I will raise them on the last day.

[Hiddenthings]

@Aunty Jane, in Matthew 13:24–30 and 37–43, where does Christ specifically identify who the sower of the tares represents?

@David in NJ

There are known difficulties with this section in Matt 13

(1) Difficulties on this parable – who are the tares?

(a) – the Jews harvested in AD 70.
(b) – the Apostate church.
(c) – false brethren in the church.

Here is an outline of the context for you Jane!

(2) Difficulty arises with the scriptural teaching to expel heretics Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11 13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Timothy 6:3–5; Titus 3:10; 2 John 8–10. 3.
(3) seems to be correct, as “servants” would appear to have the authority to root out tares if so commanded Matthew 13:28–29.

(4) Whilst obvious offenders are put out, false brethren still exist in the church, to be revealed at judgement 1 Timothy 5:24. 5. The disciples particular interest in this parable Matthew 13:36.

The reality is that “the enemy” ,meaning “the hateful” in the Greek did the sowing of tares while “men slept” (v.25). These “men” are the “servants” in verse 27, who should have been keeping watch (Hebrews 13:17).

David, Jane believes that invisible angels are out deceiving people, but that idea doesn’t hold up. Scripture shows these enemies are clearly human and visible.

There is no basis in the passage for introducing an imagined supernatural figure beyond what Christ himself states. The context is unmistakable: men corrupted God’s truth, and those men will be raised and judged.

 

[Aunty Jane]

What is possible is this, I guess. All spirits return to God, including the lost. And that everyone's spirit records all the deeds they have done throughout their lives. This is then reviewed in order to determine where to send each spirit until the time of the bodily resurrection. Some get to remain in heaven, others are sent to hell. This is all speculation of course. Nothing I'm even remotely dogmatic about. Yet I see it somewhat making sense if both the saved and lost, that their spirits return to God when they die. How I came up with this initially, I'm not certain? I seem to recall that it just popped into my head out of nowhere all of a sudden like at the time.

Don’t we need to know what the “spirit that returns to God”, is?

The belief that we have a spirit that leaves the body in a conscious existence after death is bogus. Jesus never spoke about an “immortal soul/spirit”....and the Greek and Hebrew words for “spirit” translate as “breath”.

So what “returns to God” is his ability to restore breath to a resurrected body. Nothing conscious goes to God unless it’s a member of the elect, being taken to rule with Christ in his Kingdom.....this requires a rebirth into a new body.....one that can live outside of earth’s atmosphere.

In Eden God breathed the “breath (spirit) of life” that made Adam a “living soul”.
A soul is not a disembodied spirit, so unless we understand the difference between these two words and stop conflating them, things will be a lot clearer.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Don’t we need to know what the “spirit that returns to God”, is?

The belief that we have a spirit that leaves the body in a conscious existence after death is bogus. Jesus never spoke about an “immortal soul/spirit”....and the Greek and Hebrew words for “spirit” translate as “breath”.

So what “returns to God” is his ability to restore breath to a resurrected body. Nothing conscious goes to God unless it’s a member of the elect, being taken to rule with Christ in his Kingdom.....this requires a rebirth into a new body.....one that can live outside of earth’s atmosphere.

In Eden God breathed the “breath (spirit) of life” that made Adam a “living soul”.
A soul is not a disembodied spirit, so unless we understand the difference between these two words and stop conflating them, things will be a lot clearer.

@David in NJ I agree with Janes teaching on the death state. In fact, without this knowledge the resurrection makes no sense nor does the judgement.

 

[David in NJ]

@Aunty Jane, in Matthew 13:24–30 and 37–43, where does Christ specifically identify who the sower of the tares represents?

@David in NJ

There are known difficulties with this section in Matt 13

(1) Difficulties on this parable – who are the tares?

(a) – the Jews harvested in AD 70.
(b) – the Apostate church.
(c) – false brethren in the church.

Here is an outline of the context for you Jane!

