|
|
|
protesant religious movement "until the heavens pass"
|
|
randy His point was always that a relative few would follow this narrow vision. The Kingdom would emerge in a physical sense, but would never be fully understood by *everybody* in its true mystical sense. Jesus said: Hey! Wake up! The Kingdom is here around you; it's within you! (Spiritually) sleepy people don't/won't know this, but I'm here to tell you what's what! He showed us what it's like to live in the Kingdom too. No doubt. It was a moral life, and yet a *spiritual* life as well. I completely agree. But much of the Apocalypse actually consists of numerous little visions in which the coming of the Kingdom is portrayed in different ways, to represent a variety of aspects associated with Christ's coming. There is a great judgment of humanity. There is the judgment of Satan himself. I'd buy a ticket to see that reconcilement. I think we all get tickets by default! Having been born into this world, we can't avoid the cosmic struggle that characterizes our existence here. We have front row seats, from birth to death.  I'm not sure what you mean by the Kingdom being my own reality? As a Christian, and one who believes the Kingdom is still a little way off, is it not your goal to be part of that? From my perspective, it's already here and we're already in it. We simply have to wake up (maybe from the dream of this present world?) and realise where we truly are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
protesant religious movement "until the heavens pass"
|
|
|
But those were different times, and there was no recourse to a just legal system. His choices, given the honour culture he lived in, were basically defend the honour of self and wife by snuffing a couple dozen people and lose all honour of self and wife by not snuffing a couple dozen people. I don't agree with your characterization of those times as an honor culture. OK. The de_script_ion fits, however. When someone is insulted and they kill their assaulters in retribution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
protesant religious movement "until the heavens pass"
|
|
|
randy If I tell you that I have fish food that is 50% protein and is superior to most all other brands of fish food, does that mean I'm arrogant? No. That means some nutrition scientist has performed an assay on the product in question. To extend the _meta_phor, I can show you another brand of fish food that has comparable protein figures and similar claims of superiority. Does that mean your chosen brand of fish food is actually superior? No. To make the final leap in our _meta_phor, we look at the labels and both realise that our favoured brands of fish food are produced and packed by the same parent company! Here we are so concerned about labels and packaging, when the important factors of inner contents and source are the same all along! This begs the whole question. If one can of fish food has a superior amount of protein and quality ingredients, then it *is* superior! Your assumption is that they all have the same kind of ingredients, and what differences exist do not affect the overall quality. The claims of superiority are just ink on a label
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
protesant religious movement "until the heavens pass"
|
|
|
randy I agree there should be organized fellowship between the communions, but there does not need to be some kind of all-encompassing political organization placing the church under a single authority. Ideally and technically it already is. Would you not say the Church (whether Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant) follows the banner of Jesus Christ? Yes. But it is to be a *free* union
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
protesant religious movement "until the heavens pass"
|
|
|
Paul's writings document the essential relationship and brotherhood between Paul and the other apostles. Acts also reports the contention between Paul and the apostles and other Jews. Acts 18:15, etc. That contention was resolved. There was tension between the Twelve themselves. That doesn't mean they excommunicated each other from the Twelve. No the contention was never resolved. Many books and documentaries acknowledge there was a break between Paul and the apostles. Paul himself admits it in Galatians, so why are you determined to deny and ignore it. Let's look at the passage... Acts 18:12 ¶ When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, 13 saying, This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law. This passage does not indicate any break between Paul and the apostles. These are nonChristian Jews who simply hate Christians. The supposed break between Paul and the apostles was not actually a break at all. There was some discussion over how much freedom Christians should practise within the Jewish community to avoid provoking the Jews. None of this led to a break in relations. None of it led to any kind of hostility. As I already shared, Peter placed his full confidence in Paul, and endorsed him as a writer of _script_ure. The break between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark was real, but did not amount to any kind of doctrinal split. It was a division over emotions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
protesant religious movement "until the heavens pass"
|
|
|
It's strange that whole cultures are at war, one with another, without apparently realizing the Kingdom of peace in our midst! Indeed. What's also sad about it is that the Kingdom transcends mere religion. It's not just about being Christian or Jewish or Hindu (though it is certainly expounded well by the Christians)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
