The lake of fire

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

The lake of fire

Post #1

Post by Checkpoint »

The lake of fire is found only in the last book of the Bible, Revelation.

It is used by many to support common views of what "hell" is, or will be.

A number of questions could be asked about what it is and why, such as:

Is it literal or metaphorical?

If it is a metaphor, of what?

Is it the same as the Gehenna that Jesus spoke of?

What is meant by being "thrown into" it?

What kind of fire is portrayed, and what is its purpose?

What are your thoughts on these and other relevant issues?

Let the debate begin!

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Post #161

Post by onewithhim »

peacedove wrote:
Benoni wrote:
I am not sure if you realise how bad your logic and reasoning is, good man. So, you want to reason from the origin and range of meanings of the Greek "pur". In effect you are telling us that this controls the meaning and result of the fire of the lake of fire.
Of course it does? The whole Bible is full of verse that show us God's fire is a big part of his plan for all of us. What other meaning should it have?
I hardly notice them. Sure it is there, but hardly everywhere. Could be selective reading. But mostly, it seems to be directed towards doomed enemies, with some notable exceptions. But your position is that the exceptions qualify the fire directed towards the enemies.

I think you have avoided my arguments and material showing the time, place and target of the fire, and the implications this has for eschatology and the nature of the events prophesied.
Then you turn around and say that the book or image is spiritual, to the effect that the meaning of 'fire' has nothing to do with 'fire' at all because it is spiritual.
I did not say that I quote what John said. John was in spirit on the Lords’ day. Does that mean anything to you or that truth just get there so you can ignore it?
Is not spiritual more real than the carnal and the flesh understanding?
I have provided a reasonable amount of material about the framework for the book of revelation, as well as its timing and theme. I don't remember seeing you engage with that.

in the spirit on the Lord's day?

What does that mean?

I think we need to understand this phrase in the context of the book. The book is about the Day of the Lord against Jerusalem. So the Lord's day is probably the Day of the Lord, i.e. Judgement Day. The last day. This is the end of the Old Covenant age, the end of the Age of Moses, that was symbolised and institutionalised by the Jerusalem temple. (Mat 24:1-3)

The being in the spirit seems to relate to seeing visions and hearing voices. So, if we can understand what, generally, the visions are all about, we might understand what it means to see them, and to be in the spirit.

As I developed and presented previously, the book is about the things that had happened, and were then, and were about to be (Rev 1:1-3). Necessarily this means that the things the visions were about were contemporary with the prophet and the vision.

So what is the nature of the visions? It is not so much predictive as interpretive. The events were then contemporary, and this is John's 'political cartoon' portraying the protagonists and antagonists and their drama. This is political and military theatre, as commentary. This is not about the events, it is about the meaning and significance of the events. Where the events would go and end up is part of it, but the key division was about allegiance to the right power, and which power would win and which would be destroyed.

There are three powers:
1. the lamb
2. the prostitute / land beast / synagogue of satan / those who say they are Jews but are not / great city
3. The sea beast

The prostitute persecuted and killed the saints, and she was drunk with the blood of the saints, and she killed the Old Testament prophets, the Lord, and his apostles, prophets and sages.

The prostitute rides the sea beast, and she gets the sea beast to join together to make war on the lamb, and to persecute and kill the saints.

But the sea beast and her generals turn on the prostitute, strip her naked, hack her to pieces and burn her with fire. At this the great city falls, and the lamb triumphs and marries his bride.

This is an interpretation of the events at the time of writing of the book, which I put at 68 under Galba, the sixth Roman Emperor.

So, to be in the spirit, is to discern correctly the signs of the times, the end times, the last days of the Old Covenant and her earthly city, Jerusalem.

The Synagogue of Satan didn't get it. They were deceived, the veil covered their eyes, they were blind, they thought that the earthly city of Jerusalem would come to power militarily. They rebelled against Rome, and Rome crushed her.

Because the author was proven correct by the events of his day, the book did provide the comfort it promised, and it was kept and preserved by the original audience for later generations.

Since we are those later generations, we have to get back into those times and that style of writing to correctly interpret the book and its symbolic representations of the powers and events and conflicts contemporary to the time of writing. If we fail to get back into that context, or if we pretend the book was written to us about our times, we are just going to get totally confused.
How bad your argument and position is on this word is illustrated by a simple look at the usage of the word in the New Testament. The first usage:
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’, for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (pur).
Again where does this say fire is destructive? We will all go through God’s spiritual fire especially the religious of our day and back in Jesus day.

