The answer to the question of "WHEN is the kingdom of God coming?" is never. If the prophecies about the coming of the kingdom of the god (alleged god) were true, then the kingdom would have arrived well over one thousand years centuries ago.
Where is this promised kingdom of God and the presence of Christ, a kingdom and a presence of a sort which no human could sincerely deny is actual? From the time of our ancestors from 2,500 years ago and even from nearly 2000 years ago until today, humanity throughout the planet Earth has continued to ruled by humans - independently of the (alleged) god.
Furthermore, where is the battle of Armageddon and the Great Tribulation which were foretold nearly 2000 years ago? Also, where is the Day of YHWH/Jehovah God (a great battle by YHWH/Jehovah God) which was foretold about 2500 years ago? A momentous event of a magnitude comparable to the biblical claim of the great worldwide flood of Noah's day was foretold to come, but it has not come. Gospel NT books ("According to Mark", "According to Matthew", and "According to Luke") claim that Jesus said the coming of the Son of Man (Jesus at his alleged return in power and glory) and the end "of the system of things" would be like that of the coming of the flood of Noah's day.
These things show that the expectations stated by the writer of 2 Peter 3 are false. The book called "The Second Of Peter" claims to be written by the Apostle Peter of Jesus Christ, but whether that person wrote it or someone else, the person has been shown to be a false prophet! Modern critical scholars of the NT say that book falsely claims to be written by the Apostle Peter. They also say the book was written around the year 100 CE (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter ) and in an attempt to explain why Jesus hadn't returned yet and why the end hadn't yet come. We are living about 1900 years after that time and from that vantage point in time it can be seen that the claims of chapter three have proved hollow. The wise (in regards to Bible understanding and how history relates to unfulfilled predictions of the Bible) with eyes to see recognize this.
Christians, please open your figurative eyes! Please 'see' the truth of this matter! Please get out of false religion (namely any religion which teaches supernaturalism) and please adopt scientific naturalism. If you do so you will more accurately perceive reality and be more enlightened and you will be freed from bondage to supernaturalistic thinking, and from bondage to hurtful human rulers of religion.
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
31
WHEN is the Kingdom of God coming?
by Fisherman inwhen is the kingdom of god coming?.
on being asked by the pharisees when the kingdom of god was coming, he answered them: “the kingdom of god is not coming with paratherisis; 21 nor will people say, ‘see here!’ or, ‘there!’ for look!
the kingdom of god is in your midst.” —lu 17:20,21. .
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
17
What did Jesus Teach the "Kingdom of Heaven/God" is?
by truth_b_known inthe books of matthew, mark, luke, john, and the beginning of acts are filled with what the authors purport are statements of jesus.
jesus is quoted as making several statements about "the kingdom of heaven" or "the kingdom of god".
those statements are often given as parables that start with a phrase something like "the kingdom of heaven is like...".
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Regarding Hebrews 11: 9-10, 13-16 9 and the use of the word "heavenly" people often speak of certain things on Earth (or what they expect will eventually be on Earth) as heavenly. Saying that something is heavenly does not necessarily mean or imply that one is saying it is in heaven. For a thoroughly Jewish Jewish Messianic perspective see Thousands of New Testament Scholars Are Wrong | DISCOVER | First Fruits of Zion (ffoz.org) . It says the following.
'A Western mindset relegates what is spiritual to an invisible dimension. This is not the case in a Jewish perspective. The prophets, with all their focus on the tangible land of Israel and the earthly stones that comprise Jerusalem’s ramparts, never denied the spiritual, heavenly quality of that place of promise. The difference between a city founded by men and one founded by God is not the sphere of its existence. A city built by God is one that will not be destroyed and is filled with the glory of God.
In his promise of the new covenant, Jeremiah declares,
Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when the city shall be rebuilt for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate… It shall not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever. (Jeremiah 31:38-40)
That is the heavenly country and the city founded by God that Abraham anticipated. The goal of redemption is not to put an end to what is physical, but to unite the heavenly kingdom with this material earth, as our Master said, “On earth as it is in heaven.”
Abraham’s children were promised a heavenly country, not a country in heaven. That place is none other than the land of Israel. When Yeshua returns and his reward is with him, Mount Zion—yes, that Mount Zion—will be his throne. This fulfillment will simultaneously be spiritual, impacting all humanity, and physical, for Abraham and his descendants forever.'
My observation is that Messianic Jews, by being both Jews and followers of Yeshua/Jesus, often understand the Bible (OT with NT) better than gentile Christians.
-
17
What did Jesus Teach the "Kingdom of Heaven/God" is?
by truth_b_known inthe books of matthew, mark, luke, john, and the beginning of acts are filled with what the authors purport are statements of jesus.
jesus is quoted as making several statements about "the kingdom of heaven" or "the kingdom of god".
those statements are often given as parables that start with a phrase something like "the kingdom of heaven is like...".
