Three Kingdom's of God (Eschatology)

[Ed Edwards]

GE: // The two 'uncertainties', are:
1) Your numbers 2 and 3 above: are they in time consecutive, or do they span the same time-period? //

They are time consecutive: #2 happens from beginning to end (the church age: from the day of Pentacost AD 33 to the pretribulation rapture of the church age folk) before the Millennial Messanaic Kingdom (starts 7-years after pretrib rapture until [ about ] 1,007 years [ or more ]

GE: // Which brings into play the next,

2) What about your teaching of a - as I understand you - physical, 'rapture' --- like the Seventh Day Adventists, who say all the saved ones will "go to heaven" - physically taken off the earth to 'heaven' - where they will be for a thousand literal, earthly, year-cycles? //

I'm not 7th Day Adventist. I have read some of their writings. After the pretribulation rapture, the Saints go to heaven (for their rewards ceremony 'judgement') while the Tribulation period takes place (two major Judgements) on earth.

These two ages bracket the Tribulation (#2) being before the Tribulation Judgement Period and (#3)after the Trib (#3):

Ed: // 2) Church Age Dispensation mostly gentile Elect Saints (AKA: Time of the Gentiles, Age of Grace)
----- Saved by Jesus, those who believe Messiah Jesus has come
// 3) Millennial Messianic Kingdom Age Dispensation
---- Saved by Jesus, after making Jesus, the Messiah, their Lord //

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mat 11:11-12 (KJV1611 Edition):
Uerely I say vnto you, Among them that are borne of women, there hath not risen a greater then Iohn the Baptist: notwithstanding, hee that is least in the kingdome of heauen, is greater then he.
12 And from the dayes of Iohn the Baptist, vntill now, the kingdome of heauen suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

The Kingdom of Heaven existed in the days of John the Baptist & in the time of Christ. DOes the Kingdom of Heaven still exist? When did it start? When does it end? (I think the Kingdom of Heaven is endless)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

As I thought; your and my views are an infinity apart.

Therefore, something totally different:

"hee that is least in the kingdome of heauen, is greater then he (John the baptist)."

He that is least, is Jesus Christ. He is greater than any in the Kingdom of Heaven; He is King of the Kingdom of heaven. That Kingdom is His since He became Lord and King of it; which was when God raised Him in the Glory of the Father, in fact, exalted Him to his Own Right Hand in Heavenly Exaltation when He brought Him again from the grave.

His Kingdom is the First Resurrection Thousand years. His Kingdom is without beginning and without end. Today if you hear His Voice, do not harden your heart!

 

[OldRegular]

The question which cannot be answsered is posted another Topic.
Here is the answer, will it be mocked here?

// Can someone or anyone show one passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ definitively offered an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews? //


Matthew 19:28 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible, Holman, 2003):
Jesus said to them, "I assure you: In the Messianic Age, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

'sits on His Glorious throne' - He who sits on the Throne rules the Kingdom
'the 12 tribes of Israel' - the citizens of the Kingdom
'In the Messianic Age' - humm, must be some kind of Messanic Kingdom
'the Jews' are one of 'the 12 Tribes of Israel'

While the throne that Jesus sits on exists in Heaven, there is no Biblical mention of the 12 disciples sitting on thrones in Heaven - maybe those thrones from which the 12 Disciples sit in judgement are on the Earth? (this probably can be shown elsewhere in the Bible, but it looks pretty clear here). Another proof: the earth has 'ages', Heaven does not have ages


If one wants the physical Earth boundaries of the Millennial Messianic Kingdom check Ezekiel 48.

Ed

The question was:

Can someone or anyone show one passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ definitively offered an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews?

You are misrepresenting the thread I started . The question was specifically referring to the incarnation, the first coming of Jesus Christ, and you know that it was. The question was posed because dispensationalists insist that Jesus Christ came the first time to offer an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews, which was rejected so He established the Church instead.

It has not been answered yet, and it cannot be answered because Jesus Christ came to establish the Church, not to overthrow the Roman yoke and establish a carnal Jewish Kingdom.

