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

[Timtofly]

If we use Scripture to interpret Scripture, John 5 and the passage in question is meaning the following according to Revelation 20.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life(at the beginning of the thousand years) ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation(after the thousand years following satan's little season) .

Per this scenario does not the hour come, regardless? The text doesn't say it's the same hour.

Take the following, for instance.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Are Amils going to interpret that hour the same way they are apparently interpreting the hour meant in verses 28 and 29? Of course not since no one in their right mind would take the hour meant in verse 25 to be involving the same hour throughout.



I fully agree that saints have been martyred during both OT and NT times. Per the following I take this to be involving martyrdom during both OT and NT times---: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus(Only applicable to NT times), and for the word of God(applicable to both OT and NT times)---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(only applicable to NT times once the beast has ascended out of the pit first). Therefore, the first resurrection involves both the bodily rising of OT saints and NT saints.

I might reconsider some of this if Amil, either you or some other Amils, could actually make sense out of those deceived by satan after the thousand years. Obviously, if they are present after the thousand years, they were present during the thousand years as well. What was their status during the thousand years prior to satan deceiving them after the thousand years? Were they already deceived during the thousand years? Or were they not deceived during the thousand years?

The former makes no sense whatsoever, because if they were already deceived during the thousand years who was it that deceived them if satan is bound so that that can't happen again until he released first? Not to mention, it makes no sense to deceive someone already deceived. You deceive someone not already deceived, not someone that is already deceived. And the latter only makes sense if this means they were saved during the thousand years, the fact to not be deceived during the thousand years, if assuming Amil is the correct position, would have to mean they are saved during the thousand years. Are Amils going to argue that to not be deceived during the thousand years equals being unsaved rather than saved? Probably not would be my guess.

I would say as a point of reference that those on earth after the Second Coming, have no need of redemption. No one is born into temporal corruptible physical bodies. No one is even supposed to die in the millennium. Death is from disobedience, and disobedience is abnormal as if that child is cursed from birth.

So, no one is decieved, because all are in Adam's pre-disobedient condition. We are not told what the laws are to even break. We know that God sent fire to consume those who were deceieved, not explicitly those who broke any laws. Adam did not disobey God because he was a sinner. So saying that there are sinners in the millennium, otherwise no one could disobey is missing the whole point of how Eve was deceived by that same Satan that will decieve after the 1,000 years. Eve did not die, because she touched the fruit. Obviously she did not die before handing the fruit to Adam. They died after Adam disobeyed God. Since disobedience is missing from the Revelation 20 account, then God can consume with fire, those humans merely for being decieved. They were only deceived after Satan was loosed. They would not on their own have formed some rebellion to march across the earth to the camp of the saints. Just like a third of the angels left their estate because they listened to Satan.

There is no ongoing deception throughout this thousand years any more than people will be continously beheaded for a thousand years. Neither explanation fit the text nor context. People would be consumed by fire before being allowed to behead another human for their faith.

 

[PinSeeker]

copy @Davidpt

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

I mean, you think I do, that's very clear. :) But that's... okay. :)

All we know is that when Satan is loosed from being bound - unable to deceive the nations.

That's... what I said. Interesting.

The words do not say "unable to prevent the spread of the gospel".

That's what being his being bound means; Satan is bound, meaning that his power to influence the nations is suppressed. Nobody is "changing words in scripture." At least... not I... :)

All we know is that Satan did not have to be bound in order for the gospel to go out.

Well, I guess he didn't have to, but God chose to do it that way. It just means that God ~ in the Person of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the triune God ~ did the binding. God chose to do things the way He chose to do them. Why? Well, everything God does is for His own glory, of course. And, His thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are our ways His ways... as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways... I mean, who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor? :)

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.

Not at all. God is the one Who bound Satan, as I said. Jesus is the "angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain..." Who, in John's vision is the "He" who "seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended." And that's verbatim... :) Why? Well, who are we to question how God has chosen to do things?

All we know is that in Genesis chapter 3, we read of how Satan appeared in the Garden of Eden and deceived mankind; ...

