DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on October 05, 2011, 12:32:09 PM
-
I hate to bring this up AGAIN, but after reading through Mat-John, I really get the idea that the kingdom is this literal political thing that's supposed to dominate other nations. I wanted to bring this up here on DTF to get as many perspectives as I can on this (secular and religious). I know that even among Christian posters here, there is disagreement as to what the "kingdom" is. So...I'll post more when I get my thoughts together, but I wanted to make the thread now. :biggrin:
So...what do you people think it is? (And just as important, why?)
-
No time for a full response right now, but here are a few passages from the gospels for your consideration:
Luke 17:20-21:
20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’[a] For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
Point: The kingdom is not a physical thing, but is something within us. (See also Romans 14:17)
John 6:15: 15 Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone.
Point: Jesus did not let the people make him a physical king in this world.
John 18:35-17: 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?”
36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”
Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
Point: Jesus did not come to be a physical king of a physical kingdom on this earth.
Col 1:13:
He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love
Point: Paul says that people are already in the kingdom by the time he writes Colossians, so it existed at that time.
-
I hate to bring this up AGAIN, but after reading through Mat-John, I really get the idea that the kingdom is this literal political thing that's supposed to dominate other nations. I wanted to bring this up here on DTF to get as many perspectives as I can on this (secular and religious). I know that even among Christian posters here, there is disagreement as to what the "kingdom" is. So...I'll post more when I get my thoughts together, but I wanted to make the thread now. :biggrin:
So...what do you people think it is? (And just as important, why?)
Sounds a lot like the traditional perception of China.
-
Bosk, I don't that's enough evidence for something that is arguably one of the central tenets of Christianity. I mean...Matthew doesn't have any of those claims, and I don't think that Mark or John do (could be wrong). So...placing yourself in the ancient world, where you didn't have access to all the NT canon (if it was even written), I don't think anyone could really come to the conclusion that the kingdom is an "in-your-heart" thing.
-
Bosk, I don't that's enough evidence for something that is arguably one of the central tenets of Christianity. I mean...Matthew doesn't have any of those claims, and I don't think that Mark or John do (could be wrong). So...placing yourself in the ancient world, where you didn't have access to all the NT canon (if it was even written), I don't think anyone could really come to the conclusion that the kingdom is an "in-your-heart" thing.
How is that not enough evidence when Jesus specifically says in at least three separate passages in two separate gospels that the kingdom is not a physical kingdom (not to mention that Paul refers to it several times in the present and past tenses, rather than in future tense)? And why do you think people would read Matthew and Mark for the purpose of understanding whether the kingdom of God was physical or spiritual? That isn't the point of the gospels. The point of each of the gospels essentially boils down to convincing the reader that Jesus was the son of God, not whether the kingdom is spiritual vs. physical. Even by the time the epistles were written, there were lots of doctrinal errors floating around about things that aren't addressed in the gospels, such as whether the resurrection had already happened and people missed it. Important topic? Absolutely. But not one that the gospels were designed to address head on. You wouldn't really read Matthew or Mark in isolation to the exclusion of other texts to try to understand what the kingdom is any more than a Jew would read Deuteronomy in isolation to the exclusion of Exodus to understand what the passover was all about.
-
One can certainly find passages that vague-ify the notion of the Kingdom, but I think the overwhelming portrayal in the synoptic gospels is that the Kingdom was indeed what the Jews were awaiting (and their scripture had prophesied), a political/geographic entity ruled by the Messiah. As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence", and I think the notion that Jesus, a Jewish prophet after all, would talk about something utterly different than what his target audience was raised to believe in, is nowhere near enough supported by the spurious passages that get used to justify orthodox Christian interpretation.
rumborak
-
One can certainly find passages that vague-ify the notion of the Kingdom, but I think the overwhelming portrayal in the synoptic gospels is that the Kingdom was indeed what the Jews were awaiting (and their scripture had prophesied), a political/geographic entity ruled by the Messiah. As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence", and I think the notion that Jesus, a Jewish prophet after all, would talk about something utterly different than what his target audience was raised to believe in, is nowhere near enough supported by the spurious passages that get used to justify orthodox Christian interpretation.
rumborak
Oh, I do. In fact, I think that the point of the whole thing is that he preached something entirely different from what they were expecting. That's why he didn't win over the vast majority of the Jewish populace.
-
One can certainly find passages that vague-ify the notion of the Kingdom, but I think the overwhelming portrayal in the synoptic gospels is that the Kingdom was indeed what the Jews were awaiting (and their scripture had prophesied), a political/geographic entity ruled by the Messiah. As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence", and I think the notion that Jesus, a Jewish prophet after all, would talk about something utterly different than what his target audience was raised to believe in, is nowhere near enough supported by the spurious passages that get used to justify orthodox Christian interpretation.
rumborak
Oh, I do. In fact, I think that the point of the whole thing is that he preached something entirely different from what they were expecting. That's why he didn't win over the vast majority of the Jewish populace.
There's a very interesting apologetic in there if one looks closely enough, but that's another matter altogether.
-
Still thinking about it...is it possible that there are two different meanings of the word "kingdom" in the NT? As in...the kingdom is here today in the sense that we can acquire citizenship of it, but it has not physically arrived yet? Sorta like becoming a citizen of a country before actually going to the country.
-
Since you have opened discussion to the entire new testament, there is a clear dichotomy between the now and the not yet. Looking exhuastively at all the references manifests both a present and future picture
-
It's been a while since I did a kingdom study, but it seems as if the word translated as "kingdom" is better translated as "kingness" or "reign" - it doesn't refer to a place or location, but the state of being reigned by God. But "kingdom" of God sounds better.
Also, in the gospels, it seems apparent that whenever Jesus is discussing the kingdom, he is talking about here below, not heaven, and a here-right-now-but-not-complete-yet state of being.
