They will reign with Him a thousand years and making an unknown Greek out of the English New Testament

[CadyandZoe]

What spirit? You are changing God's Word. This is the text:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

This does not say God combined a physical body with a spiritual body, and created a soul. This does not even say God placed a spirit inside of a physical body.

A cursory review of the Hebrew text will reveal that, indeed, the text says that God "breathed life" into man, and he became a living soul. The Hebrew word for "breath" is also the Hebrew word for "spirit." Christians believe, as Jesus taught, that God is a spirit. Therefore, the "breath of life" was not air or breath literally. The breath of life is spirit, as Jesus also taught. John 6:63, Romans 8:11, 1 Corinthians 15:45, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Galatians 6:8

This says that God breathes life into us every time a human is conceived in a womb.

Does it?

The soul does not cease to exist when the body dies.

I respectfully disagree. According to Genesis 2:7, God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and then God breathed life into his body, and he became a "living being." The word is typically translated as "soul," but the term indicates the whole person. The "soul" isn't a constituent part of a human being; the "soul" is the entire human being. Not only this, but the term "living" indicates activity, occupation, work, play, adventure, warring, building, constructing, making, inventing, marriage, children, and all sorts of human activities. A "soul" is a living, active person.

Once a person dies, activity stops. At that moment, Adam ceased to be a "living being." He ceased to be "a soul" because he no longer had the breath of life in him.

We could easily conclude that the breath of life is the Holy Spirit. Every one gets the Holy Spirit when conceived. When the Holy Spirit leaves at death, then the body ceases to function. So that breath of life is not even our spirit, but the Holy Spirit that maintains physical life until the time God takes back the Holy Spirit.

I see no evidence that a person is born into the Holy Spirit. The Bible reveals that God pours out his Holy Spirit into the hearts of select people -- the chosen.

Only the soul is eternal.

The concept of the Eternal Soul, is not a Biblical concept. It came out of Greek Philosophy. (Socrates)

Jesus was the only human whose body came out of that grave, as that physical body was not temporal, corruptible, nor from Adam.

Do you have any scriptural support for your assertions?

The physical body of Jesus was permanent incorruptible, from God.

The fact that Jesus died is contrary to this assertion.

The term mortal does not suggest "subject to" it means lacking eternal life which is the state of death.

What dictionary says this?

You use the term immortal which means non death as if it means eternal life, no? Do you say immortal means "subject to life"?

No. The word "mortal" doesn't mean "death." The prefix "im," in "immortal." means "not" or "no" when used with some adjectives that begin with b, m, or p. The word "mortal" means "subject to death." The word "immortal" means, "not subject to death."

 

[JBO]

So Adam did not have a physical body until he disobeyed God?

How is a spiritual body made from dust?

Humans will always have a physical body. Humans will always have a spirit separate from the physical body. If you call the body, spirit, what do you call the spirit?

Adam's physical body cannot enter heaven. God's physical body given to all sons of God can enter heaven.

Pure gibberish!

Eccl 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

God created a soul to be eternal,

Not according to the Bible.

Adam was made subject to death, because he no longer had that permanent incorruptible physical body.

Adam never had a permanent, incorruptible body, let alone two bodies.

Why would the Holy Spirit remain in a dead mortal body?

Again, mortal doesn't mean "dead". Your incorrect understanding of the term "mortal" is leading to all sorts of wrong conclusions.

Once again you hold this term spirit as something created.

Everything is created, except the creator.

The verse claims the breath of life is God

What verse tells you that the breath of life is God?

God gave that spirit, and that spirit returns to God.

Yes. The Bible distinguishes the Spirit of God and the spirit of a man.

Your soul is the mind and heart. Certainly not the brain and the heart that pumps blood. The brain and heart organ are merely physical.

I don't HAVE a "soul" as you suppose; I AM a soul.

Why do you say the spirit remains with the body removed and the body remains with the spirit removed?

I didn't say that did I? I don't think I did.

The only thing that God created was the dust of the physical body.

God creates everything.

If we had that original body that was permanent and incorruptible, that body would never die.

Where are you getting these ideas? No one, except Jesus Christ, has been given a permanent and incorruptible body. He was the first, which is why it says that he was the "first fruits" of those who are asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:20)

The only body that returns to dust is this second body of death, you call mortal.

