Search results

Why are you unwilling to grasp my point? My point is simple, and the fact we both agree NOSAS is Biblical, you would think we would be on the same page here at least. Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but...

Obviously, when they came out of their tombs they were bodily alive at the time. Some of them could have even been in a dust state at the time, depending on how long they have been dead. If nothing else, all of them would at least be in a decaying skeleton state. And since it would be absurd...

You are saying this below, correct? If yes, then there is nothing that I can see that I might disagree with. Therefore, it appears that we are maybe on the same page here. 1) “Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle,”, is the final rebellion that occurs after the millennium during...

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...

I don't even need to watch the video in order to determine if he is correct or not. Nor am I even going to bother watching his proposed Preterist nonsense. Clearly, he isn't correct. Take 70 AD, the time period in question. Was there also a false prophet involved with 70 AD? After all, according...

Though, I have never thought about it like that, there does appear to be some logic to that since those in Revelation 20:7-9 would have been alive during the millennium, yet not rebelling during the millennium then after the millennium rebelling, therefore leading to their destruction. Except...

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...

To be fair, I guess, a spiritual resurrection would imply a bodily resurrection is pending. But if one is an Amil and also holds an NOSAS position, those 2 positions combined clearly contradict Revelation 20:6. Nowhere in that verse does it say nor imply that anyone who has part in the first...

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...

If Amils agree a bodily resurrection is essential to eternal life, and clearly they do agree, why isn’t it in Revelation 20 at all under their view? If 'the first resurrection' recorded in Revelation 20 is not meaning the bodily resurrection of saints, what resurrection in Revelation 20 is...

I submitted the following to Chatgpt. Me: Some Amils, if not all Amils, argue this. Verse 4 used this Greek word---zao---and that verse 5 used this Greek word---anazao. Therefore, lived again can't be meant in verse 4. Because if it meant lived again in verse 4, anazao would have been used...

Amils and apparently some Premils are missing the point I’m making. None of us deny that other passages teach a bodily resurrection of believers at the end of the age--we all agree about that. The question is what John saw in Revelation 20:4-6. John records only two resurrections, not 3, nor 4...

Apparently, all spirits return to God who gave it, including the spirits of both the saved and lost. The way I interpret it, it simply means the breath of life returned to God, as if He inhaled, where initially He exhaled(Genesis 2:7). IOW, we have to think outside the box here. Ecclesiastes...

Note what I initially said, a first resurrection aside--"There are only two resurrection events recorded in Revelation 20. And that Amils have the most important resurrection of all, 2nd to Christ's, missing from Revelation 20 altogether. Meaning the bodily resurrection of saved saints" What...

My point is this. Scripture indicates that Jesus would be in the heart of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights(Matthew 12:40), and that being in the heart of the earth could not possibly be the equivalent of coming into His kingdom nor even going to heaven. And that the thief on His right asked...

So why are you not Amil then? How can you argue that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is meaning Christ's, thus Amil's position, then argue that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is meaning the bodily resurrection of saints in the future, thus Premil's position? That sounds...

I fully agree with you here, the fact Jesus never came into His kingdom upon death, if it is not until His ascension that he is even presented with a kingdom. And that it is not until He returns in the end of this age that He even comes into His kingdom(Luke 19:15). Let's just face it, some...

Thinking out loud here. I have mentioned this in the past. There are only two resurrection events recorded in Revelation 20. And that Amils have the most important resurrection of all, 2nd to Christ's, missing from Revelation 20 altogether. Meaning the bodily resurrection of saved saints. Amil...

Maybe he is meaning someone such as Martha's brother, for example? Clearly, he was dead first then he is alive. Can't be raised from the dead without being resurrected. Lazarus was raised from the dead before Christ was raised from the dead, obviously. Therefore, the first resurrection isn't...

In post #254 I think I quoted the wrong portion of your post. I meant to quote this portion instead, or at least include it---(This immediately removes Janes JW ruling from heaven doctrine!) That what I was saying sounds like SDA doctrine, this ruling from heaven rather than from earth once...