Shiwiii

I guess no one has a scripture that supports a resurrection during the thousand year reign. That then makes the belief that there is, just a man made belief and NOT from God or His word. Psalms 118:8&9 Psalms 146:3

Isn't that putting limitations on God?

You're the one who said God didn't know Adam would sin. I just tried to clarify YOUR statement

So you deny that God knows everything. Interesting

How could Adam have been perfect if God knew he would sin? He wasnt perfect. Nowhere does scripture call Adam perfect, only good (Gen 1:31). The Father did know because He had Jesus be the sacrifice from before the world began. 2 Timothy 1:9 "who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,"

Where is the scriptures that support this? Your Romans quote doesn't say any of this. It appears to me that these theorys have no scriptural basis.

This is a nice story, but it would be much more believed if it had scriptural backing. In particular the scripture that I asked in the beginning of this post. :

Can you provide scripture to back up this claim of a resurrection during the thousand year reign?

I will show you exactly what you said and how you are reading into the scripture something that isn't there: again in verse 28 you seem to believe this takes place prior to the eradication of death, satan and hades. Here is YOUR words: Do you see here where you believe that Satan is still around? last sentence you wrote. What part of Satan still being around is everything subjected to Jesus? Its not. You need to go back and think this one through again, or clarify your position better. yes, however your timeline does not fit the timeline given in Revelation 20. It is only when ALL THINGS are then subject to Jesus does this happen and that is not until Satan, hades and death have been cast away (Rev 20:14), then the kingdom is handed back over. I am taking scripture as it is and basing my point upon it. You however still fail in providing scripture to support a resurrection DURING the 1000 year reign. This is your get out of jail free card, so you can run away from what scripture says, not me. I'm ok with that, seen it many many times.

Shiwii, yet verse 28, of Paul's word state that when Jesus finished his reign, he will subject himself back to his Father, as he was in the beginning as it was before Adam sinned. - John You are reading into the verse something that is just not there. 1 Cor 15:28 "when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under Him, that God may be all in all." Ask yourself what are the "all things", how can all things be subjected if death, hades and Satan are not yet abolished in your version? Those would be things that are not in subjection, thus this would not fit this scripture. During those 1000 yrs. mankind fallen in death will be able to be healed; also the earth. -John Again, you do not provide scripture to support this claim. Your beliefs are not based on scripture, all scripture, you have cherry-picked what you want to believe. - John All one has to do is read my post and see that scripture supports what I'm saying, because scripture is used.

I really wish you would put YOUR thoughts down, instead of cut and pasting from some other source.

Glad you asked John. I don't understand your question of my reasoning not jiving with what Paul said. I am only using scripture. 1 Cor 15:23-28 is a description of the order of resurrection. First Christ, then those who belong to Christ. that part I think we agree on. The first resurrection. There is no mention of the second resurrection in 1 Cor 15:23-28. Where I think we differ is the establishment of "the end" in verse 24. This part is after the 1000 years, and after the release of Satan to again mislead, after everything. Notice though in verse 25, where scripture tells us that Jesus must reign until the last enemy is defeated (death). Where in Revelation does it talk about death being done away with? Rev 20:14 which comes directly after the second resurrection in verses 12&13. The account in 1 Cor is a brief synopsis of what is going to happen. We know that this is not written in chronological order because of what Revelation 20 says. It is telling us what order those who are resurrected will be, not when the events take place. This set of scriptures parallel those in 1 Thess 4:15&16. Again, there is no mention of a second resurrection in these set of scriptures either. No and yes. Yes it will be Jesus voice. I say no because you are eluding to this happening during Jesus reign, it is not. 1 Thess 4:16 tells us that Jesus voice will raise those who died in Him, then those who are still alive, who are in Christ, will join those who were resurrected. We know that these ones are righteous because they are in Christ, so according to Rev 20:4&5 this has to be the first resurrection and they are those who will reign with Jesus. This happens at the return of Jesus as stated in 1 Thess 4:15. This allows for the co-rulers to actually rule for a full 1000 years. If it were just a few here and a few after 10 years and a few 400 years into the 1000 year reign, then there would be co-rulers who did not reign for the full 1000 years and scripture doesn't state "rule and reign for 600+ years of the 1000 year reign". yes, it is Jesus voice. John 5:28&29 supports Rev 20:12-15 as the 2nd resurrection. Daniel 12:2 also supports this account in John and Revelation. I'm with you up to this point. Here is where I disagree, When everything is perfect is after Satan has been destroyed. Revelation 21 speaks of a new Heaven and a new Earth, thus made perfect. This can only happen after Satan has been defeated, or else it wouldn't be perfect. Revelation chapter 20 tells us nothing about everything being perfect, only that Jesus will rule and reign for 1000 years. There is nothing in scripture that speaks of this 1000 years of being made perfect, nor of a resurrection during the 1000 year reign. It is after the 1000 years that Satan, the beast, the false prophet and death and Hades are destroyed, then and only then can everything be perfect.

