Thanks Raf - I wasn't thinking of the confidentiality that is behind the names we give ourselves on GSC). I will reword my question to Revvel.
Rewording the question won't change the fact that he chose to reveal his own identity here a few years ago. It's not a secret because he himself made it public. I noticed the same before you asked.
Of course, he doesn't have to answer because he already has.
Rewording the question won't change the fact that he chose to reveal his own identity here a few years ago. It's not a secret because he himself made it public. I noticed the same before you asked.
Of course, he doesn't have to answer because he already has.
Now that you know, does it really matter?
I don't know when or where he revealed his identity on GSC (a link would be helpful), so it was still a secret to me. I think it does matter because is he here for a discussion or simply to teach his doctrine found in his books and on his website? I began to feel in was the latter after reading more of his posts and replies, so I decided to look him up here which lead to his post with his website which led directly to William Ayles.
I don't know what the GSC rules say about this matter, but for me personally, I feel like he is misrepresenting himself.
I don't know when or where he revealed his identity on GSC (a link would be helpful), so it was still a secret to me. I think it does matter because is he here for a discussion or simply to teach his doctrine found in his books and on his website? I began to feel in was the latter after reading more of his posts and replies, so I decided to look him up here which lead to his post with his website which led directly to William Ayles.
I don't know what the GSC rules say about this matter, but for me personally, I feel like he is misrepresenting himself.
I think he revealed himself in that thread from which you quoted him. On his profile page he posts his website. It's not a secret.
It's the Doctrinal forum. Everyone has an opinion. Almost everyone is right and almost everyone else is wrong. Me and you, us and them. Many are here to "teach" - because rewards and demerits and all that. But some good discussions are to be had, also.
It's no different than the earliest incarnations of the Church in the first and second centuries.
Revvel's style is not to my taste. So, I don't engage. He doesn't seem eager to discuss and answer questions the way Socks and WordWolf might.
When we get to the witness of Christ & the Fig Tree parable/prophecy, you can draw your own conclusions. You seem smart enough to do so.
Peace.
revvel
On 3/2/2025 at 11:55 PM, Charity said:
I don't know when or where he revealed his identity on GSC (a link would be helpful), so it was still a secret to me. I think it does matter because is he here for a discussion or simply to teach his doctrine found in his books and on his website? I began to feel in was the latter after reading more of his posts and replies, so I decided to look him up here which lead to his post with his website which led directly to William Ayles.
I don't know what the GSC rules say about this matter, but for me personally, I feel like he is misrepresenting himself.
revvel, concerning the last post I wrote before GSC went down (see above), I want to personally address my issues with this thread.
I do not feel like you want a discussion as your replies to posts in general have often been minimal in content with a “wait and see what great thing I will share next – you’ll be amazed” tone of voice. I find that to be a bit presumptuous on your part - it sounds like something a salesman would say to get you to want to buy their product. And then sure enough, a post with scriptures and your commentaries would follow.
Your specific approach to answering my questions have sounded condescending and/or patronizing as well. For example, “You continue to demonstrate the depth of your intellect. Yet another excellent question. Patience, Charity, Patience... we'll get there.” I was a teacher before I retired and learned it was best to let the students guide the lesson with their questions instead of giving them a pat on the head for asking them and then continue to follow an inflexible series of lesson I had planned.
While I do like discussing scripture and am learning to be use the Socratic method when doing so, I found this thread personally frustrating. I will, however, answer the question you did ask me next.
The Parable of the 10 Virgins: “Sleeping” Metaphor, Isaiah, Christ & The Mystery, Israel
So we are all on the same page: The Parable of the 10 Virgins is just that… a parable, a fictitious story, an illustration with symbols.
Returning to the opening question: What do “sleeping” virgins symbolize?
“While the bridegroom tarried, theyall slumbered and slept” (Matt. 25:5). 100% of the virgins—wise and foolish—slept.
Per Isaiah, Christ & Paul:“Sleeping” means “Eyes Closed,” Symbolically/Spiritually.
Isaiah 29
“Be delayed and wait, blind yourselves and be blind. They are drunk, but not with wine.
They stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord has poured out on you the spirit of deep sleep and has closed your eyes.” (Isa. 29:9, 10)
Isaiah 6
He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn and be healed.” (Isa. 6:9, 10)
Matthew 13: Christ Quoted Isaiah 6
“Therefore I speak to them in parables: ‘Because they look, but do not see. And they listen, but they do not hear, neither do they understand.’ In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:
‘By hearing, you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing, you will see and shall not perceive; for this people’s heart has grown dull. Their ears have become hard of hearing, and they have closed their eyes, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their hearts, and turn, and I should heal them.’” (Matt. 13:13-15)
Romans 11: Paul, The Mystery for Israel & the House of Jacob
Christ returned to the “eyes” metaphor, when He revealed to Paul the mystery for Israel & the house of Jacob.
For I, brethren, would not have you be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits: that blindness in part has happened to [has come over*] Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written: “There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is My covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins.” (Rom. 11:25-27)
*“Happened” in Hebrew means “to come over”; in Greek: “to come into existence.”
Next: The Parable of the 10 Virgins: The Witness of the Lord God & Christ
Peace.
revvel
Wanted to mention that when it says "all Israel shall be saved" it means that, Jews who now are believers in Jesus Christ and his finished work shall be saved. That is the essence of the "new covenant" that the mystery describes, i.e. that the Jews and Gentiles shall be one body IN CHRIST. The old covenant Jews who still await the Messiah are simply missing the boat and in danger of eternal fire. The only covenant Jews now have to make them "God's chosen people" (just like the believing Gentiles now) is belief in Jesus Christ; not their DNA, or traditions, or anything else.
I believe this must be explained again, especially since there are many a good bible teacher who still believe that Jews can be saved without Jesus.
Within this lens—of Christ’s divine revelation—there is another lens given to us by Christ on how to view Genesis to Revelation: The Mystery.
[W]e speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age knew it. For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor. 2:7, 8)
From Genesis to the Gospel of John, God had hidden a mystery—in Scriptures given prior to the Crucifixion.
Could Christ have revealed the mystery prior to the Crucifixion? No… of course not.
After the Resurrection/Ascension, Christ could reveal the mystery—and He did. That is the lens by which to view the Book of Acts to the Book of Revelation—while looking back at the rest of the Bible, including the Parable of the 10 Virgins.
On 3/2/2025 at 5:16 PM, Charity said:
What evidence is there that Jesus knew about the mystery before his crucifixion?
On 3/2/2025 at 9:42 PM, revvel said:
Charity: Have you ever asked this question before this thread?
If so, what response did you get?
I realize now that I misread what you wrote about Christ knowing the mystery before the crucifixion. You specifically stated he did not (as shown above in blue font). How "God had hidden a mystery—in Scriptures given prior to the Crucifixion" (also highlighted in blue above) is what you are endeavouring to show through this thread. I conflated your two ideas into one.
It's the Doctrinal forum. Everyone has an opinion. Almost everyone is right and almost everyone else is wrong. Me and you, us and them. Many are here to "teach" - because rewards and demerits and all that. But some good discussions are to be had, also.
It's no different than the earliest incarnations of the Church in the first and second centuries.
You’re right. I have sent revvel a post explaining my previous comment regarding his intentions regarding this thread. It’s an “in-my-opinion” post, and I will leave it at that.
Your sentence highlighted above is a good one. The way vp talked about wanting to teach the word like it hadn’t been taught since the first century led me to believe everything was perfectly accurate and agreed upon back then. It was a real eye-opener to realize it was anything but and that the contents of the bible took centuries to be decided upon because of all the disagreements. And even then, it was anything close to being perfectly accurate and continues to be so disagreed upon today.
Recommended Posts
Charity
On your thread The Torah to Revelation, you write, "The entire book can be read online on my website: www.thetimeline.org"
Are you William Ayles who wrote "The Mystery of God?"
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Revvel:
You may answer that if ypu choose, but if you choose nit to, that's ok too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thanks Raf - I wasn't thinking of the confidentiality that is behind the names we give ourselves on GSC). I will reword my question to Revvel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Rewording the question won't change the fact that he chose to reveal his own identity here a few years ago. It's not a secret because he himself made it public. I noticed the same before you asked.
