And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels waged war against the Dragon

Rev20 said:

What? Literal in one instance does in no way mean it is literal in every way? For example, what about this star falling to earth:

"And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit." -- Rev 9:1​

Is that a real star? What you were claiming earlier is fantasy land. You are claiming this to be literal:

"And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea. And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood." -- Rev 16:3-4 KJV​

Your ridiculous claim was that all the fresh water (and probably the sea) would be turned into blood. That is truly fantasy land. No one would survive, nor the animals. That is doomsday preaching at its worst, profitable only for filling collection plates of greedy pastors with the last mites of scared old widows.
.



If all the fresh water over the entire earth was turned to blood, everyone would die, beginning with all animal life. And it would not take very long.

A more bizarre aspect of your intepretation is it demonstrates a complete ignorance of the many passages in both the old and new testaments that explain that "rivers and fountains of water" represent the Holy Spirit. How do so-called "literalists" explain away those passages? So far you have ignored them when presented by others. Can we assume you will continue to pretend they do not exist?

Literalism … LOL!

Click to expand...

Call it fantasy if you choose; but it HAPPENED in Egypt. It will happen again. Did you fail to believe the Old Testament prophets about the Day of the Lord, how God will DESTROY the earth and the sinners in the earth? Did you not believe John when he wrote that everything in the sea DIED? Perhaps you put a spin on that too, and explain it away.

Of course a real "star" falling to earth would end everything. It is NOT a real star. We don't leave our common sense at home while reading Revelation. In one verse a "Star" is a HIM.

Danoh said:

Out of curiosity - what passages might you cite where the figurative is not a means of communicating a literal?

Would "Behold the Lamb of God" not qualify as a figurative of a literal?

Would what the literal a lamb represented - a literal sacrifice - not qualify as a figure of speech, as a means of pointing to His literal sacrifice?

Applying the sense of the figurative representing the literal to our own day, when it is announced that "Hollywood stars will be coming out on Oscar night," who does not know the literal represented by that?

There is no actual Hollywood where movies are made, Oscar represents what that little gold statue does, and an actual star from heaven does not show up to claim it - yet "the stars came out to Hollywood for Oscar night, tonight."

Methinks you just want to - "see" - "things" - your way. I may be wrong, bring it on...

Just be as open or as of "all readiness of mind" as you would that others be

Click to expand...

We don't leave our common sense at home when studying Revelation.

"If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense " We have a lot of nonsense on this thread.

iamlamad said:

Yet, you teach that we will be here during 7 YEARS of judgment. Go figure.

Click to expand...

The judgment happens in one hour, not 7 years.

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


Should we try to get scripture to line up with our eschatology, or try to get our eschatology to line up with scripture?
.

Originally Posted by iamlamad
Yet, you teach that we will be here during 7 YEARS of judgment. Go figure.

QUOTE=BABerean2;66991501]The judgment happens in one hour, not 7 years.

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


Should we try to get scripture to line up with our eschatology, or try to get our eschatology to line up with scripture?
.[/QUOTE]


A thought, for reflection on...

That you believe you are doing the latter of those two, is just that - your belief that you are.

Likewise on each our end...

For, to me, you have yet to show that you can be, have been, or are being, objective.

What I mean by that is the following, again, that you might receive it with all readiness of mind...

My observation is that your Post-Trib Position is simply the result of just another application made unaware, of the Reformed's version of what later came to be known as Hagel's Dialectic.

Where a person solves for what appears a contrast between things - a type and an anti-type - not through respecting each's contrast through each's examination on its own merits, but through synthesizing them into one and the same type.

Thus, Acts 7's "church in the wilderness" is made "the church which is His Body," for example, because the word "church" is not carefully examined within each mention's respective, own scope and context.

Again, that is an example of how such synthesis where there is none, is applied that there be one.

You school's version of that is how it ended up in the assertion that "the church" [nice and one size fits all synthesis] "will go through the Tribulation."

To be sure, there is synthesis of many things within Scripture.

But there is also contrast between many others.

The question is what determines which is which, as to who, what, when, where, why, and how...

And if there is one rule of thumb Scripture repeatedly makes clear, it is that "one size fits all" is not that determining factor...

The Tribulation's scope and context are, for example, the Law of Moses; thus, its conditional sense of things throughout.

