Gino Jennings End Times

[Michael The Disciple]

Sorry Mike,

This is way off.

Rev. 20:5

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed 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 have initial salvation happening for thousands of years while the mark of the beast is occuring. The first resurrection is ALWAYS HAPPENING over thousands of years and we are supposed to see THAT.......as THE FIRST RESURRECTION?

You have the first resurrection happening BEFORE the mark of the beast ever happens. This spiritualization takes one FAR from what the text is saying.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Sorry Mike,

This is way off.

Rev. 20:5

You have initial salvation happening for thousands of years while the mark of the beast is occuring. The first resurrection is ALWAYS HAPPENING over thousands of years and we are supposed to see THAT.......as THE FIRST RESURRECTION?

You have the first resurrection happening BEFORE the mark of the beast ever happens. This spiritualization takes one FAR from what the text is saying.

thanks for a kind response to my notes. Now just take a listen to what I have to say about that. It's something I don't think you noticed, because I never noticed it before.

Hold on a bit.

There are several groups of people described in Revelation 20 in taking part in the first resurrection. John sees people sitting on Thrones before anything is mentioned about the Beast.

They are given judgment before The Souls of them that were beheaded are mentioned.

So the ones on Thrones that were given judgment are a different group of people from The Souls that were beheaded.

So far we have two groups of people. And then he sees people who refuse the mark of the beast.

People given judgment sitting on Thrones refers to people that were already saved and in the first resurrection seated with Jesus Christ in Heavenly places ruling with him.

Those who have been beheaded for Christ are the second group, and it is analogous to John the Baptist being beheaded who stood for all the prophets of the Old Testament and the Old Testament Saints. Law and the prophets were until John, and John is greatest of the prophets. So this is saying that Old Testament Saints who are already dead are now entered into the kingdom upon the atonement made by Jesus when he ascended into heaven. So they're part of the first resurrection of salvation.

Then it's talking about another people who refused the mark of the beast. These are obviously people already saved. They are all in the first resurrection of Salvation.

He saw souls, not bodies raised from graves here.

So, from those who already were given judgment sitting on Thrones, to the second group represented by the beheading speaking of Old Testament Saints or Redeemed by Christ's atonement, and a third group of people who resisted the mark of the beast decades after the church was already born and ruling, we see all these people being in the first resurrection which is salvation.

And they won't taste of the second death which is going into the Lake of Fire. If you're saved you're not going to hell in the Lake of Fire.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by mfblume

thanks for a kind response to my notes. Now just take a listen to what I have to say about that. It's something I don't think you noticed, because I never noticed it before.

Hold on a bit.

There are several groups of people described in Revelation 20 in taking part in the first resurrection. John sees people sitting on Thrones before anything is mentioned about the Beast.

They are given judgment before The Souls of them that were beheaded are mentioned.

So the ones on Thrones that were given judgment are a different group of people from The Souls that were beheaded.

So far we have two groups of people. And then he sees people who refuse the mark of the beast.

People given judgment sitting on Thrones refers to people that were already saved and in the first resurrection seated with Jesus Christ in Heavenly places ruling with him.

Those who have been beheaded for Christ are the second group, and it is analogous to John the Baptist being beheaded who stood for all the prophets of the Old Testament and the Old Testament Saints. Law and the prophets were until John, and John is greatest of the prophets. So this is saying that Old Testament Saints who are already dead are now entered into the kingdom upon the atonement made by Jesus when he ascended into heaven. So they're part of the first resurrection of salvation.

Then it's talking about another people who refused the mark of the beast. These are obviously people already saved. They are all in the first resurrection of Salvation.

He saw souls, not bodies raised from graves here.

So, from those who already were given judgment sitting on Thrones, to the second group represented by the beheading speaking of Old Testament Saints or Redeemed by Christ's atonement, and a third group of people who resisted the mark of the beast decades after the church was already born and ruling, we see all these people being in the first resurrection which is salvation.

