The Devil has been shut out of Heaven; the End is in sight

[ewq1938]

Your error is in thinking that I stated that Jesus would be born again. I was making the point that you were saying that he would be by stating that "the child" (Rev.12:5) is Christ.

There is no being born twice in the passage or in anything I said so the concept comes from you and as I said before, it is wrong. Rev 12 shows Christ being born once and ascending once.

 

[DavidPT]

Then how is it that you have him being born into the world again in Rev.12:5, then ascending into heaven again?

EWQ is not saying any of these things in verse 5 happen twice. You are misunderstanding something somewhere along the lines.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

We have to keep in mind, a lot of times verses are compressed. Therefore verse 5 covers numerous years over all. It starts with Christ's birth and ends with His ascension into heaven 30 some years later.

 

[ewq1938]

EWQ is not saying any of these things in verse 5 happen twice. You are misunderstanding something somewhere along the lines.

Thanks. The gospels all speak of the birth of Christ but no one thinks that equals multiple births. Rev 12:5 is simply a repeat of Christ's birth...a historical event.

 

[fwGod]

There is no being born twice in the passage or in anything I said so the concept comes from you and as I said before, it is wrong. Rev 12 shows Christ being born once and ascending once.

When you use Rev.12 to say that it is speaking of Christ, you are therefore saying that He was the child born and ascended during the Tribulation.

But the Gospels and Acts say differently.

 

[fwGod]

When you use Rev.12 to say that it is speaking of Christ, you are therefore saying that He was the child born and ascended during the Tribulation.

But the Gospels and Acts say differently. Your 'when' is mixed up and therefore misidentifying the real child.

 

[ewq1938]

When you use Rev.12 to say that it is speaking of Christ, you are therefore saying that He was the child born and ascended during the Tribulation.

The trib begins after the last verse of Rev 12:

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[fwGod]

EWQ is not saying any of these things in verse 5 happen twice. You are misunderstanding something somewhere along the lines.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

We have to keep in mind, a lot of times verses are compressed. Therefore verse 5 covers numerous years over all. It starts with Christ's birth and ends with His ascension into heaven 30 some years later.

I am not convinced by that explanation. It does not agree with the closely consulted texts.
The notion that it's a compression is a weak theological explanation that I've frankly never heard of by any reputable prophecy End Times Bible scholar so it must be a local church teaching. That would cause me to put it into the category of what Peter called a private interpretation.

The theory masquerades as an erroneous guess that assumes the description of the text that isn't expressed by the record of John.

The text shows that the woman is Israel on the earth during the Tribulation, not Mary. The notion that the child is Christ Jesus is a Christian theological insert that doesn't belong there.

With Jesus already in heaven since He ascended as recorded in the Gospels and Acts.. it would be superfluous to bring recollection that Jesus was born and ascended roughly 2000 years ago.

Another thing, has everyone forgotten what Jesus said in Revelation to one of the seven churches.. that they will rule with a rod of iron?
It's clear from that that the phrase does not exclusively belong to Jesus.

Because the woman represents a large number of people, the Jews. To be consistent with that reading, the man child also represents a large group of people, the Jews... who all live on the earth during the Tribulation.

And they get caught up to God near to or exactly the same time that the Jewish two witnesses are also caught up to heaven.

 

[fwGod]

I am not convinced by that explanation. It does not agree with the closely consulted texts.
The notion that it's a compression is a weak theological explanation that I've frankly never heard of by any reputable prophecy End Times Bible scholar so it must be a local church teaching. That would cause me to put it into the category of what Peter called a private interpretation.

The theory masquerades as an erroneous guess that assumes the description of the text that isn't expressed by the record of John.

The text shows that the woman is Israel on the earth during the Tribulation, not Mary. The notion that the child is Christ Jesus is a Christian theological insert that doesn't belong there.

With Jesus already in heaven since He ascended as recorded in the Gospels and Acts.. it would be superfluous to bring recollection that Jesus was born and ascended roughly 2000 years ago.

