1. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    25 May '09 14:24
    Originally posted by 3Samuel
    1. The 'Old Testament' can only refer to the testament which Moses made with God - the texts themselves cannot be 'The Old Testament'. Allow me to elaborate.

    The Jewish Cannon was not actually set even by the time of the man called Jesus. Rather Rabbis, Priests, scholars, and gentry would possess libraries of scrolls and texts; much the sme as one might h ...[text shortened]... e spirit enterd the flesh, than that the man-made letter entered the flesh.
    ======================
    1. The 'Old Testament' can only refer to the testament which Moses made with God - the texts themselves cannot be 'The Old Testament'. Allow me to elaborate.

    The Jewish Cannon was not actually set even by the time of the man called Jesus.
    ==============================


    I think it was. I think the Hebrew Canon was complete by the time Jesus walked the earth. But I will check my sources.
  2. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    25 May '09 14:372 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So if you had been given a copy of the Bible with say the Apocrypha included, you would have believed them to be the word of God?
    Am I right that the key element in every book that leads you to believe it is the word of God is that it happened to be included in the collection currently known as the 'Bible'? In other words you trust the decisions made by those who chose the books.
    ===================================
    So if you had been given a copy of the Bible with say the Apocrypha included, you would have believed them to be the word of God?
    ====================================


    I believe that that sense of life and peace in the Holy Spirit would have warned me that something was not imparting the same blessing to me.

    Nothing can compare to the Word of God. Of course Satan would try to fill the world with all kinds of religious writings which are similar to confuse the situation.

    And by Satanic activity this does not necesarily mean that the writers had an evil intent. It does mean that may simply had a natural intent, an imaginative intent, no leading of the Spirit of God, and no revelation. Yet out of the goodness of their religious heart they sought to "help" by writing something.

    IT should be expected that God's enemy would seek to throw people off track by flooding the world with a plethora of other writings which sound like the word of God.

    We should not assume that God is not wise enough to deal with these kinds of tactics. Nor should we assume that the people of God could not discern the difference.

    ============================
    Am I right that the key element in every book that leads you to believe it is the word of God is that it happened to be included in the collection currently known as the 'Bible'? In other words you trust the decisions made by those who chose the books.
    ===================================


    I am a sheep in the flock. And other older and more experienced sheep help me on the way.

    God is able to shepherd the sheep through perils.

    I was not brought up Catholic. Had I been I would have had a set of problems. I was however brought up Presbyterian which has its own problems.

    I attitude is not to dispair that it is a hopeless situation. My attitude is not that God is too incompetent to deal with complex problems and lead His people out into rich pastures.

    I don't throw up my hands and or say "Oh well, It might have been a good idea and all. But man is too untrustworthy and there are too many issues that God is not able to work through. So basically, let's just forget the whole thing. God cannot communicate with man."
  3. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66376
    25 May '09 15:59
    Hi Jaywil,

    I'm sorry to say that what you feared has happened: rather than discussing the book of Revelations, we are now waddling through the old worn out arguments of canonicity!

    And the red herring of "Who is John?"!

    This is why I haven't posted for a year or so - the frustration of trying to follow a worthwhile reasoned argument within certain defined bounds of common ground. A debate between Christians who accept the Bible as the Word of God, but who have various interpretations of, say, Revelations, would be worthwhile. But if this "debate" deteriorates into discussing the Bible per se, (or, for that matter IS THERE A GOD??!!) it becomes a total waste of time.

    I affirm you as a good witness - I was encouraged and blessed by your short personal anecdote near the begining of this thread.

    One of my favourite sayings is: "The person with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument".

    I don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God because somebody PROVED it to me. Rather, it is because of the countless piles of rock next to my life's journey which indicate the times that the living Word intervened in my life and revealed himself to me.

    I will continue to watch this thread for a while just in case it can be returned to something interesting and worthwhile!

    In peace

    Cal Just
  4. Joined
    07 Oct '08
    Moves
    6236
    25 May '09 16:36
    Tha said Cal Just, I will put in my penny's worth and side with Badwater -
    in saying that I cannot see much value in the Book of Revelation.
    If it was composed in the Spirit, it does not speak to my condition and I do not find it very helpful at all.
    Indeed, if it is to be judged by its fruit, I should say that it has caused great damage in the futile speculation and calcultion it has led to.
    Perhaps it was not composed for the benefit of 'Corporate Christianity' (FMF's accusation I empathise with), though I will not deny that it has been used thus.
  5. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    25 May '09 16:44
    Originally posted by Badwater
    To me, Revelations is not terribly essential to an understanding of Christ. It was written for an audience of long ago that has long since perished and has no application today, other than metaphorically.
    It was written for an audience of long ago that has long since perished and has no application today

    You may not go as far as I do with my analysis of (and accusations against) Revelation, but these words of yours go directly to the heart of what I have been saying all along (on that other thread).
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    25 May '09 16:54
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Hi Jaywil,

    I'm sorry to say that what you feared has happened: rather than discussing the book of Revelations, we are now waddling through the old worn out arguments of canonicity!

    And the red herring of "Who is John?"!

    This is why I haven't posted for a year or so - the frustration of trying to follow a worthwhile reasoned argument within certain ...[text shortened]... se it can be returned to something interesting and worthwhile!

    In peace

    Cal Just
    Thankyou brother.

    And you are right.
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    25 May '09 16:592 edits
    Originally posted by 3Samuel
    Tha said Cal Just, I will put in my penny's worth and side with Badwater -
    in saying that I cannot see much value in the Book of Revelation.
    If it was composed in the Spirit, it does not speak to my condition and I do not find it very helpful at all.
    Indeed, if it is to be judged by its fruit, I should say that it has caused great damage in the futile ity' (FMF's accusation I empathise with), though I will not deny that it has been used thus.
    Hold on here.

    The Bible needs a conclusion. It needs an ending. If you don't take Revelation as the ending of the Bible, what book would you propose is the ending?

    Please tell me what book represents to you the conclusion of the Bible, if not the book of Revelation.
  8. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    25 May '09 17:10
    Originally posted by jaywill
    The Bible needs a conclusion. It needs an ending.
    Why?
  9. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    26 May '09 10:26
    As the last book of the Bible Revelation is the conclusion and completion of the entire divine revelation. Without it the believers would not have a good idea of a consummation of God's eternal purpose.

    The Bible contains many "seeds" of of truth. These seeds were sown in Genesis and grow and develop in succeeding books, epecially the New Testament. Revelation is the "harvest" of all the "seeds" of truth sown and developed in the whole Bible. The seeds of truth are reaped as a harvest in Revelation.

    Therefore most things covered in Revelation are no absolutely new. They are aspects of truth started in other books and perfected in Revelation.

    Revelation is focused on Jesus Christ - "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of the prophecy" (Rev. 19:10).

    The "testimony of Jesus" is the main characteristic, focus, and essential center of the book of Revelation. This "testimony of Jesus" is mentioned specifically four times:

    1.) "I John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulations and kingdom and endurance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the testimony of Jesus." (1:9)

    2.) "And the dragon became angry with the woman and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus." (12:17)

    3.) "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of thoe who had been beheaded because ofthe testimony of Jesus nd becaise of the word of God, and of those who had not worshipped the beast nor his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." (20:4)

    4.) "And I fell before his feet to worship him. And he said to me, Do not do this, I am your fellow slave and a fellow slave of your brothers who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of the prophecy." (19:10)[/b]

    The most crucial thing in Revelation then is this testimony of Jesus. The dragon, the earthquakes, the locusts, the horns, the hailstones, the warfare, etc, etc, are not the main matters in the prophecy. They only serve as peripherals around "the testimony of Jesus".

    And this accusation about "Corporate Christianity" hasn't even been explained to me yet.

    ANyway, the testimony of Jesus is of course Jesus Himself. But it is also all those in the book who are associated with Jesus as the church, His kingdom, and His people. There are a number of symbols to depict Christ and His people as the testimony of Jesus.

    The lampstands in chapter 1.
    The great multitude of the redeemed in chapter 7.
    The bright woman and her manchild in chapter 12.
    The harvest with its firstfruits in chapter 14.
    The overcomers on the sea of glass in chapter 15.
    The bride ready for marriage in chapter 19.
    The New Jerusalem in chapters 21 and 22.

    These seven great signs are the "testimony of Jesus" and the substance, characteristic, and disposition of the prophecy.

    Christ as the Witness of God (1:5) is the testimony and expression of God. And the church is the testimony and the expression of Christ. Especially those in the church called "who overcome". We may call them the overcomers. They are mentioned in chapters 2,3 and latter in chapter 12.

    Those who overcome are not super members of the church. They are not above the standard. They are right at the standard. They are not an elite. They are what God expects as normal. In the eyes of God it is normal that His redeemed people be overcomers. The overcomers are simply those maintaining the standard of what is normally expected of those who avail themselves of the grace of God to be conquerors over adversity.

    The overcomers are a remnant and a minority at first. But in the eternal age God has caused all His redeemed people to overcome. Therefore the new heaven and the new earth is the common prize to all His people:

    "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (21:7)
  10. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    26 May '09 10:462 edits
    I submit that that main ingredients of the book of Revelation is "the testimony of Jesus" which is said to be "the spirit of the prophecy".

    These signs are symbolic representations of "the testimony of Jesus"

    The lampstands in chapter 1.
    The great multitude of the redeemed in chapter 7.
    The bright woman and her manchild in chapter 12.
    The harvest with its firstfruits in chapter 14.
    The overcomers on the sea of glass in chapter 15.
    The bride ready for marriage in chapter 19.
    The New Jerusalem in chapters 21 and 22.

    The final sign the New Jerusalem is the climax and consummation of the book of Revelation. It is also the consummation of the entire Bible. Where is everything going? All that God is doing, what is it for?

    The climax is New Jerusalem. The whole Bible comes to a consummation in New Jerusalem. All that God is doing is for the building of New Jerusalem.'

    Even so, more than that. What is the universe in existence for? It is for New Jerusalem in chapters 21 and 22 of Revelation. What does man exist in this universe? It is for the building up of New Jerusalem. Creation is for this. Redemption is for this. Transformation, Sanctification, Conformation, Glorification, Resurrection, are all ultimate for this.

    All of God's activity is in view of producing New Jerusalem.

    So then what is New Jerusalem ? New Jerusalem is:

    1.) The enlargement of Christ the God-man. The one Godman Jesus is expanded and enlarged into billions of human beings to produce a corporate expression of God and man united.

    2.) New Jerusalem is the Bride and Wife of the Lamb. The Lamb is the Redeemer. The Bride of the Lamb is all the redeemed processed to match Him as a romantic collective lover. He share with her a deep and everlasting love relationship and living for eternity.

    3.) The New Jerusalem is also the house of God - His tabernacle and dwelling place. The New Jerusalem is a "city" in which God dwells in man and man dwells in God. That is a mutual indwelling. God and man are mingled to be New Jerusalem, God's tabernacle and dwelling place.

    So New Jerusalem is the enlarged, expanded mingling and union of divinity and humanity. This is the destination of all the saved throughout the ages.

    Now here is a plain teaching which puts plain words on the profound sign of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22:

    "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

    Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers, And those whom He predestinated, these He also called; and those whom He called, these He also justified, and those whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Romans 8:29,20)


    New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22 is a sign depicting all those human beings predestinated, called, justified, and glorified to be many brothers of the Firstborn Son of God, Jesus Christ.

    It is for this God created the universe and created human beings in it.
    New Jerusalem is the purpose of our lives and the destiny of all those who come into the eternal purpose of God.

    We're going to marry God. We are going to mutually live in God and God in us for His expression and our enjoyment.
  11. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    26 May '09 11:37
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I submit that that main ingredients of the book of Revelation is "the testimony of Jesus" which is said to be "the spirit of the prophecy"
    So who are you claiming it was written by?
  12. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    26 May '09 12:48
    Originally posted by FMF
    So who are you claiming it was written by?
    John
  13. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    26 May '09 17:11
    Originally posted by jaywill
    John
    So in what way - and on what basis - are you claiming that it was "the testimony of Jesus"?
  14. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    26 May '09 18:291 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    So in what way - and on what basis - are you claiming that it was "the testimony of Jesus"?
    ==========================
    So in what way - and on what basis - are you claiming that it was "the testimony of Jesus"?
    ==============================


    That is what you got from John - Jesus.

