Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 361 of 427 (546343)
02-10-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by purpledawn
02-06-2010 12:11 PM


Re: The Throne
Speaking of nonsense. Context can only be understood within the confines of grammar. Ignoring the rules means you're ignoring the context.
You continue to speak of context, but provide none.
I guess you missed the part where I said grammar is important. I guess you missed the part where I said yours and Pegs interpretation were both correct. Your simply isolating a verse of scripture to determine Gods Gods Gods plan on the whole subject, of Israel, Kingdoms and Kingship of that kingdom.
The context you say I am not providing is that to which you have now agreed, includes the whole of what the Old testament has to say on the subject, of Israel, the kingdom and kingship of that kingdom.
It has been demonstrated to you to many times now that the kingdom is Gods overall and the promise was made to David concerning his throne.
Your schtick is to keep harping on some detail of that process (as in 7:13) as if to imply indirectly that this is the entirity of what scripture has to say on the subject. Probably because you can see the force of what is being presented to you. You have many twists and turns to avoid simple teachings and points.
here is another.
I'm sure it is nonsensical to you. I'm actually reading the words provided in the context they were provided or at least trying. You are creating fiction to suit yourself.
No, your reading words in one verse and pretending this is all the scriptures has to concerning the subject. Your grammar is correct and your interpretation is valid, its your method that is faulty and suspect
You think if you keep repeating yourself about what is actually written in a single passage and pretend to believe this everything concerning that subject, that no one will pay attention to the fact that you have avoided the context of not only that book and chapter, but the entire Old Testament.
How can I be creating fiction concerning God and what the ENTIRE text says on the matter. On the contrary your picking out of it what you like and throwing the rest under the bus, so to speak.
here is another. You keep pointing to the fact and correctly so, that a specific verse is dealing with CERTAIN PHYSICAL DETAILS of the kingdom and kingship, then separate that from the fact that it is actually Gods kingdom with plans that strech further than that verse or chapter, then scream to everyone, "Cant you just see that that is all there is to it people". "Cant you make a distinction between what God did for a specfic person or persons, verses what he did as God himself, people"
PD there is no distinction that you are atttempting to demonstrate, that will allow your isolate interpretations Gods plan included more than Solomon and the temple, more than a geneaolgy, through humans
Peg writes in 358, speakiing to you
I have done this over and over but you just dont get it.
The promise to David is not just for a temple to be built, but for an heir to take the throne of David and rule on it forever. 2 Samuel 7:11 says that the house that Solomon was to build was actually for David. "And Jehovah has told you that a house is what Jehovah will make for YOU (David)."
So right from the beginning, the house/temple was actually for Davids posterity...not for Solomon or any of his sons. The purpose in this covenant was to provide a kingly dynasty based on Davids throne and to provide a means of identifying the seed that was to come.
More evidence that Davids covenent did not end is found from the prophet ezekeil. 4 years before Zedekiah was dethroned by Babylon Ezekiel said at Ezekeil 21:25-27
We are really just speaking about Gods throne here PD, whether EVEN, if it refers to Davids throne through an unbreakable promise to David.
It could be said of the same promises made to Abraham, no matter what Israel did, the promises to Abraham would stand. But even with Abraham, it was still only about God himself
"I will make of the a great nation and through t hy seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed". Of course culminationg in Christ, which is God, therefore still and only abut God from the start.
Of course neither of you have been able to support your interpretation without breaking English language rules. IOW, you change what God supposedly said.
How can I break the rules of Grammar when we both agree with you concerning that verse.
Where did we change what God said, in a verse, chapter or the entire Old Testament or New Testament.
You see PD, now that we are agreeing with you on grammar and interpretation of 7:13, it is forcing you to move to the entire context. Something that will destroy your theories
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by purpledawn, posted 02-06-2010 12:11 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by purpledawn, posted 02-10-2010 12:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 373 of 427 (546506)
02-11-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by purpledawn
02-10-2010 12:36 PM


Re: The Throne
EAM writes:
You see PD, now that we are agreeing with you on grammar and interpretation of 7:13, it is forcing you to move to the entire context. Something that will destroy your theories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD writes:
It's about time.
But no one ever disagreed with your ridgid grammatical interpretation, only with your isolation of meanings and ideas concerning the kingdom, pointing to only that verse of scripture.
So we agree that the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:13 concerned his bloodline and the continuation of the kingship of Israel through Solomon. The throne was the human governing of Israel.
Yes. So what. But you have left out the most important part that it was actually Gods throne, Gods rule Gods legislation, not simply a humans, regardless of whether they obeyed or not. Yes of course he could and and would pu;; thrones and positions depending upon obedience and adherence, but that is to LIMIT what the rest of the scriptures, has to say concerning Gods overall involvement in the process.
Peg has quoted passages that both demonstrate that its GODS THRONE and that the plans for it extend beyond any human being or thier obedience. here is another that drives home whos authority and plans we are discussing
Duet 17:
14"When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,'
15you shall surely set a king over you WHOM THE LORD YOUR GOD CHOOSES, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.
16"Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.'"
One may even go as far as saying Davisd and others were puppets, in the greater picture, if it were not for thier love for God and his response to that consderation they gave to him
Unfortunately you haven't provided any "context" to address.
Not only have we provided context but provided passages, context, and content that directly state whos kingdom and throne it actually, but Peg and Buzz have demonstrated beyond any doubt that it was to extend past any human being or group of people
As I said to Peg: Supposedly David's bloodline does still exist. If the records are correct, then that part of the promise seems to be holding; but the kingship part did not. Leadership was dependent upon the behavior of Solomon and his descendants.
As it has been demonstrated to many times now the timeline and purposes of the throne, were only limited in and as to who would posses the throne at any given time. Yes leadership was dependant on the behavior, for thier (Solomon's and others) purposes, but not for the continued and perpetual existence of the throne itself.
Now, if you can IN CONTEXT of what the scriptures has to say entirely concerning the kingdom, without isolating passages and pointing to obvious details of physical aspect only, demonstrate that it was not ACTUALLY GODS THRONE AND GODS KINGDOM, you will have demonstrated your point and won the debate. You can only do this by isolating passages, detaching them from others that concern the kingdom and then buid arguments from that silly approach
Your task is so impossible, that even a quick glance and simple reading of the prpohets and Old Testament will wipe away your contentions and methodology
Jesus did not become a human king over Israel.
Just as you miss the point that God is actually in charge of all that happened to Israel from beginning to end. Just as you miss the point that its Gods throne (not stricly Davids) and he always wanted to be the exclusive king over Israel as Samuel clearly indicates. Just as you will not take into consideration what ALL OF GODS WORD has to say concerning the prophets, the Messiah, the kingdom and kingship, YOU TOTALLY MISS THE POINT of Gods utimate purposes from the foundation of the world.
Christ (God again) was and is a physical and spiritual king over Israel, as he was and intended from the beginning.
So what. We exist in a physical world, of course there will be physical aspects of this or that rule. but where God is involved there will be much more than the physical. The moral code of the Law alone should suggest this from the outset.
Further, "Blessed is the man to whom GOD DOES NOT IMPUT SIN"
A moral and ethical concept that superceeds any phisical considerations.
Christ was AND IS PRESENTLY a physical and spiritual king in a way that superceeds any stricly physical rule could ever accomplish. when from the very beginnig would God LIMIT his influence to some physical throne, aribitrating between land disputes and the such like.
Even the Old testament makes it very clear Gods plans and involvement go much deeper than these important but trivial considerations. Again even a simple reading destroys your considerations of Gods involvement and how and when that was accompleshed.
Ultimately and finally you are failing to distiquish between a covenant and a promise. Leadership was dependant upon the covenant with Israel, the throne and its eternality was dependant upon the Promise God made to David, that would not be broken anymore than Gods promises to Abraham would be broke, depending upon what Israel as a people did in thier covenant with God in the Law, verse what God had promised to Abraham, concerning the people of Israel
there is a big difference
You insult God PD with your methodology and approach to his word and plans
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by purpledawn, posted 02-10-2010 12:36 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by purpledawn, posted 02-11-2010 10:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 376 of 427 (546518)
02-11-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by purpledawn
02-11-2010 10:47 AM


