The White Throne Judgement

[Guest end3]

I understand that the White Throne Judgement mentioned in Revelation is for the non-believing, general population. Now, if there is a judgement, then there would be the possibility for life or death.

Do you think this "white throne" represents a toilet? Why is your god so lazy? Judging from the toilet like that. Why doesn't it just read like everyone else? Do you think it had to invent hell as a sort of giant match to cover the odor?

 

So, how can this be that everyone that does not believe in Christ goes to hell?

How can it be that hell goes into the lake of fire and that's generally considered hell? How can hell go to hell? How can hell be emptied out if it's the final destination? How can death and hell be "no more" after being put in the lake of fire but everything else put in there apparently burns forever? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? The world may never know.

 

mwc

 

Here bud, so you won't blow a gasket.

 

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

This one seems pretty straight forward.

 

 

Rev 20:11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them

.

 

All will be subject to the face of God, Jesus. Please tell me if this strikes you differently.

 

 

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 

I would understand this to be the Spiritually dead, those not part of the first resurrection, who by default, would be judged by their works, rather than faith. As I stated before, judge would mean just that.

 

 

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

 

From day one, I have always viewed this as the literal sea...a body of water. Not to be confused with the sea that I also view as the mass population of the earth.....a worldy mix.

 

 

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

You raise a good point here, my only guess of the second death, the altogether destruction of that entity would be that the lake of fire is a subjection to the fire that will consume. It always talks about what will remain that won't be burnt up....perhaps this is a reference to that fire, maybe not.

 

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

Again, I don't think this is a reference to Hades or hell, as it is to the the fire that teminates.

 

Your frustration was valid. Many times I am an ass. My apologies mwc

[Guest Davka]

If you truly followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, not denominational practices; but the words of Christ, I would suspect that you would be willing to help any person that you come across, in need, hence you would be on the good side of this story.

 

True. But that involves following and doing, not simply believing and confessing.

 

Luke 8:12 "Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comesand takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believeand be saved."

 

John 3:16-18 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

 

"Hewho believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has beenjudged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

 

Romans 10: 8-10 'But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: Thatif you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in yourheart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.'

 

This is a problem. Do an in-depth study on what the Bible says about what you must do to be saved, and you come up with completely contradictory verses.

 

 

Have you ever taken advantage of someone, portrayed yourself as someone in need, but were really just fine? Have you ever done this and someone answered that need? A person would have to truly be disordered to take advantage of people this way everyday, and be okay with it; especially people that would give someone in need anything they felt said they needed. It really is just common ethics by today's standards.

 

Not really. Nigerian letters are common. Scamming the good-hearted is the con-man's stock in trade. Back in the 30s a common scam was to search the obits for good Christian people survived by a husband or wife. Then a cheap Bible would be embossed with the survivor's name, and the words "with love from (deceased)" printed in the inside cover. The con would take this Bible to the house of the survivor and claim that it was a gift the deceased had ordered. They would charge an exorbitant price for this "treasured memento" of the dear departed.

 

The bigger question of this scripture is, In what way does someone confess Christ?

 

Paul says you do it with your mouth.

 

Someone can go to church, lead the praise team, pray at every meal, read their Bible three times a day, post Christian tidbits everywhere, flare up their vehicle, play Jesus in the church Christmas play, .....and still walk right past someone that is in need and asking you to help them.

 

Yes, there are a lot of hypocrites in sheep's clothing. But that doesn't solve the problem of the Bible saying contradictory things about salvation.

[Ouroboros]

I read the question as, Why would Jesus hear us if they are one, hence shouldn't God already hear us confess? That is my reason for the rest of the writing on my last post; to explain in my view of why one would need to confess publicly Christ; because God has given Him dominion and authority for this world, and God has given Him His own people. People, that if they believed in Christ, would also believe in the Father that sent Him, hence making them righteous unto God, or worthy, or able to be confessed to the Father, as Christ's, when He Judges the world.

I see. Then I think you misunderstood my question, and it's probably because I didn't state it as well as I should have. So let me try to restate it, and for your information, this is not a critical question regarding your faith and nothing stands or falls on it, but rather my curiosity that the author wrote something that could be misinterpreted by any amateur satirist.

 

The question is: Can't God hear us if we confess in the closet?

 

The verses suggests that God will hear our confession (through Jesus or not is irrelevant) only because we would make a public appearance and openly declare our confession to everyone. Does this mean that a "closet" Christian isn't saved?

[florduh]

You raise a good point here, my only guess of the second death, the altogether destruction of that entity would be that the lake of fire is a subjection to the fire that will consume. It always talks about what will remain that won't be burnt up....perhaps this is a reference to that fire, maybe not.

 

You have to guess? I thought the HS made True Believers magically understand Scripture that otherwise was confusing to the unsaved.

 

Either that's not so, or you are not a True Believer.

[RankStranger]

Do you remember exactly which verse that is, Florduh? That could come in handy.

[florduh]

Do you remember exactly which verse that is, Florduh? That could come in handy.

This idea was espoused in my former church, and there are some verses to back it up - and of course others that tend to refute the conclusion. It's a controversial topic, as are many topics among the various Christian sects:

 

There is a doctrine, quite common in the denominational community, that is making its presence increasingly felt among the people of God. It is the notion that the Christian has the promise of a direct “illumination of the Holy Spirit” in interpreting the text of the Bible.

The theory suggests that the Scriptures, as they presently stand, are incapable of being thoroughly understood (and, by implication therefore, the divine message is incomplete; yet see: 2 Tim. 3:16-17). And so, in addition to the biblical record (as approached with correct methods of interpretation), it is alleged that there must be a direct working of the Spirit of God upon the heart of the Bible student, thus effecting an “illumination” that brings into sharper focus the meaning of the divine text.

The History of the Doctrine

The “illumination” view is not new; actually, it is a part of the residue of the old concept of human hereditary depravity. This is the idea that man is so hopelessly depraved by virtue of Adam’s fall, that the Scriptures are incomprehensible to his blighted mind. This dogma was popularized most prominently by the reformer, John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564).

Some of the early “church fathers” introduced the idea that the guilt of Adam’s sin was contracted by all of his descendants. Tertullian (A.D. 150 — 222) contended that a person inherits both his body and his spirit from his parents (De Anima, chps. 23-41). Later, Augustine (A.D. 354-430) taught a similar idea. Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) had alleged that new-born infants inherit “the infection of the old death” from Adam (Epistle lviii). Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) suggested that a child is polluted with sin “though [its] life be but the length of one day upon the earth” (Homily in Luc. xiv). On this account he argued that no Christian should celebrate the day of the birth (Hom. in Leviticum , viii.3).

