Futurist Only Why Futurism?

[Timtofly]

Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that Satan is indeed bound in some sense. What exactly to you think the scripture means when it says that Satan is bound?
I also don't know what you mean by the binding of Satan being physical since he isn't really a physical being per se. Why should we take the binding of Satan in Revelation to be literal? The book of Revelation is clearly full of symbolism and vivid imagery that should not be interpreted literally, so why should this be an exception?

Are you saying that angels are not physical? Gabriel and Michael two named angels are not literally physical? The two angels if other than Gabriel and Michael, did not literally knock on Lot's door and physically enter Lot's house, before escorting Lot out of Sodom?

Should we not take the first coming as Jesus literally being on earth in a physical body, because of all the figurative prophecies in the OT? The binding in the Gospels was figurative and spiritual. Satan was not physically hindered. In Revelation 20, whether or not the physical key and chain exist, the pit that was opened in the 5th Trumpet will be sealed back shut with Satan in the pit this time. Satan will be physically hindered to escape the pit physically.

Sin and the knowledge of good and evil blinded humanity from seeing the spiritual. But the spiritual is equally as physical as the physical, because God created both as a single existence. There is no difference from a creation standpoint. The difference is that our senses our totally lacking the ability to interact with the spiritual.

 

[BuildingApologetics]

Are you saying that angels are not physical? Gabriel and Michael two named angels are not literally physical? The two angels if other than Gabriel and Michael, did not literally knock on Lot's door and physically enter Lot's house, before escorting Lot out of Sodom?

I actually worded my statement very carefully to include the possibility of manifesting a physical form, because I was keenly aware for the passages you brought up. This is precisely why I added the words "per se". In other words, I'm arguing that Satan is not a physical being intrinsically. Rather he is a spiritual being who can manifest a physical form. For this reason, any chains on Satan must be spiritual chains. Iron bars aren't going to stop him.

Should we not take the first coming as Jesus literally being on earth in a physical body, because of all the figurative prophecies in the OT?

No, we should take Him as coming literally. I don't understand the point you are making.

The binding in the Gospels was figurative and spiritual. Satan was not physically hindered. In Revelation 20, whether or not the physical key and chain exist, the pit that was opened in the 5th Trumpet will be sealed back shut with Satan in the pit this time. Satan will be physically hindered to escape the pit physically.

This still doesn't answer my question. What do you believe Gospel account means by Satan being bound? Yes, it is figurative. But metaphors represent something. What do you think it means?
How can you admit that the key and chain may not actually physically exist but insist on the pit being literal and physical? What interpretive method leads you to this conclusion?
My point was also that this entire account isn't even literal at all, so the question of physicality is mute.

Sin and the knowledge of good and evil blinded humanity from seeing the spiritual. But the spiritual is equally as physical as the physical, because God created both as a single existence. There is no difference from a creation standpoint. The difference is that our senses our totally lacking the ability to interact with the spiritual.

That is a contradiction in terms. Spiritual is not physical by definition. There is a clear difference between these two.
Luke 24:39: See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
If our senses have an inability to interact with the spiritual, then there is an ontological difference.

Lastly, I will repeat my main objection, since you didn't address it as far as I could tell:
The book of Revelation is clearly full of symbolism and vivid imagery that should not be interpreted literally, so why should this be an exception?

 

[Jamdoc]

Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that Satan is indeed bound in some sense. What exactly to you think the scripture means when it says that Satan is bound?
I also don't know what you mean by the binding of Satan being physical since he isn't really a physical being per se. Why should we take the binding of Satan in Revelation to be literal? The book of Revelation is clearly full of symbolism and vivid imagery that should not be interpreted literally, so why should this be an exception?

If the Amillennialists are right and that this current age is Satan being "bound" and "deceiving the nations no more" then I am terribly disappointed in the seemingly impotent God that has "bound" him as Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and has Satan's fingerprints all over it, it is one of the largest deceptions ever conceived by Satan and it began within the first millennium after Pentecost.

That makes Satan sound very powerful if God's "binding" him doesn't even make him miss a beat and makes God sound weak and ineffective, and a purveyor of hyperbole. A god that talks big but doesn't deliver.

The binding being in the future.. I trust in my omnipotent God that Satan won't be able to influence the world in any way for 1000 years.

