Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The link you posted appears to be directed at a lay audience. The distinction between "DNA" and "an arrangement of DNA" would probably be lost on the intended audience. The writer probably realized this and so left out the distinction. People who write about science for lay audiences do this all the time.

In other words, scientists are full of double-speak! Their science, in many cases, is so convoluted, twisted, conflicting and incomprehensible that they must paint a different picture of it to knuckle-dragging, neanderthal lay audiences in order to not be laughed off the stage after the first five minutes? (Thanks for clearing that up for us.) We've seen this one trick pony before, namely with scientists (so-called) who proudly proclaim that Everything has come from Nothing, but then only to eventually discover, as we wade through their stinky cow dung, that their version of Nothing is really Something after all.

Meanwhile, another site agrees with author of article to which I lined everyone to yesterday.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...d-from-6524917

[boxcar]

Since Mr. En[Light]enment has not enlightened us as to the meaning of Christ's words in Mat 21:43, I would like to expound on this passage and, of course, the kingdom parable that the term "therefore" in v.21 that connects us to the parable. Proper understanding of the parable is of paramount importance to understanding what Jesus said afterward. This is my first reason for writing this post and the one to follow.

The second question I wish to elaborate on is who is the Kingdom. I addressed this several weeks ago when I showed from scripture that the kingdom of God/Heaven (synonymous phrases) are often personified in the NT in the person of Christ. I will provide one more very compelling proof from a text wherein Jesus unmistakably associates the kingdom of God with Himself personally.

And lastly, I think we should do a quick, down-'n'-dirty study of just what is the Kingdom of God/Heaven? We should never forget that scripture also speaks often to the subject of the eternal Davidic Kingdom. Are all these kingdoms one and the same?

I will try to cover two of these topics in this post beginning in reverse order presented.

The Davidic Covenant

King David had a noble desire in his heart: He wanted to build a house (temple) for the Lord. I'm sure he was thrilled when Nathan (God's prophet) initially gave David the green light to proceed with his idea. But obviously, Nathan's well-intentioned approval was entirely his own and not of God! You can read the entire account in 2Sam 7:1-17; but to save space, I'm just going to quote the heart of covenant God sovereignly made with David his chosen King. As we'll see this covenant turned things around 180 degrees, for God promised David that He would build him a great House.

2 Sam 7:11-17
11 The Lord also declares to you that the Lord will make a house for you. 12 When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15 but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'" 17 In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.
NASB

There is only one person in scripture who is qualified to fulfill this promise/prophecy: Jesus Christ descends from the family line of David. Christ right now is sitting on David's throne in heaven (hence, the Kingdom of Heaven promised to God's Son by God the Father, hence also the Kingdom of God). The Gospel writers make this very clear at the outset of Christ's first advent (LK 1:32-33; Mat 1:1). And of course, it was prophesied that the Messiah would sit on the David's throne (Isa 9:6-7; 16:5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:17-26; Dan 2:4, etc., etc.

Two big take-aways here: First, John the Baptist and Jesus' preaching of the gospel of the kingdom was not new to most informed, pious Jews of their day. They were expecting the coming of the Davidic kingdom, primarily due to Daniel's "70 Weeks" prophecy in Daniel 9. In fact, the Magi who came to worship baby Jesus acknowledged that this was the King prophesied in the OT. So, did Herod who feigned benevolence and reverence toward this King, yet wanted to kill Him because he perceived the Christ child as a genuine threat to his throne!

Secondly, the Davidic Kingdom and the Kingdom of God/Heaven are all one and the same kingdom. They're just different phrases signifying one Kingdom.

Who is the Kingdom of God?

In LK 11:14-26 , we have the account of Jesus casting out a demon but some in the crowd who saw this miracle blasphemed Christ by accusing him of being in league with the ruler of demons Beelzebul. Part of Christ's reply to their wicked accusation was this:

Luke 11:20
20 "But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
NASB

Jesus very clearly identifies himself with the kingdom of God. "If I cast out...THEN the kingdom of God has come upon you." Or as the NIV renders the phrase, "If I cast out...then the kingdom of God has come to you." Or as the NLT renders the phrase, "then the kingdom of God has arrived among you", etc.

