Changing To Preterism from Rapture Doctrine

[mfblume]

Sean, you already agreed the Holy Ghost is the river of living waters. Lo and behold the river of life (same thing as living waters) is in Rev 22:1. Not only that, but the LAMB, which you say is a SIGN, is in Rev 22:1. And then we read the tree of life with leaves for healing. Why is that not a sign? Verse 1 does not say the contents of verse 1 are signs, but the contents of verse 2 are NOT SIGNS. What gives you the right to say the LAMB AND RIVER are signs but NOT the tree in the same chapter one verse apart from each other?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You say it is a SIGN but cannot say WHY?? Nothing in the chapter says it's a sign. The chapter does not even say the LAMb is "JESUS". But you say that is the case.

Tell me, [b][i]what is the difference between you saying the Lamb is a SIGN of Jesus, when the chapter does not say so, and me saying the tree of life with leaves and fruit is a SIGN and the chapter does not say so?

What is the difference? What gives you a right to say the LAMB is a sign but not the TREE OF LIFE?

I have only a right to keep the meaning of the passage exactly as it means.

Again, I use a teeny bit of symbolism to try to figure out a passage in my mind.

You completely turn the meaning inside out, to make it sat something entirely different.

This is really about keeping our names in the Book of Life, and not trying to be some cool, smart, intellectual, eschatology teacher.

Agreed?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

Jude 1:23

Oh, I forgot your KJV ONLY that's why you believe this verse has no mercy in it.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sean, you already agreed the Holy Ghost is the river of living waters. Lo and behold the river of life (same thing as living waters) is in Rev 22:1. Not only that, but the LAMB, which you say is a SIGN, is in Rev 22:1. And then we read the tree of life with leaves for healing. Why is that not a sign? Verse 1 does not say the contents of verse 1 are signs, but the contents of verse 2 are NOT SIGNS. What gives you the right to say the LAMB AND RIVER are signs but NOT the tree in the same chapter one verse apart from each other?

Simply, to me, the Tree of Life, River of Life is Literal and the Lamb is Literal. The Lord showed Himself to John in the form of a LAMB(sign) to convey a message.

[mfblume]

This is the truth....

You're right! the LAMB IS JESUS. But I KNOW WHY. I CAN SAY, when you can't say.

Revelation calls Jesus a sign because THE REST OF THE BIBLE SAYS HE IS THE LAMB OF GOD THAT TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

We read a direct statement that JESUS is mentioned, and John says HE IS THE LAMB. We apply that to Revelation.

Just like Psalm 1 says the tree is a believer and we apply that to Revelation.

THERE IS NOTHING IN REV 22 that says the vision is a picture of REALITIES. In fact, it cannot be realities, because you admitted the LAMB is a SIGN OF JESUS and the river is a SIGN of the Holy Ghost. So when you say I am replacing a reality with a sign, that is wrong, because nothing says Rev 22 is reality. Nothing says the LAMB is NOT a reality, either, but you agree it is NOT a reality. So you have no grounds to say PART of Rev 22 is reality and PART is not. Nothing in the chapter says PART is sign and PART is reality.

So, as much as you CANNOT SAY anything about the LAMB, YOU LIKEWISE CANNOT SAY anything about the Tree of life. One chapter gives no more indication than the other chapter about the LAMB. nothing in the chapters about the LAMB say it is a sign any more than anything in Rev 22 says it is NOT a sign.

Sow how do you know which part of Rev 22 is a sign and which is not, if the chapter does not tell you itself?

If you can even follow what I am saying, which is doubtful, you will see you have no grounds to say ANYTHING about our claims of the tree of life.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

Not trying to be some cool, smart, intellectual, eschatology teacher.

Agreed?

Sean, where is that coming from?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

[/U]


Simply, to me, the Tree of Life, River of Life is Literal and the Lamb is Literal. The Lord showed Himself to John in the form of a LAMB(sign) to convey a message.

Nothing in the chapter says the tree of life is reality. NOTHING. You cannot say it is reality any more than you can say why the LAMB is a sign. You cannot say. You have no grounds. Your only basis is "SIMPLY, TO ME."

The tree of life is a MESSAGE to believers about the same truth Psalm 1 is a message. Believers are in the FORM OF the tree. he is the vine we are the branches to bear fruit. John 10 and Psalm 1 say the same thing.

[mfblume]

So, you judged me and Bro Benincasa and BOWAS and SHAG to hell because of "SIMPLY, TO ME..."

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mfblume

This is the truth....

You're right! the LAMB IS JESUS. But I KNOW WHY. I CAN SAY, when you can't say.

Revelation calls Jesus a sign because THE REST OF THE BIBLE SAYS HE IS THE LAMB OF GOD THAT TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD.


Duh!

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

We read a direct statement that JESUS is mentioned, and John says HE IS THE LAMB. We apply that to Revelation.

Just like Psalm 1 says the tree is a believer and we apply that to Revelation.

THERE IS NOTHING IN REV 22 that says the vision is a picture of REALITIES. In fact, it cannot be realities,

BANG, you just wiped the ENTIRE chapter out right here, Mike!


because you admitted the LAMB is a SIGN OF JESUS and the river is a SIGN of the Holy Ghost. So when you say I am replacing a reality with a sign, that is wrong, because nothing says Rev 22 is reality. Nothing says the LAMB is NOT a reality, either, but you agree it is NOT a reality. So you have no grounds to say PART of Rev 22 is reality and PART is not. Nothing in the chapter says PART is sign and PART is reality.

So, as much as you CANNOT SAY anything about the LAMB, YOU LIKEWISE CANNOT SAY anything about the Tree of life. One chapter gives no more indication than the other chapter about the LAMB. nothing in the chapters about the LAMB say it is a sign any more than anything in Rev 22 says it is NOT a sign.

Sow how do you know which part of Rev 22 is a sign and which is not, if the chapter does not tell you itself?

If you can even follow what I am saying, which is doubtful, you will see you have no grounds to say ANYTHING about our claims of the tree of life.

You just made your case that the entire chapter of Rev, 22 is not what we see....

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Mike, you need to snap out of your technique, and get your name back in the book, before it is too late

[Sean]

Dinner is calling, see ya!