    John lived Jesus out. He as filled with Jesus. And lived unto and for Jesus.

    He was on the Island of Patmos "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus". He probably was banished there by people who could not stand that John was filled with witnessing Jesus and for Jesus.

    Paul was another apostle who lived out Jesus. Did you ever read this?

    "For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain." (Phil. 1:21)

    Paul's earnest expectation was that Christ would be magnfied in his (Paul's) body.

    "According to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I will be put to shame, but with all boldness, as always, even now Christ will be magnified in my body, whether through life or through death" (Phil 1:20)

    Christ was in the eyes of Paul's captures, a small insignificant Jewish troublemaker. Paul's expectation that through his (Paul's) life this Christ would be made larger - magnified in the eyes of his jailors. Paul was there also for the testimony of Jesus.

    Paul wanted to be "found in Him". When his visitors came to see him in prison he did not want them to find him in depression or despondancy. Rather he wanted to be found in Christ - enjoying Christ as his sphere and realm.

    The apostles sought that Christ would be manifested in their own mortal bodies:

    "Always bearing about in the body the putting to death of Jesus that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body." (2 Cor. 4:10)

    For the life of Jesus to be manifested in the suffering bodies of the Christian co-workers of Paul was for Christ to be manifested in their bodies. This too was them living for the testimony of Jesus.

    All who receive Jesus should live for the testimony of Jesus.
    That testimony is no doubt Jesus Himself as the Faithful Witness. But it is also the testimony of those living Him out from their inner beings, living unto Jesus, and expressing their oneness with the living Jesus.
  15. Joined
    07 Oct '08
    Moves
    6236
    26 May '09 21:43
    I do not mean to be so negative - I agreee with some of what you say; but only my objections are worth reporting.
    Backtracking to the idea of Revelation acting as a conclusion:

    1. The linear introduction/progression/conclusion method of writing is not inherent, rather it is a very western/greek style.
    If you are familiar with the Qur'an you will have noticed that is does not run in such a linear fashion - topics are not presented and discussed in one place, rather they are returned to throughout, being dwelt on at many points. Neither is the progression chronological.
    This is a most eastern/oriental trait: the main points and purpose of the text are stated clearly at the begining of the text, and these are then returned to throughout - there is not necessarily a final conclusion.
    Indeed, the Qur'an, as you are aware, would have us believe that it is the final revelation from God, and would close the 'bible'. The final sura of the Qur'an runs thus:
    In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy
    Say, 'I seek refuge with the Lord of People, the Controller of Peope, the God of People, against the harm of the slinking whisperer - who whispers into the hearts of people - whether they be jinn or people.'
    This to me does not seem very conclusive.
    the same can, to a degree be seen in the bible. John's gospel does not run in a chronological manner, rather the most important message is presented at the begining of the text, and elaborated on throughout.
    Likewise, you will be aware of the repeatition in the OT. eg, the overlap of exodus genesis/exodus/livaticus/numabers and deuteronomy, or of Kings and Chronocles. And of course of the reoccuring themes in the prophets.
    What is more, I do not htink that Malachi offers any better a conclusion of OT than Jude of NT.

    2. As I have suggested previously, I do not belive there is much evidence that the canon is in anyway definitive - it is merely a collection of books; there is no reason why it should run logically or have a conclusion.

    3. Revelation is ongoing, thus the bible ought not to be concluded - it merelt acts to present a snapshot of the ways of God.

    4 Following from this, although I see value in the 'biblical' writings, I would not refer to them as canonical since this implies a completeness, which if there is continuing revelation, they are not. I use the Septuagint for OT reading, and the Gospels of Thomas and of John Donne for NT. I've read all the rest of them (with the exception of some of Pauls stuff) and would rathe read something nes than read them.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree