I must admit that I don't fully understand the book of Revelation. Actually I sincerely doubt if I should regard it as a true inspired book.
I don't have the same doubts about the OT prophecies.
I read in William Barclay's commentary (a standard commentary, nothing esoteric), that this book of the bible was likely not written by one author and actually had many contributing authors, so it would be more likely a kind of compendium of things that went around in early christianity. IE, some had visions, some a small revelation, some had insights, some had thought up comparisons to other things, and so on. And somehow someone compiled all of these and put them together in a book that in our day nobody really can understand anymore. Every other authentically prophetic book in the bible (like Isaiah, Jeremiah and so on) had just one author, but the Revelation seems to have many.
I am not sure, but it seems to have a wholly different spirit than other parts of the NT. The whole way I feel when reading this book is entirely different from the Gospels or the Epistles. For example, the Gospels and the book of Acts open a way into the future, but the book of Revelation seems to end the future actually.
There doesn't seem to be hardly anything positive in this book beyond its first part when Jesus speaks to the churches and shows us things what we can do to reap a reward from them, from Jesus Himself. But the way history plays out in the book seems really ... well, sorry, I must call it weird. There's nothing in it that reminds me to Martin Luther King or to other christians I revere so much.
How do you think of this book? Felt anything crazy about it too? How does the book "feel" to you?
I don't know how to say it, I've "digested" the rest of the bible, but this book? I'm extremely puzzled by it, and it feels like a big burden on my mind.
Hi Anti-
my mentor had a ThD and refused to discuss "revelation" with me until I had read it throuigh at least 40 times. (I was a brand new Christian) I did so and guess what? I feel the same way as you do about it. I have read at least 20 different interpretations of what the book means. I know it says you will be blessed by reading it, but I'm not, except like you said the first 3 chapters or so. IMO, it isn't worth the time and trouble to try to figure out what is said "veiled" cause "Veiled" doesn't help. I have enough trouble following and living the parts of scripture I DO understand to worry about scripture that NOBODY has proof positive of what it means (for the most part-the veiled or prophetic part.
(BTW- all my mentor told me was several different theories about it and each had scriptural support) :Peace2:
I concur. I have also found that the popularity of Revelation seems to wax and wane. New Christians seem to be attracted to it. People with agendae seem to be attracted to it. I have also found that those who are attracted to 'Pie in the Sky' seem to like it.
I've also found that those same people seem to favour it when then need something. The other books are always there, and we discuss them obsequiously. Revelation seems to be hauled out when we need some sort of grand, dramatic, end to things.
It's also been my experience that when churches host visiting teachers who specialize in Revelation, they only do so very infrequently. It's the only book in the Bible (except for the warnings to the specific churches maybe), which to me reads like science fiction/fantasy: action, drama, strange symbols, and most everyone I know has some sort of esoteric interpretation of what it all means. Maybe it's the Bible's Rorschach test? You see what you need to help you cope and if you don't need the drama you see nothing?
well. I will stand up for the Book of Revelations..even though it mean I am drama seeking,
or have an agenda or seek pie in the sky. Red herrings,strawman arguments and slippery slopes.
all.....only the word of God is the word of God. what? remove the book of Revelation section
next?
People have been twisting scripture for their own agenda from the beginning..and the
book of revelations is no different. But, that does not invalidate the scriptures,as the
word of God..inspiried of the Holy spirit.
Revelation is one of the books that gets kicked around a lot. It wasn't included in some of the early bibles and things like that. But for me, I think it is actually the most important book of the bible, if you had to pick one.
Now I actually rarely read it. And I don't know when all the bowls and plagues happen, I don't have any timelines or anything. I actually don't understand it very well. It is revealed piece by piece. Small bit by small bit to me.
But I see it as a cypher for the entire bible. And it all starts with the first verse.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants––things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,
First off revelation means unveiling. I would start there. I did a long study on coverings, veils etc. You would say this book is a mystery yes? Paul speaks of the revelation of the mystery hidden from ages past. Paul received this teaching in the 3rd heaven. John received this Revelation in the third heaven (it never says it specifically but he is called up into heaven).
What about the mystery? Christ IN you is the hope of glory. The two shall become one flesh. He's making one NEW MAN out of all nations. Who is this New man? Christ. So go back to Rev 1. The unveiling of Jesus Christ. Where??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
IN YOU. Who wears a veil? A bride. Who are you? His bride.
Where else do we see a veil? The temple. Who are you? His temple
The two shall become one, this is a great mystery concerning Christ and the church. The two shall become one?????????????????????????????????
John 17 :22"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. 24"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
25"O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; 26and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."
In Christ (or Christ in Us) we have:
The same love the Father gave him
The same glory Jesus was given
Just as Christ is, so are YOU in the world
We are now seated with Christ at the right hand of the Father
You are the temple of God , you are the bride of God, you are the body of God, you are the son of God.
The word is made flesh and tabernacling in you.
1 co 13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Face to Face:
2 co 2:12Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away (in part). 14But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
We will know as we are fully known. What kind of intimacy do you think that is? UNITY, ONENESS. Seeing Face to Face speaks of intimacy. Unveiled faces because the groom has pulled back the veil and is going to join himself to the bride. What does that union produce??????????????????????????
The Son
All creation waits with eager longing for the Unveiling of the Sons of God.
Amen....
Yeah VB. Howcome you never hear about a bible "specialist" in James, or John or Peter, or Timothy or Titus. I think it's because those books can't be twisted enough to make itching ears go "OOOh and AAHHH and I've never heard it explained like that before - now it all makes sense." :Peace2:
RHMag, You quoted, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants––things which must shortly take place."
Do we have a new definition of shortly? 2,000 years is a long shortly - especially since "shortly" has never been more than 500 years in the Bible. Maybe the preterists are on to something... :Peace2:
John is transported into the end of the age where he see the visions of things which --at that time in the future--will shortly come to pass.
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
--Rev 1
ahhhh the book of revelation.
How frequently it's scriptures are pulled out for the justification of ET. Some people see revelation as revealing the end.
I however see it as revealing the beginning.
I see it as revealing the Alpha Omega and His Bride.
Quote from: sheila on February 19, 2013, 09:07:24 PM
well. I will stand up for the Book of Revelations..even though it mean I am drama seeking,
or have an agenda or seek pie in the sky. Red herrings,strawman arguments and slippery slopes.
all.....only the word of God is the word of God. what? remove the book of Revelation section
next?
People have been twisting scripture for their own agenda from the beginning..and the
book of revelations is no different. But, that does not invalidate the scriptures,as the
word of God..inspiried of the Holy spirit.
I don't think that's the issue sheila. We are to divide the word. Even Peter put limits on which parts of Paul's writings should be seen as scripture. That tells me, the other parts are not. So, some are important, and it is up to us to divide it properly.
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on February 19, 2013, 03:26:14 PM
I must admit that I don't fully understand the book of Revelation. Actually I sincerely doubt if I should regard it as a true inspired book.
After several posts, I guess this is a good place to ask the question; can we clarify what it is we're actually discussing in this thread? Is it "is Revelation part of the written Word, part of inspired scripture, or should we reject it"? If so, we have this; http://tentmaker.org/forum/rules-and-faq/moderatortm-expectations-regarding-the-scriptures/ ("discussion WITHIN the scriptures/outright textual criticism not an allowed topic..")
If it's "I believe/accept that it's inspired, I just don't understand much about it - and if I ever do, God's going to have to show it to me", then I'm on board too. :laugh:
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 19, 2013, 09:08:06 PM
Revelation ...