(2) Difficulty arises with the scriptural teaching to expel heretics Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11 13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Timothy 6:3–5; Titus 3:10; 2 John 8–10. 3.
(3) seems to be correct, as “servants” would appear to have the authority to root out tares if so commanded Matthew 13:28–29.

(4) Whilst obvious offenders are put out, false brethren still exist in the church, to be revealed at judgement 1 Timothy 5:24. 5. The disciples particular interest in this parable Matthew 13:36.

The reality is that “the enemy” ,meaning “the hateful” in the Greek did the sowing of tares while “men slept” (v.25). These “men” are the “servants” in verse 27, who should have been keeping watch (Hebrews 13:17).

David, Jane believes that invisible angels are out deceiving people, but that idea doesn’t hold up. Scripture shows these enemies are clearly human and visible.

There is no basis in the passage for introducing an imagined supernatural figure beyond what Christ himself states. The context is unmistakable: men corrupted God’s truth, and those men will be raised and judged.

Not very difficult with careful study - thank you for sharing

a.) the tares are those who never come to Christ = John 3:19-20
b.) the tares include false brethren = also known as goats
c.) Mankind that is unredeemed are under the sway of satan and his angels = Matt ch4 and 2 Cor 10:4
d.) fallen angels, unseen to the physical eye do influence evil in the world = OT prophet Daniel needed assistance from Gabriel
e) Satan is a fallen Arch Angel that is king over the angels that rebelled = Revelation ch12

 

[David in NJ]

@David in NJ I agree with Janes teaching on the death state. In fact, without this knowledge the resurrection makes no sense nor does the judgement.

What do you SEE then in Revelation???
ch6
When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

ch7
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” 11All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying:

“Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom,
Thanksgiving and honor and power and might,
Be to our God forever and ever.
Amen.”
13Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”

14And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”

So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. 16They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; 17for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

@Hiddenthings and @Aunty Jane - Thank You for your kindness
i am retiring for the night
May the Lord Jesus Christ richly Bless members Hiddenthings and Aunty Jane with the Holy Spirit of Truth

Good Night

 

[Hiddenthings]

Not very difficult with careful study - thank you for sharing

a.) the tares are those who never come to Christ = John 3:19-20

Not a good supporting section David.

Tares are responsible for their knowledge.

Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

b.) the tares include false brethren = also known as goats

Happy with this.

c.) Mankind that is unredeemed are under the sway of satan and his angels = Matt ch4 and 2 Cor 10:4

If you mention our nature then yes - 1 John 2:16

d.) fallen angels, unseen to the physical eye do influence evil in the world = OT prophet Daniel needed assistance from Gabriel

Unfortunately angels can neither sin nor die.

The divine decree "the wages of sin is death" - only mortal nature can die.

Luke 20:36 “for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”

The section you cite, and their meaning are presently hidden from you.

e) Satan is a fallen Arch Angel that is king over the angels that rebelled = Revelation ch12

I’m saddened that you turned to the bookend, which is highly symbolic, to try to prove the existence of your creature. I spent over six months in this forum asking members to show the identity of this being. I even asked Jane what felt like hundreds of times to present the Lord’s teaching (in the Gospels) on such a creature. To this day, she has yet to provide any evidence. I assume you will be in the same position.

 

[Hiddenthings]

What do you SEE then in Revelation???
ch6
When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls (lives) of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

John writes that he “saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain.” In vision, he saw blood poured out in sacrifice, splashed upon the Christ-altar. The term soul is often used synonymously with life in Scripture. Leviticus 17:11 states:

“For the life (Heb. nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls (nephesh); for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul (nephesh).”

(David, another reason why Christ could not have pre-existed! He gave his whole life - everything as a sacrifice for sin)

Here, both “life” and “soul” translate nephesh, showing that blood represents life or soul. Therefore, John saw the blood of the slain, symbolizing their lives or souls, poured out upon the Christ-altar, a figure drawn directly from Leviticus 17.

 

[Aunty Jane]

David, Jane believes that invisible angels are out deceiving people, but that idea doesn’t hold up. Scripture shows these enemies are clearly human and visible.

