The Divinity of Christ

[Daisies4me]

Thank you... likewise.


The parameters, of course, is found in 2 Cor 4:4 (those that believe not) - and an additional qualifier is that there are those who hear and believe.


This is where your opinion is now inserted because:

1. The scriptures you referenced doesn't mention that
2. In Revelation, it is obvious they are still in the spirit realm Rev 6:9-10

(quote)

Hi again, Ken-- just wanted to add some info to this statement that you made about Rev. 6:9-10. You realize, of course, that Revelation is a "VISION' given to John as per Revelation 1:1, right?
It is a PROPHETIC book, of things written in 'signs', or 'symbols', or things that stand for other things, of things destined to take place long after it was written, many of the things even as yet, remain unfulfilled. So that doesn't actually apply in the manner in which you are referring. It applies in the FULFILLMENT of the vision.
Do you notice the rendering of Revelation 1:10? From what vantage point, is John given the vision? The vision took him far into the future, in fact, into 'the Lord's Day', and told John to 'write' what he saw in the vision , thought John had no idea what it all symbolized at the time that he wrote it down for all of 'the congregations on earth at that time.

Just some 'food for thought', as it were. There is so much to study and learn, and we are very fortunate to have in our possession our own personal copies of the Bible and be able to freely study it, which is not true in all nations on earth today. Let us take full advantage of this opportunity, and pray for God's holy spirit to aid us in understanding it.
Peace to you and yours

(quote)


As referenced in above scripture, the soul does not die for, as Jesus said, " ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Of course, I will take what Jesus says over any opinions that is offered.

Since the rest of your post is contrary to what Jesus said and basically is about the same issue, I have opted not comment on it.

 

[Daisies4me]

It's an interpretation, so it's not mentioned by name, but it was by far the most prevailing view that was believed in the very early church.

It was the Ebionites, a separate group from the apostolic church, that believed that Jesus was not divine, and they only recognized only one gospel as being valid, plus they roundly denounced Paul as being a heretic. By the mid-2nd century they were pretty much out as they didn't attract enough followers to keep going. See: Ebionites - Wikipedia

Now, to be clear, I'm only covering the history on this as I really only deal with Jesus myself as being a man, so I really have no irons in this fire anyway.

(quote)
Hi Metis
Thanks for your input. I wonder if you may be able to provide a scripture from the Bible that pertains to a group known as "the Ebiobites"? I must have missed it. thans.

However, none of the early 'Christians' that followed Jesus, believed in or taught a doctrine of triune gods to be worshipped. Even the encyclopedias that I found and copied parts of their information on the topic agrees.
Only the pagan Babylonish religions worshiped plural gods/godheads according to the Bible as much as I have read in it. If it is there and I missed it, please do show me , so that I can read it also.
thanks
here are a couple of reasons that I found years ago, and help me to remain in the belief that the doctrine of the trinity is not of God. just for your consideration and the discussion:

“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.

Thanks for an interesting exchange of opinions and ideas. I can always depend on you for such.
peace

(quote)

 

[Shiranui117]

(quote)
Hi Metis
Thanks for your input. I wonder if you may be able to provide a scripture from the Bible that pertains to a group known as "the Ebiobites"? I must have missed it. thans.

If you're expecting the Bible to be a history book of everything that happened within Christianity from 33 AD up through 325 AD, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Case in point, the Bible doesn't address the Docetists, who we know were a growing group by the end of the first century. (The Docetists were heretics who denied that Jesus was ever human, and instead assert that His apparent humanity was merely a phantasm.)

However, none of the early 'Christians' that followed Jesus, believed in or taught a doctrine of triune gods to be worshipped. Even the encyclopedias that I found and copied parts of their information on the topic agrees.

Exactly. You only copied parts of their information. You're leaving out big chunks of the story.

You thereby neglect to mention St. Ignatius of Antioch (St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch, with St. Peter being the first) and St. Polycarp of Smyrna (who was a student of St. John the Apostle), both of whom taught that Jesus was God.

“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

This merely states that the exact definition of the Trinity wasn't settled until the 300's. I can give you a litany of early Christians from the first three centuries of Christianity who profess the divinity of Christ. There is a continuous line of belief in the divinity of Christ going clear back to the Apostles' direct successors.

 

[Kenny]

Hi Ken
Thanks for the reply.

Happy to be sharing with you.

NOt sure that I understand your comment, however--the scripture at 2 corinthians 4:4 identifies the one who causes some to be 'blinded' as to the 'good news about the Christ', that one being identified as Satan the Devil, aka 'the god of THIS "world" (ruling authority)' as I understand it.
So those who are "blinded" spiritually, do not understand the truth about who Jesus truly is.

I have no problem with your position here as I agree completely. Of course, one problem that could arise is when one person says "you're blinded" that the other can respond, "No, it is you that is blinded". Maybe it is just one person who, through lack of knowledge, is perishing in their understanding and Satan had nothing to do with it. They simply didn't study enough to show themselves approved rightly discerning the word of truth.

Can you please share the scripture that you say has Jesus claiming to be 'the God of Abraham....etc..' ?

That scripture was in reference that the soul was still alive after being dead. (Not in reference of Jesus claiming to be "the God of Abraham). Jesus said that God was the God of the living and not the God of the dead.

I know that the Bible identifies the God and Father of Jesus as being 'the God of Abraham'. You see, Jehovah is THE Almighty God, of which there is only ONE such. Otherwise, the world 'almighty' could not be used , if it was to be applied to anyone other than Jehovah. That would render the world useless. It is singular. ONE.

The best way I can explain it is to relate it to the makeup of man since we are made in His image and in His likeness.

1 Thes 5:23 May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 26:9 My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you. (of course he has a body)
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, (of course there is still a body)

So we are singular, we are ONE. BUT, we have three parts.
Our spirit is the greater of the three. Our body is the least of the three. Our soul is in between but all parts are important and makes us ONE person.

The Father (Jehovah), is the greater of the three. The Holy Spirit is the lease of the three, The Word (Jesus) is in between but all parts are important and makes Him ONE God.

The "soul" of a person is the person. IT is not separate according to the Bible information that I have found, and I think that I shared it with you in my last post to you , did I not? Ezekiel 18:4 says that the soul dies, as do many other scriptures.

As the scriptures that I gave above, there is a difference between spirit and soul (even Genesis speaks of it when He breathed man's spirit and he became a living soul (two different words). However, the spirit and soul is so intertwined as to be inseparable.

The word "die" has many applications. It doesn't always mean "cease to exist". It can mean being separated from God (who is life), it can mean his earthly existence was cut short, as well as other meanings.

The import on looking at and reasoning on those cited scriptures, is necessary to understand that Jesus could not be 'eternal', as the purpose for his coming to earth in human form, was for the purpose of giving his soul once for all time, as a ransom for many, right? Doesn't the Bible say that Jesus died? That is the only way he could have provided the 'ransom' for the sin of Adam. Has Jesus NOT literally died, how could God then resurrect him? It is impossible to 'resurrect' a person who is not dead.

That is if you are viewing it within the context of your understanding and then trying to apply it to that singular scripture. If your soul dies and ceases to exist, then Lazarus could never be resurrected. If your soul dies and it ceases to exist then God is the God of the dead but Jesus said that God is not the God of the dead because Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive. If your soul dies, then Revelation is wrong when it says that those who were murdered for the Gospel sake spoke to Jesus and said "When will you avenge me". If your soul dies when you are dead then Jesus lied when he said the Apostles would reign with them.

The scriptures clearly state that Jesus died, and that Jehovah God, the Father and God of Jesus, ( scriptures given in the previous post to you) resurrected him. see Acts 2:22-24, and 31-32.

Yes... Jesus died. (I would agree with you). But what part? Only his body.

The Bible does not teach the false doctrine of an immortal human soul, my friend.

