Jump to content


Photo

Thinking about the new Gnostic Origins article


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 LoganMM

LoganMM

    Berean Regular

  • CCP
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading, Spending time with my wife, and teaching children about Jesus.
  • Regirstration Type:CCP

Posted 20 March 2012 - 04:03 PM

I certainly don't mean this with any disrespect Manuel, but Pilgrims Progress is by definition an allegory... As such it isn't to be taken literally, almost everything is a symbol.

When looking at the scriptures, one is constantly confronted with many different ways of information being given. There is plain speak, poetry, metaphor, allegory, hyperbole, apocalyptic. The idea being set forth in really all of Tim's articles is that when plain sense makes sense, seek not other sense. Since there aren't any examples given in the whole of scripture where the term resurrection is used in conjunction with anything other than the body, it just doesn't make sense to say that this time (Rev. 20) it is being used non-literally i.e. allegorically to refer to the new birth(I don't think you stated that you believed this is what the first resurrection was referring to, so this is my assumption based on other a-mills I know). There are many examples; in the bible in general, and the book of revelation in particular of things that if taken literally, would make the information being conveyed ridiculous, and as such MUST be interpreted non-literally. I don't see the first resurrection as one of those things, because the plain sense make sense.

Blessings to you Manuel,

-Logan

#22 manuel

manuel

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 20 March 2012 - 06:25 PM

I understand that the Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory, but I am afraid you missed the point; it has nothing to do with the Pilgrim's Progress, that was just an example. the point is that when you accuse somebody of allegorizing you are dogmatically implying that the only sense possible is the literal, and that is not the case with Revelation nor is the case with the first resurrection described in Chapter 20. What you call the plain sense is simply the sense that comes from accepting the premillenialist presuppositions a priori which I don't have to do, I have no reason for it. It has too many theological problems and contradictions. To me plain sense is to interpret the first resurrection symbolically because it fits the totality of the Scriptural teaching regarding the end times.

Blessing to you too, Logan

#23 henrydmilligan

henrydmilligan

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ashland, Maine
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 20 March 2012 - 07:28 PM

One of the biggest arguments in support of premillenialism IMO is the fact that orthodox Christians in the first two or three centuries all believed and tought chilliasm (millenialism) The only ones who opposed this were the gnostics, who denied the ressurection of the flesh.

Please read this series of quotations assembled by Tim of the beliefs of the early church fathers.

On the
Millennial Week


It seems quite clear to me that there must have been apostolic teaching on a future milenium in which Christ riegns, (preceded by 6 millenia under the curse.) I just don't see how all those early Christians with direct links to the apostles could all be so wrong so soon after.

#24 Joel

Joel

    Forum Admin

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 21 March 2012 - 01:45 AM

Actually Premillennialism is easy to argue and easy to support because it is the only possible eschatology one can get from a plain language "literal" understanding of Scripture.

First, the physical Kingdom of God is presented extensively in the Old Testament. It is described in detail and there is never even the faintest hint of the Kingdom being in heaven. Specific earthly physical places are identified and none of the language is symbolic. Zechariah 14 is just one of many such passages, So we have a firm basis in the Scriptures for the future physical Kingdom of God on earth.

Then we come to the New Testament.

Contrary to your assertion. there are plenty of connections between the New Testament eschatological passages and the Old Testament ones. A lot of the New Testament features the apostles quoting the Old Testament. For example, Gabriel in his message to Mary in Luke 1 is quoting Isaiah 9 which is speaking of the future physical Kingdom of God on earth. Other examples include Matthew 19:27-29, Matthew 8:11-12, Luke 13:26-19 and others. And that is just in the gospels.

In Acts, Peter in his sermons first quotes Joel's prophecy in Acts 2. The entire section of Joel Peter quotes is speaking of the earthly kingdom. In Acts 3 Peter is preaching again and speaks of the time of the restoration of all things. This again refers to the future physical kingdom of God on earth and can be traced through Jesus in the Gospels back to Malachi.

