2 witnesses - 144.000 - 72.000 - 72

[WhiteWings]

About the 72 I have to say many translations use 70 so I started a little search.

Wikipedia

This is the only mention of the group in the Bible. The number is seventy in manuscripts in the Alexandrian (such as Codex Sinaiticus) and Caesarean text traditions but seventy-two in most other Alexandrian and Western texts. It may derive from the 70 nations of Genesis or the many other 70 in the Bible, or the 72 translators of the Septuagint from the Letter of Aristeas.[2] In translating the Vulgate, Jerome selected the reading of seventy-two.

Another theory found. These 3 languages helped spread the word most.
Hebrew 22 letters
Greek 24 characters
English 26 characters.
---------------------------+
Total 72 characters.
Looks good until you considers that the letter "J" is quite new in the English language
Dunno, but I would be suprise 1 more letter is added. Then the total would be 70.
Not the strongest theory if you ask me.
More convincing is:

Several other occasions concerning this number:  We have 70 elders chosen in Numbers 11:14-17 to assist Moses.  These 70, plus Aaron and Moses equal 72 - the 72 who spoke on God's behalf to the people.  Also there were 72 ornaments on the Menorah in the Tabernacle - a symbol of Light- and the oil in it, the Holy Spirit.  Also, there were said to be 72 separate pieces of the veil in the Temple which separated the Holy place from the Most Holy Place.  All these speak of the transmission of God's message.

Additionally, the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint was said to have been translated by 72 Hebrew Scholors (six from each tribe) in 72 days....again a transmission of God's message.

Something else, pertinent in our time - the priestly garments are being remade for Temple service.  The garment of the High Priest has brass bells and pomogrants woven into its hem.  Interestingly, they have decided that 72 of each, alternating around the hem will be used...

[WhiteWings]

Cardinal, reFORMer, all,

I think there is  a strong agreement that the witnesses travel in pairs. (2)
The 72 I was totally unaware of until I found that verse.
A quick look back at the time of Jesus
1x1=1 Jesus
6x2=12 Apostles sent out in pairs
36x2=72 Disicples sent out in pairs

Before I even opened a Bible I knew about the 2 witnesses from movies.
2 witnesses that sounds like, erm.... 2
But does it mean they travel/appear/preach in pairs?

In Revelation we find
144000 sealed people. They are not just quickly mentioned. They are really part of the 'plot' of Revelation.
So my main question was and still is: What is the task of those people?
a] Get sealed hide. Then hide in a cave and wait for Jesus?
b] Active part in some way. Like forming pairs and swarm out over the earth like  the 72 did

[WhiteWings]

"I have a remnant
of 7,000 that have not bowed to Baal.  Now my question is
this: Where in the scripture are those 7,000 mentioned again?
They have got to stand for remnant but is there any other
reference?

How many times would you have to multiply 7,000 to get a
certain number? say for instance, the 144,000?

Not so many verses with 7000 in it. Most of them are to decribe the strengh of armies. The remaining verses:

1 Kings 19:18  Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

2 Chronicles 15:11  And they offered unto the LORD the same time, of the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep.

Romans 11:4-5  But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.  5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Revelation 11:13  And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

[Redlettervoice]

Thanks for looking those up, WW.  I didn't figure there were many.
I still don't know what I know about this. ha
Have to wait til God enlightens.

[Cardinal]

More convincing is:
Several other occasions concerning this number:  We have 70 elders chosen in Numbers 11:14-17 to assist Moses.  These 70, plus Aaron and Moses equal 72 - the 72 who spoke on God's behalf to the people.  Also there were 72 ornaments on the Menorah in the Tabernacle - a symbol of Light- and the oil in it, the Holy Spirit.  Also, there were said to be 72 separate pieces of the veil in the Temple which separated the Holy place from the Most Holy Place.  All these speak of the transmission of God's message.

Additionally, the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint was said to have been translated by 72 Hebrew Scholars (six from each tribe) in 72 days....again a transmission of God's message.

Something else, pertinent in our time - the priestly garments are being remade for Temple service.  The garment of the High Priest has brass bells and pomegranates woven into its hem.  Interestingly, they have decided that 72 of each, alternating around the hem will be used...