Thanks Red. I'm a bit confused though, and was wondering if I could show you where I lost the sense.
I believe you said:
"Revelation is one of the books that gets kicked around a lot. It wasn't included in some of the early bibles and things like that. But for me, I think it is actually the most important book of the bible, if you had to pick one."
You would say Revelation is more important than Genesis? You would put it above any of the Gospels?
Then I think you said:
"But I see it as a cypher for the entire bible."
Okay, you've lost me. In the paragraph before this sentence you said : "I actually don't understand it very well." Yet you know it's a cypher through which we must run all other scriptures in order to understand them?
I believe you also said:
"First off revelation means unveiling."
As a word used in a sentence it means revealing, or disclosure ... so yes unveiling may work, but I think it is a stretch. Unveiling would have the sense that there was something overshadowing something else, and the removal of that thing would make the object appear. The book stands bare before us. Secondly, that is if it is used in that context, but not if it has an initial capital, then it is the title of the book, and is usually translated as
The Apocalypse.
Then you quote from different books but I found no citations from Revelation itself.
I think, with all due respect, I missed your point.
Quote from: VineBranch on February 20, 2013, 05:01:18 AM
Even Peter put limits on which parts of Paul's writings should be seen as scripture. That tells me, the other parts are not.
I agree, and I think it can be shown in a few places that Paul did too (in the sense of what he said being from God), but yet, everything Paul and Peter wrote is, by definition, scripture - that is to say, that-which-is-written.
Now, if we're going to toss the Revelation, we are also going to have to toss large parts of the book of Daniel, with their similar symbols and weird beasts. No, we must let the Bible interpret itself, just as Kosh says that the Truth points to itself. We should not use our failure to understand be made to look like the Book has failed. :doh:
IMO, Peter never placed anything Paul wrote outside scripture. He simply said there were things in Pauls writings that were hard to be understood, and that some people were twisting them, "just as they do the rest of the scriptures".
This in fact rather confirmed that Peter regarded Paul's writings as scriptures.
The words of John's revelation draw pictures of spiritual reality. This is a common method of prophetic communication throughout the Old Testament- and more emphatically, was the primary method through which our Lord and Savior taught. Nearly everything in the book of revelation is drawn of references from earlier prophecies, such as the opening vision of Jesus, standing among the candlesticks. The candlestick is from Zechariah 4, and in that prophecy the angel of the Lord asks Zechariah, "What seest thou?".
This is the language of revelation. "What seest thou" and "What hearest thou".
Let the one who has ears to hear hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches.
This is where the revelation begins(Rv 1 Jesus among the churches/candlesticks), and it is also where it ends, (Rv 22 "The Spirit and the Bride say 'Come' and let him that hears say 'Come'").
None of the images of revelation are original, in the sense that there is always a point of reference for them in earlier writings including the epistles.
It is not given to being opened only by intellect. It is given to being opened by the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God.
This is the church age. IMO Revelation is primarily the book that unveils the Bride, and her place in this age and the age to come- mother of the sons and daughters of God, a priesthood destined to reign in love and righteousness until the adversaries are all subject and the whole creation is set free into their freedom, and God is all in all
Quote from: eaglesway on February 20, 2013, 05:51:47 AM
IMO, Peter never placed anything Paul wrote outside scripture. He simply said there were things in Pauls writings that were hard to be understood, and that some people were twisting them, "just as they do the rest of the scriptures".
This in fact rather confirmed that Peter regarded Paul's writings as scriptures.
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters
when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2Pe 3:15-16)
When Paul speaks of the patience of the Lord Peter says it qualifies as scripture. When he tells Timothy to bring his cloak back with him, I'm guessing not so much so.
When Paul is telling Timothy to bring his cloak back to him, it is incidental information, but you were not that specific in your former reference to "the other parts". But even the incidental information in the scriptures is scripture however, even if only for the purpose of verifying the time of the writing through Paul's personal references.
The relevant issue then would be a clarification of the fact that all of Pauls writing in the NT(with the possible exception of some few pieces of incidental information) are scripture.
IMO it is all scripture but I wouldn't argue the point on incidental info.
Jab said regarding this thread, "If it's "I believe/accept that it's inspired, I just don't understand much about it - and if I ever do, God's going to have to show it to me", then I'm on board too."
I didn't want anyone to mistake by my post that I doubt Revelation as inspired scripture. I do not doubt it is scripture. I doubt anyone that says they know 100% what it means.
...and by beneficial to read-"ALL scripture is beneficial" but the scripture that is understood has to be more beneficial to living our lives for God than scripture we must speculate on the meaning. :Peace2:
VB:
apokolupsis G602 is the word used in Rev 1.
It comes from G601 apokolupto. Apo=away from, kalupto=cover/veil.
Kalupto is used in 2 co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
it being translated as apocalypse is untrue, it is transliterated as apocalypse. A translation would be unveiling, manifesting, uncovering, revealing. They all mean the same thing. Removing the covering.
I went into other books to give some roundness to the concept of unveiling, or revealing if you prefer. Even reveal the english word means to unveil. It comes from re + velum in latin. velum=veil.
As far as me not understanding it, well, I don't fully. Not that I understand any of the bible fully. And for it being the cypher, like EW said none of the symbols are new. They are all derived from earlier prophecies, including the unveiling of the mystery which was given to Paul. Maybe saying its the summation of prophecy would be a better phrase? But I believe we can't understand the OT prophecies without those from the new. And Rev is the granddaddy of them all. Why? it is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Only in christ is the velum removed. The OT prophets didn't even understand what they were looking at.
One example that EW used is the lampstands. 7 of them. Where do we see those? The menorah. So the menorah points to the church, the lights of the world.
7 lampstands
Sevenfold spirit of God?
oil in lampstands represents Holy Spirit?
light from lampstands 7 represents God? :dontknow:
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 20, 2013, 01:37:47 PM
Jab said regarding this thread, "If it's "I believe/accept that it's inspired, I just don't understand much about it - and if I ever do, God's going to have to show it to me", then I'm on board too."
I didn't want anyone to mistake by my post that I doubt Revelation as inspired scripture. I do not doubt it is scripture. I doubt anyone that says they know 100% what it means.
...and by beneficial to read-"ALL scripture is beneficial" but the scripture that is understood has to be beneficial to living our lives for God than scripture we must speculate on the meaning. :Peace2:
I think you are right. It reminds me of me favourite Mark Twain quote. Apparently he said, "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 20, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
it being translated as apocalypse is untrue ...
Untrue?
I submit a sample entry from an online dictionary for the word revelation:
Theology .
a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.
c. something thus communicated or disclosed.
d. something that contains such disclosure, as the Bible.
If you would, could you please pay particular attention to the next entry ...
4.
( initial capital letter ) . Also called Revelations, The Revelation of St. John the Divine. the last book in the new testament; the Apocalypse. Abbreviation: Rev.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 20, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
I went into other books to give some roundness to the concept of unveiling, or revealing if you prefer. Even reveal the english word means to unveil. It comes from re + velum in Latin. velum=veil.
The origin of the word, as I know it, comes from the Middle English through the Old French
revelacion, dating back to C. 1300 AD. We can trace the stem
revelatio to late Latin.
Revelat is the past particle of revelo/revelare - 'to reveal', then you add the ion. If anything I would us disclosure before unveiling.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 20, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
The OT prophets didn't even understand what they were looking at.
