REVELATIONS: QUESTIONS

ED: I'm sorry, but no ... my comments were not directly aimed at you. My comments were made because everytime (or nearly so) I read posts about "end times events", they all turn into arguments in which many (or everyone?) tries to avoid DIRECTLY asnwering the questions asked to them.

Can Satan be everywhere all the time? NO Can Satan & his demons possess a Christian? NO
So then, how can a Christian still sin? Is it always a direct & immediate work of Satan & his demons? Or are we still influenced by the sinful flesh inherited from Adam? I believe the owrk of Satan can still effect us .. even if he is bound. (if that is what is happening to him)

Also, if Satan is bound....I sure would hate to see what this place would be like if he were to be "loosed"!

 

Jenson: "ED: I'm sorry, but no ... my comments were not directly aimed at you."

O.K. so i'll stay off your case

Jenson: "Can Satan be everywhere all the time? NO"

Exactly so!

Jenson: "Can Satan & his demons possess a Christian? NO

Exactly so! However they can possess the abortionists,
the priest/pedeophiles, the baby rapists.

Jenson: "So then, how can a Christian still sin?
Is it always a direct & immediate work of Satan & his demons?"

By inspiration or imitation of the demons.
"The devil made me do it the first time, i liked
it so much i kept doing it"

Jenson: //Also, if Satan is bound....I sure would hate
to see what this place would be like if he were to be "loosed"! //

Agreed. And 2 Thess 2:1-8 shows that the constrainer
is still among us until the final times -- the constrainer
constrains Satan, but Satan is NOT yet bound, the 1,000 years
when Jesus shall reign on earth has not happened yet, is yet
to start.

 

The number '1000' can be a very intriguing number. Does it always demand a literal interpretation though? Many say that it is. But what does God say when using this in His word? If proven that God does use the term '1000' figuratively, what then can we conclude of it's usage in Revelation?
Here are some other ways that '1000' is used:

Psalm 50:10 "for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills."

Psalm 105:8 "He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations."

How many hills are there on this world? I am sure more than a thousand. Are the cattle on the hills after 1000 not of those that belong to God? Surely not! Will He forget His covenant and word after a thousand generations? I think not! For it says He remembers it "forever." In these cases '1000' is used for a TOTALLY complete number. The number '10' is used in the bible as a complete or whole number. In the Hebrew language, from what I understand, by using multiples of ten increases its emphasis as being TOTALLY complete. For example: 10X10X10= 1000. That emphasis means that ALL the cattle on ALL the hills belong to God. And that also means He remembers His covenant and word for ALL generations-- forever. (See also Is.30:17;60:22 for symbolic usage). Also that could mean that the '1000' years in Revelation could just as well symbolize a complete period of time rather than literal. But, for those literalists who are immovable objects with relation to the '1000' years in Revelation, should, at the very least, look at how this is used elsewhere in the bible, and then, just maybe, just maybe you can see that this does not have to be a literal '1000' years. Go with God!

 

Maybe that is so about the figurative 1,000
years.

I always thought that even if the Millinnial
Kingdom of Jesus is a figurative 1,000 years --
it will be a physical Jesus, ruling
on a physical Throne of David,
in a physcial Jerusalem,
ruling a physical world.

Coming soon to a world near you

Question: When did the figurative 1,000 years begin?

Ed answer: Not yet.

 

Ed,

Let's not start insisting on literalism with those things while treating the plain terms regarding the "last days" figuratively.

You must leave room for figurative interpretation somewhere in your eschatology whether you admit it or not.

I (and many others of us non-dispies)admit it--some things in the scripture are figurative! Is that really so bad?

In Christ,

Tim

 

Didn't Jesus say that nobody knows the day or the hour of His return? I don't think Revelation is intending to spill those beans! Norman Geisler has pointed out that the important points (not that any are actually unimportant) in the Bible are clear and that the clear points are inportant! The main message of Revelation is that God's gonna win - and thereby so will we!! I think to make huge schemes and timelines of the rapture, tribulation, millenium etc is missing the point somewhat. I'm personally amill with some slight partial preterist leanings - but I'm always willing to listen!