What is apparently clear to you, is not so clear at all to others....to fictionalize God’s adversary is to remove the whole basis for the fall. It infers that God’s creation was flawed and that the fall was then God’s fault because he made humans with faults that led to the rebellion.
Free will was not a fault. It is one of the attributes of God which we reflect as being created in His image.

The Bible is full of references to this spirit being who rebelled in Eden and took the humans hostage. He is the reason why God has responded to this defector in his timeframe, not ours. Why else did it take thousands of earth years for the Messiah to arrive.....and thousands more for his return?

I’m saddened that you turned to the bookend, which is highly symbolic, to try to prove the existence of your creature. I spent over six months in this forum asking members to show the identity of this being. I even asked Jane what felt like hundreds of times to present the Lord’s teaching (in the Gospels) on such a creature. To this day, she has yet to provide any evidence. I assume you will be in the same position.

The feeble attempts to present satan as a fictitious character fell well short of convincing....sorry, but Jesus’ words to the Pharisees don’t describe anyone but the devil...
John 8:44...
“You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.”

Ezekiel’s description of the King of Tyre is directed at the one this wicked King was emulating...
He was told......
“Son of man, sing a dirge concerning the king of Tyre, and tell him, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says:
“You were the model of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13  You were in Eʹden, the garden of God.
You were adorned with every precious stone. . . .
And their settings and mountings were made of gold.
They were prepared on the day you were created.
14  I assigned you as the anointed covering cherub.
You were on the holy mountain of God, and you walked about among fiery stones.
15  You were faultless in your ways from the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16 Because of your abundant trade,
You became filled with violence, and you began to sin.
So I will cast you out as profane from the mountain of God and destroy you,
O covering cherub, away from the stones of fire.
17 Your heart became haughty because of your beauty.
You corrupted your wisdom because of your own glorious splendor.
I will throw you down to the earth.
I will make you a spectacle before kings.“

The King of Tyre was not “created” and he was not in the garden of Eden.

Who was God talking to in Job’s case? Who was “the adversary”?

“Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them.

7  Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where have you come from?” Satan answered Jehovah: “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.” (Job 1: 6-7)

Why is satan said to have angels who are his minions? (Matt 25:41) who are these for whom the lake of fire was “prepared”?

Your attempts to erase him from the Bible will not succeed. He has you believing he doesn’t exist.....winner!

 

[rwb]

Take for example, @Spiritual Israelite. He is both an Amil and holds a NOSAS position. His position implies that one can lose part in the first resurrection since he places the first resurrection taking place before one falls away, rather than after they fall away. No way, regardless how one views the first resurrection, can the first resurrection be divorced from salvation. And if one can lose their salvation, and indeed one can, and that if the first resurrection is applicable before one falls away, what does that imply to any thinking person in regards to Revelation 20:6?

Just because some hold on to unbiblical doctrines does not make truth untrue. The first resurrection is not something a man can fall away from. Why? Because the first resurrection is the physical/bodily resurrection of Christ. To have part in Christ's resurrection man MUST be born again through Christ's Spirit in us. I hope you understand what I am saying. Having the Spirit of Christ in us is to have assurance of eternal life through Christ's Spirit, not by our spirit but by His. For He gives us His promise to never leave or depart from us until we receive resurrected immortal & incorruptible body of flesh raised again when the last trumpet sounds. Believing a man could fall away or lose their salvation is saying that the promise from Christ to send His Spirit to be in us forever is not truth! If you doubt the promises of God, it really doesn't matter what other biblical doctrines you believe or not, because you have no hope/assurance that God always keeps His promises. So, you will always be tossed back and forth as I have witnessed of you over these past many years David.

 

[rwb]

(David, another reason why Christ could not have pre-existed! He gave his whole life - everything as a sacrifice for sin)

The man named Jesus as Christ did not pre-exist, but the Spirit that gave Him physical life is God who has always exited. Because Christ is both man of flesh and man of God, Spirit.

