Understanding Parable and Allegory in God's Word

[bbyrd009]

There is no getting around that "thousand years" period

Dave (Dave’s not here) you don’t think there’s anyway to understand the millennium spiritually? You can’t be 16 forever bro, that stuff is all going to flip on you imo k

 

[bbyrd009]

Really, you have lost me as I do not understand what you are attempting to say.

No one is promised tomorrow?

 

[Davy]

Dave (Dave’s not here) you don’t think there’s anyway to understand the millennium spiritually? You can’t be 16 forever bro, that stuff is all going to flip on you imo k

Sorry brother, I'm still laughing. I'll let ya know when I stop and can then try to understand what you're really saying@!

 

[bbyrd009]

Sorry brother, I'm still laughing. I'll let ya know when I stop and can then try to understand what you're really saying@!

ah, thought i erased that
ok then, i understand bro
fwiw that wasnt really for you anyway i guess

maybe see how knowledge brings sorrow, basically what you spread here iow?
doesnt mean you arent right sometimes, or even most times, i guess

just ezackly like satan, from a certain pov, yes?
1Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORDGod had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from anytree in the garden’? ”a

2The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in thegarden. 3But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’ ”b

4“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman.c 5“In fact, God knows thatwhend you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,e knowing goodand evil.”
(I said, "you are elohim")

 

[amadeus]

Wow Amadeus, that is deep. My knee-jerk response to your first question was “no,“ but obviously “it is impossible to please God except by faith” has some Conditions huh

When I asked the question, I did not know my own answer, but consider what I encountered this afternoon:

Is Sorrow Equal to Nothingness?

“And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” I Cor 13:2

First consider what or who is Love:

“He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love .” I John 4:8

[word used for love is the same word used as charity in I Cor 13:2]

And then did not Jesus, the Son, manifest sorrow here?

“Jesus wept.” John 11:35

Why did Jesus weep? Why was he sorrowful? Because of his friend, Lazarus certainly, but also because of all of us who had been without God. and perhaps especially because that many who in spite of his sacrifice would not take hold of the Life which Jesus brought. Without God there is only death... there is only nothingness.

Consider Jesus’ words and prayer in Gethsemene:

“Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me...

....O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Matt 26:38-39

Why is any son of man sorrowful at all?

“Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my days should be consumed with shame?” Jerem 20:18

Consider the sorrow that Jesus carried:

“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” Isaiah 53:3-4

Jesus carried our sorrows... which would have been unnecessary if there were no sin. He is sad for us...full of sorrow for us because God loved us...

“Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?” Prov 23:29

Yes, who has sorrow and why?

‘They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.” Prov 23:30

What wine is this that brings on sorrow, but the wine of men? [This speaks not only of the natural wine of grapes.] There are men satisfied with the facade of their own blood, of their own “life” which really is death.

Here also we might say that the mixed wine is the doctrines or ways of men mixed with a measure of God’s Truth, God’s Life. This, however, as we should know, is double-mindedness and those who remain in this to the end of their course will be spit out of God’s mouth... [James 1:8 & 4:8, Rev 3:16]

Then there are inappropriate or misplaced sorrows. Jesus had a godly sorrow for those separated from God by death and advised them to weep for the right things:

“But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.” Luke 23:28

Jesus took on our sorrows so that it would be possible for us to be without sorrow anymore. His death was necessary to God’s plan. Don’t weep for him no matter how sad and cruel was his suffering...

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.

A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.” John 16:20-22

And then Paul’s writing clarifies that there two kind of sorrows:

“Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” II Cor 7:9-10

“And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.” Isaiah 35:10

So then again the question: Is sorrow equal to nothingness? Nothingness is death without God. There is indeed a time to mourn:

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:” Ecc 3:1
“A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;” Ecc 3:4

But misplaced or inappropriate mourning or sorrow may put us against God, or...?

“And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.” I Sam 15:35

“And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.” I Sam 16:1

 

[Naomi25]

Romans 9 does not say that the church existed prior to Pentecost.

(I have a lot to be thankful for....)