There is no such thing as a second body of death.

Once again the soul is the eternal you.

No such thing as an eternal soul.

Jesus told us about Abraham's bosom.

Jesus was telling a fable based on cultural mythology. He wasn't giving us a real picture of what actually takes place.

How can David cease to exist if he claims he can be in heaven or sheol?

He is writing poetry using hyperbole.

My argument is that John sees souls throughout the book of Revelation as always existing with or without a physical body, because you are the soul.

I maintain that the book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature, a form of indirect communication using visions, symbols, and allegory. In chapter 6, for instance, John sees souls under the altar. This is highly symbolic, based on temple sacrifices when the blood of the victim is poured out at the base of the altar before the body is placed on the altar fires. (Exodus 29:12)

In this instance, John incorporates an image from the Jewish religious practice of atonement to picture the Jewish persecution of Jesus, ministers whom he sent out to testify about the gospel. Just as the blood of bulls was poured out at the foot of the altar, the blood of Jesus' ministers was poured out. In this context, then, John uses the word "soul" here to mean "life blood." And they cry out, "How long with you refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

You contradict Matthew 27

Are you sure about your citation? I don't see anything in that passage about Abraham.

Ephesians 4:8
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."

Those in Christ are consistently rising first.

According to Ephesians 4, Christ is the one who ascended up on high, not his followers. He ascended on high to receive (from the father) gifts of men. And Jesus gives these men to the Church to minister the gospel: apostles, evangelists, prophets, teachers and preachers.

 

[grafted branch]

The heads are mountains, and the horns are kings that have kingdoms. That would make the heads/mountains the areas of land where kingdoms exist. Think the 7 continents as the mountains. Also mountains don't only mean (super high) mountains in English but any land rising up out of water so islands and entire continents also apply.

I agree with that analogy, in Matthew 21:21 Jesus says if we have faith we can say to this mountain, be removed and cast into the sea. In Revelation 13:1-3 the beast rises out of the sea with one of his heads (mountains) healed.

Do you see any correlation between these verses?

 

[Davidpt]

Right, when this happened is important. In Daniel 12:1 Michael stands up and in Revelation 12:7 Michael fights the dragon. If you don’t think these are both referring to the same time period then I would think you could give a reasonable explanation. So far you’ve only given the idea that Michael didn’t actually fighting the dragon, I don’t consider that a reasonable explanation, but if that’s where you stand then we are simply not in agreement on how the Bible should be interpreted.

If Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 12:7 are involving the same time period, though I disagree they are, it would simply mean this then if the timing of these events are the point. It would mean Revelation 12:7 is still a future event because Daniel 12:1 is obviously still a future event. Why we know Daniel 12:1 still lies in our future is simple. At the end of it there is a bodily resurrection of the dead. Obviously, bodily, the fact the text tells us that many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life. Only a bodily resurrection could possibly explain that. And no, that is is not pertaining to the saints that came out of their graves after Christ's resurrection and then went into the holy city and was seen by others. Nor is it referring to a spiritual resurrection involving being born again and the here and now.

This is talking about the same resurrection event recorded in Matthew 24:31. In both Daniel 12 and Matthew 24 there is an unequaled time of trouble involving an AOD followed by a resurrection event. In Revelation 12, nowhere in that entire chapter is there a bodily resurrection event following the war in heaven. That's not what the war in heaven leads to at the time. It leads to satan being cast unto the earth, not a bodily resurrection event instead.

According to Daniel 12:1, when Michael stands up, it is at the end of this time of trouble, not at the beginning of it. It is when he stands up that leads to the resurrection event that follows.

Trying to connect Daniel 12:1 with this war in heaven like you are, is nonsensical. Maybe not to you, but to some of the rest of us it is.

 

[Davidpt]

Again, I ask you who was the serpent at creation who through deception marked for death Adam & Eve?

Why would you ask me that to begin with when everyone already knows, including me, that it's meaning the dragon, the devil, satan. Not to mention, it already makes that plainly clear in the book of Revelation, such as Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2. Why are you asking me this question then? Do you think there was already a 7 headed dragon before there were even nations on the earth first? IOW, what would be the point of those 7 heads if only two ppl are on the earth at the time, meaning Adam and Eve, and that there are no nations upon the earth yet?