 

[Timtofly]

My point was also that this entire account isn't even literal at all, so the question of physicality is mute.

The account is literal. The words used are figurative. That is the ontological difference between spirt and flesh. The difference between spiritual and physical is that the spiritual is wrapped around the physical. We cannot see the outer spiritual shell, making it seem like a totally different phenomenon. All that is spiritual is still physical in created reality.

As for something that is spiritual to phase in and out of the physical is based on tradition. If one thinks that Satan can phase out of the physical and escape the pit, he cannot. How physics would explain that is not the point. Physics is limited to the physical, and only 50% of the picture. The pit is a literal opening going down into the earth to whatever is under the earth. Satan will be confined in a literal place.

If the first coming was literal, what makes the Second Coming not literal? The Holy Spirit was the spiritual second coming. It was physical and spiritual because it gave authority in both the physical and spiritual aspects of life. Revelation is not about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Being figurative in writing is physical but a metaphorical type of physicality. Words on a page are still physical phenomenon. Figurative words can still describe literal events with figurative words giving metaphorical mind pictures. Such pictures do not make what happens in the physical any less real.

Preterist cannot use those words in Revelation either with that application for their literal events if that were the case. Revelation would literally be about nothing.

 

[BuildingApologetics]

The account is literal. The words used are figurative. That is the ontological difference between spirt and flesh. The difference between spiritual and physical is that the spiritual is wrapped around the physical. We cannot see the outer spiritual shell, making it seem like a totally different phenomenon. All that is spiritual is still physical in created reality.

As for something that is spiritual to phase in and out of the physical is based on tradition. If one thinks that Satan can phase out of the physical and escape the pit, he cannot. How physics would explain that is not the point. Physics is limited to the physical, and only 50% of the picture. The pit is a literal opening going down into the earth to whatever is under the earth. Satan will be confined in a literal place.

If the first coming was literal, what makes the Second Coming not literal? The Holy Spirit was the spiritual second coming. It was physical and spiritual because it gave authority in both the physical and spiritual aspects of life. Revelation is not about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Being figurative in writing is physical but a metaphorical type of physicality. Words on a page are still physical phenomenon. Figurative words can still describe literal events with figurative words giving metaphorical mind pictures. Such pictures do not make what happens in the physical any less real.

Preterist cannot use those words in Revelation either with that application for their literal events if that were the case. Revelation would literally be about nothing.

I'm going to go ahead and move on from the physical vs spiritual argument, since I've said what I want, and it is at best a tangential issue.

The Real issue is whether or not the binding is literal. I am not a preterist, so I don't know why you are trying to prove a futurist second coming to me. I also agree that symbols portray literal events. For example, the binding of Satan in the pit is not literal, but he literally does not have the power to wipe out the gospel or the church now. I agree that pictures to not make the realities any less real. Satan is literally unable to destroy the church, and that is a real reality.

If you are going to demonstrate that the bind/shutting of Satan should be taken as literal, then you need some sort of evidence to back up that claim.

Also, for the third time, I will repeat my questions since you keep ignoring them:
The book of Revelation is clearly full of symbolism and vivid imagery that should not be interpreted literally, so why should this be an exception?
What do you believe Gospel account means by Satan being bound? Yes, it is figurative. But metaphors represent something. What do you think it means?

 

[BuildingApologetics]

If the Amillennialists are right and that this current age is Satan being "bound" and "deceiving the nations no more" then I am terribly disappointed in the seemingly impotent God that has "bound" him as Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and has Satan's fingerprints all over it, it is one of the largest deceptions ever conceived by Satan and it began within the first millennium after Pentecost.

That makes Satan sound very powerful if God's "binding" him doesn't even make him miss a beat and makes God sound weak and ineffective, and a purveyor of hyperbole. A god that talks big but doesn't deliver.

The binding being in the future.. I trust in my omnipotent God that Satan won't be able to influence the world in any way for 1000 years.

I can see where you are coming from. It certainly looks like at least some of the nations are being deceived by Satan, so where do we get the idea that he is bound?
First, I want to address the argument that God is somehow weak if he gives Satan a long leash. This seems like just as poor reasoning as Calvinists who argue that God is weak if He allows for human freedom. The fact that the leash is long doesn't mean God is impotent. It would be one thing if God were trying as hard as He could to restrain Satan, but this is the best He could do. But no Amillennialist believes this, so it isn't really an argument against my position.

