|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rapture?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've just re-read those passages and can't see why any of them have to be interpreted as referring to different categories of people. It seems pretty much to me that it's talking about the redeemed in general, not to sets and subsets.
I really don't see what you seem to be seeing.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The answer to your question is clearly that distinct groups are delineated according to these scriptures. I am not pretending to understand any of the HOW questions here but you can read them yourself and come to your own conclusions.
I find myself wanting to bring to bear what cliffdweller's been saying about PSA on the thread in Purgatory: quote:
if we see PSA as a metaphor, the fact that it breaks down at some point is not problematic, and the fact that there are other biblical metaphors only helps. But when you treat PSA as a transaction rather than a metaphor, you end up with some really problematic results which requires this sort of linguistic gymnastics.
I think the same applies to this discussion of the body of believers.
The idea of a "bride" is a metaphor as made abundantly clear by the fact that the city is described as being like a bride in Rev 21:2: quote:
And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband
If you push that metaphor to extremes it breaks. If you seek to identify as distinct every single metaphor and term for the body of believers and the events of the eschaton (e.g. "Day of the Lord"; "bride", "wife", "wedding guest", etc.), you also end up with some really problematic results.
To me it seems unthinkable that the end-time vision of Revelation 21 could mean anything other than God redeems one people, in one category, whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life, in contrast to and in victory over divided, rivalrous Bablyon and all it stands for.
I suspect that deep down you might actually think that too, despite your protestations.
Because when pressed above, on the one hand you admit that you are quote:
not so insistent about the categories
And on the other when I ask you a direct question about whether the holy city coming down out of heaven as seen in Revelation 21 is all or just part of all believers, you seem unable to quite bring yourself to assert that it's just a part of them.
Indeed, you'd have to explain why the city's gates have inscribed on them (v12) quote:
the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites
and quote:
the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb
What is this vision if it is not the united people of God, Jew and Gentile from across the ages, redeemed on the same basis of the blood of the Lamb on the same terms and with the same inheritance?
Can you really take in that passage and say the vision is of just part of all believers? If so, on what grounds?
As Steve says, the only reason you need to split them up is because of a) taking every metaphor too literally and b) the artificial divisions dispensationalism imposes on the text, chief among them the need to deal with what happens, in that system, to those converted during the Tribulation after the "stage one" of the parousia.
[ 14. January 2017, 21:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
You asked, Jamat, what I make of Daniel 2; 44 and the 'kingdom' mentioned there;
quote:
44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands--a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. Dan 2:44-45 (NIV)
The context is Daniel's explanation of Nebuchadrezzar's dream about the multi-metallic statue, in which the legs of iron are generally agreed to represent Rome and the 'feet of clay' the eventual brittle failure thereof.
And in that time God did set up a kingdom, the kingdom of Jesus. The Messiah came to claim in God's name not just the kingship of Israel, but the whole world. That was a 'future kingdom' to Daniel, who lived at a time when the original Davidic kingdom was being destroyed; but to us it is very much present.
It is the kingdom Jesus describes to Pilate in John 18, the kingdom 'not of this world' or as Daniel describes it, 'not made with hands' which ever since Jesus has been growing and spreading despite the efforts of the world and the devil. It is that kingdom in which "everyone who is of the truth hears (Jesus') voice" - with this being one of those cases where 'hear' means more than just the sound hitting one's ear, it also means that the hearers receive and act on what they hear.
This kingdom culminates in the ultimate victory that leads to the New Heaven and the New Earth after the Judgement. But I don't see that Daniel there tells us anything at all about the details of the time of the Second Coming.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You asked, Jamat, what I make of Daniel 2; 44 and the 'kingdom' mentioned there;
quote:
44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands--a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. Dan 2:44-45 (NIV)
The context is Daniel's explanation of Nebuchadrezzar's dream about the multi-metallic statue, in which the legs of iron are generally agreed to represent Rome and the 'feet of clay' the eventual brittle failure thereof.
And in that time God did set up a kingdom, the kingdom of Jesus. The Messiah came to claim in God's name not just the kingship of Israel, but the whole world. That was a 'future kingdom' to Daniel, who lived at a time when the original Davidic kingdom was being destroyed; but to us it is very much present.
It is the kingdom Jesus describes to Pilate in John 18, the kingdom 'not of this world' or as Daniel describes it, 'not made with hands' which ever since Jesus has been growing and spreading despite the efforts of the world and the devil. It is that kingdom in which "everyone who is of the truth hears (Jesus') voice" - with this being one of those cases where 'hear' means more than just the sound hitting one's ear, it also means that the hearers receive and act on what they hear.
