The following is an online conversation which took place on 8-17-03
tapestrycg (9:05 PM): You up?
MereDust (9:05 PM): so far
tapestrycg (9:06 PM): was looking at timing on the transfig
MereDust (9:06 PM): I was looking at a harmony of the gospels of it
tapestrycg (9:06 PM): what do you have so far?
tapestrycg (9:07 PM): Internatianal Bible encyc. puts it mid-way of the ministry
MereDust (9:07 PM): well its hard to say.. just puts in the year of opposition...
MereDust (9:08 PM): during the third tour of gallilee
tapestrycg (9:08 PM): John is the only one without the account but it is the only one with that prayer correct?
MereDust (9:09 PM): my harmony here seems to place the prayer of john 17 well after the transfiguration
tapestrycg (9:10 PM): oohhh
tapestrycg (9:11 PM): well that throws that out
MereDust (9:11 PM): yeah the prayer in john 17 is during passion week.... the transfiguration is months before that
tapestrycg (9:13 PM): Such is the simple record. What is its significance? The Scripture narrative offers no explanation, and indeed the event is afterward referred to only in the most general way by Peter (2Pe_1:16-18) and, perhaps, by John (Joh_1:14). That it marked a crisis in the career of Jesus there can be no doubt. From this time He walked consciously under the shadow of the cross. A strict silence on the subject was enjoined upon the three witnesses of His transfiguration until after “the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.� This means that, as not before, Jesus was made to realize the sacrificial character of His mission; was made to know for a certainty that death, soon and cruel, was to be His portion; was made to know also that His mission as the fulfillment of Law (Moses) and prophecy (Elijah) was not to be frustrated by death. In His heart now would sound forever the Father's approval, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.� The scene, therefore, wrought out in Jesus a new fervor, a new boldness, a new
tapestrycg (9:14 PM): confidence of ultimate victory which, as a source of holy joy, enabled Him to endure the cross and to despise the shame (Heb_12:2). In the disciples the scene must have wrought a new faith in the heavensent leadership of Jesus. In the dark days which were soon to come upon them the memory of the brightness of that unforgettable night would be a stay and strength. There might be opposition, but there could be no permanent defeat of one whose work was ratified by Moses, by Elijah, by God Himself. Indeed, was not the presence of Moses and Elijah a pledge of immortality for all? How in the face of such evidence, real to them, however it might be to others, could they ever again doubt the triumph of life and of Him who was the Lord of life? The abiding lesson of the Transfiguration is that of the reality of the unseen world, of its nearness to us, and of the comforting and inspiring fact that “spirit with spirit may meet.�
tapestrycg (9:15 PM): Interesting thoughts that seem to harmonize somewhat with yours.
MereDust (9:15 PM): right.. other than the reference to the immortality of the soul
tapestrycg (9:15 PM): Well yeah
MereDust (9:16 PM): hey, i need to go do something, will be back in a few minutes
tapestrycg (9:16 PM): ok
MereDust (9:16 PM): ok.. be back in a bit
tapestrycg Signed off at 9:34 PM.
tapestrycg Signed on at 9:35 PM.
MereDust (9:41 PM): ok back
tapestrycg (9:41 PM): ok
tapestrycg (9:41 PM): I think I have my head wrapped around the transfig..at least for now
MereDust (9:42 PM): well I suppose we could speculate endlessly but there really is only so much information about it that we're given to work with
tapestrycg (9:43 PM): now onto Babylon!
tapestrycg (9:45 PM): I'm having a little trouble with the proclamations that Babylon has fallen, then the commands to get out...etc...it seems at times that the fallen aspect is not so much the destruction but the complete fall into disrespect even though Babylon could never have been exalted in God's eyes....confused
MereDust (9:46 PM): well first of all the tense of the verb there is not past tense 'fallen'... but rather 'babylon falls'
tapestrycg (9:46 PM): ok, that changes things
tapestrycg (9:47 PM): ok that changes everything
MereDust (9:47 PM): hmm
MereDust (9:47 PM): ok
tapestrycg (9:49 PM): if that is the tense then it makes it an observation or a pronouncement that she is (beginning) to fall..etc...so that the statement that If anyone worships the beast or the image-which would mean they are in existence at the "fall" anouncement puts the fall as an on-going thing
MereDust (9:50 PM): yes
MereDust (9:51 PM): does that help your problem?
tapestrycg (9:51 PM): yes, but I wonder at all the mistranslations
MereDust (9:52 PM): yeah, isnt it great..
MereDust (9:52 PM): not!
tapestrycg (9:53 PM): the irony is that these official annpuncements aren't made until after the elect are gathered but it is apparent that she falls now
tapestrycg (9:53 PM): announcements
MereDust (9:54 PM): ok, but these seem to me to just be general observatrions.. for example, the next announcment.. 'if any man worship etc'.. is NOT future tense.. it is 'if anyone is worshiping'.. already in the process
tapestrycg (9:55 PM): true
MereDust (9:55 PM): 'if anyone is worshiping, the same will be drinking etc'
tapestrycg (9:55 PM): continuances
MereDust (9:56 PM): these things are in progress but judgment is about to be poured out upon them
tapestrycg (9:58 PM): what about the war of armeggeddon, does this overlap the fall of the city as accords chap 16?
MereDust (9:59 PM): well i beleive armaegedon is the very last of the judgments that bring out babylons complete overthrow which is symbolized by the beast going into the lake of fire (coming under complete judgment)
tapestrycg (10:01 PM): right, for some reason I had been thinking that the complete fall would be first, then the war but the seventh vial that makes everything complete, coupled with the presence of Christ with the elect...etc....
MereDust (10:02 PM): I think its easy to try and read these things in strict chronological order, but really they cant be, various sections overlap.. and when yu think of it, it would be very nearly impossible to write them in chronological order
tapestrycg (10:03 PM): yes I see that chap 16 and 19 are dependant on each other
MereDust (10:03 PM): and for example...
MereDust (10:04 PM): the vision of the harvest in 14 is simply a representation of the vial judgments and armageddon...it is not a separate harvest before those events
tapestrycg (10:04 PM): yes
MereDust (10:05 PM): in the same way the great white throne judgment is not a singular events, but represents what is detailed before and after it
MereDust (10:05 PM): although some people have a very hard time reading in any other way than strictly chronological
tapestrycg (10:05 PM): I keep thinking that I'm going to compile everything together and make a timeline and then I want to curl up in the corner and cry
MereDust (10:06 PM): sections of chpts 11, 12 and 13 completely overlap
MereDust (10:06 PM): lol
tapestrycg (10:06 PM): I'd love to see the look on my face when someone asks me what I think of Revelation
MereDust (10:07 PM): but I think Revealtion is not always a good starting place without having first a working knowledge of the other prophets, of Matt 24 - 25 and what Paul wrote concerning Jesus coming
MereDust (10:08 PM): but people lean toward Revelation first most of the time
tapestrycg (10:08 PM): it's so mystical and cool sounding
MereDust (10:09 PM): yeah it is!
MereDust (10:09 PM): like Rev 20:5.. the rest of the dea lived not etc...
MereDust (10:09 PM): you cant just take that and run with it like Alex did without trying to harmonize it with everything else thats said
MereDust (10:10 PM): but Alex said there were no other 'timing' verses, which proves my point
tapestrycg (10:10 PM): what about the references of the "alpha and the omega" and the First and the last.......have you looked at those indepth?
MereDust (10:11 PM): not really.. I know the reference at 1:11 where that title is applied to Jesus is lacking in manuscript evience
tapestrycg (10:12 PM): I wonder if at the end when it is referenced if it is not the angel speaking for Jesus speaking for God
MereDust (10:12 PM): at 22:13 you mean?
tapestrycg (10:13 PM): yes and...
tapestrycg (10:13 PM): 21:6
MereDust (10:13 PM): I've always felt 21:6 applied to the Father
tapestrycg (10:13 PM): oh, nevermind, that is God
MereDust (10:14 PM): as far as 22:13... I've always seen it as a series of benedictions
tapestrycg (10:14 PM): yes i tend to agree
tapestrycg (10:15 PM): that's usually a trinity ammo-thing
MereDust (10:16 PM): well when they can show me where it says that God is three persons I'll accept their 'ammo'
tapestrycg (10:16 PM): he-he
MereDust (10:16 PM): they cant seem to comprehend that one who speaks for and represents God can be called 'God' in representative sense
MereDust (10:17 PM): Jesus was the express image of the Father
tapestrycg (10:17 PM): so was Moses
MereDust (10:17 PM): he can be called 'God' without one on one being identified as God almighty
tapestrycg (10:17 PM): ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyou're a polytheist!!!!!!!!!
MereDust (10:17 PM): but that's much too hard for some people to grasp, hehe
MereDust (10:17 PM): oh please
tapestrycg (10:17 PM): it's funny
MereDust (10:18 PM): they are the ones who say that three persons are each God
MereDust (10:18 PM): yet there is ONE God.. its all a great mystery
tapestrycg (10:19 PM): does it seem to you that the armies are gathered to Arm, to fight each other or against Christ or do they gather and before the firing starts they are interrupted?
MereDust (10:19 PM): see this type of thing I struggle with...
MereDust (10:19 PM): are we talking literal military battle?
MereDust (10:19 PM): in what sense are they 'gathered'
tapestrycg (10:19 PM): I am soooooooglad you say that
tapestrycg (10:20 PM): that's the line of thought I've been going over
tapestrycg (10:20 PM): cause the frogs seem to be what they are gathered by
MereDust (10:20 PM): because the historicist position tends to go against an overly literalistic sense
MereDust (10:20 PM): yes
MereDust (10:21 PM): because look at this
tapestrycg (10:21 PM): and Armegeddon, if we are to take it in the same symbolic sense as Babylon can merely be a Crossroads were religious issues are settled
MereDust (10:21 PM): they are slain by the sword that comes out of Jesus mouth
tapestrycg (10:21 PM): the Word
MereDust (10:21 PM): now if this is a literal battle
tapestrycg (10:21 PM): bible
MereDust (10:22 PM): i shouldnt phrase it like that.. it can be a literal battle, just maybe a military one on aliteral plain in Jerusalem.. if that makes sense
tapestrycg (10:23 PM): well there are going to be wars..etc... but the question I think we are both asking is is there a literal war between the unified armies of earth against Christ
MereDust (10:24 PM): right
MereDust (10:24 PM): the world can unite in battle against Christ without machine guns and tanks
tapestrycg (10:24 PM): ok....is there a way to identify exactly when this war starts in scrip?
MereDust (10:24 PM): remember there was/is a war waged on the two witnesses
tapestrycg (10:25 PM): heyyyy
tapestrycg (10:27 PM): if the war against the Wit's lasts until they are iverthrown(by the government out of the abyss) then they get validated before or at the onset of the last trumpet which is when the vials begin then the "armies" of the earth and the philosophies will have a full-out "war" on the Word...
MereDust (10:27 PM): true
tapestrycg (10:28 PM): brb
MereDust (10:28 PM): i think though that we are talking about an event where there will be literallly many dead people
MereDust (10:29 PM): I say that because of Jesus reference to the carcass and the vultures, and compared with the days of Noah in which the wicked are 'taken away'
MereDust (10:29 PM): and when it says that they are slain by the sword out of his mouth.. that could just mean that they are slain by the judgments that were predicted in the Word of God.. that all those judgments come to pass
tapestrycg (10:31 PM): yessss
tapestrycg (10:32 PM): Hey, I hate to cut short, but it's time to go...think some more on this and we'll definitely continue this later, it seems to be falling into place
MereDust (10:33 PM): ok no problem.. good talking as usual
MereDust (10:33 PM): God bless
tapestrycg (10:33 PM): same to ya
tapestrycg (9:05 PM): You up?
MereDust (9:05 PM): so far
tapestrycg (9:06 PM): was looking at timing on the transfig
MereDust (9:06 PM): I was looking at a harmony of the gospels of it
tapestrycg (9:06 PM): what do you have so far?
tapestrycg (9:07 PM): Internatianal Bible encyc. puts it mid-way of the ministry
MereDust (9:07 PM): well its hard to say.. just puts in the year of opposition...
MereDust (9:08 PM): during the third tour of gallilee
tapestrycg (9:08 PM): John is the only one without the account but it is the only one with that prayer correct?
MereDust (9:09 PM): my harmony here seems to place the prayer of john 17 well after the transfiguration
tapestrycg (9:10 PM): oohhh
tapestrycg (9:11 PM): well that throws that out
MereDust (9:11 PM): yeah the prayer in john 17 is during passion week.... the transfiguration is months before that
tapestrycg (9:13 PM): Such is the simple record. What is its significance? The Scripture narrative offers no explanation, and indeed the event is afterward referred to only in the most general way by Peter (2Pe_1:16-18) and, perhaps, by John (Joh_1:14). That it marked a crisis in the career of Jesus there can be no doubt. From this time He walked consciously under the shadow of the cross. A strict silence on the subject was enjoined upon the three witnesses of His transfiguration until after “the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.� This means that, as not before, Jesus was made to realize the sacrificial character of His mission; was made to know for a certainty that death, soon and cruel, was to be His portion; was made to know also that His mission as the fulfillment of Law (Moses) and prophecy (Elijah) was not to be frustrated by death. In His heart now would sound forever the Father's approval, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.� The scene, therefore, wrought out in Jesus a new fervor, a new boldness, a new
tapestrycg (9:14 PM): confidence of ultimate victory which, as a source of holy joy, enabled Him to endure the cross and to despise the shame (Heb_12:2). In the disciples the scene must have wrought a new faith in the heavensent leadership of Jesus. In the dark days which were soon to come upon them the memory of the brightness of that unforgettable night would be a stay and strength. There might be opposition, but there could be no permanent defeat of one whose work was ratified by Moses, by Elijah, by God Himself. Indeed, was not the presence of Moses and Elijah a pledge of immortality for all? How in the face of such evidence, real to them, however it might be to others, could they ever again doubt the triumph of life and of Him who was the Lord of life? The abiding lesson of the Transfiguration is that of the reality of the unseen world, of its nearness to us, and of the comforting and inspiring fact that “spirit with spirit may meet.�
tapestrycg (9:15 PM): Interesting thoughts that seem to harmonize somewhat with yours.
MereDust (9:15 PM): right.. other than the reference to the immortality of the soul
tapestrycg (9:15 PM): Well yeah
MereDust (9:16 PM): hey, i need to go do something, will be back in a few minutes
tapestrycg (9:16 PM): ok
MereDust (9:16 PM): ok.. be back in a bit
tapestrycg Signed off at 9:34 PM.
tapestrycg Signed on at 9:35 PM.
MereDust (9:41 PM): ok back
tapestrycg (9:41 PM): ok
tapestrycg (9:41 PM): I think I have my head wrapped around the transfig..at least for now
MereDust (9:42 PM): well I suppose we could speculate endlessly but there really is only so much information about it that we're given to work with
tapestrycg (9:43 PM): now onto Babylon!
tapestrycg (9:45 PM): I'm having a little trouble with the proclamations that Babylon has fallen, then the commands to get out...etc...it seems at times that the fallen aspect is not so much the destruction but the complete fall into disrespect even though Babylon could never have been exalted in God's eyes....confused
MereDust (9:46 PM): well first of all the tense of the verb there is not past tense 'fallen'... but rather 'babylon falls'
tapestrycg (9:46 PM): ok, that changes things
tapestrycg (9:47 PM): ok that changes everything
MereDust (9:47 PM): hmm
MereDust (9:47 PM): ok
tapestrycg (9:49 PM): if that is the tense then it makes it an observation or a pronouncement that she is (beginning) to fall..etc...so that the statement that If anyone worships the beast or the image-which would mean they are in existence at the "fall" anouncement puts the fall as an on-going thing
MereDust (9:50 PM): yes
MereDust (9:51 PM): does that help your problem?
tapestrycg (9:51 PM): yes, but I wonder at all the mistranslations
MereDust (9:52 PM): yeah, isnt it great..
MereDust (9:52 PM): not!
tapestrycg (9:53 PM): the irony is that these official annpuncements aren't made until after the elect are gathered but it is apparent that she falls now
tapestrycg (9:53 PM): announcements
MereDust (9:54 PM): ok, but these seem to me to just be general observatrions.. for example, the next announcment.. 'if any man worship etc'.. is NOT future tense.. it is 'if anyone is worshiping'.. already in the process
tapestrycg (9:55 PM): true
MereDust (9:55 PM): 'if anyone is worshiping, the same will be drinking etc'
tapestrycg (9:55 PM): continuances
MereDust (9:56 PM): these things are in progress but judgment is about to be poured out upon them
tapestrycg (9:58 PM): what about the war of armeggeddon, does this overlap the fall of the city as accords chap 16?
MereDust (9:59 PM): well i beleive armaegedon is the very last of the judgments that bring out babylons complete overthrow which is symbolized by the beast going into the lake of fire (coming under complete judgment)
tapestrycg (10:01 PM): right, for some reason I had been thinking that the complete fall would be first, then the war but the seventh vial that makes everything complete, coupled with the presence of Christ with the elect...etc....
MereDust (10:02 PM): I think its easy to try and read these things in strict chronological order, but really they cant be, various sections overlap.. and when yu think of it, it would be very nearly impossible to write them in chronological order
tapestrycg (10:03 PM): yes I see that chap 16 and 19 are dependant on each other
MereDust (10:03 PM): and for example...
MereDust (10:04 PM): the vision of the harvest in 14 is simply a representation of the vial judgments and armageddon...it is not a separate harvest before those events
tapestrycg (10:04 PM): yes
MereDust (10:05 PM): in the same way the great white throne judgment is not a singular events, but represents what is detailed before and after it
MereDust (10:05 PM): although some people have a very hard time reading in any other way than strictly chronological
tapestrycg (10:05 PM): I keep thinking that I'm going to compile everything together and make a timeline and then I want to curl up in the corner and cry
MereDust (10:06 PM): sections of chpts 11, 12 and 13 completely overlap
MereDust (10:06 PM): lol
tapestrycg (10:06 PM): I'd love to see the look on my face when someone asks me what I think of Revelation
MereDust (10:07 PM): but I think Revealtion is not always a good starting place without having first a working knowledge of the other prophets, of Matt 24 - 25 and what Paul wrote concerning Jesus coming
MereDust (10:08 PM): but people lean toward Revelation first most of the time
tapestrycg (10:08 PM): it's so mystical and cool sounding
MereDust (10:09 PM): yeah it is!
MereDust (10:09 PM): like Rev 20:5.. the rest of the dea lived not etc...
MereDust (10:09 PM): you cant just take that and run with it like Alex did without trying to harmonize it with everything else thats said
MereDust (10:10 PM): but Alex said there were no other 'timing' verses, which proves my point
tapestrycg (10:10 PM): what about the references of the "alpha and the omega" and the First and the last.......have you looked at those indepth?
MereDust (10:11 PM): not really.. I know the reference at 1:11 where that title is applied to Jesus is lacking in manuscript evience
tapestrycg (10:12 PM): I wonder if at the end when it is referenced if it is not the angel speaking for Jesus speaking for God
MereDust (10:12 PM): at 22:13 you mean?
tapestrycg (10:13 PM): yes and...
tapestrycg (10:13 PM): 21:6
MereDust (10:13 PM): I've always felt 21:6 applied to the Father
tapestrycg (10:13 PM): oh, nevermind, that is God
MereDust (10:14 PM): as far as 22:13... I've always seen it as a series of benedictions
tapestrycg (10:14 PM): yes i tend to agree
tapestrycg (10:15 PM): that's usually a trinity ammo-thing
MereDust (10:16 PM): well when they can show me where it says that God is three persons I'll accept their 'ammo'
tapestrycg (10:16 PM): he-he
MereDust (10:16 PM): they cant seem to comprehend that one who speaks for and represents God can be called 'God' in representative sense
MereDust (10:17 PM): Jesus was the express image of the Father
tapestrycg (10:17 PM): so was Moses
MereDust (10:17 PM): he can be called 'God' without one on one being identified as God almighty
tapestrycg (10:17 PM): ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyou're a polytheist!!!!!!!!!
MereDust (10:17 PM): but that's much too hard for some people to grasp, hehe
MereDust (10:17 PM): oh please
tapestrycg (10:17 PM): it's funny
MereDust (10:18 PM): they are the ones who say that three persons are each God
MereDust (10:18 PM): yet there is ONE God.. its all a great mystery
tapestrycg (10:19 PM): does it seem to you that the armies are gathered to Arm, to fight each other or against Christ or do they gather and before the firing starts they are interrupted?
MereDust (10:19 PM): see this type of thing I struggle with...
MereDust (10:19 PM): are we talking literal military battle?
MereDust (10:19 PM): in what sense are they 'gathered'
tapestrycg (10:19 PM): I am soooooooglad you say that
tapestrycg (10:20 PM): that's the line of thought I've been going over
tapestrycg (10:20 PM): cause the frogs seem to be what they are gathered by
MereDust (10:20 PM): because the historicist position tends to go against an overly literalistic sense
MereDust (10:20 PM): yes
MereDust (10:21 PM): because look at this
tapestrycg (10:21 PM): and Armegeddon, if we are to take it in the same symbolic sense as Babylon can merely be a Crossroads were religious issues are settled
MereDust (10:21 PM): they are slain by the sword that comes out of Jesus mouth
tapestrycg (10:21 PM): the Word
MereDust (10:21 PM): now if this is a literal battle
tapestrycg (10:21 PM): bible
MereDust (10:22 PM): i shouldnt phrase it like that.. it can be a literal battle, just maybe a military one on aliteral plain in Jerusalem.. if that makes sense
tapestrycg (10:23 PM): well there are going to be wars..etc... but the question I think we are both asking is is there a literal war between the unified armies of earth against Christ
MereDust (10:24 PM): right
MereDust (10:24 PM): the world can unite in battle against Christ without machine guns and tanks
tapestrycg (10:24 PM): ok....is there a way to identify exactly when this war starts in scrip?
MereDust (10:24 PM): remember there was/is a war waged on the two witnesses
tapestrycg (10:25 PM): heyyyy
tapestrycg (10:27 PM): if the war against the Wit's lasts until they are iverthrown(by the government out of the abyss) then they get validated before or at the onset of the last trumpet which is when the vials begin then the "armies" of the earth and the philosophies will have a full-out "war" on the Word...
MereDust (10:27 PM): true
tapestrycg (10:28 PM): brb
MereDust (10:28 PM): i think though that we are talking about an event where there will be literallly many dead people
MereDust (10:29 PM): I say that because of Jesus reference to the carcass and the vultures, and compared with the days of Noah in which the wicked are 'taken away'
MereDust (10:29 PM): and when it says that they are slain by the sword out of his mouth.. that could just mean that they are slain by the judgments that were predicted in the Word of God.. that all those judgments come to pass
tapestrycg (10:31 PM): yessss
tapestrycg (10:32 PM): Hey, I hate to cut short, but it's time to go...think some more on this and we'll definitely continue this later, it seems to be falling into place
MereDust (10:33 PM): ok no problem.. good talking as usual
MereDust (10:33 PM): God bless
tapestrycg (10:33 PM): same to ya
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home