SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Make it simple

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Not that it matters a hill of beans to you or anyone else Ron, but I don't agree with you on this one, except for the last sentence. That last sentence is good.

I don't think there are special graces that only the Apostles had, (except for your last sentence), that we have not also been promised by Jesus. That idea sounds a little Catholic to me.

The Spirit of Truth's job is the same with ALL of His children and His works 'through us' are the same (only we limit that) and these signs shall accompany "them who believe in MY Name" "the works that I do, ye shall" ..... etc. etc.
Only our "self" consciousness/centeredness keeps us from demonstrating the life of Christ as He would have His Life manifested on earth through us. And His "Truth" preached, being from His Spirit of Truth. He 'wants' The Whole of Truth to be known and preached in the world ... so He would not withold what He is from us, He can't withold what He is from us ... He IS The Truth.

We can't write one Chapter into the Bible, but we can believe the 'Spirit of Truth' will do His Work in leading us into all truth and even show us things to come ... IF our "wills" (preconceived notions) allow. Only 'we' hinder what all that He wants us to be or have in Him or how we're used of Him.

I appreciate many of your works, quite a bit and have grown to respect you because of the Godhead thread, as in All to His Glory.
Thanks.

 2006/1/30 12:22
IRONMAN
Member



Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS

 Re:

bro Ron

you wrote

Quote:
Ask yourself the question...
Do I believe that Christ is literally holding seven stars?
Do I believe that there are literally seven spirits before his throne?
Do I believe that there is a literal lamb with seven literal eyes and seven literal horns?
Do I believe in a literal beast which rises from the ocean?
Do I believe in a literal 12000 from every tribe of Israel with Dan omitted?



John was in the Spirit when he was shown these things right? so he saw them as they were in fact in the Spirit. we may not see them in the natural but in the Spirit, Christ was/is holding the seven stars in His hand, and walking among the 7 candlesticks, the beast does come out of the sea etc. now these things may not appear in the natural as they do in the Spirit but the Revelation is indeed literal in the Spirit.

why would the Lord say He called out 12000 from each tribe to total 144000 if that wasn't the number He really meant? :-?

in the numbering is Jacob's 12 sons in genesis 49 these are the names mentioned: reuben, simeon, levi,judah, zebulun, issachar, dan,gad,naphtali,joseph and benjamin and asher. this is when jacob says his last words to them all before he dies. before that jacob blesses manasseh and ephraim. how is it then that in numbers chapters 1 and 7 at the census of the children of israel and the presentation of the offerings to the Lord of the leaders of the tribes, joseph and benjamin's names do not appear but instead manasseh and ephraim appear? when the land is divided up, all the names appear except for joseph.

i don't know about you bro Ron but i'm lost as to why the Lord would have it so, i've not asked Him about it though.

what is it to us if He should decide not to list the names of benjamin and joseph at the census (He did literally do this), or the name of joseph at the division of the land and then not list dan in revelation 7? :-?

perhaps you can help me figure that one out :-? :-?


_________________
Farai Bamu

 2006/1/31 0:35Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Ironman

Quote:
John was in the Spirit when he was shown these things right? so he saw them as they were in fact in the Spirit. we may not see them in the natural but in the Spirit, Christ was/is holding the seven stars in His hand, and walking among the 7 candlesticks, the beast does come out of the sea etc. now these things may not appear in the natural as they do in the Spirit but the Revelation is indeed literal in the Spirit.

I may get into trouble for this... oftentimes the words of scripture are not aimed at our head but at our hearts. This is why I so often say 'Bible words don't have definitions, they have histories'. We are not intended to construct a mental picture of the descriptions found in the Revelation but we are to react to them at the level of our inner consciousness. You say 'John saw them as they were in the Spirit'; certainly he did, but he saw them 'as they were, in the Spirit' in the specific word-pictures which were best designed to speak to those who needed to hear. Notice with the letters to the 7 churches how each time the 'writer' introduces himself differently:
[b]Ephesus:[/b] "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; "

[b]Smyrna:[/b] "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; "

[b]Thyatira:[/b] "Rev. 2:18 (KJVS) And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; "

[b]Sardis:[/b] "Rev. 3:1 (KJVS) And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead."