1 Corinthians 3: 13 But the day will come when everyone's work can be seen. Their work will be tested by fire and the fire will show what kind of work each one did.
14 If the work a man did is not burned up in the fire, he will be paid for his work.
15 But if a man's work is burned up, he will lose everything. He himself will be saved, like a man pulled out of the fire.

Even though the judgement of God will be against the evil works that man has done, those judgments will still result in man's salvation. 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 says, "Every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
I have to confess some sympathy with your technique that looks for a single fire doctrine. If the fire is therapeutic in one place, it should also be understood that way elsewhere.

That the fire is destructive is necessarily implied by the context of identification of the targets as the people and the portrayal of those people as fuel for that fire.

Look at the context: the point of the teaching was that the people who were not fit for the kingdom of God, the sons of Abraham according to the flesh, would be cut down, and new people -- stones -- would be raised up to receive the kingdom.

There is a huge contrast with the testing of work by fire in 1 Cor 3.

How to reconcile these?

You want to say the fire is only and ever burning up bad works and never the enemies of the Kingdom of God. But how do you conclusively establish that?

I think we can be conclusive by establishing the time and the location of the fire. The time was the fall of Jerusalem and the location Jerusalem. The people who rebelled were judged and not saved. The salvation was spiritual, in the spiritual body, the New Jerusalem. But outside the New Jerusalem are the dogs and those who work evil.

Another aspect we can develop, that I have previously presented is the two seeds doctrine. The seeds are people. The seed of the serpent are destroyed and the seed of the woman are saved. Now the seed of the serpent claimed to be the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham and the sons of God. But they were not. At the day of judgement, the sons of God are revealed and glorified, and the sons of the serpent are shamed. The whole concept of the revelation of the sons of God implies that not all are the sons of God, some are the sons of the serpent.


“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire (pur).� (Mat 3:7-12)
Amen that is the point I just made if fire is so terrible than why are we going to be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire? "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord whom ye seek, shall SUDDENLY COME TO HIS TEMPLE, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for HE IS LIKE A REFINER'S FIRE, and like fuller's soap: and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall PURIFY THE SONS OF LEVI, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness" (Mal. 3:1-3).

Our blessed Lord and Christ is like a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap. Fire and soap. The Lord Jesus Christ is like fire! The Lord Jesus Christ is like soap. What can this strange, cryptic language mean? You know what fire and soap will do. Fire will purify and soap will clean. Talk about the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

Working on second part...
The fire is at the coming. But the coming is the coming with clouds, in judgement. So if we can understand the coming we can understand the fire.

The coming with fire is discussed by Paul:
This is evidence of the righteous judgement of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thes 1:5-10)

So, according to Paul, the Thessalonian believers, who were being persecuted by the Jews in 51 A.D. would receive relief and those who were persecuting them would be repaid at the coming of the Lord Jesus in flaming fire. So, what kind of fire happened to the persecuting power during the life-time of those Thessalonians, to whom Paul wrote?

The fire that repaid the affliction suffered by the Thessalonians by their persecutors was not therapeutic *for those who suffered it.* It was therapeutic for God's people, purging the enemies and the way of the military sword and of rebellion and of the earthly, political-military kingdom concept.

We have to appreciate that the salvation and damnation concepts in the bible are not individual, they are collective and political. As individuals we can choose which power we should belong to and live by and under. But the basic thrust of the deal is the salvation in the kingdom. This is a rival power, and a rival power concept, a spiritual one, not a coercive one.
What you write is very good, and I think it is in line with the facts about what "fire" usually means in the scriptures. It is not always used to refer to cleansing. In fact most often it is used to indicate destruction. I think that is what 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 clearly tells us. Jesus will bring vengeance with "flaming fire" on those who will "undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction." Very plainly, fire is associated with destruction---annihilation.

You seem to have an understanding of what "the Lord's Day" really is, and you said it means the end times...."the last day"....the end of the age. This is true. Yet then you said that it only referred to the time of John when he wrote the Revelation. How can that be, when all of the things that John wrote down have not been fulfilled yet?

I understand the Great Whore, Babylon the Great, to be the world "empire" of False Religion. It has ridden on the back of the governments of the world (the wild beast), influencing them, for millennia. The scripture says that this Whore will be completely "burned up"---destroyed---by the beast, and this has not happened yet.

Neither has the destruction of Satan happened, which will occur after the thousand-year reign of Christ. (Rev.20:6-10)

We have not entered into that Millennial Reign yet either, and have not seen the end of death and suffering (Rev.21:4)

How can all that have been fulfilled in the first century?