This kingdom culminates in the ultimate victory that leads to the New Heaven and the New Earth after the Judgement. But I don't see that Daniel there tells us anything at all about the details of the time of the Second Coming.
Some pretty big assumptions in this Steve. How has this stone smashed all the other worldly kingdoms and filled the earth? You pretty well have to spriritualise world politics. Can't see this working in terms of context. Mind you I do see a spiritual kingdom operation in the current church age. Just can't see it as working with Daniel's interpretation which involves real life political entities.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
If you push that metaphor to extremes it breaks. If you seek to identify as distinct every single metaphor and term for the body of believers and the events of the eschaton (e.g. "Day of the Lord"; "bride", "wife", "wedding guest", etc.), you also end up with some really problematic results
Not sure of course what it all means but one cannot reinvent what the texts says. Methinks if The Holy Spirit didn't want wedding guests why have them. Metaphor signifies realities. As I say not pretending to understand it. quote:
Can you really take in that passage and say the vision is of just part of all believers? If so, on what grounds
the question is about Rev 21, the names of the apostles in the new Jerusalem?
I think you are dealing here with spiritual realities. Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth. I think the church is founded on the Apostles as Paul teaches quite clearly in Eph 2:20. That is the reality shown in Rev 21. The reference is to the NT church, the bride.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
[x-post]
I pretty much agree with Steve's interpretation of Daniel here, so let me give my take on your comments. quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
How has this stone smashed all the other worldly kingdoms and filled the earth?
Where does Steve "assume" this has already happened, rather than that it will ultimately happen?
Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 15:24-26 Paul sees the final subjection of earthly kingdoms to the reign of Christ not as something in the past from our point of view but as an eschatalogical event that clearly has not yet come to pass: quote:
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Revelation also paints the same picture. Bablyon is (Revelation 17:18) "the great city that rules over the kings of the earth", embodying the world and its institutions without God.
It is at the end of the age that Bablyon falls and all the kings are dismayed at her sudden, eschatalogical collapse ("in one hour your judgement has come", 18:10).
The King of kings and Lord of lords (19:16) rides forth from heaven with a sword "with which to strike down the nations" (19:15).
In place of Babylon the heavenly Jerusalem comes down out of heaven and "the nations shall walk by its light" (v24).
(And which, I contend, again, represents all God's people from every age, just as Bablyon represents the sum total of everyone and everything opposed to God).
The stone has indeed become a mountain that has filled the earth - at the eschaton. That is our end-time hope.
quote:
You pretty well have to spriritualise world politics
Why? As Steve points out, the stone is explicitly said in Daniel's description of the dream to be qualitatively different to the other kingdoms, v34: "cut out, not by human hands", and it is not part of the statue which is generally held to represent a series of earthly, political kingdoms.
As Steve points out this description fits perfectly with Jesus' description of his Kingdom being "not of this world".
quote:
Mind you I do see a spiritual kingdom operation in the current church age. Just can't see it as working with Daniel's interpretation which involves real life political entities.
In view of all the above, why should the statue representing real life political entities rule out the stone representing the not-of-this-world Kingdom of God?
[ 15. January 2017, 06:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think the church is founded on the Apostles as Paul teaches quite clearly in Eph 2:20.
The New Testament entity is indeed founded on the apostles, for the obvious reason that the apostles were not around in the Old Testament. quote:
That is the reality shown in Rev 21.
If that is what we are shown in Rev 21 then why on earth does the city feature not only the twelve names of the apostles (it will be interesting to see which ones, by the way...) but also the names of the twelve tribes of Israel?
You might also like to consider that in the visions of heavenly worship in Revelation we are shown 24 elders.
I also can't help noticing that adding 12 apostles to 12 Israelite tribes gives 24 and that this is a further suggestion, at the very least, that the crowd of every nation tribe and tongue that Revelation depicts as worshipping the Lamb in Heaven is made up of believers from both Old and New testaments, headed up by their repsective representatives - and not split into categories.
[ 15. January 2017, 06:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth.
What grounds do you have for asserting that Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth - and denying that it could also jump around in terms of time, rather than progressing in strictly linear fashion as dispensationalism assumes?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Metaphor signifies realities.
Google definition of "metaphor": quote:
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
This as opposed to a "signifier" which seeks to refer as directly and unambiguously as possible to the corresponding "signified" (see here).