Rev 20:13 says otherwise. from the context in verse 4, it is that of coming back to life from being dead, and the context doesn't change into verse 5.

While I agree that this portion is key to understanding the whole, you seem to be omitting the fact that the rest of the dead did not come back to life until AFTER the 1000 years have ended. No matter what we think about what or whom will be ruled during the 1000 years, scripture still states that the second resurrection does not occur until after the 1000 years have ended. but you have not provided scripture that states or supports a resurrection during the thousand years, it is only a guess in your presentation of the idea. I want to know what scriptures are used to support the societies idea of a resurrection during the thousand years which is in direct opposition to Rev 20:5.

Can someone point me to the scriptures used by the society that state there is a resurrection during the thousand year reign.

So you do not side with the society on this issue, but rather hope they will change to what you believe.

The synonym for mediator is intercessor. So you do not believe that Jesus is your mediator? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediator

Melinda, What are your thoughts on the information that JW Insider posted?

Glad to hear it.

my favorite character was Kevin.

So who is your mediator?

I Like This story

I've never been to or heard of a church that has rules like you mention. So do you agree that the society has misrepresented some of the scholars they have cited?

If you need me to dig up something I will, but I think you know what I am saying is true, you just don't want to admit it. Now you just want to argue semantics instead of the subject. If you must, then it is actually a citation and not a quotation. I can understand why you want to do your best to sidetrack the point, to defend the society. You missed the point. What was cited by the society was misleading based on what they wanted the source to say and what the actual source said. The implication was that the Imperial Bible Dictionary supported the views of the society, when in fact the opposite is true. This type of practice is throughout the publications of the WT and they have been sued because of misrepresentation before. The dishonesty and misleading is the point I was trying to make about not citing the full text/context. It matters not if Jesus died on a cross, or a stake or a milk crate, He died for our sins.

This is the most vague answer about this as I have seen. You may not be aware, or you just may be allowing yourself to be unaware, I cannot say. What I can say is that all jw's are to adhere to the societies interpretation without question. If your understanding of scripture deviates from the societies, you are corrected/reproved and if you do not accept the societies view, you are "labeled". You do not have to respond to this portion of our conversation, as you already have, but I cannot accept your answer on this. So then what was the point of your statement? Was it not to show just how the wrongs of the society are the same, or less wrong then that of other groups? I copied this for reference so we can be clear as to what you did say without digging into the thread. It does seem pretty clear from this statement that you DO see what I am trying to say and admittedly notice that the society has at times quoted out of context. You did not use the word "misquote" but the concept is there. I never said changing words, I said quote out of context by omitting the full quote, thus changing the meaning. yes, I agree it is best to research the quote. I am in complete agreement. Have you ever found where the society has quoted only portions of something, leaving out information that is in direct opposition to their claim the quote said, to fit their agenda? If not, I will give you a perfect example: In the reasoning book under the section for "cross" there is a quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary and it reads : "The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376." The actual rendering has a bit more to say. I will have to type this out as I cannot cut and paste it, but I will provide you with a link to the entire book online. It has been made readily available in such a way that it cannot be mistaken. I have also gone and physically held this book and seen it with my own eyes. omitted parts are underlined: "The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries.Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment. A traverse piece of wood was commonly added: not, however always even then... -https://archive.org/stream/theimperialbible01unknuoft#page/376/mode/1up The article continues to talk about a pole that pierces a person from the rectum and up through the mouth. Also it talks about the different shapes used in crucifixion, X, T and the traditional cross. "But the commonest form, it is understood, was that in which the upright piece of wood was crossed by another near the top, but not precisely at it, the upright pole running above the other, thus t- and making four, not merely two right angles. It was on a cross of this form, according to the general voice of tradition, that our Lord suffered" - https://archive.org/stream/theimperialbible01unknuoft#page/377/mode/1up Now does this sound as if it supports the societies view of the cross or the exact opposite once read in full context? It is by these omissions they change the meaning to fit their agenda. That was my point of not fully quoting a scripture, you can make the Bible say whatever you want if you only quote what you want and not what the context really means.