Another thing, has everyone forgotten what Jesus said in Revelation to one of the seven churches.. that they will rule with a rod of iron?
It's clear from that that the phrase does not exclusively belong to Jesus.

Because the woman represents a large number of people, the Jews. To be consistent with that reading, the man child also represents a large group of people, the Jews... who all live on the earth during the Tribulation. They are the numbered 144000 who are sealed by God. As the scripture somewhere in Ephesians if I'm not mistaken, states that those saved are sealed.

And they get caught up to God near to or exactly the same time that the Jewish two witnesses are also caught up to heaven.

 

[fwGod]

-

 

[ewq1938]

Because the woman represents a large number of people, the Jews. To be consistent with that reading, the man child also represents a large group of people, the Jews...

So the Jews give birth to the Jews. What did you say about "a weak theological explanation that I've frankly never heard of by any reputable prophecy End Times Bible scholar"?

Obviously the Woman is not her own Son. Obviously not.

 

[fwGod]

So the Jews give birth to the Jews.

That usually does happen since Abraham, yes. All Jews are His descendants. There are genealogical records in the Bible to prove that it's true.

Each seed produces after it's own kind.

What did you say about "a weak theological explanation that I've frankly never heard of by any reputable prophecy End Times Bible scholar"?

I find it very hard to fathom that you don't believe that Jews give birth to Jews.

Obviously the Woman is not her own Son. Obviously not.

If you truly think that is what I said then it reveals why you have trouble picking up on what the text of the Bible conveys. It's because you are constantly coming up with your own interpretations.

 

[ewq1938]

That usually does happen since Abraham, yes. All Jews are His descendants.

Abraham lived before any of the first Jews. Jacob was the first Jew or Israelite and his sons were the origins of the 12 tribes.

The woman in Rev 12 is not Jews giving birth to other Jews. It is obviously the birth of Christ from his mother whether literal or a symbolic mother.

 

[DavidPT]

I am not convinced by that explanation. It does not agree with the closely consulted texts.
The notion that it's a compression is a weak theological explanation that I've frankly never heard of by any reputable prophecy End Times Bible scholar so it must be a local church teaching. That would cause me to put it into the category of what Peter called a private interpretation.

First of all I am not affiliated with any church, period. I use what you might call, common sense. To think some verses can't be compressed is ludicrous. Prove that the following passage is not compressed, as an example. BTW, I can find plenty more examples of compressed verses. Why bother on my part though? If the following fails to convince you of this concept, you're beyond reasoning with then.

Genesis 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Is one to believe that as soon as Abel was born, he was then already tending sheep before he could even speak or walk? Is one to believe the same of Cain, that when he was born he was already tilling the ground before he could even speak or walk? If Genesis 4:2 is not a perfect example of a verse being compressed, then I guess that makes my interpretation of this verse a private interpretation as well, according to your line of thinking.

 

[fwGod]

The editing function is glitchy so in order for your quoted post to show up I had to remove the linked portion arrow.

First of all I am not affiliated with any church, period. I use what you might call, common sense.

If you consider that common sense is more reliable than proper exegesis, then I point you to a few scriptures.

Prov.3:5-6 Lean not to your own understanding but trust in the Lord with all your heart.
Your common sense is your own understanding. But we are to be relying on the Spirit of Truth to lead and guide us into all the Truth (Jn.16:13).
We are to be submitting our thoughts, our reasonings unto God that He teach us to think His thoughts (Isa.55:8) and know His ways and plans for the path of life for mankind. In the process our minds are renewed (Rm.12:2), our soul prospers (3 Jn.1:2).

To think some verses can't be compressed is ludicrous.

To think that any can, is thinking according to one's own understanding based on accepting the unorthodox practice of text compression done by whoever you heard the Rev.verse or chapter explained. Not knowing any better, you perpetuate the erroneous practice and attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Prove that the following passage is not compressed, as an example.

