Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
So then if Revelation is pure allegory, why did Nee/Lee extract the entire ground of locality from this book and teach it as a literal fact?
"According to the book of Revelation, the oneness of the believers in Christ is a local oneness. Anyone who is not in the local oneness is not actually in the oneness at all. " -Witness Lee
Even then, taken as literal this book does not explicitly teach locality.
|
I consider Revelation to be both allegory and literal. The problem is people are reading as allegory the parts which should be literal (they are not considering the facts of one church per city), and those parts which should be allegory, as literal (such as the New Jerusalem being a physical floating city of jewels).
We know that the city localities are not allegory because they
truly existed. You cannot show me a floating jeweled city in the sky, or a dragon, these things don't exist.
We don't need Revelation to prove the ground of locality. The facts of history are enough - the church in Ephesus, for example, truly existed. You can book a holiday to Turkey and visit the site today if you like, there is one called "Seven Churches of Revelation Tour". I note with some amusement that it is not called the "seven denominations of revelation tour".
That the early church was arranged by city locality is a historical fact, as proven by the scholars.
Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, page 435 says
"In the multiplicity of metropolitan Gentile churches there is still only one church in a Greek polis (a city). The Greek polis becomes the center for mission. Never is there more than one church in a city".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
n the case that Revelation is entirely literal then the seven churches weren't cities at all, they were just lamp stands. This means that the foundation of the LC was entirely built on sand, or a subjective opinion, and not objective truth.
You see the problem with this line of thought? Presenting the false dichotomy that Revelation can only be taken entirely literally or purely allegorical is lazy, or at best, an ignorant approach to hermeneutics.
The Lord spoke both literally and figuratively during his ministry on earth, I'm sure he's capable of doing the same through John's vision.
|
I am not saying that we should take Revelation as purely one or the other. I am saying that if you ignore the literal facts of one city per church, and yet think there are literal cities of jewel in the sky, then you should also believe that there is a literal dragon. A floating city of jewels is just as believable as a flying dragon, but you cannot show them to me because they don't exist. Therefore they are allegorical. Lamp stands are also allegorical in Revelation, because a literal lamp stand per city did not literally exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
But he did supply Adam and Eve with ingenuity and building material. And in the case of the temple, he gave Solomon instruction to build it.
I don't know why you say "tolerate" as if it were an idea that originated with David or Solomon. God himself commanded it to be build with precise details on how it was to be built.
|
The idea of building the temple originated with David and was not God's will. That's a fact.
2 Samuel 7
2 Then David said to Nathan the prophet, “Look, I am living in a palace made of cedar wood, but the Ark of God is in a tent!”
3 Nathan said to the king, “Go and do what you really want to do, because the Lord is with you.”
God then appeared to Nathan and rejected David’s offer, telling David not to build a temple (2 Sam. 7:5-7). This is clearer in 1 Chron 1:4 which plainly reads, “You shall not build Me a house to dwell in” (1 Chron. 17:4).
Centuries later and God still does not seem to appreciate David's offer because he allowed the temple to be destroyed multiple times and finally to be destroyed and never built again.
By the new testament time, the idea of the Temple is rejected almost completely. Christ said it would be destroyed, and the authors of the new testament reject the "God in the man-made temple" when they write:
Acts 7:48 However, the Most High doesn't live in temples made by human hands. As the prophet says,
When the disciples remarked how beautiful the temple was, Christ response was that it would be torn down. Christ did not seem to appreciate the outward beauty of the man made temple.
"Luke 21:5 "Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God"
Strong proof for the New Jerusalem being the church is given by the fact that the temple where God dwells is no longer the physical Temple built by David but the temple built by God - our human bodies.
Paul wrote:
1 Cor 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst?
In regards to those who think the NJ is a physical city 1 Cor 3:16 seems to be addressed to them as well. "Do you not know that you yourselves are God's city?".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
God himself through his prophets founded the biblical nation of Israel, city of Jerusalem, and the Holy temple. How then can you say, "God doesn't seem to do buildings or cities"?
|
The first city was built by man, the city of Babel, by Nimrod. It was in rebellion against God, when fallen men decided to organize themselves together to make themselves great. God never instructed Adam and Eve to build cities.
In God's original creation there was no buildings or cities. If the new heavens and new earth is a restoration of God's creation then I expect there to be no buildings either. Cities are a symbol of man-made rebellion against God. Cities are also for protection from enemies. In a perfect new earth I cannot see why any of these things would be needed.