Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[maestro]

Your#1350)...................Yes!

[However, proof is Rev 2:8.

Irrefutable...."came alive again."]

Rev 2:8...............2:8..............2:8...............Yes.....2nd Timothy 2:8

Maranatha!

[RnMomof7]

He must have given them some sort of power and then the angels made bad decisions with it.

I did not ask you that ..I asked did God give them bodies for the purpose of having lust for the women of the earth and mating with them..If they had bodies then do the demons have human bodies now

Jeffrey Dahmer simply shows what all unregenerat man is capible of but the restraing general grace of God..a different topic completely

Here we are talking about two different species of Gods creation.( unless you like the mormon stand that they are pre birth spirit children or post death disembodied men)

[Seven_0]

"Is there?...Is an adopted child different than a birth child in his rights and privleges?"

There is a difference, Christ was adopted by Joseph, this gave him title to the throne of Israel. If he would have been actually born of Joseph he would have inherited the sin nature. He became a son of David through Mary.

[maestro]

Your#1319).............................Yes!

Maranatha!

[gdebrae]

However, proof is Rev 2:8. Irrefutable...."came alive again."

Hardly

You are not facing two things.

The word zao "life" does not mean resurrection. Depending on the context it may assume a bodily or spiritual resurrection but that is not the point of the word. I'll point it out once more that there are two greek words for resurrection.

The contrast in all the texts were "zao" is translated "came to life again" or "lived again" IS NOT between death and resurrection (for which one of the two greek words would have been used) but between death and life. The emphasis of these texts is not on how you came to be alive, but on the fact that you are alive.

So in Rev 20 the word zao "life" emphasizes exactly that. Those on thrones have life. The rest of the dead have no life.

If we believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God, then not only the human authors, but also the divine author selected words appropriate to convey specific meanings.

The Holy Spirit had a reason for using "life" and not "resurrection" in Rev. 20 vs 4,5. The question that needs to be faced is WHY?

[gdebrae]

where is the commission to preach the gospel to all nations during this supposed 7 year period? Where does the commission to preach the gospel end? Where is your proof the 7 year period is only 'supposed'?

You are changing the subject. Please stay on the subject. We can discuss "supposed" later.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I did not ask you that ..I asked did God give them bodies for the purpose of having lust for the women of the earth and mating with them..If they had bodies then do the demons have human bodies now

I don't know. You'll have to ask God.

[Starwind]

that the entire world will fall away into complete apostasy. In other words, the entire world will belong to Satan. This renders Premillennialism absurd:

I don't know that the apostacy is complete. Again there will be 144,000, two witnesses, and those who end up beheaded that are not apostate. Satan's 'ownership' and his human army and beast don't last beyond Armageddon when defeated by Christ in Rev 19, after which the millenium of Rev 20 begins. The events of Rev 13, 14 that you cite and Christ's defeat of 'Satan's world' in 19 do not render the millenium of Rev 20 absurd, but merely preceed it.

I'm not exactly sure how, ...[snip]...it is possible for people to survive the Tribulation.

Agreed. It isn't clear, but the "testimony" of the beheaded souls, speaks to some being saved during this period in which the world supposedly belongs to Satan. The beheaded souls missed the rapture, yet learned the gospel and testified for Christ, and were later 'blessed' during the thousand year reign.

[the_doc]

I don't think you really want to go where you are going with this. Goyim means far more to Jews than 'nations' or 'gentiles' means to most people. It means profane sub-human vermin. John the beloved disciple didn't likely posess that state of mind when he penned the Apocalypse, so why don't you let go of it while you can.

I don't think you have such great insights as you think you have. I'm not going where you indicated, of course.

Your whole eschatology is dependent on severing Rev 19 from Rev 20, and there is no logical reason to do so.

Read Meredith Kline. Better still, read John 5:25-29, especially vv.28-29.

You really do lose the entire argument.

