Premils won't understand the amil view until they understand this.

[CadyandZoe]

You do not make any sense at all, sorry to say.

Well, sometimes one needs to temporarily set aside their own beliefs in order to understand those of another person.

The strong man is hardly a "demon." It is clearly Satan.

I am taking my cues from the passage itself, where the Pharisees are accusing Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus is making an analogy between casting out a demon and subduing a strong man to take his goods. Unless Jesus is using allegory to make his point, the strong man and the house don't represent anything on their own. The entire analogy works together as a unit to make the point. Just as a strong man must be restrained before taking his goods, a demon must be restrained before freeing his victim. And the question is, why would a servant of Beelzebub restrain another servant of Beelzebub? He wouldn't; therefore Jesus is not working FOR Beelzebub, he is working against Beelzebub.

That is how I understand his argument.

Do you even know what a demon is? It is an evil spirit "OF" Satan of man! Not a spiritual being under Satan that is powerful enough to control the world. Silly!

As I understand it, the New Testament word "demon" is based on the Greek word "daemon", which was a guiding spirit. The New Testament "daemons" were unclean spirits, oppressive, deceptive, and not helpful. Some folks were harassed and tormented by these unclean spirits and needed to be cast out in order for the person to find relief.

Jesus' denies that he is working for the lord of the demons and gives two arguments in his own defense.

By first binding the strong man is the same thing being thrown into the bottomless pit in Revelation 20.

Again, Jesus isn't saying that he bound Satan in that passage. He is making an analogy.

Can't you read the context of the Scripture carefully?

Sure. Yes I can. This is how I know that Jesus is using an analogy.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Get what idea? Do you not think that demons are fallen angels?

Where did you get the idea that the Angels who fell are able to influence anyone?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You do not understand.

Verse 3 of Revelation chapter 20 is illustrating that when The Messenger (Christ) came from Heaven, He bound Satan, and cast him into a fathomless void to bind spirits that he would not be allowed to deceive the nations as he was doing at the first advent of Christ. Now is come salvation and strength, because the accuser of the nations has been cast down, and we are free from the death that hung over us as a result of his having us in bondage. God has sealed him, or literally "secured" him that he cannot be loosed upon the Church until all those who are to be sealed of the nations have been sealed (secured) in their foreheads. This is the Purpose is clearly that God keep him bound till the appointed time after the testimony of the saints is finished and all Israel is saved. When the Lord sets His seal upon something, you can be sure that it won't get out until "the time" the Lord alone releases Satan. So like everything else here, this seal is "symbolic" of something being "secured of God". No one secured or sealed of God can loose themselves. And my friends, that includes us, the believers. We are eternally secure (sealed) by God. And since it wasn't by our own good that we were secured, it cannot be by our own good we are held secure. Grace!

Therefore, the bottomless pit simply means that Satan was restrained or limited so that he could not frustrate God's plan with His Church. Not put Satan somewhere safe from Earth so he cannot "interact with anyone at all." This is wrong. Satan's power has been restrained (which is what bottomless pit represents) until that appointed time when He will let Satan out and be used as a tool of judgment upon His unfaithful church - everyone who has NOT YET SEALED by God, Revelation 9:3-6. Where professed Christians will seek salvation or have desired ot be saved by death in Christ, but cannot find it or it has been removed from them. It is becasue the days of salvation is over and the judgment of God on the Church has begun. In other words, Satan is allowed to deceive those WITHIN the congregation that they cannot find salvation until Christ comes.

I see it differently.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Where did you get the idea that the Angels who fell are able to influence anyone?

You know that scripture talks about people being possessed by demons or evil spirits and such, right? Well, demons are fallen angels. I hope I don't have to convince you that they influence the people they possess.

Paul talked about demons still being around in later times.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

 

[TribulationSigns]

That is how I understand his argument.

I do not think you do.

Matthew 12:29

• "How can one enter into a strong man's house and spoil his goods, except he first Bind the strong man and then he will spoil his house."

When we study this parable honestly, by the Grace of God we must assuredly come to the truth of it. The Lord Jesus Christ came to spoil, or plunder (Take by conquest the possessions from) Satan's house. And those possessions were you, me, and every other person who was unregenerate. We were those held strongly in captivity in this house of bondage. But in order to take Satan's (not demon's) goods, first, Christ had to "bind him." Look again carefully at the parable itself, and ask yourself honestly these questions:

#1. Who is the Strong man?
#2. What is his house?
#3. Who is it that comes to bind him?
#4. What are the possessions in the strong man's house
that he wants to Spoil (take by conquest)?
#5. What "MUST" be done first, before that can happen?

