What is biblical discipleship and to whom was the Great Commission given?

[AdHoc]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Here is the answer, although I doubt you will accept it. But it is good that you are open to the possibility of being corrected.

2) Who is the Woman? Like the Manchild, the Woman-with-child is a mystical body. Not the Church, which is a Virgin Bride. And not the race of Israel, which is flesh-and-blood.

Western left-brain Protestant Christianity has largely ignored any concept of the Feminine Divine, even though the Adamic race was “made in Elohim’s image, male and female.” Gen. 1:27 Catholicism has carnalized the Feminine Divine into the person of Mary. Only mystical Judaism, and to some extent mystical Christianity, have spoken of the Feminine Divine.

Hebraic teachings of old say that one of the attributes of the One God is the emotional desire to form, gestate, bring forth and nurture living creatures. This tradition also says that when Adam and Eve were driven out of God’s garden into the earthly wilderness, this Divine Feminine either went with them or regularly visited them, in order to nurture her children as any mother would. The most well-known name for her is the Shekhinah, the feminine Presence/form of the Divine.

This mystical Woman/mother – emotionally bound to the nurturing of her children, and to their upbringing in wisdom, righteousness, and maturity – is spoken of in Ezekiel:

Ezek. 19:2, 10-13 What is thy mother? A lioness: she lay down among lions, she nourished her whelps among young lions. … Thy mother is like a vine in thy blood [the place of the soul, Lev. 17:11], planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters. And she had strong rods for the scepters of them that bore rule, and her stature was exalted among the thick branches, and she appeared in her height with the multitude of her branches. But she was plucked up in fury, she was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up her fruit: her strong rods were broken and withered; the fire consumed them. And now she is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground.

In Revelation 12’s account of the End Times, the Woman again goes “into the wilderness” when her offspring are driven out once more. Rev. 12:6, 14-17; Luke 21:36

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1053-revelation-12/

 

I cannot go with your wording as the Divine in scripture is always Male. But if you were to consider her "HEAVENLY", from which comes God's system of RULE, then we can agree. Consider the following:
- In Isaiah 2 the true purpose of God's House is told -a place where the wisdom of God might be sought. It is confirmed in John Chapter 2. The Nations are invited.
- In the Millennium the Church rules cities, Christ' rules the earth and Israel. Israel are restored and SERVE Emmanuel. Their job is to keep the profane away from a Holy Emmanuel Who lives in Jerusalem
- On the New Earth Israel are the Gates. They will do the same work of SERVING access to Emmanuel.

° Jesus Christ claims Jehovah as His FATHER. He is the ONLY begotten Son. He has His divinity from His FATHER.
° Israel claims Jehovah as Father, not by birth, but by intervention in a barren womb
° The Church claims Jehovah as Father by a divine birth - but only through the human spirit (Jn.3:6) not BODILY like Jesus.

Our Lord Jesus was Divine from the womb. We are "partakers of the divine nature" by an additional birth in the human spirit. Our DISPOSITION must be "CONFORMED" to that of Christ (Rom.8:29). Our body must be CHANGED. Christ must not. He is full of the Godhead BODILY.

Ooopps! WE are a long way from the OP now.

God bless

[WilliamL]

10 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

I cannot go with your wording as the Divine in scripture is always Male. But if you were to consider her "HEAVENLY", from which comes God's system of RULE, then we can agree. Consider the following:
- In Isaiah 2 the true purpose of God's House is told -a place where the wisdom of God might be sought. It is confirmed in John Chapter 2. The Nations are invited.
- In the Millennium the Church rules cities, Christ' rules the earth and Israel. Israel are restored and SERVE Emmanuel. Their job is to keep the profane away from a Holy Emmanuel Who lives in Jerusalem
- On the New Earth Israel are the Gates. They will do the same work of SERVING access to Emmanuel.

° Jesus Christ claims Jehovah as His FATHER. He is the ONLY begotten Son. He has His divinity from His FATHER.
° Israel claims Jehovah as Father, not by birth, but by intervention in a barren womb
° The Church claims Jehovah as Father by a divine birth - but only through the human spirit (Jn.3:6) not BODILY like Jesus.

Our Lord Jesus was Divine from the womb. We are "partakers of the divine nature" by an additional birth in the human spirit. Our DISPOSITION must be "CONFORMED" to that of Christ (Rom.8:29). Our body must be CHANGED. Christ must not. He is full of the Godhead BODILY.