Also, Paul's eschatological passages all harmonize perfectly with the future physical kingdom of God on earth and in fact all harmonize perfectly with Matthew 24 (the Olivet Discourse).

Likewise Revelation lines up perfectly with the Old Testament, Gospels and Epistles/Acts. I already showed in a previous post that there are no texts at all in either testament that require a single Resurrection and single judgment. In fact (as Tim points out) John in Revelation agrees with John in the Gospel of John and Daniel that there is a resurrection of life and resurrection of condemnation. So there is no cause or basis for making the resurrections symbolic in Revelation 20.

Trying to make the first resurrection symbolic runs into other problems as well. If one says the first one is not literal than literary consistency demands the second one not be literal either. Ditto the Great White Throne Judgment and so on and so on. And once you have made both resurrections symbolic you are in the land of denying the Resurrection of the body; and per Scripture at that point you are preaching "another Gospel".

By the way, a paragraph on your recent post leads to some puzzlement. You wrote:

Now I come to Revelation 20, after 19 chapters of symbols and figurative language, and I must assume that certain portions are strictly literal (no reason is given); I must assume that what is described there happens after Christ's return (the text doesn't say that); I must assume that the kingdom described takes place on the earth (the text doesn't say that); I must assume that this text is the fulfillment of a number of Old Testament prophecies concerning the earthly kingdom of the Lord Jesus (the text doesn't say that and there is nothing in the text that even suggest a link to any Old Testament Prophecy about the kingdom); I must overlook the fact that an interpretation based on those assumptions does not fit what is taught elsewhere in the New Testament; and I must overlook all the theological problems that arise from such interpretation.


Where do you believe the Kingdom takes place? Here you strongly imply it is not earthly but you have said before it is. And it is obvious that Revelation 20 is post return of Christ since Revelation 19 describes his return and Revelation 20 not only follows it in the text but refers to Revelation 19 events as past. Also, Revelation 20 has multiple Old Testament refernces within it, mainly to Ezekiel and Isaiah.

While we are at it, what happened to the body of Christ? Where is it? I am just trying to establish whether you do hold to earthly destiny or heavenly destiny because you have made statements supporting both and they are mutually incompatible.

#25 manuel

manuel

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 March 2012 - 03:13 AM

Joel, I understand perfectly what you are trying to explain because I used to be premillenial in the past, however one year I decided to read the Bible and just accept what it says, like Logan said: "if the plain sense makes sense, don't seek another sense", I also studied other books and read discussions on eschatology and even participated in internet discussions like this one, and what I discovered is that there is one single line in the entire Bible in support of premillenialism. The premillennial position, the way I see it, comes from accepting a set of presuppositions a priori, and then going to the Bible to find hints to support them; and, of course you are going to find them; you believe it so strongly that you think you see support for it everywhere. It's like wearing color tinted glasses, you see everything the color of the glass.

To me, after studying the bible without those presuppositions, to accept premillenialism means to "literalize" three or four words with obvious symbolic meaning in Revelation and then go back and "allegorize" the rest of the Bible, just to hold to a sacred tradition (I don't say this in a disrespectful way, Ijust don't know how else to put it, so, I apologize for my limited english).

Just consider what you just wrote: you start by assuming that the physical Kingdom of God = the Millennium that is one of the presuppositions that premillenialists want me to accept a priori. Of course there are numerous passages that speak about the physical kingdom of God on the earth; of course we have a firm basis in the Scriptures for the future physical Kingdom of God on earth. I believe that literally; what we don't have is any support for a millenial kingdom of God on the earth. None of those passages about the physical kingodm of GOd say anything about a millennium, try to look at it without those presuppositons.

