norwegen
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #221
In Voyage of the Dawn Treader, one of C S Lewis' Narnia stories, Lucy finds a magic book in a magician's home, and flips through the pages very enthusiastically. But as she reads, she discovers that she can't flip back to the pages she had read to refresh her memory, and she forgets it. Quite a bit of it, in fact. Pretty much everything except a tree, a hill, a cup, and a sword. Still, however, she likes the story.So, the topic of the New Jerusalem came up among my friends and me (Rev 21). They said that this massive city - some 1400 miles cubed - will actually descend from heaven as John describes. I asked, "Do you really think Jesus would take for his bride a giant cube?"
No, they argued. The New Jerusalem is as a bride adorned for Christ (21:2). I referred them to 21:9, where John doesn't merely liken it to a bride, but actually calls it his bride. So they said that the angel is showing him the church.
"Yes, he's showing him the New Jerusalem," I said. No, just the church, they insisted. "No," I said. "Are you not reading the passage? The angel says he'll show him the Bride, and then proceeds to show him the New Jerusalem."
Futurists (Dispensationalists) have shit for brains, and the Devil for a father. They claim Antichrists (aka Jews) are God's chosen people. Nothing is too stupid and unchristian for them to believe.
They insist a city as big as the moon, and made of soft metal, will come down and be a wonderful place to live, even though such a city is impossible and would be a horrible place to live. But, then they reject that Jesus is literally married to that city. I would like to say the idea of Jesus actually being married to the city is a degree of stupidity too much, even for them. But, they reject it because they have a faggot idea in mind, Jesus is married to them. Men in these futurist churches sing "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs, as they imagine themselves being personally Jesus' bride.
The New Jerusalem represents the church. And, the city is called our mother. It is our mother, the church, whom is married to Jesus, and only symbolically.
That is how Christians have been reading the Bible. It is simply a book on personal salvation, even though very few passages in it mention that idea.
Before the dispensationalists began developing their theories in the 19th century, and even before the Puritans, to my mind, Christians took the Scriptures for what they were, and conquered. Armenia, Rome, the Byzantine Empire, Iceland, and eventually a host of others would declare Christianity their state religion. And a host of countries that stopped short of taking official steps, like the United States, nonetheless embraced Christianity as their national faith. They conquered not to tyrannize but to liberate.
Now believers are inclusive, ecumenical, and they wonder why the faith has been suffering. They no longer conquer.
Not to trivialize an assurance of salvation, for that indeed is a testimony of Christians and not altogether absent from the Scriptures, but much more prevalent in the story is God's presence on the earth. The big story is of His people's idolatry and subsequent exile from Paradise (and all the drama in the OT that that entailed), and then of unmerited forgiveness and redemption (the work of the Messiah) and the Messiah's rein in heaven and on earth.
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Modern Christians have turned the story into a cartoon. Jesus will come riding in on a cloud. A giant city will fall out of the sky. Christians will meet each other in mid-air. And they cling to these goofy notions like they're the Gospel truth.
I have realized in recent months how difficult it is to knock sense into a Christian's head.