AGAPE (English "love"?)
ALLEGORY (Jn.15:1, 2)
AMILLENNIAL (see also "SYNCHRONOUS")
APOSTASY (see also "ANTICHRIST")
ASPECT OF THE SPEAKER/WRITER (time element foremost) (Implicature)
BEAST - ABYSS (Rev.11:7-13)
BIBLICAL INSPIRATION (IITim.3:16)
CHURCH (Visible, Outwardly and the Invisible, Inwardly forensically secretly called from heaven, the "Una-sancta" - see also "Saints," "Sanctified, having been") (see also "Kingdom")
CONFUSION OF TONGUES (Gen.10:25; 11:1-9)
DELUSIONS (as redefined) (Error's working) (seen also "Lie")
DISCIPLES (see "CHURCH")
ELECTION, DOCTRINE OF (See "CHURCH," Matt.22:1-14)
EXEGESIS (see "INTERPRETATION, BIBLICAL")
FORTY TWO MONTHS (Rev.11:2)
IMAGE TO THE BEAST
INTERPRETATION, BIBLICAL (see also "TRANSLATION, BIBLICAL)
KINGDOM OF GOD (see also "CHURCH")
KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS (see also "KINGDOM OF GOD")
LANGUAGE (Gen.10:25; 11:1-9; Exod.17:14; Revelation)
LIE (as redefined) (IIThess.2:9; Rev.8:7, etc.) (see also "DELUSIONS")
LIVING ONES (Four)
METAPHOR (See "ALLEGORY")
NEW TESTAMENT ERA
NUMBER 666 (The beast)
SAINTS ("SANCTIFIED, HAVING BEEN")
SANCTUARY Verses TEMPLE
SEVEN LETTERS (Churches)
THOUSAND AND ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY DAYS (Rev.11:3)
THOUSAND YEARS (Rev.20:1-6))
TRANSLATION, BIBLICAL ("New Tongues," Mk.16:17) (see also "INTERPRETATION, BIBLICAL")
TRIBULATION, THE GREAT ONE (Rev.7:14)
TRUMPETS (Rev.8 & 9)
WARNINGS, LOSS OF SALVATION
WITNESSES, TWO (Rev.11:3)
Agape has always been the object 'understood' and not the object 'loved' in the English sense. Agape denotes the ardent use of one's reasoning and knowledge to intelligently comprehensively understand for a higher intelligent purpose with action. <Copyright: Jack W. Atkins "Redefining our Nation through Restructuring"> Agape at ICor.13:4-7 is personified so that we can compare ourselves to the enclosed weighty concepts of the passage. Agape, the object understood, harmonizes with Matt.5:44 where if we tried to embrace our enemies, we could end with a black eye; whereas if we could understand all their anger and hate with a spiritual higher purpose to free them of this and rescue them from their sins thus allow the "inspired Word" (as redefined") save their eternal souls from the lake of fire. Jn.3:16, God's agape with purpose sums up the entire gospel (and law). God could not embrace a world full of sin, but he did understand with a corresponding higher divine spiritual purpose to cleanse those that are his bringing them into his kingdom. Mk.12:29, 31, note the introduction at v.29 where Mark appropriates Deut.6:4. The Name of the Lord is the sum and substance of the gospel where Moses puts the gospel first supplying the supreme drive for keeping the greatest commandment. Note also vs.30, 31 (Deut.6:5) agape toward God and our neighbor.
"Philio" (love of affection or liking) requires no intelligence with a higher purpose involved, Jn.12:15-17. Note again the higher form of agape as formerly explained is the true understanding the Lord and of the sincere purpose of living up to that understanding - to know the Triune God, continually turning to him, Matt.22:37, etc.
Dictionary's (Including Oxford's who I did try to correct) false definition of "agape"; God's love for man; divine love; spontaneous, altruistic love and so on. They wrongfully go from English back to the ancient languages.
Greek Lexicon's false definition of "agape": love, generosity, kindly concern, devotedness and so on. Again going backwards from the English back to the ancient languages.
In the original Biblical (as redefined) sense "Allegory" presents a blending of realities and figures (note the Apocalyptic parables do not have the "realities" part) with a hidden spiritual comparison. A metaphor contains an implied comparison of a term of one thing or person (literal) applied to another thing or person (figure - metaphor) and in this sense is an extended Metaphor.
In the modern senses (Bibles and Lexicons), "Allegory" takes the fact of the Word (as redefined) and turns it into a litany of other facts, for example, Gal.4:24 - the truer rendition should be "....as conveying another meaning...." - The recipients of that time would have instantly understood that when Paul used the verb allogoroumena he had something that is far different from the method of interpretation devised by those ancient Jews (the verb contains allo, "something other"). <Simon Kistemaker's New Testament Commentary on Galatians translated correctly yet wrongfully contextually supported Bible renditions using "Allegory.">
Keep also in mind the interpretation is within and doesn't come from the outside. Another point is they do not contain a "cause" with an "effect" as with parables. For example in Jn.15:1, 2, the reality is "I myself" and blended with the figure "the genuine vine." Next the reality "my Father" and blended with the figure "the vine-dresser." The interpretation is Jesus alone embodies the complete will and purposes of God. Now we need to find the hidden interpretation of the spiritual point of comparison is within the next verse that explains in detail. If we bring in the sense of a metaphor then it no longer will be a pointed allegorical idea but end in a broad comparison such as <William Hendricksen's New Testament Commentary John p.294 ".....there is one main lesson:" ".....Abide in me in order that you may bear fruit abundantly."> which waters down the main point - he got the fruit part correct. <R.C.H. Lenski nailed it in his Commentary on the New Testament on John, pg.1027 "The entire development of the allegory is positive and deals only with the relation of the disciples to Jesus, their remaining in him in order to produce as much fruit as possible, or their separation from him in judgment."> The blending centers on the one word "fruit" which again is the point of comparison.
