The Simple Key to Interpreting Revelation

[journeymanisnothing]

Are you referring to the talents parable?

Yes.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes.

Ah, that explains it. Different parable.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I know Jesus doesn't come again to be sinned against over and over. He will come and destroy the unrepentant for sinning against him.

Well it says he will come and destroy those who crucified him. That’s now over.

Our Lord said that generation would be held responsible for the deaths of prophets they never met. Prophets that were killed before they were born on earth.

That’s because the prophets spoke of him and they had refused to believe. No one alive today crucified Jesus. No one alive to day is responsible for not believing the prophets.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Well it says he will come and destroy those who crucified him. That’s now over.

That’s because the prophets spoke of him and they had refused to believe. No one alive today crucified Jesus.

I understand no one alive today crucified Jesus, the same way no one alive in the 1st century spilled the blood of OT prophets, but will be held responsible for it.
Pau never met our Lord, but Jesus said,
Saul, Saul, whypersecutest thou MEAct.9:4

No one alive to day is responsible for not believing the prophets.

I disagree. The prophets testify of our Savior. Jesus said his followers have entered the work of the prophets. The prophets said their Messiah would teach the world about God. That is another reason why the Son didn't annihilate his accusers.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Never in my 68 years have I ever heard anyone teach this.

I'm sorry to say that's why he teaches it. I believe pride in being unique is a major source for false doctrine and prophecy of Scripture. There's a lot of intellectualism that goes into something new, and we like to think it's divine inspiration of God.

For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.

Whether theology or philosophy, it's still the same old wish to say something new. It doesn't need to be true, just new.

There's nothing wrong in agreeing with the common faith.

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

For some, simple truth is just boring.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Being born again agrees with being made alive, as opposed to still being dead.

True. And Scripture says so. But no Scripture says being made alive in Christ is being resurrected from the dead.

That's shown by the fact you give no Scripture for it.

I understand our mortal bodies being transformed hasn't happened yet.

Then stop teaching the resurrection is past, by saying you've been resurrected.

Only people who don't like the way God is ruling (and has always ruled) feel that way. Some people think things are so bad God doesn't even exist.

Turning the Millennial rule over all nations by Lord into a 'spiritual' wish is not God ruling over all nations.

Once again, the Millennium reign of Christ is defined as over all nations for a thousand years.

Describing it as something else, is changing the doctrine of God.

The only person ever resurrected is Jesus Christ. His only millennium is over nations for a thousand years.

The reason Christians were persecuted by the Caesars was not just saying Jesus is Lord, but it was also the heresy of saying the Lord has returned and He is now the ruler all nations.

Even the pagans believed that God, whether Zeus or Jupiter, was the Lord, but saying another man than Caesar is now ruling as Lord, was inciting rebellion.

Also when the bodily resurrection occurs,

Which is the only resurrection taught in Scripture.

the last enemy death is deatroyed,

For those resurrected unto life. There will still be plenty of death on earth afterward.

so it's very important to recognize just Who is in charge now.

Jesus is in charge of our lives now. Not us. If we think we reign and rule with Him now, then we're not yet crucified with Him.

He's not now in charge of the nation's rulers, who still rule for themselves.

You just don't know what the Scriptural prophecy and Millennium is. You've made up a 'spiritual' one for yourself.

The likeness of Jesus is also seen now in people who follow him.

Not the likeness of His resurrection, which is bodily.

If Christ isn't seen in us now, we can forget about looking like him later.

True. We won't be resurrected in His likeness.

Well, to many who preached in his name he'll deny knowing them, so be careful.

Your problem is you take it personal when corrected in matters of doctrine and prophecy.

No one is saying you're not saved, just because you have a wrong teaching about resurrection and Millennial rule.

But you seem to think Christians ought be judged based on agreeing with you or not.

Your doctrine of prophecy is technically false, that's all. How we live is what matters most anyway.

You seem to think Jesus isn't ruling his creation because he's merciful,

You don't know what I am saying, because you don't know what Scripture is saying.

