Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 221340 | ||
Very interesting, Beja So the way I have believed is that we are in spiritual warfare (Eph 6:12) and the three enemies that attempt to dissuade us are: our flesh, the world, and satan. My belief is that we are nearing the end of the church age, and satan is ramping up his forces in this world because he knows that he does not have much time left. The way I understand you, is that satan is presently bound (in the abyss), so that presently, we have two enemies that war against our soul, which are: our flesh and the world. Am I reading you correctly? In Him, keliy |
||||||
2 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221342 | ||
Keily, You are correct that I think satan is currently bound. However, you are reading that in terms of what you think it will mean in what you picture to be a future millenia. Satan is not literally in a hole some place called the abyss. The passage defines what the binding of satan means. It says that it is such that he can not deceive the nations. I do not take this to mean that he is completely and utterly restrained from all actions. Revelations is a very symbolic book and much of it is not meant to be taken completely literally. Its simply not a genre that expects to be read in that way. So to answer, Satan is currently our foe that works against us, but he is not free to rally up the nations in a massive organized revolt against God and his people as he will in the final days. Isn't it remarkable that what is possibly the most well attested end times view point through out history (amillenialism), is now so nearly unheard of that it sounds a strange thing to us? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
3 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 221351 | ||
Thank you, pastor Beja. I have always enjoyed your posts, but for some reason they just never sat well in my mind and I continue to strain to find out why. Sorry, I am trying to learn, and having been to many classes on Revelation, things are becoming as clear as mud. Many times I see people site the Book of Revelations, and I just cringe. Because if they do not even have the Title correct, how can they understand the obscure message of it.? Revelation is a Singular Revelation, not plural. And it is what the name implies, a Revealing, -not a covering-up. I believe that the key to understanding the Book of Revelation is to understand the rest of the Bible. When you say that satan is unable to deceive the nations, (Gk, ethnos), I do not think this word is meant to be understood as 'governments' or 'territories', but as 'peoples' -such as in multitudes. How then can the devil be waliking about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, if He is unable to deceive us? How can satan attempt to deceive the very elect, if possible? These are New Testament teachings and since you have already told me when the end of the 1000 is to come, can I ask you to tell me when the beginning of the 1000 started? Because I think the amill view is that it started at the Cross, which would force me to discount some verses. Are those verses also symbolic? I am taking the literal sense here, and forgive me if I am wrong, but Rev 20:3 (KJV) states, "And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled. I think satan IS put somewhere that he can be sealed. To take this symbolically means we are opening up God's Word to the point where the final message of God would be called, "The Book of Interpretations" -plural, not singular Lord Bless you and yours, keliy |
||||||
4 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221354 | ||
Keily, I believe that you are correct when you say that understanding the book of Revelation is dependant on how you first understand the rest of scripture. This unfortunately is where I think we would have a great deal of problems coming to understand one another. I suspect we disagree on many things which determine how we are going to read the book. I would suggest that the millenial reign of Christ began with His ascension. However, I'm not sure we should try to be so very specific on a precise moment, but rather let us say that it was accomplished by the first coming of Christ. Not that you agree, but let's express the amill view that way for our discussion. Also I really can't respond as to what other verses you mean when you haven't told me which ones. Let me address two possible objections you've brought up. One is the objection of taking the passage in some way other than literal. I find myself making a decision when I interpret this passage. On one hand I can take passages such as Matthew 25:31-46 which present a single judgement of both the saved and unsaved, and I can say, "Sorry, this passage can not be interpreted literally because I believe they are thousands of years apart." In which case I would have to do this to other passages also. Second, I would have to ingore that the end times view of scripture consistently portrays a single judgement, it consistently shows things such as the current heavens and earth being desrtoryed at His second coming (2 Peter 3), the evil doers being judged at His second coming (2 Thess 1), death being done away with at his second coming (1 Cor 15) and other such things. Now I have a choice. I can say to all these passages in scripture from a variety of genres, "No No, none of you can be understood literally and we must add at least a 2000 year gap in you." Or I can say to one single passage in revelation, which is a book absolutely full of things meant to be taken in a symbolic