View Full Version : POLL: Does the "MAN" Jesus Christ still exist?
mfblume
11-01-2014, 05:33 PM
I have noticed something on the oneness forums that I never realize SO MANY believe. Jesus is not longer a HUMAN BEING at the same time He is God. So let's doa poll and chat more about it!
Abiding Now
11-01-2014, 05:43 PM
Jesus today is the exact same thing that he was after the resurrection.
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
mfblume
11-01-2014, 05:45 PM
Jesus today is the exact same thing that he was after the resurrection.
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Amen. But does that include humanity?
Abiding Now
11-01-2014, 05:49 PM
Amen. But does that include humanity?
Define humanity.
Praxeas
11-01-2014, 05:55 PM
Jesus is not a thing. Jesus is a Person. That verse explains Jesus is the same Person He has always been. He is Eternal
I answered 1) on the poll but I want to add I prefer the wording to refer to Jesus not merely as an immortal Human being but a glorified human being, having been changed. He is still Human in nature.
That change includes both His human body and a change to our sin nature when we are changed too
Abiding Now
11-01-2014, 05:59 PM
Excuse me, I too do not believe that Jesus is a THING, but my mind was blank. :D
mfblume
11-01-2014, 06:44 PM
Jesus indeed is a person. But what I mean about humanity is that He was made an immortal MAN, which is not GOD. Humanity is distinct from God. He was and is eternally God, but He manifested as a human being for salvation. I propose His humanity in that sense is still intact. It was the humanity that we would have seen with Adam had Adam not died due to sin and lived forever.
mfblume
11-01-2014, 06:49 PM
Paul said that THERE IS (present tense) one mediator... the MAN Christ Jesus as mediator for us, ever living to make intercession. He still makes intercession. Some cannot conceive how HE STILL makes intercession for us. It always amazed me why people would have an issue with that.
1 Timothy 2:5 KJV For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Abiding Now
11-01-2014, 06:49 PM
Hebrews 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Hebrews 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Hebrews 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
mfblume
11-01-2014, 06:50 PM
Hebrews 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Hebrews 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Hebrews 7:24 But this MAN, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Good one!
Abiding Now
11-01-2014, 06:53 PM
I'm a simple person and to me, the man, Son, manifestation, etc. all are so we can SEE the invisible God.
shazeep
11-01-2014, 07:08 PM
Melchizedek suggests to me that one of His manifestations is an eternal human, earthly presence of some person or other. Dunno if the crucifixion would change that any. Considering the whole program, On Earth As It Is In Heaven and all, I would guess not. Jesus is still The Man :D
Michael The Disciple
11-01-2014, 07:11 PM
Hebrews 10:12
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Jesus is God in one mode of being. In another he is man.
At present here and now.
mfblume
11-01-2014, 07:23 PM
Hebrews 10:12
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Jesus is God in one mode of being. In another he is man.
At present here and now.
Another good one.
mfblume
11-01-2014, 07:32 PM
Melchizedek suggests to me that one of His manifestations is an eternal human, earthly presence of some person or other. Dunno if the crucifixion would change that any. Considering the whole program, On Earth As It Is In Heaven and all, I would guess not. Jesus is still The Man :D
You do realize, do you, that "eternal" means no beginning as well as no end?
shazeep
11-01-2014, 08:19 PM
Then I would have to back that up to Christ's Second Coming :D
mfblume
11-01-2014, 08:21 PM
Then I would have to back that up to Christ's Second Coming :D
:D
shazeep
11-01-2014, 08:22 PM
Uh, and I guess forward it to...um, ya. Not eternal. Enduring, ya.
mfblume
11-01-2014, 08:29 PM
Uh, and I guess forward it to...um, ya. Not eternal. Enduring, ya.
Right.
Esaias
11-01-2014, 09:00 PM
"Eternal" as used in most theology is a Greek pagan idea foreign to scripture. Age-enduring is closer to the truth. There is no "outside of time", unless God is an icon and not actually ALIVE.
mfblume
11-01-2014, 09:10 PM
"Eternal" as used in most theology is a Greek pagan idea foreign to scripture. Age-enduring is closer to the truth. There is no "outside of time", unless God is an icon and not actually ALIVE.
I would not say eternal implies "outside of time." Is that what most think, though?
jfrog
11-02-2014, 12:25 AM
I want Sean's vote.
Aquila
11-03-2014, 12:58 PM
I think it is important to believe what Jesus Himself states concerning this. Jesus speaks of the Father with distinction after His resurrection:
Luke 24:49
And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
John 20:17
Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
John 20:21
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
Jesus speaks of the Father with distinction even after His glorification in Heaven in the book of Revelation:
Revelation 3:5
The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.
With the above texts in mind, it is clear to me that the distinct (human) center of consciousness still exists after both the resurrection and His glorification on high. So the "MAN" part of Him still exists, albeit He is glorified.
Jermyn Davidson
11-03-2014, 01:24 PM
Hebrews 10:12
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Jesus is God in one mode of being. In another he is man.
At present here and now.
I don't think Jesus exists in different modes.
He IS GOD.
He IS man.
I want Sean's vote.
Hey I found a fan!!!...LOL
Sure he does....1 Timothy 2:5King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is(present tense) one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
He(The man) is completely united in God, indwelled fully by God and is one with God now.
Colossians 2:9King James Version (KJV)
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
He does look a little different now though.....
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.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Praxeas
11-03-2014, 08:40 PM
Melchizedek suggests to me that one of His manifestations is an eternal human, earthly presence of some person or other. Dunno if the crucifixion would change that any. Considering the whole program, On Earth As It Is In Heaven and all, I would guess not. Jesus is still The Man :D
It's a type
mfblume
11-03-2014, 09:50 PM
It's a type
I agree. Melchisedek had no records of lineage as the Levitical priesthood required. in type, that is like having no mother or Father, as Christ is eternal.
mfblume
11-03-2014, 09:51 PM
He does look a little different now though.....
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.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Sean. Really? A sword coming from His mouth? Think about it. It is symbolic of HIS WORD BEING SHARPER THAN ANY TWOEDGED SWORD. Not a literal sword.