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Though many people interpret the NT expression of "Kingdom of heaven" (including the WT [in regards to Jesus and the 144,000] and Vanderhoven7) as meaning the "kingdom in heaven" years ago I discovered that a number of scholars say it doesn't mean that (and it does not mean that Matthew 8:10-11 says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be in heaven instead of on Earth). Those scholars say it means the kingdom which receives its authority from God and thus that the location of the authority is from heaven, with the kingdom on Earth. Some of them also say it was a way to avoid using the name/tile "God" when communicating to Jewish non-Christians (ones who try to avoid over use of the 'name' of God) and that such is why it is used in the gospel called "According to Matthew" (which is claimed to be primarily written to specifically convince Jews) but not in the gospel called "According to Mark" and not in the gospel called "According to Luke" (or only infrequently used in those two books). That was a key insight to me when I doing independent biblical study (that is independent of WT literature) while I was still a Christian. It contributed to me coming to believe that the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith) and the Church of God (Sevenh Day) are the two religions of Christianity which are the closest to biblical Christianity.
Keep in mind that Daniel 2:44 says the kingdom will be on Earth, ruling from Earth (though with it being brought into existence form a source located in heaven, namely from YHWH God).
Note that in the Lord's prayer (also called the our father prayer) the book called "According to Matthew" attributed Jesus as telling his apostles/disciples to pray that the father's will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. This is consistent with the idea of expecting the kingdom to eventually extend to Earth, with the Messiah ruling on Earth.
For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_heaven_(Gospel_of_Matthew) . It says the following.
'Kingdom of heaven (Greek: βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν) is a phrase used in the Gospel of Matthew. It is generally seen as equivalent to the phrase "kingdom of God" (Greek: βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke. ... Classical scholar Howard W. Clarke notes that Matthew 3:2 is the first of twenty-nine references to the "kingdom of heaven" in the Gospel of Matthew.[2] The gospels of Luke and Mark tend to prefer the term "kingdom of God". Matthew's use of the word "heaven" is often seen as a reflection of the sensibilities of the Jewish audience this gospel was directed to, and thus tried to avoid the word "God." Most scholars feel the two phrases are theologically identical.'
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kingdom_of_God says the following.
'In the synoptic Gospels (which were written in Greek), Mark and Luke use the Greek term "Basileia tou Theou," commonly translated in English as "Kingdom of God," while Matthew prefers the Greek term "Basileia tōn Ouranōn" (Βασιλεία τῶν Ουρανῶν) which has been translated as "Kingdom of Heaven." Biblical scholars speculate that the Matthean text adopted the Greek word for "heaven" instead of the Greek word for "God" because—unlike Mark and Luke—it was written by a Jew for a Jewish audience so, in keeping with their custom, avoided using God's name as an act of piety. In Matthew, "heaven" stands for "God." The basis for these terms being equivalent is found in the apocalyptic literature of Daniel 2:44 where "the 'God of heaven' will set up a 'kingdom' which will never be destroyed."
... Jesus assumes his audience understands the Kingdom foundation that was laid in the Hebrew Scriptures. When he speaks of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven (both meaning the same thing) he speaks of the time of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. A time of a restored earth where the faithful will worship and serve their God forever under the rulership of a righteous leader of the Davidic line. This was the Messianic hope of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures and was carried over and echoed in the words of John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul and others in the Greek Scriptures.
Jesus would attach the theme of the gospel message itself with this Kingdom idea. Luke 4:43 tells the reader that Jesus' very purpose for being sent was to "preach the gospel about the Kingdom." He then would send out his disciples to speak this message even before they understood anything about his death and resurrection. Compare Luke 9:1-6, Matthew 9:35, Matthew 10:7, Matthew 16:21-23, etc. The initial seed that must be sown in the hearts of men was also identified as the word of the Kingdom by Jesus in Matthew 13:19. Shorthand for the word of the kingdom was given in Mark and Luke's version of the parable of the sower as "the word" (Mark 4:14) and "the word of God" (Luke 8:11).
Jesus often spoke of the Kingdom of God as the destination for the righteous in the end of days.[18] Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount shows that those who follow the "beatitudes" are rewarded with the Kingdom of God/inheriting the earth/comfort etc. Matthew 19 gives an account of Jesus equating popular terms such as "eternal life" and "saved" as the same thing as entering the Kingdom of God when it is established upon the earth. Jesus even taught his disciples to pray: "Let Your kingdom come, let Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." '
-
20
Apostates apparently have their own terminology
by Vanderhoven7 ina dyed in the wool witness actually posted this as if non-witnesses invented unheard of terminology,.
"those who devote their life to criticize jehovah’s witnesses use a lot of very specific expressions and ideas common only to them:.
“8 old men in new york”,.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
In a combination of two of the Star Trek movies the Borg was eventually completely defeated. In the story line it was shown that the Borg's claim of "resistance is futile" was a false claim (when directed to members of the Star Trek crew). If we apply that idea to the WT it can give us a hope that the WT will eventually be completely defeated.
-
99
If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?
by Disillusioned JW insometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?
' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?
' what do you folks say?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Rocketman123, regarding people "looking for help and assistance in their problematic sociological lives" help can be found in some self-help books and articles written from a secular perspective that make no promotion of religion. My experience has been that the good books in that category are very hard to find, since the vast majority of self-help books mix in religion, but they do exist.
-
162
A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.
by Fisherman inobviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.
and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.
in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Diogenesister, when I decided to become baptized as a JW at age 15 I did so for what I thought was because of logical reasons and based upon facts, but I knew it greatly influenced by the emotional mindset that comes from being taught there is a God who will bring Armageddon. However some of what I thought were facts (ones taught to me by the WT) were only half-truths and some of reasoning at the time was faulty. I also didn't know enough relevant facts. But later after I learned more and improved my critical thinking skills I determined I made a mistake in concluding that the JW religion is the true form of Christianity. Later I learned that much of biblical Christianity is also wrong. Eventually I became an atheist. I thus was swayed by logic and facts to becoming an atheist, because even when I had formerly decided the JW religion was the truth, it was because I valued using logic and facts to decide what is truth - instead of faith.
-
99
If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?
by Disillusioned JW insometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?
' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?
' what do you folks say?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
The above mentioned Wikipedia article about Carroll says the following.
"Sean Michael Carroll (born October 5, 1966) is an American theoretical physicist and philosopher who specializes in quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology. ... He is known for atheism, critique of theism and defense of naturalism.[5][6][7][8] He is considered a prolific public speaker and science populariser.[8][9][10] ...Carroll has also worked on the arrow of time problem. He and Jennifer Chen posit that the Big Bang is not a unique occurrence as a result of all of the matter and energy in the universe originating in a singularity at the beginning of time, but rather one of many cosmic inflation events resulting from quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy in a cold de Sitter space. They claim that the universe is infinitely old but never reaches thermodynamic equilibrium as entropy increases continuously without limit due to the decreasing matter and energy density attributable to recurrent cosmic inflation."
-
99
If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?
by Disillusioned JW insometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?
' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?
' what do you folks say?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
On page 3 of this forum topic I said I wonder if "some people might have some paranormal ability". But I now don't wonder if such exists. I currently strongly think that such does not exist. I get that impression partly because of research I have done in the past few months on the topic of ESP.
-
99
If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?
by Disillusioned JW insometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?
' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?
' what do you folks say?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
A moment ago I rediscovered that I had created this forum topic (it wasn't listed when I clicked on the link which lists the topics created by me). This topic is a great place for me to promote scientific naturalism thus I am reviving this topic.
Yesterday while doing an internet search on how to persuade a Christian to become an atheist I found the fascinating web page located at https://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-a-Christian-to-Become-Atheist .
While doing an internet search on scientific naturalism I found an article by Sean Carroll in which Sean says he is a naturalist. I then searched for more information about him and found a Wikipedia article about him this link .
-
162
A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.
by Fisherman inobviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.
and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.
in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
When Vanderhoven7 on page 16 of this topic thread said regarding himself "I choose not to discuss faith issues with Atheists" that immediately gave me the idea that he believes in Christianity and the Bible based solely upon faith, rather than upon the type of evidence (such as historical or scientific) that could conceivably convince an atheistic ex-Christian to once again believe in Christianity. If that is the case then it would be correct for Vanderhoven7 to conclude it would be pointless for him to try to persuade me and other atheists of Christianity. A great many of Christians who became atheists did so for logical reasons, at least for reasons which we are convinced were logical ones. Atheists of that type are not persuaded by arguments based upon faith (at least the kind of faith which atheists perceive is blind faith).
Perhaps I am wrong in thinking (perhaps by intuition) that Vanderhoven7 holds onto his belief in Christianity solely (or primarily) because of faith. But if such is the case, I would only know I am wrong if Vanderhoven7 told me so and explained his reasons to me. He has made his choice to not tell me his reasons. OK, that is fine.
Somewhere I read something which to the effect said that logic and facts will only convince a Christian to became an atheist if the person became a Christian due to reasons based upon logic and facts. If a person didn't try to use logic and facts to determine if Christianity is true, before becoming a Christian, then that kind of person will probably never disbelieve in Christianity by an atheist presenting logic and facts against belief in Christianity. [Update: A moment I relocated one of the sources about when the use of logic doesn't persuade people to change their views. It is at https://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-a-Christian-to-Become-Atheist . It says the following. "You must understand where your friend is coming from in order to build a bridge between your two belief systems. At the same time, remember that you can't use logic to persuade someone out of a position that they didn't use logic to get into."]