The Present reign of Jesus Christ

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Two days ago I was reading the kids a bed time story (Herodotus' Histories, Book I) and we read his account of Pisistratus and "the most ridiculous event in all history".

Pisistratus was scheming a return to power in Athens, which was of course devoted to Athena. So he grabbed some tall farm girl and dressed her up in armour, put her on a wagon, and spread rumours among the countryside that the goddess herself was escorting Pisistratus back to power. The people fell for it.

History doesnt repeat, but it sure rhymes.

Very good.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by coksiw

So when the apostles preached they said that Satan was out and doing his thing and that we had to be careful of his evil works and such.

Is our Gospel different than theirs?

Be careful with the allegorical interpretation of the Scripture, it has messed up so many lives already to the point that some believe that there is no resurrection, or the resurrection is really of spirits (our graves won’t be empty) or coming of the Lord, or judgment.

The Apostolic interpretation of the scripture is the historical-grammatical method.

See it this way: if somebody preaches a Gospel that is different than what the apostles preached, then their interpretation of the Scripture must be wrong. The Apostles preached a future (not past) resurrection of the dead (different than the analogy of being raised up in Christ after baptism), a future (not past) coming of the Lord in the clouds, a present (not past) work of Satan against the Saints to make them sin, etc...
You know what Paul says about different Gospels

Much of what was written in the Epistles was before 70 AD. Thus your accusation of preaching a different gospel holds no water.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Very good.

What's even funnier? His story has bearing on the gun issue as well (how he got his armed praetorian guard during his previous reign in Athens)! Lol

One of my daughters just asked me "who was the famous orator who gave a speech and the crowd loved it so much they threw their cloaks at him, but so many did it that he wound up being being buried, amothered, and suffocated to death under the pile of clothes?"

Good grief what a hilarious way to die.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What's even funnier? His story has bearing on the gun issue as well (how he got his armed praetorian guard during his previous reign in Athens)! Lol

One of my daughters just asked me "who was the famous orator who gave a speech and the crowd loved it so much they threw their cloaks at him, but so many did it that he wound up being being buried, amothered, and suffocated to death under the pile of clothes?"

Good grief what a hilarious way to die.

No one reinvents the wheel. They just add updates.

Pisistratus was a good democrat.

Niccolo Machiavelli would be proud at what is going on today with technology.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What's even funnier? His story has bearing on the gun issue as well (how he got his armed praetorian guard during his previous reign in Athens)! Lol

One of my daughters just asked me "who was the famous orator who gave a speech and the crowd loved it so much they threw their cloaks at him, but so many did it that he wound up being being buried, amothered, and suffocated to death under the pile of clothes?"

Good grief what a hilarious way to die.

It was Draco, the Greek politician and orator.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Much of what was written in the Epistles was before 70 AD. Thus your accusation of preaching a different gospel holds no water.

Let’s forget about accusations and focus on the technicalities in here. If the Apostles said “watch out with Satan” and somebody later said “no worries Satan is bound”, isn’t that a different teaching than the Apostles?

Doesn’t the Bible say that Satan is bound after the Coming of the Lord in the clouds? If you say that Satan was bound, then you are saying that the Coming of the Lord in the clouds already happened, and therefore, the resurrection already happened; which is, Originalist, a different Gospel. The Apostles preached the resurrection from the dead in the future, and you would be saying that the resurrection from the dead was in the past.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by coksiw

So when the apostles preached they said that Satan was out and doing his thing and that we had to be careful of his evil works and such.

Is our Gospel different than theirs?

Be careful with the allegorical interpretation of the Scripture, it has messed up so many lives already to the point that some believe that there is no resurrection, or the resurrection is really of spirits (our graves won't be empty) or coming of the Lord, or judgment.

The Apostolic interpretation of the scripture is the historical-grammatical method.

See it this way: if somebody preaches a Gospel that is different than what the apostles preached, then their interpretation of the Scripture must be wrong. The Apostles preached a future (not past) resurrection of the dead (different than the analogy of being raised up in Christ after baptism), a future (not past) coming of the Lord in the clouds, a present (not past) work of Satan against the Saints to make them sin, etc...
You know what Paul says about different Gospels

I have believed Jesus is currently ruling at the right hand throne for decades now, just as this OP notes, and have never removed my stance on the great future resurrection. Don't reject the thoughts of his current rule for fear we'll abandon faith in the future resurrection and coming of Jesus.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Let's forget about accusations and focus on the technicalities in here. If the Apostles said "watch out with Satan" and somebody later said "no worries Satan is bound", isn't that a different teaching than the Apostles?

Doesn't the Bible say that Satan is bound after the Coming of the Lord in the clouds? If you say that Satan was bound, then you are saying that the Coming of the Lord in the clouds already happened, and therefore, the resurrection already happened; which is, Originalist, a different Gospel. The Apostles preached the resurrection from the dead in the future, and you would be saying that the resurrection from the dead was in the past.

The Bible says Satan was bound. Jesus said you can't spoil a strongman until after you first bind him. Col 2 says Jesus spoiled the devil. If he spoiled the devil, he must have already bound him.

The problem is what we understand bound to mean. It does but mean to render ineffective. The devil is no more ineffective because he's bound than he is because heb 2:14 says Jesus destroyed the Devil. Bound means limited like on a chain. What degree of binding are we talking about? Ask yourself what degree of destruction heb 2:14 spoke about to get the answer.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The Bible says Satan was bound. Jesus said you can't spoil a strongman until after you first bind him. Col 2 says Jesus spoiled the devil. If he spoiled the devil, he must have already bound him.

The problem is what we understand bound to mean. It does but mean to render ineffective. The devil is no more ineffective because he's bound than he is because heb 2:14 says Jesus destroyed the Devil. Bound means limited like on a chain. What degree of binding are we talking about? Ask yourself what degree of destruction heb 2:14 spoke about to get the answer.

I was going to say the same thing

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The Bible says Satan was bound. Jesus said you can't spoil a strongman until after you first bind him. Col 2 says Jesus spoiled the devil. If he spoiled the devil, he must have already bound him.

The problem is what we understand bound to mean. It does but mean to render ineffective. The devil is no more ineffective because he's bound than he is because heb 2:14 says Jesus destroyed the Devil. Bound means limited like on a chain. What degree of binding are we talking about? Ask yourself what degree of destruction heb 2:14 spoke about to get the answer.

So when Jesus said that, could you please see the context and tell me where it indicates that it was about an actual event where Satan was bound for good?

This is what destroying the devil means, see the verse right before:

[Col 2:14-15 NASB] 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

And this:

[Mar 16:17 NASB] 17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

[1Jo 5:18 NASB] 18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

And many more.

Is there any verse in the Bible that says that at the present time before the coming of the Lord, Satan is bound in a sense of not being able to act?


And how is he bound and also have a throne somewhere?

[Rev 2:13 NASB] 13 'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is; and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

How is he bound and the Apostle attributes works to him?

[2Co 2:11 NASB] 11 so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes.

Do you think he is ruling from a prison? Mocking God? Can you teach that thru the Bible?