Not a one of them? God told no one anything? There wasn't one prophet who understood, yet the same God gave all the prophecies? Could you cite those sources please. I really would like to know how we can prove that.
The lampstand in Zechariah is a menora.
One thing to remember is that there are two important injunctions in this book.
Blessed is the man who keeps the words of this book
If any man takes away from the words of this book may his name be taken out of the book of life.
Heavy.
Makes me wanna know- but not as in "know with my head", "figure it out", etc.
More like, makes me want to read periodically with an open heart, an open eye and an open ear.
We are so quick to put conclusve definitions to things that are still partially veiled. What if God will not show you some things until He is sure you can be trusted not to talk about them?(as Paul did in the third heaven)
How many of us could pass that test I wonder?
There are no formal quotations from the Old Testament, however there are many allusions. Bible students have found between 250-550 Old Testament allusions in the book of Revelation.
1. Revelation, like all Scripture, is "profitable" (2 Timothy 3:16).
2. Revelation reveals Jesus Christ like no other book (Revelation 1-22).
3. Revelation deals with "things, which must soon take place" (Revelation 1:1).
4. Revelation is the one book that promises a blessing to all who will read it (Revelation 1:3).
5. Revelation contains unique warnings and challenges to the church (Revelation 2:1-3:22).
6. Revelation discloses conditions that will be present in the end-times (Revelation 6:1-19:21).
7. Revelation is NOT to be sealed up (Revelation 22:10)
Christ In Revelation:
The faithful witness (1:5)
The firstborn from the dead (1:5)
The ruler over the kings of the earth (1:5)
The Son of Man (1:13)
The first and the last (1:17)
The living One (1:18)
The Son of God (2:18)
He who is holy, who is true (3:7)
The Amen (3:14)
The Beginning of the creation of God (3:14)
The Lion that is from the tribe of Judah (5:5)
The Root of David (5:5)
A Lamb (5:6)
The Word of God (19:13)
King of Kings and Lord of Lords (19:16)
The Alpha and the Omega (22:13)
The beginning and the end (22:13)
The bright morning Star (22:16)
The Lord Jesus (22:21).
http://bible.org/seriespage/book-revelation-overview
Quote from: VineBranch on February 20, 2013, 05:02:44 PM
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 20, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
it being translated as apocalypse is untrue ...
Untrue?
I submit a sample entry from an online dictionary for the word revelation:
Theology .
a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.
c. something thus communicated or disclosed.
d. something that contains such disclosure, as the Bible.
If you would, could you please pay particular attention to the next entry ...
4.
( initial capital letter ) . Also called Revelations, The Revelation of St. John the Divine. the last book in the new testament; the Apocalypse. Abbreviation: Rev.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 20, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
I went into other books to give some roundness to the concept of unveiling, or revealing if you prefer. Even reveal the english word means to unveil. It comes from re + velum in Latin. velum=veil.
The origin of the word, as I know it, comes from the Middle English through the Old French revelacion, dating back to C. 1300 AD. We can trace the stem revelatio to late Latin. Revelat is the past particle of revelo/revelare - 'to reveal', then you add the ion. If anything I would us disclosure before unveiling.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 20, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
The OT prophets didn't even understand what they were looking at.
Not a one of them? God told no one anything? There wasn't one prophet who understood, yet the same God gave all the prophecies? Could you cite those sources please. I really would like to know how we can prove that.
What I said was untrue was that it is
translated as apocalypse. Apocalypse is a transliteration of apokalypse. A translation would be unveiling or manifestation, or revealing. My name is Jeremiah. That is a transliteration of Yah-Ramaah-Yahu (something like that). The translation is :God (yahweh) has exalted (yahweh). The translation has a meaning to us. The transliteration doesn't besides calling me for dinner.
Here is the etymology I found for reveal
[Middle English revelen, from Old French reveler,
from Latin revlre : re-, re- + vlre, to cover (from vlum, veil).]But those don't matter to me, as we've discussed before. To me what matters is what the meaning in the greek was, and the Hebrew from which their concepts derived. And IMO and IDSO (in dr. Strong's opinion :LH:) It means to uncover/unveil.
[The] "Revelation" [of Jesus Christ] [Rev 1:1]
G602
αποκάλυψις
apokalupsis
ap-ok-al'-oop-sis
From G601; disclosure: - appearing, coming, lighten, manifestation, be revealed, revelation.
G601
αποκαλύπτω
apokaluptō
ap-ok-al-oop'-to
From G575 and G2572; to take off the cover, that is, disclose: - reveal.
For me, the book of Revelations makes more sense when you look at it as a symbolic picture of how Christ defeats everything that separates creation from union with Him. I just can't see using the book of Revelations as some sort of predictor for an end of age war...good vs evil in an epic showdown. It makes much more sense to me when I look at my attitudes, vices, ego, selfishness, sin etc as anti-Christ and how Christ will defeat those in each of our lives. I do believe its an epic showdown...but at the individual level in the individual heart.
The words in Shawns post, "for me", are humble and true. So much of the revelation of God is 'for me'. We are receiving promptings from the Holy Spirit that are about who we are and where we are going individually- and altho there is, (IMO) an undergirding 'revelation' that is foundational, we are on a journey of individual discipleship. For those who look to the corporate work of the body, the communion of disciples, friends and fellows of Christ, only as we can come together and say "for me", in respect and love, do our words add to the 'common union', comunion of the saints. By such a small concession, understanding is subjected to a desire not to offend the brethren, or to assert the supremacy of ones own view- understanding that the unity of the faith begins with my humility, not me "humbling" others.
We talk about the 'veil,' as if we knew what that means. We talk about the 'carnal mind,' as if we also know what that means.
But, I was just looking again at the definition of that word, apokaluptō. It means, 'to take off the cover.'
A cover hides something else. It keeps it from being seen. It keeps it from being manifested and revealed.
In our case, the cover is the human body. And, what is it covering?
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 20, 2013, 08:11:15 PM
What I said was untrue was that it is translated as apocalypse. .
Jerome would have transliterated it. By 1200 AD, the word apocalypse already had an English definition.
When the English Bibles came into being the word apocalypse was not a transliteration, but a genuine English word. It was used in Middle English. Even now, after years of use, and change the word apocalypse has a meaning (usually somehow something dealing with the end of the world). It had over a thousand years to become an English word and it did. It already meant something when the Geneva and Bishops Bible were written, and certainly when the KJV was first penned.
I don't get something here though. We vilify the Greek because it brought in the words and concept of Hell yet when English takes us to places Greek can't, we somehow enshrine the Greek: How come?
As I was writing this, I harkened back to the previous thread when I was discussing the English word Gospel, and all the flack was centered on what the Greek word meant. I'm not sure anyone here can tell me what the Koine speaker thought when writing, but we understand there are certain generalizable, transferrable thoughts. I trust God to protect his Bible into which ever language He says it should be. We talk about scripture being inspired by God, but we don't seem to want to accept that God also inspires others to make English scriptures say what He wants them to say. I guess I need to ask: do you want an English Bible? Do you want a Bible in Greek but with English words? Do you want a Bible in English, but with Greek words? I am of the opinion that God can speak, hear, and inspire English as magnificently, as He can inspire Hebrew, Slovakian, or pidgin Hawaiian. I've made this point before and feel it appropriate to make it again. Islam demands the Quran only be the Quran if it is read in Arabic. Do you think the Bible is only the Bible if it is read in ancient Hebrew? If you do, then we need to go back to the ancient Phoenician and see what the words were in the original.
i edited 'authentic' [as in, "question of authenticy"] out of the title of the posts - nothing else was touched in anyone's posts.
