Was Jesus against organized religion?

[francisdesales]

Blessed is he that trusts in the Lord and follows Him in His way. :amen

Where does that leave you, since you subscribe to something different from what Jesus advocated and instituted Himself??? Just as in my posts, you cherry pick the teachings of Jesus Christ... Picking and choosing what suits your own fancy, tossing out the teachings you do not like and pretending they are not there...

And this is called "following His way"????

 

[Drew]

I am saying the exact same thing as Paul.

I do not think you are.

Paul believes that Jesus is a reigning king over this present world. I believe that you have denied this.

Paul believes that, as per the Ephesians and 1 Corinthians text that have been provided, that Jesus is reigning over a kingdom that is both "now" and "not yet". You have clearly rejected this, preferring an "all or nothing" model. Well that is not what Paul teaches.

You really need to engage the specifically scriptural arguments.

 

[Drew]

...where is the proof that Jesus was against organized religions (which house churches are, of course, organized and structured with leaders in authority...)

I certainly would not want to have to defend the position that Jesus opposed organized religion. Its clear that Paul endorses it with his teachings on qualifcations for church officers, procedures to deal with trouble in the church etc.

The Christian walk is not an "individualistic" one. It is easy to think so as 21st century westerners soaked in the culture of the individual. When Jesus was told his brothers and mothers wanted him, he told them that those sitting with him were His real brothers and mothers. The church is a family, not a set of individuals, each engaged in their private interiour spirituality. And families need order and structure. So I really cannot see any credibility to the assertion that Jesus opposes organized churches.

Adullam, what specific texts do you believe endorse the rejection of organized religion?

 

[Drew]

Hello Adullam: I suspect that yo believe in a kind of dualism where human organizations and structures, such as an organized church, are part of the "bad fallen material order" whereas "true" church somehow avoids being involved in such fallen structures.

That is certainly not what the Bible tells us - there is no principled distinction between this present material order and some unseen realm of true spirituality. That is a Greek platonic idea that the Hebrews never endorsed and that the Bible does not endorse, either. While it makes sense to try set up our "human institutions" in accordance with Biblical principles, this should not morph into the belief that any human institution is outside the scope of God's redemptive work as the kingdom advances. Consider this from Paul:

For it was the Father's good pleasure for all (AW)the fullness to dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven

God is redeeming it all - nothing is outside the scope of his redemptive activity, including human organizations.

 

[Adullam]

...where is the proof that Jesus was against organized religions (which house churches are, of course, organized and structured with leaders in authority...)

I certainly would not want to have to defend the position that Jesus opposed organized religion. Its clear that Paul endorses it with his teachings on qualifcations for church officers, procedures to deal with trouble in the church etc.

The Christian walk is not an "individualistic" one. It is easy to think so as 21st century westerners soaked in the culture of the individual. When Jesus was told his brothers and mothers wanted him, he told them that those sitting with him were His real brothers and mothers. The church is a family, not a set of individuals, each engaged in their private interiour spirituality. And families need order and structure. So I really cannot see any credibility to the assertion that Jesus opposes organized churches.

Adullam, what specific texts do you believe endorse the rejection of organized religion?

If one peruses this thread one will find ample texts that I have posted. The whole of Acts as well as the accounts of the epistles support a church that is based on relationships. They met in homes for the most part as the household of faith.

Many cannot discern between organized religion and orderly meetings.

Organized religion must apply for a charter from the government. They seek recognition from the temporal powers that be. They will seek to have have tax exempt status (goes with the charter). Recognized ministers are seen as ministers of religion by the government (along with the purveyors of every other religion). They are respected as such by law (as ministers of religion). They will have the respect and temporal privileges of all clergymen. They must have a proper scholastic education. Those who organize will seek a sacred building and sanctify it as their church. They will hold religious rites and services on sundays (or saturdays) and special holidays. They will follow the teachings or liturgy of their own denomination. Or both. Only the qualified are allowed to speak. A microphone will be used to speak to the people. Clergymen will have the function of the mouth. Attendees will be have the function of the ear. They will become acqainted with the back of the head of the person in front of them. The seating will be arranged as per a performance(the brethren churches meet in a circle...an improvement).

compared with....

Orderly meetings are watched over by one or more overseers. The sole purpose is to see to order in the meetings. All are priests and function according to the faith given them. Edification of all members is the chief goal of the gatherings.

