chessman
Member
I
A false prophet who is called the false prophet is a human.
JLB
You are wrong. And i can prove it.
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
I
A false prophet who is called the false prophet is a human.
JLB
Dadof10. According to the bible the beast is not human.
In that verse there are 2 nonhumans. I believe the false prophet is also not human, due to the close association with the other 2.
Don't forget what type of book Revelation is. You should expect to see symbols in John's vision.
Your objection about the second death proving that the first death is not death doesn't work because I believe that the dead are raised to life before the second death. Christians are resurrected and remain alive. We don't perish like those who reject Christ will. They die a second time. This second death is "the second death".
You claimed that I believe the Bible says "the wages of sin is annihilation". I never said that.
I believe that the wages of sin is death just as the Bible says. I don't redefine death to mean eternal life. I believe that death really is death.
If I took the time to show you where Scripture proves The Beast and The False Prophet are definitely not humans, would you believe it?
Providentially it has not gone without saying. We have the Biblical definition.
Matthew 10:28
New International Version (NIV)
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
since both soul and body are destroyed in Hell, can you think of a better word to describe it than annihilation? If so, we could use that word. Of this destruction that comes after a first one (that's only the body) can you think of a better description than 2nd death to describe it?
Great. I've actually never seen this presented before (which scares me) but it seems reasonable to me. I'm not quite sure why I've not seen it before."The beast" can, and is, interpreted as something other than a human. The false prophet is not. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. If it takes into consideration the purely human characteristics of the false prophet described in Revelation, then of course I'll listen.
Well sure I agree. BTW, I've believed in ECT for 35 years, yet now cannot find the Biblical evidence for it. I must have just been taught it indirectly since there is no Scripture for it that I'm aware of. And I'm not even here trying to convince anyone else one way or the other. Really! I'm just trying to find the best arguments for ECT. And frankly, there's none that's been present in this thread.My point is the word "death" must have other BIBLICAL definitions besides annihilation, otherwise there could be no "second death". Do you agree or disagree?
Great. I've actually never seen this presented before (which scares me) but it seems reasonable to me. I'm not quite sure why I've not seen it before.
I'd appreciate any good arguments for why what I'm about to present does not follow logically, from Scripture. I have two Scriptural arguments. I'll present one first (see how that goes) then the second:
The specific question here is whether The False Prophet and/or The Beast within John’s vision are humans or not.
First Scriptural Evidence:
Rev 19:17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” 19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.
V18. The birds were called to eat the flesh of ALL MEN free and slave, small and great.
V20. The Beast and The False Prophet were not eaten, they were thrown alive into the Lake of Fire.
Conclusion: The Beast and The False Prophet were not among All Humans of John’s vision.
The Beast and The False Prophet would have been included in “all men, both free and slave, both small and great” if they were human. Whether the vision is meant to be literal or highly figurative does not matter here in this argument. Either way, it depicts what John meant to communicate about The Beast and The False Prophet. And it’s certainly a vision meant to describe truth about real future events.
John seems to exclude the possibility they (either The Beast or The False Prophet) here since they were not eaten by the birds, yet since the birds were called to eat the flesh of ALL MEN.
Therefore, since The Beast and The False Prophet are not humans, Rev 20:10 is not talking about humans.
Note also how the Lake of Fire burns with sulfur (not flesh).
Note also that The Beast and The False Prophet were thrown into the Lake of Fire, prior to the resurrection and judgment humans (the topic of this thread)! Yet people call upon this Scripture and others which are clearly prior events (Rev 14 for example) at times in prophecy that are before the time we are discussing.
I disagree. If the first death really is death and the dead person is resurrected to life and then dies a second time the second death doesn't prove the first death wasn't really death. What do you mean by annihilation? Isn't that a fancy word for completely dead? What is your definition of annihilation?My point is the word "death" must have other BIBLICAL definitions besides annihilation, otherwise there could be no "second death". Do you agree or disagree?
But the point of Matt 10:28 is not so much the fact that the word "death" is used (cause I agree that the Bible anticipates more to life than "death", thus our term "afterlife). That's not in question. But it's extremely instructive that in Jesus tells us that God can destroy both the body AND the soul. I'm not quite sure what's left if in fact, both the body and the soul are destroyed.
Can you explain what Matt 10:28 means, if it's not total destruction of a human?
I disagree. If the first death really is death and the dead person is resurrected to life and then dies a second time the second death doesn't prove the first death wasn't really death.
What do you mean by annihilation? Isn't that a fancy word for completely dead? What is your definition of annihilation?
After the birds WERE CALLED to eat the flesh, we read:
"And the rest were slain by the sword of him who sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.' (v.21)
It seems as though the rebels were eaten by the birds post-mortem and AFTER the beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire. The birds were CALLED before the battle, but did their feasting after the rebels were dead and the false prophet was captured and thrown into hell. Everyone else besides the beast and the false prophet were "slain by the sword" not by the birds.This being said, I don't think this speaks to our topic.
We can continue in this vein if you want. You can try and convince me, or we can move on to your other take.
I believe the person ceases to exist at their first death. Then they are resurrected to life for judgment. Then unbelievers go to their second death. I don't see why you insist that the second death proves the first death isn't death or how any of this proves that death doesn't mean death or how any of this proves that death really means eternal life. People who are consumed by the fire do not remain alive.Tim, that there is a second DEATH assumes a first. The first DEATH is not annihilation by definition.
Ceasing to exist in some form. This is what you seem to be describing. A person is thrown into the Lake of Fire and then is burned up and exists no more. Isn't this your take?
If you heard an annihilationist or someone that believed in Conditional Immortality (same thing really) say there is no Hell, then you either mis-heard him or he was one not thinking clearly. Hell is real. The question is only whether Eternal Concise Torment of humans is carried out there or not.When I first heard that there is a belief among some Christians that people don't go to Hell a few things came to mind. It seems to take away from the seriousness of the consequences of rejecting God. It seems like some Christians would be less motivated to go out and witness to people. It makes spiritual warfare less meaningful.
I meant to say human beings don't go there and that Hell does exist for the devil and his demons.If you heard an annihilationist or someone that believed in Conditional Immortality (same thing really) say there is no Hell, then you either mis-heard him or he was one not thinking clearly. Hell is real. The question is only whether Eternal Concise Torment of humans is carried out there or not.
Okay, but to me (someone just about ready to change and call myself an anhilistionist (once i learn how to spell it i do see humans being sent to Hell (the Lake of Fire). It's their place of their second death (that's both body and soul).I meant to say human beings don't go there and that Hell does exist for the devil and his demons.
For me, cause I love studying what the Bible says about all subjects, even the weather. Plus, i want to represent it accurately.why does it matter so much?