Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2017 9:53:30 GMT -6
I just wanted to mention that there are three speakers in the Book of Revelation, in my opinion that is. In Chapter 11, the speakers are as follows: v. 1 John and the angel v. 2 the angel v. 3 Lord Jesus speaking about John and the angel v. 4-13 narrative from John I think the problem in understanding this arises from a belief that the angel can not die. If I were to say Elijah who ascended into heaven is still at some point subject to death then Elijah could be an angel in the Book of Revelation that dies in Jerusalem. However, it is not Elijah that is the angel but Michael from Dan. Chapter 12. He had the honor of being the first man upon the earth, Adam. I have absolutely no proof of this and it is purely my speculation. Boraddict, Could I ask, how does this bring light? In other words, how does this help us understand things better? Is the message not the same no matter who the speaker is? And if so, what is the point of speculating about speakers and which angels, etc. Thanks for helping me understand. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 30, 2017 10:27:18 GMT -6
Hi Silent, I was just showing my most extreme example of an non provable truth. I can not prove it; however, it might be true. In fact, it is a foreign doctrine to perhaps every Christian sect. I could not think of a better example.
Thus, the point of my example was achieved, albeit, perhaps I went to far.
With respect to the speakers; it shows the three speakers from Chapter 10 are also in Chapter 11. The are having a conversation intertwined within a narrative. There are only these three speakers. Thus, it is my conclusion that only these three are involved. John, the angel, and Lord Jesus.
Thus, John and the angel are the two that are killed in Jerusalem, and Lord Jesus resurrects them.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetimeoftheend on Nov 30, 2017 10:47:15 GMT -6
I don't recall anywhere in which we are told to believe in things that are not provable. In fact, we are told to test everything, and reject all kind of evil (1 Thess 5:21-22).
We are told in Acts that the Berean Jews were held in esteem because they searched out the scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true (Acts 17:11).
The things you are saying are simply not true, and are frankly heretical.
Adam was the first man created by God, Michael is the only known archangel, and John an apostle of Christ. There is no scriptural basis for any claims otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 30, 2017 11:07:10 GMT -6
That is a good observation but not correct. I doubt that the LDS church could think so far as to make the conclusions that I have made. They follow a false prophet and believe every word of his to be scripture. So you are in error to conclude this. I however do know the LDS church very well. I understand the doctrine and some major technical errors such as their two types of leadership first that of being led by a prophet and secondly being led by 12 apostles. They have combined the two to being led by apostles that are prophets. That is, I know their doctrine better than they do. It is a false doctrine that is out of line with sound principles of logic. However, it is a doctrine worthy of study. Just as the Jehovah Witnesses, Calvary, and others are worthy of study. However, please do not confuse my analysis with LDS doctrine because it is not. They oppose my analysis more than you because it did not come from their prophet. Post Script: My point in using Michael from Daniel Chapter 12 was to show my belief in an non-provable truth. That is, I believe it; however, it is not provable. The reason that I believe it is because I believe John to have been the Angel of the Lord's presence from the Old Testament. This is not LDS doctrine and they haven't a clue what it means. Nevertheless, If John is the Angel of the Lord's presence, a doctrine that I am reluctant to share (not LDS), then it logically stands that Michael might have been Adam. That is, if the flow of first person is forward in time, then the the flow of the second person can also be forward in time. That is the basis of my conclusion and it is not LDS doctrine. Call anyone LDS and they will have no clue as to what I am saying. So please do not black ball my analysis as being LDS. boraddict - Did you click the link I provided? It was a direct reference to the LDS Doctrine & Covenants. I am not blackballing you or your analysis, however based on what I've read in your post confuses me a bit. You state that you believe Michael was Adam, and John is the the angel of the Lord from the OT but you cant prove it. Is that correct? Why do you believe these two things? Stated differently, what evidence (evidence is different than proof) do you have to make this part of your worldview? Side note - please understand I am not trying to single you out or blackball. Please read this post as Mike the fallible Christian brother who is trying to grow in Him and help others do the same, not Mike the moderator. None of us have perfect doctrine, and all of us can learn from one another. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 30, 2017 12:22:48 GMT -6