The Law's core principle being Performance Based Acceptance. There it is, not only in Daniel's prayer just before he received his Daniel 9 visions, but what their events are based in - the Law's Performance Based Acceptance.

Said Performance Based Acceptance having been, in Christ's day as well as in Early Acts, that that nation believe the Law and the Prophets concerning Him, John 1; 5; 8; Acts 1-3; Rom. 2; 9-11; Heb. 2, etc.

Malachi 3:

1. 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.
2. 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 fullers' soap:
3. 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.
4. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

Malachi 4:

1. For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
3. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
4. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Originally Posted by Danoh View Post
Out of curiosity - what passages might you cite where the figurative is not a means of communicating a literal?

Would "Behold the Lamb of God" not qualify as a figurative of a literal?

Would what the literal a lamb represented - a literal sacrifice - not qualify as a figure of speech, as a means of pointing to His literal sacrifice?

Applying the sense of the figurative representing the literal to our own day, when it is announced that "Hollywood stars will be coming out on Oscar night," who does not know the literal represented by that?

There is no actual Hollywood where movies are made, Oscar represents what that little gold statue does, and an actual star from heaven does not show up to claim it - yet "the stars came out to Hollywood for Oscar night, tonight."

Methinks you just want to - "see" - "things" - your way. I may be wrong, bring it on...

Just be as open or as of "all readiness of mind" as you would that others be

iamlamad said:

We don't leave our common sense at home when studying Revelation.

"If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense " We have a lot of nonsense on this thread.

Click to expand...

At same time, and this is something I myself allowed to fall into at times - the thing is to see our attitude towards others as robbing us of the opportunity to remain objective, when we could focus instead, on the ever just as important question, "I see where they are off in that; in what areas might I still be like that in approach, that I might examine same and thereby free myself of assumptions just a bit more..."

The thing is to try to keep oneself neutral; that the actual battle be simply in our having laid out what we believe the Scripture gave us; that the feedback of others whether positively intended or not, nevertheless challenge us to sharper and sharper distinctions.

Danoh said:

Originally Posted by iamlamad
Yet, you teach that we will be here during 7 YEARS of judgment. Go figure.

QUOTE=BABerean2;66991501]The judgment happens in one hour, not 7 years.

Joh 5:28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


Should we try to get scripture to line up with our eschatology, or try to get our eschatology to line up with scripture?
.

Click to expand...

A thought, for reflection on...

That you believe you are doing the latter of those two, is just that - your belief that you are.

Likewise on each our end...

For, to me, you have yet to show that you can be, have been, or are being, objective.

What I mean by that is the following, again, that you might receive it with all readiness of mind...

My observation is that your Post-Trib Position is simply the result of just another application made unaware, of the Reformed's version of what later came to be known as Hagel's Dialectic.

Where a person solves for what appears a contrast between things - a type and an anti-type - not through respecting each's contrast through each's examination on its own merits, but through synthesizing them into one and the same type.

Thus, Acts 7's "church in the wilderness" is made "the church which is His Body," for example, because the word "church" is not carefully examined within each mention's respective, own scope and context.

Again, that is an example of how such synthesis where there is none, is applied that there be one.

You school's version of that is how it ended up in the assertion that "the church" [nice and one size fits all synthesis] "will go through the Tribulation."

To be sure, there is synthesis of many things within Scripture.

But there is also contrast between many others.

The question is what determines which is which, as to who, what, when, where, why, and how...

And if there is one rule of thumb Scripture repeatedly makes clear, it is that "one size fits all" is not that determining factor...

The Tribulation's scope and context are, for example, the Law of Moses; thus, its conditional sense of things throughout.

The Law's core principle being Performance Based Acceptance. There it is, not only in Daniel's prayer just before he received his Daniel 9 visions, but what their events are based in - the Law's Performance Based Acceptance.

Said Performance Based Acceptance having been, in Christ's day as well as in Early Acts, that that nation believe the Law and the Prophets concerning Him, John 1; 5; 8; Acts 1-3; Rom. 2; 9-11; Heb. 2, etc.

Malachi 3:

1. 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.
2. 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 fullers' soap:
3. 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.
4. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

Malachi 4:

1. For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
3. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
4. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.[/quote]

If you think I have taken the words of Christ out of context in any way, then please feel free to correct me.

However, if you do so, do it in a way that the rest of us can clearly see the problem and your correction.

Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke because what I posted does not match up with your viewpoint.

When any of us posts a long, rambling, response without a clear meaning, it provides much heat but
not much Light.
.

BABerean2 said:

A thought, for reflection on...

That you believe you are doing the latter of those two, is just that - your belief that you are.

Likewise on each our end...

For, to me, you have yet to show that you can be, have been, or are being, objective.

What I mean by that is the following, again, that you might receive it with all readiness of mind...

My observation is that your Post-Trib Position is simply the result of just another application made unaware, of the Reformed's version of what later came to be known as Hagel's Dialectic.

Where a person solves for what appears a contrast between things - a type and an anti-type - not through respecting each's contrast through each's examination on its own merits, but through synthesizing them into one and the same type.

Thus, Acts 7's "church in the wilderness" is made "the church which is His Body," for example, because the word "church" is not carefully examined within each mention's respective, own scope and context.

Again, that is an example of how such synthesis where there is none, is applied that there be one.

You school's version of that is how it ended up in the assertion that "the church" [nice and one size fits all synthesis] "will go through the Tribulation."

To be sure, there is synthesis of many things within Scripture.

But there is also contrast between many others.

The question is what determines which is which, as to who, what, when, where, why, and how...

And if there is one rule of thumb Scripture repeatedly makes clear, it is that "one size fits all" is not that determining factor...

The Tribulation's scope and context are, for example, the Law of Moses; thus, its conditional sense of things throughout.

The Law's core principle being Performance Based Acceptance. There it is, not only in Daniel's prayer just before he received his Daniel 9 visions, but what their events are based in - the Law's Performance Based Acceptance.

Said Performance Based Acceptance having been, in Christ's day as well as in Early Acts, that that nation believe the Law and the Prophets concerning Him, John 1; 5; 8; Acts 1-3; Rom. 2; 9-11; Heb. 2, etc.

Malachi 3:

1. 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.
2. 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 fullers' soap:
3. 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.
4. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

Malachi 4:

1. For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
3. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
4. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Click to expand...

If you think I have taken the words of Christ out of context in any way, then please feel free to correct me.

However, if you do so, do it in a way that the rest of us can clearly see the problem and your correction.

Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke because what I posted does not match up with your viewpoint.

When any of us posts a long, rambling, response without a clear meaning, it provides much heat but
not much Light.
.[/QUOTE]

Just attempting to point out the obvious - the ever pressing need to observe oneself right in the very midst of one's attempts to get at the intended sense of any passage.

You obviously do not do that; thus your response out of some other notion you read into my words and then concluded mine.

In this, there is no point in laying out the passages I have more than proven I am very well aware of. You will respond as you continue to - ask that they be laid out - and than once more read what you will into them and their poster.

In this, you remind me of a question I used to ask of the Scripture years ago - why didn't these people get what He was saying? And why; being Who He was, didn't He just zap them with the understanding He desired from them?

Why? Because He knew their hearts - not only were they convinced they had the answers, but that He was out to show them up!

You are like that - its why you are always so hostile when your view is challenged - no matter how said challenge is worded.

All you can stand is your own "humble" reports of having helped a Jew cross the street or what have you.

Its called a persecution complex - leave it at the Cross already - not to mention that you're a grown man, for crying out loud.

Sheesh, what a baby...

Danoh said:

If you think I have taken the words of Christ out of context in any way, then please feel free to correct me.

However, if you do so, do it in a way that the rest of us can clearly see the problem and your correction.

Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke because what I posted does not match up with your viewpoint.

When any of us posts a long, rambling, response without a clear meaning, it provides much heat but
not much Light.
.

Click to expand...

Just attempting to point out the obvious - the ever pressing need to observe oneself right in the very midst of one's attempts to get at the intended sense of any passage.

You obviously do not do that; thus your response out of some other notion you read into my words and then concluded mine.

In this, there is no point in laying out the passages I have more than proven I am very well aware of. You will respond as you continue to - ask that they be laid out - and than once more read what you will into them and their poster.

In this, you remind me of a question I used to ask of the Scripture years ago - why didn't these people get what He was saying? And why; being Who He was, didn't He just zap them with the understanding He desired from them?

Why? Because He knew their hearts - not only were they convinced they had the answers, but that He was out to show them up!

