Cold or Hot

[exrockstar]

so i started to do some studying and I think I'm taking a different position on this concerning the "interpretation" laid here.

not too far but it is not in line.

there is not doubt nor any disputes about water being recieved at Laodecia. i think the geography and history

is there so theres not much to say.

so here is the verse:

Rev 3:

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

I believe, the emphasis is more on the Christs' actions.

So I will place this question in the heads of those that are open to discussion.

If it was already said that water "had bacteria" etc etc.

Why would Christ drink the water, or attempt to, when He is the water to everlasting life?

We take from Him rather than Him from us.

John 4:14

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall

be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

I took on this point of view and it opened doors.

does anyone have any idea?

I think when we use scripture to figure out why Christ does this then the rest of the pieces fall.

by the way...ive been giggling at the comment lately some one told me that I "pick at hairs." lol ...cute.

[Guest shiloh357]

I believe, the emphasis is more on the Christs' actions.

So I will place this question in the heads of those that are open to discussion.

If it was already said that water "had bacteria" etc etc.

Why would Christ drink the water, or attempt to, when He is the water to everlasting life?

We take from Him rather than Him from us.

Well the problem is that such is not the emphasis that exists in the passage. Christ's emphasis is not on Himself, but on His audience. It is not about Jesus, and Jesus makes this clear. Jesus' emphasis is on the Laodecians and their false spirituality, which is why He goes to the trouble of pointing out that they are poor, naked, wretched and blind.

Jesus is simply drawing a comparison between the contaminated, sickly water the spiritual condition of the Laodecians. It is really is that simple. You need to let the text speak for itself instead of trying to find some way around the plain sense in which it is given to us.

[exrockstar]

I believe, the emphasis is more on the Christs' actions.

So I will place this question in the heads of those that are open to discussion.

If it was already said that water "had bacteria" etc etc.

Why would Christ drink the water, or attempt to, when He is the water to everlasting life?

We take from Him rather than Him from us.

Well the problem is that such is not the emphasis that exists in the passage. Christ's emphasis is not on Himself, but on His audience. It is not about Jesus, and Jesus makes this clear. Jesus' emphasis is on the Laodecians and their false spirituality, which is why He goes to the trouble of pointing out that they are poor, naked, wretched and blind.

Jesus is simply drawing a comparison between the contaminated, sickly water the spiritual condition of the Laodecians. It is really is that simple. You need to let the text speak for itself instead of trying to find some way around the plain sense in which it is given to us.

"sickly water the spiritual condition of the Laodecians. It is really is that simple."

some people investigate and strengthen instead of just looking at it and saying "oh its simple...."

thats why it ends with: let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

so you dont know. lol sometimes people just need to say "i dont know" and leave it at that.

anyone want to take a shot?

if we are here to "drink" from what Christ provides (John 4:14), why is Christ even "spitting" out the Laodecians?

can any passage in the bible clear this out?

tsth, you seem cool. you dont have to agree but i can PM you the info and you can tell me what you think.

no pressure. i believe in strengthening points through scripture.

[Guest phild]

There is a term used in a game that is quite popular these days, (poker)

All IN.

The church at Laodicea was not all in, but hedging their bets.

God wants us to be ALL IN. Fully committed, no turning back, nothing in reserve.

And what about the person who has deep faith, but is not "on fire for the Lord", but is quiet and efficient in his work for God. Does not shout, does not feel up to singing loudly, but prays quietly and regularly, full of faith and love, deeply committed, feeds the hungry, visits the shut in, but approaches it all in a very business like almost calculating manner. Cold?

Love,

Phil

[Guest shiloh357]

sickly water the spiritual condition of the Laodecians. It is really is that simple."

some people investigate and strengthen instead of just looking at it and saying "oh its simple...."

thats why it ends with: let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

\

No that is not why it ends that way. The reason is exactly the opposite. The Bible is not difficult, nor does it pretend to be difficult. It is precisely because of the clarity and simplicity of the message that it can be heard for those who are willing to hear it.

You are not "investigating" at least not with any demonstrable skill. You have an axe to grind for some reason and it comes out in your posts. Truth is not your goal, here.

so you dont know. lol sometimes people just need to say "i dont know" and leave it at that.

Actually I do know. The truth is that you are trying to draw two scriptures together that are completely unrelated with respect to subject matter and especially context.

There is simply no objective or logical correlation between John 4:14 and Revelation 3:15,16. They are speaking to two completely different unrelated issues and you are completely ignoring their respective subject matter. (That is how all false doctrines get started).

In John 4:14, Jesus is offering living water (his teachings, His Spirit, grace, etc.) Jesus uses living water (water that is always moving, what is called in Hebrew "mayim chaim") as a metaphor for the benefits of embracing His Gospel. This water is what He gives.

In Rev. 3:15-16, Jesus uses the image of the diseased, sickly water the Laodecians would have been familiar with to paint an image them that would have sent them a poignant message about how He views their spiritual condition.

i believe in strengthening points through scripture.

Well, that may be what you believe, but your belief is not reflected your lack of skill or aptitude where rightly dividing the Word of God is concerned.

So far, you have failed to demonstrate that even one point I have delivered is false. Still waiting for your evidence.

[exrockstar]

lol i havent even said a word but asked a question and youre already on the defensive

on what I may present.

let me guess...youre the kind of person that always feels like their right?

ok youre right.

brother, talking to you would be like talking to a wall. Arrogance is one hell of a monster.

