JWs consider God's Kingdom to be a Government

[JehovahsWitness]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe God's Kingdom for which many Christians have prayed throughout the ages to be a (heavenly) government (three words).

What, in three or four words if possible, do you believe it to be?

(Many Christians I have met have said its "A feeling" (in one's heart).

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 73 by onewithhim]

I had asked you to comment on Isaiah 9:6a,7 and Daniel 2:44, which look to me like they are describing a literal government which will influence the whole world, eliminating all governments of men. How do you explain those two scriptures?

I thought that was Jw, not you...but never mind.

I read the Isaiah passage as conveyng that Jesus would be king from birth into eternity.

Daniel, however, seems to focus on the kingdom in its eternal aspect, on what happens at and as a result of the seventh and last trumpet.

As in Revelation 11:15-18.

So you are of the opinion that the Kingdom has always been in operation, since Jesus was born on Earth? Please tell me how this government by Christ could be in operation before he was even actually seated on the throne of this government. For a government to be in operation, there has to be someone who is mature and qualified for the job heading it up, wouldn't you say?

And there seemed to be a certain time frame in which the Kingdom would start influencing the world, according to the account of the immense image of Daniel chapter 2. The Kingdom would hit the image in the feet, suggesting that it would take power after all the governments of the earth that had been involved with persecuting God's people would be incapacitated. Look it up on the Web by typing "Image of Daniel chapter 2." www.jw.org has an article on it too, if you care to click on www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study- ... 5e&insight[search_result

When did Jesus first become "actually seated on the throne"?

When did he become "mature and qualified for the job"?

I think Jesus being a King and his government being in operation are two different things. This has been seen today among world leaders who have been deposed, for example, and who have run to another country. They are still a king, but not on their throne.

Jesus "sat on his throne" in 1914, according to my understanding. He wouldn't have been mature and qualified for the job as a baby, so I would imagine it would have been after becoming an adult, and Jehovah's approval of him being King was shown at his baptism.

.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 73 by onewithhim]

I had asked you to comment on Isaiah 9:6a,7 and Daniel 2:44, which look to me like they are describing a literal government which will influence the whole world, eliminating all governments of men. How do you explain those two scriptures?

I thought that was Jw, not you...but never mind.

I read the Isaiah passage as conveyng that Jesus would be king from birth into eternity.

Daniel, however, seems to focus on the kingdom in its eternal aspect, on what happens at and as a result of the seventh and last trumpet.

As in Revelation 11:15-18.

So you are of the opinion that the Kingdom has always been in operation, since Jesus was born on Earth? Please tell me how this government by Christ could be in operation before he was even actually seated on the throne of this government. For a government to be in operation, there has to be someone who is mature and qualified for the job heading it up, wouldn't you say?

And there seemed to be a certain time frame in which the Kingdom would start influencing the world, according to the account of the immense image of Daniel chapter 2. The Kingdom would hit the image in the feet, suggesting that it would take power after all the governments of the earth that had been involved with persecuting God's people would be incapacitated. Look it up on the Web by typing "Image of Daniel chapter 2." www.jw.org has an article on it too, if you care to click on www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study- ... 5e&insight[search_result

When did Jesus first become "actually seated on the throne"?

When did he become "mature and qualified for the job"?

I think Jesus being a King and his government being in operation are two different things. This has been seen today among world leaders who have been deposed, for example, and who have run to another country. They are still a king, but not on their throne.

Jesus "sat on his throne" in 1914, according to my understanding. He wouldn't have been mature and qualified for the job as a baby, so I would imagine it would have been after becoming an adult, and Jehovah's approval of him being King was shown at his baptism.

.

Interesting - thankyou.

Are you saying God's approval of him at his baptsm was as a king, but one without a throne, which he did not sit on until 1914?

What "job" was he qualified for at his baptism?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 73 by onewithhim]

I had asked you to comment on Isaiah 9:6a,7 and Daniel 2:44, which look to me like they are describing a literal government which will influence the whole world, eliminating all governments of men. How do you explain those two scriptures?

I thought that was Jw, not you...but never mind.

I read the Isaiah passage as conveyng that Jesus would be king from birth into eternity.

Daniel, however, seems to focus on the kingdom in its eternal aspect, on what happens at and as a result of the seventh and last trumpet.

As in Revelation 11:15-18.

So you are of the opinion that the Kingdom has always been in operation, since Jesus was born on Earth? Please tell me how this government by Christ could be in operation before he was even actually seated on the throne of this government. For a government to be in operation, there has to be someone who is mature and qualified for the job heading it up, wouldn't you say?

And there seemed to be a certain time frame in which the Kingdom would start influencing the world, according to the account of the immense image of Daniel chapter 2. The Kingdom would hit the image in the feet, suggesting that it would take power after all the governments of the earth that had been involved with persecuting God's people would be incapacitated. Look it up on the Web by typing "Image of Daniel chapter 2." www.jw.org has an article on it too, if you care to click on www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study- ... 5e&insight[search_result

When did Jesus first become "actually seated on the throne"?

When did he become "mature and qualified for the job"?

I think Jesus being a King and his government being in operation are two different things. This has been seen today among world leaders who have been deposed, for example, and who have run to another country. They are still a king, but not on their throne.

Jesus "sat on his throne" in 1914, according to my understanding. He wouldn't have been mature and qualified for the job as a baby, so I would imagine it would have been after becoming an adult, and Jehovah's approval of him being King was shown at his baptism.

.

Interesting - thankyou.

Are you saying God's approval of him at his baptsm was as a king, but one without a throne, which he did not sit on until 1914?

What "job" was he qualified for at his baptism?

That was part of the package, if you will. Jehovah approved of Jesus to fulfill all that he came to earth to accomplish. One thing was was the kingship, and he was expected by Jehovah and all that was good to fulfill that assignment in the future. I recall that Jesus indicated to the Pharisees that he, as the king-designate, was "in their midst." (Luke 17:21) After going back to heaven, he stood at Jehovah's right hand. In 1914 he fulfilled Revelation 12:10, and after taking a throne he hurled Satan down to the earth where Satan had even more anger & orchestrated WWI. That's how I see it.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 83 by onewithhim]

I recall that Jesus indicated to the Pharisees that he, as the king-designate, was "in their midst." (Luke 17:21)

He did not say he was in their midst, but that the kingdom of God was in their midst.

Big difference.

He was not merely the king-designate, but the king, John 1:49.

After going back to heaven, he stood at Jehovah's right hand.

No, he sat down at His right hand, Hebrews 1:3-4, 13: 2:9.

In that position he is now reigning, 1 Corinthians 15:25.

Big difference.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 83 by onewithhim]

I recall that Jesus indicated to the Pharisees that he, as the king-designate, was "in their midst." (Luke 17:21)

He did not say he was in their midst, but that the kingdom of God was in their midst.

Big difference.

He was not merely the king-designate, but the king, John 1:49.

After going back to heaven, he stood at Jehovah's right hand.

No, he sat down at His right hand, Hebrews 1:3-4, 13: 2:9.

In that position he is now reigning, 1 Corinthians 15:25.

Big difference.

Not a big difference. King Louis XIV had it right when he said, "Le estat ce moi," or, "I am the state." The king of a government IS the government. In other words, he represents the government, even if he isn't sitting on the throne. Many kings have embarked to other lands to hide out there for one reason or another. They are kings even though they aren't sitting in their own throne rooms.

To split hairs is not necessary, but if you want to dispute a small detail, Jesus was STANDING when Stephen saw him in vision just before being stoned to death.

"But full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55, NASB) I don't think it really matters whether he is standing or sitting.


.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 83 by onewithhim]

I recall that Jesus indicated to the Pharisees that he, as the king-designate, was "in their midst." (Luke 17:21)

He did not say he was in their midst, but that the kingdom of God was in their midst.

Big difference.

He was not merely the king-designate, but the king, John 1:49.

After going back to heaven, he stood at Jehovah's right hand.

No, he sat down at His right hand, Hebrews 1:3-4, 13: 2:9.

In that position he is now reigning, 1 Corinthians 15:25.

Big difference.

Not a big difference. King Louis XIV had it right when he said, "Le estat ce moi," or, "I am the state." The king of a government IS the government. In other words, he represents the government, even if he isn't sitting on the throne. Many kings have embarked to other lands to hide out there for one reason or another. They are kings even though they aren't sitting in their own throne rooms.

To split hairs is not necessary, but if you want to dispute a small detail, Jesus was STANDING when Stephen saw him in vision just before being stoned to death.

"But full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55, NASB) I don't think it really matters whether he is standing or sitting.

Whatever, he is a king who has been enthroned from his resurrection and ascension.

During that time there has been the kingdom of God operating as a government. One that has set its own system of rulership for this age of grace and this day of salvation.

That is a big difference.

Contest it if you will, but I am confident it cannot be successfully refuted.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 86 by Checkpoint]

Your confidence is duly noted. Thanks for your input.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 68 by Checkpoint]

Jesus has a government, the kingdom is a system of rulership and they are both directly related. Is it conceivable that they are in fact be one and the same thing? If not why?

No, they are not one and the same.

They are directly reated in the sense that the kingdom, as does any nation, has a government, and any government operates by a system of rulership.

However, that governnment, that system of rulership, are not the kingdom, but ways it is seen and felt.

[kayky]

I do not think the Kingdom of God has anything to do with earthly government. The Kingdom of God exists both within us and all around us. We can choose to live in that Kingdom at any moment. It is a matter of awareness. We make that choice every time we view the world through the lens of love.

[kayky]

I do not think the Kingdom of God has anything to do with earthly government. The Kingdom of God exists both within us and all around us. We can choose to live in that Kingdom at any moment. It is a matter of awareness. We make that choice every time we view the world through the lens of love.