Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right, God's Kingdom (Daniel 2:44 ) is Not of this world but heavenly. ( origin and existence is in Heaven )
That is a reason why Jesus instructed to pray to God, " thy kingdom come......."
We are Not instructed to pray to be ' taken away ' to the kingdom, nor ' go up ' to the kingdom, but for the kingdom to come.....
I don't think John Nelson Darby wrote Revelation 20:6 .
I don't think Rev. 20:6; 5:9-10 is a pipe dream.
Yes, God's Kingdom is Not part of this world of badness - 2nd Timothy 3:1-5,13
Yes, unlike men's kingdoms ( aka governments ) God's heavenly Kingdom is permanent - Daniel 7:14
Jesus will govern over Earth - 1st Corinthians 15:24-26
It's been a long time since I studied Revelation. But reading it literally is a rather massive mistake, the same massive mistake as reading all the rest of the bible from a literalist standpoint. Not only is it a mistake, but reading scripture that way cuts it off at the knees and pre-empts any deeper understanding. Context is everything.
I do recall this much: John of Patmos is not the same guy as the Apostle who knew Jesus back in the 30s of the Common Era. Revelation was written around the year 100, maybe later. And it was written using a lot of coded phrases, written under persecution. John was put on Patmos as an exile, himself. He'd been banished. A great deal of the text is anti-Roman, therefore. Apocalyptic literature as a genre is characteristically extreme. Lots of hyperbole. Bizarre imagery. There's certainly all of that in Revelation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby
Yes, Jesus died for ALL, but ALL do Not prove faithful - Matthew 7:21-23
That is why we find the little word " IF " at 1st John 1:7
"If " we prove faithful to the end as Jesus requested at -> Matthew 24:13; 10:22 B; Mark 13:13. - Hebrews 10:36
Repenting is involved - Acts 17:30
Repent or perish ( meaning be destroyed ) at 2nd Peter 3:9
The 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth ' will rid the Earth of the wicked - Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15
ALL the wicked according to Psalms 37:38; 92:7; 104:35; 145:20 will be destroyed forever.
Even wicked Satan will be destroyed - Rev. 21:8; Destroyed by Jesus - Hebrews 2:14 B
Hi, yes, Jesus died for all, not just for a few. He died for every human being. Some people do not believe that Jesus died for every person and they do not believe that He is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. The phase "the many" in the passage refers to the all who were affected by the sin of Adam. Death spread to all mankind because of Adam's disobedience. These are "the many" who died. The same all who were affected by the sin of Adam to become sinners are made righteous in Jesus Christ, the last Adam.
Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because (on which) all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not [i]counted against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the [j]violation committed by Adam, who is a [k]type of Him who was to come.
15 But [l]the gracious gift is not like the offense. For if by the offense of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one offense, [m]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the gracious gift arose from many offenses, [n]resulting in justification. 17 For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then, as through one offense [o]the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness [p]the result was justification of life to all mankind. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
All do respond to and accept the gift at the same time, but this will not be elaborated upon on this thread. What Jesus did for all people leading to the restoration of all is discussed on the Universalism thread. God bless.
John wrote Revelation 'before' he penned his gospel account in the book of John
The Apostle John wrote nothing, at least nothing we have. The Gospel was written in John's name--- just like the other three: those gospels arose, ostensibly, from the churches that were connected to those people: Matthew, Mark, Luke. But John dates from 70 or so years after the earthly Jesus and that generation. Revelation is the product of yet a different, later, John.
I'm not making this up. I'm just sharing what I was taught. And I got it at some top-flight schools:
Gonzaga University and Princeton Theological Seminary. But none of what I've just shared will matter to anyone who is not at least curious to learn and be exposed to something other than the assumptions you bring to the text. Believe me, it was difficult for ME to let go of MY assumptions in that painful process of learning.
The Apostle John wrote nothing, at least nothing we have. The Gospel was written in John's name--- just like the other three: those gospels arose, ostensibly, from the churches that were connected to those people: Matthew, Mark, Luke. But John dates from 70 or so years after the earthly Jesus and that generation. Revelation is the product of yet a different, later, John.
I'm not making this up. I'm just sharing what I was taught. And I got it at some top-flight schools:
Gonzaga University and Princeton Theological Seminary. But none of what I've just shared will matter to anyone who is not at least curious to learn and be exposed to something other than the assumptions you bring to the text. Believe me, it was difficult for ME to let go of MY assumptions in that painful process of learning.
Disagreeing with you and what you were taught does not mean that a person is not curious to learn.
Disagreeing with you and what you were taught does not mean that a person is not curious to learn.
Gotcha. But the first step is to examine one's assumptions, and then shed them. Without that vital first step, every back-and-forth in here is nothing more than people talking past each other. Disagreements will happen, but respected differences need to at least fall within the broad frame provided by the work of serious, mainstream scholars.
If someone, particularly in here, completely refuses to engage in that first step, I wish he/she would simply say so.
With regard to disagreeing with me: the disagreements expressed to me in here are not just minor disagreements about this fact or that fact; they have been hermeneutical; which is to say, you've been disagreeing with the entire toolbox of investigative methods used not just by me, but by the full, entire cadre of serious Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars. I've lived on both sides, and the mainstream scholars on both sides of the fence are indeed in general agreement.
I once wrote a paper on a rather old book written by an Irish priest who was making the case that there had to have been an earlier Aramaic version of the Gospel of John "underneath" the Greek one we have. But why must there have been? As I read the book, it came clear: to that author, there must have been an earlier Aramaic version, because THAT would indicate authorship by the Apostle himself--- though not conclusively. Obviously, his perception of the value of the Gospel was diminished, if it was written further in time away from the life of the earthly Jesus. The value he put on the text being inspired by the Holy Spirit had to have been pretty weak, pretty low, then, too.
That priest did not want to go where the evidence would lead; he wanted his assumption to be confirmed.
No serious, reputable scholar believes the Apostle wrote the Gospel which bears his name. And I continue to find mountains of anti-intellectualism in this discussion room. Disagreeing is not the same thing as rejecting the full weight and direction of all the serious biblical scholarship since at least the mid-1800s, starting with Julius Wellhausen. https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Julius_Wellhausen
Gotcha. But the first step is to examine one's assumptions, and then shed them. Without that vital first step, every back-and-forth in here is nothing more than people talking past each other. Disagreements will happen, but respected differences need to at least fall within the broad frame provided by the work of serious, mainstream scholars.
If someone, particularly in here, completely refuses to engage in that first step, I wish he/she would simply say so.
With regard to disagreeing with me: the disagreements expressed to me in here are not just minor disagreements about this fact or that fact; they have been hermeneutical; which is to say, you've been disagreeing with the entire toolbox of investigative methods used not just by me, but by the full, entire cadre of serious Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars. I've lived on both sides, and the mainstream scholars on both sides of the fence are indeed in general agreement.
I once wrote a paper on a rather old book written by an Irish priest who was making the case that there had to have been an earlier Aramaic version of the Gospel of John "underneath" the Greek one we have. But why must there have been? As I read the book, it came clear: to that author, there must have been an earlier Aramaic version, because THAT would indicate authorship by the Apostle himself--- though not conclusively. Obviously, his perception of the value of the Gospel was diminished, if it was written further in time away from the life of the earthly Jesus. The value he put on the text being inspired by the Holy Spirit had to have been pretty weak, pretty low, then, too.
That priest did not want to go where the evidence would lead; he wanted his assumption to be confirmed.
No serious, reputable scholar believes the Apostle wrote the Gospel which bears his name. And I continue to find mountains of anti-intellectualism in this discussion room. Disagreeing is not the same thing as rejecting the full weight and direction of all the serious biblical scholarship since at least the mid-1800s, starting with Julius Wellhausen. https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Julius_Wellhausen
I've told you before that majority opinion does not make something true. I know the arguments of scholarship. Not all scholars hold to the view you argue for. I agree with the scholars who argue that the arguments of those scholars who deny that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote those Gospels are weak arguments. Just as I have shown that a very strong argument can be made that Acts, and therefore the synoptics were written by the mid 60's.
I'm not afraid to go against majority opinion and I'm not afraid to actually think.
Like Paul, Christians are distressed that sin still exists in their flesh, causing Christians at times to do what they don’t want to do and looking to Christ for relief, redemption, and mercy from this “body of death” (Romans 7:18-25)
I am not going to inherit the Zoe kingdom, and what's more, I dont know that I would want to. The higher Zoe kingdom is talked about in scripture the most. Hebrews 8 tell us the design of the temple is the design of heaven and its design was to shadow and mirror what was in heaven and the distinction between the outer court and the narrow way of a high priest.
That is the least and the greatest and if the greatest ever become and when one realized the depth of what the Zoe Kingdom really is, it would give a person pause. The people who know the Zoe kingdom know what comes next, the humanity of it all, all the skirts lain bear and nakedness seen everywhere.
That's the hell of it, and there is only one solution, and I dont mean saying Jesus a million times, I mean buying gold, and balm, and medicine, and gold refined in the fire, to purchase the oil but before you can even purchase oil, where is your storage vessel, you have no vessel to fill, no oil to purchase, no path lit up by light, how will one ever find the chamber door much less consummate a marriage and yet a million betrothed stand outside saying," Open up to me also, this is the time of the bridegroom, let us in, we never wanted in, but now we want in, look, we have gold stacked to the ceiling, at least tell us where to find an extra vessel to fill with oil after I have found said vessel.
Above everything Jesus said and the example of his entire life of raising money for the Jewish widow and orphan.
Like refined gold or Pearl's you have to pierce yo produce, to find one is beyond wealth, and to purchase the field in which you find the pearl, all you do is harvest pearls like the richest woman there ever was in the pearl business.
This woman knew what it meant to find a pearl, to purchase the field finding pearl after pearl, pure genius
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
