Atonement ‘made’ …WHERE?

[scriptmemory]

The temple in heaven is a FIGURE and everything about it is FIGURATIVE. For example, the altar of incense is defined as "the prayers" of the saints ascending up to heaven (rather than being in heaven).

Lamb and earthly priesthood and service = Reality and Jesus Christ and His Priesthood = Figure?

Everything about it is figurative? As in heaven, the throne and the voice?

The figure was the temple on earth not the temple in heaven upon which it was based. The reality is Jesus and the temple in heaven. Isaiah saw the temple (Is. 6) Paul speaks of the temple (Hebrews 8-9) John REPEATEDLY says He sees the temple, which is in heaven, in which is a throne from whence came a voice.

The altar of incense is where the incense is offered with the prayers of the saints and is not "the prayers". Is this your example of exegesis? These are important details. You are obviously grasping for reasons to deny the very plain Bible teaching of Christ's intercession as a part of His priestly ministry if you are not even willing to look closely at the text.

The Bible says,
Heaven exists.
The Heavenly Temple exists.
The Heavenly Throne in the Heavenly Temple exists.
The Heavenly Voice exists from the Throne.
The Heavenly Person on the Throne exists from where comes the Heavenly Voice. (Rev. 16:17)

Pray, tell us why the temple can be deleted from existing reality and rest of the environment stay intact or of what the ark of the testament in Revelation is "figurative" in connection with judgment time of the dead in Revelation 11:

"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail."
Rev. 11:18, 19

 

[BobRyan]

DHK was kind enough to admit that he thinks the atonement happened at the cross - and that his thinking is limited to "payment" for debt instead of admitting to the full scope of Atonement found in Lev 16 where both the sin offering AND the work of cleansing done by the High Priest is included in the Bible context for the term.

So I responded -

Bob said:
That is a good statement on the concept of "Atoning sacrifice" that totally ignores the other aspects of atonement found in God's Word in Lev 16 regarding the "Day of Atonement".

And it is that same limited view -- where just the "Atoning Sacrifice" -- (i.e. the payment for the debt of sin made at the cross) is discussed and is found in 1John 2:2 "He is the Atoning SACRIFICE for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE World".

As our Calvinist friends point out - any Arminian who unwittingly limits the entire concept of Lev 16 Atonement to "just the atoning sacrifice" and ignore the High Priestly work found in Lev 16 -- is stuck either with universalism based on 1John 2:2 or else to completely ignore 1John 2:2 and make some wild claim to limited atonement.

No escaping that problem for Arminians that unwisely go down that blind alley. When this entire thing would be fine were they to just allow Lev 16 to speak to the entire scope of "Atonement".

There are no other aspects of the atonement that need to be looked at.
...
There is no such meaning as "Atoning Sacrifice."
...
The atonement was completed on the cross. The penalty has been paid. There is no such thing as an "atoning sacrifice."

Apparently that was the self-conflicted end of DHK's indepth study into the point above.

Oh well --

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible says,
Jesus walked on earth for forty days after He received "all power."

Stephen saw

Jesus "appeared" to Saul "in the way."

Jesus as seen of John

Therefore "the right hand" signifies power given to Christ as High Priest after His first ascension for His high priestly ministry in the very real sanctuary service. (Heb. 9:1)

Good points all.

In Heb 8:1-5 we are told that Jesus began his work as our High Priest when he went to heaven and that if He were on earth "he would not be a priest at all".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Pray, tell us why the temple can be deleted from existing reality and rest of the environment stay intact or of what the ark of the testament in Revelation is "figurative" in connection with judgment time of the dead in Revelation 11:

Why? Because temple doesn't always mean temple. In the verse you quoted "sanctuary" may have been a better translation. However, to demonstrate, the word "temple" is used 13 times in the Book of Revelation.

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (Revelation 3:12)
--What does it mean here, and is it speaking of a literal temple? If it is, then will the believer at the church of Philadelphia who overcomes "temptation" (vs.10), be transformed into a pillar of an actual temple? Maybe--like Lot's wife??? You keep speaking of a literal temple, right?

Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. (Revelation 7:15)
--Here the angel is describing to John who these are: martyrs that have come out of the tribulation. A couple of verses later it says that "the lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them."
Is this literal? Is Christ or God literally feeding these martyrs, and does He take the shape of a lamb? Is that our God? Again: literal or figurative?

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. (Revelation 11:1)
--Here the picture is literal, because John is told to measure the Temple which is on earth.

But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (Revelation 11:2)
--Again, the scene is on earth--the earthly temple. A specific time period also is given.

And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. (Revelation 11:19)
--What was the purpose of the temple of God on earth?
Does this have a similar purpose if taken literally? Or is this figurative of God's abode with God demonstrating his power and judgment, warning of his judgment to come. An earthly judgment has just finished. Now there are signs in the heavens--visible signs that indicate that something dreadful is about to happen. It is an introduction to the seventh trumpet, the third woe. It is being introduced slowly, dramatically, and figuratively.

And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. (Revelation 14:15)
--Is this a literal temple? If so, since when do angels have the priestly right to minister in the temple? The only priest in heaven is our high priest--Christ. Who else would be permitted to enter into the sanctuary? Thus the picture of a temple is thwarted here by the use of angels.

And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. (Revelation 14:17)
--See above. The temple was not a storehouse for weapons.

And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened: (Revelation 15:5)
And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles. (Revelation 15:6)
And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. (Revelation 15:8)
--Consider what is being said here. It is a picture. Seven angels, dressed like priests, ready to pour out the seven last plagues. One of the four beasts (living creatures like angels) gave unto these seven angels seven golden vials in which coals from off the altar were placed. Then incense was poured on the live coals to burn unto God. The final judgment of God has come. The temple now becomes a house of wrath and judgment until these seven plagues have been poured out upon the earth.
--This is no typical temple. Then comes the wrath of God in chapter 16.

And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. (Revelation 16:1)
--Again the temple is a place of wrath. That is not how the temple is pictured in the rest of the Bible.

And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. (Revelation 16:17)
--A place of accomplishment and victory in a time of war. This is not the typical temple, not a temple at all is it?

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. (Revelation 21:22)
--And finally we see why none of the above can be considered as heavenly temples--God himself is the Temple. There is no temple in heaven for the Lord is the Temple. The other mentions of "temple" are clearly figurative and symbolic in nature.

 

[DHK]

DHK was kind enough to admit that he thinks the atonement happened at the cross - and that his thinking is limited to "payment" for debt instead of admitting to the full scope of Atonement found in Lev 16 where both the sin offering AND the work of cleansing done by the High Priest is included in the Bible context for the term.

The OT era is finished. We are no more under the law. Lev.16 has little to do with this discussion. Christ atoned (past tense) for our sins.
1. You cannot demonstrate that this atonement took place in the OT, or had anything to do with the Day of Atonement. We do not live under the Levitical system.
2. You cannot demonstrate that this atonement still continues today. It is past. Christ declared it to be finished (John 19:30).

Apparently that was the self-conflicted end of DHK's indepth study into the point above.

You are right. I don't bother to contradict myself with the contradictory philosophies of others such as Ellen G. White.

 

[scriptmemory]

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (Revelation 3:12)
--What does it mean here, and is it speaking of a literal temple? If it is, then will the believer at the church of Philadelphia who overcomes "

To each of the seven churches in Revelation 1-3 Jesus' messages end with the invitation to "hear":

"he that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."
Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13

This invitation to understand is found spoken by Jesus in connection with his parables in: Matthew 11:15; 13:9; 13:43. The phrase "let him hear" is used in connection with parables in other parts of the Bible and in the Revelation 1 and 13 with various symbols and images as those from Daniel 7 in Rev. 13:9.

This is not an invitation to make "figurative" the real atoning sacrifice of Jesus, the high priestly ministry of Christ in Hebrews 8 and 9, or the work of intercession in the temple in Revelation.

