When the saints are overcome

[Davidpt]

LOL! First, you said "NOSAS has zero to do with Eschatology positions" and then you contradicted yourself by implying that one can't be both NOSAS and Amil, which would mean that NOSAS can have something to do with Eschatology positions in that case.

I didn't contradict anything since you obviously didn't know what I meant when I said OSAS vs NOSAS doesn't involve Eschatology positions. Why don't you pay closer attention at what I was addressing at the time instead of taking my post out of context like you typically do a lot of the time? That poster implied that all Premils are of the NOSAS camp. My point was, OSAS vs NOSAS don't involve Eschatology positions because if they did, all Amils would either be OSAS or NOSAS and all Premils would either be OSAS or NOSAS. Yet both positions have some that believe only OSAS is Biblical, and some that believe both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical.

And so what if I said NOSAS contradicts Amil's interpretation of the first resurrection. And I explained why. It is because once someone has part in the first resurrection one can't then lose part in it. Nowhere does Revelation 20:6 give the impression any of them blessed and holy can somehow become no longer blessed and holy and be cast into the LOF instead, as does Amil and NOSAS teach. Amil and NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6, while Amil and OSAS doesn't contradict it, since Amil and NOSAS says one can lose part in the first resurrection, keeping in mind that per Amil the first resurrection comes first, followed by NOSAS later at the end.

While per Premil NOSAS comes first followed by the first resurrection later at the end. Therefore, impossible for Premil to contradict Revelation 20:6 even if some Premils agree that NOSAS is Biblical. The reason why is because NOSAS has already been determined prior to the first resurrection. IOW, anyone that loses their salvation are never part of the first resurrection to begin with. Revelation 20:6 is only pertaining to saints that never lose their salvation, and not like you teach, that it is also pertaining to some that lose their salvation.

Even though Amil and OSAS doesn't contradict Revelation 20:6, so what? That is not even a valid argument unless NOSAS is not Biblical. Except NOSAS is Biblical. Is one to believe something silly, that both Amil and OSAS, and Amil and NOSAS, agree with Revelation 20:6?

If yes, then undeniably prove it. Produce at least one Amil that agrees that only OSAS is Biblical but NOSAS isn't, and that they agree that Amil and NOSAS agrees with not contradicts Revelation 20:6. IOW, it would be pretty silly of them to argue that only OSAS is Biblical then agree that Amil and NOSAS agrees with Revelation 20:6 not contradicts it. Since you apparently enjoy LOL about things, talk about LOL, that would be worthy of LOL about if you could produce such an Amil as that. Therefore, both can't be true, nor can either be true, that Amil and OSAS is Biblical and so is Amil and NOSAS Biblical. Keeping in mind that the former means that that Amil doesn't agree that NOSAS is also Biblical, but only agrees that OSAS is Biblical. And since NOSAS is also Biblical, therefore, Amil and OSAS can't be Biblical since this position contradicts that NOSAS is also Bibllical. And we already know, neither is Amil and NOSAS Biblical since this position contradicts Revelation 20:6 not agrees with it. Keeping in mind that Amil has the first resurrection meaning when one is initially saved. IOW, OSAS vs NOSAS is not even relevant yet.

 

[David in NJ]

I didn't contradict anything since you obviously didn't know what I meant when I said OSAS vs NOSAS doesn't involve Eschatology positions. Why don't you pay closer attention at what I was addressing at the time instead of taking my post out of context like you typically do a lot of the time? That poster implied that all Premils are of the NOSAS camp. My point was, OSAS vs NOSAS don't involve Eschatology positions because if they did, all Amils would either be OSAS or NOSAS and all Premils would either be OSAS or NOSAS. Yet both positions have some that believe only OSAS is Biblical, and some that believe both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical.

