What about the servant with the 1 talent? Did he go to hell?

I'll tell you what I believe. I believe the kingdom was established on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 2.

Jesus said, "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;" - Matt 16:18-19

Here Jesus uses the terms church and kingdom interchangablly.

Jesus also said, "And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." - Mark 9:1

Either this was the truth or Jesus lied and didn't know what He was talking about.

How was the kingdom to come? With Power!

Jesus also said, "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” - Luke 24:49

Now on to Acts 1:8, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

"When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, ...they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:1-4). Where did this take place? Jerusalem.

Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Review, the kindom is the church. Jesus said some would see the kingdom come with power. He said the apostles would receive power when the Holy Spirit came upon them. This was to take place in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, the apostles received power when the Holy Spirit came upon them and they preached the gospel about Jesus for the first time and those who were baptized were added to the church (kindgom), thus fulfilling Jesus promise in Matt 16:18-19 and Mark 9:1.

Otherwise, Jesus lied in Mark 9:1.

 

Those who believe that the Kingdom is spiritual and in the hearts of men (the only way you can hold that the Kingdom is not future), use 5 main passages in the NT. These passages are: Luke 17:20-21; Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20; Colossians 1:13; and Revelation 1:9.

These passages are exceptional. The phrase “Kingdom of God” appears in 68 verses of the NT and the single word “kingdom” appears 158 times in 150 verses. The vast majority of passages concerning the Kingdom can be easily proven by plain reading to be something that is literal and future and will last “a thousand years” on this earth.

One basic rule of Bible interpretation is that if the majority of texts teach one view and there is an apparent exception to the rule that seems to contradict the others, then the correct approach is to consider possible interpretations of that exception that harmonizes with the texts that are clear on a subject. One thing is certain: God does not contradict Himself in the Scriptures.

The Luke 17:20-21 passage is cleared up easily by looking at the notes left by the KJV translators who were not certain about the translation. Their notes state that maybe it should be different. This difference puts this passage into harmony with the multitudes of others.

 

mman it is irrelevant what you believe or what I believe or what Eric B believes or what Hope of Glory believes or what your pastor, my pastor or the pope or anyone else believes. The only thing that matters is what the Bible has to say about the matter.

The kingdom was not established on the day of Pentecost. The kingdom was established when the earth was created. The kingdom is all about rulership. God originally gave Lucifer reigns over the earth with multitudes of angels. He rebelled and 1/3 of the angels with him.

However he remained in power (and still does to this day) and God made man on the earth to take over the rulership, but that didn't happen and Satan got the man and the woman to disqualify themselves.

Christ came to earth to do what man could not do and will one day rule the earth in the place of Satan, but that day has yet to come.

Now when John the Baptizer, Christ, the disciples and early teachers went out preaching they went out preaching the kingdom of God or as Matthew says the kingdom of the heavens. All that is is a message that those folks could have a part in the coming day when Christ takes over rulership. Israel rejected this offer as a nation and it was given to a new nation, a nation that was neither Jew nor Gentile.

Christians are in a position to accept this offer once they are saved by grace through faith and not until then. And they are capable just as Israel was capable of rejecting the offer.

In Matthew 16 the church and the kingdom are not interchangable, because the church is not the kingdom. The kingdom has to do with rulership over the earth. The church doesn't rule the earth so therefore they are not the same thing.

They received power via the Holy Spirit to perform the signs, wonders and miracles that were manifested to the Jews (and for the Jews only, because according to Scripture they are the only one that requires a sign) in relation to the kingdom.

Again I will be more than happy to point you to some excellent resource materials if you are interested in studying through this in more detail.

 

Well you're going to have a tough question to answer if Christ is already ruling and reigning over the earth, then why is the world is the shape that it is in? The Bible says that when Christ rules that all rule will eminate from the heavens (where Satan currently rules once again showing that Christ is not ruling) and from the earth via Jerusalem. So are you saying that Christ is on the earth ruling from Jerusalem?</font>[/QUOTE]That's not a tough question, in fact that is an easy question to answer. You are the one with the tough question to answer, and here it is.

When Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”, was he telling the truth, lying, deceived, or clueless?

As to your answer, the Lord’s kingdom is not a worldly, political economy, as was David’s, for Jesus plainly said: “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36), yet you contend it will be.

There is no scriptural basis for your absurd claims, yet many plain scriptures to the contrary.

“Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” (Jn. 5:28-29).

The resurrection of all will take place in "the hour".