 

[rwb]

If you are referring to “Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle,” this event occurs after Christ’s return and the judgment of God’s house. It is Christ and the saints who deliver Jerusalem from their enemies (King of the North), and it happens before the beginning of Christ’s reign on earth. The second resurrection takes place after the final rebellion when sin and death are swallowed up for good.

If gathering together Gog and Magog comes after the return of Christ, why is it said to come after the thousand years are fulfilled, a "little season" when Satan shall be loosed?

Revelation 20:3 (KJV) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Revelation 20:7-8 (KJV) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

 

[rwb]

Not very difficult with careful study - thank you for sharing

a.) the tares are those who never come to Christ = John 3:19-20
b.) the tares include false brethren = also known as goats
c.) Mankind that is unredeemed are under the sway of satan and his angels = Matt ch4 and 2 Cor 10:4
d.) fallen angels, unseen to the physical eye do influence evil in the world = OT prophet Daniel needed assistance from Gabriel
e) Satan is a fallen Arch Angel that is king over the angels that rebelled = Revelation ch12

Good morning David,

Fallen angels??? It isn't unseen fallen angels that influence evil in the world. It is unseen spirits of devils/demons through their king, Satan that brings about evil influence upon the earth. Because it is written the angels of God are spirits sent forth to minister to heirs of salvation. Since ALL the angels of God are ministering spirits, then NONE of them can be fallen. That includes Satan, who was never a fallen angel because he is a liar and murderer from the beginning, called father of lies. Of Satan, called the serpent in Gen 3, was more subtil (cunning and crafty in a bad way) than any beast of the field, and the one to beguile the woman, deceiving her into believing disobeying God would make them like God.

Hebrews 1:7 (KJV) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Hebrews 1:13-14 (KJV) But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

John 8:44 (KJV) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Genesis 3:1 (KJV) Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Genesis 3:13 (KJV) And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

 

[David in NJ]

Take for example, @Spiritual Israelite. He is both an Amil and holds a NOSAS position. His position implies that one can lose part in the first resurrection since he places the first resurrection taking place before one falls away, rather than after they fall away. No way, regardless how one views the first resurrection, can the first resurrection be divorced from salvation. And if one can lose their salvation, and indeed one can, and that if the first resurrection is applicable before one falls away, what does that imply to any thinking person in regards to Revelation 20:6?

Granted, you don't hold a NOSAS position, yet some Amils do. How is it remotely reasonable, assuming Amil is the correct position, that both OSAS and NOSAS can be compatible with Amil? There is no logic to that. We are then forced to conclude one of the following.

1) Amil is Biblical only if OSAS is Biblical, and that NOSAS isn't.

2) Amil is not Biblical if NOSAS is Biblical.

1) if true, obviously does not contradict Revelation 20:6.

2) does not contradict Revelation 20:6 either, since 2) means Premil not Amil.

Yet, if one holds both an Amil position and an NOSAS position, Revelation 20:6 is contradicted since only NOSAS is true and that Amil isn't. Keeping in mind, both Amil and NOSAS can't be true, and Revelation 20:6, for one, undeniably proves it. And that it is absurd to abandon NOSAS, thus change one's position to OSAS in order to supposedly not contradict Revelation 20:6 per Amil. Yet it does contradict Revelation 20:6 since it is not true that only OSAS is Biblical, but NOSAS isn't. It is equally absurd that one can think NOSAS is somehow compatible with Amil, in light of Revelation 20:6 and what NOSAS implies about that verse if one holds both an Amil and NOSAS position.

Unfortunately, @Spiritual Israelite interprets this to be me pitting Amils against each other when that is not even remotely what I'm doing. How could I be doing that if I don't even agree that Amil and OSAS is valid, let alone Amil and NOSAS?

Not to mention, for example. When Ezekiel's temple is brought up by Amils, I don't side with Premils who view this to mean animal sacrificing resumes after the 2nd coming. I speak out against it. I do not view that as Amils pitting Premils against each other. I'm a little more grown up than that, where I don't need to throw a tantrum and insist Amils are trying to pit Premils against one another here simply because they brought up something that not all Premils agree with each other about.

Did you see post 333 ???

Previously, you were unsure of my posts stating how CHRIST is the First Resurrection as stated in Revelation 20:4-6

 

[David in NJ]

Good morning David,

Fallen angels??? It isn't unseen fallen angels that influence evil in the world. It is unseen spirits of devils/demons through their king, Satan that brings about evil influence upon the earth. Because it is written the angels of God are spirits sent forth to minister to heirs of salvation. Since ALL the angels of God are ministering spirits, then NONE of them can be fallen. That includes Satan, who was never a fallen angel because he is a liar and murderer from the beginning, called father of lies. Of Satan, called the serpent in Gen 3, was more subtil (cunning and crafty in a bad way) than any beast of the field, and the one to beguile the woman, deceiving her into believing disobeying God would make them like God.

Hebrews 1:7 (KJV) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Hebrews 1:13-14 (KJV) But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

John 8:44 (KJV) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Genesis 3:1 (KJV) Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Genesis 3:13 (KJV) And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Since ALL the angels of God are ministering spirits, then NONE of them can be fallen

Good Morning as well and thank you,

And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
And war broke out in heaven:
Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
8but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer.
9So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world;
he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

[rwb]

Good Morning as well and thank you,

And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
And war broke out in heaven:
Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
8but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer.
9So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world;
he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Yes, David, this is fulfillment of that which is written in - "Daniel 12:1 (YLT) "And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time, and at that time do thy people escape, every one who is found written in the book."

I believe our understanding of Rev 12 is benefitted using the literal translation (Young's Literal Translation) without inserting bias from the translators.

Revelation 12:7-9 (YLT) And there came war in the heaven; Michael and his messengers did war against the dragon, and the dragon did war, and his messengers, and they did not prevail, nor was their place found any more in the heaven; and the great dragon was cast forth--the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world--he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him.

Why do I believe the literal translators have it right, while other translators have interpreted 'messenger' as angel is wrong and shows bias? Because angelos in the Greek and malak in the Hebrew languages always primarily means 'messenger'. However, as the definitions also show 'messenger' might also be translated an angel, which as I've already shown you are ministering spirits from God sent to minister to heirs of salvation.

ἄγγελος ángelos, ang'-el-os - from ἀγγέλλω angéllō (probably derived from G71; compare G34) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:—angel, messenger.

מֲלְאָךְ mălʼâk, mal-awk' - from an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically, of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher):—ambassador, angel, king, messenger.

Understanding Rev 12 through the literal translation we don't confuse Michael and his messengers, spirit beings called angels of God, with the messengers, spirits called devils/demons/adversary of the dragon (Satan). The battle being waged is between the spiritual forces of good verses the spiritual forces of evil. Angels, spirits sent from God do NOT fight against God. Calling the messengers of the dragon angels adds to the misunderstanding of Satan being a fallen angel of God, where Scripture shows Satan has never been a ministering spirit called angel of God.

 

[Davidpt]

There are a multitude of opinions among many scholars, but only the one opinion is correct.....not because God made it confusing, but because the devil planted a crop of “weeds”, all masquerading as “wheat”.

The “wheat” are still there, but satan has made sure that he has painted them in the worst light, so that no one will take them seriously. Look what he did to the son of God! The Pharisees said he was a fraud and got his power from the devil.....sadly the majority of the Jews believed them....and rejected their own Messiah.

IMO, numerous Christians misinterpret the wheat and tares parable because they assume the tares represent all the lost in general. Which would include, satanists, unbelieving Jews, atheists, witches, so on and so on. What they are missing is this. Whatever the wheat represents in the parable, the tares in the early stages of it's growth are masquerading as wheat. It is crystal clear to me who the wheat represent in the parable. It even says who they represent in the parable---the good seed are the children of the kingdom.

Obviously, the children of the kingdom equals saved saints. And that it is absurd, take atheists, for example, that they are masquerading as the children of the kingdom at any time. No they are not. Who would be masquerading as children of the kingdom would be others in the body of Christ, who Jesus says to in the end(Matthew 7), I never knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity. Matthew 24 and Matthew 25 indentify these as the unprofitable servants of Christ. And that Matthew 25 indentifies the unprofitable servants of Christ as the goats.

Who knows then? Maybe you and I are on the same page here? All I know is, when it comes to other posters on this board, be they Premil or be they Amil, they and I are not even remotely on the same page here. Not even close.

Imagine interpreting the following in Matthew 25 to be involving unbelieving Jews and atheists, for example, to be representing the goats.

Matthew 25:44 Then shall they, unbelieving Jews and atheists, also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

And that makes sense of the text exactly how? Then imagine someone such as Cain being among the goats---Then shall Cain also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw I thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then imagine interpreting the following in Matthew 7 in the same manner.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, including unbelieving Jews, atheists, and even Cain, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?+

Except no one would interpret that in that manner. Why do they then interpret it in that manner in Matthew 25 per the sheep and goats judgment? It is because they are ignoring or maybe misunderstanding context in Matthew 24 and 25 leading up to the sheep and goats judgment. Clearly, those verses are involving profitable servants of Christ and unprofitable servants of Christ. Therefore, the sheep = profitable servants of Christ. The goats = unprofitable servants of Christ.

Unbelieving Jews, for example, are not unprofitable servants of Christ. They are not professed servants of Christ, period. Nor are atheists, nor was Cain. So on and so on.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Take for example, @Spiritual Israelite. He is both an Amil and holds a NOSAS position. His position implies that one can lose part in the first resurrection since he places the first resurrection taking place before one falls away, rather than after they fall away. No way, regardless how one views the first resurrection, can the first resurrection be divorced from salvation.

Right. So, my Amil view is consistent with my NOSAS view since I relate having part in the first resurrection directly with salvation. So, if someone can lose their salvation because of losing their faith then it only follows that they also lose their part in the first resurrection since I relate someone having part in the first resurrection directly with being saved.

And if one can lose their salvation, and indeed one can, and that if the first resurrection is applicable before one falls away, what does that imply to any thinking person in regards to Revelation 20:6?

Granted, you don't hold a NOSAS position, yet some Amils do. How is it remotely reasonable, assuming Amil is the correct position, that both OSAS and NOSAS can be compatible with Amil?

That is dependent on what having part in the first resurrection means. Based on how I understand what it means, NOSAS is compatible. Based on how some other Amils understand it, it wouldn't be compatible. But, for you to try to make a blanket statement that it can't be compatible with the view of any Amil is ludicrous. It is compatible with my particular Amil view and not with how some other Amils see it. So what? I couldn't care less if NOSAS is incompatible with other Amil views. I only care if it's compatible with my view.

There is no logic to that.

There is no logic to you trying to lump all Amils together as if we all agree on everything. Some Amils who see having part in the first resurrection as being directly related to salvation believe OSAS and some believe NOSAS. Amil would only be incompatible with NOSAS if OSAS was true. You try to claim that it can't be compatible no matter what. That just shows your lack of understanding of what Amils believe. If having part in the first resurrection is directly related to salvation and one can lose their salvation, then why wouldn't it follow that they can also lose their part in the first resurrection? The two things go hand in hand if having part in the first resurrection is something that occurs when someone becomes saved.

We are then forced to conclude one of the following.

1) Amil is Biblical only if OSAS is Biblical, and that NOSAS isn't.

2) Amil is not Biblical if NOSAS is Biblical.

LOL. Where do you come up with this nonsense? This shows your lack of understanding of what Amils believe and nothing more. If you actually understood Amil, you would not claim that you can't believe both Amil and NOSAS. But, as you've proven over and over again, you don't understand Amil.

1) if true, obviously does not contradict Revelation 20:6.

2) does not contradict Revelation 20:6 either, since 2) means Premil not Amil.

Yet, if one holds both an Amil position and an NOSAS position, Revelation 20:6 is contradicted since only NOSAS is true and that Amil isn't. Keeping in mind, both Amil and NOSAS can't be true, and Revelation 20:6, for one, undeniably proves it.