I don't recall anywhere in which we are told to believe in things that are not provable. In fact, we are told to test everything, and reject all kind of evil (1 Thess 5:21-22). We are told in Acts that the Berean Jews were held in esteem because they searched out the scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true (Acts 17:11). The things you are saying are simply not true, and are frankly heretical. Adam was the first man created by God, Michael is the only known archangel, and John an apostle of Christ. There is no scriptural basis for any claims otherwise. Okay, we, as in you and I, believe that Lord Jesus is the Savior of the world. However, to my neighbor it can not be proved. That is, our belief in Christ rests upon our faith. Thus, our belief in Christ is an non provable truth that we believe. Whereas, we can prove through science that genetic mutations exist. A fact that can not be proved in scripture. Just as the division of atoms is a provable fact of science. Thus, our truth is built upon our faith in Christ. We have taken a giant leap forward in comparison to someone who must rely on science for truth. Thus, if I believe that John was the angel of the Old Testament and can not prove it to you, then I rest my belief upon my faith rather than upon scriptural proof. Nevertheless, I may be right. However, this is miles away from my original point that there are three speakers in Revelation Chapter 11. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 30, 2017 13:17:54 GMT -6
Our belief in Christ is faith and not provable to our neighbor. However, it is a historical fact that He lived and died. The Bible states clearly why He lived and died, and so our truth is built on the foundation of Biblical truth. Our truth is not built on our faith; our faith is built on God's truth. Just because our neighbor does not believe the Bible is truth does not make our neighbor right. We have to stand on the truth stated in God's Word.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 30, 2017 13:35:34 GMT -6
boraddict i'm pretty sure this is the type of thinking that leads to cults or worse.
Think about what youre saying here for a minute...Your belief system is not primarily based on Gods Word, but on what you think is acceptable or what you believe. You may be the only person alive (ever) who believes what you think. Youre basing your faith on something that has zero absolute to it.
While its ok to have a theories or persuasions, its dangerous to think that one can fly because they have faith that they can, so they jump to their death. I digress...There is a concept of the "Sons of God" from Genesis that is largely supported by the book of Enoch. Do I base faith on the theory? no. Do i think its possible it couldve happened that way? yes. But I dont shape my worldview on that, rather solely on canon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2017 13:35:54 GMT -6
I don't recall anywhere in which we are told to believe in things that are not provable. In fact, we are told to test everything, and reject all kind of evil (1 Thess 5:21-22). We are told in Acts that the Berean Jews were held in esteem because they searched out the scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true (Acts 17:11). The things you are saying are simply not true, and are frankly heretical. Adam was the first man created by God, Michael is the only known archangel, and John an apostle of Christ. There is no scriptural basis for any claims otherwise. Okay, we, as in you and I, believe that Lord Jesus is the Savior of the world. However, to my neighbor it can not be proved. That is, our belief in Christ rests upon our faith. Thus, our belief in Christ is an non provable truth that we believe. Whereas, we can prove through science that genetic mutations exist. A fact that can not be proved in scripture. Just as the division of atoms is a provable fact of science. Thus, our truth is built upon our faith in Christ. We have taken a giant leap forward in comparison to someone who must rely on science for truth. Thus, if I believe that John was the angel of the Old Testament and can not prove it to you, then I rest my belief upon my faith rather than upon scriptural proof. Nevertheless, I may be right. However, this is miles away from my original point that there are three speakers in Revelation Chapter 11. boraddict, even though we cannot convince our neighbor that Jesus is the Savior of the world, we have reasons that we believe it. We heard something that rang true, we felt the spirit move, we see the fulfillment of prophecy, we detect the change within ourselves, we see the evidence in the world around us, etc. And, as Natalie says, there is historical and archeological evidence. These are evidences that support our faith. Sure, we still take it on faith, but it is not a blind faith. What we are trying to ask, which seems really hard for people to answer these days, is what evidence do you use to support your ideas about who John is and who Michael is, etc. Something made you come to that conclusion. Was it a word from God, the voice of an angel, a group of scripture passages? Did you just wake up one morning and determine it was truth? We are not asking you to prove your point or even convince us that it is true. We are asking, why do you believe it? Please realize, this has been a theme in multiple threads lately - statements of fact as if they are to be accepted or else one is stupid or antagonistic - no scriptural verification, no hint as to logic or reason - just ideas without substance. So you are likely catching some of the backlash of this. Are you able to shed some light as to how you gained your understanding of the angels - the truth to you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2017 13:47:50 GMT -6
boraddict i'm pretty sure this is the type of thinking that leads to cults or worse. Think about what youre saying here for a minute...Your belief system is not primarily based on Gods Word, but on what you think is acceptable or what you believe. You may be the only person alive (ever) who believes what you think. Youre basing your faith on something that has zero absolute to it. While its ok to have a theories or persuasions, its dangerous to think that one can fly because they have faith that they can, so they jump to their death. I digress...There is a concept of the "Sons of God" from Genesis that is largely supported by the book of Enoch. Do I base faith on the theory? no. Do i think its possible it couldve happened that way? yes. But I dont shape my worldview on that, rather solely on canon. Some finely knit concepts are wrapped up in this quilt. There may be things that the Lord has asked us to walk in that cannot be 100% confirmed from Scripture. As long as they do not contradict what we understand from scripture - we cover this a lot in the Hearing God thread. Scripture simply does not cover everything and we still need to walk in the faith of what we hear from God. For instance, I may be walking in faith as I purchase my next house, believing that the Lord is leading me to purchase it. The bible can't help me in this faith, I must trust that the Lord is leading me. The same could be true for certain "facts" that we believe we know or understand. Where this particular topic causes pause for us - is that the bible appears to say the opposite of what is being postulated as truth here. What I see when I read scripture is that the first man was named, The Adam. Not Michael. I also am told that he is a man, not an angel. He had human babies, not angel babies. I am told that John is the brother of James and therefore have the same parents. I am not aware of a scripture that says angels can be born as men - or occupy their bodies. So these "truths" are not simply matters of faith, because they appear to contradict scriptural concepts - even if they do not directly contradict scripture itself. Which they kind of do though, right? So once again - sure walk in the faith you have been given, but can you give us a reason for the faith? Surely you didn't just decide this some day, something led you to it. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 30, 2017 13:58:45 GMT -6
That is a good observation but not correct. I doubt that the LDS church could think so far as to make the conclusions that I have made. They follow a false prophet and believe every word of his to be scripture. So you are in error to conclude this. I however do know the LDS church very well. I understand the doctrine and some major technical errors such as their two types of leadership first that of being led by a prophet and secondly being led by 12 apostles. They have combined the two to being led by apostles that are prophets. That is, I know their doctrine better than they do. It is a false doctrine that is out of line with sound principles of logic. However, it is a doctrine worthy of study. Just as the Jehovah Witnesses, Calvary, and others are worthy of study. However, please do not confuse my analysis with LDS doctrine because it is not. They oppose my analysis more than you because it did not come from their prophet. Post Script: My point in using Michael from Daniel Chapter 12 was to show my belief in an non-provable truth. That is, I believe it; however, it is not provable. The reason that I believe it is because I believe John to have been the Angel of the Lord's presence from the Old Testament. This is not LDS doctrine and they haven't a clue what it means. Nevertheless, If John is the Angel of the Lord's presence, a doctrine that I am reluctant to share (not LDS), then it logically stands that Michael might have been Adam. That is, if the flow of first person is forward in time, then the the flow of the second person can also be forward in time. That is the basis of my conclusion and it is not LDS doctrine. Call anyone LDS and they will have no clue as to what I am saying. So please do not black ball my analysis as being LDS. boraddict - Did you click the link I provided? It was a direct reference to the LDS Doctrine & Covenants. I am not blackballing you or your analysis, however based on what I've read in your post confuses me a bit. You state that you believe Michael was Adam, and John is the the angel of the Lord from the OT but you cant prove it. Is that correct? Why do you believe these two things? Stated differently, what evidence (evidence is different than proof) do you have to make this part of your worldview? Side note - please understand I am not trying to single you out or blackball. Please read this post as Mike the fallible Christian brother who is trying to grow in Him and help others do the same, not Mike the moderator. None of us have perfect doctrine, and all of us can learn from one another. Hi Mike, I know that you are a kind and warmhearted person. I just felt that I needed to stress that I had no association with the LDS Church. Now consider the Adam God Theory. It was first spoken of by Brigham Young; however, he could not explain it, and neither has any other leader of the LDS church. It is considered an embarrassment to the church and out of line to their modern doctrine. Nevertheless, Young spoke of it but could not explain it. So it is this: the DNA of Adam and Christ are the same. Do not shoot the messenger!!!! I am simply saying that the theory in its basic terms is that. Thus, according that that