The Kingdom

[Mickey]

The Apostles were with the Lord Jesus after His resurrection but before He ascended into heaven.While with Him the Lord explained the "things pertaining to the kingdom of God":

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts1:3).

After being taught about the kingdom the Apostles asked the Lord:

"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts1:6).

The Apostle surely believed that the kingdom would be restored to Israel,and the Lord said nothing that would indicate that they were in error on this point.However,He told them that they were not to know the "time" when the kingdom would be restored to Israel (Acts1:7).

Since the Preterists think that the kingdom is already here then perhaps they can tell us when that kingdom was restored to Israel.

They want us to throw our reason to the wind and imagine that it was restored to Israel in AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Tim C.]

Yeah...

The present age obviously is not the Messianic Kingdom. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are not being fulfilled at the present time.

-Tim

[Hitch]

Hmm so what is Jesus king of?

[Hitch]

Yeah...

The present age obviously is not the Messianic Kingdom. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are not being fulfilled at the present time.

-Tim 66And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.

67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

71That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

74That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

75In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

76And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

77To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

78Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,

79To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

80And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.



I hope you wear a helmut when they let you go outside.

[Mickey]

72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
Those verses are in regard to the "Abrahamic Covenant".The promise of the kingdom is in regard to the "Davidic Covenant" (2Sam.7:8-17).And it is also certain that the following verses in regard to the Abrahamic Covenant are not in effect today for the nation of Israel:
74That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

75In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
In Christ,
Mickey

[Hitch]

[/b]
Those verses are in regard to the "Abrahamic Covenant".

(The present age obviously is not the Messianic Kingdom. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are not being fulfilled at the present time.)



(The promise of the kingdom is in regard to the "Davidic Covenant" (2Sam.7:8-17).And it is also certain that the following verses in regard to the Abrahamic Covenant are not in effect today for the nation of Israel:

In Christ,
MickeyLOL duh. Antichrists dont receive the blessings of Abe, only christians.

But yet in your feebleness you are unable to explain why wew should believe your version and interpretation over that of the Holy Spirit.

67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying



Care to explain that Mickey? Quite a pedastal you put your self on Mickey. You should run for pope.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Yeah...

The present age obviously is not the Messianic Kingdom. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are not being fulfilled at the present time.

-Tim

Here is a little something I wrote a few months ago to explain the biblical perspective of the "Millenial Kingdom"

What is the nature of the Millennial Kingdom?



How we understand this, affects how we understand nearly all of the rest of eschatological scripture. I propose to make a Biblical case for the neo postmillennialism concept of the Millennial Kingdom.



The concept of the “Millennial” Kingdom, comes from Rev. 20. This is the only place in scripture that actually mention the “Millennia” or thousand years aspect of the Kingdom. Postmillennialist do not think that this is a literal thousand year period, but that 1000 years is representative of a long, but indefinite period of time.



Postmillers believe that this Kingdom was established either in the first century or in the Garden of Eden. However, nearly all postmillers agree that the reign of God the Son, Jesus Christ over this Kingdom began or was consummated in the first century.



Postmillers also believe that the MK is not a geo-political Kingdom like England or France, with definite borders and citizenship based on birth or locations. We see the MK as the Kingdom of believers here on earth (so in one since it is an “earthly” Kingdom, but only in the since that it is present on earth) but being ruled by Christ from heaven. But unlike earthly Kingdoms, citizenship into this Kingdom is not determined by birth or residency, but by Salvation. Not all the people alive during the MK will be “in’ the Kingdom.



Postmillers believe that the Kingdom will (did) begin small and will grow someday to include almost the entire earth. We also believe that it will end at the future second coming of Christ when He will come back to resurrect and judge the living and the dead at the end of time when “all enemies” are under His foot, the last enemy being death.



Postmillers firmly deny the premillennialist view that Jesus is going to come and “rapture the church” away prior to a seven year tribulation.



First I would like to make a Biblical case for a non-literal understanding of 1000 in Rev. 20. 100 is often used in the OT to denote a large number of unspecific size. Much in the same way we say “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a million times….” As no one ever says the same thing exactly a million times, or even close to a million times.



Scriptural examples of this include:







15Remember his covenant forever, the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,



A thousand generations? Have there been any where near 1000 generations since Adam and Eve. Matthew tells us that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David 14 from David to the exile, and 14 from the exile to Jesus that is a grand total of 42 we turn to Luke and count the generations from Adam to Abraham and that gives us another 21, for a grand total of 63. No where near 1000. And Chronicles was written well before Christ birth.



Now many scholars (and I agree) say that there are, by design, gaps in Hebraic genealogies. But I am not aware of anyone who allows for enough gaps to stretch 63 to 1000.



Plus, if we take the 1000 as literal, does that mean that the 1001st generation is able to completely ignore the word that God commanded?





3If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times.

Here Job is talking about “contending with God” He says one could not answer Him once in a thousand times. Does that literally mean that a finite man can contend with an infinite God one in every 1000 questions exactly, or does it mean that finite man does not have any hope at all of contending with infinite God?



Psalms 50:10:]



10For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.



Does God really own every beast in the forest but only cattle on a thousand hills? What about the 1001st hill? What about cattle that are not on hills at all? Or is this another instance where 1000 is symbolic of a large and indefinite number?



I say the latter.



Other examples of 1000 being used to describe a large but non-specific number are:



Deut. 7:9, Deut 32:30; Josh. 23:10; 2 Ch. 14:9; Ps. 84:10, Ps. 105:8; Ek. 6:6; and Is. 60:22



So there is no reason why the millennial reign has to be exactly 1000 years. Even the wooden literalism of Dispensational Futurism allows that there is symbolism in Revelation. And since no other mention of the Kingdom in the New Testament mentions any length for the Kingdom, it is reasonable to assume that the 1000 years in Revelation is not meant to be taken as a literal period.



Nearly all people who hold the postmillennial position today agree that the Kingdom of God, went through a “change of administration”, so to speak, in the first century as a result of the first coming of God the Son.



Let’s look at some scripture to support this aspect of postmillennialism:







44And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,

And in the days of those kings…what days is Daniel talking about here? In the says of the “Kings of iron and clay” which nearly all evangelical Christians agree refers to the Roman Empire. This coupled with Daniel 2:34-45 that tells us a “Stone” not cut by human hands, which nearly every evangelical Christian equates with Jesus, puts this “Kingdom” as beginning in the first century.



"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (see also Mt. 4:17, Mt. 10:7, Mark 1:15 and Luke 9:27)



Note the same Greek word translated “is at hand” is used in Mt. 26:45 to describe the hour which Jesus would be betrayed, and the very next thing that happened was betrayal. This suggest a very close proximity, not 2000 years separation.



Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (See also, Mt. 11:12)]/verse]



[verse=Luke 23:42-43]And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."



When would Jesus see the thief? 2000 years? Or that day?



Notice also that Jesus response to the thief’s question about the Kingdom was a reference to paradise. Not to a future physical geopolitical Kingdom. Also notice the thief was dying, and asking Jesus to remember him in His Kingdom. Even the thief understood that the Kingdom was not a future, world wide physical geopolitical kingdom, nor is the King, Jesus, reigning from earth (though there are elements of the Kingdom on earth.)



Many verses support this:



The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.



The Lord’s throne is in heaven, but his Kingdom rules over all.





For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.



Here, entrance into the Kingdom is not based on physical, geographic location, but on righteousness (see also Gal. 5:21, Eph. 5:5, 1 Thes. 2:12, 2 Thes. 1:5).



"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven



Entrance into the Kingdom is a matter of faith, not geo-political location (see also 1 Cor. 6:-10).







In Matthew 13:18-38 (not quoted for the sake of space) Jesus explains that the Kingdom is like seeds sown on different types of ground. Entrance into this Kingdom is not based on your geographic location, but on your reaction to the gospel.





I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."



This verse shows the clear dual nature of the Kingdom, binding on earth parallels the binding in Heaven, loosening is likewise parallel. The keys are given to those who remain behind, though the King is reigning in Heaven.



And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.



Here we have it “difficult” to enter the Kingdom. If this were an earthly, geopolitical kingdom that covered the whole world, how would it be possible to NOT be in the Kingdom? (see also Mark 10:24-25)



Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.



The Kingdom here will be taken away from one group (Jews) and given people producing fruits. This shows, two things. One, the Kingdom was already inexistence in the first century and belonged to the Jews. Two, the Kingdom will be removed from the Jews and given to another group (gentiles) who will bear fruit. (Not that Jews are excluded from the Kingdom, but it is no longer exclusively Jewish).



In Matthew 22:2-14 (not quoted for space) compares the Kingdom to a wedding feast where the King’s invited guest (Jews) reject the invitation and the King accepts “strangers” (Gentiles). (see also Mt. 25:1-13)



"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in,



Here we have first century Pharisees shutting people out of the Kingdom. How can first century Pharisees shut people out of a future Kingdom that will encompass the entire world? They can’t. This is clearly a first century (and continuing) Kingdom that is not geo political in nature.





