Non believers are just as "good"

There is this...
Exo_32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies
And this...
2Ch_28:19 For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel; for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the LORD.
And this...
Rev_16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Being seen naked, particularly when it is involuntary, seems to be associated with shame and, therefore, with wrongdoing.

When Adam & Eve ate from the wrong tree and gained knowledge of good and evil, they were ashamed to be naked before God, which implies that they realized it was evil. God gave them clothing. (I realize that some have interpreted this shame of nakedness as emblematic of shame for their sinfulness and unrighteous condition. If clothing symbolizes God's redemption and mercy, and nudity symbolizes unrighteousness, should this impact our choices?)

On the other hand, Peter fished naked with his fellows (a practical matter, the activity involved getting wet), but notice that when he saw Jesus, Peter grabbed his clothes before jumping into the water and swimming to shore. I guess he didn't want to stand around naked in front of Jesus, even if it meant getting his clothing soaked.

I will concede that it does rather make sense to not wear textiles when getting wet, such as during swimming. But we are also counseled to avoid causing others to stumble, and many people in today's society find themselves tempted to lust when they see a naked person.

 

The issue though is not whether other human beings are offended or affected by nakedness but whether God is offended by nakedness.

Adam and Eve we are told went naked and were not ashamed. I think a better interpretation of this fact would be that before the fall Adam and Eve had no reason to feel ashamed of their nakedness and God still walked in the garden with them in the cool of the evening without any bother at all. God felt no need to clothe them until after their guilt over disobedience to God's warning had caused them to be fearful of Him and ashamed of themselves. God's provision of clothes made from animal furs was a gracious concession to their need for protection, not an attempt to cover them up to protect God's supposed sensitivty to the sight of creatures he had declared 'good' in their fully naked condition.

A careful examination of the OT verses you quoted does not reveal any instance of God being scandalised by human nakedness, only the predisposition of fallen mankind to associate nakedness with sin and shame. For sure adult full nakedness is inappropriate in front of children, whose genitalia before puberty should have no natural procreational functionality. Their natural curiosity presumably should not be aroused by the sight of fully developed adult genitalia as this is likely to cause them psychological damage which may affect their normal sexual maturation and development. Some of the verses of Lev.18:6-19 and Lev.20:11-21 are obviously euphamistically aimed at curbing pedophile sexual activity and other forms of union deemed 'unacceptable' to God and righteous human society. They do not however indicate any particular aversion or disapproval of God to human nakedness per se.

Gen.42:9 and Gen.42:12 Mark 14:51-52. make it clear that nakedness is closely equated with vulnerability and to deliberately render a person or nation 'naked' is to effectivly humiliate, abuse them and attack them.

I would suggest though that the 'shame' of nakedness is a product of human sin, not a characteristic of Almighty God. Job 1:20-21. Though Job was a bit confused about the human life cycle I think.
.

 

Are you suggesting that none of our actions are wrong, so long as they don't arouse a feeling of offense or scandalization in God?
Does God feel 'scandalized' by murder?

The issue should be whether it is sinful in God's eyes, not whether it makes Him scandalized.

Looking at the case of Adam and Eve, it's plain that they felt no shame at being naked before God when they were innocent (no sin and no knowledge of good vs. evil); yet once they had become cognizant of that distinction and were conscious of their guilt before God, they were ashamed. The theological issue is this: did their shame lie solely in the knowledge of their guilt, and was the clothing a 'hiding' mechanism to make them more comfortable while also serving as a foreshadowing of their need for a redeemer's blood sacrifice? Or, besides all of that, did their shame also stem from the literal fact of their nakedess? It's been interpreted both ways. I can see the argument both ways, and I'm not dogmatic about it. Other scriptures dealing with nakedness and its associating with shame are also pertinent, and once again they are not absolutely conclusive but are subject to interpretation.

Is nudity sinful? I'd say, it depends on the situation and the motivation. But I'll add that sometimes people will interpret scriptures in a certain way, ignoring their conscience, so as to feel justified in doing things for which their conscience convicts them. Christians should always examine their motives honestly, and they should also consider how their actions might affect others.

See, we're not that far apart on this. I did want to introduce those scriptures into the discussion, though.

 

Ambitious double-decker of a post incoming.

I don't support Democrats or Republicans. I don't vote. While the numbers for self-proclaimed Christians are high, the highest you cited is still nearly 20% lower.

While it is an interesting history, my statement about the lack of scholarship still stands. To be sure, not all Greek and Hebrew scholars are Christian and some of them regularly diverge from the Christian perspective (e.g., the Jesus Seminar). I am not aware of any Greek or Hebrew scholar who endorses Mormon criticisms.

We find parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21. You can even find it referenced in the Acts 6. While the dating of the NT writings are not set in stone, it would need to be established that most (if not all) of the writings are post-70 AD.

--------

I agree that what happened to them was a tragedy. And I have no desire to bust into other communities and use coercion, mind manipulation, or threats. Rather, what should be sought is the Puritan ideal: establish a covenanted community and enforce that covenant within the community. A modern example would be the Amish. They do not tolerate dissenters within their community. They will use discipline or even kick them out entirely. People who don't like the community are free to leave if they desire to do so.

Enforcement is extending the principles of Scriptures outside of the walls of the church. It isn't legalism to those who have the Spirit, for they delight in the Law (Psalm 1). It is a form of legalism for those who do not have the Spirit. However, we should seek to have them abiding in as much righteousness as is possible if they are going to remain in our communities.