I give my effort below. Although I'm not going to hold my breath that you would accept it as sufficient.

BTW, I can find plenty more examples of compressed verses.

No proof is no case.

Why bother on my part though? If the following fails to convince you of this concept, you're beyond reasoning with then.

By what reasoning, common sense?

Your reasoning as to why you won't bother, is an easy way to get out of coming up with many non existent scriptures or ones that are equally misread as text compression-able (if that's understandable) to prove your point.

Genesis 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Is one to believe that as soon as Abel was born, he was then already tending sheep before he could even speak or walk? Is one to believe the same of Cain, that when he was born he was already tilling the ground before he could even speak or walk?

If Genesis 4:2 is not a perfect example of a verse being compressed, then I guess that makes my interpretation of this verse a private interpretation as well, according to your line of thinking.

Neatly avoiding the Truth that your common sense rejects.

Interesting that you discredit what you deem to be my common sense method while you favor your own common sense as correct. The scriptures I've supplied show that you are using your own understanding.. while I have examined the pertinent texts with orthodox methods of interpretation as well as compared my findings with reputable Bible teachers & preachers.

When you go it alone, you can easily and quickly be lost.

Your text example does not require any compression in order to understand what it's saying. Since you think that it does require it, then I'm confident that any other scripture you would take the time to submit for examination wouldn't actually be a compression-able text either.

The Rev text is prophetic, your example isn't. Another reason is that the OT text doesn't involve comparison with other verses elsewhere in the Bible in order to impose a different identity to those characters in the OT text.

The attempt to make the OT a similar example would indicate a lack of proper training in Biblical hermeneutics and other appropriate methods.

I would if I could offer a text example of "compression" but none have been written so that anyone would have to use a method of interpretation that the author of the pertinent text never indicated that text compression method would be required to interpret it.

But for your own exaltation of your common sense, you find the practice of text compression to be appropriate, then there should be somewhere the historical existence of "text compression" as a common Christendom-wide acceptable method of interpreting scripture.. mingled with all of the others such as hermaneutics, exegetics, etc.. etc.

There is none, yet some Christians are applying the non existent method to just one verse(s) in the Rev text.. and no other verses in the entire Bible.

I would think that would indicate an error in interpretation concerning that particular verse, that leads to further misreading, misidentifying of all pertinent others of the Rev chapter, if not other verses elsewhere.

 

[DavidPT]

The editing function is glitchy so in order for your quoted post to show up I had to remove the linked portion arrow.
If you consider that common sense is more reliable than proper exegesis, then I point you to a few scriptures.

Prov.3:5-6 Lean not to your own understanding but trust in the Lord with all your heart.
Your common sense is your own understanding. But we are to be relying on the Spirit of Truth to lead and guide us into all the Truth (Jn.16:13).
We are to be submitting our thoughts, our reasonings unto God that He teach us to think His thoughts (Isa.55:8) and know His ways and plans for the path of life for mankind. In the process our minds are renewed (Rm.12:2), our soul prospers (3 Jn.1:2).
To think that any can, is thinking according to one's own understanding based on accepting the unorthodox practice of text compression done by whoever you heard the Rev.verse or chapter explained. Not knowing any better, you perpetuate the erroneous practice and attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
I give my effort below. Although I'm not going to hold my breath that you would accept it as sufficient.
No proof is no case.
By what reasoning, common sense?

Your reasoning as to why you won't bother, is an easy way to get out of coming up with many non existent scriptures or ones that are equally misread as text compression-able (if that's understandable) to prove your point.

Neatly avoiding the Truth that your common sense rejects.

Interesting that you discredit what you deem to be my common sense method while you favor your own common sense as correct. The scriptures I've supplied show that you are using your own understanding.. while I have examined the pertinent texts with orthodox methods of interpretation as well as compared my findings with reputable Bible teachers & preachers.

When you go it alone, you can easily and quickly be lost.

