| Author |
 Topic  |
|
eva
USA
3233 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Oct 2004 : 11:26:04 PM
|
After reading through the thread on Revelation - a dream, I got caught up in the book again and am doing another study. Would anyone be interested in going through the book with me....verse by verse?
From reading I see that there are several different views on this topic (as there is with everything else), but it could be fun to get different views on the verses.
Revelation
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
The Greek word for revelation is apokalupsis and mean literally "unveiling" or "taking off the cover". So, the book is not meant to be confusing as some would say it is, it is supposed to be...revealing.
1:2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
The author is John the apostle. The one who saw Christ and wrote the gospel.
1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
A special blessing is promised for reading, hearing and heeding.
The Greek word for heeing is tereo to "attend to carefully, take care of".
The time is near...The word use for near is egguß which when used in terms of time means imminent.
So in summary, what I understand from the first 3 verses is:
The Book of Revelation, penned by John the apostel, is not intended to be confusing, but rather it is an unveiling of things to come that are imminent.
Anyone interested?
In Christ...eva
|
|
|
Leaf
USA
2604 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 11:36:17 AM
|
Dear Eva,
Very interested! Though, my time on the weekends is often limited.
Just one quick comment re: Revelation
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
How is it that people can continue to claim that Jesus is God, when this verse clearly shows that God gave the Revelation to Jesus. Oh, I know the trinity, and I do hope I haven't already caused this thread to go off in another direction when the subject of the trinity would be best discussed in another thread.
Blessings,
Leaf |
Edited by - Leaf on 16 Oct 2004 7:24:23 PM |
 |
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 5:49:13 PM
|
To Eva,
I am adding this later--I have gone on and on. I do not expect you
to respond line by line or at all unless something sparks your interest. You have a great task; and I do not wish to burden you
down with replying to my long and tedious posts. I will specifically
ask you questions if I desire a response--in green--there are only two such requests in this post.
quote:
Originally posted by eva
After reading through the thread on Revelation - a dream, I got caught up in the book again and am doing another study. Would anyone be interested in going through the book with me....verse by verse?
From reading I see that there are several different views on this topic (as there is with everything else), but it could be fun to get different views on the verses.
I had wished to start such a thread myself; but to be honest, I was
daunted by the task and thought perhaps no one would be interested.
I am most delighted you began this thread.
I am willing to entertain some differing views; but on some matters,
I can be quite inflexible: The interpretation of verse 1 which you
have right, for example. There is no other way to view it.
quote:
Revelation
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
The Greek word for revelation is apokalupsis and mean literally "unveiling" or "taking off the cover". So, the book is not meant to be confusing as some would say it is, it is supposed to be...revealing.
I agree with you entirely. I am inflexible in this view, too. If we don't believe him on this, why bother reading the rest of it? I will remain FIRM in this conviction--this book is meant to be a revelation. It is not meant to be confusing or mysterious. It may or may not have other applications. It may have patterns which repeat elsewhere generally--but anyone who says this book is not meant to be understood is contradicting this easy passage.
If there are any things in this book we do not understand, I think
the defect is ours. The Christian should adopt the view on faith, as a child might, that God wishes this book to be understood.
Any thinking to the contrary is erroneous--I dismiss such thoughts as simply untrue and leading nowhere profitable. IF the book is inspired, then it MUST be meant to be understood. Progress is possible, if it is inspired, by seeking its meaning--not by saying, "This is impossible." There is a book out there called, Revelation Unveiled. Save your money, because the author has
not understood the first verse of the book. A "revelation" cannot be
"unveiled." It has already been revealed.
John also ends this book with a similar thought, telling us that this
book is NOT sealed. When he gets to the thunders, he
does tell us that that subject is sealed. He is quite clear about this all--if someone wishes not to believe in this book, that is fine;
but if we believe it, we cannot think it is sealed. I am most stubborn
on this point; and should you have "second thoughts" about it, Eva,
you will surely get an argument from me.
For the sake of clarity now, I ask you to define who all the "he's" and "his's" and "him's" are. I hate to ask you this since it looks like nit-picking; but I hope it is an easy enough task. John has a certain "sytle" of writing in this book; and I hope it may help later. Most specifically, who is "the angel"?
