Resurrection of the Just and the Unjust Happens At The Second Coming

[Sister]

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

John 5:25   Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

They that hear Christ's voice shall live.

 

 John 5:28   Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

John 5:29   And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Now it appears like a contradiction?  How can only those that hear his voice shall live, and then everyone else who is dead is hearing his voice also?

What does the first resurrection consist of?

1 Thessalonians 4:16   For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

  1 Thessalonians 4:17   Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

There is no mention of the ungodly dead here being judged.  Just the righteous.

And we know that all must face the judge.  None escape.  So as I see it, all shall come forth to face Christ but at the appointed times, but not all in one day.  This is what the 2nd resurrection is for.

Revelation 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.

Revelation 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.

This scripture holds the key and this is a different judgement.  It's judgment according to one's own works.  A harsher judgment.  Every single wicked deed will be looked at and every single kind deed will be noted, and at the end they will be weighed against each other.  I can't see this judgement as happening in a split second, but see it as taking time, for all must answer and give an account for what they did, and be reminded and shown everything which they did to feel shame in front of a jury.

This is that dreadful place in time that all the wicked since Cain will hear Christ's voice.

So in the end, I do not think John 5:29 is a contradiction.  It's just a statement, that all will hear his voice at some point or another.  The righteous will hear his voice first to be resurrected unto life everlasting, and the unrighteous will hear his voice to be judged at the 2nd resurrection.

When Christ comes to judge the world at his second coming, it is to judge this kingdom of Babylon who corrupted the world, showing that her works are evil, and to judge the living wicked by putting them through a fiery vexation of spirit through the plagues......then finally wiping them off from the face of the earth at his appearing.

The earth is now free from their presence. They are removed. Gone. That's their on the spot judgment, not worthy to be here, but it's still not over for them, there is another judgment awaiting which will be more terrifying than this where they will have to give an account, and be shamed and terrified.

There is another day put aside for this.  And this is what I am seeing by going back over everything that I know and that is written, so I am just planting the seed, and whatever you decide you must be convinced for yourself.

God bless.

 

 

 

 

 

[transmogrified]

On 5/25/2022 at 10:21 PM, Sister said:

What I explained to you above is not to set out to prove you wrong about all being judged at the second Coming, but to move on to show something else that God's plan is bigger than what we currently think or think we know or that is discussed.

Hello Sister...Sorry somehow the notifications was not working and I didn't realize you had already responded.

Quote

 

Same thing for Lazarus.  The Word 'resurrection' was not used when Jesus brought Lazarus back to life, but the word 'raised' was used.

I'm careful not to use the word 'Resurrection' here, when also talking about Ezekiel chapter 37, because it's not a resurrection, but a revival - brought back from the dead, made alive again for a time, but will die again.

 

It is a distinction without a difference that resurrection and being raised mean two different things. A distinction without a difference is: 

Quote

A linguistic or conceptual distinction which is of no practical importance or which has no effect on meaning; a perceived difference where there is no actual difference.

In certain context, of course raise could mean something completely different that being resurrected. For example I could say 'I raised my hand to ask a question.'  Jesus was raised from the dead, he was also resurrected from the dead. The word 'resurrection' has nothing in and of itself  that denotes someone was raised to an immortal body and there is nothing in the word 'raised' would denote someone was raised to a mortal body. There a number of phrases used in scripture that denotes a resurrection.

When the two witnesses were resurrected to immortal bodies it doesn't use the word 'resurrected' or 'raised' at all but rather says 'they stood upon their feet.' When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead he said he was going to 'awake' him out of sleep. This same phrase 'stood upon their feet' is used in Ez. 37. 

Likewise some of these same words are used to denote a spiritual resurrection. Paul said 'Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.' When he said 'and arise from the dead,' the word 'arise' is the same Greek word  translated 'resurrection' when the dead are raised. It is Strongs #450 'anisteme,' but in this context it is not talking about being resurrected physically. 

Yes, there were people who were resurrected back to mortal bodies, and there will be people resurrected to immortal bodies, but the words themselves, such as  'resurrection' or 'raised' or 'awake' does not define to what body they would be raised in, nor would these terms  alone determine if it was a spiritual resurrection or a physical resurrection.  That has to be determined by the context.