I just repeat the simple since and evidence of Scripture. The only resurrection taught in the Bible is bodily. The only Millennium prophesied in the Bible is the Lord ruling all nations with a rod of iron.

I don't see Jesus enforcing His rule on leaders today on pains of imprisonment or death.

or that we as Ambassadors for the King over all aren't ruling

If you're still ruling anything over your own life, then you've not lost your life for His sake.

If we aren't even ruling our own lives, how can we be ruling that of others?

because he instructed us to rule in love over our enemies.

Go to the White House, Peking, Moscow, etc... and trying ruling over them in love. See how far that gets you.

Christ inheriting and ruling over all nations is a sure word of prophecy. Not just some myth of trying to love them, but then letting them do as they wish.

I think people who believe in Jesus better understand the Jesus spoken of in the Bible.

I know people that believe in Jesus without understanding the Jesus spoken of in the Bible.

They believe in Jesus their own way. Scripture is secondary most of the time.

He defeated the whore who thought she killed him.

She did kill Him. It's the city where the Lord was slain, not thought to be slain.

He defeated this beast who thought he killed him.

And so, you carry the symbolized prophecy to the end.

the Lord has returned, we've been resurrected, and the beast and whore are defeated.

All symbolically.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.

I prefer sure words of prophecy by sure meaning of God's words.

Actually, the Bible shows many places where God himself is a consuming fire,

True, but the fire of God in Rev 20 is the fire from God, not God Himself.

the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 2Thes.2:8

True. As the sun that shines in it's strength.

Yet Jesus is not the sun.

Here, the beast is destroyed by Jesus' presence.

No, the beast is cast into the LOF and destroyed from His presence.

He said the harvest is ready now.

True. To win souls to Christ, not to rule over nations.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Jesus taught that those who call him Lord will smite their fellow servants and will get drunk with the drunken at the time of the end.

True. He doesn't call them His witnesses, but evil servants.

All we need do is go by the actual words of the Lord, in order to teach His words. It's really just that simple.

Those two witnesses spend their time with a drunk prostitute who persecutes the saints.

False doctrine and prophecy of them that refuse correction of Scripture.

It's a good thing the woman who brought forth the man child flees into the wilderness for 1260 days while those two servants of Jesus torment people or they would torment her as well.

I'm going to end it now. You've already spoken of the Koran as source of prophetic truth, God's witnesses are drunken whoremongers, and servants of Jesus torment people.

It's not possible to say these words by mistake.

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

I'm not going to argue with believers of Koran prophecy and accusers of Jesus' witnesses.

 

[RBDERRICK]

We differ on our eschatological views, so you know. I think there were antichrists mentioned by John in his letter

There have been many antichrists already gone into the world since the days of the apostles.

and the Beast in Revelation is a totally different matter.

So you think. I don't argue with what people think. I thought we were here to see what the Bible says.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There have been many antichrists already gone into the world since the days of the apostles.

That’s thinking correctly.

So you think. I don't argue with what people think. I thought we were here to see what the Bible says.

Well, the problem is everything you say is what you think. There is no verbal communication that bypasses you thinking first.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I understand no one alive today crucified Jesus, the same way no one alive in the 1st century spilled the blood of OT prophets, but will be held responsible for it.
Pau never met our Lord, but Jesus said,
Saul, Saul, whypersecutest thou MEAct.9:4

At that point, he was meeting him, much more so than most Christians today can boast.

I disagree. The prophets testify of our Savior. Jesus said his followers have entered the work of the prophets. The prophets said their Messiah would teach the world about God. That is another reason why the Son didn't annihilate his accusers.

Where did Jesus say his servants today enter the work of the prophets? The calling of a prophet is something God calls a man or woman to do. It is not a general description of all believers. The Son certainly did annihilate his accusers and told them He was coming to do so. I mean, they died in the judgement of God in 70AD so how can you say he did not annihilate his accusers?

 

[journeymanisnothing]

True. And Scripture says so. But no Scripture says being made alive in Christ is being resurrected from the dead.

That's shown by the fact you give no Scripture for it.