At least that's what I remember. Curse you, memory!
-
The way I read that is that it is the kingdom of heaven on earth. As in, it's the kingdom belonging to heaven, not the kingdom in heaven. Like, the thirteen colonies were British, but weren't in Britain.
That's also why the kingdom is not of this world. It's of heaven. But there's no reason that means it's not physical.
-
Like Ravenloft being part of the Forgotten Realms but not really.
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
Because if it were apart of our universe it could eventually be proven false. And the makers of the stories don't want that, so they make it as such that it is impossible to falsify.
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
Because if it were apart of our universe it could eventually be proven false. And the makers of the stories don't want that, so they make it as such that it is impossible to falsify.
The "makers of the stories" didn't write it that way, though. They wrote it as if heaven was an actual geographic location.
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
Because if it were apart of our universe it could eventually be proven false. And the makers of the stories don't want that, so they make it as such that it is impossible to falsify.
The "makers of the stories" didn't write it that way, though. They wrote it as if heaven was an actual geographic location.
Then it has been falsified.
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
Because if it were apart of our universe it could eventually be proven false. And the makers of the stories don't want that, so they make it as such that it is impossible to falsify.
You know, there are other sources for commentary on religion besides Skeptical Inquirer.
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
Because if it were apart of our universe it could eventually be proven false. And the makers of the stories don't want that, so they make it as such that it is impossible to falsify.
You know, there are other sources for commentary on religion besides Skeptical Inquirer.
I've never read it :lol
-
Oh, I do. In fact, I think that the point of the whole thing is that he preached something entirely different from what they were expecting.
How much is that notion borne out by the gospels though? Jesus explicitly said he didn't come to replace the Law, and the disciples referred to him as the Messiah. The notion of the Jewish Messiah is a very specific one, so I would think they wouldn't have referred to him as Messiah had they not thought of him as this flesh-and-bones ruler of the Jewish people.
IMHO, Jesus told them exactly what they had been raised with: That the rule of God under the Messiah would come. Jesus' "twist" was that it would come soon ("this generation will not pass")
That's why he didn't win over the vast majority of the Jewish populace.
My take on it is that the same happened as with the Camping guy recently: He too foresaw an imminent upheaval that would fulfill the old prophesies (in Camping's case Jesus' second coming, in Jesus' case the coming of the Messiah). The reason why Camping didn't have that many followers is the same as why Jesus didn't have them. People just didn't think the big upheaval was going to happen.
rumborak
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
Because if it were apart of our universe it could eventually be proven false. And the makers of the stories don't want that, so they make it as such that it is impossible to falsify.
You know, there are other sources for commentary on religion besides Skeptical Inquirer.
I've never read it :lol
I was sure you did. Your view of the Gospel writers sounds as if it were lifted out of a "skepticism for dummies" publication. It's like the Gospel writers were trying to sneak something by us, but thanks to your detective work they failed.
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
Because if it were apart of our universe it could eventually be proven false. And the makers of the stories don't want that, so they make it as such that it is impossible to falsify.
You know, there are other sources for commentary on religion besides Skeptical Inquirer.
I've never read it :lol
I was sure you did. Your view of the Gospel writers sounds as if it were lifted out of a "skepticism for dummies" publication. It's like the Gospel writers were trying to sneak something by us, but thanks to your detective work they failed.
Whether they were intentionally dishonest or just tried to rationalize it into existence. They sure did a good job at being as elusive as possible so not be questioned.
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
Because if it were apart of our universe it could eventually be proven false. And the makers of the stories don't want that, so they make it as such that it is impossible to falsify.
You know, there are other sources for commentary on religion besides Skeptical Inquirer.
I've never read it :lol
I was sure you did. Your view of the Gospel writers sounds as if it were lifted out of a "skepticism for dummies" publication. It's like the Gospel writers were trying to sneak something by us, but thanks to your detective work they failed.
Whether they were intentionally dishonest or just tried to rationalize it into existence. They sure did a good job at being as elusive as possible so not be questioned.
No, not really. And a little reading would dispel such a notion.
-
But really, why does heaven have to be something metaphysical, mystical, other-dimensional, or purely spiritual? I don't see any reason why heaven isn't or can't be a part of our universe.
Perfect! I'm up for a little reading. If you have something in mind please let me know. Obviously you will say the bible but I'm not about to read all 1400+ pages to understand what I'm getting wrong. If there are specific chapters etc.. You have in mind great.
Because if it were apart of our universe it could eventually be proven false. And the makers of the stories don't want that, so they make it as such that it is impossible to falsify.
You know, there are other sources for commentary on religion besides Skeptical Inquirer.
I've never read it :lol
I was sure you did. Your view of the Gospel writers sounds as if it were lifted out of a "skepticism for dummies" publication. It's like the Gospel writers were trying to sneak something by us, but thanks to your detective work they failed.
Whether they were intentionally dishonest or just tried to rationalize it into existence. They sure did a good job at being as elusive as possible so not be questioned.
No, not really. And a little reading would dispel such a notion.
-
I just stumbled across a related chapter in a book I'm reading, and I thought sharing some of it could be useful.
One can certainly find passages that vague-ify the notion of the Kingdom, but I think the overwhelming portrayal in the synoptic gospels is that the Kingdom was indeed what the Jews were awaiting (and their scripture had prophesied), a political/geographic entity ruled by the Messiah. As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence", and I think the notion that Jesus, a Jewish prophet after all, would talk about something utterly different than what his target audience was raised to believe in, is nowhere near enough supported by the spurious passages that get used to justify orthodox Christian interpretation.
rumborak
First, there's no doubt about what Jesus' followers and indeed most Jews had in mind when they thought about the kingdom of God. But Jesus not once mentions the restoration of David's Kingdom. Similarly, there's no mention of the liberation of the oppressed subjects under Roman rule, as the Jews probably expected based on verses like Isaiah 61:1. Jesus refers to that passage in his response John the Baptist in Luke 7, but he does not suggest that he is a political or military figure.