"I don't get something here though. We vilify the Greek because it brought in the words and concept of Hell yet when English takes us to places Greek can't, we somehow enshrine the Greek: How come?"
Good Point
It makes no sense, really. Hebrew thought would be the mode of expression even if some believe the greek language was being spoken by the Jews at that time.
I think, however, they were probably speaking greek on the street but they were speaking hebrew or aramaic out of the Hebrew mindset when they were discussing spiritual things and their heritage- thats just my opinion.
God has done various kinds of things at certain times in my life. One sort of thing, whether over long or short periods of time, is inspiration concerning His written word. This has happened with certain words, several topics and specific areas of scripture. It has happened concerning parts of the Book of Revelation. Finding across the broad gamut of such experiences they are occasionally less than perfect, I try not to hold too close or too tightly those things concerning God which men may be very enthused about, including the man of my own heart. Never the less, this working of the Holy Spirit that has utilized Revelation to enlighten my understanding makes me copy my Father and respect this ancient book as His chosen vehicle.
I would add, it is much higher in quality as we would expect from Scripture. I don't find this elevation in other books I've read that some claim as Holy Scripture. Some of these may be of a middle place between Scripture and great books. There even seems to be some kind of anointing for Shakespeare; but, that doesn't mean it should be included in the Bible. Similar to The Revelation are the objections to the last book to be canonized in Hebrew Scripture: The Song of Songs. "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins without number..." (SS 68) Later in life Solomon had a thousand queens, two thousand concubines, and innumerable virgins. How could a man with such outlandish sexual appetites be used to write Holy Scripture? Yet deeper study convinces me of its Divine origin. The Proverb says something like, "As the mouth tastes food, so the ear tries words." We are born of The Truth. Discernment is hard-wired into this new creation man. While there may be more secure and objective "proofs," the subjective experiences testified to by God's people regarding these books as Holy Scripture over the millennia is honorably reliable.
From VB Re: book of Revelation?« Reply #30 on: Today at 04:52:29 AM »
:iagree: 100% :thumbsup:
Quote from: eaglesway on February 21, 2013, 07:08:31 AM
I think, however, they were probably speaking greek on the street but they were speaking hebrew or aramaic out of the Hebrew mindset when they were discussing spiritual things and their heritage- thats just my opinion.
This is the essense of what I'm trying to say. There is a mindset when these words were penned. There is a mindset, as you say VB, that apocalypse has, that it means the end of the world, but is that what it meant originally? Notice it was Jerome who translated that. HMMM, Jerome
Oh yeah one of the big hitters in bringing the pagan notion of ET to the bible we have now. How? Through the Latin Vulgate. Sorry but I don't put much weight into Jerome's definitions.
I want an english bible. But one with erroneous translations? or transliterations being pawned off as translations, which have taken on a meaning that was never there? NO. Just like aionos, hades, gehenna, the words had actual meanings originally that through the years have taken on meanings that were not meant to be there.
When the HS inspired the men of old to write the words kolasis aionon, did it ever have the meaning of eternal punishment? OR Basanos did it ever mean to have literal fire burn you for all eternity?
I think you would answer no. So why do you find it so hard to believe that other words have taken on improper meanings?
How about ecclesia? Did the HS mean a building and a denomination, with a heirarchy of men running it, now called the church? HELL no.
How about we just take the translators word for it because they've never made mistakes. There is no bias when translating. There is no "lost in translation". We can go back to believing in eternal hell, cus well thats what it says in my english bible.
And I might as well just forget what the greek says because God has preserved his bible all these years, through holy men. The same men that brought us the inquisition, indulgences, burning of heretics, denominations.
How about fire? To most now they see fire as bad. They see the fire as destruction, torture. But there was a mindset. IT meant Gods presence. It meant purifying. Which is right? Brimstone? Thats the really bad part of fire, the flaming rock that will fall out of the sky and kill all the bad guys right? No its sulfur, well sulfur is the smell of hell so it must be bad. There was mindset. Sulfur was medicine, it was used to purify temples, and homes. It was the major part of the dead sea. People came all over for salt from the dead sea for its medicinal purposes. But no we should just forget all that because brimstone has taken on an english meaning, and so it must mean flaming rocks.
:Chinscratch: :dontknow:
For ME revelation means unveiling, it has a picture, as the Hebrew thought was visual.
Yes, exactly- Hebrew thought was visual.
Hebrew thought encompassed paradoxical paradigms as well.
In English and German we are big on "either or" definitions.
The Hebrews were more "eastern" and "mystical" in there thinkng.
In other words- they could see the good side and the "bad"(difficult/unpleasant/harsh) side of fire- AT THE SAME TIME.
And lets make no mistake about it, the "bad" side IS THERE- but always IN THE PROCESS TOWARDS A "GOOD" END.
"All discipline is "for the moment" unpleasant but "in the end yields" the peaceable fruit of righteousness.
We are always trying to split coins down the center and wager heads vs tails.
Quote from: eaglesway on February 21, 2013, 05:09:29 PM
Yes, exactly- Hebrew thought was visual.
Hebrew thought encompassed paradoxical paradigms as well.
In English and German we are big on "either or" definitions.
The Hebrews were more "eastern" and "mystical" in there thinkng.
In other words- they could see the good side and the "bad"(difficult/unpleasant/harsh) side of fire- AT THE SAME TIME.
And lets make no mistake about it, the "bad" side IS THERE- but always IN THE PROCESS TOWARDS A "GOOD" END.
"All discipline is "for the moment" unpleasant but "in the end yields" the peaceable fruit of righteousness.
We are always trying to split coins down the center and wager heads vs tails.
That reminds me of what my best friend once said: Life is not either/or - it is either and or. I suppose you could say that Life in an unopened Schrodinger's Cat.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 21, 2013, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: eaglesway on February 21, 2013, 07:08:31 AM
I think, however, they were probably speaking greek on the street but they were speaking hebrew or aramaic out of the Hebrew mindset when they were discussing spiritual things and their heritage- thats just my opinion.
This is the essense of what I'm trying to say. There is a mindset when these words were penned. There is a mindset, as you say VB, that apocalypse has, that it means the end of the world, but is that what it meant originally? Notice it was Jerome who translated that. HMMM, Jerome
Oh yeah one of the big hitters in bringing the pagan notion of ET to the bible we have now. How? Through the Latin Vulgate. Sorry but I don't put much weight into Jerome's definitions.
I want an english bible. But one with erroneous translations? or transliterations being pawned off as translations, which have taken on a meaning that was never there? NO. Just like aionos, hades, gehenna, the words had actual meanings originally that through the years have taken on meanings that were not meant to be there.
When the HS inspired the men of old to write the words kolasis aionon, did it ever have the meaning of eternal punishment? OR Basanos did it ever mean to have literal fire burn you for all eternity?
I think you would answer no. So why do you find it so hard to believe that other words have taken on improper meanings?
How about ecclesia? Did the HS mean a building and a denomination, with a heirarchy of men running it, now called the church? HELL no.
How about we just take the translators word for it because they've never made mistakes. There is no bias when translating. There is no "lost in translation". We can go back to believing in eternal hell, cus well thats what it says in my english bible.
And I might as well just forget what the greek says because God has preserved his bible all these years, through holy men. The same men that brought us the inquisition, indulgences, burning of heretics, denominations.
