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 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!

If the Millennium occurs "from the resurrection of Jesus to His return," hasn't that already been over 2,000 years?

That would be two millenniums.

And if the first resurrection occurs "through the course of the Millennium," then all of those resurrected could not spend the Millennium with Christ as the Bible states:

...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4)

[myth-one.com]

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?

Jesus was a man, and it is appointed unto all men once to die:

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

Thus, Jesus' first death was appointed as a consequence of His being born a man.

Since the death of His body was appointed, it was not His to offer as a "bodily sacrifice for our sins."

Actually, the first death is not even the wages for our sins.

The wages of our sins is the "second death."

=======================================================================

Our salvation is based on Jesus living a sinless life and thus becoming an heir to everlasting under the Old Testament Covenant.

Jesus then has something to "barter" with!

He then offers His inheritance of everlasting life to those who accept Him as their Savior.

Thus salvation becomes a gift of God through Jesus Christ.

[tam]

Peace to you 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.

"A" 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...

The second resurrection is not for anyone who already took part in the first resurrection.


This is necessarily so:


The dead in Christ are the ones who take part in the first resurrection, yes? I think most everyone here accepts this truth.

Well... the passage then refers to the REST of the dead (who do not come to life until the thousand years are ended). The "rest of the dead" is necessarily referring to all the dead except those who took part in the first resurrection.

That's why they are called the REST of the dead.


I do not know if I can make this more clear, so please bear with me.


Lets say there are a million dead people at the start of a year. Of those million dead people, the dead in Christ are resurrected first: called the first resurrection. At the end of the year, however, the REST of the dead are resurrected. You are not re-resurrecting those who have already been resurrected. You are necessarily resurrecting the REST of the dead, those who were not resurrected the first time around.





Feel free to ask for clarification if needed.




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

[PinSeeker]

"A" in both cases.

Okay, yeah. Disagree strongly. I respect your opinion, but it's wrong. B on both. You think I'm wrong. Understood.

The second resurrection is not for anyone who already took part in the first resurrection.

Disagree strongly. The first resurrection is preliminary, while the second resurrection is final and last. This is parallel to the fact that the first death is preliminary, while the second is final and last. I think you agree with this...

The second resurrection is clearly bodily resurrection. It is clearly the remedy for the first death, bodily death. I think you agree with this...

Conversely, the first resurrection is a kind of remedy for the second death, according to 20:6. The first resurrection guarantees freedom from the second death. I think you agree with this...

The second resurrection is a general one, for everyone...

• "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment." (Jesus, John 5:28-29)

... but the ones who received the first resurrection will avoid the second death; in the same way, those who don't receive the first resurrection are certain to receive the second death, and those who receive the second death are consigned to hell for eternity. But indeed, the second resurrection is general in nature and is either a resurrection to eternal life or eternal judgment, depending on where one stands in relation to Jesus (repentance and belief or lack thereof). I think, if I'm understanding you correctly, you disagree that the second resurrection is general and for everyone. If so, then... well I disagree.

The dead in Christ are the ones who take part in the first resurrection, yes? I think most everyone here accepts this truth.

Not sure "everyone here accepts this," but I do. But we disagree on the nature of the first resurrection, apparently. The first resurrection occurs when we become Christians, while we are still alive, bodily, in this life. You and I have already experienced it. This resurrection is spiritual in nature is exactly what Paul talks about here:

• "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (Romas 8:11)

...and here:

• "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..." (Ephesians 2:4-6)

And Peter also, here:

• "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time...." (1 Peter 1:3-5)

All believers experience the first resurrection; it's when they are born again of the Spirit and are thus Christians. Not all believers experience the second resurrection, but only because they are still alive when Christ returns and there is no need for a bodily resurrection as they are already bodily present; likewise, not all unbelievers experience the second resurrection, because they are likewise still alive when Christ returns and are already bodily present.

Well... the passage then refers to the REST of the dead (who do not come to life until the thousand years are ended). The "rest of the dead" is necessarily referring to all the dead except those who took part in the first resurrection. That's why they are called the REST of the dead.

Yeah, I already agreed with this, but will do so again here...

Lets say there are a million dead people at the start of a year. Of those million dead people, the dead in Christ are resurrected first: called the first resurrection. At the end of the year, however, the REST of the dead are resurrected. You are not re-resurrecting those who have already been resurrected. You are necessarily resurrecting the REST of the dead, those who were not resurrected the first time around.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to re-explain that; I said you were correct (or rather, I agreed) on this point in my last post.

