Do you think Revelations is enigmatic?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Aquila will not respond to me about my point in Hebrews 2:14. Hmmm...

Aquila does that a lot.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Bondage has degrees, Aquila. A dog on a leash is bound. Can it walk. Yes. A dog tied by its hands and feet is also bound. Can it walk? No. Depends on the degree of bondage. Bound has varying degrees. We have to determine which by context.


Now tell me about destructionin Heb 2:14, which you totally ignored in my post. Is destroyed destroyed? In what way?

I recall now something about your responses. I was trying to recall and now I remember. You pick and choose what you answer from me and demand I answ all your posts. Let's not play that game. Let's respond to everything. Respond to what I stated about Hebrews 2:14 and how that relates to bondage in Rev 20. Let's be thorough. I am almost a couple thousand miles away from home driving back this weekend. So my time is limited. But I will get all to you. Please do the same for my posts.

[JamesGlen]

Was destroyed, destroyed?





http://biblehub.com/romans/16-20.htm

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

Was destroyed, destroyed?





http://biblehub.com/romans/16-20.htm

Do you imply Heb 2:14 was a lie?

Or do you understand the point that destroy is in a certain sense, like the concept of bondage?

[JamesGlen]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Do you imply Heb 2:14 was a lie?


Or do you understand the point that destroy is in a certain sense, like the concept of bondage?

No sir, Not a lie.


Meaning: That He might break the power of him, satan, who holds the power of death...(as the NIV renders it).
or
destroy the STING found in death.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

No sir, Not a lie.


Meaning: That He might break the power of him, satan, who holds the power of death...(as the NIV renders it).
or
destroy the STING found in death.

do you think he is bound, as in Revelation 20 bound?

He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years

as in amillennialism?
https://www.gotquestions.org/amillennialism.html

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

No sir, Not a lie.


Meaning: That He might break the power of him, satan, who holds the power of death...(as the NIV renders it).
or
destroy the STING found in death.

Amen. So if destroy in Heb is no lie, then that harsh term does not mean satan does not exist. And the far less strong term in Rev 20 that says bound does not mean satan cannot do anything either.

[JamesGlen]

Begs the relative question, does satan exist at
Rev. 22:15 ?

Is so, how does he, after he was cast into the lake of fire?
If not, how does all this sinful nature still exist without him?


satan has no power over the born again believer.



Mr. Blume, I'm not sure I read where you explained your view in regards to "how bound he is" currently, and how that is described and/or established.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

Begs the relative question, does satan exist at
Rev. 22:15 ?

Is so, how does he, after he was cast into the lake of fire?
If not, how does all this sinful nature still exist without him?

satan has no power over the born again believer.

Mr. Blume, I'm not sure I read where you explained your view in regards to "how bound he is" currently, and how that is described and/or established.

He does nothing once in the Lake of fire, but I was explaining how Jesus says you can't spoil a strongman til you first bind him. And Col 2 says Jesus spoiled the devil. That means the devil must have been bound.

So when Revelation 20 says the devil is bound we have to realize he didn't need more than one binding, leading to the conclusion that the binding in Revelation 20 already occurred and is now in effect.

But most people have a traditional concept of that binding as yet future. And they assume it limits any activity whatever, leaving the devil unable to do anything. They ignore what Jesus said about binding. Because they can realize Satan is already bound, due to their preconceived opinion of binding apart from what Jesus said, I explained binding is not always so severe as what some think. And I proved that with the example of how Hebrews speaks of the destruction of the devil. We know it didn't mean the devil is obliterated. If the destruction of the devil war not full in Hebrews, why can't the binding in Revelation 20, which is a far less harsh term than destroyed in Hebrews, likewise be in lesser degree than people think?

That explains how the devil was indeed bound but still active to a degree today. Simply not as active as he was before the cross.