PDA

View Full Version : What Conditions are Placed on Us Gaining the Kingdom?



Eyelog
Sep 1st 2017, 02:35 AM
Jesus, Paul and John each say it plainly:

16The Spirit Himself testifieswith our spirit that we arechildrenof God, 17and if children,heirsalso, heirs of God and fellow heirs withChrist,if indeed we sufferwith Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.Romans 8:16-17.
I, John,your brother and fellow partaker in thetribulation andkingdomand perseverancewhich are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word ofGod and the testimony of Jesus.Revelation 1:9.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirsis the kingdom of heaven.… Blessed arethose who have been persecuted forthe sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.… "Whoever then annuls one of the leastof these commandments, andteaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:3, 10, 19.
Truly I say toyou, unless you
are converted and become like children,you will not enter the kingdomof heaven.Whoever then humbles himselfas this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3-4.
Therefore Isay to you, the kingdom
of God willbe taken away from you and given to apeople, producing the fruit of it.Matthew 21:43.
He will put the sheep on His right,and the goatson the left.34Thenthe King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of MyFather,inherit the kingdom prepared for you fromthe foundation of the world.35'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Mesomething to drink;I was a stranger,and you invited Me in …Matthew25:34-35.
28"You are those who have stood by Me in My trials; 29and just as My Father hasgranted Me a kingdom, I grant you 30thatyou mayeat and drink at My table in My kingdom,andyou will sit on thrones judgingthe twelve tribes of Israel.Luke22:28-30.
Thisis a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will beconsidered
worthy of the
kingdomof God, for which indeed you are suffering.2 Thessalonians1:5.
Forthis you know with certainty,that no immoral or impure person orcovetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in thekingdomof Christ and God. Ephesians 5:5.
9Ordo you not know that the unrighteous will not inheritthe kingdom of God?Do not bedeceived;neither fornicators, noridolaters, nor adulterers, noreffeminate,nor homosexuals, 10northieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, willinherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
19Now the deeds of theflesh are evident, which are:immorality,impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry,sorcery, enmities,strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger,disputes, dissensions,factions, 21envying,drunkenness, carousing, and things likethese, of which I forewarn you,just as I have forewarned you, that thosewho practice such things will not inheritthe kingdom of God. Galatians 5:21.
… didnot God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdomwhich Hepromised to those who love Him?” James 2:5.These texts, which explain thepromise of the Kingdom, all condition it upon our living lives worthy of theKingdom, specifically by being willing to suffer what we must in order toobey the Lord.

Jesus put that very plainly:

46“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what Isay?”Luke 6:46.… “Noteveryone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter thekingdom of heaven, but only hewho does the will of my Fatherwho is in heaven.”Matthew 7:21.
15"If youlove Me, you will keep My commandments.… 21"He who has My commandments and keeps them isthe one who loves Me; andhe who lovesMe will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and willdisclose Myself to him."… 23Jesus answered and saidto him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; andMy Father will love him, and We will cometo him and make Our abode with him. 24"He who does notlove Medoes not keep My words; andtheword which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.John 14:15, 21, 23-24.
Thus, itis true. Obedience to God is thecondition we must fulfill if we are to receive the Kingdom ofGod.

TheDivineWatermark
Sep 1st 2017, 02:59 AM
9Ordo you not know that the unrighteous will not inheritthe kingdom of God?Do not bedeceived;neither fornicators, noridolaters, nor adulterers, noreffeminate,nor homosexuals, 10northieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, willinherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

"And some of you were [active voice] such. But you were washed [middle voice], but you were sanctified [passive], but you were justified [passive], in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by/in the Spirit of our God." v.11

Daniel567
Sep 1st 2017, 04:34 AM
Obedience to God is the condition we must fulfill if we are to receive the Kingdom of God.
This needs to be stated correctly and properly. OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL is the condition which God places before all humanity. This is called THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess 1:8)

Eyelog
Sep 1st 2017, 05:05 AM
This needs to be stated correctly and properly. OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL is the condition which God places before all humanity. This is called THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess 1:8)

"Only he who does the will of my father" will enter the kingdom.

randyk
Sep 1st 2017, 06:39 AM
Jesus put that very plainly:[/FONT][/COLOR]
Thus, itis true. Obedience to God is thecondition we must fulfill if we are to receive the Kingdom ofGod.

Yes, Christian works are necessary to enter into the Kingdom of God. But they do not *earn* our right to enter into the Kingdom of God. Big difference! Only Christ was worthy to inherit the Kingdom of God. We only inherit it by his grace--by his willingness to endow us with his own worth and virtue. When we do good works we are actually choosing to participate in the righteousness of Christ. This means we enter into his worthiness, and do not supply it on our own. We only choose to do so, thus choosing to participate in something we did not have in ourselves until we participated in it and received it.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 09:14 AM
This needs to be stated correctly and properly. OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL is the condition which God places before all humanity. This is called THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess 1:8)

Yes, but you have to connect that with THE KINGDOM as Eyelog has. Otherwise you have just offered random scriptures.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 09:16 AM
Yes, Christian works are necessary to enter into the Kingdom of God. But they do not *earn* our right to enter into the Kingdom of God. Big difference! Only Christ was worthy to inherit the Kingdom of God. We only inherit it by his grace--by his willingness to endow us with his own worth and virtue. When we do good works we are actually choosing to participate in the righteousness of Christ. This means we enter into his worthiness, and do not supply it on our own. We only choose to do so, thus choosing to participate in something we did not have in ourselves until we participated in it and received it.

The scriptures Eyelog gave CERTAINLY show, in the simple and accurate sense of the grammar, that the Kingdom must be EARNED. There is no escape.

mailmandan
Sep 1st 2017, 11:46 AM
This needs to be stated correctly and properly. OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL is the condition which God places before all humanity. This is called THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess 1:8) We obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel. *Romans 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation. The gospel simply sets forth Christ crucified, buried and risen (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.. (Romans 1:16).

mailmandan
Sep 1st 2017, 11:48 AM
"Only he who does the will of my father" will enter the kingdom. John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Pbminimum
Sep 1st 2017, 01:26 PM
Faith. All else flows from this.

Daniel567
Sep 1st 2017, 02:03 PM
"Only he who does the will of my father" will enter the kingdom.
Yes and what exactly is "the will of the Father"? Have you studied the Gospel of John?

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24).

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40).

So the will of the Father is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is obedience to the Gospel and the obedience of faith. If you fail to present this truth, you have failed to present the will of the Father. God now commands all men everywhere to repent and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who obeyed all the commandments perfectly.

Pbminimum
Sep 1st 2017, 02:21 PM
Yes and what exactly is "the will of the Father"? Have you studied the Gospel of John?

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24).

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40).

So the will of the Father is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is obedience to the Gospel and the obedience of faith. If you fail to present this truth, you have failed to present the will of the Father. God now commands all men everywhere to repent and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who obeyed all the commandments perfectly.

AMEN !!! Faith / belief with genuine repentance in the One who called us is where all other things of God come from. Obedience , works, charity, and all of the fruits of the Spirit come from Belief. Any other formula is an exercise of the flesh.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 02:40 PM
Yes and what exactly is "the will of the Father"? Have you studied the Gospel of John?

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24).

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40).

So the will of the Father is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is obedience to the Gospel and the obedience of faith. If you fail to present this truth, you have failed to present the will of the Father. God now commands all men everywhere to repent and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who obeyed all the commandments perfectly.

Your verse from John concerns everlasting life and NOT entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 02:41 PM
AMEN !!! Faith / belief with genuine repentance in the One who called us is where all other things of God come from. Obedience , works, charity, and all of the fruits of the Spirit come from Belief. Any other formula is an exercise of the flesh.

You are easily distracted. This verse you extol has nothing to do with entering of inheriting the Kingdom.

Daniel567
Sep 1st 2017, 02:48 PM
Your verse from John concerns everlasting life and NOT entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
This is so hilarious, I would have to ROTFL.

So all the saints who have eternal life will be standing in line to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? That is a genuine discovery, a gem of theological insight!

Please note carefully that those who receive eternal life, experience the New Birth (are regenerated), and those who are regenerated automatically enter the Kingdom of Heaven (which is also known as the Kingdom of God). Now here are the incontrovertible words of Christ (John 3:3-7):

3 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-3/) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-4/) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-5/) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-6/) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-7/) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

randyk
Sep 1st 2017, 02:57 PM
The scriptures Eyelog gave CERTAINLY show, in the simple and accurate sense of the grammar, that the Kingdom must be EARNED. There is no escape.

Rev 5.2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it.

Rom 3.28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Yes, entry into the Kingdom must be earned, and it was earned *for us* by Christ. Only he was worthy, and we become worthy by our choice to participate in him.

Those under the Law who proved they were sinners showed the whole world, not under the Law, that they were sinners too. That's why nobody could look into the book of 7 seals in the book of Revelation.

That book was the book that showed the coming of the Kingdom of God, portraying who could enter into it. Nobody, therefore, could earn entry into the Kingdom of God except Christ alone.

All who would enter into the Kingdom of God have to get into it by their choice to participate in Christ, who alone earned entry into it. Participation in Christ does indeed infer that we participate in his works, but they are his works and his virtues, and not ours alone.

Our only virtue is that we choose to participate in him. All of the love, merit, and divine spirituality belong to him alone. These things only become ours by our willingness to participate in them, which conflicts with the idea that we earn the Kingdom on our own.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 04:00 PM
This is so hilarious, I would have to ROTFL.

So all the saints who have eternal life will be standing in line to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? That is a genuine discovery, a gem of theological insight!

Please note carefully that those who receive eternal life, experience the New Birth (are regenerated), and those who are regenerated automatically enter the Kingdom of Heaven (which is also known as the Kingdom of God). Now here are the incontrovertible words of Christ (John 3:3-7):

3 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-3/) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-4/) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-5/) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-6/) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-7/) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Read the grammar. The rebirth and immersion in water are the BASE QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED. They do not guarantee the entry into the Kingdom. In 1st Corinthians 10:1-11 Israel is set forth as an example to us. They were saved from the angels of death by the Lamb. They were saved from Pharaoh at the Red Sea. They were saved by a rock sprouting water and manna from heaven, BUT ONLY TWO MADE IT INTO THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL. Rebirth is the base qualification, ENTRY IS BY WORKS. The grammar of the verses given in the OP leave no doubt.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 04:03 PM
Rev 5.2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it.

Rom 3.28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Yes, entry into the Kingdom must be earned, and it was earned *for us* by Christ. Only he was worthy, and we become worthy by our choice to participate in him.

Those under the Law who proved they were sinners showed the whole world, not under the Law, that they were sinners too. That's why nobody could look into the book of 7 seals in the book of Revelation.

That book was the book that showed the coming of the Kingdom of God, portraying who could enter into it. Nobody, therefore, could earn entry into the Kingdom of God except Christ alone.

All who would enter into the Kingdom of God have to get into it by their choice to participate in Christ, who alone earned entry into it. Participation in Christ does indeed infer that we participate in his works, but they are his works and his virtues, and not ours alone.

Our only virtue is that we choose to participate in him. All of the love, merit, and divine spirituality belong to him alone. These things only become ours by our willingness to participate in them, which conflicts with the idea that we earn the Kingdom on our own.

No-one is speaking of the Law. We speak of entry into the coming Kingdom of Heaven. Read the verses given in the OP and address them. Even a sixth-grader will tell you that they speak of the EFFORT of the Christian.

keck553
Sep 1st 2017, 04:25 PM
It always amazes me the endless pursuit of attempting to earn favor from God through works.

Daniel567
Sep 1st 2017, 04:33 PM
No-one is speaking of the Law. We speak of entry into the coming Kingdom of Heaven. Read the verses given in the OP and address them. Even a sixth-grader will tell you that they speak of the EFFORT of the Christian.
Not one of those Scriptures in the OP have anything to say about those who have received the gift of eternal life and experienced the New Birth being barred from the Kingdom of God because they did not make sufficient efforts. That is pure nonsense and contradicts the Gospel.

So let us look at a Scripture which clearly and unequivocally states that all those who are in Christ and are saints are ALREADY in the Kingdom of God (which is also the Kingdom of Christ, who is God).

To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ....

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (Colossians 1:2,12-14).

So what do we learn from this passage?

1. If it is addressed to the saints and faithful brethren in Colosse, it is addressed to all Christians, in all places, and in all times.

2. Who has made us "meet" or fit to be partakers of "the inheritance of the saints in Light"? It is God the Father, to whom Paul and we give thanks.

3. Who has delivered us from the power of Darkness? Once again, it is God the Father.

4. Who has "translated us" (or transported us, or moved us) into the Kingdom of His dear Son? Once again, it is God the Father.

5. If that is already in the past tense, does it not mean that that is an ACCOMPLISHED FACT? Absolutely.

6. And does not the fact that we have been redeemed through the blood of Christ, and also received forgiveness through His blood, reinforce what is stated above? Absolutely.

7. Does that not also mean that all this talk about making an "effort" to enter into the Kingdom of God is pure NONSENSE? Absolutely.

7. And where does spiritual nonsense and confusion come from? I trust we all know the answer to that.

Pbminimum
Sep 1st 2017, 06:41 PM
No-one is speaking of the Law. We speak of entry into the coming Kingdom of Heaven. Read the verses given in the OP and address them. Even a sixth-grader will tell you that they speak of the EFFORT of the Christian.

The EFFORT of a Christian is Holy Spirit driven if it's pleasing to God, soooo.......


Read the grammar. The rebirth and immersion in water are the BASE QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED. They do not guarantee the entry into the Kingdom. In 1st Corinthians 10:1-11 Israel is set forth as an example to us. They were saved from the angels of death by the Lamb. They were saved from Pharaoh at the Red Sea. They were saved by a rock sprouting water and manna from heaven, BUT ONLY TWO MADE IT INTO THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL. Rebirth is the base qualification, ENTRY IS BY WORKS. The grammar of the verses given in the OP leave no doubt.

um.... no. Works don't amount to anything when it comes to salvation. Read Eph. ch. 2.

divaD
Sep 1st 2017, 07:50 PM
So the will of the Father is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ .

That's part of it, yet hardly all of it though.

Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Matthew 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Here is an example of the will of the Father. And notice how it works. You and I have to do our part first, then based on that the Father does His part accordingly.

Our part first...forgive men their trespasses...in return, the Father forgives our trespasses

But notice what the next verse indicates if we don't do our part first... But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Clearly in verse 14 it is the will of the Father to forgive trespasses based on we forgiving other's trespasses in return. Verse 15 though, goes against the Father's will, and because it does, instead of the person being blessed in the end, the person ends up cursed instead. How can one not end up cursed in the end if the Father won't forgive their trespasses? Also, how can the Father forgiving trespasses, and not forgiving trespasses, add up to the same thing, eternal salvation? Obviously, those who end up getting cast into the LOF, their trespasses weren't forgiven. The same has to apply to a professed Christian as well, if he or she refused to forgive other's their trespasses against them.

The chronology is...get saved first, which equals having trespasses forgiven. Then after that we are expected to forgive others their trespasses against us, the same way the Father initially forgives ours through Christ. But if we fail to forgive others their trespasses against us, in the end the Father is no longer obligated to forgive our trespasses. Clearly the Bible teaches NOSAS, and no way is anyone going to convince me otherwise. I wish the Bible didn't teach NOSAS, but it does, so it is what it is and that none of us can change that fact. Some try though, but they are only deceiving themselves and anyone who might listen to them. Some of the rest of us it's not going to work on, we are not deceived about this. Funny thing about being deceived. Typically when someone is deceived, that person is in total denial about it. The deceived never think they are deceived, that's what makes being deceived one of the most powerful weapons of the enemy.

randyk
Sep 1st 2017, 07:58 PM
No-one is speaking of the Law. We speak of entry into the coming Kingdom of Heaven. Read the verses given in the OP and address them. Even a sixth-grader will tell you that they speak of the EFFORT of the Christian.

I do understand Walls! I am referring to the Law because I believe that became God's supreme example of the lack of merit all men have in applying for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven/God. If Israel was disqualified from eternal salvation by the Law, then all nations were disqualified from entry into the Kingdom of Heaven by the Law. It doesn't matter whether the nations were under the Law or not. If the higher standard, the Law, could not qualify Israel, then no nation could be qualified for entry into the Kingdom of God!

Again, this has nothing to do with Christians not having merit, worth, or dignity. None of it has to do with denying we play some role in our salvation, and exercise works and choice. We just do not *earn* our own salvation--we strictly choose to work in a *partnership* with Christ, so that our spirituality is Christ's spirituality, our virtue is Christ's virtue, and our works are Christ's works, performed by our obedience and choice in conjunction with Christ's sanction and spirit.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 09:22 PM
It always amazes me the endless pursuit of attempting to earn favor from God through works.

There are two areas of a Christians life.

How he stands before a holy God
How he stands as God's servant in that which is given him to do

We discuss the second in this thread. Both these scriptures concern the coming Kingdom of Heaven/God.
(1) Matthew 25:21-23;
21 "His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."

(2) Luke 19:16-17;
16 "Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

The grammar is clear. The servants provided an EFFORT and won approval from the Lord.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 09:34 PM
Not one of those Scriptures in the OP have anything to say about those who have received the gift of eternal life and experienced the New Birth being barred from the Kingdom of God because they did not make sufficient efforts. That is pure nonsense and contradicts the Gospel.

So let us look at a Scripture which clearly and unequivocally states that all those who are in Christ and are saints are ALREADY in the Kingdom of God (which is also the Kingdom of Christ, who is God).

To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ....

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (Colossians 1:2,12-14).

So what do we learn from this passage?

1. If it is addressed to the saints and faithful brethren in Colosse, it is addressed to all Christians, in all places, and in all times.

2. Who has made us "meet" or fit to be partakers of "the inheritance of the saints in Light"? It is God the Father, to whom Paul and we give thanks.

3. Who has delivered us from the power of Darkness? Once again, it is God the Father.

4. Who has "translated us" (or transported us, or moved us) into the Kingdom of His dear Son? Once again, it is God the Father.

5. If that is already in the past tense, does it not mean that that is an ACCOMPLISHED FACT? Absolutely.

6. And does not the fact that we have been redeemed through the blood of Christ, and also received forgiveness through His blood, reinforce what is stated above? Absolutely.

7. Does that not also mean that all this talk about making an "effort" to enter into the Kingdom of God is pure NONSENSE? Absolutely.

7. And where does spiritual nonsense and confusion come from? I trust we all know the answer to that.

A Kingdom is a sphere of rule by a specific king. While our Lord was on earth, because the demons were subject to Him, the kingdom had come (Lk.11:20). Then the King went away "... into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return" (Lk.19:12). This shows that the time of Christ's rule is put on hold UNTIL He returns. But in the Church, Christ is King NOW (although many of His subjects are not subject to Him). Thus, like the saints at Colosse, John can say in Revelation 1:9, "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ." "Patience" and the Kingdom go together for, while Christ should rule in the Church, His rule over the whole earth, as Daniel predicts, MUST WAIT. Your scripture from Colossians is correct for Christ's rule in the Church versus Satan's present rule of the world.

In this thread we discuss the FUTURE and UNIVERSAL Kingdom of Jesus after He returns, not the present Church life.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 09:35 PM
The EFFORT of a Christian is Holy Spirit driven if it's pleasing to God, soooo.......



um.... no. Works don't amount to anything when it comes to salvation. Read Eph. ch. 2.

Again I say, we do not discuss "salvation". We discuss entering, inheriting or gaining the Kingdom when our Lord Jesus sets it up on earth.

Walls
Sep 1st 2017, 09:43 PM
I do understand Walls! I am referring to the Law because I believe that became God's supreme example of the lack of merit all men have in applying for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven/God. If Israel was disqualified from eternal salvation by the Law, then all nations were disqualified from entry into the Kingdom of Heaven by the Law. It doesn't matter whether the nations were under the Law or not. If the higher standard, the Law, could not qualify Israel, then no nation could be qualified for entry into the Kingdom of God!

Again, this has nothing to do with Christians not having merit, worth, or dignity. None of it has to do with denying we play some role in our salvation, and exercise works and choice. We just do not *earn* our own salvation--we strictly choose to work in a *partnership* with Christ, so that our spirituality is Christ's spirituality, our virtue is Christ's virtue, and our works are Christ's works, performed by our obedience and choice in conjunction with Christ's sanction and spirit.

The Law is exclusive to Israel. It is not the standard by which the bulk of the earth's inhabitants are judged. Since Israel rejected the King and the Kingdom, and had the Kingdom ripped away from them (Matt.21:43), what has Law got to do with this thread?

But I tell you my friend and esteemed brother, your problem is a deep-seated thought that has embedded itself in your mind that the Kingdom means going to Heaven. It is not the Kingdom spoken of by Daniel where the Christ sets up rule on earth. It is in many other minds on this Forum and it is prevalent throughout Christianity. We inherited the Roman Catholic myth and have not examined it with malice. Nearly every opponent to the OP reverts to "salvation" - BUT SALVATION as we know it is NOT the theme of this thread. What do you think makes intelligent men revert to this when it is not even under discussion?

keck553
Sep 1st 2017, 11:59 PM
There are two areas of a Christians life.

How he stands before a holy God
How he stands as God's servant in that which is given him to do

We discuss the second in this thread. Both these scriptures concern the coming Kingdom of Heaven/God.
(1) Matthew 25:21-23;
21 "His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."

(2) Luke 19:16-17;
16 "Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

The grammar is clear. The servants provided an EFFORT and won approval from the Lord.

Apparently you are confusing obedience with effort.

randyk
Sep 2nd 2017, 03:22 AM
The Law is exclusive to Israel. It is not the standard by which the bulk of the earth's inhabitants are judged. Since Israel rejected the King and the Kingdom, and had the Kingdom ripped away from them (Matt.21:43), what has Law got to do with this thread?

But I tell you my friend and esteemed brother, your problem is a deep-seated thought that has embedded itself in your mind that the Kingdom means going to Heaven. It is not the Kingdom spoken of by Daniel where the Christ sets up rule on earth. It is in many other minds on this Forum and it is prevalent throughout Christianity. We inherited the Roman Catholic myth and have not examined it with malice. Nearly every opponent to the OP reverts to "salvation" - BUT SALVATION as we know it is NOT the theme of this thread. What do you think makes intelligent men revert to this when it is not even under discussion?

It's strange to me as well. How can you think it strange that Christians equate *entry into Christ's Kingdom* with *salvation?* This is not some Catholic conspiracy--this is normal Christian theology!

As I said before, since this does have to do with salvation, the Law does come into play, even though it doesn't apply to the nations. It was a lesson learned in Israel on behalf of all the nations.

When I read the opening post I did not see a necessary distinction between the entry into the Kingdom and salvation. This is typically paired in the Christian mind. It is *you* who are acting strange in this regard!

I will repeat what I seem to have to say again and again. I may present heavenly salvation, but only as a salvation that comes from heaven in the form of Christ. It is not a place we go to when we die.

Rather, the Kingdom of God will be established right here on this earth. I have never said otherwise!

JWs make a big deal out of this as well. They think that Christians have this weird belief about salvation in heaven. They don't understand that Christians talk about "going to heaven" only in the sense that God is in heaven and is the *source* of our salvation.

Typical Christian belief is that God will bring the Kingdom to earth, thus establishing a New Earth. "Thy will be done *on earth* as it is in heaven."

Walls
Sep 2nd 2017, 09:33 AM
Apparently you are confusing obedience with effort.

When I am ensconced in my comfortable home with central heating in mid-winter, and the Lord asks me to go out into the snowy weather and preach the gospel on a sidewalk for an hour, I hope to be obedient. If I am, do you think EFFORT was involved? And so every occasion when I put God's demands before my own, I am both obedient and it costs effort.

Walls
Sep 2nd 2017, 09:45 AM
It's strange to me as well. How can you think it strange that Christians equate *entry into Christ's Kingdom* with *salvation?* This is not some Catholic conspiracy--this is normal Christian theology!

As I said before, since this does have to do with salvation, the Law does come into play, even though it doesn't apply to the nations. It was a lesson learned in Israel on behalf of all the nations.

When I read the opening post I did not see a necessary distinction between the entry into the Kingdom and salvation. This is typically paired in the Christian mind. It is *you* who are acting strange in this regard!

I will repeat what I seem to have to say again and again. I may present heavenly salvation, but only as a salvation that comes from heaven in the form of Christ. It is not a place we go to when we die.

Rather, the Kingdom of God will be established right here on this earth. I have never said otherwise!

JWs make a big deal out of this as well. They think that Christians have this weird belief about salvation in heaven. They don't understand that Christians talk about "going to heaven" only in the sense that God is in heaven and is the *source* of our salvation.

Typical Christian belief is that God will bring the Kingdom to earth, thus establishing a New Earth. "Thy will be done *on earth* as it is in heaven."

I am glad then that we can agree on this. I apologize if I misread you. So all that remains now to reconcile is this;

A man believes in and confesses Jesus Christ. He is born again. Then starts a road to maturity to change him from a self-seeking and self-serving fallen human to a man in the image of Jesus. This is so that he may rule this earth Christ's way and not the way that Satan and his minions have since Adam. If this man, after his rebirth, descends into undisciplined wantonness, refuses the chastising of the Father and is a general disgrace to the name of Jesus, WILL HE BE COUNTED WORTHY TO BE A CO-KING WITH JESUS? Or will he need an extended period of chastisement to reach the standard that he was "predestined" for (Rom.8:29).

If your answer is NO, he will not, then we have agreed that a man can be born again, partake of the divine life, be in line for co-kingship, BUT FAILS IN THE MATTER OF KINGSHIP. The rebirth, sonship to God, divine nature and being a member of Christ's Body are NOT CALLED INTO QUESTION. Just his WORTHINESS to be a co-king on this earth in the Millennium.

mailmandan
Sep 2nd 2017, 10:56 AM
It always amazes me the endless pursuit of attempting to earn favor from God through works. That salvation is by grace through faith and is NOT BY WORKS (Ephesians 2:8,9) is not hard to understand. It's just hard for many people to ACCEPT. It's a shame that human pride will not allow so many people to trust exclusively in Christ for salvation. Their hands are full of their works and they will not let go in order to take hold of Christ through FAITH.

keck553
Sep 2nd 2017, 02:05 PM
When I am ensconced in my comfortable home with central heating in mid-winter, and the Lord asks me to go out into the snowy weather and preach the gospel on a sidewalk for an hour, I hope to be obedient. If I am, do you think EFFORT was involved? And so every occasion when I put God's demands before my own, I am both obedient and it costs effort.

Do you think walking out faith is a part time job?

Or that loving others is an uncomfortable effort? It's pretty clear in Scripture God isn't interested in anyone serving Him begrudgingly.

keck553
Sep 2nd 2017, 02:10 PM
Amen to that. Pride is a huge stumbling block

DavidC
Sep 2nd 2017, 03:02 PM
Works is not the same as obedience. Those who love the Lord will obey His commandments, love Him and love others. Work, on the other hand, is the evidence of faith.

randyk
Sep 2nd 2017, 03:34 PM
I am glad then that we can agree on this. I apologize if I misread you. So all that remains now to reconcile is this;

A man believes in and confesses Jesus Christ. He is born again. Then starts a road to maturity to change him from a self-seeking and self-serving fallen human to a man in the image of Jesus. This is so that he may rule this earth Christ's way and not the way that Satan and his minions have since Adam. If this man, after his rebirth, descends into undisciplined wantonness, refuses the chastising of the Father and is a general disgrace to the name of Jesus, WILL HE BE COUNTED WORTHY TO BE A CO-KING WITH JESUS? Or will he need an extended period of chastisement to reach the standard that he was "predestined" for (Rom.8:29).

If your answer is NO, he will not, then we have agreed that a man can be born again, partake of the divine life, be in line for co-kingship, BUT FAILS IN THE MATTER OF KINGSHIP. The rebirth, sonship to God, divine nature and being a member of Christ's Body are NOT CALLED INTO QUESTION. Just his WORTHINESS to be a co-king on this earth in the Millennium.