Re: The Throne
From post 303: purpledawn writes:
I don't see in his explanation or Peg's that the throne refers to anything other than the leadership of the Israelite's government. I think they're trying to imply it is God's "throne", but the text doesn't support that idea either. God had his own "throne" he didn't need David's.
After this far in the debate I hope you can now see how silly the above comment appears
Peg writes writes:
the bible does not agree with you
then Peg demonstrates from scripture why you have your head in the sand
Jeremiah 3:17 In that time they will call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and to her all the nations must be brought together to the name of Jehovah at Jerusalem
Jeremiah 14:20 We do acknowledge, O Jehovah, our wickedness, the error of our forefathers, for we have sinned against you. 21 Do not disrespect [us] for the sake of your name; do not despise your glorious throne
Ezekeil 43:7 And He went on to say to me: Son of man, [this is] the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I shall reside in the midst of the sons of Israel to time indefinite
1chronicles 29:23 " Solomon began to sit on Gods throne"
PD writes:
No they haven't. The text doesn't support that concept.
Have you been on this planet the last few weeks?
Now that your contention that God has his throne and David his, theory is destroyed maybe you can see the simple point that Leadership has to with behavior of specific people, NOT THE CONTIUANCE OF THE ENTIRE THRONE OF GOD.
here is asimple illustration to demonstrate that your theory about continuance of the throne is depedant on behavior is faulty.
there were MORE wicked kings in Israel than not. that being the case God should have very quickly removed the kingship and kingdom from Israel, regardless of his perserverance and patience.
thus you theory is not sound, that the entire throne depended upon faithfulness verses the theory that it was ALWAYS Gods throne for very specfic purposes, that extended past individuals and thier adherence to rules
Thus the promise to David is everlasting, because it is actually Gods throne which has no end
Anything and everything God does is EVERLASTING, how could it be anything otherwise. You simply getting a specific method or approach by God at any given time mixed up with his ultimate purpose, which are always everlasting. Dont get hung up on a detail
his ultimate purpose from time everlasting was to reunite man with himself, he did this in many different ways in the form of kings and the such like, until he himself was offered to accomplish the ultimate goal. the is no end to his kingship. really could there ever be?
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by purpledawn, posted 02-11-2010 10:47 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by purpledawn, posted 02-11-2010 12:53 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 378 of 427 (546539)
02-11-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by purpledawn
02-11-2010 12:53 PM


Re: The Throne
In 2 Samuel 7:13, God is not giving David God's throne. God is giving David human rulership over Israel. Just like the analogy of an owner of a company and the CEO or manager of the company. The CEO doesn't own the company he only manages it.
God's Throne = Company
David's Throne = CEO position
David didn't own God's Company he only managed the day to day human aspects of it.
really? So tell me who the ruler, king or owner would be in this instance
2 Samuel 7:13 isn't about the Company. It concerns the position of CEO within the Company
really? Who makes up the company in Gods or Davids kingdom? Did David rule himself. Uhhh I think it is always about the company
We are discussing the promise made to David, not other kings. God removes and appoints people as he sees fit
I agree but it so happens that these kings were sitting in the same place david sat
The Company continues, but the CEO's position does depend on the individual. The Owner can decide to remove the CEO position and run the Company himself. The Owner can be Owner/CEO, but the appointed CEO cannot be Owner/CEO. The appointed CEO is only a CEO.
really? Why do you dole out these pearls of wisdom, when I dont have a pen handy
Nope. The end was unknown to David and his descendants, but the Dynasty came to an end. The bloodline seems to be continuing. Two different parts of the promise. God's throne is the company. The company wasn't part of the promise, just the position of CEO.
No dynasty came to an end WHERE GOD IS THE OWNER AS YOU SUGGEST.
Right and the promise of the throne not the position continues because God is the owner and king, as the scriptures suggest
The OT does not support the idea of a CEO position that isn't a human king ruling over living people in Israel.
Jesus wasn't a king over Israel.
It is not necessary for me to disagree with this for this to be true. jesus said in response to a query put to him.
"Are you king of the Jews, he replied, it is as you have spoken"
Jesus was physical, he had a physical audience as he does today, he claimed to be king of the Jews, as God he would certainly know who and what he was. When he was raised his body was CHANGED NOT EXCHANGED, it was still physical, he was still a king as he proclaimed over a physical kingdom A BODY OF PEOPLE REAL IN PHYSICALITY AND LOCATION, THE CHURCH.
Col 1:17, "He has (present tense) translated us out of the power of darkness into the KINGDOM of his dear Son, whereby we recieve the forgivenss of sins"
The only place this happens is in the Church or being added to the church, Acts chapter 2 "AND THERE WAS ADDED TO THE CHURCH DAILY, THEY THAT SUCH AS SHOULD BE SAVED"
I Cor 12
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. I Corinthians 12:12-27.
Jesus said to peter, upon this rock, I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it and I will give to you Peter the keys to the kingdom"
Notice the interplay and usage of the words kingdom and church, body by all these different writers. Hmmm something must be going there, they must mean the samething.
Since Christ said he was king of the Jews as he suggested we must assume this is the same throne upon which David his father sat
A King, a Kingdom a body, a church comprising actual physical sevants in a real place on earth
He has an actual physical body of believers each in a physical location on earth, he therefore has a kingdom both physical and spiritual in nature
Here is one more valid point. I agree with you about ownership and that is the beauty of Christ in this circumstance. As God incarnate he was the king (owner) of the Jews before during and after his death burial and resurrection. So his claim to ownership and kingship is only made better when that point is demonstrated
Please explain to me how he was not a physical king please
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by purpledawn, posted 02-11-2010 12:53 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by purpledawn, posted 02-11-2010 3:50 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 382 of 427 (546626)
02-12-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by purpledawn
02-11-2010 3:50 PM


Re: The Throne
Even the casual reader of the scriptures knows this is not true, it represents God, Israel and everything God has to do with Israel. Just as the Ark was Gods presence in the desert, so the throne, temple and Israel are Gods presence latter on.
You have been overwhelmed with scriptures to put this point to rest. You are grasping at straws to defend a faulty position
EMA writes:
Jesus was physical, he had a physical audience as he does today, he claimed to be king of the Jews, as God he would certainly know who and what he was. When he was raised his body was CHANGED NOT EXCHANGED, it was still physical, he was still a king as he proclaimed over a physical kingdom A BODY OF PEOPLE REAL IN PHYSICALITY AND LOCATION, THE CHURCH.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry doesn't fit the bill. The OT doesn't support that type of CEO. As I said earlier, the OT prophets weren't referring to any 1st century messiah.
None of the Jewish prophecies claim the messiah would become God.
Since the throne and temple are not representations of the person, but God you are incorrect as usual. Its all about God, just ask the ark and the Mercy seat
God usually made his choice clear to a priest so that a proper anointing can take place. The chosen one can't anoint himself. There's procedure so that all know who was chosen.
The Jews weren't free to have a human king at that time.
God made his choice clear at Christs Baptism and the mount of transfiguation. He annointed Christ, priest prophet anf king. There is no direction you can turn to disallow him what the scriptures say he has obtained
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by purpledawn, posted 02-11-2010 3:50 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by purpledawn, posted 02-12-2010 10:17 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 383 of 427 (546627)
02-12-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by purpledawn
02-11-2010 3:50 PM


Re: The Throne
Purpledawn writes:
The word "throne" in 2 Samuel 7:13 is referring to the CEO position, not the Company. After the exile, the Jews had a foreign CEO, and a Jewish Plant Manager. IOW, they did not have a human Jewish king.
Your adding your twist to ignore what these things meant in the scriptures
Even the casual reader of the scriptures knows this is not true, it represents God, Israel and everything God has to do with Israel. Just as the Ark was Gods presence in the desert, so the throne, temple and Israel are Gods presence latter on.
You have been overwhelmed with scriptures to put this point to rest. You are grasping at straws to defend a faulty position
EMA writes:
Jesus was physical, he had a physical audience as he does today, he claimed to be king of the Jews, as God he would certainly know who and what he was. When he was raised his body was CHANGED NOT EXCHANGED, it was still physical, he was still a king as he proclaimed over a physical kingdom A BODY OF PEOPLE REAL IN PHYSICALITY AND LOCATION, THE CHURCH.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpledawn writes:
Sorry doesn't fit the bill. The OT doesn't support that type of CEO. As I said earlier, the OT prophets weren't referring to any 1st century messiah.
None of the Jewish prophecies claim the messiah would become God.
Since the throne and temple are not representations of the person, but God you are incorrect as usual. Its all about God, just ask the ark and the Mercy seat
God usually made his choice clear to a priest so that a proper anointing can take place. The chosen one can't anoint himself. There's procedure so that all know who was chosen.
The Jews weren't free to have a human king at that time.
God made his choice clear at Christs Baptism and the mount of transfiguation. He annointed Christ, priest prophet and king. There is no direction you can turn to disallow him what the scriptures say he has obtained
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by purpledawn, posted 02-11-2010 3:50 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 385 of 427 (546634)
02-12-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by purpledawn
02-12-2010 10:17 AM


Re: The Throne
The OT does not state that the messiah was to become God and reign in Heaven.
More add ons and twist by yourself to distract the fact that Jesus Christ more than adequatley met the prophecies of the Old Testament. By mentioning the idea that the scriptures to not mention a detail about this or that, is to ignore what they do indicate and prove.
ITS YOUR RULE not the scriptures or Gods that they MUST mention that point. Besides all of that what does that have to do with what they do say concerning Christ and what he obviously fulfilled.
One more point concerning the throne, CEOs and leadership.
If it is God who decides who will be on the throne, then it is for all intents and purposes Gods throne. If it is his laws by which the throne is maintained, it is his throne.
Just like our Government (company owner) bailed out the motor companies and then became property of the Government. God bailed Israel out of Egypt and bought them at a price. The whole shabang to do with as he pleases.
Thats why Mr Obama can, no you wont give yourself bonuses and you will follow my rules or the governments rules.
Even your illustration of Comapany owner and CEO backfires on you in this circumstance
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by purpledawn, posted 02-12-2010 10:17 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by purpledawn, posted 02-12-2010 11:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 398 of 427 (546858)
02-14-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by DevilsAdvocate
02-13-2010 10:44 PM