It is symbolic vision like verse 1 said.
Esaias
11-03-2014, 10:44 PM
"Then shall the son be subject to him who put all things under him."
What does this mean? Obviously the son is now subject to the Father as far as obedience is concerned. So how is he currently NOT subject to the Father? Or is this word "subject" meaning something else?
Aquila
11-04-2014, 06:41 AM
"Then shall the son be subject to him who put all things under him."
What does this mean? Obviously the son is now subject to the Father as far as obedience is concerned. So how is he currently NOT subject to the Father? Or is this word "subject" meaning something else?
I think most would say that currently, all authority has been delegated to the Son. The Father therefore now works through the Son as a means of redeeming man. However, the end will come when the plan will be complete. Then the Son will relinquish this delegated authority to the Father so that God might be all in all.
mfblume
11-04-2014, 08:10 AM
I think most would say that currently, all authority has been delegated to the Son. The Father therefore now works through the Son as a means of redeeming man. However, the end will come when the plan will be complete. Then the Son will relinquish this delegated authority to the Father so that God might be all in all.
I agree.
Sean. Really? A sword coming from His mouth? Think about it. It is symbolic of HIS WORD BEING SHARPER THAN ANY TWOEDGED SWORD. Not a literal sword.
It is symbolic vision like verse 1 said.
Then why was John frightened to death when he saw Jesus(falling at His feet) and not from the rest of the book of Rev. if it wasnt real?
When Jesus laid His right hand on John, it was not real either?
Was the voice of Jesus that came from this description of the Lord a real voice, or symbolic also?
Mike, are you for real?
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
He does look a little different now though.....
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.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Maybe John just ate too much pizza and had a bad dream that wasnt real..LOL
houston
11-04-2014, 05:02 PM
Ugh
mfblume
11-04-2014, 06:27 PM
Then why was John frightened to death when he saw Jesus(falling at His feet) and not from the rest of the book of Rev. if it wasnt real?
When Jesus laid His right hand on John, it was not real either?
Was the voice of Jesus that came from this description of the Lord a real voice, or symbolic also?
Mike, are you for real?
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
He does look a little different now though.....
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.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Maybe John just ate too much pizza and had a bad dream that wasnt real..LOL
Of course John saw that, Sean. Phew. But he saw a VISION. We are not going to see Jesus spouting swords from his mouth. It was a vision just like he saw A LAMB WITH SEVEN EYES AND HORNS. Was that actuality, Sean?
(roll eyes).
Of course John saw that, Sean. Phew. But he saw a VISION. We are not going to see Jesus spouting swords from his mouth. It was a vision just like he saw A LAMB WITH SEVEN EYES AND HORNS. Was that actuality, Sean?
(roll eyes).
Well, that "vision" laid his hand on John, spoke to him and awoke him from a lifeless state...LOL
By the way, John was not seeing a vision. The word vision is not used in the entire chapter. You completely made that up. The Lord Jesus "LITERALLY" appeared to John while he was praying in the Spirit on "the Lords' day".
This was an actual "encounter" with Jesus. There is no evidence to say this was not a physical reality, on the contrary, to John, it was a physical reality
mfblume
11-04-2014, 11:52 PM
Well, that "vision" laid his hand on John, spoke to him and awoke him from a lifeless state...LOL
By the way, John was not seeing a vision. The word vision is not used in the entire chapter. You completely made that up. The Lord Jesus "LITERALLY" appeared to John while he was praying in the Spirit on "the Lords' day".
This was an actual "encounter" with Jesus. There is no evidence to say this was not a physical reality, on the contrary, to John, it was a physical reality
Vision is not used in the chapter any more than rapture is used in the bible. Not only that, oneness is not used in the bible either, nor is "United Pentecostal Church". But you still believe in those things. Sean, Rev 1:1 says God SIGNIFIED the message to John. That means SIGNS related the truth. You do not agree the WORD OF GOD is sharper than any twoedged sword and that was the reason John saw Jesus with a Sword in his mouth?
Man, you'd argue white was black. lol
John saw a lamb with seven eyes and horns. Do you not believe that was a vision? The chapter said nothing about the word vision, remember. John said HE SAW IT! So the same restrictions you place on Rev 1 are on Rev 5. No words VISION mentioned, and he SAW IT. SO do you believe Jesus is actually a seven eyed lamb?
You won't answer that as usual, since you avoid points we make that show your view to be inconsistent.
John also saw the beast and the woman riding it, and he wondered with great admiration.
Anyway, you're getting so ridiculous now with your assertions, everyone can see it. An actual sword from his mouth! lol
Vision is not used in the chapter any more than rapture is used in the bible. Not only that, oneness is not used in the bible either, nor is "United Pentecostal Church". But you still believe in those things. Sean, Rev 1:1 says God SIGNIFIED the message to John. That means SIGNS related the truth. You do not agree the WORD OF GOD is sharper than any twoedged sword and that was the reason John saw Jesus with a Sword in his mouth?
Man, you'd argue white was black. lol
John saw a lamb with seven eyes and horns. Do you not believe that was a vision? The chapter said nothing about the word vision, remember. John said HE SAW IT! So the same restrictions you place on Rev 1 are on Rev 5. No words VISION mentioned, and he SAW IT. SO do you believe Jesus is actually a seven eyed lamb?
You won't answer that as usual, since you avoid points we make that show your view to be inconsistent.
John also saw the beast and the woman riding it, and he wondered with great admiration.
Anyway, you're getting so ridiculous now with your assertions, everyone can see it. An actual sword from his mouth! lol
You are trying to SYMBOLIZE the first 3 Chapters along with the rest? Were the 7 churches Jesus spoke of, symbolic churches or literal?
Chapter 4 is when you can try to begin to use MINOR symbolism to explain the LITERAL meanings of the passages.
Mike, you started this argument by saying it was a vision. Are you saying the hand that touched John was not real either?
The word "vision" is used 15 times in the New Testament alone. The only time it is used in Rev. is chapter 9.