You are like that - its why you are always so hostile when your view is challenged - no matter how said challenge is worded.

All you can stand is your own "humble" reports of having helped a Jew cross the street or what have you.

Its called a persecution complex - leave it at the Cross already - not to mention that you're a grown man, for crying out loud.

Sheesh, what a baby...[/quote]

Danoh,

Saying to another poster, "What a baby..." sounds like something a child would say on a playground at school.

That chair certainly came from behind.

And to the comment about helping a Jew...

That was a low blow.

You can do better than that.

.

Okay, here is better than - again:

My observation is that your Post-Trib Position is simply the result of just another application made unaware [though, now, you are aware], of the Reformed's version of what later came to be known as Hagel's Dialectic.

Where a person solves for what appears a contrast between things - a type and an anti-type - not through respecting each's contrast through each's examination on its own merits, but through synthesizing them into one and the same type.

That is how you arrive at your Matthew 24 in Thessalonians "synthesis" - one that is simply not there, rather, appears to be, when the Overall Premise of each - Law and Grace - are left out of one's "exegesis."

Remember, you are the one who refuses to see the obvious implication of passages throughout Matthew to John where the Law as still the issue is clearly made evident.

And the Tribulation is an "under the Law" issue - even Preterists and their "half-way home" boys, the Partials see this Law/Trib connection.

I don't know - do you believe we are still under the Law - you basically skirted answering me on this that time I asked you when you hurled that "raca//judgment" passage at me, as if it applies to the Body...

That might also explain why you are Post-Trib.

Again, quit crying unfair already, we have eternity to shoot spit balls at one another

iamlamad said:

Call it fantasy if you choose; but it HAPPENED in Egypt. It will happen again. Did you fail to believe the Old Testament prophets about the Day of the Lord, how God will DESTROY the earth and the sinners in the earth? Did you not believe John when he wrote that everything in the sea DIED? Perhaps you put a spin on that too, and explain it away.

Of course a real "star" falling to earth would end everything. It is NOT a real star. We don't leave our
common sense at home while reading Revelation. In one verse a "Star" is a HIM.

Click to expand...

I believe you threw that same aspersion (common sense) against Danoh, to see if it would stick? Is that the "word of the week?"

Your implication that all the fresh water becomes blood is a classic example of throwing away all common sense!

Of course, as part of the defense of your interpretation, you throw in the false narrative of "the blood of the prophets," which, time and time again, you have demonstrated that you do not believe to be literal. If you believed that to be literal, you would also believe that first century Jerusalem was the Babylon the Great of the Revelation, because of "the blood of the prophets."

Literalism ... LOL!

Danoh said:

Okay, here is better than - again:

My observation is that your Post-Trib Position is simply the result of just another application made unaware [though, now, you are aware], of the Reformed's version of what later came to be known as Hagel's Dialectic.

Where a person solves for what appears a contrast between things - a type and an anti-type - not through respecting each's contrast through each's examination on its own merits, but through synthesizing them into one and the same type.

That is how you arrive at your Matthew 24 in Thessalonians "synthesis" - one that is simply not there, rather, appears to be, when the Overall Premise of each - Law and Grace - are left out of one's "exegesis."

Remember, you are the one who refuses to see the obvious implication of passages throughout Matthew to John where the Law as still the issue is clearly made evident.

And the Tribulation is an "under the Law" issue - even Preterists and their "half-way home" boys, the Partials see this Law/Trib connection.

I don't know - do you believe we are still under the Law - you basically skirted answering me on this that time I asked you when you hurled that "raca//judgment" passage at me, as if it applies to the Body...

That might also explain why you are Post-Trib.

Again, quit crying unfair already, we have eternity to shoot spit balls at one another

Click to expand...

If we are under the Law of Moses for salvation, then we are all damned to hell.
Only Christ has ever kept the whole Law.

All of the commandments except the Sabbath are repeated in the New Testament. The two commandments of Christ contain nine of the ten commandments. Christ's First commandment contains the first four of the ten and Christ's Second commandment contains the last five of the ten.

Based on the verse from Colossians we are not to be judged in Sabbaths, meats, etc. Based on the New Testament, when the early Christians met for a meal, or worship it was normally on the first day of the week, however any day will be acceptable.

Are the Holy commandments of God still in effect? Absolutely, as a mirror to reveal our sin. However, our salvation only comes through what Christ did, not what I did or what I can do.

