Garden of Eden

Originally posted by whodey
It seems to me that we all have a longing to return to the garden, a place of tranquility and bliss. You see this as people try to achieve this garden politically, economically etc., but all become abject failures in the end.

However, if you were able, would you return to the garden mentioned in the Bible so that you could commune with God face to face, or do you prefer where you are now?

Considering it's currently under the Persian Gulf, I think I'd rather be where I am now. If he's waiting down there, there's a good shot he's Cthulhu anyway.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a post of utter idolatrous epic proportions!

The [b]New Jerusalem represents the MASS PRODUCTION of Jesus Christ. - Jaywill

The New Jerusalem, that is, a typical representation of the old Jerusalem with its King, (pictured in this instance as Jesus Christ), who sat on the throne of God, WITH, the Levitical priesthood, (pictured in this inst ...[text shortened]... lytes who were not allowed to enter the temple itself but had to remain in the temple courtyard![/b]

====================================
a post of utter idolatrous epic proportions!

The New Jerusalem represents the MASS PRODUCTION of Jesus Christ. - Jaywill
===============================

Whatever Revelation shows by way of "signs" can be substantiated elsewhere by plain teaching.

For example Romans 8:29 says "Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, the He might be the Firstborn among many brothers."

Jesus Christ, the "Firstborn among MANY BROTHERS". And HOW are these "many brothers" produced ? They are produced by being "conformed to the image of His Son"

Then the only begotten Son of God becomes in addition "the Firstborn" Son of God "among many brothers"

"Firstborn" means of course, that He is to be followed by others born. The others born of God are the "many brothers". So they also are sons of God.

Of course Revelation itself has God saying "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (Rev. 21:7)

These sons of God collectively constitute "the New Jerusalem" .

=================================
The New Jerusalem, that is, a typical representation of the old Jerusalem with its King, (pictured in this instance as Jesus Christ), who sat on the throne of God,
==========================================

The throne in the New Jerusalem is "the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Rev.22:1)

There is singular, one throne. And it is THE throne "of God and of the Lamb". How is it the throne of God and the Lamb ? It is so because God is in the Lamb. And how do we know that God is in the Lamb of God ?

We know because, among other things, the Lamb Christ is the LAMP and God is the LIGHT shining from within the LAMP. Distinguish here between LAMB and LAMP in Revelation 21:23:

"And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon that they should shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb."

The Lamb is the "LAMP" of the city. And the LIGHT shining out from the LAMP is God. So God is in Christ and Christ is on the thone of God and of the Lamb - one throne. The Lamb is the Redeeming Godman Jesus.

The HEAD of this new humanity is Jesus Christ. And the BODY of this new humanity is the many sons of God conformed to His image.

And Hebrews 2:10 says that Jesus Christ the Son of God is "leading many sons into glory". So the only begotten Son of God becomes also the Firstborn Son of God leading many sons of God into the glorious expression of the Divine Being.

The corporate entity of many sons of God is therefore the enlargement of God mingled with man or Christ in mass production, if you will. There is only one HEAD. But there is in His BODY many sons of God conformed into His image and "lead" into the glorious expression of the Divine Life.

God predestinated these saved people to "SONSHIP" through Jesus Christ:

"Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will." (Ephesians 1:5)


www.regenerated.net

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a rather interesting statement, i too am 'working class', my grandfather was a miner, his father before him a ploughman. Sometimes we can be guilty though of a kind of inverted snobbery, a prejudice if you like against those who are socially privileged. I agree, one would rather spend time among those to whom we feel an affinity but one must re ...[text shortened]... of whether we want it or not.

ill be back in a wee while Agers my son, gotta do some stuff!

How a personality "develops" with respect to environment is pretty much a function of the personality that is already present. Having reached the age of thirty, my cynicism, and skepticism is pretty much concretised within me, my penchant for behaving daft and trying to get a laugh or two out of my mates (utilising the oh so evil tool of lying and deception) has been with me for as far back as I can remember, my propensity for quietly laughing or outwardly taking the p!ss out of silly ideas such as astrology, "flammable" souls in hell, tea-leaves reading, literal Bible interpretations, hill-billy ufo abduction stories, etc... is as much a part of my personality as being a nice guy to my friends. I derive satisfaction out of screwing over those who have first screwed me over and don't hold back in letting people know, somehow, that I think they're an a$$hole - nor do I give any great deal of my time to pretentious people and those who would shaft someone over with a sincere looking smile. I appreciate the fairer sex on both an intellectual and carnal level, I often lie for the sake of pragmatism and am envious enough of the achievements of certain people that I want to "go one better" sometimes. I see little virtue in your or most other theists' gods and if *your formulation of it* is correct then I really do think it's a dick! (and as you've guessed I have no problems with blasphemy).
Further experiences may shape my view on some things but these base characteristics are here to stay; and I'm comfortable with the inadequacies you or other theists would assert about my personality

In short I am by most theists' standards a grotesquely sinful person (whatever the feck that even means), evil perhaps! and since their definitions of "sin", and "evil" carry little weight with me, I'm happy to remain that way.
Any god that would "refine" those traits above (render them beyond my inclination) would be deleting from the person and character that represents *me* - i.e. the person which remains would not be *me* it would be "awesome person" drone #6929372618.

The arguments you put forth here and the style in which you deliver them, with your sleights of hand are similar to how a salesperson would misrepresent or obscure the facts in order to offload some shoddy mobile-phone deal - and I'm pretty damned hostile to sales people in real life! (especially if I did not solicit their attention first!)

Originally posted by generalissimo
I don't think his conclusion was at all comparable to anything Dawkins would have said, I think it was quite honest. Personally I can understand how it could have been the visions of a drug addict.

I think everything goes downhill after the introduction, the imagery is captivating as it is full with the splendor of apocaliptic doom, but there are ti ...[text shortened]... trange happenings detailed in that Book which I could comment on, but really, need I say more?

Dawkins thinks that the entire Bible is the vision of a drug addict. So what?

As far as Satan being cast into the bottomless pit and released again, this is in reference to the millinneal reign of Christ and is spoken of in the OT. Again, this is nothing new. As for its theological importance, have you ever studied the theology behind the millinneal reign?

Of course, you may be of the opinion that there is no devil. Is that the case?

Originally posted by whodey
But I thought Christ talked about a life to come, did he not?

I agree that we cannot go back to the way things used to be, but then, who wants to? After all, if it was soooo great to begin with why did it lead here?

It still does not change the fact that we desire the paradise lost in Eden...minus the serpant. It seems to me that, on the one hand, you ...[text shortened]... modified Eden of sorts. Either way, you still seek a utopia of some sort as I think we all do.

Jesus never actually said half the things that are attributed to him in the bible. A lot was made up in the oral period of Christian history, between his death and the writing of the first Christian works. It seems certain, though, that Jesus did talk about the kingdom. The Kingdom: where we would expunge all the myriad sins of private property and of civilization and reclaim the primeval innocence of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. If you think that is a utopian project, then perhaps Jesus had it all wrong.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
a post of utter idolatrous epic proportions!

The New Jerusalem represents the MASS PRODUCTION of Jesus Christ. - Jaywill
===============================

Whatever Revelation shows by way of "signs" can be substantiated elsewhere by plain teaching.

For example Romans 8:29 s ...[text shortened]... will." (Ephesians 1:5) [/b]


www.regenerated.net[/b]

Could you please talk in common English so we no exactly what you are really saying.

This old English is unnecessary unless you want to hide your confusion behind it...

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
a post of utter idolatrous epic proportions!

The New Jerusalem represents the MASS PRODUCTION of Jesus Christ. - Jaywill
===============================

Whatever Revelation shows by way of "signs" can be substantiated elsewhere by plain teaching.

For example Romans 8:29 s ...[text shortened]... will." (Ephesians 1:5) [/b]


www.regenerated.net[/b]

I am sorry Jay, in order for one to understand the role of the Christ and those who are to be kings and priests one must understand the temple arrangement, the role of the high priest and the priesthood, for all elements had a function and a symbolic value which is reflected in the book of revelation. You think it a mere coincidence that the curtain of the most holy was rent on two when the Christ delivered up his body? mere coincidence that we read of the glassy sea, the seraphs, incense, the alter, the lampstand etc in the book of revelation? I repeat it again, you need to understand the symbolic significance of the old temple arrangement in order to understand the book of revelation and the relationship between the Christ and those who would serve with him as Kings and priests in New Jerusalem.

Originally posted by rwingett
Jesus never actually said half the things that are attributed to him in the bible. A lot was made up in the oral period of Christian history, between his death and the writing of the first Christian works. It seems certain, though, that Jesus did talk about the kingdom. The Kingdom: where we would expunge all the myriad sins of private property and of civil ...[text shortened]... gatherer ancestors. If you think that is a utopian project, then perhaps Jesus had it all wrong.

Oh, I forgot. The next time I read the NT I will cross out the portions Christ talks about his Father, (which might end up being half the text), and also cross out where he talkes about an after life. Then everything else I guess I can assume is legite, right?

As for expunging the notion of private property, left wingers are still in battle over bringing that Eden like utopia to fruition, not Whodey. However, like Whodey they are on their own journey back to Eden.

Originally posted by Agerg
How a personality "develops" with respect to environment is pretty much a function of the personality that is already present. Having reached the age of thirty, my cynicism, and skepticism is pretty much concretised within me, my penchant for behaving daft and trying to get a laugh or two out of my mates (utilising the oh so evil tool of lying and deception) h le in real life! (especially if I did not solicit their attention first!)

I resent the sales person portrayal, i sincerely believe the things that i have come to learn and try to live my life in harmony with those principles to the extent that i can recommend them to others, nor am i some peddler of the good news either, for there is a certain dignity attached to it and when you go from house to house meeting real people as is our custom, you learn pretty much who is genuinely interested and who is not, and believe me, i would not waste a second trying to convince someone who was not, its a waste of my time and theirs.

If you think that lying is indispensable to your life then i am sorry i find that quite sad, and i am not referring to simply making fun, but to outright deception. A vindictive and vengeful personality is also a dangerous thing, for while you may yield satisfaction from getting back at those who have wronged you, it can breed resentment and if harboured it can ultimately be a destructive quality, for why should another persons misery make you happy? Cynicism is the same, makes it hard for us to impute good motives to others.

I resent the assertion of slight of hand, for in almost every instance i have needed to reel you in, the Zhalazi thread is a good example, filled with conditions, and provisos, and comparisons that have little or nothing to do with the actual assertions being made. You could not even bring yourself to admit that yes indeed Zhalanzi had deviated from the biblical text and established his own criteria, whether he was a moderate or not, or whether it was justified or not, or even whether i had been born or not! Was it so hard to admit that? Apparently so! Did i complain of your deviant methods? did I? So what should I do, no more Mr Nice guy and go to town on you personally, not a chance, when it starts to be less than fun then i am getting out and i suggest you do the same.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sorry Jay, in order for one to understand the role of the Christ and those who are to be kings and priests one must understand the temple arrangement, the role of the high priest and the priesthood, for all elements had a function and a symbolic value which is reflected in the book of revelation. You think it a mere coincidence that the curtain ...[text shortened]... hip between the Christ and those who would serve with him as Kings and priests in New Jerusalem.

==================================
I am sorry Jay, in order for one to understand the role of the Christ and those who are to be kings and priests one must understand the temple arrangement,
==================================

I understand it better then you do. I certainly understand it better then what superficial interpretations were given you from the Watchtower.

The entire city is the holy of holies. The innermost holy of holies is where God met with the high priest once a year in the day of atonement in the Old Testament. Here the entire CITY IS THE HOLY OF HOLIES !

This is proved here: "And the city lies square, and the length is as great as the breadth. And he measured the city with the reed to a length of twelve thousand stadia; the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal." (Rev. 21:16)

The dimensions of the Holy of Holies, in both the tabernacle and the temple, were equal in length, breadth, and height (Exodus 26:2-8; 1 Kings 6:20) Because the length and the breadth and the height of the New Jerusalem are equal signifies tht the entire city will be the Holy of Holies.

In it, all God's redeemed onces will serve and worship God, will see and touch God's presence, and will live and fwell in God's presence for eternity.

The vision John saw was something profound communcated to him by a "SIGN" (Rev. 1:1) . This city is the dwelling place of God indwelling man. She is the eternal Holy of Holies where God and man are mingled. So John saw no temple in the city for God Himself and the Lamb are the temple of the city (Rev. 21:22)

What could this mean except that the Triune God becomes the living TEMPLE in which man lives and God lives - the living Holy of Holies.

This is a profound state of the climax of the Triune God's full salvation expressed to us in a symbolic sign. The priests are Godmen, living in God, living God, and living out God with Whom they have become united in life.

If not please discribe for me the weight and size of a giant oyster that could produce such huge pearl for such a gate ? That would be a godzilla sized oyster !

This is a sign. And we already know that the church is the Wife of Christ. So this is the enlarged New Testament church now made to include all the redeemed from all ages.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
I am sorry Jay, in order for one to understand the role of the Christ and those who are to be kings and priests one must understand the temple arrangement,
==================================

I understand it better then you do. I certainly understand it better then what superficial interpretations were give is the enlarged New Testament church now made to include all the redeemed from all ages.[/b]

your insults aside, i dont think that you do, for you post is simply one long list of idolatrous and non nonsensical incoherent elements. Sorry to be so blunt.

Take this fist point the entire city is the holy of holies,

First it makes no account of the fact that only the high priest only was allowed to enter into the holy of holies, to make atonement not only for himself, but on behalf of the nation of Israel the priesthood included, Naturally this arrangement prefigured that of the Christ, entering into the presence of God himself with the value of his sin atoning sacrifice, with the single difference that Christ did not need to atone for himself, being sinless.

Secondly it makes no attempt to explain why the curtain was now rent in two, making it possible for others to follow into the presence with God which was initially barred to members of the priest hood, nor does it explain the significance of this.