Paul shows a distinction between "visions" and "Revelations" or(U]revealings[/U]) in this passage.....2 cor. 2:12 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
A "revelation" as John had, is a "revealing" of Jesus to him in chapter 1.(Jesus revealed himself to John) ....
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John (does it say the "vision" of Jesus Christ?)
Does it say that John saw himself in some vision, dying from fright and being brought back by the hand of Jesus, or did it literally happen to John?
This stuff that folks teach that is not scriptural based are known as PRESUPPOSITIONS....They are a conversation starter, but must be investigated before drawing conclusions
You are just trying to use your preterist background to make this passage a vision, to try to support your theory that the whole book was not literal. I know what you are up to.(and everyone sees that also Mike)
When a person comes home to a surprise party, the partiers "reveal" themselves to the person. Jesus simply "revealed" himself to John and it startled and greatly terrified him there.
shazeep
11-05-2014, 08:12 AM
Hmm; dunno about that! Wadr.
mfblume
11-05-2014, 08:50 AM
You are trying to SYMBOLIZE the first 3 Chapters along with the rest? Were the 7 churches Jesus spoke of, symbolic churches or literal?
Sean, let me explain what I believe before you put words in my mouth,
Rev 1 is symbolic. How do I know? As I stated, the sword from Jesus' mouth is directly related to Heb 4:12 that says God's word is sharper than any twoedged Sword.
It symbolizes the WORD. Get it? From the mouth?
Secondly, Jesus flatly stated symbols to John.
Revelation 1:20 KJV The 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.
The candlesticks he was standing in SYMBOLIZED THE SEVEN CHURCHES. The stars in his hand SYMBOLIZED THE SEVEN ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES.
John actually saw with his eyes a seven candlesticks and seven stars in His hand, like he saw the sword form his mouth. But the candlesticks and stars were symbolic. John saw a VISION. Symbolic.
The seven churches were actual churches. Rev 2-3 were chapters where THE VISION OF CHAPTER 1 had Jesus TELLING HIM TO WRITE words to seven churches. John did not see seven churches in a vision, except for the seven candlesticks that symbolized those churches in Chapter 1. HE HEARD WORDS that he was told to write in Chapters 2 and 3. He did not see seven churches in Chapters 2-3. He just heard words to write to those churches.
And Rev 1:10 says he was in the SPIRIT. That shows us it was a VISION. He said the same thing Rev 17:3 where the Spirit carried him away IN THE SPIRIT to the wilderness where he saw a monster with a whore riding it's back.
He was in the spirit, meaning IT WAS A VISION.
SYMBOLIC, Sean.
Chapter 4-5 is another vision. THE LAMB has seven eyes and horns and goes to the one on the throne. If you do not believe chapters 4 and 5 were visions, then you must believe we will see TWO IN HEAVEN... the Father sitting on the throne and the LAMB approaching the Father. But the truth is that is a symbolic vision and we are not going to see TWO. God is ONE. We will only see the BODY OF JESUS, but never God the Father because God is a Spirit who is everywhere. You cannot see someone who is everywhere or else you would not be able to see past the surface of your eyeballs. So, John saw a symbolic vision of Jesus as LAMB and HIGH PRIEST BOTH going into the holiest of holies which is heaven. And he made atonement for us like the high priest alone could only go into the holiest in the Old Testament. That's why no one was worthy to go to the throne and take the book except THE SEVEN-EYED LAMB IN REV 5:3.
It is symbolic.
Chapter 4 is when you can try to begin to use MINOR symbolism to explain the LITERAL meanings of the passages.
You symbolize it yourself! You said Rev 4:1-WAS THE RAPTURE, when in reality ONLY JOHN WAS CAUGHT UP. If only John was caught up at the voice of the trumpet, and the church was still on earth when John saw that, and you say it is the rapture, then you are saying JOHN'S CATCHING UP is SYMBOLIC of the church.
Mike, you started this argument by saying it was a vision. Are you saying the hand that touched John was not real either?
It was a VISION John saw where a hand touched him. If it wasn't then, why did Jesus say that the same right hand that touched him also held seven stars that were the ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES? When John wrote the letters to the seven churches in chapters 2-3, he addressed the angel of each church. Is there a STAR in each church, and is each church a literal CANDLESTICK? You do not read everything in the chapter, Sean.
Did John take the letters he wrote and to those seven churches and hand them to each of the candlesticks he saw Jesus stand in? Did Jesus intend for John to write a letter and actually give it to one the candlesticks instead of sending it to an actual congregation in Asia Minor? You said none of it is symbolic! That means Jesus wanted him to write a letter to a CANDLESTICK!
The word "vision" is used 15 times in the New Testament alone. The only time it is used in Rev. is chapter 9.
So what? RAPTURE is never used in the entire bible and you believe in it.
It is clearly a VISION, because John was in a CAVE and suddenly saw the golden candlesticks from the Tabernacle IN THE CAVE with Jesus holding stars. And Jesus told him the candlesticks were the churches and the stars were the angels of the churches. But you do not think it is symbolic so for you must believe there were not seven real churches
and actual since in this case CANDLESTICKS were distinctly said by Jesus to be churches, and that cannot be symbolic since you said the word VISION was not mentioned.
So which is it?
Paul shows a distinction between "visions" and "Revelations" or(U]revealings[/U]) in this passage.....2 cor. 2:12 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
A "revelation" as John had, is a "revealing" of Jesus to him in chapter 1.(Jesus revealed himself to John) ....
So, in that case a revelation of the churches being candlesticks must mean they are not actual churches but candlesticks with fires, and no people involved at all! And Jesus has seven stars that are angels of those churches. Not actual beings but impersonal STARS.
You really have quite a doctrine, Sean. It's quite a revelation, indeed, to now know that churches are not congregations, but candlesticks. Silly us!
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John (does it say the "vision" of Jesus Christ?)
It says the revelation of Jesus THAT WAS SIGNIFIED TO JOHN. In other words the Revelation of Jesus was revealed to John BY SIGNS, not actualities. Like Jesus in candlesticks WAS A SIGN that Jesus is in the midst of the churches, as we read about in Rev 2:1.