To follow up on Bosk's point that the Kingdom is not physical, Jesus said that he had come to inaugurate this kingdom and that it was not fully realized. This is according to NT scholar F.F. Bruce.
At present the Kingdom of God, and Jesus himself, were beset by limitations. One day these limitations would be removed. 'But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! (Luke 12:50) That this baptism was his death is clear enough from the terms in which he once asked his disciples...if they were able to drink his cup or be baptized with his baptism (Mark 10:38). His death would be the means of unleashing the powers of the Kingdom of God and of bringing liberation and blessing to many more than could be touched by his current ministry..."
There's much more, but let's see if anyone bites.
-
First, there's no doubt about what Jesus' followers and indeed most Jews had in mind when they thought about the kingdom of God. But Jesus not once mentions the restoration of David's Kingdom.
I think it was implicit, since that's what the prophesies said it was going to be.
Jesus was considered to be a direct descendant of David, and he was said to sit to the right of God in the new Kingdom. Without sufficient evidence that Jesus considered this *something different*, the assumption should be everybody (including Jesus) was expecting something very similar to the Jewish prophesies. Keep in mind that most gospels were written for a Jewish audience; any difference to Jewish prophecy would, one would expect, be spelled out *clearly* by the author to avoid any kind of confusion on the part of the listener. The fact that there isn't means the Jewish prophecies remain intact.
Similarly, there's no mention of the liberation of the oppressed subjects under Roman rule, as the Jews probably expected based on verses like Isaiah 61:1. Jesus refers to that passage in his response John the Baptist in Luke 7, but he does not suggest that he is a political or military figure.
Jesus foretells a major upheaval ("no stone will be left unturned") all in the near future. I agree that he didn't see himself as a political or military figure, it seemed he rather expected this upheaval to be initiated by God himself.
That this baptism was his death is clear enough from the terms in which he once asked his disciples...if they were able to drink his cup or be baptized with his baptism (Mark 10:38).
Interpreting Mark 10:38 that way is IMHO once again "creative reading". Look at the whole passage:
35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." 36And he said to them, "What do you want me to do for you?" 37And they said to him, "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory." 38Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" 39And they said to him, "We are able." And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." 41And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[d] 44and whoever would be first among you must be slave[e] of all. 45For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
This passage is clearly another example of "the first will be last, the last will be first" Jesus had pointed out elsewhere. James and John essentially want a "prime spot" in the Kingdom due to them being disciples, and Jesus reprimands them for asking that. But, interestingly, he goes on to say "ok, you asked for it, so you *are* baptized like I am baptized" (10:19). This clearly doesn't refer to death since James and John don't die with Jesus but live long after. It's an orthodox attempt to have Jesus foresee his own crucifixion, but scripturally it just doesn't hold up.
rumborak
-
Oh, I do. In fact, I think that the point of the whole thing is that he preached something entirely different from what they were expecting.
How much is that notion borne out by the gospels though?
It's borne out completely by the gospels. The Jews had one expectation of the coming Kingdom and Jesus preached something entirely different.
Luke 17:20 & 21 Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
And then all of Jesus' parables of the Kingdom, along with his other teachings, point to something vastly different than what the Jews had in mind.
Also, your mention of the "no stone left on another" has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. It has nothing to do with anything of God, kingdom or otherwise.
-
That it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem is orthodox, i.e. traditional interpretation, but I personally find that very unlikely. The Romans didn't sack Jerusalem until much later (i.e. 40 years later), which doesn't work at all with Jesus' statement of "none of you here will have tasted death before these things come to pass". And I don't see why Jesus would randomly talk about a military defeat in the future that has no bearing on anything else he talked about. In my opinion he talked about the end of times, and indeed Mark 13 is called that ("The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times").
I will concede however your point about Luke 17:20 & 21, and I personally am always somewhat stumped by that passage, because it doesn't jibe with the rest of Jesus' message, in my opinion. I am left wondering whether this was a gnostic influence that was added later.
rumborak
-
That it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem is orthodox, i.e. traditional interpretation, but I personally find that very unlikely. The Romans didn't sack Jerusalem until much later (i.e. 40 years later), which doesn't work at all with Jesus' statement of "none of you here will have tasted death before these things come to pass".
I will concede however your point about Luke 17:20 & 21, and I personally am always somewhat stumped by that passage, because it doesn't jibe with the rest of Jesus' message, in my opinion. I am left wondering whether this was a gnostic influence that was added later.
rumborak
I think you are misreading his message then, because it is fairly obvious from the depictions of his message in all four gospels and all the other early Christian writings that his role was not in any way what the Jews were expecting.
And he didn't say that "none" of you will taste death. He said "some". And it is certainly possible that some of those people would still have been alive 40 years later.
However, remember that the gospels weren't written until after the destruction of Jerusalem. Most critical scholars feel that the reference to that destruction was retrojected into Jesus's "prophecy" of 40 years before.
-
That it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem is orthodox, i.e. traditional interpretation, but I personally find that very unlikely. The Romans didn't sack Jerusalem until much later (i.e. 40 years later), which doesn't work at all with Jesus' statement of "none of you here will have tasted death before these things come to pass".
I will concede however your point about Luke 17:20 & 21, and I personally am always somewhat stumped by that passage, because it doesn't jibe with the rest of Jesus' message, in my opinion. I am left wondering whether this was a gnostic influence that was added later.
rumborak
I think you are misreading his message then, because it is fairly obvious from the depictions of his message in all four gospels and all the other early Christian writings that his role was not in any way what the Jews were expecting.
I'm not saying he fit the bill perfectly in terms of fulfilling the Jewish prophecies. There were many discrepancies that needed to be ironed out or glossed over (e.g. that he was from Nazareth, not Bethlehem), but I think overall the disciples saw him as a "modified" Messiah, the one who would usher in the new Kingdom in their lifetime.