Agree?

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by transmogrified

[Sister]

Hi Gary

Yes that's good.  But it's not a biggie.  Was just letting you know that I wouldn't use the word 'resurrection' to describe someone being brought back to life who was going to die again.  If I mention the word 'resurrection' in our conversations you know that I am speaking of the resurrection where one is changed from flesh to spirit and can never die again.  Someone who has conquered death forever.

 Matthew 22:30   For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
 

Just so there's no confusion between what we are speaking about.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Sister

[transmogrified]

8 hours ago, Sister said:

Yes that's good.  But it's not a biggie.  Was just letting you know that I wouldn't use the word 'resurrection' to describe someone being brought back to life who was going to die again.  If I mention the word 'resurrection' in our conversations you know that I am speaking of the resurrection where one is changed from flesh to spirit and can never die again.  Someone who has conquered death forever.

 Matthew 22:30   For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
 

Just so there's no confusion between what we are speaking about.

This would be wagging the dog by the tail. It's not only that it is a difference without a distinction, it is making up a rule that even those who would claim to believe it could not follow.

You would disagree with me if I followed this rule. If I used this rule, I could say Paul was preaching to dead people in Ephesians, for he says 'Awake thou that sleepeth, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.' Because the word 'arise' is the same word for 'resurrection' in Matthew 22:30 where it says, In the 'resurrection' they don't marry...

Would you then say I was right and that Paul must have been preaching to dead people? No, you would not, but in order to disagree you would have to break your own rule that the word 'resurrection' always applies to people being raised to immortality.

It would not even apply to the situation in Ez. 37. The word 'resurrection' in English does not appear in the Hebrew Old Testament. Here is couple of clips on this subject:

Quote

While the word "resurrection" does not appear in English translations of the Tanakh (Old Testament), it does appear in the New Testament as a translation for the Greek word αναστασις (anastasis, Strong's #386). This noun is derived from the word ανιστημι (anistemi, Strong's #450), which means "to stand up" or "to rise up."

The above quote shows both in the Old and New Testament that although the word itself 'resurrection,' is not in the Hebrew, the MEANING of resurrection is the same in both Old and New.

Here is another clip:

Quote

In Modern Hebrew, the word for "resurrection" is תקומה (tequmah), the same word from the Peshitta. This word is derived from the verbal root קום (Q.W.M, Strong's #6965) meaning "to stand up" or "to rise up."

So in conclusion it is stated:

Quote

From all of this, we can gather that the ancient understanding of the "resurrection of the dead," is the "rising up of the dead, or more literally, the "standing up of the dead."

In the entire Ez. 37 dialogue it never uses the word 'resurrection.' It is not that the MEANING of the word is not there, but rather that the MEANING of the Greek  word translated 'resurrection',  was never translated from the Hebrew into the English word 'resurrection.' So, instead of using the English word, 'resurrection' in the Old Testament, other words were used to convey the same meaning. 

For example when it says 'Many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake...'the word 'awake' is the English word used to denote they were raised from the dead. Because it did not use the word 'resurrection' in this setting does not mean all the righteous were raised to mortality...No. There is not one resurrection for some to mortality and another resurrection for those to immortality.

Keep in mind, even in the Old Testament the word 'awake' would not ALWAYS mean someone was resurrected to immortality.

For example, when David said:

Quote

Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever. 

David was not saying God was dead and that he should be resurrected into immortality...All I am getting at is words are defined by the company they keep, a legitimate meaning in one context can not be forced to mean the same thing in another context.

But back to Ez. 37. Nowhere is the actual word 'resurrection' used, but of course that does not mean the MEANING of the actual word was not there. And here again, because the MEANING of resurrection, which is just to bring to life, does not include to what body they would be resurrected, or whether it was spiritual or physical.

So if the word 'resurrection' is not used in Ez. 37 what are the words that convey the same MEANING?