theory, since Adam has the same DNA as Christ, then Adam is God. Please do not shoot the messenger!!! This doctrine is not taught in the LDS church nor is it believed in by LDS church members. Thus, my point is that the LDS church does not follow its early doctrines or beliefs. The same may be true of all churches, I do not know. This brings us to the Adam/Michael theory. Let's just call it that. I did not know that it was codified in the D&C and will go look at that. My foundational premise is John 21:23 in which John is to live till Lord Jesus comes; then he will die (in my opinion). The question in my mind becomes, where does John die? Since Rev. Chapter 11 has three speakers, and John is one of those, then it is my summation that John dies as one of the two witnesses in that chapter. Then the question becomes, who is the other prophet that dies? Since in my opinion, there is only one angel in the Book of Revelation, and it is not John, then it is someone from the Old Testament. Perhaps Elijah, Moses, Enoch, etc. However, Dan. 12:1 seems to indicate that Michael is the father of the family and he comes at the last days. Thus, it has been my conclusion that John is the angel of the Old Testament and Michael is the angel of the New Testament. However, like I said, none of this is provable. It simply is my perspective on the two prophets that are killed in Jerusalem in Rev. Chapter 11. I should have known the reference to the D&C however, I do not study that book. I should have found a better example for making my point in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Nov 30, 2017 14:46:15 GMT -6
I have a number of questions to ask regarding your perspective boraddict, and I hope I can get to them later today, as my plate is full at the moment. I understand where the others are coming from; and though I think I can follow your logic, the flaw with a flawless logical argument is inevitably the baseline assumptions it is built on. That is what I would like to ask you about. I will ask about the grammar-translation of the passages you refer to. For instance, has anyone noticed that the verb tense in Rev 11:11 changes from a future tense in 1-10, to a past tense? |
|
|
|
Post by witness1 on Nov 30, 2017 14:55:46 GMT -6
Interesting observation! I don't know the answer, but I notice that verses 4-6 are actually present tense. Who they "are", and what they "have" the power to do. Then it goes to future tense after they have completed their testimony.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 30, 2017 15:05:16 GMT -6
boraddict - i see...It had seemed clear that you were quoting the LDS as your theory matched exactly what they promote. So I apologize for making the assumption.
As for the apostle John, i do believe you may be missing context of the chapter and associated verses. The message here is that Peter was worrying about things not pertaining to him. Jesus did not answer his question but provided instruction on how to live his own life
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Quoting Barnes Commentary on the subject via Bible Hub
1. that our main business is to follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. that there are many subjects of religion on which a vain and impertinent curiosity is exercised. All such curiosity Jesus here reproves.
3. that Jesus will take care of all his true disciples, and that we should not be unduly solicitous about them.
4. that we should go forward to whatever he calls us to persecution or death - not envying the lot of any other man, and anxious only to do the will of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 30, 2017 21:27:10 GMT -6
Okay, we, as in you and I, believe that Lord Jesus is the Savior of the world. However, to my neighbor it can not be proved. That is, our belief in Christ rests upon our faith. Thus, our belief in Christ is an non provable truth that we believe. Whereas, we can prove through science that genetic mutations exist. A fact that can not be proved in scripture. Just as the division of atoms is a provable fact of science. Thus, our truth is built upon our faith in Christ. We have taken a giant leap forward in comparison to someone who must rely on science for truth. Thus, if I believe that John was the angel of the Old Testament and can not prove it to you, then I rest my belief upon my faith rather than upon scriptural proof. Nevertheless, I may be right. However, this is miles away from my original point that there are three speakers in Revelation Chapter 11. boraddict, even though we cannot convince our neighbor that Jesus is the Savior of the world, we have reasons that we believe it. We heard something that rang true, we felt the spirit move, we see the fulfillment of prophecy, we detect the change within ourselves, we see the evidence in the world around us, etc. And, as Natalie says, there is historical and archeological evidence. These are evidences that support our faith. Sure, we still take it on faith, but it is not a blind faith. What we are trying to ask, which seems really hard for people to answer these days, is what evidence do you use to support your ideas about who John is and who Michael is, etc. Something made you come to that conclusion. Was it a word from God, the voice of an angel, a group of scripture passages? Did you just wake up one morning and determine it was truth? We are not asking you to prove your point or even convince us that it is true. We are asking, why do you believe it? Please realize, this has been a theme in multiple threads