Your quote from Matthew certainly does not answer the question since it is speaking about some time in the future. It is interesting that you chose the Holman [Is it dispensational?] translation of the Bible to find your quote. The KJV version is

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The word regeneration translates the Greek word paliggenesia which according to Strongs [#3824] means

"1) new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration
1a) hence renovation, regeneration, the production of a new life consecrated to God, a radical change of mind for the better. The word often used to denote the restoration of a thing to its pristine state, its renovation, as a renewal or restoration of life after death
1b) the renovation of the earth after the deluge
1c) the renewal of the world to take place after its destruction by fire, as the Stoics taught
1d) the signal and glorious change of all things (in heaven and earth) for the better, that restoration of the primal and perfect condition of things which existed before the fall of our first parents, which the Jews looked for in connection with the advent of the Messiah, and which Christians expected in connection with the visible return of Jesus from heaven.
1e) other uses
1e1) of Cicero's restoration to rank and fortune on his recall from exile
1e2) of the restoration of the Jewish nation after exile
1e3) of the recovery of knowledge by recollection"

No Messianic Kingdom here. The Holman translation does an injustice to Southern Baptists.

 

[Ed Edwards]

OldRegular: // You are misrepresenting the thread I started . The question was specifically referring to the incarnation, the first coming of Jesus Christ, and you know that it was. The question was posed because dispensationalists insist that Jesus Christ came the first time to offer an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews, which was rejected so He established the Church instead. //

Unfortunately, you are insisting I buy your presuppositions, which you haven't stated and which you may not even know.

Here are my presuppositions (it leads to my Eschatology: the three Kingdoms of God):

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism
(this are the ones I believe):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

These are called the fundamentals of fundamentalism.
I consider them axiomatic (assumptions, presuppositions)
from which I can show logically that there are three each 'Kingdom of God'.
(obviously with a bit of help from Scripture.)

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed

The question was:

Can someone or anyone show one passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ definitively offered an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews?
...
It has not been answered yet, and it cannot be answered because Jesus Christ came to establish the Church, not to overthrow the Roman yoke and establish a carnal Jewish Kingdom.

Amen, Brother OldRegular. I sure wasn't trying to deny this you said. I am here trying to show that there are three Kingdoms of God - that is all. On BB I have frequently showed how my dispensation theory is different from the dispensation theory of others. I got it from the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit applying a little of Man's Logic (the Mathematical Logic) which is only a small part of God's Logic (which is way beyond Man's logic).

However, I don't agree with you what 'Messianic Kingdom' means.
The Millennial Messianic Kingdom is a temporal physical Kingdom ruled over by a physical Messiah Jesus, ruling on a physical throne of David in a physical Jerusalem.

The Kingdom of God Jesus rules over today is within the saved folks.
The Kingdom of God Jesus rules over today is a temporal physical Kingdom ruled over by a spiritual Messiah Jesus, ruling on a spiritual throne of David in a spiritual Jerusalem. So the Kingdom that God rules over today is NOT the Millennial Messianic Kingdom.

On that I'll disagree with you. And as I said, the Fundamentals of Christianity are the presuppositions that I have. We all have some kind of Presuppositions. Read my trailer, it shows what I can PROVE from the suppositions about reading Versions of Bibles :godisgood:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

OldRegular:
"Can someone or anyone show one passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ definitively offered an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews?"

GE:
O.R., I have come to New, Irregular conclusions regarding the Messianic Kingdom the past few day --- through this very discussion forum, BabtistBoard!