The church, as the NT defines it, is but the body of Christ, those elected by grace and grafted into the tree. Romans 9-11 tells us that unbelieving Jews are 'cut off' from this tree, while believing Gentiles are grafted in.
But if we dig a bit harder into the NT, we find that even back in the OT these categories of 'elect' and 'cut off or keep on' the tree.

But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. -Romans 11:4–6

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— Romans 9:11

Jews were not 'kept' on the tree if they apostatized. But those who were selected by grace and 'kept' by God remained faithful. And we see that even in the OT, righteousness and faithfulness to God was characterized not by works, by but faith and grace.

Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. -Galatians 3:5–9

So, if 'righteousness', or being saved, is ultimately characterized by being grafted to the root, who is Christ, his body; and if the way we 'get' there is via faith and grace and not works...then regardless of the names, either in the OT or the NT, the people of God remain consistent. There is one body, one way to it. Blood will not get you there, compliance to laws will not get you there only faith in Christ. And we see throughout the OT that all 'men of faith' had a faith and trust in God that he would bring forth the promised Messiah. They trusted forward, we trust back. But all, ultimately, look to Christ and place our faith in him for salvation. That is the only category for Jews or Gentiles alike, then, or now.

And my goodness, yes! That is something to be absolutely thankful for! It often saddens me to think of how there are so many out there who do not believe, who will perish. And I am in awe and wonder that God would choose me. Me...who am I that he would pick me out of hundreds? I'm not anything special, or good, or noteworthy. I am a sinner like everyone else. And yet he chose me. Humbling. Amazing. Life-changing.

 

[Naomi25]

why leave, when you are doing such good stuff right here?

Ah...inevitably there comes a point where the conversation just can't go any further without devolving into a nasty circle of insult and sarcasm. Davy clearly wasn't spending a second of his time on weighing my arguments or biblical evidence, so there's little point wasting my time. And while at times I enjoy using sarcasm to battle insult and eisegesis, it can only go so far within descending into a name-calling circus, which is not beneficial for anyone.

 

[Naomi25]

so much good there Naomi25... why go then to ‘Literal’ in “all the people within it, declare the glory of God with one voice.” Zephaniah 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.
A pure language...Spirit. Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit(of one consent), and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Romans 12:9-16 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. [10] Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; [11] Not slothful in (The Father’s)business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; [12] Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; [13] Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. [14] Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. [15] Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. [16] Be of the same mind (of one consent)one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

When I say "Literal", I mean physical. People seem to expect that Christ's Kingdom has to be physically present on earth before it can be termed a Kingdom. And I was trying to point out, as you have very well above, that Christ's Kingdom is present now in many different ways that don't NEED to be physical. If they want physical, they need to wait until the new heavens and new earth are bought forth and Christ reigns 'with his people'. THAT will be a physical outcome of what is now only spiritual. It's the Already Not Yet. Now we see in part, but then we will see fully.

Hope that clears up what I mean!

 

[Naomi25]

Hello

Can I add my two cents worth here?

If I was to judge the above posts of @Davy and @Naomi25 then I would be more comfortable to recommend what Naomi25 has posted than with what Davy has posted.

That does not mean that Naomi25 and I agree on everything, it just means that Naomi25 and I have a lot more in common with respect to our own understanding of the end times and scripture.

I have tried to have a reasoned conversation with Davy, but the invalidating responses of Davy meant that the conversation could not continue.

On the other hand my conversations with Naomi25, where we have disagreed, have ended with us both generally agreeing to simply disagree with what the other has posted.

A lot of what Naomi25 has presented above I basically agree with, except for little tweaks here and there which, in the overall scheme of things, is fairly incidental to the End time story.

On the other hand, Davy's understanding of the timeline for the end time events to occur, I cannot agree with and the discussion becomes like head butting to see who will yield first with the same arguments/invalidations being presented by Davy.

Now both Davy and Naomi25 can hold to their own particular understanding, and we should respect that. For me, I have had to withdraw from having conversations with Davy. But with Naimi25, only occasionally have I felt the need to chip into the conversations she has been having with other, to present my point of view, where her POV may only be slightly different from mine.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents worth

Hi Jay, thanks for your 2 cents! Sometimes I find that people cannot grasp the idea of respecting people in their differences. I mean...sure, sometimes I at what others understand...because golly, I just can't see it or how they came to it. And yeah, I like digging into the biblical points that seem to be what makes those difference, but I think that's good and biblical...we test our ideas and doctrines against others and their arguments. That's how we grow, consider and either become more sure of our views or become willing to dig into the idea further if our views become wobbly in the face of other evidence.
But, like you, I can't really see the point of trying to do this with people who, right from the outset, are dismissive, degrading and unwilling to engage in reasonable back and forth. How come people can't disagree or debate without feeling the need to make them feel like crap for the absolute stupid views they hold. Just as well I don't think my views are stupid or am bothered by such dismissals. Shake the dust off my feet, stuff my sarcasm back in its hole and move on.

 

[bbyrd009]

Ah...inevitably there comes a point where the conversation just can't go any further without devolving into a nasty circle of insult and sarcasm. Davy clearly wasn't spending a second of his time on weighing my arguments or biblical evidence, so there's little point wasting my time. And while at times I enjoy using sarcasm to battle insult and eisegesis, it can only go so far within descending into a name-calling circus, which is not beneficial for anyone.

hmm so then i might urge you to post with a diff audience in mind, even if Dave (dave's not here) is the um responder. Dave is just One Guy who cant hear you, right--which i mean no sin...well, whatever, no crime in that--but i tell you that you surely have a congregation who might never reveal themselves, fwiw. ok bye

 

[Davy]

Ah...inevitably there comes a point where the conversation just can't go any further without devolving into a nasty circle of insult and sarcasm. Davy clearly wasn't spending a second of his time on weighing my arguments or biblical evidence, so there's little point wasting my time. And while at times I enjoy using sarcasm to battle insult and eisegesis, it can only go so far within descending into a name-calling circus, which is not beneficial for anyone.

Your attitude is un-Christian. You have no call to slander just because you disagree. You've been reported.

 

[bbyrd009]

Ah...inevitably there comes a point where the conversation just can't go any further without devolving into a nasty circle of insult and sarcasm. Davy clearly wasn't spending a second of his time on weighing my arguments or biblical evidence, so there's little point wasting my time. And while at times I enjoy using sarcasm to battle insult and eisegesis, it can only go so far within descending into a name-calling circus, which is not beneficial for anyone.

The amazing name Korah: meaning and etymology
"In the Greek New Testament the name Korah appears only in the letter of Jude, who declares men who revile things they do not understand to persist in the rebellion of Korah (JUDE 1:11, spelled Κορε Kore)..."

 

[Davy]

The amazing name Korah: meaning and etymology
"In the Greek New Testament the name Korah appears only in the letter of Jude, who declares men who revile things they do not understand to persist in the rebellion of Korah (JUDE 1:11, spelled Κορε Kore)..."

Trying to insinuate that Korah idea towards me when it was about those who rebelled against God because of His choosing Moses and Aaron as His representatives, is bearing false witness. May God rebuke you, in the name of Jesus Christ!

 

[Naomi25]

Your attitude is un-Christian. You have no call to slander just because you disagree. You've been reported.

Report me if you feel you must. But I do wonder what they will find if they take the time to read back over our posts. I freely admit my sarcasm runs away with me at times, but I do not think that is against forum rules. I do, however, believe you called me insane, full of hot air, and other wonderful descriptions. Which I don't feel the need to report. I can take it.
I think from here on out, it would be best if we avoid conversation, however. Good day.

 

[Naomi25]

hmm so then i might urge you to post with a diff audience in mind, even if Dave (dave's not here) is the um responder. Dave is just One Guy who cant hear you, right--which i mean no sin...well, whatever, no crime in that--but i tell you that you surely have a congregation who might never reveal themselves, fwiw. ok bye

Ah. Well...I confess I'm not sure what to say to that. Thank you, I think. Although, I find myself at a loss without a direct conversation to interact with. I don't often start threads because I just don't like the idea that I'm all about pushing a soapbox message. If I have a direct question I want to ask people I'll start one. But mostly I just enjoy joining in conversations and putting my 2 cents in on how I think scripture is faithfully read. And, I suppose there's a few people here (I wish there were more!) who push me to really consider my perspectives. I like the 'iron sharpens iron' concept.