Ah, well, this is sort of a tongue in cheek thing, but in the same sense as you say I am "changing God's Word," so you are doing here; Eve was deceived, as Eve herself says to God, and Paul later cites in 2 Corinthians 11:3 and again in 1 Timothy 2:14... and in the latter, he is very clear in saying that Adam was not deceived.

and Revelation 12:9 calls Satan "the great dragon" and "the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world."

Sure. He's... able to deceive folks, sure. :) But there are others who, as Paul puts it, put on the whole armor of God and are able to stand against the schemes of the devil, to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm (Ephesians 6).

This, though ~ at least in these last two comments of mine (which are in response to yours) ~ is a digression... though I well understand that you think otherwise ...we are talking about something quite different than Satan's current inability to deceive the nations.

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 ).

Hmmm... and a third... :) But to what you lead into this with, I would say that rather when Jesus died and rose again, it was when He came (which we just celebrated a few days ago). As Jesus says in Matthew 12 and Mark 3 ~ both in the New Testament, by the way :) ~ having just cast out a demon...

• "...if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house" (Matthew 12:28-29)
• "...How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand... But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house" (Mark 3:23-27)

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.

See above. I do understand how you can think that is the implication, but such an implication is very misguided ~ as you will agree, obviously ~ and surely not the implication being made.

All we know is that Satan will be bound and 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.

Right. That is surely the case. :) But he will be loosed for a short season... thankfully short for the sake of the elect.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davidpt]

I would say as a point of reference that those on earth after the Second Coming, have no need of redemption. No one is born into temporal corruptible physical bodies. No one is even supposed to die in the millennium. Death is from disobedience, and disobedience is abnormal as if that child is cursed from birth.

So, no one is decieved, because all are in Adam's pre-disobedient condition. We are not told what the laws are to even break. We know that God sent fire to consume those who were deceieved, not explicitly those who broke any laws. Adam did not disobey God because he was a sinner. So saying that there are sinners in the millennium, otherwise no one could disobey is missing the whole point of how Eve was deceived by that same Satan that will decieve after the 1,000 years. Eve did not die, because she touched the fruit. Obviously she did not die before handing the fruit to Adam. They died after Adam disobeyed God. Since disobedience is missing from the Revelation 20 account, then God can consume with fire, those humans merely for being decieved. They were only deceived after Satan was loosed. They would not on their own have formed some rebellion to march across the earth to the camp of the saints. Just like a third of the angels left their estate because they listened to Satan.

There is no ongoing deception throughout this thousand years any more than people will be continously beheaded for a thousand years. Neither explanation fit the text nor context. People would be consumed by fire before being allowed to behead another human for their faith.

A lot of this I tend to agree with you about. I don't know if you are right about all of it, though. But you do do raise some good points, regardless.

 

[Zao is life]

as you say I am "changing God's Word," so you are doing here; Eve was deceived, as Eve herself says to God, and Paul later cites in 2 Corinthians 11:3 and again in 1 Timothy 2:14... and in the latter, he is very clear in saying that Adam was not deceived.

Eve learned the Word of God from her husband, who in the genealogy of Jesus is called the son of God, and Adam called her Eve because she was the mother of all living (zoe in the Greek which is from the Greek word zao) because she is the prototype of the bride of Christ and in her reply to Satan, she added a little to the Word of God and took away a little by ever so slightly changing the wording of what God had said, the way you do when you claim Satan "was bound' and "bound so as to be rendered unable to prevent the spread of the gospel".

Sure. He's... able to deceive folks, sure. :) But there are others who, as Paul puts it, put on the whole armor of God and are able to stand against the schemes of the devil, to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm (Ephesians 6).

Which is proof that he deceives the church where possible, too. Easily, whenever the saints are going to add a little and take away a little and change the words of scripture just a little and then wind up believing what Satan wants them to believe - like Satan was bound at Calvary so that he was unable to prevent the spread of the gospel.