I'll cite my conclusions here, too, if you would not mind,
"
ES:
“In another place, it mentions Jesus speaking of one who would dip his hand in the dish, along with the Lord Jesus.”
GE:
John 13:17, Jesus gave to Judas to show what He insinuated; it doesn’t even mention this expression.
Mk14:20, read verse 19 first, then, “And He answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish. .... Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!”
Now there is no doubt bread was eaten only once during the Lord’s Supper of the Last Meal. (One may plainly call it the last passover meal, not meaning it was the Passover’s Meal of sacrifice, because it was the meal of the last passover Feast season that Jesus would eat.) Now there is no doubt bread was eaten only once during the Lord’s Supper of the Last Meal, just like the cup was drunk only once in Holy Communion. I think it is to the dishonour of the Lord’s Supper if the cup was used again. (Some people insist the cup went round as many as four times --- and then I have noticed they deny the Passover’s Seder used unfermented wine!)
However, if you are right in assuming both verses 18 and 20 should be taken literally as if the disciples and Jesus actually ate, then food was taken twice— which I also think would dishonour the Lord’s Supper. Besides looking like the gluttony Paul wrote against, it implies Christ’s dying once was not enough; as if He had to die again.
But Luke says, “the hand of him who betrayeth me is with me on the table”. Selfsame thing; literalness is out of the question.
Then Luke also says Jesus “took the bread, broke it, and gave unto them. .... (Mt) And He took the cup .... and gave thanks .... and gave to them .... But I say unto you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until ....”.
The idea, “henceforth / no more” in “I say unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine”, does not imply Jesus this time did drink, but won’t again drink until .... It actually is an emphatic assurance He would this time not at all eat (anything)!
Idiomatically, figuratively and literally, Jesus said,
“I with desire (acutely / greatly) desired this passover to eat with you before my suffering, but I tell you that no-more-by-any-means (‘ouketi ou meh’, definitely not) do I eat it” (‘fagoh auto’)— literally. There’s no, ‘Will I not eat’, Future; but, actually, and presently at table, “Do I not eat, until it (‘it’, ‘This Passover’) is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”. “.... it is fulfilled” (plehrohthehi)— Aorist Subjunctive: “.... until I would have had fulfilled it (auto)”.
This has been telling us , when, Jesus would actually eat and drink the Passover of Yahweh.
And this has also been the Lord telling us, where, He actually – retrospectively speaking – did eat or had had eaten and had had drunk, the Passover of Yahwhe. Where then? “.... fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”.
Is that too difficult to understand, that the ‘Kingdom of God’ Jesus here spoke of, would be, and in fact had been, the very Glory of God beginning and being fulfilled in Christ in His suffering, death and resurrection from the dead? Not if the Word is heard from texts like, “Truly the Son of Man goeth (forth into His Glory).” “Son of Man” is Title of Honour and Glory. “Goeth forth” is triumphal procession of Victor Lord and King of the Kingdom of God. See how the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship (verse 23-25). “But ye shall not be so (nor shall the Kingdom of God): But He, that is Greatest among you .... He, that is Chief, (is) as He that doth serve. .... I AM – among you – (is) as He, that serveth!” Yahweh, serving Lord.
Christ in entering into His Suffering, is as He that Serveth that enters in into His Kingdom of Glory. Who ate the Lord’s Supper, he who sitteth at meat (the disciples who ate), or He that serveth”: Christ who in His Kingdom, the Kingdom of God: “I AM among you as He that serveth”-KING?
Ed Sutton, I could not say these thing before I found out about why Exodus dates both Passover’s Sacrifice and Passover’s Meal on Nisan 14! And why ever since the first passover, the meal of the passover, would always be observed on Nisan 15, as reached it out towards the Passover Lamb of God and us before. “Until He in having come into His Kingdom would have observed Passover, Sacrifice and, Meal, on Nisan 14.
Christentum dass nicht ganz und gar Eschatologie ist, hat mit Christus Jesus ganz und gar und Restlos, nichts zu tun! (Karl Barth)"

The beginning and the entering into the Kindgdom of God by the King and Lord of that Kingdom to me it seems, happened where and when no one would have expected it. Not even for Christ, was the Kingdom of heaven some far away heavenly state of bliss in heaven or on earth; rather the very antagonist of it.

 

[Ed Edwards]

RegularBaptist at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1331338#post1331338

sez: // You are hiding behind the flawed dispensational doctrine of Darby and Scofield! //

Tee Hee. I have my own dispensational doctrine. But I'll share with you the 'dispensational doctrine of Darby':

Comments of Darby in his Bible Commentary, found at:

http://e-Sword.com/

search for dispensational

found five places:

Gen 12;1-20
Mat 3:1-17
Mat 19:1-30
John 8:1-59
Rev 21:1-27

comments follow in another post ...

