Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 21:35:35 GMT -6
Exactly....it's one opinion vs others.....maybe an amill thread is appropriate, to provide bowman a venue so he doesn't feel the need to smugly troll
There he could explain why it must be known that 42 months = 1000 years, and why "contrary to popular belief"......ad nauseum....
|
|
|
Post by bowman on May 31, 2019 21:42:15 GMT -6
Exactly....it's one opinion vs others.....maybe an amill thread is appropriate, to provide bowman a venue so he doesn't feel the need to smugly troll There he could explain why it must be known that 42 months = 1000 years, and why "contrary to popular belief"......ad nauseum....
If this thread makes you so upset, then why do you keep slavishly replying to it, sam...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 21:44:17 GMT -6
Im not upset ....why do you like to troll, as a believer?
|
|
|
Post by bowman on May 31, 2019 21:47:57 GMT -6
Im not upset ....why do you like to troll, as a believer?
Seems to be what you are doing....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 21:51:14 GMT -6
Not really, I was not the OP trolling for others to opine.....disingenuous trolling, snarky condescending comments.....you are not interested in discussion as much as you are interested in belittling others who dont ascribe to your views ...I can make smiley faces also
|
|
|
Post by bowman on May 31, 2019 21:52:28 GMT -6
Not really, I was not the OP trolling for others to opine.....disingenuous trolling, snarky condescending comments.....you are not interested in discussion as much as you are interested in belittling others who dont ascribe to your views ...I can make smiley faces also
Please don't be angry, sam....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 21:57:13 GMT -6
Your attitude is pretty disgusting, but believe me I'm not angry, more like pity Actually, there is a psychiatric term for your consideration..."projection"
|
|
|
Post by bowman on May 31, 2019 23:04:24 GMT -6
Your attitude is pretty disgusting, but believe me I'm not angry, more like pity Actually, there is a psychiatric term for your consideration..."projection"
You are not adding anything constructive to this thread, only hostility, sam.
No further dialogue with you is warranted...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 23:10:45 GMT -6
sounds good to me bowman....I'd suggest you review your posts and ask who initiated hostility....."projection", my friend....can you look at yourself in the mirror and absolve yourself?
I confess I wish I had responded better, my apologies....
Shalom Brother!
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Jun 1, 2019 3:24:28 GMT -6
I would like to play this game. First of all so that I know the parameters; does your take on the subject stem from personal research that is independent of a religious doctrine, or, does your take on the subject harmonize with a religious doctrine. 2) if your view is independent of a religious doctrine then will you please tell me the doctrine that you most often lean toward. 3) if your view harmonizes with a doctrine then will you please tell me the organization so that I can research the subject further from that perspective. Let's have some fun.
Scripture is never a 'game'.
My position stems from serious Biblical exegesis, independent of any particular religious doctrine.
My conclusion, as drawn from scripture, is that Satan is presently bound....he was bound at The Cross.
Thank you Bowman for your response. I do understand that our belief in Christ is serious business; however, since we have no controversy there, then all scripture should be fun. Thus, we can view it as a game. So in this first interchange we disagree on this point that you see scripture as "never a game" and I disagree. Consider that we can get angry and vile towards others who do not see things as we do, or, we can have fun in the debate. Since the debate is a game, then scripture is a game; because we are debating scripture. I often find myself wining the debate against myself when I discover new information. At other times I yield to others that might have a stronger argument on a particular point. There are so many on this board that have been victorious against me in debate and it was all fun. So I hope that you might consider scripture as a game and have some fun with it. It is good that you are not beholding to a religious doctrine because that allows you to grow. Those doctrines are so confining. Your position that Satan was bound at the cross seems elementary because Christ was victorious at the cross and we all know this. However, "bound" in that context is not the same as bound in Rev. 20:2. It's like saying "deer" and meaning terms of endearment to a spouse and not the animal. So bound at the cross and bound at Rev. 20:2 are two entirely different things. Here are a few more examples: 1) Satan was bound in Rev. 12:8 when he was cast out of heaven. 2) Satan was bound in Rev. 9:4 from hurting the saints that have the seal of God in their foreheads. 3) Satan was bound in Rev. 19:20 when his beast and false prophet was cast alive into a lake of fire. However, in terms of binding Satan from the people of the earth it is Rev. 20:2 that addresses this binding. That is, when Satan was bound at the cross he was bound from being victorious against Christ and not bound from tempting mankind as referenced in Rev. 20:2. Based upon the information that I have provided in this post your argument has been defeated and I hope that you can see that. If it were not true then the people on this site would say so. It's like a giant sounding board to bounce ideas off of. Some ideas are quickly defeated no matter how sound they might seem. Take for instance Rev. 12:12 that I believe states the three woes of Chapters 9-11. In the first case the saints are told to rejoice and this is the first woe (notice Rev. 9:4). In the second case the woe is pronounced upon the inhabitants of the earth (notice Rev. 9:15), and in the third case the woe is pronounced upon the inhabitants of the sea (notice 11:18). But more than that "the devil is come down unto you having great wrath" (KJV). In other words, Satan is not bound from coming to those of the earth and the sea that are upon the earth here in the latter days wherein his time is short. Additionally, he "persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child" (Rev. 12:13) and while this has multiple implications the main one is that he persecuted the church of Christ after Christ paid his atoning sacrifice. Again, you loose your argument since to persecute the church after Christ was on the cross means that Satan is not bound from that conduct. As for working through the beast, Satan has been working through his followers since the time of Adam and the first being the serpent and then Cain.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jun 1, 2019 7:05:05 GMT -6
bowman it seems to me that no matter what evidence is given you are holding a differing view. The script in 1 Pet 5:8 clearly is devil, not A demon. John 10:10 refers to a thief, who would that be? John 10:20 speaks of demon as daimonion a fairly obvious difference from diablos. What is/was your intent within this thread? Are those who not viewing the text as you see it blinded? @sam thank you for apologizing boraddict - your attitude is highly commendable
|
|
|
Post by bowman on Jun 1, 2019 7:39:33 GMT -6
bowman it seems to me that no matter what evidence is given you are holding a differing view. The script in 1 Pet 5:8 clearly is devil, not A demon. J
What evidence to the contrary are you referring to?
I have already provided my exegesis for 1 Peter 5.8 pertaining to a demon, and not Satan.
Please rebut this and show your exegesis to the contrary....otherwise it must stand.....thanks..
|
|
|
Post by bowman on Jun 1, 2019 7:42:23 GMT -6
bowman it seems to me that no matter what evidence is given you are holding a differing view. The script in 1 Pet 5:8 clearly is devil, not A demon. John 10:10 refers to a thief, who would that be? John 10:20 speaks of demon as daimonion a fairly obvious difference from diablos.
John 10 is pre-cross scripture.
Satan was bound at The Cross.
|
|
|
Post by bowman on Jun 1, 2019 7:45:23 GMT -6
What is/was your intent within this thread? Are those who not viewing the text as you see it blinded?
The thread's purpose is stated in the OP.
Jesus, as God, blinds whom He pleases...many have issue with this scriptural fact...
|
|
|
Post by bowman on Jun 1, 2019 7:50:28 GMT -6
Your position that Satan was bound at the cross seems elementary because Christ was victorious at the cross and we all know this. However, "bound" in that context is not the same as bound in Rev. 20:2. It's like saying "deer" and meaning terms of endearment to a spouse and not the animal. So bound at the cross and bound at Rev. 20:2 are two entirely different things.
Scripture uses many terms to describe the predicament that Satan was placed in, at The Cross.
The lexicons all show the same things, that Satan was rendered impotent, i.e. he was bound.
Rev 20 is in the Greek aorist, completed action.
It already took place.....
|
|