"The Trinity" (all caps emphasized for Persona sake)..........the trinity (lack of all caps and persona emphasized)
Hi Chockfull,
Your comment brought to mind the distinction I make in my mind:
'The Trinity' is the doctrine itself, best summarized in the following statement:
"God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit"
but
'the trinity' is God, Jesus, and the holy spirit
Back to the topic of the thread, I had mentioned in a previous post here that the way I see the question posed by this thread (What does Jesus have in common with the sun), is that Jesus is more figuratively similar to the moon, but God more figuratively similar to the sun, in the verses I quoted in that post.
And the city had no need of the SUN, neither of the MOON, to shine in it: for the glory of GOD did lighten it, and the LAMB is the light thereof." ~ Revelation 21:23
Is this figurative? Or literal? the word "LAMB" is figurative. Other than that are we 100% sure? This is I believe speaking of the "new Jerusalem" right? So it's in the future. The glory of God lights the city. Literally or figuratively? The LAMB is the light thereof. Literally or figuratively?
The city "had no need of the SUN, neither of the MOON, to shine in it."
Some commentaries have speculated this means the age of electricity we live in. I think the Left Behind series interprets this literally with God the light bulb or similar.
Lots of people like to "roll the dice" with interpretations of Revelation. I'm more like "sounds cool I'm sure I'll fully understand when I see it".
And the city had no need of the SUN, neither of the MOON, to shine in it: for the glory of GOD did lighten it, and the LAMB is the light thereof." ~ Revelation 21:23
Is this figurative? Or literal?
I believe it the sun and the moon it is talking about are literal, there are no other indications in the vese that they are figurative.
The figurative part is in relating the Sun and Moon to God and Jesus.
Jesus in his earthly ministry had spirit from God. Here is a verse that is a good example that shows how spirit can be manifested to be seen with physical eyes, and may explain how God who is spirit (John 4:24) and Jesus who has a glorified body (the spiritual body of 1 Cor 15:44 which has spirit inside) can manifest their spirits to give light:
"And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 and was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light."
(Note that this verse is not figuratively comparing Jesus as the sun, it only says that his face did shine as the sun).
I doubt it is talking about electriciy in heaven. Everybody knows there are no electricians in heaven
I think I remember the Left Behind series with a literal visual depiction of light from the glory of GOD and I think Christ appeared as a lamb illuminated or something. The author there did a lot of literal interpretation in his fictional work LOL.
Figurative analgram kind of construct with Sun-Moon and God-Lamb. This figure gives it a little rhythm kind of like the "Goodnight Moon" children's novel.
Figuratively the LAMB is emphasized as this is New Jerusalem. This book deals in terms of Israel also - Revelation. Thus the figurative emphasis on the sacrificial lamb that redeemed the sins of Israel.
I agree with your basic premise that there is a correlation between the natural world and the supernatural world
Basic logic:
God (supernatural spirit) created the heavens and the earth (natural), which correlates the natural and supernatural
But I see Genesis 1:16 ~ (TWO great lights, not one Great Light, but one Light is Greater)
"And God made two great lights; the Greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
Greater Light (Rules Day) = Sun
lesser light (rules night) = moon
fits more naturally with the scriptures as they are written:
SUN / MOON
GOD / LAMB (Jesus Christ)
"And the city had no need of the SUN, neither of the MOON, to shine in it: for the glory of GOD did lighten it, and the LAMB is the light thereof." ~ Revelation 21:23 (CAPS for easier viewing of correlation)
(By the way, the quote of Rev 21:23 in your original post omits a few very important words, including the word God, which affects the conclusion)
So:
There are 2 Great lights according to Genesis 1:16
But one is a Greater Light
Logic (Logos):
TWO great lights
ONE is the Greater Light
The Sun is Greater than the Moon
The Sun is the Greater Light
The Moon is lesser than the Sun
The Moon is the lesser light
God is Greater then Jesus
Jesus is lesser than God
So I cannot see Jesus being The Great Light
Both God and Jesus are Great Lights
But Jesus is the lesser light
God is The Greater Light
Just to let you know, my interest on this particular idea will not sustain very long, drawn out posts or conversations
I prefer to see the principal points & scriptures
I do follow the principle of Occam's Razor
God Bless
SORRY ALL --- for not having visited my topic here in quite some time. (I've been busy working in collaboration on a related topic with a friend, for possible publication this year.)