And so what if I said NOSAS contradicts Amil's interpretation of the first resurrection. And I explained why. It is because once someone has part in the first resurrection one can't then lose part in it. Nowhere does Revelation 20:6 give the impression any of them blessed and holy can somehow become no longer blessed and holy and be cast into the LOF instead, as does Amil and NOSAS teach. Amil and NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6, while Amil and OSAS doesn't contradict it, since Amil and NOSAS says one can lose part in the first resurrection, keeping in mind that per Amil the first resurrection comes first, followed by NOSAS. While per Premil NOSAS comes first followed by the first resurrection. Therefore, impossible for Premil to contradict Revelation 20:6 even if some Premils agree that NOSAS is Biblical.

Even though Amil and OSAS doesn't contradict Revelation 20:6, so what? That is not even a valid argument unless NOSAS is not Biblical. Except NOSAS is Biblical. Is one to believe something silly, that both Amil and OSAS, and Amil and NOSAS, agree with Revelation 20:6?

both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical.

 

[Davidpt]

both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical.

Exactly! But even so, Revelation 20:6 is only pertaining to saints that never lose their salvation at any time, and that Amil and NOSAS contradicts that, while Premil and NOSAS doesn't contradict it. Therefore, Amil can't be the correct position since both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical and that Amil and NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6. And once again, this is not a problem for Premil since NOSAS is already determined prior to the first resurrection.

Keeping in mind that only OSAS is Biblical but NOSAS isn't, isn't a valid argument nor valid position. Even though there are Amils that believe only OSAS is Biblical, thus are not contradicting Revelation 20:6, their position is still not valid since NOSAS is also Biblical and that Amil and NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6, not agrees with it instead.

 

[David in NJ]

Exactly! But even so, Revelation 20:6 is only pertaining to saints that never lose their salvation at any time, and that Amil and NOSAS contradicts that, while Premil and NOSAS doesn't contradict it. Therefore, Amil can't be the correct position since both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical and that Amil and NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6. And once again, this is not a problem for Premil since NOSAS is already determined prior to the first resurrection.

a purely current spiritual 1,000 year reign cannot be correct because God Says it is not correct.

If this were Truth, it would of come out of the Mouth of God.

Instead, God determined, beginning in Genesis, for a LITERAL 1,000 Year Reign that Begins with the Second Coming of JESUS

 

[Davidpt]

a purely current spiritual 1,000 year reign cannot be correct because God Says it is not correct.

If this were Truth, it would of come out of the Mouth of God.

Instead, God determined, beginning in Genesis, for a LITERAL 1,000 Year Reign that Begins with the Second Coming of JESUS

Even in the early days of the church there were already Christians that had better insight into some of these things than Amils do today since some saints, such as Justin Martyr saw the significance of a thousand years and even pointed out how Adam, for example, fell short of living an entire thousand years, thus the thousand years is connected to 2 Peter 3:8.

-----------------------------
Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.

intertextual.bible | Jubilees 4:29 | Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 81

Explore intertextual connections in biblical literature

intertextual.bible

 

[David in NJ]

Even in the early days of the church there were already Christians that had better insight into some of these things than Amils do today since some saints, such as Justin Martyr saw the significance of a thousand years and even pointed out how Adam, for example, fell short of living an entire thousand years, thus the thousand years is connected to 2 Peter 3:8.

-----------------------------
Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.

intertextual.bible | Jubilees 4:29 | Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 81

Explore intertextual connections in biblical literature

intertextual.bible

Genesis and Daniel and Revelation hold the Understanding

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The word “overcome” simply means to get a victory over someone or something.

Why do you act as if the word has only one definition when everyone knows that is not the case? You showed before that one definition for the word "overcome" is to subdue. If it's talking about the beast overcoming or subduing the saints physically as I believe, it does NOT have to mean that the beast is victorious over them. Maybe from the beast's perspective that might seem to be the case, but we know that those who can kill our body can't kill our soul, so the victory is ours if we are martyred because our souls then go to heaven. You have decided for whatever reason that the word overcome has only one definition, so as long as that's the case you're not going to understand that it's only talking about saints being physically overcome and not spiritually.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn't contradict anything since you obviously didn't know what I meant when I said OSAS vs NOSAS doesn't involve Eschatology positions. Why don't you pay closer attention at what I was addressing at the time instead of taking my post out of context like you typically do a lot of the time? That poster implied that all Premils are of the NOSAS camp. My point was, OSAS vs NOSAS don't involve Eschatology positions because if they did, all Amils would either be OSAS or NOSAS and all Premils would either be OSAS or NOSAS. Yet both positions have some that believe only OSAS is Biblical, and some that believe both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical.

