Philologos

And, while I never like to speculate, I personally (with no means to properly prove my statement) think that Eden covers the same footprint that New Jerusalem will, and that same land was originally intended for Abraham’s descendants, and the separate nations of Egypt and Assyria. But Israel, in whole or in part, dwelt in Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon- all of which are within these boundaries, even though in captivity.

That’s not incorrect, but even a handful of dirt is called “earth.” But even the “dry land” in Genesis 1 may merely be a reference to the region. It doesn’t deny any activity outside the region, but the story God wrote only included the territory He claimed for Himself. Yes, the opposite side of the world will be affected by the wake of God’s wrath- I certainly believe the entire world will shake, but the scripture does speak of survivors outside.

Adam only had one wife. It was impossible for him to have had another since she was literally made from his body.

Clues in scripture will verify that demons “enter” people, possess them. They can’t create a body for themselves, so they rely on humans that have a space vacancy for them.

Earth, in Isaiah’s time, referred to the region within a (roughly) 700 mile radius around Jerusalem. ”Earth” did not become synonymous with “Planet Earth” until after the 15th century a.d. This region is equivalent to 1% of the planet’s surface. That is 1/10 of 1/10, or a tithe of a tithe. Scripture does mention a variety of people outside of New Jerusalem who are kept out because of their sins and rejection of God. (btw, New Jerusalem is also equal to 1% of the planet’s total surface area.)

You brought up another point by adding the ‘definition of doctrine…’ the Greek word for doctrine means “instruction;” why would we define it merely as a “belief?”

The confusion is in how we define ‘heaven.’ Paradise is not “heaven,” per se. It is in the spiritual realm and is where Jesus said he would be. Some argue that Jesus is in Heaven, on his throne. Well, yeah, but he’s not confined to just sitting on a throne for a couple thousand years- he has things to do, like visit his royal subjects in paradise. People don’t go to God’s heavenly throne when they die, but they do go to paradise, which is often referred to as “heaven” by many.

It’s not meant to make you a better Christian… but, it is to be used to encourage believers until Christ returns. It is the exercising and strengthening of your faith. Scripture actually contains many pertinent insights for end times believers, even instructions on how to survive the end times; although, no one will believe that because they don’t believe we’ll be here when it all happens.

Update: just happened to have radio on same station, same teachers chanting “common grace, common grace…” five or six times. It was an obvious script change due to conversion to Calvinist rendering of scripture.

I certainly agree with scripture- I just can’t comprehend why teachers are consciously steering us away from unity in spirit in favor of the like-mindedness of doctrine? If the essential doctrines are agreed upon, the fact that there are a growing number of doctrines, sub-denominations, and disagreements shows a lack of unity if doctrine is the seed for that. My experiences in numerous churches over 3 1/2 decades, is that to be approved of God, you are told to accumulate doctrinal views in just about everything. That seems to be a prevailing requirement. I’ve even heard that not believing in the trinity doctrine would be a sentence to the lake of fire. I’ve also been told that if I believe the Holy Spirit is in me, I’m a heretic. People are being led by these types of “essential”doctrines- does the Bible even define these as essential belief verses? If not, who decides these are the only essential verses needed for salvation? Who’s to decide that it’s doctrine that saves us if the Bible doesn’t specifically say so?

I believe these things, so I’m saved. These are the “essentials” for being saved, yes? So I don’t need additional doctrines provided by churches, and it’s obvious that few, if any, see unity as a factor in one’s salvation, so church attendance seems, not only unnecessary, but also, counterproductive to these essential doctrines; and, could actually hinder one’s understanding of the essential doctrines. So, the acceptance of these three tenets is really all that God requires? There is no doctrine of unity?

The “same mind” is what I think churches are trying to accomplish, but they do it via doctrine; others become ‘of the same mind’ through practicing unity… I’m just trying to grasp the shift in the paradigm—

First time I’ve heard ‘works’ defined as lifestyle changes. My previous lifestyle was that of a violent alcoholic. By my lifestyle changing, was I misled into “works” by people teaching me?

“Essential doctrine for salvation?” Is that what is meant by a “saving knowledge of Christ?” Can a person be saved by doctrine? And with the variety, even in essential doctrines, how would one find a church that teaches the right combination of doctrine that would ensure salvation?

Thanks for responding. Perhaps that’s what he meant, but even though this is a call-in or write-in radio program, he has yet to respond to my last two write-ins. It seemed like he was issuing a warning that any church that seeks unity with each other and God should be avoided and one should seek a doctrinally-focused, (he didn’t specify which doctrine), church to attend. I guess I’m just not able to comprehend: 1-a warning against the unity of the Body, 2- from someone who invites people to bible studies to foster the ‘feeling of belonging’ in a group setting and openly supports church membership. I think you’re right, some settle for the social connection, not Unity or doctrine. Seems to be an ever-increasing trend.

I am not making any statements of my personal belief, so please do not tell me I’m wrong; I am not telling anyone else they’re wrong, so please don’t insult me. I am actually just going to ask a question to any participants in this discussion who will not perceive my question to be a threat to anyone’s beliefs or this discussion… So, here goes… Has anyone noticed that nearly every verse in this and the next chapter parallels descriptions and actions of God’s Chosen (bride) throughout the Old Testament; and then, right after that, after the harlot is punished (as God promised to punish & cleanse His “prostitute” bride & marry her), the “bride” shows up pure and ready to get married? Like I said, this is purely inquiry and probably doesn’t match any known doctrine, but I thought it was an interesting coincidence.

Recently, a local radio bible ministry leader was in a discussion about finding the right church and offered to his listeners, advice and a warning to “choose doctrine above unity,” because you don’t want to be in unity with the unrighteous who attend church with you. It seemed an unusual thing to blurt out, so I asked for clarification on it from him, to no avail… Any thoughts on this, pro or con? Since he wouldn’t offer more details on his reasons, any help in understanding this would be appreciated. Is this a new thing in churches? Do they tell you this now? Is Unity in the Body now a theory, rather than a practice? Was this guy just venting some past baggage in the form of a public-service announcement?

So if God hates what is false, why does His Word say He created the world as He did? Does he hate His own story? Is He trying to see if we're so easily deceived by Him that were not worthy if we belief He's the ONE who created this world just as He said He did. I don't think you truly understand, (I hope you don't), that you are undermining, not just peoples' beliefs, but the Bible that contains those beliefs.

Wow... So, lets just solve the whole issue and rip Genesis chapters one thru five out of the bible, since, according to science, is not true and should not be believed by Christians.... How far will you be willing to take this? Miracles not real? Angels not real? None of this can be confirmed by science, in fact, the same science you use to discredit creation is the same science that says God is a fairy tale.

Interestingly, I used to be an atheist and a proponent of the evolution narrative. The only "evidence" of evolution I've ever discovered in 50 years is limited to adaptation. There has never been any evidence... Many hoaxes... of one species changing into a completely different species.... And, "no,"" that can't be demonstrated in a lab. It can't. Your argument is literally a piece of the same argument atheists use to disprove God. I'm sure you're passionate about your science studies, but I became a Christian, in part, because of an interview with many evolution scientists, students, etc. who who admitted the evidence isn't there. The leaders of evolution science, (and I've personally read their papers), often admit, "I don't know," but stand on their conclusions as if they were fact. The conclusions are what most avid researchers read and they never question the information because of its source. Seriously. Decades of searching... No new species. I'm sure you're familiar with DNA coding and other such "hidden" information that scientists are always trying to decipher... The bible has a few similar features... One such proof of the creation narrative is encoded in the first chapter of Genesis. There are actually three... By teaching young Christians not to trust what the Bible says in favor of field of science that is primarily controlled by atheist scientists is a dangerous place for professing Christians to place themselves.

Perhaps it's not time to be reasonable... Maybe consider that not all believers are strong in their faith to begin with. If you challenge something that strengthens their faith and tell them what they believe about God's Word is impossible under the lens of science, your only real success is offending or unintentionally harming your weaker brothers and sisters in Christ, perhaps even causing them to leave the faith. As valuable as science is, I can't see it being that important. When people post angry responses, it's because they feel hurt by someone they should be able to trust.

God certainly designed us wonderfully to adapt.

Demons can appear more visible in a person with mental health issues, but mental health issues are not indicative of demon possession any more than being severely depressed because of a loss of a limb. I was once more intimate with the demonic realm (in my youth), and suffered much anguish as a result. I grew up with undiagnosed mental illnesses, bi-polar, ptsd, adhd, ocd. I believe mental illness can more easily bring someone to demon possession, but the two aren't directly linked. Much of the neurobiology involved in some mental illnesses is the same process that creates dreams, and sleepwalking, and, in my personal experience and research, supernatural visions. The illness comes in when some of the "links" in the brain aren't working properly. Demons will exploit any weakness... Time spent with God keeps them from bugging me...

...pardon this intrusion... The 144,000 will not need to be converted to Christ because He will have already personally handpicked them as His inheritance. They are the fulfillment of His covenant with Israel.

Some believers who await only the "pre-trib rapture" are ready... But ONLY for a pre-trib rapture. I know of too many Christians who have more faith in the doctrine of pre-trib rapture than in God's ability to love and protect them during the "day of the Lord." This misappropriated faith is the first step in what may become a 'great falling away' from true faith. On the other hand, if a "post-tribber" has faith to face the death and destruction that they will witness during the tribulation, and they get snatched up earlier than anticipated... They'll be much better off than the first group...