[Guest shiloh357]

lol i havent even said a word but asked a question and youre already on the defensive

on what I may present.

let me guess...youre the kind of person that always feels like their right?

ok youre right.

brother, talking to you would be like talking to a wall. Arrogance is one hell of a monster.

You already stated a position; you have not merely asked a question.

You have already stated that you believe the emphasis in Revelation 3 is on Christ's actions, and you add to this by trying to draw a correlation between John 4:14 and Revelation 3:15, 16.

Since you brought it up, the onus is on you to draw the logical, contextual and objective correlation between the two passages. The fact that they both happen to mention water is insufficient.

I don't always feel like I am right, but you have still not actually demonstrated that I am wrong. All you have done is thrown silly, immagure barbs at me , and now you are resorting to profanity (which is prohibited by this boards Terms of Service) by using the "h" word, which sheds a little light for us on your "Christianity."

I don't feel I am wrong because so far, you have been impotent to prove that I am. I have not been arrogant at all. Rather, I hae presented information that you are unable to actually refute or addresss. You have not offered one meaningful reason why my assessment heretofore, has been is incorrect. You have made fun of me and carried on like that, but that is all you have. All you can do is act like a 13-year-old and retort with immature, adolescent, smart-alleck nonsense. You lack the spiritual maturity needed to really engage in a meaningful, mature dialogue. You have demonstrated that in your participation in this thread.

I have addressed the subject matter you presented. Now let's see if you have maturity to refute it.

[nebula]

Rev. 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

What exactly did He mean? What does cold look like? Hot?

The reason I ask is because today we had a "Luciferian" show up at church this morning. He immediately stated that this is what he was.

In my opinion, someone such as this, is much more tolerable to deal with, than a "pretender" Christian. He did not hide who he was, and we knew who and what we were dealing with.

Anybody care to define "cold" or "hot" in plain speak, "paraphrase"?

In His Love,

Suzanne

I agree with those who have learned to regard this passage as the Laodicean Church would have understood "water". Recall that Jesus is talking to the church, not a mixture of believers and unbelievers.

If you read about how Jesus dealt with people, you should notice how He dealt with those who rejected Him. You had the disciples that turned away when His message offended them, the rich young ruler who turned away because the price was too high, Judas who betrayed Him, the religious rulers who openly denounced him, and the people of the Gaderene (sp?) town who demanded Jesus leave.

For those that wanted to leave, He let go, although it hurt Him deeply. The ones who told Him to leave, He left without a fight. The religious leaders, He would answer their challenges, but to a point.

But who did Jesus prefer? He preferred whoever believed in Him and those who would invite Him into their homes.

So, in how I see Jesus dealing with "non-believers" and "phoneys", I do see a difference, but I do not see a preference for either.

[nebula]

i dont have issue with the history.

however, to say Christians are suppose to offer "refreshment or edification" like cool water and vice versa is just

symbolism not supported by scripture. not to my knowledge.

as i said...it sounds great.

this is Christ saying "i wish you were refreshing or i wish you were healing but instead your a fraud"

that does not have scripture support.

im not arguing the history but the "healer or refreshment" are not actions of what a Christian is supposed to do.

we provide the word. God heals. God refreshes through it.

But where in Scripture do you find the Lord desiring a heart that is cold towards Him?

Water is never used as a symbol of the heart.

Nor is heat ever found as an analogy to zeal.

[nebula]

In other words, I don't put much stock into what was taking place historically, because then in essence we could do that with much of the text, rather than viewing the Scriptures as applicable for any time and any "place", or people. If you get into the subject of what that particular city was like geographically, then you are limiting the text, to ONLY that particular place and people, and I, like exrock, don't believe that the Word is designed to work that way. I believe it should read as applicable for any people, and any geography. When we limit it by saying what the water conditions were, then we're in essence limiting the meaning of the text for a world of people. I can appreciate exrock's need for Scriptural proof of the meaning, as I would prefer that as well. shiloh, I do think it is helpful to understand some historical background, but not always. For, me, this is not much different than applying different teachings with regard to women and culture (can o worms opening) because of the place, time and location. For, me I would rather take the teaching of the text as It says, rather than making assumptions based upon historical fact, and yes, I am sure what you are saying is "fact", but it still does not make it any easier for me to accept the hot and cold issue in the same manner that you do. But, I don't see it as an issue that should be divisive.

But we need to understand that the nature of a parable is to use symbolisms that are standard to the people being addressed in order to make a point. For instance, Jesus' "I am the Good Shepherd" passage has a lot of imagery that makes little sense to someone who does not understand shepherding practices of His day. One has to learn how shepherds back then guarded and dealt with their flocks to truly catch what Jesus was saying. For that matter, in psalm 23 when David speaks of "green pastures," he was not talking about lush fields - the land was too arid for that - but of patches of greenery amidst the dirt and rock. Understanding this puts a different context to the shepherd leading the flock to food.

Along those lines, if you studied each city Jesus addressed, you would notice that He said key things that spoke directly to the city that fit within their cultural context. In fact, reading any part of the Bible takes on a whole new meaning once you understand the places being mentioned.

So I fail to see how this is a threat to the infalibility of Scripture to intepret it through the eyes of the people and culture the message was first given to.