Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
You just won't see it, will you? It serves the Amil purpose to use the terms interchangeably, so you won't concede that maybe, just maybe, there is a difference, and that difference could be important.
Lazarus was resurrected. Jesus was resurrected. When the physical body dies, in order to revive it, it must be resurrected. But, you and I were dead spiritually due to sin, and we were regenerated (literally born again) by the power of God. Our spirits were re-created, not resurrected! Can't you see the distinction? Or don't you want to?
You are asserting that we "force" our interpretations on Rev 20:1-3 by claiming that Satan's binding is not total.
If you are to "prove" rather than merely assert that we are "forcing" our interpretation on this passage, then you must show us that Satan's binding is necessarily total/complete.
If you cannot show us that Satan's binding is total/complete, then you cannot say that we are "forcing" our interpretation on that passage.
Either Satan's binding is complete/total or it is not. If our interpretation that Satan's binding is not complete/total is "forced", then you must show us why. You must show us that Satan's binding is necessarily to be understood as complete/total.
You can't. So your accusation that our interpretation is "forced" is merely an assertion. The way you are using this assertion (as your argument) is the logical fallacy of "Begging the Question".
If you cannot prove that the only and necessary understanding of Rev 20:1-3 is of a complete/total binding, then our interpretation is ~NOT~ "forced".
Likewise with the "1000 years". You are asserting that our symbolic understanding of "1000" years is forced. In order to prove your case, you simply must show us that the "1000 years" must ~necessarily~ be understood as only a literal "1000 years".
If you cannot show us why the "1000 years" is necessarily to be understood as only a literal "1000 years", then you cannot show we our "forcing" our interpretation onto that text.
For example, many of the premil's here continue to assert that the Greek "zao" in Rev 20:4 is to be understood as "lived again". I, as well as others, have charged that this is forcing something into the text that is not there.
When I make this assertion, I back it up with a reason why this is so.
I go on to make the case that "zao" does ~not~ mean "lived again". I go on to show that "zao" in every other instance of it's use in Scripture is properly understood simply as "life"/"lived". I, with the assistance of gdebrae, have shown that every single instance that "zao" is translated as "lived again" in the NT, that it can be accurately translated as simply "lived" and the passage would make perfect sense.
In other words, when I make the assertion that "again" is forced into Rev 20:4, I back it up as to why this cannot be the case.
You are simply making an assertion. That is not an argument.
In order for you to demonstrate how it is that we are "forcing" our interpretation on the text in question, you ~NEED~ to show us why our interpretation is forced.
Now, you have asserted that we "force" our understanding of Satan's binding on the Rev 20:1-3. In order for you to have a case, you must show just why it is necessary to understand that Satan's binding can only be understood as complete/total.
If you cannot show why Satan's binding must be necessarily understood as complete/total, then we are not forcing our interpretation on that passage.
If it is not necessary to understand Satan's binding as complete/total, then it is not forcing it to understand Satan's binding as partail (as to what the text specifically declares his binding to be).
Likewise with your assertion that we are "forcing" our interpretation of a "1000 years" as symbolic on to Rev 20:4-6.
In order for you to have a case, you must show just why it is necessary to understand that "1000 years" can only be understood as a literal "1000 years".
If you cannot show why this must be so, then we are not forcing our interpration on the passage in question. If it is not necessary to understand the "1000 years" as a literal "1000 years", then it is not "forcing" it to understand the "1000 years" as symbolic.
"Your forced interpretation claimed they never died, nor were resurrected, but lived with Christ a thousand years. So, if John 11 is not meant to be understood as their physical bodies never dying, how does your answer explain:
"How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?"
Intersting. You put in quotes an assertion by you and want me to explain it. I never said, inferred or implied that "non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years".
Since this is your assertion and not mine, I need not explain it. You seem to be attributing this quote to me as if it is a position of which I hold. I do not. Therefore, since this is not a position which I hold, I need not explain it.
"How do their physical bodies never die throughout the thousand years?"