I really don't know how to put the distinction between someone saved who succeeds in life, and one who is saved and fails in life. But it's a good question. I'm inclined to believe there are rewards for obedience in the Kingdom of God. But I doubt those who fail will lose all authority.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 2nd 2017, 06:13 PM
To answer the OP,

Yes keeping the Law is required to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 5:19
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Also, works towards the servants of the Kingdom also receive rewards.

Matthew 10:40
“Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. 41The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”

Matthew 25:31

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,f you did it to me.’

The Kingdom of God is received by accepting Jesus and is not based on works nor do any parables about the Kingdom of Heaven actually apply to the church.

Those who receive Christ will be Born again at the rapture and be like the Risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:49). John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

CadyandZoe
Sep 2nd 2017, 08:51 PM
Your verse from John concerns everlasting life and NOT entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

Same thing. Can't have one without the other.

CadyandZoe
Sep 2nd 2017, 08:54 PM
It always amazes me the endless pursuit of attempting to earn favor from God through works.

It depends on what is meant by "works".

Walls
Sep 2nd 2017, 09:50 PM
Do you think walking out faith is a part time job?

Or that loving others is an uncomfortable effort? It's pretty clear in Scripture God isn't interested in anyone serving Him begrudgingly.

Then why the call for "OVERCOMERS" to the 7 Churches. In your world no effort is required, no sacrifice alluded to, no self denial, no cross to carry. All is a utopia of Christians serving the Lord without trial and tribulation. Not even our pristine forefather Adam, before the fall could do it. How then the average "base" person? And in this you deny the martyr his special reward by denying the price paid.

Walls
Sep 2nd 2017, 09:57 PM
Works is not the same as obedience. Those who love the Lord will obey His commandments, love Him and love others. Work, on the other hand, is the evidence of faith.

Show me works and I will show you obedience. Show me obedience and I will show you works. A man is not a robot. He pays a price for obedience to God in this present evil world. But pray, which one of the verses in the OP do not show works?

Walls
Sep 2nd 2017, 10:04 PM
Same thing. Can't have one without the other.

Then you have a problem with basic English. It is amazing how loose people get with the meaning of words when it doesn't suite their theory. When Luther fights the Roman Church, FAITH is held DIFFERENT to, and in OPPOSITION to works. But now, in your theology they are the same. I also noticed that you cannot answer the OP. All those verses indicate works.

keck553
Sep 2nd 2017, 10:06 PM
Then why the call for "OVERCOMERS" to the 7 Churches. In your world no effort is required, no sacrifice alluded to, no self denial, no cross to carry. All is a utopia of Christians serving the Lord without trial and tribulation. Not even our pristine forefather Adam, before the fall could do it. How then the average "base" person? And in this you deny the martyr his special reward by denying the price paid.

You seem to be confusing "effort" with obedience from faith in our Lord. It takes effort, sometimes great effort to sin, but that has no bearing on righteousness.

Remember what Jesus told us? There will come a time when the boasters and prideful will come to Him and say "Lord, did we not do all these works in your Name?" And He will say - "Away from me, I do not know you." (paraphrased).
Without a personal relationship with Jesus, a personal one, no amount of boasting will get you even in His presence. If He doesn't know you, what good are your works?

And no, it is not an effort to love God and love others. What did Jesus say? "For my burden is light and my yoke is easy."

Your posts reminds me of the parable of the workers in the field, and how the ones who worked all day were miffed that the Master gave equal wages to those who came in the last hour. See, in God's economy, pride has no throne.

As to persecution and struggles, why are you convoluting those with works? The only thing that keeps us going in times of trial is "God with us." That is not communally with us Walls, that is personally with us. One on one.

The only thing that makes it unbearable for a Christian to obey God is PRIDE. Get rid of it. "so no one can boast."

Walls
Sep 2nd 2017, 10:16 PM
You seem to be confusing "effort" with obedience from faith in our Lord. It takes effort, sometimes great effort to sin, but that has no bearing on righteousness.

Remember what Jesus told us? There will come a time when the boasters and prideful will come to Him and say "Lord, did we not do all these works in your Name?" And He will say - "Away from me, I do not know you." (paraphrased).
Without a personal relationship with Jesus, a personal one, no amount of boasting will get you even in His presence. If He doesn't know you, what good are your works?

And no, it is not an effort to love God and love others. What did Jesus say? "For my burden is light and my yoke is easy."

As to persecution and struggles, why are you convoluting those with works? The only thing that keeps us going in times of trial is "God with us." That is not communally with us Walls, that is personally with us. One on one.

The only thing that makes it unbearable for a Christian to obey God is PRIDE. Get rid of it. "so no one can boast."

Then answer my question about the OVERCOMERS. Here are SEVEN Churches. Five are berated. A sixth is not berated but warned. Only ONE is commended. So let me quote our Lord Jesus, not myself;

"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth" (Revelation 3:10). It is what the Philadelphians HAD DONE that was rewarded.

And again, Paul, under inspiration says in Philippians 3:11-14:
11 "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."

Do you understand Paul, not God, ATTAINING? Do you understand Paul, not God, PRESSING TOWARD? Faith in the outcome might motivate Paul, but the language is clear. HE STRIVES. HE PRESSES TOWARD! Or is English not your mother tongue. No matter. It is the same in the Greek.

randyk
Sep 2nd 2017, 10:23 PM
To answer the OP,

Yes keeping the Law is required to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 5:19
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


This does not say that keeping the Law of Moses is what gained entry into the Kingdom of God, or that "works" in this sense *earned* the Kingdom of God. There is no question that obedience has been and always will be part of the role that God's children plan in their lives. How can the children of God do other than obey their heavenly Father?

So what we're really talking about is what *gains us entry into the Kingdom of heaven?* We seem to be playing a semantics game here, and it really is your fault, because you are using technical terms and applying them in the wrong way. You are using terms like "works" that historically referred to "earning salvation" and apply them in terms of what Christians do in terms of obedience.



Also, works towards the servants of the Kingdom also receive rewards.

Matthew 10:40
“Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. 41The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”

Matthew 25:31

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,f you did it to me.’

The Kingdom of God is received by accepting Jesus and is not based on works nor do any parables about the Kingdom of Heaven actually apply to the church.

Those who receive Christ will be Born again at the rapture and be like the Risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:49). John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

There is no question that Christians display the works of Christ to show that Christ really is in their lives. It is choosing to have Christ in our lives that brings us salvation because Christ alone is the source of salvation. The Scriptures say that all men, having been conceived in sin, are unworthy of Christ's salvation. They cannot earn it, because Christ alone was worthy to obtain for us eternal life. He is eternal life, and only he can give his life to us, because we are as men unworthy of it.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 3rd 2017, 12:23 AM
This does not say that keeping the Law of Moses is what gained entry into the Kingdom of God Correct this is what Gained entry to the Kingdom of Heaven, not The Kingdom of God.

Ezekiel 20:33
“As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out I will be king over you. 34 I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out. 35And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face. 36 As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, declares the Lord GOD. 37 I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant. 38 I will purge out the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against me. I will bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.



Or that "works" in this sense *earned* the Kingdom of God. There is no question that obedience has been and always will be part of the role that God's children plan in their lives. How can the children of God do other than obey their heavenly Father?
So what we're really talking about is what *gains us entry into the Kingdom of heaven?* We seem to be playing a semantics game here, and it really is your fault, because you are using technical terms and applying them in the wrong way. You are using terms like "works" that historically referred to "earning salvation" and apply them in terms of what Christians do in terms of obedience. There is no question that Christians display the works of Christ to show that Christ really is in their lives. It is choosing to have Christ in our lives that brings us salvation because Christ alone is the source of salvation. The Scriptures say that all men, having been conceived in sin, are unworthy of Christ's salvation. They cannot earn it, because Christ alone was worthy to obtain for us eternal life. He is eternal life, and only he can give his life to us, because we are as men unworthy of it. Once more Works cannot Earn the Kingdom of God. But keeping the Law is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, when all must pass under the rod and men are judged based on their works and how they treated the brethren and the servants of the Lord.

randyk
Sep 3rd 2017, 03:25 AM
Correct this is what Gained entry to the Kingdom of Heaven, not The Kingdom of God.


There is no difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.



Ezekiel 20:33
“As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out I will be king over you. 34 I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out. 35And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face. 36 As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, declares the Lord GOD. 37 I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant. 38 I will purge out the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against me. I will bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.


Once more Works cannot Earn the Kingdom of God. But keeping the Law is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, when all must pass under the rod and men are judged based on their works and how they treated the brethren and the servants of the Lord.

As I said, you use language that is confusing because there is a technical association with the idea of "works" and "keeping the Law." In the NT sense people cannot be saved by works, and cannot be saved by keeping the Law.

Sorry, this is how the words are used historically. You are referring to necessary characteristics of the saved--not the way to get saved. We cannot put works ahead of Christ. We must have Christ in order to show forth his works.

Nor can anybody keep the Law anymore. That is an outdated covenant. The only Law we observe today is the Law of Christ, which merely requires that we abide in him and emulate him. The Law consisted of temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices, none of which exist any longer.

All moral virtue we obtain today comes from the Spirit of Christ. And salvation requires that we substitute Christ's spiritual life for our own carnal life. It is not enough to do the works Christ did. We need to adopt his life as a *replacement* for our independent living.

Noeb
Sep 3rd 2017, 04:24 AM
randyk,
the law of Christ is love God and neighbor which is The Law. Moses wrote love God and neighbor but Abraham and many others did it before and after it was written. Jesus didn't mention temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices in Matt 5-7, but he did mention the law and prophets. Doing the law and the prophets is the law of Christ/doing the will of the Father. The law is not always about temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices. The scribes and the pharisees kept temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices but they did not keep the law. That was the point. Jesus said unless you keep the law you cannot enter. You would have to do more than the scribes and pharisees to enter. "Moral virtue" has always been obtained by natural. The Law is the moral law/natural law. The Spirit helps those who have Him and brings a heightened sense of awareness (law written on our heart/renewal mind) of the ""Moral virtue" we were all born with.

I have no idea where you get "substitute Christ's spiritual life for our own carnal life.......adopt his life as a *replacement* for our independent living". We do not receive his righteous record to replace ours.

The koh/koG are two distinct descriptive phrases for different aspects of The Kingdom (natural/spiritual). Doing the law has always been required to enter both the koh (in the context of Messianic reign/natural) and future koG (spiritual). Doing the law is not required to be in the koh (in the context of earthy/natural) because tares (children of the wicked one) and wheat (children of the kingdom) grow up together in the koh (earthy/natural) in the absence of the King.

keck553
Sep 3rd 2017, 04:54 AM
Then answer my question about the OVERCOMERS. Here are SEVEN Churches. Five are berated. A sixth is not berated but warned. Only ONE is commended. So let me quote our Lord Jesus, not myself;

"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth" (Revelation 3:10). It is what the Philadelphians HAD DONE that was rewarded.

And again, Paul, under inspiration says in Philippians 3:11-14:
11 "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."

Do you understand Paul, not God, ATTAINING? Do you understand Paul, not God, PRESSING TOWARD? Faith in the outcome might motivate Paul, but the language is clear. HE STRIVES. HE PRESSES TOWARD! Or is English not your mother tongue. No matter. It is the same in the Greek.

None of this has anything to do with works. There is nothing you can do that will impress God. So accept that The Holy One of Israel as your Lord, surrender to His will and love Him as you love your neighbor. Those are action terms and they are not a burden, it is a blessing and a privilege to serve Him under ANY conditions, not a burden.

keck553
Sep 3rd 2017, 04:59 AM
But keeping the Law is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, when all must pass under the rod and men are judged based on their works and how they treated the brethren and the servants of the Lord.

As a Gentile, I was never under the Law of Moses, and as a disciple of Jesus, I never will be.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 3rd 2017, 06:09 AM
There is no difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Stating this doesn't make it true. The Kingdom of Heaven comes at the end of the Age just as Jesus states just because you believe like some like post-mil or amil and believe this is a currently reality doesn't make it true. The Kingdom of Heaven is Not the Church. Nor does the parables when Jesus teaches about the Kingdom of Heaven refer to the Church. Jesus was not saying to the people of Israel: The Church is like a wedding feast ect.




As I said, you use language that is confusing because there is a technical association with the idea of "works" and "keeping the Law." In the NT sense people cannot be saved by works, and cannot be saved by keeping the Law.

Sorry, this is how the words are used historically. You are referring to necessary characteristics of the saved--not the way to get saved. We cannot put works ahead of Christ. We must have Christ in order to show forth his works.

Nor can anybody keep the Law anymore. That is an outdated covenant. The only Law we observe today is the Law of Christ, which merely requires that we abide in him and emulate him. The Law consisted of temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices, none of which exist any longer.

All moral virtue we obtain today comes from the Spirit of Christ. And salvation requires that we substitute Christ's spiritual life for our own carnal life. It is not enough to do the works Christ did. We need to adopt his life as a *replacement* for our independent living. Sorry this wasn't the question of the OP. But thanks for sharing your understanding.

Walls
Sep 3rd 2017, 06:16 AM
None of this has anything to do with works. There is nothing you can do that will impress God. So accept that The Holy One of Israel as your Lord, surrender to His will and love Him as you love your neighbor. Those are action terms and they are not a burden, it is a blessing and a privilege to serve Him under ANY conditions, not a burden.

May the reader judge.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 3rd 2017, 06:17 AM
As a Gentile, I was never under the Law of Moses, and as a disciple of Jesus, I never will be.

Correct which is why you are a part of the Kingdom of God not the Kingdom of Heaven (which Comes at the end of the Age). You will be born of the spirit Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of GOD!

CadyandZoe
Sep 3rd 2017, 01:20 PM
Then you have a problem with basic English.How so? Be fair in your criticism. Don't leave me to guess what you mean. I might learn something.


But now, in your theology they are the same.Did I say they were the same? Are you sure it was me?


I also noticed that you cannot answer the OP.I didn't try to answer the OP.


All those verses indicate works.When you use the term "works" you defeat your own argument, because Paul coined the term "works" to indicate the practice of religious rites and rituals by those who relied on praxis to gain justification from God. I would like to help you put a finer point on your position if you will let me help you.

First of all, we need another word because the term "works" is such a loaded term.

Works:

Religious rites and rituals
Charity: the voluntary giving of help
Deeds characteristic of those seeking honor, glory, and immortality.


That last line I borrowed from Romans chapter 2.

4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

When Paul says, "we are saved by faith apart from works" the contrast is between the proper inwardness (where faith resides) and item number one above: religious rites and rituals. In the passage above Paul is rhetorically bringing accusation against those with an unrepentant heart (lacking the proper inwardness) reminding them of the day of judgment when God will judge each person according to his DEEDS. Notice what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say God will judge us according to our inwardness, though this is also true. Rather, Paul says that God will judge us according to our deeds, but not just any deeds. The deeds that lead to eternal life are those deeds that indicate a person who is seeking glory, honor, and eternal life. e aren't saved in light of our ritual practice and neither are we saved on the basis of our charitable acts. We are saved on the basis that our deeds are characteristic of those who are seeking glory, honor and immortality.

As my friend Ron Julian once said, The child of God is one who:

Loves God above all
Fears God
Loves his fellow believer
Seeks first the kingdom of God
Repents and Believes
Remains humble
Forgives others
Carries his own cross
Rejects the mammon of unrighteousness

God is looking for deeds and actions that represent and indicate the kinds of attitudes listed above. John the Baptist, for instance, spoke about "deeds befitting repentance." Jesus spoke about giving water to his followers, visiting his followers in jail, helping his followers in need. He isn't focused on charity as such, he is focused on deeds befitting the love of fellow believers, and by proxy, the love of Jesus and God the Father.

Now, if this sounds like your OP, then we agree. :)

CadyandZoe
Sep 3rd 2017, 01:29 PM
Stating this doesn't make it true. The Kingdom of Heaven comes at the end of the Age just as Jesus states just because you believe like some like post-mil or amil and believe this is a currently reality doesn't make it true. The Kingdom of Heaven is Not the Church. Nor does the parables when Jesus teaches about the Kingdom of Heaven refer to the Church. Jesus was not saying to the people of Israel: The Church is like a wedding feast ect.



Sorry this wasn't the question of the OP. But thanks for sharing your understanding.Every time you guys raise this issue it just confuses things because this distinction has NO basis in fact. The phrase "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" refer to the same concept: that time when God will rule on earth in goodness and righteousness. They don't refer to two different things.

Scooby_Snacks
Sep 3rd 2017, 02:30 PM
This needs to be stated correctly and properly. OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL is the condition which God places before all humanity. This is called THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess 1:8)


"Only he who does the will of my father" will enter the kingdom.

When I read this part of the conversation, the scripture that came to mind for me was:

John 6:27-29

Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you.
For on him God the Father has set his seal.”

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”

Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Anyway, just my thoughts on this part of the conversation.

randyk
Sep 3rd 2017, 03:46 PM
randyk,
the law of Christ is love God and neighbor which is The Law. Moses wrote love God and neighbor but Abraham and many others did it before and after it was written. Jesus didn't mention temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices in Matt 5-7, but he did mention the law and prophets. Doing the law and the prophets is the law of Christ/doing the will of the Father. The law is not always about temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices. The scribes and the pharisees kept temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices but they did not keep the law. That was the point. Jesus said unless you keep the law you cannot enter. You would have to do more than the scribes and pharisees to enter. "Moral virtue" has always been obtained by natural. The Law is the moral law/natural law. The Spirit helps those who have Him and brings a heightened sense of awareness (law written on our heart/renewal mind) of the ""Moral virtue" we were all born with.

I have no idea where you get "substitute Christ's spiritual life for our own carnal life.......adopt his life as a *replacement* for our independent living". We do not receive his righteous record to replace ours.

The koh/koG are two distinct descriptive phrases for different aspects of The Kingdom (natural/spiritual). Doing the law has always been required to enter both the koh (in the context of Messianic reign/natural) and future koG (spiritual). Doing the law is not required to be in the koh (in the context of earthy/natural) because tares (children of the wicked one) and wheat (children of the kingdom) grow up together in the koh (earthy/natural) in the absence of the King.

I appreciate the fact you spell out our differences so well. We simply disagree because I think you've misinterpreted what Scripture has said on the subject. It is my view that shows where you have gone wrong.

1) The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are the same. God = Heaven. How you phrase it is simply a matter of preference. The Kingdom of God in the OT era was viewed as any place that God dwelt in a kingdom, or nation. In that time only Israel was a nation where God dwelled. So the Kingdom of God was viewed in that era as being in Israel with a functioning theocracy. It was not the Kingdom of God because it was Israel. Rather, it was the Kingdom of God because it was God dwelling in an earthly kingdom--Israel. 2 Chron 13.8. And yet, the Kingdom of God is also distinguished from any earthly kingdom by its lofty position above all kingdoms on earth--2 Chron 20.6. Although God is over all earthly kingdoms His Kingdom was exclusively established on earth in an earthly kingdom when He chose to dwell within Israel. And He did that by putting His name in the temple in Jerusalem.

2) Since the Kingdom of God failed in Israel in the OT era, Jesus came preaching the good news of a restored Kingdom of God in Israel. He was at that time still preaching under the OT era and focused on Israel, which was alone the nation in which God had placed His name. But Jesus also anticipated the NT era, following the fall of Israel once again, in which God would place His name in His Son Jesus, and would indwell the Church. This sometimes includes whole nations, and sometimes only part of nations. But Jesus anticipated a final state of the Kingdom of God in Israel when Israel would be restored for all time, never against to be molested by enemy nations. And God would put His name there forever, albeit with Christ as the temple this time. Nor would Israel be the only nation comprising the Kingdom of God. This would be an eschatological fulfillment, beyond even the NT age we presently live in, because Israel must be included as well.

3) If you do not understand the NT decision to substitute Christ's life for our own I wonder what your theology is? He said he is the "Life." He said he is the "Vine." Paul said we are to "live by the Spirit." He said, "For me to live is Christ."

4) In sum, the OT did see Israel strive to be in the theocracy of Israel by observing the works of the Law. They were blessed by their obedience to the Law. But the Scriptures never say that eternal life came by this obedience. Nor did the Scriptures say this Kingdom of God endured, since God actually left the temple in Israel, allowing it to be destroyed. Only Christ fulfilled the righteousness of the Law that allowed eternal life to be given to men. But it was not by his or by men keeping the Law. Rather, the Law pointed to the inherent righteousness of Christ as the perfect man, as the divine man, who was sinless and redeemed men by his own divine authority. The Law was in fact all 613 laws, including priest, temple, and sacrifice. It was all together in a covenant, and only a temporary phase of the Abrahamic Covenant. Its failure did not prevent Christ from providing the ultimate system promised by the Prophets and alluded to under the Law. Christ's life *is* that system!

Noeb
Sep 3rd 2017, 04:35 PM
Stating this doesn't make it true.Absolutely true.



The Kingdom of Heaven comes at the end of the Age just as Jesus states just because you believe like some like post-mil or amil and believe this is a currently reality doesn't make it true.The kingdom of heaven is the earth and all in it and was and is. It is currently not ruled by the king, but by many kings. The kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ. You are referring to the koh with the king present.

There are verses that without a doubt tell us the kingdom of heaven was and is.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest:

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Mat 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Mat 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
Mat 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.



The Kingdom of Heaven is Not the Church. Nor does the parables when Jesus teaches about the Kingdom of Heaven refer to the Church.The above says otherwise, but it is only referring to the visible church, what we see, but not everyone that claims to be a believer is, there are children of the wicked one (tares), vessels of dishonor in every house. They are here in the koh growing up together with the children of the kingdom.



Jesus was not saying to the people of Israel: The Church is like a wedding feast ect.You referring to Mat 22? Correct. We have to understand the parable in light of what happened right before it, so we read the previous chapter. Here's the end......Note, the king here sent his son so the king is not Jesus, it's the Father.

Mat 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
Mat 21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
Mat 21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
Mat 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
Mat 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Mat 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
Mat 21:46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.


So in Mat 22, the Jews "would not come" "made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:...took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them" so the king sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city - 70AD. The last part of the parable is at the end of the age where the Father's (the king) servants gather guests, Jew and Gentile, both good and bad, for the wedding. These are not the Bride they are guest to an even that takes place on earth -koh.

Noeb
Sep 3rd 2017, 04:58 PM
1) The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are the same. God = Heaven.No where in scripture.



The Kingdom of God in the OT era was viewed as any place that God dwelt in a kingdom, or nation.You're just flat out making stuff up.



In that time only Israel was a nation where God dwelled. So the Kingdom of God was viewed in that era as being in Israel with a functioning theocracy. It was not the Kingdom of God because it was Israel. Rather, it was the Kingdom of God because it was God dwelling in an earthly kingdom--Israel. 2 Chron 13.8. And yet, the Kingdom of God is also distinguished from any earthly kingdom by its lofty position above all kingdoms on earth--2 Chron 20.6. Although God is over all earthly kingdoms His Kingdom was exclusively established on earth in an earthly kingdom when He chose to dwell within Israel. And He did that by putting His name in the temple in Jerusalem.Which is your problem because how could something they didn't possess be taken from them? God departed Israel and was not in the temple loOOOooog before Jesus said the koG would be taken from them. You simply haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.



2) Since the Kingdom of God failed in Israel in the OT eraThe koG is in part the promises fulfilled in the NT. It was never given or offered in the OT. It was something they looked forward to. It will not come in fullness until he returns. The spiritual koG has always existed here on earth though. God operated in the spirit with his angels and Spirit and men did great things through faith but they did not receive the promise and died having not seen it.



3) If you do not understand the NT decision to substitute Christ's life for our own I wonder what your theology is?Our faith is counted for righteousness. Need chapter and verse?



4) In sum, the OT did see Israel strive to be in the theocracy of Israel by observing the works of the Law. They were blessed by their obedience to the Law. But the Scriptures never say that eternal life came by this obedience. Nor did the Scriptures say this Kingdom of God endured, since God actually left the temple in Israel, allowing it to be destroyed. Only Christ fulfilled the righteousness of the Law that allowed eternal life to be given to men. But it was not by his or by men keeping the Law. Rather, the Law pointed to the inherent righteousness of Christ as the perfect man, as the divine man, who was sinless and redeemed men by his own divine authority. The Law was in fact all 613 laws, including priest, temple, and sacrifice. It was all together in a covenant, and only a temporary phase of the Abrahamic Covenant. Its failure did not prevent Christ from providing the ultimate system promised by the Prophets and alluded to under the Law. Christ's life *is* that system!Is the law of Christ to love God and neighbor? Did not God say this through Moses? Is it not what Jesus says in Mat 5-7? Has there not always been men that obeyed the Law? These are yes or no questions only. Will you answer?

Show me anywhere in scripture where it is implied that anyone will have eternal life having not done the will of the Father. You can't do it. Even in the NT Paul is very clear the wicked will not inherit the koG. A good tree produces good fruit. Not only good fruit but it is called good because it mostly produces good fruit. Those that do not produce good fruit are cut down and cast into the fire. Is that not simple enough and clear enough for you? Those who are born of the Spirit are children of the kingdom and will do the law, the law of Christ, love God and neighbor, the will of the Father. Anyone that does not is not His amd will not inherit the koG. Is this true or false? I never said "eternal life came by this obedience". Don't put words in my mouth.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 3rd 2017, 05:51 PM
Absolutely true.
The kingdom of heaven is the earth and all in it and was and is. It is currently not ruled by the king, but by many kings. The kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ. You are referring to the koh with the king present. Most of Jesus parables about the Kingom of Heaven refer to this.


There are verses that without a doubt tell us the kingdom of heaven was and is.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest:

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Mat 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Mat 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
Mat 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.


The above says otherwise, but it is only referring to the visible church, what we see, but not everyone that claims to be a believer is, there are children of the wicked one (tares), vessels of dishonor in every house. They are here in the koh growing up together with the children of the kingdom. This is not how i understand these parables i don't believe Jesus is referring to the Church when he says the Koh is like this or that.

Iow I don't believe Jesus is saying.

(The church) is like a good man who sows seeds in the field.

(The Church) is like a Mustard seed

(The Church) is like Merchant man.

(The Church)is like a Net ect

(The Church) Is like a wedding banquet.

I could go on but i think you get my point.







You referring to Mat 22? Correct. We have to understand the parable in light of what happened right before it, so we read the previous chapter. Here's the end......Note, the king here sent his son so the king is not Jesus, it's the Father.

Mat 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
Mat 21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
Mat 21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
Mat 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
Mat 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Mat 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
Mat 21:46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.


So in Mat 22, the Jews "would not come" "made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:...took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them" so the king sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city - 70AD. The last part of the parable is at the end of the age where the Father's (the king) servants gather guests, Jew and Gentile, both good and bad, for the wedding. These are not the Bride they are guest to an even that takes place on earth -koh. On this we agree

Jesuslovesus
Sep 3rd 2017, 06:08 PM
Every time you guys raise this issue it just confuses things because this distinction has NO basis in fact. The phrase "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" refer to the same concept: that time when God will rule on earth in goodness and righteousness. They don't refer to two different things.

Sorry the term Kingdom of God does not refer to the time when God will rule earth in Goodness and righteouness. But the term Kingdom of Heaven sure does.

You know what has no basis in facts? Your assumptions that in the book of Matthew that the term kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are the same kingdom.

Read your OT! How many times was the Kingdom promised to the Jewish people! Once more what was the Last question the disciples asked Jesus!

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

The were Clearly worried about the KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.

What Kingdom is Jesus refering to Here?? “You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, 29and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Once more the Kingdom of Jesus could not be MORE clear it is a Physical kingdom where the Disciples sit on 12 thrones and rule over *ISREAL* Please find the Kingdom of God passages that are exclusive to the 12 tribes of Israel.


Lets do another passage to Hammer this Home.

Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Once more when? IN THE NEW WORLD.

WHo is being ruled? The 12 tribes of Israel.

How can this then be about the Church???????

Lets do another passage

Matthew 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Is Jesus saying if he cast out devils by the spirit of God then the millenial kingdom where Christ and the Apostles sit on 12 thrones is come?