The amazing name Korah: meaning and etymology
"In the Greek New Testament the name Korah appears only in the letter of Jude, who declares men who revile things they do not understand to persist in the rebellion of Korah (JUDE 1:11, spelled Κορε Kore)..."

That's interesting....humbling. Makes you realize how serious it can be when not being faithful to scripture. I pray I'll always be willing to check myself first.

 

[bbyrd009]

I like the 'iron sharpens iron' concept.

ya, i used to love that one myself. It will flip on you too i guess prolly

 

[Naomi25]

ya, i used to love that one myself. It will flip on you too i guess prolly

It might depend on how I apply it...or at least, I hope it does. I'm not keen for the 'battle' of iron sharpens iron, but the concept of...if my doctrinal concept is sound, it should stand up under questions and criticisms from others, rather than wobble and crumble...if that makes sense. I suppose its more like testing a foundation...something may look sturdy to me, but until I put pressure upon it, I may not truly know. And its hard for me to think of all questions I may 'test' my ideas with...thus its beneficial for others to help me test it!

 

[bbyrd009]

It might depend on how I apply it...or at least, I hope it does. I'm not keen for the 'battle' of iron sharpens iron, but the concept of...if my doctrinal concept is sound, it should stand up under questions and criticisms from others, rather than wobble and crumble...if that makes sense. I suppose its more like testing a foundation...something may look sturdy to me, but until I put pressure upon it, I may not truly know. And its hard for me to think of all questions I may 'test' my ideas with...thus its beneficial for others to help me test it!

i sure agree, yet the only ppl who seem willing to extend a hand to me in a new town when i come walking in pretending to be in need are Roman Catholics--well, here it was "Antiochian Orthodox"--and i dunno what your feelings on their doctrine is, but for my part i cannot imagine how they even relate it to the Bible, Naomi. First thing comes to my mind when they mention some doctrine is "you ppl are insane, and have quite obviously never cracked a Bible"

When we say "beliefs" now, we pretty much all mean "beliefs about stuff that may have happened in the past, or might happen in the future," right? Or i guess "Trinity" might be one doctrine nominally to do with now, but you know what? I notice no change whatever in life when i choose to believe in the standard concept of Trinity v when i dont, and i suggest maybe picking your fave doctrine and believe the ezack opposite for a week, and let me know what changes if you would

what do little kids "believe," anyway?

 

[bbyrd009]

beautiful service btw, Antiochian Orthodox. Think like Russian or Greek Ortho i guess? never even heard of them though. I made sure to say some subtly off-putting stuff right away too, in front of the "father" and everything lol, but he didnt even blink. I felt like Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian narf

 

[Naomi25]

i sure agree, yet the only ppl who seem willing to extend a hand to me in a new town when i come walking in pretending to be in need are Roman Catholics--well, here it was "Antiochian Orthodox"--and i dunno what your feelings on their doctrine is, but for my part i cannot imagine how they even relate it to the Bible, Naomi. First thing comes to my mind when they mention some doctrine is "you ppl are insane, and have quite obviously never cracked a Bible"

When we say "beliefs" now, we pretty much all mean "beliefs about stuff that may have happened in the past, or might happen in the future," right? Or i guess "Trinity" might be one doctrine nominally to do with now, but you know what? I notice no change whatever in life when i choose to believe in the standard concept of Trinity v when i dont, and i suggest maybe picking your fave doctrine and believe the ezack opposite for a week, and let me know what changes if you would

what do little kids "believe," anyway?

Certainly an interesting idea. But...if I may...doesn't the 'try believing in a doctrine exactly opposite to what you currently believe to see if it changes anything' presuppose that belief and the resulting circumstances from following that belief, is but subjective?
Whereas, if, when reading the bible, we understand something to be communicated by God as truth, it becomes not subjective to us or from us, but a reality set in stone by the very one who created all. Therefore it is not a matter of how the outcome effects us; if believing in the Trinity or not somehow makes our lives more meaningful; it is simply correct because it is how God has revealed himself to us.
We should not, then, question that revelations validity based only on our response to it, or how it impacts our life, we ought to respond to it in thankfulness and awe...that our Father and creator has revealed something of himself to us, that previously we might not have perceived.
Do you not think?