Metaphor is a way of describing a hard-to-understand concept by approximation ("it's like a...").
Nobody here is denying an underlying spiritual reality behind terms such as the "bride of Christ" or the "city of God" or as I mentioned before "the bosom of the Father", or indeed the "bowels of Christ", etc.
But the relationship between such metaphorical terms and the concept they are being borrowed to describe is utterly different from the relationship between the words "apple" or "smile" and the concepts they are used, as unambiguously as possible, to describe.
To think that each separate metaphor refers directly, literally, to the object or action it is referring to such that there is a distinct object or action for each metaphor is to commit a basic error of comprehension.
It confuses the linguistic role of metaphor and that of signifier.
[ 15. January 2017, 07:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable
My point is that in any figure, the image or comparison depicts something real. In the case of the Bride, marriage commitment, exclusiveness. In the case of the wedding guests, relationship of a different sort, friendship, witness or whatever. The church is in a special,exclusive relationship with Christ. As I say, not comprehensible this side of eternity.
Steve and yourself are just plain wrong about Daniel re the stone that fills the whole earth. If you spiritualise that kingdom you have to spiritualise Greece and Rome. You have far more problems and contradictions with the arbitrary nature of that than I do with saying that Christ is going to have a literal reign on the Earth just like Rome did. IOW you cannot justify NOT taking it literally as the context requires. Jesus did represent a spiritual kingdom as well of course but not relevant to this passage.
[ 15. January 2017, 09:11: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth.
What grounds do you have for asserting that Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth - and denying that it could also jump around in terms of time, rather than progressing in strictly linear fashion as dispensationalism assumes?
Come up hither and I will show you things that will be hereafter.
Where is 'up hither'?
The vision regularly refers to things on the earth separately to the things occurring in heaven or in the spiritual dimension. Don't know why you consider dispensationalists see it as linear narrative. They certainly do not.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
further suggestion, at the very least, that the crowd of every nation tribe and tongue that Revelation depicts as worshipping the Lamb in Heaven is made up of believers from both Old and New testaments, headed up by their repsective representatives - and not split into categories
not sure what you mean here. Which verse? If it is the great multitude from every tribe people and tongue etc does that specify OT saints specifically? If so where?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that in any figure, the image or comparison depicts something real.
It doesn't so much depict as 'attempt to describe', 'refer to'.
Again, nobody is disputing that the metaphor refers to a spiritual reality.
quote:
In the case of the Bride, marriage commitment, exclusiveness. In the case of the wedding guests, relationship of a different sort, friendship, witness or whatever.
These are not "depictions" of the "reality" of a bride or of the "guests" but descriptions of the attributes one might associate with the literal subjects here being used metaphorically.
It is an abuse of language to think that every attribute of the subject used as a metaphor applies to the subject it is being used to describe.
If I say my love is like a red red rose that does not mean bits of her are pink and smell nice and other bits are green and spiky, nor does it mean I should check her regularly for greenfly.
Nor does it mean that if I also say my darling is like the morning star that necessarily means I am describing a different person or category (or that she is small, twinkly, very distant and full of gas).
As I tried to explain before, the one thing a metaphor does not do is "signify" in the lingustic sense of the word.
It's supposed to evoke a general idea. If you read it alongside other, similar metaphors, it adds depth to the concept that the author is attempting to get across. If you push it to its literal limits, you break it.
quote:
The church is in a special,exclusive relationship with Christ. As I say, not comprehensible this side of eternity.
More troubling in terms of orthodoxy is how in your scheme of things you explain, biblically, the relationship between Christ and all the categories of believer you hold not to form part of this special, exclusive relationship. Are their names in the Lamb's book of life?
quote:
Steve and yourself are just plain wrong about Daniel re the stone that fills the whole earth. If you spiritualise that kingdom you have to spiritualise Greece and Rome.
Why? I have pointed out where in the text it says that the stone representing the kingdom is qualitatively different from the statue; indeed, it is a different object entirely.
If you are serious about taking the Scripture seriously you have to explain what is wrong with my reasoning and provide an alternative hermeneutic based on the text itself: it's not enough just to assert we are "plain wrong"; it's not plain at all.
quote:
You have far more problems and contradictions with the arbitrary nature of that than I do with saying that Christ is going to have a literal reign on the Earth just like Rome did.
Your problems start with Jesus saying "my kingdom is not of this world". How do you explain this declaration? quote:
Jesus did represent a spiritual kingdom as well of course but not relevant to this passage.
Oh, that declaration by Jesus was "spiritual", but is "not relevant" here? Why on earth not?
quote:
Don't know why you consider dispensationalists see it as linear narrative. They certainly do not.
I suspect, for instance, that you see the events depicted in Revelation 20 as following those in Revelation 19, chronologically, and preceding those of Revelation 21, do you not?
quote:
If it is the great multitude from every tribe people and tongue etc does that specify OT saints specifically? If so where?
I noted that the New Jerusalem in Rev 21 featured both the names of the twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel.
That's both OT saints and NT apostles in one single entity - something you have yet to acknowledge or comment on.
I further noted that 12 (apostles) and 12 (tribes) = 24, which just happens to be the number of the elders worshipping the Lamb.
Granted they are not said to be part of the great crowd of people but they seem to be leading their worship.
Granted also to make that 12+12 = that particular 24 is something of a leap of imagination but it is one that makes perfect sense to me, especially in the light of Hebrews 12, which you have also yet to comment on, and which refers to the 'church of the first-born' and seems, at least implicitly, to refer to believers of all ages.
Not to mention all the places in the NT already discussed which emphasise the unity, established by the work of Christ and worked out in the NT church, of Jew and Gentile in one body, as opposed to ongoing division and discontinuity.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Going back to Daniel 2;34
quote:
34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. Dan 2:34-35 (NIV)
I don't think it's either me spiritualising the politics or a matter of that stone having to represent a 'literal' kingdom exactly like Babylon, Rome or Greece.
I can't see it as a massive 'stretch' to think that a stone specifically described as 'not made with human hands' can refer to a kingdom of a different kind to the worldly kingdoms of Babylon, Greece and Rome - indeed a 'kingdom not of this world' exactly as Jesus said he would set up. A kingdom of the 'born again' throughout the world, seen wherever Jesus is heard and followed/trusted/obeyed.
That kingdom has already had enormous influence in the world, even among peoples not professedly Christian, and despite the all too often failings of its own citizens at times. And it is a growing kingdom and for all we know may yet have many years of growth to go. I believe it may yet 'fill the earth' before Jesus' return. Like I said, a future kingdom to Daniel, a present and still growing kingdom to us.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
don't think it's either me spiritualising the politics or a matter of that stone having to represent a 'literal' kingdom exactly like Babylon, Rome or Greece
But Steve,the rest of your post does precisely this. It sounds to me like you believe in dominionism, ie that the gospel will take over the world and usher in the eternal kingdom. I loved this idea for a while. So did the Christians of the 19th century. And then WW1 happened. quote:
@Eytychus:
I say my love is like a red red rose that does not mean bits of her are pink and smell nice and other bits are green and spiky, nor does it mean I should check her regularly for greenfly
And the point? I think we both know what metaphor is and does quote:
all the categories of believer you hold not to form part of this special, exclusive relationship
I have continually said that all believers of any ilk DO have a relationship with the Lord. ISTM you think that it's not fair on a dog that it wasn't born a cat. quote:
Why? I have pointed out where in the text it says that the stone representing the kingdom is qualitatively different from the statue; indeed, it is a different object entirely
This is not relevant to the real point which is pretty clear. But.. the statue represents all the gentile world kingdoms. They were real political entities and still are. The stone represents the kingdom made without hands,i.e. Not human in origin, that will replace them..as geopolitical entities. You have in fact no exegetical or inferential grounds for saying one part of the interpretation of the dream is qualitively different from another. quote:
our problems start with Jesus saying "my kingdom is not of this world". How do you explain this declaration
By pointing out that this is not the only kingdom he speaks about. Just consider the Lord's Prayer."Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done UPON EARTH..etc" quote:
suspect, for instance, that you see the events depicted in Revelation 20 as following those in Revelation 19, chronologically, and preceding those of Revelation 21, do you not?
Possibly, I do not claim to fully grasp the order of the messages here. However, overall I see the whole thing as multi layered as do most commentators. quote:
Hebrews 12, which you have also yet to comment on, and which refers to the 'church of the first-born' and seems, at least implicitly, to refer to believers of all ages.
ISTM that Heb 12:22-24 speaks of 2 groups at least. There is the 'general assh embly' possibly a general term for all as you say. Then there is the church of the first born i.e. The dead NT saints. Then there are the spirits of righteous men made perfect. That seems a separate group or why mention them, probably OT saints but if you go back to v1 then the great cloud of witnesses suggests all of these together. I think I see all these as the people currently in heaven but not all one category. quote:
not to mention all the places in the NT already discussed which emphasise the unity
I am not disputing the overall unity and have been perfectly clear about this.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think we both know what metaphor is and does
I think your assertion that "a metaphor signifies a reality" is mistaken for reasons I have tried to explain.