Goldstar: I'm glad we agree on the "curious relationship" which seems to exist among both the natural and supernatural realms. As far as the "sun and Christ go", their relationship is quite wonderful to behold. And I've done much in trying to be concise, so as not to belabor the readers. However, "cutting corners" in an attempt to save time does have its drawbacks! (Ha!)
I agree with you that JC is not "The Great Light", for (in essence) he's just a "chip off the old block", so to speak. Now as far as the sun and moon are concerned, I have good reasons to suppose Jesus relates with the sun and John (the Baptist) with the moon: Hint: John said "I am not that light [JC], but am come to bear witness of that light." Just as the moon has no real light of it's own, neither did John. He was merely a "reflection of the sun".
AND: It seems more sematically accurate to refer to God himself as LIGHT (not "great light" or "greater light", but more like "light itself". Then, Jesus would be as "great light" even as John is also (semantically) "great light". However: Of the "two great lights", Jesus would be the greater and John the lesser. (See the 4th day in Genesis 1, where God speaks of the "two great lights" (with one being greater than the other).
ALSO: As I have seen, the 7 days in Gen 1 appear to relate in a wonderful way with the 7 administrations: And the 4th day represents the 4th Administration (The Gospel Period, or Christ Administration) --- where we see that which pertains to "the 4th time", which (of course) includes the records of both Jesus and John.
I hope that adds a "little more light" on this vast subject for you. (LOL)
On 3/12/2018 at 10:27 PM, Taxidev said:
The way I see true science is that it merely explains what already is. It doesn't discover anything, because it's already in front of us. And it doesn't define anything new, because it is God that creates. A scientist may discover something he didn't know, but the facts have always been there, because God already put them there.
So it is axiomatic that true science will always agree with scripture, because God created it all. He set the physical and chemical laws in place. If it doesn't agree with scripture, then the test and analysis is corrupted in some human way. This is done frequently with statistics, to be able to support one's argument. But that is not true science, that is manipulated science.
So, how's your awe now?
Taxidev: We ARE in basic agreement. Anyone who supposes "true science" doesn't line up with the way God himself designed the natural realm --- is thinking foolishly. I rather like your logic that (when there seems a discrepancy) the error lies "within the inherent corruption of the testing process itself". "Manipulated science" is just another way of what the Bible refers to as "science falsely so called".
Ro 1:20 --- For the invisible [spiritual realities] things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made --- even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
And YES! I am indeed in sheer AWE of what God created; and ALSO in how he so wisely chose to tell us all about it --- by wording things in such a "peculiar, quite precise and most pithy way".
15 hours ago, chockfull said:
Interesting thread.
It brings to mind I recently had the opportunity to visit a Jesuit college. I recollect looking at statues depicting the intersection of science and faith. I met the head of the college who is a Jesuit himself and very dedicated to the Jesuit mission in education. The staff was strong, mission oriented, and united. They are strong in education for the medical related fields.
A couple of the tenets I remember are "cura persona" meaning a medical approach to cure the whole person, not just a part, and also that purpose in life comes through service so they require community service hours in their education.
Of course I need standard disclaimers here for those who might be highly offended at me using Catholic or Jesuit resources. No I haven't "gone back" to Catholic church or any of its doctrines (actually never was Catholic), no I don't believe in "The Trinity" (all caps emphasized for Persona sake), yes I read scriptures, yes I pray and live as a Christian and attend a local community Christian church that probably believes in the trinity (lack of all caps and persona emphasized) but I haven't heard a lot on it and no I don't believe in an extreme fundamentalism viewpoint. Now y'alls can label me and categorize me properly for your brain cells.
I like to read.
I don't like boundaries. Especially those that smack of religiosity or man-made commandments of the sort that brought me under bondage in the Way.
Chockfull: I too had become very narrow-minded in my relationships with other Christian groups because of how The Way influenced me. I'm happy to report that I'm FAR FROM THAT these days. I can associate with ANY GROUP I like without fear of reprisal! So what if I'm speaking with someone who still thinks "water's the way to go" when being baptized? So what if I choose to have a meaningful conversation with someone who happens to think that JC is really God? I can glean MUCH from many places now! (And you'd be surprised what you can learn by making friends with those practicing Judiasm --- WOW!
