The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem. .....the Church

[TCassidy]

He doesn't "own" all things.

He does own all things, by right of Creation. However, because he owns all things does not mean that He does not allow others some measure of control over those things He owns.

Psalm 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

You name the thousand hills and He owns the cattle on them. You name another thousand hills and He owns the cattle on them too.

One is not exclusive of the other.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Could you present an "allegory" in Revelation?

I haven't found one in the entire Bible yet.

Have to get going, hope all have a blessed day.


God bless.

Maybe that was a faux pas on my part. I did say figurative language.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Have you ever considered that to be an atheist, the a-theist first must admit "theism" that is, the existence of God.
To be an a-millennialist, one must first admit there is a Millennium. Funny thing about that.
You do agree then that by very definition, there is a one thousand year reign. You just (by definition) deny it.

The a-millennialist denies the 1,000 year reign here on earth, but sees it as ongoing right now. We see Him reigning now and in the consummation of all things, executing judgment on the condemned and gathers unto Himself the elect of God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

He did have control, you admit that in your own statement. And that control was under the Sovereignty of God. Same thing is true today. That there were limits remains true as well. This is true for both the unbeliever and the believer, for we are warned that Satan is walking to and fro as a lion, seeking those he might destroy. We have to resist Satan, right?


God bless.

He had limited access. That's not control, imo.

 

[blessedwife318]

Could you present an "allegory" in Revelation?

I haven't found one in the entire Bible yet.

Have to get going, hope all have a blessed day.


God bless.

All the allegory I have ever been taught in Revelation are from your camp ironically.
John represents the church
The land that the beast comes out of represents the Jewish nation
The sea that the other beast comes from represent gentile nations
The 24 elders represent the church.
The women represent Israel.
Just to name a few of the allegory i was taught.

By the way check out Gal 4

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[SovereignGrace]

All the allegory I have ever been taught in Revelation are from your camp ironically.
John represents the church
The land that the beast comes out of represents the Jewish nation
The sea that the other beast comes from represent gentile nations
The 24 elders represent the church.
The women represent Israel.
Just to name a few of the allegory i was taught.

By the way check out Gal 4

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Are you an amill now, Sister?

 

[blessedwife318]

Are you an amill now, Sister?

Yes DC argued me into that camp a while ago.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yes DC argued me into that camp a while ago.

Hallelujah!!

 

[blessedwife318]

Are you an amill now, Sister?

Ironically the more I have studied the Amill position from actual Amill people, and not just reading what those that oppose it say about it the more I'm discovering that the Amill people I read take the Bible more literally than the "literalist" camp does. It's been an Ironic study to say the least.

 

[DHK]

That this is just plain stupid!!

You're a literalist. Those locusts have those literal attributes. Satan is literally a dragon with seven heads and ten horns. When Christ speaks, a literal sword comes forth. Remember, you're a literalist.

Yes, I am a literalist. So the question is: When I read those chapters, I ask myself the question, what did John really see when he was transported to heaven? What was he trying to describe.

I will give you an example. Quite a few years ago I was on the mission field for a lengthy period of time with my family. CD players had not yet been invented when I left. We used cassettes. If you had told me before I left that when I came back I would be listening to music from a machine that: "would use flashing laser lights to record and read back information from the shiny metal discs...the only thing that touches the CD is a beam of light: the laser beam bounces harmlessly off the surface of the CD, so the disc itself should (in theory) never wear out.
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/cdplayers.html " Now if you had told me something like that I would say that you were crazy and out of your mind. That is mind-boggling. Yet when I came home, that is exactly what was happening.

John didn't have the vocabulary to describe what was in heaven; what he was seeing. He describes it with the vocabulary he has, especially when seeing things like locusts. What were they? I don't know. Maybe they were supernatural giant locusts created for a specific purpose by God, or perhaps he saw some modern warfare that looked like it. I don't know. I don't speculate. I only know the result.
Shortly after we read:
Rev 9:10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

 

[TCassidy]

Remember, you're a literalist.

Yes, I too am a literalist. But being a literalist does not equate to being stupid. Literal contrasts with Allegorical or Spiritualization.

Literal interpretation simply means "literal where literal makes sense and metaphorical where metaphorical makes sense."

The literal hermeneutic is not literalistic or the application of wooden literalism as some antagonists argue. Rather, it lets Scripture say what it is meant to say in its normal plain meaning. It accepts that any given passage has only one meaning and does not have a multitude of meanings. When a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal usage. Letterism, is a straw man proffered by those those who oppose a consistent literalism. A literal hermeneutic is the only hermeneutic that is able to maintain a God centered Biblical interpretation because it seeks to honor what God said rather than a human interpreter seeking to find "deeper" meaning. Other systems give alternate meaning to Scripture based on the interpreter’s imagination or type of literature rather than accepting God’s word for what it is. The literal hermeneutic is consistently literal. Using the literal system consistently is the key and what sets all other systems apart from it.

A good example of such an alternate system would be the Dispensational Hermeneutic which forces, to some extent, its conclusion on the understanding of the text of scripture.

Surely you are not arguing against the Literal Hermeneutic in favor of the Dispensational Hermeneutic?

 

[DHK]

bold mine

Are You really are saying that even though God created all things, He doesn't own all things?!?!?!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Who has the rights to one that has given himself over to Satan (i.e., a Satanist), God or the devil?
That answer should be obvious. You must be born again.

 

[TCassidy]

Have you ever considered that to be an atheist, the a-theist first must admit "theism" that is, the existence of God.
To be an a-millennialist, one must first admit there is a Millennium. Funny thing about that.

Sorry, but that is semantic nonsense. I don't believe in ghosts. That does not mean I had to believe in ghosts before I didn't believe in ghosts. "I voted for it before I voted against it."

 

[blessedwife318]

Who has the rights to one that has given himself over to Satan (i.e., a Satanist), God or the devil?
That answer should be obvious. You must be born again.

So just to be very clear you do not think God owns everything. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and think it was a typo but it looks like you are doubling down in declaring that God does not own everything.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yes, I am a literalist. So the question is: When I read those chapters, I ask myself the question, what did John really see when he was transported to heaven? What was he trying to describe.

I will give you an example. Quite a few years ago I was on the mission field for a lengthy period of time with my family. CD players had not yet been invented when I left. We used cassettes. If you had told me before I left that when I came back I would be listening to music from a machine that: "would use flashing laser lights to record and read back information from the shiny metal discs...the only thing that touches the CD is a beam of light: the laser beam bounces harmlessly off the surface of the CD, so the disc itself should (in theory) never wear out.
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/cdplayers.html " Now if you had told me something like that I would say that you were crazy and out of your mind. That is mind-boggling. Yet when I came home, that is exactly what was happening.

John didn't have the vocabulary to describe what was in heaven; what he was seeing. He describes it with the vocabulary he has, especially when seeing things like locusts. What were they? I don't know. Maybe they were supernatural giant locusts created for a specific purpose by God, or perhaps he saw some modern warfare that looked like it. I don't know. I don't speculate. I only know the result.
Shortly after we read:
Rev 9:10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

I saw a program once that said pretty much what you posted here. Could those locusts be helicopters? That was what they were wondering. I take comfort in knowing when He comes again, I'll be with Him. I have much affinity for the historic premillenialist view, minus the 1,000 years literal reign if Christ on terra firma. But if He literally reigns here, I have no problem with it, I just want to be with Him. As so do you, of course.

It's just that in my studies, I see Him reigning now, the millennium being ongoing as we speak.

 

[DHK]

Christ will set on David's throne forever?

Yes or no?

He will sit on David's throne for a thousand years.
After that will be the Great White Throne Judgment.
Shortly after that, as far as I understand Scripture, this earth will be destroyed and an new earth and a new heaven will be created.
His Kingdom, even in a new earth will be forever and forever. I look forward to that also.

 

[TCassidy]

John didn't have the vocabulary to describe what was in heaven; what he was seeing. He describes it with the vocabulary he has,

I agree. We see the same thing in Ezekiel. Over and over he uses the terms "like unto" or "with the appearance of" and words to that affect when describing the throne of God. (Okay, I admit it. I was tempted to type "thrown" just to be funny."

Human language is woefully inadequate to convey Heavenly Truth. So a description is given of something the reader already understands to indicate that which is being revealed.

 

[TCassidy]

Who has the rights to one that has given himself over to Satan (i.e., a Satanist), God or the devil?

God. He holds that person's very life in His hands.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Have you ever considered that to be an atheist, the a-theist first must admit "theism" that is, the existence of God.
To be an a-millennialist, one must first admit there is a Millennium. Funny thing about that.
You do agree then that by very definition, there is a one thousand year reign. You just (by definition) deny it.

The atheist denies the existence of God, both agree. But some atheists may have been taught God does not exist from their very birth. So they accepted what their parents told them as truth. Not saying this is fact, but many probably have been been deceived by their families.

 

[DHK]

I saw a program once that said pretty much what you posted here. Could those locusts be helicopters? That was what they were wondering. I take comfort in knowing when He comes again, I'll be with Him. I have much affinity for the historic premillenialist view, minus the 1,000 years literal reign if Christ on terra firma. But if He literally reigns here, I have no problem with it, I just want to be with Him. As so do you, of course.

It's just that in my studies, I see Him reigning now, the millennium being ongoing as we speak.

Then it wouldn't be a "millennium" by very definition of the word, would it?