Ooopps! WE are a long way from the OP now.

God bless

Other than very briefly in the first paragraph, this does not seem to address the issue of the Shekhinah at all. Nor the woman in Rev. 12, nor the mother of Israel in Ezek. 19. Care to address these things, rather than just focusing upon the Fatherhood of God, to which we can both agree?

Other terms for the Shekhinah in Hebraic mysticism are Nukbha and Malchut, all being feminine.

[AdHoc]

4 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Other than very briefly in the first paragraph, this does not seem to address the issue of the Shekhinah at all. Nor the woman in Rev. 12, nor the mother of Israel in Ezek. 19. Care to address these things, rather than just focusing upon the Fatherhood of God, to which we can both agree?

Other terms for the Shekhinah in Hebraic mysticism are Nukbha and Malchut, all being feminine.

You have a point. I tried to show where divinity came from. It is not from the mother. Although the Hebrews have had God's Word for a lot longer than we have, can we trust their mysticism? Our Lord seemed to think that t was the blind leading the blind. I don't want to insult anybody's studies, but have we an ounce of scripture that makes some woman divine? Rather, I think they are representative of religion. Notice that in Matthew 13 a "woman" leavened Christianity. In Revelation a woman is "Mystery Babylon". She meets an end. But Jerusalem Above "who is MOTHER of us all" rules for ever.

True, the Church is a "she" but she is not divine. Man stays man but is "partaker of the divine nature". Rebirth is restricted to the human spirit (Jn.3.6).

[WilliamL]

19 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

Although the Hebrews have had God's Word for a lot longer than we have, can we trust their mysticism? Our Lord seemed to think that t was the blind leading the blind.

Big difference between the rabbinical tradition that Jesus faced, and the mystical teachings that were not publicly addressed in those days.

You still haven't addressed the woman in Rev. 12, nor the mother of Israel in Ezek. 19; nor man being made in the image of God "male and female." You only said what the woman of Rev. 12 was not, not what she was. (According to what I remember; don't have time to look up that post, must go offline now.)

Regarding the teaching that Adam was made 'male and female in the image of God,' and marriage, I address these things in detail in a new 7-part blog series beginning here:

100. Marital Union in Heaven, and in Creation, Part 1   Beginning of a seven-part series about the Divine origin of, and the ultimate fulfillment of, God's purpose for marriage. [From Part 2: "The primordial pattern of the male-female union did not begin with Adam and Eve, but rather with the Creator and His Creation."]    https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/3152-marital-union-in-heaven-and-in-creation-part-1/

 

Edited May 27, 2024 by WilliamL

[AdHoc]

4 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Big difference between the rabbinical tradition that Jesus faced, and the mystical teachings that were not publicly addressed in those days.

You still haven't addressed the woman in Rev. 12, nor the mother of Israel in Ezek. 19; nor man being made in the image of God "male and female." You only said what the woman of Rev. 12 was not, not what she was. (According to what I remember; don't have time to look up that post, must go offline now.)

Regarding the teaching that Adam was made 'male and female in the image of God,' and marriage, I address these things in detail in a new 7-part blog series beginning here:

100. Marital Union in Heaven, and in Creation, Part 1   Beginning of a seven-part series about the Divine origin of, and the ultimate fulfillment of, God's purpose for marriage. [From Part 2: "The primordial pattern of the male-female union did not begin with Adam and Eve, but rather with the Creator and His Creation."]    https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/3152-marital-union-in-heaven-and-in-creation-part-1/

 

I wrote quite a lengthy posting on the Woman of Revelation 12. I would think that if you examined each statement, you would find them true. Whether you agree with the parallels I can't say. No rush. It took me 20 years to cover very point. I don't expect anybody to reach agreement over night.

As to the "male and female" I judge it to be simple. When God made man He only made one man - Adam. But He built him in such a way that Eve was IN him, and every other man who would ever be conceived was IN his loins. This is perfectly illustrated in John 12:24. Jesus, One Man, died, but every Christian who would ever be born again was IN Jesus. Thus, if the Bible says "he" (singular) it is correct. But if scripture says He (God) made "them" He is also correct.

In fact, scripture goes further than this. Because our lord Jesus is also Creator, when He died the old creation died with Him and the new Creation was born. In Romans 6, to deal with our sinful flesh, we are counted as going into His death and resurrection IN Him. So also sitting in the heavenlies. We do it IN Him.