 

[Ed Edwards]

I have my own dispensational doctrine. But I'll share with you the 'dispensational doctrine of Darby':

Comments of Darby in his Bible Commentary, found at:

http://e-Sword.com/

search for dispensational

found five places:

1. Gen 12;1-20

Before the deluge, it was man such as he was — fallen before God; and though there was a testimony from the beginning, still no dispensational intervention of God in His own ways, but man, with that testimony as to divine institutions [1], left to himself, resulting in such violence and corruption as brought on the deluge in judgment on the world. Afterwards, God having interposed in judgment and begun the world that now is, there was the government of that world and its failure and the consequences of this failure;


2. Mat 3:1-17

In the second place the kingdom of heaven [6] was at hand — that new dispensation which was to take the place of the one which, properly speaking, belonged to Sinai, where the Lord had spoken on the earth. In this new dispensation "the heavens should reign." They should be the source of, and characterise, God's authority in His Christ. Thirdly, the people, instead of being blessed in their present condition, were called to repentance in view of the approach of this kingdom.


3. Mat 19:1-30

But the state of man's heart is searched out. This does not depend on character but motive, and is fully tested by Christ (there is an entire dispensational change, for riches were promised to a faithful Jew), and a rejected Christ — the path to heaven — everything, and the test of everything, that is of the heart of man. God made man upright with certain family relationships. Sin has wholly corrupted this old or first creation of man. The coming of the Holy Ghost has brought in a power which lifts, in the second Man, out of the old creation into the new, and gives us heavenly things — only not yet as to the vessel, the body; but it cannot disown or condemn what God created in the beginning.


4. John 8:1-59

For in this Gospel we have what Christ is essentially in His Person, whether as God, the Son come from the Father, or Son of man — not what God was in special dealings with the Jews. Hence He was the object of faith in His Person, not in dispensational dealings. Whoso followed Him should have the light of life. But it was in Him, in His Person, that it was found. And He could bear record of Himself, because, although He was a man there, in this world, He knew whence He came and whither He was going. It was the Son, who came from the Father and was returning to Him again.



5. Rev 21:1-27

Note here, we have not the Father as the temple. It is the revealed dispensational Ruler, the true God and the Lamb who has made good His glory. This was the character of the city.

Personally I don't see much of my view of dispensationalism in Darby's view. I have an advantage over Darby - nuclear weapons. Since 1964 the world order ('New World Order' to some) has had the power to do everything bad in the book of Revelation. The one thing that is implied in Revelation that the NWO cannot do is THE RAPTURE2 (a resurrection1 followed by a rapture1).

In fact, the NWO has the power to destroy all life on earth -- maybe The Lord will touch the earth and save mankind from himself.
'dispensation' appears in Darby's commentary 43 times. I'll spare the details. Darby is no longer a player in dispensational theology.

BTW, I try to avoid the following discussions:

0. Catholic Theology
1. First Reform Theology (the reformation) - Calvinism
2. Second Reform Theology (Reformed Theology) - Presbertiasn

I'm into Third Reform Theology - also known as (AKA): Baptist Theology

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Ed,

There is only ONE kingdom according in the Bible, not three kingdoms.

In John 3:3 and 5 tell us that Christ says we must be born again or cannot into the kingdom of God. That means, if we refuse repent of our sins, then cannot have eternal life-salvation.

God only offer ONE salvation- Jesus Christ, no other else.

Also, both 'kingdom of God' & 'kingdom of heaven' are same meaning.

Suppose, you believe there are three kingdoms, then that means three heavens according as what Mormons teaching. Are you Mormon? Huh?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Ed,

You should be aware that 'dispensation' is not in Greek. In Greek for 'dispensation' should be 'stewardship' - Greek #3622. 'Dispensation' used in English word of KJV.

Dispensation have three different meanings. Dispensation means steward, adminstration, and economy. It never meaning of "different ages". 'Dispensation' find in Bible only 4 times - 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2; and Col. 1:25.

Many pretribs and premills who teaching dispensationalism doctrine. Many are misunderstanding what 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2; and Col. 1:25 are talking about. Also, they misinterpreting them on 'dispensation' with 4 verses, also throughout all scriptures about God's plan.

Let's focus on 4 verses of 'dispensation;, what these verses actual talking about. More importantly, we should not depend on one word only, also we need to understand the structural of grammar base upon verse what it is talking about. Even, not only focus on one verse, also, read through the context of the passage to undertsand whole what it is all about.

let's look at 4 verses of 'dispensation':

1. 1 Corinthians 9:17 -"For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me."

Does this verse say that God gives a different plan to Paul? This verse is not suggest speak of different salvation. Rather, this verse talking about God's command has given the task to Paul to do his duty to fulfill God's command.

The only way that we can understand 1 Cor. 9:17 better, to read the context throughout chapter 9 what it is all talk about.

Paul's point was, God's Will that He called Paul go and preach gospel to Gentiles that they may be saved. That was not Paul's idea, that was from God's command or order. Paul have to take God's task and DO God's task in his duty. It speaks of Paul's job.

2. Ephesians 1:10 "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him."

Does, 'the dispensation of the fulness of times' suggest that it speaking of different times of different plans?

No. This verse is clearly talking about administration. It speaks of Christ's power. Christ controls everything both in heaven and earth in his authority, because Christ is our King.

This verse have do nothing with premillennialism doctrine. It deals about Christ's authority.

Also, Paul's point was, Christ have the authority to order Pal to do the duty to obey Christ's command of His will.

3. Ephesians 3:2 "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:"

This verse doesn't suggest the the grace of God was brought down to Paul as called, "Pauline Epistles" as it is different teaching or applicatiion as it distinction from the four gospels(Matthew-John). But, it rathers talking about the DUTY of task which was given to Paul from God by through His Will.

Notice Eph. 3:7 says, "Whereof I was made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God GIVEN unto me by the effectual working of his power." Paul's point was, he was called by God to be a servant, to obey His call, as Paul took responsible to do task or duty to fulfill God's call.

This verse have do nothing with different plans of different salvations or different ages of different salvations. Rather, this verse talking about God called Paul to do the duty to spreading the gospel to Gentiles to become saved.

4. Colossians 1:25 "Whereof I am MADE a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is GIVEN TO me for you, to fulfil the word of God."

This verse tells us, that Paul was called to become minister(servant) of God by given the duty of task to Paul from God, to obey God's Will.

This has do nothing with different times of different plans of salvations. Rather, this verse talks about Paul was called by God, to become servant, to do the task as duty to fulfill God's Will.

Also, I would like to say something on Col. 1:26.

I am sure that many disps use Col.1:26 to prove that it is support of dispensationalism doctrine.

Col. 1:26 says, "Even the 'mystery' which hath been 'HID' from ages and from generations, but 'NOW' is made manifest to his saints."

Disps would saying of Col. 1:26: "This verse prove that the gospel was not yet declare to the world in the Old Testament period, so, the grace of salvation was not yet come upon the saints in the O.T. period. Therefore, this verse tells us, God have different or new plan for the N.T. saints that O.T. saints doesn't have it."

I want to explain what Col. 1:26 talking about. 'Mystery' which speak of Calvary and the covenant, that these were mystery to the saints during O.T. period. During O.T. period, saints probably were not understanding God's plan of salvation. Because the prophets told Jews to use high priests to do sacrifices and offerings to forgive people's sins through the blood often and often times. They have no idea why they have to use high priests to do make sacrifices and offerings to atonement their sins. These sacrifices and offerings were 'shadow of things' which speak of Jesus Christ on cross - Heb. 10:1.

'Mystery' of Col. 1:26 seems suggest of different salvation for O.T. saints as different as we as N.T. saints have. But, it speaks of God's plan during O.T. period that saints were not understand. When Christ came to earth and made sacrifice on the cross. NOW the mystery of gospel is make revealed or shown(manifest) to us both Jews and Gentiles over the world that we understand the GOSPEL of salvation.

I better stop this post. It already long. I better another post. To be continued.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[DeafPosttrib]

To be continued.

Col. 1:26 doesn't suggest that, there is a different plan of salvation between O.T. saints and N.T. saints. But rather it speaks of progessive revelation throughout times to make us(saints) understand of God's Plan of salvation - JESUS CHRIST.

Bible is all about Jesus Christ - one same plan of salvation.

Bible doesn't teaching us that there are seven ages of dispensation time.

Bible teaching us that there is the only one plan of same salvation throughout all ages by only the FAITH on Jesus Christ. All O.T. saints were saved by through their faith on Jesus Christ. same as we are saved by our faith on jesus Christ. No difference. Also, Bible teaching us, there are only two classes or groups of the world- believers and unbelievers, that's plain. Bible teaches us, God only have ONE family, either Jew or Gentile whosoever have faith on Jesus Christ only. They are the same boat. No difference.

And lastly,

Nowhere in the New Testament suggest a verse say that Christ did offer an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews only.

Matt. 21:43- Christ told Jews that, the kingdom of God shall taken away from them, and given it to a nation bringing forth the fruits. 'Nation' speaks of Gentiles.

This vers eis clearly support Romans 11:24-25 citied that unbelieving Jews were cut off from the Olive Tree, God grafted wild branches(Gentiles) into Olive Tree, and join with believing Jews, they become into ONE tree together. Therefore, Gentiles are now part of commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:12) and 2 Peter 2:9 -'an holy nation'.


***be careful***, Christ doesn't saying "nation" of Matthew 21:43 which speak of future physical or [/B]earthly[/B] nation. Rather, He spoken of spiritual nation.

Conclusion:

Word- 'dispensation' find 4 times in the New Testament is not in Greek translation. It is in Greel word means 'steward'. I wish English Bible should better saying of:

1 Cor. 9:17 "For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a task of the gospel of the gospel is committed unto me."

Ephesians 1:10 "That in the administration of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:"

Ephesians 3:2 "If ye have heard of the calling of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward."

Colossians 1:25 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the calling of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God."

So, these would make easier for us to understand what Paul was talking about. Being avoid misunderstanding on English Bible as KJV.

I do support KJV 100%, but I am not "KJV Onlyism". Rather I depend on Greek, because 1611 A.V. was translated come from Greek. We have to be careful, do not always depend on English version all times, unless we have to looking on Greek words first before English versions for the true correct words with definition.

These 4 verses have do NOTHING with dispensationalism doctrine, you should be aware of. These are talking about God's calling upon Paul to DO the task to fulfill God's Will.

Understand clear?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Havensdad]

Ed,

I think I agree with you regarding the existence of a millennial reign, of Christ's rule now, and Christ's rule for eternity. But I disagree that Jesus actually referred to them as three "different" kingdoms. Jesus always referred to the kingdom of God in a singular, specific manner, i.e "THE Kingdom of God" NOT "A kingdom of God".

I also disagree with most dispensationalists, regarding the parameters of the millennial reign. We as the Church, are not a separate entity. We are "grafted into" Israel, "Seed of Abraham" and "children of the promise". Everything inherited by ethnic Israel (those who are of "True Israel") will also be inherited by us, with no distinction.

Where people go wrong is trying to "Replace" Israel with the Church (Covenant theology), or to "Distinguish" them as two completely separate bodies (dispensational theology). Neither is true. Rather, God has, and has always had, ONE ever increasing and expanding people, which is called BOTH "Israel" and the "ekklesia"(Church), but which is the same exact thing, and always has been.

Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

(Not everyone who is ethnically descended from Israel is of TRUE Israel)


Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."

(Not everyone who is a part of True Israel is actually a blood descendant)

Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

(The boundary of those called "Children of the Promise" {Israel}, is not, and has NEVER been drawn at ethnical or "fleshly" lines; members of Israel are such by faith)

 

[Ed Edwards]

Write an essay on the meaning of 'and' (in English), feel free to use your dictionary (in English) and your Bible.

'And' appears in the KJV1769 Edition, e-sword.com , New Testament some 10,723 times in 5,580 verses.

This comes from various Greek terms:
1. Strong's G2532, 'kai' (9,265 times in 5,218 verses)
2. Strong's G1161, 'deh' (2,841 times in 2,534 verses)

these add up to more 'and's than are in English, for sometimes 'kai' can mean (according to context) 'but', 'with', 'after' and other conjunctions and related word forms.

Frequently in eschatology the specific meaning of "and" changes the Eschatology Doctrine. Yet nobody likes to talk about little old "and".

