Setting limitations upon scriptural scope like this is an illegitimate rule for discussing a topic such as this that is not at all limited to only the book of Revelation. Positioning for advantage like this is suspect to say the least.
MM
Harvesting of the Earth
- Thread starter Omegatime
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Setting limitations upon scriptural scope like this is an illegitimate rule for discussing a topic such as this that is not at all limited to only the book of Revelation. Positioning for advantage like this is suspect to say the least.
MM
You're absolutely right on this point. I don't always articulate all the nuances and specifics as could be stated, so I apologize.
MM
It is perfectly legitimate when your comment seemed to be directly based on my statement about the Revelation 'audience'. Your remark seems to indicate that you believed that Revelation somehow indicated that all Christians were under the 'law'.
Moreover, I did not say 'while utilizing only Revelation verses' - I just wanted you to focus on whatever it was in Revelation that you believed indicated that all Christians were under the 'law'.
There is a BIG difference between setting limitations upon scriptural scope and asking for focus and specifics on a particular point being suggested.
You should stop making accusatorial statements that you are afterwards unwilling to delve into with scripture to show how you came up with the idea - which is all I really care about at this point - how you came up with the 'remiss in your duty' idea - i.e. what exactly was/is behind this statement?
My statement had nothing to do with 'advantage' - I just want you to explain yourself with regard to that particular statement.
My view is that Christ was in the beginning with God, and is the redeemer of all the faithful in all times.
Job was a contemporary of Abraham, and when he says: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth" (Job 18:25), he speaks of Jesus.
No man can see God and live, yet Jacob was able to wrestle with God and prevail through Jesus, hence the original meaning of the name "Israel".
Regarding the OT saints, Hebrews 11 explains how it all works.
On your Acts 21 passage, it seems the accusation against Paul was (V.21) "that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs".
It seems that he really did that, and his motivation for purifying himself with the Jews was not because it was his general practice, but because he was at liberty to do so.
He was just trying to stay alive.
Notice that when he gives his defense in the next chapter he uses his Roman citizenship in much the same way.
Peter, who you mention was an apostle to the Jews, was not that exclusively.
In Acts 10 we read of him ministering to Cornelius, the first Gentile convert.
Notice that in his vision he was instructed to eat the unclean animals.
If I was to accept a view that Jewish Christians are required by God to continue under the law of Moses, my belief would have to harmonize with the whole of scripture, otherwise I would consider that I have made a mistake.
The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself, and Moses himself prophesied that the conditional Mosaic covenant would be broken.
Deuteronomy 31:16 And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.
The Mosaic covenant was given to the nation of Israel only, so if we read anything about it's abrogation anywhere in the NT, we are reading concerning the Jews.
None the less, to avoid complication I use the book of Hebrews:
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
I have discovered that it really does make a difference - especially on a platform such as this - let me encourage you to be both comprehensive and conscientious in your efforts to communicate effectively on this platform - apology accepted albeit unnecessary.
We are all human. We all make mistakes. What matters is that we all continue to maintain an effort to do our best for the sake of all.
Gliiiiiiiiiitch!
When I hover over this in post #164, Job 18:21 pops up instead of Job 18:25.
EDIT: In this post, both references in my statement above pop up verse 21.
That concept goes both ways here. There are some who think that detail is too wordy, thus leading to the proverbial "You can't please everyone..."
MM
Thus the misunderstanding. I did not state that all Christians are under Law, as you came to understand earlier today, so no need to broach that again. For clarification again, the Law is still in force, but not that it is binding upon us today given that we are dead to it. It is by the Law that unbelievers will find themselves under indictment in the Judgement as to why their names are not written in the Book because of their names having been blotted out, as scripture states.
Let me know if there are any other items of clarity of which you are wondering about in relation to my statements.
MM
Thank you - just one thing...
Let me put it plainly - I want to know why you said this and what scripture there is to back it up.
Remember that 'effective' does not always have to be 'wordy'.
Also, if/when someone specifically asks you for 'detail' - are you saying that you will refuse simply on the grounds that some think that detail is too wordy?
That sounds to me like trying to please everyone. Or, perhaps, it means agreeing with all whose idea of 'reasonable' allows you to be lazy and/or evasive in your responses...?
Gliiiiiiiiiitch!
When I hover over this in post #164, Job 18:21 pops up instead of Job 18:25.
EDIT: In this post, both references in my statement above pop up verse 21.
Was meant to be:
Job 19:25
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
As I recall, the discussion about the seven churches allegedly being Gentile churches, as is believed by most prophecy/eschatology watch groups and individuals, that leads to creating problems in other areas of scripture, key among them being that were those truly Gentile churches, they also must be subject to the Mosaic Law given that John was a minister of the Kingdom Gospel only to Israel, and his instructions to them are directly tied to the beliefs of the believing Jews in Jerusalem who were zealous for the Law. I'm saying all this on this basis:
Galatians 2:8-9
8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
It floors me as to how easily my colleagues and the pastorates out there completely ignore, or transliterate, this key division between audience assigned to Paul and that to the twelve. So, had John violated the assigned audience to whom he was to minister, then he would have made himself no better than the Judaizers who went to the churches under Paul's ministry preaching zeal for the Law, which was the reason for Paul's journey to Jerusalem in Acts 15 to deal with this problem that arose from the gospel ministries crossing over into the other, thus confusing those under Paul's ministry to the point that he demands of them an answer as to who had "bewitched" them with teachings of zeal for the Law.
Now, honoring your request as to the seven churches addressed in Revelation, please consider this...now that I've getting better at the bulleted and hyphened inputs into this forum formatting language.
The “mosaic Law” connection comes through by way of the explicit OT/Israel commandments language and themes that the seven letters repeatedly echo—especially in how Jesus calls churches to repent (turn back), avoid specific sins, and obey God’s covenant standards. The clearest “pointing statements” are:
- Ephesus (Rev 2:4–6): “You have left your first love… Remember… Repent” (law/covenant back to God) and the call to hate/avoid certain practices (“works of the Nicolaitans,” Rev 2:6), which parallels Torah-style “turn from” commands.
- Pergamum (Rev 2:14–16): the strongest Torah echo—rebuking tolerance of idolatry and sexual immorality linked to “Balaam” and “Balak” (Rev 2:14). Those narratives function as warnings against covenant of Law violation, like classic covenant-curse patterns in Israel’s law tradition.
- Thyatira (Rev 2:20–23): condemns “Jezebel” and her teaching, calling followers to “commit adultery and eat food sacrificed to idols” (Rev 2:20). Jesus then promises judgment unless they “repent” (Rev 2:21–22)—again tracking Torah’s combination of idolatry + sexual immorality as covenant breach.
- Sardis (Rev 3:1–6): “Remember… keep it” and “repent” (Rev 3:3). The emphasis is covenant fidelity—staying “unstained/clean” like priestly purity language (cf. “not defiled” garments, Rev 3:4–5).
- Laodicea (Rev 3:16–19): warns against lukewarmness and calls for “zeal and… repent” (Rev 3:19). This is covenant discipline language: God corrects those he loves, which matches the Torah theme of divine instruction/discipline.
- “Repent” (turn back from covenant breach)
- specific behaviors named as sins to Torah-following peoples that were not instructed toward the Gentiles under Paul's ministry
- promise of reward to the faithful (obedience/covenant loyalty framework)
So, when one looks for explicit language that brings the letters to the seven churches under indictment of the Law, it's not there because it wasn't necessary for John to have delineated that in an express manner to those who were well versed in the Law and the scriptures they were raised with throughout their lives...other than the Gentile proselytes. Modern Torah keepers assume the Gentile world attended synagogues to learn Torah, which is nowhere supported in scripture at all other than for the obscure mention of the existence of synagogues throughout the scattered areas where Jews dwelt.
Does that help?
MM
The earth has been harvested by those having sickles from the beginning (Rev. 14:17-19).
Let's change the subject!
“So Simon Peter went aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153 of them. Even with so many, the net was not torn.” (John 21:11)
Why do you suppose 153 large fish??
“So Simon Peter went aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153 of them. Even with so many, the net was not torn.” (John 21:11)
Why do you suppose 153 large fish??
I don't believe the number is symbolic. I think John recorded the number because everyone was so amazed that the net didn't break. Many of Jesus' disciples were professional fishermen, and they would know that 153 fish was far more than a typical net could hold. Professional fishermen in Galilee used nets that could tear under heavy loads. A catch of 153 large fish would indeed be extraordinary, and the note that “the net was not torn” underscores the miracle’s physical impressiveness.
All things have meaning to me and in this case of the 153 large fish which I believe denotes generations.
In Luke 3:23-38 we can count 76 generations and including Jesus (total 77 generations ) covering 4000 years.
If we look at the next 2000 years with 76 generations it would be about 26.3 years per generation which is reasonable.
77 plus another 76 is 153
hahaha (DUH!) - did not think to check to see if there were more than 21 verses in chapter 18 - assumed the rendering program made an error - goes to show you - trusted you had it right and the program failed - left it alone after that - did not look any further into it.
My gut feeling about what the fire relates to in the story Jesus was tending, seems to be a time of judgments and rewards.
14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.