[b]Philadelphia:[/b] "Rev. 3:7 (KJVS) And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; "

[b]Laodicea:[/b] "Rev. 3:14 (KJVS) And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; "Of course, He is all of these things but He "speaks to our condition" as the Quakers used to say. That means he doesn't just lob words into space but that He applies them particularly to where we are. My old Bible College principal used to say that 'Jesus stood for 'Just Exactly Suits Us Sinners'. He just Exactly Suits Us Saints' too. He reveals Himself in unique roles at unique times.

Words evoke memories and emotions and the book of the Revelation was not written to people 'with time on their hands and a peculiar aptitude for solving puzzles' but to a panting, huddling flock who were at risk of their lives. They did not 'need' a timetable of events for the distant future but a 'word in season' which would touch them deeply and evoke memories of God's faithfulness and power. This would be far too simplistic but I can sum up the book of the Revelation in a single six single-syllable word sentence...[b]"God is still on the throne".[/b] The 'sign-language' of the Revelation is designed to communicate that truth again and again and again. (The word 'throne/thrones' permeates the whole book. Rev. 1:4; 3:21; 4:2-6,9-10; 5:1,6-7,11,13; 6:16; 7:9-11,15,17; 8:3; 12:5; 14:3,5; 16:17; 19:4-5; 20:4,11; 21:5; 22:1,3. In fact, it uses the word 'throne/s' more than twice as frequently as any other book in the Bible)

Your phrase 'literal in the Spirit' might be interpreted to mean 'there are literally seven Spirits before the throne, but the word 'seven' is sign-language for 'completeness' in the Revelation; it is used constantly...Rev. 1:4,11-13,16,20-2:1; 3:1; 4:5; 5:1,5-6; 8:2,6; 10:3-4; 11:13; 12:3; 13:1; 15:1,6-16:1; 17:1,3,7,9-11; 21:9. Do I think this book is designed just for 'seven churches' No. Do I think He only hold 'seven' churches in his right hand. No. Do I think there is actually a 'lamb with seven horns and seven eyes'? No. Do I believe in a literal 'great red dragon having seven heads and seven crowns? No. Do I believe in the truth which these images stir in my heart? Passionately!


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/1/31 4:35Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Ron:

I bleive you are correct in asserting the particular context of the promises mentioned in John. That is the promise to the diciples that the comforter would, "bring to their rememberance all things which He had said. And thus we have the gospels, etc.

But what was specific to them also finds a general application as well. These things are found and repeated and applied to all the saints in the epistles.

John tells us in 1 JOhn "you have no need that anyone should teach you but you have an annointing... Speaking of the Annointing Spirit.

Paul prays that "they would be given a Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him, the eye of their hearts being enlightened, etc.

Paul prayed that they be strengthened by His Spirit into the inner man... That they may be made strong to comprehend and to know the knolwege surpassing love of Christ.

Every exprience of Christ Paul had He labored that those in his care would enter into the same as well. And by experience of Christ I don't mean particular outward manifestations such as Christ appearing to Him from the heavens but the experiences of Christ as their indwelling Life and all sufficient supply. All of Paul's outward experience were to lead Him into the inward reality of Christ. And this is the burden of all the epistles.

Speaking of many of these things in John 17 the Lord said, "Father, I pray not for these alone, but also for all those who shall believe into me through their word, that They may be One...

Graftedbranch

 2006/1/31 8:26Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
Do I think this book is designed just for 'seven churches' No. Do I think He only hold 'seven' churches in his right hand. No. Do I think there is actually a 'lamb with seven horns and seven eyes'? No. Do I believe in a literal 'great red dragon having seven heads and seven crowns? No. Do I believe in the truth which these images stir in my heart? Passionately!



Quote:
This is why I so often say 'Bible words don't have definitions, they have histories'.



Really scrambling to find any word at the moment.
Thank you Ron.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2006/1/31 9:15Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
Really scrambling to find any word at the moment.



Why can we not just take the words of John in the opening of Revelation?

Rev. 1:1 "The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to Him to show to His slaves the things which must quickly take place; and He made it known by signs.."

We are told by John that these things are communicated by signs.