But then again, there is the following recorded in Genesis 2, though. Maybe some of that might explain a 7 headed dragon in the beginning? I don't know?

Genesis 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

 

[rwb]

Why would you ask me that to begin with when everyone already knows, including me, that it's meaning the dragon, the devil, satan. Not to mention, it already makes that plainly clear in the book of Revelation, such as Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2. Why are you asking me this question then? Do you think there was already a 7 headed dragon before there were even nations on the earth first?

David, you appear to live in the opinion that symbolic language of Rev must ALL be literally discerned, so I questioned whether or not you realize the Devil, serpent, Satan, dragon are all the same entity of evil that has been involved in the affairs of mankind from creation. Your understanding seems to imply you think he has not power over fallen mankind from the Garden of Eden?

Rev 12 and the prophecy of Dan 12 both pertain to the same period of TIME that began with birth of Christ, the man-child that was born through the nation of Israel of the tribe of Judah. Both these chapters write of all that shall come to this earth when Christ was born. This period of time is the age/era of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, as it is proclaimed unto all the earth that the Kingdom of God would be complete. This is the same time that John symbolically writes a thousand years that will be complete when the seventh trumpet begins to sound and this symbolic time shall be no longer or there shall no longer be delay. You don't agree with any of this because you have no understanding of symbolic language used throughout the prophets and the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Since I do not believe you are able to discern what is symbolically written, you should not be surprised when I ask if you know who the serpent of Gen is.

 

[grafted branch]

Trying to connect Daniel 12:1 with this war in heaven like you are, is nonsensical. Maybe not to you, but to some of the rest of us it is.

Coming to that conclusion is fine but then you have the problem of Michael not standing up when he fights the dragon.

Daniel 12:1 says “at that time shall Michael stand up”. If you place the war in heaven prior to Michael standing up then Michael is not standing up when he fights the dragon.

What is your explanation for why Michael doesn’t stand up while fighting the dragon?

 

[Davidpt]

Who are their fathers? Are they not the remnant according to election of grace? The fathers of Old as in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

No doubt it is meaning those you listed. But there is still this land that has to be dealt with here before one can declare they are interpreting Ezekiel 37 correctly. This land is obviously relevant the fact God through this prophet mentioned it at least 2 times in that chapter. To say this land is simply meaning the planet earth is nonsensical since the fathers in question obviously dwelled upon the earth. Everybody that's alive upon the earth, past , present, and future, obviously dwells upon the earth. I dwell upon the earth but live in Texas. Obviously, I don't live in China as well, for example. Clearly then, this land where their fathers dwelled is meaning literal land with literal borders in a particular region of the earth, the same way Texas, where I dwell, is meaning that.

 

[rwb]

No doubt it is meaning those you listed. But there is still this land that has to be dealt with here before one can declare they are interpreting Ezekiel 37 correctly. This land is obviously relevant the fact God through this prophet mentioned it at least 2 times in that chapter. To say this land is simply meaning the planet earth is nonsensical since the fathers in question obviously dwelled upon the earth. Everybody that's alive upon the earth, past , present, and future, obviously dwells upon the earth. I dwell upon the earth but live in Texas. Obviously, I don't live in China as well, for example. Clearly then, this land where their fathers dwelled is meaning literal land with literal borders in a particular region of the earth, the same way Texas, where I dwell, is meaning that.

If you're referring to the land of Cannan, called the Promised Land of Old, do you realize the twelve tribes of Israel inherited that land through Joshua and lost it through sin? God says through Joshua that every promise God gave to them of Old was fulfilled, and not one thing had failed. Besides knowing the promise of inheritance of the physical land of Cannan of Old has already been fulfilled, we also know that if Abraham had wanted to remain on that land he could have. But he was not content with this physical land, he looked for something much better. Since Abraham had his heart set on the heavenly dwelling place built by God, why do you insist he and those of faith desired the land of Old in Cannan? They and all who are of faith desire an everlasting inheritance, and that will not be found in the land of Cannan of Old that shall not last forever. It can only be found after this first earth has passed away and the new earth has come.