[FreeGrace]

15 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Here is the answer, although I doubt you will accept it. But it is good that you are open to the possibility of being corrected.

I am corrected by clear and plain Scripture, which was the standard for the Bereans.

15 hours ago, WilliamL said:

2) Who is the Woman? Like the Manchild, the Woman-with-child is a mystical body. Not the Church, which is a Virgin Bride. And not the race of Israel, which is flesh-and-blood.

Western left-brain Protestant Christianity has largely ignored any concept of the Feminine Divine, even though the Adamic race was “made in Elohim’s image, male and female.” Gen. 1:27 Catholicism has carnalized the Feminine Divine into the person of Mary. Only mystical Judaism, and to some extent mystical Christianity, have spoken of the Feminine Divine.

This is just statements.  Where in Scriptue do you find any evidence for this "mystical body"?  If the Bible doesn't mention such an entity, how would anyone know what is being referenced?  Rather, the most obvious understanding is Mary and Jesus.  

{edit} obviously Rev 12:6 refers to Israel as "the woman".  sorry.

15 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Hebraic teachings of old say that one of the attributes of the One God is the emotional desire to form, gestate, bring forth and nurture living creatures. This tradition also says that when Adam and Eve were driven out of God’s garden into the earthly wilderness, this Divine Feminine either went with them or regularly visited them, in order to nurture her children as any mother would. The most well-known name for her is the Shekhinah, the feminine Presence/form of the Divine.

Yes, that's what you get with "traditional" teachings.  Sounds somewhat biblical but not found in the Bible.

15 hours ago, WilliamL said:

This mystical Woman/mother – emotionally bound to the nurturing of her children, and to their upbringing in wisdom, righteousness, and maturity – is spoken of in Ezekiel:

Ezek. 19:2, 10-13 What is thy mother? A lioness: she lay down among lions, she nourished her whelps among young lions. … Thy mother is like a vine in thy blood [the place of the soul, Lev. 17:11], planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters. And she had strong rods for the scepters of them that bore rule, and her stature was exalted among the thick branches, and she appeared in her height with the multitude of her branches. But she was plucked up in fury, she was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up her fruit: her strong rods were broken and withered; the fire consumed them. And now she is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground.

From:  http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/old_testament_studies/VOL13BOT/VOL13BOT_19.html

19:2 "your mother" This refers to national Israel (cf. Ezek. 19:10) producing a line of Davidic kings (cf. Gen. 49:9; Num. 23:24; Rev. 5:5). This ceased with Zedekiah's exile. In a sense Zerubbabel (Sheshbazzar, Ezra 1:8) continued the Davidic line (cf. Haggai 2:23; Zechariah 4).

15 hours ago, WilliamL said:

In Revelation 12’s account of the End Times, the Woman again goes “into the wilderness” when her offspring are driven out once more. Rev. 12:6, 14-17; Luke 21:36

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1053-revelation-12/

From:  http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/new_testament_studies/VOL12/VOL12_07.html

12:6 "the woman fled into the wilderness" Many see here an allusion to the Exodus and the Wilderness Wandering Period, which is found throughout this context. The time of wilderness wanderings was seen by the rabbis as a betrothal period between YHWH and Israel. During this time, He provided all of their needs and was intimately present with them.

Edited May 28, 2024 by FreeGrace
correction

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Error it is not. It is the majority held view among students and an honest attempt to use scripture to interpret scripture. I propose a short answer assuming ( and correctly if I'm not mistaken) that you have an above average knowledge of the Bible. That is, I will assume yu will agree with, or at least consider, statements without too much backing. That is, if you will consider each statement on its merit and end with a sequence of proofs, each one taken alone being true.

Regarding Revelation, there are many passages that can't be fully understood until they occur, at which time it will be obvious to the observers.  Such details aren't necessary to have correct theology and doctrine.  They don't add or subtract from them.  So I don't get bothered by what they mean or refer to.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

I say this because in our last exchange, I spoke of the "Kingdom" and you argued with "salvation". They are both part of a package but two different things.

I don't know what you mean by my "arguing with salvation".  I would argue against a false definition or description of salvation, but I don't argue with it.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

But to the question at hand. The Man-Child will rule the nations with a rod of iron. Only two entities will do this - (i) Christ (Rev.19:15) and (ii) The Overcomers of the Church (Rev.2:27). Which one will the evidence point to?

