7 Churches as Personality Types

[marks]

To whom did Jesus write... I have conceded that the primary was to the first century...

Is that so? If so, that's good. But even so, they were each addressed to individuals, and so the first and primary application is to them. Just like Philemon was written to an individual, and we all gain from our understanding Paul's letter, even as we read it in that context.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Read the parenthetical statement and accept my apologies for confusing you with someone who sounds like you.
But you sill refuse to answer my questions (sign of a closed mind). You apparently refuse to reread Rev 2+3 with my frame of reference (sign of a closed mind).
So excuse me for mixing you up with someone who, at least, was honest about their closed mind.

But even in your answer you project a smugness

You make yourself known in your projections onto others.

OK, I accept your apology for confusing me with someone who was at least honest about their own close-mindedness.



Wait . . . that's not really an apology, is it? Let's be honest now . . .

You apparently refuse to reread Rev 2+3 with my frame of reference (sign of a closed mind).

You sound so sure of yourself, however, you haven't a leg to stand on. And you even acknowledge the lack of real evidence of your presumptions of me in saying, "apparently", yet you procede as if you are exactly correct. And you accuse me of smugness? This is why I call this out as projection.

Much love!

 

[David Boyer]

Is that so? If so, that's good. But even so, they were each addressed to individuals, and so the first and primary application is to them. Just like Philemon was written to an individual, and we all gain from our understanding Paul's letter, even as we read it in that context.

Much love!

Exactly as I have said. Yes. Thanks for finally agreeing on something. But who is the individual? The messenger of the church? Who was that? Exactly... names please.

Or was it written to the leader of the church so that i would be shared with the entire church or just the head dude?

 

[David Boyer]

You make yourself known in your projections onto others.

OK, I accept your apology for confusing me with someone who was at least honest about their own close-mindedness.



Wait . . . that's not really an apology, is it? Let's be honest now . . .

Much love!

An honest apology would be the parenthetical statement. The sarcastic apology would be a dig at you not reading carefully what I wrote.

 

[David Boyer]

You make yourself known in your projections onto others.

OK, I accept your apology for confusing me with someone who was at least honest about their own close-mindedness.



Wait . . . that's not really an apology, is it? Let's be honest now . . .

You apparently refuse to reread Rev 2+3 with my frame of reference (sign of a closed mind).

You sound so sure of yourself, however, you haven't a leg to stand on. And you even acknowledge the lack of real evidence of your presumptions of me in saying, "apparently", yet you procede as if you are exactly correct. And you accuse me of smugness? This is why I call this out as projection.

Much love!

So you have... since I posted this, carefully and prayerfully read Rev 2+3 asking Jesus to show you if any of these churches apply to you and how they could be applied to your life during the tribulation?

 

[marks]

But who is the individual? The messenger of the church? Who was that? Exactly... names please.

Seriously?? This is meant as a serious question?

Much love!

 

[BeyondET]

Rather than personality types lets say types of personalities.
I use the wording of "Church". ie what church do you recognize yourself as?
But so many people would interpret that as Denomination, or physical structure, or geographical area. (Catholic, On main street, North American, etc)
Try reading the churches with that in mind. Does one speak to you as an admonition or as an encouragement?
I'm just asking if you could read 2 chapters with that particular view in mind. THEN tell me I am right, wrong, a heretic. But please read it.

I really can't recognize what church that would be. Personalities can sometimes change especially when a mood may be around for a bit even for a season at times. Circumstances and experiences can alter both mood and personality.

 

[marks]

So you have... since I posted this, carefully and prayerfully read Rev 2+3 asking Jesus to show you if any of these churches apply to you and how they could be applied to your life during the tribulation?

You act as though this is something new, and it's not.

But first, are you agreed then that the first, primary application of these letters was to the individual to whom they were addressed?

Much love!

 

[David Boyer]

Seriously?? This is meant as a serious question?

Much love!

Again you refuse to answer only mock...This is not a becoming look for you.

 

[marks]

I really can't recognize what church that would be. Personalities can sometimes change especially when a mood may be around for a bit even for a season at times. Circumstances and experiences can alter both mood and personality.

Of course!

And what usefulness is there in pidgeonholing ourselves as if we are one thing? This goes so much deeper than that. Are we going to declare "I'm Philedelphian, so none of the other stuff applies to me"? Is that what we're supposed to do?

He who has an ear, let him hear!

Much love!

 

[David Boyer]

You act as though this is something new, and it's not.

But first, are you agreed then that the first, primary application of these letters was to the individual to whom they were addressed?

Much love!

For the third time... YES.

And you still refuse to answer if you have read Rev 2+3 in a manner that I suggested. This conversation is starting to prove you have a thick neck.

 

[marks]

Again you refuse to answer only mock...This is not a becoming look for you.

I'm asking if you are truly serious, and I hope you will reconsider what you are asking.

The Bible tells us things about the kinds of questions we should and should not entertain. Asking the names of the messengers of the 7 churches, when we all know that those names are not given, well, how would you describe that sort of question?

Is it that you seek to deny the fact of the letter's address because the personal name is not known? As if that were a logical argument? And why would you even want to make an argument like that? It's empty.

Much love!

 

[David Boyer]

I really can't recognize what church that would be. Personalities can sometimes change especially when a mood may be around for a bit even for a season at times. Circumstances and experiences can alter both mood and personality.

Personalities change only slowly over time (for the most part). So one would stand out at this time for an honest seeker of God.
Did you do the homework? Try reading Rev 2+3 with an open heart to hear from God then get back to me... if you want.

 

[David Boyer]

I'm asking if you are truly serious, and I hope you will reconsider what you are asking.

The Bible tells us things about the kinds of questions we should and should not entertain. Asking the names of the messengers of the 7 churches, when we all know that those names are not given, well, how would you describe that sort of question?

Is it that you seek to deny the fact of the letter's address because the personal name is not known? As if that were a logical argument? And why would you even want to make an argument like that? It's empty.

Much love!

If my answer confused you, maybe it was because your question was confused/muddy/malformed/silly.
Have you done the homework of reading Rev 2+3 with an open heart to see if it applies as I asked?
How many times must I ask. Yes or No... the answer would be very simple to write. I'm sure you know how.

 

[marks]

If my answer confused you, maybe it was because your question was confused/muddy/malformed/silly.
Have you done the homework of reading Rev 2+3 with an open heart to see if it applies as I asked?
How many times must I ask. Yes or No... the answer would be very simple to write. I'm sure you know how.

I've been looking at these letters from all sorts of perspectives for decades, and this that you suggest is nothing new to me. Have I reread their entirety this morning? No I have not. Am I able to discuss them with you freely, and from this perspective also? Absolutely.

When you want to have a real discussion, I think I'll spot the difference in your words. Until then, I'm going to real about things whether you are or not.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If my answer confused you,

This is not confusing to me at all. I recognize the dynamic here very well.

My replies to you at this point are in the hopes that you will come to see yourself a little bit better, and can be all the better for it.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Personalities change only slowly over time (for the most part). So one would stand out at this time for an honest seeker of God.

This would be your homework, then, to read these letters, slowly, repeatedly, until you have such a facile understanding that you can freely recognize yourself in each of them, whichever applies, as we do in fact change, and sometimes dramatically, and sometimes daily, and there is spirit, and there is flesh, and we need ALL of the Bible the divide between these.

Much love!

 

[David Boyer]

I've been looking at these letters from all sorts of perspectives for decades, and this that you suggest is nothing new to me. Have I reread their entirety this morning? No I have not. Am I able to discuss them with you freely, and from this perspective also? Absolutely.

When you want to have a real discussion, I think I'll spot the difference in your words. Until then, I'm going to real about things whether you are or not.

Much love!

So you refuse to answer questions and get indignant when questioned if you read them "in the manner I requested" then finally come back with "decades" of "perspectives".
Wow... I really hope you don't have a congregation looking to you for leadership. A touch of humility might go a long way for your soul.
I will admit when I am wrong... but I need some proof.
When I ask for your proofs you change subject of just answer half the question.
I hope you get a chance to reflect on this conversation and your adversarial role in it to a fellow believer.

 

[marks]

So you refuse to answer questions and get indignant when questioned if you read them "in the manner I requested" then finally come back with "decades" of "perspectives".
Wow... I really hope you don't have a congregation looking to you for leadership. A touch of humility might go a long way for your soul.
I will admit when I am wrong... but I need some proof.
When I ask for your proofs you change subject of just answer half the question.
I hope you get a chance to reflect on this conversation and your adversarial role in it to a fellow believer.

I've grown tired of all the vain "you" statements, self-affirmations, argumentative responses, projection, all that nonsense.

Bye!

 

[FHII]

I am not trying to tear down the church age theory, merely point out that with a large shoehorn and a hammer you can make the church age theory work if you only focus on western church history.

First off, tmyour post is one I can appreciate and deal with. So I will (with a bit of caution) welcome it. It is true that the Church age theory works with the western Churches. Let's quickly define that as westen Europe and the America's. Even so, I do believe it touches Eastern Europe as well as well as far western Asia.

But that's where it was going. While the Apostles are rumored to carry the gospel as far as India, we don't hear of it in the Bible. Nor did it make a major impact when it did spread to Eastern Asia.

So the notion you make that it only works in the west proves that it does work. Simply because that's where the action was.

am not praising eastern churches, I don't know much about them. Not interested as I am Canadian (as the beer commercial says).

Well for someone who doesn't know much about them, you sure did bring them up alot. We shouldn't forget them though. I don't get the beer commercial reference either.

The church age theory is so ingrained in eschatology, but I don't see it reflected in the text or nature of the letter of Revelation. Everyone likes to point out that there are seven letters to seven churches, but I see it as one letter (with 7 recipients), dictated by Jesus (and visions). The only book in the NT that is commanded by Jesus to be written. I find Revelation to be a singularly unique book in the NT. I find the church age idea cheapens the entire book of Revelation to a simple history lesson.

Neither do I. Revelations was written to God's servants. It says so in Ch 1. Furthermore, there were not 7 letters to 7 Churches. It never says that. John was told to write to the ANGELS of each Church. But it was never 7 separate letters, but one letter to God's servants.

I don't agree with you that history lesson cheapens the book. An Incredible history lesson is given in Ch 12, but many fail to see it. The book of kings, Samuel and Chronicles are history. The Gospels tell a history of Jesus. Genesis is history, as is Exodus. Revelation is no different. It's telling us a history while also laying down some teaching.

Ask any questions you want about the personality theory you have. I would love to discuss it. I didn't really think it was a new revelation... just new to me.

It's what we should've been doing all along. Unfortunately, it'll have to wait. But one thing is that all these churches had strong points and faults until you get to Leodicea. Are they character traits of Churches, or of people? I think both. Thus I like you theory, but also the Church age theory.

We will talk later.