Joshua 23:11-16 (KJV) Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God. Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you. And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you. When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.

Hebrews 11:8-10 (KJV) By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Hebrews 11:13-16 (KJV) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

 

[Davidpt]

David, you appear to live in the opinion that symbolic language of Rev must ALL be literally discerned, so I questioned whether or not you realize the Devil, serpent, Satan, dragon are all the same entity of evil that has been involved in the affairs of mankind from creation. Your understanding seems to imply you think he has not power over fallen mankind from the Garden of Eden?

Rev 12 and the prophecy of Dan 12 both pertain to the same period of TIME that began with birth of Christ, the man-child that was born through the nation of Israel of the tribe of Judah. Both these chapters write of all that shall come to this earth when Christ was born. This period of time is the age/era of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, as it is proclaimed unto all the earth that the Kingdom of God would be complete. This is the same time that John symbolically writes a thousand years that will be complete when the seventh trumpet begins to sound and this symbolic time shall be no longer or there shall no longer be delay. You don't agree with any of this because you have no understanding of symbolic language used throughout the prophets and the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Since I do not believe you are able to discern what is symbolically written, you should not be surprised when I ask if you know who the serpent of Gen is.

Of course satan has power over fallen mankind from the Garden of Eden. But none of that has anything to do with why satan needs to be bound, the fact he doesn't stay bound permanently if he is loosed at some point instead.

If Amil is the correct position, and maybe it is for all I know, and if Amils want to convince me of that or convince any Premil of that , Amils need to quit avoiding like the plague what I brought up at least two times already, and start reasonably explaining that. Meaning these billions of ppl satan deceives after the thousand years.

Obviously, if the thousand years are meaning the here and now, and let's say satan's little season begins next month, for example. That would mean as I am speaking to you right now, these same billions of ppl that satan deceives after the thousand years, are alive on this planet earth right now and that they are alive during the thousand years.

Are they already deceived then, before satan deceives them after the thousand years next month per this scenario? Keeping in mind the following---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---And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations.

Why are Amils in this thread apparently afraid to discuss/explain this subject? Or maybe this has been addressed but I didn't see that post? I guess that's possible.

 

[rwb]

Of course satan has power over fallen mankind from the Garden of Eden. But none of that has anything to do with why satan needs to be bound, the fact he doesn't stay bound permanently if he is loosed at some point instead.

If Amil is the correct position, and maybe it is for all I know, and if Amils want to convince me of that or convince any Premil of that , Amils need to quit avoiding like the plague what I brought up at least two times already, and start reasonably explaining that. Meaning these billions of ppl satan deceives after the thousand years.

Obviously, if the thousand years are meaning the here and now, and let's say satan's little season begins next month, for example. That would mean as I am speaking to you right now, these same billions of ppl that satan deceives after the thousand years, are alive on this planet earth right now and that they are alive during the thousand years.

Are they already deceived then, before satan deceives them after the thousand years next month per this scenario? Keeping in mind the following---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---And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations.

Why are Amils in this thread apparently afraid to discuss/explain this subject? Or maybe this has been addressed but I didn't see that post? I guess that's possible.

Where can I find Scripture telling us that billions of people shall be deceived AFTER the thousand years? In Rev 20 we read that Satan goes out to gather together Gog and Magog. How can they be Gog which is defined antichrists, and Magog which is defined antichristian party, if they are not already the deceived when Satan is set free? When Satan is loosed for his little season, he is simply holding those in deception who are already deceived before he is set free. Don't get confused when this time is finished the spiritual Kingdom of God is complete. The only ones left to deceive being called Gog & Magog throughout the earth are not the faithful saints still alive on the earth when Satan has a little season.

Revelation 20:7-9 (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. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Remember the end of the thousand years is the end of time when the last trumpet sounds so the mystery of God is fulfilled. That is the last Gentile to complete the Kingdom of God has already been saved before Satan is set free.

 

[Davidpt]

Coming to that conclusion is fine but then you have the problem of Michael not standing up when he fights the dragon.

Daniel 12:1 says “at that time shall Michael stand up”. If you place the war in heaven prior to Michael standing up then Michael is not standing up when he fights the dragon.

