Because you believe itWhy go to the trouble of presenting it if no one cares anyway,
-and-
it is worth fighting for.
Don't give up.
Never.
Because you believe itWhy go to the trouble of presenting it if no one cares anyway,
Good point. I don't feel like I am giving up though, just silencing the noise out of my own study. And also, I am new to the idealist view as well as amillennialism as I have left Revelation alone for years. Mainly because I always approached it from the prevalent, singularity heard, premillennialist view, which left me confused. Add to that dispensationalism in one form or another and also singularly presented, though without identifying itself more often than not, and the confusion and impossibility of solving the puzzle those views attempt, and the focus goes so far astray, the great value and purpose of Revelation to all Christians of all time, is utterly concealed.Because you believe it
-and-
it is worth fighting for.
Don't give up.
Never.
Apologies for 'crossing threads' here, but in another thread Glory @glorydaz asks what the difference is between the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ, or something like that.She---Ariel (Hebrew lion of God) Arial the female form (lioness of God).
That is nice to hear and I thank you. I take it you mean the original topic of the OP. The present conversation is people taking over the thread who do not agree with what I am presenting and it should be its own thread. Revelation has been utterly forgotten and people are arguing over a foolish assertion that has flimsy support in scripture and no logical support according to the scriptures that teach that all are one in Christ, that salvation and entry into the kingdom of God, comes at conversion through faith. There is no support for separating the kingdom of God and the church as involving different dispensations. Of by grace through faith for Gentiles and another method of salvation for the Jew in a different dispensation of salvation through faith plus works. That the believing Jew who has already been redeemed, now, in addition, will have to go back and repeat to perfection the keeping of the Law that Jesus already did for him, sacrificing bulls and rams and goats, even while the Lamb that was Slain, rules and reigns over them.
I had pretty much decided that there was no interest in the actual discussion I attempted to start, and for a brief moment, in spite of the interruptions, looked like it could be an investigation participants could explore together, but that went nowhere also; so I decided to just do the study on my own. Why go to the trouble of presenting it if no one cares anyway, unless they can find something to fight about and be rude over.
Right.I'm pretty sure Paul says "to you".
- Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
- Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
What does Paul say?Right.
If you live in a town where Paul preached and then Peter comes to that same town and preaches, should you tell Peter he is accursed?
I do take the bride of the Lamb to be the bride of Christ, to be the body of Christ---all speaking of the same thing and are the church, made up of all believers. I have always believed this from scripture itself, even before looking into the different schools of interpretation. Idealism does agree with this, but I think so does Preterism as well as Historicism and probably the majority of those who adhere to futurism. Those four categories are interpretive schools of thought. Then there is additional view that lays within those views, that of post millennialism, premillennialism, and amillennialism, which have to do with the thousand year reign of Christ. Premillennialists say this thousand years follows the second coming. Amillennialists understand the thousand years to be an expression, as it is used as such on many other places in scripture where that meaning is clear, representing a period of time determined by God, but that length of time unknown to us. (The number 1,000 and multapuls of a thousand is used elsewhere in Rev to represent a vast number or multitude.) As such the thousand years would be "this age", the time from the resurrection until His second coming, where Christ reigns in the hearts of believers.Apologies for 'crossing threads' here, but in another thread Glory @glorydaz asks what the difference is between the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ, or something like that.
Thing is, if we take the bride of the Lamb to be the Bride of Christ to be the Body of Christ to be the Church, then Revelation to me becomes 'dead' easy to understand. It doesn't entirely clear up the mysticism, but it become far less mystical and cryptic in my eyes.
What I don't know is how such a reading of the book squares with your four distinct schools of thought on the book that you've set out. Does it render it idealism, or something else? I don't know.
It is you. Some probably fits with more than one of the schools of interpretation. In fact a combination of all four, taking the strengths of each and avoiding the weaknesses is best, and probably what the majority of people do. It is when we put ourselves inside a rigid box and close our eyes to all else, that we get into trouble with Revelation. The four interpretive schools exist, and knowing what they are can, but is not necessary, help us to approach the book from a perspective we might not otherwise see. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to approach from each if it suited our personality or desires or time, and all the while, comparing to what the rest of scripture says, and reach our own conclusions. As long as no truth that leads to salvation is compromised, and we see Jesus in Revelation, nothing to fight about. That's the thing we tend to forget. That book is about Jesus. It is revealing to us Jesus.What I don't know is how such a reading of the book squares with your four distinct schools of thought on the book that you've set out. Does it render it idealism, or something else? I don't know.
Paul said anyone that preaches another gospel than what he was preaching should be accursed.What does Paul say?
No, that is not the WHOLE truth of what Paul said.Paul said anyone that preaches another gospel than what he was preaching should be accursed.
Gal 1:8-9 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Read the scripture more carefully.If Peter is preaching another gospel in scripture than what Paul was preaching then you should be telling anyone you know that reads scripture that Peter should be accursed for the gospel he was preaching.