And they won't taste of the second death which is going into the Lake of Fire. If you're saved you're not going to hell in the Lake of Fire.

we can start speak of those verses only after accepting the clear meaning of the verse i quoted you
It speaks of the first resurrection ,so here we have the 1st and that means there is not other before that one which is called the first .Thats a logical fact!
"first things first"

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by peter83

we can start speak of those verses only after accepting the clear meaning of the verse i quoted you
It speaks of the first resurrection ,so here we have the 1st and that means there is not other before that one which is called the first .Thats a logical fact!
"first things first"

Of course. Lol. But you deny that Salvation is a resurrection like Romans 6:13 says it is, along with Romans 6:10-11. And from the grave, there's the second resurrection, but it's with the body. So, if salvation is resurrection, Like Paul said it is, and occurs before the catching away, and the catching away is an additional resurrection, then first is first and the resurrection of salvation occurs before the resurrecting of the body. That's the exact thing Jesus said here....

First resurrection... Salvation..

John 5:..24....Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

..25....Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

..26....For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

..27....And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Second from the grave...

..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.

[mfblume]

In 1st Corinthians chapter 15, Paul said that there's only two times when people will resurrect physically from graves. The first happened when Jesus rose from the dead and it's called the first fruits.

The second time is The Lord's people are going to be raised at his coming. That's the resurrection of the Rapture, and then Paul said the end occurs when Jesus Christ gives up the kingdom to the Father. That's the end of the age.

There are no more resurrections from the grave after that. You folks believe in a Rapture before the Millennium, and then another one at the end of the Millennium, though you call it two different names, but it's still people coming from graves. That violates what Paul said.

The reason I know that the resurrection with what you call the Rapture is the final physical Resurrection from the grave, and the only one remaining in our future, is because Paul said that death is defeated and put under Christ's feet at that point.

And then when we read later on at the end of the chapter that death is swallowed up in Victory, grave has lost its sting, that is when this Mortal puts on immortality. And that's the defeat of death that you read about earlier when Jesus comes and resurrects his people at his coming. His coming is the rapture or Resurrection.

So, if the immortal putting on immortality at the sound of the trumpet is the last and final Resurrection from the grave, then your interpretation of Revelation having two Future resurrections called the first and a second and both being from the grave, cannot be true. This means that two Future resurrections in Revelation 20 cannot refer to both being physical, but one is the Salvation of Romans 6 and 13, and the second is physical from the grave which is the resurrection of 1st Corinthians 15.

This means that the only two physical Resurrection from the grave have one in the past when Jesus rose the third day, and the second and final one in the catching away of the church.

Your view has three resurrections from the grave, with Christ the first fruits on the third day when he arose being the first, the catching away being a second, and then a third one at the end of your millennium when everyone goes to the white Throne. So you have a catching away of the church before the Millennium and then others raised after the after the Millennium with everybody going to the white throne. And that goes against everything Paul said in 1st Corinthians 15.

Our doctrines cannot contradict another part of the Bible just because they look good in a different section of the Bible.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Of course. Lol. But you deny that Salvation is a resurrection like Romans 6:13 says it is, along with Romans 6:10-11. And from the grave, there's the second resurrection, but it's with the body. So, if salvation is resurrection, Like Paul said it is, and occurs before the catching away, and the catching away is an additional resurrection, then first is first and the resurrection of salvation occurs before the resurrecting of the body. That's the exact thing Jesus said here....

First resurrection... Salvation..

John 5:..24....Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

..25....Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

..26....For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

..27....And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Second from the grave...

..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.

Sorry brother, i dont deny that there is a resurrection neither deny the first resurrection or the second .
salvation is not first resurrection guarantee . We are not raised from dead yet in a psychical form,we still die after 70-80 . Yes We "died through Christ" at baptism and through the Holy Spirit we "walk a new life" but we still on earth, on flesh and if in sin then no salvation in future.
Now we have the hope of the future event that is called "first Resurrection"
This is the "Resurrection From The Dead". All saints together will be living again with resurrected spiritual bodies.
No dead is alive till that moment and so we neither.
After the first resurrection will come the second. (that is logical)

In the 1st only the Saints will be resurrected.
In the 2nd all people will raise from dead in order to be judged according to their works and then there is the second death.
First death is when we all physical die and second death is when you are condemned to hell for ever.
Ηebr.9: 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

This sad thing, happens till the first resurrection There the death will be defeated (for saints). 26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death. Then and only then ,when all saints together live again there will be what is said: Death is swallowed up in victory.
BUT: Death will be thrown in hell after the second resurrection happens! That is when all people good and bad are resurrected in order to be judged.


(so my brother, if you see now people die physical that means that the first resurrection did not happen yet
Also dont full yourself that Satan is "bound in prison" or "in the lake of fire". You know that he is still here..)

Peace be in you brother.
[I] 6 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. 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by peter83

Sorry brother, i dont deny that there is a resurrection neither deny the first resurrection or the second .
salvation is not first resurrection guarantee . We are not raised from dead yet in a psychical form,we still die after 70-80 . Yes We "died through Christ" at baptism and through the Holy Spirit we "walk a new life" but we still on earth, on flesh and if in sin then no salvation in future.
Now we have the hope of the future event that is called "first Resurrection"
This is the "Resurrection From The Dead". All saints together will be living again with resurrected spiritual bodies.
No dead is alive till that moment and so we neither.
After the first resurrection will come the second. (that is logical)

In the 1st only the Saints will be resurrected.
In the 2nd all people will raise from dead in order to be judged according to their works and then there is the second death.
First death is when we all physical die and second death is when you are condemned to hell for ever.
Ηebr.9: 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

This sad thing, happens till the first resurrection There the death will be defeated (for saints). 26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death. Then and only then ,when all saints together live again there will be what is said: Death is swallowed up in victory.
BUT: Death will be thrown in hell after the second resurrection happens! That is when all people good and bad are resurrected in order to be judged.


(so my brother, if you see now people die physical that means that the first resurrection did not happen yet
Also dont full yourself that Satan is "bound in prison" or "in the lake of fire". You know that he is still here..)

Peace be in you brother.
[I] 6 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. 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by peter83

Sorry brother, i dont deny that there is a resurrection neither deny the first resurrection or the second .
salvation is not first resurrection guarantee .

salvation is a resurrection guarantee when you're saved and stay saved. You have to remain in the first resurrection to escape the Lake of Fire. Because he said "blessed is he that takes part in". You keep that salvation and remain in it. If you lose salvation, then you lose the guarantee.

We are not raised from dead yet in a psychical form,we still die after 70-80 .

straw man argument. I never said that we don't die after 70 or 80, and I never said that we physically arise from the dead yet. That's yet to come at the second coming. Why are you saying these things? What have they got to do with what we're dealing with? Is this based on circular reasoning, that the first resurrection has to be physical because the first resurrection has to be physical?

Yes We "died through Christ" at baptism and through the Holy Spirit we "walk a new life" but we still on earth, on flesh and if in sin then no salvation in future.

yes,... and?

Now we have the hope of the future event that is called "first Resurrection"
This is the "Resurrection From The Dead".

you begin with a straw man argument, and then make claims based on circular reasoning. You say that the first resurrection is from the grave in the future simply because you say it's from the grave in the future.

Ephesians chapter 2 verse 1 Compares us being raised from the dead with Jesus, who in chapter one, was said to have been raised from the dead. That's why Paul said that the same power is toward us that raised Christ up from the dead. We were dead in trespasses and sins. So when were saved, we resurrect from the death of trespasses and sins. But it's still a resurrection from the dead, nonetheless. Just not physical death. And that has nothing to do with taking away from the Future Hope of the physical Resurrection from the grave. I fully believe that the physically dead in the graves who are in Christ are going to physically come out of those Graves at the second Resurrection.

Paul did not say that there are two future physical Resurrection from the dead. He did not say that there's one for the catching away of the church, and another at the end of a millennium that takes us to the white throne. In 1st Corinthians chapter 15, he said there's only one physical Resurrection from the grave that is going to happen in our future. And that's the catching away of the church when death is defeated.

The whole point of Paul's chapter is to explain with what body we come within the resurrection. And it's also to show us that the reign of Jesus Christ is so Victorious that it's going to conquer death itself when the resurrection occurs and our mortal puts on immortality.

It doesn't even make sense for there to be a catching way the church followed by another Resurrection from the grave a thousand years later, when Jesus conquered death at the catching away of the church and hands up the kingdom to the Father.

All saints together will be living again with resurrected spiritual bodies.
No dead is alive till that moment and so we neither.
After the first resurrection will come the second. (that is logical)

agreed. All Saints living or dead will receive new Immortal bodies at the catching away and, at that point, death is put under Christ feet and the kingdom is handed up to the Father. And I already said after this first resurrection is the second. But you're demanding when the Bible doesn't make that demand, and the Bible even disallows that demand in 1st Corinthians 15, when you say the first and second Resurrection are both physical.

Because of what Paul said in 1st Corinthians 15, restricting the only future resurrection that will ever happen from the grave, then the first resurrection Revelation 20 has to be spiritual which we read about in Romans chapter 6, and the second Resurrection to the white Throne has to be the only physical one remaining.

In the 1st only the Saints will be resurrected.

you're not proving that it is physically from the grave when you say the first is for the Saints only. I believe the first is for the Saints only, because I believe it's talking about salvation from the state of death in trespasses and sins. And since it is salvation, then only saved people experience it. But nothing you're saying is proving that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is physical from the grave and not salvation from the death of sin and trespasses. You're just saying what you believe it means and not proving it.

In the 2nd all people will raise from dead in order to be judged according to their works and then there is the second death.
First death is when we all physical die and second death is when you are condemned to hell for ever.

you're just laying out the interpretation of the dispensationalist, without proving that that is the case. You're just saying the first resurrection is physical because you say it is physical. That is a circular argument, brother.

I know what you claim those verses are saying, but your job is not to just repeat what I already know you believe. Your task is to explain why my idea of a physical Resurrection only occurring in the second Resurrection is wrong, and why I am wrong to believe the first resurrection is spiritual from the death of sin and trespasses. I'm explaining to you, while your view cannot be true using the scriptures in 1st Corinthians 15 that disallow your idea from being true, my view of Rev 20 must be correct because it agrees with 1 Cor 15..

Hear it again. Paul said there's only two times anybody is coming out of graves physically. The first one happened 2000 years ago on the third day when Jesus Christ the firstfruits Resurrected.

The second one happens in our future, not followed by a third one, when the trumpet sounds in this Mortal puts on immortality and death is swallowed up in Victory. That's what Paul meant when he talked about death being put under the feet of Jesus Christ as his last enemy. And the way death is put under his feet when the resurrection occurs, is by mortality putting on immortality, thereby swallowing death up in Victory. Death is in our very mortal bodies because that's what Mortal means. And when mortality puts on immortality, death is literally swallowed up of life, thereby defeating death. That's how death is going to be put under the feet of Jesus Christ according to verses before that statement in 1st Corinthians 15.

And Jesus said that's when the end occurs. He said then, the end. In other words then, after the resurrection where immortality puts on their mortality, those who are Christ's at his coming rise from the grave, the end is at that point. Then. Then. Then. Not a thousand years after that.

?ebr.9: 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

This sad thing, happens till the first resurrection

It is true that physically dying happens until the resurrection takes place. Andit's until the resurrection. But it's until the SECOND resurreciton, becuase the second one is the only one in our future that is physical.

I agree with you that this sad situation of physical death will happen till the Judgment. But the fact remains that you have not yet proved that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is physical, when I've proved it cannot be physical by using what Paul stated in 1st Corinthians 15.

There the death will be defeated (for saints). 26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death. Then and only then ,when all saints together live again there will be what is said: Death is swallowed up in victory.
BUT: Death will be thrown in hell after the second resurrection happens! That is when all people good and bad are resurrected in order to be judged.

(so my brother, if you see now people die physical that means that the first resurrection did not happen yet

You're continuing to provide a circular argument. I agree that death is continuing until Jesus Christ resurrect says from the dead. I never denied that. But that doesn't prove the first resurrection is physical from the grave. The resurrection I believe that's talking about, when we come from the grave, is the second resurrection that takes us to the white throne. So, all your talk about dying until the resurrection takes place when then, and only then, all the saints will be physically live together, has nothing to do with proving me wrong. I agree with all those things and everything you said fits right into what I believe about the resurrection. What you need to show is why the first resurrection has to be physical as well as the second Resurrection being physical in Revelation 20. You haven't done that. You just said it is because you said it is. And that's circular argument.

Do you believe the first and second resurrections are both PHYSICAL? Paul disallowed that by his teaching in 1 COr 15.

So, when we say the first resurrection hasn't happened yet because people still die, you haven't proved anything and haven't proved that the first resurrection is supposed to be physical. You have to establish the idea that the first resurrection is physical, first, and then proceed to say it cannot have happened yet because people still die.

In my view, if the first resurrection is spiritual and is from the "death" of sin and trespasses, then people are still physically dying, and then that will end at the second Resurrection that I am claiming is physical from the grave. So, when you're trying to look and point at people who are still dying, to prove to me that the first resurrection hasn't happened yet, I can point to people still dying and say the second Resurrection hasn't happened yet.

You believe first and second Resurrection are both from the grave and talking about physical resurrections, violating what Paul said in 1st Corinthians 15 that there's only one other Resurrection for anybody after Jesus Christ Resurrection the when we rise physically from graves. I believe people are still dying because although we've been saved in a first resurrection spiritually from the death of sin and trespasses, the second Resurrection hasn't occurred yet which is the only remaining Resurrection Paul allowed for in his teaching, when we come from the graves.

Also dont full yourself that Satan is "bound in prison" or "in the lake of fire". You know that he is still here..)

you got someone of another straw man argument going there, because Satan is bound before he's tossed into the Lake of Fire. People get all freaked out because we say that Satan is already bound, when they're not realizing, like Esaias agreed with me about, that the binding is in Progressive stages where Satan is not free as much as he was before the cross.

Jesus said you can't spoil a strong man until you first bind him and Matthew chapter 12. And then Colossians chapter 2 Jesus was said to have spoiled the devil, necessitating that he had already first bound the devil in order to do that according to his own words.

I never said the devil's in the Lake of Fire because I don't believe the Lake of Fire has received anybody yet which only happens after the physical Resurrection.

[Esaias]

Just wanted to clarify, I did not "agree the binding of satan is progressive."

Here is what I said:

The binding of satan in Revelation 20 is a specific event occurring immediately after the destruction of the two beasts. It is not the same binding which Jesus enforced during His earthly ministry. Revelation 20 refers to an event concerning the spirit that controls the beast and false prophet, it is SIGNIFIED by (represented by the symbolism of) a great red dragon being chained and tossed into the abyss and locked away. The "binding" in that vision is a representation of a particular event or occurrence.

In the Gospels, Jesus is seen "spoiling" the "devil" of his "goods". This is metaphorical language describing Jesus healing and delivering people from sickness, demonic possession, infirmities, etc. The power of satan is shown to be broken, because the afflicting sicknesses cannot withstand Christ's authority and power to heal. That is to say, sickness and disease and demonisation are weak and powerless and must submit to Christ.

In the Epistles Christ is said to have spoiled principalities and powers, triumphing openly over them. This is a reference to Him leading captives free from bondage to the antichristian secular and religious powers, and the triumph (victory parade) occurred at His resurrection which proved they (the powers and principalities) were impotent.


So, Christ is certainly reigning now, sickness, disease, and demonisation are bound and spoiled by Him, earthly or worldly "powers that be" are impotent against Him, people are freed from their power to become citizens of God's kingdom.

Just as we were saved, are being saved, and shall be saved, so too the devil was defeated, is being defeated now, and shall be defeated.

(end quote)

No progressiveness involved, in the sense of "ongoing increase". Rather, three different phases or aspects, past, present, and future.

[mfblume]

Saved, being saved and to be saved are in a sense progressive salvation. That's what I meant.

Why are we already saved in one sense, being saved in another, and to be saved in the future? Progressive toward total salvation in every sense. That is what I meant.

Now , will someone deal with proof that two physical resurrections are seen in Rev 20 despite the fact Paul foretold ONE in our future, and disallowed any more by the way he taught it?

Note what I learned, after the fact, that Paul said about this issue.

ADAM CLARKE:

1Co 15:23 KJV.. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Some think that by them that are Christ's at his coming, "we are to understand Christ's coming to reign on earth a thousand years with his saints, previously to the general judgment;" but I must confess I find nothing in the sacred writings distinctly enough marked to support this opinion of the millennium, or thousand years' reign; nor can I conceive any important end that can be answered by this procedure.

We should be very cautious how we make a figurative expression, used in the most figurative book in the Bible, the foundation of a very important literal system that is to occupy a measure of the faith, and no small portion of the hope, of Christians. The strange conjectures formed on this very uncertain basis have not been very creditable either to reason or religion.

I found it interesting that this man made the same conclusion I did from 1 Cor 15 and also noted that basing a doctrine on a highly figurative book like Revelation, where symbols are NOT interpreted for us in the text, is bad exegesis.