Dear Mr. Koshy,
Quote, "You wrote on Aug 2015 about the omnipresence of God and also ‘relative to.’ I do not see anything about ‘relative to,’ but there is a definite statement about where John saw the Son of Man. This ‘relative to’ is a ‘smart Alek’ answer. If any wants to make a ‘relative to’ expression, then that should not be God being ‘relative to’ anything, but all things should be relative to Him."
The "relative to" expression was used to state where the Lord Jesus was standing, in response to your question "In Revelation chapter one, where was the Lord Jesus Christ?." Relative to (i.e. in relation to) the lampstands, He was standing in their midst. We can also say, relative to the Lord Jesus, the lampstands were around him (by deduction). If you prefer the latter, then you should have asked the question, "In Revelation chapter one, where are the lampstands"? Your question is what forced me to state where the Lord Jesus is in relation to the lampstands.
If we go by your doctrine, "that should not be God being ‘relative to’ anything, but all things should be relative to Him" was it right of Apostle John to first describe the 7 lampstands, before He described the Lord Jesus as standing in their midst? So you see that the inspired text does not follow your laws of relativity.
Quote, "Your answer to my first question was, “Yes, if between means midst.” I do not know the translation you use. However in KJV the word is ‘midst.’ You are regressing back to your ‘smart Alek’ answers."
'Midst' is a an exact geometric location of an entity; 'between' is not. The Lord Jesus is not simply between the lampstands, He is in their midst. 'Midst' means that He is equidistant from all the lampstands. He is not closer to one and farther away from another one. He is seen standing in the midst of all of them. When you use the expression "between", you have shown willingness to be careless and ambiguous about where the Lord is standing, even though the inspired text is very specific. That is why I said, "Yes, if between means midst."
Quote, "My second question was, “According to the geography, could the expression ‘midst of the lamps’ is literal?” You answer was, “John is in the Spirit and he is being shown a divine vision. Where is John when he is in Spirit? Is John still on Patmos or is he in heavenly realms? We do not know, nor can we tell for sure. We know what happenned to Phillip and Paul, when they were in the Spirit. For the sake of simplicity, we can assume that John is seeing the vision of the Lord Jesus standing on the ground of Patmos Island. We can state that the 7 golden lampstands are around the Lord. And the Lord is seen standing in the midst of the seven lampstands.” You did not answer my question. Please read my question and provide your answer. To answer this question you should consider at least Revelation 1:12-20."
Ans - What I said in my response was trying to say that the vision is literal - midst of the lamps can be assumed to be literal.
Quote, "Your answer to my 4th question was, “The scripture is clear, He is standing in the midst of the lampstands (and walking in the midst of them as well). Nowhere does the scripture say that the Lord is inside or outside or on top of the lamps. These latter charecterizations are products of your own mind. And you are asking this leading question to get me to agree to your mindset, instead of asking me to agree with the scriptures. We can continue this discussion, only if the scriptures are the common ground we stand on, not the mental models and failiable charecterizations of your (or my) mind.” My questions indicate how I study the Bible. You wrote about the seven lamps and that is what we read in the Bible. I am not finding fault with your answer, but am reminding you that you wrote about mental models and their fallibility. You also wrote that Christ was in the midst of the lamp. Do that give you a picture of Christ in your mind as being inside the lamp, outside the lamp, or on top of the lamp? This is not a leading question. It is a simple question. If the mental models are fallible, then how did you give your answer to my second question? You do not even know what is meant by the word ‘midst.’ Please answer my fourth question."
Ans - Perhaps we can proceed with this "simple question" if you define "inside the lamp, outside the lamp, or on top of the lamp". Can you do that, please? When you do, please clarify if a lamp is a hollow entity for the someone to be inside a lamp (singular, as you used 'lamp', not lamps). Also what is outside a lamp? What is on top of a lamp? A flame of fire is what one expects on top of a lamp, so are you talking about the Lord being on top of the fire? Please clarify. I will tell you this, I will not give answers that are not supported by or logically inferred by the inspired text of scripture, no matter how much you force me to do so. If you force me to answer questions that do not have a scriptural basis, I will be correct in calling such questions as 'leading questions'.
"If the mental models are fallible, then how did you give your answer to my second question?" - I did not use any mental models for this one. Can you please show me what mental model did I use to answer your second question?
Q6 - If the Lord Jesus Christ—Son of Man—was knocking at the door of the assembly at Laodicea, was He standing?
Thank you for providing a scripture reference for this question. Rev 3:20 is clear in which the Lord Himself states that He is standing. But how did you get to "knocking at the door of the assembly at Laodicea"? Nowhere in Rev 3:15-22 does the Lord refer to their physical assembly door? Your use of "If" in this question shows how deceptive you are - you are like a sales person doing the bait and switch. By making me focus on the 'standing' you thought you could make me agree to the "knocking at the door of the assembly at Laodicea" part implied in the question.
Yes the Lord is standing and knocking! But how did you conclude that the Lord is standing at the physical door of the assembly in Laodicea? Please clarify and we can proceed with this question.
Q7 - If He was standing, was He standing inside the assembly at Laodicea, outside that assembly, or over the assembly?
You are basing your Q7 based on the assumed answer to Q6 that the Lord Jesus standing at the physical door of the assembly in Laodicea. First clarify or show in Q6 how you concluded that the Lord is standing at the physical door of the assembly in Laodicea? Please clarify and we can proceed with this question on "inside the assembly at Laodicea, outside that assembly, or over the assembly". Q6 and Q7 are related and we cannot proceed to Q7 without satisfactorily answering Q6 with the scriptures.
Q8 - When He said that if any man hears His voice and opens the door, then is it reasonable to conclude that the door on which He was knocking was shut and He was on the outside?
Ans - Yes He is knocking on the outside. But to claim that an omnipresent divine being can be limited to being just outside a door, does not accord with scripture. Thank you for providing a scripture reference for this question.
Q9 - When He said that if anyone opens the door then He “will come in,” then does that indicate that He was knocking at the door from outside?
Ans - Yes, the Lord is knocking from the outside, as I already said in Q8. Thank you for providing a scripture reference for this question.
Here are some related questions for you: From outside the shut door, where did the Lord promise to enter into? Also what activity did He promise to those who open the door? Was this promised activity of a personal and private nature OR was it of a public nature? You will find the answers for these questions in Rev 3:20. Just as I showed the willingness to answer your questions so far, will you also show some willingness to answer the questions I raised?
Quote, "Your answers show your lack of spiritual sincerity when answering from the Scriptures. You brought in the question on Revelation 3:20 in another thread and then started this thread, and now you pretend that you do not even know what verse is under this discussion. Even an atheist will not resort to such unfaithfulness in a discussion."
The reason I asked you for the scriptural reference is that we had a few exchanges the previous thread where you asserted multiple times that you did not quote Rev 3:20. So, on this thread, I want the reference to come from you, rather than me assuming which part of scripture you are referring about. In my first post I said, "If your statement had nothing to do with Rev 3:20, we do not have to bring it up in this discussion at all." You had the opportunity to state that this reference is correct for your statement. But you chose not to do so. You reference to atheist is simply another unwarranted and unjustified attack, which deserves no response.