Were Christians supposed to separate themselves?

[Iacchus]

I might add that this may also coincide with the hastening effect or, The Quickening, as 9Harmony referred to in another thread, thus allowing the Bible to be opened up and trampled under foot by the Gentiles (compare the testimony of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11), resulting in the final climax or, Last Judgment, as concurs with the book of Revelation.

So the book of Revelation is not referring to the end of the world, so much as it's referring to the end of an era, at which point the True Church is finally established. Which I would suggest to you occurred in the year 1757.

 

[Marsh]

Jesus was a German?

This is because when the Bible was finally printed and made available to the masses, there was no official interpretation of it, not until the book of Revelation was finally fulfilled in 1757.

I read through the linked document. I thought that Christ was supposed to return on a cloud, rather than in the body of a German mystic.

 

[Quahom1]

I read through the linked document. I thought that Christ was supposed to return on a cloud, rather than in the body of a German mystic.

That is interesting. The Gospels advise that during Christ's ascention into Heaven (on a cloud), the "angels" asked the people what they were looking at, and did they not know that Christ would return the same way He left?

But, in Revelation, John states that in his visions, Christ returns leading an army of cherebum, with Christ at the front, in purest white, eyes aflame, and full of righteous anger. If I'm not mistaken, He also carries a flaming sword...

Anyway, the variations of the return is puzzling.

Also, isn't Gabriel suppose to sound the "trumpet", prior to all of this?

Just some thoughts.

v/r

Q

 

[Marsh]

Not variations; just fulfilled prophecy

The Gospels advise that during Christ's ascention into Heaven (on a cloud), the "angels" asked the people what they were looking at, and did they not know that Christ would return the same way He left?

But, in Revelation, John states that in his visions, Christ returns leading an army of cherebum, with Christ at the front, in purest white, eyes aflame, and full of righteous anger. If I'm not mistaken, He also carries a flaming sword...

Anyway, the variations of the return is puzzling.

Q

And where does it say that he did not return from the sky? In Acts it says that Jesus entered heaven by the sky; in Revelation it says that the sky (heaven) was standing open, and then Jesus returns. It seems to me he returned by way of the sky. If I leave a room with a full beer in my hand, and then enter the same room by the same door after having finished the beer, did I not leave the same way I entered? The answer is all about semantics.

But here's something else Jesus said: "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect-- if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." When Jesus returns, everyone is going to know-- as it is written. I am actually, therefore, encouraged by hearing about this German guy, because it means that Jesus will be back soon.

If I see him before you do, I'll be sure to say Guten Tag for you

 

[Quahom1]

And where does it say that he did not return from the sky? In Acts it says that Jesus entered heaven by the sky; in Revelation it says that the sky (heaven) was standing open, and then Jesus returns. It seems to me he returned by way of the sky. If I leave a room with a full beer in my hand, and then enter the same room by the same door after having finished the beer, did I not leave the same way I entered? The answer is all about semantics.

But here's something else Jesus said: "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect-- if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." When Jesus returns, everyone is going to know-- as it is written. I am actually, therefore, encouraged by hearing about this German guy, because it means that Jesus will be back soon.

If I see him before you do, I'll be sure to say Guten Tag for you

No worries mate, we'll meet Him at the same time. My point is not the sky, but the nuance and the frame of mind that Christ has when He returns, as opposed to when He left.

He left like a Lamb, but scripture indicates He will return like a lion. And scripture also alludes to Him returning like a Lamb (Gospel vs. Revelation).

Of course God can do anything He wants to do. ;-)

v/r

Q

 

[iBrian]

Isn't there a quote about Jesus returning as like a thief in the night?

 

[Iacchus]

I read through the linked document. I thought that Christ was supposed to return on a cloud, rather than in the body of a German mystic.

Of course the vision that transpires in the book of Revelation is none other than the mystical account of St. John, which he witnessed while in the spiritual realm. So who's to say the book of Revelation won't be fulfilled in a similar fashion if, in fact such a thing hasn't occurred already, except by means of a mystic. By the way, the mystic I'm referring to here is the Swedish born scientist Emanual Swedenborg, rather than Martin Luther who was in fact German.

 

[Iacchus]

But here's something else Jesus said: "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect-- if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." When Jesus returns, everyone is going to know-- as it is written. I am actually, therefore, encouraged by hearing about this German guy, because it means that Jesus will be back soon.

If I see him before you do, I'll be sure to say Guten Tag for you

Yes, but who was John the Baptist supposed to represent, if none other than the second coming of Elijah?

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. ~ Matthew 11:11-15

Of course to understand this is to understand John the Baptist wasn't really Elijah, however, he did represent Elijah in the spirit.

By the way Brian, the reference you're looking for is 2 Peter 3:9-11 ...

 

[gluadys]

The only "official" interpretation is an entirely denominational matter.

Isn't it?

The Catholic and, I believe, the Orthodox churches hold that the Church is the official interpreter of scripture. We Presbyterians, and most Protestants, I believe, hold that the Holy Spirit is the official interpreter of scripture. A number of denominations hold that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is given to individuals, but in Reformed theology, the task of the Holy Spirit is to guide the Church into all truth.

 

[gluadys]

Well, you have to understand that the Bible had been repressed for at least a thousand years or, how ever long the Roman Catholic Church preached to the masses in Latin which, in effect nobody understood. And then along came Martin Luther and the printing press (Gutenberg) and now the Bible had finally become accessible. However, we're talking about 1,500 years after the fact. That's a long period of time of not knowing! In which case how could it be anything but subject to interpretation? So, if in fact there was anything legitimate to the Bible in the first place and, if the Guy upstairs were to remain consistent, then at some point it should be decreed that an offical account be given. And this I would suggest to you had little to do with The Reformation.

Now I am not Roman Catholic, but I still find this a curiously paranoid point of view. Is it really likely that, apart from some special revelation, the unlettered masses would be able to interpret scripture better than monks who spent their whole lives in studying it? How can you say the church went through 1500 years of not knowing?

And supposing that God did feel it was time to give a new "official account" why would it be significantly different from the historic faith?

In any case, any "official account" soon becomes dated and in need of further adaptation and re-interpretation anyway. That has been our experience with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which is one of our official interpretive documents. We now either have to re-interpret or re-write or disallow portions of the WCF as well as interpreting scripture.

 

[gluadys]

Of course, the principal message behind most of the texts about Jesus' return is that we do not know the day or the hour. So we are to be on the alert and ready at any time, yet not waste time in idle speculation looking to the clouds, but be busy serving God in our daily lives.

Clouds and trumpets and horses and armies are all symbolic, and not to be literally expected. They are ways to try and express the inexpressible in human speech.

 

[Marsh]

Elijah and John and Elijah again

Yes, John the Baptist did represent Elijah (i.e. he prophecied in the same spirit given to Elijah the prophet). However, that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Elijah is to return before the day of the Lord, as it is written by the prophet Malachi:

"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers..."

The day of the LORD, as far as I can see, refers to a day that has not yet come because the prophets who talk about it-- Malachi, Amos, Joel, Zephaniah to name several-- seem to couple it with the day of judgment, which has not yet come. Most people agree that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the Revelation of Jesus Christ and also by the prophet Hosea. So while Elijah was symbolized by John the Baptist (just like Jesus himself was symbolized by figures in the OT such as Boaz, Joshua, and many others), that doesn't mean that the real Elijah won't be back someday.

Also, I don't necessarily believe that "Clouds and trumpets and horses and armies are all symbolic," nor do I believe that they are not. For example, it was prophecied that Jesus would enter Jerusalem on a donkey's colt, which he did. The same act can be taken as symbolic of the harvest of wheat (before threshing, the wheat was usually transported to threshing floors via donkey, just like Jesus was transported to Jerusalem to be "threshed," per se). They can be both sometimes.

And I'm sorry that I mixed up the Swedish with the Germans, but Swedebourg's nationality isn't going to change my mind about his being a crackp-- oh, I mean mystic.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, John the Baptist did represent Elijah (i.e. he prophecied in the same spirit given to Elijah the prophet). However, that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Elijah is to return before the day of the Lord, as it is written by the prophet Malachi:

"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers..."

What's the difference between this and the passage I quoted above? I think what you need to understand here is that God comes in all shapes, forms and sizes and, that's it's the gift of the interpreter -- yes, through the aid of the Holy Spirit as gluadys says -- to interpret what these signs mean. In other words you might be in for a long wait if you're waiting for a literal interpretation to come about.

And I'm sorry that I mixed up the Swedish with the Germans, but Swedebourg's nationality isn't going to change my mind about his being a crackp-- oh, I mean mystic.

Even though you're willing to believe the words of some crackpot mystic who wrote the book of Revelation 2,000 years ago. But how do you know he wasn't just making it up?