Without saying that this book may or may not be helpful to the non-Christian, I do draw your attention to the fact that John tells us
this book is addressed to the "bond-servants" of Lord Jesus. There
were different types of slaves; and "bond-servant" is the one John
sets down for us here. Paul uses the same term often enough. Jesus
also employs similar situations: "His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:" (Mt 25:26).
Those who "owe" Jesus in a particular manner would do well to heed this book--such is my view. I will not teach that others do or do not--but I do insist, for the Christian, this book remains pertinent.
quote:
1:2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
The author is John the apostle. The one who saw Christ and wrote the gospel.
As the matter will probably come up later on, I don't care to go into it now, unless there are skeptics out there who doubt it. I see no reason to doubt it, despite the objections and have several reasons to think the claim is valid. But as I said, I think it may come up again in another context.
quote:
1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
A special blessing is promised for reading, hearing and heeding.
The Greek word for heeing is tereo to "attend to carefully, take care of".
The time is near...The word use for near is egguß which when used in terms of time means imminent.
What do you make of the "heeding" part of it? This set me all aflame when I read this. There is some sort of call for action. The KJV has it: "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." John, ever careful and wishing us to remember his important opening statement, repeats this also in the last chapter: Re 22 :7 - "Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book."
This book was meant to be useful! It contains some sort of instructions or commandments.
This book, if it was divinely inspired, was useful for those early
Christians who read, heard, and heeded. If it was not, then it is
not inspired--that is all. Those who seek only a prediction of the
future of planet earth are ignoring the fact that John says things
are imminent.
quote:
So in summary, what I understand from the first 3 verses is:
The Book of Revelation, penned by John the apostel, is not intended to be confusing, but rather it is an unveiling of things to come that are imminent.
It is not certain, not in my eyes, that this limits the scope of the
Revelation to the time of John the Beloved. We have arguments about
this. Some people say it has all been fulfilled and nothing more is
coming. Others think it wasn't fulfilled and never will be. Others
think part of it was fulfilled and other parts weren't. Still others
seem to think all of it lies still in the future.
I can tell you what came to my mind:
Psalms 95:7-11
7 For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.
Today is always the day of salvation. Why should I worry about the
past events or future events and missed the opportunity in the now?
Is it not written, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Re 3:20--a similar passage occurs in
Luke also, which follows below.)
So while I do believe that the Book of the Revelation was ALL fulfilled shortly after the time John wrote it, I believe it also
remains to be fulfilled. For me, Jesus is the "coming" one--always
coming to those who wait--yesterday he came to those ready, today he
does, and he will tomorrow. I cannot "predict" for anyone about the
matter of coming "physically." That is his affair, not mine. His
kingdom is not of this world and that is the kingdom I seek. How it
plays out in physical terms is less important to me. I do
know, however, that he comes in a non-physical manner--it must be
so since the Book of Hebrews states: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Heb 9:28)
I do not postpone this into the future--I accept as written.
Moreover, when Paul was writing to people ALIVE IN HIS TIME, he
writes things which seem mysterious to us; "we shall not all die,"
he says, "but we shall all be changed." I insist this was true for
the people he wrote to.
I remember, as a child, attending a rather fundamentalist church
which taught astonishing things. The minister was reading one day
a passage where one of the disciples indicated that Jesus' return
was imminent; but he said Jesus had not come. I asked my Mother about this on the drive home. She was sincere in her beliefs, but I could not accept her explanation, not even as a child. (Maybe it was because I was a child? Who knows?) She said that the Apostles thought Jesus' return was imminent but that they were wrong. If this is so, then the Scriptures they wrote are in error--not the worth the paper they're written on.
I maintain Jesus did come. People can scoff at it, saying it's been
two thousand years and he said he'd come quickly. Let them scoff.
I maintain he will appear to those who wait. Those who want to
believe in other sorts of comings are free. But I think we miss
a great opportunity of TODAY if we think too much about tomorrow.
After telling us that the lilies don't worry about tomorrow, Jesus
tells us:
Luke 12:37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
I have gone on quite a bit, haven't I? But I agree with you Eva,
that any profit to be gained from reading the Revelation is to be
had by reading expectantly. Those who read it so in John's day were
rewarded. The only question which is debatable (in my view) is
if it remains useful to others later.
