Religion II

[boxcar]

For those who like to frequent skeptics' or infidels' sites (forgive the redundancy) you will actually find a very rare kernel of truth at times about Jesus. One of the biggies goes along this line: "Jesus never claimed to be God." What they mean, very specifically, by this is that Jesus himself never directly and explicitly claimed to be God. And in this, the skeptics are absolutely right, insofar as their statement goes. However, they carry this kind of argument way too far -- way beyond the weight it can bear; for they use this kind of argument to try prove that since Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God Almighty Himself, then this proves that his followers invented his divinity. On the surface, this sounds good to all naive, unthinking people. But what the skeptics overlook with this simple-minded argument is that because Jesus didn't make the kind of statements about his identity they want does not mean that Jesus didn't make some very hefty claims about himself in other ways. The absence of one kind of statement for a specific category does not render null and void the presence of other kinds of statements for that category. Implicit statements, for example, are just as valid forms of communication as explicit ones.

When it comes to the specific category of Jesus' identity, we'll be hard-pressed to not only find in the Gospels direct, explicit statements by him with respect to his divinity but also to his Lordship. He never once claimed directly to be the Monarch of the Universe, let alone King of the Jews! He never claimed explicitly to be the Son of God, whereas he did often claim directly to the be Son of Man. Why is this? Are there any reasons for this? Absolutely! There are biblical reasons, as opposed to my personal opinions or anyone else's for that matter.

Since the catalyst for this post, and I strongly suspect the following too, is the LK 17:21 kingdom verse, it's only fitting to first address specifically Jesus' kingship, for the claims of his kingship were certainly of interest to Pontius Pilate and come under scrutiny by him. Read this following exchange between these two very carefully. Note especially Pilate's crystal clear, direct question to Jesus and how Jesus responds in an indirect, obscure way. A stark contrast! John's lengthier version of the dialogue affords us more insight into this subject.

John 18:33-38
33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus, and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" 34 Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?" 35 Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what have You done?" 36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say [correctly] that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." 38 Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?"
NASB

Can any of you see what is going on here in this exchange? Jesus certainly answers Pilate's direct question in v.33 but not directly. Pilate inquired specifically about Christ's lordship as king of the Jews. But look how often Jesus uses the term "kingdom" in his answer! Three times!

Not only this but Jesus challenges Pilate in v.34? Note how Pilate answered.
The only reason Jesus was standing before the governor is because the Jews delivered Him up to him. Pilate initially had no clue to Jesus' identity.

Finally, we get to v.34. Finally, Jesus quit talking about the kingdom and answered Pilate's question -- but still in an indirect way. "You say [correctly] that I am a king." (The term "correctly" was added by the translators and not in the extant copies of the manuscripts.). Matthew and Luke in their very condensed version of this exchange simply have Jesus answering Pilate "[It is as] you say". The YLT version has Jesus answering with "Thou dost say[it]."

Jesus' reply in v. 34 a little obscure, perhaps? A little mysterious? But even so...Pilate got the message!. We know this because of what he ordered to be written on the inscription that hung from the cross. Pilate ordered this inscription: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS -- very much to the chagrin of the religious leaders, I might add. They wanted Pilate to write their LIE on the inscription. They wanted him to write that "He said I am King of the Jews". But Jesus never explicitly made this claim for himself. So in the end, the truth of the matter hung on the Cross with the very embodiment of all Truth. Most fitting!

In the next post, we'll examine the biblical reasons behind Jesus often couching very important truth claims about himself in implicit, indirect or obscure terms. He spoke truth often in ways that would require his hearers to draw logical inferences from his teachings by first drawing from their knowledge of the OT scriptures!

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The "kingdom" about which they inquired was standing right in front of them!

You can't be a kingdom unto yourself.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Sorry Light but I can't find anywhere on the internet where Jesus
said: "its not here or there its within you".

It's stated on certain sites, but not attributed to Jesus saying it like that.

Where in the Holy Bible is it said exactly as you have reported above?