 

[gluadys]

Also, I don't necessarily believe that "Clouds and trumpets and horses and armies are all symbolic," nor do I believe that they are not. For example, it was prophecied that Jesus would enter Jerusalem on a donkey's colt, which he did. The same act can be taken as symbolic of the harvest of wheat (before threshing, the wheat was usually transported to threshing floors via donkey, just like Jesus was transported to Jerusalem to be "threshed," per se). They can be both sometimes.

Jesus apparently arranged ahead of time to have the donkey ready. I expect he also knew about the prophecy in Zechariah. That sort of knowledge helps assure the fulfilment of prophecy.

Of course, even if we don't assumed the fulfilment was arranged, we have some other options.

1) Matthew was an incessant "prophecy hunter" mining OT texts for anything he could lay his hands on as a "prophecy" even when he had to mis-translate it and take it out of context as he did Isaiah 7:14.

2)The early church invented the story to create a fulfilment of the prophecy and the evangelists picked it up from oral history.

In short, we should be skeptical of what leads up to prophecy being fulfilled. Especially as the term "prophet" in the OT was not primarily geared to foretelling the future, but to re-calling the people to faithful observance of the covenant in the present.

 

[Iacchus]

Now I am not Roman Catholic, but I still find this a curiously paranoid point of view. Is it really likely that, apart from some special revelation, the unlettered masses would be able to interpret scripture better than monks who spent their whole lives in studying it? How can you say the church went through 1500 years of not knowing?

But what purpose does it serve to read the Bible to the masses in Latin when, in fact no one understands it? It would seem the very least they could do was read it in a tongue people could understand if, in fact that's what they wanted people to do. Otherwise you're stuck with having to take someone else's word for it, and what kind of belief is there in that?

And supposing that God did feel it was time to give a new "official account" why would it be significantly different from the historic faith?

So how does this explain why there are so many different interpretations to the Protestant faith then? Does this mean they are all at variance with the only true interpretation which, was the Roman Catholic interpretation? Or, could it be an official interpretation has never been given?

In any case, any "official account" soon becomes dated and in need of further adaptation and re-interpretation anyway. That has been our experience with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which is one of our official interpretive documents. We now either have to re-interpret or re-write or disallow portions of the WCF as well as interpreting scripture.

Yeah, but who the heck are these guys and what makes their interpretation so unique? Just because a group of men decide to get together, for whatever political purposes that might entail? and put their stamp of approval on something, does that make it official? Indeed, you're still stuck with having to take their word for it.

 

[bananabrain]

Christianity IS Judaism in its purest form.

i don't *think* so. presumably you're joking. insofar as this would make any sense in jewish terms, the 'purest form of judaism' is in fact judaism, thank you very much.

to understand this is to understand John the Baptist wasn't really Elijah, however, he did represent Elijah in the spirit.

this is so typical, though! co-opting jewish texts to make them support non-jewish points of view despite the lack of support or evidence from within the text itself.

The Catholic and, I believe, the Orthodox churches hold that the Church is the official interpreter of scripture. We Presbyterians, and most Protestants, I believe, hold that the Holy Spirit is the official interpreter of scripture.

what about sticking to greek grammar and rules of interpretation? obviously it's easier to read a translation of a translation and then filter that through modern experience.

I haven't even cracked open the OT prophets like Isaiah who make statements about the spread of the word of God to the gentiles, or like Jonah who allude to it symbolically.

you also have to take into account that the jews are also called "a nation" and distinguish between what is addressed to the jewish nation specifically and what refers to nations in general. and the general part is far less general than you might think. could you give examples of these statements?

just like Jesus himself was symbolized by figures in the OT such as Boaz, Joshua, and many others

according to christians, that is. and boaz is far less important than his wife is.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[gluadys]

But what purpose does it serve to read the Bible to the masses in Latin when, in fact no one understands it? It would seem the very least they could do was read it in a tongue people could understand if, in fact that's what they wanted people to do. Otherwise you're stuck with having to take someone else's word for it, and what kind of belief is there in that?

Well, the mass was never the laity's only source of information about the scriptures. Priest, monks and friars also preached and taught, both inside and outside the churches. And they didn't stick to Latin then.

As for why the worship was in Latin after it was no longer vernacular, I don't know, but it is not at all unique. Orthodox churches still use Old Russian or Old Slavonic, etc. languages as foreign to modern Slavic-speakers as Anglo-Saxon is to us. And whatever their first language Sikhs use Punjabi in worship and Muslims use Arabic.