Hmmm... and a third... :) But to what you lead into this with, I would say that rather when Jesus died and rose again, it was when He came (which we just celebrated a few days ago). As Jesus says in Matthew 12 and Mark 3 ~ both in the New Testament, by the way :) ~ having just cast out a demon...

• "...if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house" (Matthew 12:28-29)
• "...How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand... But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house" (Mark 3:23-27)

All the above proves is that God is infinitely more powerful than Satan and your words above prove only that you can create a false doctrine out of a simple comparison or analogy that Jesus used, though it all proves also that God is able to bind Satan at will at any time whenever He chooses.

Why do you ignore the fact that Jesus "bound the strong man" each time He cast out demons, overcoming Satan over and over again, and that His apostles were to do exactly the same even while He was still alive, and after His death and resurrection?

You are the person expressing misguided implications when you say such things.

 

[Davidpt]

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.

Where do you see any mention of the beast and false prophet in Revelation 20:7-9? When we get to verse 10 we note that satan is cast into the same LOF the beast and false prophet were already cast into. Where does verses 7-9 involve the beast and the false prophet getting cast into the LOF if they are already in the LOF when satan gets cast into it? Verse 10 explains why and when satan gets cast into the LOF, it having to do with deceiving those meant in verses 7-9.

Revelation 19 explains why the beast and false prophet are already in the LOF when satan gets cast into it, and that is has nothing to do with Revelation 20:7-9. Because if it did, the beast and false prophet wouldn't be cast into the LOF still alive if they had been devoured by fire from God out of heaven. Maybe it could be argued that the beast is a spirit being of some kind, thus can't be devoured by fire. But can it also be argued that the false prophet is also a spirit being of some kind as well? And speaking of the false prophet. Not one single time are we ever told he too ascends out of the bottomless pit. Might make him human then. And if he is human, how could he still be alive after having been devoured by fire from God out of heaven, assuming Revelation 19 and 20 are describing the same events here?

 

[PinSeeker]

Now, this is very interesting...

If we use Scripture to interpret Scripture, John 5 and the passage in question is meaning the following according to Revelation 20.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life(at the beginning of the thousand years) ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation(after the thousand years following satan's little season) .

Per this scenario does not the hour come, regardless? The text doesn't say it's the same hour.

I'm going to quote exactly what you quoted, David. I'm not sure what version you're using, but that matters not here. You quoted Jesus (as John did) as saying, "the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice." It says, "the hour." Other versions say, "an hour." But in both cases, there is one time referred to, not two. And, "all that are in their graves" there is no distinction between believer or unbeliever here; they will all come out of their graves. So there is one physical resurrection, general to all, and at one specific point in time, after the thousand years. The distinction is regarding specifically what those 'all' are resurrected to... there are two very different ~ opposing, even ~ outcomes. Do you not see this? It's... okay with me if you see otherwise, of course, but it is what it is.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

He's talking about the here and now, here, David. His saying that believers "shall not" ~ and that's future tense ~ "come into condemnation..." So, He's saying that because of the present reality ~ or from whatever point one hears and believes, he or she "has everlasting life" at that point and "shall not" ~ when He returns and renders the final judgment (after the thousand years) ~ "come into condemnation." I'm sure you will remember Paul's great statement in Romans 8:1, that "(t)here is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..." (Romans 8:1). As believers, we rest in the fact that there is no condemnation for us for our sin now, and when Jesus returns, at the final Judgment, there will also then be no condemnation for us. Right?

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Are Amils going to interpret that hour the same way they are apparently interpreting the hour meant in verses 28 and 29?

Well, if we understand that Jesus is talking about the here and now here ~ which he is; see above ~ as opposed to talking about the general resurrection in verses 28 and 29, then yes. :)

Of course not since no one in their right mind would take the hour meant in verse 25 to be involving the same hour throughout.

Agreed... But I'm not sure what your understanding is, to tell you the truth. It seems... discombobulated.

...the first resurrection involves both the bodily rising of OT saints and NT saints.

Not the bodily rising. :) This is the same rising Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:4-6.

I might reconsider some of this if Amil, either you or some other Amils, could actually make sense out of those deceived by satan after the thousand years.

Again, we don't know if any are deceived after the thousand years. Only that God's Israel is complete.

And the latter only makes sense if this means they were saved during the thousand years, the fact to not be deceived during the thousand years, if assuming Amil is the correct position, would have to mean they are saved during the thousand years.

Are Amils going to argue that to not be deceived during the thousand years equals being unsaved rather than saved? Probably not would be my guess.

Yeah, you would guess right, here... :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Eve learned the Word of God from her husband...

Right; agreed. She would not know what God said in Genesis 2 otherwise. Agreed.

... the way you do when you claim Satan "was bound' and "bound so as to be rendered unable to prevent the spread of the gospel".

It's a fleshing out of what it means for Satan to be bound from deceiving the nations, and that fleshing out is according to what Jesus says in Matthew 12 and Mark 3. So no, I don't do what you think/say I do; it's very much a false accusation.

Which is proof that he deceives the church where possible, too.

Folks in the church, too, certainly. For now. But not the nations...

Easily, whenever the saints are going to add a little and take away a little and change the words of scripture just a little and then wind up believing what Satan wants them to believe...

That's possible, yes, but me, in what we're talking about here no. :) Like I said, I could very well say the same of you, but then it's just a back-and-forth thing, and that would be... endless, and Paul exhorts us to stay away from that (Titus 3:9)...

- like Satan was bound at Calvary so that he was unable to prevent the spread of the gospel.

Hmm, well, Jesus did give what we call the Great Commission to His disciples (and to us, by extension): "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations..." (Matthew 28:19). This was after His resurrection.

All the above proves is that God is infinitely more powerful than Satan...

Well, right, I agree, and other things, too, I would say, but isn't that what you previously said that what I was saying amounted to Satan being more powerful than God? That's... curious...

... your words above prove only that you can create a false doctrine out of a simple comparison or analogy that Jesus used...

Hmmm, a comparison or analogy... No, I would say that because of one thing (binding Satan), He is saying He is able to do the other. No analogy or comparison there, but certainly a cause and an effect... And "false doctrine..." LOL! I mean, it is what it is...

...though it all proves also that God is able to bind Satan at will at any time whenever He chooses.

Sure! And did...

Why do you ignore the fact that Jesus "bound the strong man" each time He cast out demons, overcoming Satan over and over again, and that His apostles were to do exactly the same even while He was still alive, and after His death and resurrection?

No offense, but a total miss of the point. Certainly it is true that the casting out of demons is happening even today. But I would disagree strongly (of course) that Satan must be bound "over and over again," then or now. And yet again, you're talking about individual conversions ~ which is possible because of Satan's binding and his resulting inability to prevent the spread of the Gospel to people of every tongue, tribe, and nation. As I said before, it's just apples and oranges, in a manner of speaking.

You are the person expressing misguided implications when you say such things.

You're more than welcome to your opinion. :)

You know, just as a general statement (because you're certainly not the only one doing so), but why is it that so many on this board resort so often to belittlement, and tearing down, and insults of all kinds? I mean, I guess I know, but my goodness.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Zao is life]

You know, just as a general statement (because you're certainly not the only one doing so), but why is it that so many on this board resort so often to belittlement, and tearing down, and insults of all kinds? I mean, I guess I know, but my goodness.

Grace and peace to you.

It's maybe where it all starts. It normally starts with words that are chosen which ostensibly support a certain way of interpreting scriptures, which are used in such a way as to be belittling.

Some people's level of humility is lacking and they seem to fill it up with a prideful notion that whatever they say is coming from a position of being better informed and rightly dividing the Word of truth. So as a small example whoever they are talking to is "misguided" in that they have "misguided" opinions of things :)

 

[PinSeeker]

It's maybe where it all starts.

Not in your case... :)

It normally starts with words that are chosen which ostensibly support a certain way of interpreting scriptures, which are used in such a way as to be belittling.

