'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

Hi Iblis, I did the work if you would like to refute it do so.If you can explain what the Greek word says better that the Greek lexicons do please do.If not we are done.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No problem. Keep in mind that you had your chance, though.The Greek word basileia or "kingdom" is derived from an archaic form of quasi-res or "thing by definition". In the first century AD it indicates an area marked out on the map which is ruled by a single individual using his own wealth and his own arms, not effectively contested by anyone inside the marked area, and not subject to the imperium but often allied to it. Herod the Great was a king, and under his rule Judaea was a kingdom; under Pilate it was not.You may be thinking of prior uses of the word in history, as perhaps in Mycenean times when it (a cognate) appears to have referred to the lesser authority of a chieftain, or that in Classical times in the democracies, where it referred to the office of the priesthood and primarily consisted of giving one's wife to Dionysus.But all these alternative uses came to an end with the advent of Alexander the Great, who took the word and made it his own, with his own wealth and by the force of his own hands. This, as you know, was well before the alleged translation of the legendary Septuagint. The texts pseudoepigraphically attributed to Archytas advance this de facto definition into the doctrine that the king rules by his own self-derived authority, with or without the will of the people, as a sort of "living law". His kingdom is the territory where he makes the laws, enforces them, and serves as final court of appeal; this is the usage which prevails universally until the 4th century AD.In the Old Testament we find this usage fully supported, Abraham has much authority, and many followers, and a sackful of promises, but he is not a king because he has no kingdom. Melchizedek, on the other hand, is, though all the territory he holds is a small part of Old Jerusalem. He holds it, on his own authority, with his own thumbless hands. Likewise David has followers and promises and derived authority of many kinds through most of Samuel; but he doesn't have a kingdom until he carves himself one on the map.So, think anyone still believes your degrees are worth a crap?Edited by Iblis, : have you worn the Pallid Mask?

No thanks. Debating Premillennialism is something I see as a waste of time.

Hi Iblis, I think I am on record even in this thread of saying that a degree is only proof that someone met the requirements of the institution that confered the degree.You can get a PHD for $150. But it don't mean much.Now back to kingdom.The first time the Hebrew word mamlakah is used in the Bible is in Genesis 10:10. The Hebrew word mamlakah means: according to Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon:1) kingdom, dominion, reign, sovereigntyThis is talking about a physical kingdom.In 1 Samuel 13:14 Saul was told his mĕluwkah would not continue. Saul's personal kingdom did cease and David then was instaled as King.According to Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon the meaning of mĕluwkah is:1) kingship, royalty, kingly officeThis is talking about the person with the authority.So he was king. No dominion involved, just his kingship.Now for the Greek word basileia which you gave your opinion for.I gave the definition of basileia which is from the root word basileus
as found in my Thayer's Greek Lexicon as:basileia 1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule
basileus 1) leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land, kingThe Greek texts that I have all use basileus in Matthew 16:28.So I will let you in on a little secret. Your opinion and mine do not amount to anything. The only thing that matters is what God said.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

And the ones that I have (3 Erasmus. 3 Stephanus, 8 Beza, 2 Elzever, 26 Nestle-Aland, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) all have basileia. But I don't care, you can change your claims from post to post and skip about however you like, you are staying on this hook. Here is the same discussion I just gave, only associated with the word basileus instead, from the viewpoint of the king holding the territory rather than the territory held by the king.Basileus - WikipediaThe interpretation that you are perverting appears first in the 4th century AD, in Byzantium, after the Empire had been Christianized by Constantine and one could point at territory on the map that was theoretically held by the alleged king. Interestingly, it appears in a particularly significant form, on coins for example, as "King of Glory".The particular perversion of the title that you are advocating doesn't appear until the 19th century under the Wesleys, as an outgrowth of the Arminian heresy, a semantic quibble with Calvinism. And it's plainly false, as there is in fact a Greek word for kingship or royal power, as distinguished from who holds which territory, which is hegemoneia or "reign"; as for example in Most occurrences of the word "reign" in the New Testament, however, are actually forms of basileou, and refer undeniably to holding territory by force; as for example

Hi Iblis, From your source first paragraph.

quote:

---

basileis) is a Greek term and title that has signified various types of monarchs in history. It is perhaps best known in English as a title used by Byzantine emperors, but also has a longer history of use for persons of authority and sovereigns in ancient Greece, as well as for the kings of modern Greece.

---

Bolding mine for emphasis.That plainly refers to the person of authority and not a physical kingdom. It says nothing about holding territory as you claim.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Think that convinces anyone? I covered the "longer history" already, it doesn't apply to the period between Alexander and Constantine. If it did, I would be busy proving Jesus never sentenced anyone to death, fought at Troy, or married off his wife to the God of Wine.You can't cherry-pick whatever you want out of 35 centuries of history and claim Jesus's audience understood it that way. You have to take the world as it comes. Judaea was a kingdom under Herod, under Pilate it wasn't.

Hi deerbreh not reallyYour argument about the return of christ is to say that it becomes a reality in 'the church'as there are many church's all claiming to be christian, I asked you which specific church you had in mind...if your claim is that Jesus kingship is displayed in 'the church' then my question as to which church is pertintent to you argument.My further question about why Jesus said "Not Everyone saying Lord Lord" is also pertintent to your arguement because his own words show that not all who claim to be christian would have his approval thus ruling out some churchs' from being the representation of Jesus in his kingdom. If you dont want to address this, then perhaps we shouldnt speculate that Jesus kingdom is present on earth in the form of 'the chruch' Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

You don't have Jesus "own words". At BEST you have an account of SOME of the things Jesus may have said.And that's an account which was hand selected by people trying to decide which of the accounts they would want you (the future Xian) to adhere to and which of the accounts they would want you to ignore.And that account is translated through multiple languages to get to you.The whole idea of "Christs" return is contradicted in other gospels which recount his vision of the kingdom of heaven already here.Further, the existing chosen Gospels give a timeline which was already erroneous by the time they were selected.And ALL of that is predicated on the idea that there really was a "Jesus" in the first place which, given the similarities to other Solar deities from the region (Horus in particular) is highly unlikely.So, in summation:You are rejecting her argument based on the premise that Jesus existed, that he said these things and was quoted correctly, that the person quoting him wasn't contradicted by anyone else, that the passage selected has not been altered by committee or through multiple translations and countless generations, and that you grasp the actual message of the now modern English version of the supposed quote.That's an awful high bar for you to get over before you can kick down deerbreh's sandcastle.

Peg writesMatthew 16: Only a person paying no attention at all, would miss the simple point that the church is the kingdom in these passages. Jesus clearly uses the words interchangably, then tells Peter he will give him the keys to introduce entrance to this kingdom/Church in Acts chapter 2 here Peter uses the authority and the keys promised earlier. he the goes on: Pay close attention to verse 47. the lord added, not man, to the church daily such as should be saved. peter uses the figurative keys to show entrance to the kingdom which is the church.It could not be any simpler.In Col 1:13 Paul says he HAS, (present tense), translated us out of the power of darknes into THE KINGDOM of his dear SonEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box.

Hi Iblis, I have not said there was not kingdoms on earth that had kings.Because there were kingdoms with kings does not do away with the meaning of the Greek words under discussion.But Jesus has not had an earthly kingdom yet as the prince of the power of the air has not been deposed yet.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

EMA,
Please read Message 63 and adjust accordingly.Thanks
AdminPD

Hi EMA if you have a greek translation of Acts, you will see that the original does not use the word 'church' in this verse. Your translation of bible obviously does, but this is not found in Peters writing...what he says is Vs 47 "praising God and giving the good will of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved" The Lord was adding to 'their number'this means these new diciples were added to the current group of diciples...not to any church because at that time in their history, there was no 'church'So if it could be said (colosians) that people were being bought into the 'kingdom', it obviously wasnt dependent upon the existence of any church. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

That verse, as EMA posted, is found in the KJV. I'm glad you've taken the liberty to show inaccuracy in the most widley distributed version of the bible.Or maybe Biblegateway is wrong?

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

Which leaves the fundamentalist / literalist with little choice except to falsify the meaning of words, or else allow, as Larni did, that no one has proved all those people in the audience then are dead yet.This is the approach taken by Boiardo, who populates the earthly paradise visited by the character Astolpho (Adolf) with an Apostle, a Patriarch, and a Prophet, miraculously kept alive to keep everything true by fiat. This approach isn't very biblical though, is it?John the elder deals with this whole issue by insisting that the other evangelists have left out a question mark But I suppose that must have been some different near-identical misunderstanding of some other barely-distinguishable statement. *yawns*Since it is the Matthew version we are spanking ourselves about, I'm going to go with "irony". If you want to be hyper-literal, you can say that the basileia or marked area means a palace. In which case, he was taken into the palace, and received his crown and glory, and was recognized by the authorities as King of the Jews just a short time later, yes.Edited by Iblis, : a purple robe