[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation  (Read 38491 times)

Sandy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
  • I Stand Coram Deo
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2003, 11:48:11 AM »
Hi Shirley,

When the Bible speaks of Satan being bound it does not mean that he is without power in the world.  We're taught in Scripture that Christ will build His Kingdom and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18).  Christ arose from the dead victoriously!  He defeated Satan and death!  When we look at the ministry of Christ before the cross, we find that very few were being saved.   One would think that when Christ preached that multitudes would become saved.  Yet that is not the case.  Why?  Because prior to the cross Satan was free to deceive, and even to snatch the word from the hearts of the hearers (Mt. 13:19).  Until Christ went to the cross Satan was able to turn away the hearts of many.  Look at the chosen nation for instance.  Only a remnant of God's chosen people became saved, the rest died in the wilderness in unbelief.  Christ' death and resurrection gave Satan his ultimate blow.  Christ rose from the grave, and cast Satan from heaven and bound him throughout the church era (symbolic 1000 years) (Rev. 20:1-3).  Just because Satan is bound does not mean that he no longer has power in the world.  He is still able to deceive, and rule over the world of unbelievers, all who have not the seal of the living God.  Satan's binding is limited in scope to that of no longer having power to keep Christ from redeeming His elect peoples.  When all of those who have been chosen to receive eternal life, from before the foundation of the world, have been eternally sealed, then Satan will once more be loosed from his prison, and will finally come against Christ and His saints for the final battle.  This will culminate in the final victory for Christ, and the end of this world, and Judgment Day.

These things must be intrepreted spiritually or we could make no sense out of what the Scripture is teaching us.  It is impossible for any to have spiritual discernment without guidance from the indwelling Holy Spirit of God.  I hope this helps you to better understand.
       

John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2003, 02:08:40 PM »
Quote
Yes, I understand that. But when it says Satan will be bound that he not deceive the nations, and we see Satan not bound today, we shouldn't spiritualize that he is bound. Or spiritualize that the Church is Israel.


If you understand that, then you understand the Bible was written by God who is Spirit and therefore the imagery used will point to spiritual truths not carnal realities. What then does God mean when He says Satan was bound if we see wickedness everywhere.  

Your choices are limited. If Satan was bound, what was he prevented from doing that he did before?  Could it be just as the Bible says, he could not deceive the nations, see verse 3 of Rev 20:

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Yet deception is still going on, we have continued to have sin everywhere. Has anything changed since the death of Christ when Satan was defeated?  Anything worth noting that might indicate Satan's binding?

Acts 2:40-41 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.  Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Where do we read that a simple message by one man would bring 3000 to repentance and spiritual life? Now that Satan is defeated by Christ and bound the eternal church can be built (this is the church that the gates of hell can not prevail against (Matt 16:18).

So, there was a dramatic change in Satan's ability to hold men's hearts in darkness. The prison house doors are opened and the prisoners are set free. Speaking of Christ in Isaiah 61:1

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound

How can Christ set the prisoners free unless He first binds the strong man? Do you recall how Jesus described this binding? Indeed Christ did bind the strong man's house.

Mr 3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.


Eph 4:7-8 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.  

Yes, Satan was bound ... not bound from deceiving those who are not to be freed, those whom God has not chosen will continue in their wickedness. But for those God desires to save Satan can do nothing; Satan is legally without an argument. Why you say?  Prior to Christ's death Satan could argue -- accusing the brethren, that without the removal of sins committed by old covenant saints they should not be in heaven with a Righteous God. With Christ's atonement however the law was fulfilled and Satan's legal argument was moot. God began to build his spiritual church based on Christ's fulfillment of the law, and Satan could not hinder Him.

We don't have to spiritualize the binding nor do we have to take it literally, simply examining the matter in the light of other Scriptures will provide the clues to understand what God means in the binding of Satan.

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

Harold

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2004, 06:08:16 AM »
Something that might help interpreting the book of Revelation is to know the time frame in which the events were to come to pass.


I don't quite follow your thinking here. Why would knowing when Revelation was written help our interpretation of it?

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2004, 12:57:38 PM »
>>>
Something that might help interpreting the book of Revelation is to know the time frame in which the events were to come to pass.

