Kingdom of God vs. Kingdom of Heaven

[WordWolf]

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.

So far, I've run across that "vision" a number of places, but no others.

I'm inclined to believe sources who say MacPherson's claims concerning McDonald,

at least, are entirely manufactured by MacPherson.

(BTW, I was incorrect when I mentioned Darby. It's true he didn't get

his positions from MacDonald at all.)

[Mark Clarke]

So far, I've run across that "vision" a number of places, but no others.

I'm inclined to believe sources who say MacPherson's claims concerning McDonald,

at least, are entirely manufactured by MacPherson.

(BTW, I was incorrect when I mentioned Darby. It's true he didn't get

his positions from MacDonald at all.)

This is why it's so often fruitless to go on "so-and-so said so" evidence. The next logical question would then be, "What sources say MacPherson's claims are manufactured, and how do they know?" And then, "Why are you inclined to believe it?" It gets very speculative, IMO.

[WordWolf]

This is why it's so often fruitless to go on "so-and-so said so" evidence. The next logical question would then be, "What sources say MacPherson's claims are manufactured, and how do they know?" And then, "Why are you inclined to believe it?" It gets very speculative, IMO.

Ah, no, burden of proof is in the other direction.

I produced the text of her supposed "vision."

MacPherson claims her "vision" pushes a pretrib position.

Rather than saying I have to prove there NONexistence of any further

NONexistent visions,

formal logic says MacPherson (or his proxy) has to present some proof

of ANY vision with a pre-Trib position on her part.

I don't HAVE to prove a NEGATIVE.

(Prove the NONexistence of something? Come on, Mark...)

[DrWearWord]

I have been reading little snippets of this discussion every morning with my decaf. This discussion has a slightly misleading element, for, it is only one thin shade away from another discussion. Is Jesus Christ God?

I was raised by "the way" for many years believing that if I had the slightest doubt that Jesus was not God then I was in deep spiritual trouble. So I created a wall of separation between Trinitarian ideas and the idea that Jesus was merely the son of God and could never assume the authority, position and place of the actual God of all creation.

I have since become more inclined to believe that not only is/was Jesus God but so are we. WHAT CONVINCED ME?

The Answer: ZERO. Zero is a unit of measurement with no value. (like angels on the head of a pin)

So if theoretically before the beginning there was zero, then, what is the kingdom of God but an illusive place of nothingness. “darkness upon the face of the deep”

Jesus said, “in my fathers house are many mansions“. This would seem like that the kingdom of God was a place distinctly independent from the kingdom of Christ’s own destiny. Then one considers that Jesus is called the King of Kings. So is Jesus the King of God also? How could that be? The Bible calls Jesus “the only begotten son of God“. This might imply that Jesus was also entitled to the inheritance of these mansions once God “died”. Do not sons/kings inherit their dead fathers thrones? Why all this talk of being heirs of God if God will forever be around to rule us? Why a new testament if the kingdom of God was resolute with the old testament God being the “only God“? Why introduce a son, is not God‘s kingdom eternal? Jesus thought it “not robbery to be equal to God“. How can a son equal his father are they not two different persons? Was Seth Adam?

This all really comes down to a certain prevailing axiom (mathematical equation or truth) that is throughout the entire Bible, written, always in mystical occultist thought. That two things together can become one. That light is spoken into being within darkness and that heaven and earth together become reality. That good and evil become reason. Male and female become procreation and the love of two become one flesh. And the logic goes on and on and pervades nearly every scripture in the Bible. If the Bible was doctored to represent this axiom well it would have needed to have been doctored all the way back to Genesis. So Jesus and God become one ruler.

Jesus as God is the King of Kings just as we are. We see though glass darkly but then face to face. What glass do we see though? Well it is a crystal ball… Shaped as a sphere (Zero) this glass represents nothingness considering the glass is clear. Out of nothing comes our own true self as we really are. Like a black and white checkerboard together these two shades once seen on the horizon become gray. For life which is black or white is divided and truth is not black and white but requires the heart and spirit to rightly divide the truth into perfect understanding.

So the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of heaven are two different places but they are joined together 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0 That is the mystery of the trinity. Within an egg is both the white and the yolk and together with the shell they are one. Oneness in zero.

Edited March 29, 2009 by DrWearWord

[Mark Clarke]

Ah, no, burden of proof is in the other direction.

I produced the text of her supposed "vision."

MacPherson claims her "vision" pushes a pretrib position.

Rather than saying I have to prove there NONexistence of any further

NONexistent visions,

formal logic says MacPherson (or his proxy) has to present some proof

of ANY vision with a pre-Trib position on her part.

I don't HAVE to prove a NEGATIVE.

(Prove the NONexistence of something? Come on, Mark...)

Actually, I didn't say you had to prove anything. I asked WHO - what sources - say that MacPherson's claims are manufactured, and how do they know? I ask this out of curiosity, as someone who knows practically nothing about what MacPherson claims.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[WordWolf]

Actually, I didn't say you had to prove anything. I asked WHO - what sources - say that MacPherson's claims are manufactured, and how do they know? I ask this out of curiosity, as someone who knows practically nothing about what MacPherson claims.

His main claim (other than doctrinal differences) is that the origin of the pre-Trib position is a "vision" of McDonald,

which she pushed, and then Darby met her, was convinced about it, and ran with it.

Darby was teaching it before meeting her, if the years are correct, however.

And it would be very difficult for a doctrine to originate in a "vision" that neither mentioned nor suggested it.

I posted the account of the "vision." AFAIK, there's only the one "vision" from McDonald.

Therefore, if someone (MacPherson) is claiming something is mentioned in "a vision" from McDonald, it would have to

be THAT "vision" or none at all.

Since a read of that "vision" doesn't turn up any "pre-Trib" ANYTHING, MacPherson made that up,

and completely manufactured the claim that McDonald's "vision" (which has nothing to do with it)

originated it.

Far as I'm concerned, he can be a post-Tribber all he wants, and even hate pre-Trib theology,

but I draw the line at making stuff up to support your position.

It's unacceptable no matter who's doing it.

In case you're wondering, if you feel inclined, you can prowl cyberspace for sites that attack the

pre-Trib position. Most (if not all) will claim the pre-Trib position originated with McDonald's "vision".

Their source for that is MacPherson, who's spread that particular fiction far and wide.