When you have answered those questions nobly, it's an absolute! There can be no other rational conclusion but that:

1.) Satan is the strong man.
2.) His house is the adversarial principality.
3.) Christ is the one who came to bind him and take the possessions or prisoners in his principality,
4.) The Church were those possesions being held captive or in bondage by Satan, and...
5.) Christ is he who had to First, bind Satan!

If indeed Christ had cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then obviously it was the power of God manifest in Him, and thus unambiguously demonstrated that He was the prophesied Messiah, the Son of David who was to come and establish that Kingdom. The same Son of David of whom the multitude spoke in the first instance. It was indeed for this reason the Pharisees had accused Christ of having a devil. Consider wisely and in context.

Matthew 12:22-24

• "Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
• And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the Son of David?
• But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils."

But indeed Christ had cast out devils by the Spirit of God and that meant that the Messiah, the Son of David had been manifest, and His Kingdom had come unto them. It is in this "context" that Christ speaks about how He must first bind Satan. When Christ cast Satan out of individuals, He was 'signifying' by this that the Kingdom of God had come (Matthew 12:28). For the kingdom of God is placed within men (Luke 17:21) by Christ coming to dwell where Satan once was, it's not an earthly kingdom. And the Spoiling of Satan's Kingdom or principality is the principle of this parable. His goods, (The Spoil) are all of the disciples, and all of us who were unsaved (in captivity to Satan) and deceived of Satan, who are now set free in Christ. This parable is a clear picture that God gives us to illustrate Christ is the Messenger of the Covenant that came down from heaven to establish the Kingdom of God by plundering the house of Satan, and setting free those who sat in the darkness thereof. And God tells us, first Christ had to bind the strong man, and only then could He spoil his house. This is not incidental or insignificant language. Scripture must be defined by scripture, not by Theologians. When we do that, it is clear the binding of satan took place at the cross.

Again in Mark chapter 3. The Lord Jesus has the blasphemous accusation brought against Him that He was working through Satan. Christ asks them, "how can He battle against the Kingdom of Satan, if He is of the Kingdom of Satan? A House divided against itself cannot stand! And He declares:

Mark 3:26

• "And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except He FIRST Bind the strong man; and then He will spoil his House."

Clearly, Satan is "THEE" strong man, not demon. The verse is saying that Satan "IS" the Strong man in context. Not your vision of a demon. These are God's parables and God puts parables in His Word not to be "ignored", but to be considered and discerned. Some people close their eyes and ears to the truth because of their Church tradition or private interpretation, but this is unrighteousness of the highest order. God says, "hear His parable!" Christ is the one who has come to conquer this strong man's (Satan's) kingdom, and God says, in order for Him to spoil Satan's house, Satan first had to be bound. I didn't say that, A theologian didn't say that, my Church didn't say that, God said it! We merely bear faithful witness or testimony to what God said. Satan had to be bound in order for Christ to spoil (take by conquest) the captivity. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I see it differently.

I know. It is because your interpretation is not supported by Scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am taking my cues from the passage itself, where the Pharisees are accusing Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus is making an analogy between casting out a demon and subduing a strong man to take his goods. Unless Jesus is using allegory to make his point, the strong man and the house don't represent anything on their own. The entire analogy works together as a unit to make the point. Just as a strong man must be restrained before taking his goods, a demon must be restrained before freeing his victim. And the question is, why would a servant of Beelzebub restrain another servant of Beelzebub? He wouldn't; therefore Jesus is not working FOR Beelzebub, he is working against Beelzebub.

That is how I understand his argument.

So, you see the binding of the strong man as representing the restraining of the demon rather than completely incapacitating the demon, right? If so, why can't you see Satan's binding similarly?

Also, if the binding of the strong man does not represent Jesus binding Satan to spoil his house and his goods, then how do you interpret this verse:

1 John 3:8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You know that scripture talks about people being possessed by demons or evil spirits and such, right?

Of course.

Well, demons are fallen angels.

What particular scripture makes that point?

I hope I don't have to convince you that they influence the people they possess.

