Your premise is interesting but has a philosophical, esoteric gist to it.
Nothing wrong with that. Maybe you want to start a thread that approaches it from that angle. Just a thought.
The ongoing discussion, on the other hand, is concerned more with examining the literal differences or similarities that can be derived from simply approaching it in a factual manner.
Kinda like the difference between "throughly" and '"thoroughly"
Wierwille try to give it an esoteric spin by saying one was more precise , complete and deeper than the other.
In reality, both words mean exactly the same thing.
Your premise is interesting but has a philosophical, esoteric gist to it.
Nothing wrong with that. Maybe you want to start a thread that approaches it from that angle. Just a thought.
The ongoing discussion, on the other hand, is concerned more with examining the literal differences or similarities that can be derived from simply approaching it in a factual manner.
Kinda like the difference between "throughly" and '"thoroughly"
Wierwille try to give it an esoteric spin by saying one was more precise , complete and deeper than the other.
In reality, both words mean exactly the same thing.
Zero as a digit 0 + 1 = 2
Zero as a value 0 + 1 = 1
:)
In other words, the kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God are the same when considered as digits but they differ when considered as values.
(I have a cross-dressing Unitarian pastor friend who has a seemingly natural aversion to the word "kingdom"… I find that interesting... Not unlike a friend of mind who thinks depictions of the crucifixion put off the "devil spirits" of "heavy and gloomy."
No matter how you define the terms, any philosophical premise that speaks of a difference or distinction between "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" must then explain why they are used synonymously and interchangeably in the Gospels. The point I am making in this thread is really that simple.
No matter how you define the terms, any philosophical premise that speaks of a difference or distinction between "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" must then explain why they are used synonymously and interchangeably in the Gospels. The point I am making in this thread is really that simple.
I'm just poking my head in here for a sec, Mark.
Couldn't one be a sub-set of the other? You know, like when we did those math problems where a circle was inside another circle. The characteristics of the smaller circle would be included in the larger, but not all the characteristics of the larger would be in the smaller circle.
No matter how you define the terms, any philosophical premise that speaks of a difference or distinction between "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" must then explain why they are used synonymously and interchangeably in the Gospels. The point I am making in this thread is really that simple.
I am saying the KOH and KOG are perceived synonymously when they are perceived as digits. With Christ present that may have been the “God with us” fulfillment.
So it is a parable again, to be understood, to know the KOH and KOG’s intrinsic and variant meaning when perceived as values also.
It is just a possible perspective I thought I might mention.
Under the same logic Jesus is God (as are we) when perceived as digits but we are not God when perceived as values.
God is not a respecter of persons when God perceives us spiritually, but God is a respecter of person when God perceives us though the filter of our own intrinsic knowledge and value for the truth. (spirit [digits] of truth [value])
So as digits we are saved by the spirit but as values we are freed by the truth. (standing/state)
We are saved as digits by the creator and we are saved as values by the part of the creator who relates to creation.
The parable of logical reason concerning the KOH and KOG produces two different answers which are equally the truth.
Maybe God made it simple on purpose just to make it more difficult.
John Deere 99:100 The ergonomic word of God fits like a lawn mower seat to a derriere. :)
If we're going to consider the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven, we have to go back and look at where the idea came from:
"12 And when thy [David's] days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
"13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever.
"14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
"15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
"16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever."
II Samuel 7:12-12
Everyone recognized that these words found partial fulfillment in the reign of Solomon, but they were also certain that fulfillment was ONLY partial, and they looked forward to a descendent of David whose throne WOULD be established forever.
"Kingdom of God" doesn't mean "the kingdom that belongs to God" in the sense of "God's rule in our hearts". It means "the kingdom that comes from God", "the kingdom God promised".
DrWearWord - Do you mean to say that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" can mean the same thing, or different things, depending on whatever meaning we attach to them? Aren't you concerned with the meaning that the authors of Matthew and the other gospels attached to them?