What is your explanation for why Michael doesn’t stand up while fighting the dragon?

In Daniel 12:1 he stands up at the time in order to deliver the saints from this time of trouble. But in Revelation 12 though, it could simply mean that he is warring with satan after having been seated at the right hand of God, assuming Christ might be meant by Michael. Think about it for a moment. The text has satan accusing the brethren night and day before God, which sounds like someone coming before a court and accusing someone of something. When someone is coming before a judge like that, the judge remains seated, regardless.

Assuming Christ is meant by Michael, maybe he is maybe he isn't, he being seated at the right hand of God being what led to this war breaking out if Christ is meant by Michael. Keeping in mind that this same satan had already set out to destroy this same Jesus before He was born, but failed to accomplish that. Apparently, when satan finally managed to get Christ killed, he thought he was the victor and that it was over. Except it wasn't over. Christ rose from the dead then eventually ascended to heaven and is coming back to rid the world of satan forever. It is debatable as to when He accomplishes that. Is it meaning when He initially returns? Or is it meaning a thousand years and a little season post His return?

 

[PinSeeker]

Of course satan has power over fallen mankind from the Garden of Eden. But none of that has anything to do with why satan needs to be bound, the fact he doesn't stay bound permanently if he is loosed at some point instead.

If Amil is the correct position, and maybe it is for all I know, and if Amils want to convince me of that or convince any Premil of that , Amils need to quit avoiding like the plague what I brought up at least two times already, and start reasonably explaining that. Meaning these billions of ppl satan deceives after the thousand years.

David, all we know is that when Satan is loosed, he is loosed from being bound ~ unable to prevent the spread of the Gospel to the nations. So, all we know is that he will be able to do this. "Billions of people Satan deceives after the thousand years"...? There's nothing in God's Word that gives any kind of indication of that.

Are they already deceived then...?

You're really talking about individuals when you say this, and not the nations. So in that sense, yes, unbelievers, as Paul says even in the first century, they have "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator," so really self-deceived

But concerning nations... When Satan is loosed, God will have completed His construction of the nation of Israel; all of His elect (which include Jew and Gentile) will have been brought into Israel. This time of Satan's loosing will be a terrible time, but, as Jesus says in Matthew 24:22, "...for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." Jesus's return will be imminent; as He then says, "...as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man... Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other..."

Why are Amils in this thread apparently afraid to discuss/explain this subject?

<chuckles> :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ewq1938]

I don't HAVE a "soul" as you suppose; I AM a soul.

You both are a soul and have a soul.


Soul has three definitions.


1: The word soul is an old English term that could be used in place of the word "person" or "human being". Basically if you had a soul you could be called a soul.


2: The word soul can be a reference to the human body.


3: The word soul is also the spiritual part of human beings (it's moral and emotional aspect), and survives death and will wait for a physical body to inhabit again at the resurrection.


1Th_5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here we have all the parts that comprise a whole person:

body
soul
spirit


The soul here is definition 3.


1Pe_3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Here soul is speaking of all three, body soul and spirit together as a complete person. This would be a soul as in definition 1 and 2.


Human beings have a soul and a spirit and a body. Colloquially a person is a "soul" but a different type of soul than the soul within us.

 

[grafted branch]

In Daniel 12:1 he stands up at the time in order to deliver the saints from this time of trouble. But in Revelation 12 though, it could simply mean that he is warring with satan after having been seated at the right hand of God, assuming Christ might be meant by Michael. Think about it for a moment. The text has satan accusing the brethren night and day before God, which sounds like someone coming before a court and accusing someone of something. When someone is coming before a judge like that, the judge remains seated, regardless.

I agree with the thought that Michael could be Jesus. I also agree that the war in heaven is a court room battle, I don’t think God would allow a chaotic type of battle like we might think of that happens on earth, such as the current war in Israel, which started with a surprise attack.

Assuming Christ is meant by Michael, maybe he is maybe he isn't, he being seated at the right hand of God being what led to this war breaking out if Christ is meant by Michael. Keeping in mind that this same satan had already set out to destroy this same Jesus before He was born, but failed to accomplish that. Apparently, when satan finally managed to get Christ killed, he thought he was the victor and that it was over. Except it wasn't over. Christ rose from the dead then eventually ascended to heaven and is coming back to rid the world of satan forever. It is debatable as to when He accomplishes that. Is it meaning when He initially returns? Or is it meaning a thousand years and a little season post His return?