As stated several weeks ago and now again...Jesus often personified the "kingdom of God/Heaven". And this is precisely what he did in LK 17:21 when Jesus told the Pharisees that the kingdom was standing right in front of them, i.e. "in their midst". It's no wonder the more modern translations changed the poor earlier translations, if for no other reason (although there are many other legitimate reasons!), that Jesus very often personalized the kingdom, which was his way of inextricably linking himself as the King to his own kingdom -- to the everlasting kingdom promised to King David and ultimately to Himself as God's Son. There is no king love, as Light has alleged. King love does not exist. A legitimate kingdom requires a real king -- not an allegorical one. Christ is that real King.

And we're going to see Christ do this very thing again in the Matthew 21 passage. So, stay tuned for that little revelation, plus much more, in my next installment.

[Show Me the Wire]

... By the inner man, Paul means the soul, and whatever relates to the spiritual life of the soul; as the outward man denotes the body, with everything that belongs to it, -- health, honors, riches, vigor, beauty, and everything of that nature. "Though our outward man perish, yet our inward man is renewed day by day;" that is, if in worldly matters we decay, our spiritual life becomes more and more vigorous. (2 Corinthians 4:16) The prayer of Paul, that the saints may be strengthened, does not mean that they may be eminent and flourishing in the world, but that, with respect to the kingdom of God, their minds may be made strong by Divine power.

17. That Christ may dwell. He explains what is meant by "the strength of the inner man." As

"it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell," (Colossians 1:19,)

so he who has Christ dwelling in him can want nothing. It is a mistake to imagine that the Spirit can be obtained without obtaining Christ; and it is equally foolish and absurd to dream that we can receive Christ without the Spirit. Both doctrines must be believed. We are partakers of the Holy Spirit, in proportion to the intercourse which we maintain with Christ; for the Spirit will be found nowhere but in Christ, on whom he is said, on that account, to have rested; for he himself says, by the prophet Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me." (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18.) But neither can Christ be separated from his Spirit; for then he would be said to be dead, and to have lost all his power.

Justly, therefore, does Paul affirm that the persons who are endowed by God with spiritual vigor are those in whom Christ dwells. He points to that part in which Christ peculiarly dwells, in your hearts, -- to show that it is not enough if the knowledge of Christ dwell on the tongue or flutter in the brain.

May dwell through faith. The method by which so great a benefit is obtained is also expressed. What a remarkable commendation is here bestowed on faith, that, by means of it, the Son of God becomes our own, and "makes his abode with us!" (John 14:23.) By faith we not only acknowledge that Christ suffered and rose from the dead on our account, but, accepting the offers which he makes of himself, we possess and enjoy him as our Savior. This deserves our careful attention. Most people consider fellowship with Christ, and believing in Christ, to be the same thing; but the fellowship which we have with Christ is the consequence of faith. In a word, faith is not a distant view, but a warm embrace, of Christ, by which he dwells in us, and we are filled with the Divine Spirit.

That ye may be rooted and grounded in love. Among the fruits of Christ's dwelling in us the apostle enumerates love and gratitude for the Divine grace and kindness exhibited to us in Christ. Hence it follows, that this is true and solid excellence; so that, whenever he treats of the perfection of the saints, he views it as consisting of these two parts. The firmness and constancy which our love ought to possess are pointed out by two metaphors. There are many persons not wholly destitute of love; but it is easily removed or shaken, because its roots are not deep. Paul desires that it should be rooted [136] and grounded, -- thoroughly fixed in our minds, so as to resemble a well-founded building or deeply-planted tree. The true meaning is, that our roots ought to be so deeply planted, and our foundation so firmly laid in love, that nothing will be able to shake us. It is idle to infer from these words, that love is the foundation and root of our salvation. Paul does not inquire here, as any one may perceive, on what our salvation is founded, but with what firmness and constancy we ought to continue in the exercise of love.

John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries on Ephesians 3:16-17
[emphasis added]

According to the founder of Reformed theology, Christ dwells in man's soul. The Kingdom of God, the "fullness of God" is in man.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries on Ephesians 3:16-17
[emphasis added]

According to the founder of Reformed theology, Christ dwells in man's soul. The Kingdom of God, the "fullness of God" is in man.

Calvin was only half right if he said "man's" soul, as in all men distributively. If he taught that he was wrong. But if by that he meant that the Spirit of Christ dwelt within the soul of his Church (body of Christ) , through the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit, then he's right on the money. I will prove this in my next installment; for it must be determined who, specifically, the nation in Matthew 21 is that was given the kingdom of God after it was taken from Israel.

