Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

[DavidPT]

Show me where I said that Satan could not be detained somewhere such as the LOF. Good luck with that. But would he be detained somewhere with a literal chain that completely restricts his movement? No. That's my point. You're not recognizing the figurative language there.Scripture interprets Scripture, right?

Show me where I said you or anyone ever said that? I didn't say that you or anyone else ever said that. I was simply making a logical argument, that since satan can obviously be detained in the LOF, regardless that he is a spirit being, he can also be detained in the BP, regardless that he is a spirit being.

You're all over the place here. First, you're claiming that the bottomless pit is a literal place. But, then you switch gears and say that the locusts aren't literal and represent something like demons (or exactly like demons) and I agree with that. But, can you explain to me how non-literal locusts can be literally contained in a literal place? I don't believe that makes any sense. It's clear to me that it's all symbolic rather than a mix of literal and symbolic things. In the case of Revelation 9, the locusts are not literal and neither is the place where the locusts are bound.

Even if the bottomless pit was a literal place of some kind, then it certainly shouldn't be understood in the same sense that you'd understand a literal physical place that would contain literal physical locusts. It would be a spiritual place (since it's a place where Satan and demons are bound) which we should not assume is no different than a physical place that can physically contain physical creatures. .

I'm not all over the place here. That would be like saying, that because the white horse is not a literal horse in Revelation 19, nor is the sword coming out of His mouth is literal, then neither is the rider of the white horse literal, that it's meaning a literal person, Jesus in the case. Therefore, the pit can be literal, and that the locusts are also literal, just not literal locusts, but they are obviously something literal, and that it's not unreasonable that something literal can be detained in a literal place.


Let's get back to why I disagree that the beast ascends out of the pit after the thousand years. Scripture interprets Scripture, right? So, where are your Scriptures that tell us the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4--- which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands--that this does not involve the 2 beasts in Revelation 13 but involves a different beast at a different time? Where are your Scriptures that show, before the beast ascends out of the sea, and another out of the earth, that many are already being martyred because they had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands?


Revelation 20:4--- which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands


Here are my Scriptures.

which had not worshipped the beast. Which beast? Answer: And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast(Revelation 13:3)---and they worshipped the beast(Revelation 13:4)---And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth(Revelation 13:11)----And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed(Revelation 13:12).


neither his image. What image? Answer: And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth(Revelation 13:11)----And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him(Revelation 13:12)----And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men(Revelation 13:13)----And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live(Revelation 13:14)----And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed(Revelation 13:15)

neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. What mark? Answer: And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth(Revelation 13:11)----And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him(Revelation 13:12)----And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads(Revelation 13:16)---And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name(Revelation 13:17)

Unless you can show that the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands---are martyred after the thousand years during satan's little season, this obviously means that the beast does not ascend out of the pit after the thousand years. It has already ascended out of the pit and both Revelation 20:4 and Revelation 13 prove it. The same beast and false prophet recorded in Revelation 13 are the same beast and false prophet who are taken during the 2nd coming, then cast alive into the LOF. This means they have to be active at the time, and that they are obviously active, thus not in the pit at the time, when these saints in Revelation 20:4 are initially martyred---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands.

BTW, where does it ever say in Revelation that the beast is in the pit during the thousand years? I know it says that about satan, but satan and the beast aren't one and the same. Just because the beast ascends out of the pit that doesn't prove it is in the pit during the thousand years. Locusts are also in the pit, and that doesn't prove they are in it during the thousand years either. In Revelation 9 we see the pit being opened, yet not a single mention of satan being released at the time, nor the beast for that matter. IMO, Revelation 13:1 is meaning when the beast ascends out of the pit, not Revelation 9 nor Revelation 20.

Why is this so hard to accept? Is everything above just one coincidence after another, thus no actual connection with the saints martyred per Revelation 20:4 and that of the two beasts recorded in Revelation 13? If Revelation 13 doesn't explain their martyrdom, produce the Scriptures that do. Speculation doesn't count. Need to see some actual Scriptures.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Show me where I said you or anyone ever said that? I didn't say that you or anyone else ever said that. I was simply making a logical argument, that since satan can obviously be detained in the LOF, regardless that he is a spirit being, he can also be detained in the BP, regardless that he is a spirit being.