No human being has or has ever been given, granted or guaranteed anything eternal.
How do you account for Luke 18,
"18 ... what shall I do to inherit eternal life ["zoen aionion" = "life of the age"]..."
"29 And he [Jesus] said to them [his followers], Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the Kingdom of God's sake,
"30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world ["aion" = "age"] to come, life everlasting ["zoen aionion" = "life of the age"]."
"Aionios" ("aionion" is a form of "aionios") is the only word translated "eternal" in the New Testament except for Ephesians 3:11 and I Timothy 1:17, where the word is "aion" = "age" plural, and Romans 1:20 where the word is "aidios" or "perpetual". "Aionios" is also the only word in the New Testament translated "everlasting", except for Jude 6, which is also "aidios" or "perpetual", as in Romans 1:20.
Are we to infer different meanings for the word 'aionios" when it refers to God and when it refers to human beings? If so, that would not be "exegesis" (reading the meanings OUT from what is written), which Wierwille preached, but rather it would be "eisegesis" (reading foreign meanings INTO what is written), which is what Wierwille practiced.
To say that the Kingdom of God is "eternal" while the Kingdom of Heaven is "everlasting" is to base our theology on an artificial distinction, written into the KJV by its translators, and propagated by Wierwille.
Couldn't one be a sub-set of the other? You know, like when we did those math problems where a circle was inside another circle. The characteristics of the smaller circle would be included in the larger, but not all the characteristics of the larger would be in the smaller circle.
Just an idea I'm tossing out....
So if not all the characteristics of the larger would be in the smaller circle, then they are not interchangeable. But when you see how both phrases are used, they are obviously referring to the same thing. Besides, there are references to the Kingdom of God being "nigh" or "near." This can't be talking about simply the overall reign of God. Steve gives a good explanation of how the term is used.
Again, Mark, what is a factual error to you can be seen as not at all the case when you use differing methods to read the writings. This shouldn’t be too hard to see. We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right?
So please demonstrate what methods you use to determine that Wierwille was right when he said the KOG is over all but the KOH is defined by the personal presence of the King on earth, when a simple reading of the verses shows that the two phrases are synonymous and used interchangeably.
I'm sorry that the ones who hold onto the TWI version of "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" won't take you up on the offer to rework the issue.
My view of these things developed from TWI views to views that resemble yours very closely. I know that saying that is no more a guarantee of truth than anything else, but I find it encouraging nevertheless.
You are being fair and patient.
I do find it discouraging when folks who've come from a supposed research ministry can't seem to prove the validity of their opinions past saying...... just because! This is where ex-wayfers sometimes reveal how they were susceptible to TWI style manipulation. And TWI leaders sure were willing to impress people with their style (Self- assuredness mixed with whatever intimidation that circumstances would allow IMO) instead of substance.
When I consider what was taught in PFAL in terms of method, one of the very most important things is the discipline of looking at the scriptures without any preconcieved ideas and letting them speak for themself.
I do recognize the human condition such that this is an almost impossible task. Preconcieved ideas rule most of our thinking after all.
But when the stance that is taken that someone else HAS TO DISPROVE A DOCTRINE THAT IS NOT PLAINLY STATED IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT; IMO this logic tends to only perpetuate error.
When someone notes that the scripture doesn't plainly state a doctrine and then decides to re-examine this non-scriptural doctrine it is IMO a much healthier stance.
It doesn't take a freakin Einstein to see that the two phrases in question in this thread are used interchangeably.
It does take a wise person to see that what they believe is without scriptural credence.
Realizing that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are synonymous is just the beginning. The whole definition of Kingdom of God was completely missed in TWI, but is also missed in many other mainstream churches. More and more people, however are starting to get it. For an excellent video presentation on this, click on the following link:
The following is from the thread about VF's Living Hope church. I am addressing it here to avoid getting into a doctrinal debate in that thread.
