Kingdom Ready Blog

“The kingdom of God of which Jesus spoke had a decidedly political character, and all the apocalyptic writers so regard it. The Messiah with the twelve judges of the twelve tribes was expected to rule over the land (Matt. xvi. 27, xix. 28); the Judgment Day was to have its tortures of Gehenna for the wicked, and its banquet in Paradise for the righteous, to precede the Messianic time (Matt. viii. 11-12, xviii. 8-9; Luke xiii. 28-29, xiv. 15-24); the earth itself was to produce plenty of grapes and other fruit of marvelous size for the benefit of the righteous, according to Jesus‘ own statement to John (Papias, in Irenæus, “Adversus Hæreses,” v. 33-34).”

Before Pilate the sole charge could be attempted rebellion against the emperor. In some way, it would appear, the claim to be king of the Jews (or possibly of a kingdom of heaven) was made before him by Jesus himself, as is shown by the inscription nailed up in derision on the cross. To Pilate the problem presented was somewhat similar to that which would present itself to an Indian official of to-day before whom a Mohammedan should be accused of claiming to be the Mahdi. If overt acts in a disturbed district had accompanied the claim, the official could scarcely avoid passing sentence of condemnation; and Pilate took the same course.

Over at Jesus Creed, Scott McKnight has a series of posts, 17, about the uses of “wrath” in the New Testament. You can peruse through his theology category to pick them all out. Basically, his conclusions fall in line with what we understand about Apocalypticism in the first century. And as I’ve read more and more about the history and the religious groups that form Judaism at that time I have one large question looming in my mind. But I have to start somewhere.

In many of the discussions and interactions we have with contemporary Christians I am always struck by one particular fact.  Many Christians have their faith in a historical vacuum.  Their ideas and beliefs about the Sriptures more closely fit philosophy than historical Biblical studies.  And this comes up very often, as we have seen with the Trinitarian arguments.

Click here to listen to Looking for the Historical Jesus: In Between Evangelical and Liberal Scholarship presented by Sean Finnegan, Apr 29th 2008, Atlanta Georgia. Commentary by John Obelenus

Sean tells us a story of a girl he met in Borders. He was unable to give her a good introductory book to the Christian faith. He knew the kinds of books on the shelves: the evangelical ‘Jesus-is-God’ type, and the liberal ‘there are no miracles-Jesus is a failed prophet’ type. We need to find a middle road between these two, as they both offer good points and bad points.

Click here to listen to Religion and Politics: A Fresh Look at Imperial Overtones in the New Testament presented by Dustin Smith, Apr 29th 2008, Atlanta Georgia. Commentary by John Obelenus

The thesis of Dustin’s paper is that Paul is using specific phrases and words traditionally used in the context of the Caesar cult (the worship of the Roman emperor as a divine figure in the pantheon) that are re-appropriated for use in the preaching of Jesus as the Messiah, God’s representative.

All along the big comments on this “Politics of the Message” series has been, “What does this mean for us today?”. And I want to outline some of the major points, and ask some questions in order that we can arrive at just what this means for us:

1. In the atonement series I outlined what Jesus’ offense to both Rome and the Jewish leaders was: namely, that Jesus’ messianic authority challenged both parties use and abuse of power. Therefore, if Jesus uses power correctly they use power incorrectly and stand in the judgment of God for it.

The New Testament documents, interpreted in their original, historical, and religious context teach that Jesus was a human being begotten by God via the holy spirit in the womb of his virgin mother, Mary. In other words, Jesus’ origin is found in his human birth, not in some pre-existent, spiritual existence. In this way Jesus is understood to be the literal descendant of the woman who was destined to crush the serpent (Gen 3.15); he is the descendant of Abraham through whom all nations (not just Israel) would be blessed (Gal 3.14, 16); he is the royal descendant of David (Luke 1.31-33) destined to rule on the Davidic throne in Jerusalem over Israel (and through Israel, the whole world, cp. Psalm 2.6-9). We are talking about a legitimate member of the human biological chain , begun by Adam and Eve in the beginning. This Hebrew idea of the human Messiah is at the heart of prophetic expectation throughout the Scriptures.

One of the most convincing reasons why I do not believe in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is because it began to develop after the Bible was finished being written. In other words, we have no book, chapter, paragraph, or verse in which the idea of the Trinity is explicitly stated. Furthermore, we understand that the earliest Christians were all practicing Jews–people who believe that God is an absolute unity (i.e. not one in three, but one in one). So, if the early Christian movement grew out of the soil of Jewish monotheism, at what point did the new idea that the Messiah would be God along with the Father and the Spirit arise? I’m not sure exactly who or when the first person wrote down trinitarian ideas. Some say Justin Martyr with his “logos christology” (the idea that Jesus pre-existed as the Word) was the first person to introduce the mutating virus that would eventually become the full blown Trinity in c. 145 a.d.. Others say it was Tertullian who introduced the word, trinitas twenty years later.

Hi folks!
Before you shout Heresy!! The words of the above title are not my words.
They are a part of a set of quotes from a TV advert/video about a book written by a pretty well known “Christian preacher”.

All quotations shown, I have personally verified and you can hear the man himself verbally verify the following assertions.

Here are his assertions…

• The Jews as a people did not reject Jesus as Messiah!
• Jesus did not come to Earth to be the Messiah!
• Since Jesus refused (by word & deed) to claim to be the Messiah, how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered!

Galatians 4:3-4
3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law