But, what you're not recognizing is that it's talking about a dragon being chained up in the bottomless pit, not Satan himself. The dragon figuratively represents Satan.

I'm not all over the place here. That would be like saying, that because the white horse is not a literal horse in Revelation 19, nor is the sword coming out of His mouth is literal, then neither is the rider of the white horse literal, that it's meaning a literal person, Jesus in the case. Therefore, the pit can be literal, and that the locusts are also literal, just not literal locusts, but they are obviously something literal, and that it's not unreasonable that something literal can be detained in a literal place.

You missed the point. Obviously, Jesus is real but what is described figuratively is His mode of transportation and His method of destruction. Similarly, Revelation 20 does reference Satan, but he is figuratively represented as a dragon bound by a chain in a bottomless pit/prison. So, we have to determine what a dragon being bound with a chain in a bottomless pit figuratively represents in reality. To assume that Satan has to be confined in the same way a dragon would be confined is not how symbolic text works.

Let's get back to why I disagree that the beast ascends out of the pit after the thousand years. Scripture interprets Scripture, right? So, where are your Scriptures that tell us the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4--- which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands--that this does not involve the 2 beasts in Revelation 13 but involves a different beast at a different time?

Why would I want to do that when that isn't what I'm claiming?

Where are your Scriptures that show, before the beast ascends out of the sea, and another out of the earth, that many are already being martyred because they had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands?

You are proving once again that you don't pay careful attention to what I say to you. I don't know if it's because of a lack of trying, that you don't have very good reading comprehension or if you just have a bad memory. Regardless, let me remind you yet again that my understanding of the beast ascending out of the sea is not the same as yours. I've told you several times before that I don't see the beast ascending out of the sea to be representing the beast ascending out of the bottomless pit. And I don't interpret the 42 months the way you do and so on. How do you forget these things? You end up wasting so much time making straw man arguments because you can't remember what I believe for whatever reason.

BTW, where does it ever say in Revelation that the beast is in the pit during the thousand years?

Where does it say the beast isn't in the pit during the thousand years? Sometimes we need to use deduction when things aren't explicitly spelled out to us. And, of course, spiritual discernment. You agree we need that to interpret the book of Revelation correctly, don't you?

I know it says that about satan, but satan and the beast aren't one and the same.

Is there anything Satan can't do without the beast's help? If there is then it only follows that the beast being restrained results in Satan being restrained as well as I believe. If there isn't then why does Satan ever need the beast for anything? That's the question you need to answer.

Just because the beast ascends out of the pit that doesn't prove it is in the pit during the thousand years. Locusts are also in the pit, and that doesn't prove they are in it during the thousand years either. In Revelation 9 we see the pit being opened, yet not a single mention of satan being released at the time, nor the beast for that matter. IMO, Revelation 13:1 is meaning when the beast ascends out of the pit, not Revelation 9 nor Revelation 20.

Are you planning to ever show me why the beast would be in the pit, but not Satan? That means you believe Satan doesn't need the beast. What is it that you think Satan can't do without the beast? There isn't anything, right? That makes no sense. That makes the beast out to be a pointless and useless entity that Satan has no use for even though Revelation 13 paints a different picture than that.

Why is this so hard to accept? Is everything above just one coincidence after another, thus no actual connection with the saints martyred per Revelation 20:4 and that of the two beasts recorded in Revelation 13?

Show me when I ever said that there's no connection there. How much time did you spend making this straw man argument? You can't get that time back.

If Revelation 13 doesn't explain their martyrdom, produce the Scriptures that do. Speculation doesn't count. Need to see some actual Scriptures.

David, do you even read my posts? I'm becoming convinced that you either read them and immediately forget everything I've said or you just skim over them without reading them carefully. I'd love to know how much time you've wasted making straw man arguments over the years. It would probably be shocking if there was some way to find that out.

By the way, you asked for links to the posts where you misrepresented Amil and I provided those to you. But, you haven't responded about that. Why not?