Can Amil prove with Scripture that the beast is in the pit during the thousand years?

[ViaCrucis]

To get to the point. I do not believe that any of us are given an eternal living soul, but rather that we all become a living soul, the minute we breathe oxygenated air. Apart from Jesus, we who are mortal flesh, have no eternal existence of any kind.
Our blood requires and demands Oxygen. Without it, we as living souls, shall become a dead soul.
Please review KJV Genesis 2:7, 6:17, 7:22

I'm not sure why I should review the KJV version of those passages; but I'm quite aware of what the meaning of nephesh is.

I don't believe in the Platonic idea of the soul as a kind of "ghost in the machine"; I believe that is false and contrary to Christian teaching. So we aren't embodied souls, we are ensouled bodies.

But I also deny that the soul means only mere animal breath and life. Our souls aren't merely animal souls, we have human--i.e. rational--souls. It is the soul that animates the body, not merely as animal breath, but is also a fundamental dimension of our personhood. Which is also why we confess that Jesus Christ, being both true God and true Man, is fully human of both a body and a rational (human) soul.

If it were not so, then much of Scripture becomes nonsense, such as St. Paul writing concerning the absence from the body and being present with the Lord (the words the Apostle uses essentially mean "emigrate" and "immigrate" respectively); nor do the visions showing the saints in heaven in the Apocalypse mean anything if that isn't the case. We also have the example of Samuel's "shade" appearing before King Saul when Saul disguised himself and went to speak to the medium (who is truly shocked when Samuel shows up, because mediums, psychics, etc are all charlatans who have no actual power). King David acknowledges that he will be reunited with his dead infant child after he dies.

So the idea of conditional immortality and/or soul sleep don't really work out biblically. It's simply an error of a different sort when compared to the error of Platonic dualism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

^ BTW, the word "soul" in Hebrew is "nephesh", which means "animal life".

It means "breath", hence why Adam is called לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּֽה (l'nephesh chayah), a "breathing, living thing".

I'm not opposed to the idea of "animal breath" here, in the sense of animal as in "animating/animated". But restricting it merely and purely to the literal act of respiration is far too clinical and doesn't reflect the depth of Hebrew and Christian thought that has existed on the subject over the past three thousand years.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No, as there will be many Satan corrupts in following him right before the eternal state!

Can you please address what I said in post #178? This does not address it at all. Please back up your opinions with scripture if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You are way off here on a number of things. The only thing you are correct about is that this involved the possible belief of one Amil here. Therefore, you are wrong to have that meaning that I was meaning that his view represents all Amils.

I find you to be very difficult to follow. You said "Premil doesn't have possible absurdities like this when satan is bound then loosed.". Does that not imply that you were saying Amil does have possible (so-called) absurdities like that? Even though it was only one person that had the particular view you were arguing against? If not, then what was the point of you saying "Premil doesn't have possible absurdities like this when satan is bound then loosed."?

I'm not assuming he believes the loosing of Satan includes him being able to access heaven again. Nobody would hold a position like that, that's ludicrous. I'm not saying anyone holds a position like that. I was simply coming to the logical conclusion, if it is true that Christ's sacrifice bound satan from entering back into heaven, then the fact that nowhere does the NT ever say that satan is bound until he is cast into the LOF, this should logically mean that when he is loosed nothing is preventing him from re entering heaven if it was his binding that was preventing that from happening. Therefore, I was demonstrating that this can lead to an absurdity if true, because when he is loosed he is no longer bound, therefore whatever this binding allegedly prevents him from doing, it is no longer applicable when he is loosed.

Why would you waste time arguing against a position that no one actually holds? I don't understand you at all.

Can Amils produce Scripture that indicates satan is bound until he is cast into the LOF, and that not contradict that he is bound for a thousand years then loosed for a little season?

Why would anyone want to do that when no one believes that?

The way I'm reasoning these things is via his binding is not permanent, it is only until the thousand years expires.

Who believes otherwise?

But, if what Christ accomplished on the cross bound satan, how does it continue to bind him when he is loosed?

I'm convinced that you will never understand Amil. It isn't Christ's death on the cross alone that binds Satan. His death did ensure that Satan would be bound because His resurrection and the preaching of the gospel was guaranteed to occur at that point. It's also Christ's resurrection and what His death and resurrection made possible, which is eternal life which comes about by way of people accepting the gospel of Christ that is preached through the power of the Holy Spirit. Satan is powerless against the preaching of the gospel through the power of Satan. He is bound from stopping it. He has been restrained in that way.