No existant papyrus of that text contains any more space between the last character of what we call ch 19 and the first character of what we call ch 20 than there is anywhere else in the text.

Big deal, as they say.

You have swallowed a whole heard of Camels with this one.

Read John 5:25-29. Try 2 Peter 3 while you are at it. (Ah, that passage is really cool! This is just another one of several arguments which I am going to win when the Lord returns.)

Chapters and verses are not a part of any original, and any theology that requires the existance of chapters or verses is just part of Satan's lie.

I already know that. But I agree with the guy who inserted the chapter breaks. (Hey, I'll bet he saw the amillennial truth of the passage, too.)

Come on, man, read John 5:25-29.

Read the whole Apocalypse as one as it was intended. Deliver us from your spiritualizing, alegorizing, metaphorizing twisting and turning con-job.

My, you do have a lovely spirit, don't you? Come one, brother, chill out and start reading these passages like a real Christian instead of a lost Pharisee.

[Starwind]

gdebrae, this was your question originated in your post 1352 (with my added emphasis):

Why should I try to prove your position. Since this 7 year tribulation is such an important event and since the NT makes very clear that the church was commissioned to preach the gospel to all nations, where is the commission to preach the gospel to all nations,during this supposed 7 year period?

And now in your post 1366 you say my taking up your question is changing subjects and off limits:

Starwind: where is the commission to preach the gospel to all nations during this supposed 7 year period? Where does the commission to preach the gospel end? Where is your proof the 7 year period is only 'supposed'?

gdebrae: you are changing the subject. Please stay on the subject. We can discuss "supposed" later.

So, when I answer your questions, I'm changing the subject. When I don't answer, I'm evasive. And you accuse me of gymnastics?

[CCWoody]

I don't know that the apostasy is complete. Again there will be 144,000, two witnesses, and those who end up beheaded that are not apostate. Satan's 'ownership' and his human army and beast don't last beyond Armageddon when defeated by Christ in Rev 19, after which the millennium of Rev 20 begins. The events of Rev 13, 14 that you cite and Christ's defeat of 'Satan's world' in 19 do not render the millennium of Rev 20 absurd, but merely precedes it. ~ Starwind

I'm not claiming that the apostasy is complete. I'm also assuming your timeline and your assertion that there will be the gospel presented during this time for the sake of logical charity. I do reserve the right to ask you to justify each.

Nevertheless, the 144,000 and the two witnesses must be accounted for in Revelation 13. It seems me that these verses teach that eventually everyone who does not worship the image of the beast will be dead and the entire world will be full of people bearing the mark of the beast.

Agreed. It isn't clear, but the "testimony" of the beheaded souls, speaks to some being saved during this period in which the world supposedly belongs to Satan. The beheaded souls missed the rapture, yet learned the gospel and testified for Christ, and were later 'blessed' during the thousand year reign. ~ Starwind

Now that you brought it up, since John says that he sees beheaded souls and not living persons, exactly how have these people been resurrected from the dead?

Woody.

[gracebeliever]

Let me be the first to mention we finally agree about something. :-)

Thanks!!! And neither of us went up in smoke. LOL ;-)

[Starwind]

Now that you brought it up, since John says that he sees beheaded souls and not living persons, exactly how have these people been resurrected from the dead?

Well, I assume we're not debating how God did it, and given they are referred to as beheaded souls they don't have physical bodies, and Rev 20:5 includes them in the 'protos anastasis' the 1st resurrection, and I don't know when they get physical bodies with heads.

So, when you ask 'exactly how have they been resurrected', I'm not sure what else you're looking for?

[gracebeliever]

PLEZZZZZZZEEEEEE....Since when do we interpret scripture by what is NOT there? Do you believe the guy next to you in the plane may be a demon?

Maybe you missed that my comment was "says nothing about," not that it says something specifically, referring to the Mt. 22 quote. In Genesis 6, the Word says something specific with Job 1 & 2 assisting in defining that these were angels who were procreating with women.