How about fire? To most now they see fire as bad. They see the fire as destruction, torture. But there was a mindset. IT meant Gods presence. It meant purifying. Which is right? Brimstone? Thats the really bad part of fire, the flaming rock that will fall out of the sky and kill all the bad guys right? No its sulfur, well sulfur is the smell of hell so it must be bad. There was mindset. Sulfur was medicine, it was used to purify temples, and homes. It was the major part of the dead sea. People came all over for salt from the dead sea for its medicinal purposes. But no we should just forget all that because brimstone has taken on an english meaning, and so it must mean flaming rocks.
:Chinscratch: :dontknow:
For ME revelation means unveiling, it has a picture, as the Hebrew thought was visual.
:dsunny: :HeartThrob: :thumbsup: :iagree:
...surely, imo, it's the unveiling of all truth and untruth from one another... this surely would include as the visions testify, the collapse of all un-true.. Surely what is untrue cannot (ultimately) remain standing?? Nor would we want it to :smile: The) unveiling.. aka, surely is ultimate reality... from which all else can only fall (away)..
- The whole covenant, since Genesis 3;15 is to "defeat death and the grave, the works of the devil" Hebrews 2:14 and 1 Jn 3:18.
After creation and before the falling away from perfection/God/life, God said "behold! It's all Good!" :smile:
:2c:
The crime – Twisting Scripture.
The Motive – Control of Mankind.
The Weapon – Hell.
The Accused – The Popes --- the King and Queens of England.
I am not sure what happened in the above, how that all worked out.
But I did over hear some of those involved in the case talking out side.
The reason the Popes and the King and Queens of England used Hell as there weapon was because there demonstrations of cruel punishment against one an other was
exhausted.
They had killed each others translators and said they were heretics.
They had killed each others translators in front their children.
They had killed the children of each others translators in front of the translators.
They tied each others translators to four horses and have them pull in different direction.
They called being it quartered.
They had burned each others translators alive in the village square.
They ran out of nasty thinks to do .
So they went back to the graves dug up the bones of each others translators
and pulverized there bones.
They realized that there was only so much psychical pain you could inflict.
So they got their translators to instill this concept of never ending torture
for the other guy and all of there adhearends.
Satan is the god of this Age....
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 19, 2013, 09:52:21 PM
RHMag, You quoted, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants––things which must shortly take place."
Do we have a new definition of shortly? 2,000 years is a long shortly - especially since "shortly" has never been more than 500 years in the Bible. Maybe the preterists are on to something... :Peace2:
For sure, I tend to lean that way, for the things in the natural. But it also says who was and is and is to come. Christ was revealed, is being revealed, and will continue to be revealed. Until the beast in me is thrown down, the warring nature, and when that mystery is unveiled ,that of iniquity , which is the cherubim/beast veil being torn the veil of his/our flesh. When the veil is pulled aside then we all with unveiled faces will fully and purely reflect the glory of the Lord. This is the unveiling of the sons of God, that sets creation free.
It must shortly come to pass in each of us.
Is there future outward things to happen? I believe there may be, just I don't think it will be anything like Left Behind.
:2c:
I hear you on the "left-behind" series. Whenever a book(s) is massively popular (popular with the masses) it is ear tickling and confirming people's misconceptions. I watched 2 of them with my ET wife but told her I couldn't take any more. They were ludicrous.
Quote from: reFORMer on February 21, 2013, 09:07:25 AM
God has done various kinds of things at certain times in my life. One sort of thing, whether over long or short periods of time, is inspiration concerning His written word. This has happened with certain words, several topics and specific areas of scripture. It has happened concerning parts of the Book of Revelation. Finding across the broad gamut of such experiences they are occasionally less than perfect, I try not to hold too close or too tightly those things concerning God which men may be very enthused about, including the man of my own heart. Never the less, this working of the Holy Spirit that has utilized Revelation to enlighten my understanding makes me copy my Father and respect this ancient book as His chosen vehicle.
I would add, it is much higher in quality as we would expect from Scripture. I don't find this elevation in other books I've read that some claim as Holy Scripture. Some of these may be of a middle place between Scripture and great books. There even seems to be some kind of anointing for Shakespeare; but, that doesn't mean it should be included in the Bible. Similar to The Revelation are the objections to the last book to be canonized in Hebrew Scripture: The Song of Songs. "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins without number..." (SS 68) Later in life Solomon had a thousand queens, two thousand concubines, and innumerable virgins. How could a man with such outlandish sexual appetites be used to write Holy Scripture? Yet deeper study convinces me of its Divine origin. The Proverb says something like, "As the mouth tastes food, so the ear tries words." We are born of The Truth. Discernment is hard-wired into this new creation man. While there may be more secure and objective "proofs," the subjective experiences testified to by God's people regarding these books as Holy Scripture over the millennia is honorably reliable.
Very well said reformer!
Once I found out that the purest scriptural writings of God,
were written on my mind and heart.
When I read other scriptures I test them against what
was written on my heart and mind.
Then I realize that the word is a living word.
Never changing and always GROWING .
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 20, 2013, 08:11:15 PM
What I said was untrue was that it is translated as apocalypse. .
I owe you a public apology red. I should have let this drop when it stopped being about love and started becoming about being right. This has turned into an argument, and I started it. I have become one of those guys Paul wrote about to Timothy, the guy who "... has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction." I owe the whole forum and apology. I let trying to be right, become more important then trying to help. Sorry guys.
Wow there is so much Love and common courtesy floating
around Tent Makers that argument is hard to come by.
Quote from: dajomaco on February 24, 2013, 07:39:57 PM
Wow there is so much Love and common courtesy floating
around Tent Makers that argument is hard to come by.
Yes brother , the Spirit of God is moving and breathing new life in us all it seems .
Iam gratful for this , praise be to God for hearing our prayers !! :HeartThrob:
VB :friendstu: it's hard for all of us...going a way we have not gone before. and especially
someone just 3 months into it. The revelation of the salvation of all men kinda
rocks our whole world and turns things upside down. Just hang on to Him..He is your rock!!
He will finish the spirit work He has begun in you.
...
Annnnd I'm in tears lol. :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Look, I will heal you.
VB :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: VineBranch on February 20, 2013, 05:01:18 AM
Quote from: sheila on February 19, 2013, 09:07:24 PM
well. I will stand up for the Book of Revelations..even though it mean I am drama seeking,
or have an agenda or seek pie in the sky. Red herrings,strawman arguments and slippery slopes.
all.....only the word of God is the word of God. what? remove the book of Revelation section
next?
People have been twisting scripture for their own agenda from the beginning..and the
book of revelations is no different. But, that does not invalidate the scriptures,as the
word of God..inspiried of the Holy spirit.
I don't think that's the issue sheila. We are to divide the word. Even Peter put limits on which parts of Paul's writings should be seen as scripture. That tells me, the other parts are not. So, some are important, and it is up to us to divide it properly.
Would you be kind enough to give the verse where Peter questions some of Paul's writings as Scripture?
I know Peter said some of Paul's writings are hard to understand, but that is a far cry from questioning whether it should be Scripture or not.
Quote from: MLCCP on February 26, 2013, 01:06:44 AM
Would you be kind enough to give the verse where Peter questions some of Paul's writings as Scripture?
I know Peter said some of Paul's writings are hard to understand, but that is a far cry from questioning whether it should be Scripture or not.
Hi ML. Please refer to:
Re: book of Revelation?
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2013, 07:20:40 AM »
just as the Bible says "all scripture is beneficial" BUT, is there a single person ever that benefitted from memorizing the scriptures in numbers that tell how many people did such and such or were such and such?