Oh, and Mark, Jesus was pretty sure the kingdom was going to be coming within his generation. Some have argued that his crucifixion might have been his way of hurrying it along. Whether that's true or not, one of his main points was that until the kingdom has come, his followers were to live as though it had already arrived. While exceedingly difficult, I think that's a great way to be.
Actually, he said he didn't know when he would return. And in several of his parables he described a period of time of undetermined length before the Kingdom was established on earth. The idea that he thought he was going to be coming within his generation is based on misunderstanding a couple of passages. The one where he said that some standing there would not die before they saw the Kingdom was referring to the fact they would see a vision of his coming in what we know as the Transfiguration (as Peter refers to in his epistle).
The other couple of verses that mention "this generation" are most likely using the word "generation" in a different way, that is, not referring to a period of time so much as the moral character of this evil age. See this article for further dtails.
We are certainly expected to live according to new standards which Jesus gave us. But it is not living "as though it had already arrived" since when it arrives we will be ruling with Christ over the nations, while in this life we will be persecuted and downtrodden at times.
"Kingdom of haven" and "kingdom of God" are synonymous, as the excellent Biblical study above (post 2) shows in great detail.
The reason Matthew used "heaven" is because he was writing primarily to Jews, who avoided using the Name of God so that they would not break the command on not misusing his name. They did other things to avoid this also, such as saying "The Name" where one would normally use YHWH or Adonai.
The story of the origin of the pretrib rapture stemming from a 16 year old girl in Scotland and JN Darby is accurate.
Check out the book "The Incredible Coverup" by MacPherson. (I've also seen it, or a version of it, under the name "The Unbelievable PreTrib Origin.") Amazon lists it.
I saw recently that in 1830 there was a girl in Great Britain named Margaret McDonald who saw a vision of the Lord returning twice. The first time he came to gather the believers together, and the second time he came back with the believers in order to judge the world.
(snip)
Margaret Mc Donald keeps getting blamed for doctrines she never spoke, and Darby keeps getting blamed for passing along
doctrines he never taught, based on the doctrines Margaret Mc Donald never spoke.
(snip)
(snip)
The story of the origin of the pretrib rapture stemming from a 16 year old girl in Scotland and JN Darby is accurate.
Check out the book "The Incredible Coverup" by MacPherson. (I've also seen it, or a version of it, under the name "The Unbelievable PreTrib Origin.") Amazon lists it.
Dave McPherson is a VERY sick man.
He has made it his life's work to attack the pre-tribulation position.
That's his decision, of course- but he has chosen to do so by stooping to every dirty trick
he could think of, including things like claiming deathbed recantations by
pre-tribulationists, and making things up out of whole cloth when they weren't true.
Did you know he blames his Dad's poor health at one time on pre-tribulation?
Margaret Mc Donald was a POST-Tribber who believed the church was going to live through
the Tribulation SOON- and was NOT ready for it. That's the essence of what she said when
she was at meetings and so on.
Here's the vision that McPherson claimed was the origin of the pre-tribulation position.
See if you can FIND the pre-tribulation position anywhere IN it!
===================================
"It was first the awful state of the land that was pressed upon me. I saw the blindness and infatuation of the people to be very great. I felt the cry of Liberty just to be the hiss of the serpent, to drown them in perdition. It was just 'no God.' I repeated the words, Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear. Now look out for the sign of the Son of Man. Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of Man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is. I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory. I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people. Many passages were revealed, in a light in which I had not before seen them. I repeated, 'Now is the kingdom of Heaven like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom, five wise and five foolish; they that were foolish took their lamps, but took no oil with them; but they that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.' 'But be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is; and be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.' This was the oil the wise virgins took in their vessels - this is the light to be kept burning - the light of God - that we may discern that which cometh not with observation to the natural eye. Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance. No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. 'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air. I saw that we must be in the Spirit, that we might see spiritual things. John was in the Spirit, when he saw a throne set in Heaven. But I saw that the glory of the ministration of the Spirit had not been known. I repeated frequently, but the spiritual temple must and shall be reared, and the fullness of Christ be poured into his body, and then shall we be caught up to meet him. Oh none will be counted worthy of this calling but his body, which is the church, and which must be a candlestick all of gold. I often said, Oh the glorious inbreaking of God which is now about to burst on this earth; Oh the glorious temple which is now about to be reared, the bride adorned for her husband; and Oh what a holy, holy bride she must he, to be prepared for such a glorious bridegroom. I said, Now shall the people of God have to do with realities - now shall the glorious mystery of God in our nature be known - now shall it be known what it is for man to be glorified. I felt that the revelation of Jesus Christ had yet to be opened up - it is not knowledge about God that it contains, but it is an entering into God - I saw that there was a glorious breaking in of God to be. I felt as Elijah, surrounded with chariots of fire. I saw as it were, the spiritual temple reared, and the Head Stone brought forth with shoutings of grace, grace, unto it. It was a glorious light above the brightness of the sun that shone round about me. I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that it it were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold.
I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth, and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive - for it is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness he will work - he will have a counterpart for every part of God's truth, and an imitation for every work of the Spirit. The Spirit must and will be poured out on the church, that she may be purified and filled with God - and just in proportion as the Spirit of God works, so will he - when our Lord anoints men with power, so will he. This is particularly the nature of the trial, through which those are to pass who will be counted worthy to stand before the Son of man. There will he outward trial too, but 'tis principally temptation. It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out. The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept. I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within -be clay in the hands of the potter -submit to be filled, filled with God. This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb. I saw it to be the will of God that all should be filled. But what hindered the real life of God from being received by his people, was their turning from Jesus, who is the way to the Father. They were not entering in by the door. For he is faithful who hath said, by me if any man enters in he shall find pasture. They were bypassing the cross, through which every drop of the Spirit of God flows to us. All power that comes not through the blood of Christ is not of God.
When I say, they are looking from the cross, I feel that there is much in it - they turn from the blood of the Lamb, by which we overcome, and in which our robes are washed and made white. There are low views of God's holiness, and a ceasing to condemn sin in the flesh, and a looking from him who humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation. Oh! it is needed, much needed at present, a leading back to the cross. I saw that night, and often since, that there will be an outpouring of the Spirit on the body, such as has not been, a baptism of fire, that all the dross may be put away. Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been - the servants of God sealed in their foreheads - great conformity to Jesus - his holy holy image seen in his people - just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her. This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. Amen and Amen Even so come Lord Jesus.''
It's a waste of time to argue who said what and when, as it is a waste of time arguing about whether an author did or didn't do or say something. I prefer to stick to what they wrote and determine if it fits with the Bible or not. Personal likes and dislikes for the writers aside, there are a number of books besides McPherson's exposing the fallacy of the pre-trib rapture. George Ladd's The Blessed Hope is one.
It's a waste of time to argue who said what and when, as it is a waste of time arguing about whether an author did or didn't do or say something. I prefer to stick to what they wrote and determine if it fits with the Bible or not. Personal likes and dislikes for the writers aside, there are a number of books besides McPherson's exposing the fallacy of the pre-trib rapture. George Ladd's The Blessed Hope is one.
It's certainly a separate issue and a distraction, but if someone's spreading MISinformation, I prefer to put
a stop to it.
If you want to be a mid-tribber, a post-tribber, an amillenianist, an atheist, agnostic, or something else,
that's your choice and I won't lose sleep over it. If you're going to make an "argument" for your position,
however, please don't make stuff up or spread MISinformation.
I haven't read MacPherson's book, but I've heard others refer to the supposed origins of a pre-trib rapture, and I'm sure there is more to it than that one quote you posted. What other sources have you read that convince you that what MacPherson said was misinformation?
I haven't read MacPherson's book, but I've heard others refer to the supposed origins of a pre-trib rapture, and I'm sure there is more to it than that one quote you posted. What other sources have you read that convince you that what MacPherson said was misinformation?
I've read other authors who have read her other comments-but THAT one was the most famous-
that was "THE vision" MacPherson hinged it all on. (She wasn't getting them ALL the time...)
As you can read, she was perhaps a mid-tribber, a "partial rapturist" at most.
The cornerstone of her speeches was that the church was going to live through
the tribulation- and it wasn't READY.
Can you find some OTHER quote of hers that MacPherson says is related to
pre-trib- that actually IS pre-trib?
It's a waste of time to argue who said what and when, as it is a waste of time arguing about whether an author did or didn't do or say something.
(snip)
Does this mean you've reconsidered this, and are now going to dig through MacPherson's stuff?
I've read other authors who have read her other comments-but THAT one was the most famous-
that was "THE vision" MacPherson hinged it all on. (She wasn't getting them ALL the time...)
As you can read, she was perhaps a mid-tribber, a "partial rapturist" at most.
The cornerstone of her speeches was that the church was going to live through
the tribulation- and it wasn't READY.
Can you find some OTHER quote of hers that MacPherson says is related to
pre-trib- that actually IS pre-trib?
Does this mean you've reconsidered this, and are now going to dig through MacPherson's stuff?
I don't really have time right now, although at some point I wouldn't mind looking into it. Since you were so positive that what MacPherson writes is misinformation, I was wondering if you based it on other things besides that quote.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
17
5
5
Popular Days
Jan 26
13
Jan 19
6
Mar 29
5
Jan 16
5
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 7 posts
Mark Clarke 17 posts
waysider 5 posts
JeffSjo 5 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2009
13 posts
Jan 19 2009
6 posts
Mar 29 2009
5 posts
Jan 16 2009
5 posts
waysider
Dr. WW
Your premise is interesting but has a philosophical, esoteric gist to it.
Nothing wrong with that. Maybe you want to start a thread that approaches it from that angle. Just a thought.
The ongoing discussion, on the other hand, is concerned more with examining the literal differences or similarities that can be derived from simply approaching it in a factual manner.
Kinda like the difference between "throughly" and '"thoroughly"
Wierwille try to give it an esoteric spin by saying one was more precise , complete and deeper than the other.
In reality, both words mean exactly the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Zero as a digit 0 + 1 = 2
Zero as a value 0 + 1 = 1
:)
In other words, the kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God are the same when considered as digits but they differ when considered as values.
(I have a cross-dressing Unitarian pastor friend who has a seemingly natural aversion to the word "kingdom"… I find that interesting... Not unlike a friend of mind who thinks depictions of the crucifixion put off the "devil spirits" of "heavy and gloomy."
Who knows "The Way" anymore"?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
No matter how you define the terms, any philosophical premise that speaks of a difference or distinction between "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" must then explain why they are used synonymously and interchangeably in the Gospels. The point I am making in this thread is really that simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm just poking my head in here for a sec, Mark.
Couldn't one be a sub-set of the other? You know, like when we did those math problems where a circle was inside another circle. The characteristics of the smaller circle would be included in the larger, but not all the characteristics of the larger would be in the smaller circle.
Just an idea I'm tossing out....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think Mark's point is that both circles have equal radii and a common center.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I am saying the KOH and KOG are perceived synonymously when they are perceived as digits. With Christ present that may have been the “God with us” fulfillment.
So it is a parable again, to be understood, to know the KOH and KOG’s intrinsic and variant meaning when perceived as values also.
It is just a possible perspective I thought I might mention.
Under the same logic Jesus is God (as are we) when perceived as digits but we are not God when perceived as values.
God is not a respecter of persons when God perceives us spiritually, but God is a respecter of person when God perceives us though the filter of our own intrinsic knowledge and value for the truth. (spirit [digits] of truth [value])
So as digits we are saved by the spirit but as values we are freed by the truth. (standing/state)
We are saved as digits by the creator and we are saved as values by the part of the creator who relates to creation.
The parable of logical reason concerning the KOH and KOG produces two different answers which are equally the truth.
Maybe God made it simple on purpose just to make it more difficult.
John Deere 99:100 The ergonomic word of God fits like a lawn mower seat to a derriere. :)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
If we're going to consider the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven, we have to go back and look at where the idea came from:
"12 And when thy [David's] days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
"13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever.
"14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
"15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
"16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever."
II Samuel 7:12-12
Everyone recognized that these words found partial fulfillment in the reign of Solomon, but they were also certain that fulfillment was ONLY partial, and they looked forward to a descendent of David whose throne WOULD be established forever.
"Kingdom of God" doesn't mean "the kingdom that belongs to God" in the sense of "God's rule in our hearts". It means "the kingdom that comes from God", "the kingdom God promised".
I hope this helps clear up our thinking.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
DrWearWord - Do you mean to say that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" can mean the same thing, or different things, depending on whatever meaning we attach to them? Aren't you concerned with the meaning that the authors of Matthew and the other gospels attached to them?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
How do you account for Luke 18,
"18 ... what shall I do to inherit eternal life ["zoen aionion" = "life of the age"]..."
"29 And he [Jesus] said to them [his followers], Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the Kingdom of God's sake,
"30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world ["aion" = "age"] to come, life everlasting ["zoen aionion" = "life of the age"]."
"Aionios" ("aionion" is a form of "aionios") is the only word translated "eternal" in the New Testament except for Ephesians 3:11 and I Timothy 1:17, where the word is "aion" = "age" plural, and Romans 1:20 where the word is "aidios" or "perpetual". "Aionios" is also the only word in the New Testament translated "everlasting", except for Jude 6, which is also "aidios" or "perpetual", as in Romans 1:20.
Are we to infer different meanings for the word 'aionios" when it refers to God and when it refers to human beings? If so, that would not be "exegesis" (reading the meanings OUT from what is written), which Wierwille preached, but rather it would be "eisegesis" (reading foreign meanings INTO what is written), which is what Wierwille practiced.
To say that the Kingdom of God is "eternal" while the Kingdom of Heaven is "everlasting" is to base our theology on an artificial distinction, written into the KJV by its translators, and propagated by Wierwille.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
So if not all the characteristics of the larger would be in the smaller circle, then they are not interchangeable. But when you see how both phrases are used, they are obviously referring to the same thing. Besides, there are references to the Kingdom of God being "nigh" or "near." This can't be talking about simply the overall reign of God. Steve gives a good explanation of how the term is used.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
From the snowstorm thread:
So please demonstrate what methods you use to determine that Wierwille was right when he said the KOG is over all but the KOH is defined by the personal presence of the King on earth, when a simple reading of the verses shows that the two phrases are synonymous and used interchangeably.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I like this thread Mark.
I'm sorry that the ones who hold onto the TWI version of "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" won't take you up on the offer to rework the issue.
My view of these things developed from TWI views to views that resemble yours very closely. I know that saying that is no more a guarantee of truth than anything else, but I find it encouraging nevertheless.
You are being fair and patient.
I do find it discouraging when folks who've come from a supposed research ministry can't seem to prove the validity of their opinions past saying...... just because! This is where ex-wayfers sometimes reveal how they were susceptible to TWI style manipulation. And TWI leaders sure were willing to impress people with their style (Self- assuredness mixed with whatever intimidation that circumstances would allow IMO) instead of substance.
It takes substance to re-work something honestly.
(a little added for clarity)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
When I consider what was taught in PFAL in terms of method, one of the very most important things is the discipline of looking at the scriptures without any preconcieved ideas and letting them speak for themself.
I do recognize the human condition such that this is an almost impossible task. Preconcieved ideas rule most of our thinking after all.
But when the stance that is taken that someone else HAS TO DISPROVE A DOCTRINE THAT IS NOT PLAINLY STATED IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT; IMO this logic tends to only perpetuate error.
When someone notes that the scripture doesn't plainly state a doctrine and then decides to re-examine this non-scriptural doctrine it is IMO a much healthier stance.
It doesn't take a freakin Einstein to see that the two phrases in question in this thread are used interchangeably.
It does take a wise person to see that what they believe is without scriptural credence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven can be summed up in one word.
Nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Realizing that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are synonymous is just the beginning. The whole definition of Kingdom of God was completely missed in TWI, but is also missed in many other mainstream churches. More and more people, however are starting to get it. For an excellent video presentation on this, click on the following link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=85...96916&hl=en
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
The following is from the thread about VF's Living Hope church. I am addressing it here to avoid getting into a doctrinal debate in that thread.
Actually, he said he didn't know when he would return. And in several of his parables he described a period of time of undetermined length before the Kingdom was established on earth. The idea that he thought he was going to be coming within his generation is based on misunderstanding a couple of passages. The one where he said that some standing there would not die before they saw the Kingdom was referring to the fact they would see a vision of his coming in what we know as the Transfiguration (as Peter refers to in his epistle).
The other couple of verses that mention "this generation" are most likely using the word "generation" in a different way, that is, not referring to a period of time so much as the moral character of this evil age. See this article for further dtails.
We are certainly expected to live according to new standards which Jesus gave us. But it is not living "as though it had already arrived" since when it arrives we will be ruling with Christ over the nations, while in this life we will be persecuted and downtrodden at times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
"Kingdom of haven" and "kingdom of God" are synonymous, as the excellent Biblical study above (post 2) shows in great detail.
The reason Matthew used "heaven" is because he was writing primarily to Jews, who avoided using the Name of God so that they would not break the command on not misusing his name. They did other things to avoid this also, such as saying "The Name" where one would normally use YHWH or Adonai.
The story of the origin of the pretrib rapture stemming from a 16 year old girl in Scotland and JN Darby is accurate.
Check out the book "The Incredible Coverup" by MacPherson. (I've also seen it, or a version of it, under the name "The Unbelievable PreTrib Origin.") Amazon lists it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Dave McPherson is a VERY sick man.
He has made it his life's work to attack the pre-tribulation position.
That's his decision, of course- but he has chosen to do so by stooping to every dirty trick
he could think of, including things like claiming deathbed recantations by
pre-tribulationists, and making things up out of whole cloth when they weren't true.
Did you know he blames his Dad's poor health at one time on pre-tribulation?
Margaret Mc Donald was a POST-Tribber who believed the church was going to live through
the Tribulation SOON- and was NOT ready for it. That's the essence of what she said when
she was at meetings and so on.
Here's the vision that McPherson claimed was the origin of the pre-tribulation position.
See if you can FIND the pre-tribulation position anywhere IN it!
===================================
"It was first the awful state of the land that was pressed upon me. I saw the blindness and infatuation of the people to be very great. I felt the cry of Liberty just to be the hiss of the serpent, to drown them in perdition. It was just 'no God.' I repeated the words, Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear. Now look out for the sign of the Son of Man. Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of Man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is. I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory. I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people. Many passages were revealed, in a light in which I had not before seen them. I repeated, 'Now is the kingdom of Heaven like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom, five wise and five foolish; they that were foolish took their lamps, but took no oil with them; but they that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.' 'But be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is; and be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.' This was the oil the wise virgins took in their vessels - this is the light to be kept burning - the light of God - that we may discern that which cometh not with observation to the natural eye. Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance. No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. 'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air. I saw that we must be in the Spirit, that we might see spiritual things. John was in the Spirit, when he saw a throne set in Heaven. But I saw that the glory of the ministration of the Spirit had not been known. I repeated frequently, but the spiritual temple must and shall be reared, and the fullness of Christ be poured into his body, and then shall we be caught up to meet him. Oh none will be counted worthy of this calling but his body, which is the church, and which must be a candlestick all of gold. I often said, Oh the glorious inbreaking of God which is now about to burst on this earth; Oh the glorious temple which is now about to be reared, the bride adorned for her husband; and Oh what a holy, holy bride she must he, to be prepared for such a glorious bridegroom. I said, Now shall the people of God have to do with realities - now shall the glorious mystery of God in our nature be known - now shall it be known what it is for man to be glorified. I felt that the revelation of Jesus Christ had yet to be opened up - it is not knowledge about God that it contains, but it is an entering into God - I saw that there was a glorious breaking in of God to be. I felt as Elijah, surrounded with chariots of fire. I saw as it were, the spiritual temple reared, and the Head Stone brought forth with shoutings of grace, grace, unto it. It was a glorious light above the brightness of the sun that shone round about me. I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that it it were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold.
I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth, and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive - for it is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness he will work - he will have a counterpart for every part of God's truth, and an imitation for every work of the Spirit. The Spirit must and will be poured out on the church, that she may be purified and filled with God - and just in proportion as the Spirit of God works, so will he - when our Lord anoints men with power, so will he. This is particularly the nature of the trial, through which those are to pass who will be counted worthy to stand before the Son of man. There will he outward trial too, but 'tis principally temptation. It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out. The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept. I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within -be clay in the hands of the potter -submit to be filled, filled with God. This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb. I saw it to be the will of God that all should be filled. But what hindered the real life of God from being received by his people, was their turning from Jesus, who is the way to the Father. They were not entering in by the door. For he is faithful who hath said, by me if any man enters in he shall find pasture. They were bypassing the cross, through which every drop of the Spirit of God flows to us. All power that comes not through the blood of Christ is not of God.
When I say, they are looking from the cross, I feel that there is much in it - they turn from the blood of the Lamb, by which we overcome, and in which our robes are washed and made white. There are low views of God's holiness, and a ceasing to condemn sin in the flesh, and a looking from him who humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation. Oh! it is needed, much needed at present, a leading back to the cross. I saw that night, and often since, that there will be an outpouring of the Spirit on the body, such as has not been, a baptism of fire, that all the dross may be put away. Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been - the servants of God sealed in their foreheads - great conformity to Jesus - his holy holy image seen in his people - just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her. This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. Amen and Amen Even so come Lord Jesus.''
=======================================
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
It's a waste of time to argue who said what and when, as it is a waste of time arguing about whether an author did or didn't do or say something. I prefer to stick to what they wrote and determine if it fits with the Bible or not. Personal likes and dislikes for the writers aside, there are a number of books besides McPherson's exposing the fallacy of the pre-trib rapture. George Ladd's The Blessed Hope is one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's certainly a separate issue and a distraction, but if someone's spreading MISinformation, I prefer to put
a stop to it.
If you want to be a mid-tribber, a post-tribber, an amillenianist, an atheist, agnostic, or something else,
that's your choice and I won't lose sleep over it. If you're going to make an "argument" for your position,
however, please don't make stuff up or spread MISinformation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
WordWolf,
I haven't read MacPherson's book, but I've heard others refer to the supposed origins of a pre-trib rapture, and I'm sure there is more to it than that one quote you posted. What other sources have you read that convince you that what MacPherson said was misinformation?
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I've read other authors who have read her other comments-but THAT one was the most famous-
that was "THE vision" MacPherson hinged it all on. (She wasn't getting them ALL the time...)
As you can read, she was perhaps a mid-tribber, a "partial rapturist" at most.
The cornerstone of her speeches was that the church was going to live through
the tribulation- and it wasn't READY.
Can you find some OTHER quote of hers that MacPherson says is related to
pre-trib- that actually IS pre-trib?
Does this mean you've reconsidered this, and are now going to dig through MacPherson's stuff?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I don't really have time right now, although at some point I wouldn't mind looking into it. Since you were so positive that what MacPherson writes is misinformation, I was wondering if you based it on other things besides that quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
you all having fun yet?
there's at least a million things to consider
if you want to try and figure it out on paper
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+kingdom+of+Go...ngdom+of+heaven
Thanks for the tip RottieGrrrl, very cool.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.