However, we do need "ears to hear" what "pillar in the temple" means. David provides clues to what pillar may mean,

"One thing have I desired of the Lord One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple."
Ps. 27:4

Noting the bold above highlighting part of DHK's quote of Rev. 3:12 we remember we have established that John who has repeatedly documented seeing the temple in heaven during the Revelation of Jesus needs to say after the Holy City came down from God out of heaven to earth,

"I saw no temple therein"
Rev. 21:22

His declaration, "I saw no temple" is at the point after the city of God comes to earth and the earth is made new:

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."
Rev. 21:1, 2

The needs for a temple for humanity in the new earth are different at the point of fulfillment of the promise of Rev. 3:12 than they were in heaven. In heaven while Christ was still ministering His merits in the heavenly sanctuary for humanity there was still hope but at some point He executes justice (Mal. 3:5).

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."
Rev. 22:11

There will be no need for the ministration of temple services to bring us at one with God since no unrighteousness will dwell in the new earth.

"Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."
2 Peter 3:13

Isaiah saw the heavenly temple with God's throne in it in Isaiah 6.
Paul wrote extensively and persuasively about it.
John saw it for most of his vision, then stopped seeing it at the very end when there was no more need of forgiveness and Jesus became ruling king instead of ministering priest in Rev. 19.

Calvary is not "eye candy", the high priest is not "eye candy", God's throne is not "eye candy" in the temple. The temple is not "eye candy." The blood of bulls and goats, earthly tabernacle, symbolic priesthood and services were "eye candy" and no one was saved by them in the Old Testament. We are all saved by the reality which some of us try, for some odd reason to escape.

Any comments on the "figure" of the ark in Revelation 11:19?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by scriptmemory
Pray, tell us why the temple can be deleted from existing reality and rest of the environment stay intact or of what the ark of the testament in Revelation is "figurative" in connection with judgment time of the dead in Revelation 11:

DHK replies

Why? Because temple doesn't always mean temple. In the verse you quoted "sanctuary" may have been a better translation. However, to demonstrate, the word "temple" is used 13 times in the Book of Revelation.

Hint -- Heb 9:2 "sacred tent" - "tabernacle", Heb 8:2 is the "sanctuary" copy of the true "sacred tent".

The Bible uses the term for tabernacle, sanctuary, temple interchangably it does not negate the fact of a real sanctuary on earth modeled after the real heavenly sanctuary of Heb 8:2.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK was kind enough to admit that he thinks the atonement happened at the cross - and that his thinking is limited to "payment" for debt instead of admitting to the full scope of Atonement found in Lev 16 where both the sin offering AND the work of cleansing done by the High Priest is included in the Bible context for the term.

So I responded -

== Bob said:==
That is a good statement on the concept of "Atoning sacrifice" that totally ignores the other aspects of atonement found in God's Word in Lev 16 regarding the "Day of Atonement".

And it is that same limited view -- where just the "Atoning Sacrifice" -- (i.e. the payment for the debt of sin made at the cross) is discussed and is found in 1John 2:2 "He is the Atoning SACRIFICE for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE World".

As our Calvinist friends point out - any Arminian who unwittingly limits the entire concept of Lev 16 Atonement to "just the atoning sacrifice" and ignore the High Priestly work found in Lev 16 -- is stuck either with universalism based on 1John 2:2 or else to completely ignore 1John 2:2 and make some wild claim to limited atonement.

No escaping that problem for Arminians that unwisely go down that blind alley. When this entire thing would be fine were they to just allow Lev 16 to speak to the entire scope of "Atonement".
-------------

Originally Posted by DHK
There are no other aspects of the atonement that need to be looked at.
...
There is no such meaning as "Atoning Sacrifice."
...
The atonement was completed on the cross. The penalty has been paid. There is no such thing as an "atoning sacrifice."

Apparently that was the self-conflicted end of DHK's indepth study into the point above.

The OT era is finished. We are no more under the law. Lev.16 has little to do with this discussion.

That wild leap off the cliff of logic is not supported by 2Tim 3:16 "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God AND is profitable for doctrine".

