Endtime Revival
Nebil Campbell-Shaw
Most places (charismatic, evangelical) I've attended have a pretty solid
feeling that it's what God wants to do based on some loose exegesis and lots
of ad hoc prophecies.
On the other hand, it doesn't quite tally with a picture in Revelation which
quite clearly demonstrates an endtime apostasy under which any believers are
summarily executed.
Given that I believe all Scripture is God-breathed and I sincerely doubt the
entirety of Revelation applied only within John's lifetime, I seem to be
finding myself in an extremely counter-cultural position when I feel that,
though revival could come regionally as it has in the various Welsh
revivals, South America, Ulster and so on, I think a worldwide and
simultaneous revival would surely be prophesied somewhere in the Bible. But
I can't find it . . .
Richard Emblem
<ne...@talk21.com> writes:
Welcome Nebil, have a virtual jelly baby or two.
I think that we don't know and are not supposed to know and that much of the
charismatic/evangelical emphasis is mainly an attempt to stir people into
serious prayer and evangelism. I am in favour of prayer and evanglism but it
should come "from the heart" IMHO.
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Ken Down
> On the other hand, it doesn't quite tally with a picture in Revelation
I'm afraid I agree with your position, much as I would like to believe in a
world-wide revival. As Jesus said, "As it was in the days of Noah . . . so
shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man" - and we all know how
wide-spread was the revival in the days of Noah!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news from
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| the Middle East with David Down and
================================= "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Alec Brady
news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
I read the Revelation of John as applying firstly to the church of his day;
and secondly to the church in every age. It is intensely allegorical, and
the appearance of prediction should not be taken literally. The reason it is
in the canon is precisely because it says things that are relevant to every
generation, every century. Try reading the book and asking yourself "and
what did this mean to John's first readers? And what might it mean for me?"
Forget predictions: they are a chimaera, a distraction. Listen to what the
Spirit is speaking in your heart now; "Oh that today you would listen to His
voice: harden not your hearts."
--
Alec
BRIAN KONIAK
news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
Let's see.
I believe that you are referring to two different things: end-time APOSTASY
and end-time REVIVAL.
First, the apostasy will occur prior to the Rapture of the church (1 Titus
4:1; 2 Titus 4:3).
> On the other hand, it doesn't quite tally with a picture in Revelation
which
> quite clearly demonstrates an endtime apostasy under which any believers
are
> summarily executed.
>
Second, the revival will occur after the Rapture during the seven year
Tribulation (Revelation 6:9-11; 7:3-17) with all those coming to Christ
after the Rapture will be executed by the Evil One.
> Given that I believe all Scripture is God-breathed and I sincerely doubt
the
> entirety of Revelation applied only within John's lifetime, I seem to be
> finding myself in an extremely counter-cultural position when I feel that,
> though revival could come regionally as it has in the various Welsh
> revivals, South America, Ulster and so on, I think a worldwide and
> simultaneous revival would surely be prophesied somewhere in the Bible.
But
> I can't find it . . .
I believe what is happening today in the church known as Revival as you
describe it is not from the Holy Spirit; but rather from the Evil One; since
these "Revivals" are localized and not continent-wide or world-wide in scope
(2 Corinthians 11:12-15).
> Most places (charismatic, evangelical) I've attended have a pretty solid
> feeling that it's what God wants to do based on some loose exegesis and
lots
> of ad hoc prophecies.
It is a well known fact that charismatics do ignore the Bible in replacement
for their own "personal" relationship with God.
For clarification, you may want to read the "Left Behind" Series by
LaHaye/Jenkins. This fiction at least puts into some perspective of what
the possible sequence of events are after the Rapture of those left behind.
See their website at http://www.leftbehind.com/
Phil Smith
<snip>
>Given that I believe all Scripture is God-breathed and I sincerely doubt
the
It depends what you mean by 'all Scripture', I came across The Book of Enoch
and liked it very much, yet someone in the past defined it as heretical. Yet
seeing Jude quote directly from TBoE it obviously wasn't 'always' heretical.
Versions were also found in multiple copies among the Dead Sea Scrolls,
getting back to your original observation. I like Revelations very clever
author, but I always wondered why 42 months was 1260 days, as this indicates
a calendar year of only 360 days?
Phil
Ken Down
<philip...@geo2.poptel.org.uk> wrote:
> I came across The Book of Enoch and liked it very much, yet someone in the
> past defined it as heretical. Yet seeing Jude quote directly from TBoE it
> obviously wasn't 'always' heretical.
I don't know whether Enoch is heretical, it certainly is not in the Canon.
The fact that Jude quotes from it is no more an endorsement of everything in
it than the fact that Paul quotes from various Greek poets.
> but I always wondered why 42 months was 1260 days, as this indicates
> a calendar year of only 360 days?
Although the correct length of the year was known in the 1st century AD, it
is probable that the reference is to Daniel chapter 7 where 3.5 years may
have been interpreted as 42 months/1260 days by people such as the Qumran
expositors in the days when the length of the year was not so well known.
(There may also be a link with the fact that Daniel's prophecy was given in
Babylon, where I believe a base-60 number system was in vogue, so 6x60 may
have had some significance.)
martin
news:tkmmdsr...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Nebil Campbell-Shaw" <ne...@talk21.com> wrote in message
> news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
replacement
> for their own "personal" relationship with God.
Blessings
Martin
Chris Street
Probably a hangover from the Babylonians - as I recall they ran a year
of twelve months, each of thirty days which gives you your 360....
>Phil
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>It is a well known fact that charismatics do ignore the Bible in replacement
>for their own "personal" relationship with God.
Really? You must be using a different definition of "charismatic"
to that which I've come across.
>For clarification, you may want to read the "Left Behind" Series by
>LaHaye/Jenkins. This fiction at least puts into some perspective of what
>the possible sequence of events are after the Rapture of those left behind.
>
>See their website at http://www.leftbehind.com/
A series of books written by a well-known charismatic, of course.
Mark
--
More pretentious waffle now at http://www.mark.x.tc
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:43:53 +0100, "Phil Smith"
><philip...@geo2.poptel.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Nebil Campbell-Shaw wrote in message ...
>><snip>
>>>Given that I believe all Scripture is God-breathed and I sincerely doubt
>>the
>>>entirety of Revelation applied only within John's lifetime....
>>
>>It depends what you mean by 'all Scripture', I came across The Book of Enoch
>>and liked it very much, yet someone in the past defined it as heretical. Yet
>>seeing Jude quote directly from TBoE it obviously wasn't 'always' heretical.
>>Versions were also found in multiple copies among the Dead Sea Scrolls,
>>getting back to your original observation. I like Revelations very clever
>>author, but I always wondered why 42 months was 1260 days, as this indicates
>>a calendar year of only 360 days?
>>
>>
>
>Probably a hangover from the Babylonians - as I recall they ran a year
>of twelve months, each of thirty days which gives you your 360....
The Hebrew calendar was lunar, not solar, so it didn't match
entirely with our year.
(The Islamic calendar is still lunar, which is why Ramadan
gradually processes round our calendar).
Richard Emblem
Goodge) writes:
He's probably talking out of his left behind.
BRIAN KONIAK
news:9ijo49$ja090$1...@ID-92029.news.dfncis.de...
> BRIAN KONIAK <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> news:tkmmdsr...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Nebil Campbell-Shaw" <ne...@talk21.com> wrote in message
> > news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
> replacement
> > for their own "personal" relationship with God.
> Blessings
> Martin
Charismatic do believe in the Bible, but they allow their own emotions and
feelings to override the Bible.
Example: "Speaking in Tongues" is supposed to be prevalent, according to
them, at the moment when one receives Christ and the Holy Spirit comes upon
them at that time. First, it is not conclusive in the New Testament (NT)
that this is a requirement for salvation. Second, the NT "tongues" were
earthly languages that could be understood by anyone knowing that language,
and the purpose was to communicate the Gospel. The "tongues" of
charismatics is an emotional barrage of babel that is not an earthly or
spiritual language. Hence, the Bible says by when they were used as earthly
languages, and yet the charismatics ignore this and replace it with their
own "language."
Example: "Healings" that charismatics perform are supposed to replicate the
ones demonstrated in the NT by Jesus and the apostles. The charismatic
"healings" are not actual healings and do not replicate the NT because their
healings do not fully heal the person as the NT describes. In all of the NT
healings, people no longer had their ailments nor did they show any
remaining indications that they ever had it to begin with; hence, the reason
the Pharisees were amazed when these healings occurred to those they knew
were sick. Again, the charismatics override the NT with their own version
of healings.
These are but two examples where the charismatics emphatically act on.
In article <3b50e6cc...@news.markshouse.net>, ma...@good-stuff.co.uk
(Mark
Goodge) writes:
>He's probably talking out of his left behind.
Have you read the "Left Behind" series to make that comment? If so, what do
you think of them?
Brian
George Russell
[snip]
> Charismatic do believe in the Bible, but they allow their own emotions and
> feelings to override the Bible.
>
> Example: "Speaking in Tongues" is supposed to be prevalent, according to
> them, at the moment when one receives Christ and the Holy Spirit comes upon
> them at that time. First, it is not conclusive in the New Testament (NT)
> that this is a requirement for salvation. Second, the NT "tongues" were
> earthly languages that could be understood by anyone knowing that language,
> and the purpose was to communicate the Gospel. The "tongues" of
> charismatics is an emotional barrage of babel that is not an earthly or
> spiritual language. Hence, the Bible says by when they were used as earthly
> languages, and yet the charismatics ignore this and replace it with their
> own "language."
Although I am a very long way from being a charismatic, and don't use tongues,
I think you are being unfair, on the basis of my own limited experience of
charismatics + the Bible.
(1) Not all charismatics think that tongues are necessary for salvation.
Indeed when they do, they seem to go against 1 Cor 12 : 10
(which describes various gifts of the Spirit, of which speaking in
tongues is only one).
(2) Although at the Pentecost, tongues were comprehensible, they
cannot have been in general, as we can deduce from 1 Cor 14,
which calls for interpreters.
However I agree that tongues are unlikely to be equivalent to real
earthly languages, in general. See
http://religioustolerance.org/tongues.htm
Nick Milton
<bpko...@fuse.net> wrote:
>"martin" <martin....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:9ijo49$ja090$1...@ID-92029.news.dfncis.de...
>> BRIAN KONIAK <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote in message
>> news:tkmmdsr...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Nebil Campbell-Shaw" <ne...@talk21.com> wrote in message
>> > news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
>> > It is a well known fact that charismatics do ignore the Bible in
>> replacement
>> > for their own "personal" relationship with God.
>> Could you explain this please Brian?
>> Blessings
>> Martin
>
>Charismatic do believe in the Bible, but they allow their own emotions and
>feelings to override the Bible.
Whats with you and Charismatics, Brian?
Why do you feel you need to attack your fellow Christians in this way?
Nick
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>In article <3b50e6cc...@news.markshouse.net>, ma...@good-stuff.co.uk
>(Mark
>Goodge) writes:
>
>>He's probably talking out of his left behind.
>
>Have you read the "Left Behind" series to make that comment? If so, what do
>you think of them?
I didn't write that comment, Richard Emblem did. I was pointing
out that the "Left Behind" series is written by a prominent
charismatic, which rather damages your argument if you are using
the books as an example of what we should believe rather than
what charismatics believe. Richard's comment was an allusion to a
common vulgar colloquialism.
As it happens, I have read some of the Left Behind series, and
quite like them - as fiction, they are well written with a good
plot, good characterisation and a good storyline. But they are
speculative fiction, not a theological treatise. They don't
necessarily tell us any more about what will really happen in the
future than do the books of Arhur C Clarke.
martin
required for salvation, nor is it a belief of the pentecostal church I
attend. Of course anyone who claims this is wrong. It is regarded as initial
evidence of someone being filled with the Holy spirit. Not a requirement of
salvation. I think that NT biblical evidence suggests that when someone was
filled with the spirit they began speaking in tongues. You are wrong to say
that NT tongues were always earthly languages, otherwise an interpretation
would not be required. Also see 1Cor 14.2. Not all tongues are understood by
men, but are words of praise to God.
>
> Example: "Healings" that charismatics perform are supposed to replicate
the
> ones demonstrated in the NT by Jesus and the apostles. The charismatic
> "healings" are not actual healings and do not replicate the NT because
their
> healings do not fully heal the person as the NT describes. In all of the
NT
> healings, people no longer had their ailments nor did they show any
> remaining indications that they ever had it to begin with; hence, the
reason
> the Pharisees were amazed when these healings occurred to those they knew
> were sick. Again, the charismatics override the NT with their own version
> of healings.
who have been completely cured then my experience does not comply with
yours.
>
> These are but two examples where the charismatics emphatically act on.
denomination in this newsgroup. I am curious as to why you feel the way you
do.
blessings
Martin
www.ourgodreigns.co.uk
ShineALite
>From: "BRIAN KONIAK" bpko...@fuse.net
>Date: 7/13/01 11:15 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <tku4hjf...@corp.supernews.com>
>martin" <martin....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:9ijo49$ja090$1...@ID-92029.news.dfncis.de...
>> BRIAN KONIAK <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote in message
>> news:tkmmdsr...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Nebil Campbell-Shaw" <ne...@talk21.com> wrote in message
>> > news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
>> > It is a well known fact that charismatics do ignore the Bible in
>> replacement
>> > for their own "personal" relationship with God.
>> Could you explain this please Brian?
>> Blessings
>> Martin
>Second, the NT "tongues" were
>earthly languages that could be understood by anyone knowing that language,
>and the purpose was to communicate the Gospel. The "tongues" of
>charismatics is an emotional barrage
>of babel that is not an earthly or
>spiritual language. Hence, the Bible says by when they were used as earthly
>languages, and yet the charismatics ignore this and replace it with their
>own "language."
Brian, I was going to reply to this. But instead I'm adding you to my prayer
list.
Richard Emblem
(ShineALite) writes:
>>Subject: Re: Endtime Revival
>>From: "BRIAN KONIAK" bpko...@fuse.net
>>Date: 7/13/01 11:15 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <tku4hjf...@corp.supernews.com>
>
<snip anti-charismatic rant>
>
>Brian, I was going to reply to this. But instead I'm adding you to my prayer
>list.
How wise you are ShineALite (any relation of the Mazda and Osram families?)
Are you new here? If so help yourself to some of our virtual jelly babies, if
not accept my apologies and this sparkly AOL users badge.
Gareth McCaughan
> I have never heard any charismatic claim that speaking in tongues is
> required for salvation, nor is it a belief of the pentecostal church I
> attend.
Then you haven't been reading uk.r.c for long enough :-). There's
a chap called Nick Ashton who pops up every now and then to tell us
that we are all doomed if we don't speak in tongues. He's a member
of a group called the "Revival Fellowship", which has (if my memory
isn't playing tricks) some other ideas that are, shall we say,
a bit out of the mainstream.
(I agree with Martin in disagreeing with Brian's characterization
of charismatics, which seems unfair to me.)
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
BRIAN KONIAK
>I think you are being unfair, on the basis of my own limited >experience of
>charismatics + the Bible.
and
Nick Milton wrote:
>Whats with you and Charismatics, Brian?
>Why do you feel you need to attack your fellow Christians in >this way?
I'm not being unfair because these have been my personal experiences with
different charismatic organizations.
I'm not "attacking your fellow Christians." I am just making observations
that are quite apparent to all by charismatics.
Mark Goodge wrote:
>I didn't write that comment, Richard Emblem did. I was >pointing
>out that the "Left Behind" series is written by a prominent
>charismatic, which rather damages your argument.
I'm glad you made this point. One of the problems I have with charismatics
is that they "push" tongues as part of receiving the Holy Spirit [my error
about salvation; but they somehow imply that receiving the Holy Spirit,
tongues and salvation are tied together in one event]. The authors of "Left
Behind," if in fact, they are charismatics as you say, are not inserting
their charismatic beliefs in the book series.
Martin wrote:
>I don't think I have seen such an obvious dislike for a >particular
>denomination in this newsgroup. I am curious as to why you >feel the way
you
>do.
In my original newspost I said the following concering the discussion on end
time revival:
"I believe what is happening today in the church known as Revival as you
describe it is not from the Holy Spirit; but rather from the Evil One; since
these "Revivals" are localized and not continent-wide or world-wide in scope
(2 Corinthians 11:12-15)."
Accordingly, the Holy Spirit can create a revival in very large geographic
units as church history has shown; whereas, Satan and his demons can create
a false revival in localized areas since their "spiritual essence" is in a
limited space as we human beings are not large like the unmeasurable Holy
Spirit.
Also the scripture says [Joel 2:28] the Holy Spirit will come in the last
days. When are the last days being referred to. Even the apostles said
that they were in the last days. So does this scripture relate to the Day
of Pentecost at the birth of the church and during the apostles time? Or
does it include today. Again their is no conclusive answer among
Christians.
One other note that is interesting that may need to be answered. In the
Christian circles that I have been in, the Roman Catholic Church is
constantly portrayed as becoming the False Prophets world religion with the
Pope being the False Prophet. On the other hand, when speaking of
charismatics, they are shown as being "filled with the Holy Spirit" and
anytime they are put in a negative light, Christians jump on this and say
it's not so.
Brian
ShineALite
best not to reply. Your efforts are in vain, Pray is the best medicine.
> (any relation of the Mazda and Osram families?)
Don't believe so but never did the family tree either.
>Are you new here?
Yes I am. I was reading quite a bit of the newsgroups on AOL Christianity but
the same things kept being posted over and over. I came here looking for more
"substance".
Nick Milton
<bpko...@fuse.net> wrote:
>>Whats with you and Charismatics, Brian?
>>Why do you feel you need to attack your fellow Christians in >this way?
>
>I'm not being unfair because these have been my personal experiences with
>different charismatic organizations.
Then perhaps you have been unlucky
>I'm not "attacking your fellow Christians." I am just making observations
>that are quite apparent to all by charismatics.
Not apparent to many of us here.
Why dont you tell us of the precise experience
> One of the problems I have with charismatics
>is that they "push" tongues as part of receiving the Holy Spirit
some do (Nick Ashton for example). Others dont.
>"I believe what is happening today in the church known as Revival as you
>describe it is not from the Holy Spirit; but rather from the Evil One; since
>these "Revivals" are localized and not continent-wide or world-wide in scope
>(2 Corinthians 11:12-15)."
You actually think Satan can revive a church?
Remember "Who is not agaist me, is with me"
>One other note that is interesting that may need to be answered. In the
>Christian circles that I have been in, the Roman Catholic Church is
>constantly portrayed as becoming the False Prophets world religion with the
>Pope being the False Prophet.
It's about time you left those circles then, BRIAN!
>On the other hand, when speaking of
>charismatics, they are shown as being "filled with the Holy Spirit" and
>anytime they are put in a negative light, Christians jump on this and say
>it's not so.
I would hope that any time *any* Christians are put in a negative
light purely by reason of their denomination (be they RCC,
Charismatic, WHatever) then we should jump on this.
Nick
Richard Emblem
(ShineALite) writes:
>> (any relation of the Mazda and Osram families?)
>
>Don't believe so but never did the family tree either.
Perhaps I was too subtle. I was trying gently to poke fun at your "anonymous"
identity by referring to two well known makes of light bulb.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>>Whats with you and Charismatics, Brian?
>>Why do you feel you need to attack your fellow Christians in >this way?
>
>I'm not being unfair because these have been my personal experiences with
>different charismatic organizations.
Then you should report them as your opinions based on your
personal experience, not as a general fact.
>I'm not "attacking your fellow Christians." I am just making observations
>that are quite apparent to all by charismatics.
They are not "quite apparent". In this, you are quite wrong. You
appear to have encountered a subset of charismatics, and
mistakenly assumed that all charismatics are the same.
>
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>>I didn't write that comment, Richard Emblem did. I was >pointing
>>out that the "Left Behind" series is written by a prominent
>>charismatic, which rather damages your argument.
>
>I'm glad you made this point. One of the problems I have with charismatics
>is that they "push" tongues as part of receiving the Holy Spirit [my error
>about salvation; but they somehow imply that receiving the Holy Spirit,
>tongues and salvation are tied together in one event]. The authors of "Left
>Behind," if in fact, they are charismatics as you say, are not inserting
>their charismatic beliefs in the book series.
Indeed. Therefore, would you now agree that not all charismatics
are as obsessed with tongues as you have previously believed?
martin
> George Russell wrote:
>
> >I think you are being unfair, on the basis of my own limited >experience
of
> >charismatics + the Bible.
>
> and
>
> Nick Milton wrote:
>
> >Whats with you and Charismatics, Brian?
> >Why do you feel you need to attack your fellow Christians in >this way?
>
> I'm not being unfair because these have been my personal experiences with
> different charismatic organizations.
>
> I'm not "attacking your fellow Christians." I am just making observations
> that are quite apparent to all by charismatics.
>
>
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> >I didn't write that comment, Richard Emblem did. I was >pointing
> >out that the "Left Behind" series is written by a prominent
> >charismatic, which rather damages your argument.