User avatar
Benoni
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 8:31 am
Location: Wilson NY (Niagara County)

Post #162

Post by Benoni »

2timothy316 wrote: [Replying to post 158 by Benoni]

Easy explanation,

If a person is receptive to the Good News then they are a friend. If they reject it then they will go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. When you enter the house, greet the household. If the house is deserving, let the peace you wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from you return upon you. Wherever anyone does not receive you or listen to your words, on going out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah on Judgment Day than for that city." - Mat 10:11-15

There are those that are deserving and those that are not. All the scriptures you quoted are not for those 'not deserving'.

Look at one of your quoted scriptures, Acts 15: (Amp) So that the rest of men may seek the Lord.

A person may seek the Lord or they may not. Acts 15:17 it even says those 'who are doing these things'. Who are doing these things? What are the 'things'? Don't you want to be a person known that 'does these things'? If so, don't you think it's important to find out what, 'these things' are?

You've got to read more of the scriptures and less focusing on a few words of a much bigger thought.
You are missing the time factor.

This verse is speaking of the Tabernacle of David here it is again in Amos but more powerful

Amos 9:1 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
12That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
13Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

User avatar
Benoni
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 8:31 am
Location: Wilson NY (Niagara County)

Post #163

Post by Benoni »

“Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich� (Rev. 3:17-18).
“Buy of me gold� means to pay the price for the divine nature of our Father to be brought forth in our lives! “Tried in the fire� means that His nature has become an experiential reality within us. It speaks of an intimate, direct encounter with God that causes all that is contrary to His nature to be consumed by the all-consuming fire of His Spirit, resulting in our spiritual growth and maturity in Christ. Our Lord has called upon His elect to buy of Him this gold tried in the fire, that we may be rich! Now we know what the true riches are! The riches of which He speaks are not the riches of the world, either of money, material things, or of stature, position, fame, or self-glory. The riches of this world corrupt the spiritual man and prevent a manifestation of the true Life of God. The gold that we are to buy of Him represents a life that has been tried and tested, even as gold is refined, to bring forth the qualities of the Christ life within all who are His called and chosen ones.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Post #164

Post by 2timothy316 »

Benoni wrote:
2timothy316 wrote: [Replying to post 158 by Benoni]

Easy explanation,

If a person is receptive to the Good News then they are a friend. If they reject it then they will go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. When you enter the house, greet the household. If the house is deserving, let the peace you wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from you return upon you. Wherever anyone does not receive you or listen to your words, on going out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah on Judgment Day than for that city." - Mat 10:11-15

There are those that are deserving and those that are not. All the scriptures you quoted are not for those 'not deserving'.

Look at one of your quoted scriptures, Acts 15: (Amp) So that the rest of men may seek the Lord.

A person may seek the Lord or they may not. Acts 15:17 it even says those 'who are doing these things'. Who are doing these things? What are the 'things'? Don't you want to be a person known that 'does these things'? If so, don't you think it's important to find out what, 'these things' are?

You've got to read more of the scriptures and less focusing on a few words of a much bigger thought.
You are missing the time factor.

This verse is speaking of the Tabernacle of David here it is again in Amos but more powerful

Amos 9:1 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
12That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
13Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
Yes the time factor is important. Amos foretold of the restoring of the House of David. That came in the way of Jesus Christ. After Jesus' death, the way was opened for others from all nations to join Christ. But this doesn't support that everyone including the unrighteous are saved. At the same time it doesn't make gentile or person of another nationality make a person unrighteous. So your scriptures are not supporting your point they are dismantling it further. There is nothing in Amos or Acts to support your idea.

User avatar
Benoni
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 8:31 am
Location: Wilson NY (Niagara County)

Post #165

Post by Benoni »

2timothy316 wrote:
Benoni wrote:
2timothy316 wrote: [Replying to post 158 by Benoni]

Easy explanation,

If a person is receptive to the Good News then they are a friend. If they reject it then they will go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. When you enter the house, greet the household. If the house is deserving, let the peace you wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from you return upon you. Wherever anyone does not receive you or listen to your words, on going out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah on Judgment Day than for that city." - Mat 10:11-15

There are those that are deserving and those that are not. All the scriptures you quoted are not for those 'not deserving'.

Look at one of your quoted scriptures, Acts 15: (Amp) So that the rest of men may seek the Lord.

A person may seek the Lord or they may not. Acts 15:17 it even says those 'who are doing these things'. Who are doing these things? What are the 'things'? Don't you want to be a person known that 'does these things'? If so, don't you think it's important to find out what, 'these things' are?