So then back to the main question. How can we say Satan is bound? I think the answer is by looking at the text and observing what happens when Satan is bound versus when Satan is unbound. By doing this, we can determine if he is bound or unbound currently. When he is bound, he clearly can't deceive the nations. Yet, when he is finally released, he deceives the nations, and we get a picture of what this looks like. It looks like Satan gathering ALL of the nations and marching up the broad plain of the earth (plain of Armageddon), and surrounding the camp of the saints in Jerusalem. The fact that he has them surrounded before fire comes down and consumes his armies tells us that he is on the verge of wiping out the saints. Also, the name God is the ancient name for the Antichrist in prophecy.

So we know Satan is bound because otherwise, the church would be on its knees, about to be wiped off of the face of the map. That is what occurs when Satan is unbound. So clearly we are not in that state of affairs yet.

Also, a note regarding Islam. I consider it to be the nature of the End Times Beast Empire. I believe Gog/antichrist will indeed be a Muslim.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

As I've mentioned in other posts, I'm still learning about eschatology in late middle age of my life, but for me, its simple. A futurist view of eschatology requires the least amount of assumptions and the least amount of taking Scripture in Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, in Paul's Epistles of Corinthians and Thessalonians, and in the book of Revelation as symbolic. According to my understanding of Occam's razor's principle, the solution with the least amount of assumptions tends to be the right one, so Futurism seems to follow that principle more so than other views of eschatology, but again I'm a mere human being and student of all this wonderful stuff. As Job said, I am nothing, I spoke of things I did not understand and I sit here in my ashes and repent in the wonder of it all, realizing that I as a limited sinful human that I cannot possibly have even a mere quadrillionth of a quadrillions of a quandrillion of a quandrillion of the wisdom and knowledge of our eternal omnipresent and omnipotent creator of the entire universe, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. To really KNOW the truth of all of eschatology is about like my pet cat understanding calculus and quantum physiscs. I could teach my cat that stuff (assuming I understood it as i used to) for thousands of years and yet unless God gives my cat more brain power than he has now, he will never understand the lessons no matter how I easy i lay them out. Sometimes we have to realize we are like my cat compared to the Lord of the universe.

 

[Jamdoc]

I can see where you are coming from. It certainly looks like at least some of the nations are being deceived by Satan, so where do we get the idea that he is bound?
First, I want to address the argument that God is somehow weak if he gives Satan a long leash. This seems like just as poor reasoning as Calvinists who argue that God is weak if He allows for human freedom. The fact that the leash is long doesn't mean God is impotent. It would be one thing if God were trying as hard as He could to restrain Satan, but this is the best He could do. But no Amillennialist believes this, so it isn't really an argument against my position.

So then back to the main question. How can we say Satan is bound? I think the answer is by looking at the text and observing what happens when Satan is bound versus when Satan is unbound. By doing this, we can determine if he is bound or unbound currently. When he is bound, he clearly can't deceive the nations. Yet, when he is finally released, he deceives the nations, and we get a picture of what this looks like. It looks like Satan gathering ALL of the nations and marching up the broad plain of the earth (plain of Armageddon), and surrounding the camp of the saints in Jerusalem. The fact that he has them surrounded before fire comes down and consumes his armies tells us that he is on the verge of wiping out the saints. Also, the name God is the ancient name for the Antichrist in prophecy.

So we know Satan is bound because otherwise, the church would be on its knees, about to be wiped off of the face of the map. That is what occurs when Satan is unbound. So clearly we are not in that state of affairs yet.

Also, a note regarding Islam. I consider it to be the nature of the End Times Beast Empire. I believe Gog/antichrist will indeed be a Muslim.

The language is "deceive the nations no more" not "deceive the nations less, enough that the gospel can be preached"
Amillennialists glorify the mundane. and make all the prophecy into hyperbole.

 

[thomas15]

Futurist...because the details of Scripture matter.

The New Covenant that Jesus referred to in the Upper Room is a covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Jacob--Jeremiah ch 31. This has not happened yet.

Ezekiel ch 34-36 speaks of a time when Israel and Judah will be one in the land. This has not happened yet.

Daniel ch 2 speaks of a time when the Kingdom of God will smash those made by man and replace it with one that is everlasting. This has not happened yet as the kingdoms of man are still in existence.