"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in

Here we have the Kingdom including the patriarchs (who are long dead). How can this be a physical future geo political Kingdom?



20Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."



The Kingdom is “in the midst” of first century Palestine.



Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn.%203:3-5;&version=47;#fen-ESV-26109a#fen-ESV-26109a)] he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Access to the kingdom is from being “born again”, not as result of a geographical location, ethnic background, or anything else.





Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."



It does not get any clearer than this. Jesus tells us that His Kingdom is not of this world. Period.



Paul Tells us:



For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.



And



For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power.



The writer of Hebrews says:



Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe,



Other verses that support a first century, non-geological Kingdom with Christ reigning form heaven are Heb. 12:28, Mt. 6:33 and Mt. 18:3





So, at this point, we have the millennial Kingdom that is not (necessarily) a literal 1000 years. We have it as a non-political, non-geographical, not physical Kingdom with Christ reigning from heaven. We have the Kingdom being taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. But the Kingdom is also described as beginning small but growing large as to cover nearly the entire world (but not in a geopolitical since as that has already been ruled out).



Daniel 2:34-35 describes a “rock” not made by human hands coming and crushing the Roman Empire (see above). This rock grows to a mountain that covers the entire earth. This rock is Jesus Kingdom (as even most futurist would agree). It starts small but grows to cover the entire earth.



In the parable of the mustard seed, Jesus describes the Kingdom as staring small and growing large (Mt. 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19) the same is true with the parable of the leaven (Mt. 13:33, Luke 13:20-21)



This is hardly the “Instant world wide, Kingdom of God” described my premill/posttrib futurist.



Finally the Kingdom (or Christ reign of the Kingdom, depending on the postmillinialis you ask) will end with the second coming of Christ, and the general resurrection when all of Christ enemies, death being the last, will be placed under submission to Christ (1 Cor. 15:24-28, Ps. 110:1, Mt. 22:44, Mark 12:36, Acts 2:35, Heb. 1:13, Heb. 10:13)



And the Kingdom can not be “postrib” (nor can the trib be future) according to Rev. 1:9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.



Here we have John being a (present tense in the first century) partner in both the Kingdom and the tribulation.



So, we have the Millennial Kingdom being of a long period, but not necessarily 1000 years. We have a Kingdom that was in existence since at least the first century. We have a Kingdom that is not geo political in nature. A Kingdom that is ruled from Heaven, but is (at least in part) manifested on earth. A Kingdom that starts small, but grows to fill the earth. A King Who’s reign will end at the Second coming.



We are in the Millennium NOW!!! Christ is currently reigning from heaven, and has been since His ascension. The Kingdom started out small, but has grown, and will continue to grow, until nearly the whole world is a part. A Kingdom where membership into the Kingdom is determined by righteousness and response to the gospel.

In other words, the Millennial Kingdom is what futurist refer to as “the church age”.

I look forward to your response.


Feel free to address one item or the whole thing.

:sig:

[Hitch]

Got quiet F...

[Mickey]

LOL duh. Antichrists dont receive the blessings of Abe, only christians.
Where did I ever say that Antichrists receive the blessings of Abraham?
But yet in your feebleness you are unable to explain why wew should believe your version and interpretation over that of the Holy Spirit.

67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying
It is you who is feeble in understanding the Scriptures.
Care to explain that Mickey? Quite a pedastal you put your self on Mickey. You should run for pope.
First of all,some of the words that you quoted are not mine.

Second of all,none of what you are saying makes any sense.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Mickey]

Here is a little something We are in the Millennium NOW!!! Christ is currently reigning from heaven, and has been since His ascension.

Then why is He not sitting on His Throne?:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne"(Rev.3:21).

Also,the Lord Jesus Himself revealed that He will not sit at His throne until He returns to earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

In Christ,
Mickey

[Hitch]

LOL Keep your head down Michkey sniffing the dirt in your dingy hiding place. But I like that bit about not quoting you,,, you didnt mind that the post you responed to was not yours,,, until you got backed up in the corner again,, that is. Dont be pathetic

[Mickey]

LOL Keep your head down Michkey sniffing the dirt in your dingy hiding place. But I like that bit about not quoting you,,, you didnt mind that the post you responed to was not yours,,, until you got backed up in the corner again,, that is. Dont be pathetic
Since you think that the kingdom has already been set up and the Lord Jesus is now reigning in heaven then perhaps you can explain the following verses.No preterist yet has been able to answer them yet.

If He is ruling now then why is He not sitting on His Throne?:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne"(Rev.3:21).

Also,the Lord Jesus Himself revealed that He will not sit at His throne until He returns to earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Then why is He not sitting on His Throne?:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne"(Rev.3:21).

Also,the Lord Jesus Himself revealed that He will not sit at His throne until He returns to earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

In Christ,
Mickey

He is.

[Tim C.]

72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

And your point is... what?

I suppose your point is that you deny the two advent teaching of Scripture, and therefore deny the "two advent" Chiliasm of the ancient Church? Ah, yes, thats whats going on here. Why should I give a hoot about your denials of these simple truths, Hitch?

-Tim

[Mickey]

He is.
You say that Matthew 25:31 has happened in AD 70 and now "He is" sitting on His throne.

What evidence can you provide that proves that the Lord Jesus "came" to earth in AD 70 and at that time sat on His throne?

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

You say that Matthew 25:31 has happened in AD 70 and now "He is" sitting on His throne.

What evidence can you provide that proves that the Lord Jesus "came" to earth in AD 70 and at that time sat on His throne?

In Christ,
Mickey

I never said He came to earth. :strawman:

[Mickey]

Faramir,

I said to you:

"You say that Matthew 25:31 has happened in AD 70 and now "He is" sitting on His throne.

What evidence can you provide that proves that the Lord Jesus "came" to earth in AD 70 and at that time sat on His throne?"

To which you answer:
I never said He came to earth.
You can't be serious.The Lord's answer was in regard to His "coming":

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age" (Mt.24:3).

His disciples asked Him for the signs of His "coming".Since these disciples were on the earth then when they used the word "coming" they were referring to Him "coming" to the earth.

And the Lord answered them about His "coming":

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

If words have any meaning then the Lord Jesus told His disciples that when He "comes" then He will sit on His throne.

But you say that has already happened.What evidence can you give that supports your assumption?

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

I said to you:

"You say that Matthew 25:31 has happened in AD 70 and now "He is" sitting on His throne.

What evidence can you provide that proves that the Lord Jesus "came" to earth in AD 70 and at that time sat on His throne?"

To which you answer:

You can't be serious.The Lord's answer was in regard to His "coming":

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age" (Mt.24:3).

His disciples asked Him for the signs of His "coming".Since these disciples were on the earth then when they used the word "coming" they were referring to Him "coming" to the earth.

And the Lord answered them about His "coming":

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

If words have any meaning then the Lord Jesus told His disciples that when He "comes" then He will sit on His throne.

But you say that has already happened.What evidence can you give that supports your assumption?

In Christ,
Mickey

I am serious. His coming was not a "coming to earth" you know this is not the preterist position as evidenced by your statement in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=79091&page=6):

Dee Dee says that His "coming" was really a "coming up" that happened when He ascended into heaven.

You said this less than 12 hours before the post I am responding to now.

So you are either so stupid that you can't remember your opponents positoin that you expressed less than 12 hours prior

OR

You are intentionally misrepresenting the position of your opponents because of some ill thought idea that it makes them look bad (it only makes you look bad).


Now, I am more than willing to give you an opportunity to provide an alternate explanation of why you asked me about Christ "coming to earth" when you know good and well that that is not my position.

But until you do, I can only conclude that you are either not that bright, or intentionally erecting strawmen. I will even say that it is probably the latter, though neither option is very flatering.

And neither options makes me inclined to waste valuable time drafting substantive responses to you.

If you are not that bright, you just won't get it.

If you intentionally misrepresent your opponents, you will just twist my words.

Either way, it does not make for productive dialog.

[Mickey]

Now, I am more than willing to give you an opportunity to provide an alternate explanation of why you asked me about Christ "coming to earth" when you know good and well that that is not my position.
The preterist position in regard to this is very confusing so you should not be surprised that some people might make mistakes when stating the preterist's position.

For example,I will go over Dee Dee's ideas so that you can see how confusing it is.This is what she says about the beginning of the "kingdom":

"The "coming" is a coming to the throne, to assume His kingdom and dominion, this definitively happened at the Resurrection/Ascension..." (Comments at Matthew 26:24)

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2430

So she puts the beginning of the kingdom somewhere from 30-33 AD.

However,the preterists say that the "great tribulation" happened in 70 AD,and the Lord Jesus said that by the time of the "great tribulation" the kingdom remained in the future.

Here are the order of events.First the "great tribulation".Then "immediately after" that tribulation comes the heavenly signs.Then the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds.Then after this coming the Lord says that the "kingdom of God is near at hand":

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring" (Lk.21:26).

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:27).

"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (LK.21:31).

