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]

Then how do you explain Daniel 2:44 and Isaiah 9:6?

.

The ancient Jews believed that it was their destiny that they would someday rule the world as God's chosen people and that this would be ushered in by the Messiah.
But Jesus put an end to this misguided thinking. He made it very clear that the Kingdom of God is not of this world. Rather it is a spiritual state of mind and a way of living in the world.

So Daniel 2:44 was misguided thinking? Do you consider all of the Old Testament as obsolete? I seem to remember Jesus saying that God's Word was TRUTH, and he was referring to what we call the O.T. because that is all they had on their scrolls at that time. The Kingdom of God is NOT of this world, that is true, but that doesn't mean that the Kingdom won't rule the world some day. The Kingdom of God has its Source in heaven, and is headquartered there, not on earth. That is what Jesus meant. It will rule the earth from heaven.

Do you also reject Isaiah 9:6a and 7?

[onewithhim]

What about the souls that choose to continue to prey on other people? What if they NEVER awaken?

The Bible indicates that it is God Himself who has to step in, and He is about to do that by means of His appointed King, Jesus Christ.

"Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6, NASB)

"[Thou] hast made them for our God a kingdom and priests, and
What about the souls that choose to continue to prey on other people? What if they NEVER awaken?

The Bible indicates that it is God Himself who has to step in, and He is about to do that by means of His appointed King, Jesus Christ.

"Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6, NASB)

"[Thou] hast made them for our God a kingdom and priests, and they shall reign over the earth." (Revelation 5:10, Holy Trinity Edition of the Catholic Bible)


So the Kingdom is much more than something inside people. It is a real government, with rulers and subjects. It also has a seat, or, headquarters, which is heaven. Its realm involves the "courtyard" of that government....the earth, upon which its subjects live.

.

Whatever spiritual state you are in at death will go with you to the grave. What happens after that I have no way of knowing.

I don't think God ever has or ever will directly intervene in events here on earth. Simple observation tells me that is not how God functions. But my own experience also tells me that the love of God is always available to us, and it calls us to enter the Kingdom.

The Revelation of John is not about future events. This is a common misconception that most contemporary biblical scholars would reject although it has made millions of dollars in book sales by the Lindseys, the LaHayes, and the Hagees of this world.
Revelation is about the ancient Roman Empire and describes events that have already taken place. None of its strange imagery should be taken literally.

So I have to disagree that the Kingdom of God refers to a literal governmental system. Remember that the universe is billions of years old. God is patient.

You say that God will not directly intervene in events here on earth, but doesn't the Bible state that He will?

"We ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction..." (2 Thessalonians 1:4-9, NASB)


You say that Revelation is "not about future events." Then, if it has already been fulfilled, when did Satan and his demons get destroyed in the "lake of fire"? (Rev.20:10) When did death and hell end? (Rev.20:14) When did God wipe out tears of suffering and pain? (Rev.21:4)

.

[kayky]

So Daniel 2:44 was misguided thinking? Do you consider all of the Old Testament as obsolete? I seem to remember Jesus saying that God's Word was TRUTH, and he was referring to what we call the O.T. because that is all they had on their scrolls at that time. The Kingdom of God is NOT of this world, that is true, but that doesn't mean that the Kingdom won't rule the world some day. The Kingdom of God has its Source in heaven, and is headquartered there, not on earth. That is what Jesus meant. It will rule the earth from heaven.

Do you also reject Isaiah 9:6a and 7?

Onewithhim, I do not reject any part of the Bible, but I do read it within the context of the culture that created it. There is no doubt in my mind that the Old Testament view of God starts out with a very primitive way of thinking about God. God is a tribal deity who will defend us in battle. He is easily angered and will not hesitate to harshly punish when he sees fit. We see this view soften over time. But even in the New Testament God is not without human-like hangups. I just think that our understanding of God didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago.

Jesus made it very clear that his coming had nothing to do with setting up an earthly kingdom. It's not that the authors of Daniel and Isaiah were misguided per se. It's just that Jesus wanted to correct this notion in first century Judea that the Messiah was going to set up an earthly kingdom.

Jesus on more than one occasion contradicts the Old Testament. "It is written...but I say..." He was often criticized for breaking Jewish law.

[kayky]

Accidental double post.

[kayky]

You say that God will not directly intervene in events here on earth, but doesn't the Bible state that He will?

"We ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction..." (2 Thessalonians 1:4-9, NASB)


You say that Revelation is "not about future events." Then, if it has already been fulfilled, when did Satan and his demons get destroyed in the "lake of fire"? (Rev.20:10) When did death and hell end? (Rev.20:14) When did God wipe out tears of suffering and pain? (Rev.21:4)

.

Yes, the Bible does present a God who directly intervenes in human affairs. But I see this as a more primitive view. As I observe the world as it is today, that does not appear to be the case. The belief in an omnipotent God is morally problematic. Why does God allow needless and innocent suffering? The Love I have experienced as God would if it could. My conclusion is that God is bound by the same laws that make a universe possible.

It might surprise you to know that most contemporary biblical scholars do not believe that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. It conflicts with his usual style and theological thought. It was common practice in ancient times to attribute your work to a revered mentor. This would not have been seen as dishonest.

When it comes to Revelation, first off I do not believe in a literal Satan or demons or hell. These sound like mythological inventions to me. I also do not think anyone has the ability to predict the future. Revelation was written for two purposes:

1. To condemn the Roman Empire for its many evils and especially for the persecution of Christians. The book was written in code so the Romans wouldn't understand its meaning. But every time Babylon is mentioned it is really a reference to Rome. In Jewish numerology 666 (or 616 in the original) refers to Nero, who along with the emperors that followed him, severely persecuted the Church.

2. To comfort and strengthen those Christians enduring such persecution and to encourage them to remain faithful. There is no doubt that first century Christians believed that Jesus would return in their day. And just like so many "end times" enthusiasts today, they were wrong.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 92 by Checkpoint]

Isn't a reign a "system of rulership"...? Since the kingdom is a reign, and a reign is a system of rulership wouldn't the kingdom be a system of rulership?

So if Jesus' Government is ALSO a system of rulership and it "has a reign/kingdom" (which is a system of rulership) wouldn't that be like saying "the system of rulership HAS a system of rulership"?

You do have a way with words, JW.

That post is a good illustration. It says much about little, and continues to ignore most of what I have explained.

Not as good, however, as an earlier post of yours on this thread[10], which wins hands-down.

[Replying to post 8 by McCulloch]

So you think the kingdom is a "hand" ie a part of someone's body?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 92 by Checkpoint]

Isn't a reign a "system of rulership"...? Since the kingdom is a reign, and a reign is a system of rulership wouldn't the kingdom be a system of rulership?

So if Jesus' Government is ALSO a system of rulership and it "has a reign/kingdom" (which is a system of rulership) wouldn't that be like saying "the system of rulership HAS a system of rulership"?

You do have a way with words, JW.

Thank you, I try.

So do you want to try to explain in an understandable wayhow the kingdom which you have already said is a "system of rulership" (a reign), "has" a government which is by defintion a system of rulership?

[onewithhim]

So Daniel 2:44 was misguided thinking? Do you consider all of the Old Testament as obsolete? I seem to remember Jesus saying that God's Word was TRUTH, and he was referring to what we call the O.T. because that is all they had on their scrolls at that time. The Kingdom of God is NOT of this world, that is true, but that doesn't mean that the Kingdom won't rule the world some day. The Kingdom of God has its Source in heaven, and is headquartered there, not on earth. That is what Jesus meant. It will rule the earth from heaven.

Do you also reject Isaiah 9:6a and 7?

Onewithhim, I do not reject any part of the Bible, but I do read it within the context of the culture that created it. There is no doubt in my mind that the Old Testament view of God starts out with a very primitive way of thinking about God. God is a tribal deity who will defend us in battle. He is easily angered and will not hesitate to harshly punish when he sees fit. We see this view soften over time. But even in the New Testament God is not without human-like hangups. I just think that our understanding of God didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago.

Jesus made it very clear that his coming had nothing to do with setting up an earthly kingdom. It's not that the authors of Daniel and Isaiah were misguided per se. It's just that Jesus wanted to correct this notion in first century Judea that the Messiah was going to set up an earthly kingdom.

Jesus on more than one occasion contradicts the Old Testament. "It is written...but I say..." He was often criticized for breaking Jewish law.

It is quite a cop-out for someone to say, "Yeah the Bible says thus and so, but I'm going to look at the culture." Then they go on to describe the culture as something that it wasn't! "Primitive" some people say? And a God that was easily angered & just waiting to punish? The Israelites were neither primitive nor was God encumbered with a hair-trigger temper. Your view of both Jewish culture AND God is, unfortunately, not based on facts at all.

How did Jesus make it "very clear" that his coming had nothing to do with setting up an earthly kingdom?

Also, Jesus never CONTRADICTED the Old Testament. He just embellished it, gave it more meaning. Many times he was not referring to the O.T. at all, but the writings of the rabbis...the Talmud. Those things he would contradict. The Talmud was not from God. And Jesus never broke God's laws. Not once. He did break some laws that the Jews dreamed up themselves, beyond God's laws. They prohibited someone to eat a meal unless they had washed their hands up to their ELBOWS. This was never a law from God. But the Jewish religious leaders condemned Jesus and his disciples for not doing so.

A person had best do research before making statements such as you have, and not take the word of some Sunday School teacher or even a pastor.

And you didn't answer how Revelation has already been fulfilled and yet Satan, death, suffering and tears of sorrow are still here. If Revelation has already been fulfilled, then those things would not still exist.

.

[onewithhim]

You say that God will not directly intervene in events here on earth, but doesn't the Bible state that He will?

"We ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction..." (2 Thessalonians 1:4-9, NASB)


You say that Revelation is "not about future events." Then, if it has already been fulfilled, when did Satan and his demons get destroyed in the "lake of fire"? (Rev.20:10) When did death and hell end? (Rev.20:14) When did God wipe out tears of suffering and pain? (Rev.21:4)

.

It might surprise you to know that most contemporary biblical scholars do not believe that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. It conflicts with his usual style and theological thought. It was common practice in ancient times to attribute your work to a revered mentor. This would not have been seen as dishonest.

Well, many scholars DO believe that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. But why does it matter just who wrote it? It is a fact that it says that Jesus will come and execute the wicked. He will involve himself in earth's affairs. That is there in black and white. It is part of the Bible canon. It is not wise to dismiss it.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 92 by Checkpoint]

Isn't a reign a "system of rulership"...? Since the kingdom is a reign, and a reign is a system of rulership wouldn't the kingdom be a system of rulership?

So if Jesus' Government is ALSO a system of rulership and it "has a reign/kingdom" (which is a system of rulership) wouldn't that be like saying "the system of rulership HAS a system of rulership"?

You do have a way with words, JW.

Thank you, I try.

So do you want to try to explain in an understandable wayhow the kingdom which you have already said is a "system of rulership" (a reign), "has" a government which is by defintion a system of rulership?

We all do try, and we all fall short from time to time.

It appears I have on this thread, which you have kind of restricted from the normal full debate regime.

Your persistence in quoting me without recognition of the explanation and clarfication I gave, leaves me no option but to answer in the negative.

So no, I don't want to try and explain the convuluted skewed question you posed.