I was paraphrasing. We've already established what the exact wording is of the two different version of Luke 17;21.

[Light]

More Proof that Luke 17;21 is "within" and not "among" or "midst".

As stated previously εντος ,means within and is the original Greek wording. The Greek words for "among" or "midst" are no where to be found in that sentence.

In the New Testament the word εντος is only used twice:

Luke 17:21
Matthew 23:26

Matthew 23:26 reads, “Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.”

Every translation (both KJV and modern translations) translate εντος here as meaning “within.”

It would be silly to say “First clean among the cup.” Or “First clean the midst of the cup.”

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For those who like to frequent skeptics' or infidels' sites (forgive the redundancy) you will actually find a very rare kernel of truth at times about Jesus. One of the biggies goes along this line: "Jesus never claimed to be God." What they mean, very specifically, by this is that Jesus himself never directly and explicitly claimed to be God. And in this, the skeptics are absolutely right, insofar as their statement goes. However, they carry this kind of argument way too far -- way beyond the weight it can bear; for they use this kind of argument to try prove that since Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God Almighty Himself, then this proves that his followers invented his divinity. On the surface, this sounds good to all naive, unthinking people. But what the skeptics overlook with this simple-minded argument is that because Jesus didn't make the kind of statements about his identity they want does not mean that Jesus didn't make some very hefty claims about himself in other ways. The absence of one kind of statement for a specific category does not render null and void the presence of other kinds of statements for that category. Implicit statements, for example, are just as valid forms of communication as explicit ones.

When it comes to the specific category of Jesus' identity, we'll be hard-pressed to not only find in the Gospels direct, explicit statements by him with respect to his divinity but also to his Lordship. He never once claimed directly to be the Monarch of the Universe, let alone King of the Jews! He never claimed explicitly to be the Son of God, whereas he did often claim directly to the be Son of Man. Why is this? Are there any reasons for this? Absolutely! There are biblical reasons, as opposed to my personal opinions or anyone else's for that matter.

Since the catalyst for this post, and I strongly suspect the following too, is the LK 17:21 kingdom verse, it's only fitting to first address specifically Jesus' kingship, for the claims of his kingship were certainly of interest to Pontius Pilate and come under scrutiny by him. Read this following exchange between these two very carefully. Note especially Pilate's crystal clear, direct question to Jesus and how Jesus responds in an indirect, obscure way. A stark contrast! John's lengthier version of the dialogue affords us more insight into this subject.

John 18:33-38
33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus, and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" 34 Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?" 35 Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what have You done?" 36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say [correctly] that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." 38 Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?"
NASB

Can any of you see what is going on here in this exchange? Jesus certainly answers Pilate's direct question in v.33 but not directly. Pilate inquired specifically about Christ's lordship as king of the Jews. But look how often Jesus uses the term "kingdom" in his answer! Three times!

Not only this but Jesus challenges Pilate in v.34? Note how Pilate answered.
The only reason Jesus was standing before the governor is because the Jews delivered Him up to him. Pilate initially had no clue to Jesus' identity.

Finally, we get to v.34. Finally, Jesus quit talking about the kingdom and answered Pilate's question -- but still in an indirect way. "You say [correctly] that I am a king." (The term "correctly" was added by the translators and not in the extant copies of the manuscripts.). Matthew and Luke in their very condensed version of this exchange simply have Jesus answering Pilate "[It is as] you say". The YLT version has Jesus answering with "Thou dost say[it]."

Jesus' reply in v. 34 a little obscure, perhaps? A little mysterious? But even so...Pilate got the message!. We know this because of what he ordered to be written on the inscription that hung from the cross. Pilate ordered this inscription: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS -- very much to the chagrin of the religious leaders, I might add. They wanted Pilate to write their LIE on the inscription. They wanted him to write that "He said I am King of the Jews". But Jesus never explicitly made this claim for himself. So in the end, the truth of the matter hung on the Cross with the very embodiment of all Truth. Most fitting!

In the next post, we'll examine the biblical reasons behind Jesus often couching very important truth claims about himself in implicit, indirect or obscure terms. He spoke truth often in ways that would require his hearers to draw logical inferences from his teachings by first drawing from their knowledge of the OT scriptures!

What about when Jesus said: "Why do you call me good? Only God is good." Was this also his "indirect" way of stating that he was God? Why would he phrase a reply in such a manner...if his intention was to be accepted as "part of the divinity"?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

You can't be a kingdom unto yourself.

So saith Light. But scripture says differently. UNDERSTAND THIS ONCE and FOR ALL: Jesus never explicitly claimed to be King of Israel.. But he was the "kingdom at hand"! The kingdom "at hand" had to be an external, visible kingdom and must have been fulfilled only IN HIMSELF. As King, he personified his kingdom.

Also, any time the phrase "at hand" is used in scripture it always refers to someone or something that is external and visible. Either that or Jesus was crazier than a blind, rabid bat! Certainly, he did not establish a literal, visible, eternal kingdom in Israel during his day. The only other viable option is that he personified the kingdom! And there is precedence for this kind of interpretation in scripture! Personification is not unique to just Jesus! The first recorded instance of personification is found in this passage:

Gen 4:6-7
6 [i]Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well[i], sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."
NASB

Sin does no crouching. Sin is not an intelligent entity and, therefore, has no desire. So...just who is being personified here? It is Satan. And Satan had every reason to tempt Cain to murder his godly brother because the Evil One thought that Abel's death would thwart God's promise in Gen 3:15 of redemption and eventual triumph over Satan. Also, Jesus taught that the devil was a murderer from the beginning (Jn 8:44). He was clearly alluding back to the first recorded physical death in human history -- the murder of Abel. It was Satan who successfully tempted Cain to commit murder.

Wisdom is also personified in the Wisdom Books of the OT, etc. Therefore, Jesus is the Kingdom of God personified. And this is perfectly fitting; for to be in the invisible, spiritual kingdom, one must be in Christ. One must be in the Body of Christ to be in his Kingdom. It's not possible for anyone to be in Christ's kingdom and not to be born again Christian in Christ. The Kingdom and the King, therefore, are inextricably linked. To be in the Kingdom of God (or Heaven) is NOT LIKE being in any earthly kingdom. One can be a subject in an earthly kingdom and also be indifferent toward his king -- or even despise his king. But this isn't possible with anyone who claims to be in Christ's kingdom. To be in the Kingdom is to be in Christ! This is precisely why this personification interpretation of the kingdom is eminently reasonable.

I could even go another layer deeper into this argument by appealing to typology. We must remember that Israel was God's physical kingdom. Israel was established as a theocracy with God on the throne, benevolently ruling his people. Of course, Israel soon rejected the rule of God over them and demanded to have earthly kings just as the ungodly nations around them had. Israel also had a mission and calling by God, but again they rejected all that, continually breaking God's covenant. But Christ is the antitype to the nation of Israel; for he fulfilled everything to which Israel was originally called, including perfect obedience to God's covenant -- specifically the Law of Moses. And in fulfilling the Law, Christ also fulfilled Israel's calling! (Of course, all this implies that Israel was a type of Christ.) But I'm not going to develop this argument because of time limitations; plus I think plumbing the depths of God's word via typology would be lost on virtually everyone. The vast majority here cannot understand the simpler things of God's Word, so will anyone comprehend the deeper things of God? Suffice it to say that if Christ is indeed the antitype to Israel, then this implies spiritually that he embodies or personifies the nation (kingdom of Israel). And this would further support my argument above.

It doesn't look like I'll get to part 2 today of what I started earlier -- but I'll eventually get to it. I need to take more time to prepare for Sunday school tomorrow.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What about when Jesus said: "Why do you call me good? Only God is good." Was this also his "indirect" way of stating that he was God? Why would he phrase a reply in such a manner...if his intention was to be accepted as "part of the divinity"?