No problem.  Both.  2 Tim 2:12 and Rom 8:17b.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Revelation is a book of "signs" (Rev.1:1). We need this hint because we do our utmost to find the literal, but if the Revelation ("unveiling") of Jesus is consummated in a "City", and this City is at once a City, a Bride/Wife, an Tabernacle and a Citadel of rule, it precludes it being a literal City, but is rather a "sign" of all of God's councils consummated. To underscore taking the City as a "sign" (lit. Gk.),

The city is called the New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven to the new earth.  Rev 21.  Not hard to understand.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

I offer that men are not walls, nor precious stones, nor are Tribes pearls and a Tree cannot be on both sides of a (single) street.

I agree, except a tree can easily be split and grow up looking like 2 trees.  We don't see what's underground.  Again, this is just detail that doesn't change anything.  When we get there, we will easily see what the Bible describes.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Human blood boils at 63,000 ft (19,200 m) and the City is a cube of 2,500 km. I know that Christ had no blood after resurrection and that all men will be resurrected, but living conditions throughout the 2.500 km cube with a temperature drop of 3.5°F per 1,000 ft make for bitter living conditions after just 5 miles.

We can't know the conditions during eternity.  We know all believers will be in resurrected bodies during the Millennium and certainly don't need oxygen, food, etc.  But we don't know most details of eternity on the new earth.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

The reason I show this is that if we take New Jerusalem as the consummation of God's councils, we must be able to trace its beginning, its growth and is maturing. That is, this New Jerusalem has to have four salient points. In Revelation 21 and 22 it is 1. God's expression. It has the glory of God. It is sum of men in the image and likeness of Christ 2. God's Son must be the Main Player. He not only the delight of the Father, but Creator and Heir to creation. 3. God must have a holy and separate place to fellowship with mankind. In Eden He wanted the Garden of Fellowship "dressed and kept" (no doubt without a defiling serpent). A Wall was necessary. 4. God wanted man to rule His earth with the rues of heaven. The Tabernacle in heaven is His Abode next to His Throne, but the problem is not in heaven. Satan might be a Cherub, but his field of operation is "to and fro across the EARTH"!

I see the New Jerusalem as exactly what is described in Rev 21.  A literal city, and a huge one at that.  And certain details of that city will not be available to every believer, due to failure in obedience/faithfulness during their lives.  This is loss of reward to such people.  They will be with God in eternity, but not have access to certain blessings.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Do we find this setup elsewhere? We do. A study of the trees of the Bible will show, especially from Judgs 9, that a Tree in parable is a King and His Kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar is the Tree that ruled the earth (Dan.4). And Christ is the "True Vine". In Romans 11 we have an Olive Tree. The Root is holy. Israel are the natural branches, and because of Israel's blindness we, the wild branches, are grafted it. But Israel is promised recovery and so we have a King and His Kingdom during the Church age with Israel cut out (Matt.21:43). The wild branches are not so glorious and are threatened with being cut out too.

This Tree is special. It must not have the glory of Solomon, but the glory of Christ - the greater Solomon. Some men who cherished the Law came down to Galatia and taught that the rebirth was by faith, but that a man is sanctified by the Law. The Apostle opposes this vehemently. Sanctification is achieved by the Holy Spirit. Throughout the Epistle Paul CONTRASTS grace and Law, the Church and Israel Sarah versus Hagar and freedom versus bondage. The whole Book is a contrast EXCEPT ONE VERSE - Galatians 4:26

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Sounds like a reference to the New Jerusalem.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

We have, in this case, Christ, Head of the Church. We have a MOTHER.

Yet, Jesus is the Groom.  And the church is the Bride.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

We have, in this one single verse, three SEEDS of the woman. Those Christians who will heed the Epistle and not be taken into the bondage of Law. We have those Christians who will. And we have Israel, God's earthly people proposing "another Gospel". But scripture says that Jerusalem above is Mother of US ALL. Here we have the kingdom placed in the background and Overcomers, those defeated and those who are blind "ALL from the same mother".

You haven't defined/described the "mother".