It is a myth that demons were anywhere other than in Israel. What often is referred to as demons in a person is in reality just that person exhibiting his base nature, per Romans 1. So, no, I don't believe any person next to me anywhere is a demon from a Scriptural definition.

[gdebrae]

Since this 7 year tribulation is such an important event and since the NT makes very clear that the church was commissioned to preach the gospel to all nations, where is the commission to preach the gospel to all nations,during this supposed 7 year period?

You are playing games and you know it.

I'll rephrase the question.

Since this 7 year tribulation is such an important event and since the NT makes very clear that the church was commissioned to preach the gospel to all nations, where is the commission to preach the gospel to all nations,during this period?

[gracebeliever]

"The dates and reason for John's writings and his being on Patmos are more legend than factual."

John stated that he was on Patmos in Rev.

This is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Maybe I should have also placed "reason" before "his being on Patmos." The Bible says he was there, which makes that statement correct.

That Patmos was a Roman prison is a well recorded fact of history, and the witness of Polycarp, while not preserved in his own hand, was adequately recorded by Christian patriarchs and historians of subsequent overlapping generations, whose accuracy and character has never been called assailable.

Do you not find it interesting that Polycarp never recorded anything about John's alleged (now I sound like a PC TV wonk) exile, imprisonment, slave labor visit to Patmos? Therefore, this belief rests on a verbally transmitted record. Since this record is not divinely inspired or preserved, then it can be suspect. You are probably correct in calling me "overly critical," and even a cynic, but I don't think I am being unreasonable not to blindly accept everything a man writes. We're even told the noble Bereans "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" after the Apostle Paul had spoken to them.

"What's interesting is that Polycarp didn't believe in having a central, organized church..."

Neither did our Lord! - He roundly condemned the nicolaitanes in the letters to the churches in Revelation.

But man started a tradition that the Lord didn't initiate - which is the gist of my comment. I didn't know the Nicolaitanes, whoever they are, were condemned by Christ for having, or wanting to have, a centralized, organized church.

[gracebeliever]

Re: 1290. Good reply - couldn't agree more.

[gracebeliever]

...if you really understood my Calvinistic position, you would never have said what you said.

I'm still catching up on who's what on this thread, but I would probably have made the same comments.

As for the “stuff,” you need to re-think the Biblical idea of “the nations”. . To summarize what I am saying: When a Jewish apostle to the Jews used the Greek phrase “the nations,” his readers should have understood that he was talking about goyim. And goyim does not merely mean “the nations.” Ah, for that matter, it does not merely mean “the Gentiles,” either! The problem is, it means both of these ideas at once! Maybe you don’t yet see where this is headed, but please bear with me. I’ll finish my explanation later today.

I still don't see how this differs from my comments about the nations, but am looking forward to further edification.

[Starwind]

You are playing games and you know it.

No, just nearing the end of my patience with you.

Since this 7 year tribulation is such an important event and since the NT makes very clear that the church was commissioned to preach the gospel to all nations, where is the commission to preach the gospel to all nations,during this period?

I'm not aware of any distinction that ends the great commission at any point, I assume the commission remains in effect through the tribulation.

[BibChr]

I assumed you were better taught on Biblical prophecy than you were, or at least that these issues were touched on by someone who believes Biblical prophecy in one of these threads you inhabit. As I understand it:

1. Gentiles who survive the Tribulation will enter the Kingdom in their natural bodies (Matthew 25:31-40).
2. They will have children (Isaiah 11:8; 65:20).
3. While no doubt many born in this phase of the Kingdom will be believers, others will not, will chafe under Messiah's rule, and will follow Satan's brief, abortive rebellion at its end (Revelation 20:7-9).

That grows out of treating ALL of the Bible rspectfully, as very Word of God.

Now, if one doesn't approach the Bible as verbally inerrant, he could just say, "Oh, well... that... that's all just metaphorical for... for blessing on the righteous, and cursing on the wicked! The details are just window-dressing! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Dan