Feel free to ask for clarification if needed.

None needed.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 112 by PinSeeker]
The scriptures explain it in much fewer words!

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (I Corinthians 15:22-23)

Christ was resurrected first. Christians will be resurrected next at the Second Coming, and then spend a thousand years with their Lord:

...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4)

And non-Christians will be resurrected a thousand years after the Christians:

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. . . . (Revelation 20:5)

[tam]

Peace to you pinseeker!


Before getting into the entire post, I need to question you about something:

The second resurrection is not for anyone who already took part in the first resurrection.

Disagree strongly - Pinseeker

How can you disagree with this statement, and yet at the same time agree with this statement:

Well... the passage then refers to the REST of the dead (who do not come to life until the thousand years are ended). The "rest of the dead" is necessarily referring to all the dead except those who took part in the first resurrection. That's why they are called the REST of the dead.

Yeah, I already agreed with this, but will do so again here... - Pinseeker

The two statements are synonymous; they are saying the exact same thing. How can you disagree with one, and agree with the other?




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

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 106 by tam]

Checkpoint asked

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

Tammy answered

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

1.The passage you quoted is incomplete; it ends at verse 15.

2. I do not know what you meant by those words you put in brackets.

Please clarify.

3. No non-Christians will be resurrected to LIFE.

The Judgment will separate all people into two groups.

Believers comprise the "First Resurrection" group, and unbelievers comprise the "Second Death group.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[onewithhim]

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.

We do know. The verses first speak of those that take part in the first resurrection, which are those that are chosen to rule in heaven with Christ. Verse 4 says "they came to life and ruled with Christ... for 1,000 years." At the time they "came to life," they immediately received immortality, thus their "coming to life" has the same meaning as it does for the rest of the dead after the thousand years. Both groups "come to life," or, attain everlasting life, at different times....those of the first resurrection before the thousand years, and the rest of the dead after the thousand years.

"The rest of the dead" are those who will be resurrected back to life on Earth. They will all be eligible to live forever, without having to die again, after the thousand years have ended. During that thousand years, Christ and his co-rulers will have made sure that everyone that they resurrect are told the truth about God and his purposes, and they will then have the knowledge they need to make an informed decision concerning whether or not they want to obey Jehovah and Jesus and live under their sovereignty forever.

Sadly, some will willfully turn against Jehovah and follow Satan into destruction (Rev.20:7,8). But they will have no excuse. They will have been completely informed, and given the chance to live under Jesus' rule for a thousand years, and then make up their minds which way they want to go.

[onewithhim]

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.

To answer part of your post---No, I do not believe that one's body and soul are two different things. The Scriptures show that the "soul" is the complete person, everything about him. Even animals are souls.

God made Adam "a living soul." Notice that God did not give Adam a soul. Adam became a soul (Genesis 2:7). Humans are souls...we don't have a soul inside us that separates at death.

"Soul" and "spirit" are two different things. The spirit we have within us is God's power that is keeping us alive, not something that remains conscious after we die. It "returns to God who gave it" merely in the sense that the power essentially goes back to God, since the person is no longer alive, and that person's future is fully in God's hands.

"Soul" in Hebrew is ne'phesh and in Greek psykhe. Again, in examining the way these terms are used in the Bible, it is evident that they refer to (1)people, (2)animals, or (3)the life that a person or animal has. (See Genesis 1:20; 2:7; Numbers 31:28; IPeter 3:20.)

The Bible shows that "soul" refers to earthly creatures---to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

"Spirit" is ru'ach in Hebrew, and pneu'ma in Greek. These terms have a number of meanings, but none of them mean something within a person that remains conscious after death and separates, consciously, after death, to go somewhere else.


To sum up....the body is part of the soul


Now, further, you stated that Jesus Christ is God. This contradicts Jesus' own words throughout the Gospels. At John 17:3 Jesus says clearly that his Father (Jehovah) is "the only true God." He even calls the Father "my God" (John 20:17). He does so after his return to heaven as well (Revelation 3:12), so it wasn't just something he said while on Earth.

John 1:1 deserves some research. You will find that John did not refer to the Word (Jesus) as the almighty God. He was with the almighty God, as it clearly states. A person cannot be WITH someone and at the same time BE that someone. There is the issue of the definite and indefinite articles that should be studied by any student of the Bible, and it is possible to learn the difference and how Greek should be translated into English, even if we don't know Greek.

