Christ signified...?

[jasd]

Prov 25:2 [it is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

1Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Is there that which might be searched out in the above passage of St Paul’s? mebbe? mebbe not? perhaps, there was/is insufficient accrual of ‘glory’ and nothing is concealed -- the passage being

a simple treat upon the OT Messiah -- with St Paul asserting that Christ-as-Messiah had been already manifest and accompanying the COI in their wilderness sojourn; albeit, in a spiritual sense, only. Then again…?

Might it behoove one to attempt to discern how St Paul might have employed “spiritual” in this particular passage? ...but certainly!

…fool’s errand or a king’s honour? So, how now brown cow…? [/introspectively]

[jasd]

Perhaps a referent passage might be in order…

Exodus 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Does the above suggest a relationship to 1 Corinthians 10:4? and does anything about it bear upon

‘spiritual’?

[jasd]

There seems to be quite a few references to waters issuing from the unlikeliest source, as well as ‘bread’ for hunger; perhaps it would do to provide a couple more texts…

Neh 9:15 And gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst,…

Ps 78:20 Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?

and ask -- if this is that which St Paul suggests was

‘spiritual’.

[Clio]

Each day during the Feast of Tabernacles, a priest drew an urn of water from the pool of Siloam and carried it through the Water Gate while the people recited Isaiah 12:3: "Therefore with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation." Once inside the city, they paraded the urn of water to the altar accompanied by a choir singing Psalms 113—118. To conclude the ritual, the priest poured the water on the altar as an offering to God.

However, on the last day, the great day of the Feast, they marched seven times around the altar before pouring the water.

Psalm 118:19-29 is a part of what the choir was singing as the procession approached and circled the altar. This psalm exalts the theme of the Last Great Day. It depicts the time when the whole world will go through the gates of righteousness, recognizing Christ as Savior, rejoicing in those God sends to teach them and praising God for His mercy in giving them salvation.

In John 4:10-14, Christ speaks of this to the Samaritan woman at the well. He tells her of the living waters, His Holy Spirit, that would soon become a part of a person's life if he believed. Once converted, God's elect soon understood this living water to be as important to spiritual survival as drinking water is to physical survival. Jesus says, "Whoever drinks of this water [from Jacob's well (verse 6)] will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life" (verses 13-14).

Water....

Rain....

Interesting topic. Especially rain. Read about rain in the stories of Elijah, Jeremiah, Joel, Isaiah....

Rain.

[jasd]

Hi Clio,

I've not responded to the above post of yours because I've been helping a friend relocate to the Oregon coast and because my 'puter is so invected that I've decided to disconnect my ISP, clean my disks, and perhaps upgrade a few things before participating on this forum again. At that time (perhaps mid-winter?) I'll be active again with 'tacking' upon this and that...

In the meantime, I'll just be 'bumping' this thread periodicallly, as per the following...

I am submitting a response to a post of yours upon the thread about the brethren of Jesus here -- to avoid sensitivity regarding it being 'off topic'.

Following, a prepared 'paste'...

Sorry, the following hasn’t an aside to ‘brethren’, per se, -- it is simply a response to Clio’s post that she may find interesting.

This is not to take issue with commonly accepted orthodoxy that --Christ began His ministry at approx His 30th year majority… with His miracles coinciding that majority. It is simply to put forward that which, as mentioned, might prove relevant…

One might recall the circumstances related of Luke 2 -- more specifically, I reference three verses of the chapter, they being…

Lu 2:42 And he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem …

Why does Writ particularly note His age? I mean, we don’t know how old Jesus was when He went to Egypt, nor do we know how old He was upon His return… we can only approximate His ‘about 30 years of age’, etc.

Lu 2:49 …How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?

Did Jesus, upon the statement above --declare that He had commenced His Father’s work? It appears that He did.

Lu 2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them:

How long was Jesus thenceforward -- subject unto His parents? Did He not have less than a year remaining until ‘becoming a man’? that is, upon being mitzvahed?

The above being noted…,

Lu 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Had Jesus, upon or near upon His 12th - 13th year, “put His hand to the plough”? if so, what would that suggest?

I offer --that Jesus’ ministry had already been ongoing for the approximately 17 years prior to His baptism by St John the Baptist.

The question obtaining would be… where had He been “ploughing”, --if one will.