It is difficult to confuse the two! The bible describes the second case...that of order. The first is entirely absent, a result of syncretism with the pagan cults that were later encountered.

The church is of course much more than meetings. It is the permanent relationship of covenant brotherhood.

 

[Adullam]

Hello Adullam: I suspect that yo believe in a kind of dualism where human organizations and structures, such as an organized church, are part of the "bad fallen material order" whereas "true" church somehow avoids being involved in such fallen structures.

That is certainly not what the Bible tells us - there is no principled distinction between this present material order and some unseen realm of true spirituality. That is a Greek platonic idea that the Hebrews never endorsed and that the Bible does not endorse, either. While it makes sense to try set up our "human institutions" in accordance with Biblical principles, this should not morph into the belief that any human institution is outside the scope of God's redemptive work as the kingdom advances. Consider this from Paul:

For it was the Father's good pleasure for all (AW)the fullness to dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven

God is redeeming it all - nothing is outside the scope of his redemptive activity, including human organizations.

I eschew syncretism. Can the devil and his ways be redeemed? Can the human nature be redeemed? Do you believe in the union of church and state as in Islam?

So you believe the American army is the army of God?

You have forgotten the cross. You are preaching a crossless Christianity. The principle is death before life. God will not redeem this present world and her systems...He will destroy it and create it anew. We are redeemed through the death of the old and the creation of the new. Those who are in Christ are a new creation....not a redeemed old creation.

Our old natures cannot be redeemed. The old man must die.

 

[Adullam]

I am saying the exact same thing as Paul.

I do not think you are.

Paul believes that Jesus is a reigning king over this present world. I believe that you have denied this.

Paul believes that, as per the Ephesians and 1 Corinthians text that have been provided, that Jesus is reigning over a kingdom that is both "now" and "not yet". You have clearly rejected this, preferring an "all or nothing" model. Well that is not what Paul teaches.

You really need to engage the specifically scriptural arguments.

Show us the verses that led you to believe that Jesus is presently reigning over this world.... before the millenial rule! Then we'll talk!

 

[Free]

If one peruses this thread one will find ample texts that I have posted. The whole of Acts as well as the accounts of the epistles support a church that is based on relationships. They met in homes for the most part as the household of faith.

None of your passages support your argument that Jesus, or anyone else in the NT, rejected organized religion. They merely show the initial style of meetings of the followers of Jesus while trying to avoid persecution.

Scripture also clearly shows that there was organization in terms of the leadership. Are you against that as well? Do you have an Apostle over you and whatever house church that you meet at?

 

[Adullam]

If one peruses this thread one will find ample texts that I have posted. The whole of Acts as well as the accounts of the epistles support a church that is based on relationships. They met in homes for the most part as the household of faith.

None of your passages support your argument that Jesus, or anyone else in the NT, rejected organized religion. They merely show the initial style of meetings of the followers of Jesus while trying to avoid persecution.

Scripture also clearly shows that there was organization in terms of the leadership. Are you against that as well? Do you have an Apostle over you and whatever house church that you meet at?

The best way to avoid error is to know the proper way. Truth reveals the lies. If one knows the truth then the lie is easy to spot. The bible does not speak against human practice as much as it testifies to divine practice. So rather than listing every possible error...which would take libraries worth of books...God has seen to provide a simple blueprint that is easy to miss if you are not childlike in your seeking.

An apostle is not over anyone. An apostle comes alongside people to encourage them in their common faith. We do not operate by titles. We all function from our gifting. It is based on who we are in the Lord. Are there apostles in the world today? Yes. Are they seen as such? Does it matter if they are fulfilling their calling?

 

[francisdesales]

If one peruses this thread one will find ample texts that I have posted. The whole of Acts as well as the accounts of the epistles support a church that is based on relationships. They met in homes for the most part as the household of faith.

No one denies any of that. No one denies that a church is based upon relationships. The issue is that you claim that the two are contradictory. You provide a false dichotomy, that somehow, institutions = no relationship with Christ. It is a false dichotomy and not supported by the Bible. I would be much more successful in supporting the OPPOSITE from Scriptures alone than the claim that "Jesus was against organized Religion".

Not at all. He claimed that He came TO an organized religion, to bring it to fulfillment. He said not one iota of the Law given within the context of an organized religion would pass away. These sort of statements are not what a religious anarchist would say.

If you read the Acts of the Apostles and the history of Christianity, you will see that the first Christians CONTINUED to SUPPORT ORGANIZED RELIGION!!! Even in that most idyllic of times, the first Christians STILL went to the synogogue to pray. They continued to fast with the Jews. James was known, by Jews and Christians, as a model Jew. Even Josephus notes this.

What Christians did was IN ADDITION TO their perceived duties to the institutional church, the Temple and Synagogue. Unfortunately, the Jews began to oust the Christians from the institutional church, and so the Christians "made their own institutional church". They appointed officers in different communities. They changed the sabbath to Sunday. They stopped circumcising. They even moved their fasts to different days, as the Didache relates (written during the first century). Christian history and the Bible just does not support your fantasy that Jesus desired to "do away with" organized religions. Quite the contrary, He came to CORRECT ITS PRACTICE!!!

I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Mat 5:22-24

Note, Jesus did NOT advocate abandoning liturgical worship. He did not say "Don't go to the altar anymore". "Just 'worship' God in 'spirit' in the comfort of your homes with your chicken wings..." He said THEN COME AND OFFER THY GIFT...

I ask, yet again, for Scriptures that support your view - that Jesus was against organized Religion. This is a fantasic fantasy, as it is clear that Christ SUPPORTED organized religion, and was only against HYPOCRITICAL PRACTICES. Jesus did not support withdrawing into sleeper cells, and any house church mentioned in Acts was SUPPLEMENTAL to organized religion practiced by Christians.

 

[francisdesales]

Hello Adullam: I suspect that yo believe in a kind of dualism where human organizations and structures, such as an organized church, are part of the "bad fallen material order" whereas "true" church somehow avoids being involved in such fallen structures.

That is certainly not what the Bible tells us - there is no principled distinction between this present material order and some unseen realm of true spirituality. That is a Greek platonic idea that the Hebrews never endorsed and that the Bible does not endorse, either. While it makes sense to try set up our "human institutions" in accordance with Biblical principles, this should not morph into the belief that any human institution is outside the scope of God's redemptive work as the kingdom advances. Consider this from Paul:

For it was the Father's good pleasure for all (AW)the fullness to dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven

God is redeeming it all - nothing is outside the scope of his redemptive activity, including human organizations.

Adullum and people like him merely are repeating an ancient heresy - that the Church only consists of perfect Christians. They cannot stand the "dirtiness" of the Church and believe that the Church should be presented NOW as unstained and unblemished. Thus, lukewarm believers are not "true" Christians, those who are young in the faith are really not Christians yet - only those who are spiritually on "meat" can be called Christians, despite Paul's continued acceptance of the status of his many communities, despite their issues, shortcomings, and "institutionalism".

This old heresy is based on rigorism. Tertullian left the Catholic Church for the same reason. He didn't think the current church was "holy enough" to suit him. Many Christians over the centuries have "gone to the desert" to grow more in Christ. However, unlike Tertullian and Adullum, these Christians never condemned their spiritually immature brothers and sisters. We don't see this in the Bible, nor do we see this in history. The saintly men who went to the desert continued to support the Church. The problem is when people, in their pride, believe that THEY ALONE are "true" Christians and feel the need to re-invent Church, centered upon their own perceived holiness. This is an heresy, one that revolves around pride. The more one advances in spirituality, the more one sees that THEY are MORE in need of the Church and God's gifts that He gives us through it.

Of course, this is why Jesus was FOR SUPPORTING organized religions, practiced as they were meant to be practiced.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

Man I tell you , if you have the time, you can post a lot of nonsense

I would keep quiet but your post is an excellent example of how people can say things that is the opposite of Scripture and still sound "holy". I have read most of Adullams posts and I KNOW he never said things in the manner which you accuse him of. You are intent on twisting what a man of God is posting, so that you can destroy his character, simply because he stands against you and your organization.

I will post some scripture and comments in red and I know you will not understand it, but the readers can at least judge for themselves if you are telling the whole truth here:

So dear reader, read for yourself and see for yourself the contradictions and make up your own mind:

Adullum and people like him merely are repeating an ancient heresy - that the Church only consists of perfect Christians.

Mat 5:48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Php 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded:

They cannot stand the "dirtiness" of the Church and believe that the Church should be presented NOW as unstained and unblemished.

Rev 14:5 And in their mouth was found no lie: they are without blemish.

