Wise and Foolish Virgins

[J. Jump]

The man is not in heaven. Jesus was telling a parable.

So SFIC where is the wedding feast if not in heaven?

Jesus is telling you an earthly story to help you understand a spiritual reality. This is what's going to take place in heaven after the judgment seat. There are going to be some that think they are prepared for the wedding and then there are going to be those that ARE prepared for the wedding.

It's amazing that something is so absolutely clear and yet you continue to deny it to hold on to your tradition.

 

[J. Jump]

I think idea of 2 states could help explain other confusing , 'lose salvation' verses. Very interesting.

And this is exactly why I share, because you never know who's reading and you never know when God's going to turn on the Light switch in someone's spirit.

Understanding Scripture the way it was laid out makes a lot of the confusing passages just disappear. It's amazing. God's Scriptures are truly amazing!!!

 

[J. Jump]

J.Jump... i am surprised at you now. you just contradicted your whole argument right there.

from that statement there i can then say that "the only people that can not even be prepared are unsaved individuals."

in you saying what you said in the above quote. you put yourself in the position that the foolish were unprepared. which i believe you have stated that the foolish were unprepared.

but also in saying what you said in the above quote. you insinuate that the unprepared are unsaved. which alludes to the notion of "the foolish virgins were unsaved because they were unprepared."

Gekko you were either misunderstanding what I was saying or reading to far into what I said.

The only people that even have a shot at being prepared for the return of Christ are the saved. All 10 of these virigins could have been wise. All 10 of them could have taken oil with them. But 5 did not, because they were foolish. While they were unprepared when he came they had the ability to prepare, but chose not to.

An unsaved person can not prepare themselves for the coming of Christ. They only thing and unsaved person can do is accept the death and shed blood of Christ on their behalf. Then and only then are they able to prepare themselves for Christ's return.

Again there is nothing in the text that shows they were unsaved. The numbers alone tell us a completely different story. Ten is the number of completion of what is in view. All 10 virigins were either saved or all 10 where either unsaved. They were all the same to begin with.

Again they were split into groups of five. Five is the number of grace. Do you think it just odd coincidence that these numbers are used. Again why didn't the Holy Spirit use 9-1, 8-2, 7-3, 6-4? Why 5-5?

 

[J. Jump]

But after just a bit of research it seems as though whether something is plural or singular is not shown in the actual word, but in the article in front of the word.

Well it's always fun to have to eat crow

I would like to correct my mistake here, as I see what happened with the text that I was looking at. I use blueletterbible.org a lot. Very helpful website by the way.

And when they broke down this verse they only put the root word in the breakdown not the word that is in the text that has the plural ending on it. If you go to www.blueletterbible.org and put in Revelation 19:8 you will see some letters to the left. Click on the "C" and it will give you a breakdown of the verse. Scroll down to righeousness and you will see dikaiwma in the breakdown, but the actual word used in the text is dikaiwmata. The ta on the end of it is what shows that it is plural, which the ta on the end of "the" shows that "the" belongs to that word.

I believe this to be accurate information, and I apologize for the mis-information distributed earlier :thumbs:

 

[J. Jump]

This illustrates a sinner who thinks he can approach God through some means other than through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ.

Linda I'll ask you like I asked SFIC can you show me any other passage in the Bible where an unsaved human is pictured in heaven in his unsaved condition?

Then can you also answer the question as to why this man was called a friend by the king? Unsaved individuals are not God's friends.

Again the context is not spiritual salvation. Spiritual salvation is settled before a person dies. This is a picture of what is to take place after a person dies.

And again you all want people to jump through all kinds of hoops to come to the same conclusion that you are coming to so you can hold on to traditional teaching.

The simple, plain facts are the texts do not support what you are trying to say.

 

[Brother Bob]

1Ki 8:50And forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them

This is problem the best one posted by SFIC;

Luk 18:13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

You said show you a scripture where someone prayed for Salvation and now you mock them.

 

[J. Jump]

1Ki 8:50And forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them

And we have another Bobism sighting

 

[gekko]

You said show you a scripture where someone prayed for Salvation and now you mock them.

yah bob. but its not the words that you say that are going to save you.

 

[J. Jump]

Luk 18:13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

You said show you a scripture where someone prayed for Salvation and now you mock them.

Nice edit job Bob after I had already posted. You're a sly little devil aren't you. I'm going to have to keep my eye on you. Edit your post after someone has already posted and them make them look bad. I see your tactics Bob

Bob I will give you this much on this verse. It may or may not be a prayer of eternal salvation. In my uneducated look at the language it seems to be a possibility. However here is my struggle.

One we have no mention of Jesus Christ, His death or His shed blood. That makes me really struggle with it being a prayer of eternal salvation. Just admitting to God that you are a sinner and asking for mercy doesn't make you saved.

Two we are not told whether this person is a Jew or else. He is directly compared with a Pharisee so I think that it is just as legitimate that this man is a Jew, but is said to be a tax collector to even heighten the comparison in the parable.

If this man is a Jew then this verse is definitely not a prayer for eternal salvation.

For obvious reasons I am leaning the opposite way than you are, but I will at least admit that it is a possibility, and I'll have to do some more checking.

However, it doesn't say that all people have to pray to be saved. So my point still stands on that issue. Praying is not a requirement of eternal salvation. Can people pray sure, but they are saved before they even say the words, because they have already believed or they wouldn't be praying.

Praying doesn't bring on the faith, faith can bring on the prayer!

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Yes, in one simple, concise word:

δικαιωματα

That word may be plural, but it is plural because it is God's Righteousness given to many, to all the saints. It does not mean we have to have our own righteousness. Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags before the Lord. God would not accept us clothed in our own righteousness.

