Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[JehovahsWitness]

The love of Jesus' life is his Father. When he completed his mission he prayed for one thing to be rewarded with the privilege of being once more at his father's side. It more than violates the spirit of his words to imply that Jesus' prayer will not be answered and like Satan he will be restricted to the earth with perhaps the occassional visit back to be literally with his father

This is a strawman argument. Christ is not in any way restricted to the earth like Satan.

It most certainly is not! Christ spend countless billions of years alone with this Father, their relationship is extremely intimate. Any physical seperation from God was a challenge for him. If the Apostle Paul admitted to his "yearning" to be with Jesus, although he (Paul) loved the congregation and wanted to be on earth helping them, we cannot possibly imagine how Jesus longed to return to what he had before his mission on earth, namely continuous, uninterrupted time literally at his Father's side in the spritual realm. Permanently and literally at his father's side in the spirit realm was what Jesus enjoyed before the earth ever existed and that is what he longed to have again.

JOHN 17:5
"So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed.

You are saying that such an eventuality will never, ever again be his privilege. The Angels, yes, they get to live on a permanent basis literally in heaven with his father, but Jesus will never again have this, he will live in transit. Such a notion is insulting.

To illustrate: You sit your wife down and explain that since you love her so much, and she has been such a wise and faithful companion, you are going to "reward" by buying her a house in another town. She will be able to visit whenever she wants, even maybe spend the night, you explain that the door will always be open but no, she will no longer be living with you she will live elsewhere. The children will be living with you but she can also visit with them whenever she wishes. You tell here the transit is real easy, and that you will keep a space in your bathroom cabinet where she can keep a toothbrush and any overnight toiletries she might need before she heads back over to her own house. How will she feel? Can you think of any reason at all she might feel unhappy with this offer?

The relationship between Jesus and his Father is far, far more intimate than that between a man and his wife. Like children, all the angels were created by Jehovah but throuth Jesus. Yes, Jesus had a mission, he faithfully fulfilled his time on earth as a human and will rule over humans to guide them back to human perfection. The bible indicates after 1000 years he will "hand the kingdom" back to his Father and his work in regard to saving humanity will be complete. To suggest he will be rewarded by anything less than he had before the earth existed, or say that living elsewhere and visiting heaven from time to time will be his everlasting future, is an insult to God's justice!

JOHN 14:28
"If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father"

JW

[tam]

[Replying to post 798 by tam]

So from what I can see you base this whole theology on your personal interpretation of one scripture in Revelation about the New Jersusalem and an illustration of Jesus being a gate. So you take two scriptures that by nature are highly symbolic (and by defintion open to various interpretations) and ignore all the explicit scriptures of the earth being the home of humans and the heavens being for spirits (compare Psalms 115:16).

I cannot help what you see.

But your accusation to me was that there was zero scriptural support for the hope that I shared.

So perhaps someone else will read and see more.

The New Jersualem/Bride of Christ doesn't literally come down out of heaven, any more than God literally leaves heaven for his influence to be felt - compare Revelation 21:4

Believing that it is merely the 'influence' of the Bride that comes down out of heaven - and not the Bride, herself - is not what the text states. It is merely an interpretation of your religion, based on the false teaching that Christians are separated into two different hopes (some will be with their Lord literally and some will forever be separated from him, literally).

But the text states (at least twice) that the Holy City (the Bride) comes down out of heaven.

Even the separation of the sheep and goats has Christ upon the earth (and His Bride goes wherever He goes).



As for your text from Genesis, perhaps you might consider from Sodom and Gomorrah, that God did not just look down to see if things were as bad as the outcry coming up to Him. He sent angels into the town.

"I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."



If He is only looking down, then the text is capable of saying so. (Psalm 14:2)

As for your interpretation of John 10:9 it is the most ludicrous interpretation I have ever come across.

JOHN 10:9
I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved, and that one will go in and out and find pasturage.

Firstly there is nothing in the illustration to suggest the faithful are coming in and goint out of the location of heaven; if you look carefuly you will see they "go out to find pasturage" that is the reason his sheep go out. Does that mean that living in heaven by God's side they will be starving, physically or spiritually and will have to "go out" of heaven to eat because that is what the verse says!

They come in and they go out (these are things that they are capable of doing), and they also find pasturage (their food is to eat from the Tree of Life: Christ; and drink from the water of Life: which water is holy spirit that Christ gives). Since they can be with Him wherever He goes; they are never going to go hungry and they are never going to go thirsty.

In bible times at night shepherds that were near the town kept their sheep protected from looters and wild animals by keepting the flock in a stone pen or walled enclosure. The sheep access by an opening or "gate" (sometimes the shepherd would literally sleep across the opening, protecting them). In the morning he would lead his sheep "out" to pasture to drink and be fed. Surely you are familiar with the 23rd Psalm that "the Lord is my Shepherd ... by grassy pastures he leads me"

Yep. Christ is the One who feeds His sheep and gives them the water of Life. It is also His voice they hear; His voice they follow.

So Jesus was trying to teach about how he protects his people from spiritual "thieves" who would harm them, just as a literal door has the double purpose of keeping harmful elements out and keeping possessions or people in and safe. Look at the verses immediately before and after Jesus' words above:

Verse 8 "All those who have come in place of me are thieves and plunderers; but the sheep have not listened to them"

Verse 10 The thief does not come unless it is to steal and slay and destroy.

- If being "in" the pen is being in heaven and being "out" is out of heaven, then does that mean the theives will climb into heaven and attempt to steal them from there?

A - thieves are those who attempt to enter in by some OTHER WAY (not Christ), some other door (not Christ). But no one comes to the Father except through the Son.

No one enters by means of a religion; no one enters by means of the 'anointed class'; no one enters by any means other than Christ. Those who try and enter some other way are thieves and robbers.

B - all those who claim to come in place of Him (the Truth, the Way, the Life, the Ark, the Door, the Gate, the Word of God), are thieves and robbers, who seek to devour the sheep.


Sort of like those religions that claim that one must come to them in order to come to God; that they are the way to God, that they are the way to life; that being in them means being in or accepted by God, that listening to them is listening to God, that they are the mouthpiece of God (which is the same as them saying that they are the Word of God); that if one is in them, then one is in the truth (claiming themselves to be the Truth?)

- If being "in" is being literally in heaven, then does that mean that Christ is not our door now? Christians are unprotected now because we are not "in" the pen?

If a Christian is in Christ, then Christ is their protection; providing that we remain in Him.


But the wheat and the weeds are currently growing together, are they not? There are thieves and plunderers, false prophets and false christs, here with us now, right?

If we remain in Christ and listen to Him, then we will not be misled by them. If we know HIS voice, then we will not be misled by a stranger's voice.

Which is more reasonable, that Jesus was telling his disciples how he (Jesus) would allow his disciples access to God's favor when they accept him as the Messiah and look after them day and night or that he was trying to teach them they would one day in the future permanently move in and out of heaven?

So you are saying that they will come in and go out of what... God's favor?

What are they coming and and going out of?


**

Adam could enter into paradise (the Garden of Eden, the spiritual realm), even though he was created outside the garden

Wherever adam was created, we know that the was formed from "the dust of the ground" so evidently he was created as a physical being.

He was created outside the garden of Eden and later brought into the Garden of Eden, as I said. That is in the text.

While there is mention of God "walking about in the garden" there is no mention of Adam "walking about" in heaven.

And?

Do you think God was walking about on the earth, then?

The Garden of Eden was not presented in Genesis as being in the "spiritual realm" There is nothing in Genesis that indicates the garden of Eden was anywhere but in a specific location on this our planet earth.

A - Then where is it? It was not destroyed; no one was permitted entry into it so as TO wreak harm in it; so it should be here and visible upon the earth, right? So where is it?


B - There's plenty that indicates Eden is the spiritual realm.

- The Tree of Life (Christ) is there in the Garden of Eden; God is there in the Garden of Eden 'walking around'; the Adversary is there in the Garden of Eden (the serpent is the Adversary - it is not a mere snake, but a drakon/seraph/spirit being). He did not somehow make a snake speak, he spoke himself.

So spirit beings (including God and Christ) are in the Garden of Eden.


- We cannot see this Garden of Eden, even though it was not destroyed. We cannot see it because it is no longer here upon the earth, and it will not be upon the earth again until Christ (and His Bride) return, bringing the Garden of Eden (Paradise) with them.


- Adam was cast OUT of the Garden of Eden. He (and mankind) had no access to the garden of Eden, just as he (and mankind) have no access to the spiritual realm. Certainly not in this body - which body is the long garment of skin Adam was given, which body we inherited it from him. This flesh with ITS blood has sin and death in it, and as Paul said, it cannot inherit (or enter) the spiritual realm.

(God did not go and kill animals in order to make animal skin clothing for Adam and Eve - come on. The long garment of skin is a body; not animal skin clothing)

The white robe that we will RECEIVE is described as clothing also... but that is also a body: the new body (flesh with GOD'S blood in it), that CAN inherit and enter the spiritual realm.

So:

We inherited a body with sin and death in it (the long garment of skin) from Adam.
We will inherit a new body with no sin or death in it (the white robe) from Christ.

The first cannot inherit or enter the spiritual realm (just as Adam could not re-enter the Garden of Eden); the second can inherit and enter the spiritual realm (the Garden of Eden).

- There were trees that Adam and Eve needed for food to eat (spirits in the spirit realm have no need for physical food, since they are not physical life forms. God is a spirit as are all those in heaven).

The Tree of Life is Christ. He is the true manna from heaven. He is the one from whom we must eat in order to live forever. Christ also said that man ate the bread of angels, so yeah, angels do eat. But it is Christ who is the true manna from heaven, of whom one must eat and not die.

It is also from Him that the rivers of the water (holy spirit) of life flows - which His Father has given to Him without end, and that He gives to us.





Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

(edited to fix quote box)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 798 by tam]

So from what I can see you base this whole theology on your personal interpretation of one scripture in Revelation about the New Jersusalem and an illustration of Jesus being a gate. So you take two scriptures that by nature are highly symbolic (and by defintion open to various interpretations) and ignore all the explicit scriptures of the earth being the home of humans and the heavens being for spirits (compare Psalms 115:16).

I cannot help what you see.

But your accusation to me was that there was zero scriptural support for the hope that I shared.

So perhaps someone else will read and see more.

The New Jersualem/Bride of Christ doesn't literally come down out of heaven, any more than God literally leaves heaven for his influence to be felt - compare Revelation 21:4

Believing that it is merely the 'influence' of the Bride that comes down out of heaven - and not the Bride, herself - is not what the text states. It is merely an interpretation of your religion, based on the false teaching that Christians are separated into two different hopes (some will be with their Lord literally and some will forever be separated from him, literally).

But the text states (at least twice) that the Holy City (the Bride) comes down out of heaven.

Even the separation of the sheep and goats has Christ upon the earth (and His Bride goes wherever He goes).



As for your text from Genesis, perhaps you might consider from Sodom and Gomorrah, that God did not just look down to see if things were as bad as the outcry coming up to Him. He sent angels into the town.

"I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."



If He is only looking down, then the text is capable of saying so. (Psalm 14:2)

As for your interpretation of John 10:9 it is the most ludicrous interpretation I have ever come across.

JOHN 10:9
I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved, and that one will go in and out and find pasturage.

Firstly there is nothing in the illustration to suggest the faithful are coming in and goint out of the location of heaven; if you look carefuly you will see they "go out to find pasturage" that is the reason his sheep go out. Does that mean that living in heaven by God's side they will be starving, physically or spiritually and will have to "go out" of heaven to eat because that is what the verse says!

They come in and they go out (these are things that they are capable of doing), and they also find pasturage (their food is to eat from the Tree of Life: Christ; and drink from the water of Life: which water is holy spirit that Christ gives). Since they can be with Him wherever He goes; they are never going to go hungry and they are never going to go thirsty.

In bible times at night shepherds that were near the town kept their sheep protected from looters and wild animals by keepting the flock in a stone pen or walled enclosure. The sheep access by an opening or "gate" (sometimes the shepherd would literally sleep across the opening, protecting them). In the morning he would lead his sheep "out" to pasture to drink and be fed. Surely you are familiar with the 23rd Psalm that "the Lord is my Shepherd ... by grassy pastures he leads me"

Yep. Christ is the One who feeds His sheep and gives them the water of Life. It is also His voice they hear; His voice they follow.

So Jesus was trying to teach about how he protects his people from spiritual "thieves" who would harm them, just as a literal door has the double purpose of keeping harmful elements out and keeping possessions or people in and safe. Look at the verses immediately before and after Jesus' words above:

Verse 8 "All those who have come in place of me are thieves and plunderers; but the sheep have not listened to them"

Verse 10 The thief does not come unless it is to steal and slay and destroy.

- If being "in" the pen is being in heaven and being "out" is out of heaven, then does that mean the theives will climb into heaven and attempt to steal them from there?

A - thieves are those who attempt to enter in by some OTHER WAY (not Christ), some other door (not Christ). But no one comes to the Father except through the Son.

No one enters by means of a religion; no one enters by means of the 'anointed class'; no one enters by any means other than Christ. Those who try and enter some other way are thieves and robbers.

B - all those who claim to come in place of Him (the Truth, the Way, the Life, the Ark, the Door, the Gate, the Word of God), are thieves and robbers, who seek to devour the sheep.


Sort of like those religions that claim that one must come to them in order to come to God; that they are the way to God, that they are the way to life; that being in them means being in or accepted by God, that listening to them is listening to God, that they are the mouthpiece of God (which is the same as them saying that they are the Word of God); that if one is in them, then one is in the truth (claiming themselves to be the Truth?)

- If being "in" is being literally in heaven, then does that mean that Christ is not our door now? Christians are unprotected now because we are not "in" the pen?

If a Christian is in Christ, then Christ is their protection; providing that we remain in Him.


But the wheat and the weeds are currently growing together, are they not? There are thieves and plunderers, false prophets and false christs, here with us now, right?

If we remain in Christ and listen to Him, then we will not be misled by them. If we know HIS voice, then we will not be misled by a stranger's voice.

Which is more reasonable, that Jesus was telling his disciples how he (Jesus) would allow his disciples access to God's favor when they accept him as the Messiah and look after them day and night or that he was trying to teach them they would one day in the future permanently move in and out of heaven?

So you are saying that they will come in and go out of what... God's favor?

What are they coming and and going out of?


**

Adam could enter into paradise (the Garden of Eden, the spiritual realm), even though he was created outside the garden

Wherever adam was created, we know that the was formed from "the dust of the ground" so evidently he was created as a physical being.

He was created outside the garden of Eden and later brought into the Garden of Eden, as I said. That is in the text.

While there is mention of God "walking about in the garden" there is no mention of Adam "walking about" in heaven.

And?

Do you think God was walking about on the earth, then?

The Garden of Eden was not presented in Genesis as being in the "spiritual realm" There is nothing in Genesis that indicates the garden of Eden was anywhere but in a specific location on this our planet earth.

A - Then where is it? It was not destroyed; no one was permitted entry into it so as TO wreak harm in it; so it should be here and visible upon the earth, right? So where is it?


B - There's plenty that indicates Eden is the spiritual realm.

- The Tree of Life (Christ) is there in the Garden of Eden; God is there in the Garden of Eden 'walking around'; the Adversary is there in the Garden of Eden (the serpent is the Adversary - it is not a mere snake, but a drakon/seraph/spirit being). He did not somehow make a snake speak, he spoke himself.

So spirit beings (including God and Christ) are in the Garden of Eden.


- We cannot see this Garden of Eden, even though it was not destroyed. We cannot see it because it is no longer here upon the earth, and it will not be upon the earth again until Christ (and His Bride) return, bringing the Garden of Eden (Paradise) with them.


- Adam was cast OUT of the Garden of Eden. He (and mankind) had no access to the garden of Eden, just as he (and mankind) have no access to the spiritual realm. Certainly not in this body - which body is the long garment of skin Adam was given, which body we inherited it from him. This flesh with ITS blood has sin and death in it, and as Paul said, it cannot inherit (or enter) the spiritual realm.

(God did not go and kill animals in order to make animal skin clothing for Adam and Eve - come on. The long garment of skin is a body; not animal skin clothing)

The white robe that we will RECEIVE is described as clothing also... but that is also a body: the new body (flesh with GOD'S blood in it), that CAN inherit and enter the spiritual realm.

So:

We inherited a body with sin and death in it (the long garment of skin) from Adam.
We will inherit a new body with no sin or death in it (the white robe) from Christ.

The first cannot inherit or enter the spiritual realm (just as Adam could not re-enter the Garden of Eden); the second can inherit and enter the spiritual realm (the Garden of Eden).

- There were trees that Adam and Eve needed for food to eat (spirits in the spirit realm have no need for physical food, since they are not physical life forms. God is a spirit as are all those in heaven).

The Tree of Life is Christ. He is the true manna from heaven. He is the one from whom we must eat in order to live forever. Christ also said that man ate the bread of angels, so yeah, angels do eat. But it is Christ who is the true manna from heaven, of whom one must eat and not die.

It is also from Him that the rivers of the water (holy spirit) of life flows - which His Father has given to Him without end, and that He gives to us.





Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

It is not "merely an interpretation of our religion" that the Bride of Christ does not literally come down from heaven to the earth. If that is literal, then so are the hundreds of other things mentioned in Revelation! A handful of them are as follows:

1) The lamb in Rev.5:6 through 6:1. This must be an actual lamb, if we are to understand things as you do.

2) The four horsemen seen in chapter 6. Literal horses ridden by literal men, with Hades following literally behind?

3) Literal black sun and bloody moon, the stars literally falling to earth, and the heaven rolled up like a scroll (Rev.6:12-14)? And how about those mountains and islands moving around?

4) Angels "holding tightly" the four winds of the earth (chapter 7, verse 1). How does anyone hold the wind tightly? Literal?

5) Locusts swarming out of a pit in Chapter 9. Are these actual locusts with gold crowns on their heads, men's faces, hair like women's, teeth like lions' teeth, iron breastplates, and stinging tails like scorpions??? These are LITERAL?

6) In chapter 12 you would tell me that the woman "arrayed with the sun, and with the moon beneath her feet" is a literal woman who is pregnant & cries out in pain? If she is not literal, Revelation 21:3 & 3 is not either!

7) The wild beast of chapter 13. Is this a literal beast with seven heads and ten horns?


Isn't that what the verses say? "A wild beast ascended out of the sea"!! That's what it SAYS. So it must be literal, eh? Explain to me how each of the things I mentioned is really literal. If they are not, then neither does New Jerusalem literally come down out of heaven.

I'm waiting for your explanations.

[tam]

Peace to you one,

I am just copying over your response because it seems that the quote function got a bit messed up in your previous post.

It is not "merely an interpretation of our religion" that the Bride of Christ does not literally come down from heaven to the earth.

Well, you don't take it as literal, so you are interpreting it as something else. Yes?

If that is literal, then so are the hundreds of other things mentioned in Revelation!

Really?

If one thing is literal, then everything is literal?

Are you sure you want to go with that?

The last time I checked, you believed that the 144 000 is a literal number. So perhaps you should be explaining how the 'handful of things' that you want me to explain, are literal? Since you are the one stating that if one thing is literal, everything is literal.

(Your religion even teaches that the 144 000 is a literal number, while also teaching that the tribes that go into making UP that number are symbolic.)

A handful of them are as follows:

1) The lamb in Rev.5:6 through 6:1. This must be an actual lamb, if we are to understand things as you do.

I'll take this first one, even though your statement "if one thing is literal, everything is literal" makes no sense at all, and is not even consistent with your own beliefs.

The lamb represents Christ. You and I both know this. Symbolism is being used to depict the lamb, but what the lamb does or receives is LITERAL:

From Rev 5:12

"Worth is the lamb who was slain..."

The lamb (symbolic for Christ) was LITERALLY slain.

"... to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise."

The lamb (symbolic for Christ) was LITERALLY worthy to receive these things.


Rev 5:9,10

"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation."


So we are still talking about the Lamb (symbolic ), but what the lamb DID (purchase men for God with His blood) was LITERAL.


So lets go back to the New Jerusalem:

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a Bride beautifully dressed for her husband.


The Holy City represents the Bride. But what the Holy City DOES... come down out of heaven from God... is LITERAL.


And this is completely consistent with the imagery of the Lamb being symbolic for Christ, but what the lamb DOES being literal.



Peace again to you,
- a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

You have said: "WE have to look at what the scripture SAYS," and that is your excuse for taking Revelation 21:1-3 literally. So, according to your view, we have to go by what the scriptures SAY, word-for-word.

The scriptures SAY that locusts that have men's heads, teeth like lions & tails like scorpions come out of an abyss. So we are to look for these literally described locusts sometime in the future.

We also have to search for the literal wild beast that comes out of the literal sea, AND the literal Whore that is riding on the back of the wild beast!

These things are what the scriptures SAY.

[tam]

[Replying to post 805 by onewithhim]

Everything you just wrote is rebutted in my previous post. Perhaps you could take a second look, then if you wish to respond, perhaps you will respond to the specific statements and questions in that post.



(perhaps you could also provide the post for what you have quoted me as saying, because I do not recall stating that specifically, and I would like to see the context if I did state it, thank you. I can guarantee you that I would never have said what you keep trying to insist I must mean, and I clearly laid that out in my previous post.)



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 805 by onewithhim]

Everything you just wrote is rebutted in my previous post. Perhaps you could take a second look, then if you wish to respond, perhaps you will respond to the specific statements and questions in that post.



(perhaps you could also provide the post for what you have quoted me as saying, because I do not recall stating that specifically, and I would like to see the context if I did state it, thank you. I can guarantee you that I would never have said what you keep trying to insist I must mean, and I clearly laid that out in my previous post.)



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

No, everything I said was NOT rebutted in your post. And what you MEAN is not clear. I have simply asked you to CLARIFY some of your statements, and you haven't done even that yet.

Did I ever say, "If one thing is literal then everything is literal"?? It is YOU who have said "we have to go with what the verse SAYS." I am showing you that we cannot always do that. Some things are symbolic and metaphorical.

You are willing to concede that "the Lamb" is symbolic for Christ, but you are not willing to agree that "New Jerusalem coming down" is symbolic. I say that BOTH of these examples are symbolic of what each is going to accomplish.



"your servant"????

[onewithhim]

May you have peace!

Speaking of the RCC, it was said:

The Church has always been a beacon of light

I imagine the RCC was not a beacon of light to the children who have been abused (physically, emotionally, sexually, spiritually) in and by her, and whose abuse still affects them into adulthood, including turning them away from faith in Christ and God altogether. Insult to injury also occurred when their outcry was denied until it became so great that it could not be denied anymore. And this is just what we know about in modern times.

I imagine the RCC was not a beacon of light to the children and families of First Nations in Canada, with children forced into the Catholic run residential school system (where abuse of all the sorts above occurred, and which has been called a cultural genocide).

Or to the women sent to the laundries in Ireland.

Or to those who were victims of the Inquisition, who were tortured, stolen from, imprisoned, murdered.

Or to those Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem who were slaughtered (during the crusades.)

Or to anyone who was forced to convert.


I cannot imagine the RCC was (or is) a beacon of light to any of these people.

The Catholic Church has been the biggest defender of civil rights, of the oppressed, the down trodden, the most vulnerable among us.

Aren't some of the above people the oppressed, the down trodden, the most vulnerable among us?


tammy

This is a truthful post, and I am wondering why those points were never addressed by any Catholic here. Why?

[tam]

[Replying to post 805 by onewithhim]

Everything you just wrote is rebutted in my previous post. Perhaps you could take a second look, then if you wish to respond, perhaps you will respond to the specific statements and questions in that post.



(perhaps you could also provide the post for what you have quoted me as saying, because I do not recall stating that specifically, and I would like to see the context if I did state it, thank you. I can guarantee you that I would never have said what you keep trying to insist I must mean, and I clearly laid that out in my previous post.)



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

No, everything I said was NOT rebutted in your post.

Maybe try responding to the actual post then, and what you don't understand might be clarified. But when you do not respond to any of the actual content of my post, how am I supposed to respond with something different?

And what you MEAN is not clear. I have simply asked you to CLARIFY some of your statements, and you haven't done even that yet.

Perhaps my words are unclear for some other reason?

Did I ever say, "If one thing is literal then everything is literal"??

You said that if the Bride coming down out of heaven is literal, then everything else in Revelation must also be literal.

So why would you give me a list of things that are symbolic and tell me that they must be literal if the Bride coming down out of heaven is literal? How does that make sense?

It is YOU who have said "we have to go with what the verse SAYS."

Please show me the post where I am supposed to have said that.

I am showing you that we cannot always do that. Some things are symbolic and metaphorical.

Yes, and some things (such as actions being taken) are literal.

You are taught that one group of Christians (those you are taught have a heavenly hope) will be separated from the other group of Christians (those you are taught have an earthly hope). Those with the earthly hope will never literally be with Christ.

To take this verse literally, then, would reveal that teaching to be false. Which it is. Christ never taught it; the apostles and disciples never taught it; none ever claimed one hope over some other hope. They all had one hope: to be with Christ (literally).


I, personally, have no reason to think that this verse means something other than what it states.


**

In any case, all I originally said to you was that suggesting it is just the influence of the Bride (and not the Bride, herself), is merely an interpretation of men. It is not what is written; and the example you gave of the Lamb revealed that while the image of a lamb is symbolic (for Christ), what the lamb DOES is literal.

The Holy City represents the Bride; what the Bride does is literal.

You are willing to concede that "the Lamb" is symbolic for Christ,

Concede??? Was I ever arguing against the Lamb being symbolic and referring to Christ?

but you are not willing to agree that "New Jerusalem coming down" is symbolic.

Because it is not true.

In both cases the nouns - the Lamb or the New Jerusalem -represent Christ and the Bride, respectively. But what the lamb DOES (the verb) is literal. It is consistent to understand that what the Bride does (the verb) is also literal.

I say that BOTH of these examples are symbolic of what each is going to accomplish.

How is the lamb being symbolic of Christ an example of what the lamb is going to accomplish?

"your servant"????

Sorry, forgot you asked me not to say that to you.

Peace again,
- a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 809 by tam]

You apparently indicated that we must go with "what the text STATES" in your post #802, on page 81.

The text states that there will be locusts with faces like men and with women's hair, crowns on their heads and tails that sting. That's what it STATES. Do you think that is literal?