CLEARLY NOT!

Daniel567
Sep 3rd 2017, 06:14 PM
Sorry the term Kingdom of God does not refer to the time when God will rule earth in Goodness and righteouness. But the term Kingdom of Heaven sure does.
Sorry, but you are clearly mistaken. This does not say "Kingdom of Heaven" (and both terms are used interchangeably in the Gospels).

I Corinthians 15:24,25

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

Noeb
Sep 3rd 2017, 06:16 PM
This is not how i understand these parables i don't believe Jesus is referring to the Church when he says the Koh is like this or that.So Jesus did not say the good seed children of the kingdom are part of the koh? C'mon now. It's right there, plain as day.

Noeb
Sep 3rd 2017, 06:17 PM
Sorry, but you are clearly mistaken. This does not say "Kingdom of Heaven" (and both terms are used interchangeably in the Gospels).

I Corinthians 15:24,25

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.Ummm...that says kingdom to God, not kingdom of God to God.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 3rd 2017, 06:40 PM
So Jesus did not say the good seed children of the kingdom are part of the koh? C'mon now. It's right there, plain as day.

Jesus also said this regarding the "children of the Kingdom" yet for some reason people don't want this passage to be about the Church.(Matt 8:12).

Nor does the context suggest it is.

Matthew 8:12 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 3rd 2017, 06:50 PM
Sorry, but you are clearly mistaken. This does not say "Kingdom of Heaven" (and both terms are used interchangeably in the Gospels).

I Corinthians 15:24,25

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

Once more this is a false claim, the Gospel(s) [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] do not use the terms Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God "interchangeably".

Look for any use of the term Kingdom of Heaven by Mark, Luke or John they never used it at ALL nor Interchanged the terms.

Maybe the term "interchangeable" and its definition eludes you

Only the Gospel (singular) of Matthew uses both terms no other gospel.

So at best you can claim that the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are used interchangeably in the gospel of Matthew. Which is clearly false.

CadyandZoe
Sep 3rd 2017, 07:11 PM
You know what has no basis in facts? Your assumptions that in the book of Matthew that the term kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are the same kingdom.This is NOT an assumption. Anyone can compare Matthew's Gospel with Luke's and see that everyplace where Matthew has "kingdom of heaven", Luke has "kingdom of God." I don't understand how you don't see this.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 3rd 2017, 07:25 PM
This is NOT an assumption. Anyone can compare Matthew's Gospel with Luke's and see that everyplace where Matthew has "kingdom of heaven", Luke has "kingdom of God." I don't understand how you don't see this.

Because this is not proof that "Matthew" (the only gospel writer who used the term Kingdom of Heaven) used the terms(KOH and KOG) interchangeably as is your claim [ I don't know how you don't see this]. Comparing Luke and Matthew does not establish the writer Matthew's use of the term Kingdom of Heaven.

Anytime you want to prove that the terms Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God refer to the same kingdom exclusively in the book of Matthew you are welcome too.

But telling me to compare Matthew and his use of the term KoH with Luke who doesn't mention it in any way doesn't establish your claims. I hope you realize this brother.

So yes it is clearly an ASSUMPTION UNless you plan to "PROVE" here now that in the book of Matthew (NOT LUKE) Matthew used the term Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God interchangeably or that they refer to the same concept.

Interchangable
adjective
1.
(of two things) capable of being put or used in the place of each other:
interchangeable symbols.
2.
(of one thing) capable of replacing or changing places with something else:

Trivalee
Sep 3rd 2017, 08:36 PM
There is no difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.

I'm embarrassed that I've never considered the two to be different. Please explain the difference between the two?

Daniel567
Sep 3rd 2017, 08:38 PM
Ummm...that say kingdom to God, not kingdom of God to God.
Well that is a given. The Kingdom of God belongs to God, therefore it is given to God. If He chooses to call it the Kingdom of Heaven, He expects His people to exercise some discernment since Heaven also belongs to God.

One could have said that "Kingdom of Heaven" pertains to Christendom in the Parable of the Kingdom, but then Mark and Luke apply the term "Kingdom of God" to the very same parables.

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (Mt 13:11)

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables (Mk 4:11)

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Lk 8:10)

These quotes should bring this matter to an end. If they don't it proves that some like to argue for the sake of arguing -- vain babblings.

goldenboy
Sep 3rd 2017, 08:54 PM
Jesus, Paul and John each say it plainly:

9Ordo you not know that the unrighteous will not inheritthe kingdom of God?Do not bedeceived;neither fornicators, noridolaters, nor adulterers, noreffeminate,nor homosexuals, 10northieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, willinherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10.These texts, which explain thepromise of the Kingdom, all condition it upon our living lives worthy of theKingdom, specifically by being willing to suffer what we must in order toobey the Lord.

Jesus put that very plainly:
Thus, itis true. Obedience to God is thecondition we must fulfill if we are to receive the Kingdom ofGod.

First off, your question pertains of some scriptures that speak of the kingdom of heaven, and some that speak of the kingdom of God. To those who can see the difference, [and it is not a simple thing to do] there is not one answer that will suffice both positions.

Secondly, you use the word, "gaining, aka gain", when scriptures speak of "entering" or inheriting the kingdom. Whether one believes that KOH and KOG are the same or different, does not matter, when trying to understand whether you are meaning to "enter" or to "inherit". Only one kingdom is spoken of in regards to inheriting it.

Thirdly, maybe you are just looking at the journey of faith.

I don't know how to properly address your question.

Blessings to all who keeps the saying and the prophecy of his book!
GB

goldenboy
Sep 3rd 2017, 09:18 PM
Well that is a given. The Kingdom of God belongs to God, therefore it is given to God. If He chooses to call it the Kingdom of Heaven, He expects His people to exercise some discernment since Heaven also belongs to God.

One could have said that "Kingdom of Heaven" pertains to Christendom in the Parable of the Kingdom, but then Mark and Luke apply the term "Kingdom of God" to the very same parables.

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (Mt 13:11)

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables (Mk 4:11)

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Lk 8:10)

These quotes should bring this matter to an end. If they don't it proves that some like to argue for the sake of arguing -- vain babblings.



Maybe you ought to read the kingdom of "heaven" parable that is found only in the gospel of Matthew. That of the tares and wheat to help you see the difference. The time stamp that is there seen in the tares/ wheat parable, ends with the gathering of the "children of the kingdom[the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom]" being gathered "into his barn" at THE END of the world when the angels are sent to gather them up. It might also help you to realize that only the righteous will inherit the kingdom at the end of this age, whereas the kingdom of heaven contains good fish and bad fish; good seed and bad seed; leaven and unleaven; etc. No one inherits the kingdom of God until Jesus comes back. The kingdom of God is hidden within the kingdom of heaven [IT IS A MYSTERY] until that time.
The kingdom of God shall come with the twinkling of an eye, beyond the observation of man.
Blessings to all who keeps the saying and the prophecy of his book!
GB

Noeb
Sep 3rd 2017, 10:17 PM
Jesus also said this regarding the "children of the Kingdom" yet for some reason people don't want this passage to be about the Church.(Matt 8:12).

Nor does the context suggest it is.

Matthew 8:12 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.Thank you for agreeing and help proving the koh is now and not just future ;)

Noeb
Sep 3rd 2017, 10:25 PM
Well that is a given. The Kingdom of God belongs to God, therefore it is given to God.You're either getting silly or don't know what saith the scriptures, friend. All things are his. What's going on in that passage is Christ has fulfilled the roll of man ruling and reigning the earth. He gives it back to the Father to be all in all.




If He chooses to call it the Kingdom of Heaven, He expects His people to exercise some discernment since Heaven also belongs to God.Missing the point. The location of the kingdom is not Mars.



One could have said that "Kingdom of Heaven" pertains to Christendom in the Parable of the Kingdom, but then Mark and Luke apply the term "Kingdom of God" to the very same parables.

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (Mt 13:11)

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables (Mk 4:11)

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Lk 8:10)

These quotes should bring this matter to an end. If they don't it proves that some like to argue for the sake of arguing -- vain babblings.

All completely false. Again, they are descriptive phrases for aspects of the kingdom. Plainly seen and proven beyond a doubt. If not true, it proves some people have very little and do not see and understand, so they haven't been given more. Not everyone can receive it.

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Noeb
Sep 3rd 2017, 11:39 PM
Maybe you ought to read the kingdom of "heaven" parable that is found only in the gospel of Matthew. That of the tares and wheat to help you see the difference.Only in Matthew/koh?

Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.
Mar 4:28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
Mar 4:29 But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.

No tares here. No separation. Just fruit.

goldenboy
Sep 4th 2017, 12:14 AM
Only in Matthew/koh?

Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.
Mar 4:28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
Mar 4:29 But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.

No tares here. No separation. Just fruit.

Because it does not contain the same elements, it is not the same parable. As you stated, the tares are not mentioned. But there is a separation to be found. Looking at verse 25:

*[[Mar 4:25]] KJV* For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

We have the reward of the righteous, the principal component of the KOG. Giving/ rewarding those who have (the ones who are to bear fruit) versus punishment for those who have not. This parable is definitely about the time leading up to the time of harvest, when those possessing the righteousness of the KOG shall be separated from those who do not (possess the righteousness) , the Times of the KOH.

Blessings to all who keeps the saying and the prophecy of his book!
GB

Daniel567
Sep 4th 2017, 02:21 AM
All completely false.
When someone calls corresponding Scriptures completely false, he is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 02:58 AM
When someone calls corresponding Scriptures completely false, he is just arguing for the sake of arguing.I did not say the scriptures are false. I said what you said is false ;)
Comparable, similar, pick a synonym, are not 'exactly the same'.
When someone calls differing Scriptures exactly the same using the word corresponding they're just arguing for the sake of arguing and quite frankly, they reveal how little they know and understand. ;)

randyk
Sep 4th 2017, 03:03 AM
I'm embarrassed that I've never considered the two to be different. Please explain the difference between the two?

There is no difference. God = Heaven.

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 03:09 AM
Because it does not contain the same elementsDoesn't? Please tell me you're not serious?

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;

Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.

Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.
Mar 4:28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.

Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Mar 4:29 But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.



it is not the same parable.I didn't say it was the same parable. Of course it's not the same parable. Why would anyone compare the same parable?

randyk
Sep 4th 2017, 03:09 AM
Stating this doesn't make it true. The Kingdom of Heaven comes at the end of the Age just as Jesus states just because you believe like some like post-mil or amil and believe this is a currently reality doesn't make it true. The Kingdom of Heaven is Not the Church. Nor does the parables when Jesus teaches about the Kingdom of Heaven refer to the Church. Jesus was not saying to the people of Israel: The Church is like a wedding feast ect.


I don't believe like Amils, that the Church is the Kingdom of God, although I think there is some merit to the position. The Kingdom of God was viewed in a temporal sense in the OT era, when God lived in the temple system in Israel. The Kingdom of David was thus a theocracy, and represented, in a temporal way, the Kingdom of God.

However, that system, as I said, was temporal, and proved that God's Kingdom cannot be eternal within the current evil age. Human sin is utterly unable to retain God's presence within any governmental structure, whether monarchy or democracy. Not even in the current Church Age are Christian governments able to retain the presence of God for any length of time.

So no, the Church is not the Kingdom of God, unless you are to describe it, as in the OT era, as a temporal form of that Kingdom. In eschatology the Kingdom of God is presented as an eternal reality on earth--within the nations of the earth that are Christian. In that case God's presence will never be taken away again.

We are able to become members of that Kingdom now, even before it comes. As such, eternal life can be had now, with no more fear of losing God's presence, well before it becomes an eternal reality on the earth in an earthly government.

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 03:20 AM
This is NOT an assumption. Anyone can compare Matthew's Gospel with Luke's and see that everyplace where Matthew has "kingdom of heaven", Luke has "kingdom of God." I don't understand how you don't see this.In light of Scripture, it would be foolish to think the natural (koh) and spiritual (koG) do not have similarities. It would also be foolish to assume this means they are ALWAYS speaking of the same things. Just saying....

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 03:25 AM
I don't believe like Amils, that the Church is the Kingdom of God, although I think there is some merit to the position. The Kingdom of God was viewed in a temporal sense in the OT era, when God lived in the temple system in Israel. The Kingdom of David was thus a theocracy, and represented, in a temporal way, the Kingdom of God.Actually no, the kingdom during David and Solomon is the closest this world has ever come to the coming Messianic reign/koh. It was not spiritual. There was no indwelling Spirit. The promises tasted in the kingdom of God/NT did not exist. You got the kingdoms confused. What David and Solomon had was mostly natural. That's also what Messiah will have but he will also bring the spiritual in fullness. Right now we only have it in part.

randyk
Sep 4th 2017, 04:59 AM
No where in scripture.
You're just flat out making stuff up.


Psalm 50.6 And the heavens proclaim his righteousness, for he is a God of justice.


The Scriptures often use couplets to express a single truth. Above we see "heaven" and "God" used as synonyms. It is often argued that those who wished to avoid using the name of God substituted "heaven" for "God." In other words, Jews may have used "heaven" as a substitute for Yahweh to avoid use of the Tetragrammaton.



Which is your problem because how could something they didn't possess be taken from them? God departed Israel and was not in the temple loOOOooog before Jesus said the koG would be taken from them. You simply haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.


You must've missed the point. Israel was a *temporal form* of the Kingdom of God, and lost that form when God abandoned the temple and allowed it to be destroyed in the Babylonian Invasion. However, the temple was rebuilt under the Persian government and God once again established His presence there. What Jesus said was that after he was crucified the presence of God would once again abandon the temple to destruction. And if God no longer lived among the people and government of Israel, it would cease to be a *temporal form* of God's Kingdom.



The koG is in part the promises fulfilled in the NT. It was never given or offered in the OT. It was something they looked forward to. It will not come in fullness until he returns. The spiritual koG has always existed here on earth though. God operated in the spirit with his angels and Spirit and men did great things through faith but they did not receive the promise and died having not seen it.


I already provided a Scripture reference to prove that God did indeed have a temporal form of the Kingdom of God in Israel in the OT era...

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist the kingdom of the Lord, which is in the hands of David’s descendants."

But yes, the spiritual Kingdom of God has always existed in heaven because God has existed in heaven from the beginning of creation. It is only when God takes up residence on the earth, within the temple in Israel, that God identified with an earthly government, namely the Davidic kings.

I don't know how you can say God wasn't in His temple prior to Jesus? He most certainly was! Easily proven. Prior to John the Baptist's birth this happened to his father, Zechariah, the priest...

Luk 1.11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense.




Our faith is counted for righteousness. Need chapter and verse?


No, I know the chapter and verse. Why didn't you deal with the references I gave you?...

"He said he is the "Life." He said he is the "Vine." Paul said we are to "live by the Spirit." He said, "For me to live is Christ." John 14.6; 15.5.



Is the law of Christ to love God and neighbor? Did not God say this through Moses? Is it not what Jesus says in Mat 5-7? Has there not always been men that obeyed the Law? These are yes or no questions only. Will you answer?


Haven't I answered every point you've made? Yes. To answer your question, yes, the law of loving God and neighbor was contained in the Law and quoted by Jesus while he was yet under the period of Law.
None of this had to do with claiming the observation of the Law brought about a right to the Kingdom of God apart from the death of Christ.

And the reason the death of Christ was necessary to make these works acceptable is because as Paul put it, "works" could not justify anybody with respect to obtaining eternal life. It had to be through reference to *Christ's works.*

Our works had to be passed through the prism of Christ's works to verify that they had been done through him spiritually and had thus obtained mercy through him. That's why in the NT era we do works that also are viewed as *in Christ* and *by the grace of Christ.* All the merit is viewed as his. And all our works must be verified as having been done in partnership with him in a spiritual sense. If we do things spiritually *through him,* whether OT or NT, then we are essentially proving that the works are the product of our obedience and his virtue, or what I call "his works." They are our works stripped of all our carnality, which has been forgiven and forgotten by God.



Show me anywhere in scripture where it is implied that anyone will have eternal life having not done the will of the Father. You can't do it.


Not once have I ever tried to prove such a thing!



Even in the NT Paul is very clear the wicked will not inherit the koG. A good tree produces good fruit. Not only good fruit but it is called good because it mostly produces good fruit. Those that do not produce good fruit are cut down and cast into the fire. Is that not simple enough and clear enough for you?


I have not said otherwise.



Those who are born of the Spirit are children of the kingdom and will do the law, the law of Christ, love God and neighbor, the will of the Father. Anyone that does not is not His amd will not inherit the koG. Is this true or false? I never said "eternal life came by this obedience". Don't put words in my mouth.

It depends on what "Law" you're talking about--the Law of Christ or the Law of Moses? I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking you to make clear here what Law you're talking about?

At any rate, not even obedience to the Law of Christ makes us worthy of the Kingdom of God. It must be proven that whatever works we do must be the product of a spiritual union between Christ and us. Then the works will be known to be *Christ's works,* and not our *carnal works.*

The problem here is that when we speak of "works" in a biblical sense we are often looking at "works" as the product of carnal man, whose works are not done in partnership with God in a spiritual sense. Using "works" without recognition of this technical application of the word "works" is bound to result in confusion.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 4th 2017, 05:36 AM
I don't believe like Amils, that the Church is the Kingdom of God, although I think there is some merit to the position. Randy you know what i mean when i say that Amils believe the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven(Milleniual Kingdom). Amillennialism (Greek: a- "no" + millennialism), in Christian eschatology, involves the rejection of the belief that Jesus will have a literal, thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth.

Once more this is what Jesus is refering to when he says the Kingdom of Heaven in the book of Matthew.



The Kingdom of God was viewed in a temporal sense in the OT era, when God lived in the temple system in Israel. The Kingdom of David was thus a theocracy, and represented, in a temporal way, the Kingdom of God.

However, that system, as I said, was temporal, and proved that God's Kingdom cannot be eternal within the current evil age. Human sin is utterly unable to retain God's presence within any governmental structure, whether monarchy or democracy. Not even in the current Church Age are Christian governments able to retain the presence of God for any length of time.

So no, the Church is not the Kingdom of God, unless you are to describe it, as in the OT era, as a temporal form of that Kingdom. In eschatology the Kingdom of God is presented as an eternal reality on earth--within the nations of the earth that are Christian. In that case God's presence will never be taken away again.

We are able to become members of that Kingdom now, even before it comes. As such, eternal life can be had now, with no more fear of losing God's presence, well before it becomes an eternal reality on the earth in an earthly government.

This all makes no sense to me. What does this phrase mean to you?

1 Cor 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.


Also consider the words of Jesus in John 3 what condition does he place on entering the Kingdom of God?

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”


In the OT do you believe Israel had recieved the Kingdom of God while still flesh and blood?

randyk
Sep 4th 2017, 07:26 AM
Actually no, the kingdom during David and Solomon is the closest this world has ever come to the coming Messianic reign/koh. It was not spiritual. There was no indwelling Spirit. The promises tasted in the kingdom of God/NT did not exist. You got the kingdoms confused. What David and Solomon had was mostly natural. That's also what Messiah will have but he will also bring the spiritual in fullness. Right now we only have it in part.

You are wrong, despite the rhetoric. David's Kingdom was indeed spiritual for the precise reason that God Himself dwelled in the temple in a spiritual sense. You can easily find in reference to Solomon's temple that God's glory inhabited the temple site. This is God's Spirit. If you read through Ezekiel you will see the relationship of the cherubim to the temple as God prepared to leave the temple, allowing its destruction.

randyk
Sep 4th 2017, 07:35 AM
Randy you know what i mean when i say that Amils believe the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven(Milleniual Kingdom). Amillennialism (Greek: a- "no" + millennialism), in Christian eschatology, involves the rejection of the belief that Jesus will have a literal, thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth.

Once more this is what Jesus is refering to when he says the Kingdom of Heaven in the book of Matthew.


Of course I know what Amil is! Do you understand the point I'm making?



This all makes no sense to me. What does this phrase mean to you?

1 Cor 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.


It is, as I said, that the Kingdom of God formerly referred to a temporal form of the Kingdom. But that came to be overshadowed by Jesus' proclamation of an eschatological form of the Kingdom, wherein Israel would never suffer her enemies again.

It is this *eschatological* Kingdom of God that will never be inhabited by "flesh and blood" such as we know them now. "Flesh and blood" here refer to the carnal, sin-infected, man. Only the glorified, resurrected man will inherit the eternal Kingdom of God.



Also consider the words of Jesus in John 3 what condition does he place on entering the Kingdom of God?

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”


Same as above.



In the OT do you believe Israel had recieved the Kingdom of God while still flesh and blood?

Israel was the kingdom that had God's Kingdom enmeshed within it. It could be said that the Kingdom of God *in its temporal form* resided within the Kingdom of David in his time. This could be said for all Israeli kings as long as God continued to honor His relationship with Israel with respect to their temple worship.

Glorious
Sep 4th 2017, 08:09 AM
What Conditions are Placed on Us Gaining the Kingdom?

Perhaps, someone had already answered correctly. The answer is found in John 3:5 KJV:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

To enter the kingdom, saints must be born (not baptized) of the Spirit and of water. Rephrasing, we can say that to enter and experience righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, saints must be born (as sons) by the Spirit and as kings by water (Holy Ghost)

CadyandZoe
Sep 4th 2017, 11:27 AM
In light of Scripture, it would be foolish to think the natural (koh) and spiritual (koG) do not have similarities. It would also be foolish to assume this means they are ALWAYS speaking of the same things. Just saying....Where did you get the idea that the koh was natural?

CadyandZoe
Sep 4th 2017, 11:34 AM
Because this is not proof that "Matthew" (the only gospel writer who used the term Kingdom of Heaven) used the terms(KOH and KOG) interchangeably as is your claim [ I don't know how you don't see this]. Comparing Luke and Matthew does not establish the writer Matthew's use of the term Kingdom of Heaven.

Anytime you want to prove that the terms Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God refer to the same kingdom exclusively in the book of Matthew you are welcome too. It doesn't work that way. Both Matthew and Luke are recording what Jesus said. Therefore it is NOT a matter of editorial licence.


But telling me to compare Matthew and his use of the term KoH with Luke who doesn't mention it in any way doesn't establish your claims. I hope you realize this brother.It should. I take it you never have attempted to harmonize the gospels? I have. And it's not easy.


So yes it is clearly an ASSUMPTION UNless you plan to "PROVE" here now that in the book of Matthew (NOT LUKE) Matthew used the term Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God interchangeably or that they refer to the same concept.
Before I do that. You need to explain to me how to harmonize the gospels given your view or why you don't think the Bible speaks with one voice.

mailmandan
Sep 4th 2017, 11:35 AM
What Conditions are Placed on Us Gaining the Kingdom? Perhaps, someone had already answered correctly. The answer is found in John 3:5 KJV:Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.To enter the kingdom, saints must be born (not baptized) of the Spirit and of water. Rephrasing, we can say that to enter and experience righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, saints must be born (as sons) by the Spirit and as kings by water (Holy Ghost) Yes, Jesus said, "born of water and of the Spirit" He did not say born of baptism and of the Spirit. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. If "water" was arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If that sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.Scripture interprets itself. In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." (This he spoke concerning the Spirit - John 7:39). In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. (1 Corinthians 12:13 says ..drink into one Spirit). But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism.

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 01:02 PM
Psalm 50.6 And the heavens proclaim his righteousness, for he is a God of justice.Does not say or imply "1) The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are the same. God = Heaven." "The Kingdom of God in the OT era was viewed as any place that God dwelt in a kingdom, or nation."


The Scriptures often use couplets to express a single truth. Above we see "heaven" and "God" used as synonyms.No we do not. Seems you do not know what a synonym is.



It is often argued that those who wished to avoid using the name of God substituted "heaven" for "God." In other words, Jews may have used "heaven" as a substitute for Yahweh to avoid use of the Tetragrammaton.Absolute nonsense. Matthew also wrote kingdom of God and used his name in other places repeatedly, not replacing it with heaven. C'mon!




You must've missed the point. Israel was a *temporal form* of the Kingdom of God, and lost that form when God abandoned the temple and allowed it to be destroyed in the Babylonian Invasion. However, the temple was rebuilt under the Persian government and God once again established His presence there. What Jesus said was that after he was crucified the presence of God would once again abandon the temple to destruction. And if God no longer lived among the people and government of Israel, it would cease to be a *temporal form* of God's Kingdom.

I already provided a Scripture reference to prove that God did indeed have a temporal form of the Kingdom of God in Israel in the OT era...

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist the kingdom of the Lord, which is in the hands of David’s descendants."

But yes, the spiritual Kingdom of God has always existed in heaven because God has existed in heaven from the beginning of creation. It is only when God takes up residence on the earth, within the temple in Israel, that God identified with an earthly government, namely the Davidic kings.

I don't know how you can say God wasn't in His temple prior to Jesus? He most certainly was! Easily proven. Prior to John the Baptist's birth this happened to his father, Zechariah, the priest...

Luk 1.11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense.Sorry but God in the temple is not the kingdom of God present in the NT sense.



No, I know the chapter and verse. Why didn't you deal with the references I gave you?...Irrelevant? You do not get to substitute his righteous record for your wicked. It's not Biblical.



Haven't I answered every point you've made?You have now, thanks!



It depends on what "Law" you're talking about--the Law of Christ or the Law of Moses?The Law which is also what Moses pointed to, as Jesus taught.

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 01:06 PM
You are wrong, despite the rhetoric. David's Kingdom was indeed spiritual for the precise reason that God Himself dwelled in the temple in a spiritual sense. You can easily find in reference to Solomon's temple that God's glory inhabited the temple site. This is God's Spirit. If you read through Ezekiel you will see the relationship of the cherubim to the temple as God prepared to leave the temple, allowing its destruction.Sorry but God in the temple is not the kingdom of God present in the NT sense.

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 01:17 PM
Where did you get the idea that the koh was natural?
Where do you get the idea it's spiritual?

goldenboy
Sep 4th 2017, 01:26 PM
Doesn't? Please tell me you're not serious?

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;

Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.

Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.
Mar 4:28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.

Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Mar 4:29 But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.


I didn't say it was the same parable. Of course it's not the same parable. Why would anyone compare the same parable?

So you were not saying they were the same when you said this:


ONLY in Matthew/koh?

Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.
Mar 4:28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
Mar 4:29 But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.

No tares here. No separation. Just fruit.

When i said this:


Maybe you ought to read the kingdom of "heaven" parable that is found ONLY in the gospel of Matthew. That of the tares and wheat to help you see the difference.

Or, that [you were not trying to show] they are [not] the same when you present this:


Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto*a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if*a man should cast seed into the ground;*

Mat 13:25 But while menslept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mar 4:27 And should*sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.*

Mat 13:26 But when the*bladewas*sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should*spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.*
Mar 4:28 For the earthbringeth forth fruit of herself; first the*blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.

Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until*the harvest: and in the time of*harvest*I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Mar 4:29 But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, becausethe harvest*is come.*

Would you care to explain? You seem to argue for them being the same, but now claim they are not the same?
Blessings to all who keeps the saying and the prophecy of his book!
GB

Jesuslovesus
Sep 4th 2017, 02:12 PM
What Conditions are Placed on Us Gaining the Kingdom?

Perhaps, someone had already answered correctly. The answer is found in John 3:5 KJV:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

To enter the kingdom, saints must be born (not baptized) of the Spirit and of water. Rephrasing, we can say that to enter and experience righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, saints must be born (as sons) by the Spirit and as kings by water (Holy Ghost)

I did say this pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I agree with you 100%.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 4th 2017, 02:19 PM
It doesn't work that way. Both Matthew and Luke are recording what Jesus said. Therefore it is NOT a matter of editorial licence. Actually it clearly is since your whole argument is based on comparing (but refusing to contrast) what the biblical writers said in respects to the Kingdoms. You also clearly deny that the other Gospels reference another kingdom (besides the Kingdom of God) that they don't call either term (Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of GOd). For example what Kingdom is being referenced in Acts 1:6.