Then you say:

Contrary to your assertion. there are plenty of connections between the New Testament eschatological passages and the Old Testament ones. A lot of the New Testament features the apostles quoting the Old Testament


You see it again? you are assuming that new testament eschatological passages are about the millenium, you do it without even realizing it, is not conscious. This what I wrote:

I must assume that this text is the fulfillment of a number of Old Testament prophecies concerning the earthly kingdom of the Lord Jesus (the text doesn't say that and there is nothing in the text that even suggest a link to any Old Testament Prophecy about the kingdom


Do you see the difference?,read the bold words: this text = Rev 20:1-10. i never said anything about New Testament eschatological passages. Of course there are connections between NT eschatological passages and prophecies concerning the kingdom of the Lord Jesus; but since you assume that the kingdom of the Lord Jesus is the Millennium you see it as the same.

Then you say that:

there are no texts at all in either testament that require a single Resurrection and single judgment.


I don't know how you can say this, while it is true that there are going to be two resurrections (the just and the unjust) the Bible clearly presents them as happening in the same eschatological event: at the coming of the Lord Jesus. Regarding the single judgment, I don't even know where to start, if there is one clear doctrine in the Bible is that there is going to be a single judgment. But that is exactly the problem that I have with the premillenial position. what you are saying is that I have to deny the plain meaning of the entire Bible to find a place for the premillenial position in it. Put your premillenial glasses down for a little and try to read those passages and believe what they tell you without trying to force the premillenial doctrine into them. imagine that you have never heard about this premillenial doctrine and read them and tell me what you understand.

#26 manuel

manuel

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 March 2012 - 03:54 AM

JOel, your next comment was:

Trying to make the first resurrection symbolic runs into other problems as well. If one says the first one is not literal than literary consistency demands the second one not be literal either. Ditto the Great White Throne Judgment and so on and so on. And once you have made both resurrections symbolic you are in the land of denying the Resurrection of the body; and per Scripture at that point you are preaching "another Gospel".


Please, brother, try not to be so technical and consider what the apostle said:

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 on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


The apostle John says very clearly here that what he saw was the souls, and they (the souls) lived; and they (the souls) reigned with Christ; and he called this "the first resurrection". this is a unique statement here that demands a unique interpretation, nowhere in the Bible the resurrection is described as souls coming to life, this is not a regular book this letter belongs to the apocaliptic genre; it's almost like a form of poetry, you can't be so technical.

Consider this passage and try to look at it without your premillenial glasses:

1Co 15:53-55 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?



Just try to read the text and consider the plain and simple meaning of that passage, don't try to force a millenium into it, just tell me what you interpret. This is what I interpret: at the moment of the resurrection of the just, death shall be defeated and there wil be no more death. Am I try to force that meaning into the text? am I being allegorical? Do you see the problem and the monkey wrench that you throw into the simple eschatological machine presented by Jesus and the apostles, just because you cannot accept that maybe a book loaded with symbols can use the term resurrection in a symbolic way? Is it really that difficult that you even accuse those who do so of "allegorizing the plain sense". How in the world can John, when he mentioned the first resurrection, be describing the physical resurrection of the just and the glorification of the living saints if death will continue and it wil not be actually defeated until 1000 years later? Do you see how literalizing a symbol will lead you to allegorize the plain teaching found elsewhere?

#27 Micha6:8

Micha6:8

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut
  • Interests:Learning my bible as if it's the last one on earth.
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 March 2012 - 06:44 AM

Hi Manuel

I have read through all of your posts and especially this last one several times. I wanted to make sure that I have not misunderstood you. Before I go any further with a response I'd like to ask you one question. Is Jesus the Christ sitting at the right hand of The Father right now in the same physical resurrected body that he walked out of the tomb with?
Michael

#28 manuel

manuel

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:49 AM

Hi, Michael, Yes, of course he is, what other body can he possibly have?