And so, due to man’s supposed “corrupted” nature, he cannot understand the Scriptures without direct divine guidance. Calvin, cited Paul’s statement that “no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3) as proof of this dogma (see Calvin’s Institutes, II,II,20-21).

But this Corinthian passage merely asserts that belief in Christ’s lordship is dependent upon the revelatory mission of the Spirit. To suggest that it affirms that each individual must have a direct, personal enlightenment of the Spirit, is to assume more than the text states. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures; apart of that body of information, no man can declare Christ’s lordship. Hence, ultimately, this precious affirmation must be attributed to the Spirit. But this by no means establishes the “direct illumination” theory.

Calvin likely borrowed the “illumination” idea from Augustine, for, as Norman Geisler has noted, the north African theologian not only taught that the Holy Spirit is “the means by which we receive God-written revelation (Confessions 7.21), he is necessary [also] for illuminating and confirming its truth” (Homily VI) (quoted in: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999, p. 331).

Other reformers, e.g., Luther and Zwingli, taught similar ideas respecting the need for some special power of the Holy Spirit in order that one might be empowered to comprehend the Scriptures. This notion has filtered down to many in the modern world of sectarianism.

Henry C. Thiessen, a Baptist writer, wrote:

“[T]he illumination of the Holy Spirit. . . is vouchsafed to every believer. . . [which will] enable us to understand the revelation God has already made of Himself, especially that revelation of Him in the Scriptures” (Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949, p. 45).

Roy Zuck, a former Bible professor at Dallas Theological Seminary (whom this writer highly regards), has authored a book titled Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991). In this otherwise valuable volume, Zuck contended mightily for the idea that “[n]o one can fully comprehend the meaning of the Bible unless he is regenerate” (p. 22). He further affirmed that even the Christian “must also depend upon the Holy Spirit” for a correct view of the Scriptures. He quoted H.C.G. Moule who wrote: “The blessed Spirit is not only the true Author of the written Word but also its supreme and true Expositor” (p. 23; emp. WJ).

An Analysis

The doctrine of the “illumination of the Holy Spirit” is not defensible — either on a scriptural or logical basis. Consider the following points.

The passages that are appealed to as proof for the dogma are grounded either in unwarranted assumptions that are imposed upon them (see the reference to 1 Cor. 12:3 cited above), or else the alleged proof-passages are extracted from their original contexts and misapplied.

For example, John 16:13 frequently is employed to prove the idea of special “illumination” (see Zuck, p. 24). "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth. . . " But this text refers to the apostles (and, by implication, others who were to be endowed with miraculous teaching powers). Those so empowered would be proclaiming the gospel in that time-period preliminary to the completion of the New Testament canon. This promise from the Lord does not have a direct application to Christians today (see 14:16-17,26; 15:26-27; 16:12-16; cf. also Mt. 10:19-20; Lk. 21:14-15). It is a travesty to misuse these contexts in such an irresponsible fashion.

If the Holy Spirit illuminates the mind of the Christian student, is he as infallible as an “expositor” as he was initially in his role of “author” of the sacred message? If not, why not? Furthermore, how would one know if, or when, he has been “illuminated”? If he affirms that he has been illuminated with reference to a particular passage, may he ever alter his view of that text? If so, did the Spirit misdirect him earlier?

If one has been illuminated regarding a passage, are all others who take a different view in error? If two people, both of whom claim illumination, differ on the interpretation of a passage, how could one know which of these is correct — or if either is? If the Holy Spirit could not make the Scriptures comprehensible the first time around (by the “revelation” process), how could one be confident that He could do so the second time around (by the “illumination” process)?

Note professor Zuck’s concession. He says that the Spirit’s role in illumination “does not mean that one’s interpretations are infallible” (p. 24). This is woefully inconsistent with the esteemed professor’s endorsement of Moule, namely that the Spirit is both Author and Expositor of the Scriptures for the believer. And why is it that many of these men, who accept this position, are at such variance with one another in their doctrinal positions? Common sense says that something is seriously wrong with this theory.

If the Holy Spirit provides illumination to men today, why do scholars, who subscribe to this ideology, write books instructing folks as to the proper methods of Bible interpretation (as professor Zuck has done)? Such efforts would not be of value to the unbeliever, who has “no spiritual capacity for welcoming and appropriating spiritual truths” (Zuck, p. 22). And they should not be needed by one who has the illuminating Spirit, the alleged “Expositor” of truth.

What if one proposed the following. Select two spiritual Christian people and put them in separate rooms. Provide them with a difficult biblical text, with which each person is equally unfamiliar. Let one of them have access to a good library of reference works, and provide the other with nothing but an empty room and the “illumination of the Spirit.” Allow each several hours of concentration. Then have each write his explanation of the obscure text. It can be guaranteed that the person with the library will have a better grasp of the passage than the one who has relied solely on the “presence” of the Spirit.

If someone should object to such a test, one need only appeal to the admonition of Christ’s apostle.

“Beloved, believe not every spirit [i.e., every person making a religious claim], but prove [test — ESV] the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1).

The doctrine of special illumination contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture, namely the explicit affirmation that the devout student is able to understand the Word of God as given originally. When Paul wrote to the Ephesian brethren, he affirmed that “when you read, you can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). The apostle did not suggest that “reading” — plus a special intervention of the Spirit — would be required.

Later, he admonished these saints: “Wherefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). If the theory under review is true, and if the Christian does not understand the will of the Lord — even though he studies diligently — the responsibility must be laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, Paul’s testimony could not be clearer. The inspired Scriptures are:

“… profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The Scriptures alone are sufficient for man’s understanding of the divine will.

Conclusion

We have no doubt but that many of those who advocate the theory of “special illumination” are sincere. But sincerity does not guarantee accuracy (Acts 23:1; 26:9).

Moreover, it should be a matter of great concern to church leaders that so many of our people are beginning to use this sort of language, reflecting unsound beliefs that they have adopted regarding the Spirit’s operation.

The problem is this. We have numerous Christians these days who have a most superficial knowledge foundation in New Testament doctrine. Combine this fact with the reality that many constantly are feeding themselves (or are being fed by others) on sectarian literature that is rank with such ideas. There is an inevitable result in the wake of such a course.

Surely it is time for some serious teaching in the church of the Lord on matters pertaining to the Holy Spirit.

Article Link

 

As you can see, even the devout get no help from any Holy Spirit.

[mwc]

If one confesses Christ before men, then He will confess us before God and the heavenly hosts.

 

Mt 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

 

1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

 

Re 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

 

Lu 12:8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:

Only one of your verses even comes from Revelation (which I thought I included). I purposely restricted the entirety of my comments to just Revelation so as to not bring in other theologies.

 

But lets take a quick look at your verses...

 

The word being used are all the same word. But if you look at Matthew 10 and Luke 12 you can see they are used in much the same way. They basically say "If you confess me before me I will confess you before god." Okay. So what of the word being used? It is "homologeo." Roughly put it means "to say the same thing [as another]." This isn't it's only meaning but based on the context of those verses this appears to be a valid application. A "tit for tat" situation. But it's more than this. The word also implies a "confession" of sorts. A "profession" or "statement." So if you "profess" or make an open declaration in regard to "jesus" then, in return, he will make an equal declaration for you. If you are meek then you will get a meek declaration in return and if you are bold then you will get a bold declaration for yourself. So when you are facing "god" which would you want? The choice is clear and it's easy to be bold in the face of men.

 

The slight difference in the usage of the word between Matthew/Luke and the others is that in the former it's basically saying that "If you do this for me then I will do the same in return for you." In 1 John it is being said more along the lines of "Whoever says the same as us then god will dwell in you and vice-versa." A slight difference.

 

Finally, in Revelation 3 the person must "overcome" in order for the declaration to be made. This is in addition to not being removed from the book of life. The declaration must obviously be that the person did this thing (they overcame) and not that they made a declaration of their own unless we should assume overcoming is to be considered a "declaration" of sorts. To be a martyr could be a declaration of a person's commitment and this, I would think, would be worthy of an equal declaration. A bold declaration for an equal bold declaration. This person was truly committed and as a result YHWH/jesus should likewise be equally committed to that person.

 

But, as I said, this is all connected via an "and" which means this is in addition to not being removed from the book of life. And if a person is not in the book of life there are no exceptions offered for any personal recommendations for escaping the lake of fire. Maybe you get a personal commendation before getting sent to condemnation?

 

Now if you wish to keep looking I know of references to the book of life and whatnot outside of Revelation but, as I said, I intentionally avoided leaving that text.

 

mwc

[mwc]

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

This one seems pretty straight forward.

You would think so except you also have to consider:

19:20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.

None of them are technically judged. They are simply sentenced. In fact, not a single "demon" is judged (or sentenced). Just these three who are more "casualties of war."

 

Rev 20:11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

 

All will be subject to the face of God, Jesus. Please tell me if this strikes you differently.

It does strike me differently. God appears (the big man himself) on his throne. Nothing is supposed to see this being and it's such a big entrance that the ground and sky run away but they can't find anywhere to hide. Basically the big cheese shows and it's a big deal. A very big deal.

 

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 

I would understand this to be the Spiritually dead, those not part of the first resurrection, who by default, would be judged by their works, rather than faith. As I stated before, judge would mean just that.

Spiritually dead? That's just apologetics. You wanted to talk about this specific section. Now you seem to want to place restrictions upon it that simply aren't in the text. Show me "spiritually dead" in the text. Show me some "faith" based exemption.

 

20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

 

20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

The "first resurrection" consists of martyrs (for their "witness"...from the Greek "marturia" which becomes our word "martyr") and those who had not worshiped the beast. There is nothing, at all, here about being "spiritually dead" or "faith."

 

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

 

From day one, I have always viewed this as the literal sea...a body of water. Not to be confused with the sea that I also view as the mass population of the earth.....a worldy mix.

Good. It is the literal sea, as in water. You can view the population of the earth as a "sea" (as in "sea of people") but that has no bearing on any of this. The ancients were superstitious about water and not everyone thought that if you died in water that you were going to make it into an afterlife (as I recall it had to do with the idea of not being able to recover the bodies for proper burial/cremation). I don't know if the Jews specifically held this belief or not but this addresses it nonetheless. They are stating that those in the water will get a shot.

 

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

You raise a good point here, my only guess of the second death, the altogether destruction of that entity would be that the lake of fire is a subjection to the fire that will consume. It always talks about what will remain that won't be burnt up....perhaps this is a reference to that fire, maybe not.

Are these the same two mentioned earlier?

6:8 I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.

If one died back then the logical place to go would be Hades. Also, if you encountered the personified death Thanatos (which is the word really used for death) then you'd likely go down to Hades or the realm of Hades (it depends on the time/place on how some of these things were used). So death being followed by hades is a pretty decent image when you think about it.

 

Anyhow, are these the same two?

 

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

Again, I don't think this is a reference to Hades or hell, as it is to the the fire that teminates.

How could it be? Hades was just dealt with. This is the lake of fire (here it's literally "limnēn tou puros" which is "lake/pool of fire" or if you prefer something less literal maybe "fiery lake/pool"). It's most certainly not Hades (if it were you'd have to explain how it got thrown into itself).

 

Your frustration was valid. Many times I am an ass. My apologies mwc

No apologies needed.

 

mwc

[Guest end3]

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 

I would understand this to be the Spiritually dead, those not part of the first resurrection, who by default, would be judged by their works, rather than faith. As I stated before, judge would mean just that.

Spiritually dead? That's just apologetics. You wanted to talk about this specific section. Now you seem to want to place restrictions upon it that simply aren't in the text. Show me "spiritually dead" in the text. Show me some "faith" based exemption.

 

This is why I say that;

nekros

Pronunciation

 

ne-kro's (Key)

 

Part of Speech

adjective

 

Root Word (Etymology)

 

from an apparently primary nekus (a corpse)

 

TDNT Reference

4:892,627

Vines

View Entry

 

 

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) properly

 

a) one that has breathed his last, lifeless

 

deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell

 

c) destitute of life, without life, inanimate

 

2) metaph.

 

a) spiritually dead

 

1) destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins

 

2) inactive as respects doing right

 

destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative

 

20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

 

20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

[/indent]

The "first resurrection" consists of martyrs (for their "witness"...from the Greek "marturia" which becomes our word "martyr") and those who had not worshiped the beast. There is nothing, at all, here about being "spiritually dead" or "faith."