More is revealed. When this takes place, the resurrection of all the dead,the following will also take place "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

There is no indication that the Lord will ever set foot on this earth again.

The prophet Zechariah prophesied about Christ:

“Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah; even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and he shall sit and rule upon his throne; and be shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both” (Zech. 6:12-13).

This passage positively states that Christ would function as both priest and reign as king on his throne – simultaneously. If He is not reigning as king, then He is is not serving as a priest, and everyone is without attonement.

Jesus has been given ALL AUTHORITY, in HEAVEN AND ON EARTH (Matt 28:18). He is ruling over His Church (Col 1:18).

What in the world are you talking about? How did that fulfill one promise concerning the kingdom? I'm sorry, I'm not a mental gymnast.
Even by that twisted logic, how did that fulfill Mark 9:1?

Nope they have died.</font>[/QUOTE]Therefore, by your own admission, the kingdom was established.

Well another problem here is that they weren't "translated" anywhere. They were still on the earth. And we've already said that Christ is not on the earth ruling, just as He wasn't on the earth ruling then. He is seated at the right hand of the father acting as our High Priest and Mediator. While He is king, He is not currently ruling as king, but one day soon will take that position. Oh that that day would come quickly!!</font>[/QUOTE]They were translated into the kingdom. The text clearly states that. Christ's kindom, as we've already seen is not of this world. Therefore, it is a spiritual kingdom, where he is ruling with all authority.

The Revelation given to John was of things to come, not things that were currently taking place.</font>[/QUOTE]Let's just look and see.

"and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." Rev 1:5-6

If you really believe what wrote, then you believe that:
1) He does not love us now, but will love us
2) We are not free from our sins, but will be free
3) His blood currently has no power
4) The kingdom was not made

and from verse 9, " I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus."

You must believe that:
1) John was not their brother, but would be
2) The tribulation, kingdom and patient endurance all found in Christ were future events
3) John's exile to Patmos was a future event.

The kingdom was indeed at hand while the King was present on the earth and the offer was being made to the nation of Israel. And had the nation of Israel repented as a nation the kingdom would have been established right then and there. But the nation did not repent and in fact killed almost all of the messengers, including the King.</font>[/QUOTE]Please tell my you don't buy into that. Jesus knew all things that were going to happen to Him.
It was even prophisied that he would be rejected.

“But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him: that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (Jn. 12:37,38).

Again, it was prophesied:

“The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner” (Psa. 118:22; cf. Mt. 21:33-46).

Having been foretold centuries before, the Jewish rejection of Christ was no surprise.

You are equating entering the kingdom with salvation by grace through faith, which is incorrect. You can see the kingdom through salvation by grace through faith, meaning you can be put in a position to understand what is being offered and then either reject the offer or accept the offer by obedience.

Once again that's where "baptism is a requirement for salvation" folks get off track. They start trying to force verses that aren't talking about savlation by grace through faith into that mold. It's like taking a square peg and forcing it to fit into the round hole.

There is nothing that one has to do in order to be saved by grace through faith. The free gift must be received. And it is received by believing and NOTHING else. If anything else comes into the equation it is no longer grace. It can't be any more simple than that.

Baptism and the rest of obedience comes in at entering the kingdom, which is soley based on works that come out of faithful living and obedience.</font>[/QUOTE]Here are some consequences of your statements:
1)The the Jews that believed Jesus (John 12:42) but refused to confess him were fine. They didn't follow after him, but who cares, they have belief only.
2)The demons that believe will be saved, because they have belief only.
3) Repentance is unnecessary because belief only saves (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30). When God "commands all people everywhere to repent," he doesn't really mean it since belief only saves.
4) Confession is unnecessary and irrelevant, because belief only saves (Matt 10:32).
5) No obedience is requied (Heb 5:9) because belief only saves.
6) Jesus lied when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" - Mark 16:16
7) Peter, speaking by inspiration of the HS lied when he told them to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" - Acts 2:38. Why would they need remission since they obviously believed in Acts 2:37, else they would not have been cut to the heart.

Let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that repentance is unnecessary for salvation?

This couldn't be further from the truth. The concept of the coming kingdom can be found in the opening chapters of Genesis and is the primary focus on God's revelation to mankind. But it is the one message that has received the most attack from the enemy and has been corrupted so much that it is rarely preached these days and if so is so misunderstood. The church thinks it is so rich, and nourished and in fact Christ said the church is miserable, naked and poor.

We've got to stop playing games and realize what the situation is. Christ is on the outside of the vast majority of our churches knocking to get in, but the vast majority of churches today are just comfortable with the way things are going, but the good news is that if individuals will open up Christ will come in and dine with them. Meaning that in these last days Christ is going to be dealing on an individual basis, because it is only individuals that are going to allow Him in.

Instead of making these wild claims, use some scripture to enforce your position.

 

I agree, now where are your passages?

I have the bible, what else could I possibly need? You obviously had to have help to misunderstand the plain teaching of scripture.

 

OK, prove it.

Matt 3:2, "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." - Do you think he meant "at hand" or in more than 2000 years? Why would they have to repent if it weren't at hand?

It would make no sense for Him to say repent for the kingdom is coming in more than 2000 years.

Matt 4:17? Nope, sounds near term.
Matt 4:23? Nope, sounds current.
Matt 5:3,10? Nope, you are wrong again.
Matt 5:19,20? Nope, sounds like he talking to them not to people more than 2000 years in the future.
Matt 6:10,13 - Certainly future, but no evidence it was literal and would last 1000 years.
Matt 6:33? Nope. He told them to seek the kingdom first. How could they seek the kingdom if it wouldn't be established for some 2000 plus years?

Please show me one verse that states the kingdom will last 1000 years or that it will be on the earth.

When Jesus said His kindgom was not of this world, was he wrong and you are right?

 

So you have never sat under the teaching of a pastor/teacher/elder? You just picked up a Bible one day and figured out that you needed salvation and then you just figured it all out along the way all on your own?

Of course not.

Now it is easily seen in the tone that you have taken that you have no desire to change your mind or your view of Scripture, so there is no need for me to lay out anything for you.

 

Does this mean you believe that the resurrection being described there occured on the Day of Pentecost? If so, then you are a full preterist who moves the "parousia" from AD70 to AD33. The problem with that, is all the passages, incuding Corinthians, and especially Revelation, metioning a Kingdom yet future (at least to them). AD70 is a much better theory than AD33. And you still have the problem I addressed this morning, that if this is the final Kingdom, why is salvation still so unstable and uncertain, with condemnation hanging over all of us if we don't do certain works, just as much as in the OT? What change has this "Kingdom' brought, then? Other than Christ dying freeing us from having to slaughter animals, and trading sabbath for Sunday, and ditching instruments in worship. Yet everything else is the same as the OT.

 

OK, prove it.

Matt 3:2, "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." - Do you think he meant "at hand" or in more than 2000 years? Why would they have to repent if it weren't at hand?

It would make no sense for Him to say repent for the kingdom is coming in more than 2000 years.

</font>[/QUOTE]It makes sense for the same reason you must repent. God is going to pick you up out of the grave and judge you for the things that you have done, and it doesn't matter how long you think you have before the kingdom is established.

His kingdom will be the next world, the world to come.

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The day will come when His servants will fight, it is not in this present age.

Funny thing about kingdoms in the bible, the king may be annointed long before he takes possession of his kingdom.

1 Samuel 16
1 And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.
12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.
13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

Samuel just anointed David king over Israel, God has rejected Saul. But notice that Saul continues to occupy the throne for many years. Christ has been anointed King, but Satan is still the king of this world, until the Lord comes back to take the throne from him.

 

Does this mean you believe that the resurrection being described there occured on the Day of Pentecost? If so, then you are a full preterist who moves the "parousia" from AD70 to AD33. The problem with that, is all the passages, incuding Corinthians, and especially Revelation, metioning a Kingdom yet future (at least to them). AD70 is a much better theory than AD33. And you still have the problem I addressed this morning, that if this is the final Kingdom, why is salvation still so unstable and uncertain, with condemnation hanging over all of us if we don't do certain works, just as much as in the OT? What change has this "Kingdom' brought, then? Other than Christ dying freeing us from having to slaughter animals, and trading sabbath for Sunday, and ditching instruments in worship. Yet everything else is the same as the OT. </font>[/QUOTE]This resurrection is yet to take place. When it does occur, it is for EVERYONE!!!

Mark 9:1, the kingdom was established before some of the people he was talking died.

Did Jesus know what he was talking about?

 

OK, prove it.

Matt 3:2, "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." - Do you think he meant "at hand" or in more than 2000 years? Why would they have to repent if it weren't at hand?

It would make no sense for Him to say repent for the kingdom is coming in more than 2000 years.