The reason for presenting allegory with Revelation, that has no allegory, is this concept is so perverted and misunderstood. <A.T. Robertson "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research" p.1207 states: "the allegory is a parable of a special sort that calls for no explanation, a speaking parable (cf., The Good Shepherd in Jn.10 and the Prodigal Son in Lk.15).> which I disagree with. Jn.10 is sort of an extended mashal called a paroimia (para + oimos) which the English has no shade that would clearly work (going forward from the Greek to the English) hence all one can say it's a style of teaching that is different from that of the usual way of teaching; however I can safely state that in a Paroimia (using in the English sense) an allegorical correspondence appears between the realities presented and the illustrative features used noting I did not state figures.
The Antichrist, "the man of the lawlessness," will be at the head of the Apostasy. My rendition of IIThess.2:4, "He seats himself in the Sanctuary of God showing himself off that he is God." The former goes together with Rev.13:1-18 and extends the Apostasy to all the earth dwellers beyond the physical churches except those that are in the kingdom outwardly per Matt.22:1-14. this has to be a man from the Koine aspect, context, and cannot be an "antichristian government." Yes, those in the physical Church, in the light of Matt.20:1-16; 22:1-14, will forsake the genuine faith.
Satan was bound at the cross (Rev.12:7; 20:2) and must work through the Antichrist and his agencies being the Antichristian creative power (Rev.13:1-19) and the Antichristian propaganda (Rev.13:11-18) (as redefined, see "Propaganda"). The Antichrist is also God's agent along with God's other agent, the "inspired Word" (as redefined).
The Antichrist is used explicitly in IJn., implicitly in IIThess.2, and Rev.13:1-18 which is again going from the ancient Greek forward to the English. In IIThess.2, a human is at the head of the Apostasy as I stated earlier. [The sequence of popes fits IIThess. where the Pope is the direct head of the apostasy and the Jesuit General (the Black Pope), who directly submits himself to the authority and service of the Pope, is directly at the head of the modern Illuminati and the rest of the earth dwellers adding Rev.13:1-18 to IIThess.2] The Pope's agent is the Superior General (Black Pope) of the Jesuits (the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Adolfo Nicolas Pachon and his 12 at Jesu near the Vatican) and extremely out of sight.
The Apostasy in the Epistles deals with those that had a true faith/repentance (the Una-Sancta). Apostasy in Revelation includes both the Una-Sancta, those with a true saving faith effected through a true repentance, and unbelievers.
IIThess.2:3 <Commentary on the New Testament Thessalonians by R.C.H. Lenski p.407 "The first thing on the program is the arrival of the apostasy and the revelation of the man of the lawlessness."> which I agree with. This must occur in the Church using Matt.22:1-14 with the correct interpretation.
The reason we cannot view the Seals and the Trumpets in synchronous with the Bowls is due to Satan being loosed at Rev.16:12 hence the Bowls cannot be parallel to the Trumpets and the Seals. At Rev.15:8 the Sanctuary is also closed simultaneously with Rev.16:12 and then no one can enter the kingdom, even outwardly. At Rev.16:16, the frog like unclean spirits successfully brought the kings together. The battle is not described here but is at Rev.19:11-21. This is a spiritual battle and not a physical war. It's the first glimpse of the final battle with Christ's Parousia (last day). The second glimpse is at Rev.17:14-18. The third glimpse is at Rev.19:11-21, that is three glimpses of one battle.
The Premillennialist find Rev.16:16 with also Christ's return to establish his kingdom. (See "Thousand Years")
Keep in mind the Aspect governs the Context governs the Syntax governs the Grammar.
Example I: Historical Christ verses the glorified Christ, Rom.6:11, better rendition "in connection with Christ Jesus." The distinction is that Paul wrote after Christ was glorified and John, at Jn.15:4, wrote before hence "I in you in me" cannot be used here with analogy of Scriptures (context) due to the "Aspect of the Speaker/writer."
Example II: "called in the gospels verses the "called" in the Epistles (Letters). In the Epistles (Letters) the "Called" always denotes the effective call where one is in the Kingdom of God inwardly, that is, the Una-sancta, Saints, or having be Sanctified. In the Gospels and Acts (except John's) the "Called."
Example III: The difference between the Jews and Gentiles ceased to exist after 70 A.D. as far as the Kingdom of God goes. John wrote his Epistles, Gospel of John, and Revelation after 80 A.D., again, writing from the aspect of no difference between the Jews and Gentiles coupled with he recipients of John were expected to have or going to have an understanding of the other Gospels and Acts, and in the Kingdom of God outwardly. Second, prior to 70 A.D., Matthew wrote for the Jews yet without neglecting the Gentiles. Third, prior to 70 A.D., Mark wrote for the Gentiles without neglecting the Jews.
Example IV: Jesus and the Great Commission in Mathew. Jesus in Matt.28:19 sees after Pentecost, when before Pentecost adults must be taught prior to water baptism as the Holy Spirit worked from the outside at that time, that is, before Pentecost and after Pentecost, time wise, dealing with the person of the Holy Spirit.
The main issues dealing with Baptism, followed by equal issues of importance, are "water baptismal rebirth" (rebirth at water baptism) or "spiritual baptismal rebirth" (rebirth at the instant of faith) and "affusion" verses "immersion," the former issue first.
A remnant minority of the older reformed Germans, myself included, views regeneration, rebirth, quickening and born anew together where the spiritual effect coincides with water baptism (spiritual vivification), Matt.28:19. Note the translation "teach" (A.V.) is unfortunate as it conveys the wrong idea. "Baptizing is the activity that results in disciples hence "by baptizing and teaching them" for adults and "by baptizing" for infants. These words of Jesus were spoken about 28 A.D. where Matthew wrote these words over 30 years later. An important point is there ere water baptismal rebirths from the time of John the Baptist to the time Paul wrote the 12 Epistles. In other words, the recipients of Paul's Epistles were fully aware and understood the concept of water baptismal rebirth from the oral inspired sayings passed along from Matthew, Mark, Luke and the first part of Acts prior to Matthew writing his gospel or Paul writing his 12 Epistles (aspect of the writers). This is explained further latter.
There is a different issue in John's gospel keeping in mind that Jesus spoke about 28 A.D. and John wrote his words over 50 years later. John wrote his gospel for water baptized believers who believed and understood the first three gospels thus received this new testimony as a confirmation of what they already held in their hearts. John wrote in such a manner that sections of it cannot be truly understood by the readers unless the readers, too, understood the other three gospels in truth.
John omits a number of features, prominent among them is the institution of water baptism, noting I stated "institution," as John adds clear wording regarding water baptismal rebirth at Jn.3:3, 5 and assumes the recipients were already baptized. Also omitted was the institution of the "Lord's supper" yet John adds clear wording at Jn.6:53, etc. regarding the Lord's Supper - note I stated adds. All this had already been given by oral inspired utterances passed along from 28 A.D. through 80 A.D. - John wrote after 80 A.D. John's account about Nicodemus is not a substitute for the institution of water baptism and the same with the Lord's Supper.
Different baptisms: John the Baptist (Matt.3:11), "baptized you in water for repentance; God's Son baptized in connection with the Holy Spirit and fire," that is, two different baptisms. John's words contained the Holy Spirit and he baptized "in the Spirit" hence his baptism contained also the Holy Spirit, that is, in a limited preparatory work of the Holy Spirit where the water is joined to the Spirit being the regenerating agent who uses the water as the medium - referring to the Baptist's Sacrament. Mr. Kistemaker views water baptism as a sign as in a pictorial representation and as a seal and not sufficient for salvation for entering the kingdom, S.K. John, p.134.
Paul in Rom.6:3, 4 tells the Romans, not their Church began at about 40 A.D., "added facts" that is connected to water baptismal rebirth as they were already baptized an fully understood. Paul wrote in 58 A.D. to the Romans.
Paul in Eph.5:26 tells the Ephesians in 62 A.D. what takes place at baptism like Paul's other Epistle to the Romans "adding facts" to their past water baptismal rebirth.
Paul in Titus 3:5 tells Titus to tell his recipients in 63 A.D. the one "bath of regeneration" being water baptismal rebirth, that is, where the "bath" and "renewing" is inseparably connected - this passage also conveys water baptism saves. Sadly A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures regards this only as a picture that men are to see after the new birth. Again Paul is adding new facts to the baptism they already had understood.
Water baptism "saves" noting IPet.3:20, 21; Titus3:5 "by means of water" v.21 "which as a typed" also saves and is pure gospel, not "works" or "law." It conveys the gift of the remission of sins right then and there (Acts2:38) which no symbolizing can do, making it a true sacrament (as redefined) let alone receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The latter issue "affusion" verses "immersion." The history of the Church has shown "affusion" (sprinkling) has been the mode of water baptism. Immersion was introduced by Menno Simons in 1536 (Germany) - then followers of Mr.Simons, the Anabaptist setting where Roger Williams in 16:39 brought immersion from London, England to the U.S. This is eternally serious as immersion keeps infants out the kingdom and perverts God's means of grace keeping eternal souls unknowingly from even receiving God's "call" of grace let alone having a chance of becoming the "elect." Baptism is in the same sphere as faith ("instant of faith" as a believer), that is, when water baptism is violated, let alone when the Scriptures it rests upon is perverted, one does not even have a chance of entering upon God's means of grace thinking that they have. When Baptism or interpretation of Scriptures are false then the "instant of faith" was false.
There are "aspects" that have to be understood dealing with water baptism. During the time that Jesus gave the Great Commission (Matt.28:18-20) - prior to Pentecost - adults had to be taught prior to water baptism as the Holy Spirit took control of their hearts from the outside where Jesus was projecting his utterances regarding the Great Commission to Pentecost and after, when adults no longer had to be taught as the Holy Spirit took control of the heart from within (Aspect of the speaker/writer). Matthew wrote long after Pentecost hence from Matthew's aspect (Aspect of the speaker/writer) not applicable at this point.
The terms "Biblical Inspiration" are misleading and misunderstood. No Bible can be inspired due to the inherent interpretive nature of any translation (Bibles = translations). The original Scriptures, defined as the original inspired perfect autographs, original inspired "Holy Writ" or Sacred Writ," called Scriptures," "the Word of God," and the Bible are redefined within this work. Bibles are authoritative, faithful, and trustworthy enough in the sense as aids only in an effort to indicate the original inspired sense of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In the broad sense God's utterance, his will, is the "Word of God" redefined as perfectly inspired (God-breathed or God-inspired, a passive verbal - voice - with God the Author) and in its perfectly inspired written form, the "Scriptures," collectively the Old and New Testaments. The inspired units of thoughts can come through the non-inspired Bibles providing one has the right heart condition from God's view. The term "Bible" was derived from the Greek term biblos in Matt.1:1 and denotes biblos inspiration also in Matt.1:1; however through a few grammatical twists and turns became, in English, "the Book," first used in the 13th century wrongfully conveying "inspired" until today. Again Bibles are to be viewed as aids only in receiving the one genuine interpretation from the Person of the Holy Spirit.
The recipients of Revelation and us expected to have unveiled the veiled physical Church parables in the Gospels (Matt.20:1-16; 22:1-14). In Revelation Chapters 2 and 3, all seven Churches represent the universal physical Church on earth in the same way the Gospel parables represent the universal physical Church. Rev.11:1 signifies the "Church" invisible, inwardly, the "Una-sancta"
The recipients of the Parables "The Laborers in the Vineyard," Matt.20:1-16, and "The Marriage of the King's Son," Matt.22:1-14, were unveiled to them because they grasped how Jesus undressed them - refer to "Parables" as to how they are undressed in this work.
"Laborers in the Vineyard" undressed: "kingdom"is God's kingdom of grace and the former parables picture the internal makeup of the universal physical Church. The "house-ruler" (A.V. "householder") pictures God's grace of course. <R.C.H. Lenski nailed it in his "Commentary of he New Testament" p.765 with "But right here at the start we must note that Jesus is speaking of our work ("laborers") in the Church and of our wages for that work ("hire")> Verse 2 needs unveiling: the contrasted earthly figures are obviously the different types of laborers. The "effect" centers on 'agreed with the laborers o n a wage like a contract' as this is one distinguished type of earthly figure having a hireling type of spirit. The recipients would have understood Matt.28:19 where one accepts the "call" by understanding and accepting a water baptismal rebirth effected through a true understood repentance placing one truly into God's kingdom hence "called" into the physical Church externally (outwardly) only. This what is meant by "he sent them into his vineyard" (God's visible Church). These will have time to become the "elect" (the invisible internal 'inwardly' - Una-Sancta - forensically secretly judged by God in heaven).
Further undressing of the Parable, Vs.4: "whatsoever is right" is another distinguished type of earthly figure having a non-hireling type of spirit with no contract. This is repeated in v.5 having the same "effect" as those of v.4 and also the type at v.6 with the same where the Parable core ends at v.7 and is completed at v.16. We end with one type of earthly figure contrasted to three others being the "effect" of the "call." Now we come to the highest point of the Parable starting with v.8. "the Lord of the vineyard" being the Lord Christ Jesus of the vineyard of course - payday.
V.16 "last be first, and the first last": The first type, "the first" received the "call" (received a credible water baptismal rebirth) and were in the physical Church externally (outwardly) receiving their wages, paid in full, while on earth still. They never moved to the invisible, internally (inwardly) hence never became the "elect" forensically called from heaven. The second class of the "called" were last yet became first being the "elect" also forensically called from heaven. They also received their pay while on earth and received payment beyond "in full" when transferred to heaven.
"The Marriage of the King's Son" (Matt.22:1-14) brings forth the doctrine of "election" complementing the former Parable. Here in the Gospels, the Gospel "called" and "election" from the 'aspect of the writer' is different than in the Epistles. Those "called" in the Epistles receive the call effectively hence are the "elected."
"Lie," cast down from heaven, in the passive sense, is intended to deceive as the English defines; however, due to its affect and effect, generates more lies in all departments of life in the active sense, and not intended to deceive, as redefined. In other words the "Lie" is cast down from heaven in the spiritual sphere dealing with perversions of the Word of God (as redefined) - passive sense - and generates lies in all departments of life - active sense.
Thessalonians presents a summary, IIThess.2:11, 12, "....sends them working of errors to believe the lie....v.12....may be judged....." where Rev.8:7 - 9:18 is an expansion of IIThess. to include all the earth dwellers. They did not receive the agape (redefined, not "love") of the "inspired Word's (redefined) inconvenient truth but preferred the convenient seductive lie in/out of the Churches (redefined). Look at the seductive lie composite at Rev.8:7. We need to view this as the recipients at that time would have going forward from the Greek to the English. God does not produce these errors but Satan and his agencies produces them and God sends these working of error's wherever he wills executing preliminary righteous judgments destroying souls. They put their trust unknowingly in what is not true as if it were true - world wide self-deception and pretentious worship, again all unknowingly. As in the time of Noah where the warnings to repent (Jonah type warning) appears insane to them except5 after it's too, too late.
First, there are three distinct beginnings: The "Thousand Years" began at the Cross, the Savior's Enthronement, Rev.12:5-9; 20:1-6, and ends at Rev.20:7. The New Testament Era began at Matt.26:28 and ends at the Parousia, Rev.20:9, 10. The Fo0rty Two Months began at 70 A.D. (Lk.21:24, "Gentile seasons") and ends at the Parousia, Rev.20:9, 10. The Forty Two Months = 1,260 days (Rev.11:3) = a period...half period (Rev.12:14) = "time, times, and a half time," Dan.7:25; 12:7 and also ends at the Parousia, Rev.20:9, 10.
Rev.11:2, "tread it down for 42 months" refers to the trampling down of Jerusalem that signifies those of the spirit of the Antichrist worshiping the image of the beast that has arrogated and usurped God's position in their hearts and has been happening in this Nation for hundreds of years unknowingly. This symbolical language has been misunderstood and sadly eternally perverted. Unless there is an understanding of Lk.21:24 regarding the seasons this passage will remain veiled. The meaning is the "inspired Word" (as redefined) will continue to bring in those that are his until the last one - the end as we know it. In other words, months, days, and seasons signify God working with his Church, the Una-Sancta in/out of the physical Churches expressing the same period of time. Commentators have had trouble regarding why John writes different designations for the same period of time. I conclude the reason is to intensify with rhetoric - bringing in his Una-Sancta is the purpose from the beginning.
<New Testament Commentary on Revelation by Simon J. Kistemaker "the profane are the people who refuse to repent of their evil deeds (9:20-21); they are not to be measured...." pgs.325, 326> which I disagree with.
The principle of "Biblical Interpretation" (as redefined) must be based upon God's principle laid out in IIPet.1:20, 21 and ICor.12:10 for starters going forward from the ancient languages forward to the English, and not backwards from the English back to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek by using the sense of English concepts such as "Translation" (as the English defines), "Interpretation" (as the English again defines), and "exegesis" to base "Biblical Interpretation" upon (as redefined). [The issue: "exegesis" 'to lead out' meaning a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, that is, primarily for exegesis of the Bible. If Bibles were understood as to be authoritative, faithful, and trustworthy enough in the sense as aids only in an effort to indicate the original inspired sense of the ancient languages and absolutely not inspired, then, and only then, could we use such words as "exegesis." In other words "exegesis" promotes going backwards from the English to the ancient languages ending in diverse interpretations where each appears as the one genuine true interpretation.]
"Interpretation" must be based upon the inspired Word of God (as redefined). In other words based upon the original inspired units of thoughts. The "inspired Word" (as formerly redefined) supplies its own one genuine inspired interpretation and in this way the Holy Spirit interprets where prophecy governs the inspired interpretation.
["Biblical Translation" (as redefined, "New Tongues," Mk.16:17; Acts 2 - foreign languages; ICor.12:10; Chapter 14) fulfilled at Pentecost in Jerusalem and shortly thereafter at Caesarea, Acts 10:44, etc. 15:8]
In other words the translator not only understood and translated the sense of the one thing intended per each thought so that all understood, but also interpreted the one thing intended per each thought by the Holy Spirit. The aspect governs the context governs, etc. Again, in other words "Translation" is the communication (translating and interpreting) of the meaning of a speech or writing into an equivalent target speech or writing where the target language must be viewed only as an aid in trying to reproduce the original, that is, somewhere in between, again loosely speaking, metaphrasing and paraphrasing. For example the aspect, Gen.11:1-9 (Confusion of Tongues) and Gen.10:25 ("earth was divided" - Peleg born 1757). Moses expounded, Hebrew parallelism, Gen.10:25 at Gen.11:1-11, that is, 10:25 earth divided in consequence of 11:8.
God's kingdom is identical to Christ's kingdom where Christ reigns in this kingdom until he delivers it up to God, I Cor.15:24. In other words all three persons rule now (the oneness of their being) where Christ rules now, the Father eventually. Already in this life those that are his true Church (as redefined) rule with him and are royal, I Pet.2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; and 20:6.
"The Kingdom of the heavens" is the same as the "kingdom of God." God makes his own Kingdom where his power and grace is found, that is, those few who carry the genuine Word. (note, the word "Kingdom" literally first used at Gen.10:10). This fist occurred at Gen.2:8 where man was created outside the Garden where God's grace was already operative - note the distinction between the Garden and all the land that lay outside the Garden. Both trees for a definite purpose. If the tree of life would have accomplished its purpose as in Gen.3:22, man would have lived in the Garden for eternity; however it did not work that way and he was expelled from God's Kingdom then entering the Kingdom through Gen.3:15 as God's Kingdom was withdrawn from the earth at the Fall. The Fall of separation was to be rejoined at the Lord Christ Jesus' resurrection and glorification. This marked a new era where heaven and earth joined, that is, the Kingdom of God's wall of separation has fallen; God is reconciled to men that enter upon his grace his way; and the sacrifice of the Son has been accepted by the Father.
The Kingdom is composed of the visible and invisible Church (Una-Sancta - see also "Saints," Sanctified, having been") in the light of Matt.20:1-16; 22:1-14 - see also "Church" and "Parable."
Gen.10:25, "earth was divided" and Gen.11:1-9, "Confusion of Tongues," occurred at about 1757 after Creation, about 2247 B.C. collaborated - Deluge occurred at about 1656 after creation, about 2348 B.C. also collaborated hence all dates predating the former to the 4th mil. except for the latter part of the 3rd mil., that is, about 2247 B.C., "Languages" actually began no earlier. Dates based on the Deluge at about 1656 B.C. from Creation and about 2348 B.C. (Exodus, about 1492 B.C., Exod.17:14, "the Book")
Some of the language of Revelation is not of John as the Lord intended it to be different so the recipients of Revelation would know immediately that his was the Lord Christ Jesus' words, for example, Rev.1:4; 4:8; 11:7; 16:5. Also the details of each vision are not that of John's inventions as they were above his head then as they are above ours today. In other words every hearer/reader is at once to see and to grasp that Revelation is not a composition by John.
"Lie," cast down from heaven, in the passive sense, is intended to deceive as the English defines; however, due to its affect and effect, generates more lies in all departments of life in the active sense, and not intended to deceive, as redefined. In other words the "Lie" is cast down from heaven in the spiritual sphere dealing with perversions of the Word of God (as redefined) - passive sense - and generates lies in all departments of life - active sense.
"....Satan working in connection with all power and signs and wonders of a lie...." IIThess.2:9 presence of the Antichrist, that is, "according to Satan's operation." This would be in the context of Jn.8:44 for starters which takes us back to Gen.3:1-6. The temptation involved directed itself against God's Word being here both law and gospel in an attempt to lead them away from the truth of God's Word, that is, Adam was not beguiled, the woman, ITim.2:14. Satan pawns off the lie with half truths. where men actually believe the lie as Biblical truth (as redefined) - see also Matt.4:1-11; 24:24 without neglecting the Papacy.
Rev.8:7, etc. signifies seductive "error's working" in the context of IIThess.2:11, 12 regarding "unrighteousness" directing itself against the Word still being spiritual "religious delusions" in this sense. These "error's working" directed against the spiritual Word which bring an affect and effect upon every part of human life begetting even worldly delusions, again in every part of human life - the Una-sancta is not included.
Rev.13:2, "power" (sing.) is Satanic power. Careful with translations in Revelation as too many translations render "power" when the truer rendering is "authority," for example, Rev.13:14 render "authority" and not "power."
Acts2:22; IICor.12:12; Heb.2:4 - "plural," genuine power and not creative. Satan works with all kinds of creative power where God also works with "Power" or "Power" depending upon the aspect of the writer. God's power is miraculous in the sense of necessity where all the seeable miracles had ceased in the first century. Acts6:8 "Power works" which is another term for miracles due to derived from the omnipotence of God.
Rom.1:16, omnipotent does not equal "Power." In the supreme sense of God's gospel "inspired Word" (as redefined) is God's "power." Here is where the context rules the interpretation as here is singular. it is God's power for salvation and used in the concrete sense being the power of God's grace, Eph.3:20. Paul obviously could not use Power in the plural sense as it would not convey what is intended - I call this the 'aspect of the writer' ruling the context.
New Testament parables presents a contrasting of earthly figures or action with a cause and effect (focus on the "effect") containing a hidden spiritual comparison. The difference between Allegory and the Parable: Both contains figure and reality, but the parable's spiritual reality is hidden just under the comparison; whereas in an Allegory the reality is stated in the statement. A Parable ends in one pointed solution where Allegory can result in multiple solutions where only one aspectual/contextual solution is genuine.
Why did Jesus speak in parables? The answer is in Matt.13:11: Those inheriting eternal life it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom. The Parable must be functionally understood because the greater the apostasy the greater the veiling of the Parables The Parables, interpreted in truth, in Matt.20:1-16; 22:1-14 are imperative to grasp in order to understand the Church (both visible, 'external' and invisible, 'internal') in its relation to the Kingdom of God. Some Parables are not veiled on purpose, for example, "Vineyard and the vine-growers" (Lk.20:9-18). Revelation has what I call 'Apocalyptic type Parables' dealing with "cause and effect" also and "a judgment with a promise" where the point of emphasis is in the veiled spiritual comparison contained in the physically manifested "effect." The Parables, when appropriate, needs to be understood together from gospel to gospel, for example, Matt.13:3-9, where this man understands (v.23) the "inspired Word" (as redefined); whereas in Mk.4:30-32, this man accepts it; whereas in Lk.13:18, 19, this man holds it firmly. The Parable and its interpretation (Matt.13:18-23) describes the final fate of the d"inspired Word (as redefined) in the hearts of men. The Parables, when appropriate, also needs to be understood when in a series, for example the seven in Matt.13:3-48 regarding the Kingdom of God without negating Matt.20:1 - 22:14 regarding also the Kingdom of God, that is, the first four Parables show how the Kingdom is bestowed (sowing seed) and how it operates (growing and permeating). The last three shows how it is acquired, that is, beginning with how one becomes an owner of the Kingdom. The Kingdom must be acquired through hidden treasure, that is, hidden and found by us (Matt.11:25; 13:44; Col.4:3, 4; Lk.19:42). Another four parables in a series needs to viewed in connection with the others, that is, Lk.15:3-7 (Lost Sheep); 8-10 (Lost Coin, that lost sinners are brought into the kingdom along with the former parable); 11-24 (Crown of parables, "Prodigal Son," how sinners are dealt with, with the following parable, and links with the former parable); 25-32 (Lost Son & Self-righteousness, parables deal with "Repentance."
Old Testament Parables that qualify as Parables, for example, Ezek.17:2-10 (contains also a riddle because of the deeper meaning lying beneath the parabolic shell); 24:3-5; Isa.5:1-7; 28:23-29; IISam.12:1-14, corresponds to the New Testament Parables with also a contrasting of earthly figures except the context has to unveil the contrasted earthly figure or figures and deals more with a judgment with a promise, or a promise with a judgment, than the New Testament cause and effect. The text of the Parable is followed by its interpretation.
Is a "Parable" an extended "Metaphor"? A Metaphor contains an implied comparison of a word of one thing or person (literal) applied to another thing or person (figure - metaphor) and in this sense a Parable is an extended Metaphor
Three senses: In the full sense of the term, denotes the change from realized sin in true contrition, that is, away from sin to a true faith. In other words, turn to God for pardon and justification in faith - also Mk.1:15; Lk.22:62; 24:46, 47; Acts 20:21 - total conversion, contrition plus faith. A genuine repentance wrought by the Lord's own law and gospel (Mk.12:29, 30; Rom.3:20) in which his power of grace are active.
Used in a modified sense, Matt.11:21, "they have repented," in the sense of an outward ceasing from gross sins and crimes, that is, not really a spiritual conversion.
In the narrow sense, contrition alone, Lk.13:5; 15:7. Note the four parables, Luke chapter 16, deals with sinners and repentance.
Rom.3:20, "Sin's realization," being the law in the widest sense, anarthrous, Rom.2:17, again law in general being the Old and New Testaments - here law is not in opposition to the gospel, but connects us with his will. In other words, the law deals with sin showing its guilt and penalty where the gospel shows its removal.
In order to receive the one true interpretation with the New Testament passages that have naos (Sanctuary and not Temple) change your translated "Temple" to "Sanctuary" - just look for "Temple" and almost all are suppose to be rendered "Sanctuary" especially at Rev.11:1. Only those passages that render ieron are suppose to be rendered "Temple."
The true one interpretation of the three terms, "Sanctuary of God," "Altar" (gold), and "those worshiping in connection with" signify those 'internally,' forensically secretly judged from heaven, in the Chruch (Una-Sancta) excluding all those 'externally' also in the physical Church.
The Greek term semaino (signify Rev.1:1) presents a blending together of earthly figures with the "cause" and "effect" including what is said about the figures with a hidden pointed spiritual comparative composite. Following the "cause" with the unveiled spiritual composite is the "effect." This sounds like an "Allegory" except for several problems. First, there are no realities to be blended with; second, blended with "what is said about the figures" where "Allegory" does not blend with "what is said about the figures. Third, "Allegory" does not contain a "cause" and "effect." An "Allegory" does have a hidden spiritual pointed comparison like "Signified" does.
I found that the golden key that unlocks all of Revelation is the "inspired Word" as redefined <Copyright "Redefining our Nation through Restructuring" by Jack Atkins> being the original inspired autographs and not the Bible translations. The "inspired Word" (as redefined) must come first! Plug in the "inspired Word" (as redefined) in most of the veiled passages and partially unveiled from the start. The "inspired Word" is God's agency and means of grace. Take Rev.6:2 for example, the unveiled pointed spiritual composite is "the power of the inspired Word directed against the Lamb's enemies."
The body consciousness of which is in the heart, that is, specifically in the soul (as here redefined) hence the soul animates the body (immaterial part) giving it life. First, the redefined meaning puts more separation between Biblical "soul" and Biblical "spirit" in the Koine whereas the English has the two words meaning nearly the same thing. Second, the meaning of "soul" in the New Testament, ruled by the context, is used in different senses hence not equal. Third, the meaning of "soul" in the Old Testament. Fourth, the meaning of animal "souls" is also used in a different sense. Understanding the former comprehensively, one can translate and interpret the individual passages from the English forward to the ancient languages instead of the other way around ending in diverse interpretations, all appearing to be the one true interpretation.
Acts 20:10, "soul" (A.V. "life") Eutychus was dead is now alive, as Paul fell on him, has his soul in him - Paul brought the dead man's soul back as Elijah and Elisha had done hence here the soul animates (immaterial part) the body giving it life.
Acts 4:32, "soul" (A.V. "soul") One heart and soul in a living body where the heart beats and is animated by the soul (breath of life). Soul is the life of the body.
Acts 2:27, "soul" (A.V. "soul") Soul in contrast with "my flesh hence refers to the soul as the entire immaterial part of man which in life animates the body and also contains the spirit and personality.
Rev.20:4, "soul" (A.V. "soul") here souls are completely human (typical of man).
Conclusion, so far anyway, "soul" in Acts 2010 does not equal Acts 4:32 in the Koine sense, yet does equal in the English sense. Also the former does not equal Acts 2:27 in the Koine sense, yet does equal in the English sense. Again the former does not equal Rev.20:4 in the Koine sense, yet does in the English sense. All in all none of the former equal each other in the Koine sense.
This view which I agree with interprets historically including the present and future. The 1st ending at Chapter 6, is only a glimpse of the end where the 6th Seal places us at the end. In the 2nd ending at Chapter 7, John sees the total Una-Sancta (true invisible Church) at the end of time as we know it. The 4th ending at Chapter 14, John sees the final judgment at the last day - the end. The 5th ending at chapter 16, John sees the cumulative destruction of the whole vast anti-christian empire - the end. The 6th ending at Chapter 19, John sees what we can obviously see even in the translation highlighting v.20. The 7th ending at Chapter 20, John sees the last judgment, the end as we know it.
As far as the writer, John, is able to see, the visions from the first to the last presents vistas. These start at various points, but like radii or rays all focus upon the final judgment and the eternal triumph. The final visions (Chapters 21 and 22) present the triumph at length. Wrongly going from the English backwards to the ancient Greek ending in erroneous thinking in English blocks of thought building one block of thoughts upon another.
Translation: The communication (translating and interpreting) of the meaning of a speech or writing into an equivalent target speech or writing where the target language must be viewed only as an aid in trying to reproduce the original, that is, somewhere in between, loosely speaking, metaphrasing and paraphrasing.
First, a base date needs to be set for any realistic translation. I condone creation to the birth of Jesus covered about 4004 years B.C. plus possibly another 28 years prior to the birth of Jesus; hence date "Confusion of Tongues" at about 2247 B.C. (1757) and the "Deluge" at about 2348 B.C. (1656). Second, all writings dated prior to about 2348 B.C. are falsely dated for sure. Third, the controversial "Exodus" occurred at about 1491 B.C. (2513).
The earliest "Translation" that i can locate is the "Epic of Gilgamesh," not from the 4th millennium B.C. in Sumer - 2000 B;C; acceptable of course, then translated to Akkadian and so on - again no writings before about 2348 B.C.
The trumpets are world wide miraculous preliminary judgments by God's necessity where the physical Churches The first trumpet is miraculous rain where the recipients at that time would have understand this to be of a very seductive supernatural agency. The would also have understood the devastating "effect" hence we have the "cause" and "effect," for example, at Rev.6:* the death strikes a fourth of the globe where here a third of the globe is effected.
In the Trumpets the "effect" is presented visibly and invisibly "cause" and "effect" is presented that needs unveiling. Hail, fire, mixed with blood (miraculous) and what is said of them forms a composite that signifies "error's working" that God casts down upon those in/out of the Church that received not the Agape (as redefined) of the Truth (as redefined), IIThess.2:10. Doesn't this rain look so seductive? Revelation Chapters 8 and 9 are an expansion of IIThess.2.
<Commentary of the New Testament by R;C.H. Lenski p.277 "....these delusions affect every part of human life and beget delusions in finance, government, political infrastructure, commerce, education, in short, everywhere."> which I totally agree with.
<New Testament Commentary - Revelation - by Simon J. Kistamemaker, p.273 "We have no basis for interpreting the nouns hail, fire, and blood symbolically; hail and lightening are natural occurrences."> which i totally disagree with.
"Truth," anarthrous, meaning truth more in general: The reality of God's will, purpose, and plan centered in the Lord Christ Jesus for our salvation including the treats, judgments (including preliminary) and saving promises embodied in the Word of God (as redefined). "The Truth," articulated, is the entire saving reality conveyed by the Word of God (as redefined).
The Bibles by definition of being translations render diverse interpretations where each appears to be the one genuine true interpretation. The Truth we are concerned with is God's Truth that rules both the Church and State and must be based upon the "inspired Word" (as formerly redefined). This is a good place to address the perfect "inspired Word" (as formerly redefined) that has long go disappeared so how can we use this, since long gone, as an objective base? We begin with the principle of going forward from the "inspired" units of thoughts to the non-inspired English units of thoughts, the Bible. The English translations (Bibles), as an aid contain inspired units of thoughts and again with the right heart condition, from the Genuine God's view, contain his power and grace.
One's name can and will be removed out of the Lamb's Book of Life, Ps.60:28; Rev.3:5; 22:19.
Matt.19:30; 20:16; Lk.13:30, "last" means outside the kingdom per Matt.19:24, 26; Lk.13:24-26, noting the great promise in Matt.19:28, 29 followed by a great warning beginning at v.30.
Matt.22:14, "called ones" here signifies accepted God's grace in truth 'outwardly' and in the true Church or Kingdom (as redefined). "elect" here are those "called ones" who put on Christ's righteousness in truth and in the true Church or Kingdom 'inwardly' upon death forensically judged from heaven.
ICor.9:27b, "rejected, castaway" Note the figures (non-realities) have been dropped and now using the objective reality itself. Paul includes himself and speaks of one who makes the correct announcement, but fails to absorb a vital part of that announcement in his own life and action hence rejected. The fact that he is an apostle is not yet proof to him that he will be saved - he knows the test that he must face applying that test to himself hence attaining both subjective and objective certainty that he will indeed not be a castaway.
IIPet.1:10, "for by doing these things you will not stumble ever." V.10 does not refer to the making sure our calling and election for ourselves for the reason that his "for" in the clause in v.10 expound how we make our calling, and so on, sure - explaining how; not "make sure you are saved."
God's will is centered in Christ Jesus who came to do his Father's will for purpose centered in his Father's grace, Matt.6:10. Our will is to be in complete harmony with God's will and no longer having any will of our own.
Jn.6:40, "....will of my Father.....that beholds the Son and believes on him...." meaning the act involving the intellect which by beholding truly recognizes him, that is, the Lord Christ Jesus' genuine revelation, where the heart or the will, at that moment - one act - of a genuine recognition gives its trust or confidence.
Col.1:9, "....knowledge of his will...." meaning the Colossians are to know full "his (God's) will." "His will" is a complete concept equals what God has willed for our salvation revealed in his Word.
Jam.4:15, "....the Lord wills...." controls not only our doing things but also our being alive or not.