A Biblical Lesson on Spiritual Discernment

[WPM]

Spiritual discernment requires discerning the difference between spiritual and physical things and between literal and figurative things in scripture. You are clearly lacking in spiritual discernment. You interpret almost everything in a spiritual or figurative sense. Which leads you to deny the scriptures which talk about the physical destruction of the second temple buildings and the physical destruction of Jewish unbelievers, which occurred in 70 AD. Just because Jesus referred to the people of Jerusalem as "Jerusalem" does not mean you can just spiritualize everything He said. What He described in Luke 19:41-44 is exactly what happened in 70 AD. At that time the people in the city of Jerusalem were surrounded on every side, many of them were killed, and the physical structures within the city, including the temple buildings, were completely destroyed. Exactly as Jesus prophesied. You should be celebrating His pinpoint accuracy in that prophecy, but instead you deny what He was prophesying about.

This is just hilarious to me that someone who denies the existence of the spirit beings Satan, demons and angels thinks that he can teach the rest of us about spiritual discernment. I can't think of anything more hilarious or ironic than this.

This is exactly how the Pharisees thought and taught. They knew it all and the rest knew nothing. Talk about pride and blindness. Because of this they missed the truth - Jesus Christ.

Pride cometh before fall!

 

[WPM]

Whether any denomination agrees with me is completely irrelevant. Truth is not established by a church's popularity or denominational approval. The question is not, "Who else believes this?" but, "What do the Scriptures actually teach?" Selah!

I don't derive my doctrine from a denomination, creed, or theological tradition. I derive it from the Word of God. If my interpretation is wrong, then refute it from Scripture (which they failed to do so)—not by taking a denominational survey.

Appealing to denominations instead of engaging the biblical argument is clearly an appeal to tradition, not exegesis. God's Word is the final authority, not the consensus of religious institutions. So let's leave denominations out of it and let the Bible speak for itself, shall we?

You derive it from your own heart. You think you are the embodiment of truth. Sad!

Orthodox Christianity rejects your error. That is why you are alone in history. Only the gullible today buy into your nonsense.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You derive it from your own heart. You think you are the embodiment of truth. Sad!

Orthodox Christianity rejects your error. That is why you are alone in history. Only the gullible today buy into your nonsense.

There you go again—attacking me instead of answering the Scriptures. Typical of those who cannot gainsay or resist.

I never claimed to be "the embodiment of truth." Christ is the Truth, and His Word is truth (John 14:6; John 17:17). There is a world of difference.

Nor do I derive my doctrine "from my own heart." If that were true, you should have no difficulty refuting my exegesis from Scripture. Yet instead of opening the Bible, you appeal to "Orthodox Christianity," church history, and majority opinion. That is an appeal to tradition, not to God's Word. Sad!

The Bereans were called noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to test what they were taught (Acts 17:11). They didn't ask, "Which denomination believes this?" They asked, "Is it written?" Duh!

Whether I stand alone or with a million people is irrelevant. Wasn't Noah stood nearly alone? Wasn't Elijah thought he stood alone? The prophets often stood against the religious establishment. Truth has never been determined by majority vote.

So stop talking about me, my heart, or church history, and do what you have consistently failed to do: open the Scriptures and prove, from the text, where my interpretation is wrong. Until then, your argument rests on tradition or remains a natural man rather than the authority of God's Word.

Selah!

 

[TribulationSigns]

How many are true to their denomination these days? If we were to make a denomination a requirement to join this web site how many posts would we have? It is my judgement that the Christian congregations are seven. If I had to take a stab of the seven stars (messengers) to the seven candlesticks (churches)...