I was saying that from YOUR perspective, OSAS vs. NOSAS does involve Eschatological positions even though you said it doesn't. So, it came across as a contradictory statement whether you realize it or not. You should wonder why it is that only you try to make the argument that Amil and NOSAS can't both be true. I've never seen anyone else ever try to make that ridiculous argument.

And so what if I said NOSAS contradicts Amil's interpretation of the first resurrection.

It doesn't. It only contradicts YOUR understanding of the first resurrection, not Amil's. But, you apparently incapable of trying to look at things from anyone's perspective but your own.

And I explained why. It is because once someone has part in the first resurrection one can't then lose part in it.

From the premil perspective that is true, but not from the amil perspective. As I've explained to you several times. But, you still don't get it. You're the only one who doesn't get it when it comes to that, though.

Nowhere does Revelation 20:6 give the impression any of them blessed and holy can somehow become no longer blessed and holy and be cast into the LOF instead, as does Amil and NOSAS teach.

I've tried to show you how weak this argument is by showing you how you could use the same type of argument in relation to NOSAS for a verse like John 3:16. Is there anything in John 3:16 which gives the impression that anyone who believes in Christ CAN perish and NOT have everlasting life? Nothing explicit, right? Yet, we both still believe that someone can believe in Christ and still later choose to no longer believe and end up perishing without everlasting life.

So, from my Amil perspective, I interpret Revelation 20:6 similarly. Just because there's nothing in the verse which explicitly says that anyone who has part in the first resurrection can later lose their part in the first resurrection doesn't mean that isn't the case any more than it's the case that John 3:16 says that all who ever believe in Jesus will never perish and will have everlasting life without the chance of any exceptions.

Amil and NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6, while Amil and OSAS doesn't contradict it, since Amil and NOSAS says one can lose part in the first resurrection, keeping in mind that per Amil the first resurrection comes first, followed by NOSAS later at the end.

While per Premil NOSAS comes first followed by the first resurrection later at the end. Therefore, impossible for Premil to contradict Revelation 20:6 even if some Premils agree that NOSAS is Biblical. The reason why is because NOSAS has already been determined prior to the first resurrection. IOW, anyone that loses their salvation are never part of the first resurrection to begin with. Revelation 20:6 is only pertaining to saints that never lose their salvation, and not like you teach, that it is also pertaining to some that lose their salvation.

Even though Amil and OSAS doesn't contradict Revelation 20:6, so what? That is not even a valid argument unless NOSAS is not Biblical. Except NOSAS is Biblical. Is one to believe something silly, that both Amil and OSAS, and Amil and NOSAS, agree with Revelation 20:6?

This is all nonsense and not worth responding to. You are only looking at things from the premil perspective and not being objective by being fair and looking at it from the amil perspective as well. You try to force your premil perspective of the first resurrection onto amil and that isn't a fair thing to do.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But even so, Revelation 20:6 is only pertaining to saints that never lose their salvation at any time, and that Amil and NOSAS contradicts that, while Premil and NOSAS doesn't contradict it. Therefore, Amil can't be the correct position since both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical and that Amil and NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6. And once again, this is not a problem for Premil since NOSAS is already determined prior to the first resurrection.

You are speaking complete nonsense here. How can both OSAS and NOSAS both be biblical when those two things contradict each other? The "OS" in those acronyms obviousy stands for "once saved" and it refers to when a person first becomes saved. How can it be true of a person who becomes saved that they both can never lose their salvation after that (OSAS) and that they can lose their salvation after that (NOSAS)?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

a purely current spiritual 1,000 year reign cannot be correct because God Says it is not correct.