Disagree. :) And it's not an implicit thing, as you seem to imply here; it's quite explicit. And disturbing, from a Christian point of view... And even beyond that, you seem to be implying that they somehow deserve being belittled (as if that could really happen anyway), insulted, and such, which would be even more disturbing, from a Christian point of view. Hmmm...

Some people's level of humility is lacking and they seem to fill it up with a prideful notion that whatever they say is coming from a position of being better informed....

Oh. Oh! Ohhhh... (trinitarian 'oh' :)) Totally agree.

So as a small example whoever they are talking to is "misguided" in that they have "misguided" opinions of things :)

Well, sure, but that's very mild compared to most of the other "stuff" people throw around. :) And you know, just regarding the "misguided" thing specifically, it seems that if... the "receiver" (I guess)... of that were less prideful and more remembering of his or her true identity (if indeed that is his or her true identity), they would be much less... bothered, shall we say... by that.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

The resurrection that had not passed as these deceivers tried to make it appear, is the physical resurrection that shall come when all who are physically dead in the graves shall be resurrected to life, or to damnation. The only resurrection shown in the Bible is physical or bodily resurrection from physical death to physical life. Even the resurrection of Christ was bodily. That's why spiritually dead mankind MUST have part in Christ's resurrection life to overcome the second death. Why would Hymenaeus and Philetus teaching the resurrection of Christ had passed overthrow the faith of some? That is the heart of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. The only way these deceivers could overcome the faith of some was to convince them that Christ had already come again and they were left behind.

They were not arguing against a resurrection that had passed. You are.

They knew along with everyone else there was already a resurrection. That point cannot change period.

The Second Coming was not in question. You cannot add thoughts to the text that are not implied.

There is one point here that would decieve people: conflating a physical resurrection with a spiritual resurrection. They did not have the book of Revelation. They did not really even have the writings of Paul. They were expecting a return.

These people are not hundreds of years, much less thousands of years after Jesus was on the earth.

It was only about a resurrection. And they taught something about that resurrection that was misleading people.

There are only two options based on the fact of a resurrection.

1. They were saying there was no more resurrection, the preterist view.

2. They taught the resurrection was something other than physical.

Theology between the first century and today has totally changed the point that there was even a physical resurrection. The only verses we really have is this mention in 2 Timothy 2 and Matthew 27.

The church were futurist in regards to every fact found in Scripture, even a future physical resurrection. Somehow the church got lost to fact there was a bodily physical resurrection for the OT redeemed. For one, Mary was the only one told that Jesus was ascending to heaven before meeting with the disciples later that Sunday. It was Mary's word against everyone else in the church. Many claim Jesus did not ascend that day, but was talking about His final ascension days later.

 

[Timtofly]

So why didn’t they just look in the graves and see that there were still physical bodies in the graves? That would be the sensible thing to do to prevent the faith of some from being overthrown.

No, it's not. This body returns to dust. Two different physical bodies. One from Adam. One from God received when the soul gets to Paradise. This body is temporal. God's body is permanent.

You are not your physical body that returns to dust. You are a soul that puts on a new permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise.

 

[Timtofly]

I don’t think Michael fought against human government, Michael fought the dragon which is another name for Satan, that old serpent, called the Devil.

The dragon has seven heads in Revelation 12:3. I do think the heads represent human government of some kind, but just because the dragon has the heads doesn’t necessarily mean there is a seven headed dragon somewhere. I think it simply means the human governments were under the dragons control, Satan had them.

Satan and his angels.

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.

I think “dragon” is a name for Satan just as Lamb is a name for Jesus. Each name has significance but they are ultimately referring to one entity. The fight in Revelation 12:7 was between two entities and their angels.

The dragon is not literal is the reason Michael did not fight the dragon.

Michael fought Satan and his angels at the sounding of the 7th Trumpet. The 3rd woe is Satan kicked out of heaven to earth.

"Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

So we see in Revelation 13 the same 7 headed beast/dragon, and Satan is now the 8th kingdom, after the 7th Kingdom was announced as That of Jesus Christ. Revelation 11:15

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."