So according to the Lord Jesus even as late as 70 AD the kingdom is still only "at hand".Therefore it has not yet been ushered in by 70 AD.

But Dee Dee said that it started at the Resurrection/Ascension,which was around 30-33 AD.

That would confuse anyone.Don't you see that?Then she really gets confusing when she says:
I would agree with those that say the age to come is both here and not yet here, in the now/not yet tension of Scripture.
This seems to provide her with an answer.When she says that the Lord Jesus was enthroned at His Resurrection/Ascension despite the fact that the Lord Jesus said that it remained at hand almost forty years later she can say:

Well,as I teach,the kingdom was here in 30-33 AD but at the same time that same kingdom did not arrive until 70 AD.

Can you see that that teaching might confuse some people?

Is that what you believe,Faramir?

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

The preterist position in regard to this is very confusing so you should not be surprised that some people might make mistakes when stating the preterist's position.

Confused is one thing. But you clearly understood the postion less than 12 hours prior to asking the questoin that you should have known the answer to.

My guess is that you deliberately ask loaded question, because you are not interested in honest debate, but are trying to make preterism sound more confusing than it is (it is not really confusing at all outside of Revelation and parts of Zech., and Daniel, but those passages are confusing for all view points IMO).

For example,I will go over Dee Dee's ideas so that you can see how confusing it is.This is what she says about the beginning of the "kingdom":

"The "coming" is a coming to the throne, to assume His kingdom and dominion, this definitively happened at the Resurrection/Ascension..." (Comments at Matthew 26:24)

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2430

So she puts the beginning of the kingdom somewhere from 30-33 AD.

However,the preterists say that the "great tribulation" happened in 70 AD,and the Lord Jesus said that by the time of the "great tribulation" the kingdom remained in the future.

I see where your confusion lies. You try to fit Dee Dee's interpretation with your own. Jesus never said that the Kingdom was exclusively in the future to the great tribulation.

Your confusion is because you (willfulling I think, it is too consistent to be accidental) ask questions trying to impose part of preterism on part of futurism. A lot of futurist do this for some reason.

But this is just asking loaded questions. It would be like me asking you?

"How can you say that "this genertaion" is still future when the temple was destroyed in AD 70"?

You don't say that. I know that. But what I did was ask you about X (this generation) from your positoin and assumed Y (that the passage is talking about AD 70.

You ask these types of questions all the time. No wonder you are confused.


Here are the order of events.First the "great tribulation".Then "immediately after" that tribulation comes the heavenly signs.Then the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds.Then after this coming the Lord says that the "kingdom of God is near at hand":

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring" (Lk.21:26).

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:27).

"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (LK.21:31).

So according to the Lord Jesus even as late as 70 AD the kingdom is still only "at hand".Therefore it has not yet been ushered in by 70 AD.

But Dee Dee said that it started at the Resurrection/Ascension,which was around 30-33 AD.

That would confuse anyone.Don't you see that?Then she really gets confusing when she says:

This seems to provide her with an answer.When she says that the Lord Jesus was enthroned at His Resurrection/Ascension despite the fact that the Lord Jesus said that it remained at hand almost forty years later she can say:

Well,as I teach,the kingdom was here in 30-33 AD but at the same time that same kingdom did not arrive until 70 AD.

Well if that is confusing you, then you need to ask question about the "now not yet, tension in scripture".

But you are not interested in honest answers (or I would have given them to you). You want to ask "confusing" questions intentionally trying to force your position in agreement with preterism. This is question begging, and I don't play that game.

If you are really confused about the "now not yet" tension. Then ask a question about the "now not yet" tension.

But that is not what you did.

Can you see that that teaching might confuse some people?

I can. But can you see that asking two part questions where part A is the preterist postion and part B assumes the futurist position, is not condusive to productive dialog?

I will be happy to answer honest questions. I will not answer loaded questions.


Is that what you believe,Faramir?

Pretty much. (To clarify, I belive what Dee Dee actually wrote, not what Mickey's fertile imagination has twisted it into.)

[Mickey]

Confused is one thing. But you clearly understood the postion less than 12 hours prior to asking the questoin that you should have known the answer to.
I do not remeber you telling me anything about the "coming" and what it was in reference to.I knew Dee Dee's position bu I have discovered that not all preteretists agree on this particular subject.

In respose all I got were accusations from you and a questioning of my honesty.

If you directed an answer to me previously on this matter then please tell e where it could be found.

My guess is that you deliberately ask loaded question, because you are not interested in honest debate, but are trying to make preterism sound more confusing than it is...
I was not being dishonest in any way.I wanted to show you how confsing this is to a person who is not that familiar with all the nuances of this eschatology.
To clarify, I belive what Dee Dee actually wrote, not what Mickey's fertile imagination has twisted it into
If I twisted anything then please tell us where I did such a thing.It is easy to make false accusations but it is an entirely different matter to prove those accusations.

I challenge you to prove that I twisted anything that I said about Dee Dee's ideas in my last post.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I do not remeber you telling me anything about the "coming" and what it was in reference to.I knew Dee Dee's position bu I have discovered that not all preteretists agree on this particular subject.

You clearly know that not all preterist see this "coming" as a "coming" to earth, yet the way your question was worded, it assumed that I held that position.

Your question was: "What evidence do you have that Jesus "came" to earth...

To which I responded, "I never said he came to earth"

And then you said:
______________________________________
" You can't be serious.The Lord's answer was in regard to His "coming":

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age" (Mt.24:3).

His disciples asked Him for the signs of His "coming".Since these disciples were on the earth then when they used the word "coming" they were referring to Him "coming" to the earth.

And the Lord answered them about His "coming":

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

If words have any meaning then the Lord Jesus told His disciples that when He "comes" then He will sit on His throne."
______________________________________________

Yet, by your own admission, you knew that this was the (or at least some) preterist position.

So why didn't you ask, "What do preterist understand the "Throne" in this verse to be?" Or "Do you see the throne as a future physical kingdom, or as symbolic?"

Yet, that was not the question you asked: You asked, " But you say that has already happened.What evidence can you give that supports your assumption?"

Note that the above question was preceded by your assertion that the coming was to earth. Your question was not about showing that the coming was not to earth, but a repeat of the same question. Once again, you assumed your position was correct and asked me to provice evidence that the verse in question was fulfilled according to your interpreation, but at the time (AD 70) that I see those verses fulfilled.

Let me make it clear. Christ DID NOT COME TO EARTH IN AD 70.

He DID NOT sit in a physical throne in AD 70.

I did not say that "That already happened" (That being the physical coming. If by "that" you meant something other than a physical coming, you have a vague pronoun reference, don't blame me for misunderstanding)

I will not provide evidence that your interpreation (a physical coming)
happend in AD 70, because it did not.

If you want me to answer questions, ask questions that actually represent my position.

And just to make clear (since you have a hard time understanding):

1. Jesus coming in AD 70 was a coming in judgment, not a physical coming.

2. The throne he is sitting on is not located on Earth, but He is ruling presently.

I explained all this in my post #7 of this thread. I will not repeat myself. If you have questions, read that post first and quote which section of post #7 you have a question about.



In respose all I got were accusations from you and a questioning of my honesty.

In response to your loaded question, I question your interest in honest debate. I did NOT question your honesty. There is a difference.

I still do not think you are interested in honest debate. But I will confess that it is quite possible that you are incabable of actually understanding a position other than your own, and therefore unable to ask pertinent questions. Ergo, you are unable to engage in honest debate.

But those are the only two conclusions I can come to based on your posts thus far.

If you directed an answer to me previously on this matter then please tell e where it could be found.

Post #7


I was not being dishonest in any way.I wanted to show you how confsing this is to a person who is not that familiar with all the nuances of this eschatology.

Then why did you not say, "Hey, did you know that pereterism can be confusing to someone not that familiar with all the nuances of this eschatology"?

I would have replied. I know. But you should familiar with the preterist position in question. In fact I know you are because you quoted Dee Dee's positoin pretty accurately.

Why did you feel it necessary to "show me how confusing" my position is to the novice by asking me a question as if you did not know the preterist position (when you clearly knew the position as evidence by your post in another thread).

I have no idea why you would take such a circuitous rout. However, if this is your idea of honest debate, then we are not going to have a very productive dialog. It will take 6 posts to communicate what could be done in 2.

And since you never mentioned that you were attempting to show how confusing it is, I had no other assumtion to make but that you were either intentionally loading questions or unable to remember the preterist position for more than 12 hours.

But I am a pretty generous debate opponent. If you say all you were trying to do was to show that preterism can be confusing to a novice, then I will say yes. Heck, it was confusing to me for a long time too.

But all systematic eschatologies have nuances that are hard to understand. So what is your point?

If I twisted anything then please tell us where I did such a thing.It is easy to make false accusations but it is an entirely different matter to prove those accusations.

Dee Dee has already acknowledge (not sure if it is in this thread or another) that I showed you where you misrepresented her position. Since she was the author, I will accept her word for this.