It doesn't mean they remain ignorant of the teachings of their faith.

So how does this explain why there are so many different interpretations to the Protestant faith then? Does this mean they are all at variance with the only true interpretation which, was the Roman Catholic interpretation? Or, could it be an official interpretation has never been given?

About 95% of Protestants belong to the Anglican/Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist or Baptist/Anabaptist church families, with Pentecostals growing rapidly. Most of the differences are more about church governance than doctrine, and most of the doctrinal differences are minor enough that all of these groups can subscribe to the Nicean creed. The ecumenical movement has gone a long way to erasing old hostilities which exaggerated differences. Most now see the differences as immaterial to maintaining the unity of Christian faith.

Yeah, but who the heck are these guys and what makes their interpretation so unique? Just because a group of men decide to get together, for whatever political purposes that might entail? and put their stamp of approval on something, does that make it official? Indeed, you're still stuck with having to take their word for it.

Same sort of guys who wrote scripture in the first place, and collected it and canonized it and interpreted it. Yes, it does make it official. And yes, it does mean taking their word for it. That is why the apostles call themselves "witnesses". They claimed to be chosen by God as witnesses to the resurrection and they invited other people to take their word for it.

Same as Moses went to the Israelite slaves in Egypt with a story about hearing God speaking from a burning bush and promising them liberation from slavery and inviting them to take his word for it. And Mohammad claimed to receive the Qur'an from the angel Gabriel and gathered disciples who took his word for it.

In essence that is what faith is: trusting in the word of witnesses on the basis of what you hear and on the basis of their character and good name. Trusting in the God they proclaim because you decide to take the word of those who claim to be God's witnesses.

 

[iBrian]

I preume the issue of preserving language is to prevent "corruption" of the original teachings.

After all, if you translate Shakespeare into Russian, then translate the Russian into Hindi, then translate the Hindi back into English - there's a good chance you won't have what you started with.

Maybe something of the semantics remain, but the interpretation no doubt could vary wildly.

You only have to compare literal readings of the Old Testament in English, to the Jewish interpertations of the Hebrew, to see an accentuated difference. Sublety and nuance seem particularly to be lost.

 

[Marsh]

you also have to take into account that the jews are also called "a nation" and distinguish between what is addressed to the jewish nation specifically and what refers to nations in general. and the general part is far less general than you might think. could you give examples of these statements?

according to christians, that is. and boaz is far less important than his wife is.

Are we not in a Christian forum? Of course my connections are according to Christians. As for your statement about Boaz, I think you should read that book again: without him, there's really not much of a story.

But what is this Jewish nation that you speak of? What does God see nations as?

Jeremiah 18: "...I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in the hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. Then the word of the LORD came to me: 'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?' declares the LORD."

The Jews, like every nation, are a nation only insofar as God wills it that way, and the moment that he decides to destroy it, raise it up, or modify it, we can consider it done immediately. Therefore, from that point on if God at any time wishes to draw the Gentiles into his fold, everything that is written in scripture to instruct his chosen people retroactively applies to new believers. I believe that Jesus came to draw all mankind together; to be a light to the world, and not just to the Jews. Therefore, by faith, I can logically deduce that the scripture applies to me as well.

Whether you agree or not, which I'll assume you don't because nobody ever does, here's a statement that assuredly applies to me: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Here's another one: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Now if God saw all that he made, didn't that include the present? After all, every event is a remote cause of the present. If I create something, but know later it will fail and I will want to throw it away, would I describe it as being "very good?" God created me in his image, and he said I was very good. Then I fell, and so did you, and so did the Gentiles and so did the Jews. We all fell equally. Why, then, would God choose only the Jews to resurrect, and leave the Gentiles in the cold for all of eternity? That doesn't sound like someone who desires mercy over sacrifice.

 

[Marsh]

Jesus apparently arranged ahead of time to have the donkey ready. I expect he also knew about the prophecy in Zechariah. That sort of knowledge helps assure the fulfilment of prophecy.

In short, we should be skeptical of what leads up to prophecy being fulfilled. Especially as the term "prophet" in the OT was not primarily geared to foretelling the future, but to re-calling the people to faithful observance of the covenant in the present.

Isn't a prophet someone who speaks the word of God? And in that case, wouldn't God be the 'thing' that leads up to a prophecy being fulfilled?

Actually, I find it kind of amazing that Jesus-- who never went to school and as such should have been for the most part illiterate-- knew about such a small prophecy in the writing of one of the minor prophets.