The 7th Trumpet announces Jesus as the 7th one world government. Then per Daniel 9:27, in the midst of the week of days, Satan may be the 8th kingdom, the 3rd woe. Which is explained in Revelation 17:10-11, the same beast/dragon.

"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

Satan is the dragon that is and is not. The symbolism of Satan's influence over 6th human governmental empires. The 6th which has been in place since about the Reformation, but is defunct, mortally wounded.

 

[Davidpt]

Agreed... But I'm not sure what your understanding is, to tell you the truth. It seems... discombobulated.

I pretty much understand it like Amil understands it, except I don't see it being applicable to the first resurrection meant in Revelation 20. In my mind, that resurrection is meaning bodily the same way the resurrection after the thousand years is meaning bodily. There are other reasons as well.

Again, we don't know if any are deceived after the thousand years.

What exactly are you meaning here in light of what we are told per the following?

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 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 then when we look at it like such, what should this be telling us?

---------------------------------
A) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years

B) that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled

C) and after that he must be loosed a little season

D) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison

E) 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

F) the number of whom is as the sand of the sea
---------------------------------------

During the era of time involving A) and B), is he doing any of those things E) is involving? What is E) involving? It's involving deceiving the nations. It's involving gathering them together to battle. This tells us at least 2 things pertaining to A) and B). No nations will be being deceived. No battles of any kind, in any sense, will be taking place. And that fully agrees with the text, at least the former anyway---that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled

Apparently then, there are two battles. One prior to the beginning of the thousand years. The other after the thousand years. Amils of course think they are the same battle. But why do they have to be if satan is initially deceiving the nations, then is bound in order to prevent him from continuing to deceive the nations, then is loosed so that he can deceive the nations one final time?

It is then a question of, what are the reasons satan needs to be bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations until he is loosed? You would think that somewhere in the book of Revelation prior to ch 20 gives us some clues as to why. And I'm not seeing anything in those chapters that are leading me to believe it is involving the spreading of the gospel to all nations, that satan has to be bound otherwise he will have proved he is more powerful than God, that he can actually literally prevent that from happening unless he is bound. That's the picture I see it painting.

 

[Zao is life]

Not in your case... :)


Disagree. :) And it's not an implicit thing, as you seem to imply here; it's quite explicit. And disturbing, from a Christian point of view... And even beyond that, you seem to be implying that they somehow deserve being belittled (as if that could really happen anyway), insulted, and such, which would be even more disturbing, from a Christian point of view. Hmmm...


Oh. Oh! Ohhhh... (trinitarian 'oh' :)) Totally agree.


Well, sure, but that's very mild compared to most of the other "stuff" people throw around. :) And you know, just regarding the "misguided" thing specifically, it seems that if... the "receiver" (I guess)... of that were less prideful and more remembering of his or her true identity (if indeed that is his or her true identity), they would be much less... bothered, shall we say... by that.

Grace and peace to you.

No one deserves being belittled, and there is a difference between belittling what someone is saying and belittling the person, though it should be avoided because the person having what he is saying being belittled would probably take it up personally. "That's just ridiculous!" would probably be taken up as "You're just ridiculous".

What I can't understand is how people can use expressions like "you're a child of Satan/agent of Satan" etc or tell them basically they're going to suffer the wrath of God or whatever just because someone does not agree with their position, and still claim to be a disciple of Jesus. There are also other blatant and really ugly personal insults often delivered in a very subtle way, camouflaged as friendly advice or with a nice end greeting etc that I see happening time and again.

Then there is the constant sarcasm...

Anyway pointing fingers at others doesn't help. There are "a few good saints" here who we never see making themselves guilty, and have never made themselves guilty.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

I did not say that. The Holy Spirit works on the inside of every human ever conceived. That is what that breath of life in Genesis signifies. Adam quenched the Spirit when he disobeyed God. Submission to the Holy Spirit produces fruit. The Holy Spirit does not force oneself even though God seemed to favor Jacob over Esau, and John the Baptist in the womb.

