Were Christians supposed to separate themselves?

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Good call, Marsh - I'm not prepared enough to be able to make a counter argument - presuming there is one. It would be interesting to see what the word used for "nations" in the Greek was, as that could be quite pivotal to the reading.

The Greek is "ethnesin" the plural of "ethnos" from which we get the English adjective "ethnic". It is the usual NT term for non-Jewish peoples and is often translated as "Gentiles".

Another key word here is the term used for "world". Of several possible Greek terms, the one used here is "oikumene" which means specifically, "the whole inhabited world". "ecumenical" is an English derivative of "oikumene".

So there is little doubt here of the intention is that the gospel will be preached to all the nations of the whole inhabited world.

We should remember as well, that all the gospels were written AFTER the church had made the decision to include the Gentiles. And the gospels which were selected for the canon were all chosen by Gentile Christians. It would be very surprising to find any other perspective in the NT.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by iKwak

I don't understand the different denominations within the christianity.

I don't blame you. Christians don't either.

Are you wanting to know something about various denominations? Or why there are so many denominations?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by iKwak

I don't understand the different denominations within the christianity.

This is because when the Bible was finally printed and made available to the masses, there was no official interpretation of it, not until the book of Revelation was finally fulfilled in 1757.

[I, Brian]

The only "official" interpretation is an entirely denominational matter.

Isn't it?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The only "official" interpretation is an entirely denominational matter.

Isn't it?

Well, you have to understand that the Bible had been repressed for at least a thousand years or, how ever long the Roman Catholic Church preached to the masses in Latin which, in effect nobody understood. And then along came Martin Luther and the printing press (Gutenberg) and now the Bible had finally become accessible. However, we're talking about 1,500 years after the fact. That's a long period of time of not knowing! In which case how could it be anything but subject to interpretation? So, if in fact there was anything legitimate to the Bible in the first place and, if the Guy upstairs were to remain consistent, then at some point it should be decreed that an offical account be given. And this I would suggest to you had little to do with The Reformation.

[Iacchus]

I might add that this may also coincide with the hastening effect or, The Quickening, as 9Harmony referred to in another thread, thus allowing the Bible to be opened up and trampled under foot by the Gentiles (compare the testimony of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11), resulting in the final climax or, Last Judgment, as concurs with the book of Revelation.

So the book of Revelation is not referring to the end of the world, so much as it's referring to the end of an era, at which point the True Church is finally established. Which I would suggest to you occurred in the year 1757.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

This is because when the Bible was finally printed and made available to the masses, there was no official interpretation of it, not until the book of Revelation was finally fulfilled in 1757.

I read through the linked document. I thought that Christ was supposed to return on a cloud, rather than in the body of a German mystic.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Marsh

I read through the linked document. I thought that Christ was supposed to return on a cloud, rather than in the body of a German mystic.

That is interesting. The Gospels advise that during Christ's ascention into Heaven (on a cloud), the "angels" asked the people what they were looking at, and did they not know that Christ would return the same way He left?

But, in Revelation, John states that in his visions, Christ returns leading an army of cherebum, with Christ at the front, in purest white, eyes aflame, and full of righteous anger. If I'm not mistaken, He also carries a flaming sword...

Anyway, the variations of the return is puzzling.

Also, isn't Gabriel suppose to sound the "trumpet", prior to all of this?

Just some thoughts.

v/r

Q

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The Gospels advise that during Christ's ascention into Heaven (on a cloud), the "angels" asked the people what they were looking at, and did they not know that Christ would return the same way He left?

But, in Revelation, John states that in his visions, Christ returns leading an army of cherebum, with Christ at the front, in purest white, eyes aflame, and full of righteous anger. If I'm not mistaken, He also carries a flaming sword...

Anyway, the variations of the return is puzzling.

Q

And where does it say that he did not return from the sky? In Acts it says that Jesus entered heaven by the sky; in Revelation it says that the sky (heaven) was standing open, and then Jesus returns. It seems to me he returned by way of the sky. If I leave a room with a full beer in my hand, and then enter the same room by the same door after having finished the beer, did I not leave the same way I entered? The answer is all about semantics.

But here's something else Jesus said: "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect-- if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." When Jesus returns, everyone is going to know-- as it is written. I am actually, therefore, encouraged by hearing about this German guy, because it means that Jesus will be back soon.

If I see him before you do, I'll be sure to say Guten Tag for you

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Marsh

And where does it say that he did not return from the sky? In Acts it says that Jesus entered heaven by the sky; in Revelation it says that the sky (heaven) was standing open, and then Jesus returns. It seems to me he returned by way of the sky. If I leave a room with a full beer in my hand, and then enter the same room by the same door after having finished the beer, did I not leave the same way I entered? The answer is all about semantics.

But here's something else Jesus said: "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect-- if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." When Jesus returns, everyone is going to know-- as it is written. I am actually, therefore, encouraged by hearing about this German guy, because it means that Jesus will be back soon.

If I see him before you do, I'll be sure to say Guten Tag for you

No worries mate, we'll meet Him at the same time. My point is not the sky, but the nuance and the frame of mind that Christ has when He returns, as opposed to when He left.

He left like a Lamb, but scripture indicates He will return like a lion. And scripture also alludes to Him returning like a Lamb (Gospel vs. Revelation).

Of course God can do anything He wants to do. ;-)

v/r

Q

[I, Brian]

Isn't there a quote about Jesus returning as like a thief in the night?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Marsh

I read through the linked document. I thought that Christ was supposed to return on a cloud, rather than in the body of a German mystic.

Of course the vision that transpires in the book of Revelation is none other than the mystical account of St. John, which he witnessed while in the spiritual realm. So who's to say the book of Revelation won't be fulfilled in a similar fashion if, in fact such a thing hasn't occurred already, except by means of a mystic. By the way, the mystic I'm referring to here is the Swedish born scientist Emanual Swedenborg, rather than Martin Luther who was in fact German.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Marsh

But here's something else Jesus said: "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect-- if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." When Jesus returns, everyone is going to know-- as it is written. I am actually, therefore, encouraged by hearing about this German guy, because it means that Jesus will be back soon.

If I see him before you do, I'll be sure to say Guten Tag for you

Yes, but who was John the Baptist supposed to represent, if none other than the second coming of Elijah?

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. ~ Matthew 11:11-15

Of course to understand this is to understand John the Baptist wasn't really Elijah, however, he did represent Elijah in the spirit.

By the way Brian, the reference you're looking for is 2 Peter 3:9-11 ...

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The only "official" interpretation is an entirely denominational matter.

Isn't it?

The Catholic and, I believe, the Orthodox churches hold that the Church is the official interpreter of scripture. We Presbyterians, and most Protestants, I believe, hold that the Holy Spirit is the official interpreter of scripture. A number of denominations hold that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is given to individuals, but in Reformed theology, the task of the Holy Spirit is to guide the Church into all truth.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, you have to understand that the Bible had been repressed for at least a thousand years or, how ever long the Roman Catholic Church preached to the masses in Latin which, in effect nobody understood. And then along came Martin Luther and the printing press (Gutenberg) and now the Bible had finally become accessible. However, we're talking about 1,500 years after the fact. That's a long period of time of not knowing! In which case how could it be anything but subject to interpretation? So, if in fact there was anything legitimate to the Bible in the first place and, if the Guy upstairs were to remain consistent, then at some point it should be decreed that an offical account be given. And this I would suggest to you had little to do with The Reformation.

Now I am not Roman Catholic, but I still find this a curiously paranoid point of view. Is it really likely that, apart from some special revelation, the unlettered masses would be able to interpret scripture better than monks who spent their whole lives in studying it? How can you say the church went through 1500 years of not knowing?

And supposing that God did feel it was time to give a new "official account" why would it be significantly different from the historic faith?

In any case, any "official account" soon becomes dated and in need of further adaptation and re-interpretation anyway. That has been our experience with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which is one of our official interpretive documents. We now either have to re-interpret or re-write or disallow portions of the WCF as well as interpreting scripture.