I like the footnote in the RcV:

"The revelation of this book is composed mainly of signs, i.e., symbols with spiritual significance, such as the seven lampstands, signifying the churches; the seven stars, signifying the messengers of the churches, etc. Even the New Jerusalem is a sign, signifying the ultimate consumation of God's economy. This book, then is a book of signs through which the revelation is made known to us."

If we let scripture interpret scripture, we will be spared much confusion.

If we approach the book in the way it is intended, then our question will be, "Lord, what do these signs signify?" In this way the book will be opened up to us.

Graftedbranch

 2006/1/31 9:34Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Graftedbranch's

Quote:
I bleive you are correct in asserting the particular context of the promises mentioned in John. That is the promise to the diciples that the comforter would, "bring to their rememberance all things which He had said. And thus we have the gospels, etc.

But what was specific to them also finds a general application as well. These things are found and repeated and applied to all the saints in the epistles.??John tells us in 1 JOhn "you have no need that anyone should teach you but you have an annointing... Speaking of the Annointing Spirit.


I think the setting of the verses we are using makes it crystal clear. “These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
(John 14:25-26, KJVS)This is a very specific statement to bring to the remembrance of the disciples the things that Christ has specifically said to them. I think it is important to get the sense of the context earlier context too.“Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till [u]thou[/u] hast denied me thrice. Let not [u]your[/u] heart be troubled: [u]ye[/u] believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told [u]you[/u]. I go to prepare a place for [u]you[/u].”
(John 13:38-14:2, KJVS)I really don't know how you folk not using the KJV will ever see these kinds of things ;-) but notice the switch from the singular 'thou' to the plural 'you'. He is not now speaking to the disciples as individuals but the group. He continues in this use of the plural right through this passage with the exception of his words to Philip where he reverts to 'thou' then switching back to 'you' “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest [u]thou[/u] then, Shew us the Father? Believest [u]thou[/u] not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto [u]you[/u] I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”
(John 14:9-10, KJVS) It is this sense of the body of his disciples which prevails through this section culminating in the plurals...“These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
(John 14:25-26, KJVS)It is the body of the apostles/disciples which is in view at this point and I think we do well to notice that this was not a personal promise to an individual but a corporate promise to a group of men.

It is true that there are measures in which we may apply these words to our own comfort but the main purpose of them here is to authenticate the later writings of the apostles and those who were endorsed by them. The subsequent section in John 16 follows the same pattern.“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”
(John 16:12-13, KJVS) This is another verse which may be received as a personal encouragement but the thrust of the verse is that the 'now' of their current experience would have to be transformed by the coming of the Spirit. The reasons why they could not 'bear' what he wanted to say to them were many I suspect, but it is noteworthy that again we are in the territory of the plurals, 'you'.

This theme of collective promise and responsibility is seen in the other verse you quoted.
Quote:
John tells us in 1 JOhn "you have no need that anyone should teach you but you have an annointing... Speaking of the Annointing Spirit.

In 2 and 3 John we have the singulars 'thee' and 'thou' but not in 1 John. Here it is not said that 'thou hast an anointing' but that 'ye have an anointing'. Neither does it say 'you have anointing[u]s[/u]. There is safety in the multitude of counsellors. This is why we need to take notice of the whole church of Christ worldwide and down the centuries. This why we need to read Calvin and Fox and Wesley. In the specifics I doubt that anyone would want to say that, as individuals, any of these men were 'infallible'. They most certainly had need for 'teachers' as do we all but the teachers are part of the body which has received 'the anointing'. It is also important to note that, as far as I am aware, nowhere does the New Testament refer to an individual 'anointing'. The oil from our great Melchizedekian high-priest has flowed from the head to the body; there is only one anointing and all his children share in it.

Another famous verse used to support the idea of 'infallible' individuals is Paul's statement "but we have the mind of Christ'. Notice, again however that he does not say 'I have the mind of Christ' (1 Cor 2:16) God's guidance and blessing upon our lives and his personal words to our hearts are very precious blessings but these promises in the John 14-16 discourse are laying the foundation for the canon of scripture and we must not mistake their purpose.

