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.
Wrong?tam wrote: Peace to you!
We really are not going to have to guess about Christ's return or the establishment of His Kingdom upon the earth. The only reason people 'guess' about it now, is because He has not yet returned, but some mistakenly believe He did, or that He should have, and so they have to come up with such things as an 'invisible' return.
At least Harold Camping repented and withdrew that claim before he died. Others continue to teach it, rather than admit or see that they (or their leaders) were wrong.
But we will all see Him when He returns. There will be no guesswork, there will be no question. No one will have to go around telling others who can't see for themselves that He has returned (just invisibly). Every eye will see Him.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Checkpoint wrote:Wrong?tam wrote: Peace to you!
We really are not going to have to guess about Christ's return or the establishment of His Kingdom upon the earth. The only reason people 'guess' about it now, is because He has not yet returned, but some mistakenly believe He did, or that He should have, and so they have to come up with such things as an 'invisible' return.
At least Harold Camping repented and withdrew that claim before he died. Others continue to teach it, rather than admit or see that they (or their leaders) were wrong.
But we will all see Him when He returns. There will be no guesswork, there will be no question. No one will have to go around telling others who can't see for themselves that He has returned (just invisibly). Every eye will see Him.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
When I posted that it was a mixture of truth, half-truth, and false teaching, I was asked to give an example of false teaching.
It was easy: 1914.
You replied:Wrong?
When I posted that it was a mixture of truth, half-truth, and false teaching, I was asked to give an example of false teaching.
It was easy: 1914.
Tam, my whole post was in specific agreement to this comment of yours:I'm sorry, Checkpoint. My post was not referring to anything in particular from you or from your previous post. Mine was just a general comment.
I am certainly not disagreeing with you about the 1914 teaching. It is wrong aka incorrect aka untrue aka false.
Guess what I wrote was a little cryptic!or that He should have, and so they have to come up with such things as an 'invisible' return.
At least Harold Camping repented and withdrew that claim before he died. Others continue to teach it, rather than admit or see that they (or their leaders) were wrong.
JehovahsWitness wrote:Checkpoint wrote:
I don't know what you are asking, can you put in a different way?No.Do you now agree that the kingdom (government) that Jesus taught his followers to pray for did NOT exist from the beginning of time?
It did exist, as such, but not in the way it is now or will be after Christ hands it back to the Father after the last enemy is destroyed.
Yes, in that each age is of a different natureDo you agree that if the Kingdom (government) was set up in the Roman era it cannot be the same thing as God's souvereignty which predated existed from the beginning of time (and didn't start during the Roman era)?
No, in the sense that throughout we have the kingdom of God because the same God is its sovereign.
What changes is how it is ruled and who shares the rulership and/or its benefits.
See my answer to your second question.Do you agree if that if we have one thing that started at the beginning of time and another during the Roman era we are talking about two different things?
Our understanding and application of what a kingdom is and is not, is different.If not, why not?
Your dictionary definition is incomplete and therefore can mislead.
It's not MY dictionary definition, I had no part in its publication. Feel free to contact the publishers if you have a problem with it. The website is linked above.
JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 241 by Checkpoint]
That is one way of putting it.Fair enough. God has appointed Jesus as the head of the Messianic Kingdom government. (Since Jesus always acts in harmony with God's will we can legitimately refer to the government as His (God's) kingdom), but no the head or desginated leader or KING of the kingdom is Jesus.
Checkpoint wrote:I emphasised there is only one kingdom, which I now see you call Universal SovereigntyWhat you call or don't call things does not change what is. Sovereignty means kingdom.No you have misunderstood; we don't call the Kingdom God's souvereignty. God's kingdom (that Jesus told us to pray for is an expression of God souvereignty but God's Kingdom is NOT God's souvereignty.
Kingdom means sovereignty just as much as it means realm, in both Hebrew and Greek.
To illustrate the different between "an expression of something" and the thing itself, let's take a mother's love. A mother will love here children from even before they are born. She may cook a cake to nourish and please here children but the love is not the cake. The cake is different from her love, the cake is "an expression" of her love, but she may also express or manifest her love in different ways at different times. Still her love and the cake are not the same thing; her love is not a cake.
God has always and will always rule the universe He became the KING of the universe when he created it. That's one thing; the way he chooses to "express"
his position or kingship is different from his actual kingship; just as the mother expresses her love through giving a cake. The cake hasn't always existed but her love for her children has. Her love is not a cake.
Interesting illustration or analogy.
The problem with it is you apply it around the wrong way.
God is the mother, not the cake.
And so loved that He gave... the Messiah, with everything that means, including the Messianic kingdom.
He had that love aeons before He expressed it in the incarnation.
Two things but one kingdom.God's souvereignty is not the kingdom. We are talking about two things not one. We are talking about two things, not one thing with two different names.
When God created the unviverse there was no Messianic Kingdom (The Messianic Kingdom, is the kingdom (a type of government) that Jesus told us to pray for). The Messianic Kingdom government has NOT existed from the beginning of time; there was no need for the kingdom (I'll used the word government from Isaiah 9:6 to be clear), there was no need for the government.The governement hadn't been set up. The government has not always existed.
There would be no Messianic kingdom without God being already on His throne.
Two things? you believe there are "two things"? What are the "two things" you say there are? (please use you own words, there is no need to refer to "unversal sovereignty" (that was MY term) please just identify "the two things"Checkpoint wrote: Two things but one kingdom.
"Your" means the one you chose to display.JehovahsWitness wrote:It's not MY dictionary definition, I had no part in its publication. Feel free to contact the publishers if you have a problem with it. The website is linked above.
Have a nice day,
JW
God's kingdom is for all the ages and all places, He rules over time and space:Checkpoint wrote: Some seem to think it is entirely future, while others give the impression they are always thinking of it as present, and to not be looking at the future in kingdom terms at all.
Jesus had much to say about the kingdom, including this:
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.
On what basis?
According to which scriptures?