Of course, he doesn't have to answer because he already has.
Now that you know, does it really matter?
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I don't know when or where he revealed his identity on GSC (a link would be helpful), so it was still a secret to me. I think it does matter because is he here for a discussion or simply to teach his doctrine found in his books and on his website? I began to feel in was the latter after reading more of his posts and replies, so I decided to look him up here which lead to his post with his website which led directly to William Ayles.
I don't know what the GSC rules say about this matter, but for me personally, I feel like he is misrepresenting himself.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I think he revealed himself in that thread from which you quoted him. On his profile page he posts his website. It's not a secret.
It's the Doctrinal forum. Everyone has an opinion. Almost everyone is right and almost everyone else is wrong. Me and you, us and them. Many are here to "teach" - because rewards and demerits and all that. But some good discussions are to be had, also.
It's no different than the earliest incarnations of the Church in the first and second centuries.
Revvel's style is not to my taste. So, I don't engage. He doesn't seem eager to discuss and answer questions the way Socks and WordWolf might.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
revvel, concerning the last post I wrote before GSC went down (see above), I want to personally address my issues with this thread.
I do not feel like you want a discussion as your replies to posts in general have often been minimal in content with a “wait and see what great thing I will share next – you’ll be amazed” tone of voice. I find that to be a bit presumptuous on your part - it sounds like something a salesman would say to get you to want to buy their product. And then sure enough, a post with scriptures and your commentaries would follow.
Your specific approach to answering my questions have sounded condescending and/or patronizing as well. For example, “You continue to demonstrate the depth of your intellect. Yet another excellent question. Patience, Charity, Patience... we'll get there.” I was a teacher before I retired and learned it was best to let the students guide the lesson with their questions instead of giving them a pat on the head for asking them and then continue to follow an inflexible series of lesson I had planned.
While I do like discussing scripture and am learning to be use the Socratic method when doing so, I found this thread personally frustrating. I will, however, answer the question you did ask me next.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wanted to mention that when it says "all Israel shall be saved" it means that, Jews who now are believers in Jesus Christ and his finished work shall be saved. That is the essence of the "new covenant" that the mystery describes, i.e. that the Jews and Gentiles shall be one body IN CHRIST. The old covenant Jews who still await the Messiah are simply missing the boat and in danger of eternal fire. The only covenant Jews now have to make them "God's chosen people" (just like the believing Gentiles now) is belief in Jesus Christ; not their DNA, or traditions, or anything else.
I believe this must be explained again, especially since there are many a good bible teacher who still believe that Jews can be saved without Jesus.
Here's an AI analysis of "the mystery" :
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+evidence+is+there+that+Jesus+knew+about+the+mystery+in+Ephesians+3%3A6+before+his+resurrection%3F&sca_esv=32ae3e4c27749343&sxsrf=AHTn8zq51dsxT4BdYwIkxeU48BRkbW51Rg%3A1741863008663&source=hp&ei=YLjSZ564JoyFw8cPvonu0Qg&iflsig=ACkRmUkAAAAAZ9LGcE73IFgy7bK_4Z9cmsICfkShRdF7&ved=0ahUKEwie6IGv8YaMAxWMwvACHb6EO4oQ4dUDCBo&uact=5&oq=what+evidence+is+there+that+Jesus+knew+about+the+mystery+in+Ephesians+3%3A6+before+his+resurrection%3F&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I realize now that I misread what you wrote about Christ knowing the mystery before the crucifixion. You specifically stated he did not (as shown above in blue font). How "God had hidden a mystery—in Scriptures given prior to the Crucifixion" (also highlighted in blue above) is what you are endeavouring to show through this thread. I conflated your two ideas into one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
You’re right. I have sent revvel a post explaining my previous comment regarding his intentions regarding this thread. It’s an “in-my-opinion” post, and I will leave it at that.
Your sentence highlighted above is a good one. The way vp talked about wanting to teach the word like it hadn’t been taught since the first century led me to believe everything was perfectly accurate and agreed upon back then. It was a real eye-opener to realize it was anything but and that the contents of the bible took centuries to be decided upon because of all the disagreements. And even then, it was anything close to being perfectly accurate and continues to be so disagreed upon today.
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.