A KING IN COW PASTURES

[Buff Scott Jr.]

A King In Cow Pastures​

Hear the story of the boastful king. He was intellectually, politically, and militarily strong. His enemies were fearful of him. While walking upon the roof of his royal palace one day, overlooking his immense empire, he exclaimed proudly and boastfully how he had built the great city which stood as a mighty symbol to the greatness of his kingdom. He gave himself all of the credit. God, it seemed, had played no part in any of his noble accomplishments. Simply, he refused to believe God plays the major role in the affairs of men, nations, and kingdoms.

To teach the haughty king a well-needed lesson, God sent him to the school of insanity. There he spent seven long years in the cow pastures of Babylon, dwelling with the beasts of the field and eating grass like an ox. And there he remained until he acknowledged that the Most High rules the kingdoms of men and gives them to whomever He chooses. During this period of insanity, the king’s hair grew as long as the feathers of an eagle and his nails were like the claws of a bird.

At the end of seven years the king lifted his eyes to heaven, his reason or sanity was restored, and he blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever. He acknowledged God as being the greatest of kings and affirmed that “no one can hold back his hand!” He was again established in his kingdom, with all of its glory and splendor, and still more greatness was added to him.—Book of Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar, chapter 4.

The king had learned his lesson. We have yet to learn ours. And until we do, God will send us to sundry schools of punishment, including the school of insanity. If the face and direction of our society are ever changed, it will be because of what we have done to instill Jesus in the hearts of others. He is our only hope!​

 

[Josheb]

We have yet to learn ours. And until we do, God will send us to sundry schools of punishment, including the school of insanity. If the face and direction of our society are ever changed, it will be because of what we have done to instill Jesus in the hearts of others. He is our only hope!​

To whom do all those pronouns refer? To what "we" are you referring?

 

[Arial]

The king had learned his lesson. We have yet to learn ours. And until we do, God will send us to sundry schools of punishment, including the school of insanity. If the face and direction of our society are ever changed, it will be because of what we have done to instill Jesus in the hearts of others. He is our only hope!

Is that what the church is here to do? Change society? Are we ever told within the pages of the NT or OT, that that is the purpose of the church? Is the historical account of the "king in a cow pasture" have any application to the church or to individual believers? Threatening our sanity if we do not do what only God can do? What Jesus intends to do when he returns to judge, destroying all those who have rejected him, and all evidence in and on the creation of their ever having existed including Satan?

Does Scripture ever present a picture of societies and governments in the time before the judgement, as having had Jesus instilled in the hearts of others? Does it ever tell us that is the business we are to be about?

We are to preach the gospel so that his people hear and believe. That is God gathering his people like a shepherd gathers a flock and they follow him, by means of the feet (and mouths)of those who bring the good news. When the last one has come through the narrow gate, then will come the judgement and the mighty cleansing of the earth.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Is that what the church is here to do? Change society? Are we ever told within the pages of the NT or OT, that that is the purpose of the church? Is the historical account of the "king in a cow pasture" have any application to the church or to individual believers? Threatening our sanity if we do not do what only God can do? What Jesus intends to do when he returns to judge, destroying all those who have rejected him, and all evidence in and on the creation of their ever having existed including Satan?

Does Scripture ever present a picture of societies and governments in the time before the judgement, as having had Jesus instilled in the hearts of others? Does it ever tell us that is the business we are to be about?

We are to preach the gospel so that his people hear and believe. That is God gathering his people like a shepherd gathers a flock and they follow him, by means of the feet (and mouths)of those who bring the good news. When the last one has come through the narrow gate, then will come the judgement and the mighty cleansing of the earth.

Arial & Josheb: It is called systemic reformation, encompassing all areas of life. Give some thought to King Nebuchadnezzar. He was not an Israelite, yet God used him to demonstrate His power and control. There were other events in the history of civilization like the one in the Book of Daniel. Consequently, systemic reformation. In regards to making history, Martin Luther and other historical reformers ought to be considered as well.​

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

To whom do all those pronouns refer? To what "we" are you referring?

Josheb, see my notes to Arial.

 

[Arial]

Arial & Josheb: It is called systemic reformation, encompassing all areas of life. Give some thought to King Nebuchadnezzar. He was not an Israelite, yet God used him to demonstrate His power and control. There were other events in the history of civilization like the one in the Book of Daniel. Consequently, systemic reformation. In regards to making history, Martin Luther and other historical reformers ought to be considered as well.​

Actually, I would like my questions answered.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Actually, I would like my questions answered.