My Bible has 66 books in it.

In Acts 17:1-5 and in 17:11 we see the "sola scriptura" principle of proving doctrine by OT scripture.

On other topics - other threads - our Catholic friends will ask that we ignore that point -- now DHK joins them??!!!

How odd that you reach that point so quickly DHK. Have you thought this through?

Lev 16 is the chapter where GOD speaks to the subject of "Atonement" in HIS teaching on the "Day of Atonement".

You say that God wants us to ignore His Word at that point -- as HE speaks to this doctrine.

Amazing!!

DHK
Christ atoned (past tense) for our sins.
1. You cannot demonstrate that this atonement took place in the OT

Nice spin doctoring - but totally irrelevant since even Paul says in 1Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER has been slain" at no point does Paul argue "Christ was not slain during passover on the OT so no sense in noticing the Passover teaching on the lamb of God as our substitutionary sin offering".

DHK - you cannot simply reach for any old short-sighted idea you find as a solution and expect it to hold up to careful review.

DHK
2. You cannot demonstrate that this atonement still continues today. It is past. Christ declared it to be finished (John 19:30).

1John 2:2 "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the whole world" - shows a completed atoning sacrifice at the cross. Payment made.

A point your self-conflicted argument will at times accept while rejecting it.

And interestingly enough - DHK does not respond to the problem that he is stuck either with the true Calvinist "limited atonement" fallacy or with universalism when he rejects the Bible teaching on Atonement found in Lev 16 where both the sin offering AND the work of the High Priest is included in the Bible meaning of the doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Oh, you are very good at avoiding the problems. Again, the candlesticks in Revelation 1 - where are they on earth or in heaven? Where are the candlesticks located when they were on earth? The candlesticks are located in the holy place so where is the holy place in chapter one? On earth or in heaven? Where is Jesus in Revelation 1? Is he on earth or in heaven.

Notice that even the description of Christ is related in similies "were as" and in metaphorical langauge. With such langauge there are mixtures of figures and literal. John sees Jesus in chapter one and Jesus is literal but the descriptions of him are a mixtures of similies and metaphors. John sees candlesticks but what he sees in the vision are simply figurative of the candlesticks as verse 20. John sees God on the throne in heaven but there are mixtures of metaphors and similies mixed in with what he sees and hears.

The temple in heaven and all of its furnature and how it is described is simply a mixture of figures (metaphors and similies). I believe it is figurative of the eternal purpose of redemption being carried out by the Triune God and angels. The finished atonement on earth is applied from heaven.

SO NOT EVERYTHING IN THE VISIONS IS FIGURATIVE but the temple and the furnature, the four beasts and 24 elders are figures in connection with the Trinue God executing the eternal covenant of redemption and reclaiming his creation.

For example, the man in the vision in Daniel 2 and the four beasts in Daniel 7 are all FIGURES of realities. The temple in heaven is a FIGURE of the everlasting covenant and its executiion by the Trinue God. Hence, God is literal, His voice is literal, heaven is literal but what John saw and provides for us in the visions in heaven and on earth of the literal God and literal voices are given "signified".

Lamb and earthly priesthood and service = Reality and Jesus Christ and His Priesthood = Figure?

Everything about it is figurative? As in heaven, the throne and the voice?

The figure was the temple on earth not the temple in heaven upon which it was based. The reality is Jesus and the temple in heaven. Isaiah saw the temple (Is. 6) Paul speaks of the temple (Hebrews 8-9) John REPEATEDLY says He sees the temple, which is in heaven, in which is a throne from whence came a voice.

The altar of incense is where the incense is offered with the prayers of the saints and is not "the prayers". Is this your example of exegesis? These are important details. You are obviously grasping for reasons to deny the very plain Bible teaching of Christ's intercession as a part of His priestly ministry if you are not even willing to look closely at the text.