#29 Micha6:8

Micha6:8

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut
  • Interests:Learning my bible as if it's the last one on earth.
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:08 AM

Ok I'm so very glad that you acknowledge this. So then with that confession we read 1 Cor 15 that you referenced stating we shall also follow Jesus in resurrection in the same manner. This is exactly what Rev 20 Is talking about. The souls that live (zao) are the same that anazao (live again, come to life again,revive) and take part in the anastasis (up again to stand, resurrection). I see no allegory or metaphors being used. It harmonizes with all of the O.T. especially Zach 14. Death has no victory over those that take part in the first resurrection. In sequence when the 1000 years are complete and the 2nd resurrection occurs at the Great White Throne judgement then death itself will be cast into the lake of fire. I'm not seeing anything that leads to different interpretation.
Michael

#30 manuel

manuel

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:39 AM

So basically you say that 1Co 15:53-55 is something that applies to believers only and has nothing to do with death being destroyed at the last day judgment? Since you said that Death has no victory over those that take part in the first resurrection, then that prophecy is fullfilled only on believers, but there will continue to be death for another 1000 years. Is that how you interpret it?

The only way that I would interpret it like that is if I have a previous comitment to premillenialism and I need to force the 1000 years somehow into the text. If I don't have that commitment I would simply say that at the resurrection of the just death is defeated because the resurrection is followed by the judgment and the age to come where we are told that there is no more death. Forgive me for being so stubborn but that is what I see everywhere in the Bible. In matthew 25 and in the parables and everywhere you go the same picture is painted: 1-Jesus returns 2-judgment (which requires that both the just and the unjust be there and therefore resurrected) 3-the unjust are cast into the lake of fire (together with death, that is when death is defeated) 4-believers enter the earthly kingdom of Jesus for all eternity. I have yet to see an eschatological pasage that does not present that scenario.

#31 Micha6:8

Micha6:8

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut
  • Interests:Learning my bible as if it's the last one on earth.
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 March 2012 - 12:08 PM

I came to this conclusion from the straight forward reading. Everything in Rev 20 is all in sequence and harmonizes with all of previous revelation. How do you harmonize Zach 14 with Rev 20? Or how in Psalm 2 Jesus will inherit the nations and rule them with a rod of iron, which is a reward for those who take part in the first resurrection according to Rev 2:25-27? Show me where this is forcing a view. It is very clear to me just from Rev 20 text itself that it goes in sequential order. This order lines up with all previous revelation starting with Gen 1, Ex 20, Psa 37, Heb 4. Where is the forcing? I just don't understand where anyone could possibly force anything on the text.
Michael

#32 manuel

manuel

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:58 PM

THat is why the rule ", plain sense makes sense, seek not other sense" doesn't make sense; because what is plain sense to you, to me seems obscure, and what is plain sense to me you call it allegorizing. To me the plain sense in 1 Cor 15 is that when Jesus returns and the resurrection takes place death will be defeated and that is a direct reference to death being thrown into the lake of fire at the end of the judgment; but you see a millenium there and all that, I just can't see it. It's not that I don't want to see it, to me it's not there, it doesn't fit with the teaching of the apostles and the Lord. To me Revelation 20 teaches the same: at the end of the Millenium (the Millennium represents this age and the heavenly reign of Christ) Jesus returns, the resurrection takes place, the judgment, then the kingdom on the earth with the Lord Physically on the earth. That is what Peter taught, that is what John taught, that is what Jude taught, that is what the Lord taught, that is what the prophets taught.

#33 Ben

Ben

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peoria, IL
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 21 March 2012 - 03:20 PM

Hey Manuel,

You said-
“The premillennial position, the way I see it, comes from accepting a set of presuppositions a priori, and then going to the Bible to find hints to support them; and, of course you are going to find them; you believe it so strongly that you think you see support for it everywhere. It's like wearing color tinted glasses, you see everything the color of the glass.”


“None of those passages about the physical kingodm of GOd say anything about a millennium, try to look at it without those presuppositons.”
Premills such as myself do not approach the text of Scripture with any presuppositions. We simply try to harmonize all the eschatological passages in the Scriptures in order to ensure there is no disparity between them. This method is paramount in all areas of Theology if one is to find the truth on any given subject in the Bible. If irreconcilable passages arise in a given system then you can guarantee that the system is false. Some of your statements about what believe concerning the Kingdom are prime examples of this. For example you say

“I don't know how you can say this, while it is true that there are going to be two resurrections (the just and the unjust) the Bible clearly presents them as happening in the same eschatological event: at the coming of the Lord Jesus.”

If I understand you correctly in this you are stating that at the return of Christ all mankind will be resurrected with the wicked being cast into the lake of Fire and the righteous living on earth with Christ. If this is true then we should find no mention of mortals living on the earth when the Kingdom is inaugurated. Yet we find many such passages in the Scriptures.

Zec 14:16-21
And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.20 In that day HOLINESS TO THE LORD shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the Lord of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts

Isa 66:18-24
For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory. 19 I will set a sign among them; and those among them who escape I will send to the nations: to Tarshish and Pul and Lud, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles. 20 Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. 21 And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites, says the Lord.22 For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me, says the Lord, So shall your descendants and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me, says the Lord. 24 And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh

Isa 56:5-8
Even to them I will give in My house And within My walls a place and a name Better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name That shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the foreigner Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, And to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant—7 Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices Will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. 8 The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, Yet I will gather to him Others besides those who are gathered to him

Isa 60:3,5
3The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising (Rev 21:24-New Jerusalem)

5Then you shall see and become radiant, And your heart shall swell with joy; Because the abundance of the sea shall be turned to you, The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to you (Rev 21:26-New Jerusalem)

Jer 3:17
At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts

You said
“This is what I interpret: at the moment of the resurrection of the just, death shall be defeated and there wil be no more death”

Again, Irreconcilable passages if your premise is true
Isa 65:17-25
For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, And her people a joy. 19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem, And joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, Nor the voice of crying. 20 No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. 21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. 23 They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the Lord, And their offspring with them. 24 It shall come to pass That before they call, I will answer; And while they are still speaking, I will hear. 25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox, And dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,

Although it is true that the actual time amount of 1000 years is only specifically mentioned by John in Rev 20, the dynamics of what this period consists of is plastered all over the Scriptures. This 1000 years is an intricate part of God’s plan for His creation and so much so that the mortal nations left over after Christ’s return (which you say don’t exist) are part of His very inheritance. –As well as ours(Rom 8:17)

Psalm 2:6-9
Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession. 9 You shall break (Shepherd LXX) them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel

Rev 19:15
Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule (Shepherd) them with a rod of iron

If there are no mortals on the earth during the Kingdom, who will Christ be shepherding from Jerusalem? It won’t be ressurected believers because we will be partaking of the shepherding as well.

Rev 3:21
To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne

Rev 3:10
And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth
Proverbs 2:1-5
My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.

#34 Micha6:8

Micha6:8

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut
  • Interests:Learning my bible as if it's the last one on earth.
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:15 PM

Hi Manuel

This will be my last post to attempt to straighten this issue out. I have hope that perhaps you and others that read it may be open to hear with an open heart. I will pray. I will also let you know that I grew up being taught the amillennial viewpoint for 30 years. I did not have a forum to go to so that I could debate it. Tim Warner taught it online and I listened. It troubled me. I had never heard this before. I did not contact him. I did not know this place existed. I sat down with my bible for hours on end for days researching over and over what he was saying. I read his papers and his debates. I checked it all and double checked it. I even began to get into the greek to see if he was being misleading. I tearfully prayed and prayed for truth. I could not refute the harmony of the entire bible. The meaning was determined by scripture and not by what someone told me it meant. Not some "spiritual" meaning that came out of nowhere. The entire bible has become synergistic to me. If you refuse to hear what I am about to post then that is your choice.

Just to set the record straight about having the ability to read what is actually written then telling someone that they are reading into it other than what is on the page. I will stay on Rev 20 just to show I am not reading into it with any presuppositional stance. You have made the claim that if one reads the chapter then it would be plain sense makes sense, seek not other sense.

Starting from the beginning.

Verse 1-3 An angel came down from heaven and binds the Devil for a 1000 years. 1000 years is called a millennium. Not only does the angel bind the Devil but he throws him into the bottomless pit. Notice he was not thrown into the lake of fire where the false prophet and the beast were by Jesus in the previous chapter upon his return. Now plain black and white text states he is put there for 1000 years so that he can not deceive the nations anymore until the 1000 years are finished.

So surely I am not reading into this. At Christ's return the Devil will be bound for 1000 years so that he can not deceive the nations during that time, but when it's over he will be let out. Am I reading anything into the text other than what the text has said? If so how?

Verse 4-6 John see thrones. He doesn't say how many but he does say that those that sit on them are judges. In addition to those sitting on the thrones he also see the souls of those who were beheaded for their faith in Jesus and had refused to take the mark of the beast. John says they, the ones on the thrones and the ones beheaded, live and reign with Christ for a 1000 years. The same 1000 years the Devil is locked up. Anyone else other than these are not resurrected until the 1000 years are finished. John says that those that take part in this resurrection is blessed. He also calls it the 1st resurrection and says that the 2nd death has no power over them and they shall be priests of God and of Christ. Notice the “shall be”. It hasn't happened yet. But when it does they “shall be” priests and reign with him 1000 years.

I really can not see myself reading into this and if you think that I am please show me my error. At Christ's return those who have been faithful to him will be in the 1st resurrection and allowed to sit on thrones and judge others. They are blessed and holy and called priests of God and Christ and reign with him during this 1000 years. By the way, who are they in judgment over?

Verse 7-10 The very thing that was stated in verse 3 is now going to happen. The 1000 years are over. The Devil does exactly what he was prevented from doing during the 1000 years. He goes out to deceive the nations. He gathers them together to battle and the number is very great. These nations surround the saints and the beloved city. God pours out fire on them and casts the Devil who did deceive them into the lake of fire where the false prophet and the beast already are. They will be there forever.

Now am I reading into this that there are two types of occupants in the earth at that time? The Nations and Saints. Am I wrong to say that the nations can not be saints? Also what is the beloved city? Am I wrong to say that the 1000 years here is the end of the 1000 years the Devil would be bound for in verse 3?

Verse 11-15 Then. John saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it. John says he saw all the dead standing. John says books were opened. Then another book was opened called the Book of Life. All the dead were judged according to their works, by the things written in the books. THEN. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. John says this is called the second death. Anyone not found in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Just plain sense now. Where am I reading into the text? God is the one sitting on the throne and the dead are made to stand before him. The dead are judged by their works. Death and Hades is cast into the lake. Only those written in the Book of Life are not cast into the lake of fire. Am I reading into the text that the very ones from verse 6 who reign with Christ for 1000 years while the Devil is locked up will not be part of this judgment? It does say that the 2nd death has no power over those that take part in the 1st resurrection which occurs, according to the text only, before the Devil is released. Right?

So if going just by the text. Not using anything but logic and straightforward reading abilities.

We have:
  • Devil locked up for 1000 years.
  • 1st resurrection and those in it reigning as priests and judges over the nations with Christ during the time the Devil is locked up.
  • The Devil is out of prison and deceives the nations to rebel against Christ.
  • God destroys them with fire.
  • The 2nd resurrection occurs and those not written in the Book of Life are thrown with the Devil into the lake of fire forever.

Where did I read into the text anything other than what the text says? Where have I twisted scripture in order to force it to mean something other than what it plainly states?
Michael

#35 manuel

manuel

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:28 AM

Ben and Michael, thanks for your replies, I will study them prayerfully and ask the Lord to show me if I am wrong. I would like to answer your questions but I have no time. I will try to come back to this soon but I don't make any promises that it will be within the next ten days.

Thanks and many blessings

#36 Tim

Tim

    Berean Regular

  • In Depth Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM

Manuel,

I am coming late to this discussion, and there are many points I could make. But for now, I'd like to address just one.