>
> I'm glad you made this point. One of the problems I have with
charismatics
> is that they "push" tongues as part of receiving the Holy Spirit [my error
> about salvation; but they somehow imply that receiving the Holy Spirit,
> tongues and salvation are tied together in one event]. The authors of
"Left
> Behind," if in fact, they are charismatics as you say, are not inserting
> their charismatic beliefs in the book series.
believe that this acceptance is mainstream, with perhaps a few fringe groups
maintaining it is required. Certainly I can find no biblical proof of this.
>
>
> Martin wrote:
>
> >I don't think I have seen such an obvious dislike for a >particular
> >denomination in this newsgroup. I am curious as to why you >feel the way
> you
> >do.
>
> In my original newspost I said the following concering the discussion on
end
> time revival:
>
> "I believe what is happening today in the church known as Revival as you
> describe it is not from the Holy Spirit; but rather from the Evil One;
since
> these "Revivals" are localized and not continent-wide or world-wide in
scope
> (2 Corinthians 11:12-15)."
>
> Accordingly, the Holy Spirit can create a revival in very large geographic
> units as church history has shown; whereas, Satan and his demons can
create
> a false revival in localized areas since their "spiritual essence" is in a
> limited space as we human beings are not large like the unmeasurable Holy
> Spirit.
revivals to the work of satan. I find this unbelievable. Are you really
saying, that when large numbers of people come to know Jesus for the first
time that this is satan's work?
>
> Also the scripture says [Joel 2:28] the Holy Spirit will come in the last
> days. When are the last days being referred to. Even the apostles said
> that they were in the last days. So does this scripture relate to the Day
> of Pentecost at the birth of the church and during the apostles time? Or
> does it include today. Again their is no conclusive answer among
> Christians.
point. Your quoting of 2 Corinthians 11:12-15 proves nothing at all. There
is no reference to revival in this, but to do with false apostles.
>
> One other note that is interesting that may need to be answered. In the
> Christian circles that I have been in, the Roman Catholic Church is
> constantly portrayed as becoming the False Prophets world religion with
the
> Pope being the False Prophet.
some. What I can say is that I know several Catholics and have conversed
with some of them here. I am glad to call them my brothers and sisters in
Christ. I would hope they accept me in that same light.
On the other hand, when speaking of
> charismatics, they are shown as being "filled with the Holy Spirit" and
> anytime they are put in a negative light, Christians jump on this and say
> it's not so.
problem arises when the whole teaching of a particular denomination is
apparantly rubbished.
Here is a scripture for you. Read 1 Peter 4:10-11. We are told to use
whatever gift we have for the glory of God. Including the gift of tongues.
Blessings
Martin
--
www.ourgodreigns.co.uk
>
> Brian
paul saunders-priem
Nick Milton <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
news:3b514a62...@news.demon.co.uk...> On Sat,
> Remember "Who is not agaist me, is with me"
Sorry mate, I know I am a Baha'i, but should not your quote be:
MT 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me,..."
> I would hope that any time *any* Christians are put in a negative
> light purely by reason of their denomination (be they RCC,
> Charismatic, WHatever) then we should jump on this.
This is absolutely right, but I think it has to be understood, that the
Protestant/ Catholic conflict in Northern Ireland and elsewhere creates a
very negative picture of the Christian Faith even though these conflicts are
in actual fact promulgated by a minority of Christians. I always point that
fact out to various religious critics who seem to want any excuse to rubbish
religion and religious folk.
Another good one I often say, when religious critics point to the conflicts
that have occurred over the last 2000 years because of religion, is that it
would have been much worse without religion . Then there would have been no
restraints whatsoever. For some evidence of this you only have to look at
the Second World War and the actions of the godless Nazis as well as what
happened in the former Soviet Union and Communist China.
Warmest regards,
Paul Saunders Priem
www.bahai.org
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.264 / Virus Database: 136 - Release Date: 7/2/01
Tony Gillam
news:20010715075938...@nso-mm.aol.com...
> In article <20010714180532...@ng-ms1.aol.com>,
shine...@aol.com
> (ShineALite) writes:
>
> >> (any relation of the Mazda and Osram families?)
> >
> >Don't believe so but never did the family tree either.
>
> Perhaps I was too subtle. I was trying gently to poke fun at your
"anonymous"
> identity by referring to two well known makes of light bulb.
15 watts?
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://website.lineone.net/~tony.gillam - Home of TUCOWSAT
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk - A Site for sore eyes
Hell - A place in which there isn't a hope
Nick Milton
<saun...@priem.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Hello Nick.
>Nick Milton <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>news:3b514a62...@news.demon.co.uk...> On Sat,
>
>> Remember "Who is not agaist me, is with me"
>
>Sorry mate, I know I am a Baha'i, but should not your quote be:
>
> MT 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me,..."
Mark 9:40
paul saunders-priem
Nick Milton <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
news:3b51dbf3...@news.demon.co.uk...> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 15:26:52
Thanks my friend. Because I am not familiar with some passages of the Bible
I missed that one. I love Christ because of what Baha'u'llah says about Him
and the parts of the Bible I have read, but after reading Mark 9: 40 I love
Him even more. It is interesting that as a Baha'i I do not promote the
Christian faith but then again I do defend it from the antireligious folk
and I am definitely not against it.
Mark 9: 40 "for whoever is not against us is for us"
Truly amazing, because Baha'is are not against Christ or Christians but we
are in a different religion that accepts Jesus. Interesting.
BRIAN KONIAK
> Denominational differences are discussed here quite often. I think the
> problem arises when the whole teaching of a particular denomination is
> apparantly rubbished.
Let me summarize this on-going discussion:
First, I am not "rubbishing" the charismatic movement.
Second, the original questions on this topic was first posed by someone
other than the subsequent newsgroup response by Nebil Campbell-Shaw: which
asked about apostasy and end-time revival. The following is Nebil
Campbell-Shawand's questions and my original responses, which are as
follows:
[Beginning of original newspost]
"Nebil Campbell-Shaw" <ne...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
> Anyone care to defend the above ?
Let's see.
[There was a question posed by a different person about end-time apostasy
and end-time revival previous to this original newpost, but I couldn't find
it in the newsgroup.]
I believe that you are referring to two different things: end-time APOSTASY
and end-time REVIVAL.
First, the apostasy will occur prior to the Rapture of the church (1 Timothy
4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3-4).
> On the other hand, it doesn't quite tally with a picture in Revelation
which
> quite clearly demonstrates an endtime apostasy under which any believers
are
> summarily executed.
>
Second, the revival will occur after the Rapture during the seven year
Tribulation (Revelation 6:9-11; 7:3-17) with all those coming to Christ
after the Rapture will be executed by the Evil One.
> Given that I believe all Scripture is God-breathed and I sincerely doubt
the
> entirety of Revelation applied only within John's lifetime, I seem to be
> finding myself in an extremely counter-cultural position when I feel that,
> though revival could come regionally as it has in the various Welsh
> revivals, South America, Ulster and so on, I think a worldwide and
> simultaneous revival would surely be prophesied somewhere in the Bible.
But
> I can't find it . . .
I believe what is happening today in the church known as Revival as you
describe it is not from the Holy Spirit; but rather from the Evil One; since
these "Revivals" are localized and not continent-wide or world-wide in scope
(2 Corinthians 11:12-15).
> Most places (charismatic, evangelical) I've attended have a pretty solid
> feeling that it's what God wants to do based on some loose exegesis and
lots
> of ad hoc prophecies.
It is a well known fact that charismatics do ignore the Bible in replacement
for their own "personal" relationship with God.
[End of original newspost]
Now, let me put all of this in perspective:
[I am quoting from the New Scofield Reference Bible (NSRB) for authoritative
purposes, as I'm sure other commentaries may agree.]
As stated earlier, apostasy will "hit" the church prior to the Rapture [1
Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4: 3-4]. "Apostasy" defined in the NSRB is: "a
'falling away' as an act of professed Christians who deliberately reject
revealed truth; Apostasy differs, therefore, from error concerning truth,
which may be the result of ignorance or heresy, which may be due to the
snare of Satan, both of which may exist with true faith. Apostates depart
from the faith , but not from the outward profession of Christianity." Also
at 2 Timothy 4:1, the NSRB states: "Satanic deception which caused the fall
of man will characterize the end of the age."
Concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit during the end-times [Acts
2:17-21], the NSRB states: "A distinction should be observed between the
"last days" when the prediction relates to Israel and when the prediction
relates to the Church. As related to Israel, the days which, begun in
sorrow, issue in Israel's exaltation and blessing. As related to the
Church, began with the advent of Christ, but the expression has special
reference to the time of declension and apostasy at the end of the age."
Also the NSRB [Joel 2:28] states: "Peter (Acts 2:17) did not state that
Joel's prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Peter quoted Joel's
prediction as an illustration of what was taking place in his day, and as a
guarantee that God would yet completely fulfill all that Joel prophesied.
The time of that fulfillment is in the latter days when Israel turns to the
Lord."
As part of the definition of "Tribulation," the NSRB states: "The
tribulation will be a period of salvation. An election out of Israel will
be redeemed (Revelation 7:1-4) with an innumerable multitude of Gentiles
(Revelation 7:9)."
Third, in summary:
As far as I can tell from the Scriptures, there will no end-time "revival"
in the church just prior to the Rapture (1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1
Thessalonians 4:17); i.e., today: only apostasy will set in to the church.
As can be noted by Christian denominations discussing acceptance of
homosexuality in church leadership; denominational questioning of the
inerrancy of scripture itself; abortion rights, etc.
The end-time revival will be after the Rapture when the 144,000 Jews come to
the Lord along with the Gentiles.
In these last days, much deception will occur which will make it hard for
Christians to determine what is correct and not correct (Matthew 24:24; Mark
13:22) as far as Christian faith is concerned. Also, we are forewarned to
"test" the spirits (1 John 4:1) to see if they are of God. Accordingly, as
far as charismatics are concerned, there is a lot of ground of uncertainty
in Christian circles as to the legitmacy; therefore, each must determine if
these "tongues" and "healings" are truly from God or from Satan. Even Satan
will appear as an Angel of Light (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).
Not is there a question about charismatics among the Christian church, but
what about the appearances of Mary in different parts of the globe? Are
these of God or Satan?
The answer is: determine for yourselves but be cautious because Satan is
out and about (1 Peter 5:8) and do not be deceived.
Brian
martin
> "martin" <martin....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:9is6qh$kff4d$1...@ID-92029.news.dfncis.de...
snipped
> 13:22) as far as Christian faith is concerned. Also, we are forewarned to
> "test" the spirits (1 John 4:1) to see if they are of God. Accordingly,
as
> far as charismatics are concerned, there is a lot of ground of uncertainty
> in Christian circles as to the legitmacy; therefore, each must determine
if
> these "tongues" and "healings" are truly from God or from Satan. Even
Satan
> will appear as an Angel of Light (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).
>
> Not
(did you miss out "only")
is there a question about charismatics among the Christian church, but
> what about the appearances of Mary in different parts of the globe? Are
> these of God or Satan?
>
> The answer is: determine for yourselves but be cautious because Satan is
> out and about (1 Peter 5:8) and do not be deceived.
>
> Brian
Brian,
what question is there about charismatics? We worship God, not satan. I hope
that is clear enough.
Blessings
Martin
Tim Whittingham
news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
> Anyone care to defend the above ?
>
> feeling that it's what God wants to do based on some loose exegesis and
lots
> of ad hoc prophecies.
>
which
> quite clearly demonstrates an endtime apostasy under which any believers
are
> summarily executed.
>
the
> entirety of Revelation applied only within John's lifetime, I seem to be
> finding myself in an extremely counter-cultural position when I feel that,
> though revival could come regionally as it has in the various Welsh
> revivals, South America, Ulster and so on, I think a worldwide and
> simultaneous revival would surely be prophesied somewhere in the Bible.
But
> I can't find it . . .
Went to church yesterday and found myself saying 'as it was in the
beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end amen'. That doesn't
really tally with any endtime stuff at all. Odd really.
Tim W
Pete Broadbent
news:2%J47.51294$B56.11...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Went to church yesterday and found myself saying 'as it was in the
> beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end amen'. That doesn't
> really tally with any endtime stuff at all. Odd really.
>
> Tim W
I think you will find that Glory to the Father, Son and Spirit precedes
this - and the glorification of the Holy and Blessed Trinity probably is
eternal!
--
Pete Broadbent
Bishop of Willesden
Tim Whittingham
news:9j0osq$pm5$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> Bishop of Willesden
Thank you, Pete. Don't you wish that just sometimes you could take things at
face value and read them as plain English? I know I do. We say 'world
without end,amen' but it turns out (to my great suprise) I was never
supposed to mean it and it refers only to one aspect of the world (in the
widest cosmological sense) which will remain unchanged while the rest of the
world (and in particular that part which one would normally understand by
the term 'world' eg the earth) we can expect to be changed beyond
recognition and possibly even replaced by a new one. No wonder there is such
a requirement for faith.
Tim W
BRIAN KONIAK
> > news:2%J47.51294$B56.11...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > > Went to church yesterday and found myself saying 'as it was in the
> > > beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end amen'. That
> doesn't
> > > really tally with any endtime stuff at all. Odd really.
> > >
> without end,amen' .
>
> Tim W
In actuality, the phrase "world without end" is not found in Scripture. I
believe it is just a phrase created by the Church as a nice ending to the
Lord's prayer.
And I agree: i.e., the "world" as referenced to earth will be ultimately
consumed by fire (2 Peter 3:7).
But if the phrase is taken in context "as it was in the beginning, is now
and ever shall be, world without end" then it may be referring to the
beginning of earth from Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth); and John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God).
Again, this phrase does not hold to Biblical truth.
BRIAN KONIAK
> > news:9is6qh$kff4d$1...@ID-92029.news.dfncis.de...
> what question is there about charismatics? We worship God, not satan. I
hope
> that is clear enough.
> Blessings
> Martin
I never said or indicated that charismatics worship Satan and not God.
All I'm mentioning is that in these last days, many unusual "spiritual"
activities will occur due to Satan's demonic activities (Revelation 12:12).
These that I am referring to are not lifestyle issues (i.e., acceptance of
homosexuality as an "alternative" lifestyle) but of the spiritual.
Some of these last days spiritual activities were introduced in the last
century; and especially recently, namely:
Apparitions of Mary appearances in different parts of the globe;
Out-of-body experiences where unsaved people "die," enter into a light where
a great feeling of love is bestowed on them; then believing this is a
"spiritual" experience from God;
"Channeling" by the New Age Movement whereby, believe it or not, people are
allowing themselves (whether they recognize it or not) to be inhabitant by
demonic beings;
Openly public advertisements (TV, radio, internet) by Tarot card readers and
psychics for people to use their services; and present it as an acceptable
normal daily activity;
The proliferation of many religious "cults" in the past 150 years, with many
more being introduced today;
The notoriety and public awareness that Satanic worship does exist and is
practised; which has been connected with disappearing children; and
Movies and television programs that accentuate the demonic; such as "Buffy
the Vampire Slayer," "The Exorcist," "Brimstone," "The Sixth Sense,"
"Sabrina the Teenage Witch," "Charmed," etc. All arranged to bring Satanic
activity as acceptable and preparing the way for Satan's future demonic
takeover.
"Apostasy" as defined in my previous newspost in the New Scofield Study
Bible: "Apostates depart from the faith, but not from the outward profession
of Christianity."
When discussing "apostasy," this is within the Christian church and not in
society as a whole. Many of these have been introduced in the past 20 years
and even more recently, and would not previously become a subject of debate
or discussions within the Church. Some of these include:
Church denominations questioning the infallibility of Scripture as the sole
basis for Christian beliefs and practices;
Discussions of allowing homosexuals to take on leadership positions within
the Church; and
Many Christians accepting the view that there are more ways to heaven than
through Jesus only, and by "accepting" the religious beliefs of other
religions (in the name of tolerance) as saying they are okay since everyone
is worshiping the same God.
So, in summary, many "spiritual" activities are bombarding this planet at an
unparalleled speed. We know that we are the "last generation" on earth
because of the establishment of the State of Israel by God in 1948 (Isaiah
66:8; Matthew 24:32-33).
So be aware, especially in these perilous times, that one is not deceived
(Matthew 24:4-5; 1 Peter 5:8) . If you believe that the charismatic
movement is of God, then it is. I just don't like their over-emphasis of
"tongues" and "healings" over salvation in Jesus only.
Brian
BRIAN KONIAK
> > news:9is6qh$kff4d$1...@ID-92029.news.dfncis.de...
> Brian,
> what question is there about charismatics? We worship God, not satan. I
hope
> that is clear enough.
> Blessings
> Martin
The answer is: determine for yourselves but be cautious because Satan is
Richard Emblem
Whittingham" <timothy.whit...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Thank you, Pete. Don't you wish that just sometimes you could take things at
>face value and read them as plain English? I know I do. We say 'world
>without end,amen' but it turns out (to my great suprise) I was never
>supposed to mean it and it refers only to one aspect of the world (in the
>widest cosmological sense) which will remain unchanged while the rest of the
>world (and in particular that part which one would normally understand by
>the term 'world' eg the earth) we can expect to be changed beyond
>recognition and possibly even replaced by a new one. No wonder there is such
>a requirement for faith.
The Latin for "world without end" is probably slightly more meaningful "per
omnia saecula saeculorum" literally "through all ages of ages" if my distant
schooldays memories are correct
Debbie
<bpko...@fuse.net> wrote <tl8d5nm...@corp.supernews.com>:
>I never said or indicated that charismatics worship Satan and not God.
>
>All I'm mentioning is that in these last days, <snip>
It's truly a revelation to me that Christianity teaches cosmic
paranoia. You learn something new every day...
Debbie
--
Urban Theology Unit
Sheffield, UK
Gareth McCaughan
> Thank you, Pete. Don't you wish that just sometimes you could take things at
> face value and read them as plain English? I know I do. We say 'world
> without end,amen' but it turns out (to my great suprise) I was never
> supposed to mean it and it refers only to one aspect of the world (in the
> widest cosmological sense) which will remain unchanged while the rest of the
> world (and in particular that part which one would normally understand by
> the term 'world' eg the earth) we can expect to be changed beyond
> recognition and possibly even replaced by a new one. No wonder there is such
> a requirement for faith.
"World without end" is a particularly weird translation of the
Latin "in saecula saeculorum", which literally means something
like "through cycles of ages" or perhaps "for hundreds of
centuries". There isn't a good translation, really, because
the concept behind the idiom (years come in cycles[1], and
they in turn come in larger cycles[2]) is pretty much unknown
now.
It never meant "the world will not end", so far as I know.
I'd be interested to know why the phrase "world without end"
ever got used.
Note: Several of the things I've said here are actually only
guesses, or at least I am not aware of having conclusive
evidence for them. I shall be glad to be corrected by anyone
more expert who happens to be reading.
[1] "cycles" -- "saecula". It's not a coincidence.
[2] and so ad infinitum? I'm not sure what they really
believed back then.
Paul Weary
"BRIAN KONIAK" <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:tl1baom...@corp.supernews.com...
> George Russell wrote:
> In my original newspost I said the following concering the discussion on
end
> time revival:
>
> "I believe what is happening today in the church known as Revival as you
> describe it is not from the Holy Spirit; but rather from the Evil One;
since
> these "Revivals" are localized and not continent-wide or world-wide in
scope
> (2 Corinthians 11:12-15)."
>
> Accordingly, the Holy Spirit can create a revival in very large geographic
> units as church history has shown; whereas, Satan and his demons can
create
> a false revival in localized areas since their "spiritual essence" is in a
> limited space as we human beings are not large like the unmeasurable Holy
> Spirit.
I must admit that although far from being a 'revivalist' myself, I do find
myself perplexed by this sweeping statement. Just because the Holy Spirit
can work on a global basis does not mean that the Holy Spirit does work on a
global basis. (In fact I wonder whether the evidence of church history is as
clear as you suggest.)
Surely the best test of a supposed revival is its fruits?
And isn't Matt 12:25-28 contrary to your argument?
Shalom,
--
Paul Weary
Croydon, UK
martin
> > > "martin" <martin....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9is6qh$kff4d$1...@ID-92029.news.dfncis.de...
Snipped.
If you believe that the charismatic
> movement is of God, then it is. I just don't like their over-emphasis of
> "tongues" and "healings" over salvation in Jesus only.
>
> Brian
Well, I never had any doubt that it is of God, it's through that type of
church I got led to Jesus. Christians accept Jesus is the way to salvation.
And although I would encourage christians to accept the gifts of the
Father of course I agree that it is not required for salvation. I think this
is the third time said.
Blessings
Martin
BRIAN KONIAK
news:tlac584...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> Repost
> >
>I must admit that although far from being a 'revivalist' myself, I do find
> myself perplexed by this sweeping statement. Just because the Holy Spirit
> can work on a global basis does not mean that the Holy Spirit does work on
a
> global basis. (In fact I wonder whether the evidence of church history is
as
> clear as you suggest.)