Later today I'll offer additional comments, Arial. Busy as a Honey Bee currently.

 

[Josheb]

@Buff Scott Jr.,

I asked one pair of very simple questions that amount to the same inquiry, differently worded.

To whom do all those pronouns refer? To what "we" are you referring?

I'd like an answer to that inquiry.

Arial & Josheb: It is called systemic reformation, encompassing all areas of life. Give some thought to King Nebuchadnezzar. He was not an Israelite, yet God used him to demonstrate His power and control. There were other events in the history of civilization like the one in the Book of Daniel. Consequently, systemic reformation. In regards to making history, Martin Luther and other historical reformers ought to be considered as well.​

Josheb, see my notes to Arial.

To whom are all those pronouns in the op referring? If those pronouns refer to the members of this forum then the op reads,

@Buff Scott, Jr., @Arial and @Josheb have yet to learn our lesson. And until Buff, Arial, and Josh do, God will send Buff, Arial, and Josh to sundry schools of punishment, including the school of insanity. If the face and direction of our society are ever changed, it will be because of what Buff, Arial, and Josh have done to instill Jesus in the hearts of others.​

Do you really mean to be telling Arial and me God is going to Arial and I punishment and insanity? Because that is what this op means if the "we" is a reference to the Christians here in this thread.

He was not an Israelite...​

No, he was not. Neither was he a Christian. I'm with @Arial: Would you please, kindly answer my question:

To whom do the pronouns in this op refer?


.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

@Buff Scott Jr.,

I asked one pair of very simple questions that amount to the same inquiry, differently worded.

​

​

​

I'd like an answer to that inquiry.

To whom are all those pronouns in the op referring? If those pronouns refer to the members of this forum then the op reads,

​

​

​

Do you really mean to be telling Arial and me God is going to Arial and I punishment and insanity? Because that is what this op means if the "we" is a reference to the Christians here in this thread.

No, he was not. Neither was he a Christian. I'm with @Arial: Would you please, kindly answer my question:

To whom do the pronouns in this op refer?


.

Josheb: I'll elaborate a little more on your inquiry, and then lay it aside. "To whom do all those pronouns refer? To what 'we' are you referring?" you asked. I replied that my thread was written in a systemic form. So was Paul's letter to the Romans. It was not only addressed to the Roman believers, but portions of it include Roman citizens in general. Therefore, many of his pronouns included believers and unbelievers. Romans 3:19-31 is an example. Parts of chapters 10 & 11 include both the redeemed and unredeemed. Plainly, Paul wrote a systemic letter. So did I in the thread you refer to.

A lot of history was composed in this fashion, including biblical history. Systemic refers to the "whole of a bodily system." I often compose many of columns in this fashion. Such does not mean that you are alluded to personally.​

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Is that what the church is here to do? Change society? Are we ever told within the pages of the NT or OT, that that is the purpose of the church? Is the historical account of the "king in a cow pasture" have any application to the church or to individual believers? Threatening our sanity if we do not do what only God can do? What Jesus intends to do when he returns to judge, destroying all those who have rejected him, and all evidence in and on the creation of their ever having existed including Satan?

Does Scripture ever present a picture of societies and governments in the time before the judgement, as having had Jesus instilled in the hearts of others? Does it ever tell us that is the business we are to be about?

We are to preach the gospel so that his people hear and believe. That is God gathering his people like a shepherd gathers a flock and they follow him, by means of the feet (and mouths)of those who bring the good news. When the last one has come through the narrow gate, then will come the judgement and the mighty cleansing of the earth.

Arial: Most of your reply does not relate to my thread. You are delving into many aspects of your doctrinal agenda that has little or nothing to do with what I wrote. "Church," for example, is not even mentioned in my thread. Nor is "the judgment," gospel, or many other subjects you relate to. I see no reason to give my attention to most of your concerns, inasmuch as I did not cover/address those topics. I simply told the story of a king who finally found God. If you have something that relates to this story in Daniel, share it with me. I will reply. But at this point, I see no reason to address your doctrinal agenda items.​

 

[Arial]

Arial: Most of your reply does not relate to my thread. You are delving into many aspects of your doctrinal agenda that has little or nothing to do with what I wrote. "Church," for example, is not even mentioned in my thread. Nor is "the judgment," gospel, or many other subjects you relate to. I see no reason to give my attention to most of your concerns, inasmuch as I did not cover/address those topics. I simply told the story of a king who finally found God. If you have something that relates to this story in Daniel, share it with me. I will reply. But at this point, I see no reason to address your doctrinal agenda items.​

Fair enough. But then what is it you are trying to say when you say this?

The king had learned his lesson. We have yet to learn ours. And until we do, God will send us to sundry schools of punishment, including the school of insanity. If the face and direction of our society are ever changed, it will be because of what we have done to instill Jesus in the hearts of others. He is our only hope!

What was your purpose in posting the OP?

 

[Josheb]

Josheb: I'll elaborate a little more on your inquiry, and then lay it aside. "To whom do all those pronouns refer? To what 'we' are you referring?" you asked. I replied that my thread was written in a systemic form. So was Paul's letter to the Romans. It was not only addressed to the Roman believers, but portions of it include Roman citizens in general. Therefore, many of his pronouns included believers and unbelievers. Romans 3:19-31 is an example. Parts of chapters 10 & 11 include both the redeemed and unredeemed. Plainly, Paul wrote a systemic letter. So did I in the thread you refer to.

A lot of history was composed in this fashion, including biblical history. Systemic refers to the "whole of a bodily system." I often compose many of columns in this fashion. Such does not mean that you are alluded to personally.​

Paul never treated believers and unbelievers as the same people. Paul most definitely never suggested God would bring punishment and insanity on the members of Christ's body. He did write about God's faithful, loving discipline, but that is NOT what happened to Neb.

My question is very simple and direct. To whom do the pronouns used in this op refer? Can you, will you, answer the question just as simply and directly as it is asked?

 

[Arial]

Paul never treated believers and unbelievers as the same people. Paul most definitely never suggested God would bring punishment and insanity on the members of Christ's body. He did write about God's faithful, loving discipline, but that is NOT what happened to Neb.

My question is very simple and direct. To whom do the pronouns used in this op refer? Can you, will you, answer the question just as simply and directly as it is asked?

And mine in post #11
@Buff Scott Jr.

 

[Homework]

​

​

​

A King In Cow Pastures​

Hear the story of the boastful king. He was intellectually, politically, and militarily strong. His enemies were fearful of him. While walking upon the roof of his royal palace one day, overlooking his immense empire, he exclaimed proudly and boastfully how he had built the great city which stood as a mighty symbol to the greatness of his kingdom. He gave himself all of the credit. God, it seemed, had played no part in any of his noble accomplishments. Simply, he refused to believe God plays the major role in the affairs of men, nations, and kingdoms.

To teach the haughty king a well-needed lesson, God sent him to the school of insanity. There he spent seven long years in the cow pastures of Babylon, dwelling with the beasts of the field and eating grass like an ox. And there he remained until he acknowledged that the Most High rules the kingdoms of men and gives them to whomever He chooses. During this period of insanity, the king’s hair grew as long as the feathers of an eagle and his nails were like the claws of a bird.

At the end of seven years the king lifted his eyes to heaven, his reason or sanity was restored, and he blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever. He acknowledged God as being the greatest of kings and affirmed that “no one can hold back his hand!” He was again established in his kingdom, with all of its glory and splendor, and still more greatness was added to him.—Book of Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar, chapter 4.

The king had learned his lesson. We have yet to learn ours. And until we do, God will send us to sundry schools of punishment, including the school of insanity. If the face and direction of our society are ever changed, it will be because of what we have done to instill Jesus in the hearts of others. He is our only hope!​

Interesting viewpoint. I read Daniel in its context, including the gospels, which explain that Jesus, not Herod, was the King. Actually, the king in the passage you wrote about was Daniel, not Nebuchadnezzar, but the proof is a longer theological essay involving divine election and civil anointing, which is very seldom understood in republican civil society, so I won’t post it. Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of Israel, and neither was Herod Agrippa, but then you’re only moralizing on a very short portion of the story if legitimacy and usurpation in the line of Christ from First Samuel to the Fourth Gospel. In proper context, Nebuchadnezzar was neither normal nor especially insane, his mental state does not apply at all. Nebuchadnezzar was an alien, which means foreigner. You can look that terminology up in exodus.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Interesting viewpoint. I read Daniel in its context, including the gospels, which explain that Jesus, not Herod, was the King. Actually, the king in the passage you wrote about was Daniel, not Nebuchadnezzar, but the proof is a longer theological essay involving divine election and civil anointing, which is very seldom understood in republican civil society, so I won’t post it. Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of Israel, and neither was Herod Agrippa, but then you’re only moralizing on a very short portion of the story if legitimacy and usurpation in the line of Christ from First Samuel to the Fourth Gospel. In proper context, Nebuchadnezzar was neither normal nor especially insane, his mental state does not apply at all. Nebuchadnezzar was an alien, which means foreigner. You can look that terminology up in exodus.

HOMEWORK:

I strongly recommend you re-read the story in Daniel and re-read what I wrote about it. I question a couple of your conclusions. Consequently, please reexamine what Daniel said and what I said.​

 

[Homework]

HOMEWORK:

I strongly recommend you re-read the story in Daniel and re-read what I wrote about it. I question a couple of your conclusions. Consequently, please reexamine what Daniel said and what I said.​

I think I’ll pass. If you ever get the chance to read the complete text of the whole Bible in a rational way along its timeline, pay attention to the fact that to be the King of Israel , you have to both come from the line of David, rather than the line of Saul, AND continue in the Levite temple. Deuteronomy is an English word, I know you’re one of those Greek Geeks, but the book of Deuteronomy is a boy civil duty and applies to the Kingly state, while the book of Leviticus religiously applies to the temple. Nebuchadnezzar is thoroughly irrelevant, although I can see that you’re either being political in your thread, or maybe you’re just hooked up with a local congregation that has drama. The Edomite apostasy, condemned in Obadiah, was a treasonable rot from within which brought inside the walls of Jerusalem conquerers from another country who weren’t even in the line of Saul. You have to look at all the little words throughout the narrative, and not just focus on single characters, even though I know the short bytes are good for youth group chalk talks. Another thing you should be noticing is that when you read the kingly histories, the six books mention prophets by name, but the scrolls issued by the prophets themselves are not printed in the entire volume until later. You have to use names in reference and cross references to make sure that you timeline the prophecies correctly, and the prophecies are timelines on the timeline of the Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings manuscripts. Read all of Obadiah carefully as a single piece, and you’ll see that the curse is on people within Israel who have secedes from the rest of the twelve tribes with Ephraim, whence sprang Saul. Saul was actually born an Israelite, he was just a bad seed. The later apostasy that admitted Sennacherib and the Rabshacka during the time of Jeroboam actually let philistines from outside of the twelve tribes inside. I know, I’ve seen and real morals moments about ye crazy Muzak and little teen age stuff like that from Daniel teachers before, I’m just saying that you’re kinda out of context, and Nebuchadnezzar doesn’t count as a King. Nothing personal, I know Israel is an Eastern European monarchy and I know quite a bit about royal bloodlines and the temple requirements for it. You could learn a more adult and advanced view of what you’re saying here by studying the Second Republican Amendment, as well as thinking more deeply about monarchy.

 

[Josheb]

.....the proof is a longer theological essay involving divine election and civil anointing, which is very seldom understood in republican civil society, so I won’t post it.

Hmmmm... The truth will not be posted because it is seldom understood?

 

[Homework]

Hmmmm... The truth will not be posted because it is seldom understood?

Whether or not a King per se is legally in line for the throne and entitled to it by patriarchal heritage is largely a matter of politics. Unlike the democratic elections of presidents, it’s not a matter of political opinion, however. Monarchs are descended from previous monarchs, and even though it’s in the Bible, since I’m continuous about the first amendment clause relaying to separation of church and state in “real life” I don’t just slash law essays around about it on pages that claim to be about religion. I just assumed that you were located in the United States, I mean, do you REALLY want me to go into detail and explain parliamentary process and monarchy to you? It’s in Aristotle. Aristotle wrote everything in Greek, so as a classics expert you’ll just find his simple explanations really easy! (Humor). But in all seriousness, you should study that. Jesus Christ was either the messiah, or not, in a good theological debate, but Herod claims to be the King, while a usurper. Herod wasn’t the high priest or even from the tribe of Levi, Judas was. You’re just confused because the partial picture of Herod shown in the gospels only depicts his religious charges against Jesus Christ, which were prompted by Judas, who at least had the status of hereditary Levite. For Herod it’s about secular Kingship. There had been many kings of Israel before, and if you ever notice that Tempe Old Testament contains two books titled Kings and a book on specifically secular and timely Israelite affairs called Deuteronomy, you’ll learn a lot about the life of Christ as messiah by making sure you separate church from state in your Bible study and be sure to consider passages about Christ, who came as a prophecies messiah, religiously separate from passages about Herod, of whom it can be confirmed by studying bloodlines in parallel tandem with religious requirements for membership in the state was not even King, let alone a prophet or god or anything. I know it’s confusing, I’ve been in drama heavy “mystery” kinda churches before that a super-political, they have zero credibility.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

I think I’ll pass. If you ever get the chance to read the complete text of the whole Bible in a rational way along its timeline, pay attention to the fact that to be the King of Israel , you have to both come from the line of David, rather than the line of Saul, AND continue in the Levite temple. Deuteronomy is an English word, I know you’re one of those Greek Geeks, but the book of Deuteronomy is a boy civil duty and applies to the Kingly state, while the book of Leviticus religiously applies to the temple. Nebuchadnezzar is thoroughly irrelevant, although I can see that you’re either being political in your thread, or maybe you’re just hooked up with a local congregation that has drama. The Edomite apostasy, condemned in Obadiah, was a treasonable rot from within which brought inside the walls of Jerusalem conquerers from another country who weren’t even in the line of Saul. You have to look at all the little words throughout the narrative, and not just focus on single characters, even though I know the short bytes are good for youth group chalk talks. Another thing you should be noticing is that when you read the kingly histories, the six books mention prophets by name, but the scrolls issued by the prophets themselves are not printed in the entire volume until later. You have to use names in reference and cross references to make sure that you timeline the prophecies correctly, and the prophecies are timelines on the timeline of the Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings manuscripts. Read all of Obadiah carefully as a single piece, and you’ll see that the curse is on people within Israel who have secedes from the rest of the twelve tribes with Ephraim, whence sprang Saul. Saul was actually born an Israelite, he was just a bad seed. The later apostasy that admitted Sennacherib and the Rabshacka during the time of Jeroboam actually let philistines from outside of the twelve tribes inside. I know, I’ve seen and real morals moments about ye crazy Muzak and little teen age stuff like that from Daniel teachers before, I’m just saying that you’re kinda out of context, and Nebuchadnezzar doesn’t count as a King. Nothing personal, I know Israel is an Eastern European monarchy and I know quite a bit about royal bloodlines and the temple requirements for it. You could learn a more adult and advanced view of what you’re saying here by studying the Second Republican Amendment, as well as thinking more deeply about monarchy.

Homework:

You noted in your reply, "If you ever get the chance to read the complete text of the whole Bible in a rational way..." No offence, my brother, but your replies are irrational. They do not make rational sense and are almost impossible to translate into readable logic.

I'm curious where you achieved your "biblical" agenda. Would you be kind enough to tell me the denomination/sect/religious party/cult with which you are aligned? Ae you a Jehovah Witness or Mormon/Latter Day Saint. For if I knew which one of these to which you are aligned, I could then give a more enlightened response, for I am somewhat acquainted with the doctrinal agendas of all of the above-mentioned sects/cults. I'll await your answer, for you are writing in a vocabulary/language that is strange and questionable.​

 

[Homework]

Homework:

You noted in your reply, "If you ever get the chance to read the complete text of the whole Bible in a rational way..." No offence, my brother, but your replies are irrational. They do not make rational sense and are almost impossible to translate into readable logic.

I'm curious where you achieved your "biblical" agenda. Would you be kind enough to tell me the denomination/sect/religious party/cult with which you are aligned? Ae you a Jehovah Witness or Mormon/Latter Day Saint. For if I knew which one of these to which you are aligned, I could then give a more enlightened response, for I am somewhat acquainted with the doctrinal agendas of all of the above-mentioned sects/cults. I'll await your answer, for you are writing in a vocabulary/language that is strange and questionable.​

You didn’t read my reply. I can tell, because you asked an off topic question about my church affiliation, instead of politely saying, “Oh, you’re just political.” There’s absolutely nothing off the wall about what I said, you just don’t have the concept of European culture and Israelite monarchy. I’ll ignore you from here on out, because I can tell that you’re less interested in the stately Israel of Deuteronomy than I am, and focus on other interests in your readings.