President of Israel and the Antichrist

jmdewey60
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

. . . Satan is the god of this world . . .

Funny.
I must have missed that somehow.
Could you possibly point that scripture out to me, to correct this terrible error that I must have fallen into?
(anyway, I'm being a bit sarcastic here)
I don't think that it actually says that anywhere.
Go ahead and try to find it if it makes you feel better.

2 Corinthians 4:4

New Living Translation (NLT)

4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

. . . Satan is the god of this world . . .

Funny.
I must have missed that somehow.
Could you possibly point that scripture out to me, to correct this terrible error that I must have fallen into?
(anyway, I'm being a bit sarcastic here)
I don't think that it actually says that anywhere.
Go ahead and try to find it if it makes you feel better.

Gladly, even though I have to admit to a deliciously ironic charge when using the Bible to prove anything to anybody ...

Luke 4: 5-7

5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

2 Corinthians 4:4

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The Devil, aka Satan, aka the God of this World, the Deceiver, Tempter, Adversary, etc. etc.

Taa Daa! QED

reply to post by Tusks

New Living Translation (NLT)

That's not a literal translation.
It's basically predigested theology inserted into the verses that supposedly back them up.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Luke 4: 5-7

5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Obviously this "devil" person was not God but wanted Jesus to elevate him to that status by having Jesus worship him as if he was.
We should be smart enough to not fall into that trap after it has already been exposed to us by the gospels.

2 Corinthians 4:4

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not . . .

Obviously this is the god as presented by the world, or the people who have been appointed by the world to serve in the position of knowing God and transmitting that information to the "common" people.
Very much like you just described in an earlier post.

The Devil, aka Satan, aka the God of this World, the Deceiver, Tempter, Adversary, etc. etc.

Which was thrown down by Michael, as described in Revelation.
Also so described by Jesus in Luke where the truth going out by dis disciples prompted him to proclaim that Satan had been cast down.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You must've gotten a hold of some of BelieverPriest's Magical Interpretatin' Juice™, because your read of those verses is nothing like what the words actually say in English.

But, while you have the Joy Juice in your system, answer this one: since the Revelation is about events to come ( Rev 1: 1: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass ...") are you claiming that this War in Heaven hasn't happened yet? Or did it happen after John the Revelator wrote the Book, or ... when exactly? The Middle Ages? After Milton wrote Paradise Lost? Next week?

Many thanks for your response.

reply to post by Gryphon66

. . . your read of those verses is nothing like what the words actually say in English.

The magical juice tells you that when you read the story that you aren't supposed to believe the devil.

. . . are you claiming that this War in Heaven hasn't happened yet?

The important thing to understand when reading Revelation is that there is John's future and there is our future, which are two different things.
What was his future is now our past.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Check. Don't believe the Devil. Wait, when God's Word includes the Words of the Devil, can't I believe it then? God's Word is ultimate truth, right?

Does that include the Apostle Paul? Didn't the believers call him "a satan" at one point before his conversion? He's the one that calls Satan the "God of this World." If we can't listen to Saul/Paulus then Christianity has a heck of a problem, Brownie.

Aww ... skip it. I just don't have the special glasses or secret decoder ring that let's me read what's not there.

So ... the Revelation is set in John's future but our past? Hmmm. So somewhere between the end of the first century and now, there was a War in Heaven? The Holy City descended from Heaven like a Bride Adorned for Her Husband? Arthurian Jesus rode his White Horse around the world subduing all His Enemies? There's now a New Heaven and a New Earth?

Wow. I really have missed some stuff.

/eyeroll

Have fun all.

reply to post by Gryphon66

He's the one that calls Satan the "God of this World." If we can't listen to Saul/Paulus then Christianity has a heck of a problem, Brownie.

He doesn't.
He is talking about something that he gives the label, "god of this world".
What you worship is your god.
If the world worships an idol, that may be their "god", but that does not mean that that idol is all of a sudden God and rules the world.
What Paul is saying is that according to the world, God was this one particular thing, but as the gospel spreads through the world, that old imaginary god fades away, in the light of the knowledge of the real God who we know only through Jesus.

So ... the Revelation is set in John's future but our past? Hmmm. So somewhere between the end of the first century and now, there was a War in Heaven? The Holy City descended from Heaven like a Bride Adorned for Her Husband? Arthurian Jesus rode his White Horse around the world subduing all His Enemies? There's now a New Heaven and a New Earth?

Wow. I really have missed some stuff.

I'm glad that even though you missed it, at least you get it.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

No because he will be a roman who hides his jewish heritage.

Please elaborate.

Gryphon66
Jesus didn't talk about the Rapture either. The bit about two being in a field, one taken and the other left is skewed toward this belief.

Some might say that this passage is to be understood such that the one who is left in the field or the one still alive in the bed, are the fortunate ones. "Taken" being a metaphor of death. If you give a group of devout Christians the choice between being hanged on a cross or receiving 30 antique coins of silver (tax incl.), you'd never know what would happen, but quite a few would choose being killed on the beamed collumn. Why?

Utnapisjtim

Gryphon66
Jesus didn't talk about the Rapture either. The bit about two being in a field, one taken and the other left is skewed toward this belief.

Some might say that this passage is to be understood such that the one who is left in the field or the one still alive in the bed, are the fortunate ones. "Taken" being a metaphor of death. If you give a group of devout Christians the choice between being hanged on a cross or receiving 30 antique coins of silver (tax incl.), you'd never know what would happen, but quite a few would choose being killed on the beamed collumn. Why?

John the Baptist clearly states that the above event is the Baptism of Fire, or the separation of the wheat from the tares at Jesus' return. Gryphon66 is assuming I confuse this event with the rapture.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

. . . the above event is the Baptism of Fire, or the separation of the wheat from the tares . . .

Are you saying that these are two different names for the same event?
Like a big fire comes and burns the tares but leaves the wheat?
Matthew 3:11
"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
(2011 NIV)
John was saying that he could only do so much which was to bring people to the state where they would be receptive to God's leading to the truth and Jesus would bring the next step on the path to righteousness which is a real internal change, rather than a more symbolic sort of thing, washing the outside of the body.

I see the wheat and tares parable being about truth and lies.
Jesus brings God's truth while the proverbial "devil" brings lies and spreads them about.
The also proverbial "angels" are there to help people know the difference between the truth and the lies.
The glorious nature of God and His son is like a burning fire that brings out what is the truth, and eliminates from their sight that which is not.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

Some might say that this passage is to be understood such that the one who is left in the field or the one still alive in the bed, are the fortunate ones. "Taken" being a metaphor of death.

If you look at how this prophecy was fulfilled, then it is easy to decipher.
After the great siege and fall of Jerusalem by the Roman Legions in 70 AD, something like a million people perished, which was the greatest catastrophe in the ancient world when there wasn't even a city with that large a population.
The reason why so many people were there to be killed was that the gates were closed when there were two things going on, one being rebel groups looting the countryside and making the walled city look inviting as a refuge from the upsurge in banditry and murder at the hands of what were basically terrorist militias.
The second thing was that there was a Jewish holiday that was obligatory that would usually temporarily double the normal population.
The result of this episode of the war was that once the Romans captured the city, half were killed and the other half were sold into slavery. So you can interpret the saying that one out of two died, and of the survivors, half went to agricultural jobs and the others would have been domestic servants also serving as concubines.

To shed a little more light on these events described in my above post, and the prophecies, I am adding this adjunct to it.

You might wonder, "if the city was presenting itself as a refuge against the rag-tag rebel army which was acting like thugs, how did it happen that the Romans laid siege on it, if the ones inside were peace loving people, and not the combatants"?

This is where the other well known prophetic phrase comes into play: "Like a thief in the night".

The Idumians who were of the same ethnic group which Herod the Great came from, were told by one of the rebel leaders, that the Romans were advancing to attack their capital, Jerusalem.
Of course that was a lie, since there wasn't any reason to attack it, for the reasons just spelled out.
When the Idumians gathered at the entrance to the city, supposedly to "protect" it, the city council ordered the gates to be shut against them, and so they were, until eventually they were able to place someone inside to kill the guards and to open the gate to them (which happened at night), much like an operation of thieves breaking into a house and robbing it, which they actually did (stealing the city's food supply to start with), by the way.
Those thieves then closed the gates against the Romans when they arrived, after murdering the council members who were in favor of letting them in.
And so the war was on, suddenly and unexpectedly, like a thief in the night.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I only deal in symbolism when the Bible calls for it, and in each case, the literal context interprets the symbol.

Im saying that first Christ will remove the Bride/Church so that Israel's last 7 years can play out, then Jesus will return at a day and hour that no one knows to separate the wheat from the tares.

The unknown day/hour belongs to His literal 2nd arrival on earth (when His resurrected feet physically touch down on the Mount of Olives), not the Rapture.

They are two clear cut separate events if you realize that prophecies are to be taken literally. The bible uses symbolism to tie spiritual meaning to the prophecies.

Literal Rapture::Spiritual marriage to Christ

Literal Baptism of fire::Separation of the spiritual wheat and tares (believers vs non-believers)

If you go ALL literal or ALL symbolic in interpreting the Bible as a wholle, youre going to get a lot of holes in the story. There must be balance.

The Bible detailes literal events buttressed by symbolism.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest


Honest question from me BELIEVER: If the Bible is a mixture of literal truth and symbolic meaning, what objective measure can be used to tell the difference? How can someone that focuses on the objective, rational, reasonable aspects of the world, like myself, have any confidence that you (or another gifted interpreter) aren't just "making the Bible say what you want it to say"?

reply to post by Gryphon66


"You strain out a gnat but swallow the whole camel"..."remove the log from your eye before clearing the dust from your brother's eye"

Jesus used symbolism to teach truth. The truth being; do not judge lest you be judged yourself by the measure at which you judge.

Thats objectivity delivered in symbolic poetry.

Does that answer your question?

BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

"You strain out a gnat but swallow the whole camel"..."remove the log from your eye before clearing the dust from your brother's eye"

Jesus used symbolism to teach truth. The truth being; do not judge lest you be judged yourself by the measure at which you judge.

Thats objectivity delivered in symbolic poetry.

Does that answer your question?

No. By what measure are you judging Biblical meaning, BELIEVER. If you don't wish to answer, just say so. I'm asking you a direct question. It's not a gotcha moment, I'm not setting you up. I want to know, in plain terms, one person to another: or tell me that you can't tell me.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

I only deal in symbolism when the Bible calls for it, and in each case, the literal context interprets the symbol.

You don't allow for the provision of any prophecies actually being fulfilled.
A historic event that is a fulfillment would be in the realm of the literal.
So rather than actual literalness, you always deal in the hypothetical.
I don't see that as being "balanced".

Im saying that first Christ will remove the Bride/Church so that Israel's last 7 years can play out, then Jesus will return at a day and hour that no one knows to separate the wheat from the tares.

You can say there is a "removal" all you want but to me it is meaningless if you have nothing to substantiate that notion.
There hasn't been a literal Israel since the death of Solomon (according to the Old Testament).
The "last 7 years" would have been the period just before the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD.
In the parable of the wheat and tares, the burning happens at the end of the age, which happened with a degree of finality with the destruction of the temple cult religion of the Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The unknown day/hour belongs to His literal 2nd arrival on earth (when His resurrected feet physically touch down on the Mount of Olives), not the Rapture.

OK, this a theory, and not a biblical teaching.
There is no mention of a second arival of Jesus on earth.
The Mount of Olives thing is in the Old Testament and has no direct connection to Jesus, and it is obvious from its reading that it is not to be understood literally.
There is no description in the Bible of an after-the-rapture world.

They are two clear cut separate events if you realize that prophecies are to be taken literally. The bible uses symbolism to tie spiritual meaning to the prophecies.

Literal Rapture::Spiritual marriage to Christ

Literal Baptism of fire::Separation of the spiritual wheat and tares (believers vs non-believers)

This I am assuming is your answer to my earlier question of if you are describing a single event known by two separate descriptive names.
I don't see where the baptism of fire fits in here.
In Jesus' private explanation for the wheat and tares parable to his disciples he says,
Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. (2011 NIV)
where my examination of the original text tells me that it does not necessarily mean "people practicing wrongdoing", but could just as easily be saying that at this time being referred to, the cause of sin and those wrong practices will be removed.
To me, the standard interpretive translation is mixing metaphors and better suites some other idea than what I think that Jesus was getting at.
Rather than saying that being gotten rid of was the stumbling blocks and the people who stumbled on them, I think that it is saying that the removal of the stumbling blocks themselves removes these practices that are just not beneficial to the personal improvement of people in general in the new age which we live in now (Christianity).

reply to post by Gryphon66


In the case of the prophetic the timeline, most prophecies are written as metered time poems, so by analyzing the meter, a timeline of human history from the fall of Adam to present can be and has been reconstructed. This meter timeline gives many details about historically fulfilled prophecy. By that timeline in 2014, we are presently 6122 years from the fall of Adam.

So, if common sense is not enough to judge interpretations, you can alway cross reference it with the meter. According to the meter Israel still has 7 years on its prophetic clock, therefore there is a strong case for dispensationalism.

Its a rhetorical mathematic pattern encrypted in poetry, so I would say its objective.