Bolshevik: I enjoyed skimming over those "10 reasons". Some very interesting notions there (from the constellations) --- that's for sure! Thanks for posting!
8 hours ago, chockfull said:
And the city had no need of the SUN, neither of the MOON, to shine in it: for the glory of GOD did lighten it, and the LAMB is the light thereof." ~ Revelation 21:23
Is this figurative? Or literal? the word "LAMB" is figurative. Other than that are we 100% sure? This is I believe speaking of the "new Jerusalem" right? So it's in the future. The glory of God lights the city. Literally or figuratively? The LAMB is the light thereof. Literally or figuratively?
The city "had no need of the SUN, neither of the MOON, to shine in it."
Some commentaries have speculated this means the age of electricity we live in. I think the Left Behind series interprets this literally with God the light bulb or similar.
Lots of people like to "roll the dice" with interpretations of Revelation. I'm more like "sounds cool I'm sure I'll fully understand when I see it".
Chockfull: Certainly "the city" refers to "New Jerusalem" (of the future). And I doubt (like hell!) that somehow Jesus (aka: "the lamb") will be transformed into a "burning mass of hydrogen", so he can be asuitable replacement for the sun. (LOL) My topic here only refers to the "curious semantic usage" of the term "great light" as it relates to BOTH the sun and Jesus Christ in Scripture, so (of course) I tend to view these as figurative. (And the notion of "electricity" and "light bulbs" makes me chuckle!)
As far a "rolling the dice" with interpreting (the book of) Revelation: I find it fits very nicely with "the entirety of Scripture" --- that is, when one decides to employ "the same semantic terminology" as God used while authoring the rest of the Bible, beginning with Genesis Chapter One. When we compare similarly used words and phrases which are seen throughout, the "parallels" are simply amazing to see --- so that even Revelation becomes a "much less mysterious" book.
ALSO: As I have seen, the 7 days in Gen 1 appear to relate in a wonderful way with the 7 administrations: And the 4th day represents the 4th Administration (The Gospel Period, or Christ Administration) --- where we see that which pertains to "the 4th time", which (of course) includes the records of both Jesus and John.
Giving no concern to nomenclature, it's the differences propounded in where or how (or even whether) administrations actually change that (at least in part) has lead me to believe that this is precisely what the "rightly dividing" of 2Tim. 2:15 is directed towards. Not whether some pie is cut apart into even sections or bite sized chunks, and not whether the words, phrases or figures of speech of an ancient languages are correctly parsed or translated.
There is no "Christ Administration." He lived in a time after the giving of the law to Israel. If there is a change in God's instructions to Israel while Christ was here on earth, I just don't see it. Sure, there was some added clarification to what the law meant... or where and when it was or wasn't applicable. But where or how do you see a change? When did he ever tell any of the 12 to abandon or end the law? It sure didn't end on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 (when they were in the temple at an hour of prayer.)
Well, I'd continue, but it's undoubtedly off the topic of this thread a bit and would be better off elsewhere (where it can get ignored and, as before, buried in another dead thread. May it rest in peace...)
Chockfull: I too had become very narrow-minded in my relationships with other Christian groups because of how The Way influenced me. I'm happy to report that I'm FAR FROM THAT these days. I can associate with ANY GROUP I like without fear of reprisal! So what if I'm speaking with someone who still thinks "water's the way to go" when being baptized? So what if I choose to have a meaningful conversation with someone who happens to think that JC is really God? I can glean MUCH from many places now! (And you'd be surprised what you can learn by making friends with those practicing Judiasm --- WOW!
Chockfull: Certainly "the city" refers to "New Jerusalem" (of the future). And I doubt (like hell!) that somehow Jesus (aka: "the lamb") will be transformed into a "burning mass of hydrogen", so he can be asuitable replacement for the sun. (LOL) My topic here only refers to the "curious semantic usage" of the term "great light" as it relates to BOTH the sun and Jesus Christ in Scripture, so (of course) I tend to view these as figurative. (And the notion of "electricity" and "light bulbs" makes me chuckle!)
As far a "rolling the dice" with interpreting (the book of) Revelation: I find it fits very nicely with "the entirety of Scripture" --- that is, when one decides to employ "the same semantic terminology" as God used while authoring the rest of the Bible, beginning with Genesis Chapter One. When we compare similarly used words and phrases which are seen throughout, the "parallels" are simply amazing to see --- so that even Revelation becomes a "much less mysterious" book.