Why did I avoid the issue in the past?

Because I never know when you will use it to attack me, because we differ on eschatology.

That is exactly what you did today with your "helping the Jews" comment.

If we cannot agree on the need to spread the Gospel to all people, including the Jews, then we need to stop this conversation now.

.

m423156 said:

And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels waged war against the Dragon, and the dragon and his angels waged war, but they could not prevail, neither was there found any more a place in heaven for them. And the Great Dragon was cast out, that Ancient Serpent, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth and his angels were cast out with him. (Revelation 12:7-9).​

How does Michael cast the Dragon out of heaven? I'm not asking whether or not he did, I'm asking how he did. And what does it mean that Michael and his angels cast the Dragon and his angels out of heaven? Where is the heaven in which were the Dragon and his angels?

Click to expand...

Consider Job where Satan was able to stand before God and accuse him.

After Jesus went to the cross, He paid the sin debt of every believer. Jesus made a statement in John 12:31, 32:
31 Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

There's your insight to Revelation 12:7-9! That's what Jesus was saying in John 12:31, 32. Satan can no longer accuse the redeemed because Jesus is our Advocate and Mediator!

Revelation 12:10-13 is making the point:
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.
12 For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”

That's what it is...

BABerean2 said:

The judgment happens in one hour, not 7 years.

Joh 5:28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


Should we try to get scripture to line up with our eschatology, or try to get our eschatology to line up with scripture?
.

Click to expand...

YOu have really gone off the deep end this time. You state that Judgment comes in one hour, then quote a verse about resurrections - as if being resurrected is some kind of judgment!

You have quoted a nice verse, but this verse is a macro verse covering over a thousands years - even though it uses the word "hour." Why use a macro verse when we have MICRO verses in Revelation giving us minute details - telling us that the resurrection of the sinners will come a thousand years AFTER the resurrection of the just. Do you just not believe what John wrote in Revelation?

My question then, WHY DON"T YOU EVER QUOTE what John wrote in Revelation? Do you think it has less authority than your pet verse from John's gospel?

Rev20 said:

I believe you threw that same aspersion (common sense) against Danoh, to see if it would stick? Is that the "word of the week?"

Your implication that all the fresh water becomes blood is a classic example of throwing away all common sense!

Of course, as part of the defense of your interpretation, you throw in the false narrative of "the blood of the prophets," which, time and time again, you have demonstrated that you do not believe to be literal. If you believed that to be literal, you would also believe that first century Jerusalem was the Babylon the Great of the Revelation, because of "the blood of the prophets."

Literalism ... LOL!

Click to expand...

Since when were we talking about the blood of the prophets? However, to answer your question, remember what God said about Abel's blood crying out to God? It is my guess that the blood of the murdered will cry out until the murder is judged. So at the very end, the blood of the prophets will be found in Jerusalem.

Now, if you wish to spiritualize this, then tell us what you think it means.

ebedmelech said:

Consider Job where Satan was able to stand before God and accuse him.

After Jesus went to the cross, He paid the sin debt of every believer. Jesus made a statement in John 12:31, 32:
31 Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

There's your insight to Revelation 12:7-9! That's what Jesus was saying in John 12:31, 32. Satan can no longer accuse the redeemed because Jesus is our Advocate and Mediator!

Revelation 12:10-13 is making the point:
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.
12 For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”

That's what it is...

Click to expand...

John 12:31 is 2nd Advent - Literal - "not yet."

m423156 said:

How does Michael cast the Dragon out of heaven? I'm not asking whether or not he did, I'm asking how he did. And what does it mean that Michael and his angels cast the Dragon and his angels out of heaven? Where is the heaven in which were the Dragon and his angels?

Click to expand...

Consider these verses. The kingdom of heaven was a violent place:


. . . and was controlled by the Jewish leadership:


. . . who were children of Satan:



So, the kingdom of heaven, from the days of John the Baptist, was controlled by the violent Jewish leadership, who were also the children of Satan. But when Christ was resurrected, the kingdom went to him and his children; and that transfer occurred shortly after his resurrection, but before his ascension. We know this because Jesus ate and drank with his disciples in the kingdom of heaven.:






Therefore, Jesus ate with his disciples in the kingdom of God [kingdom of heaven,] after his resurrection, but before his ascension. And from that time forward, Jesus reigned over the heaven and the earth:


Now, Satan was not the least bit happy, because once Christ rose from the dead, the kingdom transferred from his (Satan's) children, to the children of God:



While he still had some power, he tried to destroy the heirs to the kingdom:


But, as soon as Satan's children were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem, he was powerless to prevent his imprisonment:



Satan was only bound--not destroyed--because, unfortunately for the world, not all of his children were destroyed at that time. They and their seed have caused misery and havoc until this day.