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

New Jerusalem is the same, but things have been consummated by Christ, head of the Church and King of Israel. We have Christians who make the wall, Israel who serve the Gates and the Nations, some of which may enter and some of which may not. And this constellation is found in Revelation 12 - the MOTHER who is heavenly - from "above". But again her seed is divided into THREE. 1. Overcomers from the heavenly part, 2. defeated Christians who must flee to a allegorical wilderness and 3, "those who keep the commandments of God" - the Jewish Remnant introduced in Romans 9 and 11. I will stop here. Much needs to be said about these two SEEDS of the Mother, but I have given a framework where God's purpose of Genesis 1:26-28 is caught in the spotlight of the great Tribulation. The Man-child is described a few verses later "They OVERCAME ...". The Overcomers are raptured at the end of th age when Satan "has but a little time". Revelation 13:7 gives the fate of the rest of the Church - DEFEAT.

Again, Rev 21 is quite literal.  There will be a literal city that comes down from heaven to rest on the new earth.

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

I will just touch on Israel, for it actually needs a book. If Israel had embraced Moses, they would have kept their Land and Nation to become the leading Nation. If they wanted restoration to what God PROMISED, they had to read and believe and DO Deuteronomy 30:1-5. Note the wording. It is assumed that Israel would fail. If Israel had embraced Christ, their status of being the sand of the sea shore would have been upgraded (by a heavenly birth) to "the stars of heaven". Their Kingdom would have included Canaan AND the whole earth (Rom.4:13). But they did not, and the diaspora became fact. Because a Contract or Covenant stands and cannot be annulled (Gal.3:15-18), especially one with God, Israel forfeit the Kingdom of Heaven. But because the Covenant made with Abraham was one of PROMISE, God is dutibound to restore Israel NATIONALLY. In the millennium they will be restored (Act.15:14-16) and SERVE Emmanuel.

I have no idea how any of all this can be proven from Scripture.  What do you take as literal?

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Revelation 12, if taken as "Jerusalem Above - MOTHER of US (Jew and Believer alike)" every statement of mine in the last posting becomes true.

But how do you know that?

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Take your time to weigh every statement of mine. Not easy. If you reject it, well and good. I would first mull it for a year though.

God bless

I take most things literally, when they read that way.  Seems easy to explain a number of things in specific ways, but we already see the result;  many different explanations.  I do what the Bereans did with Paul's preaching;  they compared it with Scripture, to see if what Paul said was true.

And that's the problem with making certain passages and texts refer to something else. 

Rev 21 speaks of the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven to the new earth.  Why can't that just be a literal description of a real city?  

Why does it have to represent something else?

[AdHoc]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Regarding Revelation, there are many passages that can't be fully understood until they occur, at which time it will be obvious to the observers.  Such details aren't necessary to have correct theology and doctrine.  They don't add or subtract from them.  So I don't get bothered by what they mean or refer to.

I don't know what you mean by my "arguing with salvation".  I would argue against a false definition or description of salvation, but I don't argue with it.

No problem.  Both.  2 Tim 2:12 and Rom 8:17b.

The city is called the New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven to the new earth.  Rev 21.  Not hard to understand.

I agree, except a tree can easily be split and grow up looking like 2 trees.  We don't see what's underground.  Again, this is just detail that doesn't change anything.  When we get there, we will easily see what the Bible describes.

We can't know the conditions during eternity.  We know all believers will be in resurrected bodies during the Millennium and certainly don't need oxygen, food, etc.  But we don't know most details of eternity on the new earth.

I see the New Jerusalem as exactly what is described in Rev 21.  A literal city, and a huge one at that.  And certain details of that city will not be available to every believer, due to failure in obedience/faithfulness during their lives.  This is loss of reward to such people.  They will be with God in eternity, but not have access to certain blessings.

Sounds like a reference to the New Jerusalem.

Yet, Jesus is the Groom.  And the church is the Bride.

You haven't defined/described the "mother".

Again, Rev 21 is quite literal.  There will be a literal city that comes down from heaven to rest on the new earth.

I have no idea how any of all this can be proven from Scripture.  What do you take as literal?

But how do you know that?

I take most things literally, when they read that way.  Seems easy to explain a number of things in specific ways, but we already see the result;  many different explanations.  I do what the Bereans did with Paul's preaching;  they compared it with Scripture, to see if what Paul said was true.

And that's the problem with making certain passages and texts refer to something else. 

Rev 21 speaks of the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven to the new earth.  Why can't that just be a literal description of a real city?  

Why does it have to represent something else?

My posting was long, but not nearly enough. I tried, within reasonable reading, to show the parallels and progress of Christ's Kingdom. The Kingdom is more than the Church. We are reborn for the Kingdom, making the Kingdom the goal of rebirth. But a Kingdom is made of (i) the King, (ii) the King's administration, (iii) the King's servants, and (iv) the King's subjects.

In Christ's Kingdom He is King of kings, those who are rewarded and who are mature and who had a love-relationship with Christ are kings of Tribes (the Apostles) or cities (Lk.19:17-19). These co-kings are Christ's administration. Israel rejected the Kingdom and thus forfeit rule, but as host Nation to Emmanuel, they will SERVE (see Zacharias' prophecy in Luke 1). The goal of this administration is to first give Christ His regal right and secondly to fulfill the promise to Abraham that in him would all the families of earth be blessed - the result of righteous rule.

In the Garden of Eden were certain elements - gold, bdellium and precious stones, the Tree of Life and the Rivers. With some changes because sin came in, these elements made up the Tabernacle and later the Church (1st Cor.3). The New Jerusalem is the ultimate consummation of Eden. In a most remarkable display of picture language, Revelation 21 and 22, if each element is interpreted by scripture itself, shows the consummation of God's eternal purpose. If the New Jerusalem is taken literally, it causes absurdities, and many of meanings within the description are lost.

An example would be its measure - the measure of an angel. Jacob's dream, which is again alluded to in John Chapter 1 is explained by this measure. This automatically joins Jacobs dream of Bethel (the house of God) with Genesis, Matthew 16, Luke 20, John 1 and Revelation 21 - all of which serve to explain this measurement. Taken literally, all the symbolism is lost. Added to this, concentrating all in one city defeats the purpose of God for man to "fill or replenish the earth". In Joshua's conquest of Canaan, God particularly did not want tracts of land lying empty and void of men. His great desire is for men to populate the earth and stop dominion of the wasteland by angels, beasts and/or demons.

However, the process of connecting the rest of the Bible with New Jerusalem is a time-consuming matter, and if you choose to take the literal, I understand. It's just that the Lord sets the pace and He has already named Jerusalem above as a mother. Her counter-part is also a mother - Mystery Babylon. The Lord has set the precedent. 

[FreeGrace]

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

My posting was long, but not nearly enough. I tried, within reasonable reading, to show the parallels and progress of Christ's Kingdom. The Kingdom is more than the Church.

I didn't suggest otherwise.  In fact, 1 Cor 15:23 makes very clear that every believer from Adam forward will be resurrected "when He comes", a clear reference to the Second Advent, per Heb 9:28.

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

We are reborn for the Kingdom, making the Kingdom the goal of rebirth.

I see it a bit differently.  The goal of faith in Christ is to be reborn into God's family, which guarantees eternity with God, per Rom 8:17a.

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

But a Kingdom is made of (i) the King, (ii) the King's administration, (iii) the King's servants, and (iv) the King's subjects.

And that is what the Bema is for; to determine where all of God's children will "fit", or be placed into His kingdom.  Some will "reign with Christ" (2 Tim 2:12) and some will be subjects (servants).  2 Cor 5:10

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

In Christ's Kingdom He is King of kings, those who are rewarded and who are mature and who had a love-relationship with Christ are kings of Tribes (the Apostles) or cities (Lk.19:17-19). These co-kings are Christ's administration. Israel rejected the Kingdom and thus forfeit rule, but as host Nation to Emmanuel, they will SERVE (see Zacharias' prophecy in Luke 1). The goal of this administration is to first give Christ His regal right and secondly to fulfill the promise to Abraham that in him would all the families of earth be blessed - the result of righteous rule.

Amen!

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

In the Garden of Eden were certain elements - gold, bdellium and precious stones, the Tree of Life and the Rivers. With some changes because sin came in, these elements made up the Tabernacle and later the Church (1st Cor.3). The New Jerusalem is the ultimate consummation of Eden. In a most remarkable display of picture language, Revelation 21 and 22, if each element is interpreted by scripture itself, shows the consummation of God's eternal purpose. If the New Jerusalem is taken literally, it causes absurdities, and many of meanings within the description are lost.

I don't see any absurdities with a literal real new Jerusalem.  Could you expand, please?

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

An example would be its measure - the measure of an angel.

Rather, it is the measure of man, which the angel was using.  Rev 21:17

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

Jacob's dream, which is again alluded to in John Chapter 1 is explained by this measure. This automatically joins Jacobs dream of Bethel (the house of God) with Genesis, Matthew 16, Luke 20, John 1 and Revelation 21 - all of which serve to explain this measurement. Taken literally, all the symbolism is lost.

Maybe there isn't any "symbolism".  The problem with symbolism is that anyone can say anything about what is being symbolized and who can prove otherwise?

If there is as much symbolism as some claim, then it will become evidence when we get there.  In the meantime, I am happy to see things literally.  It doesn't change anything anyway.  And boy am I looking forward to the new Jerusalem on the new earth.  Literally.

If everything is just symbolic, what's to expect in eternity?  

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

Added to this, concentrating all in one city defeats the purpose of God for man to "fill or replenish the earth".

Not hardly.  The Bible speaks of 'the nations' on the new earth.  Yes, there is the city from heaven, literally coming down from heaven to rest on the earth.  But there will be nations still, over all the earth, just as today.  

In fact, there are verses in the OT that speak of nations coming to Jerusalem to worship and the context is the eternal state.  Sorry, I can't cite where. 

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

In Joshua's conquest of Canaan, God particularly did not want tracts of land lying empty and void of men. His great desire is for men to populate the earth and stop dominion of the wasteland by angels, beasts and/or demons.

And that has already been accomplished.

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

However, the process of connecting the rest of the Bible with New Jerusalem is a time-consuming matter, and if you choose to take the literal, I understand.

I think it is just the opposite.  There is no need to "connect" anything with the literal new Jerusalem.  It is a place, where the throne will be, the tree of life will be, etc.

I don't even know what is meant by "connecting the rest of the Bible" to the NJ.  Why do you think it is necessary?

53 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

It's just that the Lord sets the pace and He has already named Jerusalem above as a mother. Her counter-part is also a mother - Mystery Babylon. The Lord has set the precedent. 

Yes, it's all there.  I look forward to further explanation.

[AdHoc]

8 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I didn't suggest otherwise.  In fact, 1 Cor 15:23 makes very clear that every believer from Adam forward will be resurrected "when He comes", a clear reference to the Second Advent, per Heb 9:28.

I see it a bit differently.  The goal of faith in Christ is to be reborn into God's family, which guarantees eternity with God, per Rom 8:17a.

And that is what the Bema is for; to determine where all of God's children will "fit", or be placed into His kingdom.  Some will "reign with Christ" (2 Tim 2:12) and some will be subjects (servants).  2 Cor 5:10

Amen!

I don't see any absurdities with a literal real new Jerusalem.  Could you expand, please?

Rather, it is the measure of man, which the angel was using.  Rev 21:17

Maybe there isn't any "symbolism".  The problem with symbolism is that anyone can say anything about what is being symbolized and who can prove otherwise?

If there is as much symbolism as some claim, then it will become evidence when we get there.  In the meantime, I am happy to see things literally.  It doesn't change anything anyway.  And boy am I looking forward to the new Jerusalem on the new earth.  Literally.

If everything is just symbolic, what's to expect in eternity?  

Not hardly.  The Bible speaks of 'the nations' on the new earth.  Yes, there is the city from heaven, literally coming down from heaven to rest on the earth.  But there will be nations still, over all the earth, just as today.  

In fact, there are verses in the OT that speak of nations coming to Jerusalem to worship and the context is the eternal state.  Sorry, I can't cite where. 

And that has already been accomplished.

I think it is just the opposite.  There is no need to "connect" anything with the literal new Jerusalem.  It is a place, where the throne will be, the tree of life will be, etc.

I don't even know what is meant by "connecting the rest of the Bible" to the NJ.  Why do you think it is necessary?

Yes, it's all there.  I look forward to further explanation.

Maybe we speak different languages. You say that a City, which is at once a Woman, a Tabernacle made not of flesh and bones, but precious stones and Pearls that has a Tree in which is found on both sides of a river and the Nations go through the gates of this woman although she is also constructed with a wall and God is the Temple of her ..... well, maybe you can publish a sketch of a woman with twelve gates and a cube figure of 2,500 kilometers with a wall as her perimeter. Then, maybe just add how a woman of 2,500 kilometers and shaped like a cube is the Bride.

Maybe and artists impression of a single Tree growing on both sides of a river and a single street which is not a street but a woman will settle the issue.

Even more telling will be how the Church is built with gold silver and precious stones, but we are told to shun these literal elements (1st Cor.3, 1st Pet.1:18, 3:3)