The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[razzelflabben]

You clearly placed Satan, not Jesus as ruler of this physical world. I am arguing that the scriptures teach:

1. While Satan was in that position, Jesus deposes Him;
2. Jesus replaces Satan as "ruler" or "king" over this present world.

Do you deny either?

wow, my head is starting to hurt trying to figure out what you don't understand about what I said....If Jesus was ruling this earth at this moment in time, there would be no sin. that is not what we see nor is it what scripture says and instead of doing even the quick version of the study I recommended since there are dozens of passages, you just come on and try to argue some more.

Now, that being said, Jesus authority over all, even this world and the flesh therein is absolute...but having absolute power does not equal ruling. In fact, even some of Jesus reprimands when He walked this earth were claims about who their father was based on who they are following, you know, "you are of your father the devil"...any person or place that is governed by sin is ruled by Satan...so let's turn the question a bit and see if you can grasp what I am saying...do you deny that the world we live in is in the grips of sin? Do you deny the scripture that says that we are either slave to sin or righteousness? Do you deny that most people in the world today serve Satan rather than God? So who then reigns on this earth? If people are worshiping and serving sin rather than righteousness, who is ruling?

The fact that all is not perfect here on earth is certainly not evidence that Jesus is not presently king. In fact, Paul tells us explicitly in 1 Corinthians 15 that Jesus will rule until sin and death are defeated. This means, of course, that sin and death are still present during Jesus' reign. And I will not look for texts to support your position that Satan is presently ruler. It would be a fruitless search since there aren't any. If there were, that would make Jesus incorrect when He tells his followers that Satan is about to be cast out of his position of rulership.

lol wow, your really don't get this do you....It's not that hard to figure out....at least glance at this website and see if it makes more sense than what you are making out of what I say http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010504.htm

 

[expos4ever]

and....nothing in that excludes Christ's function in this world, in fact, it says just the opposite...so like I said, please stop misrepresenting what I said and making claims that I said something I didn't.

Look you said that Satan was the ruler of this world. I simply argued that this is not the case. I am perfectly aware that you said that Jesus "operates" in this world. But that does not make King. I have no idea how I have misrepresented you.

wow...you do realize that Jesus came to destroy the power of Satan over this world right? And that that power is not fully destroyed until all things are reconciled to God, right?

No. Jesus indeed came to defeat Satan and indeed has toppled him from his position of rulership. But while it is easy to want to think that when Jesus becomes enthroned, all problems will magically go away, Paul tells us clearly in 1 Corinthians 15 that this is not the case. So the fact that there are still problems is certainly not evidence that Jesus is not presently seated as King over this world.

I do insist however that you stop misrepresenting what I said...

I do not see how I have misrepresented. Please explain, if you want to.

 

[expos4ever]

wow, my head is starting to hurt trying to figure out what you don't understand about what I said....If Jesus was ruling this earth at this moment in time, there would be no sin.

There is zero Biblical evidence for such claim, even though it easy to think this way.

In fact, as I have already shown, Paul clearly tells that it is during the course of Jesus' reign that problems are defeated - they do not magically go away when Jesus becomes king:

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

 

[razzelflabben]

Look you said that Satan was the ruler of this world. I simply argued that this is not the case. I am perfectly aware that you said that Jesus "operates" in this world. But that does not make King. I have no idea how I have misrepresented you.


No. Jesus indeed came to defeat Satan and indeed has toppled him from his position of rulership. But while it is easy to want to think that when Jesus becomes enthroned, all problems will magically go away, Paul tells us clearly in 1 Corinthians 15 that this is not the case. So the fact that there are still problems is certainly not evidence that Jesus is not presently seated as King over this world.


I do not see how I have misrepresented. Please explain, if you want to.

see my previous post so that we do not cross posts with each other, I have been pretty clear

 

[Stillicidia]

"wow, my head is starting to hurt trying to figure out what you don't understand about what I said....If Jesus was ruling this earth at this moment in time, there would be no sin."

then don't be so literal when everyone is sarcastic, I'm very literal

 

[expos4ever]

So who then reigns on this earth?

Jesus, but most people are disobedient citizens of His kingdom. The fact that many people sin does not make Jesus any less king than does the fact that many people break the law in the US means Barack Obama is not president.

At the end of the day, the problem is that you believe something that the Bible not only does not teach, but actively denies: that sin will disappear on day one of Jesus' reign.

 

[razzelflabben]

There is zero Biblical evidence for such claim, even though it easy to think this way.

In fact, as I have already shown, Paul clearly tells that it is during the course of Jesus' reign that problems are defeated - they do not magically go away when Jesus becomes king:

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

here is the problem, you refuse to look at any of the scriptures I point you to, you twist what I am saying, and then turn around and use one of the passages I point you to as evidence of what I am saying as evidence that I am wrong but fail to show me wrong. At this point, I think either 1. you are simply not hearing what I am saying 2. you are just trying to stir a fight of which I have already told you I was not interested in or 3. you simply don't want to understand what is being said and how it is supported by scripture...either way anything further on the matter is off topic and against forum rules.

 

[razzelflabben]

"wow, my head is starting to hurt trying to figure out what you don't understand about what I said....If Jesus was ruling this earth at this moment in time, there would be no sin."

then don't be so literal when everyone is sarcastic, I'm very literal

so the arguments the other poster is making are sarcastic objections and not really objections at all?

 

[Stillicidia]

Sarcasm being, Jesus is not manifest ruling on this earth, so why suggest it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Jesus, but most people are disobedient citizens of His kingdom. The fact that many people sin does not make Jesus any less king than does the fact that many people break the law in the US means Barack Obama is not president.

At the end of the day, the problem is that you believe something that the Bible not only does not teach, but actively denies: that sin will disappear on day one of Jesus' reign.

did you look at the website I posted, it has many of the passages listed that you refuse to look at...but I was told you are being sarcastic in your objection so I guess it's all good..I still recommend you have a look into scripture on the matter I believed as you do until I actually took the time to study it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sarcasm being, Jesus is not manifest ruling on this earth, so why suggest it.

???????????????????

 

[Stillicidia]

Cut off the argument.

 

[expos4ever]

here is the problem, you refuse to look at any of the scriptures I point you to,

Which ones?

you twist what I am saying,

When have I twisted what you said?

and then turn around and use one of the passages I point you to as evidence of what I am saying as evidence that I am wrong but fail to show me wrong. At this point, I think either 1. you are simply not hearing what I am saying 2. you are just trying to stir a fight of which I have already told you I was not interested in or 3. you simply don't want to understand what is being said and how it is supported by scripture...either way anything further on the matter is off topic and against forum rules.

You seem upset but I cannot see what I have done wrong.

Either way, if you accept that Jesus is enthroned as King over this world at this time and that Satan, while still active in the world, is not its ultimate ruler, then we are on the same page.

 

[razzelflabben]

Cut off the argument.

I've been trying to, how many times have I told the other poster I do not want to argue about it, and still I am asked questions of clarification and misrepresented and argued with.

 

[razzelflabben]

Which ones?


When have I twisted what you said?


You seem upset but I cannot see what I have done wrong.

Either way, if you accept that Jesus is enthroned as King over this world at this time and that Satan, while still active in the world, is not its ultimate ruler, then we are on the same page.

I have made my stand and defended it with scripture and as another poster has said and I have repeatedly told you, this is not the place or the time to argue about it, you either read and study the scriptures on the matter or you continue to hold your opinions without that biblical support, your call, but whatever you choose, it isn't my responsibility.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It seems to me as if you feel a need to stay separate from Christianity, to maintain some uniqueness to your own idea of the divine, as if to feel you are somehow different or deeper then the rest of us sheep.

The more I learn, the more I feel like Christians are misguided. The only reason I think this is because I've spent a lot of time studying and learning about Hinduism, and Hindu and Buddhist mysticism alongside studies of Christianity. In doing this, I keep coming across miraculous claims with similar parallels to Christianity. I may have a different understanding than the "rest of the sheep" not because I'm somehow more intelligent or "deeper", but simply because I explored a worldview very foreign to the Christian worldview and found something unexpected.

I have never yet met a Christian who has explored Hinduism very seriously. Hinduism is a very complex religious system with equal (or greater) complexity and divisions as Christianity. There seem to be many similarities between Jesus and the Indian mystics (this is a distinctly different claim than saying Christianity and Hinduism are similar...they aren't). The Christology associated with Pauline Christianity overlays a distinctly Jewish worldview on top of the historical Jesus.

 

[expos4ever]

did you look at the website I posted, it has many of the passages listed that you refuse to look at...but I was told you are being sarcastic in your objection so I guess it's all good..I still recommend you have a look into scripture on the matter I believed as you do until I actually took the time to study it.

OK, let's deal with your website:

Incredibly, The Bible refers to Satan as "the god of this world."

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 RSV) (see What Does Satan Look Like?)

Well of course Satan is the "god" of this world. But he is not king. There is an important conceptual difference between "who is on the throne over this world" (Jesus) and who people actually worship. I entirely agree - Satan has great, even "god-like" power. But that does not make Him King. Who is King? Paul tells us here in Romans 15:

And again, Isaiah says,

“The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;

Are you going to deny that this is not a reference to Jesus being enthroned through His resurrection. Remember, Paul says the "root of Jesse" will, yes, arise.

Or if this is not clear, here is Jesus Himself speaking to his followers:

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

Unless there is at least one 2000 year old guy hobbling around, the kingdom of God is already here.

And would Satan be on the throne during the time of the Kingdom of God?

 

[Stillicidia]

the message

"wow, my head is starting to hurt trying to figure out what you don't understand about what I said....If Jesus was ruling this earth at this moment in time, there would be no sin."

Could be interpreted either literally or sarcastically.

Literally is proper, sarcastically renders it inoperable.
Jesus is not manifest ruling on earth, that is why it can be perceived sarcastically, which goes more along the lines of renders it inoperable.

 

[Luke17:37]

I assume I don't actually need to refer you to the multiple Old Testament prophecies about the Jews being given Palestine.

So I assume you are interested in me providing a text to defend the notion that all creation has been given to all believers (which, on my argument is how Paul "re-interprets" the meaning of that particular Old Testament prophecy). Here is one from Romans 8.

For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.


Just like it can be an over-simplification to think the story of the wolf and the three little pigs as a lesson that we should produce strong houses; it is clearly more general than that and has nothing in particular to do with houses. I think you are fixated on this idea that any attempt to rework a prophecy from a strictly literal reading is suspicious. Well, the example I just provided - over the top though it is - should make the case. There are many other morality tales that are clearly metaphor - they present an account of something happening in order to make an entirely different point. I suggest that something similar is at play with respect to the Old Testament.


Well, you are not yet in a position to judge whether I am going to do this, or whether I will expose a more nuanced reading of the prophecy that, to an objective eye, actually does expose its deeper meaning in an entirely legitimate way.


Of course, but I think I have been clear about this: this and other prophecies were never intended to be taken at face value. If you rule out this possibility a priori, then we have nothing more to talk about since I am not going to get into a long defence of the use of literary device (in this case where a "superficial" promise is really a way to point to a deeper promise) in religious literature. I take it as self-evident that, to be fair about this, you need to at least consider the arguments and not dismiss them before you have even heard them.


How is that vague? I see the "re-interpretation" as similar to "getting" the moral of the story of the three little pigs and the wolf. A more profound, global, and significant promise is pointed to by the promise of one strip of land to one people. I do not see how that makes it "vague".

You wrote: "Of course, but I think I have been clear about this: this and other prophecies were never intended to be taken at face value."

Rightleftrightleftright has heard enough of this "non-believing believer" nonsense and he uses it as an excuse to not believe because "Christians don't believe it either" (see his first post). The land prophecy from Genesis 15 is very straightforward and will be fulfilled. Jesus Himself will do it when He returns (Isaiah 27:12).

 

[razzelflabben]

The more I learn, the more I feel like Christians are misguided. The only reason I think this is because I've spent a lot of time studying and learning about Hinduism, and Hindu and Buddhist mysticism alongside studies of Christianity. In doing this, I keep coming across miraculous claims with similar parallels to Christianity. I may have a different understanding than the "rest of the sheep" not because I'm somehow more intelligent or "deeper", but simply because I explored a worldview very foreign to the Christian worldview and found something unexpected.

I have never yet met a Christian who has explored Hinduism very seriously. Hinduism is a very complex religious system with equal (or greater) complexity and divisions as Christianity. There seem to be many similarities between Jesus and the Indian mystics (this is a distinctly different claim than saying Christianity and Hinduism are similar...they aren't). The Christology associated with Pauline Christianity overlays a distinctly Jewish worldview on top of the historical Jesus.

I might argue that because there are so many parallels with all these other religions that they are trying to steal enough truth from Christianity to make their version sound like it is right....no that is not my argument, I am making a point, There are different ways of looking at the same "evidence", but how we look at it doesn't speak to truth or lies, what speaks to truth or lie is the outcome of our testing of those ideas. Without testing, how could you possibly know truth from lie? So, what tests have you done for the claims in scripture? You talked about history, yet archeology proves more and more that scripture history is correct, that is a test, what others have you done?