Then stop teaching the resurrection is past, by saying you've been resurrected.

I didn't say our bodily transformation is past. Our minds are transformed 1st and they can only be renewed

If ye then be risen with Christ Col.3:1

Turning the Millennial rule over all nations by Lord into a 'spiritual' wish is not God ruling over all nations.

God has always ruled.

Once again, the Millennium reign of Christ is defined as over all nations for a thousand years.

Describing it as something else, is changing the doctrine of God.

The only person ever resurrected is Jesus Christ. His only millennium is over nations for a thousand years.

The reason Christians were persecuted by the Caesars was not just saying Jesus is Lord, but it was also the heresy of saying the Lord has returned and He is now the ruler all nations.

Even the pagans believed that God, whether Zeus or Jupiter, was the Lord, but saying another man than Caesar is now ruling as Lord, was inciting rebellion.

Which is the only resurrection taught in Scripture.

For those resurrected unto life. There will still be plenty of death on earth afterward.

Jesus is in charge of our lives now. Not us. If we think we reign and rule with Him now, then we're not yet crucified with Him.

He's not now in charge of the nation's rulers, who still rule for themselves.

You just don't know what the Scriptural prophecy and Millennium is. You've made up a 'spiritual' one for yourself.

Not the likeness of His resurrection, which is bodily.

True. We won't be resurrected in His likeness.

Your problem is you take it personal when corrected in matters of doctrine and prophecy.

No one is saying you're not saved, just because you have a wrong teaching about resurrection and Millennial rule.

But you seem to think Christians ought be judged based on agreeing with you or not.

Your doctrine of prophecy is technically false, that's all. How we live is what matters most anyway.

You don't know what I am saying, because you don't know what Scripture is saying.

I just repeat the simple since and evidence of Scripture. The only resurrection taught in the Bible is bodily. The only Millennium prophesied in the Bible is the Lord ruling all nations with a rod of iron.

I don't see Jesus enforcing His rule on leaders today on pains of imprisonment or death.

If you're still ruling anything over your own life, then you've not lost your life for His sake.

If we aren't even ruling our own lives, how can we be ruling that of others?

Go to the White House, Peking, Moscow, etc... and trying ruling over them in love. See how far that gets you.

Christ inheriting and ruling over all nations is a sure word of prophecy. Not just some myth of trying to love them, but then letting them do as they wish.

I know people that believe in Jesus without understanding the Jesus spoken of in the Bible.

They believe in Jesus their own way. Scripture is secondary most of the time.

She did kill Him. It's the city where the Lord was slain, not thought to be slain.

And so, you carry the symbolized prophecy to the end.

the Lord has returned, we've been resurrected, and the beast and whore are defeated.

All symbolically.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.

I prefer sure words of prophecy by sure meaning of God's words.

True, but the fire of God in Rev 20 is the fire from God, not God Himself.

True. As the sun that shines in it's strength.

Yet Jesus is not the sun.

No, the beast is cast into the LOF and destroyed from His presence.

True. To win souls to Christ, not to rule over nations.

Many people don't believe he's ruling now, the same way they they never thought our Father isn't ruling over all. Big mistake.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

At that point, he was meeting him, much more so than most Christians today can boast.

Point is, Saul was persecuting Christs' followers. but Jesus said Saul was persecuting Him. I think it's because we're one body.

Where did Jesus say his servants today enter the work of the prophets? The calling of a prophet is something God calls a man or woman to do. It is not a general description of all believers.

There is no new prophecy concerning salvation. It has all been told. The gospel that our Lord is coming again is prophecy, which we all speak.

The Son certainly did annihilate his accusers and told them He was coming to do so. I mean, they died in the judgement of God in 70AD so how can you say he did not annihilate his accusers?

I meant he didn't kill them immediately. His mission nowis of mercy and those killed in 70AD must still face him in judgement.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Well, the problem is everything you say is what you think. There is no verbal communication that bypasses you thinking first.

I apologize for being unclear and appeared smarmy about it.