How does Revelation 20:6 undeniably prove that? Explain that. You are being so incredibly vague in this post. Be specific and explain what you're talking about in a way that actually makes sense.

And that it is absurd to abandon NOSAS, thus change one's position to OSAS in order to supposedly not contradict Revelation 20:6 per Amil. Yet it does contradict Revelation 20:6 since it is not true that only OSAS is Biblical, but NOSAS isn't.

Look how vague you are being here. You're just making claims with no explanation. Explain exactly why you think NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6. Explain why it would contradict Revelation 20:6 in the case where having part in the first resurrection relates directly to salvation. So far, you have done nothing to back that up.

It is equally absurd that one can think NOSAS is somehow compatible with Amil, in light of Revelation 20:6 and what NOSAS implies about that verse if one holds both an Amil and NOSAS position.

Why? All you do is make claims while doing NOTHING to back them up. How can anyone take you seriously when that is the case?

Unfortunately, @Spiritual Israelite interprets this to be me pitting Amils against each other when that is not even remotely what I'm doing.

LOL! Based on MY understanding of Amil, NOSAS is completely compatible with Amil. Even WPM has acknowledged before that the NOSAS view can be compatible with Amil if it's true. He is OSAS, but he understands that if NOSAS is true it can be compatible with Amil. Why can't you understand that? There's nothing about Amil that makes it so that NOSAS can't be true.

How could I be doing that if I don't even agree that Amil and OSAS is valid, let alone Amil and NOSAS?

Are you as ignorant as you come across or are you playing games? You try to get Amils to agree with you that Amil can only be compatible with NOSAS, so how do you think you're not trying to turn Amils against each other in that case? You try to turn the Amil vs. Premil debate into a OSAS vs. NOSAS debate, which is completely ridiculous.

Not to mention, for example. When Ezekiel's temple is brought up by Amils, I don't side with Premils who view this to mean animal sacrificing resumes after the 2nd coming. I speak out against it. I do not view that as Amils pitting Premils against each other. I'm a little more grown up than that, where I don't need to throw a tantrum and insist Amils are trying to pit Premils against one another here simply because they brought up something that not all Premils agree with each other about.

LOL at you thinking you are more mature than Amils. Hilarious.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

People resurrected long before SOME OT saints did at the cross. That means they cannot be the "first resurrection". They weren't first.

Right. They were not the first resurrection because the first resurrection is the first resurrection of a certain type, which is the resurrection unto bodily immortality. According to scripture (does anyone here care about what scripture says about this?), Jesus Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. Revelation 20 should be understood accordingly. Having part in the first resurrection means to have part in Christ's resurrection.

The first resurrection:

Acts 26:23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Having part in the first resurrection:

Colossians 2: buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

Romans 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life....10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

IMO, numerous Christians misinterpret the wheat and tares parable because they assume the tares represent all the lost in general. Which would include, satanists, unbelieving Jews, atheists, witches, so on and so on. What they are missing is this. Whatever the wheat represents in the parable, the tares in the early stages of it's growth are masquerading as wheat. It is crystal clear to me who the wheat represent in the parable. It even says who they represent in the parable---the good seed are the children of the kingdom.

It's crystal clear to me that you are wrong. It says the tares are "the children of the wicked one".

Matthew 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

So, the tares are the children of the wicked one, which is the devil. Are you somehow not aware that all of the lost are the children of the devil, including "satanists, unbelieving Jews, atheists, witches", etc.?

1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Obviously, the children of the kingdom equals saved saints.

Yes, that's obvious. It's equally obvious, based on 1 John 3:8-10, that the children of the wicked one/devil are all lost sinners. Therefore, the tares, which are the children of the wicked one/devil, are all lost sinners. Why do you talk about who scripture identifies as the the children of the kingdom while saying nothing about who scripture identifies as the children of the devil?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paradise is yet to come!

The souls and spirits of believers are with Jesus in paradise now. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Him that day in paradise.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”