Why People Stumble over Kingdom Now

[TruthSeeker2012]

Re: It's all good..

....Now let me know what you think.

I have read all those verses in context, and IMHO, it clearly teaches that God creates EVIL, exactly as 45:7 says. The verse is very much in context, and says I the LORD do all these things, I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil.

Now if you claim that verse is OUT OF CONTEXT, then are you claiming that God does not create the light and darkness and does not make peace? For if you claim the verse is out of context, then you also claim that making peace, creating light etc is also out of context!

So are you claiming that God does not make peace, does not create light? Yes or No?

And stop running and hiding from my question.. When God commanded and ordered Moses go and slaughter and kill the Midian, including the women and children, was this act evil or good?

If you answered evil, then please state your reasons.

If you answered good, then please state your reasons for believing it was a good act.

Thank you.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: It's all good..

I have read all those verses in context, and IMHO, it clearly teaches that God creates EVIL, exactly as 45:7 says. The verse is very much in context, and says I the LORD do all these things, I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil.;

I don't think you have read those verses, or you couldn't be back so fast. I mean, read them and given them some thought.

If 'evil' means transgressing God's own law, then clearly God cannot transgress His own law, and we are left with a nonsense.

What do you think the meaning of 'evil' is in this verse:

De 6:22 And the LORD shewed signs and wonders, great and sore <07451>, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes:

And in this one?

Nu 13:19 And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad <07451>; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds;

Bear in mind that this is the identical Hebrew word to Isa 45.7

If you were translating it for everybody to read, which of those 2 meanings would you put into Isa 45.7? Or would you find another?

I'll deal with the Midianite question as soon as we've settled this one.

In the meantime, would you please read (and give it some thought, I mean) the following passage:

Numbers 25.1 - 9 and ask whether God had good reason to destroy the Midianites, especially in the light of Ps 106.28

Now if you claim that verse is OUT OF CONTEXT, then are you claiming that God does not create the light and darkness and does not make peace? For if you claim the verse is out of context, then you also claim that making peace, creating light etc is also out of context!

No, I'm not claiming that.

 

[TruthSeeker2012]

Re: It's all good..

I don't think you have read those verses, or you couldn't be back so fast. I mean, read them and given them some thought.

If 'evil' means transgressing God's own law, then clearly God cannot transgress His own law, and we are left with a nonsense.

What do you think the meaning of 'evil' is in this verse:

De 6:22 And the LORD shewed signs and wonders, great and sore <07451>, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes:

And in this one?

Nu 13:19 And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad <07451>; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds;

Bear in mind that this is the identical Hebrew word to Isa 45.7

If you were translating it for everybody to read, which of those 2 meanings would you put into Isa 45.7? Or would you find another?

I'll deal with the Midianite question as soon as we've settled this one.

In the meantime, would you please read (and give it some thought, I mean) the following passage:

Numbers 25.1 - 9 and ask whether God had good reason to destroy the Midianites, especially in the light of Ps 106.28


No, I'm not claiming that.

1. You said, "I don't think you have read those verses". So answer me this questions. Are you claiming I am lying? Are you judging me without proof? Are you 100% sure I didn't read the verses? Should a person judge and accuse a person of not telling the truth when they don't have any proof? Yes or No?

2. Why are you asking me to explain the word evil in Isa 45:7 when you are the one claiming that the word evil doesn't mean evil?

3. I am still waiting for evidence that the word evil has changed it's meaning since 1611. Where is your source and evidence?

4. Do you still claim the KJV Bible Scholars got it wrong and you are right? Yes or No?

5. I am still waiting for you to put Isa 45:7 into context for me. What's stopping you seeing you said it's not in context? So here is your chance to contextualize it. I look forward to it, can you do it now please? OR do you now mean you weren't saying it was out of context? So you now admit KJV Isa 45:7 is in context? Yes or No?

6. And I noticed you completely sidestepped my question, so I will ask you again. When God commanded Moses to slaughter and kill women and children, was that act good or evil? Please provide reasons for your answer.

7. Thank you, I look forward to your answers.

 

[Eventide]

Drew, did you forget about this one..?

From Hebrews 2..

For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

So in your opinion.. what has not yet been put in subjection under His feet ?

Anyone ?

 

[Eventide]

Re: It's all good..

1. You claim the KJV Isaiah 45:7 is taken out of context! So I have a challenge for you.. put Isaiah 45:7 into proper context for me. I look forward to your reply.

2. Did God command Moses to slaughter and murder women and children? Yes or No? If no, then you reject Bible. If Yes, then tell me in your own words if that act was evil or good.

3. How will God judge Moses and Moses' acts when God had commanded Moses to slaughter and murder women and children?

I await your answers.

Wait all you want.. I answered your questions but of course you ignored mine.. that's fine..

Evidently you do believe that God forced men to nail Him to the cross..

Have fun with that.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: It's all good..

1. You said, "I don't think you have read those verses". So answer me this questions. Are you claiming I am lying? Are you judging me without proof? Are you 100% sure I didn't read the verses? Should a person judge and accuse a person of not telling the truth when they don't have any proof? Yes or No?

If you did, then I apologise to you.

But it is pretty obvious that your reading was of no effect at all. Why?

Because there are quite a number of those verses which have various meanings.

Here's the concordance. A pity you won't do the work, but I'm of a generous spirit, and I'll help you out now.

NAS-bad (23), bad* (2), badly (1), deadly (1), defamed* (1), defames* (1), defect* (1), destroying (1), displease* (1), displeased (1), displeasing (1), distressing (1), evil (124), evil man (3), evil men (4), evil things (4), evildoer (1), evildoers* (1), evils (1), great (1), grievous (4), harm* (1), harmful (3), man (1), miserable (1), misfortune* (1), sad (4), selfish* (1), serious (1), severe (2), sore (2), threats* (1), treacherous (1), trouble* (1), troubled (1), ugly (6), unpleasant (1), what is evil (2), what was evil (5), which is evil (3), wicked (15), wicked women (1), wild (5), worst (1), wretched (1).

Which of those would you choose to put in Isa 45.7 if you were translating?

Now that's a serious question, and if you won't answer it, I will be forced to conclude that you aren't serious about this question.

2. Why are you asking me to explain the word evil in Isa 45:7 when you are the one claiming that the word evil doesn't mean evil?

When did I make such a claim?

3. I am still waiting for evidence that the word evil has changed it's meaning since 1611. Where is your source and evidence?

4. Do you still claim the KJV Bible Scholars got it wrong and you are right? Yes or No?

If you'll go do the work, these questions would answer themselves.

5. I am still waiting for you to put Isa 45:7 into context for me. What's stopping you seeing you said it's not in context? So here is your chance to contextualize it. I look forward to it, can you do it now please? OR do you now mean you weren't saying it was out of context? So you now admit KJV Isa 45:7 is in context? Yes or No?

When did I say it was not in context? I think Eventide may have done, but I certainly haven't.

Again, I encourage you to do the work for yourself.

6. And I noticed you completely sidestepped my question, so I will ask you again. When God commanded Moses to slaughter and kill women and children, was that act good or evil? Please provide reasons for your answer.

I asked for your opinion on a very relevant set of verses - but again you won't go do the work.

Please can I have your opinion on those verses I quoted, which I believe will help our understanding considerably.

Thank you.

 

[TruthSeeker2012]

Re: It's all good..

Wait all you want.. I answered your questions but of course you ignored mine.. that's fine..

Evidently you do believe that God forced men to nail Him to the cross..

Have fun with that.

Typical sidestepping and running and hiding from my questions. Instead of humbly answering my questions, you instead claim you have answered them when you clearly have not.:bigfrown

 

[Asyncritus]

Hey TruthSeeker

When are you going to look up that material I asked you to examine?

After all, you've been asking me some too!

 

[Drew]

Drew, I really do admire your fertile imaginativeness. Alas, it runs aground so often.

In my judgement, you have yet to successfully counter any of my arguments. Name one single case where I have not successfully and fully countered an argument you have put forward. Or, if you like, name one single argument / assertion that I have put forward that you have successfully countered.

Did you notice the simple words 'WILL see Him'?

Yes, I did. Now explain to me precisely how such a qualification works against the position that the kingdom arrived back in the first century.

So let's, for the sake of the argument, agree that this is 'every eye in Israel'.

When, from John's time of writing, WILL, or DID EVERY EYE IN ISRAEL SEE HIM after His ascension?

Say John wrote in AD60.

At some point FUTURE to that, 'EVERY JEWISH EYE WILL SEE HIM' is the message of this passage.

When did they see Him, and WHERE IS HE NOW?

John is simply saying that all Israel will come to understand that Jesus has indeed been vindicated as Lord and Messiah.

You seem to be implying that my position fails because the text in question requires us to understand that all the people will look up in the sky and literally see the body of Jesus flying around.

Please - let's not be woodenly literalistic. Do you really think that when Jesus tells Caiaphus that he (Caiaphus) will see Jesus coming on the clouds of glory that Caiaphus will literally "see" Jesus riding on a cloud?

Please - let's give Jesus and the people of the first century a little credit for their ability to understand and use metaphorical language.

Jesus, in his turn, as John, in his turn, are both obviously alluding to Daniel 7 and invoking the same, clearly metaphorical image of the "son of man" being vindicated before the beasts by being raised on the clouds.

No one, repeat no one in the first century would take Daniel 7 literally - there are no actual beasts, there are no real clouds. Its a metaphor about vindication after suffering - most Jews would take the "son of man" character to be Israel and the last beast to be Rome.

There is simply no literal "seeing" of Jesus, or anyone else, zooming around on clouds, any more than the beasts are to be taken literally.

I am, frankly stunned that so many 21st century Christians seems to have lost their capability to "recognize a good metaphor" when they see one. Please read Daniel 7 - if you, or anyone else thinks that stuff is to be understood literally, then we have a lot more work to do than I otherwise feared.

I hope to deal with the rest of your post later.

 

[Drew]

Drew, did you forget about this one..?

From Hebrews 2..

For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

So in your opinion.. what has not yet been put in subjection under His feet ?

Anyone ?

I do not see how you see this text as challenging what it is otherwise clear from 1 Corinthians 15 - there will indeed be a period of time where Jesus will indeed "rule", while during that time some enemies will not be fully defeated.

Death, for one, has obviously not been put under Jesus' feet -that particular victory lies in the future.

 

[Drew]

God does have ultimate authority, but satan is the god of this world. Surely you are not claiming 2Cor 4:4 is a deceptive verse are you?

And you should never put words into other people's writings, because I never said Satan is King..but what I said was that Satan is the god of this world! Read 2Cor 4:4 because it's important you read all verses in Bible, even the ones that shock you or that you have trouble accepting.

Do you agree with 2Cor 4:4 and believe it's a truthful bible verse? yes or no?

You are not dealing with the force of the argument:

1. All authority on earth has already been given to Jesus;
2. He is therefore "king" by any reasonabe understanding of what it means to be a king.

I have never denied that Satan is still kicking around. But there is not a shred of evidence that he is, in any sense, a king.

It is clear who is King - it is the one who have been given all authority.

Of course I agree that 2 Cor 4:4 is "true". However, that text in no way threatens what is otherwise so clear - it is Jesus who is in the "King" position, not Satan.

 

[Drew]

Item number 6 of my "list" of hypotheses as to why people stumble over the Biblical truth that Jesus is presently "Lord" or "King" of this present world:


6. They do not know enough of the socio-political context to grasp the symbolic significance of the fact that Jesus achieved his victory specifically via the instrumentality crucifix. The ultimate symbol of Ceasar’s authority was the cross – the cross communicated the idea that “if you oppose him, Caesar has the power to kill you”. Now what does Jesus do? He defeats death using this very instrument – the cross is transformed from a symbol of Ceasar’s power to kill into a symbol of escape from death. What has Jesus done? He has effectively removed Caesar from power by stripping him of the main means by which he maintains that power. Perhaps this fact, by itself, does not clearly place Jesus on the throne to replace Caesar (which is otherwise clear anyway) but, at the very least, it demonstrates that Jesus work has a political dimension – He has, thankfully, swept out the legs out from under the power structures of the time. Jesus’ followers now understand that Ceasar no longer has power over them – if they are put to death, they will rise again. Caesar is truly no longer on the throne. And, of course, for a range of other Biblical reasons, Jesus is most certainly his replacement.

 

[francisdesales]

Item number 6 of my "list" of hypotheses as to why people stumble over the Biblical truth that Jesus is presently "Lord" or "King" of this present world:


6. They do not know enough of the socio-political context to grasp the symbolic significance of the fact that Jesus achieved his victory specifically via the instrumentality crucifix. The ultimate symbol of Ceasar’s authority was the cross – the cross communicated the idea that “if you oppose him, Caesar has the power to kill youâ€. Now what does Jesus do? He defeats death using this very instrument – the cross is transformed from a symbol of Ceasar’s power to kill into a symbol of escape from death. What has Jesus done? He has effectively removed Caesar from power by stripping him of the main means by which he maintains that power. Perhaps this fact, by itself, does not clearly place Jesus on the throne to replace Caesar (which is otherwise clear anyway) but, at the very least, it demonstrates that Jesus work has a political dimension – He has, thankfully, swept out the legs out from under the power structures of the time. Jesus’ followers now understand that Ceasar no longer has power over them – if they are put to death, they will rise again. Caesar is truly no longer on the throne. And, of course, for a range of other Biblical reasons, Jesus is most certainly his replacement.

Which comes full circle to Jesus' ascending His throne at the cross...

Thanks,

Regards

 

[Eventide]

I do not see how you see this text as challenging what it is otherwise clear from 1 Corinthians 15 - there will indeed be a period of time where Jesus will indeed "rule", while during that time some enemies will not be fully defeated.

Death, for one, has obviously not been put under Jesus' feet -that particular victory lies in the future.

Drew, what's this mean to you..

For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

 

[Drew]

Which comes full circle to Jesus' ascending His throne at the cross...

Thanks,

Regards

Indeed - in Romans, Paul writes of Jesus as rising to rule the Gentiles.

Its seems to me that one must deliberately "pretend" to not get the obvious message here.

Jesus is indeed a sitting King, right now.

 

[Asyncritus]

In my judgement, you have yet to successfully counter any of my arguments. Name one single case where I have not successfully and fully countered an argument you have put forward. Or, if you like, name one single argument / assertion that I have put forward that you have successfully countered.

All of them, I think.

I gave a list of my posts which did the 'shooting down' but the thread has gone to the 'dead thread' section, so If you'd like the list, have a look there, or I can exhume it.

Here's another coming up now:

Did you notice the simple words 'WILL see Him'?


Yes, I did. Now explain to me precisely how such a qualification works against the position that the kingdom arrived back in the first century.

Well, precisely, they didn't see Him. Therefore the King, and thus the Kingdom, hadn't arrived.

John is simply saying that all Israel will come to understand that Jesus has indeed been vindicated as Lord and Messiah.

That is most emphatically NOT what the text says:

Rev 1.7 Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they which pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen.


You are attributing to God (who gave the book of Revelation to Christ) a crass inability to say what He means - which is a nonsensical position to be in, Drew.

I'm sure even you could say that more clearly that Revelation does.

You seem to be implying that my position fails because the text in question requires us to understand that all the people will look up in the sky and literally see the body of Jesus flying around.

That is a caricature of the NT position.

But I fail to see what else the words could mean. EVERY EYE SHALL SE HIM, means, in my opinion, precisely that. And there are other passages which say precisely the same thing:

Matt 24.30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matt 25.31 ¶ But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory:
32 and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
33 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in;
36 naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Every sentence there implies that they will physically see Him.

Otherwise we've both missed the bus!

2 Th 1:8 in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus:
9 who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

10 when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them that believed (because our testimony unto you was believed) in that day.

How are they going to do that if they don't physically see Him?

Please - let's not be woodenly literalistic. Do you really think that when Jesus tells Caiaphus that he (Caiaphus) will see Jesus coming on the clouds of glory that Caiaphus will literally "see" Jesus riding on a cloud?

You're darned tootin' he will.

Please - let's give Jesus and the people of the first century a little credit for their ability to understand and use metaphorical language.

One of your older theological cronies (Hooker, I think it was) said

“I hold it for a most infallible rule in the exposition of Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the literal is commonly the worst” (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V. lix. 2).

Here's Tyndale (a man for whom I have the utmost respect) on the point:

“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is but the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way.

And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless, the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”

You're taking dangerous liberties with the text, when you try to avoid its perfectly plain meanings, and you cannot help ending in disaster if you persist.

So in a very friendly hortatory manner, I urge you to desist from doing so. Take the words as literally as possible, and you can't go too far wrong.

I think this answers much of what is coming, so I won't belabour the point.

 

[Drew]

Please - let's not be woodenly literalistic. Do you really think that when Jesus tells Caiaphus that he (Caiaphus) will see Jesus coming on the clouds of glory that Caiaphus will literally "see"

Jesus riding on a cloud? You're darned tootin' he will.

I suggest that the evidence is clearly against you here.

First of all, it seems exceedingly to odd to imagine that, in a document as complex as the Scriptures, there would be no use of literary devices such as metaphor.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should take all statements in the Bible "literally"?

In any event, in this particular case, it stretches credulity to suggest that Jesus is intending to be taken literally when He refers to Himself "coming on the clouds". We know this since this "coming on the clouds" expression is a direct quotation from Daniel 7, a text that literally screams metaphor and which, I suggest, no sensible person - whether a Jew in the 1st century or a 21st century westerner - would not easily recognize as metaphor. Just look at the all the imagery here that is clearly not to be taken literally;

2 Daniel [d]said, “I was (C)looking in my vision by night, and behold, the (D)four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. 3 And four great (E)beasts were coming up from the sea, different from one another. 4 The first was (F)like a lion and had the wings of an eagle. I kept looking until its wings were plucked, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man; a human [e]mind also was given to it. 5 And behold, another beast, a second one, resembling a bear. And it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth; and thus they said to it, ‘Arise, devour much meat!’ 6 After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, (G)like a leopard, which had on its [f]back four wings of a bird; the beast also had (H)four heads, and dominion was given to it. 7 After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a (I)fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had (J)ten horns. 8 While I was contemplating the horns, behold, (K)another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, [g]this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and (L)a mouth uttering great boasts

This is clearly metaphorical - as is much of the rest of the chapter.

And it is precisely this allegorical material that contains the "coming on the clouds" statement that Jesus quotes.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

@ Drew

Isaiah 19:1a

"See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming into Egypt"

What is the allegorical meaning of this instance of Jesus "coming on the clouds" into Egypt?

Is "Egypt" in this chapter a metaphor for something else?

 

[Drew]

@ Drew

Isaiah 19:1a

"See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming into Egypt"

What is the allegorical meaning of this instance of Jesus "coming on the clouds" into Egypt?

Is "Egypt" in this chapter a metaphor for something else?

I am not sure I understand your question. I suggest that, as elsewhere, the reference to the Lord "riding a cloud" in this Isaiah passage is clearly metaphorical.

Do you really believe this text is describing God sitting on a cloud up in the sky and "riding" on it?

I cannot emphasize strongly enough - to suggest that Jesus is intending to be taken literally when He quotes Daniel 7 and says He will "come on the clouds" is entirely untrue to the clearly metaphorical character of Daniel 7. You are aware, I trust, that the Daniel 7 account is about the defeat of 4 wild and unearthly beasts. Do you really think these "beasts" are to be understood as literal beasts?

 

[Drummer4Christ]

I am not sure I understand your question. I suggest that, as elsewhere, the reference to the Lord "riding a cloud" in this Isaiah passage is clearly metaphorical.

Do you really believe this text is describing God sitting on a cloud up in the sky and "riding" on it?

I cannot emphasize strongly enough - to suggest that Jesus is intending to be taken literally when He quotes Daniel 7 and says He will "come on the clouds" is entirely untrue to the clearly metaphorical character of Daniel 7. You are aware, I trust, that the Daniel 7 account is about the defeat of 4 wild and unearthly beasts. Do you really think these "beasts" are to be understood as literal beasts?

Verse 17 reveals the allegorical meaning of these "beasts", they are kings that rule kingdoms.

If these "beasts" (and "horns" for that matter) is an allegory for kings/kingdoms, what is "clouds" an allegory for?