Prophecy re-thinking?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Mark Bassett wrote:
 
> On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:11:29 -0800, you wrote:
> 
> >> I have evaluated these doctrines and believe that, with small issues
> >> aside, they are essentially correct and properly interpretted in what
> >> we know as "endtime prophecy". More on this, if we all insist.
> >
> >There are basic thoughts such as the rapture and so forth which are
> >explicitly shown forth in scripture.  But when we get into Interpretation
> >of "locusts" and "the seal of god on their forehdeads" etc., it is more
> >than reading explicit wording.  Interpretation is needed.  And I simply
> >have compared Revelation with the rest fo the Bible and noticed that
> >there really is no break in stress and spirit from the overall theme
> >of flesh versus Spirit, IF ONE reads Revelation with regards to
> >spirituality, etc.  But, plain and simply, if the locusts are helicopters
> >and the mark is a computer chip, the whole continuity of the message of
> >the Bible is cast aside for the time being in order to deal with
> >what any Spirit-less person could guess the symbos to mean.
> 
> Some say the mark is a computer chip. Others say it is something else.
> Mainly it is a *mark*. What locusts are is not really important to one
> view of scripture or another.

I disagree somewhat.  That which is forwarded to us in the Bible is 
indeed there for us to understand.  God wastes no words.  He wrote
them for us to receive a message.  I know you agree.  So since He
spoke about "locusts" (Which, BTW, I feel are simply demon spirits),
He desires us to understand a certain aspect of truth.

 
> >For one person says it is a computer chip.  Another says it is going to church on Sunday.
> 
> I agree that there is rampant speculation in these matters. I do not
> agree that a massive abstraction is the answer, nor do I feel that the
> variations in SOME interpretations are of much significance. 

One person's abstraction is another's heart-felt revelation.

> It was
> clearly not highly significant that the individual receive a specific
> revelation from these pages, though he is BLESSED to receive what he
> does receive. 

I disagree with that.  But, let's continue.

> The message adresses the churches across the ages all of
> which have gotten something completely different, 

Do you mean to say that Rev. 13:16 was "intended" to mean on ething
to the 15th century believer and another to the 20th?  Just 
seeking clarification, that's all.


> but as with Napolean
> and the men of the middle European period, the antichrist is
> anticipated to be a singular and real epitome of the spirit which
> substiutues for and opposes Christ. The surrounding scenario has
> classically been interpretted in local timeframe.

Agreed. But what did God intend?  I suppose that if one looked at Revelation
as the last generation book alone then one could see how "any" interpretation
taken throughout the ages would indeed do that generation good.  However,
this seems to say that the lest generation had better not take it wrong, 
though.

> >For example, as above, the LAW OF GOD is to be bound on the right hand
> >and as frontlets between the eyes.  Literally?  No.  This represents the
> >whole mind, soul, and body being dedicated to God's laws.  So why would
> >Rev 13's mark of the beast be a literal phsycial data chip if that which
> >god tells us to bind on the hand and forehead is only figurative.
> 
> This ia thought that my influence thinking, but is not sufficiently
> developed to prevent there from being a litteral manifestation of the
> binding to the hand and head. 

>From my experience in scripture, the cross-referencing usually reveals
SIMILAR interpretations between two texts.  I cannot think of any biblical
vision that was symbolic to "good" but literal to "evil".  I think the
fact that the pertinent references I have given are parts of a vision -
(how many biblical visions were literal?) - gives credence to the thought
that there is indeed a spiritual interpretation to be had.  It is
not what the surface appears to show.

For some reason God always used symbolisms in the visions He gave to
people in the Bible.  Please consider this.

> Unless we are to leap from the sober
> mindset into aestheticism and manicheanism, the material world HAS
> significance and is often thought of as an analog to the spiritual
> realm. 

My point is that Biblical VISIONS always used symbols and never were 
direct literal pictures.

The prophets often asked God what the vision meant, for they knew it was 
symbolic.

> In this, we still see today see Hassidim putting the scriptures
> on their hands and heads. They are unenlightened yes. But they do.

Does that make the fact that the scriptures denoting the Law on the 
hand and forehead was INTENDED to be taken literally?

It is not what men think or do but what God intends.

> There is literally an altar in the heavenlies. God commanded that in
> the pattern revealed, there ought to be one made here on earth, under
> Moses.