If Michael is Christ and you have the Daniel 12:1 standing up as a future event then it would seem to fit with Revelation 19:11-16, except for Hebrews 10:12-13 which says he remains seated until his enemies are made his footstool.

 

[ewq1938]

I agree with that analogy, in Matthew 21:21 Jesus says if we have faith we can say to this mountain, be removed and cast into the sea. In Revelation 13:1-3 the beast rises out of the sea with one of his heads (mountains) healed.

Do you see any correlation between these verses?

No. Christ is speaking of obstacles, mostly spiritual in nature and we being able to remove them. In Rev 13 the mountains are literal places where kingdoms exist and the beast and FP will reign and will not be removed by Christians, instead overcoming the saints and killing them until their time runs out and Christ casts them into the LOF symbolizing their destruction. The actual lands where those kingdoms ruled by the beast will still remain but the kingdoms (horns/kings) will be destroyed). There's some related things between both but I think for the most part there's different things being taught.

 

[Zao is life]

David, all we know is that when Satan is loosed, he is loosed from being bound ~ unable to prevent the spread of the Gospel to the nations.

copy @Davidpt

All we know is that you're changing the words in scripture to suit the Amil belief.

All we know is that when Satan is loosed from being bound - unable to deceive the nations. The words do not say "unable to prevent the spread of the gospel".

All we know is that Satan did not have to be bound in order for the gospel to go out. To imply he is bound so as to be "unable to prevent the spread of the gospel" is to imply Satan is at least as powerful, if not more powerful than God.

All we know is that in Genesis chapter 3, we read of how Satan appeared in the Garden of Eden and deceived mankind; and Revelation 12:9 calls Satan "the great dragon" and "the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world."

All we know is that if we look for statements in the New Testament implying that Satan was bound when Jesus died and rose again, all we will ever find is passages stating the opposite:

Jesus called Satan "the ruler of this world" and the New Testament calls him "the prince of the power of the air who works in the sons of disobedience", who we are told will give the beast and false prophet his seat, power and great authority (Revelation Chapter 13). The saints are warned to be weary of his wiles and to resist him, and to put on the full armor of God because "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood" ( John 12:31; 1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 2:9-10 & Revelation 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; James 4:7 ).

Ephesians 2:2 tells us about Satan's influence over the societies of this world, this Age.

Revelation Chapters 12-13 portray this current status quo as spanning the entire present Age and culminating in the beast's war against the saints in Revelation Chapter 13 (see Revelation 13:7).

All we know is that God is infinitely more powerful than the devil, and Satan can be bound by God at will, at any time. All we know is that Jesus showed He was able to do this each time He cast out demons, even before His death and resurrection. Satan's power to cause disruption in the spread of God's Kingdom in the world has always been limited to how much God will allow him.

All we know is that the destruction of Satan's works which occurred when Jesus died and rose again will not last only for a thousand years, only to be "reversed for a short period at the close of the thousand years", as though his works were merely bound for a thousand years.

All we know is that no one is at liberty to change the words in scripture to change the meaning in such a way as to suit a desired belief system.

All we know is that the words in Revelation 20:1-3 do not say that Satan will be bound so that he is "unable to prevent the spread of the gospel" (implying that he is as powerful as the Holy Spirit and needed to be bound so that the gospel could spread).

All we know is that Satan will be bound and cast into the abyss and shut up in it, and set a seal on him, that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled.

 

[Timtofly]

Since ginomai can mean a number of things, per this contest it likely means fulfilled, thus has been completed. Which would be like saying, since it has already been completed, it can't happen in the future. That would be my guess as to what the verse is meaning.

One thing I do know, there are some Premils that are notorious for using this passage against Amils involving Amils' interpretation of the first resurrection in Revelation 20. Totally unreasonable that they would use this verse as a weapon against the Amil interpretation of Revelation 20 and the first resurrection. I do not agree with Premils that do that and when I note any of them doing it, I usually point out that they are clueless here even if Amils are interpreting the first resurrection incorrectly. It's not even remotely the same as them doing what 2 Timothy 2:18 is describing.