You understand that Paul, in 2nd Thessalonians 2, talked about the mystery of iniquity already being at work in his day but it was still being restrained to an extent, right? Then in the future it would no longer be restrained and it would lead to a mass falling away from the faith. I believe that relates to Satan's little season. He will be allowed a little season where he is not restrained and iniquity/wickedness will not be restrained during that time.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes they are and even most Amils likely agree, or at least I assume they do. So, I'm not seeing why they might disagree that the BP is also a literal place, except maybe because Amil can't work if the BP is a literal place?

So, a figurative dragon, a figurative beast and figurative locusts can be bound in a literal place? Please explain the logic in that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Why can't I get certain things to agree with the texts involved if Amil is the solution instead? I'm not saying, why can't Amils get certain things to agree with the texts involved if Amil is the solution, I'm saying why can't I?

Because you interpret symbolic text like Revelation 20 literally and literal text like 2 Peter 3:10-12 symbolically.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Everyone already agrees with that to begin with, meaning your point involving the end of the beast and its power. But the beast is not satan, though. That is the end of the beast but is it also the end of satan at that time? In Revelation 19 the LOF is in view, except there is not one single mention of satan also being cast into the LOF at that time. Why not, if he is? If John saw satan also being cast into the LOF why didn't he record that he saw that event as well?

That's like asking why John didn't write the entire book in chronological order. Because he wasn't shown everything in chronological order. You know that's true, so why ask why? It's just the way it is. It's the way God wanted the book to be written.

 

[DavidPT]

A thousand years is symbolic of the Age of God's Grace. There is no time limit on it, and that is why Jesus said that the day of His Glorious appearing is in His Father's hands only.

The thousand years have an ending eventually, then it's satan's little season. Per Amil it would be at the end of satan's little season when the 2nd coming occurs. Your argument makes no sense in light of that, because it looks like you are applying what Jesus said that was in His Father's hand, to that of the end of the thousand years, except the end of the thousand years would not be when Christ returns per this scenario, it would be at the end of satan's little season instead.

It seems to me, assuming the thousand years and satan's little season are prior to the 2nd coming, that the age of God's grace is no longer applicable once satan is loosed. That would be the logic. I don't know if that is your position or not, but I don't see it being reasonable that anyone can still be saved post the thousand years since the first resurrection is tied in with salvation, thus no one can have part in the first resurrection after the thousand years since that contradicts the fact, that he who has part in the first resurrection, they shall reign with Christ a thousand years. No one could possibly do that during satan's little season, asuming they are saved during his little season, reign with Christ a thousand years.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Which then means to me, but maybe not to Amils, that instead of verse 9 being applicable all the way up until verse 10, it is only applicable to the end of the thousand years since verse 10 is not meaning the end of the thousand years per this scenario, it is meaning the end of satan's little season per this scenario, and that I already showed that it is unreasonable that anyone can still be saved during satan's little season since it would be impossible to have part in the first resurrection after the thousand years expire.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Revelation 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

A)
Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

B)
Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

What's in question here, what I have underlined in Revelation 18:23, does that lead to what I have underlined in A), thus explains what I have underlined in A) since Revelation 18:23 involves deceiving all nations and that what I have underlined in A) is involving deceiving nations no more?

Or is it instead involving what I have underlined in B), where that then leads to satan getting cast into the LOF at the end of Revelation 18:23 rather than being cast into the bottomless pit at the end of Revelation 18:23?

It seems to me both choices are valid choices. How do we decide which one is the better choice, the correct choice?

You're basically asking how do we determine the truth of the matter. For one thing, we need to use other scripture to help us, which I don't see you doing here. The decision is impossible based on these texts alone, so you have to look at other scripture as well. Should our doctrine be founded on undeniably difficult to interpret scripture like we find in a majority of the book of Revelation or should it be founded on more clear, straightforward scripture? The answer should be obvious.

Also, if you have a situation like this where there are two choices and you're trying to figure out which choice is correct, ask God to give you wisdom and show you (James 1:5-7). You come across as though you rely entirely on your own human wisdom and logic to figure things out. That's not how you should approach scripture. We can't find the truth that way. We can't find the truth of the deeper things of God without spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-14). So, if you really want to know the truth about this then you need to establish a doctrinal foundation from more clear scripture than Revelation 18:23 and Revelation 20 and also ask God for wisdom so that you can see the truth of the matter.

