2 Kingdoms

[RAdam]

At the time he said this, they both were! But the Jews rejected him as king, and so the kingdom of heaven failed to come at that time. The kingdom of God is now (it is within us), but the kingdom of heaven is delayed. It will come in the future, and the two will merge.

Isaiah 42 says "He shall not fail nor be discouraged." It's ridiculous to say that Jesus failed to do something He set out to do. He set up the Kingdom He intended to set up, the only Kingdom He was ever prophesied to set up, the Kingdom of God/Heaven.

 

[RAdam]

They both were at hand at that time.

I have no doubt that had all Israel accepted Jesus as He came, then the physical kingdom of heaven would have come to earth (Mt 6:10) along with the spiritual kingdom of God.
But as things now stand we are certainly in the spiritual kingdom of God with the future physical kingdom of heaven yet fulfilled.

Just as the article I C&P'ed, the kingdom of God is spiritual because God is spirit.
But the kingdom of heaven is physical because heaven and earth were created by God. However, as yet, heaven has not come down to earth to establish a time when the lion will lay with the lamb, when swords will be beaten into plow-shears, or when the child will play with the asp.

But praise God it's coming and we, the body of Christ, will rule and reign with Christ over this glorious kingdom.

God never intended to set up a physical Kingdom. This was an error the Jews held, and one that Jesus consistently taught against. "My Kingdom (singular) is not of this world." This was in response to Pilate's question if Jesus was king of the Jews, which He did not deny. "The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation (outward show). Neither shall they say lo here, or lo there, for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you." This was in response to the Pharisees demanding when, get this, the Kingdom of God should come. They did not ask when the Kingdom of Heaven should come, or when one of God's kingdoms would come, they asked when the (singular) Kingdom of God should come. No doubt they had been reading Daniel's prophecies of the kingdom God would set up in the days of these kings, or kingdom, the fourth of which was then present, the Roman Empire.

The 1st Century Jew had the idea that Messiah was going to come, set up a wordly kingdom, liberate them from the Romans, rule from the wordly Jerusalem, and make them a sovereign nation again. They were wrong and Jesus told them repeatedly they were wrong. When the people came to make Him a king in John 6, not doubt with this erroneous wordly kingdom idea in mind, He left. When He taught about His kingdom He always taught it is a spiritual kingdom. God is never, ever going to set up a physical kingdom on this earth, that was never His plan and it is not now a part of His plans. His spiritual kingdom is now here with Him reigning in the hearts of His people, and when He destroys the earth and makes the new heavens and earth, and New Jerusalem comes down out of Heaven from God to this new earth, then the ultimate fullfillment of this kingdom will take place. Every single thing that offends will have been cast out, all other kingdoms will have been destroyed, and the Kingdom of God/Heaven will be the only kingdom in existence.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

Your are missing the point. It doesn't matter what the Greek word is, what we are saying is in these examples that Jesus said a word. That same word was translated using two different words between the Gospel authors. It doesn't change the fact that Jesus spoke only the one word.

We'll part company here. It DOES matter what the Greek word was/is. Because Jesus didn't speak just one word, he spoke two concerning kingdoms.

 

[RAdam]

I have yet to see an answer to this question: What did Paul mean by the "kingdom of His Dear Son?" If we are to put a difference between kingdoms because of a difference in terminology, then is this yet another kingdom?

 

[webdog]

We'll part company here. It DOES matter what the Greek word was/is. Because Jesus didn't speak just one word, he spoke two concerning kingdoms.

How do you know that? If I tell my wife and son I'm going grocery shopping, and my son says I went to Giant Eagle while my wife says I went shopping, without actually witnessing my words, how can you prove or disprove what I said based on what is stated second hand?

 

[AnotherBaptist]

How do you know that? If I tell my wife and son I'm going grocery shopping, and my son says I went to Giant Eagle while my wife says I went shopping, without actually witnessing my words, how can you prove or disprove what I said based on what is stated second hand?

This just turns the problem back on it's head. Matthew's account was firsthand. Mark's was actually Peter's and Luke's was by his own admission secondhand. And John's focus was clearly different than the other three. What could I argue from these facts? The same God Inspired all their Words. That's what we have to rely on. All the major literal translations (KJV, ASV, NAS, NKJV) translate both words the same. So this isn't even about competing scribes.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

I have yet to see an answer to this question: What did Paul mean by the "kingdom of His Dear Son?" If we are to put a difference between kingdoms because of a difference in terminology, then is this yet another kingdom?

I'll put you out of your misery. It was the kingdom of God, not of heaven.

 

[Amy.G]

I'll put you out of your misery. It was the kingdom of God, not of heaven.

How do you know?

