine attribute. My question (not to you, but rather rhetorical, really) is, "What sense would it make to sacrifice Himself (and His body) and not take it back?" For this is the very means by which our faith and thus our salvation is secured and our resurrection to eternal life is assured:

• "...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied" (Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:17-19).

Grace and peace to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 106 by tam]

Hey, Tammy, I'm in 100% agreement with what you said in post 106. It's what I've been saying, or at least part of what I've been saying.

But still, I think the disagreement between us is concerning two things:

• 1. the nature of the Millennium... when it is:
  • a. future only, or
    b. from the resurrection of Jesus to His return
  2. when the first resurrection occurs:
  • a. at the very beginning of the Millennium
    b. through the course of the Millennium

My answer is 'b' in both cases.

I'm not sure where you are on the nature of the second resurrection and whether we will then be back in our physical bodies or not. Or maybe I'm getting old and starting to lose my memory...

Grace and peace to you!