Lastly it does not explain the position of those who are in the temple courtyard, and who are not priests. Who or what they prefigure and what their position is in relation to God, Christ and the priesthood.

I do not deny Jaywill that there is a correlation between the holy of holies and New Jerusalem, however, its simply that the measurement are in perfect proportions, a cube to be exact, reflective of the perfection of the heavenly arrangement itself, for that is what both the temple and the tabernacle pre figured as Paul explains.

You have ignored to explain any of the elements of the old temple and their significance, strange for someone who professes to know so much.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your insults aside, i dont think that you do, for you post is simply one long list of idolatrous and non nonsensical incoherent elements. Sorry to be so blunt.

Take this fist point the entire city is the holy of holies,

First it makes no account of the fact that only the high priest only was allowed to enter into the holy of holies, to make ...[text shortened]... nts of the old temple and their significance, strange for someone who professes to know so much.

I hope not, but he'll probably start to ignor you after awhile once he can't explain the many scriptures you show him that disprove his ideas and then blames the " Watchtower" on our clear explinations of the scriptures.

Originally posted by galveston75
I hope not, but he'll probably start to ignor you after awhile once he can't explain the many scriptures you show him that disprove his ideas.

well that is the challenge that he now faces G-man. Paul clearly states that the tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple prefigure the heavenly arrangement, therefore in order to understand it, does it not make sense that we need to understand what those antitypical elements were and what they prefigured?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I resent the sales person portrayal, i sincerely believe the things that i have come to learn and try to live my life in harmony with those principles to the extent that i can recommend them to others, nor am i some peddler of the good news either, for there is a certain dignity attached to it and when you go from house to house meeting real people a ...[text shortened]... chance, when it starts to be less than fun then i am getting out and i suggest you do the same.

In the "the Bible is immoral" thread I established it as a definition of God_{Zahlanzi} that his god does not follow the Bible 100% I was quite clear about this, and in almost your every response you made a rebuttal(?) of the form:
ah...but his god doesn't follow the Bible 100%!
and my reponse would be along the lines of
yes, I know this - I keep acknowledging this is the case; here, let me restate the definitions of God_{Zahlanzi}...; now why is your god better than his without assuming your own bias?
and your response would be along the lines of
ah...but his god doesn't follow the Bible 100%!
and so on...

As for the attribution of salesperson it was not so much meant to be an attack on your character as it was an attack on the way you're trying to foist this bizarro scenario upon me and the strategies you use to sell the idea - for example a typical (non-verbatim) dialogue:
You: God is merely going to refine your personality traits
Me: Will I, for example, be able to lie?
You: You won't be inclined to
Me: So he's made such an action beyond my capacity to perform? in a sense eradicated it?
You: Oh no, you'll still have the capacity, you will just never want to
Me: So how does it make any sense to say I have the capacity to lie if your god has ensured, by actively changing the nature of my character, I'll never want to?
You: Well you see, it'll still be you - just a better version of you - is it not better to improve oneself? Do we not play chess so we might become better at the game?
me:I play because I enjoy it...you didn't answer my last question
You: Oh but surely you agree, that it is good to improve your game for you will then also be able to enjoy all it's subtleties
Me: I'm well aware of what you're trying to do here Robbie, and once your sophistries look all nice and colourful, I'm waiting for the point where you quietly sneak *not lying* in as a mere improvement to my character - I don't consider that amendment to *me* an improvement, and you still haven't answered my question; lemme rephrase:...
You: No, no sophistry on my part, but surely we both agree that improvement in ones game leads to a more enriched appreciation of the game and thus - a greater enjoyment of it?

and so on...in that toy dialogue I'm trying to state clearly my concerns whilst you on the otherhand seek to mask the subject by drawing false comparisons, and paving the way for conclusions that beyond the superficial, are unrelated to my concerns. This is similar to how a salesperson, ignoring your insistance you don't have the money to buy their £45 a month phone deal would just start spouting whatever BS comes to mind to reel you in and make the money issue a lesser priority than wanting their damned phone + their £10 a month insurance policy + 60 shabby ring tones for only £29.99 +...!


As for lying; firstly, untainted by any "God" bias I don't see lying as an intrinsically bad thing to do - sometimes it's good, sometimes not so good. Moreover, it's not so much lying is indispensable to my life, as being *me* with all the traits you'd look down upon is indispensable to my life - whether you see them as damaging or not.

Originally posted by Agerg[/i]
In the "the Bible is immoral" thread I established it as a definition of God_{Zahlanzi} that his god does not follow the Bible 100% I was quite clear about this, and in almost your every response you made a rebuttal(?) of the form:
ah...but his god doesn't follow the Bible 100!
and my reponse would be along the lines of
[i]yes, I know this - I ke is indispensable to my life - whether you see them as damaging or not.[/b]

good morning Agers, how are you?