And you are going with which one?

@Tonus: thank you! Got some new info off that.

(June 23, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: And you are going with which one?

I'm assuming you're speaking to me?
If so definitions #3 and #4. They are most likely given the context.

I'm curious O/B. If you think your so-called god was such a poor communicator that he needs you to make up excuses for his fuck ups, why do you think he's a god?

Seems more like a hack PR man.

There are many apologetics for the the fact that the Second Coming didn't happen within Jesus' generation. The Presbyterian line when I was growing up was that by the Second Coming or Kingdom of God referred to in the synoptic gospels was merely death and resurrection. Though how you can have resurrection without "tasting death" is beyond me. The wandering Jew was the favorite during the Middle Ages, though that didn't stop them from expecting the Second Coming in the year 1000 because it was such a lovely round number. The idea that Jesus meant some other generation then the one he was talking to has been around awhile too. I don't find any of them plausible. They all require stretching the bejesus out of the language or just plain inventing something like the wandering Jew (the plant makes great ground-cover).

Frankly, I don't think anyone reading the New Testament without knowing anything about modern Christianity would infer a religion remotely like modern Christianity. The apologists have rewritten the whole thing.

(June 23, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm curious O/B. If you think your so-called god was such a poor communicator that he needs you to make up excuses for his fuck ups, why do you think he's a god?

Seems more like a hack PR man.

That's one possible perspective. There are two possibilities when there is misunderstanding: due to the communicator or the interpreter.

My perspective was never that God is a poor communicator.

---

(June 23, 2014 at 7:40 pm)Jenny A Wrote: There are many apologetics for the the fact that the Second Coming didn't happen within Jesus' generation. The Presbyterian line when I was growing up was that by the Second Coming or Kingdom of God referred to in the synoptic gospels was merely death and resurrection.

You have asserted that Jesus second coming is the same thing as the kingdom due to your theology that Matthew 24:34/Mark 13:30/Luke 21:32 = Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1/Luke 8:27.

In Matthew 13 Jesus says:

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

How can the kingdom be at the end of the world when Christ says in Matthew 13:41 He shall send His angels to gather out of his kingdom? This implies that the kingdom has already been established prior to the second coming.

Also notice in verse 38 that the good seed are the "children of the kingdom" and the harvest is at the end of the world/second coming. Seeds are sown, the plants grow and then the harvest. Sowing seeds and harvesting plants are not simultaneous events, according to the explanation of the parable, neither are the kingdom and the second coming.

(June 23, 2014 at 9:40 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(June 23, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm curious O/B. If you think your so-called god was such a poor communicator that he needs you to make up excuses for his fuck ups, why do you think he's a god?

Seems more like a hack PR man.

That's one possible perspective. There are two possibilities when there is misunderstanding: due to the communicator or the interpreter.

My perspective was never that God is a poor communicator.

---

(June 23, 2014 at 7:40 pm)Jenny A Wrote: There are many apologetics for the the fact that the Second Coming didn't happen within Jesus' generation. The Presbyterian line when I was growing up was that by the Second Coming or Kingdom of God referred to in the synoptic gospels was merely death and resurrection.

You have asserted that Jesus second coming is the same thing as the kingdom due to your theology that Matthew 24:34/Mark 13:30/Luke 21:32 = Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1/Luke 8:27.

In Matthew 13 Jesus says:

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

How can the kingdom be at the end of the world when Christ says in Matthew 13:41 He shall send His angels to gather out of his kingdom? This implies that the kingdom has already been established prior to the second coming.

Also notice in verse 38 that the good seed are the "children of the kingdom" and the harvest is at the end of the world/second coming. Seeds are sown, the plants grow and then the harvest. Sowing seeds and harvesting plants are not simultaneous events, according to the explanation of the parable, neither are the kingdom and the second coming.

Where in that passage does it say the [physical] kingdom is set up before the glorious coming of the Son of Man?

Yes, many people in Jesus' days were already considered by Jesus to be people of the kingdom, but the physical kingdom had not yet appeared.