What I mean is that what we think is one thing, but what Scripture says is another. If we are quoting God's words, then we are teaching what He says, not just what we think.

Paul says we all have our right to opinions, but only the written words of God are to be recieved and done as the truth.

Interpretation is what we think about what God says, and we all have our own interpretations to one degree or another, but the one doctrine of Christ is what He says alone.

Teaching the Bible really shouldn't be hard, since it is basically repeating God's own words. I have learned to make sure I am only repeating the Lord, and not what I want to think about things. It takes disciple to always ensure we are not teaching our own mind on things, but only what thus saith the Lord.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I apologize for being unclear and appeared smarmy about it.

What I mean is that what we think is one thing, but what Scripture says is another.

Sometimes yes.

If we are quoting God's words, then we are teaching what He says, not just what we think.

If what we think matches scripture there’s no difference or less difference.

Paul says we all have our right to opinions, but only the written words of God are to be recieved and done as the truth.

Where does Paul say that? (we have a right to our opinions)

Interpretation is what we think about what God says, and we all have our own interpretations to one degree or another, but the one doctrine of Christ is what He says alone.

Some people search the scriptures to see if these things be so. Some are after truth. But I admit few want truth.

Teaching the Bible really shouldn't be hard, since it is basically repeating God's own words. I have learned to make sure I am only repeating the Lord, and not what I want to think about things. It takes disciple to always ensure we are not teaching our own mind on things, but only what thus saith the Lord.

With all due respect, I doubt this. I’ve found that those who don’t know the difference between what the author intended and their own pre taught theology aren’t open to consider they might be in error. Those who loudly insist the Holy Spirit is teaching them are least likely to be taught by the HS. The louder one claims what they say IS what the Bible says the least likely this is to be true.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Point is, Saul was persecuting Christs' followers. but Jesus said Saul was persecuting Him. I think it's because we're one body.

I agree.

There is no new prophecy concerning salvation. It has all been told. The gospel that our Lord is coming again is prophecy, which we all speak.

Yes, the second coming with the Resurrection is future.

I meant he didn't kill them immediately. His mission nowis of mercy and those killed in 70AD must still face him in judgement.

That’s true.

 

[Paul Timothy]

If what we think matches scripture there’s no difference or less.

Where does Paul say that?

Some people search the scriptures to see if these things be so. Some are after truth.

With all due respect, I doubt this. I’ve found that those who don’t know the difference between what the author intended and their own pre taught theology aren’t open to consider they might be in error. Those who loudly insist the Holy Spirit is teaching them are least likely to be taught by the HS. The louder one claims what they say IS what the Bible says the least likely this is to be true.

Does this also apply to your own understanding of Revelation?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Does this also apply to your own understanding of Revelation?

You didn’t answer my question. Where did Paul write that we have a right to our opinion?

Prophesy can only be correctly understood in light of real historical events. We understand Isaiah 53 not because the Holy Spirit told us while we were in our room cut off from any information, but because we know the historical facts of Jesus’ life. Even futurists look at events in the world and think that’s a fulfillment.

 

[Paul Timothy]

You didn’t answer my question. Where did Paul write that we have a right to our opinion?

Prophesy can only be correctly understood in light of real historical events. We understand Isaiah 53 not because the Holy Spirit told us while we were in our room cut off from any information, but because we know the historical facts of Jesus’ life. Even futurists look at events in the world and think that’s a fulfillment.

So you don't apply your own standards to your own ideas.

That is what I hear you saying.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So you don't apply your own standards to your own ideas.

That is what I hear you saying.

You probably need to verbalize what you think my standard is because I have no
idea of what you mean.

Second, do you want to admit Paul never wrote that we have a right to our own opinion?

 

[Paul Timothy]

You probably need to verbalize what you think my standard is because I have no
idea of what you mean.

The standard I am referring to is your last words of the post I responded to.
"The louder one claims what they say IS what the Bible says the least likely this is to be true."

Second, do you want to admit Paul never wrote that we have a right to our own opinion?

I never addressed that issue so why would I have a comment?