You claim that the premill understanding of Rev. 20 comes from reading the text with premill presuppositions. That is simply not true. It is based on the most basic and commonly accepted principles of interpretation. For example:

We understand words in the Bible based on usage. In fact, all Lexicons are simply someone's study of how words are used in their contexts, and definitions are then derived from the common usage. If there are certain exceptions, or if a term is used sometimes figuratively, then examples are usually given.

So, when we take the term "anastasis" (resurrection), we find that it is a noun used frequently in the NT. We also know that the definite article in Greek when prefixed to a noun makes it definite (implying that it is a technical term with a specific meaning understood by all without further explanation). If you search the NT for the noun, anastasis, you will find that there is no clear case where the term means anything other than a bodily arising. And when it has the definite article (the resurrection), it is even more specific (a technical term). There is simply NO CASE where "ha anastasis" (with the definite article) means anything other than a bodily resurrection.

If you wish to show that in this passage it means something other than a bodily resurrection, you need to provide examples of similar uasge of the same term.

Now, if you cannot show a similar usage of the same term with the meaning that you are assigning to it (whether we call it allegory or not is irrelevant), the fact is that YOU are the one imposing your presuppositions on to the text. You are arguing against the universal usage of this term in order to make your amillennial view fit this passage.

Tim

#37 manuel

manuel

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:38 AM

Hi Ben, regarding all the passages that you posted; I don't know where or how you see those mortals living on the earth when the kingdom is inaugurated. I Don't see why any of those passages necessitate a Millennial reign of Christ over the earth. I saw that you put in bold and underline phrases such as "the nations", and "the gentiles" as if that was some kind of proof for the premillennial theory. The BIble is very clear when it teaches that Christ will rule the nations over the earth but that is not going to be for 1000 years, that is going to be forever; read it by yourself:

Rev 11:15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Daniel 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

The idea of a Millennial reign of Christ over the earth is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, (I haven't read it, at least), so I would go to the New Testament and read what it teaches about the coming of CHrist and his kingdom and you will see that what CHrist and the apostles tought was, that at the coming of the Lord Jesus there is going to be a general judgment where the wicked are going to be destroyed and only the righteous will inherit the kingdom of God; all the passages teach that, no exception; the evidence is too big to be ignored. Accept those passages at face value for what they say and teach and then when you go to the Old Testament you will see it on a different perspective.

Also the apostles taught that the main topic in all the prophets is the gospel of Jesus and the times of the New Testament Church. If you read the prophets and you don't see the gospel times there and all you see is a millennial kingdom you probably got lost somewhere. We have to learn to interpret the Bible the way in a biblical way: the way Jesus and the apostles interpreted it. If you read Isaiah 65 like you did, insisting that there is going to be death in the Kingdom of God, you are putting your interpretation above the divine interpretation provided by God via the apostle John. He interprets that passage for us and tell us what it means:

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Whom should I believe? premillenialists that insist in interpreting that passage according to their arbitrary rules and their presuppositions or the divinely inspired interpretation provided in the word of God? I think the answer is very simple.

#38 manuel

manuel

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:56 AM

Manuel,

I am coming late to this discussion, and there are many points I could make. But for now, I'd like to address just one.

You claim that the premill understanding of Rev. 20 comes from reading the text with premill presuppositions. That is simply not true. It is based on the most basic and commonly accepted principles of interpretation. For example:

We understand words in the Bible based on usage. In fact, all Lexicons are simply someone's study of how words are used in their contexts, and definitions are then derived from the common usage. If there are certain exceptions, or if a term is used sometimes figuratively, then examples are usually given.

So, when we take the term "anastasis" (resurrection), we find that it is a noun used frequently in the NT. We also know that the definite article in Greek when prefixed to a noun makes it definite (implying that it is a technical term with a specific meaning understood by all without further explanation). If you search the NT for the noun, anastasis, you will find that there is no clear case where the term means anything other than a bodily arising. And when it has the definite article (the resurrection), it is even more specific (a technical term). There is simply NO CASE where "ha anastasis" (with the definite article) means anything other than a bodily resurrection.

If you wish to show that in this passage it means something other than a bodily resurrection, you need to provide examples of similar uasge of the same term.

Now, if you cannot show a similar usage of the same term with the meaning that you are assigning to it (whether we call it allegory or not is irrelevant), the fact is that YOU are the one imposing your presuppositions on to the text. You are arguing against the universal usage of this term in order to make your amillennial view fit this passage.

Tim

Hi, Tim,
I kind of understand what you are saying, but it seems to me like another arbitrary rule. Basically what you are saying is that I have to find another place in the NT where the word anastasis means something other than a physical resurrection, and if I don't find it, then I can't interpret it that way in Revelation. However I see that you mention the possibility of exceptions, so you acknowledge that even though one word is used in a certain sense in the Bible, there are exceptions; so what if this is the only exception in the NT? Is there anything in the word anastasis that makes it unsuitable to construct a metaphor with it? Let's imagine that the apostle John actually wanted to describe a spiritual reality using the imagery of the physical resurrection, why is the word anastasis not good for that? The imagery of physical resurrection is used in other places of the Bible to teach spiritual realities, so why not here and why not this word? . Nowhere else in the NT the resurrection is described as "souls" coming to life; this is a unique construction, and Revelation is a unique book. Have you considered the fact that all the other books of the New Testament are either historical narrative or instructional teaching where it is more likely to find literal meanings rather than symbolical ones; but the book of Revelation is a piece of apocaliptic literature, a genre that is characterized precisely for the use of symbols to convey certain spiritual and physical truths?

The reason why I interpret the first resurrection in Rev 20 as a spiritual reality is because the context demands it; both the immediate context of the text and the general context of the entire Bible. I don't see why I have to submit to an arbitrary "majority rule".

#39 henrydmilligan

henrydmilligan

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ashland, Maine
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 02 April 2012 - 03:39 PM

Manuel,

Zec 14:16-21
And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.20 In that day HOLINESS TO THE LORD shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the Lord of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts

Lets get some exact explanations here. I will only ask for you to explain this one passage.

1. When is this taking place?

2. Who is "Everyone who is left from among the nations which came up against Jerusalem"?

3. Which families of the earth fail to come and worship the king? Belivers or unbelievers?

4. If believers in ressurected bodies, why the disobedience?

5. Which nations will be "struck" by the Lord?

6. Do believers in ressurected bodies sin?

7. Do they need punishment?

P.S. Premills like myself do not believe that Christ's reign is only 1000 years, but that Christ's reign over the nations is limited to 1000 years. After the thousand years, and the "second death" Christ continues to be king, although all evil is permanently destroyed.

Another question that i have not got a satisfactory answer to as of yet.

1. How are believers currently "reigning with Christ"?

2. Do unbelievers submit to Christians?

3. Should we force them to?

Henry

#40 Ben

Ben

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peoria, IL
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 02 April 2012 - 08:40 PM

Manuel,

I see Henry has already given you a few questions that must be answered if we are going to take this statement of yours seriously.
Manuel
“I don't know where or how you see those mortals living on the earth when the kingdom is inaugurated.”

Are we both looking at the same passage in Zec 14? Seems pretty straightforward unless somehow it was mystically fulfilled at Calvary. :blink:

Here is the root of your problem regarding the way you interpret the Bible.

Manuel
“Accept those passages at face value for what they say and teach and then when you go to the Old Testament you will see it on a different perspective”

This is not the proper approach when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures. In fact the opposite approach is what needs to be employed. God’s revelation to mankind as it has been given through the Scriptures is progressive in nature and new revelation is always built upon previous. In other words here is your statement with the correct hermeneutic approach to Scripture.

“Accept the OT passages at face value for what they say and teach and then when you go to the NT you will see them in their proper perspective.”

There is much more that needs to be said here but I don’t have the time. I’ll be outta the country for a while and might not have access to the internet very often so I will let Henry and probably a whole bunch of others comment on your post.


Proverbs 2:1-5
My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users