On this page:

http://www.hoei.com/blog/archives/category/books

it says there are 181,101 words in the KJV New Testament

10,723 divided-by 181,101 times 100 says that
'and' is 6% of the words in the Bible

 

[Havensdad]

Write an essay on the meaning of 'and' (in English), feel free to use your dictionary (in English) and your Bible.

'And' appears in the KJV1769 Edition, e-sword.com , New Testament some 10,723 times in 5,580 verses.

This comes from various Greek terms:
1. Strong's G2532, 'kai' (9,265 times in 5,218 verses)
2. Strong's G1161, 'deh' (2,841 times in 2,534 verses)

these add up to more 'and's than are in English, for sometimes 'kai' can mean (according to context) 'but', 'with', 'after' and other conjunctions and related word forms.

Frequently in eschatology the specific meaning of "and" changes the Eschatology Doctrine. Yet nobody likes to talk about little old "and".

On this page:

http://www.hoei.com/blog/archives/category/books

it says there are 181,101 words in the KJV New Testament

10,723 divided-by 181,101 times 100 says that
'and' is 6% of the words in the Bible

What, exactly is this post in reference to? Can you point to a single verse someone has quoted which has "kai" in it, and demonstrate how that would support a particular eschatological conclusion?

 

[Ed Edwards]

I thought I had clearly delineated my intent in this topic. There are also multiple topics on Eschatology Theology - I'm going to glean questions from other threads and answer them here. I'm going to develop a Systematic Eschatology Theology in this thkread (and it might go into a second and third continualtion thread) starting with the Logical undefined terms (I've already shown the presumptions which with the Logical undefined terms start the line of logic I shall take all the way to a Systematic Eschatology and end with answering the Topic question: delineating the three Kingdoms of God). Do not expect this process to take under two years. 'And' is one of the Logicaly undefined terms. I have at least six essays already written about different verses with 'and' in them and how variant understandings of 'and' (all variants right in the dictionary) lead to variant Eschatology Theology (such as pre-mill pre-trib like me or the main two a-mill posistions /follows/ ).

I've never seen anybody but Herbert Armstrong and the 7th Day Adventists from which he sprang start with Logical Assumptions and Logical Undefined terms to make a Eschatology Theology. And they blew it :laugh:

 

[Ed Edwards]

from:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1331883

TomVols: // I don't see how anyone who has read one verse of Scripture can be dispie or premil. Can't see for the life of me how anyone who interprets the Bible literally/faithfully can hold to these views. All dispies are guilty of eisegesis and assuming facts not in evidence. Their unScriptural presuppositions could fill a hockey arena - twice. //

Thank you for pointing this out. I find the a-mills (both main brands) tend NOT to know that they also use presuppositions which are unScriptural, perform illogic upon them, then call it the CLEAR WORD OF GOD. And then the two groups of a-mills come up with two totally different conclusions.

First of all, I'd like to say I'd rather discuss these matter in this exact spot where we are at::

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=54854&page=4

so I will ...

definition of 'a-millennial' - (literally 'no-millennial reign of Christ') the teaching that there is no physical millennial reign of Christ - this is a Spiritual matter to be Spiritually discerned

A-mill Type #1 - there will be a Physical Second Coming of Messiah Jesus (usually followed by the Physical end of the Universe as we know it)

A-mill Type #2 - The Second Coming of Messiah Jesus is a a Spiritual matter to be Spiritually discerned. Some say that the Second Coming of Messiah Jesus for you happens when you die & Jesus comes to get you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The following discussion takes place on this page:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1331701

Pastor Larry: // The truth is that we, as dispensationalists, accept the whole Bible equally. We believe God meant what he said in the OT as well as the NT. //

Therefore, Dispensationalism doctrine is fallacy and fill of philosophy and men-making doctrine. It have no true foundation base upon God's Word with truth.

Pastor Larry: // This is a major logical and argumentative error that fills the posts of you and yours. You think that if no one here can offer proof that dispensationalism must be false. That is a non sequitur. It may be that no one here is able to offer proof, but that doesn't mean that proof doesn't exist.

