Christianity and the End Times

Bruise = bruise. It doesn't suggest an unequal fight at all. The fact that it is only a bruise is a pretty clear indication that it is not a permanent defeat.

Right, I KNEW you'd know better than all the theologians in Christian history.

Again, it is NOT all the theologians in Christian history. It's only the subset that agree with you. And I bet you disagree with many of them on a wide range of issues too.

Good luck finding one that disagrees with this view of Genesis 3:15.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, are you using the Argument from Popularity fallacy or the Argument from Authority fallacy? Or a mashup of both?Can you address the actual argument at all?

quote:

---

I am certainly not trying to do that. But you certainly need help.

---

I'm afraid that what you offer us is "help" to misunderstand things there.
Or at best to understand some things there superficially.Whoever is appointed to reign over the nations MUST have met some QUALIFICATIONS to do so before God.Certainly Jesus Christ HAS. It is superficial to assume God is happy that NO ONE ELSE beside Him can co-share the responsibility.If I gather evidence from Scripture elsewhere to demonstrate this fact, you conveniently dismiss the evidence as "a non-sequitur" or irrelevant.This evasion impresses YOU. It doesn't impress me.If I point out words from the mouth of Jesus such as (for example) - "Non-sequitur" is your dodge of this relevant evidence. I do not PROMISE to convince you of anything. Let readers decide where the better case is.IF I point out words from the mouth of Jesus such as (for example) You shrug and dodge the relevant evidence as "non-sequitur".That is your choice. Don't expect me to be impressed to follow you.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Cont. with PaulKSomeone said "The kind of person you are determines the kind of Bible you have." There is some truth to that. Maybe you shrug the evidence as irrelevant because the FACT of His word of promise is irrelevant. I do not know how deep this apathy goes in you.If I submit further rationale for the understanding the those who OVERCAME in relates well to the PROMISE to those who overcome elsewhere, this too you dismiss as off the point.Perhaps your criteria is that the explicit detail of this should be there is chapter 12. But the whole Revelation is made known BY SIGNS (Rev. 1:1). The serious Bible student has to USE the Bible to interpret the Bible.So this SUDDEN mention of "And they overcame him [Satan]" ... WHO ELSE in the chapter might it better refer TO?Or do you hold that it is an irrelevant insertion which holds no importance to the chapter ? That would be shortsighted and tell me more about PaulK then about Revelation.You also fail to realise that the REAL battlefield between God and Satan is the very BEING of man. We are a battlefield. And Christ's victory OVER us is a stepping stone to His recovery of the earth.Now the EARTH was LOST to Satan because man stepped out from under God's ordination and authority. Why is it too difficult to grasped that the EARTH is regained again for God's kingdom by man voluntarily coming under God's authority?At least a Gideon like army gathered from Hades from different ages comprise ENOUGH to be resurrected and raptured to co-reign in the regaining of the earth for God's kingdom.You may dismiss as a non-sequitor that the MEEK are promised to inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5) "Non-sequitur" you cry ?
And you complain that I say you are missing the big picture ??If Matthew 5:5 seems too far away for you from Revelation 12, lets move in a little closer to Revelation 5:10,11 where a THEM and a are to reign on the earth. "Non-sequitur" - off topic - irrelvant are your unconvincing dodges.Let's look at the both 9 and 10 again. Now try to grasp here the logic. Through the PROMISE is to all the redeemed not ALL will immediately partake. There is the problem of "cheap grace" throughout the church age. And there is the problem of the substandard reaction to God's salvation going back through all history in the Old Testament.Come on now Paulk. SOME must overcome. SOME must rise to the standard of normality. Some maintain the testimony. And this is not insignificant. This is not cause to YAWN and dismiss this as not too important.It is part of the whole vision in Revelation 12. The entire mystical Body of Christ has travailed to bring forth some stronger component who react to God's salvation up to the standard of what He is able to do with them.This is important to the book of Revelation. The book ENDS with this counterpart MATCHING Christ, totally PARTNERING with Christ, BLENDING with Christ.The New Jerusalem of chapters 21 and 22 is the Universal Bright Woman of chapter 12. The Manchild is a stronger remnant WITHIN her. But at the close of the millennium in the eternal age of the new heaven and new earth, ALL the saved saints are matured up to the standard and collectively MATCH Christ.Stop crying "non-sequitur. The Bible is about Man the created in the image of God and ordained to have dominion with God. And what is foretasted in the millennium is full tasted in the eternal age. THEY shall reign FOREVER and EVER. Man's being - his soul - his mind, emotion, will is the cosmic battlefield. The victory OVER man by God as eternal life indwelling man is significant. It is not only the salvation of God over man but it is also the bringing in of God's authority and kingdom THROUGH this gained man.The creation awaits the manifestation of the sons of God in Romans 8.The battlefield of man's being is the stepping stone to the gaining back of the earth under the man made in God's image endowed with God's authority to have dominion (Genesis 1:26,27) .And that is all the time I have at this moment.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You left out the bit that says One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