I don't disagree with any of this. The issue is that foolishness and wickedness are rife in our modern societies. It is to the point where those proclaiming to be Christians are engaging in it regularly. It is to the point where our children are vulnerable to being led into wickedness by everyone and everything around them. There is no reason to suppose that Christians cannot come together and establish communities that respect God's Law.

We shouldn't tell Quakers what to do if they are outside of our authority. However, that doesn't mean we should be indifferent to what they do either. I am telling you that Quakers do not worship in Spirit and Truth. They are entirely pluralistic and non-creedal. One can be an active and open member of a Quaker congregation while being an atheist, deist, Buddhist, or whatever else. It doesn't matter to them because they are not worshipping in Spirit and Truth.

Quakers are not obedient to Christ. Many of them do not believe in Christ. The few who do believe in Christ have an entirely incorrect conception of Him. I think it would be appropriate to ask you this: are Quakers outside of the Body of Christ or not?

Why are you separating the two? A believer of the Lord should both profess praise and seek to walk in the light of God's commandments. It isn't an either-or situation. Quakers, btw, do neither.

See above.

No, I am not suggesting that the word "enlightenment" is bad. It is just a word. It can be applied in good or bad ways. For example, one can be enlightened by the Word of God. That is certainly good. One could also be "enlightened" by feminist psychoanalytic theory. That is certainly not good. With that in mind, throwing out a verse such as Matthew 4:16 to say that the Enlightenment, a particular intellectual movement, is good doesn't make any sense. You have to actually show that the ideas coming our of the Enlightenment are good.

All true knowledge is good so long as it is to the glory of God. For example, someone may have true knowledge about evolutionary biology. The true knowledge that they hold is only good in so far as they use it for the glory of God. They may very well use it to glorify man. The most precious knowledge is that received by God (Matthew 16:17; 2 Corinthians 4:6). So, yes, the Enlightenment as an intellectual movement needs to be justified. This is the case for any intellectual movement throughout history. The Enlightenment has led to moral relativism, creaturely glorification, scepticism, secularism, atheism, egalitarianism, the ruin of tradition and culture, etc. Scientific truth, while really cool, isn't the purpose of life. Our purpose is to glorify God (Isaiah 43:7; 1 Corinthians 10:31). We are to glorify God regardless of our understanding of scientific truths.

Yes, it is addressed to disciples. Quakers and other heretics are not disciples of Jesus. They are outside of the Body of Christ. The Shepherd's concern is with His flock. And, yes, I am critical and intolerant of Quakers. They are heretics. Quakers are not my brothers and sisters in Christ. They have no truth in them.

No. They are truth. This isn't a difficult question and I want a straight answer from you: is Jesus Christ Lord and God or is he not? There is no room for error here. In the words of C.S. Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.​

The doctrine of the Trinity is not "secondary to the teaching of Jesus Christ." It is absolutely essential. One cannot be a Christian while rejecting the deity of Christ. The only destination on the map for those who reject the deity of Christ is hell. Don't claim to love your neighbor if you are comfortable with them living a wicked life. Don't claim to love your neighbor if you are willing to tell them they don't need Christ. Christianity isn't one religion among many, it is the only truth in the world. One either lives by it or dies by it.

What do you think faith is? Is it some sort of wishy-washy speculation? The Christian faith is truth. It isn't speculative or unconfirmed belief. It is truth. What does Peter say to the Elect? "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth" (2 Peter 1:12).

I've never said to not be neighborly.

I am not even sure what to make of this. Are you saying that you reject the thoroughly Biblical teaching of the curse of Canaan? Do you think God was just playing along for the sake of Noah? You don't have to believe that the curse applies to blacks to accept the Biblical teaching.

That is fine. However, you were using this text to prove your claim that nakedness isn't indecent. I am still not sure, even with this explanation, how you are using it to prove your claim.

You have a strange infatuation with Nazis... Regardless, you still haven't shown that God doesn't have a problem with nakedness. Being indecent around others isn't glorifying God.

You may provide them and I will take a look. I don't find it particularly puzzling. God made an example out of them. And, yes, blasphemy can be forgiven upon repentance. My issue isn't with repentant Christians (obviously). My issue is with Christ deniers and scoffers who blaspheme with their every breath. There is no forgiveness for unrepentant Christ deniers.

Generally, no. I do not advocate for violence. Though I have no issue with fining or branding.

I have not advocated for violence. In fact, I have specifically stated that the Puritans were not perfect (as no humans are perfect).

 

I'm unimpressed with your interpretation of this. I think you are saying (and challenging me,and fair enough) how could Jesus predict all this before it happened. Firstly Jerusalem doesn't seem to have been destroyed as you say, Mat 24 only seems to refer to the temple.
Secondly Jesus says in Mat 24 "Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." You have probably seen pictures of the wailing wall that disprove this.
Thirdly when will this happen, Ask the disciples? Jesus says "“Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains." Did all these things happen in the 40 years 'twixt 30 and 70 AD. Jesus doesn't seem to give a clear distinction between the temple destruction and the end times.

I don't know if you think this will happen before the temple destruction?


And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Because I presume by 70 AD this hadn't happened.

Fourthly did Paul write about this topic? I ask because generally his writing are considered to have been written pre 70AD and I'm sure Matthew is generally considered to be written post 70AD.

 

While Jesus' focus is on the Temple, the entire city is brought to ruin:

The Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE was the decisive event of the First Jewish–Roman War, in which the Roman army captured the city of Jerusalem and destroyed both the city and its Temple.​

I will touch on this further down in the post.

The Western Wall is not really in view here. The first verse states that Jesus' attention was called to the buildings. What was the Western Wall?

It [the Western Wall] is a relatively small segment of a far longer ancient retaining wall, known also in its entirety as the "Western Wall". The wall was originally erected as part of the expansion of the Second Jewish Temple begun by Herod the Great, which resulted in the encasement of the natural, steep hill known to Jews and Christians as the Temple Mount, in a huge rectangular structure topped by a flat platform, thus creating more space for the Temple itself, its auxiliary buildings, and crowds of worshipers and visitors.​

Jesus wasn't interested in retaining walls. He was interested in the Temple because its destruction meant the end of the Old Covenant forms of worship and the ushering in of the New Covenant.

Yes, all of these things have already happened. I am a preterist, so I take the view that all of prophecy has been fulfilled. This language is in reference to the Jewish-Roman War.

It did happen in the first century. Jesus said it would happen in the first century (as you pointed out) and the writers of the NT conveyed that message as well.

Was the Gospel of the KIngdom preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations? Yes.

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. (Romans 1:8)

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. (Romans 10:17-18)

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)

...for the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth... if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; 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... (Colossians 1:5-6; 23-24)

There are more passages that could be provided, but I think these establish that it was fulfilled during the first century. Or at least the bit about the whole world. What about the end of the world? To be sure, the Greek allows for "end of the age." Either way, this is in reference to the end of the Old Covenant. The context, which we have agreed upon, is about the destruction of the Temple (and Jerusalem as a whole, but that isn't terribly important to this piece). The parallel to Matthew 24 in Luke 21 states this: "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (v. 24). Between Jesus' ministry and the destruction of the Temple is a period of grafting the Gentiles into the faith (Romans 11). The author of Hebrews states: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). This is the end of the age.

I didn't read this prior to now, but I have leaned pretty heavily on Paul so far lol. I assume you are asking about Paul writing on the destruction of the Temple. I could be wrong, but I do not think he explicitly writes on the topic. I will look into it though.​

 

It might come as some surprise or disappointment to you that it is not your job to enforce God's Covenants. The Covenant is between God and the person concerned. When a brother or sister in Christ is clearly failing to live according to The Spirit, as for instance 1 Cor. 5:1-8, the ultimate sanction is expulsion from the congregation and excommunication until repentance. It is the devil's job to do the punishing, not yours. 1 Cor. 5:5. In the case cited, it looks as if the culprit recanted, 2 Cor. 2:5-11. It is not your job to go trampling through the crop, stomping down God's Grain and rooting up the wheat, in your frantic desire to get rid of the devil sown darnel. That is the job of the angels, not yours. Matt.13:24-30. You are not God's policeman, Satan's been given that job. 1 Cor.5:5.

Sound teaching and good leadership is all that is required. Corruption cannot abide the light of Christ. We do not live by legalism in the Kingdom of God, we live by The Spirit. The law is only a tutor to those who are ignorant of Christ's command to "Love one another as I have loved you". It is a lamp to the feet of those still in darkness. Those who have come to the light so their deeds may be known, are slaves to it no longer.

Foolishness and wickedness were rife in Christ's society too. It was to the point where those proclaiming to be righteous were engaging in it regularly. Matt.23:1-39 It was to the point where children were being led into wickedness by everyone and everything around them. Matt.18:3-7. I am merely questioning your proposed methods of eliminating these evils. You don't seem to me to be adopting methods approved of by your Master Jesus Christ. He has shown us the way, it is our responsibility to walk in it, not to employ the coercive and controlling methodology of the world's way but to live by the principles of His Kingdom to achieve His objectives as our King.

Quakers do not exclude atheists, (we all are until we discover God for ourselves), and what is wrong with deists pray tell me, Buddhists are fairly inoffensive creatures most of the time and don't really have much notion of God, but there again neither do you, God being a very mysterious entity altogether, even to those of us who have personally experienced an encounter with Him.

You seem astonishingly confident that you have an entirely correct conception of God yourself Tstor and an apparently omniscient insight into every Quaker's obedience to Christ. You are either exaggerating or deluded. I'll go for 'exaggerating' out of a desire not to incur your disapproval.

Since I am only one small part of the body of Christ, I do not have the temerity to pass judgment on the other parts of it or even take it upon myself to tell others which parts belong and which parts don't. That job is Christ's not mine. An actual member of the body of Christ is not inclined to pass judgment on any other part of the body of christ. This is on the advice of St Paul. 1 Cor.12:12-31.

I'm not separating the two. It is you who is implying that Christ demands praise, (in whatever musical form you seem to have defined), from Quakers. Whereas I am merely pointing out to you that obedience to His commands of His disciples are what Christ requires above all else. He has not stated anywhere in scripture that He wants disciples to sing songs about Him or worship Him. He just doesn't mind if they do.

You seem almost to be saying that you would prefer the enlightenment had never happened. Would you have preferred that the human race had remained in superstitious ignorance in order to avoid any of the negative aspects you mention which accompanied its enlighenment? Does God prefer the human race to remain in superstitious ignorance do you suppose? Or might God be willing to risk these other bad things happening and trust the human race to avoid them, while gaining the benefits of increased knowledge and the banishing of superstitious ignorance?

I bow to your omniscience, superior insight and obvious wisdom regarding American Quaker Spiritual Alignment with the mind of The Almighty. Presumably you know all there is to know about His relationship with them and their non relationship with Him. You must be privy to more intimate data on them than even Facebook. I didn't know that one of the gifts of The Spirit was discernment of integrity or knowledge of someone else's salvation status.

Isa.43:11, Isa.45:21, Hos.13:4, Luke 2:11, Acts 5:31, Acts 13:23, Phil.3:20, 1 Tim.1:1, 1 Tim.4:10, 2 Tim.1:10, Tit.1:3, Tit.1:4, Tit.2:10, Tit.2:13, Tit.3:4, . . . .shall I go on? Or is that not straight enough for you?

The teachings of Jesus Christ are paramount. Jesus Christ, as I have established scripturally, is our Lord our Savour and our God. His teachings come before any formulas concocted by clever clerics, inspired church councils or enthusiastic preachers of doctrine. All these are secondary to the requirements he demands from his disciples regarding their personal conduct toward Him and their neighbour on earth. No theory of humankind regarding the nature of the Godhead takes precedence over obedience to the Command of Christ to "Love one another as I have loved you", and Christ was speaking to his disciples as human beings, not as just an elite membership of a select group. We are told “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Truth is truth and it is more widely distributed throughout the world than you suggest. Anyone who has respect for the Truth has respect for Christ. Because : John 14:6. Anyone therefore who lives by following and respecting the truth, comes to the Father.

Faith is trusting in Christ for your salvation. It is a gift from God. Rom.3:1-4, Eph.2:8.

You've said quite a lot about Quakers which was very un-neighbourly.

What exactly are you calling 'thoroughly Biblical teaching' here? There is much teaching which goes on purportedly claiming to be 'biblical' but is probably nothing of the sort. Where does the fact that Noah cursed Canaan lead you in making conclusions of some sort, and can those conclusions be truly considered to be 'Biblical' as if spelled out specifically, or just theories concocted from the Biblical material to suit some sectarian's particular eisegetical proclivities.

I never claimed that nakedness was not indecent, I didn't do that. I claimed that GOD was not offended by human nakedness. If God were offended by human nakedness, then God would have been offended by Christ on the cross. Any offence that God had over the crucifixion would have been only at the fact that the human race had murdered His Son, (in fact Himself), and hung him naked upon a cross. There is nothing shameful about human nakedness TO GOD. Only to other humans. I am getting tired of trying to explain this to you. Do you think you could make the effort to try and understand?

Tiffy wrote: I didn't say I have no problem with nakedness. I said GOD has no problem with it. Jews in Nazi Concentration camps were often forced to go naked in the freezing cold. God had no problem with their nakedness, he has a serious problem with the bastards who forced it on them though.

Tstor Replied: You have a strange infatuation with Nazis... Regardless, you still haven't shown that God doesn't have a problem with nakedness. Being indecent around others isn't glorifying God.[/quote]

I'm not infatuated with 'em, I despise them and their obnoxious Nazi philosophy. I hate them the way God hates divorce, robbery and hypocritical feast days. Mal.2:16, Isa.61:8, Amos 5:21.

Then you would seem to contradict our Lord himself when St John reports him as saying plainly:
"And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven."
Nothing here about Christ demanding repentance before forgiveness will be forthcoming, unless the blasphemy is against The Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ forgives ignorant blasphemers unless they blaspheme the Holy Ghost.

Nevertheless, it is Christ's prerogative to forgive blasphemers not your prerogative to deny them forgiveness.

The Annanias Saphira incident is an example of the fact that God is perfectly able to deal with disciplinary issues in the church Himself. He needs no help from you or me. If God has not struck down the guilty it is cetainly not our job to take matters out of God's hands and think to do it on God's behalf. You seem far too keen to do the devils work for him for my liking.

 

You're confusing categories. I am not suggesting that it is the business of man to enforce God's Covenants. A covenanted community is a community of private landowners who've decided to form a covenant together. Sometimes these covenanted communities are religious in nature, e.g., the Amish. However, you already made my point when you stated "the ultimate sanction is expulsion from the congregation and excommunication until repentance." I agree with that. Of course, a privately covenanted community can do much more if they are sovereign.

I agree with all of that. However, it really doesn't dispute what I said:

Enforcement is extending the principles of Scriptures outside of the walls of the church. It isn't legalism to those who have the Spirit, for they delight in the Law (Psalm 1). It is a form of legalism for those who do not have the Spirit. However, we should seek to have them abiding in as much righteousness as is possible if they are going to remain in our communities.​

Your comments about the believer are absolutely true. The issue is that not everyone is a believer. Not everyone "lives by the Spirit." As such, a privately covenanted Christian community should absolutely have the right to rid itself of immorality and wickedness (or at least actively pursue such ends).

Methods not approved by Jesus Christ? The Old Testament literally describes God-sanctioned theocracy. The innovation of separation of Church and state is recent. Is Constantine the Great ringing any bells? How about the Byzantine Empire? The Holy Roman Empire? Geneva? Heck, even England! The Supreme Governor of your church if Elizabeth II. There hasn't ever been an issue with organizing society around God's Law and enforcing the Spirit of the Law within society. We should desire to see the world conform to Christ. That doesn't mean we need to do so through violence. However, we do not have to embrace pluralistic societies either.

Yes, we are all atheists until we discover God. That doesn't mean we openly embrace and accept atheism as Quakers do. What's wrong with deists? They do not know God. If they knew God, they would bow their knee to Christ. Buddhists are inoffensive? They are offensive to God. They love darkness (John 3:18-19).

The mysteriousness of God doesn't preclude a relationship with him (Romans 1:20).

Yes, I am confident in my conception of God. I do not have any doubt about who God is. Do you? I have no issue speaking about Quakers because they have published exactly what they believe. Could there be a pseudo-Quaker among their ranks? Possibly. Though that person would seek to be around God's people and eventually find themselves in the Church. Do you have any issue saying that Muslims are not obedient to Christ? What about Hindus? How about Sikhs? We know what they profess to believe. It isn't a secret.

As a part of the Body of Christ, you should absolutely be able to determine what is and what is not a part of that Body. You should know that someone who doesn't believe in God is not a member of the Body. You should know that someone who rejects Christ is not a member of the Body. This has nothing to do with judgment. God gave us the ability to judge good from evil, righteous from unrighteous, moral from immoral, etc. What does John say?

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.​

How did John know? How was he able to pass judgment? Could only the Apostles discern such things?

Christ doesn't need to demand praise. Praise is a natural expression of the genuine believer (see the Psalms). Christ also didn't demand us to pray. However, I sincerely doubt you would diminish the necessity of prayer life. If someone claims to be a Christian but lives like the devil and never praises God, would you believe them? Hopefully not.

Yes, I am saying I would prefer that the Enlightenment had never happened (hindsight 20/20). I would absolutely rather remain in ignorance of scientific knowledge if the overwhelmingly negative consequences are inevitable. I don't think they are. I believe we can, for example, acknowledge that the internet has done a lot of good. That doesn't mean we have to embrace the bad (e.g., pornography) with the good.

I think it is quite obvious that God's concern isn't with our understanding of science. He didn't give lectures to the ancient world about human anatomy, cosmology, or anything else. Rather, he revealed Himself that He may be glorified. I am glad you have trust in the human race, but I sure don't. Never trust yourself until you're in the grave.

It is remarkably easy to have discernment when they tell you what they believe. Unless they're all lying, I think we have it on good authority that they are outside of the Body.

And what did Jesus Christ teach? "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). If someone doesn't even know that Jesus is Lord and God, how can they possibly follow His teachings? People have tried. Unitarian Universalists, for example, came out of (as the name suggests) the unitarian movement. Yet today they are just as wicked as the Quakers:

Our beliefs are diverse and inclusive. We have no shared creed. Our shared covenant (our seven Principles) supports “the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” Though Unitarianism and Universalism were both liberal Christian traditions, this responsible search has led us to embrace diverse teachings from Eastern and Western religions and philosophies.​

I've never seen such an abuse of the term "responsible." But anyway, is this what Jesus taught? Absolutely not. As a Christian, you don't need to deny what is plainly in front of you. What does Paul say to the Ephesians?

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)​

He doesn't say they would be unable to discern true from false. He didn't say "don't pass judgment on the wolves, let them into your congregation." It isn't unloving or unchristian to callout wickedness and falsehood when it presents itself.

Absolutely false. There are plenty of brilliant scientists out there who ruthlessly pursue truth in their fields of study. Does that mean they respect Christ? No. I've never seen such an irresponsible handling of John 14:6. You seriously think Jesus is saying "as long as you pursue some sort of truth, you can come to the Father?" That isn't what he said. He said no one comes to the Father BUT BY ME. Read John 15:1-6:

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.​

Christ is the truth. Anyone who does not abide in Him will not bear fruit.

I agree 100%.

Is it unneighborly to state the truth? I have only stated what is plain about them.

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Genesis 9:25-27)​

Did this not happen?

You appear to agree with what I said before:

Was nakedness ever offensive to God? Yes (Genesis 9:20-27)! And it still is. That doesn't mean nakedness is offensive by nature. As you rightly pointed out, Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden. As well, we are born naked and it isn't offensive for an infant to be naked within certain contexts. Would it be indecent to have your child nude out in public? Yes. Would it be indecent for you to be nude out in public? Yes. Is it indecent for a mother or a father to show their nakedness to their children? Yes. I didn't need to tell you any of this. You're presumably a Christian and not a post-modernist. You know what is morally right and what is morally wrong.​

Context matters. It was shameful and indecent for the Lord to be crucified and left naked on the cross. Your explanations fall short, brother.

This is the @Tiffy I came for! I am with you 100%.

Back that train up a couple of verses:

Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. (Luke 12:8-10)​

Context matters. Deny the Son and you will be denied before the angels of God.

I do not deny anyone forgiveness (1 John 1:9).

You previously said: "the ultimate sanction is expulsion from the congregation and excommunication until repentance." So which is it? Do we leave all disciplinary issues up to God or do we have authority within the Church to discipline?

 

Ahh! I see it clearly now. I admit I was completely misunderstanding your use of the word covenant and covenanted.

I was referring only to the Covenant under which every New Testament believer comes when either entering the church as a repentant, believing adult with Christ as their Lord, Saviour and Covenant Head, or the child of a repentant, believing, regenerate adult. It is called the New Covenant but is in fact a continuation of The Covenant betwixt God and Abraham, with faith in Christ being it's primary condition and eternal life being the ultimate objective of all its participants, male and female, young and old. As an adult it is entered into in response to hearing and believing The Gospel and being baptised. As the child of a believer it is entered into by birth or parentage, baptism signifying the infant's Holiness to God and covenant rights granted by God, until such time as the child obediently takes upon themselves their covenant responsibilities toward their covenant head, and saviour, which is Jesus Christ.

Since it is a personal as well as a corporate agreement with both benefits and responsibilities, it is difficult for anyone but God himself to discern the quality of the relationship and since it is based on Faith and not Law it is difficult to 'police' by sinful humankind without straying into hypocrisy.

You seemed to be talking about merely a legal human agreement of 'land owners'. I don't quite understand what is supposed to be meant by that in a spiritual context concerning salvation within the church.

Leaders in the church, (indeed anyone in the church), have a responsibility first to cast planks out of their own eyes, so as to see clearly enough to take motes or specks out of others and also an obligation to their brothers and sisters in Christ to convert the sinner from the error of his or her way , (and they certainly still exist within the church), and thus save a soul from death, and so hide a multitude of sins. James 5:19-20. 1 Pet.4:8.

But it needs to be done sensitively and out of genuine love, not judgmentally out of insensitive, self righteous bigotry, in a desire to maintain a supposed perfection in the community rather than to save the individual.

I don't know, did it? What were the results?
.

 

I dislike having to go over old ground again but it seems necessary, so I'll have another try.

Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness.

Thus far there has been no mention of God's feelings concerning human nakedness, unless you have a very different translation of The Bible than I am using.

When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
“Cursed be Canaan;
a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”
He also said,
“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem;
and let Canaan be his servant.
May God enlarge Japheth,
and let him dwell in the tents of Shem,
and let Canaan be his servant.”

Unless I have completely missed something about God being upset or disgusted over Noah's drunken stupor and his naked snoozing, I have tried very hard to find a single word even hinting at the idea that GOD was upset over Noah's naked drunken siesta. Not a single mention. Not a single word. Not even a single syllable saying God was offended in any way whatever.

Where do you get the idea then that God considers human nakedness shameful from this passage of text? God considers human SIN shameful, yes. And inappropriate displays of human nakedness are sinful. But human nakedness, when forced upon human beings, such as Christ was on the cross and such that Nazi concentration camp victims were forced by their Nazi guards to endure, are not a cause of God's displeasure. God is not displeased at human nakedness, unless sin is involved. God is displeased at human SIN and nakedness is only sinful under some circumstances.

Getting drunk on your own wine, from your own vineyard, after your own labours and sleeping it off naked in your tent is probably not one of the one's involving sin, so why should God be upset about it.

The only ones put out over it were Noah, Shem and Japheth, for some unknown and irrational reason. Noah immediately seems to have offloaded his own slobbish, dipsomaniac guilt onto poor old Ham, who had the displeasure of seeing his old man pi**ed as a f*rt and boll**k-naked. If anything it was Ham who should have been offended, and maybe even was. I'd say the only one out of order was Noah for blaming his own antisocial behaviour on Ham and cursing his offspring, thus scapegoating his own drunken trespasses on his youngest.
.

 

Okay, I am getting back to you on this. I would point to 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3, which reads:

But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.​

There are plenty of parallels between the Olivet Discourse and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but that is the one that most relates to the destruction of the Temple and the city. I can drop some verse-by-verse parallels if that would be helpful. Alternatively, here is an article on the subject.

 

No worries! Language fails us sometimes.

This is all good stuff. I agree 100%.

Yes, so some clarity may be needed here. You're correct in that we cannot ourselves determine the quality of the relationship between an individual believer and God. The most we can do is examine their works and see if they are consistent with the professions they make. For example, a Christian shouldn't be an adulterer. That tells us there is something seriously wrong with their heart. However, this is the sort of thing the Church has had to deal with from day one.

How this applies to a legal agreement of landowners is actually a bit simpler. In both of our countries (the UK and the US) abortion is a legal medical practice. In a privately covenanted Christian community, it would likely be agreed upon that abortion should be illegal. Homosexual marriage is also legal in both of our countries. Again, it is something that would likely be agreed upon to be illegal. Another good example might be blasphemy laws. A covenanted Christian community may decide to outlaw things such as statues being erected and publicly displayed by Satanists, parades celebrating sin, etc.

Of course, yes.

I don't think preserving Christian principles within a community comes at the cost of losing people who would have otherwise been saved. I am not arguing against evangelism. I think a Christian community would be a light burning in the darkness. It would serve as the salt of the earth.

The conquest of the lands of the Canaanites.

It is revealed a bit further.

Noah didn't do anything wrong by sleeping naked. That wasn't the issue. The issue was Ham seeing his father's nakedness (and, arguably, going on to tell others about it). Notice what his brothers do: they approach their father backwards to cover him. They knew that it would be indecent to see their father naked. What is the result of this? Noah curses Canaan while he blesses Shem and Japheth.

Wait. "God considers human SIN shameful, yes. And inappropriate displays of human nakedness are sinful." That's literally all I have been saying this entire time. It is fair to say that God wasn't upset with Jesus or Nazi victims because they were forced to be naked. The nakedness was, however, shameful. The Romans knew that. The Nazis knew that. That's why they did it. I think we are in agreement. Context matters. Saying that God is displeased with nakedness in some contexts (i.e., when it is sinful) is no different than saying God is displeased with drinking alcohol in some contexts (i.e., when it is sinful). Perhaps a miscommunication.

He wasn't upset with Noah for being naked. He was upset with Ham for seeing it and telling others about it. Had Ham never walked in the tent it wouldn't have ever been an issue.

 

In general I would agree with your point. Within the Anglican tradition, there are two options: a state mandated church, or a non-state mandated church. Anglicans strongly exercised the first option, as is well known, but they were also where the latter option was crafted for the first time in history in 1689. Reasonable people can disagree, and both options are valid (although I do believe the lack of state establishment is better for the church).

It’s like with the founding fathers, although they rebelled from the king, John Adams believed that the British constitution with the monarchy was a better constitution than the one the Americans were crafting. There are viable options within the range of opinions.

Anyhow, nonetheless, on the point of theocracy I want to make a point that ancient Israel was not theocracy, if theocracy is defined as “the rule of the state by the clergy”. Israel was never that. Just think of Aaron and Moses – who was in a higher place of civil authority? If Aaron, that’s a theocracy, i.e. modern day Iran ruled by the imams. But Moses was the highest, therefore setting into motion the Western tradition.

 

Yes, I agree that there is a difference. The connotation of "theocracy" these days just is a legal relationship between church and state. For example, many would consider Puritan society to be theocratic (though, as you rightly pointed out, that isn't technically true). Plus it is more convenient to say "theocracy" than "[insert form of government] with legal ties to the church."

 

The word 'theocracy' is one of the favorite ways by the secular enemies of God to smear Western civilization generally. Even if you have a radical separation of church and state, but if there is a bible in the congressional library, or if a senator prays, they immediately cry 'theocracy!'

No, a bible in the library, a prayer by a senator, a prayer by the President, or even a national day of prayer is not a theocracy. An alignment of the state to a Christian code of moral law is not a theocracy. Even a legal prohibition of other religions, or an alignment of the state to a Christian code of civil law (theonomy), would still not be a theocracy.

Theocracy has never existed in the Western context, and when you see it applied in the secular culture, you should recognize those people as trying to smear you.

 

Where do you get the notion that God was upset with Ham. Nothing in the text says that. It effectively says that Noah was upset with Ham but does not give any good reason for Noah's displeasure, especially since it was Noah's fault that Ham had viewed him naked in his tent. Unless that is, that Ham didn't knock before entering, so had rudely invaded Noah's naked privacy. It might have been that Ham was getting all self righteously worked up over his old man's drunkeness and had overstepped the mark or respect for his father. So Noah rightfully put Ham in his place and took him down a peg or two. This should be a warning to tetotalers not to bang on about drunks. In any case even the fact that Noah cursed Canaan is not evidence that God was upset with Canaan, (who incidentally had done nothing and was not even involved in all this), or at Noah's nakedness either.

It is just evidence that either we don't have the whole story and Ham was guilty of some other more serious offence, or that Noah took matters into his own hands and God had no choice but to back him up because Noah was a Covenant Head with God given authority, (authority which he may in his embarrassed, bad tempered hangover, have abused and misused).

Cursing is a serious business and it shouldn't be done for trivial reasons. James 3:10. Rom.12:14. Noah may well be facing some awkward questions at the Great White Throne. Easy for me to say in hindsight after 2 millenium of Christian knowledge though. Noah might be the naughty boy in this story, not Ham and certainly not Canaan, (who wasn't even there), at all, perhaps not even born yet.
.

 

There were certainly other elements involved. Accidentally stumbling upon someone naked isn't a sin. The issue, as I read it, is that Ham stumbled upon his father's nakedness and then proceeded to tell his brothers. There might be more involved.

Regarding teetotalers, JESUS DRANK UNFIRMENTED GRAPE JUICE!

Well, I think we can rule out that second option. God isn't obligated to conform His will to that of Noah's. However, there is certainly more at play than the plain reading of the text suggests.

I think the resulting narrative regarding the Canaanites is an affirmation of the curse.

 

They wish! Jesus was a pretty good wine producer and grape juice is not wine until it is alcoholic. before that it's just grape juice.

But the gifts of God are irrevocable and God did not limit the Apostles on who or what they could curse. He just promised they could declare sins unforgiven on their own authority, effectively a curse not a blessing. God promised Abraham he would 'back him up'.

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Abram, like Noah was a Covenant Head.

Paul cursed someone. Acts 13:11.

Could be! Or since this narrative was almost certainly written long after the Exodus and subsequent settling in Canaan of the Israelite Tribes it could be a justification or explanation for the status quo that existed prior to and after the return from the Babylonian exile, when most of the OT Bible got committed to papyrus by those who edited and selected the various ancient Israelite tribal 'word of mouth', legends.

Seems a good excuse for enslaving certain classes of people, don't you think? God said we can! because Ham saw his dad starkers pissed.
.

 

Tstor regarding your destruction of the temple prophecy. I asked about Paul as he wrote in pre temple destruction times and the gospellers (I've invented a new word)'are generally considered to have written post Temple destruction times. Are you sure your Matthew 24 prophecies are about the temple of Jesus' day and not a temple to be rebuilt later? The later temple is the one mentioned in 2Thess 2:4 where a ratbag with various names sets himself up as God. I assume this ratbag wasn't around in the temple destroyed in 70AD or do you think he was? As Bibleref.com says of 2 Thess 2:4

This passage has begun to reassure Christians in Thessalonica that they have not been left behind, to face the judgment of the day of the Lord. Though Paul has already addressed this with these believers (1 Thessalonians 1:10; 4:13–17; 5:1–11), they seem plagued once again with doubts. Prior verses explained how several events needed to take place before this part of the end of days, including the appearance of a "man of lawlessness."

In this verse Paul tells his readers what the man of lawlessness does when he is revealed. He sets himself against God and the worship of God. He sits in the temple and declares that he is God. This description of the man of lawlessness seems to fit the false prophet, although many Bible teachers believe he is the head of the Revived Roman Empire, who is described as the beast that rises out of the sea (Revelation 13:1). However, the second beast of Revelation 13 performs "great signs" (Revelation 13:13) that deceive multitudes and leads them into idol worship (Revelation 13:14–17). Although many interpreters apply the title, "Antichrist," to the first beast of Revelation 13, the title may justifiably be ascribed as well to the false prophet, the second beast of Revelation 13. The first beast is a political leader, whereas the second beast is a deceptive religious leader; and references to "antichrist" in the New Testament appear in a religious, not political, context (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7).

 

Yes, I was under the impression that was your reason for asking about Paul specifically. And why would Jesus be speaking about a temple that would be rebuilt later? The Old Covenant forms of worship were done away with in favor of the New Covenant.

This isn't referring to a rebuilt temple. Remember, Paul is writing before the destruction of the Temple. It would be exceedingly strange if he were writing letters about a different physical temple than the one that was already in existence. Let's examine 2 Thessalonians a bit closer (all passages are from the ESV unless stated otherwise):

This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (2 Thessalonians 1:5-8)

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)​

These passages, which are speaking about the return of Christ, clearly place Paul's expectations within his lifetime (see emphasis). This is also consistent with the writings of Paul in 1 Thessalonians (1:6-10; 2:13-16; 4:17; 5:4; 5:8-9). Keep this in mind because it must impact how we interpret the words that follow.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (1 Thessalonians 2:3-4; AKJV)​

The "falling away" is in reference to Jews and apostate Christians during Paul's lifetime. We know the Jews were rejecting their Messiah. Why were Christians apostatizing? This was caused by persecution (Hebrews 3:12; 12:25). The "man of sin" and the "son of perdition," which are the same person, are in reference to Nero (54 AD to 68 AD). This isn't out of left field. A fair number of Church Fathers held this view or at least recognized that it was held among their contemporaries. St. Chrysostom appears to have held this view himself while St. Augustine merely recognizes it as being held by others. Did Nero exalt himself above God (and all other gods)? To quote a couple of sources:

The unpopularity of Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian prevented their deification by the senate, though they had been worshiped in their lifetime, especially in the eastern provinces. (The Worship of the Roman Emperors)

I find in the registers of the Senate that Cerialis Anicius, consul-elect, proposed a motion that a temple should as soon as possible be built at the public expense to the Divine Nero. He implied indeed by this proposal that the prince had transcended all mortal grandeur and deserved the adoration of mankind. Some however interpreted it as an omen of his death, seeing that divine honours are not paid to an emperor till he has ceased to live among men. (Tacitus, Annals)​

What about sitting in the temple of God? Here, I will turn to an exposition written by Kurt Simmons on this passage:

The Jerusalem temple was merely adapted from the pattern showed to Moses on the mount; it was a figure and image of heavenly things (Ex. 25:40; Heb. 8:5). The true temple of God is in heaven, where Jesus intervenes for the saints as our High Priest, interposing his blood (Heb. 8:2). Hence, Paul does not refer to the church or Jerusalem temple when he mentions the man of sin taking his seat in the temple of God, but to a man lifted up, aspiring to the very throne of God in his heart. Similar language occurs regarding the prince of Tyrus: “Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou are a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God” (Eze. 28:2). Another example (one of many) that should be consulted is Isaiah’s description of the king of Babylon: “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above of heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isa. 14:13, 14). By consulting these examples it is easily seen that the man of sin contemplated by St. Paul is a world-ruler who is so puffed up with power and pride as to suppose himself a god.​

To be sure, there are other interpretations out there. I am not of the mind that Paul is referring to the physical Temple in Jerusalem because he uses the expression "temple of God." This, of course, is not the physical Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16). Whatever interpretation one lands on, it must conform to the clearly imminent language.

Yes. Though it is critical to note the immanency of these things. You reference 1 Thessalonians 1:10, which reads:

And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:6-10)​

Paul is speaking directly to his contemporaries. They are waiting. Jesus will deliver them from the wrath to come.

Yes. There are all sorts of ways to interpret Revelation if one holds that it is speaking about the future. The issue is that it isn't:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. (Revelation 1:1-3)

Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. (Revelation 1:7)

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Revelation 2:10)

But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. Only hold fast what you have until I come. (Revelation 2:24-25)

Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. (Revelation 3:10-11)

And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven 6 and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay, but that in the days of the trumpet call to be sounded by the seventh angel, the mystery of God would be fulfilled, just as he announced to his servants the prophets. (Revelation 10:5-7)

And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”

“And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”

And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.”

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.

He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:6-7, 10, 12, 20)​

And remember, John is writing to the seven churches that are in Asia. These were real churches with real people. It would have been downright cruel for none of this to have applied to them. Just as it would have been downright cruel for Paul's words to not have applied to who he was writing to. Revelation is speaking of the same events Jesus did in the Olivet Discourse. And what did Jesus say there? "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (v. 34).