this:



is in clear disagreement with this:



and vice-versa.

Many believe this burial piece of linen is the famous relic , the "Shroud of Turin", that seems to have real blood and bears the image of someOne.

In the Apocalypse, the visions are laden with symbolism which is at the same time the essence of apocalyptic language. In most cases these things stand for something that St.John wants to get the reader to understand.

Somtimes, as we'll see later, the symbols were kind of like secret codes becasue he wrote the Book of Revelation during a time of intense persecution.

The 24 who were seated around the GOd's Throne wore white garments which to some indicates that they have achieved leverlasting salvation (3:5) and the golden crowns stand for the reward they have earned (2:10). Or they could stand for their prminence among among the Christians who have been promised that if they come out victorious, if they fight the good fight and remain faithful, they too will sit near Christ's Throne 3:21.

Many also believe it's Leonardo da Vinci in a photographic experiment. But for some really weird reason, it's not allowed to be examined. Strano.



And he's got a trunk full of white robes and some scrolls with seals that will be broken. Okie doke. Got it.



Citation, please. Not of those agreeing, but where Origen says this. I take it you have an English language translation of Hexapla lying around somewhere? Or at least what's left of it since most of it was destroyed? Or was it in one of the other works?

In the Apocalypse, the visions are laden with symbolism which is at the same time the essence of apocalyptic language. In most cases these things stand for something that St.John wants to get the reader to understand.

C'mon. If you want someone to understand something, do you type it like that?

You know, I went back and read both of those Chapter 5 posts, and all the responses. There isn't anything in there where anyone explained, once, twice, or a gazillion times answers to the questions I asked.

I did notice one thing of interest, though. Lulapilgrim telling KFC that if she saw some hint of a secret rapture in there, it's because she wanted to.

The more I read you guys talking back and forth, the more it looks like you're both doing exactly that; reading into them exactly what you want to see.

And KFC, if you really are taking these things literally, then why do you add your interpretations...example:

The white robe would symbolize the righteousness of Christ.

No..."literally," a white robe is a white robe. It symbolizes...a white robe.

Jythier:

But, I'm pretty sure you said that you didn't rely on other people for information - perhaps it may be inaccurate! I thought a true seeker only relied on himself, and his own thoughts.

A true seeker takes all accounts of everything from everywhere and then uses his/her own mind to synthesize them into something which makes sense. And I see that these two, Lula and KFC, are trying to do that. But I'm looking hard, and I see nothing to synthesize. You never know when someone is going to say something that YOU with YOUR thoughts can synthesize - unless you just slap at your ears screaming La La La La at the top of your lungs.

What thoughts would you have if you had absolutely NO sensation from birth? Answer: None. Input from eye, nose, skin, tongue, ears - synthesized by the brain into thought is required to experience existence.

C'mon J. You can jab at me better than this. Don't make the mistake of thinking me a fool. You know I'm not, and throwing words in my face just makes you look like one. Disappointing.

What? Not allowed to be examined?? The Shroud of Turin has been examined up, down, all around by chemists, physicists, computer analysists, forensic experts, and archaeologists to name a few. It's been cut up, put under a multitude of tests, from photography to microscopy and spectrographic analysis, including chemically tested.

Much of it, particularly the undistorted, three dimensional image of the front and back of the body, still remains a mystery. The tests and analysis prove conclusively that it's not a forgery. They found fibers that contain pollen from plants indeginious region of Judea and the blood is real.

i truly don't mean this as harsh as it will prolly be received but solely on the basis of eventual point-by-point validation grandpa simpson's prophetic vision ("Horrible, horrible things are going to happen! People of Springfield, heed this warning: twisted tail, a thousand eyes, trapped forever. Eee Pee Ay!") is more than a match for john the revelator.

if gold and fine clothing have any place in a spiritual kingdom, joseph smith's golden plates seem less fanciful and more in keeping with that tradition.

And KFC, if you really are taking these things literally, then why do you add your interpretations...example: The white robe would symbolize the righteousness of Christ.No..."literally," a white robe is a white robe. It symbolizes...a white robe.

I am taking these robes as literal. But why white? Why not red? Why not purple? I'm just saying these robes while literal also represent the purity of those wearing them. But they are not pure in their own right, they are pure because they have put their trust and faith in the one who makes them pure. In the OT God had the High Priests put on Linen clothes before they stood before him. So why wouldn't I take it literal here?

The Shroud of Turin

I'm not so into this. Some may believe this to be authentic, but I'm not one of them. I'm pretty skeptical myself. I'll say at best the whole thing is a mystery.

is in clear disagreement with this:

Kingbee.

There is no disagreement. I spoke of the earthly graveclothes that Christ left behind in the tomb and compared them to the graceclothes God gives his saints in heaven. No contradiction.