And where does God say that?

If this were Truth, it would of come out of the Mouth of God.

Instead, God determined, beginning in Genesis, for a LITERAL 1,000 Year Reign that Begins with the Second Coming of JESUS

So, tell me where this literal 1,000 year reign fits in these passages then:

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

In order for what you're saying to be true there would have to be mortals who survive what is described in these passages which describe what will occur when Jesus comes as a thief in the night. So, tell me why Paul said "they shall not escape" and Peter said fire will burn up the earth "and the works that are therein" when Jesus comes as a thief in the night if there actually will be mortals who escape and are not burned up at that time?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Even in the early days of the church there were already Christians that had better insight into some of these things than Amils do today since some saints, such as Justin Martyr saw the significance of a thousand years and even pointed out how Adam, for example, fell short of living an entire thousand years, thus the thousand years is connected to 2 Peter 3:8.

-----------------------------
Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.

intertextual.bible | Jubilees 4:29 | Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 81

Explore intertextual connections in biblical literature

intertextual.bible

Justin Martyr himself acknowledged that there were many true Christians at that time who disagreed with his premil view. Scripture never says "The day of the Lord is as a thousand years". That came from Justin Martyr's imagination. What Peter was writing about in 2 Peter 3:8 had nothing to do with the day of the Lord but instead had to do with how long it would take for Jesus to come again. That is the context of the verse. Since one day and a thousand years make no difference to the Lord who is not affected by time because of being eternal, no one can say He's taking too long to return. It's not a long time to Him from His eternal perspective where one day and a thousand years make no difference. It's a huge reach to try to use 2 Peter 3:8 to support your understanding of Revelation 20.

 

[grafted branch]

Why do you act as if the word has only one definition when everyone knows that is not the case? You showed before that one definition for the word "overcome" is to subdue. If it's talking about the beast overcoming or subduing the saints physically as I believe, it does NOT have to mean that the beast is victorious over them. Maybe from the beast's perspective that might seem to be the case, but we know that those who can kill our body can't kill our soul, so the victory is ours if we are martyred because our souls then go to heaven. You have decided for whatever reason that the word overcome has only one definition, so as long as that's the case you're not going to understand that it's only talking about saints being physically overcome and not spiritually.

The word “overcome” <3528> can mean to subdue but only when the word “subdue” contains the meaning of victory. <3528> always has the thought of victory associated with it. Here is what Stong’s lexicon says about that word and how it is used in the NT …



The verb νικάω (nikaó) is used in the New Testament to describe the act of overcoming or gaining victory, often in a spiritual or moral context. It conveys the idea of triumphing over adversities, challenges, or enemies. This term is frequently associated with the victory of faith, the triumph of Christ over sin and death, and the believer's call to overcome the world through faith in Jesus Christ.



Strong’s agrees that the word “overcome” is always used with the idea of gaining victory or triumphing over. If you disagree can you give the verses (besides Revelation 11:7 & 13:7) that don’t use <3528> in that context?

In 1 Corinthians 15:28 the word “subdue” is <5293> which means to be subject to or subordinate, to be under obedience.

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Overcome doesn’t mean subdued in this way. Christians are subdued under Christ but we are not overcome by Christ.

How are you defining “subdue”? As in the aspirin subdues my headaches? That meaning doesn’t have the thought of victory, like saying the doctor removed my tumor which subdued my headaches. The word “subdued”, used that way in that sentence means victory.

 

[Davidpt]

You are speaking complete nonsense here. How can both OSAS and NOSAS both be biblical when those two things contradict each other? The "OS" in those acronyms obviousy stands for "once saved" and it refers to when a person first becomes saved. How can it be true of a person who becomes saved that they both can never lose their salvation after that (OSAS) and that they can lose their salvation after that (NOSAS)?

If OSAS is not Biblical then explain how some never lose their salvation? That doesn't mean NOSAS is not Biblical as well. Both are true since salvation is conditional. If one meets it's conditions that person will then be OSAS. If one fails to meet the conditions that person will then be NOSAS. Thus both are Biblical.

Getting back to Amil and NOSAS, you are doing me a huge favor since there have been a cpl of times I almost decided that Amil is the correct position. So this is actually more about me than it is you, meaning from my perspective. Because it dawned on me one day that there are Amils that agree both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical. Then I started thinking about that some more. Is NOSAS even compatible with Amil the fact they don't view the first resurrection as the bodily raising of the saints when Christ returns? Of course though, after seeing your post here you might not be an Amil that believes both views are Biblical, but even so, I don't reason it like you do then. Since I don't see it making sense that if some never lose their salvation that this means OSAS is not Biblical.

So I started with the following.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


The way verse 6 reads to me, without exception every single person that has part in the first resurrection are blessed and holy. Obviously, they can't be blessed and holy if they can be cast into the LOF like your doctrine of Amil and NOSAS teaches. Equally, without exception every single person that has part in the first resurrection, on such the second death hath no power. Obviously, the second death can't have no power over them if they can be cast into the LOF like your doctrine of Amil and NOSAS teaches.

and shall reign with him a thousand years. And as an Amil, what do you do with this part? Doesn't Amil teach that once anyone who has part in the first resurrection then dies, that they continue reigning with Christ a thousand years in heaven in a disembodied state? Obviously, if they are going to fall away they don't fall away after they have already died, they fall away before they die. How then does someone that falls away, then continues reigning a thousand years with Christ in heaven in a disembodied state? Since when do unsaved people ever spend any time in heaven?

Left and right, even though Amil is not the correct position to begin with, your view contradicts Amil's interpretation of the first resurrection and contradicts that Amil has all those in verse 6, not some of those, but all of those, when they die, they then continue reigning a thousand years in heaven. What do we do? Do we take NOSAS out of the equation and that this then makes Amil the correct position? Can't take NOSAS out of the equation if NOSAS is Biblical, now can we?

Like I already pointed out. None of this presents a problem for Premil even if some Premils agree NOSAS is also Biblical. And I already explained why. Per Premil falling away or not falling away comes first, followed by the first resurrection later on. Therefore, anyone that might fall away, they fall away before the first resurrection ever occurs. Thus they have no part in it to begin with and John is not even including them in verse 6. Verse 6 only pertains to saints that never fall away. And not like your doctrine teaches, that it pertains to both saints that never fall away and to saints that fall away.

Per Amil the first resurrection comes first, followed by either falling away or not falling away. Which then makes verse 6 a lie if one is Amil and also of the NOSAS camp.

On a side note. In my mind there is a difference between the following.

A) Only OSAS is Biblical, NOSAS isn't Biblical.
B) OSAS is not Biblical, only NOSAS is Biblical.
C) OSAS is Biblical and so is NOSAS Biblical.

My view is C) since A) denies that NOSAS is also Biblical, and B) denies that OSAS is also Biblical. IOW, there is no such thing in all of the Bible such as, only OSAS is Biblical, or only NOSAS is Biblical. Both A) and B) are a contradiction. C) is not a contradiction and is the only reasonable way to view it because salvation is conditional, it being conditional being the key. I'm not arguing against, OSAS is Biblical. I'm arguing against, only OSAS is Biblical. Huge difference between the two.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If OSAS is not Biblical then explain how some never lose their salvation?

You are creating your own definition for OSAS here that doesn't relate to the context of what the OSAS vs. NOSAS debate is about. In that context, OSAS means that it's not possible for anyone to lose their salvation while NOSAS means it is possible for any saved person to lose their salvation. So, in that context, only one of those things can be true.

That doesn't mean NOSAS is not Biblical as well. Both are true since salvation is conditional. If one meets it's conditions that person will then be OSAS. If one fails to meet the conditions that person will then be NOSAS. Thus both are Biblical.

When defined that way, sure, but that is not the normal way of defining OSAS and NOSAS when it comes to the OSAS vs. NOSAS debate. Those terms normally relate to whether it is possible for someone to lose their salvation (NOSAS) or not (OSAS).

