John UK wrote: If anyone else would care to pray for a successful outcome tomorrow, and that the Lord would do graciously in his maidservant's heart, and wipe away her tears, do please do so. Thanks in advance, as I know many on here are filled with love of the Holy Ghost and are true friends in Jesus.
"If you carefully had read what I had posted in regards to Jim's comment regarding fast food and exercise,you would have figured it out. Maybe you need to properly discern before you assume"
I know exactly what you said you thought he said. How was it of any interest to you unless you can't resist a chance to meddle? If you don't care enough for a disabled sister to bother to understand her lot in life... butt out.
"I wouldn't have an idea of Jessica's condition unless I would read through all of what has been posted,which I don't"
Says it all. But you could have an idea if you cared. Did you read the article I posted? Jessica posted that quite some time ago and I care enough for her that I saved it.
"And sweet as she may be she did misinterpret what Jim had posted in regards to his fast food comment"
Misrepresent as in lie? Couldn't even give her the benefit that she may have misunderstood in her despair?
"I was merely pointing that out. She was upset, partially, because she thought that he had recommended that she eat more fast food, not less."
Really? You know nothing about Jessica and yet you are an authority of what she thought?
s c wrote: I feel compassion for Jessica but I'm not seeing where Jim was so cold in his previous post.
You have an annoying habit of speaking of things you know little or nothing about.
Jim has been on this forum for more than 10 years, most likely from its founding about 13 years ago, and Jessica was a regular poster here as well for many years. Her history dates back to 7/10 and I know she posted some years before that.
There was absolutely no excuse for Jim not knowing that dear sister Jessica is incapable of physical exercise and he needs to apologize to her for being an insensitive jerk.
Educate yourselves, both Jim and sc, about one in our midst who needs our compassion, care and prayers.
Jessica Dawson wrote: Jim, you are truly a 'Job's friend' to me... Your thoughtless comment giving me advice brought me much hurt and anguish. I was too devastated to even respond until now.
Dear sister Jessica,
I seldom post any more but I still read the comments when time permits and want you to know that Jim, a news junkie of unimaginable proportions, can be an insensitive............. well, I'm not going to say it. The old saying goes..... 'when the mouth opens, the ears close' and that seems to describe Jim perfectly. I know having his post removed won't erase the hurt but I'm going to see to it.
Along with the others before me, I was grieved to witness the hurt Jim's thoughtless comment caused.
Keep posting, Jessica, knowing that you have brothers and sisters here who love, care and pray for you.
"And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it." 1 Cor 12:12-26
tb wrote: Lurker: Certainly the elitist attitude (as you say) is both ironic and reprehensible, but my biggest issue doctrinally is... TULIP I have absolutely nothing against Neo-gnostic/Calvinist/Fatalism doctrine EXCEPT THAT IT POISONS EVERYTHING, and it does that while attempting to honor God, but failing at that too. Other than that I'm OK with Calvinism.
Since I make no claim to be a Calvinist I'll leave the defense of TULIP to another.
. . .
Thanks for your kind remarks. As for me, I'll be going back into hibernation.
tb wrote: Lurker: When I thanked you for the Jude and Romans references I thought I essentially covered my agreement with what seems like a rhetorical question to me. Of course he doesn't "need" my help. Everything I would bring to the table is a direct gift from Him anyway, so if if I were called to participate in STANDing (which obviously we all are) then that would never mean that any of us "helped" God.
Thank you for a straight-up answer.
Now that we're in agreement on that and no one here seems to be disagreeing with us; what have you been going on about the past couple days? If you are just venting steam because of the elitist attitude of the hyper-Calvinists...... been there, done that and nothing changes. Best get over it. But if you've got a doctrinal bone to pick...... make a case and we can discuss it.
tb wrote: Amen Aaron. Thanks for sharing. Hey Lurker... I think you might have misunderstood my antagonism against false doctrine for having a chip on my shoulder. That's OK, I can see how that could happen, as your interpretive framework and mine are at completely different ends of the spectrum. (That said, I do appreciate your comments on the Jude and Romans references.) If you're really interested in dealing with chips on people's shoulders, may I suggest you direct your attention to a number of dear confused neo-gnostics who have pronounced me to be a servant of Satan, etc. Perhaps you could assist some of those nice folks with their shoulder chips? Just a thought. In all seriousness though, I think I will take this opportunity to encourage each reader of this thread to: 1. Purify YOURSELF! 2. Keep YOURSELF from sin! 3. Live righteously! 4. Be holy!
tb wrote: "for a WHILE BELIEVE, and in time of temptation FALL AWAY." (Jesus in Luke 8:13). - "to the Jews that BELIEVED on Him, Jesus said 'IF you CONTINUE IN MY WORD, THEN you are my disciples INDEED...'" (That's Jesus in John 8:31). - "He THAT OVERCOMES, I will not BLOT OUT HIS NAME OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE." (That's Jesus in Rev 3:5 -- the clear implication is those who don't overcome will be blotted out.) - "If a man ABIDE NOT IN ME, he is cast forth as a branch...and withered...and burned". (John 15:6, Jesus)
First thing.... get that chip off your shoulder. Then consider that the texts you quoted are first covenant teachings.
You are all over the place from quoting Joshua to defend free will to quoting the gospels which were still under the first covenant economy. The bible is not static. There is a progression, a storyline, a change of covenants... a new and better covenant established on better promises and this was still anticipated by the writer of the Hebrews.
Jesus was required by the Father to lose none of all He gave to the Son. So the only thing which can be said of those who do fall away is they never belonged to the Father, were never given to the Son. Does He need your help? Jude 24-25.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Brother Lurker, here is a link that has multiple commentaries on all the verses in the passage (if you use the arrow keys at the top) http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/65-20.htm
Thanks. I'll have a look as time permits.
Considering our past brief discussions it is clear we are at polar opposites regarding biblical interpretation, and apparently settled, so I don't see any profit for either of us to continue any further.
John UK wrote: Bro Lurker, methinks you make the same mistake the Presbies make when they take the Gen passage for their covenant theology and baby sprinkling, instead of getting the increased light from the NT and the understanding the apostles had of what those passages meant. Heavens and Earth? The universe and the planet. We shall dwell upon the new earth, in a new state, eternal, with no death (which is the last enemy). 2 Pet 3 is clear enough for me, bro.
You may be right, John. I am by no means settled on this and was simply probing for some thoughts. But it seems I poked a hornets nest.
I just finished reading Matthew Henry on Isaiah 65. Very interesting, so much I agree with and nothing that I would disagree with. The only thing I was left wondering about is he didn't make an effort to explain how the time of the creation of the new H&E relates to the rest of his commentary which he rightfully places in the days of Paul and God's mercy being turned to the Gentiles.
For anyone interested.... http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Isa/Isa_065.cfm?a=744017
With that, I'll stop being a distraction to the thread.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Again, you don't obliterate the clear with the obscure. If you just saying the new heaven and new earth is not part of the eternal state, then what point are you trying to make? If it is not then what is it? How does that thinking line up with II Peter 3:10-13?
I'm not sure why you bring up the mil reign. Tradition seems to teach that the new H&E follows the bema seat judgment which follows the mil reign. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
My point is simple. Rev 21:1 doesn't give any details about the new H&E except there will be no more sea. Isaiah 65 does. So why wouldn't we look to the Isaiah text (clear) to determine if what we perceive in Rev 21 (unclear) is true?
I don't see any gain to cloud up the question with a lot of irrelevant scripture. Either Isaiah 65 describes the new H&E of Rev 21:1 or it doesn't.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Not sure why brother Lurker, the good brother who sees allegory and/or historical fulfillment in most everything else, would imply that a place of eternal life would somehow experience death or sinners.
To be clear, I am saying that the new H&E is NOT the eternal state.
My defense is Isaiah 65:17-25. Unless God is speaking to Isaiah of a different new heaven and earth than that of Rev 21, doesn't it make sense that our beliefs regarding the new H&E should not contradict what is written in Isaiah?
Can anyone read Is 65:17-25 and nod in agreement at every word?
Are you going to build and inhabit a house in the eternal state? What about the house Jesus went to prepare for us?
Going to plant a vineyard and eat the fruit thereof?
How do you feel about having your days numbered to those of a tree? I'm expecting the inheritance of eternal life.
And how about offspring in the eternal state? Children?
And why the need to call on the Lord when we will be with Him forever in the air?
And what about the serpent who shall eat the dust of the earth? I though he was cast into the lake of fire at the bema seat.
I can present the biblical facts but I can't compel anyone to deal with them. I regret bringing it up.
Dorcas wrote: Lurker, Just what is the 'unseen' error universally accepted as truth on this thread , that you say we have all missed?
The interpretation of the new H&E being the eternal state. I don't know about you, but I don't expect to be rubbing elbows with sinners in the eternal state.....
Is 65:17-20 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but ***the sinner*** being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
Maybe a few sinners slipped through the bema seat judgment. Maybe God made a mistake when he dictated to Isaiah. Maybe I should stop making waves, get on the bandwagon and stop worrying about such a small biblical fact getting in the way of centuries of tradition.
John UK wrote: Lurker, do you mean that this verse.... Revelation 21:3-4 KJV (3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. (4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. ......is contrary to the prophecy in the OT which you quoted?
No, brother. These verses are the attributes of New Jerusalem, not the new heaven and earth. Under the first covenant, they were distinct.....
Mat 5:34-35 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
What God said of the new heaven and earth in Isaiah does not contradict.
Dorcas, I'm not ignoring you. I'm out of time for now.
John, Frank..... do you not see the contradiction between the quote from the article and what God said.... between what you apparently have accepted as biblical fact and what God said?
My hermeneutic has nothing to do with it. Either there is death in the new H&E or there is not. Choose whom you will believe.
But all that has little to do with the purpose of my comment. I've watch this thread and sadly watched divisions between brothers and sisters develop that will never be erased. And all the while, there is unseen error almost universally accepted as truth. It doesn't add up.
Should we not be redeeming the time, being Bereans to see if the things we've been taught by fallible preachers/teachers are so, because the days are evil?
"There will no longer be any more death in any way, shape, or form. The curse of Adam and Eve will have finally been broken and completely done away with. There will also be no more pain since we will all have brand new, glorified, spiritual bodies."
Over the years I've come to believe most Christians would give this quote an amen. But God said:
Is 65:17-20 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
Does anyone even care that this error has been perpetuated for centuries by your preachers/teachers?
John UK wrote: The other thing, that little book? Now Lurker, it is not like you to speculate. Not that speculating is wrong, if there is sufficient inference. Mind you, the tablets were locked away in the ark of the covenant, along with a pot of manna and Aaron's rod that budded.
You're right John, I don't speculate. I am absolutely settled with my interpretation of the book. But....... I would be hard pressed to string together a few verses to establish by belief for your benefit. Sometimes what something figures can only be learned by taking in all the surrounding context and learning what was going on at the time. In this case, the opening of the seals was leading up to the judgment of the first resurrection and there can be no just condemnation of unrepentant sinners to the lake of fire if sin can't be imputed which demands the law.
That said, I wouldn't want you to take my word on this and consider it settled. Only the Word can do that for you.
The ark of the covenant; the Decalogue locked away (sealed) with God sitting on it as the mercy seat, throne of grace. And He made reference to the tables as His "secret things" (Deut 29:29) and His "treasures" (Deut 32:34). But He brought them against His rebellious people in judgment (Jer 11:8).
John UK wrote: Saint Lurker, thanks for the extra scriptures and greek concerning the thrones, it's very interesting. I just wish I had more brainpower to take it all in and work it all out. Them Revelations sure are cloudy. I used to try the commentaries to see if they would help, but it seems theologians had a hard time of it as well, some saying that it had all come to pass already. Could it be?
Full preterism? Built on the assumption everything was fulfilled 70 AD. If that be true, then the proponents should be able to write entire books explaining how and when all the mysterious events of the Revelation were fulfilled in historic reality. They should be able to identify all the mysterious figures and match them up with 1st century AD realities. I'm not aware of any such books.
Anyway, the reason I replied to your question was I had just read the Revelation the evening before and it was fresh in my mind. And, of course, Steve's egging me on prompted me to look into the idea you posted about the 24 elders and I'm glad I did. I needed to work that through anyway.
Why was the seals on the book removed? "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God".
The Lamb was worthy being the only one to fulfill the law.
John UK wrote: The 24 elders: seeing as the New Jerusalem had 12 foundations of apostles and twelve walls of 12 tribes of Israel, I thought the elders might be figurative for these 24.
I've seen that interpretation and it sounds reasonable but reasonable is not necessarily biblical.
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
The word "seat" used to describe the 24 seats of the elders is actually the same Greek word for throne. So there is a cross reference which accounts for 12 of the 24 elders being the apostles so by good and necessary consequence, I can see that the other 12 elders would be the heads of the tribes of Israel based on Rev 21:12-14.
The only question remaining; is the timeline of Rev 4 compatible with "the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory"?
Rev 5:11 (before the 1st seal was opened) "the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" compared to Daniel 7:10 (same wording) and 7:13-14 son of man receiving the kingdom of God....... I'd say yes.
SteveR wrote: Good Morning Lurker Helen Keller and Observer could have offered John UK similar responses. OK, Perhaps Im exaggerating about Observer. Dont you think you should answer the original question? Dont get me wrong, Im glad John UK woke you up from your slumber. But you need to answer who the elders and creatures are, and why they are worshipping in the manner they are.
I believe I did answer the original question, Steve. What do you think, John? Did I answer your question?
John seemed to think the crowns implied post resurrection probably because of 2 Tim 4:8 but that wouldn't answer the crowns on the heads of locusts (Rev 9:7), the 7 heads of the dragon (Rev 12:3) or the 10 crowns on the 10 horns of the sea beast (Rev 13:1). Crowns don't always imply victory over death.
As far as the identity of the 24 elders, I honestly don't know. If you can help both John and me out with that, I'm open for instruction.