One other point: Jesus said that the kingdom of God would be taken from the Jewish leadership and given to a nation. I believe it to be the following nation, which were the earliest Christians:


The remnant of the children of Israel--the early Church--received that promise from the Lord for keeping the covenant, and hearing the words of Christ; in other words, for keeping the faith:


That is my interpretation.

iamlamad said:

Since when were we talking about the blood of the prophets? However, to answer your question, remember what God said about Abel's blood crying out to God? It is my guess that the blood of the murdered will cry out until the murder is judged. So at the very end, the blood of the prophets will be found in Jerusalem.

Now, if you wish to spiritualize this, then tell us what you think it means.

Click to expand...

Not that a mass body of water was never turned into blood before. Oh, wait, that too was "spiritual."

"And if they drink any deadly thing..."

Never mind...

iamlamad said:

Since when were we talking about the blood of the prophets?

Click to expand...

Not me, you! A few pages back I claimed that real water was not being turned to blood, because the symbolism for the water--the rivers and fountains of water--was the same that was used for the Holy Spirit in both the old and the new testaments. This is part of your reply:




You should at least keep track of what you write; otherwise the casual reader might think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

iamlamad said:

However, to answer your question, remember what God said about Abel's blood crying out to God? It is my guess that the blood of the murdered will cry out until the murder is judged. So at the very end, the blood of the prophets will be found in Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Are you claiming that Babylon the Great of the Revelation is Jerusalem?

BABerean2 said:

If we are under the Law of Moses for salvation, then we are all damned to hell.
Only Christ has ever kept the whole Law.

All of the commandments except the Sabbath are repeated in the New Testament. The two commandments of Christ contain nine of the ten commandments. Christ's First commandment contains the first four of the ten and Christ's Second commandment contains the last five of the ten.

Based on the verse from Colossians we are not to be judged in Sabbaths, meats, etc. Based on the New Testament, when the early Christians met for a meal, or worship it was normally on the first day of the week, however any day will be acceptable.

Are the Holy commandments of God still in effect? Absolutely, as a mirror to reveal our sin. However, our salvation only comes through what Christ did, not what I did or what I can do.

Why did I avoid the issue in the past?

Because I never know when you will use it to attack me, because we differ on eschatology.

That is exactly what you did today with your "helping the Jews" comment.

If we cannot agree on the need to spread the Gospel to all people, including the Jews, then we need to stop this conversation now.

.

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense - for I believe that "once in, ever in" Rom. 5; Eph. 1.

If you believe likewise than we are brothers in Christ regardless of your being off-base in your Eschatology.

You have yet to show how the Tribulation is not tied to the Law, for example.

Your entire Post-Trib basis stands or falls on that.

In this, you are, in a sense a form of Darby's Dispensationalism in an off-base sort of way.

For, while he was Post-Trib, then ended up Pre-Trib, he did not live long enough to refine his distinctions to where he no longer synthesized what belongs to Israel with what belongs to the Body to the extent that he still did when he went home to be with the Lord - hah, that'd be rich - he greets you at the Pearly gates, lol

Come on, BAB2, oy vay already - how's about a little levity...

Anyway, your fusion of Matthew 24 with Thessalonians is a kind of a Dispensationalism - off - but a kind of it - kind of like where some Dispys still fuse some Israel/Body Distinctions that do not go together.


In this, the Partials on here are just biting there tongue as to you, because you hold so much that is as off-base as theirs is. But believe me, were it not for us "Futurists" for you to gang up against with the Partials, you, my son, would be "the catch of the day."

Danoh said:

. . . I believe that "once in, ever in" Rom. 5; Eph. 1.

If you believe likewise than we are brothers in Christ regardless of your being off-base in your Eschatology.

Click to expand...

What if someone doesn't believe exactly like you do, Danoh?

Not to complicate the issue, but how do you interpret this passage?