It should. I take it you never have attempted to harmonize the gospels? I have. And it's not easy. I don't know what you mean by harmonizing. I believe Each gospel is designed to elaborate on important aspects of Jesus with Matthew clearly pertaining to the Kingdom.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


Before I do that. You need to explain to me how to harmonize the gospels given your view or why you don't think the Bible speaks with one voice. I never claimed the bible "OT and NT" speak with more then one voice. I harmonize the gospels quite easy all things said about the Kingdom of God pertain to the Kingdom of God

All things said about the Kingdom of Heaven pertain to the Kingdom of Heaven.

I just don't work under the assumption(with NO PROOF AS OF YET) that both kingdoms refer to the same thing or can be used "interchangeably" nor have I yet seen a bible that actually rewrites KoH passages as Kingdom of God passages.

Have you seen any modern translations of the book of Matthew that interchange all mentions of the Kingdom of heaven in for the Term Kingdom of God? or Vice versa.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 4th 2017, 02:25 PM
Of course I know what Amil is! Do you understand the point I'm making? The question is do you understand the Point i'm making?




It is, as I said, that the Kingdom of God formerly referred to a temporal form of the Kingdom.
But that came to be overshadowed by Jesus' proclamation of an eschatological form of the Kingdom, wherein Israel would never suffer her enemies again. Can you quote a bible passage as an example no offense but you seem to be giving you understanding in place of actual bible verses. Show one OT passage that references the Kingdom of God.



It is this *eschatological* Kingdom of God that will never be inhabited by "flesh and blood" such as we know them now. "Flesh and blood" here refer to the carnal, sin-infected, man. Only the glorified, resurrected man will inherit the eternal Kingdom of God. Once more this is Correct but this is not the requirements to enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless you think you can produce one passage in the bible where it says flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

But you can't because Jesus clearly gives different requirements for entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 5:20




Israel was the kingdom that had God's Kingdom enmeshed within it. It could be said that the Kingdom of God *in its temporal form* resided within the Kingdom of David in his time. This could be said for all Israeli kings as long as God continued to honor His relationship with Israel with respect to their temple worship.

So lost! Do you believe that God's Kingdom the one defined by Jesus in this prayer pre-existed the nation of Israel?

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.a 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

How long do you think Gods Will has been done "In Heaven"?

randyk
Sep 4th 2017, 03:25 PM
Does not say or imply "1) The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are the same. God = Heaven." "The Kingdom of God in the OT era was viewed as any place that God dwelt in a kingdom, or nation."

No we do not. Seems you do not know what a synonym is.


There are many others--I just gave you one. For example...

Psalm 57.3 He sends from heaven and saves me, rebuking those who hotly pursue me— God sends forth his love and his faithfulness.

Psalm 150.1 Praise the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens.

This latter shows that God actually dwells in heaven. It is His place of dwelling, and thus a term that can synonymously refer to Deity. It may not be always used synonymously, but it can be in the sense that the *location* of something identifies the thing that *dwells there.* In this case, "heaven" identifies the Deity who dwells there. Thus, to say the "Kingdom of Heaven" is synonymous with saying the "Kingdom of God." Yes, I most certainly understand synonyms. You just wish to reject the use of "heaven" as a synonym for "God."



Absolute nonsense. Matthew also wrote kingdom of God and used his name in other places repeatedly, not replacing it with heaven. C'mon!


What is "absolute nonsense," that you don't think others have used "heaven" synonymously with "God," or that you *disagree* with such use? My claim here is that it is *common* that others have used "heaven" synonymously with "God."



Sorry but God in the temple is not the kingdom of God present in the NT sense.


My claim is that God in the OT temple was viewed as a temporal form of the *Kingdom of God!*



Irrelevant? You do not get to substitute his righteous record for your wicked. It's not Biblical.


We get to substitute our *carnal life,* our *autonomous life,* for Christ's righteousness, along with his *righteous record,* yes! That is the essence of our spiritual life, as well as our eternal salvation. We utilize *Christ's record of righteousness,* and not our own. Otherwise, we would've been banned from the Kingdom of God forever!



You have now, thanks!

The Law which is also what Moses pointed to, as Jesus taught.

The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ are obviously different "Laws!" They are *not* synonymous!

CadyandZoe
Sep 4th 2017, 03:33 PM
I don't know what you mean by harmonizing.It would be good for you to find out what it means.


I just don't work under the assumption . . .I don't accept your premise that my supposition is without proof.

randyk
Sep 4th 2017, 03:41 PM
The question is do you understand the Point i'm making?


No, I only understand my own arguments. I'm not sure you understood them?



Can you quote a bible passage as an example no offense but you seem to be giving you understanding in place of actual bible verses. Show one OT passage that references the Kingdom of God.


Of course. I've been arguing this elsewhere, with quotations.

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist the kingdom of the Lord, which is in the hands of David’s descendants. You are indeed a vast army and have with you the golden calves that Jeroboam made to be your gods."



Once more this is Correct but this is not the requirements to enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless you think you can produce one passage in the bible where it says flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

But you can't because Jesus clearly gives different requirements for entering the Kingdom of Heaven.


Are you kidding? You quoted it yourself!

1 Cor 15.50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.



Matthew 5:20


Mat 5.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Yes, righteousness must be displayed in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. But this does not show autonomous worth, ie worth apart from Christ. And this is the point, that our autonomous works cannot obtain the Kingdom of Heaven. Reliance upon Christ has always included a display of Christ's works!



So lost! Do you believe that God's Kingdom the one defined by Jesus in this prayer pre-existed the nation of Israel?

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.a 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

How long do you think Gods Will has been done "In Heaven"?

Always! The temporal displays of God's Kingdom in the OT era were not "lost!" They were only temporary displays of something eternal. Neither has Israel's salvation been lost for all time. What temporary experience of salvation Abraham and David had came to be displayed as *eternal salvation* after Christ died on the cross.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 4th 2017, 04:17 PM
It would be good for you to find out what it means.

I don't accept your premise that my supposition is without proof. I don't think its without proof, a clear case can be made out of Matthew 19:23-24. But clearly in the book of Matt two different kingdoms are mentioned and there are specific teachings regarding the Kingdom of Heaven. All I can do is post what Jesus said regarding it. Overall to me it honestly does not sound like the Kingdom of God is the same as the Kingdom of Heaven in the book of Matt. So arguing from that presupposition(that they are the same) just doesn't make sense to me.

CadyandZoe
Sep 4th 2017, 05:58 PM
I don't think its without proof, a clear case can be made out of Matthew 19:23-24. But clearly in the book of Matt two different kingdoms are mentioned and there are specific teachings regarding the Kingdom of Heaven. All I can do is post what Jesus said regarding it. Overall to me it honestly does not sound like the Kingdom of God is the same as the Kingdom of Heaven in the book of Matt. So arguing from that presupposition(that they are the same) just doesn't make sense to me.

I understand what you are trying to say, but the New Testament doesn't say it the way you think it does. The New Testament authors make NO distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven. Each of these phrases points to exactly the same thing. When Matthew uses the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven", the term "Heaven" is metonomy for "God". He could have just as easily used the phrase "kingdom of God" and he does in some places.

If what you are trying to say is that the various references to the kingdom of heaven/God sound like more than one thing or different aspects of the same thing, then I agree. For instance, many Bible commentators and Bible students have noticed that often times Jesus speaks about the kingdom as if it was realized during his time, while at other times he speaks about the kingdom as if it will be realized in the future. This is where Jesus' parable of the mustard seed/tree is helpful.

Matthew 13:
31 He presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

The interesting thing about seeds, in this context, is the fact that seeds look nothing like the plant that will eventually form out of them. A seed looks nothing like a tree. Unless you knew so in advance, you could never have predicted, by inspecting the seed alone, the appearance of the mature tree. An oak tree looks nothing like an acorn. A mustard tree looks nothing like a mustard seed.

The kingdom realized is a kingdom in growth such that it begins very small, just 12 men, and grows very large when fully realized. And the incipient kingdom looks very different than the final version.

Jesus follows that parable with another one, in order to make a related point.

33 He spoke another parable to them, “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.”

What new information does the second parable add that was otherwise not found in the previous parable? The first parable highlights the fact that the kingdom begins from a very small seed and matures into a very large tree. Even so, the instructions for how the seed matures into a tree are inherent in the DNA of the tree. Whereas, unlike the "seed/tree" example, the leaven/dough example highlights the idea that growth is only possible if something is added from the outside. The leaven doesn't cause the bread to rise until the woman adds the leaven to the flour. And so here, the parable of the leaven indicates that the kingdom grows when something is hidden within it, perhaps the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Luke records the exact same parables, only he uses the phrase "Kingdom of God" instead of "kingdom of Heaven."

Luke 13:
18 So He was saying, “What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? 19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches.”

20 And again He said, “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.”

These parables are the same parables Matthew recorded. Where Luke has "kingdom of God", Matthew has "kingdom of heaven."

Jesuslovesus
Sep 4th 2017, 07:52 PM
I understand what you are trying to say, but the New Testament doesn't say it the way you think it does. The New Testament authors make NO distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven. Each of these phrases points to exactly the same thing. When Matthew uses the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven", the term "Heaven" is metonomy for "God". He could have just as easily used the phrase "kingdom of God" and he does in some places. Once more i disagree with this premise nothing to me suggest that the term Heaven in the book of Matthew is a metonomy for the word "God".

IOW i don't understand this (once more in the book of Matthew)

Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

I don't believe i can switch up the Word Heaven in here for the Father or God.

Or here see

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.


If what you are trying to say is that the various references to the kingdom of heaven/God sound like more than one thing or different aspects of the same thing, then I agree. For instance, many Bible commentators and Bible students have noticed that often times Jesus speaks about the kingdom as if it was realized during his time, while at other times he speaks about the kingdom as if it will be realized in the future. This is where Jesus' parable of the mustard seed/tree is helpful.

Matthew 13:
31 He presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

The interesting thing about seeds, in this context, is the fact that seeds look nothing like the plant that will eventually form out of them. A seed looks nothing like a tree. Unless you knew so in advance, you could never have predicted, by inspecting the seed alone, the appearance of the mature tree. An oak tree looks nothing like an acorn. A mustard tree looks nothing like a mustard seed.

The kingdom realized is a kingdom in growth such that it begins very small, just 12 men, and grows very large when fully realized. And the incipient kingdom looks very different than the final version.

Jesus follows that parable with another one, in order to make a related point.

33 He spoke another parable to them, “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.”

What new information does the second parable add that was otherwise not found in the previous parable? The first parable highlights the fact that the kingdom begins from a very small seed and matures into a very large tree. Even so, the instructions for how the seed matures into a tree are inherent in the DNA of the tree. Whereas, unlike the "seed/tree" example, the leaven/dough example highlights the idea that growth is only possible if something is added from the outside. The leaven doesn't cause the bread to rise until the woman adds the leaven to the flour. And so here, the parable of the leaven indicates that the kingdom grows when something is hidden within it, perhaps the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Luke records the exact same parables, only he uses the phrase "Kingdom of God" instead of "kingdom of Heaven."

Luke 13:
18 So He was saying, “What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? 19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches.”

20 And again He said, “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.”

These parables are the same parables Matthew recorded. Where Luke has "kingdom of God", Matthew has "kingdom of heaven."

Once more everytime Luke says the Kingdom of God he means the Kingdom of God and everytime Matthew says the "Kingdom of Heaven" he means the Kingdom of Heaven, i don't think this is an inconsistent rubric. People like you want to compare the similarties and you tout them endlessly but you refuse to contrast the Kingdoms.

So our argument will endlessly be you saying Luke used the word Kingdom of God and Matthew said Kingdom of Heaven therefore they are the same. While you refusing to actually contrast the Kingdoms or prove at any point they are the same in the book of Matthew.

Aristarkos
Sep 4th 2017, 08:24 PM
[...]

The New Testament authors make NO distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven. Each of these phrases points to exactly the same thing.

[...]



How can this be? In Matthew we read: « And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. » v. 3:2. People need to repent and get baptized to be able to enter it. Please note the « people ». This is the Kingdom of Heaven. In 1 Cor. 15:50 Paul teaches: « Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; ... ». The Kingdom of Heaven is the promised Kingdom of the O.T. that God wants to establish to Israel in the land promised to Abraham, with David as it's ruler and Christ as King. The Kingdom of God circumvents the heavens and the earth. You can only interchange the names where they overlap.

To little attention is being payed to the different representations of our Lord in the 4 gospels.

MATTHEW. The Lord presented as Jehovah's KING. « Behold THY KING » (Zech. 9:9). « Behold ... I will raise unto David a Righteous BRANCH, and a KING shall reign and prosper » (Jer. 23:5,6; 33:15). Hence the royal genealogy is required from Abraham and David downward (1:1-17) and He is presented as what He is — before Man (relatively) — the highest earthly position, the King.

MARK. The Lord presented as Jehovah's SERVANT. « Behold MY SERVANT » (Isa. 42:1) « Behold, I will bring forth My Servant THE BRANCH » (Zech 3:8). Hence no genealogy is required and He is presented as what He is — before God (relatively) — the lowest earthly position, the ideal Servant.

LUKE. The Lord presented as Jehovah's MAN. « Behold THE MAN Whose name is THE BRANCH » (Zech. 6:12). Hence the human genealogy is required upward to Adam (Luke 3:23-38 and He is presented as what He is — before Man (intrinsically) — the ideal man.

JOHN. The Lord presented as JEHOVAH HIMSELF. « Behold YOUR GOD » (Isa. 40:9) « In that day shall Jehovah's BRANCH (i.e. Messiah) be beautiful and glorious » (Isa. 4:2). Hence no genealogy is required; and He is presented as what He is — before God (intrinsically) — Divine.

Only in Matthew He is presented as King of Israel hence only there the mention of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven will be established when the Lord returns. This is the Kingdom the disciples asked about just before the ascension:

Act 1:6 « When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? »

Aristarkos

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 09:18 PM
So you were not saying they were the same when you said this: No. I was pointing out a difference. --> "No tares here. No separation. Just fruit."



You seem to argue for them being the same, but now claim they are not the same?The two will naturally have similarities, the natural is a reflection of the spirit, but here I was pointing out a difference.

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 09:32 PM
There are many others--I just gave you one.How could you, there are none.



For example...

Psalm 57.3 He sends from heaven and saves me, rebuking those who hotly pursue me— God sends forth his love and his faithfulness.

Psalm 150.1 Praise the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens.
I really don't get why you think God=heaven from these or any.



This latter shows that God actually dwells in heaven. It is His place of dwelling, and thus a term that can synonymously refer to Deity.Not seeing it.



You just wish to reject the use of "heaven" as a synonym for "God."Please. I have some controversial beliefs and those who know my posts know it. I do not shy away from what scripture says, no you can stop the silly posturing.



What is "absolute nonsense," that you don't think others have used "heaven" synonymously with "God,"There are no instances in scripture. I don't care what some have done. I'm not discussing that, I'm discussing bible in bible chat.



My claim is that God in the OT temple was viewed as a temporal form of the *Kingdom of God!*Again, here to discuss what's in the bible. You don't have any scripture to back up your claim/view.



We get to substitute our *carnal life,* our *autonomous life,* for Christ's righteousness, along with his *righteous record,* yes!Again, here to discuss what's in the bible. You don't have any scripture to back up your claim/view.



The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ are obviously different "Laws!" They are *not* synonymous!If Moses was different, it wouldn't say and mean love God and neighbor - the law of Christ. Jesus would not have said "Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." and it could not be said that it points to Christ.

randyk
Sep 4th 2017, 09:54 PM
How could you, there are none.



I really don't get why you think God=heaven from these or any.


Not seeing it.


Please. I have some controversial beliefs and those who know my posts know it. I do not shy away from what scripture says, no you can stop the silly posturing.


There are no instances in scripture. I don't care what some have done. I'm not discussing that, I'm discussing bible in bible chat.


Again, here to discuss what's in the bible. You don't have any scripture to back up your claim/view.


Again, here to discuss what's in the bible. You don't have any scripture to back up your claim/view.


If Moses was different, it wouldn't say and mean love God and neighbor - the law of Christ. Jesus would not have said "Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." and it could not be said that it points to Christ.

You dismiss reasonable arguments with an attitude. That isn't Bible discussion. Sorry, I'm not sure why you're here? Look back over your responses. Every one of them appears to scream ATTITUDE! ;) That's something you're going to have to take care of.

I answered every one of your complaints already, whether you disagree with them or not, whether you dismiss them as irrelevant or not. They are what I honestly believe addresses your questions. I don't need to repeat.

Noeb
Sep 4th 2017, 10:36 PM
You dismiss reasonable arguments with an attitude. That isn't Bible discussion. Sorry, I'm not sure why you're here? Look back over your responses. Every one of them appears to scream ATTITUDE! ;) That's something you're going to have to take care of.

I answered every one of your complaints already, whether you disagree with them or not, whether you dismiss them as irrelevant or not. They are what I honestly believe addresses your questions. I don't need to repeat.It's been difficult to see we've even been discussing the same thing. I just don't get how your brain works/your comprehension. I believe you honestly believe they address my questions I just don't get why you think that, and stating you do not and cannot produce any scripture that can even remotely imply your claim is not attitude. Sorry you think someone that cannot grasp your way of interpreting simple words and concepts is having attitude. Grace to you!

randyk
Sep 5th 2017, 12:08 AM
It's been difficult to see we've even been discussing the same thing. I just don't get how your brain works/your comprehension. I believe you honestly believe they address my questions I just don't get why you think that, and stating you do not and cannot produce any scripture that can even remotely imply your claim is not attitude. Sorry you think someone that cannot grasp your way of interpreting simple words and concepts is having attitude. Grace to you!

Well, if I'm wrong about your attitude, I apologize. However, when you say I bring no Scriptures, and I bring Scriptures, and then you say that is irrelevant, then it just screamed "attitude" to me. But I could be wrong. If you want to bring "grace" to me, that is very Christian. :)

I just want to be sure I'm discussing issues with somebody who is serious. I can argue all day long until my points are understood. Just want to make sure you're being honest.

So I'll go back and address your questions in greater detail.

randyk
Sep 5th 2017, 04:35 AM
How could you, there are none.
I really don't get why you think God=heaven from these or any.
Not seeing it.
Please. I have some controversial beliefs and those who know my posts know it. I do not shy away from what scripture says, no you can stop the silly posturing.


I don't know what you mean by "silly posturing?" I'm straight up telling you what I believe. You can take it or leave it. Here are the Scriptures that I in fact gave you...

Psalm 57.3 He sends from heaven and saves me, rebuking those who hotly pursue me— God sends forth his love and his faithfulness.

Psalm 150.1 Praise the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens.

As I said before, these kinds of passages appear to place God on a par with Heaven because Heaven is defined as the place of God's dwelling. I don't see how this can be disputed, or how they can be viewed as irrelevant when seeing God as equal to His place of dwelling is the whole point? If God is synonymous with His place of dwelling, then God equals Heaven. And that's why the Kingdom of God would mean the same thing as the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is not only a common view, but it is the only sensible view when the same things are said about the Kingdom of God as are said about the Kingdom of Heaven. If so, then it is encumbent upon *you* to show differences that are substantial or to prove there are explicit statements in Scripture barring their association.

For example, we find "Kingdom of God" in my NIV Bible in...

1) Matthew 12--authority to drive out demons
2) Matthew 19--the rich man's wish to inherit eternal life
3) Matthew 21--tax collectors and prostitutes enter

1) Mark 1--Gospel Message of nearness
2) Mark 4--secrets and parables (scattered seed and mustard seed)
3) Mark 9--transfiguration and stumbling blocks
4) Mark 10--children and rich man
5) Mark 14--millennial celebration and anticipation

And I find "Kingdom of Heaven" in...

1) Matthew 3-4--the Gospel Message of its coming
2) Matthew 5--the rewards of the beattitudes
3) Matthew 7--earthly acknowledgment of Christ invalid
4) Matthew 8--millennial hope of Israel
5) Matthew 10--the Gospel Message of its nearness
6) Matthew 11--members greater than John the Baptist, and has suffered violence
7) Matthew 13--secrets for Christ's followers, parables, and wisdom
8) Matthew 16--keys to bind and loose
9) Matthew 18--the greatest and entry as children
10) Matthew 19--eunuchs and hard for rich
11) Matthew 20--vineyard workers
12) Matthew 22--wedding banquet
13) Matthew 23--door of entry closed by hypocrites
14) Matthew 25--10 virgins

Please notice the comparison between...

1) Jesus Gospel Message in his earthly ministry in *both* Mark 1 and Matthew 3-4; 10.
2) Millennial hope of Israel in Mark 14 and Matthew 8.
3) Parables in Mark 4 and Matthew 13
4) Entry for children and rich in Mark 10 and Matthew 18-19.

Mark 1.14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Matthew 3.1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Mark 14.25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 8.11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 4.10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you.
(sowing seed and mustard seed parables)

Matthew 13.11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables...
(sowing seed and mustard seed parables)

I will leave it for you to compare Mark 10 and Matthew 18-19 and issues involving entry.

Although it's apparent that Matthew uses both phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven," it is clear that Mark and Matthew use both phrases synonymously.



There are no instances in scripture. I don't care what some have done. I'm not discussing that, I'm discussing bible in bible chat.


See points 1-4 above on the synonymous use of "Kingdom of God" by Mark and "Kingdom of Heaven" by Matthew.



Again, here to discuss what's in the bible. You don't have any scripture to back up your claim/view.


See points 1-4 above.



If Moses was different, it wouldn't say and mean love God and neighbor - the law of Christ. Jesus would not have said "Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." and it could not be said that it points to Christ.

Non sequitur argument. The use of "love for God and neighbor" in the Law and by Christ during his earthly ministry does not mean that the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ are the same. Obviously, you can find common points between the Koran and the Law of Moses--doesn't mean they're the same.

The Law of Moses was still in use during Jesus' earthly ministry. And the love of God, present in the Law, is still present in the NT. Doesn't mean the OT and the NT are the same. The Law is indeed a single system, requiring all 613 commands. It required temple system, Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, and animal sacrifices, together with all of the other festivals, rituals, and moral requirements. These things are not all present in the NT system, which requires a different priesthood, a different sacrifice, and a different temple--the body of Christ. The Law of each system is therefore different. This is all biblically verified.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 5th 2017, 06:53 AM
I don't know what you mean by "silly posturing?" I'm straight up telling you what I believe. You can take it or leave it. Here are the Scriptures that I in fact gave you...

Psalm 57.3 He sends from heaven and saves me, rebuking those who hotly pursue me— God sends forth his love and his faithfulness.

Psalm 150.1 Praise the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens.

As I said before, these kinds of passages appear to place God on a par with Heaven because Heaven is defined as the place of God's dwelling. I don't see how this can be disputed, or how they can be viewed as irrelevant when seeing God as equal to His place of dwelling is the whole point? If God is synonymous with His place of dwelling, then God equals Heaven. And that's why the Kingdom of God would mean the same thing as the Kingdom of Heaven. Sorry Heaven is a Place God is an Entity to say that God is a place (Heaven) just doesn't make sense to me personally.


This is not only a common view, but it is the only sensible view when the same things are said about the Kingdom of God as are said about the Kingdom of Heaven. If so, then it is encumbent upon *you* to show differences that are substantial or to prove there are explicit statements in Scripture barring their association. You pointed out the differences brother! No one in our camp denies that there are similarities between the kingdoms we just don't hide from the "Contrast" portion of our Homework. Note the Similarities and the Differences. Here i will point out the differences anit'sts up to you to provide explict statements from scripture for each correlation of my use of Kingdom of Heaven passages.


For example, we find "Kingdom of God" in my NIV Bible in...

1) Matthew 12--authority to drive out demons
2) Matthew 19--the rich man's wish to inherit eternal life
3) Matthew 21--tax collectors and prostitutes enter

1) Mark 1--Gospel Message of nearness
2) Mark 4--secrets and parables (scattered seed and mustard seed)
3) Mark 9--transfiguration and stumbling blocks
4) Mark 10--children and rich man
5) Mark 14--millennial celebration and anticipation


And I find "Kingdom of Heaven" in...

1) Matthew 3-4--the Gospel Message of its coming
2) Matthew 5--the rewards of the beattitudes
3) Matthew 7--earthly acknowledgment of Christ invalid
4) Matthew 8--millennial hope of Israel
5) Matthew 10--the Gospel Message of its nearness
6) Matthew 11--members greater than John the Baptist, and has suffered violence
7) Matthew 13--secrets for Christ's followers, parables, and wisdom
8) Matthew 16--keys to bind and loose
9) Matthew 18--the greatest and entry as children
10) Matthew 19--eunuchs and hard for rich
11) Matthew 20--vineyard workers
12) Matthew 22--wedding banquet
13) Matthew 23--door of entry closed by hypocrites
14) Matthew 25--10 virgins

Please notice the comparison between...

1) Jesus Gospel Message in his earthly ministry in *both* Mark 1 and Matthew 3-4; 10.
2) Millennial hope of Israel in Mark 14 and Matthew 8.
3) Parables in Mark 4 and Matthew 13
4) Entry for children and rich in Mark 10 and Matthew 18-19. This section was very well done enjoyed the read.


Mark 1.14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Matthew 3.1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Sorry don't you see the difference between these two passages? In Matt the Kingdom of Heaven in proclaimed by John and this happens long before he goes to prison.

In Mark 1.14 its a later date(since John is noted as being in prison) and this time Jesus is preaching concerning the Kingdom of God


Mark 14.25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 8.11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 4.10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you.
(sowing seed and mustard seed parables)

Matthew 13.11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables...
(sowing seed and mustard seed parables)

I will leave it for you to compare Mark 10 and Matthew 18-19 and issues involving entry.

Although it's apparent that Matthew uses both phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven," YES THIS IS APPARENT You Clealy identfied the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN in this post Randy honestly i could not be more proud.



Please using just Kingdom of God passages establishs these points that your brought up.

1) Matthew 3-4 (Concerning Entry into the Kingdom)

Show where in the NT it is said that status in the Kingdom of God is determined by how well one teaches and Keeps the Law

4) -Matthew 8--millennial hope of Israel

Can you show any examples where the Kingdom of God is mentioned as being the "Millenial Hope of Israel"

6) Matthew 11--members greater than John the Baptist, and has suffered violence

Can you show any examples of members of the Kingdom of God being called Greater then John?

8) Matthew 16--keys to bind and loose
Show where this is said concerning the Kingdom of God.

9) Matthew 18--the greatest and entry as children.


Can you show where in the bible Status is questioned concerning the Kingdom of God?

13) Matthew 23--door of entry closed by hypocrites

Show where hypocrites shut up entry to the Kingdom of God.



it is clear that Mark and Matthew use both phrases synonymously. This statement is not valid. Mark did not use the terms synonymusly, once more at best you can say this about Matthew but no modern bible tranlation i know of Interchanges the term. Do you know of any bible translation that changes all Kingdom of heaven passages to say Kingdom of God? Or for that matter do you know any bible translations the Changes any (even one) kingdom of heaven passage into Kingdom of God passages?

If not what right do you believe you have to suggest we rewrite the bible because you believe in Matthew that those 2 terms are interchangeable?

CadyandZoe
Sep 5th 2017, 12:07 PM
How can this be? In Matthew we read: « And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. » v. 3:2. People need to repent and get baptized to be able to enter it.Mark records the same thing .

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

There is NO intended distinction or difference between these two phrases, "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" Matthew records, "kingdom of heaven" wherever Mark and Luke record "kingdom of God." Matthew is using "heaven" as a metonomy for "God" in his record of events.


Please note the « people ». This is the Kingdom of Heaven. In 1 Cor. 15:50 Paul teaches: « Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; ... ». The Kingdom of Heaven is the promised Kingdom of the O.T. that God wants to establish to Israel in the land promised to Abraham, with David as it's ruler and Christ as King. The Kingdom of God circumvents the heavens and the earth. You can only interchange the names where they overlap.The absence of the phrase "kingdom of heaven" from any other work than Matthew's Gospel renders such comparisons invalid. If Mark, Luke, and Paul believed there to be a difference between them, they surely would have used the phrase "kingdom of heaven", but they never used the phrase. We can only conclude that the phrase "kingdom of heaven" is a matter of style, not substance.

CadyandZoe
Sep 5th 2017, 12:48 PM
Once more i disagree with this premise nothing to me suggest that the term Heaven in the book of Matthew is a metonomy for the word "God".Actually, in your own words you said that you have never attempted to harmonize the gospels. Once you have done this, I think you will find a basis for our conclusion that Matthew is using "heaven" as metonomy for "God". I did a word search again this morning before I responded to this post and I see that Matthew is the only book of the Bible containing the phrase "kingdom of heaven". Isn't it even a bit weird that since the Bible speaks with one voice and there WAS a distinction to be understood between the two phrases that no other book in the entire Bible has that phrase?


IOW i don't understand this (once more in the book of Matthew)

Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

I don't believe i can switch up the Word Heaven in here for the Father or God.Of course. But we are not saying that Matthew always uses "heaven" as metonomy for "God". Matthew's Gospel contains at least 46 occasions of the word "God" and so we understand that Matthew isn't shy about using the term "God". His reason for using the phrase "kingdom of heaven" is NOT due to the fact that Matthew is Jewish and won't say "God" aloud. He seems most comfortable with saying "God" and doesn't seem to have any religious compunction for avoiding it.


People like you want to compare the similarities and you tout them endlessly but you refuse to contrast the Kingdoms.

So our argument will endlessly be you saying Luke used the word Kingdom of God and Matthew said Kingdom of Heaven therefore they are the same. While you refusing to actually contrast the Kingdoms or prove at any point they are the same in the book of Matthew.I think it is unfair for you to say that I refuse to contrast the kingdoms when in my previous post I did contrast them, but instead of seeing them as different kingdoms, Jesus sees them as the same kingdom but in different stages of development.

Even so, consider the following encounter between Jesus and Pontus Pilate as recorded in John's Gospel,

John 18:
33 Therefore Pilate 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 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 so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” 37 Therefore Pilate 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 testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate *said to Him, “What is truth?”

What does Jesus mean when he says his kingdom is not "of this world?" I believe this is called the partitive genitive, meaning "that which is part of the head noun." In this case, Jesus denies that his kingdom is a part of the current world system. He says that if his kingdom was a part of this world system, then his servants would be fighting so that he would not be handed over to the Jews. By contrast, his servants are not fighting to save their leader because he taught them to be at peace with all men and wait for God to take vengeance against his enemies.

Speaking of fighting, when Jesus was being placed under arrest he tells Peter, and the others,

Matthew 26:
52 Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”

Jesus is head of a kingdom that exists off world. In that kingdom he rules over legions of angels and if it was the will of God, he has legions of angels at his disposal. Therefore, what Jesus said to Pilate was no empty boast. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world; Jesus' kingdom is "of heaven", that is, Jesus' kingdom is an extension of the kingdom found in heaven and shares many of it's attributes. Jesus is a king of an heavenly kingdom, meaning it shares attributes with heaven such as eternal existence. Peter is to put down his sword and be at peace with men, wait upon God, and trust that God will take vengeance on his enemies when the time comes.

It's possible that Matthew chose this phrase, kingdom of Heaven, to draw out this distinction. I'm not sure yet.

Pbminimum
Sep 5th 2017, 01:45 PM
Actually, in your own words you said that you have never attempted to harmonize the gospels. Once you have done this, I think you will find a basis for our conclusion that Matthew is using "heaven" as metonomy for "God".

Excellent


It's possible that Matthew chose this phrase, kingdom of Heaven, to draw out this distinction. I'm not sure yet.

Good breakdown. Thank you.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 5th 2017, 04:03 PM
Mark records the same thing . Once more Cady NOTE THE DIFFERENCES


Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

There is NO intended distinction or difference between these two phrases, "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" Matthew records, "kingdom of heaven" wherever Mark and Luke record "kingdom of God." Clearly these two passages are different brother in One

John is preaching the Kindom of Heaven is at hand repent and be baptized.(this is recorded in Mark 1:4-8)

Jesus is preaching the Kingdom of GOd is at hand "repents and believe". While John is clearly in prison per the context. ( i believe in the book of Matt John is in prison in chap 4:12 & 11:2 & 14:3 ).

So Do you admit (Per context) that these events clearly are not the same in Matthew 3.2 and Mark 1:14


Matthew is using "heaven" as a metonomy for "God" in his record of events. Matthew does not do this in his gospel, this argument is only created to support a presupposition that Matthew means to say "God" but is confused and says Heaven instead.

But outside of the context of the Kingdom of Heaven passages, where you seek to prove Matt used this metonymy can you show any other examples where the term "Heaven" = "God" or "God = Heaven" i mean he uses both phrases in his book. The closest i can find in regards to a metonomy would be Matthew 21:25

can you find any other use?



The absence of the phrase "kingdom of heaven" from any other work than Matthew's Gospel renders such comparisons invalid. EXACTLY because this phrase is not found in the other Gospels comparisons with other gospels to determine Matthews's use of the term in his own book ar indeed invalid.



If Mark, Luke, and Paul believed there to be a difference between them, they surely would have used the phrase "kingdom of heaven", but they never used the phrase. We can only conclude that the phrase "kingdom of heaven" is a matter of style, not substance.

This would only be true if the Other gospels did not mention another Kingdom (which they specifically did not call the Kingdom of God) in the gospel of Luke for example the Kingdom that Angel promises Mary that Jesus will recieve in Luke 1:32-33 the same kingdom that Jesus promises to the disciples in Luke 22:28-29

Note the emphise on Judging the 12 tribes of Israel in BOTH passages, note how the term Kingdom of God nor Kingdom of Heaven in mentioned in either.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 5th 2017, 04:35 PM
Actually, in your own words you said that you have never attempted to harmonize the gospels. Actually i didn't say i never attemptd to harmonize the Gospels i just said i don't know exactly what you mean when you say Harmonize.

However if you mean merge the 3 gospels into one story or all 4 i will admit i have never done this.


Once you have done this, I think you will find a basis for our conclusion that Matthew is using "heaven" as metonomy for "God". I don't understand the value of this conclusion when reading the book of Matt. No offense brother i don't believe Matthew use Heaven as a metonomy for "God" in his gospel unless you mean Matthew 21:25 specifically concerning where Johns baptism came from.


I did a word search again this morning before I responded to this post and I see that Matthew is the only book of the Bible containing the phrase "kingdom of heaven". Isn't it even a bit weird that since the Bible speaks with one voice and there WAS a distinction to be understood between the two phrases that no other book in the entire Bible has that phrase? Correct no other Book uses specically that Phrase other Books do however clearly speak on this Kingdom including Luke and Mark its even found in Acts and All over the OT Matthew just gives it a specific name in his book.

Matthew is a great transistion book between the Kingdom of Heaven (Promised to the Jews to be established out of Davids throne) and the Kingdom of God the spiritual kingdom that we are now a part of Ruled by God the Father with Jesus sitting at his right hand.(Hebrews 1:1-3)



Of course. But we are not saying that Matthew always uses "heaven" as metonomy for "God". Matthew's Gospel contains at least 46 occasions of the word "God" and so we understand that Matthew isn't shy about using the term "God". His reason for using the phrase "kingdom of heaven" is NOT due to the fact that Matthew is Jewish and won't say "God" aloud. He seems most comfortable with saying "God" and doesn't seem to have any religious compunction for avoiding it. HOnestly This post is beatiful. But my point is people only claim the Mentonmy in the case of the KoH passages and its only valuable to establish their premise. Most cant name any other examples (outside of their assumed KoH passages) where Matthew uses Heaven as a Metonomy for "God" i personally mention Matth 21:25. Do you personally believe this use of Matt when saying the word Heaven he actually means From "God"?




I think it is unfair for you to say that I refuse to contrast the kingdoms when in my previous post I did contrast them, but instead of seeing them as different kingdoms, Jesus sees them as the same kingdom but in different stages of development. You listed two passages where they are the same and concluded they were the same, i honstly didn't see the "contrast" portion of your view (no offense)


Even so, consider the following encounter between Jesus and Pontus Pilate as recorded in John's Gospel,

John 18:
33 Therefore Pilate 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 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 so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” 37 Therefore Pilate 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 testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate *said to Him, “What is truth?”

What does Jesus mean when he says his kingdom is not "of this world?" I believe this is called the partitive genitive, meaning "that which is part of the head noun." In this case, Jesus denies that his kingdom is a part of the current world system. He says that if his kingdom was a part of this world system, then his servants would be fighting so that he would not be handed over to the Jews. By contrast, his servants are not fighting to save their leader because he taught them to be at peace with all men and wait for God to take vengeance against his enemies. Yes notice this Kingdom Jesus is refering to is NOT i repeat NOT the Kingdom of God. Where God sits on his throne for all Ages. (Psalms 102:12-17) But you, O LORD, are enthroned forever



Speaking of fighting, when Jesus was being placed under arrest he tells Peter, and the others,

Matthew 26:
52 Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”

Jesus is head of a kingdom that exists off world. In that kingdom he rules over legions of angels and if it was the will of God, he has legions of angels at his disposal. Therefore, what Jesus said to Pilate was no empty boast. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world; Jesus' kingdom is "of heaven", that is, Jesus' kingdom is an extension of the kingdom found in heaven and shares many of it's attributes. Jesus is a king of an heavenly kingdom, meaning it shares attributes with heaven such as eternal existence. Peter is to put down his sword and be at peace with men, wait upon God, and trust that God will take vengeance on his enemies when the time comes.

It's possible that Matthew chose this phrase, kingdom of Heaven, to draw out this distinction. I'm not sure yet. This is what i believe Matthew Chose the term Kingdom of Heaven to describe as you said Jesus Kingdom as an extention of the Kingdom Found in Heaven which we refer as the Kingdom of God (which is the subject of most of the NT) The phrase “kingdom of God” occurs 68 times in 10 different New Testament books. The Kingdom of Heaven is about Messiah the King Ruling on the throne of David and is therefore specific in its timing and structure.

Honestly, go thru these uses of the Phrase can you find any instances where the phrase Kingdom of God is referring exclusively the *Kingdom* promised here.

The promise made in Isaiah 9:6&7, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this," confirms this thought.

goldenboy
Sep 5th 2017, 04:36 PM
Here is a somewhat simple answer to the mysteries of THE kingdom of God/ heaven.

The kingdom of heaven is likened to a caterpillar, whereas the kingdom of God is likened to a butterfly. They are the same, yet they are not the same. There is but one kingdom that we enter, and one kingdom that we can inherit. The use of the phrase kingdom of heaven describes the state of the kingdom as it is now. And i might add, in absence of the king being present. Whereas the kingdom of God represents what it will be when it comes time to inherit it. The kingdom of heaven is the state of affairs until the king returns. When the king does return, he will remove out of his kingdom, [tares] all things that offend and only the wheat, the good fish, the good seed, AKA, THE RIGHTEOUS will "inherit" the kingdom of God that currently has many that profess to know the Lord, but their hearts do not. Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity!

Matthews use of the phrase KOH, clarifies the different state of the kingdom. If we did not have it, it would be much more confusing.
Blessings to all who keeps the saying and the prophecy of his book! GB

randyk
Sep 5th 2017, 04:55 PM
Sorry Heaven is a Place God is an Entity to say that God is a place (Heaven) just doesn't make sense to me personally.


Yes JLU, I understand what you mean. They are not exactly the same thing. One is a place, associated with God's place of dwelling. And the other is God Himself, whose presence fills the entire heavens. There are other things in heaven, such as stars. However, in context we're talking about *God's dwelling.* And so, Heaven can be used in this context as a synonym for God.

For example, I could say "Heaven sends the rains." Equally, I could say, "God sends the rains." Here I am using "Heaven" and "God" synonymously. And I provided Scriptures to show this. I could show many more.



You pointed out the differences brother! No one in our camp denies that there are similarities between the kingdoms we just don't hide from the "Contrast" portion of our Homework. Note the Similarities and the Differences. Here i will point out the differences anit'sts up to you to provide explict statements from scripture for each correlation of my use of Kingdom of Heaven passages.

This section was very well done enjoyed the read.


I appreciate the determination you have! I don't always like to read "Bible Studies" in a post, but I've found them profitable too--just laying out there the pertinent info, and letting others decide for themselves. I'm not here trying to force anybody to take my position--just consider the evidence.



Sorry don't you see the difference between these two passages? In Matt the Kingdom of Heaven in proclaimed by John and this happens long before he goes to prison.


My purpose here was not to show exact parallel passages, but rather, use of the exact same contexts indicating "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" have the exact same meanings. In this case, what makes the context exactly the same is the fact this is *Jesus' Gospel Message,* the message he was authorized to bring.

Mark 1.14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Matthew 3.1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

I could've quoted 2 more relevant passages...

Matthew 10.7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons.

Matthew 12.28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


Notice that Matthew here uses 2 different incidents that apply a similar context for the "Kingdom of God" and the "Kingdom of heaven." Both have to do with driving out demons. And both have to do with the Gospel Message Jesus was authorized to bring, and the same Gospel Message he authorized his apostles to bring.

And the message involves 1) repentance, and 2) the nearness of the Kingdom. This is the same message with the same results, no matter what the incident was. The context in every case determines the same meaning for both "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven."



In Mark 1.14 its a later date(since John is noted as being in prison) and this time Jesus is preaching concerning the Kingdom of God

YES THIS IS APPARENT You Clealy identfied the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN in this post Randy honestly i could not be more proud.


Thank you.



Please using just Kingdom of God passages establishs these points that your brought up.

1) Matthew 3-4 (Concerning Entry into the Kingdom)

Show where in the NT it is said that status in the Kingdom of God is determined by how well one teaches and Keeps the Law


Not sure that's the purpose here? But I can discuss that separately. To clarify, the passages have to do with determining the quality of persons who enter into God's Kingdom. The rich have it difficult. And people must humble themselves like children.



4) -Matthew 8--millennial hope of Israel

Can you show any examples where the Kingdom of God is mentioned as being the "Millenial Hope of Israel"


This is an extensive subject--often brought up in Amil vs Premil discussions. The basis of the Millennium is in the OT Jewish Hope, as depicted in the Prophets. It has to do with the final restoration of Israel, with a final deliverance from her enemies. It is depicted as a feast, or as a great and bountiful harvest.



6) Matthew 11--members greater than John the Baptist, and has suffered violence

Can you show any examples of members of the Kingdom of God being called Greater then John?


I don't think the purpose was for Christians to show their wares, or to brag. The idea is that *all obedient Christians* are qualified for immortality and perfect righteousness. They are not better than John the Baptist in terms of commitment or obedience. They are greater in terms of their position *after the Cross.*



8) Matthew 16--keys to bind and loose
Show where this is said concerning the Kingdom of God.


In the passage I gave you!
Matthew 16.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”



9) Matthew 18--the greatest and entry as children.
Can you show where in the bible Status is questioned concerning the Kingdom of God?


Depends what kind of "status" you refer to?



13) Matthew 23--door of entry closed by hypocrites

Show where hypocrites shut up entry to the Kingdom of God.


In the passage I gave you--Matthew 23.



This statement is not valid. Mark did not use the terms synonymusly, once more at best you can say this about Matthew but no modern bible tranlation i know of Interchanges the term. Do you know of any bible translation that changes all Kingdom of heaven passages to say Kingdom of God? Or for that matter do you know any bible translations the Changes any (even one) kingdom of heaven passage into Kingdom of God passages?


This is not what I'm claiming. The purpose of translation is not to change terms, but rather, to translate faithfully from the original. In doing so, we see Matthew using "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" as interchangeable concepts. We know that because he uses both terms in identical contexts, whether in different incidents or in the same incidents in parallel passages.

For example, Mark uses "Kingdom of God" in the very same incident in which Jesus gives his "Mustard Seed Parable" and the parable of the "Sowing Seed." Matthew uses the exact same incident and describes it using the term "Kingdom of Heaven." See Mark 4 and Matthew 13.



If not what right do you believe you have to suggest we rewrite the bible because you believe in Matthew that those 2 terms are interchangeable?

Aristarkos
Sep 5th 2017, 05:14 PM
Mark records the same thing .

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

There is NO intended distinction or difference between these two phrases, "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" Matthew records, "kingdom of heaven" wherever Mark and Luke record "kingdom of God." Matthew is using "heaven" as a metonomy for "God" in his record of events.

That is because of two reasons. 1. The presentation of the Lord, i.e. how. 2. Because the Kingdom of Heaven is part of the Kingdom of God.


The absence of the phrase "kingdom of heaven" from any other work than Matthew's Gospel renders such comparisons invalid. If Mark, Luke, and Paul believed there to be a difference between them, they surely would have used the phrase "kingdom of heaven", but they never used the phrase. We can only conclude that the phrase "kingdom of heaven" is a matter of style, not substance.

I'm afraid it just means you do not understand either phrase.

Aristarkos

CadyandZoe
Sep 5th 2017, 05:40 PM
Actually i didn't say i never attemptd to harmonize the Gospels i just said i don't know exactly what you mean when you say Harmonize.

However if you mean merge the 3 gospels into one story or all 4 i will admit i have never done this.

I don't understand the value of this conclusion when reading the book of Matt. No offense brother i don't believe Matthew use Heaven as a metonomy for "God" in his gospel unless you mean Matthew 21:25 specifically concerning where Johns baptism came from.

Correct no other Book uses specically that Phrase other Books do however clearly speak on this Kingdom including Luke and Mark its even found in Acts and All over the OT Matthew just gives it a specific name in his book.

Matthew is a great transistion book between the Kingdom of Heaven (Promised to the Jews to be established out of Davids throne) and the Kingdom of God the spiritual kingdom that we are now a part of Ruled by God the Father with Jesus sitting at his right hand.(Hebrews 1:1-3)


HOnestly This post is beatiful. But my point is people only claim the Mentonmy in the case of the KoH passages and its only valuable to establish their premise. Most cant name any other examples (outside of their assumed KoH passages) where Matthew uses Heaven as a Metonomy for "God" i personally mention Matth 21:25. Do you personally believe this use of Matt when saying the word Heaven he actually means From "God"?



You listed two passages where they are the same and concluded they were the same, i honstly didn't see the "contrast" portion of your view (no offense)

Yes notice this Kingdom Jesus is refering to is NOT i repeat NOT the Kingdom of God. Where God sits on his throne for all Ages. (Psalms 102:12-17) But you, O LORD, are enthroned forever


This is what i believe Matthew Chose the term Kingdom of Heaven to describe as you said Jesus Kingdom as an extention of the Kingdom Found in Heaven which we refer as the Kingdom of God (which is the subject of most of the NT) The phrase “kingdom of God” occurs 68 times in 10 different New Testament books. The Kingdom of Heaven is about Messiah the King Ruling on the throne of David and is therefore specific in its timing and structure.

Honestly, go thru these uses of the Phrase can you find any instances where the phrase Kingdom of God is referring exclusively the *Kingdom* promised here.

The promise made in Isaiah 9:6&7, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this," confirms this thought.

I can't debate this with you since you seem unwilling to face the facts.

TheDivineWatermark
Sep 5th 2017, 06:05 PM
...the Kingdom of Heaven (Promised to the Jews to be established out of Davids throne) and the Kingdom of God the spiritual kingdom that we are now a part of Ruled by God the Father with Jesus sitting at his right hand.(Hebrews 1:1-3)


...as the Kingdom of God (which is the subject of most of the NT) The phrase “kingdom of God” occurs 68 times in 10 different New Testament books. The Kingdom of Heaven is about Messiah the King Ruling on the throne of David and is therefore specific in its timing and structure.

Yes.

I believe "the kingdom of the heavens" involves "the end [singular] of the age [singular]"... when the servants do the "inviting" to the wedding FEAST/SUPPER (i.e. their promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom, aka 'the kingdom of the heavens,' commencing upon His 'return' to the earth. IOW, we the Church are not the ones doing the 'inviting' to the FEAST/SUPPER [earthly MK], in our day, but our present task is for those in our present-day spheres [etc] to 'the Marriage' itself [pertaining to the Church which is His body... 'the Bride/Wife [singular]'... who is not 'the guests [plural],' 'the 10 or 5 virgins/bridesmaids [plural],' etc, of whom the 'feast/supper' (earthly MK; and its 'invitation' [aka (to) 'kingdom of the heavens']) pertains following our departure to the Marriage itself])

Jesuslovesus
Sep 5th 2017, 06:07 PM
Yes JLU, I understand what you mean. They are not exactly the same thing. One is a place, associated with God's place of dwelling. And the other is God Himself, whose presence fills the entire heavens. There are other things in heaven, such as stars. However, in context we're talking about *God's dwelling.* And so, Heaven can be used in this context as a synonym for God.

For example, I could say "Heaven sends the rains." Equally, I could say, "God sends the rains." Here I am using "Heaven" and "God" synonymously. And I provided Scriptures to show this. I could show many more. So would you say Matthew 21:25? Concerning the origin of Johns Baptism is an example of this?




I appreciate the determination you have! I don't always like to read "Bible Studies" in a post, but I've found them profitable too--just laying out there the pertinent info, and letting others decide for themselves. I'm not here trying to force anybody to take my position--just consider the evidence. Exactly i like to lay out all pertinent info whether it hurts or helps my case objectivity is key as is providing All evidence.




My purpose here was not to show exact parallel passages, but rather, use of the exact same contexts indicating "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" have the exact same meanings. In this case, what makes the context exactly the same is the fact this is *Jesus' Gospel Message,* the message he was authorized to bring. Maybe Mark 1.14 and Matthew 4:12-17 you can also add Luke 4:14 Do you believe these parallel fit better since they are the same in Timing, Person(proclaiming the message) and Location?





I could've quoted 2 more relevant passages...

Matthew 10.7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons.

Matthew 12.28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


Notice that Matthew here uses 2 different incidents that apply a similar context for the "Kingdom of God" and the "Kingdom of heaven." Both have to do with driving out demons. And both have to do with the Gospel Message Jesus was authorized to bring, and the same Gospel Message he authorized his apostles to bring.

And the message involves 1) repentance, and 2) the nearness of the Kingdom. This is the same message with the same results, no matter what the incident was. The context in every case determines the same meaning for both "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven." Once more this is not the case alot of uses of the term Kingdom of Heaven specifically relate it to the rulership of the 12 tribes of Jacob and Jesus ruling on the Throne of His Glory.






Not sure that's the purpose here? But I can discuss that separately. To clarify, the passages have to do with determining the quality of persons who enter into God's Kingdom. The rich have it difficult. And people must humble themselves like children. This passage

Matthew 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.




This is an extensive subject--often brought up in Amil vs Premil discussions. The basis of the Millennium is in the OT Jewish Hope, as depicted in the Prophets. It has to do with the final restoration of Israel, with a final deliverance from her enemies. It is depicted as a feast, or as a great and bountiful harvest. Correct this is what i believe MAtthew was reffering to when he uses the term Kingdom of Heaven - THe Millenium.

Can you show any uses of the term KoH and its passages, where it CANNOT be reffering to the Millenial Kingdom,

With Jesus on the throne of His glory (throne of David) and the disciples sitting on 12 thrones ruling the 12 tribes of Israel?

Or could you explain how like the Amil or post mil believe that this has somehow already been fullfilled in the past or is a current reality?





I don't think the purpose was for Christians to show their wares, or to brag. The idea is that *all obedient Christians* are qualified for immortality and perfect righteousness. They are not better than John the Baptist in terms of commitment or obedience. They are greater in terms of their position *after the Cross.* In what way are they better in Position?




Depends what kind of "status" you refer to? Per the Context- The Disciples argues who would be consider Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. See Matthew 18:1-5, Mark 9:33-37, Luke 9:46 and Luke 22:24





This is not what I'm claiming. The purpose of translation is not to change terms, but rather, to translate faithfully from the original. In doing so, we see Matthew using "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" as interchangeable concepts. We know that because he uses both terms in identical contexts, whether in different incidents or in the same incidents in parallel passages.

For example, Mark uses "Kingdom of God" in the very same incident in which Jesus gives his "Mustard Seed Parable" and the parable of the "Sowing Seed." Matthew uses the exact same incident and describes it using the term "Kingdom of Heaven." See Mark 4 and Matthew 13. Once more Comparing Matt and Mark does not establish that Matt uses these terms "interchangeably" nor do I or you know of any Bible translator that actually "interchanges" the terms in Any instance.

For example, can you find any translations of the book of Matthew that says: Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven??

Or At that time the Kingdom of God is like 10 virgins....



That is what the term *Interchange* means!

It means I or any other translator could substitute these two phases (everywhere we want in the bible) and nothing would change but yet we have no actual translator who does this.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 5th 2017, 06:24 PM
I can't debate this with you since you seem unwilling to face the facts.

If you don't wish to debate that is your prerogative, i responded to this thread to answer the question in the OP you clearly joined to ask me some questions i answered honestly and truthfully(while you still have not addressed anything I said even tho you responded to me specifically)

Just for the record to you mind outlining the "Facts" you believe i am unwilling to face.

So far you have refused on literally every occasion in this thread to address anything I said or any scriptures I post instead promising to do it later time while you ask me questions to your heart's content promising to address my questions after I do yours when you truely have no plans to do so.


Before I do that. You need to explain to me how to harmonize the gospels given your view or why you don't think the Bible speaks with one voice.

I answered your question so please whenever you ready answer mine listed in Post #68-

Unless you plan once more (like in other threads) to leave my points and questions unanswered, even though I never do this to you. I guess its easier to claim my posts have no basis in facts and disregard me completely after getting me to answer your endless string of off-topic and irrelevant questions.(once more i was just answering the OP and you personally addressed me & my Post).

Then to honestly face the fact the Luke and John and Mark do indeed reference the second kingdom in their Gospels (established on the throne of David), and this is indeed the subject of the apostle's question in Acts 1:6

CadyandZoe
Sep 5th 2017, 08:40 PM
Just for the record to you mind outlining the "Facts" you believe i am unwilling to face.


Unique usage of the phrase in Matthew's gospel only.
Parallel verses in the other Gospels



Unique usage of the phrase in Matthew's gospel only.
Not only is the phrase "kingdom of heaven" unique among the Gospel accounts; it is not used anywhere else in the Bible. If koh and kog had a different referent, we would expect them to be ubiquitous in the Bible. On the other hand, if Matthew coined koh for his own purposes, we would expect koh to be limited to his writings, which it is.

Parallel verses in the other Gospels
If koh and kog had the same referent, then we would expect Luke, Mark, and John to use kog wherever Matthew uses koh, which is the case.


So far you have refused on literally every occasion in this thread to address anything I said . . .I can't. It is impossible. Everything you have said in this thread is predicated on the supposition that koh and kog have a different referent and the evidence clearly contradicts that supposition.


Unless you plan once more (like in other threads) to leave my points and questions unanswered, even though I never do this to you. I guess its easier to claim my posts have no basis in facts and disregard me completely after getting me to answer your endless string of off-topic and irrelevant questions.(once more i was just answering the OP and you personally addressed me & my Post).When an argument is based on an incorrect premise, then I answer the premise and ignore the rest. I don't know anyone who would do otherwise.

I'm sorry. I mean no disrespect. It's how my mind works I guess, though I assumed everyone was like that.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 5th 2017, 10:43 PM
Unique usage of the phrase in Matthew's gospel only.
Parallel verses in the other Gospels


Unique usage of the phrase in Matthew's gospel only.
Not only is the phrase "kingdom of heaven" unique among the Gospel accounts; it is not used anywhere else in the Bible. If koh and kog had a different referent, we would expect them to be ubiquitous in the Bible. On the other hand, if Matthew coined koh for his own purposes, we would expect koh to be limited to his writings, which it is.

Parallel verses in the other Gospels
If koh and kog had the same referent, then we would expect Luke, Mark, and John to use kog wherever Matthew uses koh, which is the case.

I can't. It is impossible. Everything you have said in this thread is predicated on the supposition that koh and kog have a different referent and the evidence clearly contradicts that supposition.

When an argument is based on an incorrect premise, then I answer the premise and ignore the rest. I don't know anyone who would do otherwise.

I'm sorry. I mean no disrespect. It's how my mind works I guess, though I assumed everyone was like that. I mean thats fine but i cannot rewrite Scripture and neither do you, all i can do is quote what Jesus says. If Jesus says

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I am not gonna rewrite the Passage to say Kingdom of God, and then go preach this as a requirement for the Kingdom of God - (since this is not stated in the Gospels).

When the OP ask the question i provided the answer.

What does Jesus is the requirment to enter the Kingdom of God?

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Do i have the right to rewrite this as a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Maybe under your supposition, i do but I'd rather just quote them as is.

CadyandZoe
Sep 6th 2017, 12:25 AM
I mean thats fine but i cannot rewrite Scripture and neither do you, all i can do is quote what Jesus says. If Jesus says

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I am not gonna rewrite the Passage to say Kingdom of God, and then go preach this as a requirement for the Kingdom of God - (since this is not stated in the Gospels).

When the OP ask the question i provided the answer.

What does Jesus is the requirment to enter the Kingdom of God?

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Do i have the right to rewrite this as a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Maybe under your supposition, i do but I'd rather just quote them as is.But you aren't using them "as-is." You are supplying a connotation that Jesus didn't mean. We don't need to rewrite the passage, replacing "kingdom of heaven" with "kingdom of God" because they both mean the same thing.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 6th 2017, 01:12 AM
But you aren't using them "as-is." Clearly i am.


You are supplying a connotation that Jesus didn't mean. I'm not supplying anthing.



We don't need to rewrite the passage, replacing "kingdom of heaven" with "kingdom of God" because they both mean the same thing. You still have not once proven the term KoH and KoG mean the same thing which is my point. Nor have you once proven that they Cannot refer to different things. At best your saying i should accept your unproven premise, but i still do not see the value of embracing this premise.

Nor have you answered the OP.

I will teach them as is I add no connotation to anything if you believe they mean the same thing then you can rewrite the passages as is your "point".

You want to know how to receive the Kingdom of God you must be born again - because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

You want to know how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven- Read the words of Jesus.

This is not a debate we have two differing premises, so you answer the OP as you believe the Bible teaches. Or challenge my views under premise as I have done to your views repeatedly.

randyk
Sep 6th 2017, 02:22 AM
So would you say Matthew 21:25? Concerning the origin of Johns Baptism is an example of this?


I would think so. If John's authority came from "heaven" it came from *God!*



Exactly i like to lay out all pertinent info whether it hurts or helps my case objectivity is key as is providing All evidence.


Well said!



Maybe Mark 1.14 and Matthew 4:12-17 you can also add Luke 4:14 Do you believe these parallel fit better since they are the same in Timing, Person(proclaiming the message) and Location?


Certainly the strongest argument would be if they are parallel passages, one using "Kingdom of God" and the other using "Kingdom of Heaven" in the exact same spot in the account. But as I said it isn't really necessary if it seems obvious that the words are used in a similar context, giving the words the same kind of meaning.

For example, if I say "I can't wait to go to the Kingdom of Heaven to have a great feast at a glorious banquet with the abundance of the harvest." And in a completely different incident I say, "They were anxious to get to the great meal prepared by the bounty of the harvest, which had foods in great supply." The "feast" and the "meal" in this case are synonyms which in context mean the same thing. And if they are talking of the same eschatological event we can assume that "feast" and "meal" refer to the identical exchatological event.



Once more this is not the case alot of uses of the term Kingdom of Heaven specifically relate it to the rulership of the 12 tribes of Jacob and Jesus ruling on the Throne of His Glory.


I don't know, JLU. This is a perfect example of these words "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" being used in different incidents with a similar context suggesting they mean the same thing. If each time the context is the same, indicating the Gospel Mission, the driving out of demons, and the nearness of the Kingdom, and repentance. They cannot have all of these elements in common and mean something different, I feel.



This passage

Matthew 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


I wouldn't disagree with you, if you acknowledge that Jesus was still speaking under the era of the Law. Israel's job, at that time, was to conform to the requirements of the Law. It could not bring them eternal life, but it could bring them temporary blessings.

But the idea ultimately was to bring Israel under a whole new covenant that would usher them into the Kingdom of God. So this was, as such, a 2 step process--1st compliance with the Law, and 2nd acceptance of Jesus' righteousness as the fulfillment of OT faith.



Correct this is what i believe MAtthew was reffering to when he uses the term Kingdom of Heaven - THe Millenium.

Can you show any uses of the term KoH and its passages, where it CANNOT be reffering to the Millenial Kingdom,

With Jesus on the throne of His glory (throne of David) and the disciples sitting on 12 thrones ruling the 12 tribes of Israel?

Or could you explain how like the Amil or post mil believe that this has somehow already been fullfilled in the past or is a current reality?


Sure I could. But the thing to keep in mind is that the ultimate fulfillment of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven is the eschatological form of the Kingdom. All previous displays of the Kingdom of Heaven are either temporal or spiritual forms.



In what way are they better in Position?


John the Baptist had authority as one who had not yet been given eternal life. On the other hand Christians have this authority. What ministries they are given comes from the authority of Christ, who has granted them his own power. When we proclaim grace it is eternal grace, whereas John the Baptist could proclaim only the coming of this grace, which had not yet been fully consummated.



Per the Context- The Disciples argues who would be consider Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. See Matthew 18:1-5, Mark 9:33-37, Luke 9:46 and Luke 22:24


I guess I lost the question. Just guessing your question I might say that though there will be a heirarchy in the Kingdom of Heaven I don't think this was Jesus' point. His point was that higher status in the present age presents a barrier to those trying to enter into God's Kingdom. Entry, therefore, requires humility. This applies whether the words are "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven."



Once more Comparing Matt and Mark does not establish that Matt uses these terms "interchangeably" nor do I or you know of any Bible translator that actually "interchanges" the terms in Any instance.

For example, can you find any translations of the book of Matthew that says: Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven??


Again, that wasn't my point. The translators translate from the original language to our own language--they do not exchange one phrase for another. A slight deviation in the phrase from one incident to another and from one author to another suggests that these phrases are the authors' own preference of describing their recollection. They obviously thought the terms were synonymous.



Or At that time the Kingdom of God is like 10 virgins....

That is what the term *Interchange* means!

It means I or any other translator could substitute these two phases (everywhere we want in the bible) and nothing would change but yet we have no actual translator who does this.

What we have is Matthew and Mark doing this! Matthew seems to use the phrases interchangeably from one incident to another, even thought the incidences retain similar contexts. And Mark accounts for the same accounts as Matthew does, using "Kingdom of God" instead of Matthew's "Kingdom of Heaven."

We are not talking about modern translators doing this. We are only talking about the Gospel authors doing this. They use the "Kingdom of God" interchangeably with "Kingdom of Heaven." That is what I was trying to show. In parallel passages and in similar contexts "Kingdom of Heaven" is used in place of "Kingdom of God." I gave you 4 examples of this.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 6th 2017, 03:04 AM
Sure I could. But the thing to keep in mind is that the ultimate fulfillment of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven is the eschatological form of the Kingdom. All previous displays of the Kingdom of Heaven is either temporal or spiritual forms. PLease do

The Kingdom of Heaven is only mentioned 33 times exclusively in the book of Matthew please provide any example where these statements said concerning the KoH could not refer to the Millennial Kingdom as defined by the pre-mil view. with Jesus on the throne of David and the disciples on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel at the end of this age.





I guess I lost the question. Just guessing your question I might say that though there will be a hierarchy in the Kingdom of Heaven I don't think this was Jesus' point. His point was that higher status in the present age presents a barrier to those trying to enter into God's Kingdom. Entry, therefore, requires humility. This applies whether the words are "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven." But would you agree that Jesus was elevated to the highest position in the Kingdom of God? Per Ephesians 1:20-21 and Philippians 2:9. DO you believe this is the Kingdom that the apostles were quarreling about who would be the greatest in per the context of these passages Matthew 18:1-5, Mark 9:33-37, Luke 9:46 and Luke 22:24?





Again, that wasn't my point. The translators translate from the original language to our own language--they do not exchange one phrase for another. A slight deviation in the phrase from one incident to another and from one author to another suggests that these phrases are the authors' own preference of describing their recollection. They obviously thought the terms were synonymous.



What we have is Matthew and Mark doing this! Matthew seems to use the phrases interchangeably from one incident to another, even though the incidences retain similar contexts. And Mark accounts for the same accounts as Matthew does, using "Kingdom of God" instead of Matthew's "Kingdom of Heaven."

We are not talking about modern translators doing this. We are only talking about the Gospel authors doing this. They use the "Kingdom of God" interchangeably with "Kingdom of Heaven." That is what I was trying to show. In parallel passages and in similar contexts "Kingdom of Heaven" is used in place of "Kingdom of God." I gave you 4 examples of this. I don't think anyone in my camp believes these examples to be ABSENT. We just don't believe the term Kingdom of Heaven in matthew should be unstood by what is said concerning the KoG in other Gospels. We trust the gospel writers understood both the Kingdom promised to Israel (with Jesus as King) and the Kingdom of God which was given to them by the spirit.

randyk
Sep 6th 2017, 05:57 AM
PLease do

The Kingdom of Heaven is only mentioned 33 times exclusively in the book of Matthew please provide any example where these statements said concerning the KoH could not refer to the Millennial Kingdom as defined by the pre-mil view. with Jesus on the throne of David and the disciples on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel at the end of this age.



Matthew 11.12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.

If the Kingdom of Heaven has suffered violence, and it did when John the Baptist and Jesus were put to death, then in some sense a *present form* of the Kingdom exists that is not yet millennial.

Matthew 13.34 The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

Are you prepared to say that this man who found the treasure and bought the field was either living in the millennial period or found the millennial period? I don't think so. In some sense the Kingdom of Heaven is present with us, although its consummation will be in the millennial period.

Matthew 13.52 He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”

The "new treasure" being brought out is not the Millennial Kingdom. It is the Gospel of Christ. The "disciple in the Kingdom of Heaven" is the follower of Christ in *this age,* and is not in the Millennial Age.

Matthew 16.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The binding and loosing takes place in the present age, and not in the Millennial Age. This takes place through the use of keys of the *present* Kingdom of Heaven--not keys of a future Kingdom of Heaven.



But would you agree that Jesus was elevated to the highest position in the Kingdom of God? Per Ephesians 1:20-21 and Philippians 2:9. DO you believe this is the Kingdom that the apostles were quarreling about who would be the greatest in per the context of these passages Matthew 18:1-5, Mark 9:33-37, Luke 9:46 and Luke 22:24?


Yes.



I don't think anyone in my camp believes these examples to be ABSENT. We just don't believe the term Kingdom of Heaven in matthew should be unstood by what is said concerning the KoG in other Gospels. We trust the gospel writers understood both the Kingdom promised to Israel (with Jesus as King) and the Kingdom of God which was given to them by the spirit.

And your argument for this is based on what Scriptures?

CadyandZoe
Sep 6th 2017, 11:16 AM
You still have not once proven the term KoH and KoG mean the same thing which is my point. Nor have you once proven that they Cannot refer to different things. At best your saying i should accept your unproven premise, but i still do not see the value of embracing this premise.I did prove it. And believe me when I say that I never thought I would find myself attempting to prove something that was this self-evident.

And yes, I did answer the OP.

TheDivineWatermark
Sep 6th 2017, 11:56 AM
Matthew 13.34 The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

Are you prepared to say that this man who found the treasure and bought the field was either living in the millennial period or found the millennial period? I don't think so. In some sense the Kingdom of Heaven is present with us, although its consummation will be in the millennial period.

The "man" who "goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth " [v.44] (or in the case of v46, "having gone away, he has sold all that he had, and bought it") is Jesus.

[to be consistent with the rest of the context]


"The kingdom of the heavens" was [preached at the time, and said to be] "at hand" [Matt3:1-2; Matt4:17; Matt10:6-7] (when Jesus walked this earth before His death) because He was present there... but at some point that ceased to be said (during His life and ministry).



[...I believe it will be stated [I]again during the future tribulation period, when Matthew 24:14 [26:13] will be "preached in all the world" DURING those specific years leading UP TO His Second Coming to the earth (aka in 'the end [singular] of the age [singular]' [the one they were standing in and speaking from]), FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom ('the kingdom of the heavens,' aka 'the wedding FEAST/SUPPER'... the MK [aka 'the age [singular] to come'])... and I base that on the end of the Matt10 passage, in Matt10:21-23... All "Son of man cometh/coming/shall come" passages speak to His Second Coming to the earth, FOR the promised and prophesied earthly MK (promised to Israel [and yes, Gentiles will be "invited" and present there also--Matt25:31-34 and context])--viewed similarly to the Isaiah 61:1-3 / Luke 4:17-21,28-29 passages (part pertained presently, part retained for future fulfillment)]



In some sense the Kingdom of Heaven is present with us

I would say that of "the kingdom of God" (like, Rom14:17, 1Cor4:20... presently)... but "the kingdom of the heavens" (which will be on the earth upon His "return" there [KOG too, btw]... and perhaps in the 7-yrs leading up to it, would be considered the "invitation" time of that [koh], is how I see that) is more like including the "judgment / governance / Davidic throne" things (not present now--like Acts 3:21 and similar passages...)

Noeb
Sep 6th 2017, 12:48 PM
I don't know what you mean by "silly posturing?" I'm straight up telling you what I believe. You can take it or leave it. Here are the Scriptures that I in fact gave you...

Psalm 57.3 He sends from heaven and saves me, rebuking those who hotly pursue me— God sends forth his love and his faithfulness.

Psalm 150.1 Praise the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens.

As I said before, these kinds of passages appear to place God on a par with Heaven because Heaven is defined as the place of God's dwelling. I don't see how this can be disputed, or how they can be viewed as irrelevant when seeing God as equal to His place of dwelling is the whole point? If God is synonymous with His place of dwelling, then God equals Heaven. And that's why the Kingdom of God would mean the same thing as the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is not only a common view, but it is the only sensible view when the same things are said about the Kingdom of God as are said about the Kingdom of Heaven. If so, then it is encumbent upon *you* to show differences that are substantial or to prove there are explicit statements in Scripture barring their association.

For example, we find "Kingdom of God" in my NIV Bible in...

1) Matthew 12--authority to drive out demons
2) Matthew 19--the rich man's wish to inherit eternal life
3) Matthew 21--tax collectors and prostitutes enter

1) Mark 1--Gospel Message of nearness
2) Mark 4--secrets and parables (scattered seed and mustard seed)
3) Mark 9--transfiguration and stumbling blocks
4) Mark 10--children and rich man
5) Mark 14--millennial celebration and anticipation

And I find "Kingdom of Heaven" in...

1) Matthew 3-4--the Gospel Message of its coming
2) Matthew 5--the rewards of the beattitudes
3) Matthew 7--earthly acknowledgment of Christ invalid
4) Matthew 8--millennial hope of Israel
5) Matthew 10--the Gospel Message of its nearness
6) Matthew 11--members greater than John the Baptist, and has suffered violence
7) Matthew 13--secrets for Christ's followers, parables, and wisdom
8) Matthew 16--keys to bind and loose
9) Matthew 18--the greatest and entry as children
10) Matthew 19--eunuchs and hard for rich
11) Matthew 20--vineyard workers
12) Matthew 22--wedding banquet
13) Matthew 23--door of entry closed by hypocrites
14) Matthew 25--10 virgins

Please notice the comparison between...

1) Jesus Gospel Message in his earthly ministry in *both* Mark 1 and Matthew 3-4; 10.
2) Millennial hope of Israel in Mark 14 and Matthew 8.
3) Parables in Mark 4 and Matthew 13
4) Entry for children and rich in Mark 10 and Matthew 18-19.

Mark 1.14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Matthew 3.1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Mark 14.25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 8.11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 4.10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you.
(sowing seed and mustard seed parables)

Matthew 13.11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables...
(sowing seed and mustard seed parables)

I will leave it for you to compare Mark 10 and Matthew 18-19 and issues involving entry.

Although it's apparent that Matthew uses both phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven," it is clear that Mark and Matthew use both phrases synonymously.



See points 1-4 above on the synonymous use of "Kingdom of God" by Mark and "Kingdom of Heaven" by Matthew.



See points 1-4 above.



Non sequitur argument. The use of "love for God and neighbor" in the Law and by Christ during his earthly ministry does not mean that the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ are the same. Obviously, you can find common points between the Koran and the Law of Moses--doesn't mean they're the same.

The Law of Moses was still in use during Jesus' earthly ministry. And the love of God, present in the Law, is still present in the NT. Doesn't mean the OT and the NT are the same. The Law is indeed a single system, requiring all 613 commands. It required temple system, Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, and animal sacrifices, together with all of the other festivals, rituals, and moral requirements. These things are not all present in the NT system, which requires a different priesthood, a different sacrifice, and a different temple--the body of Christ. The Law of each system is therefore different. This is all biblically verified.I'm not ignoring you. Just very busy here in Houston.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 6th 2017, 03:13 PM
I did prove it. And believe me when I say that I never thought I would find myself attempting to prove something that was this self-evident. And yes, I did answer the OP. Awesome, God bless.

randyk
Sep 6th 2017, 03:41 PM
I'm not ignoring you. Just very here in Houston.

I had no idea. So sorry! :(

randyk
Sep 6th 2017, 03:52 PM
The "man" who "goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth " [v.44] (or in the case of v46, "having gone away, he has sold all that he had, and bought it") is Jesus.

[to be consistent with the rest of the context]


"The kingdom of the heavens" was [preached at the time, and said to be] "at hand" [Matt3:1-2; Matt4:17; Matt10:6-7] (when Jesus walked this earth before His death) because He was present there... but at some point that ceased to be said (during His life and ministry).



[...I believe it will be stated [I]again during the future tribulation period, when Matthew 24:14 [26:13] will be "preached in all the world" DURING those specific years leading UP TO His Second Coming to the earth (aka in 'the end [singular] of the age [singular]' [the one they were standing in and speaking from]), FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom ('the kingdom of the heavens,' aka 'the wedding FEAST/SUPPER'... the MK [aka 'the age [singular] to come'])... and I base that on the end of the Matt10 passage, in Matt10:21-23... All "Son of man cometh/coming/shall come" passages speak to His Second Coming to the earth, FOR the promised and prophesied earthly MK (promised to Israel [and yes, Gentiles will be "invited" and present there also--Matt25:31-34 and context])--viewed similarly to the Isaiah 61:1-3 / Luke 4:17-21,28-29 passages (part pertained presently, part retained for future fulfillment)]




I would say that of "the kingdom of God" (like, Rom14:17, 1Cor4:20... presently)... but "the kingdom of the heavens" (which will be on the earth upon His "return" there [KOG too, btw]... and perhaps in the 7-yrs leading up to it, would be considered the "invitation" time of that [koh], is how I see that) is more like including the "judgment / governance / Davidic throne" things (not present now--like Acts 3:21 and similar passages...)

I don't completely dismiss your perspective. I think there is limited validity to it--from my perspective. I think that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are synonymous and interchangeable. And I think the main focus of the Kingdom is on the future Kingdom in the Millennium, although I think the emphasis is on how the present Kingdom of God affects us now. In other words, there is always a Kingdom of God, but our focus is on present preparation for a future Kingdom.

Rather than seeing two stages of the Kingdom being "at hand" I see it as *always* at hand. Jesus brought the Kingdom near in his own person, and yet resolutely determined not to bring it immediately into being. And so, throughout the NT age there is this constant tension of having decisions to make for or against the Kingdom. And that is because the Kingdom of Heaven is immediately at hand. Every decision we make presently has importance.

TheDivineWatermark
Sep 6th 2017, 03:58 PM
TDW:

"The kingdom of the heavens" was [preached at the time, and said to be] "at hand" [Matt3:1-2; Matt4:17; Matt10:6-7] (when Jesus walked this earth before His death) because He was present there... but at some point that ceased to be said (during His life and ministry).

.


Rather than seeing two stages of the Kingdom being "at hand" I see it as *always* at hand. Jesus brought the Kingdom near in his own person, and yet resolutely determined not to bring it immediately into being. And so, throughout the NT age there is this constant tension of having decisions to make for or against the Kingdom immediately at hand. Every decision we make presently has importance.

I can appreciate your perspective. In one of the passage references I supplied (Matt10:6-7), verse 6 said (of this), "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, ..."

In the trib, it will again start with them... and they [the believing remnant of Israel] will then do the "inviting" of the "guests [plural]" (to the "wedding FEAST/SUPPER" / earthly MK [promised to them/Israel, but not excluding the Gentiles]... I believe that is who Matt25:40 refers to to the earth[/I]--who "invited" the Gentile Sheep (goats too, but they disregarded it...)])



Adding: this gets back to our basic disagreement on the parts of the Olivet Discourse that I see as referring to the two separate times: "great distress upon the land" [v.23] (in the Luk21:12-24a section about the events of 70ad [v.23 "upon this people" also limits this]), and [the other] "for then shall be great tribulation" (in Matt24:21; and Rev7:14 where it says "the great tribulation"... I believe these refer to the [future] last 3.5 years leading up to Christ's Second Coming to the earth, FOR the earthly MK). What those "believing remnant of Israel" (who will be being gravely persecuted during that time) will be basically saying is, 'identify with us, and you can go in, too, accompanying us... and the Son of man/Jesus' (when He will then say to them/the Sheep [of the nations (plural)] "...inherit the kingdom prepared for you FROM [not 'BEFORE' as is used elsewhere] the foundation of the world.") Separating: "[B]Blessed [Sheep]"... or "cursed [goats]".



[to be clear for the readers, I don't believe the Sheep of this passage [or the goats :lol: ] or the believing remnant of Israel/'the least of these My brethren' is referring to 'the Church which is His body'... I've made that clear in other threads, but not here and wanted to...]


Adding one more thought: In Luk21:31 (in the "future" section), it says, "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." [recall, I had said of that future time (the MK), 'KOG too, by the way' (and I already supplied the verses I see regarding the present aspect of this :) )]

Jesuslovesus
Sep 6th 2017, 04:54 PM
Jesus brought the Kingdom near in his own person, and yet resolutely determined not to bring it immediately into being. And so, throughout the NT age there is this constant tension of having decisions to make for or against the Kingdom. And that is because the Kingdom of Heaven is immediately at hand. Every decision we make presently has importance. I don't believe this is the case Jesus specifically states that the Scribes and phariasees shut up the door to the KoH. Matthew 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." Also see Acts 7:51-53.

Per contex do you believe them murdering Christ is how they Shut up the KoH?

If they had declared Jesus their King and he was given the throne of David don't you believe the KoH would have started then?

Noeb
Sep 6th 2017, 06:33 PM
I had no idea. So sorry! :(
That was supposed to say, "very busy here in Houston." Thanks for understanding. I wasn't too directly effected compared to a lot of people, but it's crazy here. I'm proud of our communities, cities, state and neighbors. I've been here for 44 years and have never seen this much destruction and love here. I saw a picture that said something to the effect of, "the US says.... We can't unite people, races, creeds. Texas says..... Hold my beer"
Lol

Pbminimum
Sep 6th 2017, 07:58 PM
That was supposed to say, "very busy here in Houston." Thanks for understanding. I wasn't too directly effected compared to a lot of people, but it's crazy here. I'm proud of our communities, cities, state and neighbors. I've been here for 44 years and have never seen this much destruction and love here. I saw a picture that said something to the effect of, "the US says.... We can't unite people, races, creeds. Texas says..... Hold my beer"
Lol

That's what happens when people don't succumb to the victim / entitlement mentality that a lot of our nation has been spoon fed over the last few decades. Proud of Texas.

randyk
Sep 6th 2017, 09:20 PM
That was supposed to say, "very busy here in Houston." Thanks for understanding. I wasn't too directly effected compared to a lot of people, but it's crazy here. I'm proud of our communities, cities, state and neighbors. I've been here for 44 years and have never seen this much destruction and love here. I saw a picture that said something to the effect of, "the US says.... We can't unite people, races, creeds. Texas says..... Hold my beer"
Lol

Up here in the Seattle area the whole skies have been filled with ash from fires. Red sun, darkened sky--even though clear of clouds. Wildfires burning in the Cascades east of here. It's crazy. Montana's burning. Oregon's burning. California's burning. Canada's burning. I do think we need to pull together *spiritually* as a nation. I guess another cat 5 storm is heading for Florida. We have friends down there as well.

randyk
Sep 6th 2017, 09:22 PM
.



I can appreciate your perspective. In one of the passage references I supplied (Matt10:6-7), verse 6 said (of this), "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, ..."

In the trib, it will again start with them... and they [the believing remnant of Israel] will then do the "inviting" of the "guests [plural]" (to the "wedding FEAST/SUPPER" / earthly MK [promised to them/Israel, but not excluding the Gentiles]... I believe that is who Matt25:40 refers to to the earth[/I]--who "invited" the Gentile Sheep (goats too, but they disregarded it...)])



Adding: this gets back to our basic disagreement on the parts of the Olivet Discourse that I see as referring to the two separate times: "great distress upon the land" [v.23] (in the Luk21:12-24a section about the events of 70ad [v.23 "upon this people" also limits this]), and [the other] "for then shall be great tribulation" (in Matt24:21; and Rev7:14 where it says "the great tribulation"... I believe these refer to the [future] last 3.5 years leading up to Christ's Second Coming to the earth, FOR the earthly MK). What those "believing remnant of Israel" (who will be being gravely persecuted during that time) will be basically saying is, 'identify with us, and you can go in, too, accompanying us... and the Son of man/Jesus' (when He will then say to them/the Sheep [of the nations (plural)] "...inherit the kingdom prepared for you FROM [not 'BEFORE' as is used elsewhere] the foundation of the world.") Separating: "[B]Blessed [Sheep]"... or "cursed [goats]".



[to be clear for the readers, I don't believe the Sheep of this passage [or the goats :lol: ] or the believing remnant of Israel/'the least of these My brethren' is referring to 'the Church which is His body'... I've made that clear in other threads, but not here and wanted to...]


Adding one more thought: In Luk21:31 (in the "future" section), it says, "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." [recall, I had said of that future time (the MK), 'KOG too, by the way' (and I already supplied the verses I see regarding the present aspect of this :) )]

I'd be curious to know what your views would be if you thought the Church is still here during the Tribulation? ;) We might have a ton more agreement!

I do agree that Israel is the initial focus during the earthly ministry of Jesus. But I don't, of course, think that Israel are the sheep necessarily--only those who believe. Nor do I think the Great Distress of Luke 21 can be divided up between the 70 AD Judgment and the Endtimes Experience. The Great Distress is simply the entire NT experience of the Jews in the Diaspora, beginning from the 70 AD Judgment.

Since I'm not a Dispensationalist, and do not divide up Israel in this age from Israel in the Tribulation Period/Millennial Age, I do not automatically view Israel in the Tribulation Period (reign of Antichrist) as "Sheep."

During the Reign of Antichrist Israel will, like every other nation, have many ungodly people, as well as a minority of believing Christians. The "sheep" will only be those who obtain salvation in the endtimes, and not all Israel in the Tribulation Period.

Although Jesus probably applied the separation of Sheep and Goats to Israel, distinguishing between believers and unbelievers, we know in the NT era that by extension this will apply to all other nations as well. Jesus was at the time focusing only on the experience of a single nation, because at that time, under the OT, only Israel was God's holy people. But now, in the NT era, we know that the Sheep will comprise believers both in Israel and in all other nations. And the Goats will comprise unbelievers in Israel, as well as in all other nations.

So there are a few areas we disagree on. But that's okay! :)

Noeb
Sep 7th 2017, 03:34 AM
Here are the Scriptures that I in fact gave you...

Psalm 57.3 He sends from heaven and saves me, rebuking those who hotly pursue me— God sends forth his love and his faithfulness.

Psalm 150.1 Praise the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens.

As I said before, these kinds of passages appear to place God on a par with Heaven because Heaven is defined as the place of God's dwelling.I don't see how you come to this conclusion. It's merely a created place, or not in the natural, in these verses, hardly on par with God.



I don't see how this can be disputed, or how they can be viewed as irrelevant when seeing God as equal to His place of dwelling is the whole point?He created us and dwells in us, are we equal with God?



If God is synonymous with His place of dwellingWhat in these passages makes you think this?



This is not only a common viewThis is the first I've heard it. I mean, I've heard similar arguments but never that God and the place heaven or the spirit realm are equal with God.



but it is the only sensible view when the same things are said about the Kingdom of God as are said about the Kingdom of Heaven.The same things are said about two similar cars, even make and model, yet they are different. The natural is a reflection of the spirit, so of course there's many similarities. You don't ignore the differences between the natural and the spiritual do ya? Of course not, yet, that's exactly what you're doing.

If the kingdom of heaven is where God is, Mat 5 and 11 concludes,
Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least where God is, is greater than he.
Which means, those that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so (Mat 5:19) are where God is. Sorry but the least that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so are not where God is.



If so, then it is encumbent upon *you* to show differences that are substantialDone so many times here. I do not have time for a repeat. I will point out that Mat 19:23-24 use both phrases in back to back verses, showing a clear contrast. It's hard for a rich man to enter the koh, but it's impossible for a rich man to enter the koG.



or to prove there are explicit statements in Scripture barring their association.I never suggested such a thing, in fact I have said they are descriptive phrases of One Kingdom that is natural and spiritual and that there are similarities.




Non sequitur argument. The use of "love for God and neighbor" in the Law and by Christ during his earthly ministry does not mean that the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ are the same. Obviously, you can find common points between the Koran and the Law of Moses--doesn't mean they're the same.Ah but you can find differences between the Koran and Moses, you can't with Jesus and Moses. You could bring up divorce but I would say you don't understand, if you think they contradict each other. Jesus taught the spirit of the law. He didn't do this with any exception. Also, apply, "you can find common points between the Koran and the Law of Moses--doesn't mean they're the same." to the koh/koG because they are similar in may ways but also different.



The Law of Moses was still in use during Jesus' earthly ministry. And the love of God, present in the Law, is still present in the NT. Doesn't mean the OT and the NT are the same.I didn't say they are the same.

randyk
Sep 7th 2017, 05:11 AM
I don't believe this is the case Jesus specifically states that the Scribes and phariasees shut up the door to the KoH. Matthew 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." Also see Acts 7:51-53.

Per contex do you believe them murdering Christ is how they Shut up the KoH?

If they had declared Jesus their King and he was given the throne of David don't you believe the KoH would have started then?

I think the Pharisees shut up the Kingdom of Heaven by continuing to impose the Law in an artificial way. This encouraged people to practice the externals of the Law while ignoring the true spiritual values that belonged to those laws. Calling for the crucifixion of Jesus was certainly part of this phony religion, emphasizing the externals while ignoring the spiritual reality in Jesus!

Jesus said by his own authority and word that the Kingdom of Heaven had drawn near. That means it was available--not that it was blocked. Certainly it was true that some tried to block this message, and succeeded among those who were resistant to the Gospel. But the Gospel was not at all blocked for those who heard the words of Jesus and believed in them. That's how the Church in fact started, by hearing the words of Jesus, believed in them, and then followed them.

TheDivineWatermark
Sep 7th 2017, 06:30 AM
Although Jesus probably applied the separation of Sheep and Goats to Israel, distinguishing between believers and unbelievers, we know in the NT era that by extension this will apply to all other nations as well.

I was saying that the "Sheep" in the context of Matt25:31-34 [surrounding context also] are the "Sheep" of the nations [plural]. They are the righteous... the Blessed (who enter the MK time period also)... those "having been invited" [during the trib, to the MK/"wedding FEAST/SUPPER" (Rev19:9)]. And "the least of these My brethren" [v.40] are the believing remnant of Israel, whom the "Sheep" of the nations [plural] aided (and heeded the message they bring... the "invitation," if you will [Matt24:14 (26:13)...]).

"...before him shall be gathered all the nations [plural]..."

(I see these as all being "still-living" persons at the time of His Second Coming to the earth, just as in the Matt13 parables [i.e. 'the end [singular] of the age [singular]'], entering the kingdom age in mortal bodies capable of having offspring/bearing children/reproducing [those righteous who enter the MK age, I don't believe will ever die, but their children [not being born automatically 'righteous'] may, under certain circumstances [death being much more rare in the MK]). [comparing Gen9:1 and Dan2:35 "[actively] fill the earth"]

randyk
Sep 7th 2017, 06:52 AM
I was saying that the "Sheep" in the context of Matt25:31-34 [surrounding context also] are the "Sheep" of the nations [plural]. They are the righteous... the Blessed (who enter the MK time period also)... those "having been invited" [during the trib, to the MK/"wedding FEAST/SUPPER" (Rev19:9)]. And "the least of these My brethren" [v.40] are the believing remnant of Israel, whom the "Sheep" of the nations [plural] aided (and heeded the message they bring... the "invitation," if you will [Matt24:14 (26:13)...]).

"...before him shall be gathered all the nations [plural]..."

Okay. Sometimes Dispensationalists place a huge emphasis on Israel "left behind" in the Tribulation, to be a kind of "light to the nations," a group of witnessing evangelists who produce a "great multitude" of converts from all nations.

For me this is utterly unrealistic, to think that 144,000 Jews get converted and immediately set upon the task of evangelizing the earth in the space of 7 years (as is supposed). They wouldn't be mature enough to drink milk, let alone eat the meat of God's word. And to think, then, that they can resist the deceptions of Satan and the worldly temptations prolific in this time period, is way over the top, in my view.

Certainly, God is turning back to the restoration of the Israeli nation. But I think it is produced *at* Christ's coming, *after* going through great tribulation during the reign of Antichrist, rather than by instant rebirth after the Rapture of the Church, producing of them instantly-mature Christian witnesses in Israel who are instantly called to go out to all nations, who are now immersed in antiChristianity!

TheDivineWatermark
Sep 7th 2017, 07:30 AM
^ Yeah, I think I've addressed that before using various passages (Dan12:1-3,6-7,10 "the wise [of Israel] shall understand" ('knowledge shall be increased' refers to the same kind Daniel himself had earlier in that Book); Rom11:15[25 - "blindness... UNTIL" (until a certain thing)]; Hos5:15-6:3 again "until" [certain circumstances they will find themselves in, in that future time period]; Isa26:16-21; Ezek37:12-14,20-23 "will put My Spirit in you" (after they come up out of the graveyard of nations, where scattered, and into their own land, per that context); and the contrast betw 2Th2:10-12 and 2Th1:10 ("in that day" [not this one ;) ])

Our "departure/disappearance" will be the primary instigator... one huge corporate "witness" of HIM [1Cor11:26, as I've mentioned]. It would seem odd to me that NO ONE would "get it"... but seem perfectly fitting for [some of] Israel to take note that it just so happened to be all believers in JESUS, that vanished. :hmm: (...in a similar way that Jesus appeared to carefully chosen witnesses after His resurrection... not to everyone, one and all [I'm not saying WE will "appear"... but their understanding will come about in such a way]).


Oh, and I've heard that the Hebrews 5:12a verse, "For when for the time [though by this time] ye ought to be teachers...," suggests a "not very long amount of time" (according to how some figured that timing, per context...)... so, I don't really see much of a problem, as you suggest. They are also conveying the "very soon to arrive kingdom age" (His Second Coming, for the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom).

randyk
Sep 7th 2017, 02:36 PM
I don't see how you come to this conclusion. It's merely a created place, or not in the natural, in these verses, hardly on par with God.


Yes, Heaven is a created place, but it was created as a dwelling place for God within His creation. It denotes God's omnipresence, since He fills the universe.

I'm not saying God and the Universe are equal in the sense of pantheism. I'm saying that the terms are used interchangeably as synonyms, and I've already given you examples of how this can be perceived.

Not only do people use God and Heaven synonymously, as for example when trying to avoid use of the Tetragrammaton, or in everyday parlance, but the Scriptures also use "God" and "Heaven" in parallel as well.

2 Chron 28.9 ...He said to them, “Because the Lord, the God of your ancestors, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand. But you have slaughtered them in a rage that reaches to heaven.

In this I'm not saying God *is* Heaven in an idolatrous sense. Rather, I'm saying that Heaven and God are used as synonymous sources of divine activity. God is the God who made the heavens, and thus it is from the heavens that His power is demonstrated over the earth.

I believe that the "Kingdom of God" and the "Kingdom of Heaven" are thus examples of phrases referencing God by use of either "God" or "Heaven." Heaven is simply the created source of His presence indicating He is above creation. It is His position within creation *over all.* Thus, the "Kingdom of Heaven" is the Kingdom of God that is over all.

Job 22.12 “Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars!"



He created us and dwells in us, are we equal with God?


See above.



What in these passages makes you think this?


It's like saying "a voice came down from Mt. Olympus." We may say that "a voice came out from the temple in Jerusalem," or "a voice came down from Heaven."

Again, Heaven is not to be confused with Deity. It is only the location of His dwelling within creation. As such, we are using His location as a metaphor for Him. "Heaven speaks." Hence, *God speaks.*

Strictly speaking I think the Scriptures avoid use of "Heaven" as an actual metaphor, because there is a danger of pantheism or idolatry. However, the terms can be used virtually interchangeably such that the source of deity can be used as an abbreviation for deity. "Heaven speaks" can mean *God speaks.*

Rev 12.10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God.



This is the first I've heard it. I mean, I've heard similar arguments but never that God and the place heaven or the spirit realm are equal with God.


Not equal in essence. One can be used as a substitute for the other. This is commonly understood, such as in the replacement of "Heaven" for the Tetragrammaton.



The same things are said about two similar cars, even make and model, yet they are different. The natural is a reflection of the spirit, so of course there's many similarities. You don't ignore the differences between the natural and the spiritual do ya? Of course not, yet, that's exactly what you're doing.


No, I'm noting that the *location* of God within creation, ie within the highest heavens, can be a substitute reference for "God." He is the "God of Heaven." He is "God in the Heavens." We know this, but it is a step farther to decide whether "Kingdom of Heaven" is synonymous with "Kingdom of God." If so, we may want to figure out why both terms are applied by Matthew, and why Mark used "Kingdom of God" in the same place that Matthew used "Kingdom of Heaven?" I think it's feasible. I think it's reasonable. And I think it's likely.



If the kingdom of heaven is where God is, Mat 5 and 11 concludes,
Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least where God is, is greater than he.
Which means, those that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so (Mat 5:19) are where God is. Sorry but the least that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so are not where God is.


You seem to be conflating two different passages, Matthew 11.1 and Matthew 5.19.

Matthew 11.1 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 5.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


What makes Christians greater than John the Baptist? It is that our dwelling is with Christ in heaven. We do not establish our own righteousness, which is an imperfect record. Rather, we rely on *Christ's perfect record of righteousness.* That enables us to dwell with Christ in heaven, positionally. We do not, of course, actually live in heaven. Rather, we are spiritually linked to our Savior, who dwells in heaven as Deity.

We are not greater than John the Baptist by keeping the Law. Those who lived under the Law in the time of Jesus, and obeyed it, were viewed as heirs of heaven. They just had not yet obtained it. They stood in contrast not with John the Baptist, but with those under the Law who lived in disobedience. John the Baptist, like them obeyed the Law. What contrasted with John the Baptist was the future position of the obedient, including John the Baptist, who would possess the Kingdom of Heaven.



Done so may time here. Do not have time for a repeat. I will point out that Mat 19:23-24 use both phrases in back to back verses, showing a clear contrast. It's hard for a rich man to enter the koh, but it's impossible for a rich man to enter the koG.


Actually, from my perspective that proves the opposite, that "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" are being used synonymously. Phrases used in parallel simply add flavor or color, and do not change meaning. The details are added for emphasis or for greater clarity--not to change synonymity.



I never suggested such a thing, in fact I have said they are descriptive phrases of One Kingdom that is natural and spiritual and that there are similarities.


The similarities between "God" and "Heaven" show an identification of a single God. The fact He is shown simply as "God" or as the "God of Heaven" do not make a distinction between one God and another!



Ah but you can find differences between the Koran and Moses, you can't with Jesus and Moses.


There are clearly differences between Jesus and Moses. I pointed these out. For sake of brevity, I mention temple, priesthood, and sacrifice. Jesus' Law, following the cross, dismissed these, or replaced them with himself alone. His life is the standard of righteousness, and exclude the 613 laws of Moses. Moses had the same Spirit of God, but pointed to a temporal system, prior to the NT "Law," or system.



You could bring up divorce but I would say you don't understand, if you think they contradict each other. Jesus taught the spirit of the law. He didn't do this with any exception. Also, apply, "you can find common points between the Koran and the Law of Moses--doesn't mean they're the same." to the koh/koG because they are similar in may ways but also different.


Not only have you failed to prove that Moses' and Jesus' systems are different, but you have also failed to prove that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are different. If Moses and Jesus can be compared with all of their differences, then certainly "God" and "Heaven" can be compared with a very minimal difference? But Moses and Jesus are not the same. "God" and "Heaven" are the same, in the context of reference to the *God of heaven.*



I didn't say they are the same.

Above, you just said, "Ah but you can find differences between the Koran and Moses, you can't with Jesus and Moses." In this you are suggesting the OT and the NT are the same. Moses represents the Law and the Old Covenant. Jesus represents the New Covenant.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 7th 2017, 02:51 PM
I think the Pharisees shut up the Kingdom of Heaven by continuing to impose the Law in an artificial way. This encouraged people to practice the externals of the Law while ignoring the true spiritual values that belonged to those laws. Calling for the crucifixion of Jesus was certainly part of this phony religion, emphasizing the externals while ignoring the spiritual reality in Jesus!

Jesus said by his own authority and word that the Kingdom of Heaven had drawn near. That means it was available--not that it was blocked. clearly it was blocked unless you beleive we now love in the mil kingdom (amil) or thats this kingdom is past (post-mil).


Certainly it was true that some tried to block this message, and succeeded among those who were resistant to the Gospel. But the Gospel was not at all blocked for those who heard the words of Jesus and believed in them. That's how the Church in fact started, by hearing the words of Jesus, believed in them, and then followed them. correct the Pharisees could not stop the kingdom of God from coming since it is a spiritual kingdom but clearly they stopped Jesus from being king of the people by putting him to death. Luke 19:27. Do you agree that the Pharisees denied that Jesus was the "king". Luke 22:2-3 John 19:15.

randyk
Sep 7th 2017, 03:21 PM
^ Yeah, I think I've addressed that before using various passages (Dan12:1-3,6-7,10 "the wise [of Israel] shall understand" ('knowledge shall be increased' refers to the same kind Daniel himself had earlier in that Book); Rom11:15[25 - "blindness... UNTIL" (until a certain thing)]; Hos5:15-6:3 again "until" [certain circumstances they will find themselves in, in that future time period]; Isa26:16-21; Ezek37:12-14,20-23 "will put My Spirit in you" (after they come up out of the graveyard of nations, where scattered, and into their own land, per that context); and the contrast betw 2Th2:10-12 and 2Th1:10 ("in that day" [not this one ;) ])

Our "departure/disappearance" will be the primary instigator... one huge corporate "witness" of HIM [1Cor11:26, as I've mentioned]. It would seem odd to me that NO ONE would "get it"... but seem perfectly fitting for [some of] Israel to take note that it just so happened to be all believers in JESUS, that vanished. :hmm: (...in a similar way that Jesus appeared to carefully chosen witnesses after His resurrection... not to everyone, one and all [I'm not saying WE will "appear"... but their understanding will come about in such a way]).


Oh, and I've heard that the Hebrews 5:12a verse, "For when for the time [though by this time] ye ought to be teachers...," suggests a "not very long amount of time" (according to how some figured that timing, per context...)... so, I don't really see much of a problem, as you suggest. They are also conveying the "very soon to arrive kingdom age" (His Second Coming, for the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom).

With all due respect, you don't really address the problem with any substance. You do provide theological rationale for your position, but you don't adequately address the *logical problem!*

1) Can masses of Jews in Israel suddenly become converts to Christianity after a supposed Pretrib Rapture of the Church? Who would be leading them to Christ? Is it likely Jews would convert en masse to Christ, knowing the traditional hostility the Jewish People have towards Christianity?

2) How long does it take for baby Christians to mature to the point they understand the meat of God's word, and are able to convey this to others, leading them to Christ and leading them into the meat of God's word? After all, the truth of God's word must be so established that Christians can resist temptations and deceptions. This is sometimes a *life-long process,* and not an immediate thing following conversion.

3) How long does it take a large contingent of Christians to reach over 200 nations on earth with the Gospel? If it has taken the Church, in the present age, 2000 years to reach the Western World, and only parts of the Eastern World, how can we expect a relatively small group of Jews to reach the whole world in 7 years or less? And can they even begin to witness from day one after conversion?

Is it likely that over 200 nations can be reached in any substantial way when they have become immersed in Antichristian deception, or in pagan philosophy? And what of the opposition of Antichrist to Christian evangelization? I think this idea of a 7 year evangelization of the world is pure fiction.

randyk
Sep 7th 2017, 03:27 PM
clearly it was blocked unless you beleive we now love in the mil kingdom (amil) or thats this kingdom is past (post-mil).


No, the Kingdom has advanced despite satanic opposition. That's the way the Kingdom has advanced, through persecution. The Kingdom of God has "suffered violence." But that has not stopped the advance of the Kingdom. The only people who have been successfully stopped from accepting the gospel are those inclined to believe the lies. Jesus condemned those who provided lies for these people, even though that's what they chose to believe.



correct the Pharisees could not stop the kingdom of God from coming since it is a spiritual kingdom but clearly they stopped Jesus from being king of the people by putting him to death. Luke 19:27. Do you agree that the Pharisees denied that Jesus was the "king". Luke 22:2-3 John 19:15.

Yes, Satan stopped Jesus from being an earthly king. But Jesus said he did not come to immediately establish his earthly Kingdom. Yes, the Pharisees denied that Jesus was the King.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 7th 2017, 03:34 PM
No, the Kingdom has advanced despite satanic opposition. That's the way the Kingdom has advanced, through persecution. The Kingdom of God has "suffered violence." But that has not stopped the advance of the Kingdom. The only people who have been successfully stopped from accepting the gospel are those inclined to believe the lies. Jesus condemned those who provided lies for these people, even though that's what they chose to believe. correct Randy you even use the correct term this is indeed true about the Kingdom of God. Even though the violence portion is only found to be said about the Koh not the KoG see luke 16:16.

I don't believe the kingdom where God is sovereign in heaven has ever been taken by force or suffered violence from men.



Yes, Satan stopped Jesus from being an earthly king. But Jesus said he did not come to immediately establish his earthly Kingdom. Yes, the Pharisees denied that Jesus was the King.correct and this is how the KoH was stopped the scribes and Pharisees[under the influence of the devil] killed the king so that he could not rule over them and the people.

Jesus(who was promised the throne of David specifically see luke 1:32-33) in the future will still rule over the Koh on the throne of David. With the 12 tribes of Israel subject to him.[which is presently not the case]

Jesuslovesus
Sep 7th 2017, 04:47 PM
With all due respect, you don't really address the problem with any substance. You do provide theological rationale for your position, but you don't adequately address the *logical problem!* The logical problem is your own brother, i personally believe the HS will teach them what to say per the bible. Luke 12:11 Matthew 10:19 Mark 13:11. Also, you have to remember that these people (the Jews) have been educated in the OT their whole lives the second they acknowledge Jesus is the Messiah they clearly will not be starting at the same disadvantage as gentile converts (who have no OT background).

Yes, they will stumble and fall (as the scripture says they will) see Daniel 11:33-35. But in the end clearly, they do bring many to righteousness and are rewarded See Daniel 12:3.

TheDivineWatermark
Sep 7th 2017, 07:18 PM
The logical problem is your own brother, i personally believe the HS will teach them what to say per the bible. Luke 12:11 Matthew 10:19 Mark 13:11. Also, you have to remember that these people (the Jews) have been educated in the OT their whole lives the second they acknowledge Jesus is the Messiah they clearly will not be starting at the same disadvantage as gentile converts (who have no OT background).

Yes, they will stumble and fall (as the scripture says they will) see Daniel 11:33-35. But in the end clearly, they do bring many to righteousness and are rewarded See Daniel 12:3.

Agree.

Matthew 10:18-23 (esp 18-19) [recalling what I said about "Son of man cometh" contexts]; Mark 13:8-13; Luke 12:11-12.

And it's not like if our rapture occurred today, that tomorrow those of Israel will have totally forgotten what they know Christians have been saying [for years and years and years]: Jesus is who the OT was pointing to.

Eyelog
Sep 9th 2017, 12:11 AM
"Only he who does the will of my father" will enter the kingdom.

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit," Titus 3:5.

Noeb
Sep 9th 2017, 03:14 AM
You seem to be conflating two different passages, Matthew 11.1 and Matthew 5.19.

Matthew 11.1 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 5.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


What makes Christians greater than John the Baptist? It is that our dwelling is with Christ in heaven. We do not establish our own righteousness, which is an imperfect record. Rather, we rely on *Christ's perfect record of righteousness.* That enables us to dwell with Christ in heaven, positionally. We do not, of course, actually live in heaven. Rather, we are spiritually linked to our Savior, who dwells in heaven as Deity.

We are not greater than John the Baptist by keeping the Law. Those who lived under the Law in the time of Jesus, and obeyed it, were viewed as heirs of heaven. They just had not yet obtained it. They stood in contrast not with John the Baptist, but with those under the Law who lived in disobedience. John the Baptist, like them obeyed the Law. What contrasted with John the Baptist was the future position of the obedient, including John the Baptist, who would possess the Kingdom of Heaven.You didn't address the problem......
"Which means, those that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so (Mat 5:19) are where God is. Sorry but the least that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so are not where God is."



Actually, from my perspective that proves the opposite, that "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" are being used synonymously.Impossible, because the two statement are not synonymous. Hard and impossible are not synonymous.



There are clearly differences between Jesus and Moses.None. Jesus taught the spirit of the law. All these things you want to say show a difference point to a similarity. They just do, that's why we call them "types and shadows". Difference in system is not difference in principle.



Not only have you failed to prove that Moses' and Jesus' systems are differentI have not addressed the systems and have certainly not suggested they teach the law differently. I have no idea why you just said that since we both agree the systems are different.



but you have also failed to prove that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are different.Only in your mind because you erroneously think God/heaven are synonymous.



If Moses and Jesus can be compared with all of their differencesWhat spirit of the law did Moses teach that Jesus contradicted?



Above, you just said, "Ah but you can find differences between the Koran and Moses, you can't with Jesus and Moses." In this you are suggesting the OT and the NT are the same.The way to be saved is the same in both. Jesus did not come to destroy the law and says believers will love God and neighbor just as the law did. You have not and cannot dispute this. This doesn't mean the two are the same in every way. That's absurd.

randyk
Sep 9th 2017, 03:44 PM
You didn't address the problem......
"Which means, those that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so (Mat 5:19) are where God is. Sorry but the least that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so are not where God is."


You better describe "the problem" better than that. I never said such a thing.



Impossible, because the two statement are not synonymous. Hard and impossible are not synonymous.


They can be. Parallel couplets often describe degrees of the same thing. For example, "It's hard to face justice, it's impossible to beat the judge." Artificially different, but synonymous.



None. Jesus taught the spirit of the law. All these things you want to say show a difference point to a similarity. They just do, that's why we call them "types and shadows". Difference in system is not difference in principle.


Moses and Jesus are different systems--intrinsically different. The "spirit of the Law" must have a context to have a defined, technical meaning. Otherwise, it is ambiguous. Maintaining the "spirit of the Law" under the Law of Moses is still under a different system than the system of Jesus.



I have not addressed the systems and have certainly not suggested they teach the law differently. I have no idea why you just said that since we both agree the systems are different.


Addressing Moses and Jesus is in fact addressing 2 distinct systems.



Only in your mind because you erroneously think God/heaven are synonymous.


Not always. God and heaven are synonymous with respect to the Kingdom of God/Heaven. Different words are used to convey different aspects which are artificial differences. Referencing God's location in Heaven is the same as referencing God in *some passages.* Not all passages.



What spirit of the law did Moses teach that Jesus contradicted?


Jesus taught while under the Law, ie under the era of the Law. But he also taught a New Covenant, which superseded the system of the Law. Having the same Holy Spirit under two different systems does not imply those systems are the same. One superseded the other.



The way to be saved is the same in both. Jesus did not come to destroy the law and says believers will love God and neighbor just as the law did. You have not and cannot dispute this. This doesn't mean the two are the same in every way. That's absurd.

Those who followed the Law did so to become saved--yet, the Law and its system did not save. Following the Law anticipated what really did save--the cross. The systems are not the same. One prepared for salvation. The other saved.

Noeb
Sep 10th 2017, 09:16 PM
You better describe "the problem" better than that. I never said such a thing.You're saying the kingdom of heaven is where God is. Jesus said "those that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so" are in the koh, which according to your definition means "those that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so" are with God. That contradicts scripture that tells us these will not inherit the koG, which you say is the same thing as koh.



They can be. Parallel couplets often describe degrees of the same thing. For example, "It's hard to face justice, it's impossible to beat the judge." Artificially different, but synonymous.This shows what I was saying earlier. Our brains do not work similar at all. I don't find these synonymous at all.



Addressing Moses and Jesus is in fact addressing 2 distinct systems.In your mind, not mine.



Jesus taught while under the Law, ie under the era of the Law. But he also taught a New Covenant, which superseded the system of the Law. Having the same Holy Spirit under two different systems does not imply those systems are the same. One superseded the other.I wasn't talking about the Spirit. I said spirit of the law.



Those who followed the Law did so to become saved--yet, the Law and its system did not save. Following the Law anticipated what really did save--the cross. The systems are not the same. One prepared for salvation. The other saved.I completely disagree with this. I said the way to be saved was the same in both. I stand by that statement. If someone followed the law to be saved that's their error, and if you think that's what was intended, it's yours.

randyk
Sep 11th 2017, 06:37 AM
You're saying the kingdom of heaven is where God is. Jesus said "those that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so" are in the koh, which according to your definition means "those that break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so" are with God. That contradicts scripture that tells us these will not inherit the koG, which you say is the same thing as koh.


Certainly there will be "saints and sinners" in heaven! In fact, all the saints who get to heaven will have been sinners in some respects. The whole question of salvation is not: how much sin did you commit? But rather, it is: Did you embrace Christ as your Redeemer?

You may ask yourself, How can sinful saints make it into the Kingdom of Heaven when sinners are explicitly denied a place in heaven? The answer involves *context.*

What the Scriptures say is that those who embrace Christ as their Redeemer have rejected sin, even though they can still get caught up in it. Those who reject Christ for a life of sin, or who choose to live life autonomously--apart from Christ--will not have a place in the Kingdom of Heaven. They have, by definition, chosen sin as their preferred lifestyle.

By contrast, the failed saint, who gets caught up in sin, has not chosen sin, but has capitulated to it by some form of duress. They have actually shown preference for a life of righteousness--just failed in some measure to live by it.



This show what I was saying earlier. Our brains do not work similar at all. I don't find these synonymous at all.
In your mind, not mine.
I wasn't talking about the Spirit. I said spirit of the law.
I completely disagree with this. I said the way to be saved was the same in both. I stand by that statement. If someone followed the law to be saved that's their error, and if you think that's what was intended, it's yours.

Fine--you disagree. However, you've not proven your points--only assert them.

Noeb
Sep 12th 2017, 01:48 AM
Certainly there will be "saints and sinners" in heaven! In fact, all the saints who get to heaven will have been sinners in some respects. The whole question of salvation is not: how much sin did you commit? But rather, it is: Did you embrace Christ as your Redeemer?

You may ask yourself, How can sinful saints make it into the Kingdom of Heaven when sinners are explicitly denied a place in heaven? The answer involves *context.*

What the Scriptures say is that those who embrace Christ as their Redeemer have rejected sin, even though they can still get caught up in it. Those who reject Christ for a life of sin, or who choose to live life autonomously--apart from Christ--will not have a place in the Kingdom of Heaven. They have, by definition, chosen sin as their preferred lifestyle.

By contrast, the failed saint, who gets caught up in sin, has not chosen sin, but has capitulated to it by some form of duress. They have actually shown preference for a life of righteousness--just failed in some measure to live by it.Those that break the least and taught men to do so were the scribes and pharisees that Jesus said our righteousness (not anothers imputed) had to be more than. And no, he's not talking about his righteous record imputed, which isn't a biblical concept. He said very clearly "your righteousness" and those that do not have righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees will not enter, so we know those that break and teach men to do so will not either. As you said, "the answer involves context". Always does.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

randyk
Sep 12th 2017, 02:18 AM
The logical problem is your own brother, i personally believe the HS will teach them what to say per the bible. Luke 12:11 Matthew 10:19 Mark 13:11. Also, you have to remember that these people (the Jews) have been educated in the OT their whole lives the second they acknowledge Jesus is the Messiah they clearly will not be starting at the same disadvantage as gentile converts (who have no OT background).

Yes, they will stumble and fall (as the scripture says they will) see Daniel 11:33-35. But in the end clearly, they do bring many to righteousness and are rewarded See Daniel 12:3.

Dan 12.3 does not refer to Jews in Judaism. It refers to OT Jewish believers who were obedient, and to NT Jews who convert to Christianity and obey Christ.

I do agree that Jews do have a little advantage, if indeed they have had biblical studies. But many of them are very ignorant of Scriptures. And many of them who are religious may have been more studied in Jewish tradition than in the Scriptures themselves. At any rate, they have not learned Scriptures from the proper perspective.

Therefore, I don't think Jews have much advantage--certainly not over Christians today. To think that in the endtimes 144,000 converted Jews will in 7 short years change the world is beyond science fiction--it is pure fantasy! Not only are the Jews hardened to conversion as a whole, leaving only individuals willing to convert, but the world has grown hardened against evangelization. And to have immature, recently born again Jewish Christians think to convert a great multitude from all nations in the space of 7 years is not only unthinkable--it is wrong! The Scriptures never say such a thing!

Jesuslovesus
Sep 12th 2017, 03:21 AM
Dan 12.3 does not refer to Jews in Judaism. It refers to OT Jewish believers who were obedient, and to NT Jews who convert to Christianity and obey Christ.

I do agree that Jews do have a little advantage, if indeed they have had biblical studies. But many of them are very ignorant of Scriptures. And many of them who are religious may have been more studied in Jewish tradition than in the Scriptures themselves. At any rate, they have not learned Scriptures from the proper perspective.

Therefore, I don't think Jews have much advantage--certainly not over Christians today. To think that in the endtimes 144,000 converted Jews will in 7 short years change the world is beyond science fiction--it is pure fantasy! Not only are the Jews hardened to conversion as a whole, leaving only individuals willing to convert, but the world has grown hardened against evangelization. And to have immature, recently born again Jewish Christians think to convert a great multitude from all nations in the space of 7 years is not only unthinkable--it is wrong! The Scriptures never say such a thing!

I disagree, the bible shows what God can do with One faithful Man. Look what Jesus did with 12 disciples, to believe that 144,000 thousand men with the Name of God written in their foreheads will fail sounds more unthinkable to me. Especially if the 2 Witnesses are around during that time.

randyk
Sep 12th 2017, 06:37 AM
I disagree, the bible shows what God can do with One faithful Man. Look what Jesus did with 12 disciples, to believe that 144,000 thousand men with the Name of God written in their foreheads will fail sounds more unthinkable to me. Especially if the 2 Witnesses are around during that time.

You think to compare Jesus with men and then think numbers count? You can match 10 billion men up with Jesus and they will still fall short. Not even 144,000 can do what only Jesus can do. Never have 144,000 baby Christians won the world in 7 years! The great multitude from all nations in Rev 7 do not consist of baby Christians from 1 to 7 years old! ;)

However, you're wrong. Jesus did nothing similar to this with his 12 disciples. How far had they reached in 7 years? Not very far. And if the apostles didn't reach the whole world with the gospel in their lifetimes, what makes you think 144,000 baby Christians will reach the world in 7 years? Ridiculous!

Yet if the Bible actually said this I would have to believe it. But it doesn't. Nowhere in the prophecy of the 144,000 is it actually said they witness to the world and evangelize it, creating the great multitude!

Jesuslovesus
Sep 12th 2017, 04:07 PM
You think to compare Jesus with men and then think numbers count? You can match 10 billion men up with Jesus and they will still fall short. Not even 144,000 can do what only Jesus can do. Never have 144,000 baby Christians won the world in 7 years! I think you idea is unrealistic. I'm not claiming that 144k people "win the world" i mean read the book of Rev the idea isn't that the GT consists of 144k Men with Gods name in their Forheads Bringing the whole world into the religion of Christianity.


The great multitude from all nations in Rev 7 do not consist of baby Christians from 1 to 7 years old! ;) The passage specifically say the Great Multitude came OUT of the GT. IDK what this means to you. Maybe you believe the GT last 50 years? And therefore the Multitude of All nations consist of Christians 1-50 years old?



However, you're wrong. Jesus did nothing similar to this with his 12 disciples. How far had they reached in 7 years? Not very far. And if the apostles didn't reach the whole world with the gospel in their lifetimes, what makes you think 144,000 baby Christians will reach the world in 7 years? Ridiculous! How do you believe the Whole world watches the 2W? There is this amazing new thing in our world called technology. And once more the 144k are not called "baby Chrisitans" they have the Name of God written in their forheads. Maybe you don't understand what that means.?

Maybe that would be an insteresting study for you?


Yet if the Bible actually said this I would have to believe it. But it doesn't. Nowhere in the prophecy of the 144,000 is it actually said they witness to the world and evangelize it, creating the great multitude! Correct all the passage says explicitly is. That 144k Men are sealed with the Name of God in their forheads (no mention of them joining so faction of Chritianty thru Conversion). That a great multitude of people Come Out of the GT.

Trivalee
Sep 12th 2017, 04:54 PM
I think you idea is unrealistic. I'm not claiming that 144k people "win the world" i mean read the book of Rev the idea isn't that the GT consists of 144k Men with Gods name in their Forheads Bringing the whole world into the religion of Christianity.

Careful with your use of words. Nowhere does it say the "144,000 will bring the WHOLE world into Christianity". That's your spin.


The passage specifically say the Great Multitude came OUT of the GT. IDK what this means to you. Maybe you believe the GT last 50 years? And therefore the Multitude of All nations consist of Christians 1-50 years old?

Your misunderstanding of the passage is down to your faulty Premil doctrine. The belief that the "Great Multitude" that came out the GT only came to faith after the church was raptured some seven years earlier, is false. The church will definitely be on earth when the 144,000 are commissioned and they will all be raptured at the same time.


How do you believe the Whole world watches the 2W? There is this amazing new thing in our world called technology. And once more the 144k are not called "baby Chrisitans" they have the Name of God written in their forheads. Maybe you don't understand what that means.?

Maybe that would be an insteresting study for you?

Television evangelists abound even today, but I don't see unbelievers falling over themselves to convert, do you? If I didn't know better you would have convinced me that whoever hears the 144,000 will suddenly be convicted of their wickedness and sin. Clearly, you forget that God would have sent a strong delusion to most of the wicked that they should not believe (2 Thess 2:11). The 144,000 are more likely to have limited success within their Jewish communities than the outside world.

I don't know whether you believe that God's seal on the 144,000 makes them equal to Christ? Because not even Jesus could convert everyone who heard him. Their seal (invisible) certainly is a divine mark of protection just as God put a mark on Cain after he murdered his brother (Gen 4:15). To interpret it as a magic wand to bring all and sundry to faith is missing the point.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 12th 2017, 10:53 PM
Careful with your use of words. Nowhere does it say the "144,000 will bring the WHOLE world into Christianity". That's your spin. Actually it isn't i don't believe this makes any sense, the bible clearly tells us the Beast takes over the world it doesn't mention anything about the whole world being converted to Chritianty.




Your misunderstanding of the passage is down to your faulty Premil doctrine. The belief that the "Great Multitude" that came out the GT only came to faith after the church was raptured some seven years earlier, is false. The church will definitely be on earth when the 144,000 are commissioned and they will all be raptured at the same time. You say pre-Mil alot. The bible says the Great Multitude came out of the GT. If you believe the Great Multitude includes anyone who doesn't go thru the GT your the one with Faulty Doctrine not me.




Television evangelists abound even today, but I don't see unbelievers falling over themselves to convert, do you? If I didn't know better you would have convinced me that whoever hears the 144,000 will suddenly be convicted of their wickedness and sin. Clearly, you forget that God would have sent a strong delusion to most of the wicked that they should not believe (2 Thess 2:11). The 144,000 are more likely to have limited success within their Jewish communities than the outside world.

I don't know whether you believe that God's seal on the 144,000 makes them equal to Christ? Because not even Jesus could convert everyone who heard him. Their seal (invisible) certainly is a divine mark of protection just as God put a mark on Cain after he murdered his brother (Gen 4:15). To interpret it as a magic wand to bring all and sundry to faith is missing the point. Once more Go thru my post your guys are just creating a strawman and attacking it. No one anywhere has suggested that the 144k evangelize the world for Christianity. The Great Multitude come out of the GT this Multitude doesn't come out of the 2000 year Church Age nor does the bible mention anywhere that the Great Multitude arrived in heaven by some Post-trib rapture.

randyk
Sep 13th 2017, 12:02 AM
Those that break the least and taught men to do so were the scribes and pharisees that Jesus said our righteousness (not anothers imputed) had to be more than. And no, he's not talking about his righteous record imputed, which isn't a biblical concept. He said very clearly "your righteousness" and those that do not have righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees will not enter, so we know those that break and teach men to do so will not either. As you said, "the answer involves context". Always does.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I don't think you've interpreted this correctly. I can see, logically, how you could do so. But looking at the broader context, no.

Those who violate God's commandments, and teach this, much as the Pharisees did, were not commended by Jesus. That doesn't mean either that they necessarily go to Hell or hold completely to the teaching of the Pharisees, who go farther than this.

The point is, the Pharisees, who hold to a form of religion that deliberately discounts God's commandments, are on their way to Hell. But anybody who does not go as far as them in opposing God's commandments, who deliberately oppose even some of God's commandments, are to be demoted in the Kingdom of God. That is, they will attain to the Kingdom of God, but their status is to be reduced.

So no, I do *not* think those who teach that it's okay to violate God's commandments are the same as the Pharisees. They cannot be, since the former are going to Heaven, and the latter are going to Hell. The point is only that those who are going to Heaven should not *act* like those who are going to Hell!

randyk
Sep 13th 2017, 02:11 AM
I think you idea is unrealistic. I'm not claiming that 144k people "win the world" i mean read the book of Rev the idea isn't that the GT consists of 144k Men with Gods name in their Forheads Bringing the whole world into the religion of Christianity.


No, this isn't my idea. The DW was talking about how Israel in the Tribulation invites people to the Marriage Feast, if I'm not mistaken. That's apparently a reference to the common Pretrib notion that the 144,000 Jews are witnesses in the Great Tribulation, and evangelize a "Great Multitude" from all nations. If you don't believe this, please disregard!



The passage specifically say the Great Multitude came OUT of the GT. IDK what this means to you. Maybe you believe the GT last 50 years? And therefore the Multitude of All nations consist of Christians 1-50 years old?

How do you believe the Whole world watches the 2W? There is this amazing new thing in our world called technology. And once more the 144k are not called "baby Chrisitans" they have the Name of God written in their forheads. Maybe you don't understand what that means.?

Maybe that would be an insteresting study for you?


My statements were predicated on the idea that the 144,000 Jews are believed by many Pretribbers to be the sole source of evangelism in the world during the Great Tribulation. If they "missed the Rapture," then they become Christians on day one of the Tribulation Period. That makes them *baby Christians!*

Of course I don't believe in this interpretation. So I don't see them as baby Christians at all. I'm just arguing *against* Pretribbers who believe this. After all, I was discussing something like this with the DW when you cut in, right? So maybe you should study up on what we were talking about before recommending my next course of study?



Correct all the passage says explicitly is. That 144k Men are sealed with the Name of God in their forheads (no mention of them joining so faction of Chritianty thru Conversion). That a great multitude of people Come Out of the GT.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 13th 2017, 03:31 AM
No, this isn't my idea. The DW was talking about how Israel in the Tribulation invites people to the Marriage Feast, if I'm not mistaken. That's apparently a reference to the common Pretrib notion that the 144,000 Jews are witnesses in the Great Tribulation, and evangelize a "Great Multitude" from all nations. If you don't believe this, please disregard! actually this makes sense. The part that doesn't make sense is the idea that the 144k are going to teach some form of Christian doctrine, I mean do you believe the 144k are gonna be protestants or Catholics lol. No the 144k are likely to be given a similar duty to the 70 Jesus sent out.




My statements were predicated on the idea that the 144,000 Jews are believed by many Pretribbers to be the sole source of evangelism in the world during the Great Tribulation. If they "missed the Rapture," then they become Christians on day one of the Tribulation Period. That makes them *baby Christians!*

Of course I don't believe in this interpretation. So I don't see them as baby Christians at all. I'm just arguing *against* Pretribbers who believe this. After all, I was discussing something like this with the DW when you cut in, right? So maybe you should study up on what we were talking about before recommending my next course of study?
I'm saying that to make a point about the phrase name written in their foreheads, this signifies to me anyway that God has manifested his name to then. This speaks to them being much more then for example a scholar well versed in High Christology from a university. See for example Isaiah 52:6

randyk
Sep 13th 2017, 06:55 AM
actually this makes sense. The part that doesn't make sense is the idea that the 144k are going to teach some form of Christian doctrine, I mean do you believe the 144k are gonna be protestants or Catholics lol. No the 144k are likely to be given a similar duty to the 70 Jesus sent out.


Don't ask me. Ask the Pretribbers! ;) They're the ones who espouse this nonsense. They think that once the Church goes up to Heaven in a Pretrib Rapture the Jews left behind on earth will convert to Christianity--who cares if it is Catholic or Protestant?

Why do you ask me when I don't even believe in this scenario? You're the Pretribber. You tell me! You tell me why you even find it credible?



I'm saying that to make a point about the phrase name written in their foreheads, this signifies to me anyway that God has manifested his name to then. This speaks to them being much more then for example a scholar well versed in High Christology from a university. See for example Isaiah 52:6

It still wouldn't fit into the scenario predicted by the Pretribbers who promote this crazy idea! It would have to be a stamp on Jewish foreheads that instantly communicate to them maturity, education, and superhuman capacities to do what nobody has done before. That kind of stamp on the forehead is non-biblical, not to mention pure fantasy. I hope you don't believe in it?

CadyandZoe
Sep 13th 2017, 10:59 AM
They think that once the Church goes up to Heaven in a Pretrib Rapture the Jews left behind on earth will convert to Christianity--who cares if it is Catholic or Protestant?The 144,000 do not convert to Christianity. But they do, finally, recognize that Jesus is indeed the messiah when they meet with him at Azel, which I believe is the Mount of Olives.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 13th 2017, 01:56 PM
Don't ask me. Ask the Pretribbers! ;) They're the ones who espouse this nonsense. They think that once the Church goes up to Heaven in a Pretrib Rapture the Jews left behind on earth will convert to Christianity--who cares if it is Catholic or Protestant?

Why do you ask me when I don't even believe in this scenario? You're the Pretribber. You tell me! You tell me why you even find it credible? Because your misrpresenting someone elses postions and beating up on the straw man you created it.




It still wouldn't fit into the scenario predicted by the Pretribbers who promote this crazy idea! It would have to be a stamp on Jewish foreheads that instantly communicate to them maturity, education, and superhuman capacities to do what nobody has done before. That kind of stamp on the forehead is non-biblical, not to mention pure fantasy. I hope you don't believe in it? I don't understand what you believe that "no body has done before" the 144k invite people to Join the Kingdom that will come when Jesus arrives, the only thing that illogical is the strawman you keep claiming Pre-tribs believe in.

TheDivineWatermark
Sep 13th 2017, 02:21 PM
I disagree, the bible shows what God can do with One faithful Man. Look what Jesus did with 12 disciples, to believe that 144,000 thousand men with the Name of God written in their foreheads will fail sounds more unthinkable to me. Especially if the 2 Witnesses are around during that time.

Well said.

I read a study long ago that showed Paul to have been a "type" of the future 144,000 (in his Damascus road [sudden] conversion, etc ... "and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven"... as of one born out of due time... ), that is, following the departure/rapture of "the Church [I]which is His body."


Imagine if , just as Jesus had been about to ascend (Acts 1), and we would say under our breath, "No, Jesus! You simply cannot leave! These 11 will screw everything up, for sure!" ...saying this, based on what we'd seen just [I]40 short days earlier

[Mark 16:14 "Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him [B]after He was risen."]

Jesuslovesus
Sep 13th 2017, 02:28 PM
Well said.

I read a study long ago that showed Paul to have been a "type" of the future 144,000 (in his Damascus road [sudden] conversion, etc ... "and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven"... as of one born out of due time... [born earlier than the rest, so to speak]), that is, following the departure/rapture of "the Church [I]which is His body."

Well if there are 144k men With even Half the Zeal of Paul, added to the 2 Witnesses, and the fact that Angels will be proclaiming the Gospel from Heaven directly, to me personally it is not impossible that their message reaches the Whole world(even though it clear the Whole would doesn't accept and beleive this message.)

TheDivineWatermark
Sep 13th 2017, 02:53 PM
Well if there are 144k men With even Half the Zeal of Paul, added to the 2 Witnesses, and the fact that Angels will be proclaiming the Gospel from Heaven directly, to me personally it is not impossible that their message reaches the Whole world(even though it clear the Whole would doesn't accept and beleive this message.)

Right.

And Rev1:1 (also 22:6) says, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which GOD GAVE UNTO HIM, TO SHEW UNTO His servants, things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [noun]" (then much of the book goes on to describe those 7 years leading up to Christ's Second Coming to the earth, and we see "servants of our God" in 7:3).


Additionally, the Matt10 passage I referred to earlier (all "Son of man cometh" passages refer to His Second Coming to the earth, to judge and to reign), as well as Matthew 24:14 (26:13) being "preached" during those 7 years (this context being especially during the first half, during "the BEGINNING of birth pangs [plural]" ; the initial "birth PANG [singular]" being the start/arrival of "the Day of the Lord [time period]" [1Th5:2-3], following our departure/rapture)



Oh, and the Luke 12:36-37,38,40,42-44 context has it "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding..." (i.e. His Second Coming [I]to the earth [not our rapture, which is 'in the air']... "Son of man cometh"... "servants" ['blessed' (faithful and wise) or 'cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers']...)

CadyandZoe
Sep 13th 2017, 02:53 PM
Well if there are 144k men With even Half the Zeal of Paul, added to the 2 Witnesses, and the fact that Angels will be proclaiming the Gospel from Heaven directly, to me personally it is not impossible that their message reaches the Whole world(even though it clear the Whole would doesn't accept and beleive this message.)


Where are we getting the idea that these 144,000 leave Zion, and/or preach the gospel? I don't know where this idea got started.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 13th 2017, 03:34 PM
Where are we getting the idea that these 144,000 leave Zion, and/or preach the gospel? I don't know where this idea got started.
I didn't start this idea, Randy floated it back in Post 151 he agreed we presented a theological rational for our position but that he still had a Logical problem.

Then he presented what he wanted us to explain to him.
But his premise is the one that suggests during these 7 years the 144k will somehow evangilize the world something he claims (quite rightly) that the Church couldn't do in 2k Years. My only point is his premise assumes the 144k become what we would define now as Christians, and then be sent forth to teach this Christian theology to evangelize the World.

On its head, i do believe this premise is silly and personally, I don't believe this is what Pre-tribbers believe as he claims. It's more of a straw-man

But I want to asnwer your question because i think its interesting. Nothing to me Suggest all of the 144k Start out in Zion, but clearly they Meet back in Zion. This to me makes sense in Light of the Kingdom of Heaven Parable in Matthew 22:2

8. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

At this point the Servants are on the Road but at the time of the Feast clearly they will be back in Zion as will the Many they Invited. This is what i believe we see in Rev 14 with the 144k back on Mt. Zion with the Lamb, i mean clearly after this point they never Leave him again.

Trivalee
Sep 13th 2017, 04:22 PM
Actually it isn't i don't believe this makes any sense, the bible clearly tells us the Beast takes over the world it doesn't mention anything about the whole world being converted to Chritianty.

At least we agree on this one.


You say pre-Mil alot. The bible says the Great Multitude came out of the GT. If you believe the Great Multitude includes anyone who doesn't go thru the GT your the one with Faulty Doctrine not me.

The reason I mention Premil is that I know your views are formed from that doctrine. Take, for example, your statement "If you believe the Great Multitude includes anyone who doesn't go thru the GT..." by this statement you implied that the multitude came to faith after the church has supposedly gone to heaven. But this position is as spurious and scripturally indefensible as they come.

As we know, the church also goes through the GT, therefore, the multitude is the true number of the risen/raptured church. I challenged you earlier to prove when the "left behind" who supposedly come to Christ after the rapture rises from the dead, but you couldn't! The scriptures confirm only TWO resurrections, therefore, the resurrection of the saints who you believe die in the GT should be the second resurrection while those who rise after the 1000 years should be the third. The only problem is there is no third resurrection!


Once more Go thru my post your guys are just creating a strawman and attacking it. No one anywhere has suggested that the 144k evangelize the world for Christianity. The Great Multitude come out of the GT this Multitude doesn't come out of the 2000 year Church Age nor does the bible mention anywhere that the Great Multitude arrived in heaven by some Post-trib rapture.

There's nothing in scripture that suggests that the multitude that came out of the GT is exclusive of the church. Any assumption to the contrary is your imagination. There is only one rapture - at the end of the GT. So the alive and remain get raptured with the resurrection of ALL the dead in Christ which naturally include those beheaded in the GT.

Trivalee
Sep 13th 2017, 05:23 PM
The 144,000 do not convert to Christianity. But they do, finally, recognize that Jesus is indeed the messiah when they meet with him at Azel, which I believe is the Mount of Olives.

But their commission includes turning others to Christ also.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 13th 2017, 05:25 PM
The reason I mention Premil is that I know your views are formed from that doctrine. Take, for example, your statement "If you believe the Great Multitude includes anyone who doesn't go thru the GT..." by this statement you implied that the multitude came to faith after the church has supposedly gone to heaven. But this position is as spurious and scripturally indefensible as they come.

As we know, the church also goes through the GT, therefore, the multitude is the true number of the risen/raptured church. I challenged you earlier to prove when the "left behind" who supposedly come to Christ after the rapture rises from the dead, but you couldn't! The scriptures confirm only TWO resurrections, therefore, the resurrection of the saints who you believe die in the GT should be the second resurrection while those who rise after the 1000 years should be the third. The only problem is there is no third resurrection!



There's nothing in scripture that suggests that the multitude that came out of the GT is exclusive of the church. Any assumption to the contrary is your imagination. There is only one rapture - at the end of the GT. So the alive and remain get raptured with the resurrection of ALL the dead in Christ which naturally include those beheaded in the GT.
Correct i am 100% Pre-Mil, i thought you were also.?

Anyway, Once more the Multitidue (that comes out of the GT) and those Ressurected in the first Ressurection (who where beheaded by the Beast), are limited to those mentioned in those Passages who go thru the GT, your the one who wants to add 2000 years of Church history into those groups when the Opposite is explictly stated.

Once more

Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.


If you died today brother you would not be a part of this Multitde since you will not have come out of the "GT".

Same as this passage here.

Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

If you where to die today or have died in the last 2000 years you are not one of the people who come to life in this passage.

Trivalee
Sep 13th 2017, 06:07 PM
Correct i am 100% Pre-Mil, i thought you were also.?

I get confused with all the abbreviations (Premil, Pretrib, Post-trib, Amil, etc) bandied about. I believe that the church will go through the GT and rise/rapture at the end of it. On the other hand, you believe the church will rapture BEFORE the GT, so you and I are never in the same camps until you see the error of pre-tribulation rapture.


Anyway, Once more the Multitidue (that comes out of the GT) and those Ressurected in the first Ressurection (who where beheaded by the Beast), are limited to those mentioned in those Passages who go thru the GT, your the one who wants to add 2000 years of Church history into those groups when the Opposite is explictly stated.

Once more

Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.


If you died today brother you would not be a part of this Multitde since you will not have come out of the "GT".

Same as this passage here.

Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

If you where to die today or have died in the last 2000 years you are not one of the people who come to life in this passage.

I see the logic in the statement that the dead in Christ prior to the GT cannot claim to have come out of it. The passage, however, does not explicitly say that this group resurrected after the church had already risen. And since you continue to skirt around what obviously is a big problem to your pre-wrath rapture, I would say that the weight of probability favours the 2000 years dead in Christ rising at the same time with those who die during the GT, since we have only two resurrections.

Jesuslovesus
Sep 13th 2017, 06:15 PM
I get confused with all the abbreviations (Premil, Pretrib, Post-trib, Amil, etc) bandied about. I believe that the church will go through the GT and rise/rapture at the end of it. On the other hand, you believe the church will rapture BEFORE the GT, so you and I are never in the same camps until you see the error of pre-tribulation rapture. We are both in the Premil camp tho <3. Our only difference is about a 3.5 year period that applies to a very small % of Christians as a whole even in your own view.



I see the logic in the statement that the dead in Christ prior to the GT cannot claim to have come out of it. The passage, however, does not explicitly say that this group resurrected after the church had already risen. And since you continue to skirt around what obviously is a big problem to your pre-wrath rapture, I would say that the weight of probability favours the 2000 years dead in Christ rising at the same time with those who die during the GT, since we have only two resurrections. As i said the bible clearly shows a difference between those who go thru the GT (The Great Multitude) and the Church (Past 2000 years of History).

Post-trib's deny this diffence and try to lump the rest of the dead in Christ (prior to the GT) with those that go thru it.

IOW they believe tribulation saints don't exist and you do this by expanding and adding people to the passages that explicitly reference those who receive victory over the Beast (who only reigns during the 3.5 year period).

If i don't come out of the GT i am not a member of the Great Multitude. Rev 7:9

If i don't conqure the beast i will not recive the blessing mention in Rev 14:13.

Nor will i stand on the sea of Glass playing harps like those in Rev 15:2-4.

Or be One of those Souls in Rev 20:4

These are just the facts.

How unfair would it be if I received the reward for Conquering the beast when I didn't have to face him. Or how unfair is it that these people can receive a reward during this tribulation that I can't receive because I was born in ages past?

randyk
Sep 13th 2017, 10:45 PM
As i said the bible clearly shows a difference between those who go thru the GT (The Great Multitude) and the Church (Past 2000 years of History).


Really? I find the Great Tribulation and the Church Age to be virtually synonymous. The Great Tribulation is described as such in reference to the Jewish People. But the time period of this Jewish Suffering is synonymous with the Church Age.

So the distinction you talk about does not exist if I'm correct.



Post-trib's deny this diffence and try to lump the rest of the dead in Christ (prior to the GT) with those that go thru it.

IOW they believe tribulation saints don't exist and you do this by expanding and adding people to the passages that explicitly reference those who receive victory over the Beast (who only reigns during the 3.5 year period).


It is *not true* that Postribbers deny the existence of Tribulation Saints! That is most obviously false!



If i don't come out of the GT i am not a member of the Great Multitude. Rev 7:9

If i don't conqure the beast i will not recive the blessing mention in Rev 14:13.

Nor will i stand on the sea of Glass playing harps like those in Rev 15:2-4.

Or be One of those Souls in Rev 20:4

These are just the facts.

How unfair would it be if I received the reward for Conquering the beast when I didn't have to face him. Or how unfair is it that these people can receive a reward during this tribulation that I can't receive because I was born in ages past?

CadyandZoe
Sep 14th 2017, 12:13 PM
But their commission includes turning others to Christ also.

Where do we find this? I don't see it yet.