 

Reading it again, it could certainly be those who "overcome" during the tribulation

 

I will have to respond later....thanks (need to go back to work)

[Abiyoyo]

 

I see. Then I think you misunderstood my question, and it's probably because I didn't state it as well as I should have. So let me try to restate it, and for your information, this is not a critical question regarding your faith and nothing stands or falls on it, but rather my curiosity that the author wrote something that could be misinterpreted by any amateur satirist.

 

The question is: Can't God hear us if we confess in the closet?

 

The verses suggests that God will hear our confession (through Jesus or not is irrelevant) only because we would make a public appearance and openly declare our confession to everyone. Does this mean that a "closet" Christian isn't saved?

 

I believe that verse meant if we confess Him to men, in the manner of telling people that you believe in Jesus; or confessing that He was the Son of God, etc. Are you thinking about confessing sins? I assume God could hear us, even as a closet Christian.

 

Could we still confess Christ, ..as a closet Christian? That depends on what the criteria of confessing Christ is entailed. Define the closet Christian.

[mwc]

2) metaph.

 

a) spiritually dead

I see. Compare those verses to Revelation 3:1 for a more metaphorical usage of this word. The people in chapter 20 are good and dead (beheaded corpses tend to be pretty dead) the ones in chapter 3 are alive yet "dead" (metaphorically).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

I believe that verse meant if we confess Him to men, in the manner of telling people that you believe in Jesus; or confessing that He was the Son of God, etc. Are you thinking about confessing sins? I assume God could hear us, even as a closet Christian.

Right. My little nudge here is just that the author didn't think of the alternative interpretations of that verse. It kind of shows that he/she wasn't really considering that it could sound like "God only hear the confession of belief in Jesus, if it's done in public." Why didn't the author say, "Confess, and you will be saved", simple as that?

 

Could we still confess Christ, ..as a closet Christian? That depends on what the criteria of confessing Christ is entailed. Define the closet Christian.

In the context, it means a Christian who does believe, but doesn't admit it to the public (for whatever reasons).

 

As you said above, you have to assume that God hears the closet Christian confessing too, but it doesn't really tell you in the verses.

 

So if you want to be an extreme literal interpreter of the word, only those who do it openly will go to Heaven.

[Guest end3]

2) metaph.

 

a) spiritually dead

I see. Compare those verses to Revelation 3:1 for a more metaphorical usage of this word. The people in chapter 20 are good and dead (beheaded corpses tend to be pretty dead) the ones in chapter 3 are alive yet "dead" (metaphorically).

 

mwc

 

I agree, but didn't ever make it known....yes to both "deads".....20 being dead and dead in spirit, 3 being alive but dead in spirit.

[Guest end3]

Are these the same two mentioned earlier?

 

6:8 I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.

[/indent]

If one died back then the logical place to go would be Hades. Also, if you encountered the personified death Thanatos (which is the word really used for death) then you'd likely go down to Hades or the realm of Hades (it depends on the time/place on how some of these things were used). So death being followed by hades is a pretty decent image when you think about it.

 

Anyhow, are these the same two?

 

I would think they are the same, but God allows for death and hell to play a role in judgement.

 

How could it be? Hades was just dealt with. This is the lake of fire (here it's literally "limnēn tou puros" which is "lake/pool of fire" or if you prefer something less literal maybe "fiery lake/pool"). It's most certainly not Hades (if it were you'd have to explain how it got thrown into itself).

 

Yep.

[mwc]

I agree, but didn't ever make it known....yes to both "deads".....20 being dead and dead in spirit, 3 being alive but dead in spirit.

How do you arrive that 20 is both?

 

I guess I'll have to further examine those verses:

20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

Thrones appear. "They" sit on them. Judgment is given to "them." What does that mean? Who are "they?" Who are "them?" Where does this come from?

 

Throughout the text the main throne is surrounded by the 24 elders. Are these the elders? Are the elders being given the power of judgment or are the elders the ones being judged? Those in the thrones never do anything in regard to judgment. They never give nor receive it, do they?

 

The the souls, and only the souls, of the martyrs and whatnot, appear. Are they judged? No. They are not. What happens? They come back to life and reign with "Christ" for 1000 literal years.

 

The rest of the dead remain dead. This is the first resurrection. Not the first judgment. There are two resurrections. The souls of these people get stuffed back into their bodies (hopefully they get their heads back because "jesus" still had holes in his body...shabby work).

 

There is still no room for "spiritually dead" here. Only literally dead. The literally dead get resurrected back into their bodies. I think I see where you're trying to separate the two into the literally dead (the beheaded) and the spiritually dead ("those who had not worshiped the beast or his image," "had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand") but then there's verses like:

13:15 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

...

13:17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.

This clearly states that not worshiping the beast will end with death. So only those that don't take the mark are left. Not being able to trade will increase your chances of dying but it doesn't mean you will die.

 

14:9 Then another angel , a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,

 

14:10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb .

 

14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever * receives the mark of his name."

Worshiping the beast and taking the mark are essentially equated here but that doesn't mean if you don't take the mark you will die but I don't know of a reference to anyone who simply takes the mark and that's that. Taking the mark seems to imply worshiping the beast.

 

14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, "Write, 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!'" "Yes," says the Spirit," so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them."

This verse is simply another way of extolling the virtues of being a martyr. It's even stated that your actions follow you into the afterlife.

 

So looking at some of these things what does it mean? The verses in chapter 20 reward those who are beheaded (dead) and those who don't worship the beast (dead) and those who don't take the mark (spiritually dead?). The last doesn't follow. It comes from nowhere. It's rewarding an action just like the other two. You did this or you were strong and didn't do this. So here's your reward. The idea that a person was "spiritually" weak and so doesn't get resurrected doesn't fit. If they did any of these things (ie. worship the beast/take the mark) the text says explicitly that they go to torment forever (14:9-11).

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

Well I figure it this way. If there is an afterlife, which neither I nor anyone else knows that there is, it would be a kind of continuation of this life. Now it is well enough known that we create Heaven or Hell for ourselves in this life, usually (although not always) by our own free will and our own actions. Basically we create Heaven for ourselves by following the Golden Rule which in its christian version lays down that we are to do to others as we ourselves would be done by; and we create Hell for ourselves by doing its opposite.

