No i don't see that, the language this was translated from has word for church and for heaven. He literally just said church and kingdom of heaven seperately and made no clarification that they were interchangeable. You are adding that interpretation yourself. If he said " And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: And from henceforth i proclaim the church is as my kingdom of heaven"
Then you might have a reason to think that. But he doesn't. So you are interpreting it to mean something, which prophecies as i said cannot be open to interpretations. Because then anyone could make the bible say whatever they want.
No, you don't see that due to your lack of knowledge in what scriptures say. This was one of the things I informed you about before proceeding to the "The prediction" part. That is okay though, I can explain further on this.
Every time the kingdom is referred to before Acts 2, it is referred in the future tense. Every time the kingdom is mentioned after Acts 2, it is referred to in the past/present tense in scripture. This is another way of knowing that the "church/kingdom" was used interchangeably in Matt 16:18-19.
I refer two examples after Acts 2.
Colossians 1:13
Revelation 1:9
Both, in context, use past/present tense referring to the kingdom.
Daniel 7 is so vague, i read it and he spoke of four beast.
"
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another." That could mean literally anything.
"Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth," -- alexander the great didn't rule or conquer the entire earth. Saying there are "4 kings" is way too vague, there have been thousands of kings, ones that ruled longer than any you mentioned as well.
Its really not that vague at all if one has studied on this. It will make it very hard for me to show you something if you don't understand it and have no knowledge about it except reading a tiny bit here and there. Daniel 7 is the same interpretation as Daniel 2. The kingdoms I have explained to you fit the bill especially when used with the scripture I gave you.
Let me be as brief as I can be, and add a little more material for you:
Daniel 2:30-45 = I explained the 4 kingdoms that runs exactly parallel with historical records in the exact order. Coincidence? Hardly. Prediction? Absolutely.
Daniel 2:44= the prediction is made that God would set up His kingdom in the "days of those kings" referring to the 4th kingdom, that I introduced to you as Roman. How do I know this? History and......
Matthew 3:2 = "...the
kingdom of heaven is at hand" in a time very soon this will happen. Next......
Notice this is during the time that Rome rules.
Matthew 16:18-19 = Jesus mentions to Peter that Peter will use the keys to open up the church; the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The words are used interchangeably when you consider all the scripture that refers to it. And yes, history shows these events as happened.
Next you have Acts 2 = Peter is the one giving the sermon aka "upon this rock" Peter is confessing the Christ to all at Jerusalem.
Koine Greek = Rock -
petra -When used in this context a metaphor as "a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul" When you look at Matthew 16:13-17 you will begin to understand why.
In Acts 2, once the people in Jerusalem accepted what Peter had said and realized what they did, they asked what to do. Peter told them, they got baptized and then that is when the church/kingdom started. See Acts 2:47 as an example of what they were added too.
Next look at Colossians 1:13. What were these Christians who were baptized "translated" into? The kingdom. The kingdom is the church; the church is the kingdom.
Also, another example that I already used, Revelation 1:9. John is a "brother and companion" with Christians "in the kingdom AND patience of
Jesus the Christ." Again, kingdom is used as a present/past tense indicating to all that it is already here.
Maybe this might help too....
When the word church was used, it doesn't mean a physical building.
Again, what does the Koine Greek say (the NT was all Koine Greek language)
ekklēsia is the word used for church. The bible uses it in this context:
"an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting"
Just in case you thought it was a physical building of sorts. It is not.
Then it's useless, because even if it was wrong, there would be no way to demonstrate that it's wrong. If you care that what you believe is true, then it would be nonsensical to believe things that you can't determine are true or false. By being nonfalsifiable it means you don't have a reason to believe it. It's like asking me to prove there isn't a dishwasher on jupiter. You can't do that.
That line can also be reversed onto you, such as how can you believe there is no God, you must prove there is no God. The ball is not just in my court to prove, but also yours. I'm not saying you do it, but lots of people who disbelieve in God like to say that the evidence rests solely on those that do. That is unreasonable since it is Christian faith vs Atheist faith. I say Atheist faith because everything they have is theory, not proved one bit.
However, you can use history to try to disprove that this (our discussion above) happened.
Exactly, which is why the prophecies in the bible are not accepted by the majority of historians and biblical scholars as facts.
This is an unsupported claim and should be discarded. Where are the documents that say such a thing?
I don't mind discussing contradictions. I just meant that if i tell you that there is no firmament, that bats are not birds, that zebras don't get their stripes by standing in front of trees, and your response is "He's god he can do anything, he can make his own light and decide how days can pass even though we notate a day by the earths rotation in the sunlight that apparently didn't exist until 4 days later." that's akin to saying "this is true because magic." which is not a pathway to a productive conversation. How had 4 days passed if there was no sun? If your answer is something similar to "Because it's god" that's a special pleading fallacy.
I do not accept that the prophecies in the bible meet the parameters i set forth, i cannot except "magic" as an answer for contradictions.
I already put this behind us. Was this still an issue? Sorry if I mislead you. I wasn't discussing contradictions anymore as I thought I mentioned.
So let's talk about the laws of the universe. Which law proves that god is real?
Were you already bored of our prophecy discussion? I apologize if I wasnt engaging for you on that subject.
The law of Causality
law of Biogenesis
1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics
I wouldn't be alone in this matter. Consider these men:
It is an indisputable fact that many of the greatest scientific minds believed in God and found that their scientific breakthroughs proved God more.
One author writes:
"It is widely accepted on all sides that, far from undermining it, science is deeply indebted to Christianity and has been so from at least the scientific revolution. Recent historical research has uncovered many unexpected links between scientific enterprise and Biblical theology" (Russell 1984, 777).
In fact, scholars like Stanley L. Jaki, one of the worlds foremost philosopher-historians, are starting to speak more and more on “the anthropic principle,” i.e., the idea that, in view of its unique and intricate qualities, “the universe may have after all been specifically tailored for man” (Varghese 1984, 72).
Gregg Easterbrook (senior editor of
The New Republic) wrote about Carl Sagar, an avowed atheist, “Sagan himself began to advocate science-and-religion studies” (1999, M2) shortly before Sagar's death.
Gregg Easterbrook also writes about complex issues like, “Is an embryo human?” and “genetic engineering,” have forced scientists to approach the theologians with questions regarding ethics (1999, M6). Materialism simply hasn’t a clue as to how to deal with moral problems.
Dr. James Jauncey, in his book "
Science Returns to God", says that “Scientists throughout the world today are largely frightened men.” He goes into writing that scientists are fully aware of the harm modern tech poses to humanity claiming that there needs to be some sort of moral restraint if civilization is to survive. Jauncey also claims that scientists, “are returning to God as a final and only answer to the problems of the world” (1971, 10).
Dr. John Robert Russell, who holds the Ph.D. in physics says, “science needs religion to rid itself of idolatry. And humanity needs both” (Long 1999, 15).
Johann Kepler was “one of the greatest astronomers that ever lived” (Wright 1962, 398). Kepler said before, "I thank Thee, my Creator and Lord, that Thou hast given me this joy in Thy creation, this delight in the works of Thy hands; I have shown the excellency of Thy works unto man, so far as my mind was able to comprehend Thine infinity (Northrop n.d., 266)."
French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, known for Pascal’s Law, maintained that “the only perfect knowledge comes through Christian revelation” (Jones 1979, 167).
Robert Boyle, the
“father of modern chemistry” known for Boyle’s Law. The more Boyle matured the more he dug into and was interested in religion. Even to the point were he studied Hebrew and Greek to read it in the original languages. One man wrote of him:
"more devout the more he studied the wonders of nature. . . At his death Boyle left a sum of money to found the Boyle lectures . . . intended for the confutation of atheism" (Hall 1970, 382)."
Lets not forget Issac Newton. Newton said before, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being (Hutchins 1952, 369)."
Michael Faraday “is ranked as one of the most brilliant experimentalists science has ever known” (Sewell 1949, 146)." An agnostic associate said of him: "I think that a good deal of Faraday’s week-day strength and persistency might be referred to his Sunday Exercises. He drinks from a fount on Sunday which refreshes his soul for a week."
Louis Pasteur, father of modern bacteriology, "was a strong opponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection (Asimov 1982, 425)." Even atheists referred to him as “one of the greatest scientists in history,”.
Never in all of history, or even since the scientific revolution till now, has anyone be able to conduct and experiment were non living matter could create living matter.
Never has anyone been able to prove that something can spawn from nothing.
Never has anyone proved that one animal could produce/create an entirely different animal etc.
Its things like this that got me thinking.