And he didn't say that "none" of you will taste death. He said "some". And it is certainly possible that some of those people would still have been alive 40 years later.
Sorry, yes, I was mixing it with the other statement of that the generation will not have passed before the things happen.
However, remember that the gospels weren't written until after the destruction of Jerusalem. Most critical scholars feel that the reference to that destruction was retrojected into Jesus's "prophecy" of 40 years before.
That's my point though. I think Jesus was referring to a very imminent upheaval, not one 40 years down the road that would have fairly little consequence.
rumborak
-
He was referring to an upheaval, just not a political/militaristic one for which the Jews were hoping. That kind of charismatic leader didn't appear until the mid-60s, when the revolt actually happened (and later under Simon Bar Kochba during the second Jewish revolution). If Jesus had declared THAT kind of kingdom, the revolution would have occurred during his lifetime, not 40 years later.
-
Well, I think that's what he prophesied, or at least something similar. That's why other apostles later like Paul were sitting there with bated breath, waiting for the upheaval to come.
rumborak
-
Well, I think that's what he prophesied, or at least something similar. That's why other apostles later like Paul were sitting there with bated breath, waiting for the upheaval to come.
rumborak
What they were waiting for was the apocalypse, not the rule of a Jewish Messiah.
-
I'm pretty sure (in my view) that the two were going to go together in their expectation. The apocalypse with God's judgment was going to usher in the new rule under God and the Messiah. The fact that Jesus unexpectedly died was then the source for the idea of the Second Coming, when Jesus (the Messiah) would return, judge the living and the dead and rule in the Kingdom of God from there on.
rumborak
-
I'm pretty sure (in my view) that the two were going to go together in their expectation. The apocalypse with God's judgment was going to usher in the new rule under God and the Messiah. The fact that Jesus unexpectedly died was then the source for the idea of the Second Coming, when Jesus (the Messiah) would return, judge the living and the dead and rule in the Kingdom of God from there on.
rumborak
But that isn't what the Kingdom of God means.
-
Why not?
Keep in mind that I make a distinction between what Jesus taught and what people like Paul taught, which I consider to be drastically different.
rumborak
-
I'm not talking about Paul in any way, shape, or form.
-
First, there's no doubt about what Jesus' followers and indeed most Jews had in mind when they thought about the kingdom of God. But Jesus not once mentions the restoration of David's Kingdom.
I think it was implicit, since that's what the prophesies said it was going to be.
Jesus was considered to be a direct descendant of David, and he was said to sit to the right of God in the new Kingdom. Without sufficient evidence that Jesus considered this *something different*, the assumption should be everybody (including Jesus) was expecting something very similar to the Jewish prophesies. Keep in mind that most gospels were written for a Jewish audience; any difference to Jewish prophecy would, one would expect, be spelled out *clearly* by the author to avoid any kind of confusion on the part of the listener. The fact that there isn't means the Jewish prophecies remain intact.
I think it was pretty clear. As I said, Jesus referenced the Old Testament when preaching about the Kingdom of God, but did so in a way that distinguished his role from what they expected his role to be.
It might also be useful to point out that the initial recipients of the Gospels would have been very familiar with the issue, so it wasn't necessary to put a plain-as-day verse in Luke exclaiming that "the Kingdom ain't no physical entity!" To be sure, that concept is evidenced in the text; it's just not written with the modern reader in mind.
Jesus foretells a major upheaval ("no stone will be left unturned") all in the near future. I agree that he didn't see himself as a political or military figure, it seemed he rather expected this upheaval to be initiated by God himself.
We went rounds on this several months back. As I recall, you refused to answer my arguments (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=21573.70). The subject is the destruction of the temple, not Armageddon.
Interpreting Mark 10:38 that way is IMHO once again "creative reading". Look at the whole passage:
Very well. Look at verses 44-45
35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." 36And he said to them, "What do you want me to do for you?" 37And they said to him, "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory." 38Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" 39And they said to him, "We are able." And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." 41And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[d] 44and whoever would be first among you must be slave[e] of all. 45For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
This passage is clearly another example of "the first will be last, the last will be first" Jesus had pointed out elsewhere. James and John essentially want a "prime spot" in the Kingdom due to them being disciples, and Jesus reprimands them for asking that. But, interestingly, he goes on to say "ok, you asked for it, so you *are* baptized like I am baptized" (10:19). This clearly doesn't refer to death since James and John don't die with Jesus but live long after. It's an orthodox attempt to have Jesus foresee his own crucifixion, but scripturally it just doesn't hold up.
rumborak
Why would they have to die with Jesus for the interpretation to remain valid? And I'd say it does refer to his death - notice that his question is clearly a reference to something that he must do. Notice also how Luke 12:50 follows up on this: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!"
-
We went rounds on this several months back. As I recall, you refused to answer my arguments (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=21573.70). The subject is the destruction of the temple, not Armageddon.
Puh-lease. I don't "refuse" to answer your arguments; I might not have quoted every single point of your posts, but that is something very different.
The "clairvoyance of the temple's destruction in 70AD" requires several skips of topic in the same passage, without sense, without announcement by Jesus. I don't believe that is the case; I am convinced he talks about the same thing all the way through. Simple as that.
"You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[d] 44and whoever would be first among you must be slave[e] of all. 45For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
I don't see this necessarily an allusion to death. He talks about his service to God, and that is something he does while he is *alive*, not when he is dead. In my view, "giving his life as a ransom" is meant as *dedicating* his life to serve God, because that's how he makes himself "the last", just as he asks his disciples to do. That's what the whole preceding stuff was about, to teach the disciples how to become great in the Kingdom of God. They wanted a shortcut, and he tells them there's only the hard way of dedicating your life. If Jesus suddenly started talking about his death as a way to become great in the Kingdom, it would defeat the whole purpose of his teaching, because it's something none of the disciples could follow him with.
In general, when it comes to orthodox interpretation, I find that there is quite little value put on an interpretation that produces a consistent message of Jesus. Instead, passages get shredded into subparts that allow the orthodox theology to work.
Why would they have to die with Jesus for the interpretation to remain valid? And I'd say it does refer to his death - notice that his question is clearly a reference to something that he must do. Notice also how Luke 12:50 follows up on this: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!"
Lol, and that's where you choose to end your reading. It goes on to say
Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
The distress isn't his death; it's the division he must sow for his mission on Earth.
To elaborate more, I don't think Jesus' death had any significance, and it certainly wasn't in Jesus' "plan" to die. The orthodox attempt to retroject his death into his "grand mission on Earth" is stretched. His teachings talk about the here and now and one's personal lifestyle in preparation for the upheaval. That's what his teachings focus on massively in the gospels. He never says "I need to die for this or that reason", that's all stretched reasoning after the uncomfortable fact that he *did* die.
rumborak
-
rumby, Jesus's teachings about the kingdom of God have nothing to do with his death - that's a separate issue. But I am convinced that you are completely misreading or otherwise not getting what Jesus was talking about. I mean, it is blatantly obvious that his teachings were radically new and previous unthought of by the Jewish population.
-
I think I'm somewhere in the middle of where you think I stand, and where I really stand. I think Jesus built completely on the Jewish foundation and prophesied the arrival of the Messiah alongside the Kingdom of God through upheaval.
What was radically new was the interpretation on how to end up in said Kingdom. Jewish tradition emphasized the adhering to rituals, whereas Jesus said that's all rubbish, only the ones who are clean at heart and put themselves below the lowest of society will be raised to the highest by God.
And that was his core message throughout the gospels. How to lead your life in order to end up high in the Kingdom. It's what the disciples are constantly inquiring about too, and it would be weird to assume they would talk incessantly about something that isn't part of the core message.
His death, was plain unfortunate and threw a wrench into the whole thing, forcing the remaining members to make sense of the event. That's where this whole business of Jesus' death having been foretold etc. came in, but IMHO this is not what a) Jesus foretold b) nor was his death in any way in that equation.
rumborak
-
Haven't read anything but the latest post, but in response to the latest post, if we take out Second Coming prophecies, and his death, he still never presents himself as a warrior or redeemer in the way that the Jews were looking for in their Messiah. He didn't just go along with the program or build upon the Jewish foundation the way everyone expected him to.
-
He said himself to be sitting at the right of God when the Kingdom arrives, no? I read the other day that the term "Kingdom" is a bad translation too, supposedly the term "empire" (without the hierarchical connotation) is better. Sounds a lot like a Messiah-like ruler over the people.
Also, keep in mind the term "INRI" on Jesus' cross.
rumborak
-
I think I'm somewhere in the middle of where you think I stand, and where I really stand.
Wait, what? How is this possible?
-
Good catch! That made no sense, did it? :lol
You know what I mean though.
rumborak
-
He said himself to be sitting at the right of God when the Kingdom arrives, no? I read the other day that the term "Kingdom" is a bad translation too, supposedly the term "empire" (without the hierarchical connotation) is better. Sounds a lot like a Messiah-like ruler over the people.
Also, keep in mind the term "INRI" on Jesus' cross.
rumborak
I mean, he didn't come in the splendor and might that most of the Jews expected him to come in. He introduced the idea of the Second Coming which is difficult to extract from Old Testament scriptures on their own.
-
I don't think Jesus talked about any Second Coming. Only the First Coming, so to speak.
rumborak
-
He said himself to be sitting at the right of God when the Kingdom arrives, no? I read the other day that the term "Kingdom" is a bad translation too, supposedly the term "empire" (without the hierarchical connotation) is better. Sounds a lot like a Messiah-like ruler over the people.
Also, keep in mind the term "INRI" on Jesus' cross.
rumborak
Kingdom is a bad translation, but empire isn't any better or more accurate (in fact, it's almost the same thing).
-
I think the point about "empire" was to make more clear the intended, and active reign over it. The term "Kingdom" is much more vague (like in "animal kingdom"), and IMHO facilitates the popular notion that God's Kingdom has nothing to do with Jesus/God directly reigning over it (and thus Jesus not being a Messiah in the Jewish sense).
rumborak
-
I don't think Jesus talked about any Second Coming. Only the First Coming, so to speak.
rumborak
Well that sure is convenient for you.
-
How is it convenient? It doesn't matter to me, one way or the other. I'm just going by what strikes me the most likely based on the passages.
rumborak
-
Something the passages do not say cannot be considered a "likely" interpretation.
-
Not taking the bait, bosky.
rumborak
-
How is it convenient? It doesn't matter to me, one way or the other. I'm just going by what strikes me the most likely based on the passages.
rumborak
I think we went over once before why your interpretations, neat as they can be, are lacking. Taking all the data into consideration ruins your theory in a hurry.
I don't see this necessarily an allusion to death. He talks about his service to God, and that is something he does while he is *alive*, not when he is dead.
Yeah, I'm still siding with the Bible scholar. Bruce describes the ushering in of the Kingdom as a process that begins with Jesus' ministry and crucifixion and culminates in the final judgement. And that would fit with all the scriptural citations provided thus far, as well as Hef's description of a "not heaven, and a here-right-now-but-not-complete-yet state of being."
That's what his teachings focus on massively in the gospels. He never says "I need to die for this or that reason", that's all stretched reasoning after the uncomfortable fact that he *did* die.
Again, it wasn't meant for a modern audience, and the audience it was meant for wouldn't have understood a "Hey, I'm God and that's why I'm able to die for your sins" kind of message. The references to his divine nature and purpose are there, though they're weaved into the text in a more subtle (as we define it) way. Another interesting point to note is that the skeptics in the earliest days of the church didn't deny that Jesus claimed to be God, which they probably would have done had they thought that Christians had spun his teachings.