 

If that be true then when we die the same thing obtains. We shall be surrounded by those who were/are of like minds to ourselves and with them we shall have to exist, in misery if we are with the wicked, in peace if we are with the better sort. I should say we won't be judged except by ourselves, or perhaps by some kind of Over Self (the kind of person we ideally should have been if you like).

 

If it be objected that this would not be an impartial Judgment then I beg leave to resort to an old joke; when someone asked if it were possible to put a tax on beauty, some wag responded that the matter was a simple thing; let every woman be the judge of her own beauty and she would surely be generous enough!

 

As for Revelations (or the Apocalypse as it's also known) we-ell, the island of Patmos where John was held has a lot of what you'd call "Magic Mushrooms" growing on it. If John as often as not had a belly full of those he may have been describing some of the Lower Astral Hells that are often seen under the influence of psilocybin (the active principle in 'shrooms).

Casey

That sounds like that movie with Robin Williams, What Dreams may Come. Pretty cool movie.

[Guest end3]

I agree, but didn't ever make it known....yes to both "deads".....20 being dead and dead in spirit, 3 being alive but dead in spirit.

How do you arrive that 20 is both?

 

The dead in 20:4 are physically dead, but not Spiritually dead and don't go through the WTJ.

Describing the dead in 20:12....I have always just read it as that....but think it could contain some Christians that buried their talents, so to speak. Chapter 20 has both types...sorry.

 

20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

[/indent]

Thrones appear. "They" sit on them. Judgment is given to "them." What does that mean? Who are "they?" Who are "them?" Where does this come from?

 

Throughout the text the main throne is surrounded by the 24 elders. Are these the elders? Are the elders being given the power of judgment or are the elders the ones being judged? Those in the thrones never do anything in regard to judgment. They never give nor receive it, do they?

 

I have always thought these to be the elders given the shared power to judge. I don't think the receive judgement because they are there before judgements even happen.....when John gets called to the heavenlies, they are already there....maybe those from the OT? I don't know. The only ones I know who would have the authority to judge perhaps are the saint, but have they haven't been resurrected yet?

 

The the souls, and only the souls, of the martyrs and whatnot, appear. Are they judged? No. They are not. What happens? They come back to life and reign with "Christ" for 1000 literal years.

 

I agree...but there is a large population of Christians that believes that the faithful in Christ are part of this resurrection....not so much the martyrs, but the saved. Do you think this?

 

The rest of the dead remain dead. This is the first resurrection. Not the first judgment. There are two resurrections. The souls of these people get stuffed back into their bodies (hopefully they get their heads back because "jesus" still had holes in his body...shabby work).

 

You lost me here, because in essence the first resurrection is a form of judgement I think. Let's rehash....IMO, the martyrs and the saints are part of the first resurrection to rule and reign with Christ for the 1000 years. They get new bodies, but you have a point because Christ still had the marks from his humanity.

 

There is still no room for "spiritually dead" here. Only literally dead. The literally dead get resurrected back into their bodies. I think I see where you're trying to separate the two into the literally dead (the beheaded) and the spiritually dead ("those who had not worshiped the beast or his image," "had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand") but then there's verses like:

 

13:15 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

 

I believe the remaining, those not part of the 1000 years are the dead of the sea(literally dead and spiritually dead and maybe even some lazy Christians and then those on literally dead on land that are spiritually dead also ( this group could be those that have heard or not heard, and maybe some lazy Christians).

 

A recent understanding for me.....I would think the image of the beast would be a false messiah.....as Christ is the image of God.

 

13:17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.

 

The mark maybe in lieu of those sealed.

 

This clearly states that not worshiping the beast will end with death. So only those that don't take the mark are left. Not being able to trade will increase your chances of dying but it doesn't mean you will die.

 

If you get killed by not participating with the beast or taking the mark, you might certainly die physically, but be resurrected.

 

14:9 Then another angel , a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,

 

14:10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb .

 

14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever * receives the mark of his name."

[/indent]

Worshiping the beast and taking the mark are essentially equated here but that doesn't mean if you don't take the mark you will die but I don't know of a reference to anyone who simply takes the mark and that's that. Taking the mark seems to imply worshiping the beast.

 

I think it all works mostly with parallels to a Christians relationship to Christ....but counterfeit. Faith and sealed with the HS for a Christian....worship the beast and take the mark for Satan's crowd.

 

So looking at some of these things what does it mean? The verses in chapter 20 reward those who are beheaded (dead) and those who don't worship the beast (dead) and those who don't take the mark (spiritually dead?). The last doesn't follow. It comes from nowhere. It's rewarding an action just like the other two. You did this or you were strong and didn't do this. So here's your reward. The idea that a person was "spiritually" weak and so doesn't get resurrected doesn't fit. If they did any of these things (ie. worship the beast/take the mark) the text says explicitly that they go to torment forever (14:9-11).

 

No, you are right, I think it is a function of trying to discuss Rev over the internet. Those not taking the mark would be spiritually still alive.

 

Please see my next post for an "IMO" graphical representation.

[mwc]

The dead in 20:4 are physically dead, but not Spiritually dead and don't go through the WTJ.

Describing the dead in 20:12....I have always just read it as that....but think it could contain some Christians that buried their talents, so to speak. Chapter 20 has both types...sorry.

While this is a strong argument in that you simply keep saying it because you think it's so. It would be nice, beyond just digging a definition from Strong's that suits you, something to support your assertion. The text, as it is written, does not. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

I have always thought these to be the elders given the shared power to judge. I don't think the receive judgement because they are there before judgements even happen.....when John gets called to the heavenlies, they are already there....maybe those from the OT? I don't know. The only ones I know who would have the authority to judge perhaps are the saint, but have they haven't been resurrected yet?

Okay. I'm asking since way back at the start of the vision we're told:

4:4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.

 

I agree...but there is a large population of Christians that believes that the faithful in Christ are part of this resurrection....not so much the martyrs, but the saved. Do you think this?

No. The text says that those that were beheaded and those who didn't take the mark and worship the beast will partake. No one else.

 

You lost me here, because in essence the first resurrection is a form of judgement I think. Let's rehash....IMO, the martyrs and the saints are part of the first resurrection to rule and reign with Christ for the 1000 years. They get new bodies, but you have a point because Christ still had the marks from his humanity.