This passage has been beaten to death in the Religious thread; but no longer by me.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Interesting opinion. Why do you believe it was a purposeful malicious interpretation, especially with your Greek Orthodox background? The Orthodox teach theosis, the partaking of man in the Divine nature?

Also, Scripture clearly states in John 14, 23 Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. and,

John 17:20-21, 20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us,[a] so that the world may believe that you have sent me.


If God is in us and we are in God the Kingdom of Heaven is in us, when we do the will of God.

I don't understand why there would be some nefarious plot to misinterpret the Kingdom of God is among you, in light the above-mentioned Scripture and the teaching man will partake of the Divine Nature.

Yes...the Greek Orthodox faith is the religion of my birth...but I don't intend it to necessarily be the religion of my DEATH. I seek the "Truth"...WHEREVER it may lie.

Jesus said many things...and some of these sayings have been widely circulated...while others have been kept under lock-and-key. I'll let you make your OWN decision on whether or not this "censoring" has been done with a "malicious intent". Me...I align myself AGAINST censorship...especially in matters of the "spirit".

The gospels of Thomas and Phillip have been suppressed, not because those gospels were proven "fake"...but because they didn't present the "image" of Jesus that the church wanted to promote. IMO...the Christian churches are "selling" Jesus in the same manner that the bakeries sell bread. The main consideration is the PROFIT...and not the "quality" of the product.

As is stands right now...Jesus remains a curiosity...and the cause of much conflict among the different Christian factions. If the ENTIRE Jesus-doctrine were ever allowed to be revealed, then many of these conflicts would be resolved, IMO...but the Christian churches would then lose customers. So...the "interesting" Jesus is still kept under wraps.

"Believe and don't investigate"...the Greek Orthodox faith teaches...as if their "flock" is just a herd of sheep.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But he was the "kingdom at hand"! The kingdom "at hand" had to be an external, visible kingdom

Wrong. Jesus said it is NOT observable Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light;2167817[b

Every translation (both KJV and modern translations) translate εντος here as meaning “within.”[/b].

This is a bald-faced lie. Modern translations do not translate the way you have said.

Luke 17:21
21 nor will they say,' Look, here it is!' or,' There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst. "
NASB

The NIV has a footnote with an alternate reading.

The ESV reads:

Luke 17:21
21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
ESV

The Amplified provides different renderings right in the passage:

Luke 17:21
21 Nor will people say, Look! Here [it is]! or, See, [it is] there! For behold, the kingdom of God is within you [in your hearts] and among you [surrounding you].
AMP

The phrases in brackets are not in the extant copies of the manuscripts.

A popular paraphrase version reads like this:

Luke 17:21
21 You won't be able to say, 'Here it is!' or 'It's over there!' For the Kingdom of God is already among you."
NLT

And these modern translations, excluding the paraphrase, are the most popular by far today.

Plus...have you ever heard the legal phrase preponderance of evidence? Do you know what this means? I bet between myself and others we have given at least 20 reasons why your interpretation cannot possibly be viable. You keep harping on one argument, and it's a weak one!

Also, it is perfectly legitimate for Greek language scholars to study extra-biblical texts to see how the ancient world outside the bible used words in the Koine Greek. It has been determined that the alternate use is legitimate! I discussed this way back in the Religious thread. The "cup" argument is weak and doesn't apply for technical linguistic reasons. Besides, a word can be used different ways depending on the context of the passage in which it is being used.