I don't quite follow your thinking here. Why would knowing when Revelation was written help our interpretation of it?
<<<

Short answer, It Doesn't! Interpretations belong to God. Not to the history of the human authors who God used to pen Holy Canon.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

jd@

  • Guest
On another thread, Tony Warren wrote this, commenting on Jesus' miracle at Cana:

Quote
To those spiritually inclined, wine in scripture, is a figure of the blood of Christ

A couple of things:

1st, is this "rightly dividing the word of truth", as they say?  Is it a legitimate way of interpreting the Bible?  It seems the issue of allegory has come up a fair bit here in recent times.  Tony (or anyone else), can you defend your use of Scripture here?

2nd, (and more importantly), this hints of a kind of slippery reductionism here.  Using the phrase 'spiritually inclined' suggests that if you don't accept the interpretation you are somehow 'unspiritual'.  It would have been better to say, "for those allegorically inclined..."


Genrev

  • Guest

2nd, (and more importantly), this hints of a kind of slippery reductionism here.  Using the phrase 'spiritually inclined' suggests that if you don't accept the interpretation you are somehow 'unspiritual'.  It would have been better to say, "for those allegorically inclined..."



Dear jd@,

I honestly don't want to argue with you about this, but I would like to ask you one question, if you don't mind.

What does the Lord mean when he uses the phrase "ears to hear" in the following verses?


Deuteronomy 29:4

  Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Ezekiel 12:2

  Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.

Matthew 11:15

  He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Matthew 13:9

  Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Matthew 13:43

  Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 4:9

  And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 4:23

  If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 7:16

  If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Luke 8:8

  And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Luke 14:35

  It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.


Blessings,
Minna

jd@

  • Guest
Minna, I dare say this is off-topic, but I think it means that we should listen to God.

Genrev

  • Guest
Minna, I dare say this is off-topic, but I think it means that we should listen to God.


Dear jd@,

Why do you say that it is off topic?  But if you feel that way, please allow me to ask you one more question.

Do not the following verses speak of the "spiritually inclined"?



1 Corinthians 2


10  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.



Blessings,
Minna

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
>>>
On another thread, Tony Warren wrote this, commenting on Jesus' miracle at Cana:

"To those spiritually inclined, wine in scripture, is a figure of the blood of Christ"
<<<

I'm confused. Are you saying that wine in scripture isn't used as a figure of blood? I ask because, as you know, we've had these type conversations before, and all your replies consist of, "I didn't really say that," even though you very well did. So how about you be clear right up front this time, exactly what is it you are saying so we don't have to bore people with your denials.

And since God says that the Spirit reveals the spiritual things to His elect, I don't think that I have to defend that statement. In fact, I reiterate it. To those spiritually inclined, wine in scripture, is a figure of the blood of Christ. But to the natural man, wine in scripture is just an alcoholic beverage that the Old Testament (primarily) saints apparently partied with.


Quote
>>>
A couple of things:

1st, is this "rightly dividing the word of truth", as they say?  Is it a legitimate way of interpreting the Bible?
<<<

Well, we'll have to leave that up to each individual reader to decide, based on all the "pertinent" scriptures. But I'm sure that the Scribes and Pharisees thought the same thing when Christ said that John the Baptist was Elijah that was prophesied to come. And He preferences it with, "if you will receive it." Which means, if they had the spiritual ears to receive it.  For He knew what all good Christians know. That not all professed Godly men will compare the spiritual with the spiritual, and they will reject any notion of the prophesy of Elijah's coming as being in the spiritual or allegorical sense. ..as many do to this very day.

Matthew 11:13-15
  • "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
  • And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
  • He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Matthew 17:10
  • "And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
  • And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
  • But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
  • Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist."

1st, is this "rightly dividing the word of truth" concerning the prophesy of Elijah's coming recorded in the Old Testament?  Is it a legitimate way of interpreting the Bible you ask? The only Biblical answer is, Yes!

As for wine being used in scripture to signify blood, that's something I cannot prove to anyone, it's something that the Holy Ghost teaches. And I make no apologies for saying that. Spiritually speaking, wine throughout scripture is used as a signification of blood. Have you never heard of the "blood of grapes?" Or for example,

Revelation 14:20
  • ""And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even to the horses bridles..."

Or in the signification of the great Harlot made drunken by the blood of the Saints in Revelation 17. By God using the language of made drunken by the blood, God is again equating blood with wine. Again, in Isaiah 63:2-3 where we read of the garments of Him stained in the winepress with blood. Or again this signification in,

Isaiah 49:26
  • "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine..."

And on and on, wine is used in the Bible to signify blood, and that is what is being seen in the book of John in Christ saying that His time is not yet come. Exactly "WHAT" do you think that Christ meant by that statement? Something the natural man would come up with, like he was tired and it wasn't time for Him to make wine? This was God we are talking about, and he spoke in parables.

In point of fact, that is exactly the same signification we use when we celebrate the Communion service. Wine as the allegorical "figure" of the blood of Christ. Even one without the Spirit can discern that. We use wine as a sign of the shed blood of Christ. And what did Christ tell us about the wine of Communion?

Matthew 26:27
  • "And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, drink ye all of it; For this is my Blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's Kingdom."

Yet you want to imply that it is SOMEHOW unjustified saying wine is a symbol of the blood of Christ? Clearly, the wine is a symbol of the blood of Christ that cleanses us from sin (purification). And that's why the water from the six stone jars was turned to wine in the marriage supper of Cana. It was to symbolize that the work of Christ in purification had to include the shedding of blood. Six stone jars, not by coincidence, but a God ordained "spiritual" number indicating the fullness of the work of Christ by which the Jews are purified. And without the turning of the purifying water into wine (without the shedding of Christ's blood), there is no cleansing, no purifying, and no remission of sins. Likewise, when Christ was crucified,

John 19:34
  • "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."
1st John 5:5-6
  • "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
  • This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth."

But again, as I say, to those "Spiritually Inclined" these truths become evident with a circumspect study of scripture. But for those who have not the Spirit, they will never be discerned as God's truth, and they will likely always be at enmity with these truths. It's the nature of the beast.

To answer your question, yes, this is the way to "Rightly divide the Word of Truth." And Yes, it is the legitimate way of interpreting the Bible.


Quote
>>>
 It seems the issue of allegory has come up a fair bit here in recent times.  Tony (or anyone else), can you defend your use of Scripture here?
<<<

Defend my use of scripture? No. But God can. For the things of the Spirit are indefensible to the natural man. As God said, they are foolishness to him. Do you think I could defend my use of scripture to Roman Catholics of Mary having other children? Hardly! Could Christ defend His teaching that if the Jews were to destroy the Temple, He would rebuild it in three days? These men thought it mere foolishness that this great physical building would be destroyed, because though they had eyes, they could not see. Allegory just went right over their heads without the Spirit of truth to reveal it. In fact they distorted what Christ said (a typical tactic used even today by the Spiritually blind).

Mark 14:57-59
  • "And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
  • We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
  • But neither so did their witness agree together."

I'm sure they took your same natural-man philosophy about allegories, foolishly deciding that there was no justification for it. Nevertheless, they destroyed the Temple, and it was raised up in 3 days. Allegorically Speaking!!!! . Like it or not, these allegories were defended with scripture, and the fact that certain men cannot perceive these truths have no bearing on whether they were/are defensible or not.


Quote
>>>
2nd, (and more importantly), this hints of a kind of slippery reductionism here.  Using the phrase 'spiritually inclined' suggests that if you don't accept the interpretation you are somehow 'unspiritual'.  It would have been better to say, "for those allegorically inclined..."
<<<

1st Corinthians 2:9-10
  • "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
  • But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."

The "natural" eye has not seen them, but God reveals them to us through the Spiritual eye. i.e., "He who hath eyes to see, let him see." He who does not have these spiritual eyes, let Him seek to obtain them. Yes, those Spiritually Inclined will see, and those who are not so inclined of the Spirit, will never see.

Revelation 3:18
  • "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

So indeed, you may live in your world of denial if you like, but by the Spirit, true believers do see the Spiritual. And those that who do not see, God counsels that they buy of Him Spiritaul eyesalve, that they might see. And Gold from Him, that they may be rich. And clothing from Him, that they may be clothed and the nakedness of their sin does not show.

Oops, there goes God Spiritualizing again! But wait! The Truth Is, God allegorizes all throughout the Bible, spoke in parables all throughout His ministry (Matthew 13:34), spoke with dark sayings all throughout His word. What's new here in Matthew or  Revelation? ...Nothing! But we either "receive" the truth because we have the love of the Spirit, or we (in spiritual blindness) are at enmity with it. One or the other.

 Using the phrase 'the spiritually inclined,' suggests to me Christians that are filled with the Spirit and open minded (as the Bereans) to all that God has to say spiritually, and are not as the Scribes and Pharisees and multitudes who walked away from Christ the minute they heard Him speaking allegorically (John 6:55-66) of eating flesh. As the Multitudes who followed him, but turned away when He started telling them they had to eat His flesh. "THEN" did they turn away and walk no more with him. You would think that Christians would learn from Biblical history not to repeat this folly.

The fact is, I'm not telling anyone to follow my allegory, I'm giving witness to the scriptures. You can take it or leave it, it's up to you. But I will tell you this. Christ (not Tony) says that His sheep "WILL" hear His voice, so His servants clearly will not be at enmity with the testimony of Christ. My testimony is insignificant, but the word of God is with power. If He testifies blood is often symbolized by wine, we better listen.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
>>>
I honestly don't want to argue with you about this, but I would like to ask you one question, if you don't mind.

What does the Lord mean when he uses the phrase "ears to hear" in the following verses?

Ezekiel 12:2
Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.
<<<

Since it is alleged by JD that it merely means that "we should listen to God," and this is blatantly absurd, perhaps we see demonstrated here an example of what I have been talking about in the futility of attempting to show spiritual things to those who are not led of the Spirit to receive them. We cannot make them anyone Spiritual truths. Our job is to feed those who are hungry, not cram bread down the throats of those who have no desire for it. There will be those who will not receive the things of the Spirit because they remain "spiritually" blind and unable to discern what is being shown. Or as God Himself so succinctly put it:

1st Corinthians 2:12-14
  • "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
  • Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
  • But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned!"

Here we have the "TRUTH" about why some have eyes to see and others do not. It is because the Spiritual is foolishness to him who is without the Spirit. That's not rhetoric, that's what God is saying in these verses.  God says what the Holy Spirit teaches the true believer (Spiritually inclined), is as foolishness to the natural man. Comparing spiritual things with spiritual is what the Holy Ghost teaches, not as the world does. Therefore, the world will never discern that which is spiritual, except the Holy ghost teach them it. This is one of those precepts that is undeniable "if" we have the Bible alone as our supreme authority. ...but therein lies the rub. Not everyone does, even among those "professing" they do.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Pearson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Conformed by the Blood
Minna, I dare say this is off-topic, but I think it means that we should listen to God.


How in the world is this off-topic? It's right on topic. An allegory is like a metaphor or parable, like seeing you will not see and hearing, you will not hear. That's not literal, it's an allegory. How is that off-topic? You see what I mean about you being as a thorn in the flesh? And your comment that it just means we should listen to God, is ridiculous. If that is what God meant, he would have said that.

Chris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
  • I'm a llama!
Unfortunately, most people place interpretation into an either-or category where it's either historical or it's allegorical. That is a terrible hermeneutic of the sort that dispensationalists practice. Often interpretation is both historical and allegorical. For example, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, or the old testament holy temple that was built, or the miracles that Christ did, or David reigning as a picture of Christ. So I would have to agree that those who condemn the allegorical are showing an ignorance of spiritual things.

However, I also think that we have to be careful not to try and spiritualize or allegoricalize everything. For example, I agree that the marriage supper of Cana and Jesus creating wine for it, is a historical allegory )(both historical, and used by God as an allegory), however I do not see the allegory claimed by some that shows Christ coming in ad 70. The difference I see is that one can be biblically justified, and the other I see no biblical justification for it and think that we should be careful about doing things like that.

jd@

  • Guest
Hmm, I've got quite a few things to reply to. 

Quote
How in the world is this off-topic? It's right on topic.

Point taken.  Maybe I was just paranoid about being criticized for taking the thread off-topic.  ;)

Quote
Since it is alleged by JD that it merely means that "we should listen to God," and this is blatantly absurd,
Quote
And the comment that it just means we should listen to God, is ridiculous

This is what is known as a proof by assertion.  ;)  How is it 'blatantly absurd'?? 

Quote
If that is what God meant, he would have said that.

That, my friend, is fascinating to hear you say.  Because I could use that line of reasoning right across the board.  "If God had meant the 6 water jars to represent fullness, he would have said so," etc., etc.

The thing is, sometimes he does say so.  I fully agree that at the Eucharist the wine represents the blood of the Christ.  (Actually, he doesn't say, 'this represents my body', he says, 'this is my body, but this, as they say, is another story.)  Sometimes we are told to interpret things allegorically, or metaphorically.

Chris is spot on:

Quote
Unfortunately, most people place interpretation into an either-or category where it's either historical or it's allegorical... Often interpretation is both historical and allegorical. For example, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, or the old testament holy temple that was built, or the miracles that Christ did, or David reigning as a picture of Christ.

Yes, in all these things (except perhaps Jesus' miracles) we are told to interpret them typically as well as literally.  And that, in fact, is my hermenuetic: to interpret Scripture allegorically, if I am told to do so.   :)

So getting back to wine:

Quote
I'm confused. Are you saying that wine in scripture isn't a figure of blood? I ask because, as you know, we've had these type conversations before, and all your replies consist of, "I didn't really say that," even though you very well did. So how about you be clear right up front this time exactly what you are saying so don't have to bore people with your denials.

Well, thanks for taking the time to clarify this, Tony, though I notice it didn't stop you ploughing ahead with your polemic.  I am saying that wine is sometimes a figure of blood.  But of course, your inital statement was "Wine in Scripture is a figure of the blood of Christ" - which it certainly isn't in Isaiah 49:26.   8)

Quote
And since God says that the Spirit reveals the spiritual things to His elect, I don't think that I have to defend that statement

To be quite honest, Tony, this confirms my initial suspicion.  You seem to be implying that people who don't agree with you are 'unspiritual.'  I fear that you are confusing Scripture, with your interpretation of Scripture.  And, if you forgive my boldness, that is often a mark of false teaching.  :-\

Pearson:
Quote
You see what I mean about you being as a thorn in the flesh?

Well, that's a bit rude, but I'm willing to forgive you.  The thing is, I thught it was Pilgrim who said that.  Are you and Pilgrim one and the same??  8)



andreas

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
  • Gender: Male
  • Helpless, look to Thee for grace
<<<Wine in Scripture is a figure of the blood of Christ" - which it certainly isn't in Isaiah 49:26 >>>

" And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD [am] thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob ".isa.49:26

The meaning here is that, they turn on each other and destroy themselves.They will turn on their own flesh and blood."I will feed them with their OWN flesh",and they "shall get drunk with their OWN blood"

What saith the scripture? Rom.4:3.We are not interested in what saith jd@
andreas. 8)
kai ean diabainhs dió udatos meta sou eimi kai potamoi ou sugklusousin se kai ean dielqhs dia puros ou mh katakauqhs flox ou katakausei Isaiah 43:2

Pearson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Conformed by the Blood

You see what I mean about you being as a thorn in the flesh?

Well, that's a bit rude, but I'm willing to forgive you.  The thing is, I thught it was Pilgrim who said that.  Are you and Pilgrim one and the same??  8)

You know it's very confusing when you take several people's quotes and place them all in one message as if to one person. This isn't a play pen, if you don't have the time to address people individually like everyone else, maybe you shouldn't bother at all. The one-liner answers in a forum such as this is a waste of our time as well as yours. If it is representative of the time you put in your bible study, I can see why you don't know what you are talking about. Why even bother?

 I know you put pearson by that quote, but it's not something that stands out. As for my use of the term Thorn in the flesh, I think both Pilgrim, myself, as well as probably many others think the term suits you. It's not an attack, just representative of your time here. I believe you said yourself once that you were just being "the Devil's advocate," or something to that nature. That's your own words. A defender of a position that you "claimed" you didn't hold at all. Anyway, whatever your game, we all have seen and read it before so I concur with Pilgrim's assessment. No we're not the same, but reading his posts, I believe that we think the same way. Biblically! And that's what I mean, and I'm sure he means about thorn in the flesh. You're a constant annoyance to Christian doctrine, like a thorn in the flesh. Now do you see what I mean about thorn in the flesh?  :)



 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]