   I can definitely see this WW. Thanks for digging this up. A another note about the 2's. The foundation of the church is built upon the Apostle and Prophet. IMO, this is why He sent them out in 2's. I believe that the anointing present in each one, manifested itself in ways specific to each gift, because they were being used to build a foundation.

This is why I see that. The Word comes with power. They could have gone all day long talking to the people, who had "heard it all" from the myriads of Greek philosophers who did nothing but talk all day in the "town square". The people they were talking to were not going to be persuaded by mere words, anymore than people are today. But when the anointing manifests itself in various ways pertinent to the situation, now THAT is something that garners immediate attention. Blessings...

[CHB]

Compare (Rev. 11:9) to (Psalms 79:1-3).  it says in (Rev. 13:4) that the two witnesses are "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks" standing before the God of the whole earth. The same scene is spoken of in (Zech. 4:3)  (Zech 4:11-14) Verse 14 explains who these two olive trees are.   (Verse 14) "Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, {or sons of oil} that stand by the Lord of the whole earth". (Joshua 3 speaks).  Aaron's sons were the two olive trees.  Or two witnesses. (Ex. 28:40-41)   

If there are two witnesses that appear at the end they will have to be desendents of Aaron's sons (Ex. 29:28-29).
 
Any one else see these things?

CHB

[reFORMer]

If there are two witnesses that appear at the end they will have to be desendents of Aaron's sons (Ex. 29:28-29).

I think they were Zerubbabel the king and Joshua the high priest.  There is no point in some latter day descendants after the flesh.  "The flesh profits nothing.  It is the spirit that gives life."  It could follow that there are spiritual correlaries.  Aaron means "enlightend." He did not take the priesthood unto himself, but was appointed by God; etc.

[Cardinal]

  To me, the key is in the word "candlestick". The candlestick that stood before God was in the inner court, before God meaning, in front of the entrance to the Holy of Holies. We know that spirutually speaking, the candlestick is the Lord, but for there to be two, to me, would mean, the Lord (1) and His true body on the earth (2).

But I can't say I received this from the Spirit (quickened as revelation) to me, only that, to me, that is what it appears to be. If He gives me something I'm not afraid to say it, but if He hasn't, I'm not afraid to say that, either. Blessings.....

[Nathan]

WW, you make some very good points. No, you can't understand the spiritual without understanding the literal Word. You have to get the foundation in you first. I understand your frustration with some of us and our posts, but I just want to encourage you, that you are doing exactly what you're supposed to do right now. Blessings to you...

I have no frustration about unable to understand things. If I was I would have very bad life because I don't have a masters degree in every profession...

My frustration is that everything gets bent to spiritual when that wasn't the question. I clearly asked about the numbers.
Now there is no harm in pointing out 144,000=12*12,000 if that's part of the puzzle.
I choose to ignore long ago. But such a frontal attack....well lets say I don't have that forgiving spirit of Jesus....

WW, I'm a bit taken back by the venom in your reactions against me.  It's no secret that you and Martin both see things from a different point of view.  I was under the impression that this forum was one that was considered as "open".  But apparently that's not always the case after all.  It baffles me that you openly claim your status as athieist and yet your the one that goes on the attack against someone who openly claims not just belief, but intimacy with the very thing you claim you don't believe in.  If you don't believe in God, then how is it you can be so confident in telling me I'm in the wrong?

Everyone has their own belief of what they think something means.  I was just sharing mine . .and what you were probably sensing was my frustration in the perception that taking things "spiritually" is a bad thing or an inaccurate rendition.  When that is the very thing that we're "called" to do.  Perhaps my tenure here on the forum is coming to a close.  If people are beginning to post their thoughts "hoping" that I not respond, then what good are my posts, except fuel for others to use in their condemnations against me?

I have personally been in the study of Revelation for about 5 years straight now . . .I have literally written thousands of pages, most of that transcribed from a series preached by another man, but it was enough to transform my own thinking in the process.  I have taught on those tapes (34 of them in total) and it took a little over 2 years . .only to have the class I taught request that we go through them all over again . . .and it's now at the point to where the notes are not being used, we simply open the Scriptures and go. 

In all of the time, energy and thought that we've put in and received from over the last 5 years, we still have not yet scratched the surface of it all.  So by no means do I see myself as an authority on this book, nor do I feel that there is "anyone" on this forum or anywhere else that is an "authority" on this topic . . .which is to say that none of us really have the right to point our fingers at another and proclaim who is more right or wrong. 

