Sean, I told you many times that I was in your camp and believed and preached what you espouse. Then I started seeing holes in it. I started reading the bible and forgetting what I was told those verses were saying, and started to let the verses instruct me. I did not LOOK for anything. I just knew disp had holes like I am showing you lately. I cast away all preconceived ideas once I saw the holes in dispensationalism. I read it and asked myself if what those verses were really saying what I was told they were saying. I started to let the bible instruct me.
I looked for no hidden meanings. I realized that all the bible must flow together. What one chapter says cannot contradict another chapter on the same subject. And I used consistency. For example, I showed you how inconsistent your view is by pointing out your belief about the LAMB compared to your belief about the Tree of Life. I pointed out to you that the chapters that mention the LAMB have no statements in them that say Jesus is LIKE a Lamb or it's AS IF Jesus is a Lamb. They simply spoke of the Lamb, period, There's no elaboration about it and not even a mention of the name Jesus to make us think the Lamb is a sign or symbol. That is precisely the way it is with the Tree of Life in
Revelation 22. No LIKE, n AS, or anything. It flatly says there's a tree of life, like it flatly says there's a lamb.
If you were consistent, you would either say one of two things.
1. The LAMB is not a symbol because it does not say so, just like you say the Tree of life is not a symbol because it doesn't say so.
2. The Lamb is a symbol even though it does not say so, because Revelation is introduced as a book of SIGNS, just like the Tree of Life is a symbol because Revelation is introduced as a book of SIGNS.
But you are not consistent with how you treat the Lamb and the Tree of Life.
And what makes you even more inconsistent is that
Revelation 22 mentions the LAMB, and also mentions the RIVER of living waters THAT YOU AGREE are SIGNS of Jesus and the Holy Ghost baptism. But in the same chapter after you PART of it has SIGNS you say part of it DOES NOT have signs.... the part about the tree of life.
And I realized the tree of life was not actual because the Tree is in the City, and the City is in Heaven. Then the City leaves Heaven to go to the earth. John is standing on a mountain on earth and watches as the City leaves Heaven.
Also, I realized the gold is transparent. 99.999% pure gold is absolutely opaque. And .001% impurity being removed is not going to change it from opaque to transparent. At this point you make ridiculous things up saying it is NEW gold. lol
Not only that, dispensationalists teach a hermeneutical rule to live by that they don't live by themselves: They say that if something cannot exist naturally, then it is symbolic. But then they turn around and say the gold is literally transparent, and they also say the pearls are actual pearls, when each gate is made of one solid pearl. There's no oyster that makes pearls that big because there's no oysters big enough to make pearls that big. So, dispensationalists destroy their own rule of hermeneutics and interpretation.
And if they're foolish enough to say God can make pearls that big, or oysters that big to create a pearl that size, then why don't they use that ridiculous reasoning to say God can make a Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns, too! After all, God can do anything, right?
So you and dispensationalists are inconsistent.
And when I stump you so you cannot answer me, you make up things about how I came to believe what I believe, like you did in this post, when in actuality I looked for nothing in particular, looked for no hidden meanings, and started letting the bible instruct me as to what to believe, and saw all these holes in your teaching.
Sean, you look for what you already believe when you read Revelation. Just like my motto says below every one of my posts, you do not let the bible teach you, but you only look for what you already believe. That's why you make things up, even absolutely nonsensical things, --- anything -- to keep your belief rather than let the bible correct your faulty beliefs.
the Bible CORRECTED my faulty beliefs to what I now believe.
here's an example of how you make things up as you. One of many! You read this verse:
Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And...
Revelation 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
And you hear me say the CITY LEAVES HEAVEN. But you're so stuck on the idea that the leaves on the tree keep people in Heaven from getting sick and dying THAT YOU MAKE UP THE IDEA THAT the city only leaves ONE PART OF HEAVEN AND GOES INTO ANOTHER PART OF HEAVEN, STAYING IN HEAVEN ALL THE WHILE. Mean while, NOTHING in the chapter says anything about a PART OF HEAVEN. It just says it COMES OUT OF HEAVEN. AND IN is the OPPOSITE OF OUT. So it is not IN Heaven if it comes OUT of Heaven.
This is a perfect and solid example of how you do not let the bible teach you, but you not only LOOK for what you already believe, but you CHANGE THE BIBLE AND ADD WORDS TO IT to make and force it to fit your belief.
The whole reason you do this with the city coming out of heaven, is because you have a seriously mistaken belief that the CITY IS HEAVEN, and that the only way people can be immortal is to do something with leaves that heal the nations. You think the nations are the people in heaven. You never believed that before, though, until you saw me argue how the tree cannot be real since heaven doesn't need any healing. And so you MADE UP the belief that the leaves keep people immortal, in heaven, when you never thought of it before, just to disagree with me. And then THAT LED you to ALSO say that the tree of life cannot be symbolic since it says TREE OF LIFE. But again, the same chapter
Rev 22 that says the TREE is there also says the LAMB is there, and you agree the lamb is a SYMBOL. But you don't care so long as you can win an argument. So you force the bible to say the CITY moves from one PART of heaven to the other.
And you have quoted and quoted the verse that says do not add to the Word. but you added the idea of a PART OF HEAVEN instead of just leaving it as the city leaving heaven.
Your problem is that you KNOW we cannot add to the word and force ideas into it that are not there. But you do not apply that to yourself, and think I am playing a game of wits, when I am only pointing out consistencies and inconsistencies in your reasoning. You think it's a game of wits because THAT IS HOW YOU TREAT IT. You do not allow the bible to instruct and correct you, but you force your ideas into the bible to the extent that you TWIST IT to do so. You CHANGE the text to do so. because you are trying to OUTWIT me, when I am not doing anything about wits at all.
Sadly, you will still think this is a game of wits and try to look for something to make me appear wrong, and make something else up if it takes it, instead of just letting the bible correct you.
And He actually holds angels turned into stars in his hand
Linear Mode