Many posters have pointed out that being a futurist is in error. Some Amil are partial futurist, some are partial preterist. Sounds like Paul was dealing with two full preterist.

If that were the case, then who was an amil in the early church if there were only pre-mill and preterist? At the most there would be post mill still looking at that single resurrection after the millennium.

Yet many Amil do claim the resurrection is past, they just call it spiritual instead of physical. Paul does not say that these two say the resurrection is spiritual and already happened. But then again, those in the first century like Paul never claimed the first resurrection was spiritual at all. So it could also be implied that these two did claim the first resurrection was spiritual and not physical, and did already happen. That is why it would describe amil. It would also describe partial and full preterist. These two would definitely argue against futurist.

Those who argue they were talking about a physical resurrection per Matthew 27, argue from the perspective there can only be one resurrection period. That is not just an amil position. The majority of the orthodox Reformation historist view also deny the physical resurrection of Matthew 27 was the first resurrection. They think those souls died again the second time contrary to Scripture, and will be resurrected at a single final point again.

The context in 2 Timothy 2 is to avoid stirring up conflict just to cause trouble. The only resurrection mentioned in the chapter is the physical resurrection of Jesus. Certainly that had already happened. Paul does explicitly say they "argued" to overthrow the faith of some. But what does even that mean? Don't many here turn their posts into debate to change people's view of eschatology? Even to the point of questioning their soteriology?

Yet many conflate the first resurrection with the salvation experience over and over without seemingly realizing they are not the same thing. Having a physical resurrection is part of redemption but not the second birth, so why confuse people by stating they are the same thing, and denying a physical bodily resurrection? At least to the point that no one can have one, not even those enjoying physical Paradise for the last 1993 years. It is not wrong to describe an ongoing physical resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus was physical, so all who take part in that physical resurrection also experience a physical resurrection. Somehow the orthodox view totally missed Paul's point, or felt the need they could take Paul's admonition out of context and deny the physical resurrection did happen and go to the extreme opposite position implied by Paul that these two denied any future physical resurrection as would a full preterist. Denying a future resurrection would be the only way to purposely destroy one's faith, even if Paul did not explicitly state it that way. Nor should it be interpreted that there was no physical resurrection at all at the Cross, because we have Scripture that states otherwise. It would seem a reasonable interpretation is that these two used that known resurrection as a tool to deny any future resurrection, not that Paul was saying a physical resurrection never happened at all.

Yet that is the accepted doctrine of the Reformation as held by most Amil, whether or not they claim this physical resurrection is not really physical or not. Most deny there was a physical resurrection at all. They claim those OT saints just physically died again. By physical, I am pointing to them no longer in Adam's dead corruptible physical body, but in God's permanent incorruptible physical body. That is the first resurrection, because only Adam's flesh is given the second death. Those in God's permanent incorruptible physical body do not face the second death. The first resurrection is not merely a near death experience. It is Paul's point of corruption putting on incorruption. It is the realization of 2 Corinthians 5:1. The first resurrection was named in Revelation 20, but was already in practice since the Cross. I would point out these two doctrine formers in 2 Timothy 2 were forming doctrine before Revelation was written. They were lacking some facts.

My point is: why give those OT redeemed a body at all. They could have been souls transferred from Abraham's bosom to Paradise without a physical body, but yet Scripture never explicitly finishes their translation from tasting death to life. Have you noticed that God never explicitly states established doctrine? Why is it that only human theology does that? Is having explicit doctrine a subconscious way of forgoing faith in God to having a tangible faith without God? I am not saying people are not saved. I am saying their doctrine has replaced trusting in God Who knows all the facts, when we do not.

 

[grafted branch]

Many posters have pointed out that being a futurist is in error. Some Amil are partial futurist, some are partial preterist. Sounds like Paul was dealing with two full preterist.

Ha, I knew that full preterist was going to come up. You could be right though, that Hymenaeus and Philetus were full preterist claiming all was fulfilled at that time, but at some point, once all scriptures are fulfilled, everyone is going to be full preterist.

The big question is how do we determine what is fulfilled and what isn’t fulfilled.