You've got to read more of the scriptures and less focusing on a few words of a much bigger thought.
You are missing the time factor.

This verse is speaking of the Tabernacle of David here it is again in Amos but more powerful

Amos 9:1 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
12That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
13Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
Yes the time factor is important. Amos foretold of the restoring of the House of David. That came in the way of Jesus Christ. After Jesus' death, the way was opened for others from all nations to join Christ. But this doesn't support that everyone including the unrighteous are saved. At the same time it doesn't make gentile or person of another nationality make a person unrighteous. So your scriptures are not supporting your point they are dismantling it further. There is nothing in Amos or Acts to support your idea.


You do not understand the significant of this. This is not the house of David it is the Tabernacle of David which is the ark of God which is the glory of God. If there is nothing in Amos or Acts to support my idea you did not either understood or read what these verses are saying for the verse declared : “Now if the rest of men may seek the Lord, All the pagan peoples included in what I'm doing “, “ all the Gentiles , the “remainder�

Do you know what the Tabernacle of David is literally as well as spiritually?

I will give you a chance to answer if you can?

peacedove
Apprentice
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:11 am

Post #166

Post by peacedove »

onewithhim wrote:
peacedove wrote:
Benoni wrote:

What you write is very good, and I think it is in line with the facts about what "fire" usually means in the scriptures. It is not always used to refer to cleansing. In fact most often it is used to indicate destruction. I think that is what 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 clearly tells us. Jesus will bring vengeance with "flaming fire" on those who will "undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction." Very plainly, fire is associated with destruction---annihilation.

You seem to have an understanding of what "the Lord's Day" really is, and you said it means the end times...."the last day"....the end of the age. This is true. Yet then you said that it only referred to the time of John when he wrote the Revelation. How can that be, when all of the things that John wrote down have not been fulfilled yet?

I understand the Great Whore, Babylon the Great, to be the world "empire" of False Religion. It has ridden on the back of the governments of the world (the wild beast), influencing them, for millennia. The scripture says that this Whore will be completely "burned up"---destroyed---by the beast, and this has not happened yet.

Neither has the destruction of Satan happened, which will occur after the thousand-year reign of Christ. (Rev.20:6-10)

We have not entered into that Millennial Reign yet either, and have not seen the end of death and suffering (Rev.21:4)

How can all that have been fulfilled in the first century?
Thanks for the complement.

The argument you make is that because not all things are fulfilled, then the symbols and meaning of the prophecies means things in our present or future.

That is assuming what you are trying to prove.

Let's look at the 1000 years of Rev 20. This little chapter is pivotal on eschatology and all the elaborate systems that people build around eschatology. So, if everyone wants to make such a big deal about it, why not look at what it teaches, in the context of the New Testament?

OK, the elements:
1. Satan bound for 1000 years
2. Saints come to life and reign with Christ 1000 years
3. Satan loosed for a short period, Satan deceives the nations
4. Satan and the gentile nations / enemies of God join together for the war, the climactic battle
5. Devil destroyed, judgement of the dead according to their works, and those in the book of life saved.

Jesus said that the strong man was bound and that was how he could exorcise demons in his personal ministry (Mat 12). But he taught that the evil spirit would return against that generation, and finding the house swept clean, it would re-possess the house and bring the demise of that house. This is perfectly parallel to the 1000 years in Rev 20. It means that the binding and loosing of Satan was something happening in the First Century generation from AD30 to AD70. Can we just dismiss all the teaching of our Lord about the binding and loosing of Satan to make *another* millennial eschatology that has nothing to do with the teaching of our Lord on the binding and loosing of Satan?

Paul wrote in 51 A.D. that the Man of Lawlessness was then being restrained (2 Thes 2). Is this not Satan being restrained? If not, why not?

Peter wrote, later, around 64 or 65 A.D. that Satan was roaming about like a lion (1 Pet 5:8). Had not something changed in Satan's freedom status between 51 and 64 A.D.? If not, why not?

Are we to just ignore or try to mitigate the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament writings about the binding and loosing of the enemy / Satan?

How about those saints who rise from the dead and reign with Christ. Paul taught in Eph 2:4-6 that his audience had been raised from the dead and were seated in heavenly places in Christ. Upon what basis can we suggest that the 1000 years wasn't then in progress, since the events of the 1000 years Paul said were contemporary with his writing before 64 A.D. when Satan was loosed?

Are we supposed to ignore and mitigate this testimony, and make it somehow about some different topic?