On and on...

 

[Marilyn C]

Why do you believe in Futurism? What was the most convincing argument for the Futurist perspective?

Please, do not write something glib like, "cause the Bible says so!"

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Hi JM,

Yes I would love to share why I believe that God is unfolding His purposes in our day and in the future. As all scripture is centered in Christ then we know there is more to come.

Remember when the Lord rose from the dead and talked to some of His disciples, He opened up the scriptures to them concerning Himself.

`"O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in ALL the scriptures the things concerning Himself.` (Luke 24: 27)

And we know that the Lord ascended and is seated at the right hand of the Father. And it is from there that the Father has great delight in revealing His Son to us, the glorified Son of God. That is what the book of Revelation is all about - the revealing of the Lord as He is known in the heavenly realms.

I will post the overview of Revelation concerning the Lord, next. If you want more detail then look at my blog area for I have written in detail the book of Revelation.

regards, Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

OVERVIEW: The Four Visions.


The predominant aim of Revelation is the setting forth the splendours of the Son of Man, & to reveal His glorious person. There are four visions of the Son of Man as He is known in the heavenly realm & each vision in turn carries through to completion one aspect of the fourfold ministry of Christ which He exercised when on earth. His Kinship was expressed in Matthew, His Heirship in Mark, His Mediatorship in Luke, & His Judgeship in John.

Vision 1. CHRIST - Head of the Body. (Rev. 1 – 3)

This reveals the empowered Son of Man as the Sovereign Administrator.

`in His right hand He held 7 stars.`



Vision 2. CHRIST - HEIR (Rev. 4 – 7)

This reveals the enthroned Son of Man as the Supreme Executor.

`in His right hand He held the 7 sealed book.`



Vision 3. CHRIST - MEDIATOR (Rev. 8 – 13)

This reveals the exalted Son of Man as the Stately Mediator.

`in His hand is a sacred censor.`



Vision 4. CHRIST - JUDGE (Rev. 14 – 22)

This reveals the entitled Son of Man as the Sublime Adjudicator.

`in His hand is a sharp sickle.`


To reveal Christ to us in Revelation, there are three hundred & thirty references to the figures, shadows, symbols, types, patterns, persons, & buildings of the Old Testament.


This unveiling is the culmination of all the truths expressed from Genesis to Revelation, for all scripture is centered on one purpose and that is to reveal Christ to us in all His Glory.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm going to go ahead and move on from the physical vs spiritual argument, since I've said what I want, and it is at best a tangential issue.

The Real issue is whether or not the binding is literal. I am not a preterist, so I don't know why you are trying to prove a futurist second coming to me. I also agree that symbols portray literal events. For example, the binding of Satan in the pit is not literal, but he literally does not have the power to wipe out the gospel or the church now. I agree that pictures to not make the realities any less real. Satan is literally unable to destroy the church, and that is a real reality.

If you are going to demonstrate that the bind/shutting of Satan should be taken as literal, then you need some sort of evidence to back up that claim.

Also, for the third time, I will repeat my questions since you keep ignoring them:
The book of Revelation is clearly full of symbolism and vivid imagery that should not be interpreted literally, so why should this be an exception?
What do you believe Gospel account means by Satan being bound? Yes, it is figurative. But metaphors represent something. What do you think it means?

Revelation is not one of the Gospels. Why should the account; future, yet to happen, be analogous to the binding in the Gospels?

Revelation is different than any other time in History. For one, Satan is walking around as Satan, not disguised as a serpent like in the Garden of Eden. Satan has been known by a few people since 500BC. Hiding behind the scenes. Paul called Satan the man of lawlessness. 2 Thessalonians 2. Satan does not want the world to know he literally exists. Then they would understand that God literally exists.

Secondly, Revelation is about Jesus Christ walking around on earth again. Jesus had a 3.5 year ministry in the first century. There will be the rest of His time on earth. That is not figurative, and spiritual. Jesus claims He will return in the Olivet Discourse. The whole world will no longer be spiritually blind. That happens at the 6th Seal. That happens before the Trumpets. Because Jesus brings the angels and the Trump of God to earth. That is not some metaphor. The birth of Jesus was physical and was not a metaphor. The Second Coming is physical and not a metaphor. The binding of Satan is physical and not a metaphor.