If it applied ONLY to those in John's day, too bad--I guess we won't
profit by it then; but I consider the book scripture--useful for
doctrine and instruction, very profitable.
Your summation is surely a solid start. I am in firm agreement with you and do not consider those matters open for debate--not if this book is truly inspired. If inspired, then it must be taken as John says it is to be. The implications for us today may be up in the air; but if this book is true, then it was meant to be understood, and the events in it were imminent at the time it was written. To doubt these beginning statements, repeated at the end also as reminders, is to thrown the whole book into confusion.
As Jesus says in Revelation itself:
Re 3:11 - Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Boullan
|
Edited by - boullan on 09 Jul 2006 8:54:27 PM |
|
|
|
Leaf
USA
2604 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 7:15:39 PM
|
Dear Eva,
quote:
So in summary, what I understand from the first 3 verses is:
The Book of Revelation, penned by John the apostel, is not intended to be confusing, but rather it is an unveiling of things to come that are imminent.
I agree with your understanding, but I think one point is missing, which I cannot show unless I reword your sentence slightly. That which is in green is what I added. The Book of Revelation, penned by John the apostel, is not intended to be confusing, but rather it is an unveiling of things to his bond-servants of that which is to come that are imminent.
Are you in agreement with what I added?
Also, I find I need to again visit Chapter 1, Verse 1.
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
In some versions of the bible the word 'bond' is omitted, and instead just 'servant' is used. I find that I prefer the inclusion of 'bond' as it is more appropriate. There are those whom consider themselves servants, and are servants, but even so are not 'bonded.'
So, now I ask... who are the bond-servants? Are these the elect? Are the elect those whom have been called, and are also chosen? What are the distinctions between these individuals and those whom are unbonded servants? Sometimes I bemoan my ignorance, and this is just such one area.
Upon each word of the bible so much can hinge. To continue in verse one, this part: He sent and communicated it by His angel. Is the angel mentioned Jesus' Holy Guardian Angel, or is it one of the 12 (I think it was 12) legions of angels that Jesus the Christ mentioned elsewhere as being available to give assistance? Rather than try to answer these two questions, I find that the answer is in Rev 19:10 And I (meaning John) fell at his (the angel's) feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thou fellowservant and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Again, we have it pointed out to the reader that Jesus says to worship God and not to consider Jesus to be God and be worshipped as such, but I digress a bit. How is this angel also at the same time a fellowservant and of the brotherhood in Christ? Is this angel possibly the Holy Guardian Angel of another living person that is communicating with John? Maybe as we proceed, we might or might not find out. Oh the discoveries to be made! 
In conclusion, I think that it is important to get a right start. If we begin with faulty premises, it could only lead us to faulty understandings. And some issues may just have to be left out there as unanswerable as could be the case of the issue of where in the heirarchy of the heavens, or earth, this above mentioned angel actually hails from even though we know that John is in the 3rd heaven, but that verse has yet to be put forth for discussion.
Verses 2 and 3 of this first chapter I have nothing additional to comment on. I bet you are relieved to hear that.  I look forward to what insights you may have to offer on anything that I have put forth above, and also to the journey that this thread is offering.
Blessings,
Leaf
P.S. Edited to remove something that I may have misunderstood from another thread. |
Edited by - Leaf on 16 Oct 2004 7:33:19 PM |
|
|
|
eva
USA
3233 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2004 : 12:25:23 PM
|
Greetings Leaf and boullan,
Wow! I am thankful to you for your interest in taking this journey together. Already I have been blessed by your insight, questions and perspectives. And I highly respect both your learned views, so this will be a good study.
You both pointed out that it was to His bondservants that this was for. That makes a huge difference.
And yes, in this verse, it represents Jesus Christ as a separate being from God and that we are to worship God.
As for who is angel, and who is His, I do not know at this time who the angel is. Leaf, your insight makes sense. Boullan, do you have anything to add?
boullan, our views on imminence are similar I think.
A synonym for imminent in the merriam-webster thesaurus is impending. And the Bible also says "2 Peter 3:8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." So depending on who's perspective we are looking at the imminent events would impact whether two thousand years fit the criteria of imminence. It could happen tomorrow, next year or a thousand years and still be imminent. Many of them yes...but not So as we go through the study, it will be interesting to see where you think certain areas have been fullfilled. I agree that Jesus did come, but his purpose in the first coming is different than it will be in the 2nd. And there is a spiritual component of his first coming that is in existance today.
I agree with you both that it is important to get off to a good start. And I pray, that since there are three here who are joined together in His name, that He blesses this study, opens our eyes and hearts, and believe that He is with us as we journey through this. And that we will be blessed by it! I have already been blessed by it and we have only gone through 3 verses.
In Christ...Eva
|
|
|
|
Leaf
USA
2604 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2004 : 1:38:44 PM
|
quote:
And I pray, that since there are three here who are joined together in His name, that He blesses this study, opens our eyes and hearts, and believe that He is with us as we journey through this. And that we will be blessed by it!
Amen. |
|
|
|
Leaf
USA
2604 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2004 : 6:34:56 PM
|
Dear Eva,
I do wonder if Boullan is again posting while I am still writing. That was quite fun to see us respond in such a similar fashion; well, it was fun for me.
I will admit right up front that Boullan has an understanding of this book (and entire bible for that matter) already that I can only aspire at present to have.
Boullan asked: For the sake of clarity now, I ask you to define who all the "he's" and "his's" and "him's" are. I hate to ask you this since it looks like nit-picking; but I hope it is an easy enough task. John has a certain "sytle" of writing in this book; and I hope it may help later. Most specifically, who is "the angel"? To which you responded: As for who is angel, and who is His, I do not know at this time
Hopefully you don't mind that I would take a stab at it, and see if I can answer this question correctly even though you asked Boullan for his thoughts; and if I interpret incorrectly, it is my hope to be corrected.
Revelation
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him (Jesus) to show to His (Jesus') bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He (God) sent and communicated it by His (God's) angel to His (Jesus') bond-servant John,
At first glance, at least it did me at first glance, this verse would have the tendency to make a person think that all the His's, He's and Him's would all indicate Jesus, but the the subject changes as the verse proceeds from Jesus to God back to Jesus again, I think.
And Eva, I am also most pleased that you started this thread. My husband says that we have a task before us that may last several years. I'm up for it. 
Blessings,
Leaf |
|
|
|
eva
USA
3233 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2004 : 7:56:05 PM
|
Hi Leaf and boullan,
I didn't quite understand what was meant by defining all the He's, etc. But I get it now! Thanks Leaf. It is a very good idea.
quote:
I will admit right up front that Boullan has an understanding of this book (and entire bible for that matter) already that I can only aspire at present to have.
Me too.
quote:
That was quite fun to see us respond in such a similar fashion; well, it was fun for me.
Yeah...I was quite surprised how much I missed when the two of you came back with similar insight.
quote:
Revelation
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him (Jesus) to show to His (Jesus') bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He (God) sent and communicated it by His (God's) angel to His (Jesus') bond-servant John,
The only one I could see being interpreted differently would be His angel. Could this be Jesus's angel?
I agree with your husband Leaf. This could be a long study. But I am already learning much and enjoying it.
I began musing over the next several verses this morning and I saw why boullan's insistance on defining who is who becomes even more critical.
1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia:
My observations: The first of the number seven used many times in Revelation. It is my understanding that the number seven has a special meaning of representing fullness or completion. It is a perfect number. His salutation is not to one church, but to seven churches; so this would not be referring to the "church universal", but to physical churches. However, I do not think the message that was delivered to the churches was for them alone. I think there are things in the message that are still spiritually applicable today; but that is later.
...Grace to you and peace, from Him (God) who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His (God's) throne,
1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him (Jesus) who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood --
My observation:
All three beings are addressed.
The seven Spirits who are before the throne of God are these the same as defined in Isaiah 11:2? The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
He is the firstborn of the dead? Is this because of the Resurrection? That He laid down His life and took it up again?
The Greek word used for prince is a[rcwn which means a ruler, commander, chief, leader. So Jesus is the ruler of the kings of the earth.
By His blood, we are released from our sins...and He loves us.
1:6 and He has made us to be a kings, priests to His (Jesus) God and Father (Yahweh)
Wow...look who we are in Christ!!! Again, Jesus refers to to Yahweh as His God and Father.
