Can someone define the gospel of the kingdom?

[Darrell C]

And this goes against the teaching in Esther 8:17. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

So you nullify the Scripture I have presented with this verse?

Sorry, Bob, but this doesn't do that.



Esther 8:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.


All that is in view is proselytization, which was acceptable to God. But, Gentile converts were not brought into relationship in identical fashion, for they were restricted from certain access given only to those who were born into Israel.

This is why such an uproar occurred here:


Acts 21:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Christ never called himself a Jew,

He did:


John 4:22

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.


But, questions like this mean nothing. I can equally say that Christ did not call Himself of the Tribe of Judah. Do you reject that He was?

Arguments from silence rarely help support a position, Bob.

But look at the above verse: we can argue that the Woman at the Well misidentifies Christ, but is Christ saying that Jew save people? Or is He saying salvation comes through the Jews?

Another example would be Christ replying to the question "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Some scholars say his response is an affirmation.

Then, we have the Testimony of Scripture, in regards to the incarnation, in that He came to Israel according to Prophecy.

You have to deny all this and rely on an argument from silence. Is that reasonable, Bob?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Is it? Can you prove it without Paul's letters?

I gave you references from Peter and James.

You are ignoring what is presented to you Bob.

I gave you Christ's own statement, "I am come only to the Lost Sheep of Israel."

The bottom line is you reject what Scripture states, and give a pretense of believing some of it, and what you do believe...disagrees with what you give a pretense of believing in Scripture.

I don't think any amount of Non-Pauline literature is going to convince you, my friend. You simply don't want to believe Scripture unless it accommodates the Doctrines of Men you have embraced.

You create false doctrines such as "Jew and Gentile are religious terms only," and that the Israel Christ came unto was not really Israel.

No, Bob, you were never a Fundamental Independent Baptist, not really.

We simply don't get confused about the...fundamentals.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

And so you think that after the death of Christ it matters?

Of course it matters in a context of discussion where someone is trying to deny the Heritage of Israel.

The New Testament Writers make a clear distinction that both Jew and GEntile are made into one new man.

You have missed this fundamental truth.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

They were always together and always will be.

Not according to Scripture.

You do not just reject Paul's teaching, you reject Luke, Peter, and James' teaching as well.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Wrong again. Only men who believed are part of true Israel. How can you not see this repeated over and over again in the OT?

Because it simply isn't there.

Who is punished for sin in the Old Testament and designated incontrovertibly as Israel?

Well, that would be Israel of course.

Okay, I can see you are not going to address the Scripture and points I have thus far provided, so I will for now leave you to your teaching of You-Tube Theology. When you are interested in examining the Scripture on this topic, please, let me know.

The one question I will leave you with is how you can find the Lord in error, seeing He states He came to Israel?


God bless.

 

[Bob Hope]

He did:


John 4:22

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.


But, questions like this mean nothing. I can equally say that Christ did not call Himself of the Tribe of Judah. Do you reject that He was?

Arguments from silence rarely help support a position, Bob.

But look at the above verse: we can argue that the Woman at the Well misidentifies Christ, but is Christ saying that Jew save people? Or is He saying salvation comes through the Jews?

Another example would be Christ replying to the question "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Some scholars say his response is an affirmation.

Then, we have the Testimony of Scripture, in regards to the incarnation, in that He came to Israel according to Prophecy.

You have to deny all this and rely on an argument from silence. Is that reasonable, Bob?


God bless.

I think the word jew in that verse is simple a mistranslation. We all know Christ came through the blood line of Abraham. And therefore we can be sure that through Abraham came salvation. Again, there were so few real Israelites and so many converts over the years that anyone, Israelite or non Israelite who practiced the law for salvation was termed a jew. I think we are arguing some semantics to some degree. When I say Israelite I mean someone of the lineage of Abraham, when I say jew, I mean anyone practicing the law. When you say jew, you mean Israelite.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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

He's getting a pass based solely on the fact he is a non-baptist.

I can denounce being baptist, take up his views of the bible being chocked full of errors, Pauline writings are not inspired, the Spirit has shown me which scriptures are inspired and are not(full-blown mysticism), and tell each of you you're lost and not a thing would be done to me. However, being a baptist, if I do these things, I'm gone quicker than you could say 'scat'.

This is a CHRISTian message board first and foremost. All christians, regardless of what church they go to, have to believe in bible inerrancy, Pauline authority, and that the Spirit let's us know from Genesis 1:1 all the way through Revelation 22:21 is truth.

 

[Bob Hope]

I gave you references from Peter and James.

You are ignoring what is presented to you Bob.

I gave you Christ's own statement, "I am come only to the Lost Sheep of Israel."

The bottom line is you reject what Scripture states, and give a pretense of believing some of it, and what you do believe...disagrees with what you give a pretense of believing in Scripture.

I don't think any amount of Non-Pauline literature is going to convince you, my friend. You simply don't want to believe Scripture unless it accommodates the Doctrines of Men you have embraced.

You create false doctrines such as "Jew and Gentile are religious terms only," and that the Israel Christ came unto was not really Israel.

No, Bob, you were never a Fundamental Independent Baptist, not really.

We simply don't get confused about the...fundamentals.




God bless.

I suppose I wasn't. By the time dispensationalism was explained to me it was all I could do not to laugh out loud.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thanks for the 'dumb'. You're proving my point.

 

[Bob Hope]

Because it simply isn't there.

Who is punished for sin in the Old Testament and designated incontrovertibly as Israel?

Well, that would be Israel of course.

Okay, I can see you are not going to address the Scripture and points I have thus far provided, so I will for now leave you to your teaching of You-Tube Theology. When you are interested in examining the Scripture on this topic, please, let me know.

The one question I will leave you with is how you can find the Lord in error, seeing He states He came to Israel?


God bless.

Which Israel, physical or spiritual? All disobedient Israelites in the OT went to Hell so He is clearly talking to those who will follow Him.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

 

[SovereignGrace]

Keep'm coming sunshine.

 

[Bob Hope]

Thanks for the 'dumb'. You're proving my point.

Just for the record. It was you and your partner that began using the dumb button first. I have received far more dumb rankings than I have given out. It is not possible for me to care any less about my "score". The only point you have proven here is your faith in the bibles inerrancy and your incessant complaining that it is a prerequisite for salvation. I believe that good works qualify ones faith, but there is no scripture written that states we must believe only the scriptures given to us by Constantine are legit and must be trusted with child like faith.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yah! Whatever dude. You're soul is on dangerous and many have tried to help you.

 

[Darrell C]

I think the word jew in that verse is simple a mistranslation. We all know Christ came through the blood line of Abraham. And therefore we can be sure that through Abraham came salvation. Again, there were so few real Israelites and so many converts over the years that anyone, Israelite or non Israelite who practiced the law for salvation was termed a jew. I think we are arguing some semantics to some degree. When I say Israelite I mean someone of the lineage of Abraham, when I say jew, I mean anyone practicing the law. When you say jew, you mean Israelite.

Bob, I am going to give you an analysis of your views as I see them thus far, so don't take this wrong, it is not meant to offend, just meant to be an honest statement with an intention to give you something to think about.

You have one singular problem that I see: you are anti-Semitic. And I will define that in the primary way it is used today, meaning...you just don't like Jews.

This is why, I believe, you are attempting to make Jews of the Bible, and Jews in the world...something they are not. You don't want Christ to be a Jew, do you?

There is no translation issue, there is an application issue, Bob.

Matthew 27:11-12

New American Standard Bible (NASB)




Jesus before Pilate

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.” 12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He did not answer.


See the link. Study the word usage.

Address the fact that those who "became" Jews were proselytes, not people who were spiritually changed into the Church in Esther.

So all I can ask is...what do you have against Jews?


God bless.

 

[Bob Hope]

Bob, I am going to give you an analysis of your views as I see them thus far, so don't take this wrong, it is not meant to offend, just meant to be an honest statement with an intention to give you something to think about.

You have one singular problem that I see: you are anti-Semitic. And I will define that in the primary way it is used today, meaning...you just don't like Jews.

This is why, I believe, you are attempting to make Jews of the Bible, and Jews in the world...something they are not. You don't want Christ to be a Jew, do you?

There is no translation issue, there is an application issue, Bob.

Matthew 27:11-12

New American Standard Bible (NASB)




Jesus before Pilate

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.” 12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He did not answer.


See the link. Study the word usage.

Address the fact that those who "became" Jews were proselytes, not people who were spiritually changed into the Church in Esther.

So all I can ask is...what do you have against Jews?


God bless.

You show your lack of understanding here. The word Semitic is derived from Shem. It means those of Shem. I am of Shem, descendant of the Anglo Saxons. I may be very disappointed with the role of the Shemitic peoples, but I have no hate towards them.

You have bought into the idea that a jew is an Israelite. You are uneducated on the topic. As if the people living as jews weren't mixed up enough at the time of Christ, it got even worse with the addition of the Khazars in the 8th century. This is really basic history. I'm sorry it doesn't support your overall view of modern Israel. There is no restored nation of Israelites living in Israel. When Israel is truly restored it will be by the hand of Christ at His return and not until then.

The modern jews still seem to think they are special because of their race. Along with that misunderstanding goes many other false presumptions.

 

[Darrell C]

I suppose I wasn't. By the time dispensationalism was explained to me it was all I could do not to laugh out loud.

And this is typical of everyone who "used to believe____________ but now have the truth."

It is a false assertion we see often on the forums. The greatest example are Atheists who, like you claimed to once being an IFB, say, "I used to be a Christian...but now I am not."

The veracity of the assertion is shown to be false when we examine their doctrine. In your case, it is a rejection of fundamental truths which suggest that perhaps your time as an IFB was one of, not association by agreement in Doctrine, but, one of skepticism. And the fundamental issue that arises in every instance we see this is one thing: they claim to have been a part of that group but they do not even know what that group teaches. They claim to, then go on to present false arguments like you do.