[Mickey]

Faramir,

In regard to my post #19,you said:
To clarify, I belive what Dee Dee actually wrote, not what Mickey's fertile imagination has twisted it into
You accuse me of twisting what she said,so I said:

If I twisted anything then please tell us where I did such a thing.It is easy to make false accusations but it is an entirely different matter to prove those accusations.

I challenge you to prove that I twisted anything that I said about Dee Dee's ideas in my last post.
You provided nothing.Now if you are going to accuse someone of something then back up your accusation.Go read post # 19 and quote anything that I said where I twisted what she wrote.
The throne he is sitting on is not located on Earth, but He is ruling presently.
Then why is the Lord Jesus not now sitting in His own throne:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev.3:21).

The believer will be sitting and reigning from the throne of the Lord Jesus,and they will be reigning on earth,and not in heaven:

"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev.5:10).
Jesus coming in AD 70 was a coming in judgment, not a physical coming.
The Lord Jesus says that when He comes in the clouds that "then" He will sit upon His throne,not before:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

If we are going to "reign" with on the earth and we will be sitting on His throne then that means this "coming" took place on the earth.

Also,if He does not sit on His throne until He comes in the clouds and Dee Dee says that this happened in 70AD,then how can she say the following:

"The "coming" is a coming to the throne, to assume His kingdom and dominion, this definitively happened at the Resurrection/Ascension..." (Comments at Matthew 26:24)

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/...d.html#matt2430 (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2430)

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

In regard to my post #19,you said:



You accuse me of twisting what she said, so I said:

You provided nothing. Now if you are going to accuse someone of something then back up your accusation. Go read post # 19 and quote anything that I said where I twisted what she wrote.



There is plenty of evidence that you have, in the past, misrepresented Dee Dee's position. It is here for any one to see. I have no obligation to reproduce it here just because you demand it. Sorry, no dice.



However, if it will make you feel any better, I was not referring specifically to post #19. You have a history of twisting Dee Dee's (and mine and others) position around and my statement was not intended to be specific to post #19.



And if it makes you feel any better a after a very cursory review of post #19 I did not see any twisting of Dee Dee's view.



But you have a demonstrated history of asking loaded questions (the proof is in this thread, my post #22 is just one example). So when you asked "is this what you believed" I was careful to qualify that I agree with Dee Dee not whatever your fertile imagination thinks Dee Dee is saying.



So a more accurate response to your question would be:

To clarify, I believe what Dee Dee actually wrote, not what Mickey's fertile imagination may twist it into.[/quote]



I was not about to try to defend (yet again) a straw man based on your misunderstanding. I did not want to see:

"You just said you belied A and Z at the same time", when I never said such a thing. So I qualified my statement that I believe only what Dee Dee said, not what you think she said (or what you may think she said).



And for further proof that you twist other peoples beliefs on a regular bases, one has to go no further than your next statement:



Then why is the Lord Jesus not now sitting in His own throne:







He is. You twisted my position. Proof positive. Not only did I address this in post #7, but you already asked me this question in this thread already and I stated that “he is” sitting on his throne now.



In fact, my exact answer to your question was, “He is.” An you managed to twist that around to ask me the exact same question that I already answered as if I had not already answered it.



If you can not keep track of your opponents position and have to ask the same questions over and over again, then maybe internet debate is not your cup of tea. :tea:



The believer will be sitting and reigning from the throne of the Lord Jesus, and they will be reigning on earth, and not in heaven:



I addressed this in post #7.



"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: [b]and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev.5:10).



Addressed in post #7.



The Lord Jesus says that when He comes in the clouds that "then" He will sit upon His throne, not before:



"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).



Which as you should know by now, most preterist hold as past.



If we are going to "reign" with on the earth and we will be sitting on His throne then that means this "coming" took place on the earth.



No it does not. Addressed in post #7.



Also,if He does not sit on His throne until He comes in the clouds and Dee Dee says that this happened in 70AD,then how can she say the following:



"The "coming" is a coming to the throne, to assume His kingdom and dominion, this definitively happened at the Resurrection/Ascension..." (Comments at Matthew 26:24)

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/...d.html#matt2430 (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2430)







You see Mickey. This is exactly why no one takes you seriously. Earlier in this same thread you asked me (for at least the second time) why Jesus was not now sitting on His throne. I answered clearly that “He is”, so you should know that the question you asked assumes that I believe something I do not believe (i.e. a loaded question). And in the above statement you display that you know that preterist (or at least Dee Dee) see the enthronement as current. So it is clear to me (and thanks to me exposing it, everyone else) that you knowingly ask loaded questions.



And thank you for coming full circle. You did a fantastic job of twisting Dee Dee’s position. You wanted proof, you have your proof.



Your first mistake was to assume that Mt. 25:31 is the same thing as “coming in the clouds” (Mt. 24:30). You pulled that equation out of thin air. An equation I (and I assume Dee Dee) do not make.



So I have once again shown that you have a propensity for asking loaded questions and twisting the views of your opponents.



It seems like the answer to a majority of the questions you ask will always be, “That is not what I believe”.

And dialog can hardly be productive when one party is clueless (or more likely intentionally obfuscations) regarding the other parties position. Now a certain level of cluelessness is expected and acceptable when exposing a person to a position for the first time. But Mickey has been doing the eschatology debate for quite some time. He should know better by know. The only conclusions that can be drawn, are that he is unable to retain even the basic concepts of preterism, or he is intentionally obfuscating. Neither option makes for very good debate.

:sig:

[Mickey]

Faramir,

You say:
And if it makes you feel any better a after a very cursory review of post #19 I did not see any twisting of Dee Dee's view.
With that settled then I will ask you to resond to the points which I raised in post #19.

This is what Dee Dee says about the beginning of the "kingdom":

"The "coming" is a coming to the throne, to assume His kingdom and dominion, this definitively happened at the Resurrection/Ascension..." (Comments at Matthew 26:24)

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/...d.html#matt2430 (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2430)

So she puts the beginning of the kingdom somewhere from 30-33 AD.

However,the preterists say that the "great tribulation" happened in 70 AD,and the Lord Jesus said that by the time of the "great tribulation" the kingdom remained in the future.

Here are the order of events.First the "great tribulation".Then "immediately after" that tribulation comes the heavenly signs.Then the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds.Then after this coming the Lord says that the "kingdom of God is near at hand":

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring" (Lk.21:26).

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:27).

"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (LK.21:31).

So according to the Lord Jesus even as late as 70 AD the kingdom is still only "at hand".Therefore it has not yet been ushered in by 70 AD.

But Dee Dee said that it started at the Resurrection/Ascension,which was around 30-33 AD.
Faramir,if you believe the same way about this as does Dee Dee then perhaps you will explain her contradiction.How could the kingdom have started in 30-33 AD since the Lord Jesus said that it remained in the future even after the "great tribulation" which the preterists said happened in 70 AD?

Now that you cannot accuse me of "twisting" what she said about these things it is time to put up or shut up.

If you have an answer then now is the time for an answer.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Howie]

20Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."



The Kingdom is “in the midst” of first century Palestine. Hi Faramir,

There are other aspects of your post that I agree with… and some I take issue with. However, a most egregious error that you promulgate is the translation you use above "the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" is terribly inaccurate. It is a "new" translation offered by those who want to mutilate scripture to fit doctrine. The verse in Luke clearly reads, "the kingdom of God is within you." The Greek in no way can be read to mean "in the midst”. The primary meaning of the preposition “entos” when used in this context is “within”, a secondary meaning is “inside’.

I apologize if I appear overly intense. It is very bothersome to me when scripture is distorted.

All the best.

[eschaton]

Hi Faramir,

There are other aspects of your post that I agree with… and some I take issue with. However, a most egregious error that you promulgate is the translation you use above "the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" is terribly inaccurate. It is a "new" translation offered by those who want to mutilate scripture to fit doctrine. The verse in Luke clearly reads, "the kingdom of God is within you." The Greek in no way can be read to mean "in the midst”. The primary meaning of the preposition “entos” when used in this context is “within”, a secondary meaning is “inside’.

I apologize if I appear overly intense. It is very bothersome to me when scripture is distorted.

All the best.

That fits nicely with what Paul taught.

Ro14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.


Col1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

[Mickey]

It is a "new" translation offered by those who want to mutilate scripture to fit doctrine. The verse in Luke clearly reads, "the kingdom of God is within you." The Greek in no way can be read to mean "in the midst”.
Hi Howie,

Are we to believe that the Lord Jesus was telling the Pharisees (v.20) that the kingdom was in them?

And if the Greek word cannot be read to be "in the midst" then why do the Greek experts say that it can?:

"...with gen.,within you,i.e. in the midst of you" ("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

The Lord was not telling these Pharisees that the kingdom was in them,but instead He was saying that since the King Himself was standing right in their midst all they had to do was to believe that He is the King and then the kingdom would come.

