Jesus "flowing through" people

@divegeester

So is it literal..or not?

Literal enough.

Would you like to be one of the ones Rev. 14:10,11 is describing under God's wrath?

If there is nothing to fear there, would you want to be one of the objects of that passage on the punishment side ?

How curious are you?

@sonship said
@divegeester

So is it literal..or not?

Literal enough.

So only part literal?

@divegeester

So only part literal?

"He also shall drink of the wine of the fury of God"
That is not literal.
Its a figure of speech of something very bad.

"Which is mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath."
That is a figure of speech.

"and shall be tormented"
That I take literally.

"in fire and brimestone"
I take that literally.

"before the holy angels and before the Lamb"
I take the "holy angels" literally.
I take "the Lamb" as a figure of speech meaning Jesus Christ.

"And the smoke of their tormenting goes up forever and ever"
I am not sure how literal this is about the smoke. I lean towards literal.
In the new heaven and the new earth the lake of fire may be there as an eternal testimony. How the physics will work I do not know.

"forever and ever" I take as literal as I would take "forever and ever" throughout the most of the New Testament. Off hand I cannot think of a use of "forever and ever" I do not take to mean exactly that.

"and they have no rest day and night"
I take that literally.

"those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
I take that literally.

"Here is the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."
Literally.

So I take the passage seriously as literal with some figures of speech to convey what God wants to convey.

"We know in part and prophesy in part" says Paul in 1 Cor. 10:9.
So I would not say we know everything about what is described in the Revelation prophesy.

Because the servants of God prophesy in part and we know in part, however, doesn't give me the right to take away or add anything of the words that God inspired John to write in the book of Revelation.

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll; If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this scroll. And if anyone takes away from the words of the scroll of this prophesy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and out of the holy city, which are written in this scroll."

I take this as a warning not to tamper with the words removing what you want removed or adding what you want to add altering its communication.

One more thing. Saying that a certain teacher is incompetent has no effect on the words written there for all to read. You either believe the prophesy or you don't.

@sonship said
@divegeester

So only part literal?

"He also shall drink of the wine of the fury of God"
That is not literal.
Its a figure of speech of something very bad.

"Which is mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath."
That is a figure of speech.

"and shall be tormented"
That I take literally.

[b]"in fire and ...[text shortened]... no effect on the words written there for all to read. You either believe the prophesy or you don't.

Who gets to decide which parts are literal and non-literal?

@sonship said
@divegeester

So only part literal?

"He also shall drink of the wine of the fury of God"
That is not literal.
Its a figure of speech of something very bad.

"Which is mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath."
That is a figure of speech.

"and shall be tormented"
That I take literally.

[b]"in fire and ...[text shortened]... no effect on the words written there for all to read. You either believe the prophesy or you don't.

So at best, even according to you, Revelation is only part literal. And you aren’t certain which parts are symbolic and which are literal.

Hardly the basis for building a doctrine of lies about God burning people alive for eternity, is it!

@sonship said
One more thing. Saying that a certain teacher is incompetent has no effect on the words written there for all to read. You either believe the prophesy or you don't.

I’ve never called you a teacher - it’s what you call yourself.

I’ve never called you incompetent. Until now that is. Yes you are in my opinion way too doctrinally erroneous to be a competent teacher.

Will Jesus be literally in hell observing unbelievers being cast into the lake of fire or no? Yes or no?

Incompetent.

Concerning Jesus "flowing through" people.

Because God's salvation is to join Himself with us and move in us it is
a spontaneous and automatic matter. It is a comfortable matter. It is a matter most human and normal. That is the God and man should be so organically blended.

My opinion is that the spontaneous mutual moving of the human spirit with the divine Spirit (the Third of the Triune God) that the word flow is used to describe this.

" . . . out of his innermost being shall FLOW . . . ".

And the inner refreshment of God's presence in Christ in the believer is described as "living waters".

The truths of the New Testament are profound. And special words were used by the Holy Spirit to convey these profound truths.

You see, because He died for us we know He loved us to the uttermost. And because He loves us to the uttermost when He comes to live within us there is a co-inhering and mutual interweaving of His living with our living.

Being so deadened by our past life of sin, this interweaving is not only spontaneous but thirst quenching.