way, "This one is the one passage not to take literally." To me I take scripture as a whole far far more literally by taking the amillenial position. Second, your question about Satan is a good one. It is one I had to think through a great deal before I believed what I currently do. It sounds so hard to believe doesn't it? What an amill person is saying is essentially this: In some way, satan is restrained from deceiving the world in mass, though right now he does in fact deceive individuals. Later though when he is released from whatever is holding him, he will cause a mass falling away and rally the nations. This made the position hard to believe for some time, until I realized that it was saying nothing you didn't already have to deal with in scripture. As I turn to 2 Thess 2 and I read about the coming man of sin, what picture does 2 thess 2 paint for us? In some way, satan is restrained from deceiving the world in mass, though right now he does in fact deceive individuals. Later though when he is released from whatever is holding him, he will cause a mass falling away and rally the nations. One of the reasons that I believe the amill position, is that when I claim it, I am saying absolutely nothing nor creating any problems that I don't already see elsewhere in scripture. However, when I take a premillenial position it is quite the opposite. I am claiming a doctrine of a period in between this age and the age to come which I can find nowhere in scripture at all other than revelations chapter 20. We are literally restructuring the eschatology of the entire Bible passed on the addition of one passage in a book of symbols and metaphors. That sir, should make you question your view, I know it did me when I held your view. Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
5 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 221360 | ||
Hello Beja, Very interesting, thank you for your answers, and your responses. Sorry, I must admit I did not receive a lot of clarification. When you say that you, "can't respond as to what other verses you mean when you haven't told me which ones.", Well, I guess I did quote the verses, but did not tag them with a reference. My fault. The scriptural references are, 1Pet 5:8 and Matt 24:24, and the gist was, that satan is in the world, and he is deceiving Christians. Now I would like to address your post: I see it increasingly interesting that when you decide whether the passage is to be interpreted literally or not, that (quoting you), " have a choice. I can say to all these passages in scripture from a variety of genres, "No No, none of you can be understood literally and we must add at least a 2000 year gap in you." Or I can say to one single passage in revelation, which is a book absolutely full of things meant to be taken in a symbolic way, "This one is the one passage not to take literally." To me I take scripture as a whole far far more literally by taking the amillenial position." The interesting point, is that the one passage that is the deciding passage concerning the 1000 year reign, (Rev 20:1-3) is the one that you choose to take symbolically and say that it has been going on for 2000 yrs and is still going. I see it as quite literal from the passage that satan IS bound in a sealed 'abyss' (elsewhere translated as 'bottomless pit") and this is literally explained as: 'so he cannot deceive the nations'. But you say he still has access and he is presently deceiving people that are in the nations. And you say that you are taking the passage literally? This I see as a definition of the difference between exegesis and eisegesis I see the seal placed over satan as being much more effective than the seal on Jesus in Joseph's tomb, but hey, that is just me and my presuppositions. You imply that this seal is as effective as a screen door, because satan still is working among us in the duration of the 1000 yr reign. I appreciate your view, and although I might seem skeptical of it, I will try to remain open and remember this thread during future discourses. I will stay with my reading of Scripture, at least for now. When it says that satan is 'prowling about' that does not say to me that he is doing this from a sealed pit. I will try to remain sober and vigilant because of him (1Pet 5:8) as I do further studies to try to understand more thoroughly. Blessings to you and yours in Christ, keliy |
||||||
6 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221361 | ||
Keily, Forgive me, I must have been unclear. I am not at all suggesting that I read rev 20:1-3 literally. Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that a person must make a choice. Look at Matthew 25. Actually go look at it so you see what I'm referring to. The judgement here is clearly depicting one judgement of both the saved and unsaved in one event. The traditional dispensational reading of revelation 20 places the judgements 1000 years apart. Now you must make a choice. Which passage are you going to read literally and which is not literal? I could press you on matthew 25 with the same accusations you place against me regarding revelation 20. The truth be told, one of them is not intending the reader to understand it literally. My point is this, if you choose to read Rev 20 literally, you must say not only matthew 25, but MANY other passages are not literal. The question is this: which do you want to say is literal, either half a dozen passages from almost every genre in scripture, or a single passage in Rev? Do you see the choice now? You can't pass yourself off as somebody who reads scripture literally while the amill person does not. The truth is we MUST both claim something is not being understood literally. Anyways, I'm happy to let the discussion end, I just would be dissapointed if you left not understanding the view I'm trying to articulate due to my short comings in explaining it. After all, I'm attempting to express to you a view that has been around for 2,000 years, not simply my own personal take on scripture. I'd feel bad messing that up for you and other readers. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
7 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 221362 | ||
Dear Beja, Thank you, no apologies are necessary whatsoever. It is very hard to come to agreement on a Forum such as this, and not talking face to face. As I said earlier, this should not be a devisive issue, so I do not wish to just go separate ways on this, but remain as christian participants in an ongoing discussion that has not been concluded as of yet. It is best to agree to disagree for now and let the Spirit work in us as our Lord sees fit. I feel bad if I took up too much of your time, most pastors have this day off. I know, God's work is never done, but as humans allof us need a balance. So lets leave the subject open for discussion in another thread. Agreed ? Lord Bless keliy |
||||||
8 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | lightedsteps | 221363 | ||
Hey Guys Beja, keily I Have been enjoying the discussion. Could there be any chance of the possibility that from Matt.25:34...to ...Matt.25:41 there could be the 1,000 yrs. being spoken of? What I mean, there is just an account of two separate events taking place, without any mention of time. The judgement depicted in Matt.25 is clearly one judgement for both the saved, and the unsaved in one event. But these two judgements, could be 1000 years apart, couldn't they? Just a thought. lightedsteps. |
||||||
9 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221365 | ||
Lightedsteps, Glad you enjoyed the discussion. If one is going to hold to a literal interpretation of Rev 20, then you'd have to read Mat 25 that way, yes? But wouldn't you say we would then be reading that into the text based on what we believe elsewhere in scripture? And that very well could be right. But is the amillenial interpretation of Rev 20 really doing anymore violence to the text than the other view is then doing to matthew 25? All I am suggesting is lets be fair. If you are amillenial, then you can't take rev 20 word for word literally. If you are not amillenial, then you also have passages you can't take word for word literally. Lets not accuse either side of being irresponsible with the text. In the end, we all interpret scripture in light of other scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
10 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | lightedsteps | 221369 | ||
Hi again guys Beja, keily I'm not an "Amillennialist" --- "PREmillennialist" --- or even a "POSTmillenialist" I am one that could be called a "PANmillenialist" I fully trust in Gods plan for mankind, and that He hasn't made any mistakes thus far. Therefore I believe everything will PAN-OUT alright.:-) When it is time, Our Father, will make sure, His Children will know what is taking place. Just on a side note, when we read the fulfillment of prophesy, it is a literal fulfillment, ie, Jesus fulfilled prophesy literally, therefor how can we read a prophesy, that has not been fulfilled yet in a spiritual, or allegorical sense? Grace be unto you lightedsteps |
||||||
11 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221377 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm assuming the question is for me since I think Keily would agree with you. My answer is that I think you are confusing the genres here. Revelation is not simple prophecy but apocalyptic literature. Were the four beasts that Daniel saw meant to be understood literally? Should we still be watching for them to appear? What about the scroll in Zechariah 5? Are we still waiting to see a 20 cubit long flying scroll fly through the air or should we say that he is trying to convey something with that image other than literally a flying scroll? What about the valley of bones in Ezekiel? Do we understand that as we are literally waiting to see a large pile of bones come to life or is it representing something else whether that be the new birth or the reformation of national Israel? My point is that just because messianic prophecies are fullfilled literally it does not follow that all scripture is meant to be taken literally. I'm not suggesting that we get to randomly pick and choose which is literal and which isn't. But if a text is not meant to be taken literally, then to read it as such is to read it wrongly. Hope this helps. Just as a tid bit for thought, listen to this quote by Eusebius, who if I'm not mistaken writes the earliest attempt at a history of the church. He wrote this around 310 AD "Papias supplies other stories that had reached him by word of mouth, along with some other strange parables and unknown teachings of the Savior, as well as other legendary accounts. Among them he says that after the resurrection of the dead there will be a thousand year period when the kingdom of Christ will be established on this earth in material form. I suppose that he got these notions by misunderstanding the apostolic accounts, not realizing that they used mystic and symbolic language. For he was a man of very limited intelligence as is clear from his books" Interesting that now Christians regard it as such a strange thing! In Christ, Beja |
||||||