Is Satan Bound Today?

Where did he call you a liar, Mattie?

Is there anyplace where you've said that he lies? That others lie?

Do you maintain that you don't accuse others of lying?

X

You asked me when...

Ok, Mom, when does the New Temple, complete with animal sacrifices, take place?

And I answered you with scripture..that is a dispensationa scripture..the new temple you are all waiting for with the red hefier...I gave you the scripture you guys claim as you watch the Mid East events..

You can accuse me of being deluded,

I believe you are a good brother in Christ..that response to you was a return of your words I believe

The former implies there is a bona fide marriage that is being abused. The later assumes that the marriage is yet future. ~ drstevej

So, in the days of OT Israel, was the Father spiritually bound to a whore? Woody.

I'm sure you set her straight...

Just to set the record straight...I am male. Have been all my life.

so youre now taget dujuor ?

figured as much

.....and it isn't particularly bright, either.

LOL

Ephesians 5 describes a bride awaiting her marriage to her Groom. If this is Israel, then this bride (using logic similar to CCW's charge) is either a divorcee remarrying her first husband or this is not really a marriage but a reaffirmation of vows. ~ drstevej

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD."

Woody.

Evidence is that I've thought about it more than you.

Sacrifices are a foreshadow of things to come.

What is communion?

Dan

I was simply responding to a CCW statement which I think is unfair. ~ drstevej

The Scofield Bible notes that were posted literally say that the Father gets a wife and the Son gets a wife and they are 2 different things. Thus, God is a polygamist. Am I suppose to assume that dispensationalists take everything literally except what they themselves say about the Bible and I am to take that symbolically or something? Woody.

It's easy to see, isn't it, why Jews don't tend to be convinced by amills that they aren't anti-Semitic?

Amills tell them, "All the prophesied cursings — yours! All the prophesied blessings — ours!"

Amills tell them, "We distinctively get Communion to remind us of Messiah's death! You distinctively get — nothing!"

What a deal. "Thanks for the Messiah and 2/3 of the Bible! Now buzz off!"

Dan

you are making little sense at this point

goodbye

"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.

But you did so infer and imply. It is a position you hold and you do need to explain it. You asked for passages on which you force your interpreatation with an explanation of how it was forced. If this is not your position, than simply explain how those who (in your unforced interpretation) have never physically died, never been resurrected, then continue to live for a thousand years with Christ. Here again are your interpretations (forced) that living people alive in the body, who never died lived with Christ a thousand years:

Jean Chauvin #112 "It is not reasonable to conclude that people who are alive in the body are 'resurrected from the ~dead~."
Jean Chauvin #136 I'm asking how living people who have never ever died are supposedly resurrected from the ~DEAD~?
Jean Chauvin #1404 You are forgetting those John sees in vs 4 who are currently alive in their bodies:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [Jean Chauvin's bold emphasis]

Jean Chauvin #1927: You are correct that [John] doesn't use ["alive in their bodies"], but you should also note that neither does John actually "identify" any of these people as "physically dead". On the other hand, there is good reason to conclude that those who did not worship the beast are alive in their bodies.
Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.

Here you go again. I never declared that the "dead given up by the see weren't physically dead at white throne".

Here you go again Jean; your own statements asserting in Rev 20 "you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead". The text (Rev 20:13) explains the dead were in the sea, and the sea gave the dead. If however you believe no one has risen from the dead, then your forced interpretation is the "dead given up by the see weren't physically dead at white throne":

Jean Chauvin #2091 I can look all day long in Rev 20 for the “literal” words “the first resurrection is bodily” and I will never find it. In fact, you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead.

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.

Ok, but you still haven't explained what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of "beheaded" martyrs for Christ testifying to Him, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?" And if you now agree the beheaded souls were physically dead, then how do you force the interpretation that they lived with Christ a thousand years, but were not resurrected to live "again"?

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.

More precisely, The issue at hand is whether a your particular interpretation is "forced". That is what you invited discussion on. Your interpretations. We only need to see whether or not they are "forced". Exactly. So show us how your interpretations are not forced. That was your opportunity you offered us.

Jean you offered, in post #2564, the opportunity to show us which passages we "force" an interpretation on. Go through the passage and explain to us why our interpretation is "forced".

So I quoted the passages, explained how I throught it was forced, and followed that explanation with your statements and highlighted your specific phrases which force your interpretations

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.

Been there, done that twice and explained above that I have provided what you have asked. Here is the history of all your forced interpretations, again:

Now, I admit that the premil's have been on the defensive almost entirely. I'd like to give you this opportunity to show us which passages we "force" an interpretation on. Go through the passage and explain to us why our interpretation is "forced".
Capital idea! I've been feeling a bit on the defensive myself, and thought maybe I'd just suggest a few forced interpretations for you to explain their obvious natural hermeneutic basis. Here they are.
Rev 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:1-3 that even though Satan is bound with a great chain, shut, sealed, and locked in an abyss (depthless, i.e. (specially) (infernal) "abyss":--deep, (bottomless) pit.) so he could not deceive the nations any longer, that crafty old dragon outwitted God's angel and can still be "on the playing field" but deceiving only gentiles, but even so his binding is not necessarily total.

Jean Chauvin #566 Therefore, it is just as reasonable to limit this binding of Satan to the stated "effect" which is already present in the text. We don't need to go any further than what is stated in the text. The text does not lead us to a necessary conclusion that Satan "has been removed from the playing field". Since we know that the binding is effective to keep Satan from deceiving the gentiles, we can understand that the descriptive words such as "chained" and "cast" are to communicate the absoluteness of Satan's new found inability to deceive the gentiles.
Jean Chauvin #690 Now, I have presented a Biblical argument [in post #593] as to the fact that since we can understand that the binding of demons spoken of in 2 Peter 2 is ~not~ total and complete, then we can also conclude that the binding of Satan (which is described using extremely similar language) is not ~necessarily~ to be understood as being complete/total.

Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:4 that the "beheaded souls" are not "physically dead" but rather they must be the "alive in the body" type of souls, who though slain for their testimony in Rev 6:9 and refused to worship the beast or take his mark they were still victorious (and alive in the body) souls in heaven in Rev 15:1-2 and were not killed physically. And so because they were never physically dead, they did not live again, they just continued their existing physical life spans for a thousand years with Christ, but came to life spiritually instead because (I guess) their testimony and rejecting the beast just wasn't good enough.

Jean Chauvin #112 "It is not reasonable to conclude that people who are alive in the body are 'resurrected from the ~dead~."
Jean Chauvin #136 I'm asking how living people who have never ever died are supposedly resurrected from the ~DEAD~?
Jean Chauvin #1404 You are forgetting those John sees in vs 4 who are currently alive in their bodies:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [Jean Chauvin's bold emphasis]

Jean Chauvin #1927: You are correct that [John] doesn't use ["alive in their bodies"], but you should also note that neither does John actually "identify" any of these people as "physically dead". On the other hand, there is good reason to conclude that those who did not worship the beast are alive in their bodies.
Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.

Rev 20: 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:5 and 12-13 that 'the rest of the dead' are the gentile nations (see first forced interpretation) deceived by Satan whose limited binding now has no effect over the gentiles, which 'stand' at the white throne (alive in their bodies), but were never physically dead, just spiritually dead (because it's biblical, and I guess because they also have incredibly long life spans so they never physically die because they were not resurrected), but they are punished to remain spiritually dead forever. In fact, no physically dead people are mentioned anywhere in Rev 20 (not even the dead given up by the sea).

gdebrae #352 You posted an article about interpreting scripture which emphasized paying attention to the context. The context of the entire book of Revelation is the church. The subject matter in Rev. 20 is clearly the deceived gentile nations, not the state of Israel. The dead of verse 5 are gentiles nations. The great white throne is the judgment of gentile nations. The deceived armies satan gathers against the church (Hebrews 12:22-24) are gentile nations. All the previous references in the book of Revelation to the object of satan's hostility and war are to the church, the seed of the woman and not to Israel.
gdebrae #936 My paraphrase of vs 5 would be something like "The rest of the dead (those still deceived by satan) have no spiritual life during the accomplishment of the 1000 years." They are physically alive but spiritually dead. And when we get to vss 11-15 these physically alive but spiritually dead persons are still spirituall dead and are stand before the great white throne physically alive but spiritual dead and are judged physically alive but spiritually dead forever.
Jean Chauvin #1958 Unless you can prove that the reference to the “rest of the dead” is a reference to “physically dead” people, I would suggest that this is another of your presumptions. The notion of being “spiritually dead” is biblical. Furthermore, it notes that Rev 20:11 literally tells us that “the dead” are “standing” in front of the “Great White Throne Judgment” for judgement. Notice, also, there literally is no explicit statement declaring that the "dead are resurrected in vs 11-15. Furthermore, since we know that there will be unbelievers (spiritually dead) who are “alive in their bodies” at the Great White Throne Judgment, wouldn’t it be correct to conclude that the “dead” who are “standing” in front of the Great White Throne are actually only “spiritually dead” and not necessarily ~all~ physically dead?
Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.
Jean Chauvin #2091 I can look all day long in Rev 20 for the “literal” words “the first resurrection is bodily” and I will never find it. In fact, you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead.
gdebrae #2291 Matter of fact - Rev. 20:4-6 define what the binding is about. There is a causal relationship between vs 3 and 4. Vs 1-3 see all the nations as spiritually dead as deceived by satan. His binding prevents him from deceiving the nations. The result is that some of the spiritually dead are seen sitting on thrones, living and reigning with Christ, the first and foremost resurrection. The rest of the dead (vs5) remain under satan's deception and have no spiritual life and are finally cast into the lake of fire to experience the second death. Those participating in the First Resurrection live and reign with Christ forever. This is God's final judgment about those who believe in Christ.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
Rev 20:3b until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
Rev 20:4b and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5a The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
Rev 20: 6b and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,