One of them is the phrase, 'And they stood upon their feet.' This is the same English rendering when the two witnesses were resurrected in Rev. 11... 'And they stood upon their feet.' We know this is a physical resurrection, not because the words 'and they stood upon their feet' was used, but by the context. It says they were dead and were laying in the street. From the context we know they were dead because it says they were killed and were laying dead in the street. The fact they were lying dead in the street shows they were not standing on their feet.

So if one was to follow the rule that 'because the meaning of 'standing on their feet' meant a resurrection unto immortality with the two witnesses, it always means a resurrection unto immortality, it would only be defeating what you are saying that those in Ez. 37 were not raised unto immortality, because it uses the same phrase that they 'stood upon their feet.' 

Here is another example of how these words are used interchangeably and their definitions must be determined by the context. Look at when the man was cast into the grave of Elijah...

Quote

And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

If we would isolate the phrase that 'standing upon your feet' always means a resurrection unto immortality because it was used when the two witnesses were resurrected, then it must also also mean the man who was cast into the sepulcher of Elijah was also given an immortal body and he has never died and is thousands of years old. Of course this is not true.  But both words were used in the above quote...One was that he 'revived' which allegedly only means to be resurrected unto a mortal body, but then it also uses the phrase 'and he stood upon his feet' which allegedly only would mean he was resurrected to an immortal body. 

These words were also used when Jesus was resurrected...It says in Romans 14: 9 - : -

Quote

"For to his end Christ both died and rose, and revived, that he might be be Lord of both the living and the dead.'

Will we then say Christ was not resurrected into immortality because the word 'resurrection' was not used and because it used the word 'revived?' Of course not.

What I am getting at is using these types of metrics leads anyone who would use them into error and hypocrisy.  Into error because it leads to faulty conclusions and into hypocrisy because the rule can not be maintained even by those who would profess to follow it.

If one wants to present a case that those of Ez. 37 were resurrected to a mortal body, it must be established by context, not by requiring words to always mean the same thing in every context. Even if this premise was maintained in Ez. 37 the conclusion would be that they were resurrected unto immortality,  because the phrase, 'They stood upon their feet,'  was used elsewhere to denote a resurrection to immortality. 

Quote

Yes that's good.  But it's not a biggie. 

It is a biggie in the sense in that it contradicts the premise that is being put forth. If all that are in the graves are resurrected, and the word 'resurrected' ALWAYS means a resurrection to immortal bodies, then in John 5:28 all the righteous in the graves would be changed into immortal bodies...the very premise you are trying say will not happen.

It is thus IMPERATIVE to use these words as they are defined within their individual  contexts...not doing so defeats the very premise that is being put forth. 

Blessings to you- Gary

[Sister]

On 5/25/2022 at 3:32 PM, Sister said:

  On 5/24/2022 at 1:25 PM, transmogrified said:

Yes. There is a difference between being resurrected and ascending up to heaven. Paul said the body is sown in weakness and it is raised (resurrected) in power...it is sown a natural body it is raised (resurrected) a spiritual body, it is sown in corruption, it is raised (resurrected) in incorruption. It is important to realize that at the point of resurrection is also the point of being changed into a glorified body...This is different than any of the other resurrections outside of Jesus. People such as Lazarus was resurrected but eventually he died again, because he was not resurrected into an immortal body...at the resurrection of the saints at the Second Coming all the saints, both dead and living will be changed into immortal bodies.

Hi Gary

There is a distinction between being raised incorruptible where you are perfected, can not get sick again, cannot die, therefore the body cannot rot and return to dust again.  This happens in the resurrection of the saints.

Lazarus died again.  My bible does not mention the word 'resurrected' when he was brought back to life, but Jesus said he was going to 'awaken' him out of sleep.  You yourself also mentioned earlier that Lazarus eventually died again.  He was not raised unto eternal life, but just had the breath of life put back in him even though his body had started the decay process.  So I am pointing out the differences here. 

 

[Sister]

12 hours ago, transmogrified said:

This would be wagging the dog by the tail. It's not only that it is a difference without a distinction, it is making up a rule that even those who would claim to believe it could not follow.