Your text example does not require any compression in order to understand what it's saying. Since you think that it does require it, then I'm confident that any other scripture you would take the time to submit for examination wouldn't actually be a compression-able text either.

The Rev text is prophetic, your example isn't. Another reason is that the OT text doesn't involve comparison with other verses elsewhere in the Bible in order to impose a different identity to those characters in the OT text.

The attempt to make the OT a similar example would indicate a lack of proper training in Biblical hermeneutics and other appropriate methods.

I would if I could offer a text example of "compression" but none have been written so that anyone would have to use a method of interpretation that the author of the pertinent text never indicated that text compression method would be required to interpret it.

But for your own exaltation of your common sense, you find the practice of text compression to be appropriate, then there should be somewhere the historical existence of "text compression" as a common Christendom-wide acceptable method of interpreting scripture.. mingled with all of the others such as hermaneutics, exegetics, etc.. etc.

There is none, yet some Christians are applying the non existent method to just one verse(s) in the Rev text.. and no other verses in the entire Bible.

I would think that would indicate an error in interpretation concerning that particular verse, that leads to further misreading, misidentifying of all pertinent others of the Rev chapter, if not other verses elsewhere.

Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.


Actually my argument should have included some of verse 4. My bad. Something like this---and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Clearly this involves numerous years from the birth of her child until this same child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

I define that as compression. Maybe we are just not understanding the term 'compression' the same? Or maybe I'm using the wrong term to describe what I'm meaning? Regardless which it might be, what I have quoted from verse 4 above, plus all of verse 5, that spans numerous years. The timing of these events are meaning in the first century. They are meaning before the time of the war in heaven. After the war in heaven it is then a new era of time. It is not until verse 17, this part---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ---that we are even in the time of the Great Trib as of yet.

No way can Revelation 12:4-5 be meaning during the time of what I quoted from Revelation 12:17.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Revelation 13:7And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

What I have underlined are all speaking of the same events, the same period of time, that being the great trib in this case.

 

[Gottservant]

The thing is: whether we agree on the exact timing or not, the Devil will definitely be shut out of Heaven,, if he has not been already.

That was basically my point.

The warning then is clear: once the Devil reaches Earth, watch out!

 

[Gottservant]

In addition to the Devil being cast out, we also have this prophecy "You shall not see Me again, until you say 'blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord'". The Devil is shut out, but the time will come when he is allowed back in: but this will not be, until everyone else is delivered either into the New Earth or the New Heaven.

In this way, we come to see the work of God as that which shapes our faith - in relation to what He allows and what He permits. The Devil is just one tool, in God's toolbox, for creating an effect of faith, that others can live by. It is the one that this means least to, that is the biggest problem.

The answer however, is not to condemn, but to continue to trust the scriptures - for in them we gain confidence that God hears us, whether we are on Earth or in Heaven. We must watch out that we do not confuse the old or the new, as they apply to Heaven and Heaven for Earth, but we must nevertheless have confidence that the Devil's accusations will not last.

This is the joy of knowing the war has been won, not just for us but for the Holy Spirit, also.

 

[ewq1938]

The Devil is shut out, but the time will come when he is allowed back in:

No, that will not be allowed.

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

 

[Gottservant]

No, that will not be allowed.

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

Meaning "neither was place found any more in heaven at that time".

The assurance is that the Devil won't see the point in staying, because everyone else will be gone.

Well so, if the Devil loses sight of heaven, that will fulfil scripture that says the child will be able to reach in to the serpent's den - because he will give up his venom and the child will have nothing to fear.

 

[ewq1938]

Meaning "neither was place found any more in heaven at that time".

No, that is not what it means. It means what it says. You are adding the limitation.

The assurance is that the Devil won't see the point in staying, because everyone else will be gone.

That is also wrong. The devil has no choice in this matter. He is cast out of heaven forever and will never return and cannot. His place will be the Earth, then the pit, and one short time on the Earth again before the lake of fire.