 

Charles,

If only Christians generally shared that perspective!

Instead, we often see the majority view (Pre-mil, pre-trib)trying to silence all rivals.

In Christ,

Tim

 

First, I would like to confess that I am not an expert on eschatology. I have studied the different millennial theories, including Preterism, and all of them have considerable points. If you are a Preterist and know of any commentaries on Revelation 20 or have any personal comments regarding the thousand years, please let me know. Revelation 20 tempts me to side with the Premillennialists, but certainly not those of the Dispensationalist camp. The only good thing Dispensationalism has to offer is good fiction (Actually, the "Left Behind" series was not that good. ).

 

Brother Tim is literal when it supports
his non-dispy pet thing;
figurative when that support his theory.
Brother Ed does the same for his dispy stuff.

Looking for a city,
Where we'll never die

 

Like I stated before, I am not an expert on eschatology, but a careful study of Revelation 20, especially the part about "the first resurrection," seems to be enough to sweep all opposition before Premillennialism.

 

Bro.Ed,

Thanks for your concession (even if it was a little half-hearted). As far as me having a pet non-dispy thing, I guess I'll have to concede that myself. I was raised and immersed in it most of my life. Though it seemed to have holes, it was so pervasive in my circle that I never knew that any other view could be held by conservative Bible-believers. Now that I now that other views are held by conservatives, I sense that Dispy leaders were a little too defensive (and some even paranoid) to admit that fact.

In Christ,

Tim

 

PB,

Here's one amil's partial explanation of Rev. 20:4-6 (there are various views):

Those Jews who were faithful to Christ during the time of great tribulation which culminated in Jerusalem's destruction were granted the special priveledge of presently reigning with Him from heaven. These people were a part of the first resurrection, described by Christ in John 5:26 as salvation, i.e. the resurrection of the soul from the dead.
Among those many faithful were the disciples, in fulfillment of Christ's promise in Mat. 19:28. These faithful martyrs were the literal "firstfruits" of Christianity, and I believe they were represented by the figurative 144,000 of Rev. 7.
Since their souls were resurrected by Christ, they could not be harmed at the final resurrection of all men (also referred to in John 5:28,29), where the unsaved would experience the final death of their souls.

That's my explanation. Feel free to shoot holes in it, and I'll see what I can do to patch them.

In Christ,

Tim

 

PB,

Here's one amil's partial explanation of Rev. 20:4-6 (there are various views):

Those Jews who were faithful to Christ during the time of great tribulation which culminated in Jerusalem's destruction were granted the special priveledge of presently reigning with Him from heaven. These people were a part of the first resurrection, described by Christ in John 5:26 as salvation, i.e. the resurrection of the soul from the dead.
Among those many faithful were the disciples, in fulfillment of Christ's promise in Mat. 19:28. These faithful martyrs were the literal "firstfruits" of Christianity, and I believe they were represented by the figurative 144,000 of Rev. 7.
Since their souls were resurrected by Christ, they could not be harmed at the final resurrection of all men (also referred to in John 5:28,29), where the unsaved would experience the final death of their souls.

That's my explanation. Feel free to shoot holes in it, and I'll see what I can do to patch them.

In Christ,

Tim </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm. Why not, actually, all the redeemed taken to heaven (as you stated, the first resurrection) to be considered as reigning with Christ until his triumphant return?

 

Tee Hee
God Bless you Brother Tim.
I like to think myself as one each
2 Thessalonians 2:15 type of dispy

 

That's one of the various views I spoke of. But I think those particular promises seem to be addressed to the firstfruits of the church--those who read the N.T. epistles without looking over someone's shoulder(as we do today). At least those first believers who suffered martyrdom seem to have been given more authority in reigning with Christ. I wouldn't begrudge them that.

In Christ,

Tim