Repeatedly, you treat biblical metaphors as signifiers that each refer to a distinct "signified", in other words you think each must refer to a separate concept, each with its own distinct identity and significance. This is clear from your understanding of Hebrews 12: quote:
'general assembly' possibly a general term for all as you say. Then there is the church of the first born i.e. The dead NT saints. Then there are the spirits of righteous men made perfect. That seems a separate group or why mention them, probably OT saints but if you go back to v1 then the great cloud of witnesses suggests all of these together. I think I see all these as the people currently in heaven but not all one category.
This is certainly not how I understand metaphor to work, so whatever you think metaphor is or does it's not a view I share.
quote:
quote:
all the categories of believer you hold not to form part of this special, exclusive relationship
I have continually said that all believers of any ilk DO have a relationship with the Lord.
You have dodged the direct question again. Sure, you continue to reiterate that but you also assert quote:
The church is in a special, exclusive relationship with Christ
and what I asked you was quote:
how in your scheme of things you explain, biblically, the relationship between Christ and all the categories of believer you hold not to form part of this special, exclusive relationship.
And even more specifically, in view of the vision in Revelation 21, quote:
Are their names in the Lamb's book of life?
Are the names of all believers of any ilk in the Lamb's book of life? Yes or no?
(Bear in mind these are all those who are in the New Jerusalem which features all the names of the apostles and those of the tribes of Israel and is seen coming down out of heaven "as a bride")
quote:
ISTM you think that it's not fair on a dog that it wasn't born a cat.
Are you implying God prefers some people over others on the basis of their birth origin? If not, what are you implying?
quote:
quote:
Why? I have pointed out where in the text it says that the stone representing the kingdom is qualitatively different from the statue; indeed, it is a different object entirely
This is not relevant to the real point which is pretty clear.
You're doing it again. You can't simply say "the main point is pretty clear" and then not say what the main point is. quote:
By pointing out that this is not the only kingdom he speaks about. Just consider the Lord's Prayer."Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done UPON EARTH..etc"
There is a lot of interpretive room between Dominionism and the innovative suggestion that Jesus has more than one kingdom. quote:
I am not disputing the overall unity and have been perfectly clear about this.
You haven't been perfectly clear at all.
You keep waving your protestations of "unity", but at the same time you keep going on about some categories of believer having a "special relationship" and others having the misfortune to be born dogs and not cats. You divide the people of God into bride, wife, guests, assembly of the first born, the sprits of righteous made perfect, people converted during the tribulation by 144,000 Jewish evangelists and so on, and insist on all these being separate categories from different dispensations and in various relationships, the majority it would seem non-special relationships, yet to be defined or explained, with Christ.
I can't see any unity in that at all. Where is the "one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:4)?
I just can't make head or tail of a system that manages to be so complicated as to ignore if not overturn what seems to me to be overwhelmingly simple and obvious.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
God prefers some people over others on the basis of their birth origin? If not, what are you implying
This is it? God has favourites? No, I do not think what I have said ever implies this. You seem to necessarily see difference as qualitative. I can't think why. I'd probably prefer to be a wedding guest than a bride. Free food,fewer strings attached.
Regarding metaphor, like any figurative device it depicts realities beyond itself if you want to split straws over what is a signifier be my guest, it doesn't change anything.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Are the names of all believers of any ilk in the Lamb's book of life? Yes or no?
who knows at this point but I'd expect so. Jesus is the great unifier of all things, the Father has put all authority into his hands as it says in John 14-16 and he is the 'lamb'
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
God has favourites? No, I do not think what I have said ever implies this.
You said that the church was in a "special relationship" with Christ. If by "special" you don't mean "preferential", what do you mean? quote:
I can't think why. I'd probably prefer to be a wedding guest than a bride. Free food,fewer strings attached.
Are you seriously making this comparison with respect to different people's standing with the Lord depending on which dispensation they happened to be in?
quote:
Regarding metaphor, like any figurative device it depicts realities beyond itself if you want to split straws over what is a signifier be my guest, it doesn't change anything.
Yes it does. Normally, language attempts a one-to-one correspondence between a signifier ("apple") and the "signified" (the red/green fruit that grows on trees).