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 26, 2013, 02:47:38 PM
just as the Bible says "all scripture is beneficial" BUT, is there a single person ever that benefitted from memorizing the scriptures in numbers that tell how many people did such and such or were such and such?
Too true. I tried, when I was a lot younger, and still get part of the headache when I try to remember doing it. Now I'm okay with saying ... a bunch of folk went and they came back with a bunch of stuff. Pretty scriptural huh? :laugh:
God is now teaching me that maybe it's time to stop sweating all the words, all the time. I have no idea where this is leading: pst ... it's a bit scary!! :Pray:
Quote from: VineBranch on February 26, 2013, 07:37:01 AM
Quote from: MLCCP on February 26, 2013, 01:06:44 AM
Would you be kind enough to give the verse where Peter questions some of Paul's writings as Scripture?
I know Peter said some of Paul's writings are hard to understand, but that is a far cry from questioning whether it should be Scripture or not.
Hi ML. Please refer to:
Re: book of Revelation?
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2013, 07:20:40 AM »
The Book of Revelation does not mention anything about Peter believing some of Paul's writings should not be in the Scriptures.
He was referring to the thread book of revelation.
Thanks for that. However, there is absolutely zero reference in Scripture that has Peter referring to some of Paul's writings which should not be in Scripture.
I believe he was also referring to the fact that while ALL scripture is beneficial, some carries more weight than others.
Jesus saying, "This is love, that a man willingly lay down his life for his friends" is more beneficial than how many people did what and lived where in the book of numbers. As he mentioned, Paul asking Timothy to bring his cloak for the coming winter has little spiritual signifigance.
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 26, 2013, 08:11:51 PM
I believe he was also referring to the fact that while ALL scripture is beneficial, some carries more weight than others.
Jesus saying, "This is love, that a man willingly lay down his life for his friends" is more beneficial than how many people did what and lived where in the book of numbers. As he mentioned, Paul asking Timothy to bring his cloak for the coming winter has little spiritual signifigance.
While it is true that some scripture carries more weight than others, that doesn't apply to Paul. It seems to me that some people treat theology like all it is good for is filler.
So which do you think is better, The study of Theology, or Bible study?
An hour in prayer, or reading what someone else has to say about your God - the God living inside of you? :dontknow:
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 26, 2013, 08:27:12 PM
So which do you think is better, The study of Theology, or Bible study?
An hour in prayer, or reading what someone else has to say about your God - the God living inside of you? :dontknow:
I don't see the conflict between the two. Try reading Romans leaving out theology. God speaks to a person through His written Word. Studying scripture IS prayer and praise.
The trouble with the "God told me....." people is there is no way to know what is fact and what is fiction. God spoke to Marry Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith and Russell, and that is how ALL cults are formed.
But IMO, if someone knows their Bible and knows the God living in them they will not be swayed by those that teach a different God
there are laws..written in hearts and minds..for people who have no access to scriptures..
God called them..a law unto themselves...Romans 2;14 indeed,when gentiles who do not have
theology[law] do by nature things required by the law[theology] they are a theology[law]
for themselves..........v15 since they show that the requirements of the law[theology]
is written in their hearts.
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 26, 2013, 08:46:48 PM
But IMO, if someone knows their Bible and knows the God living in them they will not be swayed by those that teach a different God
To know Scripture is to be deep in History an Theology.
Quote from: sheila on February 26, 2013, 09:05:21 PM
there are laws..written in hearts and minds..for people who have no access to scriptures..
God called them..a law unto themselves...Romans 2;14 indeed,when gentiles who do not have
theology[law] do by nature things required by the law[theology] they are a theology[law]
for themselves..........v15 since they show that the requirements of the law[theology]
is written in their hearts.
I would call that your conscience, however, that can show there is a God, but it doesn't show what the Essence and Nature and attributes of God are. Hugging a tree doesn't tell you that salvation is by grace through faith, for example.
:2c: You're (MLCCP)the only one that mentions hugging a tree and I can't see how it might possibly relate :dontknow:
The only nature quote I know is, "The bull charging at you doesn't care that you're a vegetarian." -Jeff Smith
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 26, 2013, 09:54:01 PM
:2c: You're (MLCCP)the only one that mentions hugging a tree and I can't see how it might possibly relate :dontknow:
The only nature quote I know is, "The bull charging at you doesn't care that you're a vegetarian." -Jeff Smith
Feelings, Jeff, hugging a tree and thinking you're connected to God, not just connected to a tree.
I like your quote - the Dennis Dibben version is, "The other people on your www forum don't care if you're using Microsoft, Apple, Linux, or Ubuntu."
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 26, 2013, 09:54:01 PM
:2c: You're (MLCCP)the only one that mentions hugging a tree and I can't see how it might possibly relate :dontknow:
The only nature quote I know is, "The bull charging at you doesn't care that you're a vegetarian." -Jeff Smith
I was making the point that observing Nature is fine as far as it goes. It shows that there is a Creator, but it doesn't demonstrate who or what the Creator is. I didn't think anyone would have a problem seeing what I meant. I guess the use of a little hyperlole is out of place here.
I will put My laws into their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be My people.
11 And each person will not teach his fellow citizen,[e]
and each his brother, saying, "Know the Lord,"
because they will all know Me,
from the least to the greatest of them
God is a trust worthy theologian.
This is his doctrine.
The Holy Spirit was speaking through Paul.
When it is said "I choose only to know Jesus Christ crucified.
MLCCP the above was not to diminish what you are saying .
Just adding some texture to this thread.
The Book of Revelation alludes to the spiritual struggles which face Christians of all ages.. Sometimes these struggles escalate, as does empires of man fall. Just think if there was a clear warning sign and a 'calendar' (or counting backwards) to go with it.. If it were to come upon the heads of our grand children, perhaps we could pass the instructions on to them.
:2c: :smile:
Quote from: sheila on February 19, 2013, 09:07:24 PM
well. I will stand up for the Book of Revelations..even though it mean I am drama seeking,
or have an agenda or seek pie in the sky. Red herrings,strawman arguments and slippery slopes.
all.....only the word of God is the word of God. what? remove the book of Revelation section
next?
People have been twisting scripture for their own agenda from the beginning..and the
book of revelations is no different. But, that does not invalidate the scriptures,as the
word of God..inspiried of the Holy spirit.
:iagree: :cloud9:
To my way of thinking the book of revelation is the story of mankind, and is especially the peak of this experience. (This history and life as we know it.) It is central to the call of God and the message He is engraving upon every heart and mind.. that to stray from Him (Life/Perfection) in any teeny tiny way can only ever result in moving away from Life / destruction in a puff of smoke.. It's life in Him, or there is no life.. I sometimes think we are all in kindergarten, and we're chewing on the fruit of knowing good from evil, which is also life from death, and true from untrue. And I think all of us feel a call more to some parts of scripture off and on during life, than to others in our studies, etc.. :thumbsup: :smile:
Hi ML:
We seem to have blurred the lines between the thread about adjusting and the one about Revelation. Did you check out the reference to the reply for which you asked? You didn't mention it, and the writings didn't seem to reflect that you had. I'll give you the quotation I used: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
(2Pe 3:15-16)
What I read is that Peter is saying that Paul has been given wisdom when he speaks about specific matters in his letters. In the next sentence Peter uses a preposition and a pronoun (in them); this would be a reference to a former thing. That thing (according to grammar, but you could argue against that if you wish), must be the closest logical noun ('things' doesn't work because it is part of the phrase): which is '[these] matters'. Otherwise we would have lot of dangling modifiers and the whole sentence would cease to make sense. When I read to the end of the sentence he binds his subject (these matters, referenced through the pronoun 'them') with the rest of scripture. What I see is Peter linking the rest of scripture to Paul's writings when he writes about 'these matters'.
Quote from: VineBranch on February 27, 2013, 05:55:55 AM
"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
(2Pe 3:15-16)
What I read is that Peter is saying that Paul has been given wisdom when he speaks about specific matters in his letters. In the next sentence Peter uses a preposition and a pronoun (in them); this would be a reference to a former thing. That thing (according to grammar, but you could argue against that if you wish), must be the closest logical noun ('things' doesn't work because it is part of the phrase): which is '[these] matters'. Otherwise we would have lot of dangling modifiers and the whole sentence would cease to make sense. When I read to the end of the sentence he binds his subject (these matters, referenced through the pronoun 'them') with the rest of scripture. What I see is Peter linking the rest of scripture to Paul's writings when he writes about 'these matters'.
Amen
Quote from: VineBranch on February 27, 2013, 05:55:55 AM
Hi ML:
We seem to have blurred the lines between the thread about adjusting and the one about Revelation. Did you check out the reference to the reply for which you asked? You didn't mention it, and the writings didn't seem to reflect that you had. I'll give you the quotation I used: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
(2Pe 3:15-16)
What I read is that Peter is saying that Paul has been given wisdom when he speaks about specific matters in his letters. In the next sentence Peter uses a preposition and a pronoun (in them); this would be a reference to a former thing. That thing (according to grammar, but you could argue against that if you wish), must be the closest logical noun ('things' doesn't work because it is part of the phrase): which is '[these] matters'. Otherwise we would have lot of dangling modifiers and the whole sentence would cease to make sense. When I read to the end of the sentence he binds his subject (these matters, referenced through the pronoun 'them') with the rest of scripture. What I see is Peter linking the rest of scripture to Paul's writings when he writes about 'these matters'.
I mentioned that verse earlier. However, that verse says Paul writes things that are hard to understand, which is correct. It does not say that what is hard to understand should not be part of the canon of Scripture. Paul said and did a whole lot of things which never made it into Scripture, but what is there was meant to be there. Peter never said otherwise.
Quote from: MLCCP on February 26, 2013, 01:06:44 AM
Quote from: VineBranch on February 20, 2013, 05:01:18 AM
Quote from: sheila on February 19, 2013, 09:07:24 PM
well. I will stand up for the Book of Revelations..even though it mean I am drama seeking,
or have an agenda or seek pie in the sky. Red herrings,strawman arguments and slippery slopes.
all.....only the word of God is the word of God. what? remove the book of Revelation section
next?
People have been twisting scripture for their own agenda from the beginning..and the
book of revelations is no different. But, that does not invalidate the scriptures,as the
word of God..inspiried of the Holy spirit.
I don't think that's the issue sheila. We are to divide the word. Even Peter put limits on which parts of Paul's writings should be seen as scripture. That tells me, the other parts are not. So, some are important, and it is up to us to divide it properly.
Would you be kind enough to give the verse where Peter questions some of Paul's writings as Scripture?
I know Peter said some of Paul's writings are hard to understand, but that is a far cry from questioning whether it should be Scripture or not.
Oops! i was gonna reply.. but I'm forever jumping in, then reading on, or back, and finding I've simply jumped into the middle either too early or too late! [ :dontknow: ] Peter did say some things Paul wrote were hard for some to understand, but never has any verse I know of said some scripture can be overlooked or selected to not be scripture - although :iagree: about memorizing genealogies :laugh2: mentioned above.. Some folks I think, think of the Book of Revelation as being like the gnostic gospels, where you can tell they're off, just by reading them! But that's the point! Revelation is so different.. (taken down by that old man, John! only surviving apostle and original disciple of Jesus who witnessed all which occurred). The book is full of visions, and visions within visions, sort of like mankind's history itself (especially if we include angels in that history). But Revelation is the peak of man's history, the final result, the collapse and crumble of man's empire(s).. Just like the Angel/Spirit of the LORD told Abraham before the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah "shall I do a thing and not tell my servant?" Doesn't every story have a conclusion? Is life a random jumble of occurrences? Well yes, I guess it is.. But that's the letting thinking ability which includes choice(surely?) run its course.. But is that all? God's not doing anything? Not proving something? No most basic of all basic understandings? The one thing and lesson we all must thoroughly know and understand before things can move on? No foundation of everything? That there is no life/living apart from God, which attempt can only ever end in dust and a brief puff of smoke...
- hmmmm, I've been pacing my kitchen.. guess I ended up
posting after all :pointlaugh: have a good day!
Quote from: MLCCP on February 27, 2013, 04:09:07 PM
I mentioned that verse earlier. However, that verse says Paul writes things that are hard to understand, which is correct. It does not say that what is hard to understand should not be part of the canon of Scripture. Paul said and did a whole lot of things which never made it into Scripture, but what is there was meant to be there. Peter never said otherwise.
Okay, but how does that relate to what I said about the parsing of the verse?
Quote from: VineBranch on February 27, 2013, 04:23:05 PM
Quote from: MLCCP on February 27, 2013, 04:09:07 PM
I mentioned that verse earlier. However, that verse says Paul writes things that are hard to understand, which is correct. It does not say that what is hard to understand should not be part of the canon of Scripture. Paul said and did a whole lot of things which never made it into Scripture, but what is there was meant to be there. Peter never said otherwise.
Okay, but how does that relate to what I said about the parsing of the verse?
You can break that sentence down all you want to, but you can't make it say what it doesn't say. And it doesn't say anything about any of Paul's writings not being inspired, only that some things are difficult to understand.
The original statement was Peter said there were writings of Paul's that should not be in the Scriptures. I was just pointing out that that is incorrect. I think we have beat this subject to death.
Quote from: eaglesway on February 27, 2013, 07:19:04 AM
Quote from: VineBranch on February 27, 2013, 05:55:55 AM
"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
(2Pe 3:15-16)
What I read is that Peter is saying that Paul has been given wisdom when he speaks about specific matters in his letters. In the next sentence Peter uses a preposition and a pronoun (in them); this would be a reference to a former thing. That thing (according to grammar, but you could argue against that if you wish), must be the closest logical noun ('things' doesn't work because it is part of the phrase): which is '[these] matters'. Otherwise we would have lot of dangling modifiers and the whole sentence would cease to make sense. When I read to the end of the sentence he binds his subject (these matters, referenced through the pronoun 'them') with the rest of scripture. What I see is Peter linking the rest of scripture to Paul's writings when he writes about 'these matters'.
Amen
:iagree: :smile: ..and he speaks of those matters "in all his letters".. no separation of some letters good and some not.. amen!
Sorry, I keep jumping in when I want to respond to something I've read in the thread.. Even though I actually stopped by real quick right now just to post that I've always felt a 'revelation call'.. I found God and Jesus in the mountains, and I've spent a lot of time outside of 'the world'. :dontknow: I've just always felt I more or less understood 'apocalypse' (the unveiling of all untrue.. by revealing the results of it..) [The easiest character of Revelation to see is the false prophet, who is not the same character most seem to think he is.. and there I go blabbity blabbing again a habit I've had for some time now! :smile: hope everyone has a good evening.. or otherwise if across the pond, or somewhere else..]