>
> Surely the best test of a supposed revival is its fruits?
>
> And isn't Matt 12:25-28 contrary to your argument?
In this newsgroup under this topic "Endtime Revival" I have brought up the
topic of "deception" as it relates to the church. The reason is because, as
we pray for Revival in the UK (which we desperately need), I want fellow
Christians to be sure that the Revival that comes will be from God and the
Holy Spirit with the uplifting of Jesus only as the Way to salvation, and
not perpetrated by Satan. Yes, I have overstated the "tongues" and
"healings" issue concerning charismatics for this reason.
Basically, when feelings or the profound use of spiritual gifts (tongues and
healings especially), even though may feel that they are from the Holy
Spirit, override the preaching of Jesus and the Word (Holy Bible), then
these feelings can be of Satan.
I quote from "Day of Deception" by Dr. John Hagee (pgs 210, 212):
"Many readers may be shocked by the concept that a demon spirit could
manifest itself in a church environment.
"Some Christians who are caught up supernatural manifestations will teach
that it is a sign of ungratefulness or a lack of faith to question or test
what is happening.
"I have this word of warning for the church: Any 'manifestation of the
spirit' that prohibits the preaching of the Word of God on a regular basis
is not from God. Satan hates the Word. If he can fill the House of God
with confusion, created by an aberrant supernatural manifestation, and stop
the preaching of the Word of God, he will do it!"
Nick Milton
<bpko...@fuse.net> wrote:
>I quote from "Day of Deception" by Dr. John Hagee (pgs 210, 212):
>
>"Many readers may be shocked by the concept that a demon spirit could
>manifest itself in a church environment.
>
>"Some Christians who are caught up supernatural manifestations will teach
>that it is a sign of ungratefulness or a lack of faith to question or test
>what is happening.
>
>"I have this word of warning for the church: Any 'manifestation of the
>spirit' that prohibits the preaching of the Word of God on a regular basis
>is not from God. Satan hates the Word. If he can fill the House of God
>with confusion, created by an aberrant supernatural manifestation, and stop
>the preaching of the Word of God, he will do it!"
And if Satan can turn Christian against Christian, and sow suspicion
of church revivals, then he will do that too
Nick
postrib
> ...the revival will occur after the Rapture during the seven year
> Tribulation...
Note that in no scripture are we promised a rapture before the tribulation.
Jesus said he would come to gather us together "immediately after the
tribulation" (Matthew 24:29-31), and Paul said Jesus' coming to gather us
together must "destroy" the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8).
Note that the Bible makes no distinction between the rapture and the 2nd coming,
but says the rapture will occur at "the coming" of Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:15,
2 Thessalonians 2:1, 1 Corinthians 15:23, Matthew 24:29-37, Mark 13:24-27), and
there's no 3rd coming of Jesus.
I believe Matthew 24:29-31 refers to the same trumpet as 1 Corinthians 15:52,
and the same coming of Jesus and gathering together of the saints that Paul
refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; same coming, same
gathering together, same trumpet, same clouds, and it says it will be after the
tribulation. I don't believe the scriptures teach a 3rd coming or a 2nd rapture.
I believe the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture would require that the 2nd coming
(Hebrews 9:28) be a 3rd coming, that the last trumpet (1 Corinthians 15:52) be
the 9th from last (Revelation 8:6), and that the 1st resurrection (Revelation
20:4-6) be the 2nd. I personally believe it would make nonsense of scripture.
I believe the pre-trib doctrine is a false hope held by some unwilling to endure
the sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3-5) that faithful Christians must "endure to
the end" in the tribulation (Matthew 24:13) with "patience and faith"
(Revelation 6:11, 7:14, 9:4, 12:17, 13:7-10, 14:12-13, 15:2, 18:4, 20:4).
Tony Gillam
news:KBG67.3251$ar1....@www.newsranger.com...
by JN Darby. I am not aware of any who made a similar interpretation
before. The Post tribulation as expounded above is closer to what
scripture tells us. Not that I shall object to giving the tribulation
a miss, of course {;-)
Richard Emblem
<tgi...@cyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>> http://www.geocities.com/postrib/
>A well reasoned exposition IMO. Pretribulationism IIRC was propounded
>by JN Darby. I am not aware of any who made a similar interpretation
>before. The Post tribulation as expounded above is closer to what
>scripture tells us. Not that I shall object to giving the tribulation
>a miss, of course {;-)
Why on earth does it matter? What difference will it make to your christian
life?
Simon Woods
> > ...the revival will occur after the Rapture during the seven year
> > Tribulation...
>
> Note that in no scripture are we promised a rapture before the
tribulation.
> Jesus said he would come to gather us together "immediately after the
> tribulation" (Matthew 24:29-31), and Paul said Jesus' coming to gather us
> together must "destroy" the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8).
AISI
The second coming is in 2 phases
Phase 1 - Return of the Lord to the air for His church (1 Thess 4:15ff, 1
Cor 15:51ff) and we will go to the judgement seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10ff)
where the 'rubbish' remaining in our lives will be burned up, yet all will
be saved (but some only just) and we'll be rewarded or not (see Luke 19) for
our service to Christ (1 Cor 3:13-15).
Phase 2 - Return for the redemption of the Jews who will be undergoing huge
persecution at the hands of Antichrist, culminating in Armageddon.
The rapture of the church commences Daniel's 70th week. Once the church is
raptured, the forces of Antichrist are let loose (2 Thess 2:7) and the
Tribulation commences focussing on the Jews. 3.5 years of peace and harmony
and a pact with the Jews. 3.5 years of tribulation which will make the
holocaust look like child's play, i.e. middle of Daniel's 70th week.
Matt 24:29-31 return to the coming of the Lord, immediately after the
tribulation, when the Jews will finally see Christ as their Redeemer "for I
say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes
in the name of the Lord!'" (Matt 23:38-39) cf Zech 12:10 "then they will
look on Me whom they have pierced; they will mourn for Him as one mourns for
his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn." Through
Christ's second coming, Armageddon etc, the antichrist is cast into the lake
of fire and ushers in the millenial reign as prefigured by Solomon's 'golden
years'. Remember Matthew is the Gospel which speaks of Christ as King (The
lion before the throne Rev 4:6)
Luke 17 tells us that it will be as it was in the days of Noah and Lot. They
were rescued before the time of distress. (Doesn't appear in Matthew
because, over-simplistically Matthew was for the Jews, Luke for the
Gentiles.)
Hebrews 9:28 refers to the coming of the Lord to air - the salvation is
salvation from the presence of sin (as opposed to penalty - "Christ as
Saviour" - or power - "Christ as Lord").
The trumpets of Revelation 8, AFIACS, take place after the rapture - Rev
4:1-2 suggests a change of perspective of John from an earthly one to a
heavenly one "Come up here" - is that the command of rapture?
In summary the timeline is as follows:
1) Times of the gentiles (Jer 25:1)
2) Decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Neh 2:1-8)
3) The Cross
4) The coming of the Lord to the air (1 Thess 4:16,17)
5) The Judgement seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10)
6) Daniel's 70th week (Daniel 9:26,27)
7) The great Tribulation (Matt 24:21)
8) The coming of the Son of Man (2 Thess 2:7,8, Matt 24:30)
9) The judgement of the living nations (Matt 25:31ff)
10) The milleinium (Rev 20:4-6)
11) The final rebellion (Rev 20:7-9)
12) The Great White Throne (Rev 20:11-15)
13) New heaven and earth (Rev 21:1-5)
14) Eternal Kingdom (Eph 3:21, 2 Peter 1:11)
2p - with a bit of help!!
To answer Richard's question - awe - "I am a worm and no man"
Simon
Tony Gillam
> In article <9jgiq0$bsj$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Tony Gillam"
> <tgi...@cyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> http://www.geocities.com/postrib/
> >A well reasoned exposition IMO. Pretribulationism IIRC was
propounded
> >by JN Darby. I am not aware of any who made a similar
interpretation
> >before. The Post tribulation as expounded above is closer to what
> >scripture tells us. Not that I shall object to giving the
tribulation
> >a miss, of course {;-)
>
> Why on earth does it matter? What difference will it make to your
christian
> life?
say that if we really believed Christ's return was imminent we'd have
no trouble with holiness.
Simon Woods
> <tgi...@cyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> Why on earth does it matter? What difference will it make to your
christian
> life?
Looking at it the other way round, if it wasn't that important, why would
the Holy Spirit include so much information? (I'm assuming you'd accept that
there is quite a bit of detail about it.)
Simon
Alec Brady
news:WZX67.9925$Iz3.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Looking at it yet another way around, since I can't see what use the
information is to me, and I don't believe the Spirit is going to tell us
things we don't need to know, therefore the images in Revelation are not
about the future but about the present (and always have been).
--
Alec
Simon Woods
news:ly277.13174$Iz3.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Looking at it yet another way around, since I can't see what use the
> information is to me, and I don't believe the Spirit is going to tell us
> things we don't need to know, therefore the images in Revelation are not
> about the future but about the present (and always have been).
>
Alec,
Thoughts - no coherent structure (as is my tendency)
The Scripture presents itself to us 'as is'. There is prophetic content as
there was, say, when Isaiah wrote chapter 53 (please let's not get onto
Deutero-Isaiah - because I don't know anything about it!!). Jews see this as
relating to their nation, Christians to the Lord Jesus. Both will be correct
in some sense, but Christ is the fulfillment.
Rev 1:1 "... things which much shortly take place" - Sounds to me futurist.
Rev 4:1, 7:1, 9, 18:1, 19:1 "after these things ..." - Sounds to me
progressive as does the progression of the seven trumpets, the seven plagues
etc ...
ch 8-17 loads of "... then ... then ... then ..." with dependency between
things being seen in vision.
21:4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes ... no more death
.... tears ... crying ... pain - the former things have passed away" - I'd
really struggle to see this as a description of the time now present.
FWIW, I think there may be something in suggesting that what is happening
now is typical of what will happen - in the same way that Isaiah 53, in one
sense, speaks of the Jewish nation - that the spiritual forces at work and
battles currently underway between darkness and light evidence themselves in
a particular manner, and this expression will reach its climax in the Day
that approaches.
Other NT writings intersperse elements of the prophetic with every day
teachings e.g Heb 10:25 and use it to inspire to greater devotion to the
Lord. Each of the synoptics include prophetic elements which cohere, IMO,
with the descriptions of events in Rev, Daniel etc.
You said
"I can't see what use the information is to me" - in the nicest possible
way - that's your problem ;-) - as Daniel says God "reveals deep and secret
things" (BTW I'm not saying that I know deep and secret things - I fully
admit that I'm more than likely to be way-off beam - another of my
strengths)
"I don't believe the Spirit is going to tell us things we don't need to
know" - I'm sure you don't think you've finished learning, growing
spiritually, so there is always room, probably infinite room, to learn new
things from the Spirit about the purposes of God. "Ask ... Seek ... Knock
.... "
"_therefore_ the images in Revelation are not about the future but about the
present (and always have been)." That the images in Revelation are about the
future/present is surely not influenced by our beliefs. Isn't the question
whether John, the most beloved disciple of the Lord, was given special
insight over the events which would take place 1900+ years hence. (As an
aside, I've often wondered how a person living at that time would have
described an aeroplane or tank or some of the hideous images we see that are
computer-generated.)
Yours incoherently
Simon
Gareth McCaughan
> Looking at it yet another way around, since I can't see what use the
> information is to me, and I don't believe the Spirit is going to tell us
> things we don't need to know, therefore the images in Revelation are not
> about the future but about the present (and always have been).
I find it harder to believe that knowing the number of
people enrolled from the clans of Manasseh in the census
described in Numbers 26 is useful to me, than to believe
that knowing something about what will happen at "the end
of the world" is useful to me, although I too find it
hard to see much utility in the latter.
Since no other interpretation of Numbers 26:29-34 is
(so far as I know) forthcoming, this appears to me to
be an argument against the principle I think you're
appealing to, that if we can't see a use for something
then we're reading it wrong.
BRIAN KONIAK
news:3b54b0b3...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Well, for the demonic activities that I described in the earlier newspost
that you are responding to; are you saying that Christians need not worry
about Satan and his demons, and for Christians to just live their lives
anyways regardless of what happens in the world?
You may be missing the point because you are in the "pot as it turns to
boiling" before you recognize it.
Could part of Satan's final plan on mankind be to let the world in general
be exposed to all sorts of demonic spiritual activities so that man becomes
accustomed to it?; and before we know it, Satan's deception has taken hold
and its too late? Jesus just came back and you were found not wanting, but
left behind.
Brian
BRIAN KONIAK
> "postrib" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> news:KBG67.3251$ar1....@www.newsranger.com...
> > In article <tl3ots2...@corp.supernews.com>, BRIAN KONIAK says...
> > > ...the revival will occur after the Rapture during the seven year
> > > Tribulation...
>
> 1) Times of the gentiles (Jer 25:1)
> 2) Decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Neh 2:1-8)
> 3) The Cross
> 4) The coming of the Lord to the air (1 Thess 4:16,17)
> 5) The Judgement seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10)
> 6) Daniel's 70th week (Daniel 9:26,27)
> 7) The great Tribulation (Matt 24:21)
> 8) The coming of the Son of Man (2 Thess 2:7,8, Matt 24:30)
> 9) The judgement of the living nations (Matt 25:31ff)
> 10) The milleinium (Rev 20:4-6)
> 11) The final rebellion (Rev 20:7-9)
> 12) The Great White Throne (Rev 20:11-15)
> 13) New heaven and earth (Rev 21:1-5)
> 14) Eternal Kingdom (Eph 3:21, 2 Peter 1:11)
> Simon
You couldn't have said it any better than you have here.
Also, there will always be contentions among Christians as to, when and if a
Rapture occurs before Jesus returns, in order to save the Jews from ultimate
annihilation at the Battle of Armageddon.
I believe that as we get closer to this time when Jesus pokes out from
heaven and says, "I'm Back!!!" that more and more Christians will deny the
Rapture experience and replacing it with "the end of the end." This would
be due to "apostasy" in the church and Christians possibly getting "nervous"
about Jesus ACTUALLY COMING BACK [as they portend to believe. You know, He
does have to come back!!!!] A delay mechanism (putting off till), if you
will, for the end.
In an earlier newspost, "apostasy," from the New Scofield Study Bible
(NSRB), is defined as:
"a 'falling away' as an act of professed Christians who deliberately reject
revealed truth [in this case: the Rapture]; Apostasy differs, therefore,
from error concerning truth,
which may be the result of ignorance or heresy, which may be due to the
snare of Satan, both of which may exist with true faith. Apostates depart
from the faith , but not from the outward profession of Christianity." Also
at 2 Timothy 4:1, the NSRB states: "Satanic deception which caused the fall
of man will characterize the end of the age."
Brian
Alec Brady
news:86hew25...@g.local...
> Alec Brady wrote:
>
> > Looking at it yet another way around, since I can't see what use the
> > information is to me, and I don't believe the Spirit is going to tell us
> > things we don't need to know, therefore the images in Revelation are not
> > about the future but about the present (and always have been).
>
> I find it harder to believe that knowing the number of
> people enrolled from the clans of Manasseh in the census
> described in Numbers 26 is useful to me, than to believe
> that knowing something about what will happen at "the end
> of the world" is useful to me, although I too find it
> hard to see much utility in the latter.
I find it hard to grasp how Numbers is any use to me at all. My provisional
conclusion is that it was never meant to be useful to me as a solitary
individual; that it's for the nation of Judah. But I would argue that, if
Num 26 is just the roll of the clans, then it doesn't matter to me; and if
it does matter to me, then there's more to it than just the roll of the
clans. If Numbers 26 has anything to say to me it's because it conveys an
eternal truth and not one for a particular time.
I suppose my statement about the utility of Revelation was a bit over the
top, because it was in response to this whole Endtime thing. Why does every
generation seem to think the prophecies in the book of Revelation are
uniquely about them? John wrote the book for the persecuted church in his
own time, and it has a divine message for all times. The Endtimes approach
would imply that it has no importance for the seventy or so generations
between John and us - including John's generation.
I detest the literalistic reading that says "the New Jerusalem will have
gates of pearl. This means that the New Jerusalem will have gates of pearl."
I have no patience with that. It's trite and banausic, it has no connection
with the gospel message. Why should I care whether the gates of the New
Jerusalem are made of pearl, wicker, steel, gold or uPVC, as long as I'm on
the inside of them? But if (as I suspect) it means "the church is
strengthened by its purity" then it starts to make some sense.
> Since no other interpretation of Numbers 26:29-34 is
> (so far as I know) forthcoming, this appears to me to
> be an argument against the principle I think you're
> appealing to, that if we can't see a use for something
> then we're reading it wrong.
Yes, I overstated my case. But as you can see I was just inverting Simon's
previous statement: "if it wasn't that important, why would the Holy Spirit
include so much information?" This was meant to show that it matters what
the gates of the New Jerusalem are made of. I want to say that, if it
matters, then it's not really about what the gates of the New Jerusalem are
made of. If Revelation has anything to say to me it's because it conveys an
eternal truth and not one for a particular time.
--
Alec
Alec Brady
> "Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:ly277.13174$Iz3.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > Looking at it yet another way around, since I can't see what use the
> > information is to me, and I don't believe the Spirit is going to tell us
> > things we don't need to know, therefore the images in Revelation are not
> > about the future but about the present (and always have been).
>
> Alec,
>
> Thoughts - no coherent structure (as is my tendency)
>
> The Scripture presents itself to us 'as is'. There is prophetic content as
> there was, say, when Isaiah wrote chapter 53 (please let's not get onto
> Deutero-Isaiah - because I don't know anything about it!!). Jews see this
> as relating to their nation, Christians to the Lord Jesus. Both will be
> correct in some sense, but Christ is the fulfillment.
True. The prophecy has something to say to everyone.
> Rev 1:1 "... things which much shortly take place" - Sounds to me
> futurist.
Twenty centuries doesn't sound like "shortly" to me.
> Rev 4:1, 7:1, 9, 18:1, 19:1 "after these things ..." - Sounds to me
> progressive as does the progression of the seven trumpets, the seven
> plagues.
Progression in imagery does not imply imagery of a progression.
> etc ...
>
> ch 8-17 loads of "... then ... then ... then ..." with dependency between
> things being seen in vision.
>
> 21:4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes ... no more death
> .... tears ... crying ... pain - the former things have passed away" -
> I'd really struggle to see this as a description of the time now present.
It has events in eternity running parallel with events in time. The Roman
Empire is shown persecuting the saints, and the saints being vindicated in
eternity. Of course, there is no succession of events in eternity, but this
is an image not a video.
> FWIW, I think there may be something in suggesting that what is happening
> now is typical of what will happen - in the same way that Isaiah 53, in
> one sense, speaks of the Jewish nation - that the spiritual forces at work
and
> battles currently underway between darkness and light evidence themselves
> in a particular manner, and this expression will reach its climax in the
Day
> that approaches.
There may be something in suggesting it. I just happen to believe that it's
nonsense. There you go.
> Other NT writings intersperse elements of the prophetic with every day
> teachings e.g Heb 10:25 and use it to inspire to greater devotion to the
> Lord. Each of the synoptics include prophetic elements which cohere, IMO,
> with the descriptions of events in Rev, Daniel etc.
Clearly John, and the author of Hebrews, and the Synoptics, all believed
that the end was nigh. They were wrong. Peter suggested that they shouldn't
get hung up on the timescale. He was right. Jesus said that no-one (not even
the Son) knows when the end will be, but only the Father knows.
True, we can stir up our devotion to the Lord by contemplating his works;
and we should certainly meditate on the last things - heven and hell, death
and judgement. But a Swedenborgian obsession with the mechanics of it all is
not healthy, and I see no reason to imagine that that is what Revelation is
all about.
> You said
>
> "I can't see what use the information is to me" - in the nicest possible
> way - that's your problem ;-) - as Daniel says God "reveals deep and
> secret things" (BTW I'm not saying that I know deep and secret things
> - I fully admit that I'm more than likely to be way-off beam - another of
my
> strengths)
I didn't say that what God reveals isn't of use, I said that knowing the
future is not of use and therefore it isn't what God reveals.
The prophecies of the OT, for example, were spoken to Israel and Judah for
their own time. Then when Jesus came he showed us how they *also* applied to
him.
Isaiah's description of the Suffering Servant spoke to the Jews about their
own suffering, consoling them with the knowledge that it was still part of
God's redemptive plan. What Isaiah didn't do was give them a factual
description of the crucifixion ('and there will be a man called Pilate, and
he'll wear a red cloak. And the Servant will stand up to him. And there will
be a longish lull while Pilate ponders what to say'). The prophecy of the
Servant worked perfectly well for the Jews (and still does for the Jews
today) without being read as a reference to Jesus.
This is totally unlike your view of the prophecy of John in Revelation. In
this case you seem to be saying that it has to be read as a mere factual
description with no allegorical or spiritual content at all. I'm sorry, I
just don't buy that.
