end times discussion on the kingdom of christ

[RND]

I understand why you don't know what to say. If I held the position that Jesus has not been enthroned as king of the world, I certainly would not know how to respond to this text, which clearly shows that Jesus is, in fact, already king.

Drew, I don't know how to respond to someone so bent on wresting the scriptures to their own destruction.

Where does the text add this qualification, RND?

Drew, have you ver even read the Bible? See the book of John, try to peice everything together instead of trying to build doctrine from one verse.

It seems to be missing from my Bible.

No doubt. There seems to be plenty missing from "your Bible."

It is not proper exegesis to add such qualifications. Jesus says "all" and I suggest this means "all".

Drew, Jesus never forces His will on anyone. That's why He knocks on the door. The door is symbolic of the heart. If any man answers He will sup with them. That means a man has a choice not to open the door of his heart to Jesus.

 

[Drew]

i disagree with that logic behind that, if the lord wanted to use for setting the earthly version via democracy, why not then not now, more clarity in biblical understand as the teachings of christ were very fresh, first person testimony.

I never said that the Bible tells us to use democracy, that is simply my take.

But the scriptures are clear - Jesus is presently king. Are you prepared to challenge me on either of hte two arguments I have put forward to that effect - one based on Acts 4, the other on Matthew 28?

 

[Drew]

Drew, "in your midst" means "within you." It's really that simple. You want to argue semantics Drew, I don't.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to argue this. "In your midst" decidedly does not mean "within you".

If I walk into room with one woman and 10 men in it, I could correctly say "There is a woman in your midst".

Does that mean that there is a woman "within" each man?

Of course not.

 

[RND]

Well please tell us exactly how Jesus teaching works against separation of church and state.

You mean to ask me how does Jesus' teaching trump church and state?

All I see is a teaching on how Christians should behave when placed in positions of power.

Is that "all" you see? What about Romans 12?

Where does this text tell us that church and state should be separated?

It is implied that as Jesus said, "In this world the kings and great men order their people around, and yet they are called `friends of the people.' But among you, those who are the greatest should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant."

In other words the greatest among us don't seek power to become servants of the people, but rather, among the church the greatest takes the "lowest rank." Clearly this established a delineation in service between what the state does and what the church should be doing.

 

[RND]

I can understand why you wouldn't want to argue this. "In your midst" decidedly does not mean "within you".

Yes it does.

If I walk into room with one woman and 10 men in it, I could correctly say "There is a woman in your midst".

That's right, you could.

Does that mean that there is a woman "within" each man?

Of course not.

Again, that's very true.

Drew, what does "entos" in the Greek mean? Among or within? Humon is a derivative of humeis is an irregular use of "su" which means "you."

I'm really sorry you have no need to believe the obvious but that happens when we choose to wrest the scriptures of their true an accurate meaning and mold it to our own beliefs.

 

[jasoncran]

i disagree with that logic behind that, if the lord wanted to use for setting the earthly version via democracy, why not then not now, more clarity in biblical understand as the teachings of christ were very fresh, first person testimony.

I never said that the Bible tells us to use democracy, that is simply my take.

But the scriptures are clear - Jesus is presently king. Are you prepared to challenge me on either of hte two arguments I have put forward to that effect - one based on Acts 4, the other on Matthew 28?

you were being quite vague until, the great commision is for winning souls, and this verse 28:18 in matthew could mean that god allows satan have some power on the earth, and he has,look in the book of revalation if you doubt that. acts 4:24 simply means created it all,but he does allow man' free will to choose him or satan. god rules directly or overrules nothing gets by him. he can allow things to happen and then use it for his will.

does this contraldict the jesus is king, no, he allows satan to have some power for now
analogy, we went to war for indepence from brittian, yet they kept troops in the u.s so we went to war again, and we won. we were"free" from the brittish at first yet they had troops in our country, it is of my opinion that satan is muck like that.
recall revalation 2:10, 13. these verse show that satan attacked and caused harm(persecuting) the chruches, so satan does have some power to do harm to christians.

 

[Drew]

This does not address my point. It was the Pharisees who asked about the Kingdom. Jesus answers the Pharisees. If, as you believe, Jesus is talking about an "internal Kingdom", then we have the decidedly odd situation of Jesus telling Pharisees that the kingdom is within them. No doubt, this is part of the reason why most translations do not go with the "within you" rendering.

Drew, you seriously need to take the scripture as a whole instead of focusing on single points as you do. In Acts many of the very people that saw to it that Christ was crucified repented and were baptized - thus the kingdom of God was now "within" them.

Clearly you don't understand what verse 20 and 21 are conveying. The kingdom of God does not come by seeing it take place it comes without observation. It is "within you."

Your argument does not work. I make a solid argument that the Lukan text does not require a "within you" reading. Do you challenge me? Well, frankly I do not see how you could. The majority of translations offer an "among you" rendering, not a "within you" rendering. And besides, if the "within you" reading is really correct, we have the odd situation of Jesus telling unbelieving Pharisees that "the kingdom is within you". You have not addressed that contradiction, and I can certainly understand why - it makes no sense to tell unbelieving Pharisees that the kingdom is within them.

So what do you do? You tell us about how some people repented and became believers. Well fine, but the fact that some believe the gospel does not mean that Jesus is not king of the world.

And your critique in respect to verses 20 and 21 does not work either. You seem to think that if Jesus were lord of more than inner lives, that we would "see this". This is, of course, incorrect. What Jesus is saying is perfectly consistent with His being King of the world.

 

[Drew]

you were being quite vague until, the great commision is for winning souls, and this verse 28:18 in matthew could mean that god allows satan have some power on the earth, and he has,look in the book of revalation if you doubt that.

Just as RND has done, you are adding your own qualifications to what Jesus is saying. The text says that Jesus has been given all authority on earth, not only some authority, such as the authority to win souls.

It really needs to be re-stated: Matthew 28 says what it says. I am the one taking it as it reads - all authority on earth has already been given. It is others who want to add restrictive qualifications to this. Well, if the text really means "Jesus has authority over saving souls", or "Jesus only has authority over those who choose to follow Him", why doesn't Jesus say these things.

And I am seeing no actual arguments as to why we should not read this text exactly as it is written.

 

[Drew]

I understand why you don't know what to say. If I held the position that Jesus has not been enthroned as king of the world, I certainly would not know how to respond to this text, which clearly shows that Jesus is, in fact, already king.

Drew, I don't know how to respond to someone so bent on wresting the scriptures to their own destruction.

Ummm, do you expect the readers to not notice that you have conveniently shifted the issue from the challenge of how "all authority" does not mean what it says? That is the issue on the table. You have, of course, made no case at all that I am "wresting the scriptures". It is not me who is adding to what the text says - it is you who are doing that.

Where does the text add this qualification, RND?

Drew, have you ver even read the Bible? See the book of John, try to peice everything together instead of trying to build doctrine from one verse.

You are not answering the question. Please give the reader a reason to believe that "all authority" really means "some authority".

It is not proper exegesis to add such qualifications. Jesus says "all" and I suggest this means "all".

Drew, Jesus never forces His will on anyone. That's why He knocks on the door. The door is symbolic of the heart. If any man answers He will sup with them. That means a man has a choice not to open the door of his heart to Jesus.

I have never denied that people do not have a choice. What is your argument? People have a choice to not follow the leadership of President Obama. Does that mean he is not the sitting President of the USA? Of course not.

 

[Drew]

Where does this text tell us that church and state should be separated?

It is implied that as Jesus said, "In this world the kings and great men order their people around, and yet they are called `friends of the people.' But among you, those who are the greatest should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant."

In other words the greatest among us don't seek power to become servants of the people, but rather, among the church the greatest takes the "lowest rank." Clearly this established a delineation in service between what the state does and what the church should be doing.

No. Jesus critiques the way that leaders act in the fallen world and instructs his disciples to follow his example of being a "servant leader".

This in no way is any kind of statement about a separation of church and state. It is a statement about how Christians should act in respect to "doing power."

 

[Drew]

Well we have 2 unrefuted arguments on the table that Jesus is presently King. Here is a third:

There are at least two ways I am aware of by which people try to argue against Jesus’ present lordship over the “temporal†world. Either they claim that Jesus is in no sense a king yet, or they concede that He is presently a king, but that He is not yet king over “this†(temporal) world.

I believe that Jesus is presently king over this temporal world. Consider this text from Romans 15 as rendered in the NASB:

For I say that Christ has become a servant to (K)the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers,
9and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written,
"THEREFORE I WILL GIVE PRAISE TO YOU AMONG THE GENTILES,
AND I WILL SING TO YOUR NAME."
10Again he says,
"REJOICE, O GENTILES, WITH HIS PEOPLE."
11And again,
"PRAISE THE LORD ALL YOU GENTILES,
AND LET ALL THE PEOPLES PRAISE HIM."
12Again Isaiah says,
"THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE,
AND HE WHO ARISES TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES,
IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE."

I suggest that is clear that Paul is writing about something that has already come to pass. Paul has just given us, in Romans 11, if not in other places in the letter, a detailed argument about how salvation has come to the Gentiles through the work of the cross. This is something that has already happened. So when Paul quotes Isaiah as prophesying about a ruler (over the Gentiles), he (Paul) must be seen as declaring that the Isaianic prophecy has already been fulfilled.

If this does not establish the timing of Jesus’ installation as ruler, consider the clear allusion to the resurrection by the use of the term “arisesâ€. Paul sees the resurrection as the time when Jesus becomes king.

So this eliminates the possibility that Jesus is not presently a ruling king. Now in what sense does He rule over the Gentiles? Does He rule over them in an unseen “spiritual†or non-temporal domain? Or does He rule over them in this present temporal world. Well, let’s look at the Isaianic material from which he is quoting:

Then in that day
The nations will resort to the root of Jesse,
Who will stand as a signal for the peoples;
And His resting place will be glorious.

As of His resurrection, Jesus is enthroned as lord over all nations, not merely over the members of the church.

 

[jasoncran]

you were being quite vague until, the great commision is for winning souls, and this verse 28:18 in matthew could mean that god allows satan have some power on the earth, and he has,look in the book of revalation if you doubt that.

Just as RND has done, you are adding your own qualifications to what Jesus is saying. The text says that Jesus has been given all authority on earth, not only some authority, such as the authority to win souls.

It really needs to be re-stated: Matthew 28 says what it says. I am the one taking it as it reads - all authority on earth has already been given. It is others who want to add restrictive qualifications to this. Well, if the text really means "Jesus has authority over saving souls", or "Jesus only has authority over those who choose to follow Him", why doesn't Jesus say these things.

And I am seeing no actual arguments as to why we should not read this text exactly as it is written.

he has authourity,by allowing satan space or taking it from him, that's what i mean. reread revalation again justify that one with that. note what did he say to those churches, one he told where satan seat is, what does that mean? a literal chair or a principality, keep in mind that one book was written after the fall of jerusalem by at least 20 yrs.

 

[jasoncran]

drew, i have a question for you then is the lord waiting on us to get our acts together in order to return.
why would jesus wait so long to return if we are his people are to set it up.

i think its the opposite here, he has a set date the only the fathers knows and is waiting for the word to call his people out, and then the tribualtion, then onto the 1000 yr reign, then onto the final rebellion.

why has to wait to the lenght he wants to do is a mystery.

 

[RND]

Your argument does not work.

Not for you, this is true.

I make a solid argument that the Lukan text does not require a "within you" reading. Do you challenge me? Well, frankly I do not see how you could. The majority of translations offer an "among you" rendering, not a "within you" rendering.

Drew, it doesn't matter what the "majority" of translations render - it matters what the Greek actually states. It's literally that simple. Therefore "within you" is the correct translation.

And besides, if the "within you" reading is really correct, we have the odd situation of Jesus telling unbelieving Pharisees that "the kingdom is within you". You have not addressed that contradiction, and I can certainly understand why - it makes no sense to tell unbelieving Pharisees that the kingdom is within them.

Drew, I did indeed address that. As I stated some of the very people responsible for hanging Jesus on the cross later repented and were baptized (see Acts 2). In repenting and being baptized the kingdom of God began to dwell within them.

Honestly Drew, when you go to build an argument with one verse the least you could do is understand what it is you are attempting to state.

So what do you do? You tell us about how some people repented and became believers. Well fine, but the fact that some believe the gospel does not mean that Jesus is not king of the world.

Never said that. I suggested that, just as we see in Acts 2, once some of those men responsible for the death of Christ repented and were baptized the kingdom of god came to them, without observation - they didn't see it coming!

And your critique in respect to verses 20 and 21 does not work either.

For you? That's true. Your mind is made up and blinded by your misunderstanding.

You seem to think that if Jesus were lord of more than inner lives, that we would "see this".

Tell me Drew, is there any other way?

This is, of course, incorrect. What Jesus is saying is perfectly consistent with His being King of the world.

Except He never actually says that!

 

[researcher]

keep in mind that one book was written after the fall of jerusalem by at least 20 yrs.

Lol. The person who started that theory was the guy that said Jesus was at least 50 years old when he died. I believe it was the catholic bishop Eusebius.

 

[jasoncran]

keep in mind that one book was written after the fall of jerusalem by at least 20 yrs.

Lol. The person who started that theory was the guy that said Jesus was at least 50 years old when he died. I believe it was the catholic bishop Eusebius.

no archeaology, and a history major confirmed this, as i discussed the various roman emporers with him.

he told me the lasted emporer john could have seen, though i cant recall that person's name. i just checked my bible commentary the most likely date is 96 ad, and the emporer is dominatian

so what do we do know if this is the kingdom days. if its is i'm not impressed with the might of god as their still evil and a lot more evil on the way.

america aint getting closer to christ nor is most of the world, i beilieve its going the other way.

 

[RND]

Ummm, do you expect the readers to not notice that you have conveniently shifted the issue from the challenge of how "all authority" does not mean what it says? That is the issue on the table. You have, of course, made no case at all that I am "wresting the scriptures". It is not me who is adding to what the text says - it is you who are doing that.

Drew, as you are want to do in practically every discussion I have seen you participate in you simply choose to make a blanket statement without any understanding behind it and hold on to that statement like grim death.

Jesus indeed has "all authority." The fact of the matter is that He doesn't "Lord" that over on people. He allows them "free choice" between Him and Satan. Once Christ is accepted then indeed He has "all authority." Until then, until Christ is chosen, He does not have "all authority" over someone's life.

You are not answering the question. Please give the reader a reason to believe that "all authority" really means "some authority".

Drew, again, you don't seem to understand simple Biblical concepts. I'm sorry about that. In order for Christ to have "all authority" one must surrender to Him. Until then Satan is the prince of the air.

I have never denied that people do not have a choice. What is your argument? People have a choice to not follow the leadership of President Obama. Does that mean he is not the sitting President of the USA? Of course not.

The difference is quite clear Drew. President Obama has all authority to "force" people into obeying him - Jesus forces no one to obey Him.

 

[jasoncran]

The difference is quite clear Drew. President Obama has all authority to "force" people into obeying him - Jesus forces no one to obey Him

interesting anology, the lord wont force any to obey him, the president could because has the power and no real restraints save the law of men, which can be corrupted, unlike christ who can never do evil or lie.

 

[RND]

No. Jesus critiques the way that leaders act in the fallen world and instructs his disciples to follow his example of being a "servant leader".

Drew, do you understand that what I wrote was directly quoted from the NLT version of Luke 22? You are saying no to that?

This in no way is any kind of statement about a separation of church and state.

Drew, there is nothing in the Bible that melds church and state together.

It is a statement about how Christians should act in respect to "doing power."

Nope. It is Jesus saying specifically that, "In this world the kings and great men order their people around, and yet they are called `friends of the people.' But among you, those who are the greatest should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant."

The one in this case that is called friend of the people is the one who stoops to the lowest rank - like Jesus!

 

[RND]

The difference is quite clear Drew. President Obama has all authority to "force" people into obeying him - Jesus forces no one to obey Him

interesting anology, the lord wont force any to obey him, the president could because has the power and no real restraints save the law of men, which can be corrupted, unlike christ who can never do evil or lie.

I think this is a concept beyond Drew's reach.