Again, because of the multiplicity of scriptures that talks about the soul being eternal I would have to be disagree. It is the body that is not eternal because it is made up from the ground and the ground has been cursed because of sin. (Gen 3)

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Obviously if his soul will not say in hell, then it still lives. And there are so many other examples

Thanks for you consideration,
take care

Thank you for such a civil discourse. I have enjoyed sharing and thank you for sharing.

Shalom and shalom

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Other scriptures show that souls can be destroyed (Genesis 17:14), slain by the sword (Joshua 10:37), suffocated (Job 7:15), and drowned (Jonah 2:5).

Jonah 2:2 (ESV Strong's) “I called out to the Lord, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.

Jonah is praying to God from the "belly of Sheol", the grave, hell, the place of the dead, the pit. If the soul is the person, and the person dies, how could he cry out from the grave, being dead?

As referenced in above scripture, the soul does not die for, as Jesus said, " ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Spot on!

No man or death can kill the soul.

Matthew 10:28 (KJV) 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[Kenny]

Hi again, Ken-- just wanted to add some info to this statement that you made about Rev. 6:9-10. You realize, of course, that Revelation is a "VISION' given to John as per Revelation 1:1, right?
It is a PROPHETIC book, of things written in 'signs', or 'symbols', or things that stand for other things, of things destined to take place long after it was written, many of the things even as yet, remain unfulfilled. So that doesn't actually apply in the manner in which you are referring. It applies in the FULFILLMENT of the vision.
Do you notice the rendering of Revelation 1:10? From what vantage point, is John given the vision? The vision took him far into the future, in fact, into 'the Lord's Day', and told John to 'write' what he saw in the vision , thought John had no idea what it all symbolized at the time that he wrote it down for all of 'the congregations on earth at that time.

Just some 'food for thought', as it were. There is so much to study and learn, and we are very fortunate to have in our possession our own personal copies of the Bible and be able to freely study it, which is not true in all nations on earth today. Let us take full advantage of this opportunity, and pray for God's holy spirit to aid us in understanding it.
Peace to you and yours

Yes... there is a prophetic application to the Revelation to John. Certainly there are signs and symbols or, if you think about it, how do you share about an atomic bomb with the words of the 1st century? How do you explain an airplane within the vocabulary of his time? So certainly there is much symbolism in trying to explain it.

But let's look at it more closely because it isn't all symbolism since some of it was mentioned by Jesus.

Matt 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.\

Rev 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

No symbolism there. It is black and white and very clear. Of course, it isn't hard to explain that one in context of the vocabulary of John's time... they had crowns and thrones and it was easy to explain it.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

the scripture at 2 corinthians 4:4 identifies the one who causes some to be 'blinded' as to the 'good news about the Christ', that one being identified as Satan the Devil, aka 'the god of THIS "world" (ruling authority)' as I understand it.

When the writers of the NT say that satan is "the god of this world", they're not meaning he has any "ruling authority". Jesus said,

Matthew 28:18-19 (ESV Strong's) And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

This is what I understand what satan being the "god of this world" means,

Nehemiah 9:18 (ESV Strong's) 18 Even when they had made for themselves a golden calf and said, ‘This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt,’ and had committed great blasphemies,

It just means that people choose to live without obeying God. They choose to live "according to the flesh", not the Spirit.

 

[metis]

Hi Metis
Thanks for your input. I wonder if you may be able to provide a scripture from the Bible that pertains to a group known as "the Ebiobites"?

Yo Daisies4me,
They are not mentioned in the NT but come from other sources.

However, none of the early 'Christians' that followed Jesus, believed in or taught a doctrine of triune gods to be worshipped.

As I previously mentioned, there was without a doubt a belief in the 1st century church that Jesus was of divine origin and linked to "the Father", and that same view was held also about the Holy Spirit. What was not agreed upon, however, was what exactly how this was to be understood, which is why the CC used and still uses the terminology "mystery of the trinity". Or, to put it another way, Jesus was not just viewed as being a man.

