Search results

I get where you are coming from since Romans 2(29) does tend to explain this part in Revelation 3:9---them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie--- but how does Romans 2(29) help explain this part in Revelation 3:9 though---behold, I will make them to come...

Since you appear to be applying this locally rather than globally, who in the land right now would be meaning the wheat and who would be meaning the tares? 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...

Here's what the passage actually says in context. Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Jesus is the speaker here...

Why then is there a rebellion after the millennium, if before the millennium Jesus already got rid of all who don't belong? This assuming Premil. Maybe you are not a Premil, though? Can't remember if you are or are not.

What are you meaning by unbelievers, though? All the unsaved lost in general, including atheists, for example? If yes, in what way are atheists in the kingdom of God when one can not even see and enter the kingdom of God to begin with unless they are born again first? John 3:1 There was a man...

Look what the KJV says, though. John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him...

Once again, keeping in mind Amil has satan sowing the tares during the millennium when satan is in the pit. Premil doesn't. When satan is sowing the tares it is meaning in the here and now, the same here and now that Amils have satan sowing the tares while satan is in the pit. I see this being...

Look what you are arguing here, then compare to the following which is clearly already meaning before the cross not after it. John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a...

Apparently, your view, the fact you are of the OSAS camp, doesn't allow for anyone to have a chance to initially enter the kingdom of God then prove themselves worthy or not worthy after having entered. Your view makes God unfair instead of God giving everyone a chance to enter the kingdom of...

It seems rather simple and straightforward to me. Not once saved always saved(NOSAS) explains a lot of it, or maybe even all of it.

I don't interpret any of that like @Timtofly does, but that is beside the point since you make an interesting point here, regardless. But not how your point might apply to the millennium post the 2nd coming, but how it would apply to the millennium before the 2nd coming. One view in regards to...

Doesn't this basically mean we are in agreement here, in regards to who the tares are meaning in that context? You don't think, per this context, tares also mean, for example, atheists, witches, satanists, etc, right?

What you are basically saying is. When Jesus died then rose, the body He died in was never seen again. Instead of rising in the body He died in, He rose in a different body altogether. John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except...

I'm not certain what you are meaning by this? Can you provide an example of how Amils would be doing this?

Actually I'm hardly the only one that interprets it in this manner. You can query Google, for example, and come up with numerous links that support what I'm arguing. It might be different if I was the only person on the planet arguing it in this manner, but that is hardly the case. I still...

Exactly! And by ignoring context like some of these interpreters do is to then make total nonsense out of the imagery used. How does it make sense, if in the real world, tares resemble wheat in it's early stages, and then contradict that by insisting the tares are meaning all of the lost in...

I realize it is a parable, but so what? Since it is a parable does that mean none of Christ's enemies are literally slain in some manner? Since it is a parable, should we take it to mean no one actually literally leaves the planet at some point to go and receive a kingdom for Himself then...

Why would a sanctuary in heaven need to be cleansed? Therefore, a sanctuary on earth seems more likely. But that doesn't have to mean a literal brick and mortar sanctuary is meant. IMO, it involves 2 Thessalonians 2:4, for one, and that I don't take that verse in the literal sense. Def not...

Shouldn't we be considering context first before deciding how to interpret something? It seems to me that you are applying verse 27 universally rather than in context. Verse 14 provides context for verse 27, does it not? Luke 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him...

I don't misrepresent Amil. You just don't understand how my arguments work. If I'm assuming that I'm interpreting something correctly, that is the POV I am arguing from and that I then proceed to show why Amil can't be the correct position because it contradicts this or that, etc, based on my...