Moderator: Moderators
So, where do you stand as to whether it is present, future, or has both a present and a future aspect?Luke 16:
6 The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is being zealously urged into it.
tam wrote: [Replying to post 275 by JehovahsWitness]
So setting aside the differences in understanding as to the Kingdom, which seem at least in part to come down to a difference in understanding of words... lets move onto timing a little.
You (the WTS at least) say 1914. May I ask how the Kingdom (using your understanding of the Kingdom) has been ruling since 1914? In what way?
*These coming stages will involve such things as the total overthrow and destruction of all rival governments (Dan 2:44), the defeating of Satan and his demonic hordes (Gen 3:15b; Rev 20:1,2), the selecting and protection through this process of his subjects (Mat 25: 31,31), the transformation of the planet earth to its desired paradise like conditions (Mat 6:10b), the ongoing education of all survivors (Isaiah 11:9b)...#1 He has begun gathering his "cabinet members" or "co-rulers" to be with him in order to assume their governmental roles, many of which are already in heaven working in their chosen positions (see Phil 3:20; Rev 20:6)
#2 He has taken needed military action to protect the integrity of this endeavor (Rev 12: 7,8)
#3 He has He has gathered and is educating millions of subjects, already loyal to his government as to future requirements ((Isaiah 65:13, 14; Rev 7:9).
#4 He has publically put the national governments of the world on notice, (through a global campaign conducted by his earthly representatives: Jehovah's Witnesses) that their right to rule has terminated and they should submit or face the consequences (Ps 1:6-12)
#5 He has previewed a date for the taking over of power from human to Divine rule as well as the angelic military force in place to ensure that that takeover takes place (Dan 2:44)
#6 In that he continues to take the necessary steps to ensure the success of the next stages of his takeover*
JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 274 by Checkpoint]
Ok, that's what we will do in our posts to one another.Good so we'll, just refer to the kingdom government and that will cover every thing.
No, not to those details you have outlined.ie
What is God's Kingdom for which Jesus taught us to pray? It is a kingdom government that will rule over the earth and have numerous subjects that will not be ruling with Jesus in the government but will benefit from its rule.
When we pray for the "kingdom to come" we are praying for this kingdom-government and all the benefits that it will existend to its subjects.Some Christians will be ruling in the government, others will be subjects of that kingdom-government.
Agreed?
The "main track" I earlier referred to was the subject of this thread.
That is, the present and/or future details paradigm as to the timing and, perhaps the nature of, God's kingdom-government.
"Kingdom-government"? your post never used that term, why are you calling it a "kingdom-government"?Checkpoint wrote:
The "main track" I earlier referred to was the subject of this thread.
That is, the present and/or future details paradigm as to the timing and, perhaps the nature of, God's kingdom-government.
My apology - I thought I was doing what we agreed, and now realise I added a hyphen.JehovahsWitness wrote:"Kingdom-government"? your post never used that term, why are you calling it a "kingdom-government"?Checkpoint wrote:
The "main track" I earlier referred to was the subject of this thread.
That is, the present and/or future details paradigm as to the timing and, perhaps the nature of, God's kingdom-government.
Ok so now lets look at another word, concordance.Checkpoint wrote:Fine.2timothy316 wrote:This is what is called an intellectually-dishonest debate tactic.Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 262 by JehovahsWitness]
No kingdom IS a government, but every kingdom HAS a government.What is God's Kingdom? God's kingdom is a type of government.
Known as Layne's Law of Debate: Every debate is over the definition of a word. Or; Every debate eventually degenerates into debating the definition of a word.
Then the debate goes cold. So what can we learn from the debate of this subject? Before debating someone on this subject of God's Kingdom first both agree to the definition of the term 'kingdom' or both agree to a dictionary that both agree to the definitions found in that dictionary as true. The first to refuse the definition found in the agreed dictionary is the on the wrong side of the truth agreed upon.
But it was not "an intellectually-dishonest debate tactic", but rather an honest attempt to gain the very agreement you said was first needed!
That is, "Before debating someone on this subject of God's Kingdom first both agree to the definition of the term 'kingdom'."
Anyone willing and able to agree on the definitions given of the Greek by Strong's Concordance?
The hyphen is not a problem, but where did you actually agree? I don't see you agreeing anywhere. Don't feel obliged to agree if you don't feel it is a suitable term, ie if you don't think God's kingdom is a kingdom government (hyphenated or not) feel free to DISAGREE and not use the expression all (same for Jehovah's (God's) sovereignty)Checkpoint wrote:My apology - I thought I was doing what we agreed, and now realise I added a hyphen.JehovahsWitness wrote:"Kingdom-government"? your post never used that term, why are you calling it a "kingdom-government"?Checkpoint wrote:
The "main track" I earlier referred to was the subject of this thread.
That is, the present and/or future details paradigm as to the timing and, perhaps the nature of, God's kingdom-government.
See post #281.JehovahsWitness wrote:The hyphen is not a problem, but where did you actually agree? I don't see you agreeing anywhere. Don't feel obliged to agree if you don't feel it is a suitable term, ie if you don't think God's kingdom is a kingdom government (hyphenated or not) feel free to DISAGREE and not use the expression all (same for Jehovah's (God's) sovereignty)Checkpoint wrote:My apology - I thought I was doing what we agreed, and now realise I added a hyphen.JehovahsWitness wrote:"Kingdom-government"? your post never used that term, why are you calling it a "kingdom-government"?Checkpoint wrote:
The "main track" I earlier referred to was the subject of this thread.
That is, the present and/or future details paradigm as to the timing and, perhaps the nature of, God's kingdom-government.
This is why we need concordances and lexicons, each one is what dictionaries are not so much, "a bridge between languages".A concordance is not a dictionary. It's more like a bridge between languages. Thus the Greek word basileia in translation doesn't have to contain the word government in the concordance. The definition of a kingdom in English is "a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kingdom
Jesus Christ is that king in the Kingdom of God and why it is rightfully called a kingdom. (Acts 17:6, 7, Revelation 17:14)