I'm not surprised you're lost. It's confusing. The whole of the text is essentially a series of judgments. One big judgment if you will with a series of smaller judgments inside. But we're supposedly focusing on chapter 20 and one judgment in particular (which has kind of turned into two or three "related" judgments). Anyhow...the point is that the guys on the thrones are somehow related to judgment but then nothing happens. No judgment. So this isn't a judgment but a resurrection. The first resurrection. There will then be a second resurrection in a few lines (the white throne and all that).

 

But lets say this is a judgment. They judge souls. Only the souls that meet the criteria (beheaded, no mark/worship) will be put into a resurrected body. The rest of the souls? They are passed over. So perhaps this is like that? A passover type scene? They're simply cherry picking souls to stuff into bodies?

 

Moving forward. The "white throne judgment." All souls get stuffed into bodies. Then they are judged. It's the reverse of what we just did. The last was only souls that were worthy got bodies and now all souls, regardless, get their body. It's not explicit on how that happens but it fits what appears to happen. But that means their "judgment" is more of a "filter" than anything.

 

 

I believe the remaining, those not part of the 1000 years are the dead of the sea(literally dead and spiritually dead and maybe even some lazy Christians and then those on literally dead on land that are spiritually dead also ( this group could be those that have heard or not heard, and maybe some lazy Christians).

 

A recent understanding for me.....I would think the image of the beast would be a false messiah.....as Christ is the image of God.

Where are you getting this? I think you're making it up as you go.

 

No, you are right, I think it is a function of trying to discuss Rev over the internet. Those not taking the mark would be spiritually still alive.

 

Please see my next post for an "IMO" graphical representation.

Okay. I can only hope it clears some things up.

 

mwc

[Guest end3]

Let's look again....

¶ 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.

 

Thrones plural....I think if it would have been anyone except the elders, then some discription of Christ would have been made. Rev always seems to denote Christ in some discription. I can go with your martyr take for now because it seems to make all of those requirements necessary for the 1000 years. Also, all of these people must have endured the tribulation. These are physically dead that enjoy the first resurrection and will not go through the WTJ. No judgemnent except the judgement that they are deemed worthy. Can we agree so far?

 

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

 

Ok, the books in 20:12 must include the books that record the works of people. Also we see the book of life. 20:13, I think you and I agree these are the dead from the literal water. All dead, all in hell given up to be judged.

 

While this is a strong argument in that you simply keep saying it because you think it's so. It would be nice, beyond just digging a definition from Strong's that suits you, something to support your assertion. The text, as it is written, does not. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

Well, I would think since the emphasis is on works and doesn't make reference to those in Christ, that this would support my original stance.

 

Anyhow...the point is that the guys on the thrones are somehow related to judgment but then nothing happens. No judgment. So this isn't a judgment but a resurrection. The first resurrection. There will then be a second resurrection in a few lines (the white throne and all that).

 

I'm with you, but again, the fact that they are resurrected is by default a judged "yes" or affirmation vs. a "no", so I see it as a judgement.

 

But lets say this is a judgment. They judge souls. Only the souls that meet the criteria (beheaded, no mark/worship) will be put into a resurrected body. The rest of the souls? They are passed over. So perhaps this is like that? A passover type scene? They're simply cherry picking souls to stuff into bodies?

 

Who would be the rest of the souls? 1) The saints 2) Those that haven't heard 3) Those who have heard but don't accept. Yeah, these martyrs enjoy 1000 years as a "reward" so to speak for overcoming. The rest of the souls go to the WTJ. (Please keep in mind I would like to discuss where the saints go at some time in our discussion)

 

Moving forward. The "white throne judgment." All souls get stuffed into bodies. Then they are judged. It's the reverse of what we just did. The last was only souls that were worthy got bodies and now all souls, regardless, get their body. It's not explicit on how that happens but it fits what appears to happen. But that means their "judgment" is more of a "filter" than anything.

 

Why would they get bodies unless they are part of the second resurrection? No, it's the same thing, they arise in their dead state, whatever that was, and get judged to see if they acquire new bodies and keep living. Does God pick up their dead bodies from the grave to the judgement? I don't think so, He just brings the soul to judge for a second death or not. Where do you get that they all get bodies before they are judged?

 

And btw, we are not ready to mix 14 in....that will just foul what little cohesion I have left

[mwc]

Can we agree so far?

Close enough. I think we can probably leave this for now.

 

Ok, the books in 20:12 must include the books that record the works of people. Also we see the book of life. 20:13, I think you and I agree these are the dead from the literal water. All dead, all in hell given up to be judged.

 

While this is a strong argument in that you simply keep saying it because you think it's so. It would be nice, beyond just digging a definition from Strong's that suits you, something to support your assertion. The text, as it is written, does not. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

Well, I would think since the emphasis is on works and doesn't make reference to those in Christ, that this would support my original stance.

I'm not certain what literal water and what any references to christ would have to do with anything. Is that how you're trying to differentiate this "spiritual" aspect that I'm not catching?

 

The means of being judged in those verses are via works. That's it. But the book of life makes that all irrelevant. We'd have to leave the text of Revelation to further explore the books but I don't know if we should bother yet since I don't know if we've really agreed on all these points yet (I'm still in the dark on this "spiritual death" issue and how it's supported).

 

Who would be the rest of the souls? 1) The saints 2) Those that haven't heard 3) Those who have heard but don't accept. Yeah, these martyrs enjoy 1000 years as a "reward" so to speak for overcoming. The rest of the souls go to the WTJ. (Please keep in mind I would like to discuss where the saints go at some time in our discussion)

Everyone who dies goes to hades or the sea except for this bunch:

6:9 And when the fifth stamp was undone, I saw

under the altar the souls of those who had been put to death for the word of God, and for the witness which they kept

. 10 And they gave a great cry, saying, How long will it be, O Ruler, holy and true, before

you take your place as judge and give punishment for our blood to those on the earth

? 11 And there was

given to every one a white robe

, and they were ordered to take their rest for a little time, till

the number was complete

of the other servants,

their brothers, who would be put to death, even as they had been

.

Martyrs hold a special place in all of this. They actually are kept in a little place under the alter up in the heavenly temple. That's special. That's holy. Because only some sacred could actually make it to such a place. So you may want to consider that martyr's are, in fact, the saints in this story. Was this true across the board? I can't say but it appears to be the case here. They even get "white robes" (code for having their souls cleansed...this group has been totally absolved).

 

Then what?