Furthermore, the earliest followers wouldn't have continued on with the faith had Jesus' ministry been such a dismal failure. Something had to convince them to follow a crucified Jew from the backwoods of Palestine. Christianity simply wouldn't have survived otherwise. Now just consider for a moment that they were convinced because it was true.
-
That's what his teachings focus on massively in the gospels. He never says "I need to die for this or that reason", that's all stretched reasoning after the uncomfortable fact that he *did* die.
Again, it wasn't meant for a modern audience, and the audience it was meant for wouldn't have understood a "Hey, I'm God and that's why I'm able to die for your sins" kind of message.
Why on Earth not? I don't see why a first-century Jew doesn't understand such a simple message. They talk very straightforward all through the gospels, with very (to this day) relatable parables. I think your explanation is a cop-out, to justify the lack of direct evidence of such a central tenet of Christianity.
Another interesting point to note is that the skeptics in the earliest days of the church didn't deny that Jesus claimed to be God, which they probably would have done had they thought that Christians had spun his teachings.
There were many types of interpretations, including some that said Jesus was only divinely "adopted" from his baptism to his death (e.g. the Ebionites). Just because these days there's only one creed remaining doesn't mean that around Jesus' time there weren't many more.
Furthermore, the earliest followers wouldn't have continued on with the faith had Jesus' ministry been such a dismal failure.
Early Christianity experienced very slow growth (if any at all), up until Paul adjusted the basic tenets to draw in more people. In my opinion, the parallels to Harold Camping's 2011 predictions can't be understated. He had a large following up to Doomsday, and then when the day passed, his congregation totally tanked. But it didn't disappear! In October 2011 he still had a small but faithful following, despite the obvious failure of his predictions. Now imagine a follow-up leader who reinterprets the failure, and you got yourself fertile ground for a mass religion.
rumborak
-
I had a pretty interesting conversation with my dad about Paul over the phone. Basically, his idea is that Paul was a brute and a maniacal killer who was obsessed with wiping out Christians, until one day he woke up and realized he could just pretend to have "seen the light" whilst co-opting the movement.
My dad's got a lot of strange ideas, but I do plan on figure out what he's been reading lately when I go home this Christmas.
-
I had a pretty interesting conversation with my dad about Paul over the phone. Basically, his idea is that Paul was a brute and a maniacal killer who was obsessed with wiping out Christians, until one day he woke up and realized he could just pretend to have "seen the light" whilst co-opting the movement.
My dad's got a lot of strange ideas, but I do plan on figure out what he's been reading lately when I go home this Christmas.
People cite Paul's conversion as a big source of evidence for Christianity. It's not just your dad.
-
That's what his teachings focus on massively in the gospels. He never says "I need to die for this or that reason", that's all stretched reasoning after the uncomfortable fact that he *did* die.
Again, it wasn't meant for a modern audience, and the audience it was meant for wouldn't have understood a "Hey, I'm God and that's why I'm able to die for your sins" kind of message.
Why on Earth not? I don't see why a first-century Jew doesn't understand such a simple message. They talk very straightforward all through the gospels, with very (to this day) relatable parables. I think your explanation is a cop-out, to justify the lack of direct evidence of such a central tenet of Christianity.
It seems straightforward to a modern audience, but the parables of Jesus were very subversive and complex and communicated truths that the normal first-century Jew would find extremely challenging. I think you are making judgements about things for which you lack the proper context.
Another interesting point to note is that the skeptics in the earliest days of the church didn't deny that Jesus claimed to be God, which they probably would have done had they thought that Christians had spun his teachings.
There were many types of interpretations, including some that said Jesus was only divinely "adopted" from his baptism to his death (e.g. the Ebionites). Just because these days there's only one creed remaining doesn't mean that around Jesus' time there weren't many more.
WW isn't talking about different kinds of beliefs, but rather about people who didn't believe that Jesus was divine at all, non-Christians.
Furthermore, the earliest followers wouldn't have continued on with the faith had Jesus' ministry been such a dismal failure.
Early Christianity experienced very slow growth (if any at all), up until Paul adjusted the basic tenets to draw in more people. In my opinion, the parallels to Harold Camping's 2011 predictions can't be understated. He had a large following up to Doomsday, and then when the day passed, his congregation totally tanked. But it didn't disappear! In October 2011 he still had a small but faithful following, despite the obvious failure of his predictions. Now imagine a follow-up leader who reinterprets the failure, and you got yourself fertile ground for a mass religion.
rumborak
It wasn't all that slow. Paul wasn't the only missionary out there, and Christianity had already spread to Rome before Paul became active. Paul has a big reputation because he wrote so much and so many of his writings have survived, but even he mentioned other missionaries by name in his writings, and also mentioned other missionaries who taught competing messages to his. These people believed what they believed for a reason.
-
It wasn't all that slow. Paul wasn't the only missionary out there, and Christianity had already spread to Rome before Paul became active. Paul has a big reputation because he wrote so much and so many of his writings have survived...
I don't think this can be emphasized enough. We know about Paul's work spreading the message of Christianity because he wrote so many letters that survived. But until late in his life, his primary personal influence seems to be mostly limited to the areas in and around modern-day Turkey and parts of Greece. You could argue that these were some of the more influential places in the Roman empire in terms of exchange of ideas and information, and that would be fair enough. But the point is, Paul had very limited influence early on in places like Rome and Palestine, not to mention the rest of the Roman empire and beyond, where the message was already spreading.
-
That's what his teachings focus on massively in the gospels. He never says "I need to die for this or that reason", that's all stretched reasoning after the uncomfortable fact that he *did* die.
Again, it wasn't meant for a modern audience, and the audience it was meant for wouldn't have understood a "Hey, I'm God and that's why I'm able to die for your sins" kind of message.
Why on Earth not? I don't see why a first-century Jew doesn't understand such a simple message. They talk very straightforward all through the gospels, with very (to this day) relatable parables. I think your explanation is a cop-out, to justify the lack of direct evidence of such a central tenet of Christianity.
Because, surprisingly, 2,000 years does something to communication. Words change meaning, entire languages develop. It's crazy.
There were many types of interpretations, including some that said Jesus was only divinely "adopted" from his baptism to his death (e.g. the Ebionites). Just because these days there's only one creed remaining doesn't mean that around Jesus' time there weren't many more.
As hef said, that's a different subject, which you are also wrong about. In terms of dates and independent sources for the life of Jesus, none of the "lost scriptures" come anywhere close to the Canonical Gospels.
Anyway, my point was that orthodox Christianity had many critics, Celsus for example, who would have loved nothing more than to attack the new faith on the grounds that it misinterpreted the words of its founder. We have no evidence of that occurring, and the silence speaks volumes.
Early Christianity experienced very slow growth (if any at all), up until Paul adjusted the basic tenets to draw in more people. In my opinion, the parallels to Harold Camping's 2011 predictions can't be understated. He had a large following up to Doomsday, and then when the day passed, his congregation totally tanked. But it didn't disappear! In October 2011 he still had a small but faithful following, despite the obvious failure of his predictions. Now imagine a follow-up leader who reinterprets the failure, and you got yourself fertile ground for a mass religion.
rumborak
This reinvention of the faith is precisely what's at issue. I know you think that's what happened, but have suggested it as an explanation with little evidence. There was indeed disagreements between some Jewish Christians and gentile converts over keeping the law. So what? Why does that equate to a complete faith makeover?
-
Reading the Sermon on the Mount again, I'm definitely seeing how the Kingdom of Heaven, at least in Mathew, has real-world applications. Jesus totally seems like he's grooming both the physical and spiritual health of his followers... for this world and the next. He's stressing to his followers how to live in this world, so that they're more spiritually healthy. It seems like what he's getting at is that through his teachings the Kingdom of Heaven can be realized, not through war or rebellion, but through a wide-spread change of attitude in the way people live and act.
-
love it, PC. especially the last sentence. so on the mark
-
Yes, that is exactly what he taught.
-
Well, glad to hear my readings are on track from two people who's postings on the subject continually serve as one source of inspiration for me to keep at it :laugh:
-
I'm on board with that, Perp.
-
And the key is that it can be realized; the kingdom is both here and not yet fully here. But we can get there. To borrow a term from Crossan, this is progressive eschatology, which I think is only fitting for this forum.
-
I also like the term realized eschatology, which I think reflects the NT teaching as a whole. the kingdom of the now and the not yet.
-
Question: when we see the term "Kingdom of Heaven", does that mean it is a kingdom in heaven or from heaven?
Example: the thirteen colonies were part of the British empire but not in Britain.
I'm still persuaded that God promisied an earthly kingdom centered in Jerusalem, so I think that "Kingdom of Heaven" refers to the kingdom of heaven on earth, if that makes sense. Like, I hold to the idea that Jesus (and the OT) preached that the earth and not heaven was the location of the saved man's eternal destiny.
This verse sums up my idea:
20 And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, 21 that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied in the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers to give them, like the days of the heavens above the earth.
EDIT: IIRC, didn't the ancient Jews believe in bodily resurrection? That's why they carried their bones everywhere, right? It ties in well with my belief in an earthly kingdom.
-
Question: when we see the term "Kingdom of Heaven", does that mean it is a kingdom in heaven or from heaven?
Neither.
-
What about the parable of the man who went to a far country to fetch a kingdom and bring it back?
aka Jesus going to heaven to recieve the kingdom and bring it to the earth presumably during his second coming
-
And the key is that it can be realized; the kingdom is both here and not yet fully here. But we can get there. To borrow a term from Crossan, this is progressive eschatology, which I think is only fitting for this forum.
Yeah, that makes sense. And that kinda explains why some people were so frustrated with "nothing happening." The Kingdom is constantly "arriving", but it's something that's always happening and sometimes so slowly that you can't really tell it's making any progress.
-
IIRC, didn't the ancient Jews believe in bodily resurrection?
No, there is no real evidence that the ancient Jews believed in any kind of afterlife whatsoever. But the Pharisees of Jesus's time believed in bodily resurrection.
That's why they carried their bones everywhere, right?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
-
By "ancient Jews" I am referring to those in the NT. Off the top of my head they had a concept of "sleeping with their fathers" and Sheol in the OT, and Jesus doesn't reference hell as an unfamiliar concept in the NT. Not to mention there were appearances of dead guys like Samuel in the OT and Moses/Elijah in the NT.
By the bones thing, I'm thinking of when they carried Joseph's bones all over the place until they finally buried it in the land. Obviously there was a reason for that.
And as a point of doctrine, God promised Abraham the land but Abraham never got it. In order for God to fulfill his promises, I don't see any way around Abraham being resurrected back to earth.
-
By "ancient Jews" I am referring to those in the NT. Off the top of my head they had a concept of "sleeping with their fathers" and Sheol in the OT, and Jesus doesn't reference hell as an unfamiliar concept in the NT. Not to mention there were appearances of dead guys like Samuel in the OT and Moses/Elijah in the NT.
To say they had a concept of anything in ancient times is to read something into the text that isn't there. Yes, Sheol is mentioned in several places, but there is no doctrine of it in any way. It just means death, or where the dead are; there is no teaching that it is any kind of conscious existence or afterlife of any kind, and there are certainly no rewards or punishments mentioned anywhere. It's just a figure of speech.
By the time of Jesus, the Pharisees were proclaiming a bodily resurrection, which was also proclaimed by other groups of Jews such as the Essenes. But the Sadduccees, for example, didn't believe in any such thing. They held more in line with ancient beliefs: we're here now, and then we die and that's it.
-
See my edit...
Gonna have to chew on that for a bit before responding, but I thought of the Enoch walking with God and maybe that being a reference to some kind of afterlife.
-
By the bones thing, I'm thinking of when they carried Joseph's bones all over the place until they finally buried it in the land. Obviously there was a reason for that.
The reason was because that is where they wanted to bury him. Don't read anything else into it that isn't there. If it isn't in the text, then it isn't in the text.
And as a point of doctrine, God promised Abraham the land but Abraham never got it. In order for God to fulfill his promises, I don't see any way around Abraham being resurrected back to earth.
??? His promise to Abraham was already fulfilled.
-
And as a point of doctrine, God promised Abraham the land but Abraham never got it. In order for God to fulfill his promises, I don't see any way around Abraham being resurrected back to earth.
??? His promise to Abraham was already fulfilled.
Abraham was promised the land. Abraham never got the land.
-
And as a point of doctrine, God promised Abraham the land but Abraham never got it. In order for God to fulfill his promises, I don't see any way around Abraham being resurrected back to earth.
??? His promise to Abraham was already fulfilled.
Abraham was promised the land. Abraham never got the land.
I don't know of one single scholar or pastor who thinks that.
God said that he would make of Abraham a great nation. The nation got the land.
Abraham = nation. Abraham has land.
There is no argument here for resurrection. I have never, ever, EVER heard this used as such.
-
And as a point of doctrine, God promised Abraham the land but Abraham never got it. In order for God to fulfill his promises, I don't see any way around Abraham being resurrected back to earth.
??? His promise to Abraham was already fulfilled.
Abraham was promised the land. Abraham never got the land.
I don't know of one single scholar or pastor who thinks that.
Who cares if it's orthodox? Orthodoxy proves nothing. Truth is truth even if no one sees it.
God said that he would make of Abraham a great nation. The nation got the land.
Abraham = nation. Abraham has land.
There is no argument here for resurrection. I have never, ever, EVER heard this used as such.
You are referring to Gen 12. I am referring to Gen 13.
14 The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring[a] forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”
-
to you and your offspring[a] forever
FWIW, I don't think that means "You're getting it, and everyone in your generation afterwards is getting it too", I think it means something more like "It belongs to the entire nation which you and your generation belong to referred to two verses ago."
-
Who cares if it's orthodox? Orthodoxy proves nothing. Truth is truth even if no one sees it.
I don't care all that much about orthodoxy, but you are making up entirely new interpretations that have never seen the light of day before. It sounds like you are taking your preconceived ideas and grafting them onto the text, instead of allowing the text to speak for itself.
God said that he would make of Abraham a great nation. The nation got the land.
Abraham = nation. Abraham has land.
There is no argument here for resurrection. I have never, ever, EVER heard this used as such.
You are referring to Gen 12. I am referring to Gen 13.
14 The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring[a] forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”
And? Again, Abraham = the nation. The promise isn't about what Abraham personally gets out of anything, but about what God will do through Abraham.
Again, I have never, ever heard anyone approach this the way you are. It sounds again like you are forcing your views onto the text. The phrasing that is used here has never to my knowledge been interpreted as "Abraham didn't get it, so he must be resurrected." I mean, do you think that Abraham will be resurrected and made king over Israel?
-
That is one interesting post-doomsday scenario.
-
Who cares if it's orthodox? Orthodoxy proves nothing. Truth is truth even if no one sees it.
I mean, do you think that Abraham will be resurrected and made king over Israel?
As a believer in the afterlife, I believe he has to go somewhere. Seeing as there are two "realms" in the universe (as taught in the Bible), we have either earth or heaven as his the place he'll spend eternity. The OT never ever ever promises heaven as that eternal place and neither does Jesus, so process of elimination leads me to believe it's earth.
-
As for being king, I think that is reserved for David and not Abraham?
-
Who cares if it's orthodox? Orthodoxy proves nothing. Truth is truth even if no one sees it.
I mean, do you think that Abraham will be resurrected and made king over Israel?
As a believer in the afterlife, I believe he has to go somewhere. Seeing as there are two "realms" in the universe (as taught in the Bible), we have either earth or heaven as his the place he'll spend eternity. The OT never ever ever promises heaven as that eternal place and neither does Jesus, so process of elimination leads me to believe it's earth.
The OT never promises anything. It's a completely different theology altogether with no teaching of an afterlife. And even so, I've already explained that the promise has been fulfilled.
And you think any "process of elimination" is an adequate basis for establishing doctrine? That seems very strange.
As for being king, I think that is reserved for David and not Abraham?
Your theology isn't making any sense to me here. If, as you say, God's promise that "the land will be yours" can only be fulfilled by a resurrected Abraham coming into possession of the land, how can he own the land and someone else be king?
Also, if we are using afterlife to get earthly rewards now - David was already king, why would he be king again?
Furthermore, how can anyone be king if Jesus is king?
I am not following you one bit. I want to understand but I just don't. Can you help me out?
-
If anybody wants a good book dealing with this topic, check out RC Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus. I'm almost done with it and can't say too many good things about it. Sproul explains what Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God, what was being prophesied in the Olivet Discourse and what Paul's eschatology was. His arguments are well documented and everything is supported by the text - in the original language. The lynch pin of the failed apocalyptic prophet hypothesis is the translation of phrases like "the end" and "before this generation ends," which in Greek have absolutely nothing to do with the end of time.
Anyway, go read it. I found it for two bucks on Amazon.
-
Another good book on Jesus's kingdom teachings is In Parables by John Dominic Crossan. I cannot recommend it strongly enough.
-
I am not following you one bit. I want to understand but I just don't. Can you help me out?