30 Jan 11
2 edits
1. this view was also taken by Christ's disciples and Jews in general who thought that the Kingdom would get rid of the cruel Romans and usher in a gloruos peroid odf Isreali domination, like that of David's time.
2. Actually the term, Gods Kingdom can be found throughout the scriptures, thus its not the invention of one man, nor does it belong to a particular epoch of history. Also whether it is true or not , or whether it is the word of God or of men is not relevant, for the teaching exists irrespective of these.
3. Again that the sources are purely Biblical does not negate us finding out about it nor of researching it.
4.We are not concerned at this point with whether the teaching is true or otherwise, merely what is the nature of the teaching, what are its elements, only after these are established can we make an evaluation of whether it is true or not.
here is an interesting verse written in about 500 years prior to Christ, detailing some elements of the teaching,
(Daniel 2:44) . . .“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite. . .
Have you any thoughts on this (other than its rubbish)
30 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie(1) The disciples didn't write anything. Others did, half a century and more after the death of Jesus. So I would say 'hearsay' to this. And further, the writer was also a good retoric. He used old formulations so he can rel on traditional 'truths' in the matter. So, I dismiss this argument.
1. this view was also taken by Christ's disciples and Jews in general who thought that the Kingdom would get rid of the cruel Romans and usher in a gloruos peroid odf Isreali domination, like that of David's time.
2. Actually the term, Gods Kingdom can be found throughout the scriptures, thus its not the invention of one man, nor does it belong to ...[text shortened]... sh and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite. . .[/b]
(2) Only one man, known or unknown, was the first to use the term. The others just copied the term. Nothing wrong with this. But it has nothing to do with truth. Just speculations.
(3) The bible is written by men of a specific purpous. They used good retorics. Don't have to be true just for that reason.
(4) Your description sounds like a dogma. "Doesn't matter if it's true or not, we asum it's true then we fix with the evaluation later." Yes, a dogma.
And the Daniel thing... Well, it's his retorics, weather he invented the thing or not, doesn't matter. It doesn't make it true because of that.
Question: Waht makes it a kingdom? Kings and queens? Princes and prinsessas? Crown of gold? Apanage from ... somewhere? Remember that Sweden is a kingdom too, and I see no resemblance between Sweden and the biblical kingdom. A kind of Sweden in heaven? Makes me laugh 😀
Did Daniel really use the word kingdom? Was it such a word in his language? Wasn't a king just a generic term for a ruler, any kind of ruler?
30 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"What leads you to believe that its all creation or has to do with the (natural) nation of Israel?"
I agree there seems to be no other way for us to determine what is is, for i dont think any other religious body of work has the concept of the Kingdom of God. Christ himself gave numerous examples in the parables with reference to that Kingdom. What leads you to believe that its all creation or has to do with the (natural) nation of Israel?
The scriptures of course.
God is one God.(Jehovah)(Amongst other names depending on the context) He is the creator of all that exists. God is sovereign. His kingdom extends to the uttermost.
I know you know the scriptures robbie, so I'll be brief and let you fill in.
Lucifer(Satan) usurped authority on earth. God devised a plan. On earth Israel is part of that plan. For a thousand years Christ will rule, and then;
Ephesians 1:10 "...in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:" Ephesians 1:10
You are sooo close to an amazing truth here robbie. Several in fact.
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by FabianFnas1. It matters not whether his disciples wrote anything, nor whether its a matter of hearsay, the teaching exists in scripture. Again we are unconcerned at this point of its validity.
(1) The disciples didn't write anything. Others did, half a century and more after the death of Jesus. So I would say 'hearsay' to this. And further, the writer was also a good retoric. He used old formulations so he can rel on traditional 'truths' in the matter. So, I dismiss this argument.
(2) Only one man, known or unknown, was the first to use the ...[text shortened]... n his language? Wasn't a king just a generic term for a ruler, any kind of ruler?
2. There have been many references, over many epochs of time by many individuals with respect to the Kingdom of God. Its not the opinion of any one single individual.
3. Yes the Bible was written for a purpose, what this has to do within the context of this discussion, is not yet manifest.
4. Whether its dogma or not is irrelevant, the teaching exists.
5. Daniel used the word, which is related to the Hebrew word melekh (king, ruler), you can find an interlinear version in Hebrew and English here,
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan2.pdf
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWE have a problem here. You seay that a scripture is correct to the letter, of the only reason it is written. The same goes for the Vedic scriptures. Do you really mean that the two scriptures has the same truth value? Even when they are in conflict with eachother? No, something is not true, of the sole reason that it is written.
1. It matters not whether his disciples wrote anything, nor whether its a matter of hearsay, the teaching exists in scripture. Again we are unconcerned at this point of its validity.