Original messenger - Church
1. Peter - Messianic
2. Paul - Early Gentile
3. Constantine - Greek Orthodox
4. Theodosius I - Catholic
5. Martin Luther - Protestant
6. John Wesley - The revived church (Methodist - Pentecostal)
7. Robert Shuller - The Country Club

One Church... Millions of congregations...
1. Ephesus - Messianic Jewish Church
2. Smyrna - Oriental Orthodox - The Roman persecutions were ten
3. Pergamos - Greek Orthodox - Pergos... A tower... Needed in the dark ages
4. Thyatira - Catholic - Middle ages
5. Sardis - Protestant - A sardis is a gem... Beautiful,,, Not much spiritually
6. Philadelphia - Wesleyan - Too bad the revivals didn't last longer
7. Laodicean - Word of Faith - Rich and have need of nothing?

Huh? This is off-topic and not a response to my OP.

The discussion here is about spiritual discernment with Satan, the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and the meaning of the stones-to-bread temptation as an example. Your post about “seven congregations,” church history timelines, and symbolic frameworks in Revelation has no connection to that subject.

Please keep this thread on topic. If you want to discuss your “seven candlesticks / congregations” theory, start a separate thread where it can be addressed in its proper context.

Continuing to redirect unrelated theological systems into this discussion is derailment and prevents any meaningful engagement with the actual question being raised. You should know this as a mod yourself.

Thank you.

 

[rockytopva]

There you go again—attacking me instead of answering the Scriptures. Typical of those who cannot gainsay or resist.

I never claimed to be "the embodiment of truth." Christ is the Truth, and His Word is truth (John 14:6; John 17:17). There is a world of difference.

Nor do I derive my doctrine "from my own heart." If that were true, you should have no difficulty refuting my exegesis from Scripture. Yet instead of opening the Bible, you appeal to "Orthodox Christianity," church history, and majority opinion. That is an appeal to tradition, not to God's Word. Sad!

The Bereans were called noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to test what they were taught (Acts 17:11). They didn't ask, "Which denomination believes this?" They asked, "Is it written?" Duh!

Whether I stand alone or with a million people is irrelevant. Wasn't Noah stood nearly alone? Wasn't Elijah thought he stood alone? The prophets often stood against the religious establishment. Truth has never been determined by majority vote.

So stop talking about me, my heart, or church history, and do what you have consistently failed to do: open the Scriptures and prove, from the text, where my interpretation is wrong. Until then, your argument rests on tradition rather than the authority of God's Word.

Selah!

It seems like everyone has their own private interpretation on scripture these days. I would not recommend any kind of denomination. I would recommend people get to know the senior pastor and elders of the church. Sit in the church, see whats going on, and then get a feel on where the Spirit would want to lead you.

 

[WPM]

There you go again—attacking me instead of answering the Scriptures. Typical of those who cannot gainsay or resist.

I never claimed to be "the embodiment of truth." Christ is the Truth, and His Word is truth (John 14:6; John 17:17). There is a world of difference.

Nor do I derive my doctrine "from my own heart." If that were true, you should have no difficulty refuting my exegesis from Scripture. Yet instead of opening the Bible, you appeal to "Orthodox Christianity," church history, and majority opinion. That is an appeal to tradition, not to God's Word. Sad!

The Bereans were called noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to test what they were taught (Acts 17:11). They didn't ask, "Which denomination believes this?" They asked, "Is it written?" Duh!

Whether I stand alone or with a million people is irrelevant. Wasn't Noah stood nearly alone? Wasn't Elijah thought he stood alone? The prophets often stood against the religious establishment. Truth has never been determined by majority vote.

So stop talking about me, my heart, or church history, and do what you have consistently failed to do: open the Scriptures and prove, from the text, where my interpretation is wrong. Until then, your argument rests on tradition or remains a natural man rather than the authority of God's Word.

Selah!

While we are not led by Church tradition or bound by historic theological views of a given doctrine, we should carefully consider what sound orthodox Bible scholars over the years have gleaned from their diligent in-depth studies. There are many extremely able, and very anointed, biblical scholars in history that have wrestled with, and wrote on, all the major doctrinal issues. We should consider the great truths that have brought enlightenment, impact, freedom and wisdom to the Church over the centuries. We should not ignore these. Most of us have to rely upon the hard work of linguists, translators, commentators, and scholars, that God has used to aid our understanding of truth.

William Everett Bell highlights: "The … study of the history of a doctrine” as “a preliminary step in arriving at a proper interpretation is a generally-accepted hermeneutical principal.”

As Ramm points out, “it is the better part of wisdom not to ignore the exegetical labors of past generations. An interpretation that is quite apart from foregoing interpretations is not necessarily wrong, but it is at least suspect. It might be said that the burden of proof falls on the innovator” (Critical Evaluation, 25-26).

 

[rockytopva]

Huh? This is off-topic and not a response to my OP.

The discussion here is about spiritual discernment with Satan, the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and the meaning of the stones-to-bread temptation as an example. Your post about “seven congregations,” church history timelines, and symbolic frameworks in Revelation has no connection to that subject.

Please keep this thread on topic. If you want to discuss your “seven candlesticks / congregations” theory, start a separate thread where it can be addressed in its proper context.

Continuing to redirect unrelated theological systems into this discussion is derailment and prevents any meaningful engagement with the actual question being raised. You should know this as a mod yourself.

Thank you.

Each church has its own unique spirit and requires its own unique spiritual discernment. The lord invites us to look into the spirit of each church and discern. To this church age it is written...

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 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. - Revelation 3


There is a great deal to be discerned and applied in our time. The issue is not religious doctrine. The issue is within the character of the people.

 

[rockytopva]

Each church has its own unique spirit and requires its own unique spiritual discernment. The lord invites us to look into the spirit of each church and discern. To this church age it is written...

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 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. - Revelation 3


There is a great deal to be discerned and applied in our time. The issue is not religious doctrine. The issue is within the character of the people.

In this age you can know so-called truth and still be a terrible person. In which in times past there were some very good people out of the very same school of thought.

 

[WPM]

Huh? This is off-topic and not a response to my OP.

The discussion here is about spiritual discernment with Satan, the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and the meaning of the stones-to-bread temptation as an example. Your post about “seven congregations,” church history timelines, and symbolic frameworks in Revelation has no connection to that subject.

Please keep this thread on topic. If you want to discuss your “seven candlesticks / congregations” theory, start a separate thread where it can be addressed in its proper context.

Continuing to redirect unrelated theological systems into this discussion is derailment and prevents any meaningful engagement with the actual question being raised. You should know this as a mod yourself.

Thank you.

There is nothing to refute apart from your obscure ramblings. You take pride in new-fangled promoting esoteric ideas and concepts that have (1) no biblical basis, (2) no orthodox roots and (3) which belong to the heretics over the years.

You cannot support your denial of Satan, demons and angels. That is why you run from the thread that exposes your Gnosticism:

Satan and his demons are real beings/entities (with personalities) not abstract evil within unregenerate man

What the Scripture nowhere support is that the Devil is a supernatural being that was once a good angel in Heaven, but was cast out of heaven and now (sorta) omnipresent where he is able to inhabit reptiles and billions of unsaved people on Earth simultaneously... Look ... Christ talked to and...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[rockytopva]

Huh? This is off-topic and not a response to my OP.

The discussion here is about spiritual discernment with Satan, the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and the meaning of the stones-to-bread temptation as an example. Your post about “seven congregations,” church history timelines, and symbolic frameworks in Revelation has no connection to that subject.

Please keep this thread on topic. If you want to discuss your “seven candlesticks / congregations” theory, start a separate thread where it can be addressed in its proper context.

Continuing to redirect unrelated theological systems into this discussion is derailment and prevents any meaningful engagement with the actual question being raised. You should know this as a mod yourself.

Thank you.

You did mention in one of your many lines in this thread... "7 lampstands made for the Temple correlate to the 7 lampstands of Revelation." In which the Bible declares...

"The seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." - Revelation 1:20

So you invited the seven candlesticks into the thread.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Each church has its own unique spirit and requires its own unique spiritual discernment. The lord invites us to look into the spirit of each church and discern. To this church age it is written...

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 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. - Revelation 3


There is a great deal to be discerned and applied in our time. The issue is not religious doctrine. The issue is within the character of the people.

You keep talking about "spiritual discernment," but you haven't demonstrated any from the text itself.

So let's see how YOU interpret what the Lord actually said in Revelation 3.

• What does "cold" represent?
• What does "hot" represent?
• What is the "lukewarm" condition that causes Christ to spew them out of His mouth?
• What does Christ's mouth signify in this passage?
• What does it mean when they say, "I am rich"? Rich in what?
• What are the "goods" they think they possess?
• How can people who think they are rich actually be "wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked"?
• What is the "gold tried in the fire"?
• What are the "white garments"?
• What is the "nakedness" that must be covered?
• What is the "eyesalve," and why are they spiritually blind?

Please don't answer by appealing to a denomination, church age, or your "seven congregations" theory. Let the Scriptures define their own symbols.

If these are merely literal words to you, then you're missing the spiritual message Christ is conveying. If you claim spiritual discernment, then demonstrate it by explaining the passage from Scripture rather than asserting a theological system or your favorite church.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You did mention in one of your many lines in this thread... "7 lampstands made for the Temple correlate to the 7 lampstands of Revelation." In which the Bible declares...

"The seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." - Revelation 1:20

So you invited the seven candlesticks into the thread.

No, I did not invite a discussion on the seven churches. I referenced the seven lampstands as an example of spiritual discernment, not as the subject of this thread.

There is a significant difference between mentioning something and opening an entirely new discussion about it.

The topic of this thread remains the spiritual discernment regarding the identity of Satan, Christ's temptation in the wilderness, and the spiritual meaning of turning stones into bread. Instead of addressing that, you introduced an extensive theory about the seven churches, church history, Constantine, Luther, Wesley, Robert Schuller, and denominational classifications—none of which answers the question raised in the OP.

Quoting Revelation 1:20 doesn't justify derailing the discussion. It simply confirms that I mentioned the seven lampstands. It does not make your entire "seven congregations" framework relevant to this thread.

Like I said, if you want to defend your interpretation of the seven churches theories, start a new thread. Here, let's stay with the subject that was actually presented instead of changing the conversation.

Good night!

 

[rockytopva]

You keep talking about "spiritual discernment," but you haven't demonstrated any from the text itself.

So let's see how YOU interpret what the Lord actually said in Revelation 3.

• What does "cold" represent?
• What does "hot" represent?
• What is the "lukewarm" condition that causes Christ to spew them out of His mouth?
• What does Christ's mouth signify in this passage?
• What does it mean when they say, "I am rich"? Rich in what?
• What are the "goods" they think they possess?
• How can people who think they are rich actually be "wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked"?
• What is the "gold tried in the fire"?
• What are the "white garments"?
• What is the "nakedness" that must be covered?
• What is the "eyesalve," and why are they spiritually blind?

Please don't answer by appealing to a denomination, church age, or your "seven congregations" theory. Let the Scriptures define their own symbols.

If these are merely literal words to you, then you're missing the spiritual message Christ is conveying. If you claim spiritual discernment, then demonstrate it by explaining the passage from Scripture rather than asserting a theological system or your favorite church.

I do not recommend any specific denomination. Only a church where the Lord leads the person.

 

[rockytopva]

No, I did not invite a discussion on the seven churches. I referenced the seven lampstands as an example of spiritual discernment, not as the subject of this thread.

There is a significant difference between mentioning something and opening an entirely new discussion about it.

The topic of this thread remains the spiritual discernment regarding the identity of Satan, Christ's temptation in the wilderness, and the spiritual meaning of turning stones into bread. Instead of addressing that, you introduced an extensive theory about the seven churches, church history, Constantine, Luther, Wesley, Robert Schuller, and denominational classifications—none of which answers the question raised in the OP.

Quoting Revelation 1:20 doesn't justify derailing the discussion. It simply confirms that I mentioned the seven lampstands. It does not make your entire "seven congregations" framework relevant to this thread.

Like I said, if you want to defend your interpretation of the seven churches theories, start a new thread. Here, let's stay with the subject that was actually presented instead of changing the conversation.

Good night!

What are you supporting here.... Your own independent mind? If I were to go along with you is there a church congregation you would recommend? Or to avoid church altogether?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I do not recommend any specific denomination. Only a church where the Lord leads the person.

Clearly, you can't answer the questions yourself.

Moving on.

Good night.

 

[rockytopva]

With so many who come to this web site I would like to know the doctrine they have learned to get to understand the people better. Are they Messianic? Orthodox? Catholic? Protestant? Methodist? Pentecostal? Word of Faith? Independent? If you are introducing a biblical form of spiritual discernment... What congregation are you trying to discern?

 

[WPM]

With so many who come to this web site I would like to know the doctrine they have learned to get to understand the people better. Are they Messianic? Orthodox? Catholic? Protestant? Methodist? Pentecostal? Word of Faith? Independent? If you are introducing a biblical form of spiritual discernment... What congregation are you trying to discern?

He invents his own new-fangled beliefs as he goes, and veils these in scriptural language. Anyone who does not align with these, lacks spiritual discernment. Talk about pride. Talk about delusional. Talk about Cultish.

Sadly, rwb has bought into his nonsense.

 

[WPM]

The way I have seen here lately, there's no point in posting the contradictions I see because they already have explanations for all of them, and they won't be persuaded. Why? Because they lack spiritual discernment!

Sad, but that is "generally" true. What's that old expression?

"When you're a Hammer, everything looks like a nail!"

The point is to examine the item first to see if it really is a nail, because perhaps it is just the pattern of a nail. Here is the patience of the saints. Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus to defer to the "authority" of the word of God to define terms. Whether stones, trees, a city, a temple, a tabernacle, the promised land, bread, wine, or anything else, it's not always as it seems. God defines His own terms. As Christ Himself so ably illustrated in the Healing/Restoration of the Blind man spoken of in the book of Mark. While he was blind, men appeared ὁράω or [horao], as trees. That is to say, until that man was healed by Christ, and it was then that He said that the trees were actually men. Where once he was blind and saw mysterious imagery, now he saw the truth of what they were. Selah!

Mark 8:23-25

• "And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
• And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
• After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly."

This is a whole Spiritual lesson in itself! To be blind is to be in spiritual darkness where you cannot see things as they actually are. They are seen as a mystery/secret. But once we are healed by Christ, our spiritual eyes are opened, and we can understand that the tree is actually a man. ...as in Revelation chapter 7 again. For example:

Revelation 7:3

• "Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads."

God is not speaking about saving the physical earth, the sea, and the trees "until" all his servants are saved. It "appears" that way, but the truth is, the imagery in this context is of the world/creation. God is saying this judgment cannot come upon the people of the world (earth, sea, trees) that they are hurt UNTIL after He has saved His People from out of this world. For example, God is long-suffering, not willing that any of His elect are lost. Those who receive the seal become His people. The earth, sea, and trees represent the unsaved of the world (remember, a tree is known by its fruits?). The earth and sea, clearly represent the people of the world who are not spiritually healed. That's why they cannot be hurt until God patiently restores every single elect who is to be saved first. His servants must be sealed first before the loosening of the beast and the Great Tribulation. In other words, a great apostasy, a falling away from the faith is going to take place upon the world, but not until all Israel (the 144,000) are sealed FIRST! This is the mystery of God to reveal secrets to many, and blind others, as is His divine good Sovereign will.

...all that to say, not everyone is going to understand that the stones of the city and Temple represent people. These things are spiritually discerned. We can but pray for their understanding. However, whether they do or not see is all according to the will of God.

And when they don't, they fall back on the "it's a paradox" to explain how it is not actually true.

Well, indoctrination is a strong thing. Or others will play the dueling Scriptures game as if that will make your scripture null and void. Do they really think all God is interested in is the physical stones of a building falling down? Is a falling building the judgment that God speaks of concerning Israel? Is our Lord's interest in having them see their physical Temple fall, or is it in having them see their own fall? To have them (and us) consider God's Word "carefully" and understand what's really important is not physical--not meat and drink? It's what meat and drink represent!!

Luke 19:43-44

• "For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

Did God discuss with a literal/physical City? Who are the city's children in this context? Right there we should understand the judgment of the city falling and being laid even with the ground, are the people! I mean, if we're being honest with ourselves, which is difficult to do when you are indoctrinated. A little spittle on the eyes and we can see this clearly! In this context, it is perfectly clear Christ is talking about the city representing the congregation, and it's children as the stones laid even with the ground. It's the people of his Old Covenant congregation and not the physical stones of a literal Jerusalem. The judgment is on the people as the spiritual city representing the house of the Lord, not the literal Jerusalem. He will lay the people even with the ground "as if" they were literal stones, not every literal stone in 70 AD as the misguided proponents of Josephus imagine! It's the "imagery" of total destruction in the fall of Israel at the cross. Not 70 AD, at the cross! And its restoration in the Resurrection of Christ. Just as with the Temple:

John 2:19-21

• "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
• Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
• But he spake of the temple of his body."

The Romans did NOT destroy the Temple of prophecy; the people of Israel did! The Jewish people asked for a "Sign" that Christ had authority to cast out these buyers and sellers out of the Temple, and Christ replied, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up!" That was the Sign, but as the people of the congregation today, the people of the congregation then missed it; because they were so busy looking toward the literal Temple rather than the one God actually had in view. Selah. And Christ rebuilt it, stone upon stone, through His resurrection. Selah.

Romans 11:11

• "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy."

That's how the Old Testament representative congregation Israel fell, and this is how it was restored in the New Testament or Covenant with Israel representation; the church. As I said before, both the Temple and the city represented the Lord's congregation.

Luke 13:34-35

• "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
• Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

Can a Physical/literal city kill the prophets, can it stone those sent to it? ...or is the Lord Jesus Christ speaking to a congregation, to a spiritual city? The people's house was left desolate because they didn't know the time of their visitation, and rejected their Messiah. May we pray that God will show mercy and give many the wisdom to discern THE TRUTH of His Most Holy Word instead of being decevied with 70 AD nonsense! More example on the next post...

@rwb

This Op should read:​

A TS Lecture on Spiritual Eisegesis​

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There you go again—attacking me instead of answering the Scriptures. Typical of those who cannot gainsay or resist.

LOL. He has refuted your false beliefs using scripture extensively and you know it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

While we are not led by Church tradition or bound by historic theological views of a given doctrine, we should carefully consider what sound orthodox Bible scholars over the years have gleaned from their diligent in-depth studies. There are many extremely able, and very anointed, biblical scholars in history that have wrestled with, and wrote on, all the major doctrinal issues. We should consider the great truths that have brought enlightenment, impact, freedom and wisdom to the Church over the centuries. We should not ignore these. Most of us have to rely upon the hard work of linguists, translators, commentators, and scholars, that God has used to aid our understanding of truth.

William Everett Bell highlights: "The … study of the history of a doctrine” as “a preliminary step in arriving at a proper interpretation is a generally-accepted hermeneutical principal.”

As Ramm points out, “it is the better part of wisdom not to ignore the exegetical labors of past generations. An interpretation that is quite apart from foregoing interpretations is not necessarily wrong, but it is at least suspect. It might be said that the burden of proof falls on the innovator” (Critical Evaluation, 25-26).

Right. He is just one of many lone wolves on this forum who each think he or she has a monopoly on the truth all to himself or herself. It means nothing to them that very few people, if any, agree with them. They are so full of pride to think that God is only interested in revealing truth to them and not the rest of the millions of Christians who have studied the scriptures.