The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on all six identical "thousand years" that they are not an actual real 1000 years, but rather a metaphor of an era or 'vast' time, and scripture must be diligently searched to find other scriptural definitions of "thousand years" because the usage in Rev 20 can only be symbolic. Gosh, even more symbolism is found in the thousand years of Rev 20:5a being a different thousand years than that of Rev 20:6b (yes! metaphors within metaphors!) because the tense of the verbs in the sentences change.

Jean Chauvin #1404 argues the first resurrection is 'a thousand years' that is separate and prior to reigning with Christ for 'a future thousand years':

Clearly one must have already be apart of the First Resurrection (living and reigning for a thousand years) in order to be "priests" and "reign with Christ a thousand years" (future application).
No, the grammar tells us that one must be apart of the First Resurrection in order to be apart of the future 1000 year reign in vs 6. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection (past tense)" The folks who have already been privy to the "First Resurrection" are the ones who shall (future tense) be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.

gdebrae #1104 there is a precedent set for the number 1000 being used to indicate a vastness. You are definitely on the right track. Ps 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." The thousand years is used here as reference to God's eternity compared to our finiteness and understanding of time.
Jean Chauvin #1131 gdebrae is correct, we are looking at the phrase "thousand years" and looking at other Scriptural uses of the phrase "thousand years" to see if we can find precedent for how Scripture uses this term.

Ya know what Jean? I'm beginning to see how xzins gets so confused. I'm perplexed myself.
But I'm sure you'll clear this up in no time and perhaps we can move on to the_doc's forced interpretation in post 848 and post 875 and post 894 and post 898 and post 965 and post 971 and post 1084 and post 1347and post 2090:

The beheading idea in Revelation 20:4 is not necessarily limiting us to physically dead Christians anyway. It definitely includes those who have died physically, certainly including literal martyrs, but the verse may very well be just borrowing a martyrdom scenario for beautiful metaphorical purposes in the vision--including metaphorical purposes involving Christians who are still physically alive!
So, what are those metaphorical purposes and 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?

from post #2594
Furthermore, Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6. [...snip...] So, in summary, you must show us that: The chains and abyss are necessarily to be understood literally in a book filled with much symbolism. Satan's binding is necessarily total/complete. The text does not say this, so you must show us why this ~MUST~ be the necessary understanding
No I don't. You invited examples of your forced interpretation. You explain your interpretation. If you think Satan is already bound, and the beheaded didn't really loose their heads, then you explain the metaphor that Christ is teaching us in this revelation to John. 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? Explain that.
we make a distinction between "souls that were beheaded" and those "which had not worshipped the beast". It is the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive.
So how do the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive go on to live with Christ a thousand years? How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?
Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ doesn't tell us they were "alive in their bodies". Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ tells us (quite literally) that the "~DEAD~" were standing before God and the Great White Throne. It appears that it is ~YOU~ that is attempting to force the idea that these folks are "alive in their body".
It is the Amillennialist statements forcing the interpretation that the 'dead' of Rev 20:12 are alive in their bodies, their statements, not Rev 20:12. The Amillennialist statements force the interpretation. Not I, nor Rev 20: Here is your personal post from #1958:

Furthermore, since we know that there will be unbelievers (spiritually dead) who are “alive in their bodies” at the Great White Throne Judgment, wouldn’t it be correct to conclude that the “dead” who are “standing” in front of the Great White Throne are actually only “spiritually dead” and not necessarily ~all~ physically dead?

