Rev 20, literal, symbolic, spiritual.

[abcdef]

42 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Rev. 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Satan was cast down on the day of Pentecost, on the day when the kingdom came and salvation came, 33 AD, Rev 12:10.

This was after the war in heaven that took place between the ascension of Jesus and the day of Pentecost.

 

42 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Yes, a literal dragon is how Satan sometimes manifested.

So you expect that when Satan appears, that he will be a giant lizard?

The dragon, a spirit, Satan, in Rev 12:3-4, is shown not to be a literal lizard/dragon, but a nation, described as having 10 horns and 7 heads. This is the same as the beast nation described in Rev 17:3, shown as being ruling nations and the horns as kings. 

Also the same nation as described in Dan 7, and Dan 2. The 4th beast of Dan 7 as having 10 horns also, and described as a beast. (Rome)

This theory seems to be confirmed by the beast nation waiting to devour Jesus as soon as He was born, Herod being in the spirit, part of the spirit, of the Satanic Roman dragon.

 

42 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Satan manifested in whatever form his spirit was in. Sometimes this, sometimes that; such as, "an angel of light." 2 Cor. 11:14 Angelic spirits have this capacity to manifest in different material forms, which are only temporary garments to them.

Ok, I'm not going to disagree with you on this. But I will say that it would be an extremely rare event. It seems to be more likely that the Satanic spirits would inhabit flesh of an already existing entity such as men or pigs for example. 

Many people believe that Satanic spirits appear like in "Ghostbusters" movies as free form floating vaporous apparitions, which I believe happen, but in that case, are not inhabiting flesh bodies.

 

42 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Postscript: the rebellious fallen angels that intermarried with women apparently became so debased in their carnality that they became stuck in the material bodies that they had originally donned as temporary garments.

The "sons of God" were sons of Adam, Lk 3:38. The wives that they took were from different tribes of "people" that were around at that time, and were not considered as "human souls", that were in the Adamic covenant with God.

Look closely at Jude and see that the angels were not cast down to the earth, but to everlasting chains of darkness. 2 Pet 2:4, says that they were cast down to hell and not earth.

 

42 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

The same fate apparently will befall Satan when he is cast out of heaven to the earth.

Satan was cast down to earth as a spirit that inhabits the dragon/beast nation, Rome, that has to this day tried to eliminate the children of Israel.

His spirit is in Rome, the dragon/beast with 10 horns and 7 heads.

 

42 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

History tells us that Paul was beheaded by the Romans; also other Christians in the Coliseum. Many other saints have since been beheaded by the Muslims, including in our days.

You are right in what you have said. But those examples are not shown in the Bible.

John the Baptist was resurrected with Jesus in 33 AD and now lives a reigns with Jesus from heaven, as shown in Rev 20.

The rest of the dead, the apostles, and those who lived after the 33 AD resurrection of Jesus, are waiting in paradise, until Jesus comes for the kingdom, at the resur/rapt, second coming for salvation, which will be happening imminently.

 

[WilliamL]

3 minutes ago, abcdef said:

Satan was cast down on the day of Pentecost, on the day when the kingdom came and salvation came, 33 AD, Rev 12:10.

Only if the angel lied to John in Rev. 4:1, when he told him "“Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after these things.” Rev. 12 included.

6 minutes ago, abcdef said:

It seems to be more likely that the Satanic spirits would inhabit flesh of an already existing entity such as men or pigs for example. 

Like so many, you don't understand the vast difference between earthly demonic spirits and heavenly angelic spirits. Entirely different beings.

8 minutes ago, abcdef said:

Look closely at Jude and see that the angels were not cast down to the earth, but to everlasting chains of darkness. 2 Pet 2:4, says that they were cast down to hell and not earth.

They were cast down to Tartarus = the Abyss only after the they voluntarily "did not keep their proper domain [in heaven], but left their own abode" to descend to earth and corruptly intermarry with women. Jude 6

 

[abcdef]

5 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Diaste has it right. Prote in the context of Rev. 20 is more correctly translated "foremost, or preeminent." From my blog on this subject:

Let me ask you this way, which resurrection is the most important of all?

Which resurrection is the primary resurrection?

Which resurrection is the foremost, the preeminent?

It can only be the resurrection of Jesus in 33 AD.

Without the resurrection of Jesus, no other resurrections could take place, (I'm referring to the resurrections in the context of 1 Cor 15:23-24 ).

--

But when it comes to Rev 20, the literal 1st resurrection of Jesus, is changed to the 2nd, or 3rd, etc., which diminishes the significance of the resurrection of Jesus from being the preeminent resurrection, to being less than the most important or foremost.

The reason this is done, is to force the interpretation to fit a preconceived time line, that of pretrib, 7 yr/1000 yr.

The pretrib timeline is in conflict with Dan 2, and Dan 7, and cannot be true.

----

Comparing the 1 Cor 15:23-28 resurrections timeline, to the Rev 20 resurrections timeline, they match perfectly, the 1st resurrection being Jesus, and the 2nd resurrection being when Jesus comes for the kingdom.

Then followed by the last enemy being destroyed and the finished kingdom being delivered up to the Father, again, matching Rev 20, 21, 22, perfectly.

If you take the pretrib resurrection timeline, it does not match 1 Cor 15:23-28, because it has too many resurrections, 2, 3, 4, or more.

This comes from reading the Rev as consecutive instead of having parallel passages.

----

Many say that things should be taken as literal, which in some cases is true, but in the case of the 1st resurrection in Rev 20, the meaning is switched from being Jesus as being the first resurrection to, literally, the 3rd, 4th, or 5th, resurrection, as you have pointed out in your posted blog reference. 

 

5 hours ago, WilliamL said:

    In the context of Revelation 20, the Greek word πρωτη primarily means FIRST (FOREMOST) IN PREEMINENCE, NOT ORDER. This word can be used both ways, so context must determine its meaning. Some people presume it can only mean first in order; and therefore, that these souls shall be the first ones to be raised from the dead. This is incorrect. For earlier in Revelation, verse 1:5, we find that Jesus is called “the πρωτοτοκος/first-born of the dead.” Jesus was the first among all men to be resurrected from the dead with an immortalized body: no one else of the dead was immortalized on that same day or before. Others will also have been resurrected from the dead prior to the raising of these Revelation 20:4 saints, including those of the dead who will have been “caught up in clouds” to Jesus long before the Battle of Armageddon; as also will be the killed and quickly-resurrected
Two Witnesses. 1 Thes. 4:14-17; Rev. 11:3ff.

So the primary meaning here of πρωτη is that Jesus, along with the 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 saints, the Two Witnesses, and the Revelation 20:4 saints, are preeminent in the sense of all together being foremost in status of those who will be resurrected from the dead prior to the Millennial reign of Christ. Because in addition to these, non-believers will also be resurrected from the dead prior to the Millennium. But these will arise unto a very non-preeminent “resurrection of condemnation.” John 5:29; Dan. 12:2; Is. 66:24

Secondarily, those of the pre-Millennial, πρωτη resurrection will also, taken together as a class of people, be first in the sense of preceding everyone to be raised from the dead after the end of the Millennium. All of the immortalized and glorified pre-Millennial group will be those over whom “the second death [will have] no power.” Whereas some of the post-Millennial group will be those over whom “the second death,” “the lake of fire,” will have power. Others from the Millennium, of the ones having been born during it, will undoubtedly become saints and receive glorifies bodies.

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2840-the-“first”-resurrection-of-revelation-205-6/

 

 

[abcdef]

4 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Only if the angel lied to John in Rev. 4:1, when he told him "“Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after these things.”

Rev 1:2, " ...and of all the things that he saw."

Rev 1:19, "Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter."

Does the Bible contradict itself, or are they in harmony and all are true.

 

4 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Rev. 12 included.

Rev 12, 63 BC until 1967.

The dragon shown with 7 heads and 10 horns, the beasts of Revelation, are the same as the 4th beast of Dan 7, and the iron of Dan 2.

 

4 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Like so many, you don't understand the vast difference between earthly demonic spirits and heavenly angelic spirits. Entirely different beings.

Angels that left their habitation were the same at one time as the angels who did not leave.

But I have an open mind on the subject, so if you can show me, it would be considered.

 

4 hours ago, WilliamL said:

They were cast down to Tartarus = the Abyss only after the they voluntarily "did not keep their proper domain [in heaven],

Yes

 

4 hours ago, WilliamL said:

but left their own abode"

When did they leave their own abode in heaven? Gen 6:1-4

If they rebelled before creation, then they could not go the earth, because there was no earth to go to, then they would be chained in the abyss before they could be on earth.

It would be speculation either way. 

Again, the sons of God were sons of Adam and not angels, Lk 3:38.

The women were from different tribes of people on the planet, and not descendants of Adam.

Adam was the first "human soul". There were other people who were not "human souls". They were "almost human souls", who were not in the Adamic covenant.

 

4 hours ago, WilliamL said:

to descend to earth and corruptly intermarry with women. Jude 6

This part is not in Jude 6, but is an assumption.

 

[abcdef]

12 hours ago, truth7t7 said:

You teach the standard reformed preterist eschatology in 70AD fulfillment "False"

Brother, You should know by now that I don't maintain any standard theology.

There is some truth in most theories. Just because I agree with some here and there doesn't mean that I agree with everything that some others maintain.

I agree with you about the fire from heaven, but disagree with some other things.

----

Please think about this,

Why, why, why, does Jesus bring the fire from heaven, and melt the elements?

 

12 hours ago, truth7t7 said:

As was clearly shown, the evil human man seen in Daniel 11:37 will be a "Future" King/Ruler of Hebrew/Jew decent

I Disagree With Reformed Preterist Eschatology, In Antiochus Epiphanies 167BC and Titus in 70AD fulfillment, "False"

Daniel 11:37 is a "Future" human man, that will be present on earth at the "Future" second coming (The End)

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[abcdef]

12 hours ago, truth7t7 said:

You teach the standard reformed preterist eschatology in 70AD fulfillment "False"

 

12 hours ago, truth7t7 said:

As was clearly shown, the evil human man seen in Daniel 11:37 will be a "Future" King/Ruler of Hebrew/Jew decent

Read the chapter from the beginning. It is about Persia and the Greek empire that followed, Dan 11:2. The silver and brass in the statue of Dan 2.

 

12 hours ago, truth7t7 said:

I Disagree With Reformed Preterist Eschatology, In Antiochus Epiphanies 167BC and Titus in 70AD fulfillment, "False"

You may know that Antiochus desecrated the temple with a pig sacrifice. 

Also that he had gods of his fathers that were Greek and not of Israel.

The kings of the north and south refer to the wars between the remnants of the Greek Empire before Rome.

There are many Antichrists, Antiochus was just one of them who came before Rome and Caesar.

 

12 hours ago, truth7t7 said:

Daniel 11:37 is a "Future" human man, that will be present on earth at the "Future" second coming (The End)

Jesus Is The Lord

The AoD that Jesus refers to is seen at the 70 AD destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

Caesar and Rome, the iron of Dan 2, is still present in our time.

Now he is only the image Caesar, also known as the Bishop of Rome.

He will be present at the second coming, end, at the fire from heaven, perdition Rev 17:11.

 

 

[truth7t7]

55 minutes ago, abcdef said:

The AoD that Jesus refers to is seen at the 70 AD destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

Your claim is false, Daniel's AOD below that Jesus referenced is "Future" and Antiochus 167BC nor Titus 70AD fulfilled it

Daniel's AOD is future, and the bad guy causing the Abomination and Desolation will be present on earth to the "Consummation" Ultimate End

"Future" Events Unfulfilled

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

(The Future Consummation)

2 Peter 3:10KJV

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Merriam-Webster

Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage

2: the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future"!

Daniel 9:27KJV

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Edited February 15, 2023 by truth7t7

[Diaste]

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

Well, here is the problem with that. Jesus was the first fruits, of the harvest of souls.

But He has not yet returned for the kingdom. That means that there is at least 1990 years between the 33 AD resurrection of Jesus and when He comes for the kingdom.

Why is that a problem? In the context of eternity 2000 years is what? Nothing. Not even a blip. There is no way to compare the slavery of the clock with timelessness.

The flesh struggles and wars against time; The Most High God does not. 

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

------

Jesus is literally the first resurrection, yes?

In Rev 20, why would there be any reason, to change the 1st resurrection from being Jesus to mean something else?

I mean many put such emphasis on things being literal, but when it says 1st resurrection in Rev 20, they say, "That is not actually the first resurrection, it is not Jesus' resurrection, it is literally some other resurrection, the 3rd, or 4th etc.".

That's why the word 'prote' is used to describe this resurrection. It's not the first. Not even Jesus resurrection was the 1st resurrection of all time. In that context then, demanding 'prote' means the 1st in order of all others doesn't work.

No serious scholar thinks the 1st resurrection of Rev 20:4 is anything other than 'the 1st of what follows' if a hierarchy is required, and 'important or chief' as the definition of 'prote' in context.

 

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

See what I am saying? If it says the 1st resurrection, it means exactly, literally, the resurrection of Jesus, and Paul said that Jesus is the first.

Now I know why that is changed from being the resurrection of Jesus to be the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc resurrection. It is because some need to change the meaning to fit the pretrib timeline.

I'll admit the dispensational pretribbers have muddied the waters. It's a shame really. Their accurate contributions are dismissed because they are so wrong about other very important doctrines. 

I don't think that's the case here. In looking at the two witnesses and that resurrection, which is before the 1st resurrection, we can see a strict rendering of 'prote' as the 1st of all time isn't what the term means.

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

So instead of recognizing and just accepting, that the 1st resurrection is Jesus, as Paul said it was the first, some say, "It can't be the first, because that would throw off the pretrib timeline".

Well, the pretrib timeline is wrong, and not the mill timeline.

I don't disagree.

 

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

The Rev 20 timeline begins with the resurrection of Jesus in 33 AD, and continues with the second resurrection where Jerusalem is shown to be surrounded.

Well, there has to be an A of D first. That didn't happen in 67 AD. It didn't happen in 70 AD. It didn't happen any time in the last 2000 years. It's yet to occur so the end of the age timeline has not yet begun.

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

This matches with the 1 Cor 15:23-24 timeline. If one adds additional resurrections, then the resurrection timelines do not match up correctly. 

(The timelines must agree with the Dan 2, and Dan 7, timelines to be correct. That is where the pretrib timelines fail the test)

I for one am not adding additional anything. I'm just trying to reconcile all the facts so they merge seamlessly and unforced. 

[WilliamL]

13 hours ago, abcdef said:

Let me ask you this way, which resurrection is the most important of all?

Which resurrection is the primary resurrection?

Which resurrection is the foremost, the preeminent?

The resurrection unto life! That is the foremost resurrection! John 5:29

[WilliamL]

12 hours ago, abcdef said:

Again, the sons of God were sons of Adam and not angels, Lk 3:38.

That verse only says Adam was a son of God; his sons were not. Whereas Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, and Psalm 82:6, along with Genesis 6:2, speak of the angelic sons of God.