Featured Can someone define the gospel of the kingdom?

Him(Hob Bope) dumbing this post is all we need to know about this joker.

 

Romans 10:17

 

He denies bible inerrancy. He mystically knows which verses are inspired and those which a chocked full of errors.

 

With such a low view of scripture it is a wonder how he was ever saved. I

 

Yes, but who are they?
[/QUOTE]

That was the whole point of the post, Bob...they are the Lost Sheep of Israel.

And this is the same Israel that Messiah was prophesied of coming to. It's throughout the Gospels, it's throughout the Epistles.

Yes, because I have 100% faith that the Word of God is accurate on this, and You-Tube is not...

We are told how:


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Redemption, if it is going to happen, is only through the Blood (Death) of Christ.

Now, we have to consider that Christ has come (in the previous quote) to the Lost Sheep of Israel, and in view is National Israel. So it is not a matter of God redeeming Israel as a Nation, but God redeeming those of faith from Israel. I am futurist in my Eschatology so I view Israel being redeemed Nationally as a future event, when the prophecy surrounding the Kingdom they were promised is fulfilled at the Return of Christ. Paul writes "And so shall all Israel be saved," which will be true, because only those among Israel who believe survive the Tribulation. So everyone in Israel will be saved at that time, and the promises God has made to her as a Nation will be fulfilled.

Yes.

But, keep in ind that Paul also wrote "By the Law shall no flesh be justified." Most will think of this in terms of obedience to statutes and ordinances, without understanding that also involved is the Covenant itself. This is why the New Covenant was promised, because they failed to keep His Covenant:


Hebrews 8:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Not all twelve, no.



But seriously, no, the disciples were not, at that time, part of the Church. Look back at Hebrews 9:12-15, and you will see that the transgressions of the Old Testament Saints were redeemed on the Cross, not before. It is at that time that He obtained eternal redemption for them (us).

While we recognize a "spiritual Israel," who are those of the household of faith through all Ages, that doesn't mean that this nullifies a major portion of the Word of God which makes it clear that God created Israel for the specific purpose that they should be His witness Nation. This was the Old Testament equivalent of the Church, but, she was just a type of the People of God that would arise. So Israel as a Nation is not considered a redeemed people as the Church is, but a people awaiting redemption. Doesn't mean the faithful among her, or among Gentiles for that matter, weren't saved. Their Eternal Security was just as sure as ours is, but, that doesn't mean they were forgiven their sins.

That is a primary point the Writer of Hebrews makes...the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins. He contrasts that with the Sacrifice of Christ, which he (the Writer, and ultimately the Holy Ghost) makes clear, not only redeemed their transgressions, but obtained eternal redemption for them and us.

And we are told...


Ephesians 2:14-16

King James Version (KJV)

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Here we have, not just a statement regarding Gentile Inclusion, but a statement of something new.

He is not saying, "Good news, me Goya boyos...God is now reconciling you guys too."

Both Jew and Greek are reconciled through Christ.

And you use this as a reason to reject the further revelation He provides us through the New Testament writers?

Bob, you are on the right track in seeking to discuss the Gospel of the Kingdom and why that might be distinctive. I promise you, if you study this it will help you to understand the New Testament better.

One primary failure of many Bible Students is to equate salvation in the Old Testament with salvation in the New. To equate the Covenants.

The fact is that every Old Testament Saint, when they died, had offered up animal sacrifice at best. That means that an animal died in their stead for their sins, not Christ.

That is why we see that redemption is always tied to the Cross, because it was not until Christ died that these men were made perfect in regards to sin.

I hope you follow up on this, and with an open heart to the Word of God.

You asked this...

Again, the answer is no, and just to give an example, consider that Peter did not want Christ to die. He was in opposition to the very Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, when he was commissioned to go out and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, wouldn't we think, if revelation of the Work of Christ was available to him (and them), that he (and they) would not have been in opposition to Christ dying? That he wouldn't have taken up a sword and sought to keep Christ alive, so he could keep alive the understanding he did have?

That he would not have denied even knowing Christ?

Do you think, knowing the significance of the Cross and what He accomplished, that you could in any way, or would in any way, have sought to keep Christ from the Cross? This would be like calling the fire department and when they arrived, trying to keep them from putting out the fire.


God bless.

 

You got a perfect Bible passage for reference to support that statement?

 

'That generation' of Christ's day was the 'flock of slaughter' that had been foretold of:

4 Thus said Jehovah my God: Feed the flock of slaughter;
5 whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty; and they that sell them say, Blessed be Jehovah, for I am rich; and their own shepherds pity them not.
6 For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith Jehovah; but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbor`s hand, and into the hand of his king; and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.
7 So I fed the flock of slaughter, verily the poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
8 And I cut off the three shepherds in one month; for my soul was weary of them, and their soul also loathed me.
9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that which dieth, let it die; and that which is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let them that are left eat every one the flesh of another.
10 And I took my staff Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples.
11 And it was broken in that day; and thus the poor of the flock that gave heed unto me knew that it was the word of Jehovah.
12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver.
13 And Jehovah said unto me, Cast it unto the potter, the goodly price that I was prized at by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them unto the potter, in the house of Jehovah. Zech 11

Parables, riddles, dark sayings are what He fed the flock of slaughter. He had no intention for them to understand and feign repentance:

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:
15 For this people`s heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them. Mt 13

 

Too bad there is not a sad rating.

 

Well unfortunately you do not have a reliable enough Bible to know if your experiences are of the Spirit of God or not.

I do, but ......you do not.

 

I would again point out that Christ states He came to Israel, it doesn't matter that there weer those of Israel outside of the land. We see they are not disconnected from Judaism, the land, or the Law, as shown in Acts 2.

You are presenting a point that is completely irrelevant to what Scripture actually shows us, and does not support your view.

"Jew" is not strictly a religious term, it is derived from Judah, and simply refers to an inhabitant of that Kingdom. It was adopted to speak of all those of Israel.

As far as infiltration of Gentiles into a Jewish Heritage, if Christ can have Gentile ancestry and remain a Jew, I think it safe to say that this is the case for Israel as a Nation. That does not mean I think there was a lot of this, but, again, it is not a point which nullifies what Scripture actually teaches. Christ was a Jew, He came unto the Lost Sheep of House of Israel (and this means Israel, not the Northern Kingdom), and Scripture distinguishes between Jew and Gentile in the creation of the new man.

Then we would disagree, because the Israel that will be saved will be...dead.

That is the whole point of Ezekiel 37, and it pertains to Israel in particular.

And you define "the whole true house of Israel" as all men and women that follow Messiah. You believe this because you want to believe it, not because you see this in Scripture. It is contrary to some very simple teachings, not to mention a very basic Bible teaching found throughout the Old Testament.

Believing Gentiles under Law were not called Israel, they still maintained a distinction of Gentile:



Romans 2:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)


James distinguishes, even in the Church Age, between Israel and Gentiles:


James 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.


Israel will be, just as they are now, a Nation outside of the will of God. They will be, according to Daniel, practicing Temple Service, but, that Service will not be legitimate, because the Covenant of Law has been abrogated.

You will also have to reject John in seeking to maintain this view, Bob:


John 1:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.


John and Paul agree.

"His own" were the Jews. It's just basic, Bob.

And your view actually argues against that, Bob: you know Christ brought Jew and Gentile together, but you are doing your best to say He didn't.

You are correct, "all Old Testament men (of faith) were 'brought in' through Christ."

The Church began at Pentecost and are not Jews, are not Gentiles, they are the Church. It didn't exist prior to Pentecost. The "church" in the wilderness were of Israel, not of the Body of Christ. They are spoken of without distinction between faithful and unfaithful, but as a whole, and as a whole they fell in the Wilderness.

No, Bob, future Israel will be Israel outside of Christ (we know this because they are left to go through the Tribulation), and we see the 144,000 sealed by God. I believe this group will evangelize Israel, as well as Gentiles, likely, but, they are not members of the Body until sealed.

But you are ascribing salvation to her as a whole, and this is a fundamental error I see in those who try to make Israel the Old Testament Church.

And I will separate this last point in hopes you will give it some consideration.


Continued...

 

This is simply not found in Scripture. We do not ascribe religious connotation to the terms Jew and Gentile, because we know that proselytes could be brought in.

In order for this to be true, those who are saved through Christ would cease being Jews, right? But nowhere do we see Jews commanded to shed their heritage.

We see the elders of Jerusalem urge Paul to partake of ceremony which is distinctly Jewish:


Acts 21:17-26

King James Version (KJV)



17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.


18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.


19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.


20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:


21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.


In view is Paul's ministry among the Gentiles, clearly distinguished as such. The question is, "Paul, are you teaching the Gentiles to forsake the Law? Tha is what everyone is saying."

The truth is, Paul was not teaching Gentiles to forsake the Law, but specifically preaching the Gospel of Christ, which demands, for those who are under Law, they they go on unto that which is perfect, progressing, rather than abandoning from the Law, which the Writer of Hebrews basically calls the foundational teachings of the faith we are to have.

Now watch what happens next:

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.


23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;


24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.


25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.


Here, just as in Acts 15, we see again Gentile believers distinguished from Jewish believers. For them, v.25 describes suggested teaching that they might "do well," not...be saved.

But, these Jerusalem elders want Paul to partake of this ceremony.

Now see how that ceremony concludes:



26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.


Notice that an offering will be made for every one of them? Do you understand what this signifies?

It means that Jewish believers were still not only following their heritage, but were offering up sacrifice.

I have mixed thoughts on this, because my heart always cries out, "No, Paul! Don't do it! Refuse!"

Instead of Paul being taken and ultimately having his head cut off, what I would like to see here is Paul preaching to these fellows, explaining to them the same way that the Writer of Hebrews explains to his brethren.

But that is not the case.

So we see that in rejecting Paul, you also reject John, and James, and...the Gentile Luke.

You are creating doctrines that are not from Scripture, but simply doctrines you want to believe. Jew and Gentile are not religious/irreligious terms. Israel was not the Church and still isn't (and never will be, because there is and will be only One Fold).


God bless.