When Jesus said "I and the Father are one," he certainly did not mean that they were the same Person. He meant it exactly the same way that he referred to his disciples in the 17th chapter of John. He said:

"I make request [concerning his disciples] so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one."

So... the disciples can be "one" with Jesus and the Father. Does that mean that the disciples are also God?



(I think that being "one" simply means being in agreement; in union with....don't you?)

[PinSeeker]

To sum up....the body is part of the soul.

I agree, and that's at least part of the reason the body and the spirit will be reunited after a brief time apart (if the person has died physically prior to Jesus's return). But the physical body and soul/spirit can be separated (by God) for a time; this is what happens at the time of physical death, the first death (those who experience it anyway, because not all will... some will still be alive at the time of Jesus's return and thus their soul/spirits will never be separated from their bodies).

Now, further, you stated that Jesus Christ is God. This contradicts Jesus' own words throughout the Gospels. At John 17:3 Jesus says clearly that his Father (Jehovah) is "the only true God." He even calls the Father "my God" (John 20:17). He does so after his return to heaven as well (Revelation 3:12), so it wasn't just something he said while on Earth.

Yes, there are times that Jesus speaks to God the Father in His human form, His flesh:

• * John 17 is a great example, but that is in contrast to John 10; more on that in a moment.
  
  * John 20 is a great example, too, in the verse you point out (v.17), but... well, more on John 20 in a moment, also.
  
  * And Revelation 3... actually, chapters 1, 2, and 3... belong in this category, too, as He is speaking to John in a vision (not from heaven) and tells John what to write to the seven churches.

In all these cases (John 17:3, John 20:17, and Revelation 1-3), absolutely nothing is done, spoken or otherwise, to diminish or reduce His divinity, deity, his status as the Second Person in the Godhead one iota.

John 1:1 deserves some research. You will find that John did not refer to the Word (Jesus) as the almighty God.

No, he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Yes, John's very next sentence is, "He was in the beginning with God." John speaks two truths here (obviously), a. that God the Father and God the Son are both part of the Godhead, and b. that God the Father and God the Son are two distinct persons.

There is the issue of the definite and indefinite articles that should be studied by any student of the Bible, and it is possible to learn the difference and how Greek should be translated into English, even if we don't know Greek.

Much agreed; absolutely correct.

When Jesus said "I and the Father are one," he certainly did not mean that they were the same Person. He meant it exactly the same way that he referred to his disciples in the 17th chapter of John. He said:

• "I make request [concerning his disciples] so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one."

So... the disciples can be "one" with Jesus and the Father. Does that mean that the disciples are also God? (I think that being "one" simply means being in agreement; in union with....don't you?)

I don't completely disagree with you here, but you said it yourself ("simply"); it is not "simple" at all. I'm sure you're not intentionally doing this, but you're "cherry-picking," or at least unintentionally failing to take into account other parts of Scripture and/or even other things that Christ Himself said. This is a magnificent example of what I just said. In John 17, Jesus, in His state as a man, is praying to God the Father in his humanity. As I said, His being in this state did not diminish or reduce his divinity, deity, his status as the Second Person in the Godhead one iota.

• As an aside, we can see this plainly in what Paul says later: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:5-8). But I digress.

So again, Jesus is speaking as a man in John 17.

Now. Back to John 20. As I said, in verse 17, Jesus speaks to Mary as a man, in His human form. But we cannot discount what Thomas says later in the same chapter, when, after seeing (and feeling) the reality of Jesus's resurrection, answers Jesus and says, "My Lord and my God!" Now, as a Jehovah's Witness, you may discount this as a simple exclamation of sorts or a display of amazement, but consider at least two things:

• 1. Jesus doesn't correct Thomas by saying, "No, I'm not God..."
  
  2. Jesus actually confirms what Thomas just said by saying "Because you have seen Me, have you believed?" So unlike 20:17 where He speaks to Mary as a man, In verse 29 He speaks to Thomas as God.
  
  3. Yes, Thomas is the one who actually calls Jesus God, but this is the Word of God, and every bit of it is true.

And now finally back to John 10. John 10, onewithhim, is a very different story. There, He affirms His deity and speaks very clearly (well of course, He always speaks clearly... ) as part of the Godhead, saying, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one."