I'm assuming this was also intended to be in quotes as your quotation mark was only at the beginning of "How do their non-resurrected physical bodies...".
Again, we have here an assertion by yourself which the casual reader might infer that I had claimed or I had posted. "If their physical bodies never die and John 11 obviously doesn't address physical bodies never dying, then you explain your forced interpretation as to how they never die physically."
Here we have a question based on the quotations above which you have implied as either my quotes or representative of my position. They are not. Therefore, since your question above is based on a false premise, I need not answer it.
"You've not explained why the thousand years must be symbolic and why there must two different symbolic thousand years periods."
Again, if you cannot show that it is necessary to understand the "1000 years" as literal, then it is most reasonable to understand the "1000 years" as symbolic.
"You've not explained how the dead given up by the sea weren't physically dead at the white throne."
Here you go again. I never declared that the "dead given up by the see weren't physically dead at white throne".
Since this is not representative of my position, I need not explain it.
"You've not explained how any one not resurrected, who did not live again, has physically lived for a thousand years, or for two thousand-year periods."
Here you go again. I have never asserted that anyone who was "not resurrected, who did not live again, has physically lived for a thousand years, or for two thousand-year periods."
Since that is not representative of anything I have said, implied or inferred, it is not representative of my position. Therefore, I do not need to explain it.
"You've not explained what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?"
Yes, I said that these "souls that were beheaded" were physically dead. It seems to me a strictly literal interpretation of this phrase would be inclusive of only "beheaded" martyrs and not representative of any other martyr. Many premil's understand this "beheaded" group to be representative of people martyred in other ways.
That the amil understanding is that these "beheaded" souls represent all who have physically died in the Lord is no more "forced" than many premil's who understand the "beheaded" group represents martyrs in general.
"You've not explained how Satan is bound now."
The "how" is irrelevant as to the "why" or "when". It is not important that I know the actual measn God has used to bind Satan. It is important that I know he has claimed to already have done so: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2, Jude 6.
"You've not explained how his binding is only partial, why simultaneously stating Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6."
Yes, I have. You must have missed it.
In Rev 20:4 Satan is said to be bound only such that he cannot deceive the gentiles. This does not ~necessarily~ mean that his binding is total/complete. That is just conjecture on your part.
"Now you explain your interpretations."
Again, the issue is not the correctness or incorrectness of anyone's particular view or interpretation. The issue at hand is whether a particular interpretation is "forced". Therefore, we need not explain our interpretations, many of which you falsely attributed to us as "straw man" arguments. We only need to see whether or not they are "forced". That is the issue at hand.
I suggest you make a better attempt to stay on topic. You have already attempted to divert attention from the topic of a previous discussion by arguing on Greek punctuation.
That discussion was regarding the "souls" and those "which had not worshipped the beast". You failed miserably in your attempt to attribute those "which had not worshipped the beast" to a group of the "souls". So you, wisely, dropped that issue. But then took up the cause of the topic of the Greek punctation.
The problem was that the issue was whether or not the "souls" included those "which had not worshipped the beast" and ~not~ about the Greek punctuation. When you lost that argument you attempted to shift the focus without dealing with what really was the issue.
I see you are attempting to do that here, as well.
Furthermore, please refrain from the "straw man" tactics. If you want us to explain certain views, then don't "make them up" and attribute them to us.
That's simply does not make for good discussion.
Jean
As did the reputations of Rahab, Zacchaeus, Mary Magdalene, The Apostle Paul and countless others.
You see the difference is that we Arminians understand that it is not about how bad we all are (because we are), but it is about how good God is.
Give it a rest M.
If you read the full verse, you'll see that Paul is making a comparison, and stating a generality. We are either "in Adam" or "In Christ". The whole human race is in one of those two conditions, no exceptions. In Adam, all die, due to the wages of sin. In Christ, we have passed from death into life. Paul wasn't really trying to make a statement about whether or not even the raptured people must experience death, he was making a comparison between Adam and Christ. Not ever verse in the Bible states an absolute principle...sometimes the verse just is a transitional statement on the way to another point of truth.