2. There have been many references, over many epochs of time by many individuals with respect to the Kingdom of God. Its not the opinion of any one single individua ...[text shortened]... on in Hebrew and English here,
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan2.pdf
Same goes for 'teaching'. It is irrelevant where you can find a teaching, it is true or it is false, irrespective where it is found. There are teachings in the Vedig scritures too. A teaching is not true of the sole reason that it is written.
Then we can go into details, but you ahve to understand that the bible is written by men with an agenda, valid at those times, but not necessarily valid now.
You have to come with something else, something better evidences for the existance of "the Kingdom of God" than it is written in one collection of books, compiled at the meeting of Nicaea at the year of 325 AD.
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by FabianFnasumm i never said anything of the sort, i am uninterested in Vedic scripture, i want to talk about the Kingdom of God. As i have stated now on numerous occasions, whether its true or not is irrelevant, it exists irrespective of whether its true or not. Whether it was written with an agenda or not is also irrelevant, unless it has a bearing on the Kingdom of God. That it was complied at Nicea is also not important, we have the teaching in our Bibles at present, irrespective of when and where it was complied.
WE have a problem here. You seay that a scripture is correct to the letter, of the only reason it is written. The same goes for the Vedic scriptures. Do you really mean that the two scriptures has the same truth value? Even when they are in conflict with eachother? No, something is not true, of the sole reason that it is written.
Same goes for 'teachin ...[text shortened]... written in one collection of books, compiled at the meeting of Nicaea at the year of 325 AD.
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is dogmatism. This is what culters do, accepting blindly the dogmas. Good for you.
umm i never said anything of the sort, i am uninterested in Vedic scripture, i want to talk about the Kingdom of God. As i have stated now on numerous occasions, whether its true or not is irrelevant, it exists irrespective of whether its true or not. Whether it was written with an agenda or not is also irrelevant, unless it has a bearing on the Ki ...[text shortened]... , we have the teaching in our Bibles at present, irrespective of when and where it was complied.
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, you've opened it up for discussion. But then why do you get upset when people don't agree with you? Then it's not a discussion. A discussion is when both parties has different views about things and learn from eachother. You don't seem to be learning anything.
have i not opened it up to discussion? that the points you raise are for the most not really relevant is not my fault.
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by FabianFnasI have not been upset, i merely pointed out certain irrelevances and why they are irrelevant. All i have learned is that mostly Christians dont really know what the Kingdom is, or they are afraid to voice their thoughts in case it may be proven as untenable, and that materialists dont know what it is either.
Yes, you've opened it up for discussion. But then why do you get upset when people don't agree with you? Then it's not a discussion. A discussion is when both parties has different views about things and learn from eachother. You don't seem to be learning anything.
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen did you become a thread-Gestapo? Deciding what and when people are allowed to air their opinions? And try to muffle people disagreeing with you? Very cultist behaviour, if I may say so?
I have not been upset, i merely pointed out certain irrelevances and why they are irrelevant. All i have learned is that mostly Christians dont really know what the Kingdom is, or they are afraid to voice their thoughts in case it may be proven as untenable, and that materialists dont know what it is either.
31 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasi have not stated that anyone cannot air their opinions, i have merely called into question the relevancy of those opinions to the discussion. I have muffled no one in the process. If you like i can go through the thread and point out the irrelevances, it would be a rather astounding picture i am sure, for i estimate that at least 80% of posts are irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
When did you become a thread-Gestapo? Deciding what and when people are allowed to air their opinions? And try to muffle people disagreeing with you? Very cultist behaviour, if I may say so?
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHaven't you written this one:
i have not stated that anyone cannot air their opinions, i have merely called into question the relevancy of those opinions to the discussion. I have muffled no one in the process. If you like i can go through the thread and point out the irrelevances, it would be a rather astounding picture i am sure, for i estimate that at least 80% of posts are irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
"Then start your own-thread and stop polluting this one.",
and a bit later:
"do you have any comments to make with respect to that title? No, then please start your own thread with the title 'What defines a Christian'."
Showing that you think youare in a position to decide, as a thread-Gestapo, who are permitted to state their opinion, and who is not?
When you say "I am always on-topic" then you may throw the first stone. (Not literally, it's from the bible, you've heard of the book haven't you?)
31 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes i wrote that, his comments were irrelevant, as other posters besides myself also noted and told him to shut up. If you went to the doctor and the said, doctor i have a sore head and he started havering on about playing the bongos and ignoring the reason why you were there, would you not get up and leave and seek another doctor or remind him of the purpose of your visit. Well then one should stay on topic or start another thread. Its simply common courtesy.
Haven't you written this one:
"Then start your own-thread and stop polluting this one.",
and a bit later:
"do you have any comments to make with respect to that title? No, then please start your own thread with the title 'What defines a Christian'."
Showing that you think youare in a position to decide, as a thread-Gestapo, who are permitted to state t stone. (Not literally, it's from the bible, you've heard of the book haven't you?)