 

[webdog]

This just turns the problem back on it's head. Matthew's account was firsthand. Mark's was actually Peter's and Luke's was by his own admission secondhand. And John's focus was clearly different than the other three. What could I argue from these facts? The same God Inspired all their Words. That's what we have to rely on. All the major literal translations (KJV, ASV, NAS, NKJV) translate both words the same. So this isn't even about competing scribes.

Many scholars agree that Mark was the first book written, and Matthew and Luke utilized Mark's account as a source in writing theirs. If this is indeed the case, Peter was also an eye witness and his account was firsthand.
At any rate, we cannot state that since there are perceived discrepancies in the accounts (they are present in all four gospels), that God had different meanings of said discrepancies. If anything it further supports the authenticity of the accounts as they were not cookie cutter, but still Holy Spirit inspired nonetheless.

 

[MovieProducer]

And the Holy Ghost took the trouble to specify different words. "God," and "heaven." Sure, we can just blow this off as an accidental meaningless difference, but I suggest it bears close study in case it was not a meaningless choice of words.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

How do you know?

Must I do everything for you? :tongue3:

John 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto 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, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into 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 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. 8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things?

Only those who are born again get to enter the kingdom of God. Just being born physically can get you into the kingdom of heaven. The "sons of the kingdom" in that verse I posted before were sons (born of) of the kingdom of heaven (that's why it's there in context), but not of the kingdom of God. That's why they end up in the outer darkness. They weren't born again. The only two times John uses the "kingdom" of anything, it's in the verses above. That's it. There's nothing here, or in Mark or Luke, which causes a problem with Matthew's Gospel.

 

[webdog]

And the Holy Ghost took the trouble to specify different words. "God," and "heaven." Sure, we can just blow this off as an accidental meaningless difference, but I suggest it bears close study in case it was not a meaningless choice of words.

Is it your contention the Holy Spirit also took the trouble to specify the other perceived "discrepancies" in the Gospels as well? Here is one of many...

Matthew 8:5-12 The centurion himself approaches Jesus to ask to heal his servant.
Luke 7:2-10 The centurion sends elders to do the asking.

Here is another...

Matthew 20:29 Jesus healed two blind men
Mark 10:46, Luke 18:35 Jesus healed one blind man.

 

[The Archangel]

Wow...in complete agreement with both oldregular and the archangel

STOP THE PRESSES! Say "it can't be so!"

Well, after soooooo many disagreements, I'm glad we can agree on this!

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Amy.G]

Must I do everything for you? :tongue3:

Yes. :laugh:

Just being born physically can get you into the kingdom of heaven.

Let's start with this. Please explain.

 

[MovieProducer]

Is it your contention the Holy Spirit also took the trouble to specify the other perceived "discrepancies" in the Gospels as well? Here is one of many...

Matthew 8:5-12 The centurion himself approaches Jesus to ask to heal his servant.
Luke 7:2-10 The centurion sends elders to do the asking.

Here is another...

Matthew 20:29 Jesus healed two blind men
Mark 10:46, Luke 18:35 Jesus healed one blind man.

Yes. I think those discrepancies are, as you say, "perceived" but not actual. There are many apparent contradictions or discrepancies, and I think they are all resolved with study. I have resolved some this way, although there are still many I haven't!

 

[webdog]

Yes. I think those discrepancies are, as you say, "perceived" but not actual. There are many apparent contradictions or discrepancies, and I think they are all resolved with study. I have resolved some this way, although there are still many I haven't!

...then you agree it is plausible that Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven can be such a perceived contradiction, and they do not necessarily mean 2 different things?

 

[AnotherBaptist]

Yes. :laugh:


Let's start with this. Please explain.

Matthew 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering {fish} of every kind; 48 and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good {fish} into containers, but the bad they threw away. 49 "So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, 50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Fish. Just good or are there both good and bad? Fish of just one kind or all different kinds?

 

[MovieProducer]

...then you agree it is plausible that Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven can be such a perceived contradiction, and they do not necessarily mean 2 different things?

Not at all. The contradictions arise only if "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" mean the same thing, e.g., our salvation would be secured by good works, as mentioned previously in the thread. The issues are resolved by recognizing that there is an intentional difference in meaning.

 

[webdog]

Not at all. The contradictions arise only if "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" mean the same thing, e.g., our salvation would be secured by good works, as mentioned previously in the thread. The issues are resolved by recognizing that there is an intentional difference in meaning.

Now you've lost me
You believe our salvation is secured by good works?

 

[RAdam]

Not at all. The contradictions arise only if "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" mean the same thing, e.g., our salvation would be secured by good works, as mentioned previously in the thread. The issues are resolved by recognizing that there is an intentional difference in meaning.

Ah, so now we get down to the heart of the problem. It isn't that the scripture uses two different phrases to describe the kingdom, oh no. It's that some are unable to understand what Jesus taught. In your misunderstanding you create a separate kingdom to settle it all. It's mishandling of scripture at its worst.