The Bible says,
Heaven exists.
The Heavenly Temple exists.
The Heavenly Throne in the Heavenly Temple exists.
The Heavenly Voice exists from the Throne.
The Heavenly Person on the Throne exists from where comes the Heavenly Voice. (Rev. 16:17)

Pray, tell us why the temple can be deleted from existing reality and rest of the environment stay intact or of what the ark of the testament in Revelation is "figurative" in connection with judgment time of the dead in Revelation 11:

 

[Dr. Walter]

The point is you cannot give an intelligent response to his question! It is obvious that the overcomer cannot be regarded as a LITERAL "pillar" in a LITERAL temple in heaven and all your rhetoric has not overcome that problem at all.

You quote from scripture the parts you like and ignore the rest because it does support your error. I noticed again that you deny the literal explicit plain unambigous part of Revelation 21:19 that clearly states:

for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Notice the word "are" underlined above. My question is simple, "ARE" they the temple or "ARE" they not the temple in the New Jerusalem?

I have dealt with the first words of this text that you repeatedly quote and gave an interpetation that perfectly harmonizes with the latter part. You have not been able to admit the latter part but deny what it literally says.

Again, "ARE" they the temple in the New Jerusalem or "ARE" they not? John says they "ARE" and you say they "ARE NOT"

To each of the seven churches in Revelation 1-3 Jesus' messages end with the invitation to "hear":

This invitation to understand is found spoken by Jesus in connection with his parables in: Matthew 11:15; 13:9; 13:43. The phrase "let him hear" is used in connection with parables in other parts of the Bible and in the Revelation 1 and 13 with various symbols and images as those from Daniel 7 in Rev. 13:9.

This is not an invitation to make "figurative" the real atoning sacrifice of Jesus, the high priestly ministry of Christ in Hebrews 8 and 9, or the work of intercession in the temple in Revelation.

However, we do need "ears to hear" what "pillar in the temple" means. David provides clues to what pillar may mean,

Noting the bold above highlighting part of DHK's quote of Rev. 3:12 we remember we have established that John who has repeatedly documented seeing the temple in heaven during the Revelation of Jesus needs to say after the Holy City came down from God out of heaven to earth, His declaration, "I saw no temple" is at the point after the city of God comes to earth and the earth is made new:


The needs for a temple for humanity in the new earth are different at the point of fulfillment of the promise of Rev. 3:12 than they were in heaven. In heaven while Christ was still ministering His merits in the heavenly sanctuary for humanity there was still hope but at some point He executes justice (Mal. 3:5).

There will be no need for the ministration of temple services to bring us at one with God since no unrighteousness will dwell in the new earth.

Isaiah saw the heavenly temple with God's throne in it in Isaiah 6.
Paul wrote extensively and persuasively about it.
John saw it for most of his vision, then stopped seeing it at the very end when there was no more need of forgiveness and Jesus became ruling king instead of ministering priest in Rev. 19.

Calvary is not "eye candy", the high priest is not "eye candy", God's throne is not "eye candy" in the temple. The temple is not "eye candy." The blood of bulls and goats, earthly tabernacle, symbolic priesthood and services were "eye candy" and no one was saved by them in the Old Testament. We are all saved by the reality which some of us try, for some odd reason to escape.

Any comments on the "figure" of the ark in Revelation 11:19?

 

[scriptmemory]

Oh, you are very good at avoiding the problems. Again,

There are plenty of things that I write that others ignore, think about, answer later etc.

"Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words, there is more hope of a fool than of him." Prov. 29:20

In fact, there's plenty of answers I've given already that should keep you busy for quite a while if you use the same standard to measure yourself as me.

You appear to think that everyone must drop everything and answer your questions. Do some research yourself and reconcile these things. And while you're at it, maybe you might want to apply these types of questions to the incarnation: how EXACTLY did it happen. There's enough evidence I've shared so far to keep you busy...

In the mean time I will be glad to think about what you have wrote, and I do appreciate it. Every time I get another viewpoint on something the Bible must either refute or defend it and so I welcome all your ideas.

By the way, an obvious symbol like the image in Daniel 2, beasts in Daniel 7, the 7 candlesticks among which Christ walks, the seven stars in His right hand, have interpretations given in the text: kingdoms, God's Kingdom, seven churches, angels.