--to Him (Jesus) be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Amen!!!
I look forward to reading your insights, corrections and thoughts.
In Christ...Eva |
|
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 01:20:22 AM
|
To Eva and Leaf,
I cannot say I have a firm opinion of "whose" angel this is. I incline
to think it is "Jesus' angel."
I am not sure if we can separate emanated angels from their source,
even. In one way, the angel of Jesus IS Jesus, just as my finger is
part of me. In another way, it is not, just as my finger is not
ALL there is of me.
In some ways, the Christian also takes on some of the "identity" of
Jesus. He is "part of them" and they are "part of him."
I gave up trying to be too specific. While I do believe this was
an angel sent by Jesus, it might also be right to say it was sent by
God since Jesus was a messenger or "angel" sent by God, doing His
will. The situation may be fluid--and any description may be
misleading--especially if we try to "separate" those things which
cannot be separated.
John's style of changing "pronouns" in the middle of sentences can
be confusing.... But I can't say he's wrong. There may be a point
to it. Can we separate Jesus from God, the angels from either?
Boullan
|
|
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 02:42:57 AM
|
To Eva,
quote:
1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia:
My observations: The first of the number seven used many times in Revelation. It is my understanding that the number seven has a special meaning of representing fullness or completion. It is a perfect number. His salutation is not to one church, but to seven churches; so this would not be referring to the "church universal", but to physical churches. However, I do not think the message that was delivered to the churches was for them alone. I think there are things in the message that are still spiritually applicable today; but that is later.
There are many ways of looking at the number seven. You've got the
music scale which goes for seven notes and then all of a sudden you're
"up an octave." Does this relate to life on earth and then "up an
octave" to life in heaven? It seems to me, it does.
Likewise, we have the seven colors of the rainbow. Above that is "light" we cannot see right now, being out of our physical body's ability to see. Surely, we do not think that the "Light of God" is a physical light? Yet, light it is and it is said to be white. Why, "white light" does not even exist on planet earth except in our minds. If we see red, yellow and blue altogether, we "see" white.
But no scientific equipment can detect any "white light" since it
does not exist physically. WHITE is the TOTALITY of all the colors.
I agree with you that while this book is addressed to the seven
physical churches in Asia, we ought not to assume from the get-go to limit this book to such a narrow view. These seven physical churches
are obviously seven manifestations of the spiritual church--that
can be said, I think. We can look at flowers of different colors and
realize they are all manifestations of the vegetation principle.
I am content to believe that people are different and that God deals
with them differently. Perhaps they serve various purposes. Perhaps
it is even true, as some say, that these "seven churches" reflect
historical periods since in any given historical era, God may need
to work in one way more than another. We see one type of flower
follow another in each season; and at times, they overlap. So I
am content to read the "seven churches" as reflecting many things--
the physical churches named, the historical periods, and the "types
of Christians." I do not exclude anything. It seems foolish to
exclude things. This would be like saying that the "word" which
brought forth vegetation on day four in Genesis STOPPED at the time
and no longer applies. I see the same "word" as operating today,
still producing vegetation. Surely, in God we all move, live and
breath and have our being--continually.
quote:
...Grace to you and peace, from Him (God) who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His (God's) throne,
1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him (Jesus) who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood --
My observation:
All three beings are addressed.
The seven Spirits who are before the throne of God are these the same as defined in Isaiah 11:2? The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
I do not know about Isaiah 11:2, so I could not explain it. I would
suspect there are "correspondences" if we were clever enough to
figure them out by careful study. I haven't studied it. It does
seem right and reasonable since God is unchanging. I would draw a
comparison to Genesis, also. There, during the seven days, we see
various "words" being spoken, do we not?
quote:
He is the firstborn of the dead? Is this because of the Resurrection? That He laid down His life and took it up again?
I would say so. The life which went out of the world with Adam
was restored and then completed by Jesus.
quote:
The Greek word used for prince is a[rcwn which means a ruler, commander, chief, leader. So Jesus is the ruler of the kings of the earth.
By His blood, we are released from our sins...and He loves us.
