Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[BibChr]

Oh, exactly right. It's the same conundrum as the limited-inspiration gang. If parts are inspired and parts aren't, who's the superior authority that tells one from the other?

Dan

[editor-surveyor]

"I'm sure the answer of the textual critics will be that this is text was too good to be true"

And far to old, too! - It happens to be in 2 of the seven oldest pieces of manuscripts in existance, dating to approx 120 AD.

[CCWoody]

Where do you get the secret decoder ring that tells which passages of the Word to believe, and which to discard?

In the proverbs 23:23 store.

BTW, if you dispesationalists would bother to read Revelation 13 and take it at face value, you would realize that the beast first has to be wounded and live. Then the image is made. Then you have those being killed who would not worship the image and you have ***ALL*** receiving a mark on their hand or forehead.

The paranoia about this mark thing is hysterical. I have literally seen people become visibly nauseated thinking about it. And it doesn't even make sense. Don't you dispensationalists believe you will get raptured out before this happens? Why worry about it then. You'll be outta here. No soup for you!

Woody.

[xzins]

Wrigs, I don't have a Textus Receptus handy to compare. All I have is a Nestle. I'm positive, though, that ftD has one. Hey ftd, how does the TR translate 1 Jn 5: 7-8?

[RnMomof7]

Not in the original text...I learned that as a NEW Christian..so it is nice to teach you something

**The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth," are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate;** the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century. A scholium quoted in Matthaei, shows that the words did not arise from fraud; for in the words, in all Greek manuscripts "there are three that bear record," as the Scholiast notices, the word "three" is masculine, because the three things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are SYMBOLS OF THE TRINITY. To this CYPRIAN, 196, also refers, "Of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is written, 'And these three are one' (a unity)." There must be some mystical truth implied in using "three" (Greek) in the masculine, though the antecedents, "Spirit, water, and blood," are neuter. That THE TRINITY was the truth meant is a natural inference: the triad specified pointing to a still Higher Trinity; as is plain also from 1Jo 5:9 , "the witness of GOD," referring to the Trinity alluded to in the Spirit, water, and blood. It was therefore first written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text, and then, as early at least as the eighth century, was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate. The testimony, however, could only be borne on earth to men, not in heaven. The marginal comment, therefore, that inserted "in heaven," was inappropriate. It is on earth that the context evidently requires the witness of the three, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, to be borne: mystically setting forth the divine triune witnesses, the Father, the Spirit, and the Son. LUECKE notices as internal evidence against the words, John never uses "the Father" and "the Word" as correlates, but, like other New Testament writers, associates "the Son" with "the Father," and always refers "the Word" to "God" as its correlate, not "the Father." Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century, is the first who quotes the disputed words as in the text; but no Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth is extant with them. The term "Trinity" occurs first in the third century in TERTULLIAN [Against Praxeas, 3].

[Wrigley]

You're in serious mode. I meant that as an aside, but it would be interesting non-the-less.

[CCWoody]

Aren't you suppose to get raptured outta here before the beast arrives? Why worry about it then. No soup for you!

[xzins]

I have been puzzled by the blessing/cursing thing for some time now. How can they decide to literally interpret one half while allegorically interpreting the other half.

It is what you said in your article. Without a consistent hermeneutic everything becomes whim, chaos, personal fancy.

[Wrigley]

Could be a check list item. As the signs get clearer, as a premi, you can predict when better.

[xzins]

Two issues here, Woody.

One is that I tend in a post-millennial direction; although I'm learning the strength of the pre-mil day-by-day.

However, there will be real live humans on earth in either case who will have to make a decision about the mark of the beast.

Does your theology actually allow you to take a mark? I thought I understood from the other amills that they still anticipate the anti-christ as a future event? Am I mistaken?

[the_doc]

If John 5:25 describes a 'regeneration unto conversion' which corresponds to the souls of Rev 20:4 who didn't take the mark of the beast, where are all the other 'believing' souls who crossed over from death to life in the earlier era ('a time has come now') described in John 5:24? Where is the correspondence between John 5:25's era of the spiritually resurrected whose time has now come and the 1st resurrection of Rev 20? Or put another way, when do all the rest of the Christians get resurrected?

It's a single era. "The hour is coming and now is." I would say that we can't subdivide the era in the way you are (in effect) proposing.

John 5:28,29 describes everyone in a grave (all who ever died) rising to be judged by what they have done which corresponds to the dead of Rev 20:12-15 the small and great, given up from death and hell, judged in Rev 20:12,13 according to their works, and whosever was not in the book of life receives the 2nd death. In both John 5:28,29 and Rev 20:12,13 everyone is judged according to their works and no one is actually mentioned as having been in the book of life. So, again when do the believing Christians get resurrected? Where are they mentioned?

If you are asking about the physical resurrection of Christians who have physically died, my answer is that they are also partakers of the bodily resurrection (John 5:28-29 again). But inasmuch as the emphasis in Revelation 20 is on an awful judgment which God's elect will escape by virtue of the first resurrection (cf. John 5:25 and Rev. 20:6!), we shouldn't be surprised that Revelation 20 doesn't emphasize the matter of the believers' participation in the second resurrection.

Again, Revelation 20 is actually emphasizing the spectacular blessing of being regenerate, of escaping the doom of reprobates. And this exactly agrees with the thrust of John 5:25.

John 5:29 says "those who have done good will rise to live", which implies saved by works and not by faith in Christ.

This is more of a soteriological matter than an eschatological matter, in my opinion. But I would dare to say that John 5:29 helps us to understand what justifying faith always produces by its very nature. (The person who does not do good does not even have the Spirit of Christ in His soul.)

What we mainly need to remember is that the reason why a true Christian needs not fear judgment is because he gets credit for the work of Christ anyway. This is a way of saying the Christian will be judged in one strictly lovely sense but, in another sense, will not judged at all. (Compare Romans 14:10 and John 5:25).

When you look at it in this way, John 5:25 beautifully agrees with John 5:28-29. It also agrees with the idea that we will all stand before the Judgment seat of Christ (see again Romans 14:10), but that we Christians can rest in the fact that our sins have gone before us to the Judgment and will not follow us to that Judgment (1 Timothy 5:24).

This correspondence of the judgement according to works at the white throne in Rev 20:12,13 to the rising according to having done good or evil in John 5:29 only seems to reinforce the view that those in John 5:29 are also judged according to works. Interpreting John 5:29 was already difficult and corresponding it to Rev 20:12,13 increases the difficulty.

See my comments, above.

So to sum up my questions, from the Amillenial viewpoint, when do the already dead believing Christians get bodily resurrected and found in the Book of Life, according to faith in Christ, not of works?

They are resurrected in a bodily way with all the rest of the physically dead--in the very same hour with everyone else. But Revelation 20 doesn't bother to emphasize this.

***

What we really need to keep in mind is that John 5:25-29 is actually pretty clear! Revelation 20 has to agree with it. If our "interpretation" of Revelation 20 doesn't fit the clear picture given in John 5, then our "interpretation" is wrong.

[xzins]

Correction to #770 ....POST-TRIB

I meant to say post-trib. "I tend a POST-TRIB direction."

[editor-surveyor]

"The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth," are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate;..."

All you have done is copy the revisionist lies that you have read.

Until you have read and understood Michael Maynard's "A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8" you are not even remotely equipped to enter into debate on the subject. - The verse is among the best fortified in the Word.

[fortheDeclaration]

Wrigs, I don't have a Textus Receptus handy to compare. All I have is a Nestle. I'm positive, though, that ftD has one. Hey ftd, how does the TR translate 1 Jn 5: 7-8?

Correctly, just as the King James has it!

Erasmus left it out in his first editions but later put it in.

Beza has it as does Schrivner. More evidence has come forth to show that it is the correct reading.

It may not be the majority text reading, but it is a TR reading and it is the correct reading

[fortheDeclaration]

LOL! I was wondering about that!

[BibChr]

Yes, Dr. Charles Lee Feinberg, Jewish Christian Old Testament scholar, remarked about how kind it was of amills to steal Israel's blessings and leave them with the cursings.

Dan

[fortheDeclaration]

Here is a link to read up on the 1Jn.5:7 issue

http://jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm

[xzins]

leave them with cursings...

doesn't seem fair, does it?

[xzins]

I don't know why I do that, but it seems like 1 out of 3 times that I want to write "post or pre" trib that I end up writing "post or pre" mill.

Absentmindedness, I guess.

[JesseShurun]

Aren't you suppose to get raptured outta here before the beast arrives? Why worry about it then. No soup for you!

People who actually read the Word know that actually, the Beast has arrived.