This may help some of us to grasp the expression "out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water."

I am sorry that some are stuck on other things which seem insurmountably objectionable. Sometimes it is like this. For one person one matter and for another person another.

This thread was on Jesus "flowing through" people.

So, for those interested, the "flows" I think speaks of the spontaneous nature of the moving of the Holy Spirit in the believer.

You see, He died for us on the cross, sealing forever how deep, far reaching, profound and eternal is the love of Christ for the sinner.

And this is a solid basis for Him living in us in a way not coercive but smooth, spontaneous, so very considerate yet SAVING us from sin.

He died for us and then joins Himself literally to the one who receives Him.
This joining is to make part of our being Jesus actually. This is very profound and no one interested should hold contempt for the Bible saying this.

"He who is JOINED to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)

That why Jesus moving in man is flowing and spontaneous because He can so blend with the innermost kernel of our being. The Third of the triune God and the third part of our very human being become "one".

I think this is why we see the picture of the experience of the Triune God as living water flowing out of the saved man's innermost spiritual part.

Personally I need much more experience of this great salvation.
But if I said I had none I would not be being truthful.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Who gets to decide which parts are literal and non-literal?

I would say that you have to do some deciding on that yourself.

If you are wise you would not just read only one part of the Bible.
But you would read many parts as you apply your best decision on that.

Hesitating on the dilemma of "Well, who decides?" has never seemed to opt me out of having to make some decisions myself on what I want to believe.

It can be a delaying tactic to stall and put off the obligation to make a personal choice concerning what the Bible teaches.

@sonship said
Hesitating on the dilemma of "Well, who decides?" has never seemed to opt me out of having to make some decisions myself on what I want to believe.

Can you give one example of where a "sonship decision" about what is and isn't literal deviates from a "Witness Lee decision" about it?

@sonship said
It can be a delaying tactic to stall and put off the obligation to make a personal choice concerning what the Bible teaches.

And who on this forum is employing such a "delaying tactic"?

@divegeester

So at best, even according to you, Revelation is only part literal. And you aren’t certain which parts are symbolic and which are literal.

Hardly the basis for building a doctrine of lies about God burning people alive for eternity, is it!

"Burning alive" is a phrase that you insist upon.
It is not I that insist upon the phrase "burning alive."

"Burning alive" is a phrase that your objection must have and which you must insist upon.

Now you can if you wish interpret a lake of fire in another way other than punishment everlasting. I cannot in good conscience render the utterances there in the Bible as meaning something benign and a paper warning with no reality about it to absolutely dread.

And I find no basis to take "they shall reign forever and ever" seriously and literal yet take "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" a corresponding use of "forever and ever" as meaningless.

You go ahead and take the positive blessing of "forever and ever" as literal and the negative cursing of "forever and ever" as not literal.

I have tried to consider that theory. And I cannot bring myself to be inconsistent about the phrase in that same manner.

This thread is mostly about Jesus "flowing through" people.

I think this use of flowing is used in the Bible to convey:

1.) Jesus being one with the saved is so seamless.
2.) Jesus moving in the saved is so spontaneous.
3.) Jesus issuing out of the life of the saved is automatic when we cooperate.

This smooth, co-moving of God's Spirit in the life of the believer is pictured as a flowing of water.

And God's Spirit today is Jesus Christ in another form.
So indeed, Jesus comes into us and Jesus flows within us, given our cooperation to let Him do so.

What a salvation.

@sonship said
This thread is mostly about Jesus "flowing through" people.

I think it is at least equally about people disagreeing with your claim that Jesus “flows” through people.

@sonship said
@divegeester

So at best, even according to you, Revelation is only part literal. And you aren’t certain which parts are symbolic and which are literal.

Hardly the basis for building a doctrine of lies about God burning people alive for eternity, is it!

"Burning alive" is a phrase that you insist upon.
It is not I that insist upon the phrase "bu ...[text shortened]... ider that theory. And I cannot bring myself to be inconsistent about the phrase in that same manner.

So despite you acknowledging that much of Revelation is symbolism, you are standing firm on the literal interpretation that non-Christians will be thrown alive into a lake of fire where their torment will be everlasting in the presence of Jesus?

Right?