What's a good source for learning eschatology?

[eschaton]

Where did I say the literal sword would be in His mouth?

The Binding of Satan #41.

Jesus will have a literal sword and the sword of the Spirit. Both. Try understanding the latter without neglecting the former, as He told the Pharisees.

Why would it be a literal sword and not be in His mouth?

Revelation 19:15

[Darfius]

The Binding of Satan #41.

I quoted that post myself to show you I didn't say it came from His mouth.

Why would it be a literal sword and not be in His mouth?

Revelation 19:15

Why did He raise from the dead physically if He could have just done so "spiritually" however arbitrary way you define it? That brings up an important question. Do you believe Jesus physically rose from the dead?

[eschaton]

I quoted that post myself to show you I didn't say it came from His mouth.



Why did He raise from the dead physically if He could have just done so "spiritually" however arbitrary way you define it? That brings up an important question. Do you believe Jesus physically rose from the dead?

Of course, I believe Jesus literally rose from the dead. Why do you believe that in the book of Revelation Jesus comes with a literal sword but it's not from or in His mouth?

[Darfius]

Of course, I believe Jesus literally rose from the dead. Why do you believe that in the book of Revelation Jesus comes with a literal sword but it's not from or in His mouth?

You seem to be equivocating literally for physically.

literally:

adjective

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical:the literal meaning of a word.
following the words of the original very closely and exactly:a literal translation of Goethe.
true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual:a literal description of conditions.
being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy:the literal extermination of a city.
(of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

SYNONYMS FOR LITERAL

truthful, exact, reliable.

Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/literal

Where do you see physically?

Often times the correct interpretation of Biblical passages involves something physical, but that is because God called His creation "good" and it serves a very important purpose. But the meaning of the text need not be physical to be literal.

I believe He will come with a physical sword because Revelation 19 contains allusions to Psalm 45, namely a faithful and true rider on a horse judging the nations with a scepter and sword:

Scripture Verse: Psalm 45

Gird your sword on your side, you mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.

© Copyright Original Source

I believe the rider in both verses is Jesus, don't you?

As I've already explained, allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and you'll believe the truth as God wants you to believe it (there is no other version of truth), rather than as your own whims dictate you to believe.

Given our clarification of literally and physically, I'd like to ask for clarification on a most important issue. Do you believe Jesus' physical body rose from the dead?

[eschaton]

Jesus will have a literal sword and the sword of the Spirit. Both. Try understanding the latter without neglecting the former, as He told the Pharisees

.

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
following the words of the original very closely and exactly:a literal translation of Goethe.
true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual:a literal description of conditions.
being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy:the literal extermination of a city.
(of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

I believe Jesus physically and literally rose from the dead. Do you believe Revelation 19:15 is literal and physical? If it is then it is not figurative or metaphorical, according to your definition.

[Darfius]

.



I believe Jesus physically and literally rose from the dead. Do you believe Revelation 19:15 is literal and physical? If it is then it is not figurative or metaphorical, according to your definition.

You are still treating physically and literally as if they are the same. Revelation 19 can be literally true without being physically so, though as I showed with Psalm 45 (and you ignored), I think it is both.

[eschaton]

You are still treating physically and literally as if they are the same. Revelation 19 can be literally true without being physically so, though as I showed with Psalm 45 (and you ignored), I think it is both.

You're not making any sense to me. Just because there is more than one metaphoric verse in the Bible doesn't mean the verses are literal. Here is some information.

Pulpit Commentary, 1 Thessalonians 5:8
Verse 8. - But; contrast to the conduct of those who are of the night: let us not only be watchful, but armed. The apostle now adopts a favorite figure, that of spiritual armor...

Wikipedia - Armor of God
The phrase "Armor of God" (Greek: πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, panoplian tou Theou) is derived from Ephesians 6:11: "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." (King James Version). As a biblical reference, the metaphor may refer to physical armour worn by God in metaphorical battles, or it may refer to vigilant righteousness in general as bestowed by the grace of God (Romans 13:12, King James Version)...

[Darfius]

You're not making any sense to me. Just because there is more than one metaphoric verse in the Bible doesn't mean the verses are literal. Here is some information.

You keep quoting commentaries as authoritative on the Bible while I am quoting the Bible as authoritative on the Bible. At this point, I am fine with not making sense to you. I've tried. You've failed.

[Dave L]

You keep quoting commentaries as authoritative on the Bible while I am quoting the Bible as authoritative on the Bible. At this point, I am fine with not making sense to you. I've tried. You've failed.

“Where no counsel is, the people fall: But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” Proverbs 11:14 (KJV 1900)

[eschaton]

You keep quoting commentaries as authoritative on the Bible while I am quoting the Bible as authoritative on the Bible. At this point, I am fine with not making sense to you. I've tried. You've failed.

Since you don't value any opinion but your own there's no chance of changing your mind. You've given a few scriptures but as far as I can tell they don't really support your opinion. The only thing that matters is your opinion, right?

I don't see any reason why Revelation 19:5 has to be a literal, historical event. Revelation is a highly symbolic book. I can check the comments of others to see if they agree with me or if they give a valid reason why I am wrong. If I see a good reason I may change my mind. I haven't as of yet.

[seanD]

I don't see any reason why Revelation 19:5 has to be a literal, historical event. Revelation is a highly symbolic book. I can check the comments of others to see if they agree with me or if they give a valid reason why I am wrong. If I see a good reason I may change my mind. I haven't as of yet.

I asked the other guy, but he wouldn't answer. Maybe you will. If everything in Rev is symbolism, how do you know whose interpretation of the symbolism is correct? For example, there are literally a thousand ways to interpret Rev 9, and I'm guessing there are dozens if not more interpretations out there about what it all means and what the symbolic images represent. How does one know who's right other than some exceptional divine insight one might believe they personally possess over everyone else's interpretation?

[eschaton]

That's a good question. The best way is to compare scripture to scripture starting with the NT. For Revelation 19:15 check verses with similar symbolism such as 1 Thessalonians 5:8, Ephesians 6:11, and Romans 13:12. For the book of Revelation in general I would compare to the parable where Jesus explained the kingdom of God and the end of the world, Matthew 13:24–43. Examples that use illustrations found in nature are important, Romans 1:20. We also compare to OT verses like Isaiah 11:4, and 63:2, but the meaning of symbolism may not be as clear. It is important to understand these things in the context of early Christian understanding as well. The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas were written in the early second century and contain a lot of symbolism. The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum, so we can consider other ancient Jewish literature as well, and even Greek and gentile literature that appears to be based on general revelation, that is God revealed in nature. However, the place to start is the Bible and early Christianity. Modern commentators can be considered too if they take some of these previous things into account.

[seanD]

That's a good question. The best way is to compare scripture to scripture starting with the NT. For Revelation 19:15 check verses with similar symbolism such as 1 Thessalonians 5:8, Ephesians 6:11, and Romans 13:12. For the book of Revelation in general I would compare to the parable where Jesus explained the kingdom of God and the end of the world, Matthew 13:24–43. Examples that use illustrations found in nature are important, Romans 1:20. We also compare to OT verses like Isaiah 11:4, and 63:2, but the meaning of symbolism may not be as clear. It is important to understand these things in the context of early Christian understanding as well. The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas were written in the early second century and contain a lot of symbolism. The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum, so we can consider other ancient Jewish literature as well, and even Greek and gentile literature that appears to be based on general revelation, that is God revealed in nature. However, the place to start is the Bible and early Christianity. Modern commentators can be considered too if they take some of these previous things into account.

I didn't ask what technique you use personally to interpret the symbolism. Obviously you believe your interpretation and technique is correct, but how do I know this? Look up commentary about Rev 9 and you'll find at least a dozen different interpretations of the symbolism. I haven't done extensive study on the CFs on this subject, but I imagine even they had varying interpretations. Obviously you believe your technique is right, but they do too. How can I be sure others with different interpretations are incorrect, or that my interpretations are correct? Maybe you could argue God just left it up to all of us to interpret it the way we want, regardless of how different those interpretations are, but that isn't the position you seem to be taking. I'm correct and everyone else is incorrect, seems to be the position you hold.

[eschaton]

I didn't ask what technique you use personally to interpret the symbolism. Obviously you believe your interpretation and technique is correct, but how do I know this? Look up commentary about Rev 9 and you'll find at least a dozen different interpretations of the symbolism. I haven't done extensive study on the CFs on this subject, but I imagine even they had varying interpretations. Obviously you believe your technique is right, but they do too. How can I be sure others with different interpretations are incorrect, or that my interpretations are correct? Maybe you could argue God just left it up to all of us to interpret it the way we want, regardless of how different those interpretations are, but that isn't the position you seem to be taking. I'm correct and everyone else is incorrect, seems to be the position you hold.

Is it ever possible to convince anybody of anything? How many people on this forum have you convinced of your views? I base my views on the scriptures I give. If others have scriptures they think supports their techniques they should give them. I have yet to find the verse where Jesus says "Thou must interpret the scriptures literally." Instead, I find parables and things hidden from the beginning of creation (Matthew 13:34-36).

My first presumption is that Jesus and the apostles knew what they were talking about in the Bible. Christian understanding should be based on Jesus and the apostles (Ephesians 2:20-22).
God reveals Himself in nature (Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1). The ancients taught God's wisdom in parables. (Proverbs 1:5-7) Which came first, the Bible or nature? I would say nature. That means those before Abraham saw it but perverted it. (Romans 1:21-23) That means that ancient stories based on the cosmos can be discerned for truth. Another presumption I make is that the Hebrew prophets were inspired. I don't make the same claims for the early church fathers, but they were much closer to the teaching of the apostles than we are. They can be searched for Jesus' teachings. (John 21:25) Some even knew them personally. If the apostles were right then the chances are good that the earliest fathers were right, but there were false teachers even at the time the NT was written. I could say the Bible is infallible, but what good is that if we don't interpret it right?

I base my techniques on the scriptures and God's revelation, and I'm not the only one. I find that in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Of course, anyone can simply say I don't believe it, but let them explain why the scriptures I gave are wrong.

[seanD]

Is it ever possible to convince anybody of anything? How many people on this forum have you convinced of your views? I base my views on the scriptures I give. If others have scriptures they think supports their techniques they should give them. I have yet to find the verse where Jesus says "Thou must interpret the scriptures literally." Instead, I find parables and things hidden from the beginning of creation (Matthew 13:34-36).

My first presumption is that Jesus and the apostles knew what they were talking about in the Bible. Christian understanding should be based on Jesus and the apostles (Ephesians 2:20-22).
God reveals Himself in nature (Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1). The ancients taught God's wisdom in parables. (Proverbs 1:5-7) Which came first, the Bible or nature? I would say nature. That means those before Abraham saw it but perverted it. (Romans 1:21-23) That means that ancient stories based on the cosmos can be discerned for truth. Another presumption I make is that the Hebrew prophets were inspired. I don't make the same claims for the early church fathers, but they were much closer to the teaching of the apostles than we are. They can be searched for Jesus' teachings. (John 21:25) Some even knew them personally. If the apostles were right then the chances are good that the earliest fathers were right, but there were false teachers even at the time the NT was written. I could say the Bible is infallible, but what good is that if we don't interpret it right?

I base my techniques on the scriptures and God's revelation, and I'm not the only one. I find that in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Of course, anyone can simply say I don't believe it, but let them explain why the scriptures I gave are wrong.

I don't have to convince anyone of anything. The rules of liberalism are very basic when it comes to Rev. Literal unless the interpretation is given. There's no ambiguity, no confusion, no guesswork in that. For example, a multi headed monster probably doesn't literally come out of the sea (at least not how it's manifested in the natural world) because the explanation of what it is in the natural given to us. No confusion, no claim of exceptional incite or understanding of scripture is needed. Your technique just brings confusion and ambiguity, hence the reason we have multiple interpretations of the symbolism that don't agree with each other. The only way for one to remedy that is to claim YOU have special incite and knowledge about how to interpret the scripture, thus your interpretation is true and everyone else is wrong. That not only leads to confusion and contention, but it leads to cult-like type situations -- "Our interpretations of the symbolism are correct because We have the true knowledge and understanding and revelation from God."