quote:

---

Certainly Jesus Christ HAS. It is superficial to assume God is happy that NO ONE ELSE beside Him can co-share the responsibility.

---

It is also something I haven’t disputed. And of very little relevance. So why keep going on and on about it ?

quote:

---

Non-sequitur" is your dodge of this relevant evidence. I do not PROMISE to convince you of anything. Let readers decide where the better case is.

---

And yet you have yet to show any real relevance. You prefer to go on and on repeating it instead. [quote] So this SUDDEN mention of [COLOR=orange] "And they overcame him [Satan]" ... WHO ELSE in the chapter might it better refer TO? [/quote]Obviously it is the brethren first mentioned in verse 10. Really, simple literacy is enough to see that.And you go on and on but still produce no case for identifying the man-child of Revelation 12:4-5 with the brethren of Revelation 12:10-11. Well, drowning me in irrelevancies is not going to work.

Just more irrelevance. There’s nothing to identify the manchild of with the overcomers in there at all. I guess I’ll have to take it as an admission that dishonest debating tactics are all you have.

Ah yes, changing the subject. Are you conceding the point that traditional Christian theology agrees on this interpretation of Genesis 3:15? I already did, it's a pretty silly argument. If you bruise the head of a snake the whole head will be black and blue. In any case the head refers to his power and authority: THAT''s what got bruised.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course not. I'm pointing out that relying on "traditional Christian theology" for your argument is a fallacy. It isn't about literal bruises. Snakes don't cause bruises.But you're not addressing the point at all: In Genesis 3, the snakes don't lose the battle.

No that is not a fallacy and to call it a fallacy is a fallacy. You cannot dismiss the conclusions of centuries of theological thought that way. Use all the sophistry you want to defend this nonsense, I'm not buying it. No, absolutely no. This is evidence of proper exegesis of the verse.You were arguing about how bruising is a minor thing, I said how it is not in relation to the head of a snake, so don't pull that one on me now about how it's not about bruises anyway. First you changed the subject, then you called Church agreement a fallacy, now you are pretending I'm talking literally about bruises when it's you who are doing that. In any case I already said it's about what the bruising signifies, the loss of Satan's power and authority through Jesus' death on the cross.

If the only argument you have is the agreement of a lot of authorities, then your argument is fallacious. Theirs might not be but yours is. Their conclusion might even be correct but your use of their authority and/or popularity is still fallacious. And you're still ignoring the point: The snakes don't lose.Allow me to repeat that: The snakes don't lose.Once more for good luck: The snakes don't lose.It's a pretty poor picture of a "saviour" when nobody is saved. The biting goes on and on. "There will be enmity," not, "There will be an end to enmity."It's a pretty lame attempt to read Jesus into the Old Testament no matter who does it.

Yes you can. Very easily. When all they have is literacy criticism, philososphy and opinion, all they have is literacy criticism, philosophy and opinion. You can say it's interesting, original, thought provoking, orthodox, blasphemic whatever.What you can't call it is knowledge.