7:2 And

I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the mark of the living God: and he said with a great voice to the four angels

, to whom it was given to do damage to the earth and the sea, 3 Do no damage to the earth, or the sea, or the trees,

till we have put a mark on the servants of our God

. 4 And there came to my ears the number of those who had the mark on their brows,

a hundred and forty-four thousand, who were marked out of every tribe of the people of Israel

.

The first "mark." An angel possesses the mark of YHWH. Its task is to stop the "four" angels (an ambiguous reference but of no concern to us for our purposes) until they can mark out the 144,000. The "mark of the beast" will be response to this. Most people don't even realize there's a "mark of YHWH" that comes first and that these 144,000 are essentially marked to be martyr's.

 

Why would they get bodies unless they are part of the second resurrection? No, it's the same thing, they arise in their dead state, whatever that was, and get judged to see if they acquire new bodies and keep living. Does God pick up their dead bodies from the grave to the judgement? I don't think so, He just brings the soul to judge for a second death or not. Where do you get that they all get bodies before they are judged?

I got this from "20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life again till the thousand years were ended. This is the first coming back from the dead" and "20:14 And death and Hell were put into the sea of fire. This is the second death, even the sea of fire."

 

I am to understand that you cannot "judge" a soul apart from the body (in that the body and soul share the guilt and so would need to be re-united to be properly judged...but perhaps I am reading in some of my understandings that lie elsewhere and we aren't ready for that quite yet since I'm trying to limit that? I can't locate it in the text). So a person would die (the first death), the dead comes back to life, is judged and subsequently disposed of (the second death). If the first death is the body and the second is the soul then there is no place that mentions reuniting the body and soul for those in the book of life. The previous "judgment" earlier in the chapter mentions it as the first coming back from the dead and this mentions itself as the second death. However, we apparently must make connections the text doesn't spell out. So there is a first death and second resurrection to deal with.

 

In practice it makes no real difference I suppose. Once everything is said and done you'll have a group that is gone into the fire and one that didn't. The one that didn't, we assume, will have their bodies back. The time that they get those bodies is something that could matter depending on what aspect(s) of this we're actually concerned with but I really don't think that's an issue that is important here.

 

And btw, we are not ready to mix 14 in....that will just foul what little cohesion I have left

Yeah. There's more than enough to go through as-is.

 

mwc

[Guest end3]

Can we agree so far?

Close enough. I think we can probably leave this for now.

 

Ok, the books in 20:12 must include the books that record the works of people. Also we see the book of life. 20:13, I think you and I agree these are the dead from the literal water. All dead, all in hell given up to be judged.

 

While this is a strong argument in that you simply keep saying it because you think it's so. It would be nice, beyond just digging a definition from Strong's that suits you, something to support your assertion. The text, as it is written, does not. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

Well, I would think since the emphasis is on works and doesn't make reference to those in Christ, that this would support my original stance.

I'm not certain what literal water and what any references to christ would have to do with anything. Is that how you're trying to differentiate this "spiritual" aspect that I'm not catching?

 

The means of being judged in those verses are via works. That's it. But the book of life makes that all irrelevant. We'd have to leave the text of Revelation to further explore the books but I don't know if we should bother yet since I don't know if we've really agreed on all these points yet (I'm still in the dark on this "spiritual death" issue and how it's supported).

 

Who would be the rest of the souls? 1) The saints 2) Those that haven't heard 3) Those who have heard but don't accept. Yeah, these martyrs enjoy 1000 years as a "reward" so to speak for overcoming. The rest of the souls go to the WTJ. (Please keep in mind I would like to discuss where the saints go at some time in our discussion)

Everyone who dies goes to hades or the sea except for this bunch:

6:9 And when the fifth stamp was undone, I saw

under the altar the souls of those who had been put to death for the word of God, and for the witness which they kept

. 10 And they gave a great cry, saying, How long will it be, O Ruler, holy and true, before

you take your place as judge and give punishment for our blood to those on the earth

? 11 And there was

given to every one a white robe

, and they were ordered to take their rest for a little time, till

the number was complete

of the other servants,

their brothers, who would be put to death, even as they had been

.

Martyrs hold a special place in all of this. They actually are kept in a little place under the alter up in the heavenly temple. That's special. That's holy. Because only some sacred could actually make it to such a place. So you may want to consider that martyr's are, in fact, the saints in this story. Was this true across the board? I can't say but it appears to be the case here. They even get "white robes" (code for having their souls cleansed...this group has been totally absolved).

 

Then what?

7:2 And

I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the mark of the living God: and he said with a great voice to the four angels

, to whom it was given to do damage to the earth and the sea, 3 Do no damage to the earth, or the sea, or the trees,

till we have put a mark on the servants of our God

. 4 And there came to my ears the number of those who had the mark on their brows,

a hundred and forty-four thousand, who were marked out of every tribe of the people of Israel

.

The first "mark." An angel possesses the mark of YHWH. Its task is to stop the "four" angels (an ambiguous reference but of no concern to us for our purposes) until they can mark out the 144,000. The "mark of the beast" will be response to this. Most people don't even realize there's a "mark of YHWH" that comes first and that these 144,000 are essentially marked to be martyr's.

 

Why would they get bodies unless they are part of the second resurrection? No, it's the same thing, they arise in their dead state, whatever that was, and get judged to see if they acquire new bodies and keep living. Does God pick up their dead bodies from the grave to the judgement? I don't think so, He just brings the soul to judge for a second death or not. Where do you get that they all get bodies before they are judged?

I got this from "20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life again till the thousand years were ended. This is the first coming back from the dead" and "20:14 And death and Hell were put into the sea of fire. This is the second death, even the sea of fire."

 

I am to understand that you cannot "judge" a soul apart from the body (in that the body and soul share the guilt and so would need to be re-united to be properly judged...but perhaps I am reading in some of my understandings that lie elsewhere and we aren't ready for that quite yet since I'm trying to limit that? I can't locate it in the text). So a person would die (the first death), the dead comes back to life, is judged and subsequently disposed of (the second death). If the first death is the body and the second is the soul then there is no place that mentions reuniting the body and soul for those in the book of life. The previous "judgment" earlier in the chapter mentions it as the first coming back from the dead and this mentions itself as the second death. However, we apparently must make connections the text doesn't spell out. So there is a first death and second resurrection to deal with.