Cool to hear about the interaction with other groups and/or religions. Perspective added is valuable.
Yeah for sure on the no literal burning mass of hydrogen. It certainly isn't a great stretch for me to see Jesus Christ as the "Great Light" capitalized, not, whatever, but in the essence that Jesus Christ is the light the world saw and sees through his words and ongoing developed spiritual relationship with.
The closer I look at "the entirety of Scripture" - i.e. Canon, artifacts, critical textualism, the less I see from the lens of Wierwille's rules (i.e. prior definition setting a strict rule, where it's "used before", remote context, or similar terms the charlatan taught according to "How the Word Interprets Himself"). Most of that he lifted from Ethelbert Bullinger anyway, as opposed to developing the viewpoint thru his own study as his pattern was. Bullinger was so extremely dispensationalist - I mean so extreme he makes the Jehovah's Witnesses look normal.
I like Revelation. Just reading it is cool. It has language in there and phrasing you can't find anywhere else. And there are details of spiritual warfare there not written anywhere else. It is captivating. Inspirational. How does it apply to my daily life? There's some application but it is generally more abstract. In that essence it contains more figurative language than other sections of scripture, so literal interpretation even statistically would be lower.
As far as "mysterious" I guess that is one description but it is not an adjective I would use among the first 10 from my perspective of that book.
I didn't mean to offend getting too casual with adverbial descriptions like "rolling the dice". All I really meant to convey was the statistical ideas of the previous paragraphs, not that any one person reading or working it has any deficiency in approach or method. The feel of it to me is ethereal and beautiful.
Anyway thanks for posting and writing up the topic. Good conversation.
Bullinger was so extremely dispensationalist - I mean so extreme he makes the Jehovah's Witnesses look normal.
What is the differentiation (or definition) an extreme dispensationalist compared to one that isn't? And what was VPW, who evidently used (or borrowed, if you prefer) scripture from previous administrations when it fit better with his own thoughts and ideas?
Yeah Rocky! Semantics can sometimes get in the way of a great "meeting of the minds". Don't know why I thought of this, but here goes: Do you remember Pres Clinton being "drilled" about having sex with Monica Lewinsky? And his answer was something like: "Well, that depends upon how you define sex!"
Cool to hear about the interaction with other groups and/or religions. Perspective added is valuable.
Indeed!
The closer I look at "the entirety of Scripture" - i.e. Canon, artifacts, critical textualism, the less I see from the lens of Wierwille's rules (i.e. prior definition setting a strict rule, where it's "used before", remote context, or similar terms the charlatan taught according to "How the Word Interprets Himself"). Most of that he lifted from Ethelbert Bullinger anyway, as opposed to developing the viewpoint thru his own study as his pattern was. Bullinger was so extremely dispensationalist - I mean so extreme he makes the Jehovah's Witnesses look normal.
I learned much about many of these things while being a "grammar buff" in school. For instance, it's only logical to suppose "context" is important while reading. (DUH!) Most of the "keys to the Word's interpretation" (most being common knowledge) are found EVERYWHERE --- not in just "some little hick-town" in Ohio.
Anyway thanks for posting and writing up the topic. Good conversation.
Recommended Posts
GoldStar
I agree with much of what you said there Chockfull
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://listverse.com/2017/08/16/10-reasons-the-story-of-jesus-might-be-an-allegory-for-the-sun/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Quoting from that 10 "reasons" link show it's pure speculation:
# 10 - "as we all know"
# 9 - "may have come from"
# 8 - "It is theorized that"
# 7 - "This is claimed to be"
etc., etc., etc.....
Please don't take his click bait
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Hi Chockfull,
Your comment brought to mind the distinction I make in my mind:
'The Trinity' is the doctrine itself, best summarized in the following statement:
"God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit"
but
'the trinity' is God, Jesus, and the holy spirit
Back to the topic of the thread, I had mentioned in a previous post here that the way I see the question posed by this thread (What does Jesus have in common with the sun), is that Jesus is more figuratively similar to the moon, but God more figuratively similar to the sun, in the verses I quoted in that post.