</font>[/QUOTE]It makes sense for the same reason you must repent. God is going to pick you up out of the grave and judge you for the things that you have done, and it doesn't matter how long you think you have before the kingdom is established.

His kingdom will be the next world, the world to come.

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The day will come when His servants will fight, it is not in this present age.

Funny thing about kingdoms in the bible, the king may be annointed long before he takes possession of his kingdom.

1 Samuel 16
1 And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.
12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.
13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

Samuel just anointed David king over Israel, God has rejected Saul. But notice that Saul continues to occupy the throne for many years. Christ has been anointed King, but Satan is still the king of this world, until the Lord comes back to take the throne from him. </font>[/QUOTE]The last king to reign on the throne of David in the Old Testament was Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah, or in an abbreviated form, Coniah). In Jeremiah 22:24-30, it was prophesied that he and his seed (Judah) would be delivered into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar and cast into a foreign land (Babylon). Specifically, concerning Coniah it was said:

“Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah” (v. 30).
The issue is clear – no descendant of Coniah would ever again prosper, ruling from the literal throne of David. Now, the fact is, Christ was of the “seed” of Jechoniah, both from a legal standpoint (through Joseph - Mt. 1:12,16), and from a physical vantage point (through Mary, via Shealtiel - Lk. 3:27). It thus follows that Christ could never reign on David’s earthly throne – and prosper!

Now, was Jesus wrong or mistaken in Mark 9:1?

 

So you have never sat under the teaching of a pastor/teacher/elder? You just picked up a Bible one day and figured out that you needed salvation and then you just figured it all out along the way all on your own?

Of course not.

Now it is easily seen in the tone that you have taken that you have no desire to change your mind or your view of Scripture, so there is no need for me to lay out anything for you. </font>[/QUOTE]View of what scripture? You have provided none! You are right. I will not change my position based on your words alone. However, if you will present the scripture that form the basis of your beliefs and can show me through those that I am wrong, I absolutely will change, I promise. Will you be as honest?

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could believe that the kingdom was not established before the people died in Mark 9:1.

 

mman we will start with the kingdom Scripture that you have pointed out. Once again I showed you in that Scripture that it was already fulfilled when Jesus took the three disciples onto a high mountain after six days and was transfigured before them. That was the literal fulfilling of that statement (Matthew 17).

He said there would be some standing that would not taste death before they see Him coming in His glory. Well three of them saw His glory before they died...Peter, James and John. They all three saw Jesus in His glory on the mountain (which is the symbol of kingdom in Scripture). And it happened after six days on the seventh day. That is important because it is after six days (six thousand years - II Peter 3:8) that Christ will return and establish His kingdom.

The seven-day plan was given to us in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. God worked for six days restoring a ruined creation and then rested on the seventh day. He is again working six days to restore ruined mankind and He will rest on the seventh day. That's why Scripture tells us that Jesus took them on a mountain not any mountain but a high mountain and it was on the seventh day that they were given this glimpse of the coming kingdom.

 

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's look at Mark 9:1 again. From the end of Mark 8 we see Jesus was talking to a crowd of people (Mark 8:34).

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

This was not fulfilled in the transfiguration

I have no idea how someone could make that mental leap.

No, the kingdom was coming with power, and some of the people there would see it before they died.

Shortly before his death, the Savior promised his disciples, “. . . ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom . . .” (Lk. 22:30). The Lord’s table was placed within the kingdom.

Do we have any instance in which someone ate at the Lord's table? When Paul wrote to “the church . . . at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), he rebuked them for their perversion in partaking of the “table of the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:21); it thus is evident that the Corinthian Christians were in the kingdom.

When Paul wrote to the Colossians, he affirmed that God “delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love . . .” (1:13). The term “translated” (methistemi) means to “remove from one place to another”. The tense of the verb reveals that their entrance into the kingdom had already occurred at some point in the past.

How could they have been translated into a non-existent kingdom? Now, if this verse does not fit your view, what is the remedy? Do you twist this verse to fit your view or do you use this verse to mold your view?

John stated in the book of Revelation that Christ had loosed them from their sins by his blood and made them “to be a kingdom” (1:6). Further, he was a with them in that kingdom (1:9).
How could such have been, if the kingdom had been postponed? There were other points about this section of scripture made in a prior post that you ignored.

 

Well it is just as I had expected and just as I stated. Your mind is made up and closed to anything other than what you believe.

So there is no need in going any further with you, because you obviously do not have a desire to enter into a discussion, but just want to rattle on about your view of Scripture.

The Bible clearly teaches that there were three, which equals some, that saw Christ coming in His glory. Now if you don't want to accept that so be it, but I will not waste any more time going into any more detail, because if you can't even take one step there is not need in going any further.

 

I don't blame you for not addressing the passages.

I have provided passages yet you have provided nothing. You igore the passages that I present and you call me closed minded?

Please don't waste your time on me, I'm not worth it.

For the record, there's nothing in Mark 9:1 that says anything about Jesus coming in His glory.

It states that they would see the kingdom come with power!

There is nothing in either text to suggest that they are connected in any way, especially that one is a fulfillment of the other!

There is no way that you could make that connection on your own. Someone with a wild immagination dreamed it up to explain away Mark 9:1.

Now, here's a question for you. Why would anyone want to explain away Mark 9:1? Hint: It doesn't fit what they believe, and neither do the other passages I presented earlier.

 

The kingdom passage that you presented was addressed, but you don't want to see it any other way than the way you see it right now. It doesn't matter if it was me or someone else, it would be the same thing.

You see things the way you see things and that is that.

I didn't explain away Mark 9:1. The statement that was made in that passage that some would not die until they saw the kingdom coming in power and it was fulfilled at the transfiguration. The fact that you don't see this or agree with it doesn't make it untrue.

There is no need to explain away the Bible. There is no need to shy away from what others have determined to be difficult passages if you understand what the "whole" message of Scripture is about.

Now it doesn't matter what passages you bring up regarding the kingdom, because the simple fact of the matter is Christ is not ruling in His kingdom because His bride is not complete yet and the wedding feast has not taken place yet. That's why your other passages weren't addressed. There is no need to address them.

Christ can not rule apart from a bride. That's the way God established the rule of this earth when man was put on the planet. Adam and Eve were to rule the earth (in the stead of Satan) as a team. They fell and never realized their purpose.

Christ is the second Adam and the anti-type of Adam, which means He must have a wife. That hasn't taken place yet, so therefore there is no kingdom in place right now with Christ as the ruler.

So if you want to understand the kingdom correctly it again doesn't matter what passages you bring up. If you want to continue a discussion you must address how Christ can rule apart from His bride.

 

Christ is already ruling over the church (Col 1:18, Eph 1:22-23). Also Eph 5:23-24 "...even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ,...". Therefore Christ is ruling over the church. All authority has been given to Christ in Heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18).

If all authority has already been given to Him, what else is left?

Let's look at Eph a little closer.
Eph 1:20-23 "that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all."

Christ is already seated and RULING with AUTHORITY, POWER AND DOMINION.

Where is he sitting? In heavenly places.
Where are all spiritual blessing that we now have? In heavenly places (vs 3).

Christ is not seperated from His church. Christ's church is his kingdom. Don't fall into the same trap as the Jews who thought Jesus kingdom was of this world. No, Jesus kingdom is not of this world, but is a spiritual kingdom and He is already ruling, since God has already put all things under His feet!

 

Now we are finally getting somewhere. The kingdom view that you have developed or been taught is so far from what Scripture presents that there is no way that I can share enough with you on a message board.

If you are truly serious about wanting to learn and would like to take this discussion off the message board feel free to email me and we can correspond via email.

I absolutely agree that Christ is the head of the church, but you are equating the kingdom with the church and that is an equation that the Bible doesn't make. That is a man-made line that is being drawn between an apple and an orange. The verses that you have put forth from Ephesians have absolutely nothing to do with the kingdom. The word kingdom isn't even used or alluded to in anyway in what you have posted.

Email me if you would like to discuss the kingdom further.

 

You need to work on your tenses. All the verses that you have cited as having already occurred, the words are in the aorist, which indicates punctiliar action, not past action.

Now, it's true that much of the time, it is referring to something in the past. But, the KJV translators almost always (maybe always; I have no way to check) translated them as past tense, and that just doesn't convey the proper action.

As far as Mark 9:1 goes, look at what 8:38 is talking about: The second coming. Compare that to Matthew's account and Luke's, and unless you think the Second Coming has already happened, then the conclusion presented by JJump is the only one that you can come to in this passage.

See, I am open to challenging my preconceived views of Scripture. In fact, one thing I try to do is prove something that I hold to to be false. That way, I know when I have ahold of false doctrine. For example, my entire life I have held "saints" and "saved" to be synonymous. I now realize that's simply not true according to Scripture. The saints are part of the called-out group; they're elect. Not everyone who is saved is elect or called out.