 

In practice it makes no real difference I suppose. Once everything is said and done you'll have a group that is gone into the fire and one that didn't. The one that didn't, we assume, will have their bodies back. The time that they get those bodies is something that could matter depending on what aspect(s) of this we're actually concerned with but I really don't think that's an issue that is important here.

 

And btw, we are not ready to mix 14 in....that will just foul what little cohesion I have left

Yeah. There's more than enough to go through as-is.

 

mwc

 

Hey mwc....went bird hunting this afternoon, will catch up tomorrow. Thanks, ENDIII

[mwc]

Hey mwc....went bird hunting this afternoon, will catch up tomorrow. Thanks, ENDIII

Okay. I'll be around so whenever you get a chance. Hope you had some fun (I'm not really a hunter but my dad is, well was in his younger days).

 

mwc

[Guest end3]

I'm not certain what literal water and what any references to christ would have to do with anything. Is that how you're trying to differentiate this "spiritual" aspect that I'm not catching?

 

The means of being judged in those verses are via works.

 

Unfortunately, this opens up the discussion of faith vs works. Faith without works is dead, yet I don't believe works alone are the E-ticket. This is kind of why I lean towards this passage being strictly those "not dead in Christ". If the passage had mentioned anything about a relationship with Christ or something to that notion, then I would be more inclined to see these as everybody else except the martyrs. I will however, try to remain open minded

 

That's it. But the book of life makes that all irrelevant. We'd have to leave the text of Revelation to further explore the books but I don't know if we should bother yet since I don't know if we've really agreed on all these points yet (I'm still in the dark on this "spiritual death" issue and how it's supported).

 

I have been thinking, but I don't know why you think that the book of life makes it all irrelevant. When you have time...

 

Everyone who dies goes to hades or the sea except for this bunch:

 

6:9 And when the fifth stamp was undone, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been put to death for the word of God, and for the witness which they kept. 10 And they gave a great cry, saying, How long will it be, O Ruler, holy and true, before you take your place as judge and give punishment for our blood to those on the earth? 11 And there was given to every one a white robe, and they were ordered to take their rest for a little time, till the number was complete of the other servants, their brothers, who would be put to death, even as they had been.

[/indent]

Martyrs hold a special place in all of this. They actually are kept in a little place under the alter up in the heavenly temple. That's special. That's holy. Because only some sacred could actually make it to such a place. So you may want to consider that martyr's are, in fact, the saints in this story. Was this true across the board? I can't say but it appears to be the case here. They even get "white robes" (code for having their souls cleansed...this group has been totally absolved).

 

I agree, but I am using "saints" in lieu of "saved"(as in believers). I will used saved from now on, in case saints needs to be used elsewhere.

 

7:2 And I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the mark of the living God: and he said with a great voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to do damage to the earth and the sea, 3 Do no damage to the earth, or the sea, or the trees, till we have put a mark on the servants of our God. 4 And there came to my ears the number of those who had the mark on their brows, a hundred and forty-four thousand, who were marked out of every tribe of the people of Israel.

[/indent]

The first "mark." An angel possesses the mark of YHWH. Its task is to stop the "four" angels (an ambiguous reference but of no concern to us for our purposes) until they can mark out the 144,000. The "mark of the beast" will be response to this. Most people don't even realize there's a "mark of YHWH" that comes first and that these 144,000 are essentially marked to be martyr's.

 

Where do see something that supports these to be martyrs? I see the connection, but?

 

I am to understand that you cannot "judge" a soul apart from the body (in that the body and soul share the guilt and so would need to be re-united to be properly judged...but perhaps I am reading in some of my understandings that lie elsewhere and we aren't ready for that quite yet since I'm trying to limit that?

 

I don't mind considering that if you have support. I won't put my own prejudice on this until at some time we pass that scripture.

 

I can't locate it in the text). So a person would die (the first death), the dead comes back to life, is judged and subsequently disposed of (the second death).

 

IMO, Jesus pulls up the souls instead of zombies and brings them to judgement either to live or die forevermore.

 

If the first death is the body and the second is the soul then there is no place that mentions reuniting the body and soul for those in the book of life.

 

This is where my prejudice enters....and I am afraid I will fall in to the fundy crowd by "following". I have always heard that the resurrected will get "new" bodies. I assumed that for judged to live at the WTJ also.

 

The previous "judgment" earlier in the chapter mentions it as the first coming back from the dead and this mentions itself as the second death. However, we apparently must make connections the text doesn't spell out. So there is a first death and second resurrection to deal with.

 

There is at least a scipture that talks about not being afraid of those who can kill just your body....I think that relates here.

Rehash: First death is the body and second is the soul..

 

In practice it makes no real difference I suppose. Once everything is said and done you'll have a group that is gone into the fire and one that didn't. The one that didn't, we assume, will have their bodies back. The time that they get those bodies is something that could matter depending on what aspect(s) of this we're actually concerned with but I really don't think that's an issue that is important here.

 

I can agree mostly at this point.

 

thanks

[Shyone]

 

There is at least a scipture that talks about not being afraid of those who can kill just your body....I think that relates here.

Rehash: First death is the body and second is the soul..

 

In practice it makes no real difference I suppose. Once everything is said and done you'll have a group that is gone into the fire and one that didn't. The one that didn't, we assume, will have their bodies back. The time that they get those bodies is something that could matter depending on what aspect(s) of this we're actually concerned with but I really don't think that's an issue that is important here.

 

I can agree mostly at this point.

 

thanks

Man, I cannot get into this discussion. It's like a review of a science fiction novel and trying to figure out what someone did to get into the good graces of some alien supreme leader.

 

"First death is the body and second is the soul.." Uh, no, people die, then rot, and our bodies return to dust. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

Such silly stories.

ASV Matthew 27:52-53

52. and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised;

53. and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.

 

I suppose these zombies are still wandering the earth, no?

[mwc]

Man, I cannot get into this discussion. It's like a review of a science fiction novel and trying to figure out what someone did to get into the good graces of some alien supreme leader.

 

"First death is the body and second is the soul.." Uh, no, people die, then rot, and our bodies return to dust. What is so hard to understand about that?

Ha. I have to agree. But after dealing with LNC on any level I'm willing take it. My time is free right now so why not? If I start to get busy I'll have to bow out.

 

The hardest part for me is seeing this as a futurist text since I accept a historicist view of all this stuff. This "prophecy" was said and done 2000 years ago.

 

mwc