Do you have any thoughts on that Chockfull?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And the city had no need of the SUN, neither of the MOON, to shine in it: for the glory of GOD did lighten it, and the LAMB is the light thereof." ~ Revelation 21:23
Is this figurative? Or literal? the word "LAMB" is figurative. Other than that are we 100% sure? This is I believe speaking of the "new Jerusalem" right? So it's in the future. The glory of God lights the city. Literally or figuratively? The LAMB is the light thereof. Literally or figuratively?
The city "had no need of the SUN, neither of the MOON, to shine in it."
Some commentaries have speculated this means the age of electricity we live in. I think the Left Behind series interprets this literally with God the light bulb or similar.
Lots of people like to "roll the dice" with interpretations of Revelation. I'm more like "sounds cool I'm sure I'll fully understand when I see it".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
I believe it the sun and the moon it is talking about are literal, there are no other indications in the vese that they are figurative.
The figurative part is in relating the Sun and Moon to God and Jesus.
Jesus in his earthly ministry had spirit from God. Here is a verse that is a good example that shows how spirit can be manifested to be seen with physical eyes, and may explain how God who is spirit (John 4:24) and Jesus who has a glorified body (the spiritual body of 1 Cor 15:44 which has spirit inside) can manifest their spirits to give light:
"And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 and was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light."
(Note that this verse is not figuratively comparing Jesus as the sun, it only says that his face did shine as the sun).
I doubt it is talking about electriciy in heaven. Everybody knows there are no electricians in heaven
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Or faith healers.
I think I remember the Left Behind series with a literal visual depiction of light from the glory of GOD and I think Christ appeared as a lamb illuminated or something. The author there did a lot of literal interpretation in his fictional work LOL.
Figurative analgram kind of construct with Sun-Moon and God-Lamb. This figure gives it a little rhythm kind of like the "Goodnight Moon" children's novel.
Figuratively the LAMB is emphasized as this is New Jerusalem. This book deals in terms of Israel also - Revelation. Thus the figurative emphasis on the sacrificial lamb that redeemed the sins of Israel.
What other figures?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
SORRY ALL --- for not having visited my topic here in quite some time. (I've been busy working in collaboration on a related topic with a friend, for possible publication this year.)
Goldstar: I'm glad we agree on the "curious relationship" which seems to exist among both the natural and supernatural realms. As far as the "sun and Christ go", their relationship is quite wonderful to behold. And I've done much in trying to be concise, so as not to belabor the readers. However, "cutting corners" in an attempt to save time does have its drawbacks! (Ha!)
I agree with you that JC is not "The Great Light", for (in essence) he's just a "chip off the old block", so to speak. Now as far as the sun and moon are concerned, I have good reasons to suppose Jesus relates with the sun and John (the Baptist) with the moon: Hint: John said "I am not that light [JC], but am come to bear witness of that light." Just as the moon has no real light of it's own, neither did John. He was merely a "reflection of the sun".
AND: It seems more sematically accurate to refer to God himself as LIGHT (not "great light" or "greater light", but more like "light itself". Then, Jesus would be as "great light" even as John is also (semantically) "great light". However: Of the "two great lights", Jesus would be the greater and John the lesser. (See the 4th day in Genesis 1, where God speaks of the "two great lights" (with one being greater than the other).
ALSO: As I have seen, the 7 days in Gen 1 appear to relate in a wonderful way with the 7 administrations: And the 4th day represents the 4th Administration (The Gospel Period, or Christ Administration) --- where we see that which pertains to "the 4th time", which (of course) includes the records of both Jesus and John.
I hope that adds a "little more light" on this vast subject for you. (LOL)
Taxidev: We ARE in basic agreement. Anyone who supposes "true science" doesn't line up with the way God himself designed the natural realm --- is thinking foolishly. I rather like your logic that (when there seems a discrepancy) the error lies "within the inherent corruption of the testing process itself". "Manipulated science" is just another way of what the Bible refers to as "science falsely so called".
Ro 1:20 --- For the invisible [spiritual realities] things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made --- even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
And YES! I am indeed in sheer AWE of what God created; and ALSO in how he so wisely chose to tell us all about it --- by wording things in such a "peculiar, quite precise and most pithy way".
Chockfull: I too had become very narrow-minded in my relationships with other Christian groups because of how The Way influenced me. I'm happy to report that I'm FAR FROM THAT these days. I can associate with ANY GROUP I like without fear of reprisal! So what if I'm speaking with someone who still thinks "water's the way to go" when being baptized? So what if I choose to have a meaningful conversation with someone who happens to think that JC is really God? I can glean MUCH from many places now! (And you'd be surprised what you can learn by making friends with those practicing Judiasm --- WOW!