Who is to say that the altar is physical?  We are the image of God, 
but does that mean God literally has flesh.  No.,  That is well known.  
And although you may be correct (which I am not saying you are not),
I merely point out that your reasoning simply cannot apply 
in every case, especially built on the example you just gave when compared
to man being in God's image.
 
> The physical world is not the spiritual world, but as we pray "Thy
> Kingdom come thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven".

Indeed, Heaven is spiritual.  There is a physical manifestation of
many spiritual things.  Not all, but many.  And God's will done in
earth does not prove that what is a pattern on the earth is 
physical and literal in the heavenlies.

We simply cannot say for sure.

> The Holy Ghost experience IS the Kingdom of God, but is God going to
> be manifest upon the earth again, materially, in a specific tabernacle
> of glorified flesh? Yes. the Bible is clear about that. 

Just a moment.  God is SPirit.  And He manifests through the saints
who are both spiritual and physical.  Humans are the only creation
that are both spiritual and physical.  To say God manfests in flesh,
glorified or not, is not to say God HAS flesh, anymore than we can say
a literal physical altar exists in glory.  I do not know exactly
what the altar is.  But I simply point out that we cannot say for
sure either way.

> Does that make
> the flesh God ? No.. of course not. But Israel's David (yes, the
> national Israel apart from the church, which today lives in blindness)
> will see her "David" reign over the earth, as the Power of God
> literally impacts itself in a political sense on the earth. The church
> is not that power .. such AMILLENIAL concepts are Catholic at root,
> and purport to see the kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of
> our Lord under the weight of the influence of the Church.

Labels such as "amillennial" often confuse the issue and they can have
an affect of initimidating people from ever believing anything involved 
in such and such a group.  Now, I disagree sharply with RCC tradition and 
dogma, but I have noticed that many "millennial" prophecies INDEED do 
relate to the Church now!  Who could not apply Isaiah 11 with the Church
age as well as the Millennium?

> Revelation begins in confirming Zechariah saying "Every eye will see
> Him" and refer to a specific time on the Mt of Olives. Jesus, still
> living in mortal flesh, put the time frame in the future. He did not
> leave room for an unending, and perpetual stretching forward of
> history, but pointed to a specific END, politically, spiritually, and
> judicially.

Agreed. Yet this does not limit everything in Revelation to these 
limitations.

> >Comparative study  itself shows the popular ideas to be incorrect.
> >Where is the corss referencing for computer chips in the Bible?
> 
> Where is any modern nomenclature?

Nomenclature or not, there is no similar cross-referencing to
the thought of computer chips even using the vocabulary of the day
elsewhere in the Bible.  Again, John saw a vision.

> >My former post gives the example of the name of God on the
> >forehead.  We know that is not literal.  But we say the mark of the
> >beast is literal?
> 
> The mark of the beast is something that the BEAST implements to HIS
> satisfaction in attempting to have all of humanity worship him. 

That is highly based on interpretation again.  I can say that God
wishes to reveal something to the church in a visionarly symbol in the
manner in which God wishes to reveal it.  This has nothing to do with
the way the Beast wishes to implement a thing.  I am saying that the same
God who showed us a symbol of bearing Jesus' name also showed us similarly a
symbol of the counterfeit.  It is not how the beast will do anything so much 
as how God reveals events to occur.  

Now, if God gave a vision elsewhere in the Bible involving two similar
terms of vocabular, such as the two seals or marks in Rev 13
and Rev 14, and one was literally fulfilled and the very next one was
symbolic then I might have a tendency to be more agreeable to
your persuasion.  But it is not.  And, being open to the fact that
it MAY BE a bio-chip causes me not to ever receive one, I will not 
say I know for sure it is NOT a bio-chip.  I just do not think it is.

Again, bio-chips would be too obvious, and Satan is going to subtly
try to deceive the world including the church - and if it were
possible the very elect would be deceived.

> It may
> or may not be litteral. If it is not, then assuredly it is
> *associated* with literal elements. For example, a powerful inward
> belief in the principles of racial separation and a hatred of some
> races caused men in various parts of our country to don white hoods.
> Is the mark the hatred, or the hood ? Can't we have both, with
> understanding ?

We could have both, but then I feel strongly we must say that
God meant for the 144,000 to BOTH literally wear God's name and
symbolically hold it.  I cannot stray away from the most likely
scenario that God is showing two opposing yet similar spirits at
work between the beast's mark and the 144,000's sealing of God's name.

God is the author of this vision.  It seems more "like God" to 
speak of a good thing and an evil counterfeit thing using
similar visionary symbolism to clue us into what the enemy is
really up to - that being, getting man to worship self as God
heads up His church to uphold His name!

> >I also evaluated their thoughts and thought them to be true.  But after
> >more experience in the Spirit in my life I found they actuallly only
> >made "good sense".  That feeling that I could follow these guys and
> >see their logic caused me to think it was therefore truth.  I discovered
> >things that may seem to make sense are not necessarily true.
> >
> >And when I corss referenced the thoughts of Revelation with the rest
> >of the Bible - WOW! - things opened up!  Some of the results of such
> >studies are on my homepage.
> 
> Yep.

I am trying to say somethig is going on in my spirit regarding these things.

> >And lo and behold, others felt the witness of the Spirit, and even others
> >came up with the same conclusions through personal revelation themselves.
> >
> >Those touting the popular prophecy interpretations of today, if you ask them,
> >studied them from others.  No personal revelation was involved.  They
> >"read it in a book by so and so."
> 
> No, Im sorry to have to disagree with you, but that is not so.

In my experience it has been so with the ministers I have known and rubbed
shoulders with.  Ever read, "The Late Great Planet Earth"?

> >Tribulation is well acquainted with Christians.  We all must
> >pass through much tribulartion in order to enter the Kingdom.  And looking
> >at Revelation through the aspect the early church looked at it through,
> >pertinent to the growth of christians and not relegated to some distant
> >last generation alone, makes much more sense in the Spirit.
> 
> Im also sorry to say, I believe you are deliberately neglecting
> considerable inalterable testimony which DOES refer to a specific time
> period, and does, as throughout God's plan, *limit* the time to a
> measure. 

Such as?....

> The conclusion of this time is reserved in prophetic
> partition, for an earthly political and national reconciling of
> gentile nations. Most certainly, the last conclusion (brought about by
> the revelation of God in flesh) imposed a very great change in the
> world and the way iot did business, and by nature brought judgement to
> Jacob's people.

Jesus said His kingdom was "in you".  He said it comes not with observation.
It is Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, as you already said.
Yes, I believe He will physically manifest that Kingdom.  But nothing 
explicitly and irrefutably says that.

> >> First, I don't believe that this is exclusivly Plymouth Brethren
> >> origin, and yes, the eschatology has been merchandised. So what ?
> >
> >We need facts about these origins of interpretation.  Darby,
> >Larkin, Scofield and suchlike promoted practically all of what
> >we have been told.
> 
> To be honest, Bro Blume - I found your tone somewhat insulting, and
> presumptuous. 

Then you have taken me wrong.  No spirit of attitude has been forwarded
by any intentions of mine.  Fact is that my words are true.  We do
have most of our studies from these men's research.  That is fact.
I see not insult at all in my words.  Look again.

Kenneth Reeves, for example, spoke in the first UPC Prophecy Conference.
And he notes the very thing I just typed above.  I agreed with him.

> You have stated that no one (except you) got knowledge
> by reveleation, 

I have indeed not stated that nobody but me got these revelations.
That is grey, brother.  Please stray from personal attacks. I simply
have said that I have received revelation along with many others.
I even said that my findings hacve agred perfectly with others who
have likewise received insight from God.  I have clearly stated I do 
not know all the answers.  Please accept what I have
written as honestly spoken, and lets enjoy this discussion.

> and in another paragraph complained that only a people
> who have the Holy Ghost experience

Brother.....

> 
> Now you are suggesting that among those who have had genuine
> revelation, only YOU and a few others ACTUALLY have it. :-)

That is putting words into my mouth.  Wrong.
 
> I'm not saying that you arent entitled to revelation. What I am asking
> is this - if you happen to see these issues differently, how did it
> occur that you crawled inside someone elses heart and  can discredit
> what God has spoken to them? I dont understand that, really.

All I am saying is that it is factual that apostlic fellowshps have taken
non-apostolic literature on Revelation and forwarded them to our people.
Look in any bible school library.  And all I am saying is that we should
take a second look at such sources.

> You have a problem when you see that dispensatoinal theology has been
> popularized, and that, more recently than
> 
> Some of it fraught with problems - I dont exactly know what you know
> about it, and you dont exactly know what I know about it - but I found
> that the debate that concluded some time ago with did not give any
> where near satisfactory consideration to the actual scripture, and
> YES, presuming it had SOME, if not MUCH, literal interpretation.
> 
> If you are arguing against this preumption, then fine, but how does
> that help? I (and many others) still hold these (or similar) views,
> and not for no reason, but AFTER prayer, and Bible Study and yes,
> revelation.
> 
> It is imply not reasonable to argue against interpretation on the
> basis of it appearing literal, simply because some without the Holy
> Ghost have spoken these ideas.

It is certainly a good premise to rethink our ideas when they have come from 
non-spirit baptized denominations.  Literal appearance has nothing to do
with realizing non-spirit-filled people may have been wrong.


> I believe with you, that we receive revelation from God, BY God's
> Spirit. I ALSO believe, as a sober man, that people without the Holy
> Ghost are moved and directed and instructed by God through many
> sources including the scripture. So... I'll repeat this because it is
> of the greatest importance.
> 
> When a man, such a Billy Graham, tells people that Jesus's compassion
> was so great that he laid down His life for the hopeless and on whose
> face mercy was conveyed to the world as he refused to condemn the one
> who drove the nails, Billy Graham is imparting a powerful truth. I
> couldnt care less if he has the Holy Ghost.

Again you use an example of something which is explicitly revealed in 
scripture.  This has nowhere near the weight of example as one who stands,
for example, and declares God showed them that the mark of the beast
is a computer chip.  

We look at the "church fathers" and criticize the trinitarians for their
referenceing men which worked under the authority of Constantine, who could
not even take communion due to his lack of comitment to Christ, and tell 
them they should reject such "Councils", and turn around and defend Larkin 
and the sort for prophecy interpetation.

I read books and books by non-UPC writers, so I am not saying we must
read nothing but books from our publishing house.  But I am saying
that I "watch it" when I read anything by non-spirit baptized people.
Think of it.  People without the Spirit are going to be more outward
oriented than people with the Spirit.  And isn't it worth thinking 
about, at least, that perhaps we should look at all the literal
interpretations of Revelation which were first promoted by these
non-spirit-filled people?

I am not getting this discussion going for the sake of saying, "You're
all wrong!"  Indeed I am not!  I am saying, let's take a second look,
and who knows what wonderful things God may open up.  No need to become
personally insulted!! 

> When a powerful preacher, speaking as did Elder Howard Goss, without
> the baptism of the Holy Ghost, can preach the need of the Holy Ghost
> baptism, and then run around the pulpit to the altar to seek it after
> he has preached ... I have to know that the inspiration of the heart
> is NOT wound up in the salvific, regenerative capacity of the
> experience of Pentecost.

Again, out of context of issue.

> So, if Plymouth Brethren say some things that bother someone, I m not
> ready to discredit these concepts on the basis that they didn't preach
> Acts 2:38 properly, and probably didnt understand the infilling of the
> Holy Ghost. (I will venture this - that some of them probanbly
> understood it more than some of us)

When it comes to visions and spiritual interpetations, I must 
simply disagree.

> >Fact is that depths of the Word are not revealed
> >without the Holy Ghost (1 Cor 2:12).  And when no anointing is present
> >during such ministry of popular endtime thoughts, it makes me wonder.
> 
> One of the wonderful fruits of modern revivalism that we see is the
> "anointing meter". Bro Blume, I would recommend that we talk about
> conviction in a forum like this, and maybe lets leave the "no
> anointing" condemnation for those meetings where our favorite
> preachers are being rated.

No condemnation intended.  Just experience and observation.  Again do not
take my terse words as meaning harshfulness.  You cannot hear my tone when
type.  And believe me, favouritism enters not into it.

> I believe in the anointing. I sometimes experience the anointing. Its
> not a quantity. Its not a verifiable measure. 

It is the witness of the Spirit.  If you would have felt what
I felt that morning I opened the study up with encouragement from the words
of Revelation, you would understand what I mean.  But alas, you weren't 
there.

Let me tell you what I think of it all in short.  Yes, rthere are historical
applications to prophecy.  There is an endtime!  We are in it!  (Shock you?)
But we can apply these same truths to our spiritual growths.  I never once
said these visions do not apply to physical circumstances.

So lets dig deepr into this before you label me as a know-it-all.

> Its not the basis for
> studying scripture., AND as i pointed out, it certainly is not the
> basis for opening ourselves to an impact of the written and spoken
> word which may itself BRING anointing.

Consistent lack of anointing makes me wonder.  Pure and simple.
But that is my experience, only.  I was "anointingless"
when I got into these things.  But suddenly when I ministered
the consistent, bible-issued topic of flesh versus spiritm using
Revelation - WOW!!!  It was totally different!  You merely said, "Yep."
 
> >Revelation in general, revealed Word from God, has a special "something"
> >about it that hits the human spirit.  The witness of the Spirit is very
> >important to me.
> 
> Very good. So it is to me.. However,  Bible study and preaching at
> large has fallen from any use whatsoever, when we believe and preach
> our impressions only. 

Who said anythig about preaching impressions only?  Slow down,
brother.

> It becomes little more than cultism when we
> leave sound doctrine and proper evaluation for the sake impressionism.

Who said anything about leaving sound doctrine????

> Most people who have advanced heresies have felt inspired to do so.
> Studying prophecy we are not so inclined to become involved in
> heresey, nevertheless, a moderate regard for the specific wording of
> the passages is reasonable, above and beyond and prejudice we might
> have toward others who have advanced ideas that these passages impart.

Prejudice implies unfair opinionating.  Does it not?  You yourself mentioned
that none of us can climb into a person's heart and tell what they 
were really feeling and intending.  Prejudice?

> Some people are not feeling really "excited" about Jesus name baptism
> any more. A number of years ago, you would hear more powerful messages
> on the remission of sins. Today, "not as much annointing" on that
> subject :-) Lets be careful.

I think I know what anointing is and is not.
 
> >> People are reading the Bible, praying and
> >> speaking publically. If one can read the Bible and without being
> >> baptized in the Holy Ghost recognize that Jesus is somehow more than
> >> man and could very well have established an economic miracle where
> >> man's sins could be remitted, then we have a commendation of the
> >> scripture, not a principle for discreditting the reader unless he is
> >> Holy Ghost baptized. Blind pigs find acorns and plenty of men and
> >> woman have used that old lamp with a little left over oil to show
> >> forth much truth.
> >
> >In order to discuss views of prophecy one must show examples.  Comparisons
> >do not solve the issue.  The Book of Revelation shows the degree to which
> >its truths will be little known by those void of revelatory experience.
> 
> I completely agree Brother Blume, and yet... I see fine men who, if
> measured by their understanding of the book of revelation, would be
> considered spiritual midgets, and so do you evidently.

Not so.  It depends much on area of ministry.  Nothing to do with
spirituality.  Know my stand, brother.  I do question the spirituality
of people without the Holy Ghost, but you make it sound like I question
the spirituality of thos ewith it amongst us!  To say we may have not 
thought that non-spirit baptized people may have been too "carnal" in their
opinions of Revelation is not to say we were all spiritual ignoramaces.

> >It gives a blessing to those who "hear" the words.  "Comprehend" is what
> >it is speaking about.  The ability to comprehend its messages is
> >a purely spiritual thing.  One whose spirit has not been regenerated by
> >the Holy Ghost is certainly questionable when it comes to "comprehending"
> >depths of the Word.  Notice that "Pentecostals" received a revelation
> >of the Oneness a few decades back?
> 
> I also notice that some resisted the same revelation. 

Point is, Spirit-baptized people got it.  

> Ultimately, the
> Oneness is not a revelation at all, but an acceptance of the message
> of God throughout the scripture. 

It was a revelation to brother Ewart.

> It is plain and boldly written. yes,
> there are spiritual reasons why people do not see truth. God unblinds
> us, healing ears and eyes, and giving liberty to the captive to stand
> in the marvelous light of the Son of God.
> 
> However, individual truths of the Bible CAN be comprehended by EVERY
> MAN, SPIRITUALLY, whether or not that person has been born of the
> spirit. 

Not all truths.   I criticize Justin Martyr for even considering
that God revealerd the Trinity to Plato by His Logos, aside from the fact
taht I believe Trinity is falsity.  My point is that those outside the
Kingdom are not subject to revelation but by "creation".

> Yes, comprehension and the fullness of wisdom comes from God
> through the new birth:
> 
> According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that
> [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the  knowledge  of him that
> hath called us to glory and virtue: - 2 Peter 1:3

My quote of 1 Cor 2:12 is in the context of things freely given to us.
Revelation through creation doe snot nearly compare to detailed revelation.

> They may not have ALL things, but on a limited basis unregenerate
> people can speak under inspiration of God and speak the truth. In fact
> EVEN WE OFTEN speak far beyond our individual abilities.
> 
> My parents know who Jesus is intellectually, and do not have any
> regard for trinitarian doctrine, thought they have not yet received
> the Holy Ghost.

Suppose a non spirit-baptized person will see Revelation in a much more 
detailed manner than the Spirit-filled?  Is that possible?

> Furthermore, I am going to put forth an absolutely heretical notion
> now, (Pentecostals, hold your socks).. People who arent Holy Ghost
> filled can get "anointed" :-) In fact, for those us us in closets..
> let me tell you... it happens all the time.

Agreed.  My point, though, is that inspiration towards detailed
Revelational aspects is not in the same category.  I am so conscious
of the "depths" of Revelation that i refuse to speak on any part of it
unless I have experienced a definite "Spirit-witnessing" understanding -
which, regarding Revelation itself, is not common to me.

But waht if... just what if... Revelation is to be opened up more for our
day thatn for the days of denominational interpreters gone by?  Daniel asked
what the vision meant, and the angel said it was not for him to know... but 
knowledge shall be increased in the last days.  The closer we get to the
end, the more opened the words of prophecy will be!

It was a wise man who told me, "Our ideas will probably be so far off the 
reality, when the time comes and we are shown more, than we realize."

> >Truths that are explicitly laid out, such as remission of sins, etc.,
> >require no revelatory miracle.  After all, how can fatcs pertaining
> >to salvation that are required for sinners to obey in order to be saved
> >be veiled under heavy symbolism only perceived by those saved?
> 
> Well, you are now struggling to prove that only an Apostolic Christian
> could talk about the book of Revelation. OK.. People could see
> Calvary, but they cant see "locust". OK.

Not so quick concerning who can be told what.  I simply say that sinners
are meant to clearly see salvation while Spirit-filled people will 
be the targets of God's visions which require interpretations.  Notice that
Peter did not give a vision of salvation through symbolic pictures to the
people of Acts 2?  Don't go too far with what I am trying to say.

> >But when  a "vision" is given and meant to be interpreted and "heard" (comprehended)
> >there is much necessity for spiritual experience.  Surely Spirit-less
> >people cannot perceive the depths of such study.  Again 1 Cor 2:12
> 
> Ok Bro... So then, the evidently mystery of the Body of Christ (i.e.
> its integrated and interdepentant nature), which is preached and
> taught throughout nominal Christian circles (quite well, I might add),
> MUST be, of a necessity, somthing other than what we have received
> through such nominal ministries.
> 
> I agree it might be MORE, but I am not about to reject the Charles
> Stanley , or John MacArthur comments which tell us that God's work
> cannot be accomplished to His full expectation unless His body moves
> in harmony. Do you see what I mean ?

MIGHT be?  It will be more.  Is the Holy Ghost for nothing more than
rapture-readiness?

> >All the help that Spirit-less people have is their ears, eyes and minds.
> >And Paul said such "mysteries" of God cannot be made known by these
> >faculties.
> 
> I think our disagreement is in this. You seem to believe that God's
> ONLY means of imparting any understanding is somehow wholly dependant
> on the pre-requisite infilling of the Holy Ghost. I dont.

No I do not.  But the DEEP things of God are not seen through
creation.

> Thanks for the discussion - this is a very general issue involving the
> very nature of Bible study, and decision making. Like I said, there
> was a recent LONG prophecy thread.  The archives are open.
> 
> -mwb

My desire is not to get into genreal discussions of who is anointed and
who is not.  I simply would like to enjoy sharing and comparing thoughts
about Book of Revelation with others, while forwarding the thought that
perhaps ... just perhaps....  we could receive clearer truths than what
denominational folks have provided.  And no attitude insinuated.  Really!


-- 
---
In Christ,  
Michael F. Blume   
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm
http://www.netdot.com/jwg7192/writings/mike.htm