Don't forget history. Those who ignore it are forced to put everything into the future where anything is possible.Read the scripture more carefully.
I do read scripture carefully.No, that is not the WHOLE truth of what Paul said.
Read the scripture more carefully.
I don't think this has anything to do with towns. I think if Peter or any one else came and preached water baptism or commandment keeping to those who had been saved by faith, he should be rebuked even blamed even accursed, although I don't think Peter would do that. Look at our old friend, God's Truth. She preaches obedience to the commandments to be saved.Right.
If you live in a town where Paul preached and then Peter comes to that same town and preaches, should you tell Peter he is accursed?I
The point is that this is a forum for discussing topics that are brought up. If you aren't open to other opinions on the matter then you will continue to be frustrated. Let it flow....you might even learn something.I had pretty much decided that there was no interest in the actual discussion I attempted to start, and for a brief moment, in spite of the interruptions, looked like it could be an investigation participants could explore together, but that went nowhere also; so I decided to just do the study on my own. Why go to the trouble of presenting it if no one cares anyway, unless they can find something to fight about and be rude over.
Doesn't Paul say, "let him be accursed"? Paul isn't telling anyone to call people out and curse them. Sounds like he is calling on God to do it when necessary. And rightly so...."6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:I do read scripture carefully.
And you can underline "unto you" all you want, but it does not negate the fact that one person could hear both Peter and Paul preach.
I mean, come on, it's not like Paul would ask everyone in the crowd to raise their hands if they were a Jew and then say "Sorry, I can't preach to you because you are the circumcision".
Likewise, it's not as if Peter would do the same and ask those in crowd to raise their hands if they were Gentile and say "Sorry, I can't preach to you because you are not the circumcision".
Here's the scenario ......
One hears Peter preaching the gospel he preaches in the town square.
Should he trust that the gospel Peter is preaching is truth?
Now Paul comes to town and the same one hears him preach the gospel he preaches in the town square.
Should he now declare Peter accursed for the gospel he preaches?
A person should never continue preaching what can be proven incorrect. Which is why we have these discussions.Because you believe it
-and-
it is worth fighting for.
Don't give up.
Never.
GD the thread was DERAILED entirely from its topic. The OP might as well not have existed, as folks started their own thread on their topic and put it inside mine. Start your own. It has nothing to do with whether or not I am open to other opinions, and your yourself said you weren't interested in listening to or learning anything other than what you have determined is the absolute truth, so what are you doing here? And why are you posting replies to something and someone and a view that you have already said you merely skim----and then say whatever it is you want to say, whether it is on topic or off, ignoring what you are replying to as you don't, by your own admission, even know what it is you are replying to.The point is that this is a forum for discussing topics that are brought up. If you aren't open to other opinions on the matter then you will continue to be frustrated. Let it flow....you might even learn something.
I'm not saying that either.Doesn't Paul say, "let him be accursed"? Paul isn't telling anyone to call people out and curse them.
The 'him' in "let him be accursed" would be Peter in the scenario I presented.Sounds like he is calling on God to do it when necessary. And rightly so...."6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Maybe. But 13:18 is an open puzzle, so if the whole book isn't a puzzle, it is a book which contains a puzzle, and it seems like if you know the answer to the puzzle of 13:18, that it can 'unlock' a bit of the mystery of the book....Rev is really a picture book, not a puzzle book....
Have you proved anything that has been said to be incorrect, in any way other than you believe something else? Who makes those determinations? So far I haven't seen you prove anything that you have said and you have been shown very clearly that your view makes the Bible written for two groups of people, but all jumbled together with no clear distinction as to who it applies to. The proof of something does not reside inside one person's or any person's mind.A person should never continue preaching what can be proven incorrect. Which is why we have these discussions.
The number 666 may be a mystery to us, but it was not to first century Christians. And we make it more of a mystery than it really is by making things that are obviously symbolic, literal. It is a type of writing that was even familiar to pagan cultures. Hidden things, things unseen, revealed in the form of symbols and visions. Which is what Revelation is doing. And yet some things remain a mystery. Six is the number of man, falling short of number seven, the perfection of God and not only that but fallen man in rebellion to God. The triple six to identify the Beast and as the mark of the Beast suggests that it is the ultimate rebellion against God. The Beast is the anti-Christ. And he is the second "person" of an unholy trinity. The dragon, the beast who comes forth from the dragon, the false prophet who deceives the people. There have been many such individuals throughout history, but I think it quite possible that there will be a final anitchrist, the worst of all, just before the second coming, and that he will probably come as a man. But the number is not given to identify him and the mark of the beast is a counterfeit of the sealing by the Holy Spirit of believers.Maybe. But 13:18 is an open puzzle, so if the whole book isn't a puzzle, it is a book which contains a puzzle, and it seems like if you know the answer to the puzzle of 13:18, that it can 'unlock' a bit of the mystery of the book.