The answers, I believe, lies latently between the lines of your treat on St Joseph of Arimathea (such as, was it his fleets that transported the grains of Nicodemus? likewise, as they transported tin from Welsh mines for the foundries of the Roman Empire? how extensively ‘over the waves’ did his ships travel? the Americas? as far as Ophiru-Peru? did he indeed hold the Roman title of NOBILIS DECURIO {comparable to a Ministerial position in today’s govts} permitting him to, as it is put in Mark 15:43 “…went in boldly unto Pilate, …” etc?), Nicodemus, and the Marys… I await further fleshing of the matter, as it seems to me that there are indicators that Jesus traveled extensively -- aboard his uncle’s ships, perhaps even as shipwright.

Lastly, there is the wedding at Cana with its puzzlements…

Jn 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. v4 “Woman, why are you telling me? I am not the ruler of the feast!” (paraphrased) v5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you , do [it].

What comes across as evident is that His mother knew her son performed miracles; that being said,

how long had she known?

I've run across your board -- 'puzzles..., etc' and hoorah, "It's about time the subject is addressed!" ...and addressed well. Good show!

[jasd]

I'll develop a post in the next few days...[/bump]

[jasd]

First, to Clio, if she wanders by...

After having seen your first posts "puzzles, etc" I was never able to access them after their having gone 'Private'. Question: In that they seem to be no longer available, why did you cease from maintaining them?

I am disappointed because they were so much a part of Jesus' sermon to discern the times. Oh well...

Ex 17:6 … upon the rock … smite the rock,

Num 20:8 … unto the rock … out of the rock:

Num 20:10 … before the rock, … of this rock?

Num 20:11 … smote the rock …

Deut 8:15 … out of the rock …

Neh 9:15 out of the rock …

And so on…

The definite article becomes readily apparent in the listed texts above. It is likewise with other texts omitted from the above list.

The definite article distinguishes from all the ‘other’ rocks in the wilderness of wandering…, suggesting a certain singularity in a wilderness where heat, sand, and rock were ubiquitous elements -- there seems always to have been “the” rock at hand and ‘following’ (1 Cor 10:4) the forty-year wandering of the COI (which is not to suggest that "the rock" was left behind in the wilderness after having served its purpose).

The definite article argues that the COI were familiar with “the rock", “that spiritual rock that followed them” (1 Cor 10:4) -- or we must surely have had Moses writing of their mutterings, “What rock?” “Which side of camp?” “Where?” “What’s it look like?” “Oy Vay! didst we lack water in Egypt?” “Rocks, schmrocks”, etc…

Considering that metaphors are tricky -- could “the rock” that brought forth waters in the wilderness have been the metaphoric Rock, that is, Christ?

So, Christ-as-elemental-epiphenomenon which Moses struck -- bringing forth water? Don’t think so.

I’m surmising that relevant texts are incorporating use of both metaphor per se and prefigurative metaphor, Christ being metaphor and the “spiritual rock” being a prefigurative metaphor. Remember,

I am late come to this thing called exposition and not having brought an expertise in linguistics..., ipso facto, do not claim anything other than curiosity and a sometimes-quixotic mind still sloshing a bit.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Considering that metaphors are tricky -- could “the rock” that brought forth waters in the wilderness have been the metaphoric Rock, that is, Christ?

---

[:"red"] "And they all drank the same spiritual (supernaturally given) drink. For they drank from a spiritual Rock which followed them [produced by the sole power of God Himself without natural instrumentality], and the Rock was Christ. " [/] 1 Corinthians 10:4 AMP

parenthesis brackets theirs

[:"red"] "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." [/] 1 Corinthians 10:4 KJV

[jasd]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Considering that metaphors are tricky -- could “the rock” that brought forth waters in the wilderness have been the metaphoric Rock, that is, Christ?

---

I attempted, by introduction of ‘prefigurative metaphor’ (lacking in the above snip), to separate the prefigurative (that, perhaps which, might develop further -- as allegorical) metaphor ‘spiritual rock’ from the metaphoric Rock, that is, --Christ. I believe St Paul attempted the same by employing the conjugal conjunction “And” [especially] in the complements verses 3 and 4 -- following…

1 Cor 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; v4

>>”And [:"red"]they all drank the same spiritual (supernaturally given) drink. For they drank from a spiritual Rock which followed them [produced by the sole power of God Himself without natural instrumentality], and the Rock was Christ. "[/] 1 Corinthians 10:4 AMP

parenthesis brackets theirs<< [ed]

which ‘spiritual’ rock -- should singularly, have been translated in the miniscule.

Granted, there are a few distractions that may or may not bear heavily upon that which I’m attempting to portray… such as, Strong’s rock-#5553 (Num 20:8) and rock-#6697 (Ex 17:6); are they interchangeable? or markedly distinguishing? How would they -- if intended to supply different meanings, affect a denouement? or not?

Does Psalms 78 speak to multiples and singular? poetic license? or idiosyncratic Hebrew grammar?

and so it goes… Anyway,

I take it that you do not apprehend anything significant in the text -- other than an interpretive by St Paul? Am I correct?

[Raphael]

Very enriching, Proverbs 25:2. First time to know about it. At a glance I would have thought Proverbs 25:2 to be of human wisdom, but no, it's in our bibles! Cool and great.

As for water, nothing can exist without God. I would describe it as the illustration of the effort to define psychology through a picture of Freuds head with many instances of Freud doing different kinds of things drawn in that head. We are trying to define reality, while reality is simply a another part of God with us in it.

Thank you jasd.

Raphael

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

raphael said:

We are trying to define reality, while reality is simply a another part of God with us in it.

Thank you jasd.

Raphael

---

[:"red"] "It is God's privilege to conceal things and the king's privilege to discover them."[/]

Proverbs 25:2 NLT

[:"red"] "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." [/] Jeremiah 29:13 NASB

Keep the faith!

[jasd]

That below follows a plaint about the appropriateness of the topical content -- as submitted to the “The Sabbath more fully” thread on the End Time Issues board.

calgary guy:

Off topic? Say what!? --Pogo

Not so, non, non, calgary guy, not so fast. It was you who opened the door -- with the dogmatic, left-handed aside -- of the implied potluck “pick and choose” theology charged to the faith of the greater body of Christ. It behooved me to leaven the,

as it turns out, insular (in that the thread is yours) charge.

>>Thanks for this reply.<<

You’re welcome -- and Welcome.

>>Actually, I really appreciate the text you gave from Levitcus.<<

Actually, it was from Lamentations.

>>It proves the validity of THE Sabbath. if we look at the textual construct of this verse; it does say "sabbaths,"<<

It’s me, I’m certain, but I find the above rather vague -- what textual construct? The referenced text iterates both feasts and sabbaths. Is the Sabbath of the Lord neither feast nor sabbath -- by attestation of Writ?

>>…the Ten Commandments, say in Ex.20, then we see how it changes from plural to the singular.<<

Leaving aside that Hebrew, notedly often, mixes plurals and singulars, I believe what you’re saying is… the context in Exodus 20, though using the same “shabbath” #7676 - Strong’s as does the Lamentations text[:"red"]*[/], requires by the employment of the ordinal -- that it be translated in the singular. Yes, that would be easily discernible. That said, the intent of the Lamentations text

is not so easily ascertained by that formulaic construct; luckily, one might fall back upon Leviticus 23 for a more readily apparent construct, which same construct identifies the Sabbath as both feast and sabbath -- and, inclusively, sabbaths.

[:"red"]*[/](YLT Lam 2:6 …Jehovah hath forgotten in Zion the appointed time and sabbath,…)

>>The "seventh day" is "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The Bible does not say anywhere that THIS Sabbath was nullified by anyone;<<

Not so fast, several things here…

/ the construct you’ve proffered for the Lamentations text is somewhat elusive

/ no one spoke of nullity. The issue is removal[:"red"]*[/], which same, Gd many times throughout text employed as precedent, example, or expediency.

The “seventh day” as originally given by Gd to man in the referenced Exodus text was/is indeed “the Sabbath of the Lord. There was not nor shall one jot or tittle [be] removed from it. It is that Writ indicates it is yet reverently ‘kept/hidden’ _elsewhere_ than where there exists only the loss of calendrical knowledge as pertains days/dates certain in Writ.

[:"red"]*[/](The ‘removal’ spoken of here is that of the Sabbath of the Lord Gd -- for reasons blasphemous and profane. I should think this not so strange -- in that EGW proposed that the Garden of Eden and the Ark of the Covenant are both removed, kept, and hidden --elsewhere)

Facts attest, none more than calendrical attestation.

I am not so invested in the Saturday-Sunday conflict that I cannot appreciate the arguments of either side. Having said that,

though non-affiliated and a non-declared-Xtian, I observe the seventh-day. My deceased mother bequeathed it to me --.

We are the family of Gd, His children, His ekklesia -- Christ’s body…, yes? no? that is, all who confess Christ with their lips and believe in their heart, do so unto salvation…, yes? no? moreover, additionally included are those having neither confession nor knowledge, in the Biblical sense, of Christ…, yes? no?

In deference to you I’m letting the matter drop.