Also, it's a parable, so you should not take "sowing good seed" so literally. It may refer to the word of God as the seed, and word of God being heard and accepted by some people as the seed being sown.

If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists...
and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible...
would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?


The god of the bible is he Jewish GOD - Yahweh -
Why consider the christ? He never claimed to be a god.

(June 23, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Irrational Wrote:

---

(June 23, 2014 at 9:40 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: That's one possible perspective. There are two possibilities when there is misunderstanding: due to the communicator or the interpreter.

My perspective was never that God is a poor communicator.

---

You have asserted that Jesus second coming is the same thing as the kingdom due to your theology that Matthew 24:34/Mark 13:30/Luke 21:32 = Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1/Luke 8:27.

In Matthew 13 Jesus says:

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

How can the kingdom be at the end of the world when Christ says in Matthew 13:41 He shall send His angels to gather out of his kingdom? This implies that the kingdom has already been established prior to the second coming.

Also notice in verse 38 that the good seed are the "children of the kingdom" and the harvest is at the end of the world/second coming. Seeds are sown, the plants grow and then the harvest. Sowing seeds and harvesting plants are not simultaneous events, according to the explanation of the parable, neither are the kingdom and the second coming.

---

Where in that passage does it say the [physical] kingdom is set up before the glorious coming of the Son of Man?

Where in the passage does it say the kingdom is physical? I'm not intending to be dismissive of your question. Just trying to understand why you've assumed the kingdom to be physical.

(June 23, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Irrational Wrote: Yes, many people in Jesus' days were already considered by Jesus to be people of the kingdom, but the physical kingdom had not yet appeared.

This is precisely my point and where things get confusing. Is the kingdom physical? Spiritual? Both? Both but contextual? What does the Bible teach?

(June 23, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Irrational Wrote: Also, it's a parable, so you should not take "sowing good seed" so literally. It may refer to the word of God as the seed, and word of God being heard and accepted by some people as the seed being sown.

Normally I'd agree with you about being careful about taking a parable literally. However, the scripture quoted was not the parable, but Jesus' explanation of the parable. This lends itself to a more literal interpretation.

(June 28, 2014 at 1:58 am)ThomM Wrote: If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists...
and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible...
would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?

The god of the bible is he Jewish GOD - Yahweh -
Why consider the christ?

Daniel 9:26

(June 28, 2014 at 1:58 am)ThomM Wrote: He never claimed to be a god.

John 10:30, Jesus speaking: "I and the Father (God) are one."

"I and the Father" clearly distinguishes two persons, and the verb, "are" (literally translated "we are") is also plural. "One" is neuter; that is, one in nature or essence, but not one person (which would require masculine form). Thus Jesus distinguished Himself from the the Father (God) and yet claimed unity and equality with the Father. (Excerpt from: Basic Theology. Ryrie, Charles C.)

Quote:My perspective was never that God is a poor communicator.

Yeah...we know what your perspective is. You think this nonsense is real.

(July 1, 2014 at 12:17 am)orangebox21 Wrote:

(June 23, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Irrational Wrote:

---

---

Where in that passage does it say the [physical] kingdom is set up before the glorious coming of the Son of Man?

Where in the passage does it say the kingdom is physical? I'm not intending to be dismissive of your question. Just trying to understand why you've assumed the kingdom to be physical.

The assumption is made in light of the theory proposed by several Bible scholars that Jesus was an apocalypticist preacher who preached that a physical kingdom of God would eventually be set up on earth in his days.

Quote:This is precisely my point and where things get confusing. Is the kingdom physical? Spiritual? Both? Both but contextual? What does the Bible teach?

It's not about what the Bible teaches, rather it's about what we can glean from each book in order to discern what may have likely happened or may have likely been said vs what was made up later on by the authors.

Quote:Normally I'd agree with you about being careful about taking a parable literally. However, the scripture quoted was not the parable, but Jesus' explanation of the parable. This lends itself to a more literal interpretation.

I don't do it that way. What I do is look at the context and then try to determine how it should be interpreted.