If this is not symbolic then you have to say that Jesus was literally in non-symbolic candlesticks, where congregations and people have nothing to do with it like actual churches that we are familiar with. Churches to JESUS in Rev 1 were not congregations of people in certain cities, but CAnLDESTICKS.
However, John was in PATMOS and Jesus said one of the candlestick churches was in EPHESUS. Was EPHESUS actually in that cave, too? Was the actual congregation physically taken tot he isle of Patmos and turned into a candlestick for an hour or so while John watched the non-symbolic scene? After all, he said the churches that were actually candlesticks were IN THOSE CITIES. But John saw them in the cave at patmos!
Can you explain how the churches can be in Patmos at the same time they're in seven different cities?
What about all the other CITIES these churches were in? Were these cities ABSENT OF THE CHURCH CONGREGATIONS, since Jesus took them and changed them into actual non-symbolic candlesticks and stood inside them in the cave with John? Or was the CAVE'S position where ONE candlestick stood, actually Thyatira. And a few feet away where the other candlestick stood the city of EPHESUS was there in the cave? In other words, ALL THESE CITIES WHERE THE CHURCHES WERE must have been inside that little cave, since you said none of it is symbolic.
For Jesus to tell John to write to the church in Ephesus was really silly, you must think. The church was right there in the cave and was turned into a candlestick! Why would he have to write to it if it was right there as that candlestick? Why did John simply go to the candlestick and tell it the words of Jesus.
Oh, maybe it could hear Jesus itself, since Jesus was in the midst of the candlesticks that he said were churches. But why would he tell john to write to them if they could hear the words of Jesus standing right there in the cave anyway? Oh, right! Candlesticks do not have EARS! But how could they read letters if they ere non-symbolic candlesticks?
Whew, you have quite the doctrine, Sean! Please explain that to us!
You are just trying to use your preterist background to make this passage a vision, to try to support your theory that the whole book was not literal. I know what you are up to.(and everyone sees that also Mike)
Sorry, I believed this was a vision long before I knew anything about preterism LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON READILY KNOWS, Sean.
lol
Anyone futurist or preterist KNOWS THAT WAS A VISION, but for some reason you are the lone ranger who disagrees! To you, the seven churches are not congregations, but actual candlesticks!
When a person comes home to a surprise party, the partiers "reveal" themselves to the person. Jesus simply "revealed" himself to John and it startled him there.
Sure did! I guess John w as wrong as well when he was told churches are not congregations, silly John. They are CANDLESTICKS! Non-symbolic candlesticks. And although John did not likely now it before, non-symbolic STARS CAN READ LETTERS! No wonder people started talking to the stars at night! They must have agreed with you that they are angels of churches out there in the dark nightsky!
All you did was teach preterism in your post Mike, it is based on PRESUPPOSITIONS that it is ALL symbolic.
Guess what....the FUTURE events started at this verse....Rev 4:1...
After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
The first 3 chapters of Rvelation were literal in EVERY sense of the word. The problem is YOUR preterism doctrine.
It is loaded with presuppositions
Lets look at verse 1 again...
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass (starting at chapter 4) and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
The first 3 chapters were in the PRESENT and not included in the "shortly come to pass"(future) part of the verse, in which "signs" would be used.
The signs would be used to define FUTURE events Mike!
I think preterism should really be called...PRESUPPOSERISM...LOL
mfblume
11-05-2014, 09:16 AM
All you did was teach preterism in your post Mike, it is based on PRESUPPOSITIONS that it is ALL symbolic.
So you really think churches that John wrote to were not congregations of people but ACTUAL candlesticks?
And angels of the churches are not ministers or even Gabriel-like angels, BUT STARS?
And since Jesus said one church was in Ephesus, that EPHESUS must have been in the isle of Patmos that day, along with the rest of the six other cities because Jesus said those churches which you believe were actual candlesticks, not symbolic, were on Patmos!? So, if they're on Patmos and Jesus said they're in seven cities, then all seven cities must have been on Patmos that day.
Guess what....the FUTURE events started at this verse....Rev 4:1...
After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
The first 3 chapters of Rvelation were literal in EVERY sense of the word. The problem is YOUR preterism doctrine.
It is loaded with presuppositions
Lets look at verse 1 again...
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass (starting at chapter 4) and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
The first 3 chapters were in the PRESENT and not included in the "shortly come to pass"(future) part of the verse, in which "signs" would be used.
The signs would be used to define FUTURE events Mike!
Why did you say nothing abut Rev 1 where we were discussing things and you said was NO SYMBOLISM? cannot answer those points, can you?
Come on, deal with my points about symbols in Rev 1 where you there were no symbols. Stop dodging the issue.
mfblume
11-05-2014, 09:17 AM
I think preterism should really be called...PRESUPPOSERISM...LOL
I think Sean should be really called DODGER.
More like..."the voice of truth".
All you did was teach preterism in your post Mike, it is based on PRESUPPOSITIONS that it is ALL symbolic.
Guess what....the FUTURE events started at this verse....Rev 4:1...
After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
The first 3 chapters of Revelation were literal in EVERY sense of the word. The problem is YOUR preterism doctrine.
It is loaded with presuppositions
Lets look at verse 1 again...
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass (starting at chapter 4) and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
The first 3 chapters were in the PRESENT and not included in the "shortly come to pass"(future) part of the verse, in which "signs" would be used.
The signs would be used to define FUTURE events Mike!
Thought I would repost this...
mfblume
11-05-2014, 09:25 AM
More like..."the voice of truth".
Ok. It is TRUTH that churches that John wrote to were not congregations of people, but CNADLESTICKS! And the angels of the churches were STARS in reality. Twinkle twinkle.
And seven cities of Asia Minor were on little old Patmos that day. And John had letters that were not meant to be read to PEOPLE but candlesticks!
There you go, Sean's voice of truth!
Is anyone counting how many posts Sean will write before he addresses ONE POINT I made about the alleged non-symbolic nature of Rev 1? We could lose count!
mfblume
11-05-2014, 09:27 AM
What a revelation! John likely thought like the rest of us that churches to whom he would write were congregations. But when Jesus said, "John, the seven candlesticks are the seven churches," then he was corrected! Those churches were not congregations at all! THEY WERE CANDLESTICKS! The voice of truth, Sean, told us there is nothing symbolic in Rev 1!
Sean , the revelator!
Mike I showed you clearly that 15 times the word VISION was used in the N.T.
Why was it NOT used until chapter 9?
I showed you that Visions and Revelations are 2 different things as Paul stated.
Your 'counter" to these statements was more preterism.
You are HOOKED on presuppositions and have lost the ability to think literally about a passage.
Your "end" is Pastor Febus! Do you want that?
mfblume
11-05-2014, 09:36 AM
Mike I showed you clearly that 15 times the word VISION was used in the N.T.
Why was it NOT used until chapter 9?
I showed you that Visions and Revelations are 2 different things as Paul stated.
Your 'counter" to these statements was more preterism.
You are HOOKED on presuppositions and have lost the ability to think literally about a passage.
Your "end" is Pastor Febus! Do you want that?
TWO POSTS SO FAR and no answers.
Why are you not answering my points? Why are you not responding about ANYTHING I said in Chapter 1 where you said there were no symbols? Sean?
mfblume
11-05-2014, 09:36 AM
BUMP. Sean, please respond to each of my points.
Sean, let me explain what I believe before you put words in my mouth,
Rev 1 is symbolic. How do I know? As I stated, the sword from Jesus' mouth is directly related to Heb 4:12 that says God's word is sharper than any twoedged Sword.
It symbolizes the WORD. Get it? From the mouth?
Secondly, Jesus flatly stated symbols to John.
Revelation 1:20 KJV The 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.
The candlesticks he was standing in SYMBOLIZED THE SEVEN CHURCHES. The stars in his hand SYMBOLIZED THE SEVEN ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES.
John actually saw with his eyes a seven candlesticks and seven stars in His hand, like he saw the sword form his mouth. But the candlesticks and stars were symbolic. John saw a VISION. Symbolic.
The seven churches were actual churches. Rev 2-3 were chapters where THE VISION OF CHAPTER 1 had Jesus TELLING HIM TO WRITE words to seven churches. John did not see seven churches in a vision, except for the seven candlesticks that symbolized those churches in Chapter 1. HE HEARD WORDS that he was told to write in Chapters 2 and 3. He did not see seven churches in Chapters 2-3. He just heard words to write to those churches.
And Rev 1:10 says he was in the SPIRIT. That shows us it was a VISION. He said the same thing Rev 17:3 where the Spirit carried him away IN THE SPIRIT to the wilderness where he saw a monster with a whore riding it's back.
He was in the spirit, meaning IT WAS A VISION.
SYMBOLIC, Sean.
Chapter 4-5 is another vision. THE LAMB has seven eyes and horns and goes to the one on the throne. If you do not believe chapters 4 and 5 were visions, then you must believe we will see TWO IN HEAVEN... the Father sitting on the throne and the LAMB approaching the Father. But the truth is that is a symbolic vision and we are not going to see TWO. God is ONE. We will only see the BODY OF JESUS, but never God the Father because God is a Spirit who is everywhere. You cannot see someone who is everywhere or else you would not be able to see past the surface of your eyeballs. So, John saw a symbolic vision of Jesus as LAMB and HIGH PRIEST BOTH going into the holiest of holies which is heaven. And he made atonement for us like the high priest alone could only go into the holiest in the Old Testament. That's why no one was worthy to go to the throne and take the book except THE SEVEN-EYED LAMB IN REV 5:3.
It is symbolic.
You symbolize it yourself! You said Rev 4:1-WAS THE RAPTURE, when in reality ONLY JOHN WAS CAUGHT UP. If only John was caught up at the voice of the trumpet, and the church was still on earth when John saw that, and you say it is the rapture, then you are saying JOHN'S CATCHING UP is SYMBOLIC of the church.
It was a VISION John saw where a hand touched him. If it wasn't then, why did Jesus say that the same right hand that touched him also held seven stars that were the ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES? When John wrote the letters to the seven churches in chapters 2-3, he addressed the angel of each church. Is there a STAR in each church, and is each church a literal CANDLESTICK? You do not read everything in the chapter, Sean.
Did John take the letters he wrote and to those seven churches and hand them to each of the candlesticks he saw Jesus stand in? Did Jesus intend for John to write a letter and actually give it to one the candlesticks instead of sending it to an actual congregation in Asia Minor? You said none of it is symbolic! That means Jesus wanted him to write a letter to a CANDLESTICK!
So what? RAPTURE is never used in the entire bible and you believe in it.
It is clearly a VISION, because John was in a CAVE and suddenly saw the golden candlesticks from the Tabernacle IN THE CAVE with Jesus holding stars. And Jesus told him the candlesticks were the churches and the stars were the angels of the churches. But you do not think it is symbolic so for you must believe there were not seven real churches
and actual since in this case CANDLESTICKS were distinctly said by Jesus to be churches, and that cannot be symbolic since you said the word VISION was not mentioned.
So which is it?
So, in that case a revelation of the churches being candlesticks must mean they are not actual churches but candlesticks with fires, and no people involved at all! And Jesus has seven stars that are angels of those churches. Not actual beings but impersonal STARS.
You really have quite a doctrine, Sean. It's quite a revelation, indeed, to now know that churches are not congregations, but candlesticks. Silly us!
It says the revelation of Jesus THAT WAS SIGNIFIED TO JOHN. In other words the Revelation of Jesus was revealed to John BY SIGNS, not actualities. Like Jesus in candlesticks WAS A SIGN that Jesus is in the midst of the churches, as we read about in Rev 2:1.
If this is not symbolic then you have to say that Jesus was literally in non-symbolic candlesticks, where congregations and people have nothing to do with it like actual churches that we are familiar with. Churches to JESUS in Rev 1 were not congregations of people in certain cities, but CAnLDESTICKS.
However, John was in PATMOS and Jesus said one of the candlestick churches was in EPHESUS. Was EPHESUS actually in that cave, too? Was the actual congregation physically taken tot he isle of Patmos and turned into a candlestick for an hour or so while John watched the non-symbolic scene? After all, he said the churches that were actually candlesticks were IN THOSE CITIES. But John saw them in the cave at patmos!