Satan loosed and goes and deceives the nations. Jesus taught that, in the events leading to the fall of Jerusalem, would be deception. False prophets, false christs, deceiving people and leading rebellion / revolution (Mat 24:4-12). This is the same as Rev 20 -- we have deception, leading to war and desolation/judgement.

Paul taught that the Man of Lawlessness would be loosed, and go and deceive the people with the works of Satan, and false signs (2 Thes 2:3-12). Importantly, Paul taught that the Day of the Lord had not already come because the rebellion had not yet taken place. Paul points to a specific and visible political rebellion in the Jerusalem temple that is the necessary precondition for the Day of the Lord. And the Day of the Lord is the destruction of the rebel forces. And that the rebel, the Man of Lawlessness, was then present, then existed, and was being restrained, but would be released in his proper time. This has a lot of parallels with Rev 20. Are we to ignore the time statements and indicators of the passage and its context, and to make it about something not in Paul's temporal context but in our future? Or to make it mean something different from Rev 20?

Paul taught that Satan would be crushed soon after A.D. 57, when he wrote the letter to the Romans (Rom 16:20). This means that the 1000 was far spent or already ended in 57 A.D..

Do we have to mitigate and stretch this?

John said that after the 1000 years would be the judgement of every man according to his works. Jesus said that he would come in judgement in his kingdom and judge every man according to his works within the lifetime of those who heard him (Mat 16:26-27). Therefore, the 1000 years would end within the lifetime of those who heard him early in the First Century.

The martyrs are given some vindication in Rev 20, and are fully vindicated in the outcome of the war. Jesus taught that the blood of the martyrs would be vindicated at the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of her temple (Mat 23:29-39). So, the war at the end of the 1000 years is the vindication of the martyrs in A.D. 70.

The judgement of Rev 20 is when Dan 12:1 was fulfilled, because it is when those whose names are written in the book of life are saved. But the salvation of those whose names are written in the book of life is at the time of the tribulation (Dan 12:1). Jesus said that the tribulation of Dan 12:1 would be fulfilled in the events leading up to the fall of the temple (Mat 24:15-21). And John said he was in the tribulation at the time he wrote (Rev 1:9). Therefore the judgement of Rev 20 is at the fall of Jerusalem in the First Century.

The judgement of Rev 20 is at the presence of the one who sat on the great white throne. The term presence is synonymous with the 'coming' of the Son of Man on the clouds, with angels, on the Day of the Lord etc. But the coming of the Son of Man is repeatedly said to be near and soon, at the time of writing. These statements of soonness and nearness and immanence etc. are the most emphatic and urgent that could possibly be made. Therefore, the testimony of the book itself is that the judgement at the end of the 1000 years was truly immanent.

So, we can summarise the case honestly and fairly: the whole testimony of the New Testament writers is that a) the events during the 1000 years were the events of their time, and b) the consummation at the end of the 1000 years was at hand and on the point of happening in their very near future (the later writings) or in their generation (the retold sayings of Jesus and the earlier writings).

Everyone agrees that the book of Revelation is full of symbols, and makes symbolic use of numbers. So why is it so hard to accept a 40 year / one generation millennium?

If your concept about the nature of the things being discussed does not fit within the time-context stated for the fulfilment of those prophecies, according to the New Testament writers, what should you do?

You have a few choices:

Disagree with the prophecies. The prophecies failed because they did not happen when they were promised to happen. So the prophecies cannot be trusted.

Disregard the time statements. The prophecies are affirmed, but not their time. The time statements are stretched and broken, and we are supposed to believe they will eventually happen even though they failed to happen with the time-frame they indicated or promised.

Review the nature of the promises. If the promises are to be accepted, and if they happened as and when they were supposed to, the nature of the things promised has to fit that.

I recommend the latter approach. If we study the language and the literary styles and manner of speaking and symbolising events, we discover that they were never supposed to be taken as we might be tempted to take them with our modern, scientific literal mindset. If we can truly get back to the issues and modes of expression of First Century Jews, we can figure out *what* they predicted would happen in their generation. And *then* we can accept both the fulfilment of the prophecy and the time statements.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Post #167

Post by onewithhim »

[Replying to post 165 by peacedove]

peacedove,

I do not see that Satan has been restrained, ever, and I actually see him as having been busy doing his dirty deeds unimpeded for the most part, right up to today. How could Revelation have been fulfilled in the first century? When did Rev.20:10 take place? When was the Devil destroyed "in the lake of fire"?