 

 

12 hours ago, transmogrified said:

You would disagree with me if I followed this rule. If I used this rule, I could say Paul was preaching to dead people in Ephesians, for he says 'Awake thou that sleepeth, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.' Because the word 'arise' is the same word for 'resurrection' in Matthew 22:30 where it says, In the 'resurrection' they don't marry...

Would you then say I was right and that Paul must have been preaching to dead people? No, you would not, but in order to disagree you would have to break your own rule that the word 'resurrection' always applies to people being raised to immortality.

This is where it becomes really complicated, when we want to go into the original words and the translation process to argue a point.  All that was done for us already, by God's hand so we can just simply read what the spirit is saying.  No need to be an expert in the translation process, or follow a scholar who follows other scholars.  God's hand was on that translation process, that work was done, he gave the words he wanted to give. Now we just have to listen to what the spirit is saying.

Now for me to know that the word 'arise' is the same word for 'resurrection' in Matt 22:30, I would have to be doing the scholars work to find proof in God's word, which would show a lack of faith that I can't just read what he says and believe.  So I don't bother about all that, and you could beat me in a debate over it hands down, because I was not lead to go to that side of it.

You made some really good points, and note taken.  I don't want this to be an issue over the word 'resurrection', that was not my intention to turn this into a big debate over this word - just to show that besides the 'resurrection of the saints' at the Coming, there is something wonderful that is coming afterwards during the millennium, and that the dead remnants of Israel will be coming back from the grave, into their flesh, will multiply, and will die again, taking part in the 2nd resurrection.  They will be brought back to life the same way Lazarus was, only difference is that these bones are so old, because they have been dead for a very long time.  They have well and truly gone through the decay process, and it's not a big deal for God to bring them alive again, and enter this land that he prepared for them a long time ago, and to fulfill this part of his promise for them.

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Sister

[transmogrified]

1 hour ago, Sister said:

You made some really good points, and note taken.  I don't want this to be an issue over the word 'resurrection', that was not my intention to turn this into a big debate over this word - just to show that besides the 'resurrection of the saints' at the Coming, there is something wonderful that is coming afterwards during the millennium, and that the dead remnants of Israel will be coming back from the grave, into their flesh, will multiply, and will die again, taking part in the 2nd resurrection. 

Hello Sister-

The above quote states 'there is something wonderful coming afterwards during the millennium...' and that this will be the 2nd resurrection.

Please provide  the scripture that states there is a resurrection that takes place during the millenium. The scripture in John 6 states all believers will be raised on the last day...from that day forward they will begin to reign with Christ for the thousand years...then there is a resurrection at the Great White Throne that will occur AFTER the 1000 years are finished. Where does it say there will be a resurrection DURING the millenium? 

Bless you - Gary

[Sister]

8 minutes ago, transmogrified said:

The above quote states 'there is something wonderful coming afterwards during the millennium...' and that this will be the 2nd resurrection.

Let me re-phrase that.  After the 1st resurrection of the saints, at the 7th trump, we start entering into the millennium.  This is when Ezekiel 37 happens. When exactly, I don't know what day.

[Sister]

10 minutes ago, transmogrified said:

Please provide  the scripture that states there is a resurrection that takes place during the millenium. The scripture in John 6 states all believers will be raised on the last day...from that day forward they will begin to reign with Christ for the thousand years...then there is a resurrection at the Great White Throne that will occur AFTER the 1000 years are finished. Where does it say there will be a resurrection DURING the millenium? 

I already gave scripture and that was Ezekiel 37.  I don't call this a resurrection as I tried to explain before, because they are just dead bones coming back to life who will live for a hundred years (blessed) and then die again.

[Sister]

But this time they will die full of the spirit of the Lord inside them.  The Lord gave them mercy to come back from the dead, learn truth, and start all over again by making their robes white.  But don't forget not all.  Only the remnants chosen from each generation.

 except this generation;

Hebrews 3:8   Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

Hebrews 3:9   When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

Hebrews 3:10   Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

Hebrews 3:11   So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
 

That 'rest' is the 1000 years that is coming.  These ones that complained and built a golden calf, and who ignored the Lord's warnings will not take part in the Lord's rest.  All were killed or died out.  But some of their children and future generations will experience that rest.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Sister