Of course, she can't, but that isn't the issue in her mind. She's only out to attack people.
If she's was honest she'd explain why it's ok for her to regularly accuse me of lying.
Why is that all you focus on, then! What a RIOT you emotional basket cases are!! LOL
John 11:25,26 explicitly references the term "resurrection" with regeneration!
Jesus says, "I am the resurrection"! He then goes on to explain what he literally means the use of the term "resurrection"! He explains what ~is~ regenration!
Furthermore, the apostle Paul uses terminology one would associate with "resurrection"!
In Col 2:12 Paul tells us, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."
Paul directly, explicitly and definately links our regeneration with Christ's "resurrection from the dead" in the very same text!!!
Paul tells us we were "buried" in baptism! Paul tells us we "are risen" ~WITH~ Christ!
Present tense! "are risent".
Paul's use of the Greek word "Egeiro" in describing our current status of being "risen" is the exact same word Paul uses to describe Christ's resurrection from the dead!
We most cerainly ~are~ risen/resurrected/raised up/quickened from our spiritual death!
This I know for the Bible tells me so!
Believest thou this?
Jean
praying for your wife...may God give wisdom to the doctors and comfort to both of you
You ~continuously~ lie and misrepresent people!
Take the telephone pole out of your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck from another's.
You are the ~last~ person on this forum who should be accusing someone of lying and misrepresenting the truth!
You still have yet to apologize for explicitly claiming that amil's believe there is death in the New Heveans and the New Earth.
You also lied when you accused me of making a parallel between resurrection and crucifixion! I most certainly did not!
Yet, when you were confronted with this, you REFUSED to apologize!
You lying hypocrite!
Jean
....a. Did the OT scripture indicate that the sacrifices were efficacious? NO, they didn't. God would say to those who ritualistically engaged in them, "I hate, I despise your feasts." He would say that he didn't require the blood of a bull but that instead he wanted them to "love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with their God."
2. After the Apostle Paul became a Christian did he ever go to the temple and engage in the worship found in the temple? YES, he did. In fact that's where he was the day he was taken prisoner by the Romans. He had gone there for a purification rite that involved sacrifice. Apparently, as a Jew, Paul had the right to continue in the temple worship. In his mind, he looked BACWARD to the cross of Christ.
3. In the millennial age, are Jewish believers going to SUPPLANT Jesus' eternal REAL sacrifice. NO. They will simply be doing what Paul already exampled. They will be using the sacrifice as a way of LOOKING BACKWARD at what Christ had done.
....a. If the OT never indicated that sacrifices were efficacious, how can one say that THIS OT passage indicates that the sacrifices in the millenial reign are efficacious. It will be the Jewish memorial way of looking BACKWARD at the Sacrifice of Christ.
....b. We use the COMMUNION SERVICE as a memorial to LOOK BACKWARD at the sacrifice of Christ.
That's what I get for jumping into the discussion without reading the background. I assumed that xzins had "admitted dishonesty," from what M-PI had said.
I'm still not sure who's telling the truth, but that is your issue, not mine.
"Me"?? You're the one who must provide the quote where I said you called me a liar. Once again your perceptions have proved to be faulty. I hope it's not deliberate. Here is my post again:
Rev.911 (writing what you no doubt perceive as loving words) to Matchett-PI: "center square on my prayer chain, you are, right next to that demon who drowned her kids."
M-PI: I'll bet you've even "spewed those sort of hateful words" to your family members and the others you told me about that you hold responsible for your unhappiness, too, haven't you.
"You must be a joy to live with. I'll bet if those you've accused behind their backs to me and others were here, they could reeeeeeally tell us some stories!"
"No doubt if they did, you would call them liars, too."
2596 posted on 12/17/2002 12:07 PM EST by Matchett-PI
There is no reference to myself in that post at all.
So, are you going to say you'd never call anyone else a liar (other than the ones I referenced above)?
By the way --- do you think anyone is wondering why you were so anxious to change the subject of my post to me, personally? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.