 

[Earburner]

The Holy Spirit is restaining him from getting his antichrist upon the scene, but once church removed, then satan free to act!

I don't view the church removed, as being a "secret rapture" of any sort, but rather the church being "cast out" of the "global society" of the NWO, under the "Luciferian Doctrine" of humanism, and "trodden underfoot" by persecution/martyrdom.
Matt.5[13] Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
The MoB will see to that, for it will surely separate the goats from the sheep.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't view the church removed, as being a "secret rapture" of any sort, but rather the church being "cast out" of the "global society" of the NWO, under the "Luciferian Doctrine" of humanism, and "trodden underfoot" by persecution/martyrdom.
Matt.5[13] Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
The MoB will see to that, for it will surely separate the goats from the sheep.

The whatawhodawhat now?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DavidPT]

You're basically asking how do we determine the truth of the matter. For one thing, we need to use other scripture to help us, which I don't see you doing here. The decision is impossible based on these texts alone, so you have to look at other scripture as well. Should our doctrine be founded on undeniably difficult to interpret scripture like we find in a majority of the book of Revelation or should it be founded on more clear, straightforward scripture? The answer should be obvious.

Also, if you have a situation like this where there are two choices and you're trying to figure out which choice is correct, ask God to give you wisdom and show you (James 1:5-7). You come across as though you rely entirely on your own human wisdom and logic to figure things out. That's not how you should approach scripture. We can't find the truth that way. We can't find the truth of the deeper things of God without spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-14). So, if you really want to know the truth about this then you need to establish a doctrinal foundation from more clear scripture than Revelation 18:23 and Revelation 20 and also ask God for wisdom so that you can see the truth of the matter.

While I do agree we need other Scriptures to help determine this, my point basically was, though I neglected to mention some of this at the time, Revelation 18:23 indicates all nations are deceived, and that everyone other than Preterists agree Revelation 18:23 leads to the end of this age. Then we see in Revelation 20 that satan is bound so that he can deceive the nations no more. Is it then reasonable to assume that Revelation 18:23 is followed by his binding?

Then OTOH, also in Revelation 20 we see that when satan is loosed he deceives the nations again, which could mean Revelation 18:23 is meaning at the end of that rather that before the beginning of satan's binding. Therefore, is it reasonable to assume that Revelation 18:23 can be meaning at the end of satan's little season instead?

IMO, it's reasonable to assume either scenario. Of course though, both scenarios can't be true.

The way I might reason this since both scenarios can't be true, and I fully realize it's not how Amils might reason it, is like such. If Revelation 18:23 is involving deceiving all nations and that so is Revelation 20:7-9, this means the thousand years can't also be involving deceiving the nations. And that is excactly what Revelation 20:3 indicates---that he should deceive the nations no more. Which view then, Premil or Amil, would there be no nations being deceived by satan during the thousand years? Whichever view that is, has to be the correct view since it agrees with the texts involved.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

These in verse 8, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea, which view has them being deceived during the thousand years and which view doesn't? The view that does, that view contradicts Revelation 20:3--that he should deceive the nations no more while he is bound, because if they are coming against the camp of the saints after the thousand years, which proves they are not saved, and that this means they are never saved during the thousand years, thus are deceived during the thousand years instead, thus satan has been deceiving the nations during the thousand years, can't be the correct view.

The view that has, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea, deceived prior to the thousand years, then no longer deceived during the thousand years, then being deceived yet again following the thousand years, can only be the correct view. Is it possible that mortals can live an entire thousand years, assuming the thousand years are post the 2nd coming? Was it possible that Adam, a mortal himself, almost lived an entire thousand years in the beginning? If that was possible why wouldn't it be possible post the 2nd coming?

Of course though, one first has to prove there can even be any unsaved mortal survivors remaining, in light of what Revelation 19, for one, records. Hmmm.. I wonder if Zechariah 14 is also holy writ, because I'm pretty sure it records that there are indeed mortal unsaved survivors remaining post the 2nd coming. The way some try and get around that they insist nothing in Zechariah 14 involves the 2nd coming, let alone events involving a post 2nd coming era. That's fine if they disagree, but why then can't they provide an interpretation that makes better sense of the text if they feel this doesn't?

Keep in mind that I said an interpretation that makes better sense of the text. That's not the same as saying why then can't they provide an interpretation? The latter implies no interpretation has never been submitted ever, thus would be false, thus would be misrepresenting what I said and meant since I never said nor meant that.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I'm not sure why I should review the KJV version of those passages; but I'm quite aware of what the meaning of nephesh is.

I don't believe in the Platonic idea of the soul as a kind of "ghost in the machine"; I believe that is false and contrary to Christian teaching. So we aren't embodied souls, we are ensouled bodies.

But I also deny that the soul means only mere animal breath and life. Our souls aren't merely animal souls, we have human--i.e. rational--souls. It is the soul that animates the body, not merely as animal breath, but is also a fundamental dimension of our personhood. Which is also why we confess that Jesus Christ, being both true God and true Man, is fully human of both a body and a rational (human) soul.

If it were not so, then much of Scripture becomes nonsense, such as St. Paul writing concerning the absence from the body and being present with the Lord (the words the Apostle uses essentially mean "emigrate" and "immigrate" respectively); nor do the visions showing the saints in heaven in the Apocalypse mean anything if that isn't the case. We also have the example of Samuel's "shade" appearing before King Saul when Saul disguised himself and went to speak to the medium (who is truly shocked when Samuel shows up, because mediums, psychics, etc are all charlatans who have no actual power). King David acknowledges that he will be reunited with his dead infant child after he dies.

So the idea of conditional immortality and/or soul sleep don't really work out biblically. It's simply an error of a different sort when compared to the error of Platonic dualism.

-CryptoLutheran

Jesus told us to fear God, who can affect body and soul, and there are souls in heaven now awaiting their physical resurrection, and if we are not alive until we breath and become souls, then all babies who die din womb not even alive!

 

[Spiritual Jew]

While I do agree we need other Scriptures to help determine this, my point basically was, though I neglected to mention some of this at the time, Revelation 18:23 indicates all nations are deceived, and that everyone other than Preterists agree Revelation 18:23 leads to the end of this age. Then we see in Revelation 20 that satan is bound so that he can deceive the nations no more. Is it then reasonable to assume that Revelation 18:23 is followed by his binding?

Then OTOH, also in Revelation 20 we see that when satan is loosed he deceives the nations again, which could mean Revelation 18:23 is meaning at the end of that rather that before the beginning of satan's binding. Therefore, is it reasonable to assume that Revelation 18:23 can be meaning at the end of satan's little season instead?

IMO, it's reasonable to assume either scenario. Of course though, both scenarios can't be true.

Sure, if we don't take any other scripture into consideration, then I suppose that would be true. It's a good thing we have other scripture to look at then.

The way I might reason this since both scenarios can't be true, and I fully realize it's not how Amils might reason it, is like such. If Revelation 18:23 is involving deceiving all nations and that so is Revelation 20:7-9, this means the thousand years can't also be involving deceiving the nations. And that is excactly what Revelation 20:3 indicates---that he should deceive the nations no more. Which view then, Premil or Amil, would there be no nations being deceived by satan during the thousand years? Whichever view that is, has to be the correct view since it agrees with the texts involved.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

These in verse 8, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea, which view has them already deceived during the thousand years and which view doesn't? The view that does, that view contradicts Revelation 20:3--that he should deceive the nations no more while he is bound, because if they are coming against the camp of the saints after the thousand years, which proves they are not saved, and that this means they are never saved during the thousand years, thus are deceived during the thousand years instead, thus satan has been deceiving the nations during the thousand years, can't be the correct view.

The view that has, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea, deceived prior to the thousand years, then no longer deceived during the thousand years, then being deceived yet again following the thousand years, can only be the correct view. Is it possible that mortals can live an entire thousand years, assuming the thousand years are post the 2nd coming? Was it possible that Adam, a mortal himself, almost lived an entire thousand years in the beginning? If that was possible why wouldn't it be possible post the 2nd coming?

Of course though, one first has to prove there can even be any unsaved mortal survivors remaining in light of what Revelation 19, for one, records. Hmmm.. I wonder if Zechariah 14 is also holy writ, because I'm pretty sure it records that there are indeed mortal unsaved survivors remaining post the 2nd coming. The way some try and get around that they insist nothing in Zechariah 14 involves the 2nd coming, let alone events involving a post 2nd coming era. That's fine if they disagree, but why then can't they provide an interpretation that makes better sense of the text if they feel this doesn't?