lately - statements of fact as if they are to be accepted or else one is stupid or antagonistic - no scriptural verification, no hint as to logic or reason - just ideas without substance. So you are likely catching some of the backlash of this. Are you able to shed some light as to how you gained your understanding of the angels - the truth to you? Thank you Silent. To answer your question I need to provide some background information. While working on the chiasmus for the Book of Revelation, Chapter six was being difficult. Thus, I placed it twice in the chiasmus. Sometime later, a year or two, I noticed that the four horsemen were four men. Thus, I set out to find who these men were. After careful consideration I could see that the great sward was the great flood, thus, the second horseman was Noah. The first was therefore Enoch, and the third was Moses. Since the fourth, Death, was followed by Hell, then the fourth was Elijah. While doing this research I concluded that these four men were translated. That is, since some were, then all were. It seemed to be the qualification of being placed as the four horsemen. Somewhere during this research I noticed that each of these four men were born during 1,000 year periods of time. Thus, in my opinion, Enoch was in the first seal (1,000 year period), Noah in the 2nd, Moses in the 3rd, and Elijah in the fourth. Since there were seven seals then there must be seven translated men. Thus, number five was obviously John (John 21:23). Since we are currently in the sixth 1,000 year period, then the sixth had to come from year 1,000 to the present day. I could not find anyone that was translated for that period so I summarized that this sixth man must not have been translated yet. Then one day I was working on the sixth angel in Rev. 9:13-14 and noticed that the link to Verse 6:12 was not in line with my previous conclusions. That is, Verse 6:12 seemed to go directly to the Chapter 16 woe. So what happened to the sixth man? Then I made the connection between the four angels of Rev. 9:15, 7:2, and 8:7-12. I had already discovered that the angels of 8:7-12 were four judgments (in my opinion that is); thus, the link showed that the four angels were four judgments and John was telling someone to participate in those judgments (v. 9:1 that carries into v. 9:13). That is, John that is the fifth angel due to the "Word of God" language in Verse 6:9, was now instructing the 6th angel to participate in the four judgments. I found it interesting that the four judgments were listed as three woes. So where was the fourth woe? It had to have taken place prior to Chapter 8. That is, if three woes remained, then the first woe was in Verse 7:1. I worked under this assumption and flushed out that the sixth angel was in fact the 144,000. Thus, it is the 144,000 in Verse 9:14 that John is instructing to participate in the four Judgments. However, since one judgment was past, then the four angels in Rev. 9:14 are in fact three judgments. I worked this through and to my satisfaction confirmed my hypothesis using Verse 7:3. The next question was, who is number seven. I had previously worked through Chapter 19 and found that Verses 19:11-21 were summarized in Verses 8:2-6. Thus, the seventh angel was in Verse 19:17. Interestingly, this angel is in Verses 1:1, 10:8, and multiple of other verses throughout the book. Thus, the angels, in my opinion, are: 1-4, the four judgments, 5 is John, 6 is the 144,000, and seven is the angel that is showing the Vision of the Book of Revelation to John. Like I have previously explained, I worked through Chatpers 10 and 11 to find that this seventh angel is Micahel from Dan. 12:1. If all the seven angels represent translated men, then who is this, the seventh translated man? Since he must be alive during the 7th 1,000 year period of time, then he must live after the mid point of the seven years of Tribulation. Again, this appeared to me to be Michael. If that is true, then who was he in mortality? The leap that I have no evidence of is that it is Adam. That is, if Adam is the angel of the Book of Revelation and he is one of the two witnesses, the who was the angel of the Old Testament. Again, another leap; it must have been John. That is my analysis of the angels of the Book of Revelation. As far as truth, I concede to your and others analysis that we know it when we hear it. Thus we are of the truth. My neighbor might never get it. |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Nov 30, 2017 22:28:19 GMT -6
I just wanted to mention that there are three speakers in the Book of Revelation, in my opinion that is. In Chapter 11, the speakers are as follows: v. 1 John and the angel v. 2 the angel v. 3 Lord Jesus speaking about John and the angel v. 4-13 narrative from John I think the problem in understanding this arises from a belief that the angel can not die. If I were to say Elijah who ascended into heaven is still at some point subject to death then Elijah could be an angel in the Book of Revelation that dies in Jerusalem. However, it is not Elijah that is the angel but Michael from Dan. Chapter 12. He had the honor of being the first man upon the earth, Adam. I have absolutely no proof of this and it is purely my speculation. I see that the Apostle John says "I was given a [measuring] stick..." in verse 1, so isn't it clear at this point that it is John is narrating a story in verse 1? He is explaining what event occurred, right: given a reed, and then he quotes the speaker from the latter part of verse 1 as to what to do with the reed. There is an implication that the speaker gave John the reed, but it is not explicitly stated. John was commanded to 'go...' (present tense) and measure the temple. The identity of the individual speaking is not explicitly given in verse 1. It is also not explicitly given in verse 2. Verse 2 is a continuation of the narrative that began in verse 1. The speaker quoted in verse 1 is the same speaker who is continuing to speak in verse 2. There is no new speaker identified: The 'But' is a conjunction tying the latter half of verse 1 to verse 2. Verse 3 uses the personal pronoun ' I', indicating the speaker who has been speaking since verse 1 to John, telling him what to do. This 'I' person says something distinct in verse 3: John is still quoting the speaker from verse 1 here! But there is also a verb tense change in what the speaker is saying! First the speaker gives John a directive: "Go..." present tense. Then in verse 2, "Exclude..." also present tense. Finally verse 3: "and I will..." future tense, but as in 'after you do that, I will do this...', using the 'and' conjunction to tie verse 3 contextually in with verses 1-2. At this point, I see two individuals interacting: John who was commanded to do stuff, and someone who identifies as 'I', but no name is given. In verse 3, whose witnesses are they? The 'I'/'my', right? These two witnesses are identified in verse 4 as the two lampstands and the two olive trees that stand before the Lord. Zechariah 4:3, 11, 14 identify who the olive trees are: In this verse identifies the two olive trees as those who serve the Lord of all the earth? Who is the Lord of all the earth? Jesus is! (some may take the position that he became Lord of all the earth when he opened the 7 seals...) The lampstand and bowl probably represents the Lord of all the earth in this passage (and others), given the visualization described here. But the visual of the two lampstands in Rev 11:4 is a little trickier. Most people would probably say that grammatically (because of the 'and'), the passage is simply demonstrating that the lampstands are just another way to describe the two witnesses; but I am trying to be a little more vigorous here. Ex 25, 26, 37, 39, 40 and other passages, indicate the lampstands were found in the tabernacle. The NAS exhaustive concordance indicates that the word for lampstand can also be used in a plural sense. These passages also show that the lampstands supported lamps. Three on each side (a menorah style?). The Gospels explain the purpose of lamps is to provide light (that's why one would not put the lamp under a bushel - it defeats the purpose of having the lamp lit). Proverbs 13:9 says So I would suggest, based upon these passages, that the purpose of the light is to show righteousness. It makes a kind of sense by extension (since the lampstands hold the lamps that produce the light) that the purpose of the lampstands should also be to demonstrate righteousness. If the lampstands are the same as the olive trees, and are demonstrating righteousness, I wonder what the olive trees demonstrate? Holiness? Maybe someone can do some research on the function of the olive trees, or what they demonstrate. Continuing: If Verse 3 is identifying Jesus' two Witnesses, which I believe I have demonstrated whose witnesses they are, and that the lampstands and olive trees are synonymous, and if it is clearly Jesus speaking and John narrating that monologue, I have to ask where did the angel come from? Are there not only two people in this scene? I notice also, that the Lord, speaking to John in verses 1-3, ends his statement at the end of verse 3 (notice where the end quotes are located, that began at the end of verse 1). Since the quotes end after the verse 3; and since there are only two people present in this scene, it makes sense that the person narrating beginning in verse 4 is John, who is interpreting the description of the two Witnesses in verse 3. John then, continues to narrate verses 5-10 (present), but he changes verb tense in verse 11 (past), and then again in verse 12 (present), and then again in verse 13-14 (past). The scene changes to a different vision after verse 14. So from what I have described, it looks like there are only two people in the scene from verses 1-14: John who is narrating, and Jesus, whom John is quoting, having received direct communication from the Lord in 1-3. The quoted part looks like John telling us what the Lord spoke to him. Part of John's narration from verse 4 onward revolves around a description of the two Witnesses and their time and activities on earth; the reaction by those left behind during the tribulation to the two Witnesses (and their actions); God's final disposition of the two Witnesses after they are killed; and what appears to be a judgement for their murder. There does not appear to be any angel in this prophecy at all? But if there is, then 1. where did the angel come from; and 2. What activity is the angel performing in the scene; and 3. If John and the angel are the two Witnesses, why in verse 3 would the Lord say "And I will appoint my two Witnesses..."? Why wouldn't John just quote the Lord saying, "The Lord turned to me and said,'I will appoint you and the angel here to... blah blah blah...'? Apologies for the long post; and thanks for reading. I hope you can address my questions. p.s.: having read the post just prior to this one, after posting this one, I have to also ask: If john and the angel are the two witnesses, how can adam be a witness? |
|