[jasd]

Guys,

Yeah, ain’t that a hoot! to find the ‘hidden’ things of Gd…, for example:

That ‘hidden thing’ of Naaman the Syrian, leprous captain of the host of the king (II Kings 5). Why was it that Elisha told him to dip in the Jordan when, as the astute Naaman observed, “Ain’t we got rivers in Syria, better yet, than all the waters of Israel?” Nevertheless,

persuaded by his servants, he dipped himself seven times in the Jordan -- and was cleansed. Miracle? Sacre Bleu! certainly. That said,

let’s look at this clinically -- it was the Jordan, clear as a spring at its upper reaches but by the time it reached Gilgal, where Elisha dwelt, it was muddy in appearance. What gave it that ‘muddy’ appearance? suspended particles, of course. What kind of particles? for the large part, silicate or crystalline particulate matter. Millions, billions … brazilians of tiny crystals.

Crystals possess the unique properties of receiving, storing, and transmitting energy. They oscillate according to their unique shape. A shape for this vibratory frequency, another shape for another frequency, and so on…, much as it requires a particularly shaped crystal for a quartz watch to function; you know -- a small energy charge causes the quartz crystal to oscillate 64,000 times per second that is then halved, halved again, and again, again… until the second hand of the watch moves once per second -- keeping time. Anyway,

each time Naaman rose from the waters of the Jordan, ‘brazilians’ of shaped crystals covered his body -- oscillating at (goodness knows how many frequencies -- hundreds? thousands? more?) different frequencies… Now then,

leprosy is caused by bacteria. The bacteria sympathetically resonates to the transmitted ‘waves’ of those oscillating crystalline particulates covering Naaman, as he rose from each dip in the Jordan; much as the string of a stringed instrument resonates to that certain note struck on the piano keyboard. It would have been only a matter of so many dips in the waters before sufficient uniquely-shaped crystalline particulates oscillating at differing frequencies -- would have corrupted the integrity of the cellular walls of the bacteria -- causing it loss of fluids, killing the colonies of the leprosy bacterium.

Antibiotic sugars(?) destroy bacteria similarly by corrupting the cellular walls of bacteria (perhaps, I err in my recollection on the matter and perhaps, someone might correct me).

The question obtains, from whence was the energy derived that caused the particulates to oscillate? From the stones of Gilgal which stood in a circular pattern, acting as a capacitor collecting the standing, flowing, or eddying current(s) in earth’s magnetic field (the conflation of the yin/yang or white tiger/green dragon that have their confluence where the rise falls to meet water – hey! that’s Gilgal.

Gilgal means -- stone circle.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Yeah, ain’t that a hoot! to find the ‘hidden’ things of Gd…, for example:

---

Not that I understand any of your posts very well, jasd,

but in case this post of yours is meant to explain away the miraculous nature of our Father's interventions, do you think any of the supernatural workings of His are a miracle to Him? And if this post of yours is a logical explanation of the miracle that happened, could we not also see it as a miracle that He revealed it to you.

However, it is probably important to remember that not all miracles are brought about by Him.

[:"red"] "And with all the miracles he was allowed to perform..., he deceived all the people who belong to this world. He ordered the people of the world to make a great statue of the first beast, who was fatally wounded and then came back to life. " [/] Revelation 13:14 NLT

[:"red"] "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." [/]

1 John 4:1 NKJV

[:"red"] "But when the Holy Spirit controls our lives, he will produce this kind of fruit in us: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." [/] Gal 5:22,23 NLT

Keep the faith!

[jasd]

Sorry, I’d completely missed the fact that you’d posted. I find that happening a lot at my age, that is, things slipping past, so easily…

>>Not that I understand any of your posts very well, jasd,<<

You know, I’ve wondered about that at times, as I have a friend with a 10th grade education that has very little problem at all -- both reading and understanding what I write. I suppose it goes to incentive and/or antipathy. (I don’t understand it, as I’m the sort of cuss that will bore through a thing -- no matter, and have no problem with re-rereading ‘til comprehension dawns -- if initially lacking. If it’s not forthcoming, I’ll ask for an expansion upon the matter. Why do so few of the 'Biblically-most-read' -- ask questions? The more of Writ I read the more questions arise. Isn’t that as it should be?) Anyway,

thanks for the way you write, I understand perfectly well what you submit (and read all of your submissions where found -- a matter of courtesy if nothing more). Though disagreeing with you on occasion, I find I agree with much of that which you put forward.

>>…but in case this post of yours is meant to explain away the miraculous nature…<<

You've apparently missed…

“Miracle? Sacre Bleu! certainly.” --quote by jasd

and why, necessarily, should an attempt to understand be characterized as…

“explain away”?

Don’t tell me that you’ve also missed…

Prov 25:2 …but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter. !?

Why does the NT text (or for that matter the OT, consider Elijah and the prophets of Baal) go to lengths to delineate the mechanics of a miracle? you know,

“…he spat on the ground,

and made clay of the spittle,

and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, v7 And said unto him,

Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, … (Jn 9:6).

Why does not Writ simply state, “He saith unto the man, be thou whole and yea, it was so”?

“…search out the matter.”

Perhaps, that scripture might be fulfilled when He saith, “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; … (Jn 14:12)

>>…of our Father's interventions,<<

So many things are miracles; and I figure the hand of Gd is in them all. Many remain miracles… that of a mother for her child, the sweetness of that child’s breath, the moment one realizes that another really cares about him/her, the smile on a duck’s face, the way of a puppy, etc. Others, being understood fade, having served their purpose.

>>…do you think any of the supernatural workings of His are a miracle to Him?<<

From His perspective or from the perspective He assigns to us? By the way,

it is said, that the Toltecs and those that followed, inherited the legend of the bearded man who arrived from the East, walking throughout the land that constitutes present-day Mexico and the very southern US, living and teaching a Gdly life -- performing healing miracles. He did so wearing leather sandals with a thin sheaf of gold between their layers. One wonders

if another ever tried such sandals and, if so, what was the outcome?

>>And if this post of yours is a logical explanation of the miracle that happened, could we not also see it as a miracle that He revealed it to you.<<

Life, as Ouroboros, is “a miracle”. That said, however, I simply forwarded a thing to contemplate; offering no assertion to its verity.

>>However, it is probably important to remember that not all miracles are brought about by Him.<<

But the NLT text, by implication, ascribes their first cause to Gd. To wit:

[:"red"]"And with all the miracles he was allowed to perform...,[/]

>>[:"red"]"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."[/] 1 John 4:1 NKJV<<

The adjuration to Gd’s people is well-taken for it adjures to knowledge beforehand in “…testing the spirits…” I believe the forum provides the platform for such dissemination… and per the following:

>>[:"red"]"But when the Holy Spirit controls our lives, he will produce this kind of fruit in us: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control."[/] Gal 5:22,23 NLT<<

Much to be desired herein also is looked-for understanding in that many who now venture forth do so proclaiming, “I AM” --

their message… Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, pacifism, vegetarianism[:"red"]*[/], and global-village doctrines… etc, whose ultimate message is “If they are not happy transforming, we shall send them to a place where they will be happy.”

Guess where that place is?

[:"red"]*[/]addendum: Do you realize that the Canaanite god Baal Peor was the God of vegetation? Does that suggest anything… at all?[/kidding ]

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

You know, I’ve wondered about that at times, as I have a friend with a 10th grade education that has very little problem at all -- both reading and understanding what I write.

---

I didn't say why I didn't understand, but maybe you could have the 10th grader translate.

As I also read your posts, but not always with understanding. Keep looking up. There's always hope.

[:"red"] "and now there doth remain faith, hope, love -- these three; and the greatest of these [is] love. " [/] 1 Cor 13:13 YLT

Never fear. What I lack in understanding, I make up for in ignorance.

Keep the faith!

[jasd]

>>I didn't say why I didn't understand, but maybe you could have the 10th grader translate.<<

This is the second reference to the friend with the 10th grade education… so,

I expected ‘the rejoinder’ and thought to reword but left it -- as is,

it being of small consequence.

Icon notwithstanding, I’m sorry you found it necessary to rejoin in the manner you did.

Why can one not just ask? Simple, “What do you mean?” “Did you intend to imply such and such…?” “Do you mind providing the construct or to expand upon the matter?”

Why are the 'Biblically-most-read' so coy about asking -- about anything? from anyone?

>>Never fear. What I lack in understanding, I make up for in ignorance.<<

Thanks, for your graciousness.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

--Omar Khayyam

[jasd]

It is without attempt to circumvent the Moderator that I post upon this particular issue here. I’ve invested a bit of time and, for me, a lot of effort to respond to archierieus, a polite and beholden thing.

The closing of the ‘Nicolaitans’ thread, imho, was rather inopportune in that that which seems to have been perceived as escalating ‘tempers’ has already resolved – sans the extraordinarily ‘loud shouting’ via mega-fonts seen on another thread – which same (ahem) thread is still truckin’ along repeating, and repeating… somewhat as the issue of Sabbath –repeats.

In deferring to the moderator… this is the last I’ll have to say upon the particular matter of the Nicolaitans. Whoever wishes to add or respond to my post may do so without rebuttal. I’m posting, as I’ve mentioned,

because of the investment put into this post; otherwise, I’d let it go, as so many worthwhile threads are ‘let go’ without denouement. How unfortunate that so much that might prove of import –is so often left unfinished… … … …

BAGD: Perhaps, one ought not to throw BAGD out with the bath water – it probably being the capstone of all lexicons. Did I not feel well served to rely on the translators of the KJV and did I have the $s to part with at this point, I would purchase BAGD. That said,

is there anything that does not have its fault(s)? I’m thinking that when all is parted and weighed… the only thing that will matter is one’s truly held beliefs, whether anyone else shares them or not; otherwise, why are we possessed of an owner’s manual so difficult to decipher or comprehend?

>>As Young's Literal Translation renders this verse:

"so hast thou, even thou, those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans--which thing I hate."<< [ed.]

It seems to me that Young intended the use of “even thou” to convey immediate intensity by employing a tautological device… example:

Lu 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even {2532} thou, at least in this thy day, the things [which belong] unto thy peace!

And the Greek-English Interlinear Bible (TR text)…

Greek –English Interlinear Rev 2:15 So have also {2532} you those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans which thing I hate [ed. braces mine]

Were one to accept that Revelation 2:15 represents merely a “reiteration” (or as Nico noted: )

Quote:

---

Nico said

…merely reiterating the

previous

charges in that particular segment, it becomes redundant and superfluous.

---

…a rephrasing, if you will – of the Balaam passage (verse 14), one then must ask why Gd fails in the letter to the church in Ephesus to mention the ‘Balaam indictments’, if indeed, they are identical charges as those laid to the Nicolaitans? as He does in the Pergamos letter? After all, the Balaam indictments are purported to be the soil from which the charge of Nicolaitanism is drawn; and assumption can hardly precede its premise, can it? It would be upon this incongruity that

one might be inclined to suppose kai/also/likewise as lending to an additionally-voiced grievance, that is, a sense more of the cumulative than the copulative, ipso… a pronounced separation of divergent doctrinal corpora. If that were so,

one might be obliged to rely upon etymology in attempting to grasp anything meaningful from the term Nicolaitans – than a reiteration of Balaam’s sins; remembering, that familial words do not always provide for dotting and crossing. Further, it may be that

credence allows that ‘compounding’ is not entirely foreign to the NT… example:

Jn 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped {2955} down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].

#2955 kupto: probably from the base of 2949; to bend forward:--stoop (down).

Jn 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself {352}, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

#352 anakupto: from 303 (in the sense of reversal) and 2955; to unbend, i.e. rise; figuratively, be elated:--lift up, look up.

ana (a prim. prep. and adv.) is, in the above… compounded as a prefix.

>>This is also what the historical records tell us, by the way. SO, HISTORY VERIFIES THAT THIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE VERSE IS CORRECT.<<

Ummm…, it may be said that we ought tread cautiously when appealing to ‘history’, especially, early Xtian history, which same history is much as the ‘early fathers’ perceived it. That which is ‘history’, as it concerns us here, can only be accepted as reliable insofar as

the ‘father(s)’ lent a reliable voice to that ‘history’, example…:

“The "great whales" created in Genesis 1:21, Origen said, represent "impious thoughts and abominable understandings" ”

“Origen said the sun, moon and stars were living creatures, endowed with reason and free will, and occasionally inclined to sin; he was not certain whether their souls were created at the same time with their bodies or existed before, … and that they prayed.” [ed.]

And in his (Origen’s) allegorizing and tendencies to extremes... how can one forget – his “extreme” act of self-denial

“The seven epistles of Ignatius exist in two forms, one copy very much shorter than the other, and both of them probably either forgeries outright, or largely interpolated.”

Irenaeus observed “… “in his, Against Heresies” that Jesus was seen alive in Asia long after the event of the cross “specifically, during the reign of Emperor Trajan, who took the throne in 98 A.D” and to support his miscues stated, “…that Jesus, "was more than fifty years old when he died [sic, sic, sic].” ” [ed.]

“Eusebius assures us that ‘on some occasions the bodies of martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled, were found alive in their stomachs.’ ”

“Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome all believed in and espoused the fable of the risen Phoenix – likening it to the resurrection of Christ.” [/praphrased]

…and so it goes.

It is not my place nor do I have the ability to morpheme and lexeme the Bible to death. I only purport to show that there may be other possible readings that one might do well to be aware; further, I suggest that exposure to ‘other … readings’ anticipates objections and puts an edge to one’s expository tools. That said,

it goes without saying that one, endorsing certain ‘writings’ as corroborating those of the ‘early fathers’, render them equally fantastical – or supports the perception that the smoke of plagiarism is in the temple of the ‘writings’; caution is the watchword.

“Nieolaftanes. The mention of this name in the Apocalypse (see Murray's 1llus. B. D. s.v.) has caused it to appear in almost all lists of heresies ; but there is no trustworthy evidence of the continuance of a sect so called after the death of St. John. Irenaeus in writing his great work used a treatise against heresies by Justin Martyr ; and that Justin's list began with Simon Magus and made no mention of Nicolaitanes may be conjectured from the order in which Irenaeus discusses the heresies, viz. Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, the Nicolaitanes. So late a place is inconsistent with chronological order, and the most plausible explanation is that Irenaeus followed the order of an older list, and added the Nicolaitanes to it. About them he has nothing to say (I. xxvi. 3) but what he found in the Apocalypse ; for the words " qui indiscrete vivunt," which alone have the appearance of an addition, seem only an inference from Rev. ii. 13, 14, and 20-22. In a later book (III. x. 6) Irenaeus incidentally mentions them as a branch of the Gnostics and seems to ascribe to them the whole body of Ophite doctrine. HIPPOLYTUS probably derived his view of them from Irenaeus. In his earlier treatise, as we gather from comparing the lists of Epiphanius, Philaster, and Pseudo-Tertullian, he brings them into an earlier, though still too late a place in his list, his order being Simon Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Nicolaitanes ; and he ascribes to them the tenets of a fully developed Ophite system. There is no sufficient evidence that the Ophites called themselves Nicolaitanes. In the later work of Hippolytus, Nicolaus the deacon is made the founder of the Gnostics ; but the notice is short, and goes little beyond what is told in Irenaeus, bk. i. It is needless to notice the statements of later writers.

Stephen Gobar (~,f, Phot. Babel. 232) says

that Hippolytus and Epiphanius make Nicolas the deacon of Acts vi. 5 answerable for the errors of the sect called after him; whereas Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Theodoret condemn the sect, but impute none of the blame to Nicolas himself.”

Did we all not chew the ears off this thing, or what?

I always maintain that it is not for nothin’ that THE city has twelve gates

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

It is without attempt to circumvent

the Moderator that I post upon this particular issue here. I’ve invested a bit of time and, for me, a lot of effort to respond to archierieus, a polite and beholden thing.

---

Indeed, a pleasant exchange of ideas, stimulating and educational as well.

Quote:

---

The closing of the ‘Nicolaitans’ thread, imho, was rather inopportune in that that which seems to have been perceived as escalating ‘tempers’ has already resolved – sans the extraordinarily ‘loud shouting’ via mega-fonts seen on another thread – which same (ahem) thread is still truckin’ along repeating, and repeating… somewhat as the issue of Sabbath –repeats.

---

Point well taken--indeed, the repetition and mega-fonts are a common feature of some of these threads. They have yet to be closed for those reasons.

What I observed and experienced on the Nicolaitan thread was a pleasant and informative exchange of ideas, until someone suddenly went on the attack. Personal attacks, vitriolic, which, despite repeated requests to stick to the issues, only got worse. Finally, I PM'd the moderator, and asked him to do something about it. I did not see the 'attack' posts edited or deleted. Instead, there was, as you pointed out, a reference to 'tempers' [plural'] escalating. That was not an accurate representation of what had happened. The 'attack' posts gave evidence of temper flaring, but, reviewing the thread, there was not a response in kind. For that reason, after reading the moderator's post, I PM'd the moderator again. I don't think this forum should allow the kind of verbal abuse and harassment which happened on that thread, and I told him so. And, I believe that someone who does engage in verbal abuse and harassment on this forum, should be held accountable. So far, I have not seen that done in this case. Thus, there is the potential for a repetition of the offensive behavior. That gives me cause for concern.

For me, also, this will be my last post on this issue. I found your evaluation of the verse interesting, and worthy of a thought-out response.

Quote:

---

As Young's Literal Translation renders this verse:

"so hast thou,

even thou

, those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans--which thing I hate."<< [ed.]

It seems to me that Young intended the use of “even thou” to convey

immediate

intensity by employing a tautological device… example:

Lu 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known,

even

{2532}

thou

, at least in this thy day, the things [which belong] unto thy peace!

And the Greek-English Interlinear Bible (TR text)…

Greek –English Interlinear Rev 2:15 So have

also

{2532}

you those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans which thing I hate [ed. braces mine]

---

Actually, the Greek text reads [transliterated]: "Thus you hold onto [the Gk. word is stronger than 'have'. It literally means 'grasp,' 'hold on to']--even you [so, we see YOU emphasized: first in the verb, then in the repeated 'you']--those holding the teachings of the Nicolaitans . . ."

Permit me to say that I very much enjoyed reading your excerpts from early church history. Fascinating.

Quote:

---

I always maintain that it is not for nothin’ that THE city has twelve gates

---

True indeed, and for that we may be most grateful.

Regards, Dave

[jasd]

QR frame:

When that which is and that which was

Apart, intrinsic, stand,

And this brief tragedy of flesh

Is shifted like a sand;

When surplice clay loose sense and spirit –

The enduring atom,

And when mists are carved away

Behold! the temple hagion.

apologies to Emily Dickinson

Le Revenant

927

[jasd]

Perhaps the immediate above will allow a segue both from morphosis and recurrent spectres, both good and bad, to...

an oblique thought:

It is not in dying but in living that

life is lost.

[Clio]

Just as it is not in death but in the living and the life poured out for us that brings Redemption.

[jasd]

>>Just as it is not in death but in the living and the life poured out for us that brings Redemption.<<

Assuredly; however, would that statement exclude an expansion upon “Redemption” per se? say…, perhaps, encompassing an enquiry into secondary and tertiary meaning(s) and application of the use of the term -- ‘Salvation’, vis-a vis “Redemption”?

Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Does St Paul, in the above text, speak to his acting in the somewhat capacity of vicar for Christ?

Vicar: In the broadest sense, a vicar (from the Latin vicarius) is anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior (compare "vicarious").

I ask because it goes back to the original title of this thread – Christ signified.

After all, as the “Church in the Wilderness” was given to attend to the rock in a wilderness of rocks… argues for a singular, known, and metaphorical rock, that is, Christ.

That representative rock, used figuratively (St Paul’s use) in allegorical imagery, was struck – per Gd’s instruction. Unfortunately, as it may be,

Moses, upon another following occasion, being instructed to speak to the rock in an obvious instructional continuance upon the Christ/rock imagery – struck it… not once but twice. That constituted a ‘striking’ of the rock

a total of three times. The imagery of Christ-as-rock from whom living, redemptive waters flowed…

suffered. Did that cause Gd to become disconcerted and incensed? He was furious!

So, one asks, “How many times was Christ struck (or to be struck) for mankind?”

How might one account for the other two ‘strikings’ of Christ’s body?

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, v27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Christ was struck once … upon the cross.

(more on rock...)

Just musing, Clio. How are you and yours away up North? in them thar inclement and, might I add, cold climes? Stay warm.

[Clio]

It always and only was supposed to be once. The life is in the Blood, so says scripture over and over and over again both in the OT and the NT.

The Life can only be poured out once, for the doing requires the death of the doer.

It is only the Life which seals a Blood Covenant and it is such a covenant which changes us from sinner to saved. We are saved by becoming a member of the Family of Abba, but adoption through the Blood Covenant.

Blood Covenants change the lines of inheritance, just as when we step under the covering of the Blood Covenant in which True Jesus poured out His Life for us, we no longer inherit the wages of sin, but instead become joint heirs with Him. Heirs by Blood to all that the Father will pour out to Jesus when He comes with His Reward.

It is always the life, and the pouring out of it. Never the death.

[jasd]

>>It always and only was supposed to be once.<< [ed]

I agree: it “… was supposed to be once.”

However, the ‘rock’ was struck a total of three times; that suggests that Christ’s ‘body’ is to be struck a remaining twice more – else, the metaphor, figurative, antitype, archetype, etc/or… (according to St Paul) cannot obtain.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

So, would “there remaineth” negate [a] future “sacrifice(s)”? not yet fully effected?

Why are the redeemed – priests and kings? to what purpose? (the order of Melchizedek, yet!) And, why,

was Moses referred to as elohiym? As well,

Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If Jesus was referencing Psalms 82:6 in the above, He equates the Greek “gods” with the Hebrew “elohiym”, does He not?

So, it is priests, kings, and gods. Are they to function in roles not specifically, or adequately, outlined in shared exposition? Is Revelation 22

the end of mankind’s chronicled history? or, is Revelation 22 but the ending of a chapter? and a continuance therefrom…