Who sits on the left hand of God?

Yeah so in other words.. not everything in the bible is literal. Jesus at God's right hand (don't ask me how that'd be possible if Jesus was actually God instead of being sent by him. But don't listen to me, I'm a bit of an Arian Christian) is figurative. It's pretty and symbolic writing which sucks because.. that draws into question the validity of the prophecies and the series of events in the book of Revelation.

a reply to: r0xor
The symbolic writing doesn't invalidate Revelation.
It's just a question of learning to appreciate what the symbols are saying;
Revelation; Project complete

a reply to: DISRAELI

If the events start to happen exactly in the manner and order in which they're written, don't you think it'd become too obvious after a while that Revelation was actually right? I mean to the non-believers and even the evil people? That's a lot of seals and trumpets and terrible disasters described pretty specifically. The actors in the story have to be willing to perform.

I used to think Hillary Clinton was the harlot of Revelation but in hindsight isn't it convenient for the next first female president to be that figure in the book. People thought Obama was the antichrist too. As I get older and see that every single person that I ever read, watched, or listened to regarding end times happening right now were full of it, it becomes harder for me to believe in it.

But I've been drifting toward deistic evolution for a while.

a reply to: r0xor
Your comment only applies if the Revelation accounts are literal
But if they are symbolic, the correlation with events in the physical world is not obvious at all. One has to be able to read the symbolism.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: r0xor
Your comment only applies if the Revelation accounts are literal
But if they are symbolic, the correlation with events in the physical world is not obvious at all. One has to be able to read the symbolism.

I agree with the Revelation being symbolic and not literal.

What makes me uncomfortable is that Revelation seems to be a plagiarism of some of Ezekiel's book. They have the same imagery.

Do I spend my time studying the symbolism in Revelation or is it better spent looking at Ezekiel ?

a reply to: luciferslight

" Who sits on the left hand of God?"

Well, I reckon that would be the crazy Christians yelling at homeless people, telling them that they should be greatful for their struggle, and to look forward to death and their eternal life with Jesus in a new beautiful body. Afterwards they drive away in their Mercedes to tell some more people about their message.

originally posted by: crowdedskies
What makes me uncomfortable is that Revelation seems to be a plagiarism of some of Ezekiel's book. They have the same imagery. Do I spend my time studying the symbolism in Revelation or is it better spent looking at Ezekiel ?

The imagery in Revelation is echoing a lot of the imagery of the Old Testament. Zechariah is another source. That's our best chance of understanding what the symbolism means. That's how the people of John's own time would have understood what it meant, by drawing on their knowledge of the Old Testament.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: crowdedskies
What makes me uncomfortable is that Revelation seems to be a plagiarism of some of Ezekiel's book. They have the same imagery. Do I spend my time studying the symbolism in Revelation or is it better spent looking at Ezekiel ?

The imagery in Revelation is echoing a lot of the imagery of the Old Testament. Zechariah is another source. That's our best chance of understanding what the symbolism means. That's how the people of John's own time would have understood what it meant, by drawing on their knowledge of the Old Testament.

Therefore, you suggest reading both (or all three) . Is that right ?

originally posted by: luciferslight

originally posted by: JimNasium
Greetings-

"Gabriel" sits on the Port Side and "Benjamin" sits on the Starboard Side...

Your a gayfer.

"Yes, yes I AM.." I don't know what a 'gayfer' is but "Yes" I Am that.... Indeed.

'Hello I am BenHameen- I am a gayfer...'

*** Notice ***

This is an invite to all other 'gayfers' that We will be having our 1st Gayfer Bazaar on the first Sat. of Nov. We would like to see all the gayfers and folks that think they might be gayfers to come on out and maybe make this an Annual type thing.
We chose Nov. because that is when local rocker and Tom Petty will be in town. (Unk. if Mr. Petty is a gayfer but We can try and recruit Him...)

originally posted by: crowdedskies
Therefore, you suggest reading both (or all three) . Is that right ?

The thread series I linked earlier would be a possible short-cut or starting-point.
A substantial list of Revelation's allusions to the prophets can be found here

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: crowdedskies
Therefore, you suggest reading both (or all three) . Is that right ?

The thread series I linked earlier would be a possible short-cut or starting-point.
A substantial list of Revelation's allusions to the prophets can be found here

Looks like you have done monumental work on the subject. Thanks for the link.

a reply to: JimNasium

Thanks for the laugh lol

Nope, pretty sure it's Jerry . Lesser known of the Christ brothers....ran a failed mana stand in Israel. Not enough foot traffic.a reply to: Phage

a reply to: Phage

You see how this works.

The more right hands, the more people get to sit at them.

a reply to: Phage

dont forget, "here I am stuck in the middle with you.

a reply to: Phage
I cant rule that out....If so... then in your name - lift your game... the natives are revolting...lol

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding. (Issac Newton)
You cant depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. (Mark Twain)

a reply to: r0xor
It's a vision, so the person who saw the vision did see Jesus there. As well as a representation of God. The description of the vision is not a metaphor. What is being shown though is a representation of the theocratic order in heaven. God is the head of Christ (also not a physical head, but indicating who's in charge and that Jesus and God are not equal as so many people claim).

Trinity

Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.

Source: Trinity: Reasoning

What the Nicene Creed says:

“We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.”

What the Bible says:

“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28. * [* = Italics ours. All the quotations in this section are from the King James Version.]

“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.

“To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.

“These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the creation of God.”—Revelation 3:14.

QUICK FACTS:

“The Nicene Creed is actually not the product of the First Council of Nicea (325) . . . but of the First Council of Constantinople (381),” says The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History.

“The Council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for [the yet future Trinity] doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same substance . . . as the Father.’”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

“The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”—Library of Early Christianity—Gods and the One God.

“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Source: Should You Believe in the Trinity? AWAKE! AUGUST 2013

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Source: Trinity: Reasoning

More than two billion people profess to be Christian. Most belong to churches that teach the Trinity—the doctrine that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit together form one God.

Jesus teaching something important at Matthew 7:13,14:

“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.

2 billion is many.

a reply to: whereislogic

And the doctrine should never have been called the Trinity, that is a Roman Catholic Creation. It should be and is seen in scripture as the Doctrine of the Godhead.

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

originally posted by: IFEMP
Look to the kabbalistic tradition's tree of life to see which Sephiroth, or emanation of God corresponds to which part of "the body of GOD". Right, left, hands, feet, crown etc. Also, I have been a long time lurker and watcher on this site but this is my first "post". I hope I can lend valuable insights into at least some of these discussions!

You are automatically "disqualified" in this feeble apologic excuse of a first post.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: luciferslight
This is the first sensible answer you will get.
"Sitting on the right hand" is a metaphor meaning "second in command".
Obviously a metaphor because the Biblical God is not physically sitting and has no physical hands.
So there is no need for anyone at all to be "on the left hand".

Didn't i just say that?

Yes; but DISRAELI is not as purposely obtuse.