Only the pagan Babylonish religions worshiped plural gods/godheads according to the Bible as much as I have read in it. If it is there and I missed it, please do show me , so that I can read it also.

The trinitarian concept has Jesus being part of the "three in one", so it technically is not a polytheistic concept because of the "one". Actually it was the belief that Jesus was not divine that was actually viewed as being a "heresy", and groups like the Ebionites were not accepted within the apostolic church.

just for your consideration and the discussion:

“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

See above.

What happened at Nicea was simply a recognition of what had long been believed, and the reason why the council was called was to deal with the various heretical groups that existed and making different claims about Jesus and using different texts that are not part of the NT. Along with this process, the canon of the NT that you use was also decided upon, largely also in response to these different groups using different texts. .

Thanks for an interesting exchange of opinions and ideas. I can always depend on you for such.

Ditto, and it's a pleasure discussing things with you as well.

 

[Muffled]

Where does the Bible list Jesus as being both?



John 14:6 (ESV Strong's) 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I'm afraid you didn't, unless you're claiming Jesus was lying.



Are you a rank and file witness? I don't know if you're a witness or not, some are afraid to put that they are. If so, you're not part of the New Covenant.

Creation:
Lu 1:27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
Birth:
Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

I believe you have no idea what you are talking about. I was telling the truth and so is Jesus.

I most closely identify with Baptist denominations. I am not a JW and never have been.

 

[Muffled]

My view is Jesus was God, and God is a duality. God came into the world to give testimony to His chosen people. Things went crazy, they didn't believe Him, they misinterpreted Him. He explained, and they again misinterpreted, it got even worse when Jesus rejected their interpretations of what He said. Then, after Jesus was murdered, Jesus movement people made up son of God stories. Thus, we have the New Testament with misinterpretations of what Jesus said, and false stories of what really happened. I know, if we don't really know what happened, how can we have faith? Good question. I don't really know. For several years, I have conducted research on Jesus gospels, there is indirect evidence for my assertion. As an example, early gospels, those which survived from church leaders campaign to destroy all other gospels, do not have the same Jesus stories. It appears as if church leader bias determined the content of gospels selected. If, as an example, Jesus was not the son of God, but actually God, then, we have false narratives. I don't think we will ever know the real truth.

I believe there is no evidence to support this fantasy.

I believe that makes sense. The church should validate scripture and eliminate anything invalid.

I don't believe there is any evidence of bias. I believe church leaders were led by the Holy Spirit.

I believe I don't see any problem with Him being both but there is a problem with the term Son of God because it can lead to misunderstanding.

 

[Repox]

I believe there is no evidence to support this fantasy.

I believe that makes sense. The church should validate scripture and eliminate anything invalid.

I don't believe there is any evidence of bias. I believe church leaders were led by the Holy Spirit.

I believe I don't see any problem with Him being both but there is a problem with the term Son of God because it can lead to misunderstanding.

What if Jesus was God, and there is no son of God? If that is true, then God came into the world to give testimony to Jews (his chosen people). Also, God (Jesus) did not intend to start a new religion. God doesn't micro-manage. Followers of Jesus came up with narrative stories that changed Jews perception of Jesus. If you read those gospels written prior to the NT gospels you don't find those narrative stories (Jesus is the son of God, Jesus is tempted by the devil, John baptizes Jesus, Jesus drives out devils, Jesus heals many, Jesus walks on water, etc.). Apparently, those stories were added to gain support for the Jesus movement. Here is an excellent source for those ideas, The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. I believe Revelation 11 about the two witnesses (God's duality) is the best story about Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

What if Jesus was God, and there is no son of God? I

Why would someone go with a "what if" narrative?

 

[Repox]

Why would someone go with a "what if" narrative?

It is a rhetorical statement. I believe Jesus was God, but, of course, others don't believe it.