First of all, you will have to show us that the "1000" years must necessarily be understood as a literal time frame
No I don't. Rev 20 by default states exactly a thousand years in plain simple literal words. You insist on the symbolism. Why is it we must understand that because "thousand years" is mentioned 6 times they must be symbolic? Why must it be symbolic? Why can't a thousand years be a thousand years, as Rev 20 literally states it?. You invited examples of where Amil views forced an interpretation. You explain your interpretation. Rev 20 no where states the thousand years are symbolic. Your forced interpretation does. Your forced interpretation stated that the thousand years is symbolic, a metaphor, and further a metaphor of two different thousand years in Rev 20:5a and 6b. This is your forced interpretation. Here are your statements again from your post #1404:

Clearly one must have already be apart of the First Resurrection (living and reigning for a thousand years) in order to be "priests" and "reign with Christ a thousand years" (future application).
No, the grammar tells us that one must be apart of the First Resurrection in order to be apart of the future 1000 year reign in vs 6. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection (past tense)" The folks who have already been privy to the "First Resurrection" are the ones who shall (future tense) be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.

And you never did explain how if no one is ever physically dead, no one ever physically died, then how did all these 'not resurrected again' 'physically alive' people live for a thousand years? How did they live through two different thousand years?
And you never did explain how the dead given up by sea, were physically alive. How does that happen?
and from post #2608
If you are charging us with "forcing" our interpretation on the passage, then you most certainly ~must~ show us why your interpretation is the ~NECESSARY~ one!
No I don't. This isn't about my interpretations. This is about you explaining yours. You invited examples of your forced interpretations. You've been given them (in post #2564 and a subset again in post #2594). You must show how your interpretations are not forced. I provided your (and other amil's) statements showing your forced interpretations. You explain how those interpretations are not forced. You have avoided explaining each one of your interpretations to date. Now please do explain, as per your invitation.
"How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?" Another "straw man" argument! We never claimed that their "physical bodies" have a "life span" of a "thousand years". We simply say, as John 11:25,26 tells us, "they NEVER die"! Obviously, John 11 is not meant to be understood as their physical bodies never dying!
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? How do their physical bodies never die throughout the thousand years? 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.
You've not explained why the thousand years must be symbolic and why there must two different symbolic thousand years periods.
You've not explained how the dead given up by the sea weren't physically dead at the white throne.
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.
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?
You've not explained how Satan is bound now.
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.
Now you explain your interpretations.

By the same logic amils have God with an unfaithful, adultrous wife who somehow becomes a spotless bride awaiting her Groom and Marriage. Sounds like a woman with MPD (multiple personality disorder).

My point is that both are analogies describing spiritual reltionships. I have said this before.

This kind of rhetoric is shallow, IMO.

You guys have a long post competition going don't you?

Hey xzins, any input on Starwinds lack of brevity?

Hi Mom! I have a question..is this thread about jehovah's witnesses?

***So, in the days of OT Israel, was the Father spiritually bound to a whore?***

Read Ezekiel 16.

You and others seize upon this passage (Matthew 12:28-29) and then try to say that Jesus said the entire Kingdom of God had come. ~ nobdysfool

Did you forget the part where you are suppose to show where only part of the kingdom of God has come. I know that this is your assumption and your theology demands it, but until you demonstrate it from the scriptures you are left telling me that the glad tidings that Jesus preached were just a partial gospel, which is no gospel at all. Woody.

"thousand year reign" of APOSTASY, HYPOCRISY, REBELLION, AND LIES... ~ OP

[snip, cut] ... and stored for Woody's future reference when referring to the "glorious" Premill kingdom. Woody.

TAking Ezek 40-48 seriously does not require believing that the Holy Spirit is a liar or that Hebrews is uninspired.

Both things can not be true..either Christ completed his work or not which is it?

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.

If the Lords supper ends when The bridgroom comes WHY would they need to offer sacrifices to please God?Eze 43:27 And when these days are expired, it shall be, [that] upon the eighth day, and [so] forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.

Hbr 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Which is it xzins?

No Woody, follow the thread. The implications of what you (and your buddies) said are clear. Read, Woody, read. ~ Corin Stormhands

Right before they killed him.

Woody.