Life is not just air. Life is of the Holy Spirit which is this spirit of God.

God is not only a spirit/air. God is also light.

You are the soul whether you accept that or not.

 

[Timtofly]

Do you have any scriptural support for your assertions?

The tomb was empty. Matthew 28:5-6

"And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay."

Mark 16:5-6

"And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him."

Luke 24:2-6

"And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen."

John 20:2

"Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."

 

[Timtofly]

Pure gibberish!

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

Obviously you think that dust comes back to life.

 

[Timtofly]

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

Latin mors/mort = death

You say subject to death. I said in a state of death. That means you are dead.

 

[PinSeeker]

I pretty much understand it like Amil understands it…

Hmmm… I’m not so sure about that…

except I don't see it being applicable to the first resurrection meant in Revelation 20. In my mind, that resurrection is meaning bodily the same way the resurrection after the thousand years is meaning bodily.

By “it,” do you mean the resurrection Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2? If so, then do you not understand Paul to be telling living people ~ who haven’t yet physically died ~ that they have been resurrected? Because… he is… So the resurrection he is speaking of must be something other than physical. And by extension, he’s telling you and me (assuming you’re a Christian too) that we’ve been resurrected, too. But we haven’t yet physically died, so, again, the resurrection Paul is speaking of in Ephesians 2 must be something other than physical. And it corresponds to the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6.

There are other reasons as well.

Hmmm…

What exactly are you meaning here in light of what we are told per the following?

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 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.

That he goes out to deceive the nations, as John says. I don’t think it necessarily indicates that he has any success doing it, but merely that he goes out to do it. I think you will agree that there’s a battle imminent here; the final conflict is about to begin. We know Who wins…. :)

And then when we look at it like such, what should this be telling us?

---------------------------------
A) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years

B) that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled

C) and after that he must be loosed a little season

D) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison

E) 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

F) the number of whom is as the sand of the sea
---------------------------------------

During the era of time involving A) and B), is he doing any of those things E) is involving? What is E) involving? It's involving deceiving the nations. It's involving gathering them together to battle. This tells us at least 2 things pertaining to A) and B). No nations will be being deceived. No battles of any kind, in any sense, will be taking place. And that fully agrees with the text, at least the former anyway---that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled

Apparently then, there are two battles. One prior to the beginning of the thousand years. The other after the thousand years.

Only one, and it is after the thousand years, the millennium. Why do you think there are two? I think I know, but I’ll wait for your answer…

Amils of course think they are the same battle.

Again… only one final conflict. Think what are the same battle? Ohhhh… I think I understand your thinking now…

But why do they have to be if satan is initially deceiving the nations, then is bound in order to prevent him from continuing to deceive the nations, then is loosed so that he can deceive the nations one final time?

Ah! Okay, so I didn’t understand exactly what you were saying, but now I think I do! You’re seeing Satan’s binding as a battle, is that right? Okay, well, if so, I disagree. So your question here doesn’t apply. I certainly don’t see Satan’s binding in Revelation 20:1-3 (which, yes, is either immediately before or right at the beginning of the Millennium) and the final conflict in Revelation 20:7-10 (which, yes, is after the close of the Millennium) as either two different “battles” or one and the same “battle.” I hope no amillennial believer does, because that would make them… not amillennial. :)

It is then a question of, what are the reasons satan needs to be bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations until he is loosed?

As I said to FOTG, David, that’s just the way God chose to do it; that’s really all that can be said. It’s the vision that was given to John. And, I think asking a question like that indicates a… well, shall we say, oversimplification of things. This is apocalyptic literature, and can’t be read as a… Time magazine article. :)

You would think that somewhere in the book of Revelation prior to ch 20 gives us some clues as to why.

Hmm, well no, I wouldn’t…. :)

And I'm not seeing anything in those chapters that are leading me to believe it is involving the spreading of the gospel to all nations, that satan has to be bound otherwise he will have proved he is more powerful than God, that he can actually literally prevent that from happening unless he is bound.

