I assure you, what I presented was directly quoted from scripture, and I invite you to read back over it, and define what exactly was controversial, and what lacked coming from scripture itself, and then feel free to correct any information given, using the Bible itself... Thanks...

 

I present that the Bible quite clearly, and in plain words SAYS that the faithful dead who are written in the book of life are not resurrected till after the 1000 years are over, and after Satan is cast into the lake of fire.

Read it for yourself;

Rev 20:10 "And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur."

Rev 20:12-14 "And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. The dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire."

Anyone who picks and chooses what life and death they want to be literal or metaphoric in the 20th chapter of Rev is presenting their own interpretation, and not allowing scripture to explain itself.

If the first group in Rev 20:4 are killed physically, and are spoken of as being dead literally, then so are the second group in verse 5.

Rev 20:4 "Yes, I saw the souls of those executed for the witness they gave about Jesus"

Clearly that scripture is saying these ones were physically dead, and that understanding must be congruent into the very next verse when speaking about the REST.

Rev 20:5 "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended."

Clearly then this second group must be talking about physically dead ones, because it was just speaking of physically dead ones in the sentence just before. Who are we to pick and choose what is literal or not, scriptural continuity does the work.

Then we have an image of Satan being physically killed in verse 10. He is literally killed, and then we see the book of life opened after this, and the grave giving up the dead in it.

So if the rulers with Christ are being spoken of as literally dead, and the REST are spoken of as being dead in the same manner, and Satan is seen being killed literally in verse 10, then these ones who were in the book of life were dead physically, and just like the RULERS in verse 4, were resurrected literally, and the REST resurrected literally, so are those in the book of life resurrected literally after Satan is destroyed at the end of the 1000 years, just like the scripture plainly says, without interpretation or putting ones own spin on the text. This is what the Bible says in plain English, they were DEAD, and anyone who claims they weren't is presenting their own interpretation.

Rev 20:5 "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended."

 

Now, as for coming to life...

What I am about to show you is since the REST come to life after the 1000 years, then these are the ones in the book of life who come from the grave in verse 13, meaning they are physically dead until after the 1000 years are over, and even dead till after Satan is destroyed.

The fact that Rev 20:12-14 says the books of life are opened after Satan is destroyed, verifies that these are the REST in verse 5.

Rev 20:5 "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended."

Rev 20:7 "Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended,"

Rev 20:10 "And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur."

So the REST do not come to life at least till after Satan is destroyed. So, why after a 1000 years, and after Satan is destroyed would these ones not have grown to perfection yet, if coming to life was a metaphor?

Then you have to ask yourself why is the book of life mentioned being opened after Satan is destroyed, and the grave is giving up the dead in it, are you to say that the dead in the grave are alive??? Then your making the dead a metaphor, when being dead throughout Rev 20 is literal.

Rev 20:13 "and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them,"

Rev 20:13 is speaking of the REST in verse 5, because at this point in the text, this is after the 1000 years are over. Therefore since all forms of being DEAD in Rev 20 are physical, and the RULERS in verse 4 are coming to life physically, we then see the REST in Rev 20:13 coming to life when it says the "dead in them".

Rev 20:13 is saying the REST in Rev 20:5 are in the grave, dead, and are resurrected after the 1000 years, and after Satan is destroyed.

Therefore the REST are physically dead until after Satan is destroyed.

 

Running a forum in my opinion is about recognizing what is appropriate to post, and what is not, and it looks like Wallflower has a good grasp on this subject.

Is it appropriate for a commenter to state "The Bible says, such and such"? If one asserts the Bible says the world will last forever, they are basing their statement on the text, scripture itself.

Psm 37:29 "The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it."

A faithful one makes such a statement because that is exactly what the Bible says, and I wouldn't expect them to assert that fact any other way, but to claim the world will last forever, because that's what the Bible says. Does that scripture say the earth will never blow up? No, but it can be deferred that it never will, and the commenter is applying common sense.

If a poster was to claim the Bible says Jesus died and was risen on the third day, I say he should declare that at the top of mountains, that in fact is exactly what the Bible says, and our Lord Christ Jesus is the one who wrote down in the Word that we are to declare this to all people, and that means telling them "This is what the Bible says."! (Mrk 16:15)

But to the point that matters here on this forum, stating what the Bible says is in no way contradictory to this forums rules...

Now if anyone feels a poster made an error in interpretation (as Wallflower pointed out) we should show countering scriptures, and expound on how they could be redirected in understanding using THE BIBLE, not barbaric insults that show a lack of study, and preparation. It takes time and study to post meaningful material here, that is up building and spiritual, it only takes a moment to say "That's not scriptural" or "Your arrogance is deafening", that's being lazy and unconcerned about who your words are directed too.