So in addition to clear biblica problems, you have logical and argumentative problems. //

Actually I've spent the last 4, maybe 6 years, discussing in multi-topics in multiple Forums of the BB (Baptist Board) and other bbs (bulletin boards) showing proofs of my Eschatology Doctrine {but NOT the dispensational Doctrines others teach - I see no reason to defend them}. This poster is very clever matching this Eschatology against that Eschatology and against the other Eschatology and then saying all are wrong (except his) all are unScriptural (except his). When I say a proof, this poster says 'NO' and thinks that destroys the proofs. In summary, nobody can 'prove' anything to one who won't believe any 'proof' and/or don't know what 'prove' means anyway.

But you Gotta love this poster's tenacity! This poster is as Bulldog on nose of Bull -- ain't gonna let go EVER.

 

[Me4Him]

"Dispensation" is just the means to describe a period of time when things are different than the time before them or after them,

The OT and NT are good examples.

Dispensations can be a large period of time covering thousands of years, or short periods, such as the 40 years in the wilderness.

Dispensation is simply the means to reference a specific period of time.

Yet, when dispensation is mentioned, it's denied as being unscriptural before any period of time referenced is mentioned.

I don't believe they understand the definition of "Dispensation".

Much is made about the church being "graffed in" with the Jews/their Kingdom,

but the Jews will have to be "BORN AGAIN" to get into the "Church kingdom".

Scripture must be viewed/interpreted from "Both sides" to have a complete understanding of it.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Me4Him -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Also much maligned is the term 'rapture'. It also, some want to have D&D (dissing & debate) upon long before they find out what it means.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/, Crosswalk.com Edition)

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Then we who are still alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will always be with the Lord.[/FONT]

So from this scripture I define Rapture2: A prophetic event consisting of a Resurrection1 followed by a Rapture1.

Resurrection1 is a logical ' undefined term' here defined:
Resurrection1 - a raising of the dead up to life

There are two types of Resurrection that I want to talk about (I'm sure the clever can find other types one could make that are different from these)

Resurrection1.1 a raising of the dead up to life in their old body that died
Resurrection 1.2 a raising of the dead up to life in a new Glorified Body which is incorruptible

1 Co 15:51-52 (HCSB):

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Listen! I am telling you a mystery: We will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. 53 Because this corruptible must be clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal must be clothed with immortality.

Rapture1 - like a resurrection1 but with a living person - changed to an incorruptible body

To follow my logic which ends in proving there are three 'Kingdom of God's - you need to agree with me about what my terms are talking about. Just shows again, one cannot logically PROVE anything to a person whose mind is fixed as flint and who is stiffnecked (term used in the KJV1769 family of Bibles 8 times in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament). As always, terms are negotiable, but the results will, of course, vary by the definition. So if one wants to talk about these definitions, this is a good place & time to do it.

In [/FONT]1 Thessalonians 4:17 'rapture2' means whatever 'caught up' means.

When people say 'there is in rapture', they are saying:
1. I don't believe 'caught up' happens as a separate (by time or by type) event
2. I don't believe 'caught up' means what Ed says it means.

When people say 'there is no term 'rapture' in the Bible' they are saying:
1. They are KJVO and the term 'rapture' is NOT in the KJV
2. They are showing their ignorance (not knowing, I'm ignorant of the 7 techniques of better knitting) of the standard Bible for well over 1,000 years, the Latin Vulgate (in the 'vulgar' or common Latin - the business language of the Roman Empire):

1 Thess 4:17 ;(The Latin Vulgate)
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus[/FONT]

'[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]simul[/FONT]' is the Latin word that gives us our English term 'simultaneous' or 'happening at the same time', but usually translated as 'together'
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]'[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]rapiemur'[/FONT] is a form* of the Latin word from we get our English term rapture. But 'caught up' is a good translation into English

* The Latin language is full of suffixes that denote things like number, gender, etc. Typically there is also paired suffixes for verb-object, verb-subject, and other types of agreement. So the dying words of Caesar "Et tu Brutae" the dying Caesar picked the singular, subject 'you' (ET); the main verb form of 'also' (TU) and the proper masculine, object ends of 'Brutus' (BrutAE). Pretty good for a feller full of knife holes, eh :laugh: Hey, I still got a lot of that Latin class that I flunked yea those 50 years ago.