Can you explain how the churches can be in Patmos at the same time they're in seven different cities?
What about all the other CITIES these churches were in? Were these cities ABSENT OF THE CHURCH CONGREGATIONS, since Jesus took them and changed them into actual non-symbolic candlesticks and stood inside them in the cave with John? Or was the CAVE'S position where ONE candlestick stood, actually Thyatira. And a few feet away where the other candlestick stood the city of EPHESUS was there in the cave? In other words, ALL THESE CITIES WHERE THE CHURCHES WERE must have been inside that little cave, since you said none of it is symbolic.
For Jesus to tell John to write to the church in Ephesus was really silly, you must think. The church was right there in the cave and was turned into a candlestick! Why would he have to write to it if it was right there as that candlestick? Why did John simply go to the candlestick and tell it the words of Jesus.
Oh, maybe it could hear Jesus itself, since Jesus was in the midst of the candlesticks that he said were churches. But why would he tell john to write to them if they could hear the words of Jesus standing right there in the cave anyway? Oh, right! Candlesticks do not have EARS! But how could they read letters if they ere non-symbolic candlesticks?
Whew, you have quite the doctrine, Sean! Please explain that to us!
Sorry, I believed this was a vision long before I knew anything about preterism LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON READILY KNOWS, Sean.
lol
Anyone futurist or preterist KNOWS THAT WAS A VISION, but for some reason you are the lone ranger who disagrees! To you, the seven churches are not congregations, but actual candlesticks!
Sure did! I guess John w as wrong as well when he was told churches are not congregations, silly John. They are CANDLESTICKS! Non-symbolic candlesticks. And although John did not likely now it before, non-symbolic STARS CAN READ LETTERS! No wonder people started talking to the stars at night! They must have agreed with you that they are angels of churches out there in the dark nightsky!
Ok. It is TRUTH that churches that John wrote to were not congregations of people, but CNADLESTICKS! And the angels of the churches were STARS in reality. Twinkle twinkle.
And seven cities of Asia Minor were on little old Patmos that day. And John had letters that were not meant to be read to PEOPLE but candlesticks!
There you go, Sean's voice of truth!
Is anyone counting how many posts Sean will write before he addresses ONE POINT I made about the alleged non-symbolic nature of Rev 1? We could lose count!
Mike, there is some symbolism used in the 1st 3 chapters indeed.
I must clarify that I was lead into this by using the word "vision" as "revelation" and turning it into "symbolism".
I apologize for implying that there is No symbolism at all in the 1st 3 chapters.
The point I was originally making was the difference between Johns' "REVELATION" of Jesus and your presupposed "VISION" of Jesus.
mfblume
11-05-2014, 09:46 AM
Sean, you said Jesus looks quite different, and homed in on Rev 1 as we spoke of the MAN Jesus. So, I said that was symbolic. And you said NOPE. None of Rev 1 is symbolic. So I showed you where IT INDEED IS, and you will not eve respond to any of those points, but resorted to namecalling what I believe. You always do that, don't you?
;)
Well, I guess I better abandon our church congregation and locate a candlestick somewhere.
mfblume
11-05-2014, 09:46 AM
Mike, there is some symbolism used in the 1st 3 chapters indeed.
I must clarify that I was lead into this by using the word "vision" as "revelation" and turning it into "symbolism".
I apologize for implying that there is No symbolism at all in the 1st 3 chapters.
The point I was originally making was the difference between Johns' REVELATION of Jesus and your presupposed "VISION" of Jesus.
No, you were trying to say JESUS LOOKS DIFFERENT NOW by using Rev 1 where you said were NO SYMBOLS.
Mike look at this......this is the REAL Jesus returning...
Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.
This is a REAL Jesus returning to a REAL earth.
I only can PRESUPPOSE that this same sword in Rev. 1 is not real, but symbolic. But I have NO proof, so I must take the Bible literal.
You may not believe this, but the preterist believes that every bit of the above passage is symbolic of something else!(fake armies, fake clothing on Jesus, fake sword, fake horses, fake nations, fake flaming eyes, fake crowns, etc.)
It is all just a great big PRESUPPOSITION with no Biblical reference to say otherwise than it is literal!
Same sword as in Rev.19...Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Remember Mike, the "deeper" ways(thought processes) of "you know who" are ready to jump on you...look out!!!
KeptByTheWord
11-05-2014, 11:49 AM
Jesus is not a thing. Jesus is a Person. That verse explains Jesus is the same Person He has always been. He is Eternal
I answered 1) on the poll but I want to add I prefer the wording to refer to Jesus not merely as an immortal Human being but a glorified human being, having been changed. He is still Human in nature.
That change includes both His human body and a change to our sin nature when we are changed too
I agree.
mfblume
11-05-2014, 07:52 PM
Same sword as in Rev.19...Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
That is symbolic, too. :) It's the WORD going forth fulfilling the judgment He spoke.
Sean, you said I propose supposition. Explain to me how it is supposition to take a clear reference to the word from the mouth of the Lord as a sword in Heb 4:12 and say that is what the symbol represents? I never said anything about fake nations, etc. You go too far in your accusations and put words in our mouths and actually start lying, Sean. Why do you do that? Why do you not say we believe what we actually say we do, instead of telling these fibs we do not believe?
That is symbolic, too. :) It's the WORD going forth fulfilling the judgment He spoke.
Sean, you said I propose supposition. Explain to me how it is supposition to take a clear reference to the word from the mouth of the Lord as a sword in Heb 4:12 and say that is what the symbol represents? I never said anything about fake nations, etc. You go too far in your accusations and put words in our mouths and actually start lying, Sean. Why do you do that? Why do you not say we believe what we actually say we do, instead of telling these fibs we do not believe?
Your presupposition is underlined above...When you say something is not real, but symbolic. You are saying it does not really exist. That makes it fake.
All of the symbolism preterism proposes is mostly symbolic explanations of literal prophecies.
It is saying these things you read are not real things, they mean something else, just like your statement underlined.