Thus, lukewarm believers are not "true" Christians,

Rev 3:16 So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.


those who are young in the faith are really not Christians yet - only those who are spiritually on "meat" can be called Christians, despite Paul's continued acceptance of the status of his many communities, despite their issues, shortcomings, and "institutionalism".

This is just your own mind here, because John never wrote nonsense like this.

This old heresy is based on rigorism. Tertullian left the Catholic Church for the same reason. He didn't think the current church was "holy enough" to suit him.

Never heard of him, but I applaud him.


Many Christians over the centuries have "gone to the desert" to grow more in Christ. However, unlike Tertullian and Adullum, these Christians never condemned their spiritually immature brothers and sisters. We don't see this in the Bible, nor do we see this in history. The saintly men who went to the desert continued to support the Church. The problem is when people, in their pride, believe that THEY ALONE are "true" Christians and feel the need to re-invent Church, centered upon their own perceived holiness. This is an heresy, one that revolves around pride. The more one advances in spirituality, the more one sees that THEY are MORE in need of the Church and God's gifts that He gives us through it.

So according to you, anybody who dares to point to the Scriptures and point out that indeed we can live holy lives and through the grace of God , live before Him in the resurrected life of Christ, are heretics.You must realize that you preach a powerless gospel.

Of course, this is why Jesus was FOR SUPPORTING organized religions, practiced as they were meant to be practiced.

You HAVE to be kidding me. You are using all the unscriptural reasoning which I clearly proved by posting what the Bible DOES say , and you want to use THAT to tell people , that is why they must be in denomination. I sometimes find myself at a loss for words....................

Regards

 

[Adullam]

If one peruses this thread one will find ample texts that I have posted. The whole of Acts as well as the accounts of the epistles support a church that is based on relationships. They met in homes for the most part as the household of faith.

No one denies any of that. No one denies that a church is based upon relationships. The issue is that you claim that the two are contradictory. You provide a false dichotomy, that somehow, institutions = no relationship with Christ. It is a false dichotomy and not supported by the Bible. I would be much more successful in supporting the OPPOSITE from Scriptures alone than the claim that "Jesus was against organized Religion".

Not at all. He claimed that He came TO an organized religion, to bring it to fulfillment. He said not one iota of the Law given within the context of an organized religion would pass away. These sort of statements are not what a religious anarchist would say.

If you read the Acts of the Apostles and the history of Christianity, you will see that the first Christians CONTINUED to SUPPORT ORGANIZED RELIGION!!! Even in that most idyllic of times, the first Christians STILL went to the synogogue to pray. They continued to fast with the Jews. James was known, by Jews and Christians, as a model Jew. Even Josephus notes this.

What Christians did was IN ADDITION TO their perceived duties to the institutional church, the Temple and Synagogue. Unfortunately, the Jews began to oust the Christians from the institutional church, and so the Christians "made their own institutional church". They appointed officers in different communities. They changed the sabbath to Sunday. They stopped circumcising. They even moved their fasts to different days, as the Didache relates (written during the first century). Christian history and the Bible just does not support your fantasy that Jesus desired to "do away with" organized religions. Quite the contrary, He came to CORRECT ITS PRACTICE!!!

I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Mat 5:22-24

Note, Jesus did NOT advocate abandoning liturgical worship. He did not say "Don't go to the altar anymore". "Just 'worship' God in 'spirit' in the comfort of your homes with your chicken wings..." He said THEN COME AND OFFER THY GIFT...

I ask, yet again, for Scriptures that support your view - that Jesus was against organized Religion. This is a fantasic fantasy, as it is clear that Christ SUPPORTED organized religion, and was only against HYPOCRITICAL PRACTICES. Jesus did not support withdrawing into sleeper cells, and any house church mentioned in Acts was SUPPLEMENTAL to organized religion practiced by Christians.

There's a start...a biblical premise! Good.

Jesus often used the temple in his teachings...He even went there Himself to teach and to heal. When He healed a leper He would send them to the temple to offer the sacrifice for purification according to the law of Moses.

While Jesus lived...and even for a short while after His death and resurrection, sheep and goats continued to be sacrificed in the temple for sins. Yom kippur was celebrated for atonement for the sins of Israel....even after Jesus' heavenly sacrifice. But the times had changed. The temple was destroyed never to be rebuilt. God even saw to the eventual construction of a mosque so as to prevent a rebuilding of an obsolete mode of worship and atonement for sins. One can see the angel of death protecting the site against a return to temple worship. We who worship in the Spirit are now the temple of the living God. Wherever we are we bring the presence of God with us. There is no going back to the rigid formalism and shadows of the truth when the real deal has arrived.

If you were advocating a rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem to support your understanding of the verse about the altar.....that would be one thing...wrong as it may be. The altar is one altar. The brass (brazen) altar in the outer court. What you are actually advocating is far worse. You would build temples everywhere and these not in accordance with Jewish practice or Mosaic law. You advocate a temple movement that is based on Gentile traditions. Who would authorize a hyper temple movement that even the most religious among the Jews would declare as anathema? Remember that Jesus was talking with Jews. The Gentile temples were pagan...and still are. The Jews recognize this.

Why would Jesus rebuild in the temporal world what He had destroyed in order to build in the spiritual world??????

We ought to lay all on the altar...yes...I say this often myself. Do I mean the altar in Jerusalem? Or the altar in the heavenly realm! The beauty of the temple in Jerusalem is that it was patterned from the heavenly model according to the measurement given to Moses. Are the temple reproductions you seek to build in accordance with the law of Moses?


Jesus' words are meant to be understood in the Spirit. The altar is the place of sacrifice we make to God. We lay our lives on that altar. Do you understand spiritual analogy?

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

 

[Adullam]

Further to the altar....


Notice these verses in Exodus 20. God commands how the altar is to be built.

25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.


Compare the nakedness of faulty practice with...

Rev. 3:17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.



Gentiles tend to do things according to their own minds and wills. They won't be subject to either the laws of Moses nor the commands of Christ. Either way, they resist the will of God. They tend towards lawlessness. We do come from pagan stock, don't we?!!!

 

[Adullam]

Many will say that a covering is required in order to be within the biblical order. This is true. But the covering must be the Holy Spirit. A man cannot cover a divine entity which the church of Christ is.

Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: Is. 30:1

The head of every man is Christ!

I Cor.11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ,

 

[Drew]

Show us the verses that led you to believe that Jesus is presently reigning over this world.... before the millenial rule! Then we'll talk!

There a lot of them. Here is one for starters:

From Acts 4:

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One

Note the context: Peter and John are praying this prayer in response to the actions of the religious leaders. Now the content of the prayer quotes directly from Psalm 2. This is not “co-incidenceâ€Â. Here is the material from Psalm 2:

Note that the prayer quotes Psalm 2, verses 1 and 2:

Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD and against his Anointed One.

And what does Psalm 2 go on to say a few breaths later in respect to this "annointed one"?:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill

It is important to think this through. Assuming that Peter and John know their scriptures, they know that Psalm 2 describes rebellion against a sitting King. Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire the writer of Acts to record this prayer, which exactly echoes the Psalm 2 account of rebellion against a sitting King, and not expect us to draw the obvious conclusion – Jesus is indeed that very King, already installed, just as Psalm 2 declares.

The scriptures are clear and consistent. Even though (obviously) we do not have Jesus with us in person, his Kingship has been established.

 

[Drew]

You provide a false dichotomy, that somehow, institutions = no relationship with Christ. It is a false dichotomy and not supported by the Bible.

Precisely. This is indeed a manifestly false dichotomy. If someone buys into this, then it naturally follows that we should reject "human" institutions. I do not have the time now, but I will be happy to provide texts which demonstrate the error is setting up this dichotomy.

 

[Adullam]

Show us the verses that led you to believe that Jesus is presently reigning over this world.... before the millenial rule! Then we'll talk!

There a lot of them. Here is one for starters:

From Acts 4:

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One

Note the context: Peter and John are praying this prayer in response to the actions of the religious leaders. Now the content of the prayer quotes directly from Psalm 2. This is not “co-incidenceâ€Â. Here is the material from Psalm 2:

Note that the prayer quotes Psalm 2, verses 1 and 2:

Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD and against his Anointed One.

And what does Psalm 2 go on to say a few breaths later in respect to this "annointed one"?:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill

It is important to think this through. Assuming that Peter and John know their scriptures, they know that Psalm 2 describes rebellion against a sitting King. Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire the writer of Acts to record this prayer, which exactly echoes the Psalm 2 account of rebellion against a sitting King, and not expect us to draw the obvious conclusion – Jesus is indeed that very King, already installed, just as Psalm 2 declares.

The scriptures are clear and consistent. Even though (obviously) we do not have Jesus with us in person, his Kingship has been established.

IF we look to the OT we have.....

1 A psalm of David. The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit in honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet."

2 The LORD will extend your powerful dominion from Jerusalem*; you will rule over your enemies.1

3 In that day of battle, your people will serve you willingly. Arrayed in holy garments, your vigor will be renewed each day like the morning dew.

This is speaking of the coming of the millenial rule; the thousand year reign of Christ. Until then Jesus awaits for His crowning. We who are subject to the King are called to be heralds of the coming kingdom. A spiritual reality is just that. When the Lord returns He will bring that spiritual reality into our time and space. With the things of God it is spiritual first, and then historical. With humans it is the opposite. So one can understand the confusion.

Jesus has been made king of all. This is a spiritual reality. Every knee shall bow...in the future revelation of Jesus Christ to the whole world.

What you call dichotomy, is the essence of both planes of reality. There is heaven and there is earth. There is the temporal and the eternal. To NOT see this distinction must relagate a person to unbelief. If one can only believe what they see with temporal eyes...well that is the carnal man. If we walk by faith we are subject to the kingdom now as a first fruit unto God. We strain to be exactly as our Master as this is our proper duty.

 

[Drew]

IF we look to the OT we have.....

1 A psalm of David. The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit in honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet."

2 The LORD will extend your powerful dominion from Jerusalem*; you will rule over your enemies.1

3 In that day of battle, your people will serve you willingly. Arrayed in holy garments, your vigor will be renewed each day like the morning dew.

This is speaking of the coming of the millenial rule; the thousand year reign of Christ.

No it is not. You cannot merely assert that these statements are about a future millenial kingdom, you need to provide an argument, just I have done in my post. But that's another debate.

Think about what you are doing - you are simply avoiding engagement of my argument and providing another one. This is an exceedingly common practice here. It goes like this:

1. Person A (in this case Drew) provides argument X for position P;
2. Person B (in this Adullam) provides argument Y in refutation of P.

Do you see the problem? Even if Y were valid, you still need to refute X. If you do not, we have 2 arguments on the table, one that uphold P, another that refutes it. Now, for those of us who believe the scriptures are inerrant cannot allow this. So even if your argument were valid, which I believe it is not, you still need to point out where my argument based on Psalm 2 is incorrect. It cannot be ignored.

What you call dichotomy, is the essence of both planes of reality. There is heaven and there is earth. There is the temporal and the eternal. To NOT see this distinction must relagate a person to unbelief.

How is this statement relevant?

 

[Drew]

Show us the verses that led you to believe that Jesus is presently reigning over this world.... before the millenial rule! Then we'll talk!

We already have one as yet unrefuted argument on the table for Jesus' present kingship. Here is another:

I will argue that through a cryptic statement made to Caiaphus at His trial, Jesus declares that He is King, thereby fulfilling the Jewish expectation about this. Note what Jesus says in response to Caiaphus:

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."

The reference to sitting at the right hand of power comes from Psalm 110:

The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand

The “coming with the clouds of heaven†statement is an allusion to this material from Daniel 7:

I kept looking
Until thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat;
His vesture was like white snow
And the (O)hair of His head like pure wool
His (P)throne was ablaze with flames,
Its (Q)wheels were a burning fire.
10"A river of (R)fire was flowing
And coming out from before Him;
(S)Thousands upon thousands were attending Him,
And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;
The (T)court sat,
And (U)the books were opened.
11"Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the (V)burning fire.
12"As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time.
13"I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14"And to Him was given (X)dominion,
Glory and (Y)a kingdom,
(Z)That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
(AA)His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
(AB)And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

From both these references, it is clear that Jesus intends Caiaphus to see Him (Jesus) in the role of the Son of Man figure who gets presented to the Ancient of Days (YHWH) and takes the other of the two thrones (note the multiplicity of thrones in the Daniel material). Thus Jesus is already King - and the text from Daniel is clear, this is a king od the "real" world.

Now please tell me where there is an error in this argument. Please do not simply make an argument about a different text. Even if such an argument were convincing, the objective reader would still have no reason to believe that my argument is incorrect and would be led to conclude that the Bible has self-contradictions.

Of course, if you do provide another argument, I, for my part, would have the responsibility of finding an error in it.