The Kingdom Come

First, we must ask where this idea comes from? Is it just hype created by the movie "2012"? Ironically enough, released in 2009. I've reviewed other movies from a Christian perspective but I wanted to delve into this concept in a way more than just a film review.

Apocalyptic scenarios have been with us since mankind began to tell stories, but is the 2012 account different? Let's first get to the origin of the concept. As you may know, a Mesoamerican culture called the Mayans maintained a calendar, called the Haab which ends on December 20, 2012. But why? This requires more about the creation accounts of the Mayans. According to Mayan theology, the gods created three worlds before this present world. The previous world ended on August 10, 3114 BC, and the present world began on August 11, 3114 BC. This in itself causes issues, since for example, according to popular biblical accounts the present world was created on October 23, 4004 BC,

It is interesting that every new generation of evangelical elites, whether it be conservative Calvinists or liberal Postmodernists seem to always go through a time of rediscovery. Christianity is supposed to be an historical religion, with continuity of foundation and purpose but so much time is expended simply rehashing the same issues that had been argued and settled often centuries before. I know some people enjoy this "journey" but to me it seems a waste of time to always be resetting to zero. Why can't we, especially as Christians simply stand firm in the foundations of our Faith? Why do people think it necessary to go through years and years of doubt, as if that is some great achievement? It is like the once obese person celebrating after achieving some milestone weight reduction while it would be better that we celebrate the person who always maintained their diet and never became obese. But such is our culture, always celebrating the overcomers of failure instead of the faithful maintainers of success.

A church in England preached Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 and immediately many women members were so offended that they quit the congregation.  So what does Eph 5:22 and Col 3:18 say that is so offensive?

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. -- Eph 5:22

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. -- Col 3:18

Some of the women congregants said they were "disgusted" by the sermon which was accompanied by leaflets. Further, a woman member asked,

So we heard about the state of the Union, but what is the state of theology today?  It is not a question to be asked by a politician but let each Christian ask him or herself.  Let us base it on the biblical principle of  2 Cor 13:5 and 2 Peter 1:10.  Is our theology a personal hodge-podge hobbled together or is it the faith of the community of saints?  Is our faith a weak, beggarly faith more apt to be part of the Oprah or Dr. Phil show?

In the 21st century, Christianity is under attack not only from secularism, but from enemies within the gates; people who claim to be Christian but uphold everything but historic Christianity.  Whether they are trying to make a "new kind of Christian", such as the Emergent/postmodernists have been attempting, or they fancy themselves as apologists or watchmen out to expose everyone and everything yet never seem to get around to applying 2 Cor 13:5 and 2 Peter 1:10 to themselves.

When we hear the phrase, "essentials of the faith", we think of beliefs that we might consider essential for salvation but that is not what is actually meant by essentials of the faith.  The concept of "The Faith" is perhaps best encapsulated in Jude 1:3 wherein we read:

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." -- NKJV

I know I'm a difficult person with which to befriend. Lately, I've really been trying to self-assess as to why that may be.  Going through the list of some accusations that have been levied against me; Am I just a jerk? Am I "self-righteous/arrogant"? Can I really not "tolerate" anyone who disagrees with me? Or the most "loving" accusation I've had to endure is, Do I have a "chemical imbalance" or "serious personal problems", or "mental issues"? Well, I think I finally figured out what is going on.

In Christian theological circles we often see certain words used quite often; words not necessarily specifically in the Bible.  Not that every word we use in Christianity has to be specifically from the Bible -- look at the word "Trinityⁱ" after all. (see link) By the way, I am solidly Trinitarian before anyone misunderstands. I wanted to look at 3 specific words and their meanings.

Are all Bible translations created equal? More than just a discussion over dynamic or formal equivalence (see link), is the simple question of whether a translation can dramatically affect a person's doctrine.

For example, two translations are "The Message Bible" and the "NIV".

Let's start with an example from "The Message Bible", Mt 18:15-17 concerning how to deal with a Christian who has sinned against you. Most should know this passage; about going to the offender privately, then taking two witnesses, next take it before the church, then finally, a writing off of the person as a "heathen or tax-collector" if the person doesn't repent. Look how "The Message Bible" renders this passage:

Most of the time you will hear a Christian witness or evangelize an unbeliever by saying something like "Jesus died for you", or "Jesus has a wonderful plan for your life", or "If you died today are you certain where you will spend eternity?"

Is this how we are supposed to witness?  Is this how we see the apostles doing it in the Bible?

Perhaps of all places in the Bible, Acts 17:16-34 is the most relevant example to our modern, agnostic world.  In the account, we see Paul witnessing to Greek unbelievers.  Notice how he uses what they already believe or acknowledge.