If ones don't have the time, then they shouldn't comment anyway, and instead, should be studying, so that they can present a complete, full, meaningful scriptural rebuttal. Or maybe the subject is just above their head, and responses such as that are a fight or flight mechanism to throw off others to their lack of understanding.

It takes a great deal of objectiveness to moderate a forum, and I commend you Wallflower for your insight, and perception.

As for the rules and charter of this forum, they can be read here: "Forum Charter", and I invite everyone to have a fresh read over it.

I am afraid your comment here does not stand up to scriptural history my friend. I invite you to point out one prophet from the past that had to go to their so called "peers" in order to check with them and make sure doing Jehovah's will was okay with them? Each had their work in Jehovah's arrangement, and they were to press on, without regard for their peers beliefs on that matter. Hence one of the most famous examples of Job and his friends...

A comment like the one you made above reminds me of the Pharisees, who said Jesus was unlearned, and not from their schools. He wasn't coming to them with the knowledge Jehovah had given him, and they didn't like that.

Your concern is not mine, I do not share your concern.... Just because you feel you need to be cautious about discussing scripture, I don't share your opinion. And that's okay, that's why this forum exists, as a mutual understanding platform, where ones can comment within the bounds of the forum charter.

Scripture is just like anything else, some have more knowledge of subjects then others do. Someone understands computer software better then I do, but I know my limits, and can admit, and listen when someone more knowledgeable about a subject is explaining how something works. I can point anyone who would like to threads on here where I was corrected by someone, and I had the foresight to immediately admit I was wrong, and adjust my understanding accordingly.

Jehovah expects us to have the ability to differentiate like the Boreans, to determine if something is scriptural or not, and if we actually take the time to read, and meditate over what is posted here instead of skimming over others posts without fully reading them, we will either learn something new we didn't know, and adjust our understanding accordingly, or we will direct them to the Bible verses that contradict their understanding. Even the new ones on here, already show they have such gifts from our Father as they sift through the good and bad outside the Kingdom Hall. The internet out there isn't holding back telling these new ones what the Bible says, and attempting to draw them away from Gods faithful, and neither will I, I will not hold back the message of God!

As well, if someone has a question, or would like me to explain something, I don't post a link and say go read through 10 pages of comments to find your answer, I sit and take the time to open up the Bible, and direct my reply to the one who needs direction, custom tailored just to them. Like I'm doing right now.......

As for my convictions, and my responsibilities before Jehovah; I can't listen to men, rather then God, and I can't hold back what he has given me, because others find the words "hard to listen too." Jesus's own people accused him of this, and he stated that if he would not speak, "the stones would cry out."

I have my own responsibilities before our Lord, and I must do my up most to determine for myself in what manner that is to be manifest. I work 70 hours a week in my secular work, but I still understand what is more important, and act upon that to spend the necessary time to study and present the material here with patience and love, and if I can take the necessary time, I know others can as well, let alone someone who is put in a position as overseer. The position of overseer in any part of Jehovah's arrangement take commitment...

Quite plainly Sir, stating that the Bible says this, or says that, is a Christian thing to do, directed by God.

Acts 13:32 "So we are declaring to you the good news about the promise made to the forefathers."

Mrk 16:15 "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

 

Very wise.

Like Job.

 

Amen brother, thank you for sharing Perimeno's post. He highlights exactly what I've been talking about, there is no way the resurrection in Rev 20 is spiritual, the chronology doesn't allow it, and it's good to see another brother recognize the reality of Rev 20, and how the "born again spiritually" doctrine has permeated Gods people for 2000 years, of which Paul warned us about, and is not what is meant by the the resurrection, and I quote;

"Under the influence of "the prince of the power of the air," Satan, apostates such as Hymenaeus and Philetus could readily corrupt the meaning of Paul’s words in order to pervert the truth and teach a resurrection different from the one that Jesus and Paul taught. (John 11:25,26; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 21,22) It gave rise to the “born again” doctrine, which, as already noted, teaches that the person becomes alive in a spiritual way by means of a spiritual resurrection at the time the person accepts Jesus into his heart. The "born again" teaching began to be widely accepted as the necessary means by which all Christians go to heaven. The term itself was adopted from Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, and the two teachings were married into one doctrine; but Jesus was not teaching any spiritual resurrection when he told Nicodemus that he and the Jews as a nation needed to be born again." (Perimeno)