1:6 and He has made us to be a kings, priests to His (Jesus) God and Father (Yahweh)
Wow...look who we are in Christ!!! Again, Jesus refers to to Yahweh as His God and Father.
--to Him (Jesus) be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
The text does not specify Yahweh is his Father. The question is a vexing one for me since Jesus so frequently spoke of the Father but never actually equates Him to Yahweh, that I know of. Particularly troublesome is the word "his" in that phrase, "to His God and Father." I would expect "to God the Father"--would you not?
I cannot answer you just who the "Father" might be if not "Yahweh,"
perhaps the Ancient of Days?
I observe you and Leaf going back and forth on this matter of the divinity of Jesus. I would call him "my god" but not "God." Does this make any sense? It is through Jesus as manifestation of God that I came to know of God--that is my connection, "my god."
The reason I say this is that so many people in the OT saw angels
and then said they "saw" God--something which is impossible, since
no man has seen God at any time. Yet, they "saw" the truth of God's
reality. For me, others are like mirrows--and many reflect the glory
of God. Those who have "wiped away ego" reflect best of all--and in
Jesus, who made of himself nothing, we see a full reflection of God.
I don't wish to derail the thread over this issue, however. Clearly,
Jesus is our connection to the Father--a mystery to me. As you and
Leaf both stated, the task is large enough without introducing such a
debate.
Boullan |
Edited by - boullan on 18 Oct 2004 02:50:39 AM |
|
|
|
eva
USA
3233 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 09:56:34 AM
|
Hi boullan,
quote:
There are many ways of looking at the number seven. You've got the music scale which goes for seven notes and then all of a sudden you're "up an octave." Does this relate to life on earth and then "up an octave" to life in heaven? It seems to me, it does.
Very interesting analogy! I agree, it does seem to follow.
quote:
I am content to believe that people are different and that God deals with them differently
Me too boullan...me too. Each of us has been given something different. And we will each be held accountable for that which has been given us.
quote:
Perhaps it is even true, as some say, that these "seven churches" reflect historical periods since in any given historical era, God may need to work in one way more than another. We see one type of flower follow another in each season; and at times, they overlap. So I am content to read the "seven churches" as reflecting many things--
the physical churches named, the historical periods, and the "types
of Christians." I do not exclude anything. It seems foolish to
exclude things.
I whole heartedly agree.
quote:
I see the same "word" as operating today,
still producing vegetation. Surely, in God we all move, live and
breath and have our being--continually
Yes...I would add that if one allows the word to operate in their life, it can produce a variety of fruit. I noticed you used vegetation rather than fruit - any particular reason?
quote:
The text does not specify Yahweh is his Father. The question is a vexing one for me since Jesus so frequently spoke of the Father but never actually equates Him to Yahweh, that I know of. Particularly troublesome is the word "his" in that phrase, "to His God and Father." I would expect "to God the Father"--would you not?
huh...I just assumed. Thanks for cathcing that. I will have to study that one, but you are right. I too thought it was odd that Jesus said "his" and not "the".
quote:
I cannot answer you just who the "Father" might be if not "Yahweh," perhaps the Ancient of Days?
This says a lot. I had always just believed, as I read that they were all different names for the same God. I will have to study this more. Thanks.
quote:
I observe you and Leaf going back and forth on this matter of the divinity of Jesus.
huh...strange that you observed that, since in my heart, I would never venture to tell someone who Jesus is to them. I only know who He is to me.
quote:
I would call him "my god" but not "God." Does this make any sense?
Perfect sense.
quote:
The reason I say this is that so many people in the OT saw angels
and then said they "saw" God--something which is impossible, since
no man has seen God at any time. Yet, they "saw" the truth of God's
reality. For me, others are like mirrows--and many reflect the glory
of God. Those who have "wiped away ego" reflect best of all--and in
Jesus, who made of himself nothing, we see a full reflection of God.
I somewhat agree. For me, there is only one who has ever manifested himself to be a full manifestation of God. Others may have approached, but fell short. Was it not Moses who hid in the crack of the rocks and saw God after He had passed by?
quote:
I don't wish to derail the thread over this issue, however. Clearly,
Jesus is our connection to the Father--a mystery to me. As you and
Leaf both stated, the task is large enough without introducing such a
debate.
