end times discussion on the kingdom of christ

[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.

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.

He could have written it after 70 AD, but these verses have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in the 1st century..

Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Rev 14:19 And the angel cast his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress, the great winepress, of the wrath of God.
Rev 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and there came out blood from the winepress, even unto the bridles of the horses, as far as a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

He could have written after the fact, but it is highly likely that the temple was still standing as he was told to measure it, and it makes mention of the city being under siege as a future event.

 

[RND]

Lol. The person who started that theory was the guy that said Jesus was at least 50 years old when he died.

No. John is confirmed by history to be on Patmos around 92-95AD.

I believe it was the catholic bishop Eusebius.

So who's displaying anti-catholicism now?

 

[jasoncran]

i never said the jerusalem wasnt destroyes in 70 ad, that's a fact, but answer my question then are we in the kingdom of god presently, is jesus ruling the earth directly, and is he waiting on us to act?

 

[RND]

He could have written it after 70 AD, but these verses have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in the 1st century..

Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

This is the only verse I see dealing with 70AD.

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

This can't be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem because Jerusalem was under siege from 67AD to at least 73AD, much longer than 42 months.

Rev 14:19 And the angel cast his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress, the great winepress, of the wrath of God.
Rev 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and there came out blood from the winepress, even unto the bridles of the horses, as far as a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

This hasn't happened yet.

He could have written after the fact, but it is highly likely that the temple was still standing as he was told to measure it, and it makes mention of the city being under siege as a future event.

Who is the temple of God now? A building or the members of Christ's body?

 

[researcher]

He could have written it after 70 AD, but these verses have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in the 1st century..

Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

This is the only verse I see dealing with 70AD.

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

This can't be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem because Jerusalem was under siege from 67AD to at least 73AD, much longer than 42 months.

[quote:1afww3ul]Rev 14:19 And the angel cast his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress, the great winepress, of the wrath of God.
Rev 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and there came out blood from the winepress, even unto the bridles of the horses, as far as a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

This hasn't happened yet.

He could have written after the fact, but it is highly likely that the temple was still standing as he was told to measure it, and it makes mention of the city being under siege as a future event.

Who is the temple of God now? A building or the members of Christ's body?[/quote:1afww3ul]

All of those verses are about 1st century Jerusalem and its destruction. :yes

 

[jasoncran]

what is about the future in revalation and has the lord cast away jewish people then forever? what about the 144,000 jews?

 

[RND]

All of those verses are about 1st century Jerusalem and its destruction. :yes

You can say that and believe that all you want. The fact of the matter is that the book of Revelation is about "revealing."

 

[researcher]

All of those verses are about 1st century Jerusalem and its destruction. :yes

You can say that and believe that all you want. The fact of the matter is that the book of Revelation is about "revealing."

Sorry, I have it on better authority than man's that those verses are all about Jerusalem, 1st century... not the future. :yes :nod

 

[researcher]

what is about the future in revalation and has the lord cast away jewish people then forever? what about the 144,000 jews?

I don't know what's left in Revelation that needs to be fulfilled, there are a number of views that could be right, or none. Only the HS can show what really is left to be fulfilled and it be the true interpretation.

I dunno about the Jews being cast off forever. I believe some of them have been coming to Christ.

144,000? Firstfruits, like Jesus.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1Co 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Firstfruits... the first of something. They would have been the first Israelites that believed in Jesus. They're definitely not the lastfruits. lol. ;) :D

 

[RND]

Sorry, I have it on better authority than man's that those verses are all about Jerusalem, 1st century... not the future. :yes :nod

I'm sure you believe that.

 

[jasoncran]

do you believe the lord has cast off the jews forever?

 

[researcher]

Sorry, I have it on better authority than man's that those verses are all about Jerusalem, 1st century... not the future. :yes :nod

I'm sure you believe that.

100%

God doesn't talk to you? As in dreams, visions, word of knowledge, audible voice etc?

 

[researcher]

do you believe the lord has cast off the jews forever?

I don't know. I believe it says he calls them back, or some of them at least, lol.

 

[RND]

100%

God doesn't talk to you? As in dreams, visions, word of knowledge, audible voice etc?

Oh sure, God talks to me. Through His word specifically. Never had a dream. Never had a vision. Never has He spoken to me with an audible voice.

I can assure you that if you think God spoke to you that we are living in the age after Christ's second advent then that spirit is not from God.

 

[RND]

do you believe the lord has cast off the jews forever?

I don't know. I believe it says he calls them back, or some of them at least, lol.

Then by your own understanding all the prophecies haven't happened then?

Tell us which prophecies have yet to be fulfilled and why.

 

[Drew]

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.

Well, I am sorry but Paul says what he says - all authority.

I never said that this means that Jesus will "force" people to do anything. But that does not change what the Bible says - that all authority on earth has already been given to Jesus. And a person with "all authority" is a king, period.

Of course Jesus does not "lord" his authority does not mean that He does not have such authority. Barak Obama has presidential authority over all Americans, whether they accept it or not.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that there will not come a time when Jesus will return and His rule will be more direct. But that does not change the clear teaching of the Bible – the kingdom is already here and Jesus is already King.

You seem to be arguing that since King Jesus does not presently enforce his authority, this means that He cannot be a king. Well, I do not see how that argument works. We have all sorts of human government where a president or a prime minister or a king or a queen has authority, and yet gives people free choice.

 

[Drew]

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 don't know why the Lord is delaying His return. But the fact that He is delaying His return is not an argument that He is not King right now. Remember the culture of first century Palestine. Caesar was "lord" over Palestine even though he was hundreds or thousands of miles away.

The scriptures are clear - Jesus is presently the king of all the nations. We need to accept this and try to figure out what it means, even if that is challenging.

 

[Drew]

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.

Obviously, many translators do not agree with you.

If they thought the correct meaning was "within you", why don't all the translations say "within you"?

And, of course, the Greek does not, as you suggest, require a "within you" rendering. Here is the Greek defintion:

1) within, inside
1a) within you i.e. in the midst of you
1b) within you i.e. your soul

Note the two different sense -the "inside you" sense and the "in your midst" sense. Now lets be realistic. All these other translators have not made the obvious mistake you suggest that they are making.

These are not amateurs. If the greek root always had an “inside you†sense, they would have all translated the text as “within youâ€. But they don’t. I suspect they let context determine the rendering and realized that it was the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking, and it would not make sense for Jesus to tell the unbelieving Pharisees that the kingdom was within them. That's the last place the kingdom is.

But let’s suppose that you are right. Suppose that Jesus is saying that the kingdom is “inside peopleâ€. This really does no damage to the position that Jesus’ kingdom also extends to all institution in the world. Jesus could be emphasizing the kingdom is not only “out there†it is also “inside the human heartâ€. But, I am fairly confident that most translators go with “in your midst†or “among you†for a reason – they are not fools. And, of course, the translators who go with “wthin you†are not fools either.

 

[Drew]

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!

But He kept silent and did not answer Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN

I trust we all understand that "Christ" is not Jesus' "last name" - "Jesus Christ" as in "John Doe". No. Christ means "king" (please challenge me on that).

Jesus claims to be king.

And in the world of 1st century Palestine, the idea of being "king of the spiritual domain only" made no sense at all.

And in case you are going to argue that Jesus is only claiming to be king of the Jews, note this from the Daniel 7 text that he references through "coming with the clouds":

And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him

There is simply no way to escape the conclusion that Jesus is claiming to be king over all creation. Jesus knows Daniel 7 - He knows that the one who comes with the clouds of heaven is given a worldwide kingship.

 

[Drew]

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?

You have given the reader no reason at all to believe that the Luke 22 text endorses a separation of church and state.

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.

Not true. As per my last post, Jesus tells Caiaphus that He (Jesus) is both a king and the son of man. And he quotes the Daniel 7 bit about the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. Now what does Daniel say about that same son of man?:

And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him

There you have it - a Biblical statement of the integration of church and state. Jesus is the king, all men and nations are the subjects.