If the writer had just said saint instead of saints, the word righteousness would have been used in the singular. But it would still be God's righteousness and not ours.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

So SFIC where is the wedding feast if not in heaven?

Jesus is telling you an earthly story to help you understand a spiritual reality. This is what's going to take place in heaven after the judgment seat. There are going to be some that think they are prepared for the wedding and then there are going to be those that ARE prepared for the wedding.

It's amazing that something is so absolutely clear and yet you continue to deny it to hold on to your tradition.

No, i do not hold to my tradition, I hold onto the Word of God.

 

[J. Jump]

That word may be plural, but it is plural because it is God's Righteousness given to many, to all the saints. It does not mean we have to have our own righteousness. Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags before the Lord. God would not accept us clothed in our own righteousness.

If the writer had just said saint instead of saints, the word righteousness would have been used in the singular. But it would still be God's righteousness and not ours.

SFIC just reading your posts just breaks my heart. Because you just continually try to refute the obvious. You don't admit that the word is plural so that you can prove your point, but then you admit that the word is plural but it still proves your point when yesterday it being plural didn't prove your point.

Then you say the writer made mistake becuase he should have used the word saint instead of saints. I mean really.

Man you just really have to work to hold on. My heart truly aches for you! :tear:

There's just no way to get that text to say what you want it to say, but yet you still refuse to conform to Scripture.

 

[J. Jump]

I hold onto the Word of God.

SFIC it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see all the twisting and dodging and ducking and ignoring that has gone on with you and some others.

You have CLEARLY been shown that Revelation 19:8 doesn't say what you want it to say, but you continue to refuse to conform to Scripture. And yet you make the wild claim that you hold on to the Word of God.

Well the Word of God says the righteous acts of the saints, so are you going to believe that or not. It doesn't say the Righteousness of God that is given to the saints, but the saints are to clothe themselves in their righteous acts (awards).

That's plainly what the Word of God says.

 

[Brother Bob]

gekko;
We know that but Jesus said believe in thine heart and confess with thy mouth. You will agree with that I hope. peace

 

[standingfirminChrist]

SFIC just reading your posts just breaks my heart. Because you just continually try to refute the obvious. You don't admit that the word is plural so that you can prove your point, but then you admit that the word is plural but it still proves your point when yesterday it being plural didn't prove your point.

I did not admit it was plural. I said if it is plural. If.

Then you say the writer made mistake becuase he should have used the word saint instead of saints. I mean really.

Really?? Where did I say that?

Man you just really have to work to hold on. My heart truly aches for you! :tear:

Maybe instead of aching for me, it should be aching for yourself.

There's just no way to get that text to say what you want it to say, but yet you still refuse to conform to Scripture.

I have conformed to scripture. I refuse to conform to thinking my righteousness is pleasing to God when His Word says it is not.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Well the Word of God says the righteous acts of the saints

Revelation 19:8 8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Hmmm, I see no righteousness of the saints there. I see the saints clothed in Christ's Righteousness.

Just as in the parable of the man at the wedding who refused to put on the clean garment provided by the king, but wore His own garments... we see here the fine linen is not our righteousness, but the garment provided by the King, Christ's righteousness. The righteousness provided to the saints.

 

[J. Jump]

I did not admit it was plural. I said if it is plural. If.

Here is your quote:

That word may be plural, but it is plural because

I have to admit that when I went back to confirm it is a little confusing. You say maybe and then you say is. Maybe means can be, but maybe not, but is means definite. You use both in your statement, so I'm not really sure what you mean.

Hmmm, I see no righteousness of the saints there. I see the saints clothed in Christ's Righteousness.

Well let me show you AGAIN.

Here is the original Greek word used in the Revelation 19:8 text in question.

dikaiwmata - That is the plural form of the Greek word -dikaiwma

There is nothing to deny there. It is plainly a plural word. You can either accept it or continue to reject Scripture.

And it doesn't say the multiple righteousness of Christ/God, but the multiple righteousness of the saints. It doesn't say anything about God giving the saints the righteousness. Eternal salvation is God clothing you. This verse says we are to clothe ourselves. Again and again and again it has been shown to you that your view does not match up with Scripture. Period. It just doesn't.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

One can accept the fact that the King provides the garments necessary to attend the Marriage supper, or one cannot.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

And it doesn't say the multiple righteousness of Christ/God, but the multiple righteousness of the saints. It doesn't say anything about God giving the saints the righteousness. Eternal salvation is God clothing you. This verse says we are to clothe ourselves. Again and again and again it has been shown to you that your view does not match up with Scripture. Period. It just doesn't.

I was recently given clothes by the music director of our church. Now, he did not put those clothes on me, but he did give them to me. I put them on myself.

In Revelation 19, we see the Righteous King Jesus Christ, giving fine linen of righteousness to the wedding guest.

No problem seeing she clothed herself, but she clothed herself with linen provided by Him, not her own.

Revelation 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

I really do not see the woman going out and buying a garment that she likes for the wedding. If that were the case, she would be arrayed in her own clothes. But since Jesus gives the parable in Matthew 22 and says the man was arrayed in his own clothes and was not accepted, I cannot imagine it being any different in the Marriage Supper shown in Revelation 19. The guest is clothed in Christ's righteousness, not her own.

 

[gekko]

One can accept the fact that the King provides the garments necessary to attend the Marriage supper, or one cannot.

and the King would not give the necessary garments to those he knew would not beable to attend at all. who would not have a chance at all at the door.

the King would give the necessary garments and tools (oil lamp for instance) to those that would have a chance at coming to the marriage supper.

see what im getting at yet?
seems you've contradicted your argument SFIC.

haha. or maybe im misunderstanding again like i did with J.Jump. who knows.