By the way, Calvin is not the "founder" of Reformed Theology since this theology was invented by God. You give Calvin far too much credit. All he did was discover the true gospel and systematize the Doctrines of Grace.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Calvin was only half right if he said "man's" soul, as in all men distributively. If he taught that he was wrong. But if by that he meant that the Spirit of Christ dwelt within the soul of his Church (body of Christ) , through the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit, then he's right on the money. I will prove this in my next installment; for it must be determined who, specifically, the nation in Matthew 21 is that was given the kingdom of God after it was taken from Israel.

By the way, Calvin is not the "founder" of Reformed Theology since this theology was invented by God. You give Calvin far too much credit. All he did was discover the true gospel and systematize the Doctrines of Grace.

It is called Calvinism for a reason.

The theology God invented came from Jesus and was passed onto the Apostles verbally. No Apostle taught a systematized Doctrine of Grace. And the true Gospel was known at the time of the Apostles, we did not have to wait to the 16th century for the Gospel. We had to wait until the 16th century for man made theologies. In fact there were many invented in the 16th century.

[Show Me the Wire]

boxcar:

Don't you believe the Holy Spirit, Who is God, dwells in you?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

boxcar:

Don't you believe the Holy Spirit, Who is God, dwells in you?

Once and for all SMTW, quit wasting your time in this thread.....I value your opinion elsewhere outside this thread, and so do others...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In other words, scientists are full of double-speak! Their science, in many cases, is so convoluted, twisted, conflicting and incomprehensible that they must paint a different picture of it to knuckle-dragging, neanderthal lay audiences in order to not be laughed off the stage after the first five minutes? (Thanks for clearing that up for us.) We've seen this one trick pony before, namely with scientists (so-called) who proudly proclaim that Everything has come from Nothing, but then only to eventually discover, as we wade through their stinky cow dung, that their version of Nothing is really Something after all.

Meanwhile, another site agrees with author of article to which I lined everyone to yesterday.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...d-from-6524917

If I were to take your post and remove the ad hominem attacks on both scientists and your fellow lay persons, along with the scatological commentary, then what would remain would be essentially correct. Science is admittedly complex and cannot be explained to the uneducated without simplifying it in some way.

If I were to try to explain reality to a lay audience without simplifying it then the first thing I would do is write Schrodinger's Equation on the black board, followed by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and Maxwell's Equations. At that point I would have lost the audience because they would not understand any of it.

My intention is not to disparage the common man. It simply a statement of fact. On the other hand someone has to study and practice economics, law, marketing, finance, and even literature and art. In these fields I am a lay person and I sometimes find them as daunting as their practitioners find science.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Is schizophrenia a mental disorder? Of course.

So you do believe in schizophrenia and that it is a mental disorder. Now, what is a mental disorder? Not the definition but the mechanism.

[Actor]

What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"?

[boxcar]

We cannot understand Jesus' meaning of his words that begin with "therefore" in v. 43 unless we understand the meaning of this kingdom parable. But in order to do this, we just understand the persons, places and things talked about in the parable. In my 2538 in this thread, I asked Light to identify the eight following items: the landowner, the location of the vineyard, when the vineyard was given to the tenants, when was the harvest time, who the landowner's slaves were, who the landowner's son is, the reason why the tenants killed the son, and the identity of the new "other vine-growers" in v.41.

Coming out of the chute, we should also understand that Jesus wasn't teaching something new. This parable is based largely on the imagery of the prophet Isaiah in 5:1-7. Without further ado, let's jump in and identify the key items in the parable.

The "landowner" is God who gave the "vineyard" (the Promised Land) to his "tenants" Israel. This land was given to Israel after they were led across the Jordan by Joshua. The "harvest time" is any time. The "slaves" the tenants murdered were the OT prophets. The landowner's "son" is of course Jesus Christ. The tenants killed the son because they did not want his moral rule over them. And who the "other vinegowers" are suggested by the Pharisees in v.41 is to be announced. Stay tuned.

After the Pharisees answered Jesus' question in v.40, Jesus follows up their answer with another question -- a pivotal question in v. 42.

Matt 21:41-46
41 They said to Him, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons." 42 Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,

'The stone which the builders rejected,
This became the chief corner stone;
This came about from the Lord,
And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it. 44 "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." 45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. 46 And when they sought to seize Him, they feared the multitudes, because they held Him to be a prophet.
NASB

Jesus' question is again rooted in the OT, namely Ps 118:22-23 a messianic prophetic psalm and Isa 28:16, a messianic prophecy.

Now because of everything that was said in the parable and the Pharisees' answer, Jesus connects all that with the "Therefore" which begins v. 43. Whereas the Pharisees said that the landowner should punish the "wretches" (the wicked vinegrowers) and that the landowner should rent out his vineyard to "other vinegrowers", Jesus picks up on this by essentially agreeing with them. But instead of saying the vineyard would be taken away, he says the kingdom of God will taken from them. And he says this immediately after quoting the OT prophecy which said the builders would reject the chief cornerstone -- this chief cornerstone being Christ himself -- the landowner's Son in the parable. So once again, Christ associates himself personally with the Kingdom of God.

But what specifically did Christ mean when he said the Kingdom would be taken from the Jews? The Jews had no kingdom. They were not an independent, sovereign nation. They were nothing more than a client-state of Rome -- a province of Rome -- whatever you want to call it. So, what specifically could be taken from the Jews? It couldn't be the land, even though they were driven from the land in 70 A.D. But the land could not have been primarily in view here because God never gave the land to anyone specifically after 70 A.d.. All kinds of people have laid claim to the land over the centuries, but never just one nation. There is only one answer to this from everything we have seen -- Christ the King[dom] was taken away! And when did this happen? At his ascension, 40 days after his physical resurrection, he was taken physically into heaven to be seated at the right hand of his Father (Act 1:9-11; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1, LK 22:69 etc.)

But two more questions remain. The first is who is the "nation" which Christ had in mind? Here we have a concrete biblical answer: The Church! (See 1Pet 2:9 which in turn alludes to Jews Old Covenant status, cf. Ex 19:6 and Peter applies Israel's former status now to the Church.)

And the last question that needs to be answered is how was this accomplished since Christ was taken physically from Israel? It was accomplished in, by and through the Holy Spirit. In John chapters 14 thru 17, Jesus promised his disciples and all those who after them believe the gospel the gift of the Holy Spirit. Only the Church has the Spirit of Christ within them, which is how Jesus was able to promise the 11 and all subsequent believers through the centuries, that he would always be with them (Mat 28:20) He could always be with them and within them because the Holy Spirit would be with Jesus' disciples forever (Jn 14:16). And we know the eternal, invisible, spiritual Kingdom of God extends from Pentecost (when the promised Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church) until the Second Advent of Christ (Rom 14:17). (Of course, this is another insurmountable problem for Light's interpretation of LK 17:21, since the verb "is" in this verse is obviously a present tense verb, yet the Holy Spirit hadn't been given at the time he uttered those words, therefore there was no invisible, internal kingdom until Pentecost).

Finally, just as Jesus and the Father are one, likewise Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one as well. This is how it can be said that God's people have the Spirit of Christ in them (Rom 8:9-11; 1Pet 1:11).

In conclusion, then...the Kingdom of God (a/k/a Christ himself) was physically taken from Israel at Christ's ascension, and 10 days later at Pentecost given spiritually to believing Jews and Gentiles alike, who now comprise the one, united spiritual nation (a/k/a the Church) when they had they Holy Spirit poured out on them; and from that time until the Second Coming, believers through all ages have been baptized by the Spirit into Christ (a/k/a the invisible, internal, eternal Kingdom of God).

This interpretation of what the Kingdom of God was in Christ's day and what it was at and after Pentecost squares perfectly with the entire counsel of God. Mr. Light certainly cannot make that claim.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So you do believe in schizophrenia and that it is a mental disorder. Now, what is a mental disorder? Not the definition but the mechanism.

Sin is the mechanism. In the eternal, visible kingdom of Christ there will be no such animal as any "mental disorder". All will be perfect in that age forever and ever.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

boxcar:

Don't you believe the Holy Spirit, Who is God, dwells in you?

Take Replay's advice. The Holy Spirit indwelt no one (save for minor exceptions during Christ's ministry) until Pentecost. That's when He was promised and Christ made good on that promise. Don't you believe that Christ is faithful to his promises?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

It is called Calvinism for a reason.

The theology God invented came from Jesus and was passed onto the Apostles verbally. No Apostle taught a systematized Doctrine of Grace. And the true Gospel was known at the time of the Apostles, we did not have to wait to the 16th century for the Gospel. We had to wait until the 16th century for man made theologies. In fact there were many invented in the 16th century.

Yes, and I gave the reason why it's called Calvinism. And it wasn't your reason!

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Take Replay's advice. The Holy Spirit indwelt no one (save for minor exceptions during Christ's ministry) until Pentecost. That's when He was promised and Christ made good on that promise. Don't you believe that Christ is faithful to his promises?

Are you currently living before Pentecost? The question was addressed to you, personally.