Metaphors don't do that but that is how you seem to treat them.
quote:
quote:
Are the names of all believers of any ilk in the Lamb's book of life? Yes or no?
who knows at this point but I'd expect so.
so how come, in your scheme of things, these people are also those said to be the only ones allowed to enter the city/bride coming down out of heaven? (Rev 21:27)?
You have been steadfastly maintaining up till now that this entity is only the NT church, with which Christ has a "special relationship", to the exclusion of all other categories of believer (the terms of whose relationship with Christ, "non-special" for want of any other descriptor, have yet to be explained).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
by Jamat;
quote:
by Steve Langton;
don't think it's either me spiritualising the politics or a matter of that stone having to represent a 'literal' kingdom exactly like Babylon, Rome or Greece
But Steve,the rest of your post does precisely this. It sounds to me like you believe in dominionism, ie that the gospel will take over the world and usher in the eternal kingdom. I loved this idea for a while. So did the Christians of the 19th century. And then WW1 happened.
Err - NO!
The point is that it's not me that does the 'spiritualising' - it's Daniel when he makes clear that the kingdom following the iron/clay kingdom is 'not made with hands'; and it's Jesus himself when he says that his kingdom is 'not of this world'.
And it's the writer of Hebrews, who in 12; 22 writes as a Jew to Jews who have put their faith in Christ that in becoming Christians/joining the Church...
quote:
you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. 25 See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, "Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." 27 The words "once more" indicate the removing of what can be shaken--that is, created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our "God is a consuming fire." Heb 12:22-29 (NIV)
A "a kingdom that cannot be shaken" sounds remarkably like Daniel's "kingdom which... shall stand sovereign forever".
And again in Heb 11; 16 (and remember to read the context back to at least v8) Abraham is portrayed as seeing beyond the promised earthly inheritance to 'a better, that is a heavenly, country'.
Far from telling the Hebrew readers of a separate destiny for Jews, he seems determined to portray them as saved by joining the Church, Jesus' kingdom of "everyone" of all races who hear and follow Him.
Yes, I do see a possibility that at some point there will be a revival that will see the earth in the present era, before Jesus' return, effectively filled with believers. But I don't see that as 19thC 'liberals' saw it.
[coding edited for clarity - I hope - Mamacita, Host]
[ 16. January 2017, 03:26: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
The point is that it's not me that does the 'spiritualising' - it's Daniel ...A "a kingdom that cannot be shaken" sounds remarkably like Daniel's "kingdom which... shall stand sovereign forever.
only trouble is you have to prove Daniel's kingdom is not a real physical one. Context suggests it is. I believe that after the second coming God sets up a literal political and humanly administrated kingdom on the earth called the millennium kingdom that lasts 1000 years.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
youu have been steadfastly maintaining up till now that this entity is only the NT church, with which Christ has a "special relationship", to the exclusion of all other categories of believer (the terms of whose relationship with Christ, "non-special" for want of any other descriptor, have yet to be explained
yes and you have steadfastly saying that despite scriptural evidence this can't be true I suspect because in your thinking it is not a fair go to have different eternal states. Mind you, I have never suggested for a second any group is extra privileged; that is your idea. It is a strike against Calvinism though if some people make choices that lead to greater holiness. Me, I'd just be just grateful to be anywhere in heaven.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
you have steadfastly saying that despite scriptural evidence this can't be true I suspect because in your thinking it is not a fair go to have different eternal states.
It's not about fairness so much as my reading of the NT which to me overwhelmingly suggests one people of God from throughout history at the eschaton.
You have admitted that you think believers of all ilk probably have their names in the Lamb's book of life; as I have just pointed out, all these same people are depicted as being in the heavenly city/bride of Revelation 21 (featuring as it does the names of the apostles and those of the tribes of Israel...).
This admission on your part contradicts your earlier assertion that this city/bride in Rev 21 represents only the NT church which you say is in a "special, exclusive" relationship with Christ.
If all those whose names are in the Lamb's book of life can come in to the city, it doesn't - it represents everyone.
Indeed, the city of Rev 21 illustrates the unifying work of Christ. The advent of the New Jerusalem stands in contrast to the divisive judgement on Babel. It marks the apotheosis of the unifying work first symbolised by the blessing at Pentecost, in which the curse of Babel was reversed by everyone understanding the praises of God in his or her own language.
References to unity ("one shepherd, one flock") in diversity (the Church expresses "the manifold, many-faceted wisdom of God") run throughout the NT.
It is all about breaking down walls; dispensationalism is all about establishing artificial partitions - eternally. I know which hermeneutic makes more sense to me.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
only trouble is you have to prove Daniel's kingdom is not a real physical one. Context suggests it is. I believe that after the second coming God sets up a literal political and humanly administrated kingdom on the earth called the millennium kingdom that lasts 1000 years.
1) In this case the term 'real physical' is ambiguous. The Church of Christ is both a spiritual kingdom 'not of this world', but also at the same time a kingdom consisting of real physical people who are very much 'in the world'.
It is however a 'kingdom' working on very different principles to the worldly kingdoms among which it exists....
2) I'll come back to the issue of the 'millennium' later, but I note that by definition it can't be the kingdom Daniel describes. The kingdom of Daniel 2 "shall stand sovereign forever"; the 'millennium' is by definition temporary, lasting only 1000 years.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus writes: It is all about breaking down walls; dispensationalism is all about establishing artificial partitions - eternally. I know which hermeneutic makes more sense to me
You refer to Rev 21:9-27 in which John is shown the heavenly Jerusalem after being told that what he is seeing is the bride,the wife of the lamb. In v27, it states nothing unclean can enter the city, only those whose names are written in the lamb's book of life.
First, this whole vision is pretty amazing as we really have no experience that allows us to relate to such things so my comments are guesswork based on the text. I am not suggesting I understand what is going on here.
The city contains the presence of God as a temple so it is a place of God's abode. If it is a city, then it has dwellers who are somehow conflated with the bride wife image, though that is my inference from the text. We see in it perhaps a way of depicting God in the midst of his people,the bride.
But there are also people who visit. These are the ones mentioned in v27 whose names are in the lamb's book of life.
In addition to this the city is said to be a light to the nations of the earth and kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. This suggests to me that if there are still nations on earth that this must be during the millennium kingdom where Jesus is said to be shepherding the nations with a rod of iron. IE He has political power on the earth at this time.
What comes to mind here are the words of Paul where Christ is said to be handed the Kingdom by God the father when all enemies are defeated.
What is relevant to your post is that there is certainly evidence in the text for different categories of people,all of whom acknowledge and serve God at this time in the future. There are the city dwellers, ie the bride/wife,there are visitors and there are still nations with kings on the earth.
Just one final comment from me. If you wish to continue this discussion could you please be less accusatory,aggressive and interrogatory. I am getting wearied with answering accusations post after post and then being accused again of not answering accusations.
[ 16. January 2017, 20:34: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
During the course of my non-antipodean day I have come to the conclusion that Martin60 is right* inasmuch as Occam's razor is missing from your hermeneutic, and very much a part of mine.
This is I think the fundamental point at which our hermeneutics part company, and it's proving to be so fundamental as to render further discussion impossible.
If I challenge your position, essentially on the basis of Occam's Razor ('Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'), you respond with the creation of what I would describe, echoing Martin, as needless complexity.
For every simple explanation I offer, you open a thousand additional layers. If I tackle one of them, there are a thousand more beneath just that one.
(For instance, in your above post: "There are the city dwellers, ie the bride/wife,there are visitors and there are still nations with kings on the earth").
I can no longer afford to go down the rabbit hole chasing each and every one of them.
To me simplicity is the essence of the gospel. Your explanations are anything but simple.
It's like Inception meeting an M.C. Escher drawing. I'm dizzy and I think it's time I woke up.
#non, je ne regrette rien#**
<turns back on spinning top and walks out into the garden>
==
*This does not constitute an endorsement of the value judgements in that post.
**"No, I regret nothing"
[ 16. January 2017, 21:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
#non, je ne regrette rien#
And here I was, expecting Edith Piaf...
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
To me simplicity is the essence of the gospel
I certainly agree with you here. The real bottom line is the redemption and restoration of a flawed cosmos containing flawed humans marred by sin which is potentially achieved by Christ.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: It is however a 'kingdom' working on very different principles to the worldly kingdoms among which it exists
True Steve. I think I would add that it has dimensions of reality in common with worldly kingdoms while being governed by opposite laws. Thinking here of love,giving and unselfishness primarily.
Jesus does treat the kingdom in a paradoxical kind of way. Where he is obeyed in this world now, his kingdom operates through the work of the Holy Spirit. I am used to thinking of this as "mystery kingdom" in that it operates in the midst of our current political, economic and physical realities. But he also speaks of a renewed cosmos kind of kingdom. IOW we look forward to see a different kind of administration at some stage in the future. IOW this world will not last forever in its present form.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Absolutely, Jamat, none of which necessitates a convoluted and overly literal interpretation to be imposed on apocalyptic literature such as The Book of Revelation.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've just re-read those passages and can't see why any of them have to be interpreted as referring to different categories of people. It seems pretty much to me that it's talking about the redeemed in general, not to sets and subsets.
I really don't see what you seem to be seeing.
Well, I suppose that comes back to the back story we both bring and I agree with your points about that. We cannot stand back too far from the contingent world views. In order to communicate at any level, one has to acknowledge the non negotiables of the other party. In my case I frustrate others because they think I am seeing things in overly concrete terms. I do however, get some sort of feel for your journey away from those kind of readings though. With a faith journey it is sometimes clinging to the realities and distinguishing these from the smoke and mirrors.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Steve Langton: It is however a 'kingdom' working on very different principles to the worldly kingdoms among which it exists
True Steve. I think I would add that it has dimensions of reality in common with worldly kingdoms while being governed by opposite laws. Thinking here of love,giving and unselfishness primarily.
Jesus does treat the kingdom in a paradoxical kind of way. Where he is obeyed in this world now, his kingdom operates through the work of the Holy Spirit. I am used to thinking of this as "mystery kingdom" in that it operates in the midst of our current political, economic and physical realities. But he also speaks of a renewed cosmos kind of kingdom. IOW we look forward to see a different kind of administration at some stage in the future. IOW this world will not last forever in its present form.
Like Gamaliel, totally agree with your basic point here. And like Gamaliel, I don't accept that this requires the convoluted scheme of Rapture/Tribulation/"Third Coming of Jesus"/Millennial Kingdom and only after that the Judgement and the new heavens and new earth.
Everything you say above can be satisfied by the traditional scheme of one Second Coming of Jesus at the end of the current age, followed by judgement and restoration in an eternal kingdom.
All the other complexities are not truly in Scripture but result from a 19th century interpretative error which continues to pile one unnecessary complexity on another to keep it going. Abandon that error and the need for all that complexity simply evaporates....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, and I 'get' why you feel it's important to stress or hang onto the interpretations you've arrived at, Jamat.
It all depends on where we draw the line on our non-negotiables. Wherever my journey is leading it's all within the broad framework of historic, creedal Christianity - which doesn't stipulate a particular view of eschatology in terms of detail as a non-negotiable.
The non-negotiables for me are the Trinity, the deity of Christ and all the other aspects that are touched on in the Nicene Creed.
Holding to a dispensationalist schema isn't mentioned there, nor does the Creed stipulate whether we should be pre, post or a- millenial in the way we understand these things.
It's all very well saying, 'Well, that's all very well good but look at the scriptures ...' because people have arrived at various conclusions from looking at the scriptures. That doesn't devalue or undermine the scriptures, it's simply to acknowledge that it's possible to derive different points of view from them.
I don't see these things in terms of a straight-forward binary distinction between full-on biblical fundamentalism (or 'Church fundamentalism' which is the RC or Orthodox equivalent) on the one hand and some kind of full-on, no-holds barred uber-subjective liberalism on the other.
I agree about smoke and mirrors, but it seems to me that it's always easier to see someone else's smoke and mirrors than it is our own. I'd suggest there's a lot of smoke and a lot of mirrors going on in a dispensationalist interpretative schema.
Smoke gets in your eyes ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
During the course of my non-antipodean day I have come to the conclusion that Martin60 is right* inasmuch as Occam's razor is missing from your hermeneutic, and very much a part of mine.
This is I think the fundamental point at which our hermeneutics part company, and it's proving to be so fundamental as to render further discussion impossible.
If I challenge your position, essentially on the basis of Occam's Razor ('Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'), you respond with the creation of what I would describe, echoing Martin, as needless complexity.
For every simple explanation I offer, you open a thousand additional layers. If I tackle one of them, there are a thousand more beneath just that one.
(For instance, in your above post: "There are the city dwellers, ie the bride/wife,there are visitors and there are still nations with kings on the earth").
I can no longer afford to go down the rabbit hole chasing each and every one of them.
To me simplicity is the essence of the gospel. Your explanations are anything but simple.
It's like Inception meeting an M.C. Escher drawing. I'm dizzy and I think it's time I woke up.
#non, je ne regrette rien#**
<turns back on spinning top and walks out into the garden>
==
*This does not constitute an endorsement of the value judgements in that post.
**"No, I regret nothing"
Ain't no value judgement. It's a simple fact; axiomatic. More is less. Making sh*t up is not smart.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Wght the plural?
What is Wght?
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