Many people think they were once Christian because they grew up in a fellowship. They, like you, fought a battle with skepticism concerning that which they were exposed to, and the root problem was rejection, not an acknowledgement that what the group taught was truth. Not an understanding of what that group actually taught.

Here is an example: I use to believe in Eternal Security, but, I have been shown the truth. Unlike those who believe in Eternal Security, we know the Bible doesn't teach license to sin.

And what shows me that they did not once believe in Eternal Security is their understanding of Eternal Security as expressed in their statement. Eternal Security is not, and does not teach that we are eternally secure therefore we have license to sin. This is a false doctrine not associated with credible teaching on Eternal Security, nor, I will add, do we find any credible adherents teaching this. It is a false argument.

But I appreciate you being honest about this, because few are. They are shown why the basis for their "belief" is in error, yet refuse to acknowledge that error. For you, Bob, you are going to need to actually address the points made. Confidence in our doctrine allows us to examine each argument and provide a response.

Now, as I have said, your rejection of Paul is not all that you reject. You are also rejecting the clear statements of Christ, Luke, Pete, John, and James.

Now what does that leave you with Bob?

And with what you have left, is this a reasonable foundation for a claim to being in Christ Jesus? Shall we suppose that God is now saving men through extra biblical concepts and teachings? Rather than the Word of God?


God bless.

 

[Bob Hope]

Yah! Whatever dude. You're soul is on dangerous and many have tried to help you.

"Liar liar pants for hire."

 

[Darrell C]

You have bought into the idea that a jew is an Israelite.

No, Bob, Scripture presents this as a Bible Basic.

Here is a question I don't think you answered: why do you think you can know you are descended from Abraham but Jews cannot keep track of which Tribe they are of?

I defined my usage of Anti-Semitic, and narrowed it down to a common modern use: hatred for Jews.

I have already responded to the same argument you present here, "I am descended from Shem...how can I be Anti Semitic?" Well, how well did Jacob and Esau get along? And Esau's descendants?

Isn't Edom one of the clearest pictures of hatred for the descendants of Jacob?

I am sorry, Bob, but you are not going to find a Christian Community that is going to embrace your Doctrine, because you will be asking them to reject the very fundamentals which actually make us Christians.

If you would only approach the discussion/s with more than "I have spoken!" mentality, you might finally admit to the weakness of the reasoning you use as a Basis for Belief.

You have not yet entered into discussion. That involves both sides listening to what the other is saying.

Gotta go, Bob.


God bless.

 

[Bob Hope]

And this is typical of everyone who "used to believe____________ but now have the truth."

It is a false assertion we see often on the forums. The greatest example are Atheists who, like you claimed to once being an IFB, say, "I used to be a Christian...but now I am not."

The veracity of the assertion is shown to be false when we examine their doctrine. In your case, it is a rejection of fundamental truths which suggest that perhaps your time as an IFB was one of, not association by agreement in Doctrine, but, one of skepticism. And the fundamental issue that arises in every instance we see this is one thing: they claim to have been a part of that group but they do not even know what that group teaches. They claim to, then go on to present false arguments like you do.

Many people think they were once Christian because they grew up in a fellowship. They, like you, fought a battle with skepticism concerning that which they were exposed to, and the root problem was rejection, not an acknowledgement that what the group taught was truth. Not an understanding of what that group actually taught.

Here is an example: I use to believe in Eternal Security, but, I have been shown the truth. Unlike those who believe in Eternal Security, we know the Bible doesn't teach license to sin.

And what shows me that they did not once believe in Eternal Security is their understanding of Eternal Security as expressed in their statement. Eternal Security is not, and does not teach that we are eternally secure therefore we have license to sin. This is a false doctrine not associated with credible teaching on Eternal Security, nor, I will add, do we find any credible adherents teaching this. It is a false argument.

But I appreciate you being honest about this, because few are. They are shown why the basis for their "belief" is in error, yet refuse to acknowledge that error. For you, Bob, you are going to need to actually address the points made. Confidence in our doctrine allows us to examine each argument and provide a response.

Now, as I have said, your rejection of Paul is not all that you reject. You are also rejecting the clear statements of Christ, Luke, Pete, John, and James.

Now what does that leave you with Bob?

And with what you have left, is this a reasonable foundation for a claim to being in Christ Jesus? Shall we suppose that God is now saving men through extra biblical concepts and teachings? Rather than the Word of God?


God bless.

Fundamental truths? that seems kinda like an oxymoron. It wasn't by choice that I was awakened. I was happy believing the false hoods. It was when I was confronted with the truth that changed for the better. You keep claiming I have rejected the others when it is clear that I go much further than you do in accepting their teaching. It is you who have relegated the teachings of Messiah as pertaining to OT peoples and not yourself. You are warned by Christ not to follow men that would come after Him teaching a new salvation. But here you are explaining away the gospel of Christ and embracing the gospel of Paul. I will ask my kids to put you on our prayer list tonight. Their little hearts are so sweet and they will be genuinely concerned for you as I am.