The more I read you guys talking back and forth, the more it looks like you're both doing exactly that; reading into them exactly what you want to see.

The diff between Lula and I is the Catholic and Protestant viewpoints. She believes in Oral Tradition passed down by the church fathers and I don't. I only rely on scripture to interpret scripture. It doesn't mean I don't go back and read some of the interpretations from many over the years. I do on occasion read other viewpoints. But scripture to me has to mesh with other scripture. If I see a contradiction it usually has to do with man imputing his own viewpoint into the mix.

So to say it again, Ock. I believe the scrolls, seals and robes are literal. There is much about scrolls/seals in the rest of scripture that kind of give us a picture of what's going on. A seal was NEVER to be broken until it reached its final destination. A scroll always had imprinted on it the seal usually made with a signet ring of the owner sending it. A seal always denotes ownership.

Paul spoke of us as being sealed until the day of redemption. God has given us his seal as an ernest deposit of what is to come.

"unless you just slap at your ears screaming La La La La at the top of your lungs."

La la la la la la lalalalala!

"What thoughts would you have if you had absolutely NO sensation from birth? Answer: None."

Exactly.

"You can jab at me better than this. Don't make the mistake of thinking me a fool. You know I'm not, and throwing words in my face just makes you look like one."

I just want to make sure I understand properly. All this talk about the Bible not being allowed as a source because we should think for ourselves, and then you go and read someone else's work, and then you say you get information from everywhere. Well, what in the Bible doesn't synthesize, as you say, with reality into thought?

"No..."literally," a white robe is a white robe. It symbolizes...a white robe."

Does your high school diploma not mean something more than a piece of paper in a nice case? Of course it does! It symbolizes your education! Hence, a literal white robe can be a white robe AND symbolize something else as well.

kingbee:

As for it not making sense with the discarding of other clothes, why do we need those rags when we can be clothed in white robes? If he gave us white robes and we kept our clothes, you'd say "Hey, that doesn't make sense, he gave you white robes to wear, what do you need your old clothes for?" Now you say, "Hey, that doesn't make sense, if you don't need your old clothes, why would you need a white robe?" It doesn't matter which way it goes, you'll find a way to say it should be the other way. But it IS a certain way, and that way is new robes, goodbye old clothes. Which makes perfect sense.

My poor choice of words in a hasty type. Try this:

"The only fibrils that had been made available for testing of the stains were those that remained affixed to custom-designed adhesive tape applied to thirty-two different sections of the image. (This was done in order to avoid damaging the cloth.) According to McCrone, the pigments used were a combination of red ochre and vermillion tempura paint. The Electron Optics Group of McCrone Associates published the results of these studies in five articles in peer-reviewed journals: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77–83. STURP, upon learning of his findings, confiscated McCrone's samples, and brought in other scientists to replace him. In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP and continued to defend the analysis he had performed, becoming a prominent proponent of the position that the Shroud is a forgery. As of 2004, no other scientists have confirmed McCrone's results with independent experiments, simply because the Vatican refuses to cooperate."

I'm not siding with McCrone, but before you side against him, you might want to look into The McCrone Group and see what their reputation is - outside of the Shroud findings. For me, I just want the Vatican to resume its cooperation.

Clearer?

Yes, KFC and I occasionally have different interpretations on this most interesting Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse, but so what?

People of good will have differed over its interpretation from way back when...and will continue to do so long after we finish this study that KFC is so graciously providing us.

What's important is that although we differ on some interpretation, we both believe the 2 essentials (dogmas)which are that Sacred Scripture is the very Word of God and the core teaching contained in St.John's Book of Revelation concerns the Second Coming of Christ at the Final Judgment.

All the various elements that go to make up this teaching is immensely fun to discuss.



Speaking of secret rapture, it's time to travel on over to your next article Rev. 6: 12-17, and discuss your thinking that wrath is only for the unbelievers. You say, the believers will not be here.

First, I said what other thought can you add to defend your point aside from JUST the Bible. There ARE other documents available. Matching the documents of the Bible with these other documents to generate new thoughts is called "synthesis." My contention isn't with using the Bible as a source - it's with using it as the ONLY source when there are plenty of other pre-bible documents that can be brought to bear on the subject - none of which are ever included in the logic presented by people that use the Bible solely as their source. And I believe I said as much, but feel free to make a liar of me...I'm not going searching for it.

The Bible you use didn't materialize from heaven and in English. It went through a lot of hands, got discussed by a lot of people and was assembled by people. I contest that these people, who supposedly debated some very fine points in it before packaging it, are fallible human beings and might have screwed up and that therefore the book cannot be taken literally. In fact, the post history of the Bible is littered with the conflict of the Arians view and Constantines. Of course, the accounts we have all point at the Arians as being led by Satan, but then the victor always writes the history books, so that isn't too surprising to me. The fact that there was such a large amount of contention is a red flag for me to think. Not to decide. Just to consider that maybe all isn't as it seems to be.

The line about white robes and symbology was in response to something you must not have read. KFC said she takes it (the passages) literally. But she wasn't. There are her personal metaphors for these particular bible verses she's studying scattered all over the place - one of which I quoted (if you'll scroll up) regarding her saying that the white robe was a symbol for something. How can she say it's a symbol for something if she takes it all literally? A white robe is a white robe and symbolizes a white robe. So you took me out of context there.

And now, should you like to stop riding my butt while twisting every word and help me get some simple input to what seems to me (and apparently kingbee too) a pretty simple question, then please do. Otherwise, I'll consider this debate at an end simply because it's not my blog, and debating with you is different from debating with KFC from a respect standpoint. Too bad there isn't a PM system on JU.

Anyway, the question is, why do spirits need any clothes at all (or bowls or scrolls or tennis racquets or whatever?) Does God wear clothes? Are they from the GAP or maybe he's a low scale dude and shops at Walmart? Who makes them? Angelic seamstresses? I guess he makes them. For some reason. Why did he give Adam and Eve animal skins for clothing if he can just pop a wardrobe out of nowhere? Because he was upset they disobeyed him? "I had a nice Italian suit for you, bro, but you disobeyed, so here's your deerskin parka." (Genesis 3.21)

Is God and the throne and the angels and the scrolls and all these material objects mentioned existant IN the material universe, or is it outside. My thoughts put any God on the outside of the material realm which is why I have a hard time placing material objects near to him in my imagination. I admit that thought is purely instinctive. And further, if he IS in the literal material universe...anybody have any idea where? The objects, if they are literal, must have a coordinate. A robe exists where it exists. So does a scroll. (I can admit the "God is everywhere" thing - that in my own synthesis makes sense) but not physical objects that can be handed from one place to another which was the nature of my question.

Yes, I'm familiar with the mylar tape controversy which had its beginnings in 1978 when 40 scientists of the STURP team went to Italy and took samples of the Shroud's fibers by means of pressing mylar tape against the cloth.

They sent some of the tapes to McCrone who claimed the Shroud was a fake becasue he found what he thought were particles of iron oxide and cinnabar, and theorized an artist had used them as red and rust-colored paint.

To date, McCrone stands alone in his hypothesis of fakery. All the other 39 scientists on the STURP and non-STURP team who went into the project expecting to find some artistic procedure that made the Image, could find none what so ever. They simple couldn't find any chemical, physical or biological process to account for the properties of the Image.

Bout that time, ideology set in and journalists and scientific skeptics came up with theory after theory and surprise, surprise the news stories ran with it. Even though there was no religious bias to start with, the 39 STRUP scientists were branded as religious fanatics despite the fact they had applied the most rigourous peer reviewed science.

Test after test ruled out all natural explanations. Scientists were left with an enigma. Here, science itself had opened onto the supernatural.

By 1994, 2 biochemists John H. Heller and Alan D. Adler whose painstaking analysis has established once for all that the Shroud image couldn't have been a forgery and also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the blood is real.

They proved it wasn't paint at all, but the result of an acid-like oxidation of the tops of the crowns of most of the fibrils on the cloth that produced the colors that McCrone saw. The Image wasn't the result of painting or artistry of any kind.

You know what so exciting about all this---the case of the SHroud of Turin has given us a marriage, if you will, of science and religion. It seems that by means of science we have confirmed a miracle..and I just love it.

Anyway, the question is, why do spirits need any clothes at all

When Christ arose from the dead did he do so naked? How did they see him on the road to Emmaus? How did they see him in the upper room? They spoke to him and they recognized him. It says in scripture he showed himself to over 500 people. How can one see a spirit?

Christ rose with a new resurrected body. He is the first fruit and if you know anything of the Feast of First Fruits from OT scripture you'd realize this is a picture of Christ. As the Jews offered up the first of their crops to God who promised more to come, so too is Christ called the first fruit. God is promising there is more to come.

We are, after we die, going to all receive resurrected bodies as Christ did. We are not going to be just spirits floating around. We will recognize each other. Jesus said those will be worthy to wear the white clean garments given to them. Only they will be found worthy.

Speaking of secret rapture, it's time to travel on over to your next article Rev. 6: 12-17, and discuss your thinking that wrath is only for the unbelievers. You say, the believers will not be here

ok, Lula, see you over there soon.

Let's see, why do spirits need clothes... same reason a military person needs medals. Or even that diploma. You DON'T need it. But it represents something to you, and to others.

But, if we're not spirits, and we have new bodies, then there's always KFC's answer. Which is probably a lot righter than mine.

OKay, here is another Christian dogma KFC and I agree upon.

in which case, islam's promise of legions of virgins (both male & female depsnding upon one's resurrected gender)doesn't seem so far-fetched. a body isn't really a body without possession of physical senses.

ha! This sounds more like a nightmare than heaven to me.

But hey, that's just me.

But it also contradicts Jesus teaching that there will be no marriage in heaven and I can't believe he means there will be any "shacking up" either.

Ah, good one, KFC. These are my sentiments as well.

yall aint gonna be availin yourselves of your allotted ration of handsome virginal studs in betwixt walks up and down them gilded byways? hopefully it won't be taken as an indication of ingratitude.

I, myself, am guilty of reading half way through a long post and hitting reply before getting to the end, though I try REALLY hard not to do that, so I'm not upset this was missed and unanswered. Still, I really want to know A) Have you asked yourself these questions, and what answers, if any, have you arrived at? Or maybe even C) does it say somewhere that I do not recall that questions like this should not be entertained or answered and that's why I'm not getting any throught from the collective "you" on it?



Thanks.

To me, God is the First Cause, the One, Necessary and Perfect Being, the Designer and Orderer of the Universe (Cosmos), the Origin of life, the Supreme Lawgiver and the Ultimate Good.

Unbelievers confuse "being" viewed as a universal term with "Being" which Christians refer to God. God does not happen to exist like all created things, God IS necessarily and essentially. God told Moses, "I AM WHO AM", that is, I am the ONE BEING who alone exists of Himself and is Infinite in all perfections. God had no beginning, that is, He always was, He is, and He always will be. "Being" in reference to God is, therefore, not an abstraction, but implies the Fullness of All Reality and the Infinite Unity of all Perfections.

The God we worship is a Personal God, the Creator and Conserver of all that exists, Eternal and Unchangeable in His ALmighty Intelligence and Will, Just, Merciful, Holy. He can do all things.


God is outside the world, yet God is the FIRST CAUSE of it. It is most comforting and consoling that God lovingly created Heavens and earth for His own honor and glory and for our eternal well-being. I am not my own but God's, for He keeps me from the abyss of nothingness by the exercise of His perpetual, all-abiding care.

Creation emphasizes the complete distinction between God (the spiritual) and the matter and force of the universe (the material). God is not part of material "things" and in no way identified with material "things". He is an Absolute and Transcendant Being, utterly over and above all His finite creation, but at the same time Immananet in the universe which He has made out of nothingness. "In Him, we live, and move and are." Acts. 17:28.

His Presence, His Power, His Activity, are at all times and all places necessary, not only to sustain finite life, but to make there every activity possible. A Creator who is not at the same time a Conserver is unthinkable.

Creation tells us of a Divine Person who loves us with an Infinite Love and craves our love. The FIRST CAUSE is a Personal God for an impersonal FIRST CAUSE is self-contradictory. The highest thing on earth we know is human personality, intelligence, volition, and self-consciousness. The FIRST CAUSE, as Creator of human personality, must have INtelligence, Volition, and Self-COnsciousness, for IT could not give what IT does not possess.

Well the only way I can think of answering this is from scripture. Scripture speaks of a third heaven. We see three heavens in scripture.

One is by day (clouds, blue sky, sun)
One is by night (stars, moon, galaxies)
One is by faith (where God's throneroom is)

Paul spoke about going up into the third heaven hearing strange utterances and things he couldn't write about. Many believe this is when he was stoned and left for dead.

As far as material objects have you ever read the last two chapters of Revelation? You'll see many material objects found in heaven, including a river, a tree with much fruit, gates, foundations, a city, etc.

and craves our love

I never understood this, and I probably never will, even if you try to explain it. He started out (according to KJB) by putting his babies next to a hot stove and then thrashing them for touching it. Do you put your babies next to hot stoves? Would you have anything but gutwrenching guilt when they burned their little hands or would you kick them out of the house? Or would you rationalize that it wasn't your fault because you told them not to?

Have your older children ever turned right around and done something you told them not to which had really bad results? What did YOU do next? Did you say "I'll forgive you, but only if you do X, Y, and Z?" Have you cut off completely friends or other relatives that you've had because they did something you warned them not to?

The thing I can't get my head around with all this fire and brimstone talk is that you both claim we're God's children, and that he has an infinite and abiding love for us, yet you'd both be far more understanding and compassionate for the mistakes your own children make (and so would I) than this guy is. And don't tell me "He is! As long as you ___fill in the steps required to earn it___." Is your love for your children not unconditional? Mine is. Is God's love equally unconditional? Not even remotely close. Unconditional means without ANY conditions, and there are conditions aplenty required to not burn forever. This is something I cannot understand. In fact, I hope that my only understanding of it ever is, either while alive or after death, that it simply wasn't ever true that God's love is not unconditional. And if I have any faith in anything, I have faith in that.

Be well.