Getting back to Amil and NOSAS, you are doing me a huge favor since there have been a cpl of times I almost decided that Amil is the correct position.

Who are you trying to kid here? I don't believe this for a second. Why are you being so dishonest here? You have been a staunch Premil while supporting Premil on these forums for many years to this day, but I'm supposed to believe you almost decided that Amil is correct? I don't believe that at all.

So this is actually more about me than it is you, meaning from my perspective. Because it dawned on me one day that there are Amils that agree both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical.

Only in the way you are defining OSAS and NOSAS. I agree they are biblical with the way you are defining them as well. Everyone who believes NOSAS agrees with you on this since everyone who believes NOSAS also believes that many are saved and never lose their salvation. Again, you are defining these terms differently than everyone else does, so that is causing some confusion here.

So, unless you talk about this from the way those terms are normally defined, this is a complete waste of time.

Then I started thinking about that some more. Is NOSAS even compatible with Amil the fact they don't view the first resurrection as the bodily raising of the saints when Christ returns? Of course though, after seeing your post here you might not be an Amil that believes both views are Biblical, but even so, I don't reason it like you do then. Since I don't see it making sense that if some never lose their salvation that this means OSAS is not Biblical.

Again, OSAS means that it's not possible for someone to lose their salvation. But, you and I believe it is possible. So, from that perspective, OSAS is not biblical. Unless we get on the same page with how we are defining OSAS, this discussion is pointless.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The way verse 6 reads to me, without exception every single person that has part in the first resurrection are blessed and holy.

But, someone could use that same kind of logic and conclude that John 3:16 is saying every person without exception who believes in Christ will not perish and will have everlasting life. So, why do you not interpret John 3:16 with the same kind of logic you use to interpret Revelation 20:6?

Obviously, they can't be blessed and holy if they can be cast into the LOF like your doctrine of Amil and NOSAS teaches.

A person can be blessed and holy while they are saved, right? Are they still blessed and holy if they lose their faith and their salvation? No, right? So, what is the difference between that and how I interpret Revelation 20:6? There is no difference. But, you refuse to make any effort to look at this from my perspective, so you just don't get it.

Equally, without exception every single person that has part in the first resurrection, on such the second death hath no power. Obviously, the second death can't have no power over them if they can be cast into the LOF like your doctrine of Amil and NOSAS teaches.

and shall reign with him a thousand years. And as an Amil, what do you do with this part? Doesn't Amil teach that once anyone who has part in the first resurrection then dies, that they continue reigning with Christ a thousand years in heaven in a disembodied state? Obviously, if they are going to fall away they don't fall away after they have already died, they fall away before they die. How then does someone that falls away, then continues reigning a thousand years with Christ in heaven in a disembodied state? Since when do unsaved people ever spend any time in heaven?

From the perspective of those who are saved and have died, of course they can't lose their salvation after that. But, Amils believe that believers have part in the first resurrection before they die because we equate being born again/saved with having part in the first resurrection. Those who are faithful until death go to heaven (their souls) to reign with Christ because they had part in the first resurrection.

Left and right, even though Amil is not the correct position to begin with, your view contradicts Amil's interpretation of the first resurrection

No, it absolutely does not. You are very ignorant when it comes to Amil. Even after all these years, you do not understand what we believe, which is almost unbelievable.

and contradicts that Amil has all those in verse 6, not some of those, but all of those, when they die, they then continue reigning a thousand years in heaven.

No, it does not. You are not the one who decides what Amils believe. We will tell you what we believe. But, you are too stubborn to listen. That verse does not say that everyone who has part in the first resurrection is guaranteed to go to heaven when they die and reign with Christ. It doesn't say that any more than John 3:16 says that everyone who believes in Christ will not perish and will have everlasting life. But, that is what we would have to conclude if we interpreted John 3:16 with the same kind of logic you use to interpret Revelation 20:6. Can you understand that? Can you please address that?