The importance of the 'faithful carriers' of the truth is found again in Christ's prayer in John 17. Where prayer is made for just two kinds of people:“I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.”
(John 17:9, KJVS)

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;”
(John 17:20, KJVS)Apparently Christ has only prayed for those whose faith is based on the words of his apostles. My personal revelations, right or wrong, have no such prayer backing.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/1/31 10:55Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Ironman's

Quote:
why would the Lord say He called out 12000 from each tribe to total 144000 if that wasn't the number He really meant?

This is a really important question and the answer has to do with the whole philosophy of how we interpret the literally genre known as 'apocalyptic'. There are different kinds of writings in the scripture; narrative (story line), poetic, didactic (teaching), apocalyptic. The word 'revelation' in Greek is "apokalupsis" which simply means an 'taking off the cover'. Bible students interpret the poet genre is a less literal sense egPsa. 98:8 (KJVS) Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful together

Is. 55:12 (KJVS) For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.I don't think I have ever met anyone who thought that Psalm 98 that the 'floods' have hands or that they can clap them. We might expect the poetic genre in the Psalms but it is clear that the prophet Isaiah is employing the same kind of genre in the predictions of the future. Why would be interpret Psalm 99 figuratively but Isaiah literally?

We have to keep our eyes open because Isaiah's prophecies do contain 'literal predictions' and the Psalms, even though being of the poetic genre, also contain literal statements. We have moved into the realm of interpretation of the scriptures. We may have different brethren who are equally strong on the 'inspiration' of the scripture but who differ in the way they interpret that scripture. eg...“Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all [u]interpret[/u]? I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he [u]interpret[/u], that the church may receive edifying. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may [u]interpret[/u]. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one [u]interpret[/u].”
(1Cor. 12:30; 14:5,13,27, KJVS)...the word 'interpret' here obviously means to give the sense of what was spoken in an 'unknown language'. But the word is also used in “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [u]expounded[/u] unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”
(Luke 24:27, KJVS)
and some versions will use the word 'interpret' here.“And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”
(Luke 24:27, ASV)Now it is obvious that in Luke's gospel he is not using the word in the sense of 'translating' from one language into another but Christ is 'giving the sense' of what those ancient scriptures had said. The word translated 'interpret' in the above references is 'di[u]ermeneuo[/u]". We can see the word 'hermeneutic' here and 'hermeneutic's is the study of the way in which scripture is to be 'interpreted'.

One of our 'friends' here on SI occasionally accuses me of being a 'literalist'; he thinks I am too literal in my 'interpretation' of scripture. I have no doubt that there are folks here who don't think I am 'literalist' enough.;-) There is a general consensus on SI that the scriptures were verbally inspired and are without error but we also have some folks who do not believe that to be true. For most of us when difference emerge they are due to different principles of 'hermeneutics' (and sometimes to no hermeneutics at all!)

The question remains how do we 'hermeneut' (interpret) the apocalyptic genre? The is another equally important question 'were these 'revelations' given to provide a time-table for the future so that we would know what was going to happen? Here is an interesting verse relating to the purpose of prophecy:“Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.”
(John 13:19, KJVS) Apparently some future predictions are given to that when they are fulfilled we shall believe in Christ's power and person. These 'predictions' were not given to warn or to prepare a schedule of future events but so that when they were fulfilled we would know that these things had not taken God by surprise. It sounds to me as thought that sense might play in the Revelation. These things are not given as predictions so that we could create our time-tables.

I need to get onto the 12000, so I will leave this here...


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/1/31 11:05Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
It is also important to note that, as far as I am aware, nowhere does the New Testament refer to an individual 'anointing'. The oil from our great Melchizedekian high-priest has flowed from the head to the body; there is only one anointing and all his children share in it.



Amen brother, I believe you have the right sense here. There is only one Anointing and only One anointing Spirit. And we all share in this One anointing Spirit.

IT is obvious in the context of 1 John that He could not be implying that we as individuals have no need of any teaching from any other source as that would render even his own epistle irrelevant and unneeded.

IT would also undermine the need of any at any time to preach and teach and minister Christ at all. And those who take this verse to imply they can be a lone individual with no need of the Body of Christ are quite mistaken. And those who boast that "I only read the Bible and don't read anyone else" are setting aside the work of the Spirit in all of His Saints throughout church history who hvae been given Light in the Word for the whole Body to enjoy and profit from.

On the other hand this Anointing, while common to all is specifically known and enjoyed within the individual believer. If we have no participation in it as individuals, then there is no corporate participation either.

IT is as the Believers 'dwell together in unity" that the Anointing Spirit is poured down to the length of the garment.

And it is in the context of the body that we as individuals enjoy participation in this Anointing Spirit. but the anointing Spirit is not "in the room". He is not in the building. He is within us. He is in our individual regenerated spirit and corporately we enjoy Him as the anointing Spirit together in unity and the "one accord". The Spirit who is within me is the same Spirit in all the other members.

But what is meant then by, "you have no need that anyone should teach you?" Surely it does not mean that we have no need of teachers, but in the end, the Spirit is indeed our One Teacher. And He does so through the Body, through all His members who recieve the Light from the Word and who in the gatherings of the Saints express what they recive in a corporate way.

But in the end, even if through the other members of the Body, It is the indwelling Spirit within us as individuals who witnesses to these things and brings their reality into our experience. And the Spirit within us reacts to those things which are taught or spoken which are not according to the truth and are not flowing from the Spirit.

A brother shares something with us and the Spirit in our spirit reacts and we cannot recieve it. And another brother speaks and we are one with them and the Spirit says "Amen".

We may read a Christian book and read some things that sound good, but the Spirit within us says, no!. There is no life in it. There is something amis. Yet another we may read and the Spirit within us says, "Amen". There is an agreement in our spirit and there is the testimony of the Spirit within us and it leads us to go to the scriptures and compare and search out and confirm.

In this way the Spirit in all things is our real and genuine Teacher. He is the One who enlightens us in His Word, He is the One who imparts Christ into us and leads us. And He is the One who guards us and keeps us. And if we are not living in our spirit and walking by the Spirit and minding the Spirit we will be easily led astray.

Graftedbranch





 2006/1/31 11:28Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Ironman's

Quote:
why would the Lord say He called out 12000 from each tribe to total 144000 if that wasn't the number He really meant?

We are working with symbolic numbers here. The whole people of the Old Covenant were 12 clans. The shewbread signified that the whole nation was given to God but in their individual significance. The number 12 seems to links with rule and government and 12 seems to take on the nature of 'the whole'. Consequently the number is always 12; the whole covenant people of God. The 12 clans originally included Levi but Levi was set apart for the service of God and then would have left 11, but the number is made up to 12 again because the clan of Joseph is sub-divided into Ephraim and Manasseh.

The clan of Benjamin was almost wiped out early in Israel's history and became almost indistinguishable from Judah, so the southern kingdom is referred to in scriptures as 'Judah' although it was actually 'Judah and Benjamin' but the number has to be kept to 12 so the constituent parts keep changing.

The original census in Numbers has Joseph, subdivided in Ephraim and Manasseh (Num 1:32), Benjamin is there (Num 1:36) but Levi is specifically excluded (Num 1:47), in all there are 12 clans. Numbers 7 has Ephraim (another name for the clan of Joseph) and Benjamin is there too (Num 7:60) The blessing of Gen 49 which is before the separation of Levi has just Joseph rather than his two sons of Ephraim and Manasseh.

Ezekiel, which is also apocalyptic has the clans back under their original names in Ezek 48 but has Joseph (reunited rather than Ephraim and Manasseh) and Levi is back in the list; the total is 12. Ezekiel has the whole 12 clans on the western side of Jordan rather than on both sides; is this literal or figurative?

The omission of Dan from the list in Revelation may give us a clue to the symbolism at work here. Dan was the clan who most quickly embraced idolatry and 'is not counted' among the Covenant people. Paris Reidhead's 'shekels and shirt' sermon is all about the tribe of Dan and their apostacy. See also 1Kings 12:29-30. For the the omission of Dan from the Revelation list is a symbolic way of saying that 'apostates' are excluded from the covenant community.

This map will show the [url=http://www.bible.ca/maps/maps-joshua-saul.htm]the settlement of the 12 tribes[/url].


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/1/31 11:55Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy