end times discussion on the kingdom of christ

[jasoncran]

drew, i never said that he wasnt king of the earth or nations, only that we arent to"help him" usher it in the manner you say.
i have a problem with that way thinking you have. what demonation should it be, what days should be holy, should people be forced to go to church? and so on. blue laws. etc

 

[Libre]

drew, i never said that he wasnt king of the earth or nations, only that we arent to"help him" usher it in the manner you say.
i have a problem with that way thinking you have. what demonation should it be, what days should be holy, should people be forced to go to church? and so on. blue laws. etc

LOL. Good one!

 

[RND]

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

That's your opinion and position regarding you (one reader).

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.

Drew, you do understand that 'nations' in the sense that it is being used here in Daniel 7:14 (and not in the sense you are attempting to use it) refers not to kingdoms but simply believers in every nation right?

So to try a bridge the melding of church and state together here is truly fascinating!

The kingdom was given to Jesus, it was not shared with others, nor given to others:

Dan 7:14 And there was given him (Jesus) dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.

People, 'ummah, and languages.

'ummah = (Aramaic) corresponding to ''ummah' (523):--nation. 523 = from the same as ''em' (517); a collection, i.e. community of persons:--nation, people. 517 = 'em = a primitive word; a mother (as the bond of the family); in a wide sense (both literally and figuratively (like ''ab' (1)):--dam, mother, X parting.

In the best understanding one could muster this does not imply that "kingdoms" ruled by the secular state are to be considered 'ummah. Drew, this is the trap you continually put yourself into when you make such rash and inconsistent arguments. Why Drew, after trying to clarify what you were saying are you trying to justify the point you attempted to clarify?

 

[RND]

drew, i never said that he wasnt king of the earth or nations, only that we arent to"help him" usher it in the manner you say.
i have a problem with that way thinking you have. what demonation should it be, what days should be holy, should people be forced to go to church? and so on. blue laws. etc

Jason, I think Drew simply makes comments and statements without think about the details. Being a Seventh-day Adventist I am quite sensitive to the belief that one day we will all be forced to observe Rome's Sunday through the force of the state - what then?

In Drew's line of thinking, that the Bible calls for a melding of church and state, what happens if I choose to stand on the word of God in my belief that Saturday is the proper day of worship? Should I heed to the majority? What happens if the state says worship on this day or face jail or other consequences?

What pray tell are we to do with Peter when he says, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

I appreciate your views here in this thread very much - quite level headed.

 

[RND]

Obviously, many translators do not agree with you.

That's not true. They are actually in much close agreement with me than with you.

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

Prbally for the same reason Jesus warned, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

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

Drew, I'd say that fairly well proves my point wouldn't you? Where does one get "among you" out of this?

Note the two different sense -the "inside you" sense and the "in your midst" sense.

Yeah, "in the midst" means "inside" of you. Not standing on the outside of you. Can you honestly not see that?

Now lets be realistic. All these other translators have not made the obvious mistake you suggest that they are making.

According to the way you read this verse then I am left to certainly believe they have! However "Within you" means "inside you" and there is no other way to look at this Drew.

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.

That would be based on the rather odd and completely un-Biblical assumption then that these Pharisees could never have the kingdom of God inside of them. But again, we know that isn't the case in that a number did repent and were indeed baptized.

On the day that happened they began to experience the "kingdom of God" within them!

But let’s suppose that you are right.

Suppose?

Suppose that Jesus is saying that the kingdom is “inside peopleâ€.

Can you find it any other way Drew?

This really does no damage to the position that Jesus’ kingdom also extends to all institution in the world.

Other than to point out that the kingdom of God is never, ever (even once) extended to governments or kingdoms.

Jesus could be emphasizing the kingdom is not only “out there†it is also “inside the human heartâ€.

Except He isn't.

But, I am fairly confident that most translators go with “in your midst†or “among you†for a reason – they are not fools.

Not fools, maybe wolves.

And, of course, the translators who go with “within you†are not fools either.

Drew, I don't know what translations you are using but the only one that uses "among you" is the NLT and it has a qualifier.

- Luk 17:21 -
You won't be able to say, `Here it is!' or `It's over there!' For the Kingdom of God is among you.*"
Footnote:
* Or within you.

All the others, every one, says "within you" or "in your midst" (again, meaning "inside you" as even your concordance offering indicates). As usual Drew, you seem to make irrational and inconsistent statements and attempt to try to justify them by twisting scripture to fit your though pattern instead of allowing the scripture to speak for itself. I know, from other people's comments, that other people see this in you as well.

 

[Drew]

drew, i never said that he wasnt king of the earth or nations, only that we arent to"help him" usher it in the manner you say.
i have a problem with that way thinking you have. what demonation should it be, what days should be holy, should people be forced to go to church? and so on. blue laws. etc

LOL. Good one!

How, exactly, is this a "good one"?

You are engaging in a strawman - you imagine what you think the kingdom would look like and then attribute that view to me.

Hey, its not my idea that the church is called to advocate for the kingdom of God in this present time. I am only following our Lord's instructions:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

We, that is the church, are called to work for the adoption of Kingdom of God values in all institutions of our world. It is you guys who imagine that this involves forcing people to worship, etc.

 

[Drew]

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

That's your opinion and position regarding you (one reader).

No it is not "my opinion". The text in question nowhere endorses the separation of church and state. It is simply a teaching about how Christians are called to behave when in positions of power.

]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.

Drew, you do understand that 'nations' in the sense that it is being used here in Daniel 7:14 (and not in the sense you are attempting to use it) refers not to kingdoms but simply believers in every nation right?

Hey, I am taking the text as it reads - it is you who reworks the text to fit with your view.

Does the text limit authority to believers? No it does not. I refers to all men. It is you who is deciding that Daniel really does not mean "all men", he means "all believers". Just like it is you who thinks that "all authority" means "some authority".

 

[RND]

No it is not "my opinion". The text in question nowhere endorses the separation of church and state. It is simply a teaching about how Christians are called to behave when in positions of power.

Yes it is Drew. It's your opinion that Luke 22 does not address separation of church and state. It's my opinion that it clearly states the obvious, that the state has no place within the church.

Hey, I am taking the text as it reads - it is you who reworks the text to fit with your view.

Drew, if that was honestly the case then you wouldn't argue with what "witin you" means as you have done.

Does the text limit authority to believers? No it does not. I refers to all men. It is you who is deciding that Daniel really does not mean "all men", he means "all believers". Just like it is you who thinks that "all authority" means "some authority".

Drew, I clearly gave you my belief on what Daniel 713-14 are referring to. It has nothing to do with the melding of church and state as you summarized previously.

 

[Drew]

Dan 7:14 And there was given him (Jesus) dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.

People, 'ummah, and languages.

'ummah = (Aramaic) corresponding to ''ummah' (523):--nation. 523 = from the same as ''em' (517); a collection, i.e. community of persons:--nation, people. 517 = 'em = a primitive word; a mother (as the bond of the family); in a wide sense (both literally and figuratively (like ''ab' (1)):--dam, mother, X parting.

In the best understanding one could muster this does not imply that "kingdoms" ruled by the secular state are to be considered 'ummah. Drew, this is the trap you continually put yourself into when you make such rash and inconsistent arguments. Why Drew, after trying to clarify what you were saying are you trying to justify the point you attempted to clarify?

It is you who is engaging in improper exegesis, not me. Just because the term :ummah can denote a "community of persons", that does not mean that Jesus is not using it to refer to "nations" as the very definition you have provided allows.

The NET translation is typical: All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. Do the translators think that a reference to only believers is intended here? Obviously not.

This argument that "ummah" is a specific reference to believers is not one that you want to make;

Let’s look at other uses of this same term in the book of Daniel itself:

Daniel 4:1: “King Nebuchadnezzar, to all peoples, nations, and language groups that live in all the land: Peace and prosperity!

Clearly King Neb is not limiting his remarks to “believers†– he is addressing all the people.

Daniel 6:25: Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and language groups who were living in all the land: “Peace and prosperity

Again, the king here is not limiting his greeting to believers.

Again, note how people try to avoid the clear implications of the relevant texts. As with the Matthew text about “all authority, they will introduce qualifications to the text, essentially saying “well the writer said A, but he really meant to say Bâ€. Well, it’s a free country, but I will assume that when the reader says “Aâ€, he means “Aâ€.

And, as we see from these examples from Daniel, there is every reason to assume that “ummah†in Daniel 7 means all the people, not a subset of them.

And please, if you are going to accuse me of rash and inconsistent arguments, please give the reader to some reason to believe you – explain to the reader exactly where I have been guilty of any inconsistency.

 

[Drew]

No it is not "my opinion". The text in question nowhere endorses the separation of church and state. It is simply a teaching about how Christians are called to behave when in positions of power.

Yes it is Drew. It's your opinion that Luke 22 does not address separation of church and state. It's my opinion that it clearly states the obvious, that the state has no place within the church.

OK then, please tell us how the Luke 22 statement supports the separation of church and state.

Hey, I am taking the text as it reads - it is you who reworks the text to fit with your view.

Drew, if that was honestly the case then you wouldn't argue with what "witin you" means as you have done.

You must really think the readers are dumb. If they have been reading this thread they will know two things:

1. Of 8 translations, 6 of them translate the word as "in your midst" or "among you", only 2 translate it as "within you";

2. The very definition you provided shows that the word supports both a "within you" a "in your midst" interpretation.

Does the text limit authority to believers? No it does not. I refers to all men. It is you who is deciding that Daniel really does not mean "all men", he means "all believers". Just like it is you who thinks that "all authority" means "some authority".

Drew, I clearly gave you my belief on what Daniel 713-14 are referring to. It has nothing to do with the melding of church and state as you summarized previously.

Well you are free to believe what you like. But the weight of the evidence supports, as per my recent post about other uses of the term “ummahâ€, that the term denotes all nations, not just believers.

 

[Drew]

Jason, I think Drew simply makes comments and statements without think about the details.

Interesting. The Biblical argument support my position and I am the one who has trouble thinking. I suggest that you are engaging in relatively mild character assassination to compensate for the obvious weakness of your position.

In Drew's line of thinking, that the Bible calls for a melding of church and state, what happens if I choose to stand on the word of God in my belief that Saturday is the proper day of worship? Should I heed to the majority? What happens if the state says worship on this day or face jail or other consequences?

Once more, a strawman. You will, of course, be able to produce precisely zero statements from me that support tossing people in jail in respect to matters of worship under an appropriate integration of church and state.

 

[Drew]

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

Drew, I'd say that fairly well proves my point wouldn't you? Where does one get "among you" out of this?

Yeah, "in the midst" means "inside" of you. Not standing on the outside of you. Can you honestly not see that?

I have already addressed this issue and you are clearly mistaken.

If I enter a room with 10 men and one woman, I can correctly assert "There is a woman in your midst". Is this a statement that there is woman inside each and every man?

Of course not.

So let's be clear here - the bulk of the translators support my take on the Luke passage. Six of eight render the relevant Greek phrase as "in your midst" or "among you" neither of which, despite RND's protestations suggests an "inside you" reading.

 

[RND]

First off Drew it should be noted that neither Matthew 24:30 nor Mark 13:26 were addressed to Caiaphas. These passages were addressed to His disciples. So when I see you making error such as this it leaves me wondering.

It is you who is engaging in improper exegesis, not me. Just because the term :ummah can denote a "community of persons", that does not mean that Jesus is not using it to refer to "nations" as the very definition you have provided allows.

Drew, the proof would be to match what Jesus said in Matthew 24 with what is being said in Daniel 7. Jesus says "then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn" so we have to assume "nations" in Daniel 7 refers to "tribes."

The NET translation is typical: All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. Do the translators think that a reference to only believers is intended here? Obviously not.

Drew, I never suggested it was only referring to believers. I distinctly made the point that "nations" does not refer to secular governments! Man, I can't believe you Drew.

This argument that "ummah" is a specific reference to believers is not one that you want to make;

Again Drew, I'm simply noting that 'ummah is not referring to secular governments as you would have us believe.

Let’s look at other uses of this same term in the book of Daniel itself:

Daniel 4:1: “King Nebuchadnezzar, to all peoples, nations, and language groups that live in all the land: Peace and prosperity!

Clearly King Neb is not limiting his remarks to “believers†– he is addressing all the people.

Exactly! He is not however addressing secular governments but "all" people, whether they be believers or not!

Daniel 6:25: Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and language groups who were living in all the land: “Peace and prosperity

Again, the king here is not limiting his greeting to believers.

Again, no doubt! He is not however addressing secular governments as you would have us believe!

Again, note how people try to avoid the clear implications of the relevant texts. As with the Matthew text about “all authority, they will introduce qualifications to the text, essentially saying “well the writer said A, but he really meant to say Bâ€. Well, it’s a free country, but I will assume that when the reader says “Aâ€, he means “Aâ€.

"All authority" is not found in the KJV of Matthew Drew.

And, as we see from these examples from Daniel, there is every reason to assume that “ummah†in Daniel 7 means all the people, not a subset of them.

Drew, the argument you were attempting to make is that nations equates to "secular governments."

And please, if you are going to accuse me of rash and inconsistent arguments, please give the reader to some reason to believe you – explain to the reader exactly where I have been guilty of any inconsistency.

Drew, all one needs to do is examine this thread and they can see your poor argumentation and thought process.

 

[RND]

I have already addressed this issue and you are clearly mistaken.

Yes you have:

1) within, inside
1a) within you i.e. in the midst of you
1b) within you i.e. your soul[/quote] Drew, I'd say that fairly well proves my point wouldn't you? Where does one get "among you" out of this?

If I enter a room with 10 men and one woman, I can correctly assert "There is a woman in your midst". Is this a statement that there is woman inside each and every man?

Of course not.

So let's be clear here - the bulk of the translators support my take on the Luke passage. Six of eight render the relevant Greek phrase as "in your midst" or "among you" neither of which, despite RND's protestations suggests an "inside you" reading.

See the above definition offer by Drew.

 

[Drew]

First off Drew it should be noted that neither Matthew 24:30 nor Mark 13:26 were addressed to Caiaphas. These passages were addressed to His disciples. So when I see you making error such as this it leaves me wondering.

I have never stated that either of these two statements are addressed to Caiaphus. I have stated that Mark 14:60 and following were directed at Caiaphus.

It is you who is engaging in improper exegesis, not me. Just because the term :ummah can denote a "community of persons", that does not mean that Jesus is not using it to refer to "nations" as the very definition you have provided allows.

Drew, the proof would be to match what Jesus said in Matthew 24 with what is being said in Daniel 7. Jesus says "then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn" so we have to assume "nations" in Daniel 7 refers to "tribes."

So now "ummah" in Daniel 7 is intended to denote tribes and not "believers" as you stated earlier?

I am happy with the "tribes" reading. It supports the notion that Jesus is lord of all tribes. This is another way of saying that he rules over everybody, not just believers.

The NET translation is typical: All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. Do the translators think that a reference to only believers is intended here? Obviously not.

Drew, I never suggested it was only referring to believers. I distinctly made the point that "nations" does not refer to secular governments! Man, I can't believe you Drew.

It is you who are mistaken so I am not sure why you blame me. Here is proof that that you suggested that "ummah" is to be understood as a reference to only believers;

Drew, you do understand that 'nations' in the sense that it is being used here in Daniel 7:14 (and not in the sense you are attempting to use it) refers not to kingdoms but simply believers in every nation right?

So please, don't blame me for your errors.

 

[RND]

I have never stated that either of these two statements are addressed to Caiaphus. I have stated that Mark 14:60 and following were directed at Caiaphus.

Drew, you postulated that Jesus was talking to Caiaphus when you said, "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."

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=42891&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p516997

Please stay on top of your arguments and the points you are attempting to make. Clearly Jesus was addressing His disciples and not Caiaphus.

So now "ummah" in Daniel 7 is intended to denote tribes and not "believers" as you stated earlier?

I never stated 'believers' Drew. My point was that "nations" in Daniel 7 do not refer to secular governments. I see what you are doing and it's not gonna work friend. You are deflecting and obfuscating.

I am happy with the "tribes" reading. It supports the notion that Jesus is lord of all tribes. This is another way of saying that he rules over everybody, not just believers.

Yeah, it just doesn't help your point that this refers to "secular governments" which is the point you were attempting to drive home.

It is you who are mistaken so I am not sure why you blame me. Here is proof that that you suggested that "ummah" is to be understood as a reference to only believers;

Drew, you do understand that 'nations' in the sense that it is being used here in Daniel 7:14 (and not in the sense you are attempting to use it) refers not to kingdoms but simply believers in every nation right?

So please, don't blame me for your errors.

Drew, is Jesus King to those that reject Him?

 

[Drew]

RND: You appear to be engaging in deliberate misrepresentation.

The fact that Jesus talks to the disciples about "coming on the clouds" does not mean that He does not also talk to Caiaphus. I have been clear that I was talking about the interaction with Caiaphus.

Since I believe that you know very this very well, I think you are baiting me. You are back on "ignore".

I am happy to continue this discussion with others.

 

[RND]

RND: You appear to be engaging in deliberate misrepresentation.

Drew, you attempted to use Daniel 7 and Jesus' quoting of it to angle that that was allowing the melding of church and state, not I.

The fact that Jesus talks to the disciples about "coming on the clouds" does not mean that He does not also talk to Caiaphus.

When Jesus was in the presence of Caiaphas Jesus said nothing other than "Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

Jesus was referring to the second coming. It alludes to Daniel 7 no doubt. But Jesus said only that Caiaphas would see Jesus coming in the clouds. He told His disciples something much more detailed and complete.

I have been clear that I was talking about the interaction with Caiaphus.

Then you attributed too much conversation to Caiaphas by Jesus.

Since I believe that you know very this very well, I think you are baiting me. You are back on "ignore".

Drew, I'm simply pointing out that when you argue you make many points that have holes because they are just seemingly random statements that make little sense.

I am happy to continue this discussion with others.

Hopefully others will point this out to you as well.

 

[Drew]

There is a methodological problem associated with many of the objections to the assertion that Jesus is presently enthroned as king. In particular, people will insert unjustified qualifications to what the writer has written. And, of course, this is bad exegesis. Examples:

1. In Matthew 28, we have Jesus claiming all authority on earth. The appropriate way to read this is to accept that Jesus means what He says and try to work out the tricky implications. Instead, what do posters do? They narrow down the scope of jurisdiction of the kingship to a “private inner spiritual lifeâ€. Well, if that could be justified, fine. But I am actually quite surprised that posters seem to think that they have the right to add constraints to what Jesus has said – Jesus did not say “all authority, except political authority has been given to meâ€.

2. When facing Caiaphus at His trial, Jesus tells the high priest that he (Caiaphus) will see Him (Jesus) coming on the clouds of heaven as the son of man. This is obviously an allusion to Daniel 7, where the son of man figure is enthroned as king over all nations and all men. This, of course, suggests that Jesus is presently a king. So do posters accept this? Apparently not. Instead, they add a qualification – that Jesus is not really referring to all nations, but to all believers. Or, they insert a huge unstated time delay of thousands of years before Jesus’ kingship begins. Again, what is so interesting about this is that the poster feels that he (or she) has the authority to add qualifications to what has actually been written.

It is obviously not appropriate to modify what the scripture writer actually writes. Sure, its difficult to work out the implications of Jesus’ present kingship. But the scripture is the scripture – Jesus is presently King of all.

 

[jasoncran]

drew, i never said that he wasnt king of the earth or nations, only that we arent to"help him" usher it in the manner you say.
i have a problem with that way thinking you have. what demonation should it be, what days should be holy, should people be forced to go to church? and so on. blue laws. etc

LOL. Good one!

How, exactly, is this a "good one"?

You are engaging in a strawman - you imagine what you think the kingdom would look like and then attribute that view to me.

Hey, its not my idea that the church is called to advocate for the kingdom of God in this present time. I am only following our Lord's instructions:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

We, that is the church, are called to work for the adoption of Kingdom of God values in all institutions of our world. It is you guys who imagine that this involves forcing people to worship, etc.

then answer how, we have "many" interpretations of those mysterious grey areas of the bible. if we are truly the one to assist christ in his setting up the kingdom , wheres the word for word plan? i see nothing to say that it exactly his plan. we not tell us how, when, where, it is to be done. it would be more effeciciently.

show me these verses, all you have shown is that he is the lord of all, but that he has or hasnt allowed satan to reign here on earth hasnt been answered.

if we christian are to rule than there must be only way of looking of the bible, so that theres no confusion. we about those who refuse to bow the lord's demands? his commands are we to slay them?
you leave some open areas that i see a mad megalomainiac could take advantage of.

do i think christians should be involved in seculare areas, yes but the original intent in the america's founding was the the church was the consciense of the state, an area which we christian in america have wavered on.

we tried to make alcohol illegal in america and the people rebelled, and now look at the push for the legaliazation of sins, ie gay rights and others.
laws only contain evil, not transform souls, only christ does and can. if the sinner isnt redeemed what good is this government. as they are going to rebel against a christian goverment that passes laws that are for the redemption of the soul.

we can't do what jesus does, that's why only jesus will and is moral able to judge the lost and will slay them all, so that peace can come to the earth. satan must be bound and judged as well.

we can be the light and so on. when i was a sinner, i wanted nothing that christ wants and when i got saved i wanted what jesus has. i think that we can only be the light and lead others to the lord, but some will refuse.