Was Jesus against organized religion?

[Adullam]

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?

I did answer you post. Zion is the spiritual abode of God. Jerusalem will only become Zion when God Himself takes His residence there.

You really are missing the 2 realities. If Jesus prayed... Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. He is wanting for the heavenly reality to break forth in this world. You have missed this entirely in my response to you. Pay closer attention. With God...things happen in heaven BEFORE they hapen here.


Works prepared in advance are prepared in heaven BEFORE they take place here. This is why prophecy is so powerful. In the heavenly reality...it has already taken place...although NOT YET in our history.

Your whole premise fails at this truth.

 

[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!

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."


Jesus has not yet returned in 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.

Jesus, as I've said before, is already King.....but this has not yet broken forth in the history of this temporal world yet. God must first put His enemies under His feet. This is not complete yet.

 

[Drew]

I did answer you post. Zion is the spiritual abode of God. Jerusalem will only become Zion when God Himself takes His residence there.

This clearly does not work. Look at the details of the Psalm 2 text from which the Acts material draws:

I have installed my King [c]
on Zion, my holy hill."
7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
He said to me, "You are my Son [d] ;
today I have become your Father. [e]
8 Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter [f] ;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.

The King that is installed - and we know from the Acts 4 prayer that quotes from Psalm 2 that this is Jesus rules over this present world, not over "the spiritual abode of God" as you state.

 

[Drew]

Jesus, as I've said before, is already King.....but this has not yet broken forth in the history of this temporal world yet. God must first put His enemies under His feet. This is not complete yet.

But Adullam, surely you cannot deny that the Daniel 7 text tells us what Jesus has been installed as King of. Is it the "real world" as I am asserting? Or is it of some domain other than the present world as you are saying?. Here is an extract from the same text already posted. The answer is clear:

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.

What do we have then. We have Jesus telling Caiaphus that Caiaphus will see Jesus enthroned as King. Well, Caiaphus is long dead. So we know that Jesus is already king. What is He king of? Do we invent our own answers or let Daniel tell us?

Daniel tells us that the Kingdom is a kingdom of this present material world.

 

[shad]

Drew,

You still haven't answered my question yet:

If Jesus is already started God's kingdom, then why do we still have so much hatred in the world? Jesus is Prince of peace, remember?

.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

You still haven't answered my question yet:

If Jesus is already started God's kingdom, then why do we still have so much hatred in the world? Jesus is Prince of peace, remember?

.

Before I answer your question, I trust you realize the situation that would arise if my response were not plausible. It would be this:

1. A number of unrefuted arguments are on the table to the effect that Jesus is already king (my arguments in a number of posts);

2. An argument from shad is on the table which shows that Jesus cannot yet be king and that argument has been unrefuted.

Do you see the problem? Even in this scenario, you would need to deal with my arguments in order for your point to prevail, assuming, of course, that you believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures.

I need to think about how I will formulate my answer to your question.

 

[francisdesales]

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

Is that why you are back again??? You have the time once again??? :crazy

If you are honest with yourself, you would realize that Adullam has not posted ANY Scriptures to support his contention that "Jesus was against organized religion". "Call no man father" hardly is a clarion call to His followers to get up and leave Judaism - and it didn't stop them from forming structure and heirarchy less than 20 years after His death and resurrection...

As such, we know you are merely a cheerleader.

If you can provide anything more than a simple swing of your pom-pom's, then provide Scriptures to help Adullam out. Prove the affirmative of the OP. Back up your beliefs from Scriptures.

Don't continue to bore me with your condescending talk, please. Just provide me some examples from Christian history or Scriptures that Jesus indeed was a religious anarchist...

 

[francisdesales]

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,

That is amazingly poor eigesis, Adullam...

Paul was refering to women. Women in public worship. IN PUBLIC, ORGANIZED, STRUCTURED LITURGICAL, RELIGIOUS ACTION...

Next, will you be saying there is no God, and give me a half a verse that states as such, cutting out the rest??? Try to read the context of the verses, as well as finding a couple words that you twist around to pretend that the Bible states.

 

[Cornelius]

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.
1Co 15:27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

Obviously not happened yet. If there is a LAST ENEMY still, there is still an enemy and Jesus is not ruling 100% yet. He will be ruling in manifestation when the last enemy is gone. Surely that is not difficult to understand, because that is what is written, it is not the opinion of a man.

 

[Adullam]

Jesus, as I've said before, is already King.....but this has not yet broken forth in the history of this temporal world yet. God must first put His enemies under His feet. This is not complete yet.

But Adullam, surely you cannot deny that the Daniel 7 text tells us what Jesus has been installed as King of. Is it the "real world" as I am asserting? Or is it of some domain other than the present world as you are saying?. Here is an extract from the same text already posted. The answer is clear:

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.

What do we have then. We have Jesus telling Caiaphus that Caiaphus will see Jesus enthroned as King. Well, Caiaphus is long dead. So we know that Jesus is already king. What is He king of? Do we invent our own answers or let Daniel tell us?

Daniel tells us that the Kingdom is a kingdom of this present material world.

God is the God of the living. Caiaphus will surely see. It is conjecture to declare a prophecy is fulfilled...if that is not declared in the NT.

 

[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,

That is amazingly poor eigesis, Adullam...

Paul was refering to women. Women in public worship. IN PUBLIC, ORGANIZED, STRUCTURED LITURGICAL, RELIGIOUS ACTION...

Next, will you be saying there is no God, and give me a half a verse that states as such, cutting out the rest??? Try to read the context of the verses, as well as finding a couple words that you twist around to pretend that the Bible states.

Hmm you are ignoring the verse above. You are cherry picking again. There is a continuum here that you don't understand and refuse to see. Our covering is the Spirit.

The half verse is not out of context...I supplied the NT equivalent to the OT verse that you ENTIRELY avoided!

If you can't see the Christ is the head of every man you won't see anything else in the bible either. Man...you're blind!

 

[francisdesales]

Not at all. Jesus 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.

If only you could reciprocate...

Jesus often used the temple in his teachings...He even went there Himself to teach and to heal.

And not once condemned the Jews' use of it.

When He healed a leper He would send them to the temple to offer the sacrifice for purification according to the law of Moses.

Why would a person against organized religions do such a thing, Adullam??? YOUR "Jesus" should have just sent them on their way, telling them to ignore the dictates of the Law and the Pharisees, those darned bureaucrats... :biglaugh

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.

And by this time, Christianity was already an organized religion separate from Judaism. Thus, your point is moot.

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 point is lost upon you, yet again. Jesus was making an interpretation that SUPPORTED the dictates of ORGANIZED religion. This would have been a PRIME teaching moment for Him to introduce YOUR anti-Scriptural concept. Jesus SUPPORTS organized religion. Can't you just accept the obvious? You are clearly trying to change the subject with your tangeants on my desire to open up another Temple...

The subject is not on me and my beliefs, but the beliefs, as noted in Scriptures, of Jesus Christ...

 

[francisdesales]

Hmm you are ignoring the verse above. You are cherry picking again. There is a continuum here that you don't understand and refuse to see. Our covering is the Spirit.

I am cherry picking??? Citing Paul's instruction that woman have their heads covered has nothing to do with being "covered by the Holy Spirit".

Of course Christ is our head, but that is not what Paul is speaking about here, Mr. self-righteous. (I'm blind???) All you are doing is cherry-picking bits and pieces of verses to support your fanciful fables. Yet again, you do not even see that the context of these verses that YOU select do not support your contention.

And you still have not given me one verse to support your contention that Jesus was against organized religion.

How difficult can this be, if it is so clear to you? Can't you provide any verses, in context? It appears all you are doing is avoiding the issue by inventing funny interpretations of Sacred Scriptures...

 

[Cornelius]

The point is lost upon you, yet again. Jesus was making an interpretation that SUPPORTED the dictates of ORGANIZED religion. This would have been a PRIME teaching moment for Him to introduce YOUR anti-Scriptural concept. Jesus SUPPORTS organized religion. Can't you just accept the obvious? You are clearly trying to change the subject with your tangeants on my desire to open up another Temple...

The subject is not on me and my beliefs, but the beliefs, as noted in Scriptures, of Jesus Christ...

I cannot believe you can't see the truth. John made a valid point, that Jesus was making a statement for all believers, that could not be bound to THE TEMPLE and THE ALTAR. He meant it spiritually and yet you blame your own incapability to understand on John.
No its not him that the point is lost upon, but you. I read it and can understand it perfectly, because it logical and yet you just want to push your point. You NEVER agree with anything , because most truth is contrary to your religion. You do not care, as long as you can defend your religion. That makes you just argumentative even in the face of truth. You never change, all who disagree with your organization is just wrong.

 

[Adullam]

Not at all. Jesus 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.

If only you could reciprocate...

Jesus often used the temple in his teachings...He even went there Himself to teach and to heal.

And not once condemned the Jews' use of it.

God permitted plan B religion instituted by Moses until the time when grace would make this obsolete.. This had it's purpose in showing us the type of heavenly temple which we now enter to make our sacrifices.

When He healed a leper He would send them to the temple to offer the sacrifice for purification according to the law of Moses.

Why would a person against organized religions do such a thing, Adullam??? YOUR "Jesus" should have just sent them on their way, telling them to ignore the dictates of the Law and the Pharisees, those darned bureaucrats... :biglaugh

You miss the point as usual. Jesus came to call out the people to follow Him. He merely went where they were. The temple was a legitimate representation of the heavenly reality that Jesus was bringing men into. As such, He instructed the people in real holiness...not temple holiness. You may not have noticed but the shadows of things to come like the temporal temple in Jerusalem have been superceded by a new and living way. I will post more verses for you to ignore...

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21And having an high priest over the house of God;

22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

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.

And by this time, Christianity was already an organized religion separate from Judaism. Thus, your point is moot.

LOL How wrong can one be? Christianity wasn't rejected as a sect of Judaism until the writing of the Babylonian and Jerusalem talmud after the bar Kochba revolt.

Gentile Christians were never part of any state sanctioned religion until the syncretism brought in by Constantine the pagan king. The institutional nature of the church began with this marriage of the church and the state. This is of course a rebellion against Christ. This is the birth of the harlot church.

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

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 point is lost upon you, yet again. Jesus was making an interpretation that SUPPORTED the dictates of ORGANIZED religion. This would have been a PRIME teaching moment for Him to introduce YOUR anti-Scriptural concept. Jesus SUPPORTS organized religion. Can't you just accept the obvious? You are clearly trying to change the subject with your tangeants on my desire to open up another Temple...

The subject is not on me and my beliefs, but the beliefs, as noted in Scriptures, of Jesus Christ...

What? Talk about twisting the meaning of the bible! Jesus came once for all to eradicate temple observance in the temporal world. I am trying to explain spiritual things to a carnal obstinate person. If you cannot see the kingdom in the Spirit...you are unable to understand anything that the gospel is about.

Those who worship must do so in Spirit and truth. There is a real temple in heaven...this is where we are bold to enter. You cannot understand spiritual things. You are stuck in an "organized" time warp according to the flesh.

Acts 7:48-51 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things? 51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

2 Corinthians 6:16-17 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

Ephesians 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.

 

[Drew]

Obviously not happened yet. If there is a LAST ENEMY still, there is still an enemy and Jesus is not ruling 100% yet. He will be ruling in manifestation when the last enemy is gone. Surely that is not difficult to understand, because that is what is written, it is not the opinion of a man.

No. That is not how the text reads. It reads as Jesus ruling and then - as the last accomplishment - death is defeated.

But each in his own order: Christ (AH)the first fruits, after that (AI)those who are Christ's at (AJ)His coming, 24then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished (AM)all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign (until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death

Paul's intent is clear. There is a period of reigning. During that period of reigning all sorts of enemues are put under his feet. Then, repeat then, we have the last enemy defeated. There is nothing in this text that speaks against a present reigning of Jesus.

You cannot, legitimately anyway, say that Jesus is not 100 % reigning just because he has not accomplished 100 % of his objectives. That would be like say President Obama is not reigning 100 % because he has not achieved all his goals. Please do not confuse the fact of Jesus' reigning with the full achievement of all objectives.

 

[Drew]

God is the God of the living. Caiaphus will surely see. It is conjecture to declare a prophecy is fulfilled...if that is not declared in the NT.

Incorrect. Jesus tells Caiaphus that he (Caiaphus) will see the enthronement of Jesus. Why are you denying this? And, of course, Caiaphus does see this -since Jesus is enthroned at his resurrection.

 

[shad]

Drew,

You still haven't answered my question yet:

If Jesus is already started God's kingdom, then why do we still have so much hatred in the world? Jesus is Prince of peace, remember?

.

Before I answer your question, I trust you realize the situation that would arise if my response were not plausible. It would be this:

1. A number of unrefuted arguments are on the table to the effect that Jesus is already king (my arguments in a number of posts);

2. An argument from shad is on the table which shows that Jesus cannot yet be king and that argument has been unrefuted.

Do you see the problem? Even in this scenario, you would need to deal with my arguments in order for your point to prevail, assuming, of course, that you believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures.

I need to think about how I will formulate my answer to your question.

Drew,

My point is that your interpretation of the Bible has to readjust because it is not reasonable with the reality.

.

 

[Cornelius]

Obviously not happened yet. If there is a LAST ENEMY still, there is still an enemy and Jesus is not ruling 100% yet. He will be ruling in manifestation when the last enemy is gone. Surely that is not difficult to understand, because that is what is written, it is not the opinion of a man.

No. That is not how the text reads. It reads as Jesus ruling and then - as the last accomplishment - death is defeated.

But each in his own order: Christ (AH)the first fruits, after that (AI)those who are Christ's at (AJ)His coming, 24then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished (AM)all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign (until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death

Paul's intent is clear. There is a period of reigning. During that period of reigning all sorts of enemues are put under his feet. Then, repeat then, we have the last enemy defeated. There is nothing in this text that speaks against a present reigning of Jesus.

You cannot, legitimately anyway, say that Jesus is not 100 % reigning just because he has not accomplished 100 % of his objectives. That would be like say President Obama is not reigning 100 % because he has not achieved all his goals. Please do not confuse the fact of Jesus' reigning with the full achievement of all objectives.

Heb 2:8 Thou didst put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he subjected all things unto him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we see not yet all things subjected to him.

Heb 1:13 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet?

Jesus has done all that is necessary, but He is not ruling in the hearts of many Christians yet. I am not trying to take something away from Him, He has done it all, but the Bible is clear that a time is coming and is not yet here, where He will be ruling in a very real sense. At this moment we are still in the "till" period of Heb 1:13.

 

[Dave Slayer]

I just wanna know what is Biblical.