Posted on 10/04/2020 3:53:29 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
“You asserted, “The scene in Rev. 4 & 5 takes place prior to the Bema Seat Accounting (Romans 14:10 / 2 Cor. 5:10)”. Um, you will have to show me scripture which supports this claim.”
Happily. Fully ten chapters later, Jesus gathers his harvest of righteousness:
14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and sitting on the cloud was one like a son of man, having a golden crown on His head and a sharp sickle in His hand. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying out with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Put in your sickle and reap, for the hour to reap has come, because the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 Then He who sat on the cloud swung His sickle over the earth, and the earth was reaped.
— Rev. 14:15-16
“You further asserted, as if the passage rendered in the Greek says the following...”
That was an example of what you get if you read the English without the words that are inferred from the Greek. When you read the Bible in English, there’s not a word in English for every word in the Greek; the correct translation of one Greek word can require several English words. Verbs are conjugated, and the nouns have declensions, and these things require additional supporting words in English. It’s not that those added words aren’t to be put in; only that in choosing the English phrasing it’s critical that the translator not make choices that communicate ideas not found in the original manuscripts.
The important clue is the 144,000 standing with The Lamb. They are the sealed ones who are connected to preaching THE COMING KINGDOM of Messiah. They are Jews. See chapter seven of The Revelation. You are missing a large clue. The Revelation is chronological, BUT the perspective changes from specifics to general view, from fifty feet to the view from ten thousand feet, so to speak. The views reveal the same event but from different heights as it were. In chapter seven we see from a specific vantage point. In chapter fourteen we see from a broader view.
Because you believe the redeemed during the Church age will go into the Tribulation, you cannot see the shift of perspective. During the Tribulation millions upon millions will turn to Christ along and show up in Heaven under the throne. But they are not The Body of Christ believers. The Lord Himself came in the clouds to gather the Body of Christ Believers who have the Holy Spirit seed and seal upon their spirits. He, The Lord Christ returns to the Father's House with the redeemed Body of Believers amassed during the Church Age.
If you actually want to get a more thorough perspective on The Revelation, I recommend the series by Dr. Andy Woods of Sugar Land Bible Church. It is available on Youtube. We will not clear up much at this point because we are 'talking past each other' based upon what we already believe regarding the Revelation, The Rapture, and the Tribulation events.
Have a spectacular Sunday.
It has been my observation that the inserted words are mostly to clarify what the Greek means as in to what the Greek verb tenses and voices refer in a passage. We sometimes forget that the Greek lacked punctuation.
Well have to agree to disagree.
If we get to The Four Horsemen, and we’re still here, you owe me a drink.
If we vanish before The Antichrist is revealed, I’ll owe you one.
Lol
I grew up in church all pre-trib, Hal Lindsey, any second now, with Larry Norman singin’ “Left Behind” in the background. 40 years of that, and a good Brother asked me in all seriousness, “What if we put all that aside — not chuck it, just shelve it for a bit — read straight Bible without superimposing any of what we think we already know, and see what it says if we let it stand on its own?”
That venture into the Word changed it all. The shift just leapt out in such simplicity, and lack of convolution. I left Hal over there on that shelf as a monument to someplace I’ve been; not with any animosity, just... I’m no longer a customer.
As I read it, The Chruch is here throughout the Seven Seals, and Trumpets, until that Last one rings out.
We’ll see.
I believe we will very soon have an answer to these issues, very soon. Jesus sent the twelve then the seventy to proclaim to The Jews that the Kingdom was at hand (because the King was present then). After chapter twelve of Matthew's Gospel the kingdom offer is withdrawn from Israel and the foundations for the Age of The Grace of God in Christ was opened to all who believe in Whom God sent. Paul even tyells us why the Age of The Grace of God toward all who believe was instituted. That Age of Grace for believing is coming to an end and God will once again focus upon putting an end to sin in Israel (Daniel's explanation for the Tribulation).
Perhaps I will see you int yhe clouds, and then we will know the answers for sure.
When The Father reveals the date, we’ll have us an appointment & compare notes.
And, thank you for the even-toned, thoughtful discussion. Neither of us having won the other over, we’ve at least left a testimony of Christlikeness in discovering the roots of our disagreement.
Did you not read what St John Chrysostom says about the meaning of that passage? Let me recap for you:
CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. xlvii. 3) He tries to remove their difficulties in another way, as follows, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: that is to say, You ought to understand My words in a spiritual sense: he who understands them carnally is profited nothing. To interpret carnally is to take a proposition in its bare literal meaning, and allow no other. But we should not judge of mysteries in this way; but examine them with the inward eye; i. e. understand them spiritually. It was carnal to doubt how our Lord could give His flesh to eat. What then? Is it not real flesh? Yea, verily. In saying then that the flesh profiteth nothing, He does not speak of His own flesh, but that of the carnal hearer of His word.
If you read what Chrysostom is saying carefully, he is describing your interpretation as the “carnal” or “flesh” or “human wisdom” interpretation, while those who believe with the inner eye of Faith accept the mystery of the Eucharist without the interference of rationalism laced reasoning.
Again this gets back to the fundamental problem of protestant interpretation of the Word of God. They use their reason as a positive rule of Faith, when in reality it can only be used reliably as a negative rule of Faith insofar as it can rule-out what does not belong to the sacred Deposit of Faith, but it cannot rule-in sacred mysteries that are above the comprehension of human reason.
St John Chrysostom is a friend of mine. He should be your friend too. You have no reason to disown him, neither him nor any of the other Doctors of the Church. If you studied their writings with care and an open and honest mind you would have the scales fall from your eyes.
LOL, you can’t even distinguish the Orgs from the One True Church / Body of Christ Believers begun on that fateful day of Pentecost. Why would I take instruction from you? Besides, I’m leaving this planetary spacetime coordinate system soon, so you can ponder your own ‘instructions’ after the Body of Christ Believers are Departed fro Heaven, there to stand at the Nema Seat and then witness the opening of the seven sealed scroll.
You don’t even see the flawed reasoning where the man flips the Teaching of Jesus (the flesh profiteth nothing) even though the rest of the sentence makes it crystal clear that Jesus was referencing the ‘eating of His flesh profiting nothing since it is the spirit that gives life. Wander along some more. MAYBE God will show you mercy and open your spirit to the truth.
As a Catholic I believe everything Jesus Christ True God and True Man teaches. The Sacred Scriptures are indeed a rule of Faith for me. But your interpretations of it do not constitute a rule of faith for me.
I have shown you what the Doctors of the Church have commented on those passages, but since you do not enjoy the same gift of Faith that I have been blessed with, you have scales over your eyes. I cannot blame you for that, Faith is a gift. It is nothing to boast of.
St John Chrysostom, whom you disagreed with, was the Apostle of the East. He converted millions of pagan souls and established the form of the liturgy that both eastern rite Catholics and our separated brethren the Orthodox use. He is an authority because not only was he a saint and a successor of the Apostles, he was also more proximate to the original text and context of the Gospels than you or I.
It is your reasoning that is flawed. However, God will forgive you from the Cross as He indeed said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
BTW, the only Man Who converted souls is Jesus, by the power of His Holy Spirit upon the hearts of listeners. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by The Word of God. As the Roman Church leaped into paganism in order to find more converts among the heathen, The OWrd of God shrank in significance and the words of the ECF took the place of spirit filling. Your religion's rituals are now blasphemous and your leadership is thoroughly corrupted. Got goddess in the Vatican? Whew, sure do.
There has always been a distinction between the external structure of the Church and the Mystical Body of Christ. The externals support the interior life of souls.
The Sacraments were never a creation of the Church, they were established directly by our Redeemer; Baptism, the Confession, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Marriage, and the Last Rites. The Catholic Church is the only place where these Sacraments are confected.
The only things that the Church has supplied something new are prayers and rubrics around the Sacraments, aka “sacramentals”. The Church can supply these and take them away as needed.
But the Sacraments can never be changed.
If Faith comes by hearing, someone has to speak. St John Chrysostom was such a voice. Obviously God’s Grace operated through him, but he had to speak. And he is enjoying his reward.
Pope Francis is a modernist/communist who is more closely aligned with freemasonic ideals than anything Catholic.
Here is a question for you; does Francis do what he does qua Catholic or qua modernist? I think you know the answer.
qua == per se == “on account of being”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.