I need you to convince me that Jude didn't say that the angels who left their estate are being held in prison.

Paul talked about demons still being around in later times.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

I know this.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I do not think you do.

Matthew 12:29

• "How can one enter into a strong man's house and spoil his goods, except he first Bind the strong man and then he will spoil his house."

When we study this parable honestly, by the Grace of God we must assuredly come to the truth of it. The Lord Jesus Christ came to spoil, or plunder (Take by conquest the possessions from) Satan's house.

I don't accept your premise that Jesus' example is allegorical. Nothing about the language suggests it is allegorical. In other words, Jesus is doing nothing more than presenting an analogy. He doesn't expect us to figure out what the strong man represents or the house or the goods.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I know. It is because your interpretation is not supported by Scripture.

Your interpretation is based on the premise that Jesus' example is allegorical. However, nothing about his analogy suggests that he intended to give us an allegory. He doesn't expect us to attempt to figure out who the strong man is, what the house represents, or what the goods represent.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, you see the binding of the strong man as representing the restraining of the demon rather than completely incapacitating the demon, right?

Not anymore. I changed my mind yesterday because I have recently been thinking about symbolic language and how it works. Jesus' example is not allegorical. There is nothing in his language to suggest that we should attempt to figure out what the strong man represents, what the house represents, or what the goods represent. His example of the strong man being bound works just fine as an analogy to make his point.

Also, if the binding of the strong man does not represent Jesus binding Satan to spoil his house and his goods, then how do you interpret this verse:

1 John 3:8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

1 John 3:8 stands on it's own.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Your interpretation is based on the premise that Jesus' example is allegorical. However, nothing about his analogy suggests that he intended to give us an allegory. He doesn't expect us to attempt to figure out who the strong man is, what the house represents, or what the goods represent.

Do you also believe that Christ did not intend for us to attempt to interpret the spiritual or allegorical meaning of the ten virgins, lost sheep, lost coin, lost son, wheat, tares, budding fig tree, unforgiving servant, mustard seed, etc.?

If you do not believe that we cannot supposed to understand who the strong man allegorically represents, or what the house and goods allegorically represent, then you do lack spiritual insight or discernment.

Have a good day.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do you also believe that Christ did not intend for us to attempt to interpret the spiritual or allegorical meaning of the ten virgins, lost sheep, lost coin, lost son, wheat, tares, budding fig tree, unforgiving servant, mustard seed, etc.?

Exactly. The parables you mention are NOT allegories. They are analogies. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What particular scripture makes that point?

There is no particular scripture which explicitly says that demons are fallen angels. However, the fallen angels are referred to as the devil's angels (Revelation 12:9, Matthew 25:41).

The following makes it clear that the fallen angels were still active as of whatever time you think this happened (or will happen):

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

I would assume what is described here takes place after you believe the fallen angels were literally chained up and incapacitated? How do you explain this passage then?

And who else could the demons be besides the fallen angels? God didn't create any evil beings, so where does scripture reference the fall of demons if they're not fallen angels? Nowhere. So, I think it should be obvious that they are fallen angels.

I need you to convince me that Jude didn't say that the angels who left their estate are being held in prison.

LOL. I'm not going to try to convince you that he didn't say what he said. LOL. But, I believe he was being figurative when talking about them being in everlasting chains reserved for judgment. That symbolizes the fact that their fate is already sealed and their sentencing will take place on judgment day.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not anymore. I changed my mind yesterday because I have recently been thinking about symbolic language and how it works. Jesus' example is not allegorical. There is nothing in his language to suggest that we should attempt to figure out what the strong man represents, what the house represents, or what the goods represent. His example of the strong man being bound works just fine as an analogy to make his point.

LOL. You come on here yesterday as if you've studied this topic in depth and you argue with us about it and then you proceed to change your mind. Okay then. Maybe you should think about it some more before you say any more about this.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Exactly. The parables you mention are NOT allegories. They are analogies. Do you understand the difference?

LOL. I do know the difference but you got the wrong interpreation method. Now let's test your "analogy" interpretation on two Scriptures below and tell me what Jesus Christ talked about:

Mat 13:31-32
(31) Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
(32) Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

What is your analogy interpreation on this? What does the mustard seed , field, herbs, tree, birds and branches all analogies of?

Mat 25:1-2
(1) Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
(2) And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

What is your analogy interpreation on this? What is the kingdom of Heaven? What does the virgins, lamps, bridegroom, wise and foolish all analogies of?

And remember you need to back it up with Scripture. :-)

 

[CadyandZoe]

There is no particular scripture which explicitly says that demons are fallen angels.

Okay. Then you have a problem.

I'm not going to try to convince you that he didn't say what he said.

You claim he said 'x', and I disagree. If you choose not to defend your position that is your choice.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Okay. Then you have a problem.

So, I guess you have a problem, too, since you can't explicitly show that demons are not fallen angels? Where was the scripture again that speaks about the fall of demons? They must have once been good since everything God created was good. So, show me where scripture speaks of their fall if the scriptures that speak of the fall of angels aren't speaking of demons.

You claim he said 'x', and I disagree. If you choose not to defend your position that is your choice.

LOL. I defend my position all the time and you know it. Your whole reason for being here is just to be an annoying pest. You have nothing of substance to offer this forum. You claim that fallen angels are literally chained up, but you can't explain how they could be fighting Michael and his angels while supposedly being chained up.

Revelation 12:7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

So, tell me again how Satan and his fallen angels could have been fighting with Michael and his angels if they were chained up somewhere?

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. I do know the difference but you got the wrong interpreation method. Now let's test your "analogy" interpretation on two Scriptures below and tell me what Jesus Christ talked about:

Mat 13:31-32
(31) Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
(32) Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

What is your analogy interpreation on this? What does the mustard seed , field, herbs, tree, birds and branches all analogies of?

An allegory is a narrative technique in which characters, events, and details within a story symbolize deeper meanings, often moral, spiritual, or political. Essentially, an allegory uses symbolic figures and actions to convey truths or generalizations about human existence.

The parable of the mustard seed is not allegorical because Jesus uses a common experience, farming, as an analogy to describe a spiritual reality. Something about sowing seed in a field is like the kingdom of heaven. If Jesus were using allegory to make his point, the grain, the man, and the field would represent something else. But Jesus is not speaking in allegory because the grain is grain, the man is a man, and the field is a field. Each of the elements of his story makes sense according to its dictionary definition. Do men sow seed in fields? Yes.

Even though a mustard tree begins as a very tiny and inconspicuous little seed, it nevertheless, over time, becomes the biggest and most prominent tree in the garden. By analogy, even though the beginning of the kingdom of God is small and inconspicuous, it will nevertheless, over time, develop into the world-dominant kingdom that the prophets predicted. [The Parables of Jesus Version 1.0 John A. “Jack” Crabtree; Sound Interpretation Project. Parables — Sound Interpretation Project]​

Mat 25:1-2
(1) Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
(2) And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

What is your analogy interpreation on this? What is the kingdom of Heaven? What does the virgins, lamps, bridegroom, wise and foolish all analogies of?

The foolish virgins in the story that Jesus told missed out on the wedding banquet because, ultimately, they did not care enough about their participation in the wedding to have prudently prepared for any exigency. In contrast, the other virgins were included in the wedding banquet because they, in fact, did care enough about their participation in the wedding to have prudently prepared for any exigency. By analogy, it is those who are personally invested in the event of Jesus returning into history to be joined to his “bride” (the people of God) who will be granted the right to participate in the wedding feast of the Messiah and his bride. For it is those who are so invested who will prudently and diligently prepare for Jesus’s return by deciding to obediently follow his instructions. [The Parables of Jesus Version 1.0 John A. “Jack” Crabtree; Sound Interpretation Project. Parables — Sound Interpretation Project]​

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, I guess you have a problem, too, since you can't explicitly show that demons are not fallen angels?

No, you claim that the fallen angels mentioned in Jude are walking about doing mischief even though Jude says they are being held in bonds of darkness.

LOL. I defend my position all the time and you know it.

Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't

Your whole reason for being here is just to be an annoying pest.

Those who rely on dogmatism usually make that claim.

You have nothing of substance to offer this forum.

I do, but since you dismiss what I say out of hand, you don't care to understand what I say.

You claim that fallen angels are literally chained up, but you can't explain how they could be fighting Michael and his angels while supposedly being chained up.

I maintain that Michael is not fighting those mentioned by Jude. You have no proof for your claim.

So, tell me again how Satan and his fallen angels could have been fighting with Michael and his angels if they were chained up somewhere?

Tell me where it says that Michael is fighting fallen angels.