This is one of those times when you get ready to post and you know you want to say "something" but you don't know what because even though you've read the thread through, it's tough to pin down a specific point or thought. WW, you have many posts throughout this thread and several times you've referred to those who see everything as "spiritual" and yet because they have no Scriptural passages that are enough evidence for you, you kinda imply that their (my) pov isn't relevant.
Seeing as much conversation has been between you and Sheila, who is also very spiritual in her perceptions as well as the mentioning of Cardinal . .Taffy would have been another but he's kinda backed out for a while as well. But "because" EVERYTHING for me really is to be seen spiritual, comments that give reference to the idea that seeing things spiritually isn't really an answer to many of the questions presented always grabs my attention.
I remember commenting on a conversation recently that Molly was involved with in trying to explain things she'd been seeing yet others were questioning the validity of them and it ties in with much of what's been discussed here in that I get the feeling that most would rather wrestle with their logic than consider that perhaps everything really "is" meant to be understood on another dimension beyond logic and reasoning.
WW, you stated
My view is that the Bible is far from complete. The ancient Jews had much much more knowledge of things as found in the OT. I think not all things revealed to them are in the OT.
I believe the literal things are a pattern of the spiritual/heavenly things. Meaning we know almost nothing about heaven.
I whole-heartedly believe that everything literally written is a pattern of the spiritual realm of things. But where you say it means we know nothing of the spiritual realm, I say, through those patterns, we can "see" the spiritual principles. But the spiritual side of it isn't based on the same principles as the natural side of it. Natural is based on information and knowledge, whereas spiritual is based on relationship.
It was Peter's relationship with Jesus that enabled him to receive a revelation from God of who Jesus was.
Matthew 16
3When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Let's play with this a bit, shall we?
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
For me, this is so similar to many of the conversations that take place on the thousands of forums much like this one on any given day. People love to express their opinions of who they think Jesus is to them. There are as many opinions as there are minds that embrace them. Everyone has an opinion. Some see Jesus with a message of repentance or else, others see him with great power and drama, others see him as a man of great passion .. . but the whole mood changes when Jesus then poses a more personal question . . .who do "you" say that I am.
I've stated all along, and it's also why I "don't" make sure I always post a Scripture and verse with my comments. It's not about adopting the opinion of what someone else stated, even if that means it's a Scripture verse. Jesus isn't asking Peter how well he knows the text, he's asking him to tell him "in his own words, from his own heart" who does "he" see Jesus to be. Peter's answer was not one based on all of his efforts of studying what everyone else said about Jesus. Peter's answer was a personal revelation that came from inside him, inside his spirit, not his head. If anything, what came out of his mouth was a birthing of a seed that had already been planted in his mind, a life-seed and Jesus was the midwife that ushered the birthing into personal comprehension.
Notice Jesus didn't change the name of all the disciples, this wasn't something they'd all decided was a good answer, this was a PERSONAL experience that Peter had and because of it, Jesus marked the moment by changing Peter's name, which was a reflection of the inward change of how communication with Peter would be in the days ahead. Jesus was no longer laying line upon line with him, precept upon precept. Peter became a Dad that day, he birthed a revelation of Jesus.
And for Peter, the rest of the disciples, and all who read this passage, Jesus immediately explained what just happened. Jesus was defining the difference between knowledge and revelation.
6And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
In recent conversations, I've frustrated some by my emphasis about everything being spiritual. But "this" is why. Spiritual truth does not come by way of flesh and blood, by way of natural rationale. The natural is exactly as you said WW. The natural is God's alphabet. It's what he writes with to "lead us" into a deeper relationship. People who have seen the natural splendors this realm and world has to offer, often walk away with a more profound realization of God's presence. That happens because the natural leads us into the depths of spiritual truth. It is not "the" depths of spiritual truth, it only "leads" us there. It is only through our relationship that those signs come alive and we can read the language on a spiritual plain now instead of embracing the natural patterns and signs.
The signs and patterns are relevant, but they are not the emphasis, nor are they the foundation. They are merely the tools used to get us into the places where our relationship with God can become God's avenue of communication. "We" communicate with words. God communicates with relationships. It's a spiritual DNA thing. His nature, his truth, his power and splendor is in us without our minds being required to identify, comprehend, activate and operate in those truths. Anymore than I have to consciously decide I'm going to have the same mannerisms, and characteristics as my Mom and Dad.
Much of the discussions "about" things of God are in comparison to how we would go about taking blood samples of our parents and scientifically breaking them down microscopically and identifying each characteristic found in the blood. in the end, it's intriguing at best, but does it bring us any closer to our parents?
Seeing Scripture as an inward picture of "man" reveals to me why I am the way I am. It's not about me trying to dissect the nature of God, it's about God revealing my own nature to "me". That's why the serpent is a PATTERN of how carnality in my mind operates. There is an inner conscience . . .it's at odds with the serpent nature . . .that's the enmity placed there by God. Eve is my soul and it hears the conscience, but it's also deceived by the carnality that influences my conscience. Spirit is never deceived, but it "can" be bound and buried should "I" which is the culmination of the body, soul and spirit that makes up the "me", choose to give in to the carnal nature, the devil, the satan, the serpent "in" me.
And "that's" where the resurrection of Christ comes in. What's being resurrected is my "spirit" is once again being realigned and repositioned to it's original place "in" me. I once was dead, but now I'm alive. That's why Jesus could say "let the dead bury the dead". But we can't get caught up in trying to make that fit literally . . .just like being born again . .that was also argued against by the religious leaders who tried to take that literally as well. Nothing fits when you try to view spiritual things as literal events. That goes double for the book of Revelation.
It's not a book called "revelation". It's a REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST. And we've already established who it is that can receive a revelation, right? Only those who are "in" a relationship with God. Not in a religion, not in a doctrine or philosophy, but in a "relationship". that's why that book is one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted books in the entire Bible. It's a revelation of Jesus . . .same as what Peter just received. But it's not supposed to be given to just anyone. and there lies the problem. People without the relationship have interpreted to be something it's not.
Which ties in with this revelation that Jesus just had with Peter.
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ
This is not a revelation for "man" . . .it's a revelation for the SPIRIT that is "in" man.
So . . .I'll say it again . . .everything . . .EVERYTHING is spiritual.