I do not view anything you have said as derailing the thread. Your views and insight are valuable and it is important that when we read something into the word that is not there, it should be pointed out. Thank you.
In Christ...Eva
|
Edited by - eva on 18 Oct 2004 09:57:11 AM |
|
|
|
eva
USA
3233 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 09:58:56 AM
|
quote:
John's style of changing "pronouns" in the middle of sentences can be confusing.... But I can't say he's wrong. There may be a point to it. Can we separate Jesus from God, the angels from either?
This just hit home.
|
|
|
|
Leaf
USA
2604 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 12:01:07 PM
|
Dear Eva and Boullan,
Peace be with you both, and also to all who may be reading along.
Eva,
I meant to ask you a couple of things previously and then neglected to do so by the end of my posting. So, before neglecting to ask again:
1. What edition or version of the bible are you using?
2. I have seen you use some sort of resource that gives extensive definitions of words. What is that resource, and is it available online?
quote:
The only one I could see being interpreted differently would be His angel. Could this be Jesus's angel?
Boullan has already addressed this beautifully, and more concisely than I probably could have.
quote:
1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia:
My observations: The first of the number seven used many times in Revelation. It is my understanding that the number seven has a special meaning of representing fullness or completion. It is a perfect number. His salutation is not to one church, but to seven churches; so this would not be referring to the "church universal", but to physical churches. However, I do not think the message that was delivered to the churches was for them alone. I think there are things in the message that are still spiritually applicable today; but that is later.
I agree that the number seven is to signify perfection. I note that it is interesting that you mention 'physical churches'. We could either think of buildings of brick, stone and wood, or we could think of
1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; . I tend to think that what is being referred to is both. Especially later in the book, when 'church' is referred to, what is being referred to is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Also, speaking of studying, I also looked to see where the physical locations of the churches were that are mentioned to be in Asia. Some are in Isreal proper, and some are outside of Israel. I think that this might be something to keep in mind for later also.
quote:
The seven Spirits who are before the throne of God are these the same as defined in Isaiah 11:2? The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
I laugh at myself! I counted the characteristics in this verse 2 times prior to including The Spirit of the LORD as the 7th characteristic.  Which, though, brings up something that I do not yet know how to discover. Since the word 'Lord' is used, I am thinking that it was translated from the word Adonai. There are many other words that were used that were then translated and lumped under the heading of 'God.' These words are, from what I understand, pointing out the distinctions of what characteristic/virtue of God is being expounded upon. Much like in Hinduism where they have all these names for the different gods, but to me, they are not worshipping different gods, but are instead acknowledging a particular aspect of the One True God.
Does anyone have access to the actual words and the meanings of the words that were subsequently translated as God?
quote:
1:6 and He has made us to be a kings, priests to His (Jesus) God and Father (Yahweh)
Wow...look who we are in Christ!!! Again, Jesus refers to to Yahweh as His God and Father.
Pretty cool, eh!  Though as Jesus said, and I use this verse only so that I remind myself not to be too pleased about the inferred status. Luke 10:20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
About the Father. This essence has had me wondering for some time. I see within the bible the use of 'my', 'his', 'our' and 'the' prior to the word 'Father.' Much like this first verse in Revelation, these different pronouns have made me stop and give pause. Afterall, Jesus did also say something to indicate that there are different fathers. John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. This verse makes me think of Cain, the first mentioned murderer of the bible. (I can't resist; for no particular reason I put forth another verse that is related to murderers: 1 John 3:15 Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. )
Finally, I just want to provide a couple more verses concerning the Father, and to mention that they may be making references to the bond-servants. James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. and Zechariah 4:2 He asked me, "What do you see?" I answered, "I see a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top and seven lights on it, with seven channels to the lights.
Anyway, the Father is perhaps the Ancient of Days. The same who possibly sent Adam, Lucifer and Jesus, with the difference being that Jesus succeeded, or that the difference is that these three entities were for different 'ages' (aeons) or cycles that Earth has gone through. Really, I'm not confused, just looks that way,  Actually, I just don't have any real certitude on the matter, though I do tend to think that The Father is the same as The Ancient of Days.
If through my ignorance, others can be led to clarity... I thank God for that ignorance.
Blessings,
Leaf |
|
|
|
eva
USA
3233 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 3:33:28 PM
|
Hi Leaf and boullan,
I pray that Ancient of Days continues to Bless you both as I have been blessed by your questions and this discussion.
I have absolutely no problem with Ancient of Days. I love the description of him in Daniel. "Hear, O Israel ! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one !
quote:
1. What edition or version of the bible are you using?
The NAS. Why you may ask? Because people have become polarized on either the NIV or the KJV/NKJV and I have seen too many debates on the satanic influences in creating the version from both sides.Seriously...I use the NIV and KJV/NKJV also, but felt drawn to use the NAS for this study. Or I can put the NAS and the KJV interpretation. What do you think?
2. I have seen you use some sort of resource that gives extensive definitions of words. What is that resource, and is it available online?
Yes it is available on line. I use www.biblestudytools.net and it has Strong's numbers with both the NAS and KJV.
quote:
Also, speaking of studying, I also looked to see where the physical locations of the churches were that are mentioned to be in Asia. Some are in Isreal proper, and some are outside of Israel. I think that this might be something to keep in mind for later also.
Yes. I agree that the physical locations could be very important. I remember doing a study on the churches and remember the church that is lukewarm and gets spewed out? It's locations was such that it was know for it's lukewarm water it was located between a city that was famous at the time for it's refreshing cold mountain water and another that was famous for it's hot spring spas. However, this church was located in the city where the two sources of water mixed together and as a result, the water was lukewarm and noone went there. I will have to dig that out...
quote:
I tend to think that what is being referred to is both. Especially later in the book, when 'church' is referred to, what is being referred to is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Yes...this should be an area we also identify (like Him, his, etc.)which is being referred to.
quote:
I laugh at myself! I counted the characteristics in this verse 2 times prior to including The Spirit of the LORD as the 7th characteristic.
Then I am in good company. I did the same thing!
quote:
Does anyone have access to the actual words and the meanings of the words that were subsequently translated as God?
When Lord is written as LORD (all caps), it was translated from hwhy (Yahweh).
quote:
Luke 10:20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
Thanks.
quote:
The same who possibly sent Adam, Lucifer and Jesus
ahhh lucifer. The NAS Bible does not contain the word Lucifer. But that is a different study and we could really get derailed on that one.
Hebrew word used for Lucifer: llyh meaning "light-bearer", shining one, morning star.
quote:
Actually, I just don't have any real certitude on the matter, though I do tend to think that The Father is the same as The Ancient of Days.
Me too...because "Hear, O Israel ! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one !
In Christ...Eva
|
|
|
|
Leaf
USA
2604 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 4:16:37 PM
|
Dear Eva,
Something just occured to me.
quote:
...Grace to you and peace, from Him (God) who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His (God's) throne,
Could this part of Rev 1:4 be:
...Grace to you and peace, from Him (Ancient of Days) who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His (Ancient of Days') throne,
I wonder...
I am so very grateful that Boullan is involved in this, with his insights I imagine he will keep us all on track.
Thank you for advising which bible you are using. It really doesn't matter to me. I like the KJV for it's poetry; I like the Good News Version for it's punctuation, and I like the Living Bible for its ease of reading... I like, I like, I like . I only asked so that I could be consistent with your references.
Also, thank you for the website. This will be really helpful.
Blessings,
Leaf
|
|
|
|
eva
USA
3233 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 9:38:39 PM
|
Hi Leaf and boullan,
1:7 BEHOLD, HE (Christ) IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him (Christ), even those who pierced Him (Christ); and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him (Christ). So it is to be. Amen.
Christ is coming and everyone will see Him. When I read about the Ancient of Days earlier, it reminded me of this verse.
Da 7:13
"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
I think it follows nicely into the next verse of Revelation
[blue]1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty (Ancient of Days)."
These are the first words spoken to John from heaven. Who is saying this? Jesus is speaking the words....but. The Lord is not LORD, therefore not translated from Yahweh. Some say that this verse is Christ claiming to be the God, but I do not think so. I think it is part of the revelation of Jesus Christ which God (Ancient of Days) gave unto Him.
Lord God is referred to as the one who is and who was and who is to come...just as in 1:4.
Thoughts, corrections?
In Christ...Eva |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Revelation