If anything is the true candlestick in the heavenly sanctuary, if I had to choose I would say it's the seven spirits that are before His throne, a reality similar to Jesus and the lamb and a heavenly temple vs. an earthly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Typical response of a person who cannot respond to clear and solid arguments. Typical answer of a person who is avoiding the issues because he simply cannot respond to them in a substantive way. When you can't answer the objections then don't worry you can always attack the person who made you uncomfortable!! Good job!

There are plenty of things that I write that others ignore, think about, answer later etc.
In fact, there's plenty of answers I've given already that should keep you busy for quite a while if you use the same standard to measure yourself as me.

You appear to think that everyone must drop everything and answer your questions. Do some research yourself and reconcile these things. And while you're at it, maybe you might want to apply these types of questions to the incarnation: how EXACTLY did it happen. There's enough evidence I've shared so far to keep you busy...

In the mean time I will be glad to think about what you have wrote, and I do appreciate it. Every time I get another viewpoint on something the Bible must either refute or defend it and so I welcome all your ideas.

By the way, an obvious symbol like the image in Daniel 2, beasts in Daniel 7, the 7 candlesticks among which Christ walks, the seven stars in His right hand, have interpretations given in the text: kingdoms, God's Kingdom, seven churches, angels.

If anything is the true candlestick in the heavenly sanctuary, if I had to choose I would say it's the seven spirits that are before His throne, a reality similar to Jesus and the lamb and a heavenly temple vs. an earthly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

By the way, an obvious symbol like the image in Daniel 2, beasts in Daniel 7, the 7 candlesticks among which Christ walks, the seven stars in His right hand, have interpretations given in the text: kingdoms, God's Kingdom, seven churches, angels.

My point exactly! The candlesticks are defined by context and they are not defined as the "seven spirits" before the throne as that is a symbolism of the Holy Spirit. The intepretation of the candlesticks here and the altar of incense in chapter 8 clearly tell you that the furnature in the "temple" in heaven is not to be taken literally but are symbolic of other truths. The fact that Christ is seen walking in the midst of the candlesticks which are located in any LITERAL temple in the holy place demands that the Temple in heaven is not to be taken LITERAL as the interpretation of the candlesticks proves the holy place Jesus is walking in is not a LITERAL temple at all as no LITERAL temple is partly ONE EARTH (where the seven stars and seven candlesticks are -v.20) and partly IN HEAVEN.

The FIGURE of a temple in heaven is representative of God's APPLICATION on earth of God's eternal covenant of redemption and the reclaiming of His creation based upon the finished work of Atonement by Christ on the cross.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The point is you cannot give an intelligent response to DHK's question! It is obvious that the overcomer cannot be regarded as a LITERAL "pillar" in a LITERAL temple in heaven and therefore neither the pillar is literal or the temple in heaven is literal. All your rhetoric has not overcome that problem at all.

You quote from scripture the parts you like and ignore the rest because it does support your error. I noticed again that you deny the literal explicit plain unambigous part of Revelation 21:19 that clearly states:

for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Notice the word "are" underlined above. My question is simple, "ARE" they the temple or "ARE" they not the temple in the New Jerusalem?

I have dealt with the first words of this text that you repeatedly quote and gave an interpetation that perfectly harmonizes with the latter part. You have not been able to admit the latter part but deny what it literally says.

Again, "ARE" they the temple in the New Jerusalem or "ARE" they not? John says they "ARE" and you say they "ARE NOT"

 

[scriptmemory]

Typical response of a person who cannot respond to clear and solid arguments. Typical answer of a person who is avoiding the issues because he simply cannot respond to them in a substantive way. When you can't answer the objections then don't worry you can always attack the person who made you uncomfortable!! Good job!

Quote-less accusation noted.

Isaiah saw the heavenly temple (Is. 6). Daniel saw the heavenly temple filled with ten thousand times ten thousands and thousands and thousands of angels (Dan. 7:10, 13). Malachi saw the heavenly temple (Mal. 3:1). Paul wrote about the reality of the heavenly temple (Heb. 8-9, 12). John saw the heavenly temple throughout Revelation and noted he DIDN'T see one in the Holy City in earth made new. (Rev. 21:19).

We are missing some important Bible evidence if the claim that Revelation 21:19 concerns the Heavenly temple and the pillar in the temple being symbolic and so there is no such thing as a temple seen by many prophets and Bible writers in heaven is to be seriously considered.

1. The evidence that Revelation 21:19 speaks of the temple not being seen in heaven instead of not being seen in the earth made new. (Rev. 21:1). — Needed.

2. The evidence that the Lamb who stands on Mt. Zion (Rev. 14:1) whose Father's name is written in the foreheads of the 144,000 is not a real person because Lamb is obviously a symbol, like the pillar in the temple. — Needed.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, you are very good at avoiding the problems. Again, the candlesticks in Revelation 1 - where are they on earth or in heaven? Where are the candlesticks located when they were on earth? The candlesticks are located in the holy place so where is the holy place in chapter one? On earth or in heaven?

This is easy.

The 7 candlesticks (7 lampstands) of Rev 1 are in the holy place of the temple in heaven.

On earth it was a single lampstand with 7 lamps in the holy place of the earthly temple.

Walter
Where is Jesus in Revelation 1? Is he on earth or in heaven.

Hint: Jesus is in heaven.

As Paul points out in Heb 8:2 - the earthly sanctuary was patterned after the original - the heavenly sanctuary.

Walter said
Notice that even the description of Christ is related in similies "were as"

Hint: Jesus is real. And Jesus is really in heaven.

The metaphorical language describes the real appearance of the real Jesus in Real heaven seen in this real vision given to the real John in the real book of Revelation.

Walter
John sees candlesticks but what he sees in the vision are simply figurative of the candlesticks as verse 20.

Vs 12 says "I saw seven golden lampstands" - no figurative language used at that point.

Walter said -
The temple in heaven and all of its furnature and how it is described is simply a mixture of figures (metaphors and similies). I believe it is figurative of the eternal purpose

hint for the reader: There is no basis in all of scripture where someone "sees a lampstand" which is really not there at all but just an "eternal purpose". Just because one is reading Revelation does not mean they are free to ignore the text and simply "make stuff up".

Trust the Word of God -

Hebrews 8
1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.

Heb 9
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened: (Revelation 15:5)
And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles. (Revelation 15:6)
And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. (Revelation 15:8)


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We are missing some important Bible evidence if the claim that Revelation 21:19 concerns the Heavenly temple and the pillar in the temple being symbolic and so there is no such thing as a temple seen by many prophets and Bible writers in heaven is to be seriously considered.

Indeed. In fact the Rev 21 statement is indicating a new state of things where no temple is needed - thus the argument from Rev 21 is clearly for a temple prior to that point and no temple by that time.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Quote-less accusation noted.

Isaiah saw the heavenly temple (Is. 6). Daniel saw the heavenly temple filled with ten thousand times ten thousands and thousands and thousands of angels (Dan. 7:10, 13). Malachi saw the heavenly temple (Mal. 3:1). Paul wrote about the reality of the heavenly temple (Heb. 8-9, 12). John saw the heavenly temple throughout Revelation and noted he DIDN'T see one in the Holy City in earth made new. (Rev. 21:19).

We are missing some important Bible evidence if the claim that Revelation 21:19 concerns the Heavenly temple and the pillar in the temple being symbolic and so there is no such thing as a temple seen by many prophets and Bible writers in heaven is to be seriously considered.

1. The evidence that Revelation 21:19 speaks of the temple not being seen in heaven instead of not being seen in the earth made new. (Rev. 21:1). — Needed.

2. The evidence that the Lamb who stands on Mt. Zion (Rev. 14:1) whose Father's name is written in the foreheads of the 144,000 is not a real person because Lamb is obviously a symbol, like the pillar in the temple. — Needed.

You are still denying the latter half of Revelatin 21:19 even exists or means what it says.

Your argument is circular. You argue that in Isaiah and Daniel means literal temple so Revelation means literal temple, when in fact, you have not proven that what Isaiah and Daniel saw is any more literal and different than what John saw. Isaiah and Daniel tells what they saw in vision but John explains it. I will go with John's explanation over yours.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is easy.

The 7 candlesticks (7 lampstands) of Rev 1 are in the holy place of the temple in heaven.

On earth it was a single lampstand with 7 lamps in the holy place of the earthly temple.

I dont think so! The seven lampstands Jesus walked in the midst of are seven churches ON EARTH and therefore for Jesus to be walking in the midst of these lampstands he must also be on earth because he is where the lampstands are located and they are seven churches on earth:

Rev. 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Rev. 1:20The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Hint: Jesus is in heaven.

Hint: Jesus is God and can be on earth and in heaven at the same time (Jn. 3:13). Here Jesus is ON EARTH among the seven churches. Hence, the lampstands are SYMBOLS and the churches are LITERAL. The Holy Place is a SYMBOL his redemptive purposes among the churches are LITERAL.

As Paul points out in Heb 8:2 - the earthly sanctuary was patterned after the original - the heavenly sanctuary.

That is right! But the temple in heaven is not a building but is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb (Rev. 21:19b). What John sees in vision in heaven is FIGURATIVE of the eternal redemptive Purpose of the Triune God being reclaiming heaven and earth from evil.

Hint: Jesus is real. And Jesus is really in heaven.

Hint: Jesus is real and Jesus is really on earth and in heaven (Jn. 3:13) but in Revelation chapter one he is where the seven lampstands are because he is walking "in the midst of them" and they "are" the seven churches and the seven churches "are" ON EARTH. You are literalizing what is symbolical.

The metaphorical language describes the real appearance of the real Jesus in Real heaven seen in this real vision given to the real John in the real book of Revelation.

The Metaphorical language describes the SPIRITUAL appearance of Jesus ON EARTH among the SYMBOLIC lampstands which are the LITERAL churches and so the SYMBOLIC holy place where these lampstands "are" is the SYMBOLIC holy place ON EARTH.

Vs 12 says "I saw seven golden lampstands" - no figurative language used at that point.

He is relating what he saw in a vision just as Daniel related what he saw in Daniel 2 or Daniel 7 or what John later saw in Revelation 13:1. That does not mean what he saw was LITERAL but could be FIGURATIVE of LITERAL truths or realites. You are assuming what he saw was the literal reality when Jesus tells you point blank it was not (Rev. 1;20) but only FIGURATIVE of LITERAL churches.

hint for the reader: There is no basis in all of scripture where someone "sees a lampstand" which is really not there at all but just an "eternal purpose". Just because one is reading Revelation does not mean they are free to ignore the text and simply "make stuff up".

Hint for the reader: Bob has just called Jesus Christ a liar because Jesus Christ explicitly says what John saw was not literal but figurative of "seven churches" (Rev. 1:20).

Trust the Word of God -

 

[Dr. Walter]

Indeed. In fact the Rev 21 statement is indicating a new state of things where no temple is needed - thus the argument from Rev 21 is clearly for a temple prior to that point and no temple by that time.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob is half right which means he is half wrong and the false doctrine is built on half truths.

However, that does not negate the latter half of verse 19 that the Lord God almighty and the Lamb "are" the temple in it.

There is no need for a temple in the new creation because redemption has been accomplished. However, this temple is not located in merely the new creation but is found in the New Jerusalem that came down from heaven and the New Jerusalem precedes the New Creation. The almight God and the lamb did not BECOME the temple in the New Jerusalem but were the temple in the New Jerusalem before it 'came down" into the new creation. There is no other temple in the New Jerusalem and all others on earth and what men saw in visions in heaven are simply figures or types of Almighty God and the Lamb. The two references "almighty God" and "the lamb" confer the idea of God's eternal power with His eternal covenant of redemption (the lamb).