> "I don't believe the Spirit is going to tell us things we don't need to
> know" - I'm sure you don't think you've finished learning, growing
> spiritually, so there is always room, probably infinite room, to learn new
> things from the Spirit about the purposes of God. "Ask ... Seek ... Knock
> .... "
Indeed. But I still don't expect the Spirit to tell me who will win the 3:20
at Kempton Park, and I don't think he's going to tell scores of generations
of Christians about the details of the last battle. What are we supposed to
do with this knowledge, anyway? Bet on it? If I am to use Scripture for my
spiritual growth, I would expect it to have a spiritual content. The order
of events at some unspecified time in the future, or the chemical
composition of lakes of fire, or the builder's spec. for the New Jerusalem
are not - in my book - spiritual content.
> "_therefore_ the images in Revelation are not about the future but about
> the present (and always have been)."
Yes?
> That the images in Revelation are about the future/present is surely not
> influenced by our beliefs.
Of course not. But my belief about the imagery in Revelation surely is
influenced by my beliefs.
> Isn't the question
> whether John, the most beloved disciple of the Lord, was given special
> insight over the events which would take place 1900+ years hence.
1) Is the John that wrote Revelation the same John that wrote the gospel? He
doesn't say he is, and John was not an uncommon name.
2) What on earth would be the point of John giving the 1st century church a
catalogue of 21st century events? What are they supposed to do with that?
3) If the question is what you say it is, what is to stop me answering "no,
he wasn't given such insight"?
> (As an aside, I've often wondered how a person living at that time would
have
> described an aeroplane or tank or some of the hideous images we see that
> are computer-generated.)
But perhaps a better question might be "*why* would a person living at that
time describe an aeroplane or a tank etc. etc.?"
ISTM that the God that would do all this is very much the prankster God who
plants dinosaur fossils all over the show, so that he has an excuse for
sending people to hell for believing in evolution. No thanks. I'm happy to
stick with the orthodox faith and leave these games to people who find them
amusing.
--
Alec
Debbie
<bpko...@fuse.net> wrote <tls3vgi...@corp.supernews.com>:
>Well, for the demonic activities that I described in the earlier newspost
>that you are responding to; are you saying that Christians need not worry
>about Satan and his demons, and for Christians to just live their lives
>anyways regardless of what happens in the world?
Not at all - we are called to be light and leaven in the world.
Feeding the hungry, tending the sick, making disciples and all that
stuff. If you want to waste your time looking for demons behind
every tree, feel free. I have better things to do.
>You may be missing the point because you are in the "pot as it turns to
>boiling" before you recognize it.
Simmering nicely, thank you.
>Could part of Satan's final plan on mankind be to let the world in general
>be exposed to all sorts of demonic spiritual activities so that man becomes
>accustomed to it?; and before we know it, Satan's deception has taken hold
>and its too late? Jesus just came back and you were found not wanting, but
>left behind.
May I remind you that suggesting that anyone on this group who claims
to be Christian is not constitutes abuse, and the above sentence looks
very much as if that is what you are doing. The state of my soul is
between me and God, and you have neither the authority nor the insight
into my life to make any judgement on it.
Gareth McCaughan
>>> Looking at it yet another way around, since I can't see what use the
>>> information is to me, and I don't believe the Spirit is going to tell us
>>> things we don't need to know, therefore the images in Revelation are not
>>> about the future but about the present (and always have been).
...
> I suppose my statement about the utility of Revelation was a bit over the
> top, because it was in response to this whole Endtime thing. Why does every
> generation seem to think the prophecies in the book of Revelation are
> uniquely about them? John wrote the book for the persecuted church in his
> own time, and it has a divine message for all times. The Endtimes approach
> would imply that it has no importance for the seventy or so generations
> between John and us - including John's generation.
For what it's worth, on the whole I agree. But I don't think
it's impossible that the main value of Revelation might turn out
to be for one particular generation near The End (tm), any more
than it's impossible that the main value of much of Numbers
might turn out to have been for the nation of Judah many years
ago.
> I detest the literalistic reading that says "the New Jerusalem will have
> gates of pearl. This means that the New Jerusalem will have gates of pearl."
> I have no patience with that. It's trite and banausic, it has no connection
> with the gospel message. Why should I care whether the gates of the New
> Jerusalem are made of pearl, wicker, steel, gold or uPVC, as long as I'm on
> the inside of them? But if (as I suspect) it means "the church is
> strengthened by its purity" then it starts to make some sense.
What if it means "God has prepared splendours and delights
for those who love him"? It could even mean that while
simultaneously meaning that the New Jerusalem will have
gates of pearl.
I like your interpretation, by the way. I'm just observing
that a very "straight" interpretation doesn't have to be
flatly valueless.
>> Since no other interpretation of Numbers 26:29-34 is
>> (so far as I know) forthcoming, this appears to me to
>> be an argument against the principle I think you're
>> appealing to, that if we can't see a use for something
>> then we're reading it wrong.
>
> Yes, I overstated my case. But as you can see I was just inverting Simon's
> previous statement: "if it wasn't that important, why would the Holy Spirit
> include so much information?" This was meant to show that it matters what
> the gates of the New Jerusalem are made of. I want to say that, if it
> matters, then it's not really about what the gates of the New Jerusalem are
> made of. If Revelation has anything to say to me it's because it conveys an
> eternal truth and not one for a particular time.
Suppose it turned out that Revelation is about "the end
times" and that these are they. (I think this quite
unlikely, by the way.) Would it not then have something
to say to you?
Ken Down
<bpko...@fuse.net> wrote:
> [as they portend to believe.
I presume it is a significant belief?
On a more serious note, it is quite possible to believe that Jesus is coming
back, without getting in a tizz about the rapture. After all, the rapture is
not taught in the Bible.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news from
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| the Middle East with David Down and
================================= "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Ken Down
Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
> I find it hard to grasp how Numbers is any use to me at all.
Well, there's the story of Balaam, of course. And the story of the spies,
both of which have morals from which Christians can profit. (I think
Christians can profit from far more than just those two stories, but they
are the easiest.)
> I detest the literalistic reading that says "the New Jerusalem will have
> gates of pearl. This means that the New Jerusalem will have gates of
> pearl." I have no patience with that. It's trite and banausic, it has no
> connection with the gospel message. Why should I care whether the gates of
> the New Jerusalem are made of pearl, wicker, steel, gold or uPVC, as long
> as I'm on the inside of them?
You wouldn't be going over the top again, would you?
> But if (as I suspect) it means "the church is
> strengthened by its purity" then it starts to make some sense.
The trouble is that the interpretation you put forward is totally and
completly wrong: a pearl is caused by an irritant, so what it really means
is that the church is strengthened by its sufferings.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. That interpretation is completely wrong as well. Jesus
is the pearl of great price, so what it really really means is that Jesus is
the only way into the city.
Oh, drat! No! Pearls have to harvested and go through a process of
selection, so what it really really really means is that the only way into
the city is by God selecting us, so here, at last, is proof of the doctrine
of predestination.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
P.S. I am sure that if I put my mind to it, I could come up with another
three or four "interpretations" for that passage. That's the trouble with
this sort of "spiritualising" approach to the Bible: it ends up meaning
everything and, as I have before remarked (to Gareth's disapproval), by so
doing it ends up meaning nothing.
Simon Woods
news:na.b7cb224a9f....@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <tls3eag...@corp.supernews.com>, "BRIAN KONIAK"
> <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
> > [as they portend to believe.
>
> I presume it is a significant belief?
>
> On a more serious note, it is quite possible to believe that Jesus is
coming
> back, without getting in a tizz about the rapture. After all, the rapture
is
> not taught in the Bible.
>
aka The coming of the Lord to the air (1 Thess 4:16,17)
Simon
Hiscoming
very powerful and sharper than two-edged sword. When we begin to go deep
into the word of God, things begin to happen, the wheat is separated from
the weeds. You will be able to really know who is with God and who is
against God.
Even, Jesus says that not all those that call me Lord Lord shall enter nto
the Kingdom of God. That is, not all those that say they are christians are
truly Christians. We know that God knows them and we also can know them by
looking at the fruits of their self-aclaimed salvation. Even some of the
unsaved sinners do recognise fake Christians.
Alec Brady
> In article <F8E77.23247$Iz3.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Alec
> Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > I find it hard to grasp how Numbers is any use to me at all.
>
> Well, there's the story of Balaam, of course. And the story of the spies,
> both of which have morals from which Christians can profit. (I think
> Christians can profit from far more than just those two stories, but they
> are the easiest.)
>
> > I detest the literalistic reading that says "the New Jerusalem will have
> > gates of pearl. This means that the New Jerusalem will have gates of
> > pearl." I have no patience with that. It's trite and banausic, it has no
> > connection with the gospel message. Why should I care whether the gates
of
> > the New Jerusalem are made of pearl, wicker, steel, gold or uPVC, as
long
> > as I'm on the inside of them?
>
> You wouldn't be going over the top again, would you?
Moi?
> > But if (as I suspect) it means "the church is
> > strengthened by its purity" then it starts to make some sense.
>
> The trouble is that the interpretation you put forward is totally and
> completely wrong: a pearl is caused by an irritant, so what it really
means
> is that the church is strengthened by its sufferings.
I don't think John knew that pearls were caused by irritation; Gregory
Thaumaturgus apparently thought they were caused by the action of lightning
on seawater.
But, OK, I could work up an allegory based on that idea. Maybe we could
exploit the dual imager of *gates* as "way in" and "means of keeping out".
Maybe "the way into the kingdom must include suffering"?
> Oh, sorry, I forgot. That interpretation is completely wrong as well.
> Jesus is the pearl of great price, so what it really really means is that
Jesus
> is the only way into the city.
Actually, it's the kingdom that's a pearl of great price.
> Oh, drat! No! Pearls have to harvested and go through a process of
> selection, so what it really really really means is that the only way into
> the city is by God selecting us, so here, at last, is proof of the
> doctrine of predestination.
Proof? I thought you were putting forward allegorical readings? But an
allegorical reading can't *prove* anything! [1]
> P.S. I am sure that if I put my mind to it, I could come up with another
> three or four "interpretations" for that passage. That's the trouble with
> this sort of "spiritualising" approach to the Bible: it ends up meaning
> everything and, as I have before remarked (to Gareth's disapproval), by so
> doing it ends up meaning nothing.
Not at all; it's the building-inventory-for-the-New-Jerusalem (BIFTNJ)
school of exegesis that ends up meaning nothing.
[1] Except that Ken only reads enough of my posts to plan his rebuttal, and
doesn't believe me when I say that allegorical readings shouldn't be used to
prove anything.
Alec Brady
> For what it's worth, on the whole I agree. But I don't think
> it's impossible that the main value of Revelation might turn out
> to be for one particular generation near The End (tm),
I can't find anything anywhere about the criteria on which Revelation was
admitted to the canon. I know that there was a lot of disagreement, and some
thought it should be treated as apocryphal. I find it hard to believe it
made it in because it might come in useful.
> any more
> than it's impossible that the main value of much of Numbers
> might turn out to have been for the nation of Judah many years
> ago.
I was assuming that Numbers was put into book form in Judah, and that that's
where its contemporary relevance was to be found. Maybe I'm wrong.
> > Why should I care whether the gates of the New Jerusalem are made of
> > pearl, wicker, steel, gold or uPVC, as long as I'm on the inside of
them? But
> > if (as I suspect) it means "the church is strengthened by its purity"
then it
> > starts to make some sense.
>
> What if it means "God has prepared splendours and delights
> for those who love him"? It could even mean that while
> simultaneously meaning that the New Jerusalem will have
> gates of pearl.
I'm happy with that meaning, though lots of things are splendid and
delightful, and I'd still like to know what pearl symbolised among John's
audience.
I agree that the symbolism is not vitiated by the literal interpretation
also being true; but I can't see any reason for holding the literal
interpretation, and "well, it *might* be so" doesn't feel like a reason to
me.
> I like your interpretation, by the way. I'm just observing
> that a very "straight" interpretation doesn't have to be
> flatly valueless.
No, indeed. Catholics have a very "straight" interpretation of the
institution of the Eucharist, and we don't find that flatly valueless, not
nowise. But much that's written about the "Endtimes" seems to me to be
paranoid fantasy rather than Christian truth.
I have this picture of poor old John Knox, labouring away over a sermon on
Revelation 8:17, not knowing that it was about modern warfare or video
imagery! What a hoot!
> >> Since no other interpretation of Numbers 26:29-34 is
> >> (so far as I know) forthcoming, this appears to me to
> >> be an argument against the principle I think you're
> >> appealing to, that if we can't see a use for something
> >> then we're reading it wrong.
> >
> > Yes, I overstated my case. But as you can see I was just inverting
> > Simon's previous statement: "if it wasn't that important, why would the
> > Holy Spirit include so much information?" This was meant to show that
> > it matters what the gates of the New Jerusalem are made of. I want to
> > say that, if it matters, then it's not really about what the gates of
the New
> > Jerusalem are made of. If Revelation has anything to say to me it's
because
> > it conveys an eternal truth and not one for a particular time.
>
> Suppose it turned out that Revelation is about "the end
> times" and that these are they. (I think this quite
> unlikely, by the way.) Would it not then have something
> to say to you?
Maybe. But I'd still want to know why God is bothering me with a list of
construction materials. Isn't there something badly awry if I need an
identikit of the New Jerusalem to recognise it? ("Have you seen this beast
with ten horns? If you do, don't try to apprehend it yourself...")
But the City is the Church of God, and the water that runs like crystal
through its street is the Holy Spirit, and the beast with ten horns and
seven heads is pagan Rome, built on its seven hills, and the woman who gives
birth to the child is Israel. By putting these events in the near future and
treating it as prophecy, John gives his picture of the plan of salvation a
mysterious and compelling quality, and the first hearers must have said
"yes! that's so right! that's just how it is!" Thus the promised salvation,
the defeat of the beast and the marriage of the Lamb, must have been doubly
consoling.
To treat it as literal fact is like stopping Jesus in the middle of the
parable of the sower and saying "Where did you say this happened? How tall
was the sower? Do I know his family? That wheat sounds good, where can I buy
it?"
Tscha.
--
Alec
CINDY SMITH
"Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> writes:
> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:868zhcm...@g.local...
>> For what it's worth, on the whole I agree. But I don't think
>> it's impossible that the main value of Revelation might turn out
>> to be for one particular generation near The End (tm),
> I can't find anything anywhere about the criteria on which Revelation was
> admitted to the canon. I know that there was a lot of disagreement, and some
> thought it should be treated as apocryphal. I find it hard to believe it
> made it in because it might come in useful.
I read one scholar who claimed that the Book of Revelation was about
the sack of Rome by the Parthians. There were several books of the
New Testament that were contraversial and were only admitted by later
Councils. Obviously, the only books accepted were those that agreed
with Catholic teachings.
>> any more
>> than it's impossible that the main value of much of Numbers
>> might turn out to have been for the nation of Judah many years
>> ago.
> I was assuming that Numbers was put into book form in Judah, and that that's
> where its contemporary relevance was to be found. Maybe I'm wrong.
I think the compilation of the Torah and writings and prophets were
made after the Babylonian Exile. The Book of Judges is much older
material than the Pentateuch and some scholars believe reflects a more
accurate rendition of how the promised land was conquered. In other
words, it was a lot messier.
>> > Why should I care whether the gates of the New Jerusalem are made of
>> > pearl, wicker, steel, gold or uPVC, as long as I'm on the inside of
> them? But
>> > if (as I suspect) it means "the church is strengthened by its purity"
> then it
>> > starts to make some sense.
>> What if it means "God has prepared splendours and delights
>> for those who love him"? It could even mean that while
>> simultaneously meaning that the New Jerusalem will have
>> gates of pearl.
> I'm happy with that meaning, though lots of things are splendid and
> delightful, and I'd still like to know what pearl symbolised among John's
> audience.
> I agree that the symbolism is not vitiated by the literal interpretation
> also being true; but I can't see any reason for holding the literal
> interpretation, and "well, it *might* be so" doesn't feel like a reason to
> me.
I believe that Revelation is highly symbolic and mystical, an example
of Jewish apocalyptic writings that are not meant to be taken
literally. To misunderstand the form is to misundstand the meaning.
>> I like your interpretation, by the way. I'm just observing
>> that a very "straight" interpretation doesn't have to be
>> flatly valueless.
> No, indeed. Catholics have a very "straight" interpretation of the
> institution of the Eucharist, and we don't find that flatly valueless, not
> nowise. But much that's written about the "Endtimes" seems to me to be
> paranoid fantasy rather than Christian truth.
Absolutely right. My mother-in-law, a devout Baptist, has had my
kids, who are Catholic, reading the _Left Behind_ series and watching
the movie of the same title, the premise of which is what happens
after the Rapture to those "left behind." I think the whole theology
surrounding the Rapture was pretty much invented in the 19th century
by a Protestant theologian whose name escapes me, but, even lacking
traditional interpretations of Scripture that in no way support
Rapture theology, many Protestants like her accept it as Gospel. When
I suggested to her a different interpretation, that the ones snatched
away are taken to hell while the ones left behind will be saved, she
stuck to her intepretation as though it were the only legitimate one.
Protestants claim they have no traditions, but this is obviously not
true based on my experiences in discussing Scripture with them.
Just ask any Protestant about faith and works, and you will get a
particular interpretation that they seem to think is written on the
same stone tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain.
Protestants lack freedom to interpret Scripture, a charge they
frequently level at us Catholics.
> I have this picture of poor old John Knox, labouring away over a sermon on
> Revelation 8:17, not knowing that it was about modern warfare or video
> imagery! What a hoot!
There is no Revelation 8:17. Perhaps you were thinking of a different
verse?
[snip]
> To treat it as literal fact is like stopping Jesus in the middle of the
> parable of the sower and saying "Where did you say this happened? How tall
> was the sower? Do I know his family? That wheat sounds good, where can I buy
> it?"
I agree that Revelation is more like a parable than a literal
description of future events. I also think that the first eleven
chapters of Genesis are a parable or a myth in the sense of a
profoundly true story that teaches us not about how the universe was
created but about _why_ God created the universe and human beings.
Creation is an expression of the love of God. "So whoever is in
Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold,
new things have come" (2 Corinthians 5:17). If we treated all our
fellow human beings with the same love we treat a newborn baby, the
world would be a better place populated with "new creations."
Revelation is about the new creation God has made in the New
Jerusalem, which is the Church.
> Tscha.
> Alec
--
Cindy Smith I have further observed under the sun that
c...@dragon.com The race is not won by the swift,
c...@5sc.net Nor the battle by the valiant;
c...@romancatholic.org Nor is bread won by the wise,
Nor wealth by the intelligent,
Me transmitte sursum, Nor favor by the learned.
Caledoni! -- JPS Ecclesiastes 9:11
Simon Woods
> "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:Xo977.14783$Iz3.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > "Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> Twenty centuries doesn't sound like "shortly" to me.
1 day = 1000 years?
> > Rev 4:1, 7:1, 9, 18:1, 19:1 "after these things ..." - Sounds to me
> > progressive as does the progression of the seven trumpets, the seven
> > plagues.
>
> Progression in imagery does not imply imagery of a progression.
Progression in imagery *may* not imply imagery of a progression - but then
again, it may.
> The Roman
> Empire is shown persecuting the saints, and the saints being vindicated in
> eternity. Of course, there is no succession of events in eternity, but
this
> is an image not a video.
>
It is true that a Roman Empire persecuted the saints. But that may yet prove
to be a prefiguring of what is yet to come. Until this does or doesn't
happen, it's difficult to say that it won't. I believe Revelation teaches
that it will happen. If it doesn't, then I'll be more than happy to confess
my error of judgement. (I seem to think I've confessed a few errors to this
NG).
> > Other NT writings intersperse elements of the prophetic with every day
> > teachings e.g Heb 10:25 and use it to inspire to greater devotion to the
> > Lord. Each of the synoptics include prophetic elements which cohere,
IMO,
> > with the descriptions of events in Rev, Daniel etc.
>
> Clearly John, and the author of Hebrews, and the Synoptics, all believed
> that the end was nigh. They were wrong.
If 'nigh' < 2000 years then you are correct.
If 'nigh' > 2000 years then you are wrong.
I'm approximating here so please don't come back with the scenario what if
'nigh' = 2000 years ;-)
> True, we can stir up our devotion to the Lord by contemplating his works;
> and we should certainly meditate on the last things - heven and hell,
death
> and judgement. But a Swedenborgian obsession with the mechanics of it all
is
> not healthy, and I see no reason to imagine that that is what Revelation
is
> all about.
I've don't know anything about Swedenborg, I'm afraid, so I don't believe
I'm obsessed with him ;0)
Whether it's healthy is surely a matter of whether it approaches a correct
understanding of Revelation or not. If it is really amillienial,
post-tribulation then, you're right, I'm deceiving myself.
> I didn't say that what God reveals isn't of use, I said that knowing the
> future is not of use and therefore it isn't what God reveals.
Unless God has revealed the future to you a la Daniel/Joseph in both cases
it helped them. If there really are cataclysmic events ahead including a
lake
of fire where those, whose names are not written in the Book of Life, will
be placed, then it will invariably spur us on to greater devotion,
evangelism, expectation etc. If it's all metaphor, imagery, universalism etc
then we could all become buddists (that's not meant be be a swipe at
buddhists BTW)!!
> The prophecies of the OT, for example, were spoken to Israel and Judah for
> their own time. Then when Jesus came he showed us how they *also* applied
> to him.
He said they were fulfilled by Him
> Isaiah's description of the Suffering Servant spoke to the Jews about
their
> own suffering, consoling them with the knowledge that it was still part of
> God's redemptive plan. What Isaiah didn't do was give them a factual
> description of the crucifixion ('and there will be a man called Pilate,
and
> he'll wear a red cloak. And the Servant will stand up to him. And there
will
> be a longish lull while Pilate ponders what to say').
Isaiah 53 seems pretty factual to me. If you mean why didn't Isaiah write
for someone reading it in the 21st century living in a post-scientific
society, I don't know. Why don't you write in Shakespearian English? perhaps
you do elsewhere ;-)
>The prophecy of the
> Servant worked perfectly well for the Jews (and still does for the Jews
> today) without being read as a reference to Jesus.
But it's richness is exalted when understood in the light of Christ's work.
> This is totally unlike your view of the prophecy of John in Revelation. In
> this case you seem to be saying that it has to be read as a mere factual
> description with no allegorical or spiritual content at all. I'm sorry, I
> just don't buy that.
All I'm saying is that Revelation (and the whole of Scripture for that
matter) presents itself 'as is'. I read it or Isaiah or John or Leviticus in
the same way. It is true that I believe there is wonderful typological
content in the everyday explanations of, say, the Tabernacle when understood
in light of the Lord Jesus.
In reading it (and Scripture in general), I find that it often painfully
reflects my own failings, as a mirror shows me my 'spots'. Revelation
perhaps does this more than most because I find find it so difficult to
understand. Other books I can more easily assimilate into my own frameworks.
Revelation demands that much more of me often because the descriptions are
so much more stark, wierd, magnificent, brutal ...
Then again, I used to think Ezekiel was schizophrenic. Now I think he was a
man, highly favoured of God. (I accept you could suggest that I'm becoming
schizophrenic!!)
I do wonder whether though the expression of Revelation is closer to God's
reality (whatever this may mean) than the expression of other books which
perhaps meet us closer to our own dream-world which we call reality. The
book of Revelation is the Revelation of Jesus Christ as the first verse
says. To me this seems to be implying that What (or Who) was concealed is
being revealled. ("It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory
of kings is to search out a matter." - Prov 25:2)
Alec, please don't think I'm saying that anyone else has to read it like I
do. I'm
only saying how I read it, not how you should read it.
> But I still don't expect the Spirit to tell me who will win the
3:20
> at Kempton Park, and I don't think he's going to tell scores of
generations
> of Christians about the details of the last battle. What are we supposed
to
> do with this knowledge, anyway? Bet on it? If I am to use Scripture for my
> spiritual growth, I would expect it to have a spiritual content. The order
> of events at some unspecified time in the future, or the chemical
> composition of lakes of fire, or the builder's spec. for the New Jerusalem
> are not - in my book - spiritual content.
"the 3:20 at Kempton" and "the Lake of Fire" - interesting parallel -
perhaps, may I suggest, of slightly different order of magnitude :-)
However, using your parallel, I seem to think that if one did know who was
going to win at Kempton, one may make the effort to
go to the bookies when otherwise one wouldn't. If knowing the future spurs
you to action in that case, then why not in spiritual matters as well.
> > That the images in Revelation are about the future/present is surely not
> > influenced by our beliefs.
>
> Of course not. But my belief about the imagery in Revelation surely is
> influenced by my beliefs.
I'm afraid I'm not a psychologist!
> 1) Is the John that wrote Revelation the same John that wrote the gospel?
> He doesn't say he is, and John was not an uncommon name.
I obviously believe it was - perhaps for a different thread at some point?
> 2) What on earth would be the point of John giving the 1st century church
> a catalogue of 21st century events? What are they supposed to do with
that?
I'm not suggesting it *is* the 21st century. It's was then and still is the
future. One day, I suggest, it'll be the present and then the past and then
the day of Grace will have passed.
> 3) If the question is what you say it is, what is to stop me answering
> "no, he wasn't given such insight"?
Nothing
> But perhaps a better question might be "*why* would a person living at
> that time describe an aeroplane or a tank etc. etc.?"
Yes - it wasn't a very good 'aside' !!
> ISTM that the God that would do all this is very much the prankster God
> who plants dinosaur fossils all over the show, so that he has an excuse
for
> sending people to hell for believing in evolution.
"believing in evolution" is not grounds for damnation.
There is a fossil record which presents itself 'as is'. Scientists then
construct an explanation. If in due course we find out that that explanation
turns out to be wrong why is that God's fault? Was it God's fault that man
looked to the horizon and concluded the earth must be flat?
Simon
Simon Woods
>
> I think the whole theology
> surrounding the Rapture was pretty much invented in the 19th century
> by a Protestant theologian whose name escapes me,
JN Darby, I think. This is a bit like saying that the whole 'Justification
by Faith' thing was invented by some 16th century monk.
Is it invention or revelation?
Simon
Nick Milton
>Protestants lack freedom to interpret Scripture, a charge they
>frequently level at us Catholics.
I do wish you would stop this accusatory stuff, Cindy. There is no
need to polarise everything.
The point is that *everyone* lacks freedom to interpret Scripture. We
all come to it with preconceptions.
One of the merits of this group *if we can please stop accusing, and
just listen to each other* is that it helps us become aware of our
preconceptions
Nick
Alec Brady
> "Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> writes:
> > I have this picture of poor old John Knox, labouring away over a
> > sermon on Revelation 8:17, not knowing that it was about modern
> > warfare or video imagery! What a hoot!
>
> There is no Revelation 8:17. Perhaps you were thinking of a
> different verse?
Sorry, yes: 9:17. In mitigation, may I say that the NT I was using has tiny
chapter numbers, and I just missed the 9.
--
Alec
Tony Gillam
example
> of Jewish apocalyptic writings that are not meant to be taken
> literally. To misunderstand the form is to misundstand the meaning.
>
> > No, indeed. Catholics have a very "straight" interpretation of the
> > institution of the Eucharist, and we don't find that flatly
valueless, not
> > nowise. But much that's written about the "Endtimes" seems to me
to be
> > paranoid fantasy rather than Christian truth.
>
> Absolutely right. My mother-in-law, a devout Baptist, has had my
> kids, who are Catholic, reading the _Left Behind_ series and
watching
> the movie of the same title, the premise of which is what happens
> after the Rapture to those "left behind." I think the whole
theology
> surrounding the Rapture was pretty much invented in the 19th century
> by a Protestant theologian whose name escapes me, but, even lacking
> traditional interpretations of Scripture that in no way support
> Rapture theology, many Protestants like her accept it as Gospel.
You are probably thinking of JN Darby.
> When
> I suggested to her a different interpretation, that the ones
snatched
> away are taken to hell while the ones left behind will be saved, she
> stuck to her intepretation as though it were the only legitimate
one.
> Protestants claim they have no traditions, but this is obviously not
> true based on my experiences in discussing Scripture with them.
> Just ask any Protestant about faith and works, and you will get a
> particular interpretation that they seem to think is written on the
> same stone tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain.
> Protestants lack freedom to interpret Scripture, a charge they
> frequently level at us Catholics.
>
The pre trib rapture view is not as widely held by Protestants in the
UK as in the USA I suspect.
I used to have a book by WJ Grier IIRC entitled 'The Momentous Event'
which outlined the three millenial views. Unfortunately I lent it to
someone( I forget who but if you're reading this, can I have it
back)over ten years ago and it was never returned.
> I agree that Revelation is more like a parable than a literal
> description of future events. I also think that the first eleven
> chapters of Genesis are a parable or a myth in the sense of a
> profoundly true story that teaches us not about how the universe was
> created but about _why_ God created the universe and human beings.
> Creation is an expression of the love of God. "So whoever is in
> Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold,
> new things have come" (2 Corinthians 5:17). If we treated all our
> fellow human beings with the same love we treat a newborn baby, the
> world would be a better place populated with "new creations."
> Revelation is about the new creation God has made in the New
> Jerusalem, which is the Church.
>
The church triumphant, certainly.
CINDY SMITH
"Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> writes:
No, the whole "justification by faith alone" thing was invented by
some 16th century monk and is unscriptural.
> Is it invention or revelation?
Invention.
> Simon
BRIAN KONIAK
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:17:30 -0500, "BRIAN KONIAK"
> <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote <tls3vgi...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
> >Well, for the demonic activities that I described in the earlier newspost
> >that you are responding to; are you saying that Christians need not worry
> >about Satan and his demons, and for Christians to just live their lives
> >anyways regardless of what happens in the world?
>
> Not at all - we are called to be light and leaven in the world.
> Feeding the hungry, tending the sick, making disciples and all that
> stuff. If you want to waste your time looking for demons behind
> every tree, feel free. I have better things to do.
>
general
> >be exposed to all sorts of demonic spiritual activities so that man
becomes
> >accustomed to it?; and before we know it, Satan's deception has taken
hold
> >and its too late? Jesus just came back and you were found not wanting,
but
> >left behind.
>
> May I remind you that suggesting that anyone on this group who claims
> to be Christian is not constitutes abuse, and the above sentence looks
> very much as if that is what you are doing. The state of my soul is
> between me and God, and you have neither the authority nor the insight
> into my life to make any judgement on it.
>
> Debbie
> --
> Urban Theology Unit
> Sheffield, UK
Throughout this entire discussion on "Endtime Revival" topic in this
newsgroup, nobody but me and several others responding are using the Holy
Bible (Scripture) to support the statements being made. Everyone else seems
to be "shooting from the hip" in what they believe to be correct in their
Christian beliefs without consulting the Scripture. Scripture is supposed
to be the sole premise of Christian faith and practice.
Also, to show that the reading of Scripture references is not happening,
here is an excerpt from one of my earlier newsposts on this subject (this
error was never referenced by anyone in a subsuquent newspost):
[Beginning of newspost]
BRIAN KONIAK <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:tkmmdsr...@corp.supernews.com...
"I believe that you are referring to two different things: end-time
APOSTASY and end-time REVIVAL.
First, the apostasy will occur prior to the Rapture of the church (1 Titus
4:1; 2 Titus 4:3)."
[Ending of newspost]
Is there a problem here? Yes - there is no 1Titus and 2 Titus - I mean't to
say "1 & 2 Timothy" as my references.
Also from this newspost discussion, apparently what I said is true, as I as
stated in a previous newspost of mine:
[Beginning of newspost]
"Nebil Campbell-Shaw" <ne...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
BRIAN KONIAK <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:tkmmdsr...@corp.supernews.com...
> [Nebil Campbell-Shaw says:] "Most places (charismatic, evangelical) I've
attended have a pretty solid
> feeling that it's what God wants to do based on some loose exegesis and
lots
> of ad hoc prophecies.
[Brian responds:] It is a well known fact that charismatics do ignore the
Bible in replacement for their own "personal" relationship with God."
[Ending of newspost]
I believe this "shooting from the hip" fits well with "God wants to do based
on some loose exegesis" [Exegesis is defined as "a scholary explanation or
interpretation of the Bible] or "ignore the Bible [any references being
made?]."
I pray (and wish) that all Christians who profess Christ as their personal
Saviour will get into the Scripture more. We should all become like the
Bereans [Acts 17:10-11]; and, of course, there were the wise words by
Apostle Paul, who said to Timothy, about studying [2 Timothy 2:15] and being
an example to others [1 Timothy 4:12].
Concerning the discussion on Satan and his demons, does Ephesians 6:10-17
apply to today's Christian life? and from whom are we defending against?
Debbie: about your earlier comment "you have neither the authority nor the
insight into my life to make any judgement on it." I am not "judging"
anyone except making a plausible statement about what is possibly happening
in today's world and trying to make some sense of it through a Christian
worldview. Can anyone else define or make sense of what is happening in
today's peculiar world?
Debbie, you also said earlier "May I remind you that suggesting that anyone
on this group who claims to be Christian is not constitutes abuse..." ;
Doesn't this statement "judge" me? How can you say that I am not a
Christian when I am; and emphatically I say: Jesus is my personal Saviour
and the Lord of lords and King of kings [1 John 4:15-17]!!
And how do people come to know Christ personally? Refer to Romans 10:14-17.
Our discussions should be guided by 1 John 3:18.
Brian
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>Throughout this entire discussion on "Endtime Revival" topic in this
>newsgroup, nobody but me and several others responding are using the Holy
>Bible (Scripture) to support the statements being made. Everyone else seems
>to be "shooting from the hip" in what they believe to be correct in their
>Christian beliefs without consulting the Scripture.
Eh?
>Also from this newspost discussion, apparently what I said is true, as I as
>stated in a previous newspost of mine:
>
>[Beginning of newspost]
>
>"Nebil Campbell-Shaw" <ne...@talk21.com> wrote in message
>news:mBn27.15050$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie...
>BRIAN KONIAK <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote in message
>news:tkmmdsr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> [Nebil Campbell-Shaw says:] "Most places (charismatic, evangelical) I've
>attended have a pretty solid
>> feeling that it's what God wants to do based on some loose exegesis and
>lots
>> of ad hoc prophecies.
>
>[Brian responds:] It is a well known fact that charismatics do ignore the
>Bible in replacement for their own "personal" relationship with God."
>
>[Ending of newspost]
Umm. I though I'd dealt with this one pretty well. And, since the
Bible nowhere states that charismatics ignore the Bible, I'd say
that in this case it was you that was shooting from the hip. If
you'd like to use the Bible to justify your claim that
charismatics are out of line, I'd be interested to see your
argument.
>Debbie, you also said earlier "May I remind you that suggesting that anyone
>on this group who claims to be Christian is not constitutes abuse..." ;
>Doesn't this statement "judge" me? How can you say that I am not a
>Christian when I am; and emphatically I say: Jesus is my personal Saviour
>and the Lord of lords and King of kings [1 John 4:15-17]!!
I think you're missing the point rather badly (although I think
Debbie could have phrased it a bit better!). Debbie isn't
suggesting that you are not a Christian, she's saying that you
can't say that other people aren't Christians. To rephrase that
in words of (mostly) one syllable:
If someone says they are a Christian, you cannot
say they are not.
Mark
--
More pretentious waffle now at http://www.mark.x.tc
Ken Down
Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
No, I read it. However "shouldn't be" is not the same as "isn't".
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
Ken Down
> I read one scholar who claimed that the Book of Revelation was about
> the sack of Rome by the Parthians.
In which case he wasn't much of a scholar. Neither Old Rome nor New Rome
were sacked by the Parthians.
Nick Milton
<bpko...@fuse.net> wrote:
>Throughout this entire discussion on "Endtime Revival" topic in this
>newsgroup, nobody but me and several others responding are using the Holy
>Bible (Scripture) to support the statements being made.
It's not a question of whether you read the Bible, but how you
interpret what's in the Bible.
Some people interpret Revelations, for example, as an accurate
prediction of future events, while some read it as allegory, referring
largely to the persecution of the church by Imperial Rome. Others read
it in other ways. We have had some really wacky interpretations in
this group based on Revelations.
There is certainly a small group of Christians who read a detailed
end-times chronology into (or out of) the Bible. ISTM that this leads
more to suspicion than to anything else
1) suspicion of individuals ("Who is the Antichrist")
2) suspicion of groups ("who are all the people wioth the mark of the
beast on their foreheads")
3) suspicion of revival in the church ("maybe it all comes from
Satan")
4) suspicion even of other Christians (eg suspicion of charismatics)
It also seems to lead to interminable arguments about pre-trib,
post-trib, mid-trib etc etc
Thats how ISTM anyway
Nick
Hiscoming
news:3b63b670...@news.demon.co.uk...
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:06:54 -0500, "BRIAN KONIAK"
> <bpko...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Throughout this entire discussion on "Endtime Revival" topic in this
> >newsgroup, nobody but me and several others responding are using the Holy
> >Bible (Scripture) to support the statements being made.
>
> It's not a question of whether you read the Bible, but how you
> interpret what's in the Bible.
Let the Holy Ghost interpret the Bible. Holy Ghost is God and the Holy Bible
is the written word of God. When you are born again, born of the Spirit of
God, the Spirit of God will dwell in you. When you read the word of God
under the anointing of the Holy ghost, God will give you interpretation that
will not contradict His word and acts.
Some unsaved and impenitent sinners try to interpret the word that they have
not allowed to change them. While some Christians try to interpret the word
without praying and allowing Holy ghost to give them interpretation, but
allow their ego, self-will and personal interest to interpret the word that
do not belong to them.
I say again, let the Holy ghost the Teacher interpret His own word.
http://www.faitheful.dircon.co.uk
http://www.btinternet.com/~hiscoming
Alec Brady
> "Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:V8E77.23254$Iz3.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xo977.14783$Iz3.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > > "Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>
>
> > Twenty centuries doesn't sound like "shortly" to me.
>
> 1 day = 1000 years?
>
>
> > > Rev 4:1, 7:1, 9, 18:1, 19:1 "after these things ..." - Sounds to me
> > > progressive as does the progression of the seven trumpets, the seven
> > > plagues.
> >
> > Progression in imagery does not imply imagery of a progression.
>
> Progression in imagery *may* not imply imagery of a progression - but then
> again, it may.
>
> > The Roman
> > Empire is shown persecuting the saints, and the saints being vindicated
in
> > eternity. Of course, there is no succession of events in eternity, but
> this
> > is an image not a video.
> >
>
> It is true that a Roman Empire persecuted the saints. But that may yet
> prove to be a prefiguring of what is yet to come.
Of course it may. And Tony Blair may be an extra-terrestrial. And the
Special Branch may be tailing me. And your neighbours may be plotting to gas
you in your sleep. Any paranoid hypothesis can be proposed with the caveat
"well, you never know: it *might* be true."
> Until this does or doesn't happen, it's difficult to say that it won't.
"It won't happen." See? Easy-peasy! And I have rather more (inductive)
evidence than you do.
> I believe Revelation teaches that it will happen.
So I see.
> If it doesn't, then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of
judgement.
> (I seem to think I've confessed a few errors to this NG).
Me too. It's fun, isn't it?
When will you decide you were wrong? I mean, for Christians of the 11th
century it didn't happen: should they have decided it was not going to? If,
as you lie on your deathbed, you see no evidence of the Endtimes, will you
decide you were wrong? Or just that it's still waiting to happen?
So, you may say that you will accept the evidence of fact ("If it doesn't,
then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of judgement") but in
reality your error - if such it is - will never be definitively revealed.
You hypothesis is not falsifiable.
That might be allowable if it were a spiritual truth you were proposing, as
these are generally not falsifiable. But it's a factual hypothesis. You
could make it falsifiable by giving us a date.
> > > Other NT writings intersperse elements of the prophetic with every day
> > > teachings e.g Heb 10:25 and use it to inspire to greater devotion to
> > > the Lord. Each of the synoptics include prophetic elements which
cohere,
> > > IMO, with the descriptions of events in Rev, Daniel etc.
> > Clearly John, and the author of Hebrews, and the Synoptics, all believed
> > that the end was nigh. They were wrong.
>
> If 'nigh' < 2000 years then you are correct.
> If 'nigh' > 2000 years then you are wrong.
If 'nigh' > 2000 years then you are using language differently from how the
rest of us use it, and overhead wobble camshaft goes thrupp indeedly?
> I'm approximating here so please don't come back with the scenario what if
> 'nigh' = 2000 years ;-)
> Whether it's healthy is surely a matter of whether it approaches a correct
> understanding of Revelation or not. If it is really amillienial,
> post-tribulation then, you're right, I'm deceiving myself.
My paranoid patients often use that same argument; "if you're right, and the
hospital management are not in the pay of Saddam, then I'm deceiving myself.
But what if *I'm* right and *you're* wrong?"
> > I didn't say that what God reveals isn't of use, I said that knowing the
> > future is not of use and therefore it isn't what God reveals.
>
> Unless God has revealed the future to you a la Daniel/Joseph in both cases
> it helped them.
They were private revelations vouchsafed to the individuals whom they
concerned. If you were right seventy generations of Christians would heve
been listening to a revelation that was not addressed to them.
> If there really are cataclysmic events ahead including a lake
> of fire where those, whose names are not written in the Book of Life, will
> be placed, then it will invariably spur us on to greater devotion,
> evangelism, expectation etc. If it's all metaphor, imagery, universalism
etc
> then we could all become buddists (that's not meant be be a swipe at
> buddhists BTW)!!
There are other options, you know.
> > The prophecies of the OT, for example, were spoken to Israel and Judah
> > for their own time. Then when Jesus came he showed us how they *also*
> > applied to him.
>
> He said they were fulfilled by Him
>
> > Isaiah's description of the Suffering Servant spoke to the Jews about
> > their own suffering, consoling them with the knowledge that it was still
> > part of God's redemptive plan. What Isaiah didn't do was give them a
factual
> > description of the crucifixion ('and there will be a man called Pilate,
> > and he'll wear a red cloak. And the Servant will stand up to him. And
there
> > will be a longish lull while Pilate ponders what to say').
>
> Isaiah 53 seems pretty factual to me. If you mean why didn't Isaiah write
> for someone reading it in the 21st century living in a post-scientific
> society, I don't know. Why don't you write in Shakespearian English?
> perhaps you do elsewhere ;-)
You know that isn't what I mean.
> >The prophecy of the
> > Servant worked perfectly well for the Jews (and still does for the Jews
> > today) without being read as a reference to Jesus.
>
> But it's richness is exalted when understood in the light of Christ's
> work.
Of course. So does the tale of Adam and Eve. But that doesn't mean that that
story was really *about* Christ.
It's not psychology, it's logic.
> > 1) Is the John that wrote Revelation the same John that wrote the
> > gospel? He doesn't say he is, and John was not an uncommon name.
>
> I obviously believe it was - perhaps for a different thread at some point?
Good idea.
> > ISTM that the God that would do all this is very much the prankster God
> > who plants dinosaur fossils all over the show, so that he has an excuse
> > for sending people to hell for believing in evolution.
>
> "believing in evolution" is not grounds for damnation.
Oh, I agree: but not everyone does.
--
Alec
kevin donnelly
Simon Woods <simon...@virgin.net> writes
(Regrettably, much had to be snipped of a fascinating discussion about
reading "signs of the times".)
>construct an explanation. If in due course we find out that that explanation
>turns out to be wrong why is that God's fault? Was it God's fault that man
>looked to the horizon and concluded the earth must be flat?
>Simon
I once consorted with devout souls who were much preoccupied with the
endtimes, but I found it impossible to reconcile their views with each
other or any of the weekly literature I came across. Anyone really
wanting to get into this topic can consult the JWs for whom it is a way
of life. They came to my door recently, and sure enough this was the
opening gambit. Of other current writers, Chris Rowland impresses me
with his synthesis of scholarship about Revelation with an examination
of global politics.
In other posts in this thread and elsewhere I have suggested
ways of trying to understand current history, Biblical eschatalogy and
apocalyptic. There is no need to resort to elaborate attempts to
interpret the beast of Rev. 13 once it is seen most probably to refer to
a first century figure such as Nero or maybe Domitian. Nor is it
necessary to believe that Daniel, Ezekiel or Mark 13, for example,
contain secret messages revealed only to a select few believers.
A natural curiosity about the endtime and a lot of patience will
take any student a long way into understanding these ancient writings.
No biblical languages are necessary, though they help: I wish I had done
Hebrew, and a little Greek will open up the most plausible
interpretation of Revelation 13, in my view. But be prepared for
surprises. My one-time OT tutor used to tell his students that serious
of the book of Ecclesiastes can turn any fundamentalist into a higher
critic.
Some of this stuff anyway is almost common sense. The Hebrew
people were warned repeatedly to practice inclusive justice, to remember
their own days as slaves, since the institution of slavery leads to
social collapse. The modern practice of debt-slavery, within and
between nations, has similar consequences. The next global lesson on
this topic is coming soon. Don't miss it.
KD
--
kevin donnelly
kevin donnelly
<nick_...@ktransform.com> writes
>On 26 Jul 2001 18:12:09 EDT, c...@5sc.net (CINDY SMITH) wrote:
>
>
>>Protestants lack freedom to interpret Scripture, a charge they
>>frequently level at us Catholics.
>
>I do wish you would stop this accusatory stuff, Cindy. There is no
>need to polarise everything.
>
>The point is that *everyone* lacks freedom to interpret Scripture. We
>all come to it with preconceptions.
possibly very different ones. He seems fairly secular to me, and says
of himself that he is not a religious man. His approach to scripture is
that of an economic historian who approaches scripture as ancient
literature rather than holy writ. So his understanding of old questions
like land ownership, periodic debt remission (Jubilee), social justice,
honest weights and measures, usury, liberty and so on, is based on an
open comprehensive investigation of the Bible as ancient wisdom.
He thus says that the Bible is the defining book of our
civilisation. This is a view that earlier exegesis tended to overlook.
The Protestant tradition of chopping the Bible up into individual texts
regardless of origin, a habit reflected in some RC approaches I have
seen, means that the faithful can miss the overview of the catastrophes
experienced by both Jews and later, Christians, which led to the
recognition of the Biblical canon. In turn, that is partly why
eschatalogy and apocalypse are so difficult. To approach them as "God's
word" is to inherit a lot of baggage. Take a step back, take them first
as literature that many people have found helpful, and then they begin
to open up and become more understandable.
KD
(1) Michael Hudson, The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancellation,
Henry George School of Social Science, New York, NY, 1993.
--
kevin donnelly
Gareth McCaughan
> Throughout this entire discussion on "Endtime Revival" topic in this
> newsgroup, nobody but me and several others responding are using the Holy
> Bible (Scripture) to support the statements being made.
No one but you and several others, eh? Gosh. :-)
> Everyone else seems
> to be "shooting from the hip" in what they believe to be correct in their
> Christian beliefs without consulting the Scripture. Scripture is supposed
> to be the sole premise of Christian faith and practice.
How can you tell whether or not they have consulted the Bible?
I often make statements about Christian doctrine without
including Bible references. That doesn't mean that my ideas
about Christian doctrine are not based on the Bible. It's
just like in English essays in school: "Explain, in your
own words, ...". I'm sure others are the same.
By the way, I dispute the claim that "Scripture is supposed
to be the sole premise of Christian faith and practice". There
are some people who suppose it to be that, but not all
Christians do. In fact, I would guess that the majority
of Christians don't.
If you really took *just* the Bible, and threw away
- everyday experience of what Christian life is like
- the traditions of the church (including, e.g., most
of what you believe about the Bible!)
- what we've learned from historians and scientists
about the world, past and present
then you'd most likely end up in a terrible mess.
> Also, to show that the reading of Scripture references is not happening,
> here is an excerpt from one of my earlier newsposts on this subject (this
> error was never referenced by anyone in a subsuquent newspost):
[SNIP: Brian made a typo and didn't get picked up on it]
Maybe the people who read your article were just too polite
to point out that you'd written "Titus" where you meant
"Timothy"?
> Also from this newspost discussion, apparently what I said is true, as I as
> stated in a previous newspost of mine:
...
>> [Nebil Campbell-Shaw says:] "Most places (charismatic, evangelical) I've
>> attended have a pretty solid feeling that it's what God wants to do
>> based on some loose exegesis and lots of ad hoc prophecies."
...
> [Brian responds:] It is a well known fact that charismatics do ignore the
> Bible in replacement for their own "personal" relationship with God."
>
> I believe this "shooting from the hip" fits well with "God wants to do based
> on some loose exegesis" [Exegesis is defined as "a scholary explanation or
> interpretation of the Bible] or "ignore the Bible [any references being
> made?]."
It may have escaped your notice, but most of the people who
participate in uk.r.c are not charismatics. If, as you claim,
most people here "shoot from the hip" and ignore the Bible,
then what that supports is not "most charismatics ignore the
Bible" but "most of a random collection of liberals, evangelicals,
charismatics, Roman Catholics, and other varieties of Christian,
ignore the Bible". For my part, I don't think it's true that
most people here ignore the Bible, and I think your accusations
are a fine piece of "shooting from the hip" themselves.
> Debbie, you also said earlier "May I remind you that suggesting that anyone
> on this group who claims to be Christian is not constitutes abuse..." ;
> Doesn't this statement "judge" me? How can you say that I am not a
> Christian when I am; and emphatically I say: Jesus is my personal Saviour
> and the Lord of lords and King of kings [1 John 4:15-17]!!
She did not say that you aren't a Christian.
Nick Milton
<hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"Nick Milton" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>news:3b63b670...@news.demon.co.uk...
>Let the Holy Ghost interpret the Bible. Holy Ghost is God and the Holy Bible
>is the written word of God. When you are born again, born of the Spirit of
>God, the Spirit of God will dwell in you. When you read the word of God
>under the anointing of the Holy ghost, God will give you interpretation that
>will not contradict His word and acts.
And what if the interpretation *I* get contradicts the interpretation
that *you* get?
Nick
Simon Woods
>
> I once consorted with devout souls who were much preoccupied with the
> endtimes,
Pre-occupation is not a good thing. I just responded to a thread expressing
my views as I did, say, on baptism. (That sounded defensive - it wasn't
meant to be - I'm as warped as the next!)
> There is no need to resort to elaborate attempts to
> interpret the beast of Rev. 13 once it is seen most probably to refer to
> a first century figure such as Nero or maybe Domitian.
No need, absolulely, unless it happens to be the right way of looking at it!
Then necessity kicks in.
Nero/Domitian *may* be the fulfillment but then again they may be a
prefiguring or infact nothing whatsoever to do with John 'saw'. Scripture
just tells us of a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns etc.... If you gave me
10 good reasons why Nero is 'it', I'd call that a strong case but I wouldn't
call it the Truth. I could give you 10 reasons why Jesus is the Christ, but
that's not the reason He's the Christ.
> Nor is it
> necessary to believe that Daniel, Ezekiel or Mark 13, for example,
> contain secret messages revealed only to a select few believers.
Yes - it is certainly not necessary. Yet it appears that Scripture tells us
that the Gospel of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing. So
there certainly are a chosen few who have received, in your words, 'secret
messages'. ("Blessed are you Simon ... flesh and blood has not revealed this
to you but my Father who is in heaven"). That the Jews were a chosen nation
and to them was given the Law etc (Romans 9:4,5) shows a selection for
revelation through God's Sovereign will and not based upon any merit of the
recipient (Deut 7,7,8). Further, it is certainly true that the
Transfiguration was seen by only Peter, James and John. Only the Disciples
were given the mysteries of the Kingdom.
Jesus Himself teaches that obedience will bring revelation (John 7,17, John
14:21). I would suggest that this is *far* more important than an academic
approach to understanding Scripture (including Revelation.) and it's for
this reason child-like faith is so important.
I think where I'm coming from is that I believe that the Light and Truth
come from above through the Word of God(as in the quote to Peter). Now if
you, and many others, have been enlightened in such a way that the Lord has
said to you (through Scripture) 'these pre-millenialists have got it
completely wrong', fine. How can I argue with that? Subjection to Scripture
is paramount, in my view.
If however, you read some of the amazing accounts in Revelation and think
'this is just too bizarre, it just doesn't cohere with the 21st century, it
couldn't possibly be really like that ... oh and here's 10 good reasons why
it relates to the period in which John was writing and here's some some
spiritual lessons we can bring out as well." Well, that's when I struggle, I
guess. (Kev, I've polarised the description of the view to make the point !)
> I wish I had done Hebrew, and a little Greek will open up the most
plausible
> interpretation of Revelation 13, in my view.
If I gave Rev 13:1 to my 8 year old son, I'd be surprised if he came up with
Nero! (Yes, that's no basis for interpreting Scripture!!)
Take care
Simon
Simon Woods
>
> And Tony Blair may be an extra-terrestrial. And the
> Special Branch may be tailing me. And your neighbours may be plotting to
gas
> you in your sleep. Any paranoid hypothesis can be proposed with the caveat
> "well, you never know: it *might* be true."
Baby, bath water? Scripture appears to have something (quite a lot, in fact)
to say about the Parousia. I have not yet been enlightened to the chapters
which speak of Tony Blair, MP, PM, ET!!
>
> > Until this does or doesn't happen, it's difficult to say that it won't.
>
> "It won't happen." See? Easy-peasy! And I have rather more (inductive)
> evidence than you do.
I'm sure on the Friday before Black Monday, many marketeers had great
inductive evidence for buying rather than selling!
>
> > If it doesn't, then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of
> judgement.
> > (I seem to think I've confessed a few errors to this NG).
>
> Me too. It's fun, isn't it?
To be honest, I often find it quite painful.
>
> When will you decide you were wrong? I mean, for Christians of the 11th
> century it didn't happen: should they have decided it was not going to?
If,
> as you lie on your deathbed, you see no evidence of the Endtimes, will you
> decide you were wrong? Or just that it's still waiting to happen?
If a friend says to me that he's coming to visit me on Thursday evening. At
what time, on Thursday evening, should I conclude that he's not coming?
>
> So, you may say that you will accept the evidence of fact ("If it doesn't,
> then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of judgement") but in
> reality your error - if such it is - will never be definitively revealed.
> You hypothesis is not falsifiable.
Well you could take Scripture 'as is' and say "okay where's Jesus" look
around and decide that's He's not here and so conclude it hasn't happened
yet. Or you could spiritualise it all because your view on timescales (how
long 'shortly/quickly' is) becomes a basis for interpreting Scripture.
> That might be allowable if it were a spiritual truth you were proposing,
as
> these are generally not falsifiable. But it's a factual hypothesis. You
> could make it falsifiable by giving us a date.
I think the Lord makes it quite clear that the day and hour is with the
Father. The parable of the 10 virgins obviously exemplifies this. Luke 19
implies a waiting period. "Now as they heard these things, He spoke another
parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom
of God would appear immediately." (Luke 19:11). AISI, the teaching
emphasises waiting patiently yet expectantly, yet always waiting.
I've picked out some verses which, I believe, relate to a forthcoming event,
the liberating of the Jews from the Great Tribulation. I believe there is a
very strong association between them.
Jesus ascended in the clouds and the angels promise that He will return in
like fashion ...
"Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up,
and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked
steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in
white apparel, who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up
into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so
come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." Acts 1:9-11
Stephen saw Him in heaven
"Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right
hand of God!" (Acts 7:56)
Yet we have the prophesies from the Old and New Testaments ...
"I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man,
coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they
brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a
kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His
dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His
kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed." Dan 7:13-14
"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him,
then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be
gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a
shepherd divides his sheep from the goats." Matt 25:31-32
"Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great
glory." (Luke 21:27)
So do all nations currently serve the Son of Man? Is there a time when all
nations have served the Son of Man? Does every person bow at the name of
Jesus Christ and confess that He is the Lord? I think not.
Therefore it is yet to happen.
> If 'nigh' > 2000 years then you are using language differently from how
the
> rest of us use it, and overhead wobble camshaft goes thrupp indeedly?
I'm sure you don't think a majority understanding (if that is what it is)
makes a difference to the purposes of God.
>
> My paranoid patients often use that same argument; "if you're right, and
the
> hospital management are not in the pay of Saddam, then I'm deceiving
myself.
> But what if *I'm* right and *you're* wrong?"
This is another example of Pascal's wager, though, isn't it.
We can draw parallels between disparate categories, but the parallels have
to be correct. Obviously, the Pharisees did that with Jesus in suggesting He
was demon-possessed and/or mad. They were wrong. The categorisation has to
be correct. Common characteristics are not a basis for the revelation of
Truth. An Angel of Light and Satan will appear very similar.
> > > I didn't say that what God reveals isn't of use, I said that knowing
the
> > > future is not of use and therefore it isn't what God reveals.
> >
> > Unless God has revealed the future to you a la Daniel/Joseph in both
cases
> > it helped them.
>
> They were private revelations vouchsafed to the individuals whom they
> concerned. If you were right seventy generations of Christians would heve
> been listening to a revelation that was not addressed to them.
They were not so private as to be excluded from Scripture and given to us
for our learning.
> > > But my belief about the imagery in Revelation surely is
> > > influenced by my beliefs.
> >
> > I'm afraid I'm not a psychologist!
>
> It's not psychology, it's logic.
Isn't it pre-supposition? That one thought leads to another is, perhaps,
demonstrable. That a cause/effect relationship exists is assumption, to my
mind. AISI, the biblical teaching with regard the mind is one of capturing
all thoughts and only permitting those which are honest, true, good etc
(Romans 12:1,2, 2 Cor 10:5, Phil 4:8). If our thinking is actually
'mediated through the spiritual realms', in which there is a battle going on
between darkness and light, rather than simply being physical processes,
then Paul's teachings make much sense.
Yours argumentatively
Simon
Ken Down
<bpko...@fuse.net> wrote:
> Debbie, you also said earlier
Brian, I don't know whether you are aware of it, but Debbie is the moderator
for this newsgroup. If she says that something is out of order, that is the
end of the matter.
Alec Brady
Of course it wasn't - 'faith alone' was invented by a 15th century Augustine
Canon.
> Is it invention or revelation?
Invention, since you ask.
--
Alec
Alec Brady
> In article <kiY77.27212$SK6.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Alec
> Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > [1] Except that Ken only reads enough of my posts to plan his rebuttal,
> > and doesn't believe me when I say that allegorical readings shouldn't be
> > used to prove anything.
>
> No, I read it. However "shouldn't be" is not the same as "isn't".
By all means criticise people who misuse the allegorical method in this way,
Ken. But such misuse doesn't prove that the method itself, wisely used, is
wrong. Just as the fact that some people misuse the Bible (for, say,
divination) doesn't invalidate the proper use of the Bible.
--
Alec
Ken Down
Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Baby, bath water? Scripture appears to have something (quite a lot, in
> fact) to say about the Parousia. I have not yet been enlightened to the
> chapters which speak of Tony Blair, MP, PM, ET!!
I can send you a simple "Bible Code" program. You will need a 'real'
computer on which to run it, though.
Simon Woods
> "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:jxa87.30202$SK6.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > "CINDY SMITH" <c...@5sc.net> wrote in message
news:b3McdM...@5sc.net...
> > >
> > > I think the whole theology
> > > surrounding the Rapture was pretty much invented in the 19th century
> > > by a Protestant theologian whose name escapes me,
> >
> > JN Darby, I think. This is a bit like saying that the whole
> > 'Justification by Faith' thing was invented by some 16th century monk.
>
> Of course it wasn't - 'faith alone' was invented by a 15th century
Augustine
> Canon.
Alec
Okay, so he was born 15th century and entered monastic life in the 16th
century. I stand corrected, except for the invention-thing!
Simon
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> For what it's worth, on the whole I agree. But I don't think
>> it's impossible that the main value of Revelation might turn out
>> to be for one particular generation near The End (tm),
>
> I can't find anything anywhere about the criteria on which Revelation was
> admitted to the canon. I know that there was a lot of disagreement, and some
> thought it should be treated as apocryphal. I find it hard to believe it
> made it in because it might come in useful.
I expect it went in because it was thought to be written by
an apostle, namely John. I don't know why it was thought to
be written by him (perhaps it was believed that there could
only be one early Christian called John; perhaps there was
an early tradition to that effect; who knows?)
But the questions "what is the main value of Revelation?"
and "what reasons did the people who decided to put Revelation
in the canon have for so deciding?" are entirely separate,
surely. (Unless you assume those people to have been immune
from making mistakes, even the "mistake" of doing the right
thing for a wrong reason.)
>> any more
>> than it's impossible that the main value of much of Numbers
>> might turn out to have been for the nation of Judah many years
>> ago.
>
> I was assuming that Numbers was put into book form in Judah, and that that's
> where its contemporary relevance was to be found. Maybe I'm wrong.
I have no reason to think you're wrong. I don't see that that
determines whether or not the main value of (most of) Numbers
is for its contemporary readers rather than people later on,
though.
>>> Why should I care whether the gates of the New Jerusalem are
>>> made of pearl, wicker, steel, gold or uPVC, as long as I'm on
>>> the inside of them? But if (as I suspect) it means "the church
>>> is strengthened by its purity" then it starts to make some sense.
>>
>> What if it means "God has prepared splendours and delights
>> for those who love him"? It could even mean that while
>> simultaneously meaning that the New Jerusalem will have
>> gates of pearl.
>
> I'm happy with that meaning, though lots of things are splendid and
> delightful, and I'd still like to know what pearl symbolised among John's
> audience.
Me too. Would it bother you if it turned out that it was
just one of many precious and beautiful substances and
many of the others would have done equally well?
> I agree that the symbolism is not vitiated by the literal interpretation
> also being true; but I can't see any reason for holding the literal
> interpretation, and "well, it *might* be so" doesn't feel like a reason to
> me.
I think the fact that something *is* the literal interpretation
is usually a reason for holding it to be true, even though it's
not always a very strong reason. If you've established that
some text is completely unconcerned with factual matters then
that stops being true for that particular text, but I don't think
any such thing has been established for Revelation, even though
it's clear that it conveys much of what it conveys by highly
non-literal means.
>> I like your interpretation, by the way. I'm just observing
>> that a very "straight" interpretation doesn't have to be
>> flatly valueless.
>
> No, indeed. Catholics have a very "straight" interpretation of the
> institution of the Eucharist, and we don't find that flatly valueless, not
> nowise. But much that's written about the "Endtimes" seems to me to be
> paranoid fantasy rather than Christian truth.
I have no disagreement at all with that statement.
> I have this picture of poor old John Knox, labouring away over a sermon on
> Revelation 8:17, not knowing that it was about modern warfare or video
> imagery! What a hoot!
<grin>
>>> If Revelation has anything to say to me it's because it conveys
>>> an eternal truth and not one for a particular time.
>>
>> Suppose it turned out that Revelation is about "the end
>> times" and that these are they. (I think this quite
>> unlikely, by the way.) Would it not then have something
>> to say to you?
>
> Maybe. But I'd still want to know why God is bothering me with a list of
> construction materials. Isn't there something badly awry if I need an
> identikit of the New Jerusalem to recognise it? ("Have you seen this beast
> with ten horns? If you do, don't try to apprehend it yourself...")
I don't know why you assume that you should *need* everything
in the Bible; still less why you should need each piece of
description as an identikit picture. A piece of description
might be there mostly to rouse enthusiasm or horror for what's
described.
> But the City is the Church of God, and the water that runs like crystal
> through its street is the Holy Spirit, and the beast with ten horns and
> seven heads is pagan Rome, built on its seven hills, and the woman who gives
> birth to the child is Israel.
I'm mildly surprised to see a RC making that last statement.
(I think a common interpretation is that the woman is Mary,
and that doesn't seem an impossible interpretation to me
even if it is a little more literal than one might expect.)
> By putting these events in the near future and
> treating it as prophecy, John gives his picture of the plan of salvation a
> mysterious and compelling quality, and the first hearers must have said
> "yes! that's so right! that's just how it is!" Thus the promised salvation,
> the defeat of the beast and the marriage of the Lamb, must have been doubly
> consoling.
>
> To treat it as literal fact is like stopping Jesus in the middle of the
> parable of the sower and saying "Where did you say this happened? How tall
> was the sower? Do I know his family? That wheat sounds good, where can I buy
> it?"
Maybe that's true. Maybe it's not. I don't see anything in the
text that makes it obviously stupid to interpret it literally,
so the two cases don't seem to me to be entirely analogous.
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I expect it went in because it was thought to be written by
> an apostle, namely John. I don't know why it was thought to
> be written by him (perhaps it was believed that there could
> only be one early Christian called John; perhaps there was
> an early tradition to that effect; who knows?)
Or, of course, because it actually was written by John the apostle?
Ancient authors and scholars may not have had the techniques and tools
available to us, but they were, by no means, fools.
Alec Brady
> "Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:2mW87.5277$ip4.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > And Tony Blair may be an extra-terrestrial. And the Special Branch may
be
> > tailing me. And your neighbours may be plotting to gas you in your
sleep. Any
> > paranoid hypothesis can be proposed with the caveat "well, you never
know: it
> > *might* be true."
>
> Baby, bath water? Scripture appears to have something (quite a lot, in
> fact) to say about the Parousia. I have not yet been enlightened to the
> chapters which speak of Tony Blair, MP, PM, ET!!
And your point?
> > > Until this does or doesn't happen, it's difficult to say that it
> > > won't.
> >
> > "It won't happen." See? Easy-peasy! And I have rather more (inductive)
> > evidence than you do.
>
> I'm sure on the Friday before Black Monday, many marketeers had great
> inductive evidence for buying rather than selling!
Unless you know of a prophecy that someone interpreted as telling them to do
otherwise, I can't see that there is any useful parallel here.
> > > If it doesn't, then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of
> > > judgement. (I seem to think I've confessed a few errors to this NG).
> > When will you decide you were wrong? I mean, for Christians of the 11th
> > century it didn't happen: should they have decided it was not going to?
> > If, as you lie on your deathbed, you see no evidence of the Endtimes,
will
> > you decide you were wrong? Or just that it's still waiting to happen?
> If a friend says to me that he's coming to visit me on Thursday evening.
> At what time, on Thursday evening, should I conclude that he's not coming?
Has Jesus given us a day, or an hour?
> > So, you may say that you will accept the evidence of fact ("If it
> > doesn't, then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of judgement")
but
> > in reality your error - if such it is - will never be definitively
revealed.
> > Your hypothesis is not falsifiable.
>
> Well you could take Scripture 'as is' and say "okay where's Jesus" look
> around and decide that's He's not here and so conclude it hasn't happened
> yet. Or you could spiritualise it all because your view on timescales (how
> long 'shortly/quickly' is) becomes a basis for interpreting Scripture.
In other words your offer to confess your error if the apocalypse doesn't
happen was an empty gesture.
> > That might be allowable if it were a spiritual truth you were proposing,
> > as these are generally not falsifiable. But it's a factual hypothesis.
You
> > could make it falsifiable by giving us a date.
>
> I think the Lord makes it quite clear that the day and hour is with the
> Father. The parable of the 10 virgins obviously exemplifies this. Luke 19
> implies a waiting period. "Now as they heard these things, He spoke
> another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought
the
> kingdom of God would appear immediately." (Luke 19:11). AISI, the teaching
> emphasises waiting patiently yet expectantly, yet always waiting.
I don't have a problem with that. It's the Endtimes stuff that spooks me.
When Jesus specifically told us that we wouldn't know when he would return -
when even *he* didn't know when he would return - the attempt to say when
he's coming seems, at best, foolish, if not downright impious.
That's not what I'm disputing. I'm disputing that Revelation is meant to
give us a picture of *what* is yet to happen.
> > If 'nigh' > 2000 years then you are using language differently from how
> > the rest of us use it, and overhead wobble camshaft goes thrupp
indeedly?
>
> I'm sure you don't think a majority understanding (if that is what it is)
> makes a difference to the purposes of God.
If we can't even use language the same way, who is to say *what* Scripture
means? ("Peter pulled out a big fish and there was a coin in its mouth"
means "and they all had lashings of ginger beer.").
If 'nigh'>2000 years, then who is to say that 'black' doesn't equal 'white'?
> > My paranoid patients often use that same argument; "if you're right, and
> > the hospital management are not in the pay of Saddam, then I'm deceiving
> > myself. But what if *I'm* right and *you're* wrong?"
>
> This is another example of Pascal's wager, though, isn't it.
Yes. Or "Pascal's Stupid Wager" as some philosophers have been heard to call
it.
> We can draw parallels between disparate categories, but the parallels have
> to be correct. Obviously, the Pharisees did that with Jesus in suggesting
> He was demon-possessed and/or mad. They were wrong. The categorisation
> has to be correct. Common characteristics are not a basis for the
revelation of
> Truth. An Angel of Light and Satan will appear very similar.
Sorry...your point is?
> > > > I didn't say that what God reveals isn't of use, I said that knowing
> > > > the future is not of use and therefore it isn't what God reveals.
> > >
> > > Unless God has revealed the future to you a la Daniel/Joseph in both
> > > cases it helped them.
> >
> > They were private revelations vouchsafed to the individuals whom they
> > concerned. If you were right seventy generations of Christians would
> > have been listening to a revelation that was not addressed to them.
>
> They were not so private as to be excluded from Scripture and given to us
> for our learning.
No, indeed. And Pharaoh's dream was not excluded from Scripture either. But
that doesn't mean that its content has a specific meaning for us, only that
it illustrates Joseph's skill at interpreting dreams.
> > > > But my belief about the imagery in Revelation surely is
> > > > influenced by my beliefs.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid I'm not a psychologist!
> >
> > It's not psychology, it's logic.
>
> Isn't it pre-supposition? That one thought leads to another is, perhaps,
> demonstrable. That a cause/effect relationship exists is assumption, to my
> mind.
Careful, you'll end up going down the Humean road of disbelieving in all
cause and effect.
> AISI, the biblical teaching with regard the mind is one of capturing
> all thoughts and only permitting those which are honest, true, good etc
> (Romans 12:1,2, 2 Cor 10:5, Phil 4:8). If our thinking is actually
> 'mediated through the spiritual realms', in which there is a battle going
> on between darkness and light, rather than simply being physical
processes,
> then Paul's teachings make much sense.
I wish I could say as much for that last paragraph. I have no idea what it
means.
> Yours argumentatively
>
> Simon
Whatever.
--
Alec
Alec Brady
news:86puaap...@g.local...
> Alec Brady wrote:
> > I can't find anything anywhere about the criteria on which Revelation
> > was admitted to the canon. I know that there was a lot of disagreement,
> > and some thought it should be treated as apocryphal. I find it hard to
> > believe it made it in because it might come in useful.
>
> I expect it went in because it was thought to be written by
> an apostle, namely John. I don't know why it was thought to
> be written by him (perhaps it was believed that there could
> only be one early Christian called John; perhaps there was
> an early tradition to that effect; who knows?)
I'm sure there was such a tradition. Is it known for sure that apostolic
authorship was always the sole criterion for canonicity?
> But the questions "what is the main value of Revelation?"
> and "what reasons did the people who decided to put Revelation
> in the canon have for so deciding?" are entirely separate,
> surely. (Unless you assume those people to have been immune
> from making mistakes, even the "mistake" of doing the right
> thing for a wrong reason.)
If the chief purpose of Revelation was one that could not apply at the time
of the formation of the canon, and the people who agreed to include it did
so for other reasons, then this would imply that God slipped it in by
trickery and in a way that simply bypassed the Church. Not impossible, to be
sure; but pretty unlikely.
> >> any more
> >> than it's impossible that the main value of much of Numbers
> >> might turn out to have been for the nation of Judah many years
> >> ago.
> >
> > I was assuming that Numbers was put into book form in Judah, and that
> > that's where its contemporary relevance was to be found. Maybe I'm
wrong.
>
> I have no reason to think you're wrong. I don't see that that
> determines whether or not the main value of (most of) Numbers
> is for its contemporary readers rather than people later on,
> though.
I'm struggling with this idea of 'main value' - when I try to refute it I
can't, but when I try to use it it leads me around in big circles (how do we
know, for example, that the 'main value' of any of the Bible is for us *at
all*?)
> > I'm happy with that meaning, though lots of things are splendid and
> > delightful, and I'd still like to know what pearl symbolised among
> > John's audience.
>
> Me too. Would it bother you if it turned out that it was
> just one of many precious and beautiful substances and
> many of the others would have done equally well?
Not in the slightest.
> > I agree that the symbolism is not vitiated by the literal interpretation
> > also being true; but I can't see any reason for holding the literal
> > interpretation, and "well, it *might* be so" doesn't feel like a reason
> > to me.
>
> I think the fact that something *is* the literal interpretation
> is usually a reason for holding it to be true, even though it's
> not always a very strong reason. If you've established that
> some text is completely unconcerned with factual matters then
> that stops being true for that particular text, but I don't think
> any such thing has been established for Revelation, even though
> it's clear that it conveys much of what it conveys by highly
> non-literal means.
Indeed, I believe that Revelation is profoundly concerned with factual
matters, which it represents in highly non-literal terms. My argument is
with people who think it portrays not-yet-factual matters in literal terms.
> >>> If Revelation has anything to say to me it's because it conveys
> >>> an eternal truth and not one for a particular time.
> >>
> >> Suppose it turned out that Revelation is about "the end
> >> times" and that these are they. (I think this quite
> >> unlikely, by the way.) Would it not then have something
> >> to say to you?
I'd be pretty pissed off with God for playing such a stupid prank, to be
quite honest.
> > Maybe. But I'd still want to know why God is bothering me with a list of
> > construction materials. Isn't there something badly awry if I need an
> > identikit of the New Jerusalem to recognise it? ("Have you seen this
> > beast with ten horns? If you do, don't try to apprehend it yourself...")
>
> I don't know why you assume that you should *need* everything
> in the Bible; still less why you should need each piece of
> description as an identikit picture. A piece of description
> might be there mostly to rouse enthusiasm or horror for what's
> described.
I'm not saying *I* should need everything; but a Scripture that *no-one*
needs for 2000 years strikes me as bizarre.
> > But the City is the Church of God, and the water that runs like crystal
> > through its street is the Holy Spirit, and the beast with ten horns and
> > seven heads is pagan Rome, built on its seven hills, and the woman who
> > gives birth to the child is Israel.
>
> I'm mildly surprised to see a RC making that last statement.
Why? <Rant>You think we have to make everything into an apology for the
doctrines
you disagree with? The Marian doctrines may bulk large in your picture of
Catholicism, but they're a tiny part of our world. <And relax>
> (I think a common interpretation is that the woman is Mary,
> and that doesn't seem an impossible interpretation to me
> even if it is a little more literal than one might expect.)
I wouldn't rule out John's imagery being influenced by the thought of Mary
giving birth to Jesus. But if that's what the image is *about*, it rather
works against the Endtimes interpretation - unless it's being proposed that
the Second Coming will involve Jesus being born again!
> > To treat it as literal fact is like stopping Jesus in the middle of the
> > parable of the sower and saying "Where did you say this happened? How
> > tall was the sower? Do I know his family? That wheat sounds good, where
> > can I buy it?"
>
> Maybe that's true. Maybe it's not. I don't see anything in the
> text that makes it obviously stupid to interpret it literally,
> so the two cases don't seem to me to be entirely analogous.
Hm. War rides a red horse; a creature with seven heads and ten horns goes
rampaging around the world; stars are swept from the sky; and you can't see
anything that makes it stupid to interpret it literally?
--
Alec
Alec Brady
> In article <86puaap...@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I expect it went in because it was thought to be written by
> > an apostle, namely John. I don't know why it was thought to
> > be written by him (perhaps it was believed that there could
> > only be one early Christian called John; perhaps there was
> > an early tradition to that effect; who knows?)
>
> Or, of course, because it actually was written by John the apostle?
People don't believe things because[1] they're true, but because they have
reason to believe them to be true. Otherwise no one would ever believe an
untrue statement.
BTW, would you accept that Ignatius of Antioch believed in the Real Presence
*because it was true*? Or would you want to look for some other kind of
explanation?
> Ancient authors and scholars may not have had the techniques and tools
> available to us, but they were, by no means, fools.
Absolutely. But it's still worth knowing what were the grounds for their
belief.
[1] 'Because' in the sense of causation, not in the sense of grounds.
--
Alec
Simon Woods
> > Baby, bath water? Scripture appears to have something (quite a lot, in
> > fact) to say about the Parousia. I have not yet been enlightened to the
> > chapters which speak of Tony Blair, MP, PM, ET!!
>
> And your point?
a) It is true that a Roman Empire persecuted the saints. But that may yet
prove to be a prefiguring of what is yet to come.
b) Tony Blair may be an extra-terrestrial.
c) Special Branch may be tailing me.
I think (!) my point is that you appear, from what you've written, to reject
proposition a) because there are lots of other propositions (e.g. b and c )
which you feel able to classify in the same way and label all as
silly/delusional/paranoid/whatever not because of the truth or falsehood of
the original proposition.
> > > > Until this does or doesn't happen, it's difficult to say that it
> > > > won't.
> > >
> > > "It won't happen." See? Easy-peasy! And I have rather more (inductive)
> > > evidence than you do.
> >
> > I'm sure on the Friday before Black Monday, many marketeers had great
> > inductive evidence for buying rather than selling!
>
> Unless you know of a prophecy that someone interpreted as telling them to
do
> otherwise, I can't see that there is any useful parallel here.
Okay, I'll try again. What inductive evidence do you have ?
> > > > If it doesn't, then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of
> > > > judgement. (I seem to think I've confessed a few errors to this NG).
>
> > > When will you decide you were wrong? I mean, for Christians of the
11th
> > > century it didn't happen: should they have decided it was not going
to?
> > > If, as you lie on your deathbed, you see no evidence of the Endtimes,
> will
> > > you decide you were wrong? Or just that it's still waiting to happen?
>
> > If a friend says to me that he's coming to visit me on Thursday evening.
> > At what time, on Thursday evening, should I conclude that he's not
coming?
>
> Has Jesus given us a day, or an hour?
No. "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour
you do not expect." (Matt 24:44)
" ... He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because
they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately." (Luke 19:11)
In the parable the nobleman went into a distant country and then returned
having received the kingdom.
"Surely I am coming quickly" (Rev 22:20)
Obviously, I believe we are 'in the phase' where the Nobleman is receiving
His Kingdom. "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool"
(Heb 1:13)
"Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the
earth?" (Luke 18:8)
>
> > > So, you may say that you will accept the evidence of fact ("If it
> > > doesn't, then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of
judgement")
> but
> > > in reality your error - if such it is - will never be definitively
> revealed.
> > > Your hypothesis is not falsifiable.
> >
> > Well you could take Scripture 'as is' and say "okay where's Jesus" look
> > around and decide that's He's not here and so conclude it hasn't
happened
> > yet. Or you could spiritualise it all because your view on timescales
(how
> > long 'shortly/quickly' is) becomes a basis for interpreting Scripture.
>
> In other words your offer to confess your error if the apocalypse doesn't
> happen was an empty gesture.
No - if you want, you can dictate the terms of my confession ;-)
If, in the meantime, I see the error of my interpretation then I'll write a
formal apology to the NG.
How does that sound?
>
> It's the Endtimes stuff that spooks me.
I think that's an appropriate response. If you understand much of Revelation
futuristically then it is shocking.
> When Jesus specifically told us that we wouldn't know when he would
return -
> when even *he* didn't know when he would return - the attempt to say when
> he's coming seems, at best, foolish, if not downright impious.
Alec, please don't think I'm attempting to put timescales on this. I've no
idea. Jesus and other NT writers, time and time again, taught *that* He
would return and in Glory.
> I'm disputing that Revelation is meant to give us a picture of *what* is
yet to happen.
AISI, Revelation offers us a more detailed description of the fulfillment of
the prophecies (plus a load of others as well).
> > > If 'nigh' > 2000 years then you are using language differently from
how
> > > the rest of us use it, and overhead wobble camshaft goes thrupp
> indeedly?
> >
> > I'm sure you don't think a majority understanding (if that is what it
is)
> > makes a difference to the purposes of God.
>
> If we can't even use language the same way, who is to say *what* Scripture
> means?
The One who wrote Scripture.
> Yes. Or "Pascal's Stupid Wager" as some philosophers have been heard to
call
> it.
I can't quite see how a value judgement makes much difference to its
truth/falsehood - but then I'm sure you don't either <g>
> > > My paranoid patients often use that same argument; "if you're right,
and
> > > the hospital management are not in the pay of Saddam, then I'm
deceiving
> > > myself. But what if *I'm* right and *you're* wrong?"
> >
> > We can draw parallels between disparate categories, but the parallels
have
> > to be correct. Obviously, the Pharisees did that with Jesus in
suggesting
> > He was demon-possessed and/or mad. They were wrong. The categorisation
> > has to be correct. Common characteristics are not a basis for the
> revelation of Truth. An Angel of Light and Satan will appear very
similar.
>
> Sorry...your point is?
That you can find similarity between your paranoid patients who say
'statement x' and I write something that is like 'statement x', is, by
definition, simply taxonomy. It doesn't say anything about the
truth/falsehood of each statement. In application, if you feel it
appropriate, you'd need to test whether my statement is true or not and then
conclude whether I'm deluded as opposed to concluding I'm deluded because I
sound/write like people who, in your experience, are deluded.
> And Pharaoh's dream was not excluded from Scripture either. But
> that doesn't mean that its content has a specific meaning for us, only
that
> it illustrates Joseph's skill at interpreting dreams.
It certainly does show that Joseph had a marvellous God-given skill at
interpreting dreams. But I would question you assertion that Pharaoh's dream
does not have specific meaning for us. I have not meditated upon Pharaoh's
dreams and they, therefore, remain something of a closed book to me.
However, I still very much believe that I could gain much from meditating
upon the dreams, their meaning, context, symbolism etc and how they may
parallel with other events in Scripture, but, most importantly, the
consideration of in what way they speak of Christ. Personally I have gained
greatly from considering the dreams of the butler and baker in relation to
the weekly bread and wine and hence the finished work of Christ.
> Careful, you'll end up going down the Humean road of disbelieving in all
> cause and effect.
"All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was
made." (John 1:3)
"for in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28)
>
> > AISI, the biblical teaching with regard the mind is one of capturing
> > all thoughts and only permitting those which are honest, true, good etc
> > (Romans 12:1,2, 2 Cor 10:5, Phil 4:8). If our thinking is actually
> > 'mediated through the spiritual realms', in which there is a battle
going
> > on between darkness and light, rather than simply being physical
> processes,
> > then Paul's teachings make much sense.
>
> I wish I could say as much for that last paragraph. I have no idea what it
> means.
Don't worry, I cause (given the caveats of the previous paragraph re Hume)
my wife the same problems ;-) How do you understand Eph 6:12?
Simon
Alec Brady
> "Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:mhWb7.21956$hs5.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> > > Baby, bath water? Scripture appears to have something (quite a lot, in
> > > fact) to say about the Parousia. I have not yet been enlightened to
> > > the chapters which speak of Tony Blair, MP, PM, ET!!
> >
> > And your point?
>
> a) It is true that a Roman Empire persecuted the saints. But that may yet
> prove to be a prefiguring of what is yet to come.
> b) Tony Blair may be an extra-terrestrial.
> c) Special Branch may be tailing me.
>
> I think (!) my point is that you appear, from what you've written, to
> reject proposition a) because there are lots of other propositions (e.g. b
> and c ) which you feel able to classify in the same way and label
> all as silly/delusional/paranoid/whatever not because of the truth or
> falsehood of the original proposition.
No: my point is not about proposition (a) but about how you go about arguing
for it - which seems to me to boil down to "well, it might be true!"
Indeed it might. But the same argument could be used to support a paranoid
fantasy too. What reason can you give me for thinking that your take on
Revelation is more than that?
> > > > > Until this does or doesn't happen, it's difficult to say that it
> > > > > won't.
> > > >
> > > > "It won't happen." See? Easy-peasy! And I have rather more
> > > > (inductive) evidence than you do.
> > >
> > > I'm sure on the Friday before Black Monday, many marketeers had great
> > > inductive evidence for buying rather than selling!
> >
> > Unless you know of a prophecy that someone interpreted as telling them
> > to do otherwise, I can't see that there is any useful parallel here.
>
> Okay, I'll try again. What inductive evidence do you have ?
The fact that it hasn't happened; that there have been scores of generations
of Christians that it hasn't happened to; that there have been numerous
movements expecting it to happen in their lifetimes, and it hasn't; and the
fact that, if all scripture is good for training, edification etc. then
those people that Revelation wasn't addressed to had a scripture that wasn't
any good for what scripture is supposed to be good for.
> > > > > If it doesn't, then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of
> > > > > judgement. (I seem to think I've confessed a few errors to this
> > > > > NG).
> >
> > > > When will you decide you were wrong? I mean, for Christians of the
> > > > 11th century it didn't happen: should they have decided it was not
> > > >going to? If, as you lie on your deathbed, you see no evidence of the
> > > > Endtimes, will you decide you were wrong? Or just that it's still
> > > > waiting to happen?
> >
> > > If a friend says to me that he's coming to visit me on Thursday
> > > evening. At what time, on Thursday evening, should I conclude that
> > > he's not coming?
> >
> > Has Jesus given us a day, or an hour?
>
> No. "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour
> you do not expect." (Matt 24:44)
In which case your example doesn't work.
> " ... He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because
> they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately." (Luke 19:11)
>
> In the parable the nobleman went into a distant country and then returned
> having received the kingdom.
>
> "Surely I am coming quickly" (Rev 22:20)
>
> Obviously, I believe we are 'in the phase' where the Nobleman is receiving
> His Kingdom. "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your
> footstool" (Heb 1:13)
Are we not told that he has already received his kingdom, and that he
returned from his journey? Doesn't John tell us that the cross was his
glorification? doesn't Jesus tell us that all authority has already been
given to him?
> "Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the
> earth?" (Luke 18:8)
If, by faith, you mean paranoid fantasies about dragons and molten sulphur
then the answer would seem to be, sadly, yes.
> > > > So, you may say that you will accept the evidence of fact ("If it
> > > > doesn't, then I'll be more than happy to confess my error of
> > > > judgement") but in reality your error - if such it is - will never
> > > > be definitively revealed. Your hypothesis is not falsifiable.
> > >
> > > Well you could take Scripture 'as is' and say "okay where's Jesus"
> > > look around and decide that's He's not here and so conclude it hasn't
> > > happened yet. Or you could spiritualise it all because your view on
> > > timescales (how long 'shortly/quickly' is) becomes a basis for
> > > interpreting Scripture.
> >
> > In other words your offer to confess your error if the apocalypse
> > doesn't happen was an empty gesture.
>
> No - if you want, you can dictate the terms of my confession ;-)
>
> If, in the meantime, I see the error of my interpretation then I'll write
> a formal apology to the NG.
>
> How does that sound?
Honestly? Like wriggling.
> > It's the Endtimes stuff that spooks me.
>
> I think that's an appropriate response. If you understand much of
> Revelation futuristically then it is shocking.
I'm also shocked by what Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Branch Davidians etc.
claim. Being shocking is not, in itself, proof of anything.
> > When Jesus specifically told us that we wouldn't know when he would
> > return - when even *he* didn't know when he would return - the attempt
> > to say when he's coming seems, at best, foolish, if not downright
> > impious.
>
> Alec, please don't think I'm attempting to put timescales on this. I've no
> idea. Jesus and other NT writers, time and time again, taught *that* He
> would return and in Glory.
Thanks for clarifying that, Simon.
> > I'm disputing that Revelation is meant to give us a picture of *what* is
> > yet to happen.
>
> AISI, Revelation offers us a more detailed description of the fulfillment
> of the prophecies (plus a load of others as well).
Hm. I can see us heading for agree-to-differ-land here.
> > > > If 'nigh' > 2000 years then you are using language differently from
> > > > how the rest of us use it, and overhead wobble camshaft goes thrupp
> > > > indeedly?
> > >
> > > I'm sure you don't think a majority understanding (if that is what it
> > > is) makes a difference to the purposes of God.
> >
> > If we can't even use language the same way, who is to say *what*
> > Scripture means?
>
> The One who wrote Scripture.
I presume that isn't you, Simon.
> > Yes. Or "Pascal's Stupid Wager" as some philosophers have been heard to
> > call it.
>
> I can't quite see how a value judgement makes much difference to its
> truth/falsehood - but then I'm sure you don't either <g>
Correct. I don't believe calling it stupid makes it stupid, I believe its
being
stupid accounts for people calling it stupid.
(Why is Pascal's Wager stupid? Because it assumes that God will be fooled by
a purely tactical declaration of belief).
> > > > My paranoid patients often use that same argument; "if you're right,
> > > > and the hospital management are not in the pay of Saddam, then I'm
> > > > deceiving myself. But what if *I'm* right and *you're* wrong?"
> > >
> > > We can draw parallels between disparate categories, but the parallels
> > > have to be correct. Obviously, the Pharisees did that with Jesus in
> > > suggesting He was demon-possessed and/or mad. They were wrong. The
> > > categorisation has to be correct. Common characteristics are not a
> > > basis for the revelation of Truth. An Angel of Light and Satan will
appear
> > > very similar.
So which of our two positions is divine, and which a devilish deception,
intended to distract us from the gospel? Guess which I think.
> > Sorry...your point is?
>
> That you can find similarity between your paranoid patients who say
> 'statement x' and I write something that is like 'statement x', is, by
> definition, simply taxonomy. It doesn't say anything about the
> truth/falsehood of each statement. In application, if you feel it
> appropriate, you'd need to test whether my statement is true or not and
> then conclude whether I'm deluded as opposed to concluding I'm deluded
> because I sound/write like people who, in your experience, are deluded.
I am not trying to dicredit your position, I am trying to discredit you
method of supporting it.
> > And Pharaoh's dream was not excluded from Scripture either. But
> > that doesn't mean that its content has a specific meaning for us, only
> > that it illustrates Joseph's skill at interpreting dreams.
>
> It certainly does show that Joseph had a marvellous God-given skill at
> interpreting dreams. But I would question you assertion that Pharaoh's
> dream does not have specific meaning for us. I have not meditated upon
> Pharaoh's dreams and they, therefore, remain something of a closed book
> to me. However, I still very much believe that I could gain much from
meditating
> upon the dreams, their meaning, context, symbolism etc and how they may
> parallel with other events in Scripture, but, most importantly, the
> consideration of in what way they speak of Christ. Personally I have
> gained greatly from considering the dreams of the butler and baker in
> relation to the weekly bread and wine and hence the finished work of
Christ.
I am happy with that approach. But when you start asking where these seven
cows are, and what colour they are, this would show that you were ignoring
the true significance of the dream (lean and fat years) in trying to take it
literally. I believe this is what you are doing with Revelation.
> > Careful, you'll end up going down the Humean road of disbelieving in all
> > cause and effect.
>
> "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that
> was made." (John 1:3)
>
> "for in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28)
er...right. I agree. And?
> > > AISI, the biblical teaching with regard the mind is one of capturing
> > > all thoughts and only permitting those which are honest, true, good
> > > etc (Romans 12:1,2, 2 Cor 10:5, Phil 4:8). If our thinking is
> > > actually 'mediated through the spiritual realms', in which there is a
battle
> > > going on between darkness and light, rather than simply being physical
> > > processes, then Paul's teachings make much sense.
I am a Behaviour Therapist, and I have to say that your account of the mind
is the complete opposite of what I believe to be true.
Also, your idea that one can choose which thoughts to permit is dangerously
Pelagian, and not in any way what Paul was talking about.
For example: for 60 seconds, I'd like you not to think of your front door.
Don't visualise it, don't consider it. Don't think about thether it has
glass panels, or a number fixed to it. Spend 60 seconds not thinking about
it in any way. Start now.
> Don't worry, I cause (given the caveats of the previous paragraph re Hume)
> my wife the same problems ;-) How do you understand Eph 6:12?
It's a big question. Would you like me to do you a half-day seminar on it?
But I don't believe the powers Paul mentions are evil intelligences. And I
don't believe the battle he mentions is specifically in the future.
--
Alec
Simon Woods
> "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:Qf5d7.17305$tq.18...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > "Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > news:mhWb7.21956$hs5.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
yet
> > prove to be a prefiguring of what is yet to come.
> > b) Tony Blair may be an extra-terrestrial.
> > c) Special Branch may be tailing me.
> >
> > I think (!) my point is that you appear, from what you've written, to
> > reject proposition a) because there are lots of other propositions (e.g.
b
> > and c ) which you feel able to classify in the same way and label
> > all as silly/delusional/paranoid/whatever not because of the truth or
> > falsehood of the original proposition.
>
> No: my point is not about proposition (a) but about how you go about
arguing
> for it - which seems to me to boil down to "well, it might be true!"
> Indeed it might. But the same argument could be used to support a paranoid
> fantasy too.
But why must you speak of paranoid fantasy at all? (I accept there may be a
professional interest for you there) Why not compare the proposition with,
say, on who'll win the premiership? If I enter a bookies and take a bet that
Liverpool will win the Premier this season, would you suggest that this was
paranoid fantasy or would you say "yes they've got a good chance though I
still feel they could do with shoring up their defense".
> What reason can you give me for thinking that your take on
> Revelation is more than that?
It is true if it happens.
It is not true if it doesn't happen.
It is not not true because it hasn't happened
(I think !! - will a logician please correct me - thankyou !)
If God has said it is going to happen, then it's a question of whether you
take God at His Word or not so we're, fortunately, cast back to searching
the Scriptures rather than all the philosophical/logical uncertainties.
When Rev 1:1 talks of God showing His servants things which must shortly
take place. Certainly, I suggest, in the future for John as he wrote it.
Verse 3 says "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this
prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is
near." Presumably you understand this as "the time was near then and now the
time is past"?
In verse 19, John is instructed to "Write the things which you have seen,
and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this."
Are we to understand this as "write the things you've see, then write those
things which happened a bit after that and then those things which happened
after the second things happened"?
Or can we read it in exactly the same way as a 1st century Christian may
without need of 'spiritualisation'. Personally I find it splits very simply
into
a) the Past, John's vision of the Glorified Christ (chap 1)
b) the Present, the letters to the 7 churches (inc today and up to the
Rapture - chap 2-3)
c) the Future, post-Rapture (chap 4ff)
To draw a comparison with say "These things I write to you, though I hope to
come to you shortly;" (1 Tim 3:14) would be obviously completely ripping
something out of it's context. I'm sure you'd agree that Revelation is very
different from any other NT book.
> > Okay, I'll try again. What inductive evidence do you have ?
>
> The fact that it hasn't happened; that there have been scores of
generations
> of Christians that it hasn't happened to; that there have been numerous
> movements expecting it to happen in their lifetimes, and it hasn't;
I need to clarify myself - I'm not suggesting it will happen in our
lifetimes. I'm suggesting that it is yet to happen, at any time. If someone
said it would happen in their lifetime, and it didn't, then they were simply
wrong. I don't really
see what bearing their incorrectness has on the assertion, "it will happen".
The question is do the Scriptures teach it as a future event. If they don't,
then *may* be paranoid fantasy but then again it may simply be 'lack of
light' in the same way that one of the 2 positions of the "justification by
faith alone" debate will be.
When Paul teaches "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup,
you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." (1 Cor 11:26). It strikes me
that Paul is looking to the future when a time will come when the people of
God no longer need to eat the bread and drink the cup, because then it will
be 'face-to-face'.
When Paul writes to Timothy "Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who
have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already
past; and they overthrow the faith of some." (2 Tim 2:17-18). It strikes me
that he is teaching that the resurrection is yet to happen. To the
Thessalonians, Paul writes "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose
again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus." (1 Thes
4:14) and then goes onto say "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven
with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God.
And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain
shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thes 4:16-17). This is
the time of the resurrection of those 'in Christ' - the dead in Christ will
rise. Paul writes about it to the Corinthians "But now Christ is risen from
the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep ...
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For
the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we
shall be changed." (1 Cor 15:20, 51-52). Now personally I've had no
experience of hearing the shout and the trumpet.
Romans 11:25 teaches that the casting off of Israel is until the fullness of
the Gentiles has come in. So it is time limited, but according to the number
of all who are called to be in the body of Christ.
Hebrews 10:25 speaks of a day which approaches, and how important it is to
continue to meet together to encourage one another as the tide of
lawlessness increases towards the end.
Again to the church of God in Thessalonica, Paul writes "Now, brethren,
concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to
Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit
or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had
come." (II Th 2:1-2). Paul, in this letter, speaks of the revealing of the
lawless one, the man of sin and, IMO, we're into Daniel's 70th week, His
covenant with Israel and then his breaking of it and Israel's persecution
(Daniel 9:27, Rev 12:6) the time of Jacob's trouble (Jer 30:7) - carried
away there - Paul was teaching the church in Thessalonica of a then future
event.
I could go on ... (I have gone on!!)
In summary, running through NT, throughout the Gospels and many of the
letters is the teaching of a Day yet to come - even Marx recognised this and
saw this as Christianity's power.
>
> > " ... He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and
because
> > they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately." (Luke 19:11)
> >
> > In the parable the nobleman went into a distant country and then
returned
> > having received the kingdom.
> >
> > "Surely I am coming quickly" (Rev 22:20)
> >
> > Obviously, I believe we are 'in the phase' where the Nobleman is
receiving
> > His Kingdom. "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your
> > footstool" (Heb 1:13)
>
> Are we not told that he has already received his kingdom, and that he
> returned from his journey? Doesn't John tell us that the cross was his
> glorification? doesn't Jesus tell us that all authority has already been
> given to him?
Well there's a 'till' in Heb 1:13. There's support from the typology of the
OT as the Promised land wasn't simply handed over to the Israelites but they
had to trust God each step of the way to deliver it into their hands - in
which they failed.
How does a Moslem who kills a Christian believing he will be rewarded for
his act currently bow under the authority of Christ? How do his lips confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord? (Phil 2:11)
>
> > "Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on
the
> > earth?" (Luke 18:8)
>
> If, by faith, you mean paranoid fantasies about dragons and molten sulphur
> then the answer would seem to be, sadly, yes.
A dragon and a lake of fire is part of the teaching of Scripture.
Paranoid fantasy is, presumably, part of the teaching of Behaviour
Therapy. Which should sit in judgement of which?
> > > In other words your offer to confess your error if the apocalypse
> > > doesn't happen was an empty gesture.
> >
> > No - if you want, you can dictate the terms of my confession ;-)
> >
> > If, in the meantime, I see the error of my interpretation then I'll
write
> > a formal apology to the NG.
> >
> > How does that sound?
>
> Honestly? Like wriggling.
>
What more could I offer, then? I don't believe Scripture teaches what you're
suggesting. Therefore, on what basis could I say "Alec, you're absolutely
right" until I see that you're absolutely right.
> > > Yes. Or "Pascal's Stupid Wager" as some philosophers have been heard
to
> > > call it.
> >
> > I can't quite see how a value judgement makes much difference to its
> > truth/falsehood - but then I'm sure you don't either <g>
>
> Correct. I don't believe calling it stupid makes it stupid, I believe its
> being
> stupid accounts for people calling it stupid.
.... or else it reflects the value systems of those labelling it stupid ...
oops, I'm starting to sound like a psychologist (admittedly an amateur,
though) ;-)
> (Why is Pascal's Wager stupid? Because it assumes that God will be fooled
by
> a purely tactical declaration of belief).
That's a tangential analysis, IMO.
> I am happy with that approach. But when you start asking where these seven
> cows are, and what colour they are, this would show that you were ignoring
> the true significance of the dream (lean and fat years) in trying to take
it
> literally. I believe this is what you are doing with Revelation.
I accept that in that day the significance was lean and fat years and
Joseph was blessed greatly for revealing this to Pharoah. We could then
'metaphor-ise' it all into modern day living and suggest, say, the cyclical
nature of good and bad times and much more elaborate applications which may
help us through difficult times and may be a warning to us when life is
sweet.
Joseph's interpretation tells us that they speak of 2 periods of seven
years. But how Joseph got from cows or wheat to years is a closed book to
me. As with so many other, if not all other, OT types and shadows each only
have partial fulfilment.
However, I believe the dream is exalted through Christ and will only find
its 'true significance' in His light. Luke 24:27, Matt 5:17 and John 5:39, I
believe, support this. Specifically, I don't believe colour is mentioned so
I'd agree with you on that one. The cows came up from a river so where they
were may have some significance. In the associated dream, the seven heads of
grain came up from one head of grain. The strong were eaten and replaced by
the weak. The picture of the seven heads of wheat emerging from the single
head of wheat reminds me of the lampstand in the tabernacle which also has
seven lamps emerging from a single source. The cows/kine are typically
associated with service. Rev 1:1 says that it is written for the servants of
God in churches described as lampstands. Seven is the number of the Holy
Spirit - He is the seven-fold Spirit of God and is the Testimony of Christ
in the world today. The Lampstand was fired by oil daily that the lamps did
not extinguish in the Holy Place. The oil also is associated with the Holy
Spirit (1 Sam 16:13). You'll notice in Revelation that Christ walks among
the lampstands which are the seven churches, one of which is threatened with
the removal of its lampstand. The churches form the dwelling place of God on
earth in this dispensation and they proclaim the death of Christ until He
comes - the witness. That the weak replaces the strong to my mind speaks of
2 'incarnations' of these churches, the churches of God. This also is
paralleled by the temple. The temple was the dwelling place for the shekinah
glory of God on earth. You'll note that there were 2, Solomon's glorious
temple and then Ezra/Nehemiahs second smaller temple once the people of God
were brough back from captivity- a strong replaced by a weak. So my initial
understanding of the dream is that Joseph was seeing, in vision, the
emergence of Solomon's temple and then the second temple, the establishment
of churches of God firstly at Pentecost and then their re-emergence in the
late 1900s. He was dreaming of the testimony of Christ in the world.
So there's another interpretation. Call it surmising, special pleading,
whatever, it is my initial thoughts as I consider the dreams.
> > > > AISI, the biblical teaching with regard the mind is one of capturing
> > > > all thoughts and only permitting those which are honest, true, good
> > > > etc (Romans 12:1,2, 2 Cor 10:5, Phil 4:8). If our thinking is
> > > > actually 'mediated through the spiritual realms', in which there is
a
> battle
> > > > going on between darkness and light, rather than simply being
physical
> > > > processes, then Paul's teachings make much sense.
>
> I am a Behaviour Therapist, and I have to say that your account of the
mind
> is the complete opposite of what I believe to be true.
I'm a computer programmer - how do you do? I don't see what bearing our
professions have on the matter, and I'm sure you're not suggesting that
Behaviour Therapists have inside knowledge on the understanding of Scripture
in relation to it's teaching of the mind. As a programmer, I certainly don't
feel I've got inside knowledge on, say, it's
numerology.
When Jesus said "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has
not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." I don't get the
impression that Peter had understood that Jesus is the Christ as he assessed
Jesus in the light of his experience as a fisherman!
>
> Also, your idea that one can choose which thoughts to permit is
dangerously
> Pelagian, and not in any way what Paul was talking about.
So when Paul speaks of "bringing every thought into captivity to the
obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:5) and "whatever things are true ... noble
.... just ... pure ... lovely ... of good report etc ... meditate on these
things" (Phil 4:8) - what do you think he is referring to?
Perhaps he needed therapy ;-)
> How do you understand Eph 6:12?
>
> It's a big question. Would you like me to do you a half-day seminar on it?
>
> But I don't believe the powers Paul mentions are evil intelligences. And I
> don't believe the battle he mentions is specifically in the future.
Sorry, didn't make myself clear (again!). My point here was that there are
"spiritual hosts of wickedness" against which Paul was battling as opposed
to future events. So, IMU, creation is not just purely materialistic. Your
use of the phrase 'evil intelligences', to my mind, is an abstraction from
Scripture, which probably does not capture the intention of the original
phrase, but rather places upon it a 21st W.
Are you happy with the phrase 'spiritual hosts of wickedness' or do you feel
it needs re-interpreting into our day (genuine question)?
Simon
Simon Woods
> phrase, but rather places upon it a 21st W.
^^^^^^^^
Sorry -that should say "a 21st century W"
Simon