You are saying that the Lord has a Fake sword proceeding from His mouth defined in Rev 1 and Rev 19, if you think it is only symbolic, and not real.
mfblume
11-05-2014, 08:28 PM
Your presupposition is underlined above...When you say something is not real, but symbolic. You are saying it does not really exist. That makes it fake.
Stop for a minute. The WORD is distinctly said to be a SWORD of the Spirit, Sean. Heb 4:12 is distinctly saying the SWORD is a symbol of the WORD OF GOD. You are accusing Heb 4:12 of saying the SWORD IS FAKE.
It has nothing to do with anything being fake. The SWORD of the WORD is more powerful than any physical sword.
2Co 10:4 KJV (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
And there is no supposition involved when a verse in the Bible distinctly says the WORD is represented by a SWORD.
Heb 4:12 KJV For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Eph 6:17 KJV And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Isa 49:2 KJV And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;
If I did not have THESE VERSES that directly compare the word to a sword, THEN AND THEN ONLY would it be supposition. And that is what I do with everything in Revelation.
All of the symbolism preterism proposes is mostly symbolic explanations of literal prophecies.
Now THAT is supposition. How many times must I tell you that SIGNIFIED in Rev 1:1 means related by SIGNS. Do you know what a SIGN is, Sean?
Signify
SIG'NIFY, v. t. [L. significo; signum, a sign, and facio, to make.]
1. To make known something, either by signs or words; to express or communicate to another any idea, thought, wish, a hod, wink, gesture, signal or other sign. A man signifies his mind by his voice or by written characters; he may signify his mind by a nod or other motion, provided the person to whom he directs it, understands what is intend by it. A general or an admiral signifies his commands by signals to officers as a distance.
It is saying these things you read are not real things, they mean something else, just like your statement underlined.
I already showed you that Rev 1 is PROVED to be symbolic and you apologized (thank-you) for saying there was no symbolism there. You found out there was. And you are the FIRST ONE I EVER MET who believed that was not symbolic. I know dispensationalist futurists who know that is symbolic.
You are saying that the Lord has a Fake sword proceeding from His mouth defined in Rev 1 and Rev 19, if you think it is only symbolic, and not real.
It is a symbol relating the message THAT THE WORD OF JESUS WILL SMITE. When HE SPEAKS He destroys! It's not a real sword, but a REAL WORD that the sword symbolizes. And HIS WORD is FAR FAR more powerful than a physical sword.
You are wreaking havoc with plain symbols.
In the same sentence as we read about the SEVEN STARS IN HIS HAD, we read a sword comes form His mouth.
Rev 1:16 KJV And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
And the last verse of the chapter says the stars are symbols. And you say the sword is not?
You have simply gotten so ridiculous about this, that it is unbelievable.
A myriad of scholars agree:
CLARKE: The sharp two-edged sword may represent the word of God in general, according to that saying of the apostle, Heb_4:12 : The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, etc. And the word of God is termed the sword of the Spirit, Eph_6:17.
BARNES: And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword - On the form of the ancient two-edged sword, see the notes on Eph_6:17. The two edges were designed to cut both ways; and such a sword is a striking emblem of the penetrating power of truth, or of words that proceed from the mouth; and this is designed undoubtedly to be the representation here - that there was some symbol which showed that his words, or his truth, had the power of cutting deep, or penetrating the soul. So in Isa_49:2, it is said of the same personage, “And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword.” See the notes on that verse. So in Heb_4:12, “The Word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword,” etc. So it is said of Pericles by Aristophanes:
GILL: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword; which designs the word of God; see Eph_6:17; This comes out of the mouth of Christ, it is the word of God, and not of man; and is a sharp sword, contains sharp reproofs for sin, severe threatenings against it, and gives cutting convictions of it, and is a twoedged one; and by its two edges may be meant law and Gospel; the law lays open the sins of men, fills with grief and anguish for them, yea, not only wounds, but kills; and the Gospel cuts down the best in man,
JAMIESON FAUSSET AND BROWN: out of ... mouth went — Greek, “going forth”; not wielded in the hand. His WORD is omnipotent in executing His will in punishing sinners. It is the sword of His Spirit. Reproof and punishment, rather than its converting winning power, is the prominent point. Still, as He encourages the churches, as well as threatens, the former quality of the Word is not excluded. Its two edges (back and front) may allude to its double efficacy, condemning some, converting others. Tertullian [Epistle against Judaizers], takes them of the Old and the New Testaments. Richard of St. Victor, “the Old Testament cutting externally our carnal, the New Testament internally, our spiritual sins.”
BW JOHNSON: And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword. This two-edged sword is a symbol of the word by which Christ's conquests are won. See Eph_6:17; Heb_4:12, and compare Rev_19:15.
I did not even know what these guys thought about it, but it was so obvious I knew they likely agreed with me.
Please show me ONE SINGLE SCHOLAR'S WORDS who agrees that it is an actual sword to come out of Christ's mouth. JUST ONE!
I cannot believe you are that literal about this! LOL Wow.
mfblume
11-05-2014, 08:37 PM
Even futurists like you agree with me that it is not a literal sword:
http://www.jesusisthecomingking.com/2011/05/jesus-with-sword-in-his-mouth.html
So it's not just preterists, Sean. lol Unless that makes all that futurism supposition. lol
mfblume
11-05-2014, 08:47 PM
Jesus is indeed a human MAN still, and that manifestation never ended at the resurrection. God cannot resurrect. And God is not the result of a MAN resurrecting. Jesus resurrected as a man and is a resurrected MAN to this day. He is immortal and cannot die, which is what we will be when we physically resurrect also.
mfblume
11-05-2014, 08:58 PM
Psalm 110:1 is the most oft-quoted OT verse in the New Testament. And 1 Cor 15 refers to it saying that Jesus will sit on the throne and rule until His enemies are made his footstool. God the Father spoke to the Son in Psalm 11:0 telling Him to sit until the FATHER makes the Son's enemies the Son's footstool. That has not happened yet. That means He is still seated.
That MAN is still seated.
If He is no longer a MAN - a human being -- glorified and immortal, then we have TWO GODS. One God telling the other God to sit until One God makes the other God's enemies His footstool.