Revelation of something is not knowledge, it is experience.  Learning the literal understanding is not experience, it is knowledge.  When these two are in the proper order, truth births from them, when they are not, division results.  I'm not about to try to force what I see into your eyes, nor do I want to choose to condemn you for purposefully closing your eyes to what I see. 

It's sad to see a conversation about something that's intended to bring light and freedom, instead bring dissention and condemnation.  If I am at fault for this . . .I apologize.

[Cardinal]

  I, for one, sincerely hope you do not leave us. Blessings...

[jabcat]

I encourage both of you to talk this out in a civil, respectful manner.  If done as such, both parties being willing to listen and grow, it could be of great benefit to many.  If not, then we won't have any  or    around here   .  That's never happened, and it never will    .

TM family, let's pray for both these guys as God moves in their lives.
 

[Doc]

WW, you make some very good points. No, you can't understand the spiritual without understanding the literal Word. You have to get the foundation in you first. I understand your frustration with some of us and our posts, but I just want to encourage you, that you are doing exactly what you're supposed to do right now. Blessings to you...

I have no frustration about unable to understand things. If I was I would have very bad life because I don't have a masters degree in every profession...

My frustration is that everything gets bent to spiritual when that wasn't the question. I clearly asked about the numbers.
Now there is no harm in pointing out 144,000=12*12,000 if that's part of the puzzle.
I choose to ignore long ago. But such a frontal attack....well lets say I don't have that forgiving spirit of Jesus....

WW, I'm a bit taken back by the venom in your reactions against me.  It's no secret that you and Martin both see things from a different point of view.  I was under the impression that this forum was one that was considered as "open".  But apparently that's not always the case after all.  It baffles me that you openly claim your status as athieist and yet your the one that goes on the attack against someone who openly claims not just belief, but intimacy with the very thing you claim you don't believe in.  If you don't believe in God, then how is it you can be so confident in telling me I'm in the wrong?

Everyone has their own belief of what they think something means.  I was just sharing mine . .and what you were probably sensing was my frustration in the perception that taking things "spiritually" is a bad thing or an inaccurate rendition.  When that is the very thing that we're "called" to do.  Perhaps my tenure here on the forum is coming to a close.  If people are beginning to post their thoughts "hoping" that I not respond, then what good are my posts, except fuel for others to use in their condemnations against me?

I have personally been in the study of Revelation for about 5 years straight now . . .I have literally written thousands of pages, most of that transcribed from a series preached by another man, but it was enough to transform my own thinking in the process.  I have taught on those tapes (34 of them in total) and it took a little over 2 years . .only to have the class I taught request that we go through them all over again . . .and it's now at the point to where the notes are not being used, we simply open the Scriptures and go. 

In all of the time, energy and thought that we've put in and received from over the last 5 years, we still have not yet scratched the surface of it all.  So by no means do I see myself as an authority on this book, nor do I feel that there is "anyone" on this forum or anywhere else that is an "authority" on this topic . . .which is to say that none of us really have the right to point our fingers at another and proclaim who is more right or wrong. 

Revelation of something is not knowledge, it is experience.  Learning the literal understanding is not experience, it is knowledge.  When these two are in the proper order, truth births from them, when they are not, division results.  I'm not about to try to force what I see into your eyes, nor do I want to choose to condemn you for purposefully closing your eyes to what I see. 

It's sad to see a conversation about something that's intended to bring light and freedom, instead bring dissention and condemnation.  If I am at fault for this . . .I apologize.

Hey Nathan, I'd be interested to find out more about that preaching/teaching series on Revelation you mentioned.

The thing I liked about that Zender article is that he attempts to bring the balance of looking for both a literal and spiritual interpretation (although leaning toward literal). His rule of thumb in a nutshell is: literal whenever possible, as that's often spiritual enough. Having said that though, he does appear to have premil dispy leanings, which is rather unusual for us UR types, but it takes many varied parts to make a body.
I don't agree with everything he says, but he does make some good points.

[Nathan]

Doc, you'd have to send me your email . . .I have it all on a memory stick.  To print it off, it's about 900 pages . . .