"We should not confuse being "born again," or the “spiritual" resurrection—which is a "deviating from the truth"—with that of the "first resurrection," that Jesus promised to his chosen ones who will rule with him in his heavenly kingdom. (Matt. 19:27,28; Rev. 20:4, 6; 14:1, 3) In order for them to be with Jesus, these 144,000 "holy ones," who are his bride, will give up their fleshly bodies and be made alive in the spirit, as in Jesus' own case. (Dan. 7:27; 1 Peter 3:18; Rev. 19:7,8) Theirs will be a real resurrection to the heavens as "spirit" persons, because “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom," as Paul explained in his letter to the Corinthians, adding further, “It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15:35-54; Rev. 20:6) Clearly, the expressions "spiritual" resurrection and "first" resurrection are not compatible or interchangeable. They do not refer to the same thing. The one originates with apostates, while the other is from God. " (Perimeno)

"Nicodemus was puzzled by Jesus' reply about the need to be "born again," although Jesus told him that he "should not be surprised" at this. Since he was a teacher of the Jews Nicodemus should have been familiar with God's promises and prophecies, and that is why Jesus chided him, saying, "Are you a teacher of Israel and yet do not know these things?" (John 3:10) What did Jesus mean when he told Nicodemus that "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again," and why should Nicodemus have understood this?

When we understand his answer we realize that with these few words Jesus focused on the very heart of what Nicodemus had just acknowledged, the evidence that he had come from God, the purpose of his coming and how Nicodemus and all the Jews were involved, and the changes that were about to come upon the entire nation of Israel in fulfillment of God's promises as he had extensively foretold by means of his prophets.

But before we can understand what Jesus meant we must first determine whether Jesus had told Nicodemus that he must be born "again" or born "from above," for the Greek word used, γεννηθή άνωθεν, (gennithi' a'nothen), can mean either. That is why some Bibles translate Jesus as saying, "I tell you for certain that you must be born from above before you can see God's kingdom." (CEV)

In the King James Version the word an'-o-then (Strong's 509) appears 13 times: three times it is translated as "the top" (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; John 19:23), twice as "from the very first" or "from the beginning" (Luke 1:3; Acts 26:5), five times as "from above" (John 3:31; 19:11; James 1:17; 3:15, 17), and three times as "again" (John 3:3, 7; Gal. 4:9). Therefore, how can we determine whether Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born "again" or be born "from above"; or do those two terms mean the same?

The simple answer to this, of course is, what did Nicodemus understand Jesus to say? According to his reply, "How can an old man go back into his mother's womb a second time," indicates that he understood Jesus to say that he must be born "again" or "a second time," (δεύτερον - Interlinear Translation). He did not understand Jesus to say that he must be born "from above" as this would not fit his reply to Jesus. That is why the majority of Bible translations render Jesus as saying "born again." (NWT, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, NIRV, HCSB, NLV, ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV, Amplified, Young, Darby, Webster, HNV) We can also be sure that Jesus said born again by understanding what it was that he meant, why there was the need to be born "again" or a "second time.

For anything to happen "again" the same thing must have taken place at least once previously. Did Jesus indicate to Nicodemus that he was first born in the flesh? That is what Nicodemus thought, according to his words. But, Jesus quickly ruled that out, saying, "What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born from the spirit is spirit." (John 3:6) In other words, being born in the flesh has nothing to do with being born again in the spirit. They are not the same at all! Nicodemus and all the Jews had to be born again in the same way or manner that they, as God's people, had already been born on a previous occasion.

Jesus and Nicodemus belonged to a nation that had come into existence solely because of the promise that Jehovah had made to their forefather Abraham. God had chosen Abraham to be the one through whom he purposed to fulfill his promise of a future seed by means of which blessings would come to all the nations of the earth, and that time was now at hand. —Gen. 22:17,18." (Perimeno)

"Summary:

• "Born again" does not refer to some sort of spiritual resurrection.
• The nation of Israel was born as God's people at Mount Sinai when God made the covenant with them, with Moses as the mediator, "for the purpose of establishing you today as his people and that he may prove himself your God." (Deut. 29:12,13)
• God foretold: "Look! There are days coming and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers . . . I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people." (Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:6-13) Please note, with the new covenant they would renew their relationship with God as his people; he would become their God again, and they his people again.
• The foretold new covenant became operative on the day of Pentecost, with Jesus as the mediator, when he poured out the holy spirit upon the 120 disciples. (Acts 2:1-42; Heb. 9:13-15, 18-22)

• Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled on Pentecost: "Before she began to come into labor pains she gave birth. Before birth pangs could come to her, she even gave deliverance to a male child. Who has heard of a thing like this? Who has seen things like these? Will a land be brought forth with labor pains in one day? Or will a nation be born at one time? For Zion has come into labor pains as well as given birth to her sons." (Isaiah 66:7,8) The Jews, who exercised faith in the mediator Christ Jesus, became the nation that was born at one time, in one day. They were thus born again, again becoming God's people while He again became their God. The Jews who failed to enter into the new covenant, by rejecting the mediator, would no longer be God's covenant people. (Paul in his letter to the Galatians illustrates the two covenants by comparing them to the birth of Hagar's son and Sarah's son; Gal. 4:21-31; Rom. 10:1-4; Heb. 8:13)

Nicodemus, as a teacher of Israel, should have known these prophecies, as Jesus indicated to him. (John 3:9,10) When he went to visit Jesus that night, he had the privilege of being instructed by the mediator of the new covenant. This is what Jesus was impressing on him.

--------------------------------

The terms "born again" and "new birth" are not interchangeable. They do not refer to the same thing! Whereas "born again" applied to the Jews in the first century, who were in the old covenant but needed to be brought into the new covenant, upon the termination of the old covenant (as discussed above); the "new birth," mentioned by Peter, refers to those of Jesus' disciples who will rule with him in his heavenly kingdom. (1 Peter 1:3-5) This hope of going to heaven is something new, for it did not exist prior to Jesus time. It remained God's "sacred secret" (mystery) until the time when it began to be fulfilled, starting with the choosing of the twelve apostles, and applies only to the ones who are chosen by God, the number of which will eventually total 144,000. (Rev. 14:1, 3; Rom. 16:25,26; 1 Cor. 2:7) Even John the Baptist, the greatest "among those born of women," was not among these, nor did he know anything about this new hope reserved for them. (Matt. 11:11; 25:34-46) All of God's people are "born from water and spirit," but they do not all have the "new birth." (Perimeno)

I invite everyone to read his words: http://www.perimeno.ca/BornAgain.htm

 

I don't read a spiritual life and death in Jhn 5, I see a direct parallel with Rev 20 and Dan 12. It is clear to me that Dan 12, Jhn 5 and Rev 20 are speaking of literal dead and literal resurrection.

The sons are given life within themselves, that is literal.

Jhn 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself."

This being given life within themselves occurs at their resurrection, just as the previous verse says;

Jhn 5:25 "Most truly I say to you, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have paid attention will live."

Clearly this is the same moment as spoken of in 1Th 4:16, and Jhn 5:25 is speaking of a physical resurrection;

1Th 4:16 "because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."

Jhn 5:25 is speaking of the first resurrection when the sons of God are given life within themselves, and this is in parallel whith Rev 20;

Rev 20:4 "And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years."

It is clear to me Jhn 5:25 is speaking of physically dead in Christ, who are part of the first resurrection mentioned in Rev 20:4, and come to life literally.

Then we read of the dead that will be resurrected during the 1000 years, just as is mentioned in Dan 12;

Jhn 5:28,29 "Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."

Jhn 5:28,29 is clearly a direct quote of Dan 12:2;

Dan 12:2 "And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt."

I state again, I do not believe Dan 12, Jhn 5 nor Rev 20 are speaking of a spiritual awakening, but in fact literal life and death.

Then we are told of a third and final resurrection after the 1000 years are over of those in the book of life;

Rev 20:13 "And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds."

We don't agree on this subject, and that's okay, I quote Baruq when I say, Qui vivra verra!

All love brothers...

 

Clarification;

There is obviously a spiritual life and death the text speaks of, and our Lord certainly touched on it, such as;

1Jhn 3:14 "We know that we have passed over from death to life, because we love the brothers. The one who does not love remains in death."

As well it can be construed that both literal and metaphoric life and death can be applied to verse 24 of Jhn 5;

Jhn 5:24 "Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life."

But the gist of the conversation is to determine where that line of metaphor and literal lay.

The first half of the verse speaks of literal life;

Jhn 5:24 "Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life,"

As well it could be understood in the last half of that sentence that these ones do not come into the judgment because they are resurrected after the 1000 years, because the 1000 years are a time for judging.

Jhn 5:24b "and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life."

Jhn 5:28,29 "Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."

We should also keep in mind that our Lord spoke as if events had already taken place even though they were yet future, just as in verse 24, he says these ones have "everlasting life", even though they don't yet, they will, and in the same manner was the time "now" that is said about the "hour coming";

Jhn 5:25 "Most truly I say to you, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have paid attention will live."

Those who will "live" or come to "everlasting life" are future, but our Lord spoke of them as present not future, for to our Father Jehovah they are as if they were now...

The ultimate understanding of the text and obviously the theme is physical resurrection, and the metaphor is the spiritual life, for that brings you to the physical resurrection.

Again, in my opinion...