Revelation; The Seven Churches (have been warned-pt1)

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Remembering the central Theme from the OP (DISREALI, please correct me if I'm wrong)


Originally posted by DISRAELI
What's emerging from these reflections is a sense of the menace which is coming from outside the church.
This is a recurring theme in the Bible as a whole.
The classic example, in the Old Testament, is the the oppression suffered by the Israelites and the hands of the Egyptian Pharaoh, which is identified with the life-work of Moses.
Then, of course, the story continues, with Israel's experiences with the Philistines, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and so on.

These letters indicate how the same theme was experienced by the church in John's own time.
The rest of Revelation points towards a renewal of the same pattern, in the fulfilment of prophecy.


From the earliest days of the Christian Church and its many diverse sects, they were faced by a polytheistic majority within the Roman Empire. This is definitely an external threat and many of those Christians were terrorized by not only the polytheists but various Roman Emporers as well.

As the church grew in strength, the various sects themselves began to bicker and fight among themselves, each considering the other heretical. This also was an 'external threat' as the massacres intensified over the simple argument of whether Jesus was LIKE God or the SAME AS God.

If you look into Arianism, you will find that this difference of opinion figured massively during the time of Constantine.

I propose that the 'Warning' applies to that time.




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


What about Jesus rules?

That would be so nice.

That would we love and forgive.

That would mean no wars.

But guess what, wars, killing, suffering, starvation ARE ALL HAPPENING - do you know why? Because of men! Women would like to end this right now.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I could say any manner of things here. But the truth is it's the same old game. The part that angers me is that these are not innocent questions, they are quite cleverly disguised attacks.

Now, the bible answers all of these questions, quite clearly, which is part of the reason it's such a "popular" book. It's also handy to have a single "source" which we could all verify independantly. If you accept the bible at all, that is.

And sometimes, you have to be a bit more direct than you are asked, and it's sometimes easier to quote a more learned man than yourself (especially a well known quote), when speaking of unpleasant things. (like quoting Twain when telling one to sod off, Mr Twain was MUCH better at it than me)

I could paraphrase if you like?


Quoting you quoting the OP:


Originally posted by DISRAELI What's emerging from these reflections is a sense of the menace which is coming from outside the church.


Now duality and superiority and claimed intellectual superiority, masked with a sense of innocense and goodness comes from one place only, and the clever words hide the evil within. I am unworthy to rebuke, but in the name of Jesus Christ i am given that authourity.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
is a sense of the menace which is coming from outside the church.

From the earliest days of the Christian Church and its many diverse sects, they were faced by a polytheistic majority within the Roman Empire. This is definitely an external threat and many of those Christians were terrorized by not only the polytheists but various Roman Emporers as well.


If you look into Arianism, you will find that this difference of opinion figured massively during the time of Constantine.

I propose that the 'Warning' applies to that time.


As a first point, you may not be aware that in the second thread on this theme "the seven churches are warned- against toleration". I looked at the danger to the church coming from within, in terms of the danger of syncretism, attempting to bring other religions into the Christian faith. I used Elijah to represent the struggle against that, just as Moses represents the struggle against persecution.

There could be a case for regarding the Arian controversy as an example of that kind of danger.

The moral I was drawing was that, by the nature of things, both threats are ever-present, recurrent. So your proposal can be accepted without ruling out the possibility of more future fulfilment as well.

At one point I was very well-read on the controversies of those times. I like to think that I understand both the Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition (but this may be the first sign of madness). Oh, yes, and put me down for "same", not "similar".



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller
[Quoting you quoting the OP:


Originally posted by DISRAELI What's emerging from these reflections is a sense of the menace which is coming from outside the church.


Now duality and superiority and claimed intellectual superiority, masked with a sense of innocense and goodness comes from one place only, and the clever words hide the evil within. I am unworthy to rebuke, but in the name of Jesus Christ i am given that authourity.


Hey, Harry, it's all right.
Masqua's not attacking me.
He's on our side, I know what he's getting at.
[or I thought I did, anyway]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller
I could say any manner of things here. But the truth is it's the same old game. The part that angers me is that these are not innocent questions, they are quite cleverly disguised attacks.


Please clarify what you see as 'cleverly disguised attacks and if they are directed at the contents of the OP or not. It's unclear what your intentions are.


If you accept the bible at all, that is.


I only accept what was stated in the Sermon on the Mount. I'm sure you are familiar with it. Much of what is left in the biblical texts are the result of exclusions and alteration/modification through dificult translation.



And sometimes, you have to be a bit more direct than you are asked, and it's sometimes easier to quote a more learned man than yourself (especially a well known quote), when speaking of unpleasant things. (like quoting Twain when telling one to sod off, Mr Twain was MUCH better at it than me)

I could paraphrase if you like?



Please do be more direct. It seems as if it might be a direct personal attack on somebody. Just who it is directed at is quite unclear.



Now duality and superiority and claimed intellectual superiority, masked with a sense of innocense and goodness comes from one place only, and the clever words hide the evil within. I am unworthy to rebuke, but in the name of Jesus Christ i am given that authourity.


And in the name of humankind, I am given the authority to question the dogma which we ourselves have mentallyshackled ourselves with.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


did jesus tell to forgive ?
if god is one, it is god in you forgiving (understanding) himself.

these things are important to understand the real meaning of revelation,
but i understand the focus goes away before it comes back and maybe this derails the topic to much. But there is no understanding of revelation without understanding the seemingly duality of Gods Oneness.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds

did jesus tell to forgive ?
if god is one, it is god in you forgiving (understanding) himself.

Not so,because the people we are forgiving are not God.
They are other than God, just as we are other than God.
This goes back to the most basic distinction of all, the distinction between the Creator God and the creation itself.
We belong to the creation, which makes us distinct from the Creator God.
That is fundamental to the Bible.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
then god is not everything,and he is not god.

what did god say that he was ?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I refer to attacks on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The salvation of man is a central premise in the OP, and it is clear that this premise is under attack, and has been for centuries by many people, both in and out the church.

The sermon on the mount is certainly an acceptable summary i'll agree, but i fail to see why that is "acceptable" while other verses from the same book even, are not?

And yes, we are all instructed to challenge dogma, both by Jesus and our own human rationality. We are also taught that we battle not against flesh and blood but powers and principalitiues. Us humans are just the piggy in the middle. I apologise if it sounds like i'm attacking people. I'm attacking (perhaps) what lies inside of people, dogmas and more.

To DISREALI: Thanks, i see what he's getting at too ... i certainly have no menace towards masqua
i only hope he feels the same!!

i keep getting back to the verses that relate: Do not be deceived. You can only be deceived by one who thinks he is smarter than you, KNOWs what the truth really is, and decides to hurt you anyway. This journey (IMHO) is not about discovering the truth, but remembering it, and keeping it safe, which is actually the hard part.

Jesus said:



I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me.


There's the truth. And anyone who tries to show that there is another way, is lying.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
the names of god:

I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me = the way, the truth, life.

im sorry if i scare people away,
ill only answer on direct questions or ongoing discussions with me from now on.
i think its better.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds

what did god say that he was ?

God said that he was the one who created "the heavens and the earth".
That, in itself, distinguishes God from "the heavens and the earth".

If God thought he was in all gods, he would not give us the instruction "You shall have no other gods but me". That instruction proves that there is a distinction.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
why would god not be able to create IN himself ?
the heavens are what you think ?
clouds ? or the higher being of God himself ?
every symbol has different levels,
a literal, ones in history and one in absolute.

Isaiah: there is none other then me.
the Law: i am one
the Gospel: i am one, confirming the law
Quran: I am one
Hinduism: I am one
Budhism: I am so one, that i dont exist as one where i am one,
because i am the many as one, elohim



[edit on 6-8-2010 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds
why would god not be able to create IN himself ?

Because that would not be Creation.
It would be a different kind of religion.
That's a possible philosophical approach. but it's not the Bible.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds
the Gospel: i am one, confirming the law


Where does it say that? I am not familiar with it, and cannot find it in my online bible?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
normally i dont like to quote...

Psalm 90:1-2 "Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

Revelation 21:6 "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


"i am not here to take away from the law but to fullfill it"

the highest command, love your god,
god is explained in the written laws for people who depend on the written law, and in heart and mind for people who search those.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 

Your quotations demonstrate that God is the source of all things.
So far, so good. That's what the teaching of "Creation" means.
What you are not demonstrating here is that God is the same as all things, that there is no distinction.
I've given many examples showing that the making of distinctions is of the very essence of the Bible.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
yes and no.

thats why new age teachings are incomplete also.

God is all as free, but not all is God as free.


God is everything, because he created everything from within him,
and he is responsible for every throught that is being thought and every deed that is being done. But still there is choice between certain borders,
where people in their godness, which is not complete without full cross, can make the choice to not forgive themselves = the way, and in this way god can choose to step outside god.

this is dualism, or the inversion of god.
thats why jesus told things about left and right,
about turning inside out, about people not knowing what their other hand is doing etc etc

god directed pharaos thoughts, and he is directing yours, nothing is outside god. and god creates in himself.
or he is not everything, if he is not everything, truth can not be truth because it is subject to a higher truth, meaning there is a bigger god then god, which is impossible because then god would not be god.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 


Well no, i do understand that


However, neither quote shows your assertion, specifically that God says he is One, anywhere, old or new testament. And which laws do you refer to? The commandments? Or the higher laws?

The christian God is a trinity, a seperate kettle of intellectual fish, but certainly not one.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join