Zechariah 14 is one of the most difficult to interpret passages in all of scripture. But, for some reason that I'll never understand, you can't be convinced of Amil unless we can prove Zechariah 14 doesn't relate to a time period after the second coming. I have told you this a number of times before, but interpreting Zechariah 14 as referring to a thousand year time period after the return of Christ is very problematic because verses 16-21 makes reference to animal sacrifices being performed. Which you try to get around in an extremely unconvincing way. You take the whole chapter literally up until verse 16 which seems rather convenient.

We need to establish the foundation of our doctrine on more clear scripture than Zechariah 14. Why you don't get that, I'll never know.

Keep in mind that I said an interpretation that makes better sense of the text. That's not the same as saying why then can't they provide an interpretation? The latter implies no interpretation has never been submitted ever, thus would be false, thus would be misrepresenting what I said and meant since I never said nor meant that.

You're acting as if your interpretation is convincing. It certainly isn't to me.

A lot of what you said here is based on the assumption the reference to deceiving the nations has to do with Satan's generally ability to deceive in any way, shape or form which is not how Amils sees it, as has been pointed out many times now. So, since I disagree with your understanding of what it means for Satan to "deceive the nations", I don't find your argument to be convincing at all. As long as you're going to continue to assume that Satan's binding renders him completely incapacitated then we're never going to be anywhere near the same page on this.

 

[Think...]

Matthew 24:29-31
Matthew 25:31-46
Isaiah 13:9-11
2 Peter 3:4
2 Peter 3:10
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
John 5:28-29

Does this ongoing discussion even consider these passages or is this "Let's pretend those verses don't exist and debate around them - like they're not even there." ??

Revelation 20 is completely negated as a legitimate foundation for any doctrine of consequence by these passages - as well as by the rest of Revelation as a whole.

If the wicked are destroyed upon Christ's return, and the righteous are caught up into the clouds, ... who is left to do all this Zechariah 14'ing?

Hello??

Clearly that chapter is being misinterpreted.

 

[Earburner]

The thousand years have an ending eventually, then it's satan's little season. Per Amil it would be at the end of satan's little season when the 2nd coming occurs. Your argument makes no sense in light of that, because it looks like you are applying what Jesus said that was in His Father's hand, to that of the end of the thousand years, except the end of the thousand years would not be when Christ returns per this scenario, it would be at the end of satan's little season instead.

It seems to me, assuming the thousand years and satan's little season are prior to the 2nd coming, that the age of God's grace is no longer applicable once satan is loosed. That would be the logic. I don't know if that is your position or not, but I don't see it being reasonable that anyone can still be saved post the thousand years since the first resurrection is tied in with salvation, thus no one can have part in the first resurrection after the thousand years since that contradicts the fact, that he who has part in the first resurrection, they shall reign with Christ a thousand years. No one could possibly do that during satan's little season, asuming they are saved during his little season, reign with Christ a thousand years.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Which then means to me, but maybe not to Amils, that instead of verse 9 being applicable all the way up until verse 10, it is only applicable to the end of the thousand years since verse 10 is not meaning the end of the thousand years per this scenario, it is meaning the end of satan's little season per this scenario, and that I already showed that it is unreasonable that anyone can still be saved during satan's little season since it would be impossible to have part in the first resurrection after the thousand years expire.

Your confusion is caused by you using the term of a thousand years as literally being a thousand years, but only after the Return of Christ.
I percieve that you subconsciously filter every other doctrine through it. You understand it in that way only, and as a result, you can't turn to see it as being the undisclosed time of God's Age of Grace, since Pentecost.

Since Jesus did not, and still does not know the day of His return, but only the Father, then it suffices for Him to say a thousand years, suggesting that He won't be returning "quickly" as we think that He should. Therefore, the length of time for God's Age of Grace, is relative to when God the Father decides that there are no more people coming to Him through faith, to believe that He is. Hebrews 11:6,
Luke 18:8.
The MoB will be that defining moment. It will surely separate the goats from the sheep, discerning those who are his from those who "are none of his".
Edit: when the "MoB" is manifested and mandated, then will be the beginning of the prophesied 42 months.
Rev.11[2] But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city [we who are of Heavenly Jerusalem] shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
At that time, each and every person will be in their own "hour of temptation", both the saved and unsaved, deciding in whom or what they trust in, for all their needs to be met.

As for Satan and his little window of opportunity , the church has been losing it's saltiness, and as a result, "the mystery of iniquity", which was being restrained, is now creeping inside the church. So now that the visible church itself is getting side tracked, by putting itself in yoke with the world's ways for "peace and safety" and "Saving the Planet", a falling away from faith in Christ is virtually inevitable.

As for a thousand years after Jesus returns, you are imposing your own will on it for understanding, and/or by a religious persuasion, that you have entertained for far too long. You have not obeyed His voice of "guidance" by His Holy Spirit ONLY. Zechariah 4:6 and John 16:13.

 

[Earburner]

Matthew 24:29-31
Matthew 25:31-46
Isaiah 13:9-11
2 Peter 3:4
2 Peter 3:10
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
John 5:28-29

Does this ongoing discussion even consider these passages or is this "Let's pretend those verses don't exist and debate around them - like they're not even there." ??

Revelation 20 is completely negated as a legitimate foundation for any doctrine of consequence by these passages - as well as by the rest of Revelation as a whole.

If the wicked are destroyed upon Christ's return, and the righteous are caught up into the clouds, ... who is left to do all this Zechariah 14'ing?

Hello??

Clearly that chapter is being misinterpreted.

According to Amil thinking, Zechariah 14 was fulfilled in Jesus' first appearance.

 

[Earburner]

In Greek we read that Hades is cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:14--
καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἐβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ δεύτερός θάνατος
kai ho thanatos kai ho hades eblethesan eis ten limnen tou pyros houtos estin ho deuteros thanatos
"and the death and the hades were cast into the lake of fire which is the second death"

The English word "hell" has been used to translate She'ol, Hades, and Gehenna.

-CryptoLutheran

Meaning the graves itself and all that it is them will be on fire also. The results (smoke) of them being burned up will be forever. No more death, and no more graves.

 

[Earburner]

I'm not sure why I should review the KJV version of those passages; but I'm quite aware of what the meaning of nephesh is.

I don't believe in the Platonic idea of the soul as a kind of "ghost in the machine"; I believe that is false and contrary to Christian teaching. So we aren't embodied souls, we are ensouled bodies.

But I also deny that the soul means only mere animal breath and life. Our souls aren't merely animal souls, we have human--i.e. rational--souls. It is the soul that animates the body, not merely as animal breath, but is also a fundamental dimension of our personhood. Which is also why we confess that Jesus Christ, being both true God and true Man, is fully human of both a body and a rational (human) soul.

If it were not so, then much of Scripture becomes nonsense, such as St. Paul writing concerning the absence from the body and being present with the Lord (the words the Apostle uses essentially mean "emigrate" and "immigrate" respectively); nor do the visions showing the saints in heaven in the Apocalypse mean anything if that isn't the case. We also have the example of Samuel's "shade" appearing before King Saul when Saul disguised himself and went to speak to the medium (who is truly shocked when Samuel shows up, because mediums, psychics, etc are all charlatans who have no actual power). King David acknowledges that he will be reunited with his dead infant child after he dies.

So the idea of conditional immortality and/or soul sleep don't really work out biblically. It's simply an error of a different sort when compared to the error of Platonic dualism.

-CryptoLutheran

I will say it this way, apart from faith in Christ, and the Gift of His Holy Spirit, no one can have eternal existence of any kind. People without Christ, do not live on into any realm now, or in the future.

 

[Earburner]

It means "breath", hence why Adam is called לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּֽה (l'nephesh chayah), a "breathing, living thing".

I'm not opposed to the idea of "animal breath" here, in the sense of animal as in "animating/animated". But restricting it merely and purely to the literal act of respiration is far too clinical and doesn't reflect the depth of Hebrew and Christian thought that has existed on the subject over the past three thousand years.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, one must put the "religious spin" on it, even though we both know that when God created Adam, and every living cell within his body, was an individual living organism, requiring/craving Oxygen to stay living.
God knew that He only had a few minutes to breathe into Adam's nostrils to activate/pressurize the working of his diaphragm, so that Adam could become an autonomous air breathing living soul.