That the binding of Satan happens at Armageddon or the end of the 7th Trumpet, is not a figurative notion. It is the real deal, because all will know God and Satan do physically exist in Creation. In the Gospels and the majority of the NT there is a spiritual battle presented which is literal as well. Not many fight spiritually today, because the cares of this life has turned reality into words on a page. Many books on the topic, but way more books than action. Many have been involved and it is just as physically exhausting as a physical workout or job. The binding of Satan in the pit is literal, because Satan is going to be physically removed from earth, and heaven. Satan is literally fired! Out of a job. And no one to replace him either.

Q: The book of Revelation is clearly full of symbolism and vivid imagery that should not be interpreted literally, so why should this be an exception?

There is nothing figurative in the following:

"Next I saw an angel coming down from heaven, who had the key to the Abyss and a great chain in his hand. He seized Satan [the Adversary], and chained him up for a thousand years."

John saw a literal angel coming down literally from the literal heaven. In chapter 9 the same literal key, literally opened the shaft. Now the shaft was literally closed and locked back up. Jude 1:6

6 And the angels that did not keep within their original authority, but abandoned their proper sphere, he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for the Judgment of the Great Day.

Revelation 9 is that day of judgment when the pit is opened. Now in Revelation Satan is literally placed where the angels had been for thousands of years. The third of the angels who followed Satan were literally in the same pit. They could not leave, and now, neither will Satan for the last 1000 years of current creation.

So are 1/3rd of created angels figurative? Is the pit of darkness they were in figurative? Is Satan figurative never getting this figurative group of angels to follow him? Do physical angels need physical chains to keep them in a physical pit, where eventually only Satan will be chained up? Is not the earth literal either?

Q: What do you believe the Gospel account means by Satan being bound?

Not physical, but spiritual warfare.


Christ coming to earth put the Lord God front and center in Israel to a rebellious spiritual leadership. God is going to do the same thing very soon. Jesus Christ will be on earth to finish the 70th week of Daniel 9.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Back in high school before I got saved I went one night with most members of our high school football team to mess with some Satan worshipers who other classmates of ours had been unfortunate enough to go thru their iron gates and got locked inside until morning. Our classmates never left their car (or so they told us) while these Satan worshipers sacrified animals and thru the heads on their hood and marched around them with torches of fire and chanted all night. So the football team led by some idiot planned to enact revenge, and the rest of us followed to just watch from a distance. I was driving so had no plan to dare cross their gates. Fortunately, a storm came up and disoriented us so we never found them, but we were at a convenience store getting stuff later that night and they told us we better be glad we didn't find them. Apparently, per the adults in the store, these Satan worshipers had automatic rifles and did not play around.
I once saw a Satan bible from a distance while in college, and it repulsed me even though I still wasn't saved at the time. In fact, when I saw it I could feel horror from the 30 feet from me to the Satanic bible and I not only walked but ran across a field to get away from it and never went back near that dorm my entire years of undergraduate school. I never messed with stuff like Ouji boards and crystals and witchcraft stuff either, because though not yet saved I knew either it was fake or involved demons not departed loved ones and hence no good could come of it.
I say that all to say Satan is absolutely real. I know three Christians who have in fact encountered demons including my own father in law who witnessed a true to life exorcism and he didn't believe in such and still said if he had not seen it with his own eyes he would not have believed it. Nothing like the movies. The Southern Baptist preacher had been called in because this man's wife had put him thru every psychiatrist in the state and no one could find anything wrong with him, but when his bed started rattling up and down and he was screaming "he's got me he's going to kill me and take me to hell" then his wife called the preacher who merely asked the man 3 times if he wanted to accept Jesus as his Lord and savior, and the third time the man stopped, sat up said YES and began talking just like a normal person and all the shrieking and rattling stopped. 30 days later that man passed away after being baptized right after whatever happened, exorcism or whatever you call it. My father-in-law said that man never had a spell after that night so call it what you will.

 

[Jamdoc]

another thing I'd like to point out regarding Amillennialism vs Futurism.. is that the prophecies of the first coming were largely fulfilled literally. Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, pierced in the hands and feet, drawing lots over his garments, riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, born in Bethlehem of a virgin, etc.
the "spiritual" interpretation often times borders on Platonic/gnostic teaching, a Greek, Heathen line of thinking that emphasized spirit and decried the flesh. I am well aware that Paul taught that way as well but Paul was also teaching people who were steeped in that line of thinking and it was a way to reach them. Paul still taught a physical resurrection. The Hebrew line of thinking was that physical creation was not inherently evil (as the gnostic/Greek thought would hold), but it was good, it fell from being good, and God will one day restore it to being Good. God created a physical universe and designed us to be beings in physical bodies. That has always been His plan and He is not giving up on that to have us be disembodied spirits in a heavenly eternity. His plan is physical bodies on a physical restored world.

So you have to take that into account in interpreting prophecy rather than jumping straight to spiritual interpretations, that a lot of it is has been fulfilled literally already, and that is to say, much of the second coming prophecies will also be fulfilled literally in a physically observable way.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Speaking of Hebrew line of thinking, how do they deal with Daniel 7? It seems that they consider the book of Daniel a "writing" and is a part of their bible, but they don't give Daniel the status of a prophet. After reading it especially in the NASB, I see why. There is no getting around the "Ancient of Days" being God the Father and the "Son of Man" being the Lord Jesus Christ. I found the Hebrew translation just in case all my modern translations were inaccurate, and while ancient Hebrew is beyond me, it sure seems to say the exact same thing.
Daniel 7 Interlinear Bible

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The Ancient of Days Reigns
9 “I kept looking
Until thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head like pure wool.
His throne was ablaze with flames,
Its wheels were a burning fire.
10 A river of fire was flowing
And coming out from before Him;
Thousands upon thousands were serving Him,
And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;
The court convened,
And the books were opened.

The Son of Man Presented
13 “I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a son of man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14 And to Him was given dominion,
Honor, and a kingdom,
So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.
Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 7 - New American Standard Bible

 

[Jamdoc]

Speaking of Hebrew line of thinking, how do they deal with Daniel 7? It seems that they consider the book of Daniel a "writing" and is a part of their bible, but they don't give Daniel the status of a prophet. After reading it especially in the NASB, I see why. There is no getting around the "Ancient of Days" being God the Father and the "Son of Man" being the Lord Jesus Christ. I found the Hebrew translation just in case all my modern translations were inaccurate, and while ancient Hebrew is beyond me, it sure seems to say the exact same thing.
Daniel 7 Interlinear Bible

The Pharisees and Sadducees had a poor interpretation of messianic prophecy. They don't look to the Messiah as being divine by nature, especially not the Son of God, but you read places like Ezekiel 21:8-13 that yeah, it was always going to be someone that God declared as His son, that was going to be the Messiah who judged the nations (note the rod of the son, that's a common symbol when it comes to Jesus' reign, ruling with a rod of iron)

That's why Matthew 16 is so profound, in that Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of the Living God. It showed understanding of old testament Messianic prophecies that most of the Jews of that day did not understand.

But anyway, the main thing I meant by the Hebrew line of thinking, was that creation is inherently good, but man brought it down in his fall, and God will restore it eventually to be good again, and that God will dwell with man, in physical bodies, on a physical earth. But gnostics who are influenced by the Greek thought, see physical creation as inherently bad and instead think God's plan is to have us be disembodied spirits in a spiritual heaven forever.
That same line of thinking lends itself to Amillennialism. Not looking for the physical resurrection and physical new creation, but rather just seeing everything as spiritual.

 

[JulieB67]

It's simple. John was in the spirit on the "Lord's Day" He saw Christ and was told to write the things that are past, present and future in that time frame -the Lord's Day. This is still future to us. Even certain things leading up the Lord's day is future to us.

We are not talking about a day of the week, why would John be taken in the spirit a few days of what he was writing on the Isle of Patmos..that doesn't even make sense. Plus the first day of the week is never called the Lord's day. If he meant the first day of the week he could have stated as such like in John 20:1 and said something like - "I was in the spirit on the first day of the week" The change to that thought is "man's tradition."
All throughout the Bible, one day has been engulfed in future prophecy. -The day of the Lord, day of Christ, the Lord's day. We are talking about the same day. He also had just heard a voice as of a trumpet. Christ is the one that gives him the revelation to write.

If one doesn't understand that he's in the spirit on the Lord's day, Revelation will never make sense.

So if I read that John was in the spirit on the Lord's day I choose to believe that over man's tradtion which can sometimes make void the true word of God.