One more argument I'll add to the 20+ already given. What is being contrasted in v.21 is not the physical kingdom with the spiritual one ("within you"), as you have previously suggested. Because the Pharisees did not PRESENTLY recognize the time of Christ's visitation, which is precisely why they asked the question to begin with --they were asking what signs should we look for in the coming kingdom? What are the FUTURE signs? We can know this by the way Jesus answered. (You are so weighted down with your presuppositional baggage that your nose must be in the dirt and you fail to notice verb tenses.) First of all, Jesus said the "kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed...". Don't you understand? The Pharisees thought the kingdom was still future to them...but Jesus is saying it's NOT. The second hint is that Jesus went on to say, "nor WILL they say..." as in nor will they say after I'm gone , "look here", etc. (And this makes PERFECTLY good sense given what he immediately said to his disciples about how they would long to see one of his days.) This is why he used plural pronoun "they". Then, of course, Jesus CONTRASTED their false presupposition of a coming, future kingdom with his words, "For behold, the kingdom of God IS in your midst." This is the real contrast -- a contrast of time frames. He was correcting their entire kingdom misconception. They were thinking future (because they hated him and rejected him as their king, their Messiah), so he corrects them by telling them that the kingdom (PERSONIFIED in Himself) IS [presently] right in front of them.

At the end of the day, Mr. Light, you are riding on a dead, one-trick pony! And what's worse, the poor critter can only go around in endless circles.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...the Greek Orthodox faith is the religion of my birth...but I don't intend it to necessarily be the religion of my DEATH. I seek the "Truth"...WHEREVER it may lie.

Jesus said many things...and some of these sayings have been widely circulated...while others have been kept under lock-and-key. I'll let you make your OWN decision on whether or not this "censoring" has been done with a "malicious intent". Me...I align myself AGAINST censorship...especially in matters of the "spirit".

The gospels of Thomas and Phillip have been suppressed, not because those gospels were proven "fake"...but because they didn't present the "image" of Jesus that the church wanted to promote. IMO...the Christian churches are "selling" Jesus in the same manner that the bakeries sell bread. The main consideration is the PROFIT...and not the "quality" of the product.

As is stands right now...Jesus remains a curiosity...and the cause of much conflict among the different Christian factions. If the ENTIRE Jesus-doctrine were ever allowed to be revealed, then many of these conflicts would be resolved, IMO...but the Christian churches would then lose customers. So...the "interesting" Jesus is still kept under wraps.

"Believe and don't investigate"...the Greek Orthodox faith teaches...as if their "flock" is just a herd of sheep.

I only wondered why you thought there was malicious intent in interpreting one specific verse, when there are other verses which clarify God (Kingdom of God) is within you. I brought up your religion of birth, only for the fact concerning the specific verse's interpretation. The Greek Orthodox clearly teach Theosis, which would negate any malicious attempt to change the interpretation of the specific verse in question. That was my question, because I could not see any benefit for altering the verse, with malicious intent.

As far as the teaching methods of the Greek Orthodox Church, I have no personal knowledge. I defer to you on that subject. Regarding the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip I have my own opinions.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This is a bald-faced lie. Modern translations do not translate the way you have said.

Luke 17:21
21 nor will they say,' Look, here it is!' or,' There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst. "
NASB

The NIV has a footnote with an alternate reading.

The ESV reads:

Luke 17:21
21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
ESV

The Amplified provides different renderings right in the passage:

Luke 17:21
21 Nor will people say, Look! Here [it is]! or, See, [it is] there! For behold, the kingdom of God is within you [in your hearts] and among you [surrounding you].
AMP

The phrases in brackets are not in the extant copies of the manuscripts.

A popular paraphrase version reads like this:

Luke 17:21
21 You won't be able to say, 'Here it is!' or 'It's over there!' For the Kingdom of God is already among you."
NLT

And these modern translations, excluding the paraphrase, are the most popular by far today.

Plus...have you ever heard the legal phrase preponderance of evidence? Do you know what this means? I bet between myself and others we have given at least 20 reasons why your interpretation cannot possibly be viable. You keep harping on one argument, and it's a weak one!

Also, it is perfectly legitimate for Greek language scholars to study extra-biblical texts to see how the ancient world outside the bible used words in the Koine Greek. It has been determined that the alternate use is legitimate! I discussed this way back in the Religious thread. The "cup" argument is weak and doesn't apply for technical linguistic reasons. Besides, a word can be used different ways depending on the context of the passage in which it is being used.

One more argument I'll add to the 20+ already given. What is being contrasted in v.21 is not the physical kingdom with the spiritual one ("within you"), as you have previously suggested. Because the Pharisees did not PRESENTLY recognize the time of Christ's visitation, which is precisely why they asked the question to begin with --they were asking what signs should we look for in the coming kingdom? What are the FUTURE signs? We can know this by the way Jesus answered. (You are so weighted down with your presuppositional baggage that your nose must be in the dirt and you fail to notice verb tenses.) First of all, Jesus said the "kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed...". Don't you understand? The Pharisees thought the kingdom was still future to them...but Jesus is saying it's NOT. The second hint is that Jesus went on to say, "nor WILL they say..." as in nor will they say after I'm gone , "look here", etc. (And this makes PERFECTLY good sense given what he immediately said to his disciples about how they would long to see one of his days.) This is why he used plural pronoun "they". Then, of course, Jesus CONTRASTED their false presupposition of a coming, future kingdom with his words, "For behold, the kingdom of God IS in your midst." This is the real contrast -- a contrast of time frames. He was correcting their entire kingdom misconception. They were thinking future (because they hated him and rejected him as their king, their Messiah), so he corrects them by telling them that the kingdom (PERSONIFIED in Himself) IS [presently] right in front of them.

At the end of the day, Mr. Light, you are riding on a dead, one-trick pony! And what's worse, the poor critter can only go around in endless circles.

Let's look at the quote..."You won't be able to say 'Here it is!', or 'it's over there! For the kingdom of God is already among you."

How does this translation make any sense at all...and how could it have attained the "popularity" that it has? WHY can't we say that something is "over here!', or "over there!"...if the object is "AMONG US"? If something is "among us"...then it means that it is close but SEPARATE from us...and we should EASILY be able to say that it is "here", or "there". If I am "among" YOU, SMTW, Randall, Light and Tom...can't you guys say that I am "over here"...or "over there"?

Why would Jesus say that they couldn't declare..."here it is!", or "there it is!"...if the object that they were seeking was "AMONG them"?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Let's look at the quote..."You won't be able to say 'Here it is!', or 'it's over there! For the kingdom of God is already among you."

How does this translation make any sense at all...and how could it have attained the "popularity" that it has? WHY can't we say that something is "over here!', or "over there!"...if the object is "AMONG US"? If something is "among us"...then it means that it is close but SEPARATE from us...and we should EASILY be able to say that it is "here", or "there". If I am "among" YOU, SMTW, Randall, Light and Tom...can't you guys say that I am "over here"...or "over there"?

Why would Jesus say that they couldn't declare..."here it is!", or "there it is!"...if the object that they were seeking was "AMONG them"?

Don't look in unusual places, or in the sky, the oceans, the stars, etc,. because the Kingdom of God is right here, in you. It is an admonishment not to go searching elsewhere, when you can find it in yourself.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Don't look in unusual places, or in the sky, the oceans, the stars, etc,. because the Kingdom of God is right here, in you. It is an admonishment not to go searching elsewhere, when you can find it in yourself.

If the kingdom is "in ourselves"...then it makes sense to say that we can't find it "here or there". But if the kingdom is AMONG us...then the quote makes NO sense. Because "among" is INDEED "here or there".

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If the kingdom is "in ourselves"...then it makes sense to say that we can't find it "here or there". But if the kingdom is AMONG us...then the quote makes NO sense. Because "among" is INDEED "here or there".

You have to remember boxcar has a different theology. I know I keep saying this, but it is different than the Apostolic Churches. Apostolic Churches teach Theosis, while boxcar's theology does not.

According to Luther man cannot change or transcend. Man is not changed. Luther's famous example man is like a pile shit,and remains a pile of shit, God just covers him with a robe to hide the pile of shit, like a fresh blanket of snow hides the pile of shit. God would never live in a pile of shit, according to boxcar's theology.

If it makes sense or not, boxcar will not admit the Kingdom of God is within man, because man is a pile of shit inside. The Kingdom of God is in your midst, only in Jesus. Hope that clarifies the subject for you.