Bolshevik: I enjoyed skimming over those "10 reasons". Some very interesting notions there (from the constellations) --- that's for sure! Thanks for posting!
Chockfull: Certainly "the city" refers to "New Jerusalem" (of the future). And I doubt (like hell!) that somehow Jesus (aka: "the lamb") will be transformed into a "burning mass of hydrogen", so he can be a suitable replacement for the sun. (LOL) My topic here only refers to the "curious semantic usage" of the term "great light" as it relates to BOTH the sun and Jesus Christ in Scripture, so (of course) I tend to view these as figurative. (And the notion of "electricity" and "light bulbs" makes me chuckle!)
As far a "rolling the dice" with interpreting (the book of) Revelation: I find it fits very nicely with "the entirety of Scripture" --- that is, when one decides to employ "the same semantic terminology" as God used while authoring the rest of the Bible, beginning with Genesis Chapter One. When we compare similarly used words and phrases which are seen throughout, the "parallels" are simply amazing to see --- so that even Revelation becomes a "much less mysterious" book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Cool beans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Giving no concern to nomenclature, it's the differences propounded in where or how (or even whether) administrations actually change that (at least in part) has lead me to believe that this is precisely what the "rightly dividing" of 2Tim. 2:15 is directed towards. Not whether some pie is cut apart into even sections or bite sized chunks, and not whether the words, phrases or figures of speech of an ancient languages are correctly parsed or translated.
There is no "Christ Administration." He lived in a time after the giving of the law to Israel. If there is a change in God's instructions to Israel while Christ was here on earth, I just don't see it. Sure, there was some added clarification to what the law meant... or where and when it was or wasn't applicable. But where or how do you see a change? When did he ever tell any of the 12 to abandon or end the law? It sure didn't end on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 (when they were in the temple at an hour of prayer.)
Well, I'd continue, but it's undoubtedly off the topic of this thread a bit and would be better off elsewhere (where it can get ignored and, as before, buried in another dead thread. May it rest in peace...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Cool to hear about the interaction with other groups and/or religions. Perspective added is valuable.
Yeah for sure on the no literal burning mass of hydrogen. It certainly isn't a great stretch for me to see Jesus Christ as the "Great Light" capitalized, not, whatever, but in the essence that Jesus Christ is the light the world saw and sees through his words and ongoing developed spiritual relationship with.
The closer I look at "the entirety of Scripture" - i.e. Canon, artifacts, critical textualism, the less I see from the lens of Wierwille's rules (i.e. prior definition setting a strict rule, where it's "used before", remote context, or similar terms the charlatan taught according to "How the Word Interprets Himself"). Most of that he lifted from Ethelbert Bullinger anyway, as opposed to developing the viewpoint thru his own study as his pattern was. Bullinger was so extremely dispensationalist - I mean so extreme he makes the Jehovah's Witnesses look normal.
I like Revelation. Just reading it is cool. It has language in there and phrasing you can't find anywhere else. And there are details of spiritual warfare there not written anywhere else. It is captivating. Inspirational. How does it apply to my daily life? There's some application but it is generally more abstract. In that essence it contains more figurative language than other sections of scripture, so literal interpretation even statistically would be lower.
As far as "mysterious" I guess that is one description but it is not an adjective I would use among the first 10 from my perspective of that book.
I didn't mean to offend getting too casual with adverbial descriptions like "rolling the dice". All I really meant to convey was the statistical ideas of the previous paragraphs, not that any one person reading or working it has any deficiency in approach or method. The feel of it to me is ethereal and beautiful.
Anyway thanks for posting and writing up the topic. Good conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
What is the differentiation (or definition) an extreme dispensationalist compared to one that isn't? And what was VPW, who evidently used (or borrowed, if you prefer) scripture from previous administrations when it fit better with his own thoughts and ideas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Yeah Rocky! Semantics can sometimes get in the way of a great "meeting of the minds". Don't know why I thought of this, but here goes: Do you remember Pres Clinton being "drilled" about having sex with Monica Lewinsky? And his answer was something like: "Well, that depends upon how you define sex!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.