I don't argue the fact that there is a literal interpretation, but for me, the literal understanding was literally for those to whom it was originally written to.  There are just too many passages that speak about the fact that my mind is not to be relied on for me to then turn around and embrace what my mind has imagined to be truth.

Flesh profiteth nothing . . .lean not on your understanding . . .take captive your thoughts . .your mind is always at emnity with God.. . on and on . .the Peter experience was not about man incorporating his mind to understand the nature of God . .but it was about God simply revealing . . .unveiling Truth . . .my mind is the veil . . .the "unveiling" is the removal of my own mind, my natural reasoning and logic. . . Jesus even went so far to even acknowledge not only does truth come by way of revelation, but "flesh and blood does/can not teach it".

It seems part of the problem with people's response . .not just here on the forum, but in other venues as well . . .is that people tend to rely on "proof" in Scripture to justify/verify what is being seen.  And for me, that was never the intended purpose for Scripture.  I think if I see something that Scripture clearly opposes, then there can be problems . .but just because Scripture may not clearly address the issue is not grounds to throw out the issue.

I guess in many of these discussions, I struggle in seeing the overall purpose of pursuing the literal or natural understanding . . . what is the end result of knowing "who" the two witnesses were, if we're convinced they are two literal, physical people?  What benefit is there in knowing distinctly who the 144,000 are . . .if we're convinced they also are literal people?  How does that fit in the overall purpose of God's relationship with me . . .and when I pursue the natural understanding, I just don't see the benefit.  In fact, I sense just the opposite . . .I sense it's a road that leads to division and misinterpretation.

Scripture warns us to avoid such conversations all together.  I'm not saying we're not to discuss things, I'm saying we're warned about pursuing conversations that lead to nowhere at best, and lead to division and condemnation at worst.  Using Scripture as proof for what I beleive to be truth against what you believe to be truth is not walking in faith, it's walking in knowledge . . .dust is the serpents meat . . .when I embrace my mind's ability to imagine what truth is, I become the diet of the enemy I'm to be a conqueror over.

I again, apologize if I've caused people to think that I'm superior over them.  I know how words written can be received much differently than they were given and I didn't mean to give them as a club trying to beat others into submission.  I went back and reread my original post on this thread and when I wrote it, it wasn't intended to set up an argument, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment about how I saw an open-ended question getting a variety of open-ended answers . . .everyone will have their own opinion of what they think the answer is . . .that was the only point I was attempting to make . .and then I went on in sharing what my POV was.

And by the response of WW's posts and Martin's laughter at it, I sense that this one response by me was not where this contention began, but I feel there's a peg I've been pinned to concerning my outlandish comments and opinions. 

So that brings me to a crossroads.  Do I continue making my remarks, knowing that those who post the most are going to disagree with pretty much all that I say?  Or should I just bow out and let the forum continue on without my opposing point of views constantly instigating arguments.  Because truthfully, if you read all that I've posted historically, the message has been pretty much the same and I don't see it changing any time soon if I were to remain.  This is why I stated that perhaps my tenure here is coming to a close.

Either way Doc, send me your email and I'll be happy to share with you what I've written/transcribed.

Blessings.

[onlytruth]

hi nathan...i enjoy your posts.please keep continuing


i always enjoy cardinals response   "i will have to think about that"...maybe thats how we all should respond when we have a different take on things...
blessings everyone

[reFORMer]

I went back and reread my original post on this thread and when I wrote it, it wasn't intended to set up an argument, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment about how I saw an open-ended question getting a variety of open-ended answers . . .everyone will have their own opinion of what they think the answer is . . .that was the only point I was attempting to make . .and then I went on in sharing what my POV was.

And by the response of WW's posts and Martin's laughter at it, I sense that this one response by me was not where this contention began, but I feel there's a peg I've been pinned to concerning my outlandish comments and opinions. 

So that brings me to a crossroads.  Do I continue making my remarks, knowing that those who post the most are going to disagree with pretty much all that I say?  Or should I just bow out and let the forum continue on without my opposing point of views constantly instigating arguments.  Because truthfully, if you read all that I've posted historically, the message has been pretty much the same and I don't see it changing any time soon if I were to remain.  This is why I stated that perhaps my tenure here is coming to a close.

I thought your original comment was gibing the topic, not the one who brought it up.  I found it incisive and humorous.  I thought the same of WW's comment about you.  Your being "pegged" only seems to mean to me that the thought of you in relation to a topic produces an inspiration to awareness as your own.  What a gift!  While it'll enlarge, it will even more so if you don't allow yourself to be overburdened by it.  Like, don't leave, offended by your own gift...and, I really like a little spice on the tongue.  Why do we have to take the "fizz" out of everything to get along?!

[Nathan]

I went back and reread my original post on this thread and when I wrote it, it wasn't intended to set up an argument, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment about how I saw an open-ended question getting a variety of open-ended answers . . .everyone will have their own opinion of what they think the answer is . . .that was the only point I was attempting to make . .and then I went on in sharing what my POV was.

And by the response of WW's posts and Martin's laughter at it, I sense that this one response by me was not where this contention began, but I feel there's a peg I've been pinned to concerning my outlandish comments and opinions. 

So that brings me to a crossroads.  Do I continue making my remarks, knowing that those who post the most are going to disagree with pretty much all that I say?  Or should I just bow out and let the forum continue on without my opposing point of views constantly instigating arguments.  Because truthfully, if you read all that I've posted historically, the message has been pretty much the same and I don't see it changing any time soon if I were to remain.  This is why I stated that perhaps my tenure here is coming to a close.

I thought your original comment was gibing the topic, not the one who brought it up.  I found it incisive and humorous.  I thought the same of WW's comment about you.  Your being "pegged" only seems to mean to me that the thought of you in relation to a topic produces an inspiration to awareness as your own.  What a gift!  While it'll enlarge, it will even more so if you don't allow yourself to be overburdened by it.  Like, don't leave, offended by your own gift...and, I really like a little spice on the tongue.  Why do we have to take the "fizz" out of everything to get along?!

Did I read you right bro?  You thought WW was trying to be humorous?  I think it's post #7 that I refer to in that he hoped I would not respond . .and that I dump poison . . . it didn't read humorous . . . and it did sting . . . caught me off guard is all.

[reFORMer]

Is it correct that there will be 144.000 witnesses send out in 72.000 pairs of 2 witnesses to 72 (Biblical) nations?

Do you really believe you can send a question of this nature out to the world and expect "one" clear-cut answer?

Not from you. Why always that: "I have no clue. It must be spiritual attitude?"
I hoped you would overlook this thread. Unfortunately you dumped your poison at the very first reply.

Sorry Nathan, I didn't remember he said that "poison" bit, as this quote shows:  "Unfortunately you dumped your poison at the very first reply."  I only remembered that it seemed humorous to me.  I don't understand what he really objects to in your perspective since it doesn't prevent other points of view.  It's seeing things from alternative aspects of awareness that is so enriching to me.

[Cardinal]

  Nathan, I don't mean to speak for WW, but I surmise that he took your first sentence with the question, as being cutting, to HIM. I was a little taken aback by it when I read it, because I didn't "get" it either, and it on the surface, it looked like you were being sharp with him.

The only reason I knew you weren't, is because I know your personality now enough to know; that just wouldn't be the motive of your heart. But if I read it without knowing that, and especially if English was not my first language, that might be a different story.

It's hard sometimes to say things on this medium, without the hearer being able to see our facial expressions, or the tonal inflections in our voice. We rely unconsciously on both, more than we realize. I have said things jokingly in years past, on boards that didn't have smilies and was shocked to find that people took it seriously and were offended. Thank God for smilies!

But the important thing is; we're all family here, and sometimes family has misunderstandings. I don't think there's anyone on this board that has any terminally ill feelings towards anyone else, even though there are bound to be disagreements and misunderstandings, as He's bringing us together from so many different backgrounds, nationalities, and viewpoints. But everyone on this board, God's Spirit brought here, and speaking personally, it grieves me when anyone leaves. It's no accident you're here either, and I hope you don't leave. Blessings....

[Nathan]

No, I don't plan on leaving . . .I was just questioning my own purpose . . . I didn't realize that my original response could come off that way I guess.  And I do like the subject matter when dealing with Genesis or Revelation . . . and I do so enjoy seeing the  . . . I don't even know for sure the "unoffensive" terminology to use because what I see as spiritual, others get irritated because they see it as something else.  I "call" it spiritual because that's what I believe it is . . .it didn't come through flesh and blood so that kind of narrows things down as to what it actually is to me. 

But it still puts me in awe when these revelatory things fall into place and you can see how everything fits together.  So when the questions are raised . . .and truth be told, I guess I did know, or at least had an idea what "kind" of answer WW was originally looking for when he posed the question . . .and I also figured that my point of view is not the answer that he is looking for as his responses are often implying that it's a cop out answer to say that if you want to really understand it, you need to see it spiritually . . .

But as I did mention earlier, is this not the direction we are called to walk in?  We're not called to walk in the flesh or in our own way of thinking, or in the way others have taught us to think, but we're "supposed" to walk in the spirit . . all things are spiritual . .everything written has spiritual truth that lies beneath.

Keys are given plainly so that we can enter into the rooms of truth that aren't so plainly seen.   By that I mean, numbers, colors, elements . . .all of them actually symbolize other things . . .

Duet. 21:23; Gal. 3:13
"Cursed is any man that hangs from a tree . . ."  Is that why Jesus hung on a cross?  Or could it also mean that trees are symolic for individual men . . .and anything that hangs from a tree is cursed . . .anything that originates from man is cursed.  "I" am a tree . .anything that I manifest that identifies with my flesh is cursed. 

There is an inheritance that awaits us, but we defile our land, our inheritance, when we reproduce our nature as our fruit rather than his nature in us.  For me, the curse is the inability to experience the revelation of the Father due to the fruit of our nature veiling it from our understanding

Deut 21
23 his corpse (carnal identity) shall not hang all night (preparation for the rising of the Sun) on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day(is not Christ the "day"?)  (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance

[Doc]

Doc, you'd have to send me your email . . .I have it all on a memory stick.  To print it off, it's about 900 pages . . .

I don't argue the fact that there is a literal interpretation, but for me, the literal understanding was literally for those to whom it was originally written to.  There are just too many passages that speak about the fact that my mind is not to be relied on for me to then turn around and embrace what my mind has imagined to be truth.

Flesh profiteth nothing . . .lean not on your understanding . . .take captive your thoughts . .your mind is always at emnity with God.. . on and on . .the Peter experience was not about man incorporating his mind to understand the nature of God . .but it was about God simply revealing . . .unveiling Truth . . .my mind is the veil . . .the "unveiling" is the removal of my own mind, my natural reasoning and logic. . . Jesus even went so far to even acknowledge not only does truth come by way of revelation, but "flesh and blood does/can not teach it".

It seems part of the problem with people's response . .not just here on the forum, but in other venues as well . . .is that people tend to rely on "proof" in Scripture to justify/verify what is being seen.  And for me, that was never the intended purpose for Scripture.  I think if I see something that Scripture clearly opposes, then there can be problems . .but just because Scripture may not clearly address the issue is not grounds to throw out the issue.

I guess in many of these discussions, I struggle in seeing the overall purpose of pursuing the literal or natural understanding . . . what is the end result of knowing "who" the two witnesses were, if we're convinced they are two literal, physical people?  What benefit is there in knowing distinctly who the 144,000 are . . .if we're convinced they also are literal people?  How does that fit in the overall purpose of God's relationship with me . . .and when I pursue the natural understanding, I just don't see the benefit.  In fact, I sense just the opposite . . .I sense it's a road that leads to division and misinterpretation.

Scripture warns us to avoid such conversations all together.  I'm not saying we're not to discuss things, I'm saying we're warned about pursuing conversations that lead to nowhere at best, and lead to division and condemnation at worst.  Using Scripture as proof for what I beleive to be truth against what you believe to be truth is not walking in faith, it's walking in knowledge . . .dust is the serpents meat . . .when I embrace my mind's ability to imagine what truth is, I become the diet of the enemy I'm to be a conqueror over.

I again, apologize if I've caused people to think that I'm superior over them.  I know how words written can be received much differently than they were given and I didn't mean to give them as a club trying to beat others into submission.  I went back and reread my original post on this thread and when I wrote it, it wasn't intended to set up an argument, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment about how I saw an open-ended question getting a variety of open-ended answers . . .everyone will have their own opinion of what they think the answer is . . .that was the only point I was attempting to make . .and then I went on in sharing what my POV was.

And by the response of WW's posts and Martin's laughter at it, I sense that this one response by me was not where this contention began, but I feel there's a peg I've been pinned to concerning my outlandish comments and opinions. 

So that brings me to a crossroads.  Do I continue making my remarks, knowing that those who post the most are going to disagree with pretty much all that I say?  Or should I just bow out and let the forum continue on without my opposing point of views constantly instigating arguments.  Because truthfully, if you read all that I've posted historically, the message has been pretty much the same and I don't see it changing any time soon if I were to remain.  This is why I stated that perhaps my tenure here is coming to a close.

Either way Doc, send me your email and I'll be happy to share with you what I've written/transcribed.

Blessings.

Ok, I'll PM you my e-mail. Thanks.

[Cardinal]

  I'd like to have that study, too, Nathan. My email is on my profile. Blessings...

[jabcat]

OK,  from the Peanut Gallery.  This is my current conclusion(s).  There are both the literal and the spiritual, opposite perspectives, and then mixtures of both POV's.  IMO, there's a reason for both.  I think the problems often come in when we state our views as absolutes rather than opinions/understandings....also, this medium is very difficult sometimes within which to clearly express OUR INTENT...so IMO, we almost have to be OVERLY-cautious, because it's SO easy to be misinterpreted/mis-perceived.  One person's silly sense of humor can be interpreted as things like arrogant, cutting, etc.

So, my thought is that we need all views, as long as they're in agreement/not conflictual with clear scripture...we can learn from each other, grow from others' perspectives, as long as we're careful in how we present it..."in honour, preferring one another"...because it's just real hard sometimes to judge intent. Sometimes I've needed to go back and clarify, or ask for a clarification.  And no, I'm not mad  .

[sheila]

 The two wittness or sons of oil are Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

   if you remember Jesus said 'he will lead you into all things

 concerning me'  Card you spoke of His body being the secound

wittness,and I reckon that the Holy  spirit with them is what

makes them as partakers with His body.

   The Holy spirit also acts in a preistly manner to us,interceding

 for us with God /the Holy spirit bears wittness with us that we

are sons of God Romans 8;26 In the same way the spirit helps

us in our weakness,we do not know what we ought to pray

 for,but the spirit himself intercedes for us with  groans that

 words can not express.And he who searches our hearts knows

the mind of the spirit,BECAUSE THE SPIRIT INTERCEDES FOR

THE SAINTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOD'S WILL .

  Actually the Holy Ghost is Pravuil; Ezekiel speaks of him as

 observing him as the writer with the inkhorn...he is instructed

to go about the city and put a mark on the forehead of those

who greive and lament over all the detestable things done in

the city...we are sealed by the Holy spirit...He  teaches us

of the things pertaining unto Christ. 2Peter 1;20-21 Above all

 you must understand that no prophecy[prophet] of scripture

 came about by the prophets own interpretation.For prophecy

 never had it's origin in the will of man,but men spoke from God

as they were carried along by the Holy spirit.

  Secrets of Enoch 22;11, 23....and the Lord said to Pravuil,bring

out

 the books from my storehouses and a reed of quick writing,and

 give it to Enoch,and deliver to him the choice and comforting

[ the comfortor?] books out of thy hand.

   

[Cardinal]

  yes, Sheila, that's what I meant by His body, ie. His body in us that is SPIRIT. I never saw a man with a body of flesh and a head made of spirit, nor a man with a head of spirit and a body made of flesh, did you?  Yet that is what many in the church think they see.

I never heard of Pravuil, but I know the HG is a writer in the hearts of men. He showed me something one time that blessed me tremendously. I was praying with people I knew I would probably never see again, and the Lord wanted this one woman to walk in a particular gifting. He had me to tell her to put her hand on this one boy's heart, and pray in the Spirit, and I was to put my hand on her forearm.

When she did, in the Spirit I was shown His "hand" as a small whirlwind coming down thru her forearm, out of her hand into the boy's heart, at an angle, just like you see the tornadoes usually coming at an angle.

He let me see then, that He takes our hands and "writes" (as we write at an angle too) in their hearts, just like we as parents, took our small child and did, hand over hand, to teach them how to write. It was so sweet, to see this "parental" tenderness coming from the Lord.

He has written in the Spirit in gold (His nature and purpose) in the hearts of everyone born; I have seen it. It takes the hand of the Spirit to uncover the "dust" over it (pull back the veil), that the writing can be perceived thru the Spirit, so that it can be proclaimed and declared in the power and the anointing of an endless life (death has no authority).

This current Lazarus generation we see was allowed to be so steeped in death it stinketh, but it was for the glory of God, for the Son(s) of God is going to declare their destiny that was written from the beginning, which is, COME FORTH! Blessings...

[reFORMer]

In the following "testify, testifying, testimony" are what AV translates with "witness," etc.

John 8:12-18 (CLV)...
12 Again, then, Jesus speaks to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world. He who is following Me should under no circumstances be walking in darkness, but will be having the light of life."
13 The Pharisees, then, said to Him, "You are testifying concerning yourself. Your testimony is not true!"
14 Jesus answered and said to them, "And if I should be testifying concerning Myself, true is My testimony, for I am aware whence I came and whither I am going, yet you are not aware whence I am coming or whither I am going.
15 You are judging according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone.
16 And yet if ever I should be judging, My judging is true, for not alone am I, but I and the Father Who sends Me.
17 Yet in this law, also, of yours it is written that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am the One testifying concerning Myself, and the Father Who sends Me is testifying concerning Me."

John 5:30-44 (CLV)...
30 "I can not do anything of Myself. According as I am hearing am I judging; and My judging is just, for I am not seeking My will, but the will of Him Who sends Me.
31 "If I should be testifying concerning Myself, is My testimony not true?
32 There is another who is testifying concerning Me, and I am aware that the testimony which he is testifying concerning Me is true.
33 You have dispatched to John, and he has testified to the truth.
34 Yet I am not getting the testimony from man, but I am saying these things that you may be saved.
35 He was a lamp, burning and appearing, yet you want to exult an hour in its light.
36 "Now I have a testimony greater than John's. For the works which the Father has given Me that I should be perfecting them, the works themselves which I am doing are testifying concerning Me that the Father has commissioned Me.
37 And the Father Who sends Me, He has testified concerning Me. Neither have you ever heard His voice nor a perception of Him have you seen.
38 And His word you do not have remaining in you, for that One Whom He commissions, this One you are not believing.
39 "Search the scriptures, for in them you are supposing you have life eonian, and those are they which are testifying concerning Me,
40 and not willing are you to come to Me that you may have life.
41 "Glory from men I am not getting.
42 But I know you, that you have not the love of God in yourselves.
43 I have come in the name of My Father, and you are not getting Me. If another should be coming in his own name, him you will get.
44 How can you believe, getting glory from one another, and are not seeking the glory which is from God alone?
17 Yet in this law, also, of yours it is written that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am the One testifying concerning Myself, and the Father Who sends Me is testifying concerning Me."
45 "Be not supposing that I shall be accusing you to the Father. He who is accusing you to the Father is Moses, on whom you rely.
46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he writes concerning Me.
47 Now if you are not believing his writings, how shall you be believing My declarations?"

The first two or three witnesses is Jesus and His Father, along with Scripture.  As well, the Holy Spirit bears witness of Jesus.  For each of us, my own self with God is the two witnesses that establish His presence presence in the earh.  This needs to be rigorously asserted.  For the world, the more that are in agreement the more certain that thing is.  With God it only takes Himself.  For each of us, it only takes God and me.

Matthew 18:15-20 (CLV)...
15 "Now, if ever your brother should be sinning, go and expose him between you and him alone. If ever he should be hearing you, you gain your brother.
16 Yet if ever he should not be hearing, take still one or two others along with you, that at the mouth of two witnesses, or of three, every declaration may be made to stand.
17 Now, if ever he should be disobeying them, tell it to the ecclesia. Now, if ever he should be disobeying the ecclesia also, let him be to you even as the man of the nations, and the tribute collector.
18 "Verily, I am saying to you, Whatsoever you should be binding on the earth shall be those things having been bound in the heavens, and whatsoever you should be loosing on the earth shall be those loose in heaven.
19 "Again, verily, I am saying to you that, if ever two of you should be agreeing on the earth concerning any matter, whatsoever it is they should be requesting shall be coming to them from My Father Who is in the heavens.
20 For where two or three are, gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them."

This is Jesus' complete doctrine of the Church (ecclesiology.)