Quote from: MLCCP on February 27, 2013, 05:43:10 PM
You can break that sentence down all you want to, but you can't make it say what it doesn't say. And it doesn't say anything about any of Paul's writings not being inspired, only that some things are difficult to understand.
The original statement was Peter said there were writings of Paul's that should not be in the Scriptures. I was just pointing out that that is incorrect. I think we have beat this subject to death.
So, is this then like with your theology: your mind is made up and nothing anyone says is going to change it, or make you question your assumptions? If this is a place to practice your skills at monologue then fine. IMO the point of discussion is trying to see the other person's point of view. You changed your mind about UR. Is that where your search ends? Stephen Leacock said that when he got his Ph.D he was pronounced full and capable of learning no more. Surely none of us here are so full of themselves that there is no room for clear thought about those things with which we disagree.
One favour, if you will. If you are going to leave, as you mentioned in the other thread, give me a warning if you would. Laz is gonna slap me up side the head, and Lom is gonna tell me to stop being so serious. It will somehow be all my fault lol. I'ld like to be able to duck and cover: quack quack. Come to think of it, they may still do it even if you stay. So, why not stay and watch the fun?
I agree that Peter was qualifying Paul's writing as scripture and that it is quite clear in the passages being discussed. quack, quack, duck! :o)
Quote from: eaglesway on February 28, 2013, 05:43:26 AM
I agree that Peter was qualifying Paul's writing as scripture and that it is quite clear in the passages being discussed. quack, quack, duck! :o)
But in reply #75 you amenned the other notion. You is confuuuussssing me. :Chinscratch:
VB, I won't slap you upside the head...but - remember that it's easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar.
Better teaching with a kind word :friendstu: than with confrontation. :punish:
Quote from: VineBranch on February 28, 2013, 08:45:57 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on February 28, 2013, 05:43:26 AM
I agree that Peter was qualifying Paul's writing as scripture and that it is quite clear in the passages being discussed. quack, quack, duck! :o)
But in reply #75 you amenned the other notion. You is confuuuussssing me. :Chinscratch:
"What I see is Peter linking the rest of scripture to Paul's writings when he writes about 'these matters'. "
That's what you said that I was amenning :o) I thought you were saying, "Peter considers Paul's writings to be scripture". Sorry if I confused you. :o)
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 28, 2013, 09:14:12 PM
VB, I won't slap you upside the head...but - remember that it's easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar.
Better teaching with a kind word :friendstu: than with confrontation. :punish:
With all due respect, and I genuinely mean that, when we were children, did we not think as children? Did the Father then not place people more mature and more willing to stand up among us? Are we not now, after these years of having watched how the Gospel can become a snare to trap the young, morally responsible to cut through those snares? Are we not morally responsible to spring those traps which we have seen damage those around us, and perhaps ourselves?
We are the adults now. When we see yet one more person come among us and try to impose yet another set of rules or doctrines or philosophies on us and the young among us, do we not have the duty to oppose them? Christ came to free the prisoners, and he whom the son has set free is free indeed. As the adults, are we not the ones who must now look upon those who would re-enslave us once more to the law of sin and death, or some other performance- based salvation, and say NO. Is it not now up to us to stand in their way and say 'I love you' but please don't shackle my brethren to the very walls which Christ died to destroy. Don't build your prison here!!!
As adults, is that not one of the things we take on?
Not really. This is a blog. We are not on a crusade to eliminate potential enemies. We are on a mission to communicate with one another and reach out toward a mutual understanding of the mind of Christ.
People do not change their minds about their wrong beliefs because someone tells them they are wrong.
People change their minds when asked questions which make them think and question their wrong beliefs.
For example, someone says we should do this or that to get closer to God.
Q. Is there anything we can DO to get ourselves saved?
Q. Once Christ saves us, does he place his Holy Spirit in us?
Q. Does Jesus say he will never leave us or forsake us?
Q. If the spirit of the living, creator God is actually inside of us, how can anything we do bring him closer?
Quote from: eaglesway on March 01, 2013, 08:38:45 AM
Not really. This is a blog. We are not on a crusade to eliminate potential enemies. We are on a mission to communicate with one another and reach out toward a mutual understanding of the mind of Christ.
I thought this was a discussion forum. A blog is a monologue.
'crusade'? 'enemies'? When did I use those words? Now that hurts!!! I was advocating a still, peaceful, resistance, to someone who would impose another gospel, not some violent campaign to thwart those who don't believe what I do.
Camel's back, meet last straw.
All I was trying to say Vine Branch is that evryone who sees it different than 'me' is the child in whose way I must stand. Point being that as you said, it is a discussion forum, and we ought to try to keep the form of a discussion, even if we seriously disagree with our dialogees, lest the discussion forum become a monologue for a few folks who agree about everything :o).
The parameters are really fairly wide- as long as the respect of scripture is maintained and UR remains the general hub of the wheel, we should respect each other as conversationalists as opposed to debaters.
I hope you have room for a few more straws, as you are a valuable member of the forum. :Peace2:
Q. If the spirit of the living, creator God is actually inside of us, how can anything we do bring him closer?
WE can not bring HIM closer.
We can how ever bring ourselves closer to him.
Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you Jas 4:8
A wise man once wrote,
"When will you quit looking outward with the eyes of your heart. The portal within opens up a vast universe, the very heavens themselves with their attendant wonder, glory and power await you where the spirit of God awaits you in the spirit realm, within the holies of holies, beyond the veil."
I read somewhere that the Reformation of the mid 1500's was the result of a particular interpretation of the Book of Revelation. How ever much true that is, it serves to illustrate why there is such spiritual warfare against this writing's potency.
Not with weapons that cut, shoot, burn or smash in the same dimension our flesh exists, the warfare of the saints, particularly evidenced in the arena between our ears, is a fight against the existence in flesh of persons with characteristics resulting from their walk with God. The atmosphere of culture and its shining stars agree we're not supposed to think that way. While they may futilely use carnal weapons against us, we cannot accomplish the Divine agenda by such means. This nature we increasingly assume requires a "Revelation of Jesus Christ" which only God can give.
Tho' Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of God five times in the Gospel of John, He calls Himself son of Man fifty-five times there. This is what is so opposed: in-your-face God as flesh and blood. As long as He's spirit in the heavenlies there's little objection. As your brother or sister is forbidden thought. Son of a theological doctrine ruffles few feathers...until it manifests in flesh. "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist..." (1 Jn 4:3,) which John also says is a deceiver (2 Jn 1:7.) That a man is on the throne of God, expecting all things to be subject to him, this Revelation through us into the world is what is most contested.
I had read that the Reformation was sparked by Martin Luther reading one simple sentence: The just shall live by faith.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on March 04, 2013, 02:00:42 PM
I had read that the Reformation was sparked by Martin Luther reading one simple sentence: The just shall live by faith.
That's what I was taught from K-8 at St. Peter Lutheran school.
That was in the biographical movie, "Luther" also.
Guess where I read about Martin Luther and "The just shall live by faith"?
In a book penned by the Seventh-Day Adventist prophetess, Ellen White.
It was when he was climbing that long staircase on his knees, repeating prayers on every step, that God spoke to him and said, "The just shall live by faith." He said he fled the place in shame, for what he was doing.
If that's true, Reformer, then EGW got it wrong - she wrote that Luther read it in a chained Bible.
When I was attending St. Peter Lutheran there was little drama. It was all memorize for this so. :dontknow:
I'm pretty sure the movie also had Luther realize as he was going up the stairs on his knees. :Peace2: