Chicago police confirm 'tragic number' of 500 homicides
Chicago reached “a tragic number” today, according to Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy: Its homicide total for the year hit 500, the highest annual total since 2008.
The city's latest homicide occurred around 9 p.m. Thursday when Nathaniel T. Jackson, 40, an alleged gang member with a lengthy arrest record, was gunned down outside a store in the Austin neighborhood.
As of Thursday night, homicides were up 17 percent over last year in Chicago and shootings had increased by 11 percent, according to police statistics. Earlier this fall, Chicago already exceeded the number of homicides that occurred last year, but this is the first time the city has had 500 or more murders since the 512 in 2008....
John UK wrote: Ah yes bro, the mansion that is so small you can fit hundreds of millions of them into one house. The capitalists will be disappointed.
Is that the place of which we have the exact dimensions?
Let me answer for US. Yes that is the one. It is a square, 1500 miles in length, width and height. Re. 21:16,17. The KJ does it in furlongs, but I believe my conversion is accurate, per the NASB. If it is square or cubed, it would accommodate those 100s of millions that you noted.
John UK you are having to allegorize large portions of Scripture. Again why go and prepare a dwelling place that does not really exist, what preparations would have to be made?
Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
KJV “mansions” in John 14:2 translates the Gk. monē (G3438), which in means “dwelling place” (per the NASB), not necessarily a fancy one like Blenheim Palace or Hearst Castle. Some dictionaries mention this as an archaic definition for “mansion,” in which case the KJV rendering was OK for its day.
Frank wrote: Yes, the things that are not necessarily visible could then be figurative. But there are things that are visible that don't lend themselves to figurative language. When I am faced with certain dilemmas, then I try and look to Christ and see what He said regarding those things, like His resurrected body. I'm sure you do that as well. I agree about the book issue, but then to be very honest, it doesn't make any difference to me if they are visible or not. As long as the mansion that Christ said He would prepare for me is there, then all is okay.
Ah yes bro, the mansion that is so small you can fit hundreds of millions of them into one house. The capitalists will be disappointed.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: I would say Revelation 21 describes a physical place.
Is that the place of which we have the exact dimensions?
I would say Revelation 21 describes a physical place. Why would the Lord go to prepare dwelling places if they doesn't really exist?
2 Corinthians 5 (KJV)
5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life
I Corinthian 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
John UK wrote: Frank, if you agree that the things are not necessarily visible, it is possible that they are figurative. For if they were standard, physical books, they should always be visible to a human eye.
Yes, the things that are not necessarily visible could then be figurative. But there are things that are visible that don't lend themselves to figurative language. When I am faced with certain dilemmas, then I try and look to Christ and see what He said regarding those things, like His resurrected body "put your finger here". I'm sure you do that as well. I agree about the book issue, but then to be very honest, it doesn't make any difference to me if they are visible or not. As long as the mansion that Christ said He would prepare for me is there, then all is okay.
I see your point on Publican; thanks for the correction. I was really only interested in his hermeneutic; not his conclusions.
Frank wrote: I agree, they are not necessarily visible. I don't think I said anything that would cause you to think I had forgotten that. But, just because there is figurative language describing heaven, doesn't mean that everything is figurative. That was what Publican was doing that got everyone riled up, so to speak. Just concentrate on the scriptures I gave to better understand my thoughts. BUT I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT ON "THIS" POST.
Frank, if you agree that the things are not necessarily visible, it is possible that they are figurative. For if they were standard, physical books, they should always be visible to a human eye.
However, our brother Publican has come out with a most interesting if not bizarre solution to the matter, a solution the like of which I have never heard in my life before, that a "thousand year" reign of Christ should be so contracted to such a short time. If I remember rightly, the a-mills would disagree with such an interpretation.
Some years ago, I heard one chap say that six millenniums had occurred from creation, and that the year 2000 would usher in the seventh and last, with Christ reigning from Jerusalem.
John UK wrote: I disagree not with your points Frank. But there is an element you have forgotten. The spiritual world can be visible or invisible to the human, according to what God determines. The "things" that John saw are not necessarily visible in the normal run of things. And it is certainly not normal for an old man to go flying off to heaven.
I agree, they are not necessarily visible. I don't think I said anything that would cause you to think I had forgotten that. But, just because there is figurative language describing heaven, doesn't mean that everything is figurative. That was what Publican was doing that got everyone riled up, so to speak. Just concentrate on the scriptures I gave to better understand my thoughts. BUT I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT ON "THIS" POST.
Frank wrote: But, you are ignoring the ones I gave. Besides I didn't say our heavenly bodies would be the "same" as our earthly bodies. Jesus appeared in the room where His disciples were; no using the door. But then Thomas touched Him. Surely you are not going to allegorize that away. Now I may not understand the substance of our resurrected bodies, but they will be the same as Christ's. You can provide me with no scripture that says we won't have a new spiritual body with substance. 1 Cor. 15:44 simply says my resurrected body won't be a "natural" body. Didn't Christ say at the last supper that He would not drink of the vine again until He drank it with us in heaven? I could go on and on, but everyone that is following this post will have already formed an opinion, so I'll leave it here. There are lots of things that are visible in heaven and they have been found in several posts I've noted.
I disagree not with your points Frank. But there is an element you have forgotten. The spiritual world can be visible or invisible to the human, according to what God determines. The "things" that John saw are not necessarily visible in the normal run of things. And it is certainly not normal for an old man to go flying off to heaven.
John UK wrote: Not at all Frank. I am quoting scripture directly: 1 Corinthians 15:44 KJV 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Our body in heaven will not be the same as the body we have on earth. And if there is anything visible in heaven, why is no-one able to find it?
But, you are ignoring the ones I gave. Besides I didn't say our heavenly bodies would be the "same" as our earthly bodies. Jesus appeared in the room where His disciples were; no using the door. But then Thomas touched Him. Surely you are not going to allegorize that away. Now I may not understand the substance of our resurrected bodies, but they will be the same as Christ's. You can provide me with no scripture that says we won't have a new spiritual body with substance. 1 Cor. 15:44 simply says my resurrected body won't be a "natural" body. Didn't Christ say at the last supper that He would not drink of the vine again until He drank it with us in heaven? I could go on and on, but everyone that is following this post will have already formed an opinion, so I'll leave it here.
There are lots of things that are visible in heaven and they have been found in several posts I've noted.
John UK wrote: Frank, I nearly mentioned that, but regarded it as unnecessary. The resurrected body of Christ is a spiritual body, as will ours be at the resurrection.
You are spiritualizing away scripture. We should stick with what it says that doesn't lend itself to figurative language, like the lion thing, and there is no way you can say Christ doesn't have a body with substance. His spiritual body has substance.
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. [10] And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; [11] Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Act 1:9-11)
[27] Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (Jhn 20:27
[2] Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1Jo 3:2)
Frank wrote: John, if everything in heaven is spiritual, without material substance, then Christ does not have a body that could eat, be touched, etc. I disciples saw Him go up in His new body. You may want to think that one through again.
Frank, I nearly mentioned that, but regarded it as unnecessary. The resurrected body of Christ is a spiritual body, as will ours be at the resurrection. See 1 Cor 15.
Besides, according to some he is now a Lion, or a Lamb with seven eyes.
Mike, John was well acquainted with books, and it was books that he was given a vision of. They might have been representative, but they were still books which he saw. However, at the Great White Throne Judgment, we shall see no physical books in the "hand" of God, and we shall not see him turning pages and saying, "Ah .... here we are ... Mr Thelonius Jones from Aberdare, born 7th July 1903....."
BTW, C000 chick is not a very good place to get knowledge about the endtime judgment doctrine.
John UK wrote: As I see it US, heaven is a spiritual place, and there is nothing physical there at all. Which explains why having literal books is a problem. But before you know it, you'll have the apostle eating little physical books, and I'm not sure that's found in the Apostles' Healthy Food Guide. Revelation 10:10 KJV 10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. p.s I must admit that when I was out tracting once, a wiseguy took my tract
John, if everything in heaven is spiritual, without material substance, then Christ does not have a body that could eat, be touched, etc. The disciples saw Him go up in His new body. You may want to think that one through again.
John UK wrote: --- - do you really think that God has been scribing every single thought, word and deed, of every single man, woman and child that ever lived, and putting all of this info into books which he will consult at the Great Judgment, like some lawyer with his portfolio of evidence? I can assure you bro that God is great enough to do without books. Besides which, the amount of info needed would fill a million libraries of books, and John's vision was of a few allegorical books.
What did John see, John? All I'm saying is he saw books. It isn't up to me to deny it. It is for you to say what an allegorical book looks like, isn't it? Consider it is not for his sake that God might use books, but for man's. He will be judged in a manner he understands. As for the logistics of all that info being pulled out of books, how hard was it for Jesus to pull all that food out of a few baskets?
I don't understand why mystery is made where there is none.
Lurker wrote: --- IMO, it's important to learn what God said but equally important to learn what He meant.
No disagreement there, bro Lurker. Sometimes he even means what he says.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks for your response. The difference I see is that in Revelation 1 the candlesticks are specifically said to represent the seven churches in Asia. In Revelation 20 the books are specifically said to be used for judgment of the unbelievers and are never said to be anything else. The unrepentant lost were judged according to what was written in the books. The fact that the books exist does not in anyway take away from the omniscience of God as it would take an omniscient God to compile the text. It establishes God's omniscience for unbelievers. (there is a reason after all that we term them unbelievers) I am not sure why it being a literal book is a problem.
As I see it US, heaven is a spiritual place, and there is nothing physical there at all. Which explains why having literal books is a problem.
But before you know it, you'll have the apostle eating little physical books, and I'm not sure that's found in the Apostles' Healthy Food Guide.
Revelation 10:10 KJV 10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
p.s I must admit that when I was out tracting once, a wiseguy took my tract
John UK wrote: US, methinks you are batting on a sticky wicket. ...
Thanks for your response. The difference I see is that in Revelation 1 the candlesticks are specifically said to represent the seven churches in Asia. In Revelation 20 the books are specifically said to be used for judgment of the unbelievers and are never said to be anything else. The unrepentant lost were judged according to what was written in the books. The fact that the books exist does not in anyway take away from the omniscience of God as it would take an omniscient God to compile the text. It establishes God's omniscience for unbelievers. (there is a reason after all that we term them unbelievers) I am not sure why it being a literal book is a problem.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: ...So to say no need for books because God knows everything is superfluous. I would think that seeing the books are opened at the judgment that they would be for those who are being judged to see that their judgment is just. I see the books as literal. Yes, not everything is literal in the book of Revelation, but not everything is allegorical either. If I tell you something is light as a feather, we both understand that means it didn't weigh much, not that it was literally that light. The analogy does not change the reality of the object that was described. Because the churches are said to be candlesticks (makes sense seeing we are compared to candles)does not mean they are not literal churches that existed when John penned the book.
US, methinks you are batting on a sticky wicket.
The candlesticks which John saw, were indeed candlesticks. But they were representative of seven Asian churches to whom Jesus was going to write letters.
Similarly, with the books John saw. They were representative (in our feeble human terms) of the knowledge God has of all our deeds and thoughts and even motives.
We talk of "washed in the blood" as if it were actual, rather than picture language.
In Genesis 9:13-16 God said He set a rainbow as a remembrance of the covenant He made. He did not say it was a remembrance for Noah (obviously it was) but for Him. We all have seen a rainbow. We all know that we serve an omniscient God. So to say no need for books because God knows everything is superfluous. I would think that seeing the books are opened at the judgment that they would be for those who are being judged to see that their judgment is just. I see the books as literal. Yes, not everything is literal in the book of Revelation, but not everything is allegorical either. If I tell you something is light as a feather, we both understand that means it didn't weigh much, not that it was literally that light. The analogy does not change the reality of the object that was described. Because the churches are said to be candlesticks (makes sense seeing we are compared to candles)does not mean they are not literal churches that existed when John penned the book.
95
There are a total of 134 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
stever: "
michael hranek
stever
thank for your post.
it reminds me that genuine..."