Psa 110:1 KJV A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
1Co 15:25-27 KJV For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. (26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (27) For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
Stop for a minute. The WORD is distinctly said to be a SWORD of the Spirit, Sean. Heb 4:12 is distinctly saying the SWORD is a symbol of the WORD OF GOD. You are accusing Heb 4:12 of saying the SWORD IS FAKE.
It has nothing to do with anything being fake. The SWORD of the WORD is more powerful than any physical sword.
2Co 10:4 KJV (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
And there is no supposition involved when a verse in the Bible distinctly says the WORD is represented by a SWORD.
Heb 4:12 KJV For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Eph 6:17 KJV And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Isa 49:2 KJV And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;
If I did not have THESE VERSES that directly compare the word to a sword, THEN AND THEN ONLY would it be supposition. And that is what I do with everything in Revelation.
Now THAT is supposition. How many times must I tell you that SIGNIFIED in Rev 1:1 means related by SIGNS. Do you know what a SIGN is, Sean?
Signify
SIG'NIFY, v. t. [L. significo; signum, a sign, and facio, to make.]
1. To make known something, either by signs or words; to express or communicate to another any idea, thought, wish, a hod, wink, gesture, signal or other sign. A man signifies his mind by his voice or by written characters; he may signify his mind by a nod or other motion, provided the person to whom he directs it, understands what is intend by it. A general or an admiral signifies his commands by signals to officers as a distance.
I already showed you that Rev 1 is PROVED to be symbolic and you apologized (thank-you) for saying there was no symbolism there. You found out there was. And you are the FIRST ONE I EVER MET who believed that was not symbolic. I know dispensationalist futurists who know that is symbolic.
It is a symbol relating the message THAT THE WORD OF JESUS WILL SMITE. When HE SPEAKS He destroys! It's not a real sword, but a REAL WORD that the sword symbolizes. And HIS WORD is FAR FAR more powerful than a physical sword.
You are wreaking havoc with plain symbols.
In the same sentence as we read about the SEVEN STARS IN HIS HAD, we read a sword comes form His mouth.
Rev 1:16 KJV And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
And the last verse of the chapter says the stars are symbols. And you say the sword is not?
You have simply gotten so ridiculous about this, that it is unbelievable.
A myriad of scholars agree:
CLARKE: The sharp two-edged sword may represent the word of God in general, according to that saying of the apostle, Heb_4:12 : The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, etc. And the word of God is termed the sword of the Spirit, Eph_6:17.
BARNES: And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword - On the form of the ancient two-edged sword, see the notes on Eph_6:17. The two edges were designed to cut both ways; and such a sword is a striking emblem of the penetrating power of truth, or of words that proceed from the mouth; and this is designed undoubtedly to be the representation here - that there was some symbol which showed that his words, or his truth, had the power of cutting deep, or penetrating the soul. So in Isa_49:2, it is said of the same personage, “And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword.” See the notes on that verse. So in Heb_4:12, “The Word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword,” etc. So it is said of Pericles by Aristophanes:
GILL: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword; which designs the word of God; see Eph_6:17; This comes out of the mouth of Christ, it is the word of God, and not of man; and is a sharp sword, contains sharp reproofs for sin, severe threatenings against it, and gives cutting convictions of it, and is a twoedged one; and by its two edges may be meant law and Gospel; the law lays open the sins of men, fills with grief and anguish for them, yea, not only wounds, but kills; and the Gospel cuts down the best in man,
JAMIESON FAUSSET AND BROWN: out of ... mouth went — Greek, “going forth”; not wielded in the hand. His WORD is omnipotent in executing His will in punishing sinners. It is the sword of His Spirit. Reproof and punishment, rather than its converting winning power, is the prominent point. Still, as He encourages the churches, as well as threatens, the former quality of the Word is not excluded. Its two edges (back and front) may allude to its double efficacy, condemning some, converting others. Tertullian [Epistle against Judaizers], takes them of the Old and the New Testaments. Richard of St. Victor, “the Old Testament cutting externally our carnal, the New Testament internally, our spiritual sins.”
BW JOHNSON: And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword. This two-edged sword is a symbol of the word by which Christ's conquests are won. See Eph_6:17; Heb_4:12, and compare Rev_19:15.
I did not even know what these guys thought about it, but it was so obvious I knew they likely agreed with me.
Please show me ONE SINGLE SCHOLAR'S WORDS who agrees that it is an actual sword to come out of Christ's mouth. JUST ONE!
I cannot believe you are that literal about this! LOL Wow.
WOW MIKE, this is a HUGE presupposition you just made....you just turned this little passage...12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
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.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.....
......INTO THE ABOVE STATEMENT YOU MADE!!!
You just took a literal Jesus right out of the book of Revelation and replaced him with an imaginary figure of Him(a vision)...I mean a glorified, walking, talking, dead raising, powerful, fake symbolic saviour!
Mike, this is not really Jesus Himself?....Cmon, you dont think these underlined things in the passage describing Jesus' body parts in detail are fake do you?
Would you believe it is a literal Jesus if He showed you the holes in His hands and feet???
John knew it was Jesus, Mike...there was no doubt about it. He described His Saviour in detail for all of us to see what He appears like now. John also described his Savior in detail for us in Rev. 19 the same way.
These 2 passages were not described this way so we can just ignore their physical descriptions, explain them away and try to find the "deeper" meanings that many are endlessly seeking today.
mfblume
11-05-2014, 10:05 PM
Jesus is on the throne and sits there until all enemies are under his feet.
Sean, you're ridiculously wrong.
See ya. We will not converse again.
This is a description of this same savior in the following chapter......
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Is this fake also, or is it sooo fearful that even heaven and earth are destroyed upon seeing HIS face.
No wonder John was scared in chapter 1 !!!
Jesus is on the throne and sits there until all enemies are under his feet.
Stephen saw Him standing Mike
Sean, you're ridiculously wrong.
See ya. We will not converse again.
Just quoting the LITERAL Bible to ya, trying to minimize my opinion and let it speak for itself.
See ya!
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.