In Christ,
Mickey

[eschaton]

In His parables Jesus spoke of the kingdom in many different ways. He said that the kingdom is like a farmer (Matt. 13:24), a seed (Matt. 13:31), a yeast (Matt. 13:33), a treasure (Matt. 13:44), a pearl merchant (Matt. 13:45), a fishnet (Matt. 13:47), an employer (Matt. 20:1), a king inviting people to a marriage feast (Matt. 22:2), and ten young women (Matt. 25:1). He spoke also of the glad tidings of the kingdom (Luke 8:1) and of the mystery of the kingdom of God (Mark 4:11).
On the other hand, Jesus also said that there is a sense in which the kingdom of God had come in His own time. "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15). He said in an even more explicit way: "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you" (Luke 11:20).
So the kingdom of God was the rule of God which He extended over human lives through the ministry of Jesus; and it also is His rule which will be consummated or made complete in the future.

[Howie]

Hi Howie,

Are we to believe that the Lord Jesus was telling the Pharisees (v.20) that the kingdom was in them?

And if the Greek word cannot be read to be "in the midst" then why do the Greek experts say that it can?:

"...with gen.,within you,i.e. in the midst of you" ("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

The Lord was not telling these Pharisees that the kingdom was in them,but instead He was saying that since the King Himself was standing right in their midst all they had to do was to believe that He is the King and then the kingdom would come.

In Christ,
MickeyHi Mickey,

Joseph Thayer, James Strong, George Wigram and others produced Biblical lexicons of Greek and/or Hebrew that though at times are enlightening at many other times are seriously prejudiced by their preconceptions. Their “translation” of the Greek word “entos” is an example. Though they acknowledge that the primary meaning of “entos” is “within” and they acknowledge that the translators of the KJV translated it as such, they insisted on slipping in the unfounded alternative translation of “in the midst” without reasonable scholarly and historical support. It is also important to note that the translators of the Latin Vulgate translated “entos” in this context into the Latin “intra” which also means within or inside. Biblical lexicons, translations and writings that put personal agendas and preferred doctrine above scriptural accuracy have been a plague on Christianity for centuries.

I have not met one serious Greek scholar who can show me where the preposition “entos” was used in similar context by Greek writers (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) to mean “in the midst”. In similar context it almost always means within or inside you as does the Latin “intra”.

All the best.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Hi Faramir,

There are other aspects of your post that I agree with… and some I take issue with. However, a most egregious error that you promulgate is the translation you use above "the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" is terribly inaccurate. It is a "new" translation offered by those who want to mutilate scripture to fit doctrine. The verse in Luke clearly reads, "the kingdom of God is within you." The Greek in no way can be read to mean "in the midst”. The primary meaning of the preposition “entos” when used in this context is “within”, a secondary meaning is “inside’.

I apologize if I appear overly intense. It is very bothersome to me when scripture is distorted.

All the best.

Thanks for the heads up. I will look into that, but my knowledge of Greek is minimal (I have some formal training in Classic Greek, but it was years ago).

I will also have to go back and re-read what I wrote (I wrote it several months ago, for another forum so it is not fresh in my mind). I do not think that the difference between "within" and "in the midst of you" would have a significant change in my particular argument that the Kingdom of God is not a geo/political kingdom.

[Mickey]

I have not met one serious Greek scholar who can show me where the preposition “entos” was used in similar context by Greek writers (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) to mean “in the midst”. In similar context it almost always means within or inside you as does the Latin “intra”.
Hi Howie,

If the kingdom of God was "in" these Pharisees then it is certain that the kingdom was in the world.That being said,how can you explain the words of the Lord Jesus when He said,"but now is My kingdom not from here" (Jn.18:36).

In Christ,
Mickey

[Howie]

Thanks for the heads up. I will look into that, but my knowledge of Greek is minimal (I have some formal training in Classic Greek, but it was years ago).

I will also have to go back and re-read what I wrote (I wrote it several months ago, for another forum so it is not fresh in my mind). I do not think that the difference between "within" and "in the midst of you" would have a significant change in my particular argument that the Kingdom of God is not a geo/political kingdom.You are correct, it would not. I applaud your work. If you do look further into this, I think that eschaton points things in a good direction when he cites Mark 1:15. Look into the Greek of that. The Greek words used are very interesting.

To start with, in the phrase “the time is fulfilled” the Greek word “kairos”, though correctly translated as “time”, when preceded by the Greek “hoti” can mean “the state of affairs”. The word “pleroo” translated (again, not incorrectly) as fulfilled has a connotation of full to overflowing as well as consummated. The other interesting thing about the verb “pleroo” is that it is perfect tense, indicating something that was completed in the past. I think that this understanding is vital for our understanding of the Kingdom. In other words, “it’s already done…”

The next phrase, “the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” is also interesting in that the term translated as “at hand” also has the meaning of “joined together” and is derived from the Greek meaning “in hand”.

Then the famed word “repent” which you may already know actually means “change your thinking” or “change your mind”. I find that fascinating especially when juxtaposed with the idea that “The Kingdom of Heaven is joined together!” and “believe the Good News (Gospels).”

“It’s already done, the kingdom of heaven is joined, change you mind and believe the good news.”

Add other things that Jesus says, like “The Kingdom of God is within you” and His teachings on the Father, and we get a clearer picture of what He was teachings us.

I humbly and sincerely suggest that if you pursue your study of this that you focus first on what Jesus taught about the kingdom in the Gospels before wrestling with other biblical writers.

A decent Lexicon is the one by Henry Liddell and George Scott. There are better ones, but this one is readily available and not as flawed as some.

All the best.

[Howie]

Hi Howie,

If the kingdom of God was "in" these Pharisees then it is certain that the kingdom was in the world.That being said,how can you explain the words of the Lord Jesus when He said,"but now is My kingdom not from here" (Jn.18:36).

In Christ,
MickeyIt is similar to "be in the world but not of it". The Kingdom of God is not "of" or "from" this world. It is not an earthly or material kingdom. Jesus is pretty clear about that in his words and teachings.

[Howie]

In His parables Jesus spoke of the kingdom in many different ways. He said that the kingdom is like a farmer (Matt. 13:24), a seed (Matt. 13:31), a yeast (Matt. 13:33), a treasure (Matt. 13:44), a pearl merchant (Matt. 13:45), a fishnet (Matt. 13:47), an employer (Matt. 20:1), a king inviting people to a marriage feast (Matt. 22:2), and ten young women (Matt. 25:1). He spoke also of the glad tidings of the kingdom (Luke 8:1) and of the mystery of the kingdom of God (Mark 4:11).
On the other hand, Jesus also said that there is a sense in which the kingdom of God had come in His own time. "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15). He said in an even more explicit way: "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you" (Luke 11:20).
So the kingdom of God was the rule of God which He extended over human lives through the ministry of Jesus; and it also is His rule which will be consummated or made complete in the future.You are pointing us in the right direction when you tell us to look to Jesus' words and teachings on the kingdom before looking to others -- I mean he should know better, right!

[Mickey]

It is similar to "be in the world but not of it". The Kingdom of God is not "of" or "from" this world. It is not an earthly or material kingdom. Jesus is pretty clear about that in his words and teachings.
If the Lord Jesus' teachings are clear that the kingdom will not be an earthly one then why did His Apostles think that it would be earthly?:

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).

They evidently believed that it would be an earthly kingdom.And notice that the Lord Jesus only told them that they were not to know the "time".

Nonetheless,they were with Him after the resurrection while He taught them the things pertaining to the kingdom:

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).

The Apostles were with the Lord Jesus when He explained the things in regard to the kingdom.And they believed that it would be an earthly kingdom.

So I will believe that His Apostles were correct in their belief that it would be an earthly kingdom.After all,if the teaching of the Lord Jesus to them was clear then the least that they would know was whether is was to be an earthly kingdom or just a spiritual kingdom.And it is evident that they believed that it would be an earthly kingdom.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Howie]

If the Lord Jesus' teachings are clear that the kingdom will not be an earthly one then why did His Apostles think that it would be earthly?Dear Mickey,

Perhaps I have been unclear. What I thought I said, or meant to say, is that the source, the place of origin, of the Kingdom of God is not material or earthly. The Kingdom of God is eternal it existed prior to time and prior to earth. The Lord ’s Prayer expresses this very clearly when it says, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven…” This is not a material coming thought it may have material manifestations.

Jesus teaches us that the Kingdom of God is within us. It is that inner light that we have that Jesus exhorts us not to hide beneath a basket, but to let shine. Jesus tells us that we are the salt of the earth and that we are the light of the world. There is a parallel between the coming of the kingdom and the shining of our inner light. Our inner light, that kingdom of heaven within us, can only shine through (manifest in this world) when we live in faith in God and love of his creation.

All the best.

[Mickey]

Perhaps I have been unclear. What I thought I said, or meant to say, is that the source, the place of origin, of the Kingdom of God is not material or earthly.
OK,but do you think that the Apostles were right for expecting a kingdom to be restored to Israel?:

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).
The Kingdom of God is eternal it existed prior to time and prior to earth.
It would appear that the kingdom which the Apostles were thinking of did have a beginning:

"I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever...And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David" (2Sam.7:12,13,16,17).
The Lord ’s Prayer expresses this very clearly when it says, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven…” This is not a material coming thought it may have material manifestations.
The kingdom that was set up on earth was indeed "material".And the Scriptures reveal that the Lord Jesus will sit upon the throne of David.

Jesus teaches us that the Kingdom of God is within us. It is that inner light that we have that Jesus exhorts us not to hide beneath a basket, but to let shine. Jesus tells us that we are the salt of the earth and that we are the light of the world. There is a parallel between the coming of the kingdom and the shining of our inner light. Our inner light, that kingdom of heaven within us, can only shine through (manifest in this world) when we live in faith in God and love of his creation.
We are told that we have been "translated" into the kingdom (Col.1:13).If the spiritual kingdom was now on the earth then why would we need to be "translated" to that kingdom?

The Chriustian is identified with both the death and life of the Lord Jesus.And that is how we are translated into the kingdom:

"And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph.2:6).

In Christ,
Mickey

[Mickey]

Faramir,

You have not addressed this earlier post of mine.

You say:
And if it makes you feel any better a after a very cursory review of post #19 I did not see any twisting of Dee Dee's view.

With that settled then I will ask you to resond to the points which I raised in post #19.

This is what Dee Dee says about the beginning of the "kingdom":

"The "coming" is a coming to the throne, to assume His kingdom and dominion, this definitively happened at the Resurrection/Ascension..." (Comments at Matthew 26:24)

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/...d.html#matt2430 (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2430)

So she puts the beginning of the kingdom somewhere from 30-33 AD.

However,the preterists say that the "great tribulation" happened in 70 AD,and the Lord Jesus said that by the time of the "great tribulation" the kingdom remained in the future.

Here are the order of events.First the "great tribulation".Then "immediately after" that tribulation comes the heavenly signs.Then the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds.Then after this coming the Lord says that the "kingdom of God is near at hand":

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring" (Lk.21:26).

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:27).

"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (LK.21:31).

So according to the Lord Jesus even as late as 70 AD the kingdom is still only "at hand".Therefore it has not yet been ushered in by 70 AD.

But Dee Dee said that it started at the Resurrection/Ascension,which was around 30-33 AD.
Faramir,if you believe the same way about this as does Dee Dee then perhaps you will explain her contradiction.How could the kingdom have started in 30-33 AD since the Lord Jesus said that it remained in the future even after the "great tribulation" which the preterists said happened in 70 AD?

Now that you cannot accuse me of "twisting" what she said about these things it is time to provide an answer.

If you have an answer then now is the time for an answer.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Howie]

Hi Mickey!

OK,but do you think that the Apostles were right for expecting a kingdom to be restored to Israel?:

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).Obviously the Apostle did not really know or they would not have asked the question. You are imposing an expectation on their part onto the scripture. I could just as easily impose skepticism on their part onto the scripture. We only know that Jesus did not say yes or no. He said that it wasn’t for them to know when the Father was going to do whatever he was going to do.

It would appear that the kingdom which the Apostles were thinking of did have a beginning:

"I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever...And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David" (2Sam.7:12,13,16,17).
[/b]
The kingdom that was set up on earth was indeed "material".And the Scriptures reveal that the Lord Jesus will sit upon the throne of David.

We are told that we have been "translated" into the kingdom (Col.1:13).If the spiritual kingdom was now on the earth then why would we need to be "translated" to that kingdom?

The Chriustian is identified with both the death and life of the Lord Jesus.And that is how we are translated into the kingdom:

"And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph.2:6).Trying to come to an understanding of the meaning of “the Kingdom” in scripture is a worthwhile endeavor. I do not think that we do the subject justice by cherry-picking scriptural verses. If you would like to explore the meaning of “the Kingdom” is scripture, I will gladly participate. For a Christian, I believe that the starting point for the exploration into the meaning of “the Kingdom” would be Jesus’ words and teachings.

All the best.

[Mickey]

Hi Howie,

I asked you:

OK,but do you think that the Apostles were right for expecting a kingdom to be restored to Israel?:

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).

Here is your answer:
Obviously the Apostle did not really know or they would not have asked the question.
They did not ask whether or not He would restore the kingdom to Israel.Instead they asked about the "time" frme in which it would happen.
You are imposing an expectation on their part onto the scripture.
Yes,it is clear that that they expected the kingdom to be resored to Israel.And if they were wrong in their expectation then would not have the Lord corrected them instead of leaving them with false ideas?

Besides,why shouldn't we believe that their expectation was not according to the teachings in regard to the kingdom.After all,they had been with Him for many days while He spoke of things pertaining to the kingdom:

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).

If anyone would know about the things of the kingdom at that point in time it would be His own Apostles.
I could just as easily impose skepticism on their part onto the scripture. We only know that Jesus did not say yes or no. He said that it wasn’t for them to know when the Father was going to do whatever he was going to do.
Yes,He said that they were not to know the time when the kingdom would be restored to Israel.But He never even hinted that they were in error for believing that the kingdom would be restored to Israel.
Trying to come to an understanding of the meaning of “the Kingdom” in scripture is a worthwhile endeavor. I do not think that we do the subject justice by cherry-picking scriptural verses.
What better way than to discuss this subject than to chose verses which we think covers the subject?
If you would like to explore the meaning of “the Kingdom” is scripture, I will gladly participate. For a Christian, I believe that the starting point for the exploration into the meaning of “the Kingdom” would be Jesus’ words and teachings.
Go right ahead and quote any verse which you want.But at the same time the verses which I quoted state in no uncertain terms that His Apostles expected the kingdom to be restored to Israel.And I have shown you verses in regard to the Davidic covenant where the Lord did indeed start at kingdom on the earth.

But for some reason you hesitate to deal with those verses.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Howie]

Hi Howie,

I asked you:

OK,but do you think that the Apostles were right for expecting a kingdom to be restored to Israel?:

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).

Here is your answer:

They did not ask whether or not He would restore the kingdom to Israel.Instead they asked about the "time" frme in which it would happen.

Yes,it is clear that that they expected the kingdom to be resored to Israel.And if they were wrong in their expectation then would not have the Lord corrected them instead of leaving them with false ideas?

Besides,why shouldn't we believe that their expectation was not according to the teachings in regard to the kingdom.After all,they had been with Him for many days while He spoke of things pertaining to the kingdom:

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).

If anyone would know about the things of the kingdom at that point in time it would be His own Apostles.

Yes,He said that they were not to know the time when the kingdom would be restored to Israel.But He never even hinted that they were in error for believing that the kingdom would be restored to Israel.

What better way than to discuss this subject than to chose verses which we think covers the subject?

Go right ahead and quote any verse which you want.But at the same time the verses which I quoted state in no uncertain terms that His Apostles expected the kingdom to be restored to Israel.And I have shown you verses in regard to the Davidic covenant where the Lord did indeed start at kingdom on the earth.

But for some reason you hesitate to deal with those verses.

In Christ,
MickeyDear Mickey,

I see the Apostles asking a question which Jesus does not even acknowledge the content of. He does not say that anything will be restored to Israel at any time. In fact he uses the phrase “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons”. Note the use of plurals. Jesus is not referring to a single time or event (such as the restoration of the kingdom to Israel). He is saying “It is not for you to know when or what…” This is a general statement of metaphysical truth, not a specific answer to a question about the kingdom being restored to Israel at a certain time.

Your interpretation makes Jesus a speaker of riddles and Jesus was not a speaker of riddles in my opinion. He often answered specific questions with philosophical answers that went to the heart of the asker, not the heart of the question. This is something Jesus does on other occasions. He is not answering the question. He is giving the Apostles a statement of metaphysical truth. He is putting them back on the right track spiritually. “Don’t worry about tomorrow…” He had taught them. Here they were worrying about what and when again. “The Father knows what you need before you ask…” He had taught them. Here they were asking again.

As far as the better way for Christians to discuss this or any other subject… as I said, first come to an understanding of what Jesus said, then see how it applies to the subject at hand. I find it interesting that none of the verses you cite are verses in which Jesus tells us of the Kingdom.

All the best.

[Mickey]

I see the Apostles asking a question which Jesus does not even acknowledge the content of. He does not say that anything will be restored to Israel at any time.
Howie,perhaps you can believe that the Apostles were ignorant in believing that the kingdom would be restored to Israel even though the Lord Himself had revealed the things about the kingdom to them personally,but I cannot.
In fact he uses the phrase “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons”. Note the use of plurals. Jesus is not referring to a single time or event (such as the restoration of the kingdom to Israel).
When the Lord Jesus spoke to the Jews about the time of His coming He said:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

The subject was His coming in the clouds (v.30),and it will be at that time when He will sit upon His throne and when the kingdom will begin:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

But you have the kingdom starting while the Lord Jesus was still walking the earth.How do you explain that?
He is saying “It is not for you to know when or what…” This is a general statement of metaphysical truth, not a specific answer to a question about the kingdom being restored to Israel at a certain time.
He never said "It is not for you to know what".Instead His only comments were in regard to "when".
Your interpretation makes Jesus a speaker of riddles and Jesus was not a speaker of riddles in my opinion.The Lord Jesus did not Himself know the time Himself:

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:6,7).