Re: The Throne
Exactly how long are these "last days" Buzz?
While I do not agree with all the details and specifics of what and when the kingdom will or has come already, in my opinion with Buz and Peg, we are still I believe brothers or sisters in Christ because we hold Christ up as the Messiah and son of God.
Its not necessary for me or them to get every detail correct, to be in harmony in Christ. If as they predict christ will set up some physical kingdom in Jeruselum, and I and my church of Christ brethren are wrong, it will not make a difference to our salvation. If we are correct and believe as we do, his kingdom is the Church and the restoration of Israel is to be brought about in and only through that method, it will not make a difference to thier salvation
If he wants me to hang around here 1000 years or so, Im cool with that as well.
Not to excite Buzz, but I belive he believes the things he does concerning the end times on the faulty premise that God has some specfic plans concerning Israel, beyond Christ present sacrifice and plan already in place, in the church/kingdom.
Israel gave up all rights to God, and he to them when they rejected his Son, as a Nation and a people. The remnant that will be saved can and only will be saved in Christ presently, not in some future state of existence here on earth.
Often times, specifically in Revelations numbers are used in a figurative sense as may be the case of the 1000 years, a new heaven and a new earth, etc.
It does not matter the position i believe you take in this connection, because i believe inside Christ as children of God we are given the right to get some things wrong, whether he or I.
the only reason I bring this point up is to demonstrate another that even if his prediction of 2050 or that time period fails, it doesnt mean gods word was mistaken, only him.
I would suggest as reading on this subject the neal-wallace discussion (Debate) on the 1000 years reign of Christ. the most comprehensive discussion on the topic in one place i have ever seen. Foe E Wallace is one of the disputants, if one wishes to look for it, on some website
regardless of the position you take in this connection, the NT makes it very clear, Christ was very sucessful in his ministry and much more successful in his death burial and ressurection. hardly a failure, providing a plan to bring all of mankind back to God in his kingdom
The New testament, specifically Paul states. "There IS NEITHER JEW, NOR GREEK, BOND OR FREE, MALE OR FEMALE, all are one in Christ."
God does not recognize them as a special people outside of Christ. the Church, which includes people of a Jewish, ethnic background are the chosen people now. The book of Galatians makes and drives this point home.
The deciples got so many things wrong amoung themselves, however, but he never rejected them as his follwers or children. Alot of brethren have alot of off the mark ideas.
heres is what you need to remember concerning God, time and his plans. God does things on his own time and for his own purpose. lets assume for a moment all of this is true, then consider that it has been TWO THOUSAND YEARS SINCE HIS DEPATURE, assuming for argument and biblical purposes you believe these things. YOU ARE EXACALLY CORRECT DA that one can literally look back through this amount of time and NOTICE that you can find alleged prophets that have predicted his return since that time.
Now what do all of these seers have in common, they all use the same scriptures with the surrounding events (of thier day) to interpret and determine a return of Christ. they use the events in thier time, from the present, all the way back to Christs days. many will use certain people, Hitler, Napolian, world war one, world war two and they are convinced that these must be the things to which the scriptures are refering. Most of the time they are wrong.
now there are three possiblites. Either the scriptures are not accurate and not true, or people are misrepresenting what God actually has in mind or has predicted, or all of these things we are experincing through the centuries are a culmination of those prophecies. Maybe, but the foolishness is trying to read specific events to determine a relative or specific time within ONES LIFETIME.
If it is true, God will do it on his own time table. Now the very real truth is that, that may happen one half our from now, or three thousand years from now. Next week or 2, 324 years from now. just pick a number.
i believe there is only one biblical pattern one may follow with any consistency to determine a possible return by God. the only pattern I see, is when, as In Sodom, the flood and many other examples, things got so bad and the majority of people refuse to repent, one may then, look to see Gods interaction in a direct way.
As long however, as people are being saved, people are living good lives and have not rejected God completely, God MAY allow things to continue. this I believe is the only pattern one may look at with some degree of accuracy.
Time is of NO consequence to God and I certainly would not let some persons failed prediction be any determining factor for belief.
Probably, 500 years from now, some persons will be discussing these issues and predictions, but one thing is certain, the Church/Kingdom will be right there with those perdictions. But it would not be of any great surprise (to me) if this event happend next week. One simply cannot know, no matter what they consider to be the interpretations of scriptures concerning these events. To me they waste so much time trying to interpret current events and pen a date of his return. Another thing to watch for in these instances, is thier scholarship, or the lack thereof. many of these fellas or gals are repeating what has been handed to them in thier doctrine
if one believes in such things in the first place, there is no need to believe one fellas predictions verses anothers unless they can demonstrate they are speaking through inspiration, another Biblical pattern.
Jesus said, "If you dont believe me for the words that I speak, THEN BELIEVE FOR THE WORKS THAT I DO, FOR THEY TESTIFY OF ME"
Paul said, "Remember I did not come to you IN WORD ONLY, but POWER AND DEMONSTRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT"
it only really matters if you believe in the scriptures as Gods word in the first place
The last days could actually last for another three or four thousand years, or not. it does not matter to and for the individual who will as a puff of smoke vanish, while the earth stands
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-13-2010 10:44 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Peg, posted 02-15-2010 3:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 402 of 427 (546950)
02-15-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by joshua4missions
02-15-2010 8:20 AM


Jesus Christ was NOT a failure. He came to earth to die for you, and you say he was a failure. How can God be a failure if he came to Earth, allowed Himself to be crusified, be buried, and raise three days later over coming itself. Jesus defeated then and there. Jesus came and accomplished his goal, AND YOU CALL HIM A FAILURE, how dare you. He died for you so you can go to heaven when you die. He died because he loved you. He died so you don't have to spend eternity is Hell.
AND YOU CALL HIM A FAILURE!!! You need to fully realize what he did for you before you accuse him of anything.
joshua4missions
Some of us agree with you Joshua and if you think you have a mission here then by all means join in the battle to provide what you can. thanks
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by joshua4missions, posted 02-15-2010 8:20 AM joshua4missions has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 403 of 427 (546954)
02-15-2010 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Peg
02-15-2010 3:59 AM


Re: The Throne
I take the view that the kingdom is already ruling in the heavens and has been since we entered the last days in 1914...this is when the gentile times ended and the bible calculation is very clear on that...to the month.
The kingdom with Christ as the head went into action at that time and removed Satan and his followers from the heavens as Revelation 12:7-9 says....which explains why society has deteriorated to such a degree as it is today.
I was raised in the Church of Christ and I remember one evening at about age 13 or 14, I happened to pick up a book and I sat down and read most if not all of the Nichol-Bradley debate on the thousand year reign of Christ and when and where the kingdom was established. I was so impressed with bro C.R Nichol's knowledge and debating skills I was hooked on the the debate method and have never moved on that position that the kingdom was established on the day of pentecost, when all the Apostles were together as the Lord had instructed.
As I said earlier, I think within Christ people can and do have varying views on this subject and many others. Early on I was a young fire eater about making details matters of fellowship and I do still believe there are things that do constitue matters of fellowship, Im not sure this is one of them. Some would say yes others would say no.
I think if we believe in him as the Son of God and as the Savior and messiah, we probably have fellowship one with another. Of course one would need to know what another that claims to be a Christian believes to have complete fellowship.
If indeed I am wrong and he does indeed have plans to establish himself and a physical kingdom at the end, Im cool with that as well. its all about God and eternity anyway
Interesting though, why 1914, what do you beleive happened on that date to effect the establishment of the kingdom
I dont beleive we will ever see Jesus physically on earth EVER...he has a much better vantage point from the heavenly jerusalem which was identified by Paul at Hebrews 12:22
But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn (Jesus) who have been enrolled in the heavens
We would say the hebrew letter and its author is describing the Church. its important to remember a statement such as this is involved in much symbolism, while it is all literal in substance and application as to what God has done in Christ, terms are used to describe that action, "heavenly jerusalem, assembly, congregation, enrollment, etc, etc.
however your view of this passage desribing an action in heaven is EQUALLY TRUE. its all symbiotic in nature and purpose.
"and whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatsoever loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"
here in this verse Christ describes exacally what I am saying. its all symbiotic and its all about God and his purposes and plans. people simply get caught up with terms, times, events and dates.
buzz maybe more correct, you may be more correct or I may be concerning these issues. getting some things inccorect hardly classifies Christ as a failure, as some may suggest or like to imply
this statement by christ has very little to do witht he Apostles and thier authority, even though thats involved, than it does about the WORK of God in heaven and earth
Gods ACTIONS and what was accomplished is much more important that what term or symbolism he uses to describe that action.
As far as Christ ever setting foot on earth again, one is again involving themselves in anthropomophic symbolism. When Christ said "low I am with you even to the end of the earth", It was meant as an anthropomorphic statement, to assist humans in thier struggle that he was leaving, from thier perspective in the first place. he needed to reassure them he would still be with them
Of course Christ went nowhere, literally, he has always been here and never left or came in the first place, he's simply always been everything and everywhere to start with and the fact that he makes himself visible to us at this point or that, gives the MEANING TO US. the language we see in the scripture is there to assist a finite perspective.
If you remember Christ stating that the "Kingdom of heaven is at hand". Well any person could point to almost any point in the Gospel or thereafter and say this is that point or that is that point.
the turth of matter is that there is really no single point that the kingdom was not already in existence, if Gods rule was already in place. The truth of the matter is that Christ is expressing a moral principle by using that term kingdom. The relevance and moral principle was a renual to Gods teachings and principles and that is the message he trying to convey
certainly there are times where he does things differently than he had before, but the issue is ALWAYS PRINCIPLE AND MORAL
Romans 14:17
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,
does this mean there is not a physical place the kingdom exists, NO. it simply means the kingdom is both and all at the same time
this is why i was stating earlier that to discuss where and when the kingdom was establish involves itself in much firgurative language. Literally the kingdom was established before the foundation of the world, Christ(God) was king beofre any physical actions were taken here or there.
What is involved in Gods actions is WILL and INTENT, to mans mind for the purpose of decisions to made by mans freewill in a correct response to him.
The rest, the terms, the symbolism, the verbage is secondary to this fact and often gets in the way of understanding Gods ultimate purposes and inhibits fellowship with eachother.
Think about it. Does it really matter whether Jesus will literally set foot on a place he already IS and place he is already at, even if he is invisible to us presently.
Was it Elijah ( I cant remember presently) that said to God, "Open thier eyes Lord", so that the other person could see the host of angels that were already in thier presence.
Terms are relative and its all just about God, except for the thoughts brought about by freewill, the only thing actually in our control
I know this is a bit over the top, buts its helped me avoid alot of needless discussion, where people get hung up on terms and ideas
But anyway why 1914?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Peg, posted 02-15-2010 3:59 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Peg, posted 02-15-2010 6:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 411 of 427 (547104)
02-16-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Peg
02-15-2010 6:21 PM


Re: The Throne
Well its not that the kingdom was 'established' at that time, but that the Kingdom went into 'action' at that time and began it reign. Until this time, the kingdom was only active upon the christian congregations.
I know of JWs but I am not real familiar with your specific teachings. Im less interested in the prophecies and numbers thingy you have described, than I am some theological, Biblical and moral implication involved in the above statement.
What does "Went into action at that time"(1914) "began its reign"
and "the kingdom was only active upon the christian congregations" Mean?
Without all the involved numbers thingy, (while I am interested in that, but not at present) simply explain from your perspective the philosophical and Biblical premises of these phrases.
So Jerusalem represented Gods rulership in the earth. This gives us a clue as to what the gentile times would mean....they would mean that for an appointed time, Gods rulership on earth would not be represented.
but Jesus words show us that those 'appointed times' would come to their end and thus Gods rulership would once again sprout.
using the Old and NT as a guide, why would we assume there was a time Gods represenative rule was not in place, considering the Church was his body and Christ was its head since that time period
Even if we are talking about a time from captivity to NT times wouldnt the Law of Moses still represent Gods rule, (even if someone was on the actual throne or not, until it was fulfilled in Christ, then from christ forward to the present it is represented by the NT, his headship in the Church, or am I missing something?
7 And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha‧el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth...12 On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.
So you see these events happening after the time of Christ, not eons before and specifically around the early part of the 1900s, correct? A Biblical numerology of sorts
So the conclusion from these calculations in your estimation is that the second coming is at hand, near, sooner than we might expect, or distant. Or do they have application now? Not looking for a date or trying to be silly, just your opinion
just some quick answers if you will, then i will let you continue with these other fellas.
devils Advocate writes to Peg
And I see absolutely no dates or correlation of any kind with 2520 years in Daniel 4. So please elaborate. Seems to me you are just pulling dates out of your ass.
Watch out for that Devils Advocate though, he can be a grippy Gus. In a former life here at EVC, I use to instruct him on how to argue rationally without emotion influencing his statements. hes getting alittle better
Once he finally learns the skilled art of deductive reasoning he will be a worthy opponent, he has alot of information and facts and seems knowledgable in many areas, he simply needs to apply it logically, considering the logical implications of MADE statements
If you dont believe me slide over to his self-motivated threat on slavery and watch the condemnation of just about anything and everybody elses actions and comments and yet, the simplistic fellow still doesnt understand that if God does not exist and that there is no absolute morality, he for all intents and purposes wasting hot air, and speaking out his arse
he believes and accepts the doctrine of survival of the fitest by implication of his atheism and biological evolution tenets,THEN TURNS RIGHT AROUND AND STARTS CRYING AND COMPLAING ABOUT EVERYBODYS ACTIONS AND BELIEFS.
he has not, to this point understood that by doing this he is A WALKING TALKING BAG OF BS AND THE WORLDS WORST FORM OF CONTRADICTION AND HYPOCRISY.
And yet these same fellas that cry no God and any actions that anyone wishes to participate in, in contradiction to the Bible are acceptable and should be possible, are the first to start crying FOUL, FOUL about someone elses wishes and desires that do not allign with thier perceptions of reality
this idiocy and contradiction never ceases to amaze me
But then I am off topic Peg. Just be aware of his tactics. he is sloopy at best, when trying to think a moral problem out
One day perhaps
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Peg, posted 02-15-2010 6:21 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Peg, posted 02-17-2010 2:38 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 419 of 427 (547209)
02-17-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Peg
02-17-2010 2:38 AM


Re: The Throne
Avils Devocate writes:
I don't. That is the whole point of this discussion. I am challenging your faulty reasoning and logic. That is the point of this forum is it not, to debate? Or why do you post here? To spew your pseudoscientific, illogical, snake-oil nonsense?
Whoo wee, that Boys torked off isnt he?
Peg writes:
What did jesus do when he was resurrected?
Acts 2:32 This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which YOU see and hear.
34 Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.
Hebrews 10:12 But this [man] offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet
The above scriptures show that after Jesus resurrection, he sat at Gods right hand and was 'waiting' for the time when his enemies would be placed at his feet. So the kingdom wasnt ruling over the earth immediately.
remember that within our context, these are just simple disagreements, your salvation does not depend on how much you get right after initial justification and sanctification in Christ.
In your context here, we would slightly disagree, that even while he was waiting for his enemies to be laced under his feet he still had complete authority and rule
Col 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Paul is of course speaking after the fact, indicating that all authority and power is afforded him, even outside the Church
Peg writes
Firstly, Jesus rule is represented by the congregation, true. But Jesus spoke of more then just ruling a congregation...he was to become the king of the whole earth. All the nations would be subject to him. The earth would be transformed into a literal paradise and human sin and imperfection would be done away with forever, the dead would be resurrected and the earth would have no human rulers ever again.
Again here you and I would only have a slight disagreement concering what christ is presently doing. Paul in the following verses seems to draw a distinction between christs rule and seems to indicate he is NOW ruling in heaven the earth and the church
Eph 1:
15For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. 17I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
what do you think?
The 2nd point is that the scriptures fortell a time when the gentile nations would trample on the very representation of Gods Kingdom
Luke 21:24 Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled
So according to Jesus, there would be an appointed time where the nations would reign and Gods rulership, as represented by Jerusalem and its temple, would be trampled upon.
while the above verse is certainly concerned with the destruction of jerusealem, and plans God has for the nations concering historical events, I dont believe it affects Christs success and fulfilments.
Since the mosaic law and the Old covenant were fulfilled and completed at time of his death buial and resurrection, as was indicated by the tearing of the temple vail, a distinction should be made here between what is going to happen with the actual city of jerusalem and the jewish people what Gods (Christs) actual plan accomplished at that time.
Col 2:14
14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
So possibly, I dont think you will agree, but a distinction could be made here as to what Christ actually accomplished, then what physical historical plans were to take place concering his previous relationship with the children of Israel
Luke 21:
20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
25 And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.
29 Then He spoke to them a parable: Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
The salvation under consideration here is from the destruction of Jersalem, not slavation from sin, which was effected on the cross
So according to Jesus, there would be an appointed time where the nations would reign and Gods rulership, as represented by Jerusalem and its temple, would be trampled upon
So as Paul indicates his rule and authority was never in question and he effected and completed all the success paul mentions and has never lost that authority and rulership, even if he still has enemies.
while jerusalem was to be affected by the nations, I dont think we could conclude at that point and specifically thereafter that jerusalem represented Gods authority anymore, regardless of what historical events took place as result of the gentiles.
since no authority was ever misplaced IN ACTUALITY and nothing was ever lost regardless of what the gentiles nations did, it would be seprate as historical events not effecting Gods plans for the church or kingdom
his headship is most definately in the church, but which church? The church became very divided after the death of the apostles. There was a split that saw the creation of the orthodox church's and the Catholic churchs' and the protestants and the anglicans just to mention a few.... Jesus said that there should not be divisions among his congregation. So which church is he overseeing? They have different teachings, so who is in harmony with Gods word? Jesus said 'Your Word Is Truth'... would he oversee a church who deviated away from scripture? No.
Everyone wants to believe they are the doctrinally pure Church, but this precludes what a christian is in the first place. One is either in Christ, a member of the body or they are not. having obeyed the Gospel one should desire to abide in the teachings of Christ
One really needs to examine the scriptures intially to try and determine what are matters of faith and fellowship and what are matters of interpretation and opinion. here is an example.
John said if any man does not believe jesus christ came in the flesh, he has neither the father or the son and with such a one do not eat. A matter of fellowship.
Since you brought it up where would you draw the lineo n fellowship and what people believe and teach to make such distinctions
Have any of the churches even upheld Jesus high principles and morals? No. They have mostly turned their back on christianity in favor of greek philosophy and babylonian religious traditions that Im pretty sure he would strongly object to. So can we say that he is sharing with them? Do you think he would pollute himself with what the church's have become?
what do you think is the dividing line of fellowship in doctrinal matters, what is acceptable to get wrong and what is not. if for example you and i disagree on blood transfusions, the 1000 year reign of christ, the plan of salvation, where it the line
You dont have to answer this, its just something to think about.
its not just something to think about if action is required as it often is. As a Jehovahs Wittness, do you consider the others here that have obyed WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE THE GOSPEL AS CHRISTIANS?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Peg, posted 02-17-2010 2:38 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Peg, posted 02-17-2010 8:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 421 of 427 (547574)
02-20-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Peg
02-17-2010 8:46 PM


Re: The Throne
peg writes:
I do agree, he was placed in the highest position besides God, so yes
I am anxious to get back to your last post, been very busy will get to it as soon as poosible
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Peg, posted 02-17-2010 8:46 PM Peg has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 422 of 427 (547958)
02-24-2010 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Peg
02-17-2010 8:46 PM


Re: The Throne
I do agree, he was placed in the highest position besides God, so yes
I think our slight differences are starting to surface. For christ to be anything but God, even living as a human is not in our theology or the New testaments.
All angles, prophets and Apostles rejected worship and deity designations, unlike Christ, who humbly accepted those actions by individuals, like Thomas, "My lord and my God".
the NT (especially the gospels)is simply to repleat, to desinate christ as anything but God. "In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". he si9mply was God here
But how did he excercise his authority and rule up until the time when the war in heaven broke out? Satan was obviously still in the heavens up until that time and revelation says that satan was "the accuser of our brothers . . . , who accuses them day and night before our God. Revelation 12:10. So he was obviously in heaveny and showing his opposition to God yet Jesus did not use his authority to stop him until the war.
I think you are falling to distinquish between position and obedience. In Job satan is clearly there after his expulsion. Here we see that even though he does not share that position any longer, he will STILL SHOW UP FOR STAFF MEETING, when directed to do so by God
But you may notice that Paul speaks of the 'hope'
a hope is not something that is here now...it is something off into the future. The hope that the apostles spoke of regularly was the resurrection.
Acts: 24:15 I have hope toward God, of which hope these men also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of the both the righteous and the unrighteous
Has that hope been realised yet? We cant say that it has because the resurrection has not occured yet. So the full scope of Jesus authority on earth has not been realised.
Jesus was also said to bring an end to 'the last enemy death' 1Cor15:26
Yet people are still dieing... so we cant say he has fully excersized his earthly authority yet.
this hope should be understood in OUR context, not Gods or Christs accomplishments
it certainly doesnt affect his success over the congregation... we can clearly see that.
But that isnt really about the destruction of the physical temple in Jerusalem. It has to do with 'the appointed times of the nations'
these began when the last king of Isreal was dethroned back in 607bce. The appointed times continued thru to, and beyond, Jesus day... so he wasnt talking about the destruction of physical jerusalem.
If all things are fulfilled in christ from a spiritual standpoint, what do you believe needs to be accomplished by the nations outside of a physical context that will affect any spiritual accomplishments already set in place.
The temple was destroyed, the Old system aboloished by Christs law and sacrifice, everythinjg was accomplished in Christ. What do you beileve is left to be accomplished, even if these are talking about some futre historical event?
But Jerusalem and its line of Davidic Kings was the physical earthly representation of Gods rulership. When that was gone, there was no physcial earthly representation anymore.
Gods authority was transfered to Jesus in his heavenly kingdom... it was active and excersized authority over the church only... Until the time that Jesus went into action against the kingdoms enemies.
Ouch. Im not seeing this, since the Gospel and the Church are universal in nature and purpose. We are to preach to all nations, the church is universal
Why do you believe Christ has some sort of battle witht he nations outside the Church. true he is God and ruler of all anyway, but how will any of this affect the Church, now or later?
IOW, what is the ultimate goal of this battle Christ is engaged in (in your opinion) with t he nations? certainlly there can be no way to God for these nations outside of Christ correct?
There are some very basic biblical doctrines that should form the basis of everyone's form of christianity
The would include things like knowing Gods identity and name as the very basis. Most church's know that Jehovah is Gods personal name, yet they wont use it. This is the name found at the tops of medieval churchs...its found in older versions of the KJV bible... yet they've removed it in more recent versions... .then modern translators refuse to use the name altogether.
Do you make his name usage a matter of fellowship, would you deny someone worship in your congregation if they used the word God instead of Jehovah?
So most chruch goers believe that Jesus IS God... they dont even know that God has a personal name.
What do you believe Jesus was?
Another fundamental bible teaching is that of the resurrection of the dead. Christians should know that this was the very hope that the apostles preached. They said, if the resurrection is not true, we might as well not even be christians. Yet how many christians actually know of this hope??? Not many at all. Their belief is that they will go to heaven when they die which is a falsehood.
Agreed on resurrection, but i believe you believe in soul sleep correct? One of my brethren in the very early 1900s debated Mr. Russell. The Russell-White debate, on these very issues
If your interested:
ROBERT HENRY BOLL
ON THE RUSSELL-WHITE DEBATE (23 - 28 February 1908)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Robert Henry Boll's interest in apocalyptic eschatology led his opponents to associate him with the sectarian fringe among the apocalypticists, especially Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. While Boll, like many of his contemporaries, may have shown an early interest in Russell since they shared common religious and cultural interests, there is no indication whatsoever that Boll was ever sympathetic to Russell's apocalyptic solutions. Gideon W. Riggs reports in a chronologically somewhat ambiguous passage, that the old German friend from Nashville Bible School days may have read Russell's writings early on with interest. He writes in a memorial article:
I had been in school with Brother Boll and admired him as a Christian and a preacher of the gospel. His "premillennial theory" was developing at that time. He was reading C.T. Russell's books, and they were mighty smooth he thought.
And, yet, Riggs continued: "But he did not advocate the theory at that time."(1) It is well possible that Riggs, who wrote this in 1935, harmonizes Boll's early preoccupation with apocalyptic thought with the prevalent charge by Boll's opponents from 1915 on, that the Louisville preacher and editor of Word and Work was a follower of Russell or at least a sympathizer. It is also not certain whether Riggs refers to Boll's alleged early interest in Russell as having taken place in the Nashville Bible School, where Boll was a student from 1895 to 1898, and a teacher of French and German from 1898 to 1900, or whether that alleged preoccupation occurred during Boll's and Riggs's preaching in Los Angeles in 1903. It is a fact, however, that even in Boll's earliest articles on the need for studying prophecy, such study is recommended as an antidote against contemporary apocalyptic speculations, including Russell's views. Boll writes in 1909 in the Gospel Advocate:
It is because of our great ignorance of things prophetical that often simple Christians (and, strange to say, Christians as often as or oftener than any sect or denomination) are fascinated and taken in by Mormons, Adventists, Russellites, and other isms that make great stock of prophecy. It is to many, when they first begin to see into those teachings, as if they were entering a new world. The prophecies which had lain there for years in their Bibles as a meaningless dead letter, now become alive and instinct with glorious meaning. If only the meaning were never perverted for them! But bewildered and enthused by the discovery of things they had never before dreamed, they fall easy prey to the false teacher, who uses not so much the word of God as the victim's ignorance of it to foist upon him a human theory.(2)
Boll's early acquaintance with Russell was well before the Russell and White debate, when Russell lectured in Louisville. In an autobiographical reflection of 1912 in the article "The Blindness of Russell's Followers," (Gospel Advocate 55/14[4 April 1912], 419), Boll recounts that first personal exposure and evalutes it thoroughly negatively. He writes:
A few years ago Mr. Russell delivered in Macauley's Theater, in Louisville, Ky., his famous lecture "To Hell and Back" (Imagine Paul or Christ lecturing on such a topic!). The house was full, for the lecture had been long and loudly advertised, and Mr. Russell was as yet practically unknown in Louisville. But after Mr. Russell had spoken about fifteen minutes an increasing stream of people began to go out. As he neared the close of his speech the audience was distressingly reduced; and to what its size was when he closed even I cannot testify, for I felt, like the many, that my time was being wasted and left before the end. It was the first time I had seen Mr. Russell and heard him, and I was thoroughly disenchanted of whatever good estimate I had ignorantly placed on him as a man of at least some power and sincerity. I saw and heard him again at the Russell-White debate, where my estimate of him was not in any wise restored, but, if possible, got another backset.
The debate of Russell with Charles L. White in Cincinnati led Robert Welch, the editor of Faith and Facts, to the conclusion:
Kurfees thought that White had upheld the truth in great fashion and had stripped Russell of his armor. Boll came away enamored of Russell's style and ready to proclaim boldly the doctrine of premillennialism: not Russell's model, but one of his own.(3)
Both men, Kurfees and Boll, had been consulted on the choice of Russell's opponent and recommended White.(4) There is no merit, however, in Welch's claim that the 1908 Cincinnati debate was a stimulus for Boll's own premillennialism. Boll's eyewitness account of the debate dispels the notion that--in contrast to Kurfees--he had come from the debate "enamored of Russell's style."
Nothing could be farther from the truth than the assertion that Boll was a sympathizer of Russell, as others have alleged. Boll, from his earliest engagement with Russell, objected from a non-creedal Restorationist standpoint to Russell's apocalyptic system and theory-building. At the same time, however, he defended the legitimacy of including the prophetic writings and their interpretation into the mandate of studying the entire Scripture. More specifically, he saw in the neglect of prophecy and eschatological imminence sadly missed pastoral opportunities for spiritual formation and mission. There are numerous articles by Boll in the Gospel Advocate and in Word and Work that take issue with Russell and his organization, Millennial Dawn, the later Jehovah's Witnesses. In all of his writings, there is no indication that C.T. Russell was a factor in the formation of Boll's own premillennial thought. Boll's own eschatology seems to have been shaped much more by the indigenous Church of Christ millennialism of Boll's teachers at the Nashville Bible School, especially James A. Harding, David Lipscomb, and T.W. Brents as well as the dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield, including William E. Blackstone's religious bestseller Jesus is Coming (1878).
In what follows I reprint from the Gospel Advocate two articles of Boll about the Russell-White debate. The first one is Boll's announcement of the debate, the second a critical estimate of the debate itself, including Russell's debating style and views.
Hans Rollmann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WHITE-RUSSELL DEBATE
by R.H. Boll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel Advocate, 19 December 1907, 811
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the evening of February 23, 1908, there will begin in Cincinnati, O., one of the most important debates ever held in the history of the brotherhood. It is between L.S. White, now of Dallas, Texas, well known among the brotherhood as an able and powerful champion of the cause of the simple gospel, and Charles T. Russell, of Allegheny, Pa., the chief exponent of that particular form of Restorationism which is set forth in the Millennial Dawn, of which he is the author. In almost every place, by means of freely scattered literature, indefatigable efforts of the Millennial Dawn people, and also on account of the fascination and comfortableness of the doctrine itself, the teaching of Russell has taken root. That no less a man than Russell himself has agreed to discuss his doctrine, and that with one of our people (who, if any, are able to meet him), is extremely fortunate, and we may hope that this may be one of the great decisive encounters between truth and error, and may have far-reaching effects. Brother White's past work in the line of debates has proved him one of those who are worthy to be intrusted with such a grave task as this. His past successes have been due to the clearness and readiness with which he presents the word of God. He can be depended on to be always kind and gentlemanly toward his opponent, and to conduct the debate upon a high plane, so that no dishonor may come to the cause we love before the many strangers who will attend the debate. The following are the propositions to be discussed:
(1) "The Scriptures teach that all hope of salvation to-day is dependent upon accepting the gospel of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, and that such acceptance is confined to this present life." White affirms; Russell denies.
(2) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the dead are unconscious between death and the resurrection -- at the second coming of Christ." Russell affirms; White denies.
(3) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the punishment of the (finally incorrigible) wicked will consist of conscious, painful suffering, eternal in duration." White affirms; Russell denies.
(4) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the first resurrection will occur at the second coming of Christ, and that only the saints of this gospel age will share in it, but that in the resurrection of the unjust (Acts 24:15) vast multitudes of them will be saved." Russell affirms; White denies.
(5) "The Scriptures clearly teach that immersion in water `in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' of a believing penitent is for, or in order to, the remission of sins." White affirms; Russell denies.
(6) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the second coming of Christ will precede the millennium, and the effect of both the second coming and the millennium is the blessing of all the families of the earth." Russell affirms; White denies.
The debate will continue five nights. Brother F.L. Rowe, 422 Elm Street, Cincinnati, O., will furnish further particulars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RUSSELL-WHITE DEBATE
by R.H. Boll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel Advocate, 12 March 1908, 173
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who came expecting a sharply fought contest were largely disappointed. Mr. Russell did not debate much. His opponent's arguments and questions did not trouble him. He swept on serenely in his own chosen path, like the stars in their courses far above this little mean world and its strife. Only on a few occasions he stooped to actual encounter, on one of which he took up L.S. White's arguments pretty thoroughly, especially the point on the rich man and Lazarus; but that was in his (Russell's) final negative, when White had no chance for rebuttal. But the rebuttal was brought in the next night. It is due Mr. Russell, however, to state that, barring the fact that he did not consider his opponent's arguments (which is an unfairness in debate) and that he availed himself of the final negative as mentioned above about twice, he was otherwise fair, kind, respectful, and courteous throughout the entire debate. The old Latin motto, "Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re" ("Gentle in manner, strong in action"), was about equally divided between the two gentlemen. The "suaviter in modo" was mostly Russell's distinction; the "fortiter in re" was White's.
Russell did not debate, but White did. He made up for what Russell lacked. He presented one definite, clear-cut point after another. He asked questions which, if Russell had answered them, would have decided the issue to many minds. He read passages and passages; took up what Russell said and made provision for what he might have said, or could, should, or would say. He was always aggressive and interesting, making by far the stronger impression, both by his manner and his voice, which was stronger and clearer than Russell's, and could be heard in every part of the big building, and carrying the audience by his quickness and wit and a good-humored swagger. While Brother White spoke offhand a good part of the time, Russell read nearly all he said. This fact also went to make Brother White's speeches more impressive.
In regard to the subjects discussed, it is to be regretted that some of the more peculiar and repulsive features of Russell's, teaching could not be brought to light, and that in the matters actually under discussion Mr. Russell would not attempt to explain some of the difficulties of his view which were urged by the other side. In the discussion of the design of baptism, for example, Brother White put special stress on Acts 2:38. But instead of showing cause why this passage should not be taken at its plain meaning, the imperturbable gentleman waived the examination of it entirely and proceeded to unfold his theory on the meaning and purpose of baptism as it pleased him.
Nevertheless, it is fortunate that Russell could be induced to debate at all, and such things as were brought out will be helpful to all Christians who have to fight the Millennial Dawn doctrine. The debate was carefully, completely, and accurately reported, and will be ready for sale about March 25.
All the brethren expressed their satisfaction with Brother White's defense [sic] of the truth. He is now in a meeting with "the few" in Cincinnati.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. G.W. Riggs, "History of the Sichel Street Church," Firm Foundation 52(19 October 1935), 12. I'm grateful to Denise Inglis, ACU, for furnishing this item.
2. R.H. Boll, "The Study of the Prophecies," Gospel Advocate 51(21 October 1909), 1314.I am grateful to Erma Jean Lovelande and the library of ACU for the loan of relevant microfilm copies of the Gospel Advocate.
3. Robert C. Welch, "R.H. Boll: Premillennial Visionary," Faith and Facts 9(/2(April 1981), 21. I am grateful to Terry Gardner for a copy of this article.
4. See Russell-White Debate (Cincinnati: F.L. Rowe, 1925 [unchanged reprint of the 1908 edition]), unpaginated "Publisher's Announcement": "I immediately took the matter up with M.C. Kurfees and R.H. Boll, of Louisville, Ky., and they made selection of L.S. White, of the Pearl and Bryan Street Church of Christ, Dallas, Texas."
Sorry for the lateness
EAM
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Peg, posted 02-17-2010 8:46 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by AdminPD, posted 02-24-2010 1:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 424 of 427 (548057)
02-25-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by AdminPD
02-24-2010 1:20 PM


Re: Off Topic
Admin offices write:
EMA.
This thread is about why Jesus is considered a failure by Brian and others. It isn't about how you and Peg differ in your beliefs. I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to continue discussing your belief differences.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.
I understand. If Peg from down under is up for this how do we accomplish this task, given the rules of your society here
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by AdminPD, posted 02-24-2010 1:20 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by AdminPD, posted 02-25-2010 9:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024