The Man of Lawlessness is not Satan but the composite religions of Christendom that have set themselves up as God or equal to God. Paul said there would be a falling away---a great apostacy in which people within the Christian congregation would "not treat the flock with tenderness," and would "rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:29,30) This happened around the close of the first century and just developed over time into a great fake Christianity. We are still dealing with this "Man of Lawlessness," and, like Christ indicated in Matthew 13, this fake Christianity will be destroyed "in the last days," or, "the harvest time." (Matt.13:24-30; 37-43) We are in the last days now, of this system of things. It would benefit each one of us to take this seriously and pay attention to the sign of the times (Matt.24:21)

peacedove
Apprentice
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:11 am

Post #168

Post by peacedove »

onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 165 by peacedove]

peacedove,

I do not see that Satan has been restrained, ever, and I actually see him as having been busy doing his dirty deeds unimpeded for the most part, right up to today. How could Revelation have been fulfilled in the first century? When did Rev.20:10 take place? When was the Devil destroyed "in the lake of fire"?

The Man of Lawlessness is not Satan but the composite religions of Christendom that have set themselves up as God or equal to God. Paul said there would be a falling away---a great apostacy in which people within the Christian congregation would "not treat the flock with tenderness," and would "rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:29,30) This happened around the close of the first century and just developed over time into a great fake Christianity. We are still dealing with this "Man of Lawlessness," and, like Christ indicated in Matthew 13, this fake Christianity will be destroyed "in the last days," or, "the harvest time." (Matt.13:24-30; 37-43) We are in the last days now, of this system of things. It would benefit each one of us to take this seriously and pay attention to the sign of the times (Matt.24:21)
So you don't see Satan was restrained or released or destroyed. Therefore it must be true?

Is that your method of interpretation: what you see is reality? Your perception determines the doctrines and the correct teaching?

With that method of interpretation the biblical testimony and its context is largely irrelevant.

Paul told the Corinthians off for relying on what they saw (2 Cor 4:18). When Jesus said he saw Satan falling from heaven like lightening, do you think he was referring to what was seen with the natural eyes?

Paul said that the believers were more than conquerors. Do you think that it looked that way facing persecution and trials as they did?

You see these things are not things that you see based on how you feel or what you see with your natural eyes.

So you want to see that the teachings about the Adversary, Satan, are relevant to you and your trials and issues, and those of your world in the 21st Century? Well we need to observe the principle of audience relevance. We need to ask ourselves how was the message relevant to its original audience. You are not the original audience, you are reading someone else's mail 2000 years later. You can't read it as if it was written to you. It was written to them. It means what it meant to them, as it addressed their situation and their time. If you want to apply it to yourself you need to take care as to the original meaning and application before you develop the application for yourself.

Paul said Timothy would come soon. Are you expecting Timothy to come to you?

You need to stop that method of interpretation and address the passages and materials as they actually are, and what they actually teaching about what had happened and what was about to happen to them. If it was about to happen to them, for you it is in the distant past.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Post #169

Post by onewithhim »

peacedove wrote:
onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 165 by peacedove]

peacedove,

I do not see that Satan has been restrained, ever, and I actually see him as having been busy doing his dirty deeds unimpeded for the most part, right up to today. How could Revelation have been fulfilled in the first century? When did Rev.20:10 take place? When was the Devil destroyed "in the lake of fire"?

The Man of Lawlessness is not Satan but the composite religions of Christendom that have set themselves up as God or equal to God. Paul said there would be a falling away---a great apostacy in which people within the Christian congregation would "not treat the flock with tenderness," and would "rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:29,30) This happened around the close of the first century and just developed over time into a great fake Christianity. We are still dealing with this "Man of Lawlessness," and, like Christ indicated in Matthew 13, this fake Christianity will be destroyed "in the last days," or, "the harvest time." (Matt.13:24-30; 37-43) We are in the last days now, of this system of things. It would benefit each one of us to take this seriously and pay attention to the sign of the times (Matt.24:21)
So you don't see Satan was restrained or released or destroyed. Therefore it must be true?

Is that your method of interpretation: what you see is reality? Your perception determines the doctrines and the correct teaching?

With that method of interpretation the biblical testimony and its context is largely irrelevant.

Paul told the Corinthians off for relying on what they saw (2 Cor 4:18). When Jesus said he saw Satan falling from heaven like lightening, do you think he was referring to what was seen with the natural eyes?

Paul said that the believers were more than conquerors. Do you think that it looked that way facing persecution and trials as they did?

You see these things are not things that you see based on how you feel or what you see with your natural eyes.

So you want to see that the teachings about the Adversary, Satan, are relevant to you and your trials and issues, and those of your world in the 21st Century? Well we need to observe the principle of audience relevance. We need to ask ourselves how was the message relevant to its original audience. You are not the original audience, you are reading someone else's mail 2000 years later. You can't read it as if it was written to you. It was written to them. It means what it meant to them, as it addressed their situation and their time. If you want to apply it to yourself you need to take care as to the original meaning and application before you develop the application for yourself.

Paul said Timothy would come soon. Are you expecting Timothy to come to you?

You need to stop that method of interpretation and address the passages and materials as they actually are, and what they actually teaching about what had happened and what was about to happen to them. If it was about to happen to them, for you it is in the distant past.
No, when Christ said he saw Satan falling from heaven, I have understood it to mean that he was seeing into the future, because Satan wasn't ousted from heaven until Jesus started his rulership as King of God's Kingdom, at the beginning of the 20th century.

How could Satan have been destroyed when we still live with suffering and injustice?

The message back then was relevant to Jesus' audience, and the same message is relevant to us today. You say it is not, yet you haven't said anything about any evidence that Satan is out of the way. Tell me how it is that we are living in a Satan-free world.

Timothy of course was going to Paul THEN. So what?

The teaching of Revelation is not in the distant past. It is relevant to us today. We certainly have NOT seen the fulfillment of Revelation 20, 21 or 22.

peacedove
Apprentice
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:11 am

Post #170

Post by peacedove »

onewithhim wrote:
peacedove wrote:
onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 165 by peacedove]

peacedove,

I do not see that Satan has been restrained, ever, and I actually see him as having been busy doing his dirty deeds unimpeded for the most part, right up to today. How could Revelation have been fulfilled in the first century? When did Rev.20:10 take place? When was the Devil destroyed "in the lake of fire"?

The Man of Lawlessness is not Satan but the composite religions of Christendom that have set themselves up as God or equal to God. Paul said there would be a falling away---a great apostacy in which people within the Christian congregation would "not treat the flock with tenderness," and would "rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:29,30) This happened around the close of the first century and just developed over time into a great fake Christianity. We are still dealing with this "Man of Lawlessness," and, like Christ indicated in Matthew 13, this fake Christianity will be destroyed "in the last days," or, "the harvest time." (Matt.13:24-30; 37-43) We are in the last days now, of this system of things. It would benefit each one of us to take this seriously and pay attention to the sign of the times (Matt.24:21)
So you don't see Satan was restrained or released or destroyed. Therefore it must be true?

Is that your method of interpretation: what you see is reality? Your perception determines the doctrines and the correct teaching?

With that method of interpretation the biblical testimony and its context is largely irrelevant.

Paul told the Corinthians off for relying on what they saw (2 Cor 4:18). When Jesus said he saw Satan falling from heaven like lightening, do you think he was referring to what was seen with the natural eyes?

Paul said that the believers were more than conquerors. Do you think that it looked that way facing persecution and trials as they did?

You see these things are not things that you see based on how you feel or what you see with your natural eyes.

So you want to see that the teachings about the Adversary, Satan, are relevant to you and your trials and issues, and those of your world in the 21st Century? Well we need to observe the principle of audience relevance. We need to ask ourselves how was the message relevant to its original audience. You are not the original audience, you are reading someone else's mail 2000 years later. You can't read it as if it was written to you. It was written to them. It means what it meant to them, as it addressed their situation and their time. If you want to apply it to yourself you need to take care as to the original meaning and application before you develop the application for yourself.

Paul said Timothy would come soon. Are you expecting Timothy to come to you?

You need to stop that method of interpretation and address the passages and materials as they actually are, and what they actually teaching about what had happened and what was about to happen to them. If it was about to happen to them, for you it is in the distant past.
No, when Christ said he saw Satan falling from heaven, I have understood it to mean that he was seeing into the future, because Satan wasn't ousted from heaven until Jesus started his rulership as King of God's Kingdom, at the beginning of the 20th century.
Huh? why do you think that Jesus was foreseeing into the 20th Century about the fall of Satan? I don't think it is right to just make such a specific claim without any support from the text, context. What method of interpretation are you using to determine that Jesus was foreseeing and speaking of the 20th century?

The time that the kingdom comes is, in the bible, linked to the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus said that when the signs of the fall of the temple appeared, then the kingdom of God was near (Luke 21:31), And he said it would be within his generation (Luke 21:32).

Jesus was asked when the kingdom of God would come in Luke 17:20-37 and he answered by discussing visible manifestation of the kingdom in the judgement to come upon the corpse at the gathering of the eagles. Was the judgement of the corpse by the eagles, that the disciples would see, in the early 20th century?

Dan 12 puts the resurrection at the time when the righteous shine like the stars. Jesus said that would be in the Kingdom of the Father (Mat 13:43). Dan 12 says this would be fulfilled when the power of the holy people would be completely broken. Did this happen in the early 20th Century?

Jesus said the kingdom was near in the First Century (Mat 4:17). John the Baptiser said the kingdom was near in the First Century (Mat 3:2). Was the early 20th Century near in the early First Century?

You have just made a totally unsupported claim about the time of the fall of Satan and the coming of the kingdom being in the early 20th Century.

Is the fall of Satan from heaven spoken by Jesus the same as the fall of the dragon in Rev 12? If so, how do the events of Rev 12 relate to the early 20th Century? Is the time, times and half a time the same as in Dan 12 when the power of the holy people is completely broken?
How could Satan have been destroyed when we still live with suffering and injustice?
If you correctly identify the Satan that was to be destroyed in the First Century at the end of the 1000 years at the fall of Jerusalem then you would answer your own question.

Understand your own approach: 'I see suffering and injustice, Satan is the author of suffering and injustice, therefore Satan has not already been destroyed.'

This is assuming what you are trying to prove. You need to prove that the Satan that was to be destroyed is the author of the suffering and injustice today. But you can't prove this. You are just making a huge assumption.

The Satan that was to be destroyed was the Jewish persecuting power, the synagogue of Satan, those who say they are Jews but are not. Who did Jesus identify as the seed of the devil if not the Jews who were trying to kill him?

If you are honest you will confess that there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament to teach that the Satan of the New Testament is the author of suffering and injustice in the 20th Century.

You have to ignore practically every clue in the New Testament to conclude that Satan wasn't the Jewish persecuting power of the first generation of Christian saints.

The message back then was relevant to Jesus' audience, and the same message is relevant to us today. You say it is not, yet you haven't said anything about any evidence that Satan is out of the way. Tell me how it is that we are living in a Satan-free world.
We are free from the Satan that was destroyed at the fall of Jerusalem. Paul promised in 57 A.D. that God would soon crush Satan under the feet of the saints. If that promise came true, we are free of that Satan, that Adversary. The snake. Who did John the Baptiser call snakes? Were they Jewish unbelievers and adversaries, or modern adversaries? When did John say the snakes would suffer wrath?

Timothy of course was going to Paul THEN. So what?

The teaching of Revelation is not in the distant past. It is relevant to us today. We certainly have NOT seen the fulfillment of Revelation 20, 21 or 22.
In Rev 1:3, 22:7,10,18 & 19, the book of Revelation is described as a prophecy -- singular. It is not a book of prophecies, it is a single united prophecy. And John said that the appointed time for fulfilment was near (1:3). More than that, he bracketed the book with the statement in 1:3 and 22:10.

That's right, John said that there was a divinely appointed time for the prophecy, singular, that was the entire book of revelation, to be fulfilled, and he said that divinely appointed time was near at the time he wrote it to the seven churches in Asia.

In bracketing the entire book with this, he makes the whole book one united prophecy, to be fulfilled at the appointed time, which he said was near.

He not only said the time was near, he said it was they who would receive the blessings of the prophecies. Blessed is the one who hears, i.e. the original audience, because the appointed time is near (Rev 1:3). The blessings of the prophecies of the tree of life, the garden of eden, the paradise of God, were to come to the original readers, to relieve their sufferings, and the persecution they were facing (Rev 2:7). John was to write about the things that had happened, the things that were, and the things that were about to come. John didn't write the things that would happen eventually but the things that were 'about to come' (Rev 1:19).

It is only a theological supposition that the book wasn't fulfilled shortly after the time it was written, and in our distant past nearly 2000 years ago. If you can't remove this supposition and read what the book actually says, well I'm not sure what else I can do for you to see what the book repeatedly and emphatically says about what it was about and when it was promised to be fulfilled.

Why not embrace the victory that is ours, the vanquishing of the foe, the crushing of the snake under the foot of the seed of the woman, paradise restored to us, God dwelling with his people and the leaves of the tree of life going out every month to continue to heal the nations?

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but the desire fulfilled is a tree of life. (Pr 13:12). Was their hope deferred? Are our hearts sick for failure of the hope to come when it was promised? Or are we already in the New Jerusalem where the tree of life is?

The Hebrews writer wrote to his readers in the early 60s:
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:22-24)

If *they* had come to the realisation of the New Jerusalem promised, how is it that we are still waiting for it to arrive?

Post Reply