The Lord Jesus was not speaking in riddles.
He often answered specific questions with philosophical answers that went to the heart of the asker, not the heart of the question.
If His Apostles were in error when they believed that the kingdom would be restored to Israel then why would He not correct them?If they were in error about such an important matter surey the Lord would have corrected them.After all,they would shortly be going out to preach the "gospel of the kingdom".
This is something Jesus does on other occasions. He is not answering the question. He is giving the Apostles a statement of metaphysical truth. He is putting them back on the right track spiritually. “Don’t worry about tomorrow…”
If they were in error and the Lord Jesus wanted to put them back on track then He would have told them that they were making a mistake.But He did no such thing.
As far as the better way for Christians to discuss this or any other subject… as I said, first come to an understanding of what Jesus said, then see how it applies to the subject at hand. I find it interesting that none of the verses you cite are verses in which Jesus tells us of the Kingdom.
Tell me how the kingdom was in place before the Cross since the Lord Jesus Himself said that the kingdom would only be "near" after the "great tribulation" and His coming in the clouds:

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory...So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is near at hand" (Lk.21:27,31).

In Christ,
Mickey

[JackC]

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.


Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.

Hello Mickey,

I understand that you believe strongly that the Kingdom of God is the physical kingdom of Israel.

If I may ask, what do the above verses say to you?

I have not looked at the Greek used there, but it certainly sounds as though Jesus is speaking of the Kingdom of God as something those to whom He was speaking could have already entered into.

If I may offer this to you.

Throughout the OT, we are given a picture of ascension - especially in the tabernacle of David, where the rituals and ordinances of Torah were not observed.

Could it be, Mickey, that at one time the physical kingdom of Israel was a holy nation where entering in the Kingdom of God was possible? Not that the Israel was that Kingdom, but that the Kingdom was established in Israel, the children of Israel having the knowledge and Grace necessary to enter in?

But the 'Kingdom connection' had by Israel was lost and the Apostles knowing that the Kingdom was not of this world but within them were actually asking Jesus when this 'Kingdom connection' would again be available to the children of Israel - the Kingdom thus restored to Israel.

In a couple of places in the Bible we are told that in the end times, the keys and tabernacle of David will be restored. Could this possibly be a reference to this 'Kingdom connection'?

Something to ponder anyways.


Jack

[Mickey]

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in
The way that the nation of Israel was to enter the kingdom was to believe that it is Jesus Who is the King,the promised Messiah.

And the Pharisees were denying that Jesus is the Messiah.Even after the Cross Peter told the nation of Israel that if they would "repent" (have a change of mind) then the Father would send back Jesus so they would be in His presence for the "times of refreshing" and the "restitution of all things":

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts3:19-21).

There is the offer of an earthly kingdom,a kingdom that will have the "presence" of the Lord Jesus.
yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.


Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.
This verse proves my point.It was the "knowledge" that the Lord Jesus is the Messiah which would allow the nation of Israel to have the kingdom restored to them.
I understand that you believe strongly that the Kingdom of God is the physical kingdom of Israel.

If I may ask, what do the above verses say to you?
I have answered tjose verses,so now please answer mine.If the kingdom was already in place before the Cross how can you explain the fact that the Lord Jesus Himself said that He will not sit upon His throne until He comes in the clouds?:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

Tell me how the kingdom was in place before the Cross since the Lord Jesus Himself said that the kingdom would only be "near" after the "great tribulation" and His coming in the clouds:

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory...So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is near at hand" (Lk.21:27,31).

In Christ,
Mickey

[JackC]

The way that the nation of Israel was to enter the kingdom was to believe that it is Jesus Who is the King,the promised Messiah.

And the Pharisees were denying that Jesus is the Messiah.Even after the Cross Peter told the nation of Israel that if they would "repent" (have a change of mind) then the Father would send back Jesus so they would be in His presence for the "times of refreshing" and the "restitution of all things":

Hello Mickey,

If I may share, you will find that scripture opens up to us if we approach it as a little child - innocent, empty, with no rigid ideas of this or that seeking to prove and justify these ideas with what has been written.

Only then can Christ reveal to us the Truth that will make us free.

Entering onto the Kingdom existed before Jesus was born. We are told of Enoch and Elijah being lifted up to God without knowing physical death.

Also repentence is so much more than believing Jesus is Messiah. Well before Jesus was even born, the call to repentence was given to Israel. Just do a search through the OT.

Repentence is called turning from one's evil ways. The book of Job is a wonderful offering of the true repentence that leads to seeing God, which Jesus likens to entering into the Kingdom in His Teachings...

I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.

Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.


Also Jesus tells the Pharisees that they could have repented just from the knowledge brought into to this world by John the Baptist, with no need of actually hearing or knowing Jesus the Messiah.

For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

And then he tells of Nineveh repenting just from the words of Jonah.

The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.



"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts3:19-21).

There is the offer of an earthly kingdom,a kingdom that will have the "presence" of the Lord Jesus.

This verse proves my point.It was the "knowledge" that the Lord Jesus is the Messiah which would allow the nation of Israel to have the kingdom restored to them.

Here is an example of what I was speaking of above. This verse, Mickey, is speaking of a restitution of all things - a return to how things were before the world began. And the receiving of Jesus Christ into Heaven (or the Kingdom of Heaven) would bring this about. This is not talking of Israel nor is it speaking of repentance, but of a Mystery of Christ that few know of.


I have answered tjose verses,so now please answer mine.If the kingdom was already in place before the Cross how can you explain the fact that the Lord Jesus Himself said that He will not sit upon His throne until He comes in the clouds?:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

Tell me how the kingdom was in place before the Cross since the Lord Jesus Himself said that the kingdom would only be "near" after the "great tribulation" and His coming in the clouds:

[i]"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory...So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is near at hand" (Lk.21:27,31).

In Christ,
Mickey

Let me repeat what I think you are saying here, Mickey....

That the kingdom will not/did not exist until Jesus ascends and sits on the throne? And that this kingdom is the kingdom of Israel?

Are you saying then that the historical kingdom if Israel was not the Kingdom of God? That the Kingdom of God will only exist once Israel accepts Jesus as their Messiah? Israel then becoming the Kingdom of God?

There are so many problems with this, Mickey.

One is that scripture talks of a restoration of the Kingdom, a restituation of All Things. Not the beginnings but the return to what once was.

Another is that when Jesus says the Kingdom is near at hand He is saying that the Kingdom IS near at hand. Is it not far away, but right here. It is the same message that Moses gave to the children of Israel. (Deut 30:11-14)

He also warns that it is not something that can be found in time and space - being here or there. It is right here, Eternally. And just as with Job before he repented, we cannot see or perceive It although it has been since before the beginning of the world.

And we can repent and enter in anytime.

The purpose of Israel was indeed as a holy nation, to preach the same Gospel to the world that John the Baptist preached, the same preached by Jesus and all those who are His disciples. The good news is that the Kingdom IS right here, and can be entered into through our repentence or turning away from our evil ways. All instructions/commandments that have come through the world's prophets have been to reveal the evil in us, and how to repent.

Another Mystery of Christ that few understand is that as humanity fell from the Kingdom of Heaven, so did earth. And when Christ comes again, earth will be redeemed and as well as those of humanity who are ready to be harvested.

Let's look at Luke 21 more closely...

27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”


29 Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.


Right away we see that the present earth and her heavens will be passing away, which Peter also prophecies, so how can the Kingdom of God exist in a place that will be no more?

When Christ comes in the clouds, He will be taking His disciples there, as promised{In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.}.


The Kingdom of God, Mickey, IS and always has been. It is Eternal, Infinite, Immovable, Imperishable. Jesus is not speaking of a Kingdom coming that has never yet been, but of a the Eternal Immovable Kingdom that has always been, being restored in a fallen realm.

I understand where you are right now, for I have been there too. But if you let go, the One True Teacher will reveal to you that there is so much more than what you are presently seeing.


Jack

[Mickey]

Let me repeat what I think you are saying here, Mickey....

That the kingdom will not/did not exist until Jesus ascends and sits on the throne? And that this kingdom is the kingdom of Israel?
Jack,I never said that the kingdom did not exist or will not exist until the Lord Jesus sits on His throne when He "comes" (not "ascends") in the clouds.

As I have already said,the Aposltes expected that the kingdom would be restored to Israel.So Israel must have had the kingdom before at some time.And we can see that kingdom in the Davidic Covenant (2Sam.7:13-16).
Are you saying then that the historical kingdom if Israel was not the Kingdom of God?
No.
That the Kingdom of God will only exist once Israel accepts Jesus as their Messiah? Israel then becoming the Kingdom of God?
The kingdom will first be restored to Israel and then it will become universal.And Israel does not "become" the kingdom of God.Instead,they will be in the kingdom of God.
There are so many problems with this, Mickey.
Problems for you?Probably.Problems for me?No.