Ugh. See what I wrote to FOTG in post 482, David, specifically… well, I’ll quote myself here:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Well, I guess he didn't have to, but God chose to do it that way. It just means that God ~ in the Person of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the triune God ~ did the binding. God chose to do things the way He chose to do them. Why? Well, everything God does is for His own glory, of course. And, His thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are our ways His ways... as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways... I mean, who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor? :)”​

​

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.​

"Not at all. Quite the opposite. God is the one Who bound Satan, as I said. Jesus is the 'angel coming down from heaven, holding in His hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain...' Who, in John's vision is the 'He' who 'seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended.' And that's verbatim... :) Why? Well, who are we to question how God has chosen to do things?”​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And… FOTG agreed…. :)

That's the picture I see it painting.

Understood. :). But now maybe you have a little better understanding of what I have been saying. :). And, well, amillennialism really is… :)

Grace And peace to you, David.

 

[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.

David, it has everything to do with the purpose for Satan's binding. Most Amills say Satan was bound so the Gospel could be sent unto all the earth. I don't disagree with this entirely, but I believe it doesn't fully explain how Satan, prior to his binding was able to hold Israel in unbelief and Gentile nations of the world, who had never heard of a Messiah to come, in bondage to fear of death. That is what he accomplished through deception in the garden. He convinced A&E that they could disobey the Creator, but they would not die. I'm sure we are in agreement that from that moment when sin entered creation, the earth and everything living on it began to decay, grow old and death would come to every living thing.

This is the fate of all who are in unbelief upon the earth if God had not sent His Son to make atonement for sin and defeat death. Christ did this through His cross and resurrection. Since the advent of Christ all mankind would hear of the Saviour/Messiah, Christ Jesus, our Lord as the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is proclaimed unto all the earth. Though the power of the Holy Spirit the Gospel is believed on in the world, and all who believe in Christ for everlasting life have been and are being saved through Him. The cross wasn't simply so the Gospel could be sent into all the earth. Though the Gospel the bondage of death that all of humanity had been held in was broken forever. Because since the cross and resurrection multitudes of people from throughout the earth hear the good news of Christ, and by grace through faith turn to Christ in repentance, believing on Him who shall give them life even though we are all still destined to physically die.

This is how Satan has been bound since the first advent of Christ. Before being bound Satan had power to hold mankind in bondage to fear of death. Those who did not know of the Messiah who would come to redeem them from sin, giving them everlasting life would now hear of Christ's miraculous resurrection from death and all who believe Him would no longer be in bondage to fear of death, because Christ defeated death and through Him we too shall.

Before Christ came and sent His Spirit, Satan was able to keep the Word hidden from man by taking the Word from the hearts of those who heard but lacked understanding. Christ explains this through His parable of the seed sown throughout the world (Mt 13:19; Mk 4:15). This world belongs to Satan from the fall. It is the place of bondage and within the depths of the grave the kingdom and bottomless pit where Satan reigns. Through the Gospel heard and the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ entered the domain of Satan and now Satan can no longer hold all who are ordained to be saved in bondage to fear of death.

Christ bound Satan only for the time symbolized a thousand years as His Gospel is being proclaimed in the power of the Holy Spirit. As soon as the spiritual Kingdom of God is complete Satan will once again be set free. There will still be some believers alive on earth when Satan is set free, but only those called Gog and Magog continue to be deceived. Had Christ not come and made atonement for sin through His cross and defeated death, Satan would still be free to hold the Gentile nations of the world in fear of bondage to death. That is how Christ symbolically, not literally bound Satan. Christ came into the domain of evil and sent out His disciples unto all the earth in the power of His Spirit to proclaim His life, death and resurrection to set the captives free. Because He that is in us is more powerful than he that is in this world.

Until you can understand that Christ bound Satan about 2000 years ago and broke into Satan's domain to set those captives to fear of death free, you will never be able to understand biblical eschatology! Because you lack understanding that Christ has bound Satan is probably why you also deny eternal security for all who have everlasting life through Christ.