 

[Daisies4me]

If you're expecting the Bible to be a history book of everything that happened within Christianity from 33 AD up through 325 AD, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Case in point, the Bible doesn't address the Docetists, who we know were a growing group by the end of the first century. (The Docetists were heretics who denied that Jesus was ever human, and instead assert that His apparent humanity was merely a phantasm.)

(quote)
Hi Shiranui

You are correct in that the Bible is not a 'history book' of everything that has happened on the earth.

The history that is in there, however, is accurate, as it pertains to the people who worship the One who Inspired the writing of the 66 Bible books, as a means for mankind to be able to take in accurate knowledge and understanding ot the True God, and of the one He sent forth, Jesus the Christ. (see John 17:3)

It is a 'guidebook' , or 'Letter' of instruction from the Creator. Do you believe this? If such ones were intended by God to be of import in the grand scheme of things, surely they would have been included in the Holy Writings, IMHO. What happened within the apostate churches as they attempted to outlaw true Christianity, by murdering the true followers of Christ, (and don't forget, even the Christ was murdered by the apostates who were afraid that he would expose their false teachings, and the Romans would come and take away their power) --see John 7:1; 45-48, 57-- feeding them to the animals for 'entertainment', nailing them to a stake and setting fire underneath them, etc., so that anyone under their control must either face death or convert to the 'new' Church , its all covered in the prophecies of the Bible and in actual secular history. Quite a remarkable ability to keep some alive despite of the best efforts of false religion throughout history, isn't it?

Peace to you

(quote)



Exactly. You only copied parts of their information. You're leaving out big chunks of the story.

You thereby neglect to mention St. Ignatius of Antioch (St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch, with St. Peter being the first) and St. Polycarp of Smyrna (who was a student of St. John the Apostle), both of whom taught that Jesus was God.

This merely states that the exact definition of the Trinity wasn't settled until the 300's. I can give you a litany of early Christians from the first three centuries of Christianity who profess the divinity of Christ. There is a continuous line of belief in the divinity of Christ going clear back to the Apostles' direct .

 

[Daisies4me]

If you're expecting the Bible to be a history book of everything that happened within Christianity from 33 AD up through 325 AD, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Case in point, the Bible doesn't address the Docetists, who we know were a growing group by the end of the first century. (The Docetists were heretics who denied that Jesus was ever human, and instead assert that His apparent humanity was merely a phantasm.)

Exactly. You only copied parts of their information. You're leaving out big chunks of the story.

You thereby neglect to mention St. Ignatius of Antioch (St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch, with St. Peter being the first) and St. Polycarp of Smyrna (who was a student of St. John the Apostle), both of whom taught that Jesus was God.

(quote)

Hi again
I wonder if this article that I find to be very informative, may resonate with any possible indications of historic or Biblical truths to you? I will appreciate hearing your opinion on the matter:

Was Peter the First Pope?

Thanks for your consideration

(quote)


This merely states that the exact definition of the Trinity wasn't settled until the 300's. I can give you a litany of early Christians from the first three centuries of Christianity who profess the divinity of Christ. There is a continuous line of belief in the divinity of Christ going clear back to the Apostles' direct successors.

 

[Daisies4me]

It is a rhetorical statement. I believe Jesus was God, but, of course, others don't believe it.

(quote)

Hi
I will say that at one time, I agreed with you. Lots of examining of the Scriptures have changed my mind, however. I am now of the mind that Jesus is precisely who he said he was, when he said "I am God's Son".--John 10:36.
I do understand why many people can be so easily misled on the matter, however. Or, many simply choose to believe a certain way because it satisfies a need they have, or others don't want to be considered an 'outcast' from family or church friends. Many reasons why some people stick to their beliefs.
"inquiring minds" sometimes aren't satisfied with a 'go with the flow' way of thinking....

take care

(quote)

 

[Repox]

(quote)

Hi
I will say that at one time, I agreed with you. Lots of examining of the Scriptures have changed my mind, however. I am now of the mind that Jesus is precisely who he said he was, when he said "I am God's Son".--John 10:36.
I do understand why many people can be so easily misled on the matter, however. Or, many simply choose to believe a certain way because it satisfies a need they have, or others don't want to be considered an 'outcast' from family or church friends. Many reasons why some people stick to their beliefs.
"inquiring minds" sometimes aren't satisfied with a 'go with the flow' way of thinking....

take care

(quote)

I am a scholar, and I have researched the New Testament. It boils down to "most people lie, some more than others." If you research it, you find back then fiction writing was very popular. There weren't high standards for fact finding. Then, if you research the time frame for the gospels, you find they were written 40 to 55 years after Jesus was murdered. Then, if you research prior gospels, the ones church leaders tried to destroy, you don't find one single Jesus story from NT gospels. Moreover, we don't know the real names of the gospel authors, and it is certain none of them where eyewitnesses. So, where is the truth?

 

[Repox]

I am a scholar, and I have researched the New Testament. It boils down to "some people lie, some more than others." If you research it, you find back then fiction writing was very popular. There weren't high standards for fact finding. Then, if you research the time frame for the gospels, you find they were written 40 to 55 years after Jesus was murdered. Then, if you research prior gospels, the ones church leaders tried to destroy, you don't find one single Jesus story from NT gospels. Moreover, we don't know the real names of the gospel authors, and it is certain none of them where eyewitnesses. So, where is the truth?

As for who Jesus was. I believe he was God, not the son of God. Then, knowing God is a duality, there is no Trinity, just the Duality of God.

 

[Daisies4me]

Yes... there is a prophetic application to the Revelation to John. Certainly there are signs and symbols or, if you think about it, how do you share about an atomic bomb with the words of the 1st century? How do you explain an airplane within the vocabulary of his time? So certainly there is much symbolism in trying to explain it.

But let's look at it more closely because it isn't all symbolism since some of it was mentioned by Jesus.

Matt 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.\

Rev 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

No symbolism there. It is black and white and very clear. Of course, it isn't hard to explain that one in context of the vocabulary of John's time... they had crowns and thrones and it was easy to explain it.

(quote)

Hi Ken
Do you believe that the scriptures that you have quoted have already come to pass, or do you think that they are yet to be fulfilled ? Did I accurately understand your post to say that you are of the opinion that it has already been fulfilled? (please clarify, if you will-- I could be wrong...)

Since John was given the vision and recorded it while he was literally on the Isle of Patmos, in prison, he could not have literally 'seen' with human eyes the things in the heavenly realm, as there are no human fleshly bodies in the heavens, according to the scripture at 1 Corinthians 15:50. And we know, do we not, that humans cannot see spirit creatures with the normal human eyesight?
As I understand it, 'a vision' is something seen other than via natural sight -- a prophetic sight, in this case, from God, of things that have not yet happened. Would you agree?

IMHO, many Bible prophecies spoken and written down via inspiration from God are yet to come to pass. So, I would have to respectfully disagree with the idea that those things have already come to pass in reality. I believe the 'vision' is yet to be fulfilled. Very soon, however...

What do you think of the association of the scriptural passages depicting the Heavenly Kingdom of God as a ruling authority set to rule over the entire earth "at the appointed time" (Daniel 2:44) with the model prayer that Jesus taught to His disciples at Matthew 6:9-10?
Thanks for your kind consideration

peace to you

 

[Daisies4me]

I am a scholar, and I have researched the New Testament. It boils down to "most people lie, some more than others." If you research it, you find back then fiction writing was very popular. There weren't high standards for fact finding. Then, if you research the time frame for the gospels, you find they were written 40 to 55 years after Jesus was murdered. Then, if you research prior gospels, the ones church leaders tried to destroy, you don't find one single Jesus story from NT gospels. Moreover, we don't know the real names of the gospel authors, and it is certain none of them where eyewitnesses. So, where is the truth?

(quote)

wow.

I think that I will just leave that alone.
suffice it to say it is way out in left field from my study and the results thereof; so I will politely disagree and wish you well.

Peace

(quote)