You say:This verse, Mickey, is speaking of a restitution of all things - a return to how things were before the world began.
If you look at the verse in its context we can see that this "restitution of all things" refers to things that were spoken by the prophets since the begiing of the age in which they wre living,the prophets "from Samuel and all those who followed after"(Acts3:24).

And it is in the book of 1 Samuel that we first read about the Davidic kingdom.
The Kingdom of God, Mickey, IS and always has been. It is Eternal, Infinite, Immovable, Imperishable. Jesus is not speaking of a Kingdom coming that has never yet been, but of a the Eternal Immovable Kingdom that has always been, being restored in a fallen realm.

I understand where you are right now, for I have been there too. But if you let go, the One True Teacher will reveal to you that there is so much more than what you are presently seeing.
If you understand where I am right now then you can understand that the Scriptures speak of two kingdoms.One,the eternal kingdom,is a kingdom that men in their flesh and blood bodies cannot enter (1Cor.15:50).

Another is the kingdom that will be set up on the earth.The Christian will sit with the Lord Jesus in His throne when the kingdom comes:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev.3:21).

And the Christians will reign on the earth with the Lord Jesus,not from heaven:

"And hast made us unto our God a kingdom of priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev.5:10).

The throne that will be set up on earth,and it is in regard to the "throne of David".And the kingdom in regard to that throne did have a beginning.
" He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David"(Lk.1:32).

This Throne is an "earthly" throne:

" Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly"(1Ki.2:12).

In the Kingdom men will go to Jerusalem to worship Him:

" And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one…And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain"(Zech.14:9,17).

The following verses also demonstrate that the Lord Jesus will rule from David’s Throne in Jerusalem:

" At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem"(Jer.3:17).

" It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there"(Ez.48:35).

" And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places"(Ez.43:7).
Also repentence is so much more than believing Jesus is Messiah.
The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "repent" is "to change one's mind"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

And those who believed that it is Jesus who is the Christ,the Son of God,were "born of God":

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him....For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1Jn.5:1-5).

In Christ,
Mickey

[Mickey]

Faramir,

You have not addressed this earlier post of mine.

You say:
And if it makes you feel any better a after a very cursory review of post #19 I did not see any twisting of Dee Dee's view.
With that settled then I will ask you to resond to the points which I raised in post #19.

This is what Dee Dee says about the beginning of the "kingdom":

"The "coming" is a coming to the throne, to assume His kingdom and dominion, this definitively happened at the Resurrection/Ascension..." (Comments at Matthew 26:24)

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/...d.html#matt2430 (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2430)

So she puts the beginning of the kingdom somewhere from 30-33 AD.

However,the preterists say that the "great tribulation" happened in 70 AD,and the Lord Jesus said that by the time of the "great tribulation" the kingdom remained in the future.

Here are the order of events.First the "great tribulation".Then "immediately after" that tribulation comes the heavenly signs.Then the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds.Then after this coming the Lord says that the "kingdom of God is near at hand":

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring" (Lk.21:26).

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:27).

"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (LK.21:31).

So according to the Lord Jesus even as late as 70 AD the kingdom is still only "at hand".Therefore it has not yet been ushered in by 70 AD.

But Dee Dee said that it started at the Resurrection/Ascension,which was around 30-33 AD.
Faramir,if you believe the same way about this as does Dee Dee then perhaps you will explain her contradiction.How could the kingdom have started in 30-33 AD since the Lord Jesus said that it remained in the future even after the "great tribulation" which the preterists said happened in 70 AD?

Now that you cannot accuse me of "twisting" what she said about these things it is time to provide an answer.

If you have an answer then now is the time for an answer.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Hitch]

And your point is... what?

I suppose your point is that you deny the two advent teaching of Scripture, and therefore deny the "two advent" Chiliasm of the ancient Church? Ah, yes, thats whats going on here. Why should I give a hoot about your denials of these simple truths, Hitch?

-Tim
Quote: Originally posted by Hitch

72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,


This is more suited to RaptureWatch,, in the children's section.

But keep it up Tim this trash will work on futurist owned forums.


And your point is... what?

I suppose your point is that you deny the two advent teaching of Scripture, and therefore deny the "two advent" Chiliasm of the ancient Church? Ah, yes, thats whats going on here. Why should I give a hoot about your denials of these simple truths, Hitch?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,



You say:

With that settled then I will ask you to resond to the points which I raised in post #19.



This is what Dee Dee says about the beginning of the "kingdom":



"The "coming" is a coming to the throne, to assume His kingdom and dominion, this definitively happened at the Resurrection/Ascension..." (Comments at Matthew 26:24)



http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/...d.html#matt2430 (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2430)



So she puts the beginning of the kingdom somewhere from 30-33 AD.



However,the preterists say that the "great tribulation" happened in 70 AD,and the Lord Jesus said that by the time of the "great tribulation" the kingdom remained in the future.



Here are the order of events.First the "great tribulation".Then "immediately after" that tribulation comes the heavenly signs.Then the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds.Then after this coming the Lord says that the "kingdom of God is near at hand":



"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring" (Lk.21:26).



"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:27).



"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (LK.21:31).



So according to the Lord Jesus even as late as 70 AD the kingdom is still only "at hand".Therefore it has not yet been ushered in by 70 AD.



But Dee Dee said that it started at the Resurrection/Ascension,which was around 30-33 AD.

Faramir,if you believe the same way about this as does Dee Dee then perhaps you will explain her contradiction.How could the kingdom have started in 30-33 AD since the Lord Jesus said that it remained in the future even after the "great tribulation" which the preterists said happened in 70 AD?



Now that you cannot accuse me of "twisting" what she said about these things it is time to put up or shut up.



If you have an answer then now is the time for an answer.



In Christ,

Mickey





I am truly astounded that you continue to ask questions to which you know the answer to (see below):



I would agree with those that say the age to come is both here and not yet here, in the now/not yet tension of Scripture. This seems to provide her with an answer.When she says that the Lord Jesus was enthroned at His Resurrection/Ascension despite the fact that the Lord Jesus said that it remained at hand almost forty years later



If you do not want to look even more ridiculous than you already look, then I suggest you refrain from asking questions that you already know the answer to.



It is bad enough that you ask questions that someone who has been here, debating preterism as long as you have, should know the answer to by now. But this latest goof is beyond even that.



Now you are asking a question, that you not only should know the answer to, but clearly provided the answer to, in the same thread, just a few days previos.



Once again, I can only conclude that you are not very bright, or not interested I honest debate.



Now if you were really interested in honest debate, you could have asked a question about whay Dee Dee means by “not/not yet” or even better, you could have taken five minutes to do a simple yahoo search (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Luke+21%3A31%22+%22now+not+yet%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&meta=vl%3Dlang_en&fl=1&vl=lang_en&vst=0&vs=www.theologyweb.com&fr=FP-tab-web-t400&b=11)and found not one, not two, but eight separate TheologyWeb threads where Dee Dee mentions ‘now/not yet’ AND Luke 21:31 is mentioned.



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=3003&postcount=2 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=3003&postcount=2)



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=773772 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=773772)



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=6169 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=6169)



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7004&perpage=16&pagenumber=1 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7004&perpage=16&pagenumber=1)



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=6208&page=4 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=6208&page=4)



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=2835&page=3&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=2835&page=3&pp=16)



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=248 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=248)



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=4146&page=2&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=4146&page=2&pp=16)



This search does not even contain any threads where Dee Dee may have mentioned “now/not yet” but not in relation to Luke 21:31. And it was limited to TWeb. You certainly could have found more than this with a broader search.

If you really wanted to know, you could have found this information yourself. That is if you were really interested in honest debate.



Now, you can keep asking question that you already know the asnwer to. I can’t stop you from making an creating an even bigger blight on your credibility. But, if you are going to demand that I answer questions that you already know the answer to, realize that I do not play that game.



I have no idea what you hope to accomplish by this tactic. But you seem to be good at it (this is not the only thread where you have done this). Can you tell me what you hope to accomplish by asking the same question over and over again?


Next time you demand that I answer your question. You better make darn sure that it has not already been answered. And unless you really like the taste of crow, you better be careful that you have not already indicated that you know the answer.

But some people like wearing egg on thier face. :shrug:

[Mickey]

I am truly astounded that you continue to ask questions to which you know the answer to (see below):
I was asking you what you thought,Faramir.And now I know that you agree with Dee Dee's ridiculous idea that some events have already taken place,but at the same time they haven't.

If there ever was a teaching that demand ridicule,this is it.

So even though the Lord Jesus is not now sitting on His own throne we can say that He is already ruling because of the dreamed up principle of "already/not yet".

The Lord is not now sitting on His own throne so that is the "not yet".But at the same time He is because we can invoke the principle of "already".

Let us take a look at one of her examples of this dreamed up principle and see if the Scriptures are teaching a "already/not yet" fulfillment of the same event:
The Adoption: Paul says that we have now received the spirit of adoption (Romans 8: