Tammy, with all due respect, I have no idea where you are. Let's recap:
Yes, I agreed with what you wrote in post 106 (mostly; except for the very last thing you said), but after that, in the same response (my post 108), I said:
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.
Your response was A in both cases (which I suspected would be the case). And then in that same response (Post 111), you said:
- 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 responded to that post in the next post (112) and said quite a few things, disagreeing with some things and agreeing with others, but that's really irrelevant to where I'm going with this... You responded to 112 in post 114 by putting most everything I said in 112 on the back burner, so to speak, to say the following:
- Before getting into the entire post, I need to question you about something:
- tam wrote:
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:
- tam wrote:
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?
This is exactly what I responded to in post 120... those two statements that you made are not synonymous.
So now you say that what I said, "The second resurrection includes ALL PEOPLE -- the saved (who all took part in the first resurrection; this is a consequence of being saved) and the unsaved", is the exact opposite of what you said in post 106. Well that's certainly not true; in 106 you said:
- 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... Those in Christ who have died, as well as those in Christ who are still alive when Christ returns, are all changed... They are those who have died and who are not in the first resurrection.
In post 106, you're talking about the first resurrection, not the second, and in 111, the conversation has shifted to talking about the second resurrection rather than the first... because of my further questions in post 108.
And then the last part of your most recent post (123) is very puzzling. You quoted me as saying:
- So:
- A. The second resurrection IS for those who participated in the first resurrection (the saved); therefore, my strong disagreement with what you said
and:
- B. The second resurrection IS ALSO for "the rest of the dead" in Revelation 20, which refers to -- as you said and I agreed with -- all the dead except those who took part in the first resurrection; therefore my agreement with what you said regarding "the rest of the dead" in Revelation 20
... but then said:
- You're not seeing what I wrote, Pinseeker:
1 - Concerning "B"... there is no "ALSO" in either of my statements.
2 - Still concerning "B"... I said the second resurrection is for all the dead EXCEPT those who took part in the first resurrection. Meaning no one in the first resurrection takes part in the second resurrection. Synonymous.
So, first off, I think you're thinking -- somehow, inadvertently -- that your quote of ME is actually something YOU said (A and B above). Maybe not, but it sure seems that way. Second, concerning number 1, I know very well there's no "also" in either of your statements; you're quoting me in my rebuttal to you, remember? And concerning number 2, I know very well what you're saying with the "except" in this sentence, both then and now. I agree that your two statements (1 and 2 above) are synonymous. In both cases, the're both wrong.
But in post 112, the two statements you made (see above) were not synonymous; therefore my disagreement with the first and my agreement with the second.
I think the problem is that all these posts are running together for you. And I get that; t0his thread is very disjointed... not only between me and you, but with all the others posting here, too. It would be much easier to just sit down over a cold beer (or a smoothie, if you prefer) and have a conversation about these things. But as it is, I think it's you who's not quite following along. I'm not bothered at all and don't mind any "genuine amusement," even if it's at my expense, buuuut... Well, I'm just kind of shaking my head.
Grace and peace to you, though.
