Was the Kingdom of Heaven Really at Hand When Jesus Came

[CJP69]

Well, I suppose it is how you look at it. If just reading the scriptures was enough for everyone to understand them then I am not sure why God established a pastoral office and gave him the instructions to study the scriptures so he will be able to teach others and then instructed his church to be sure to assemble themselves regularly for the instructions, among other benefits. Let them read them if that is all it takes. The eunuch in Acts 8 was reading Isaiah 53, a chapter that seems simple to understand to us today, yet when Phillip asked him if he understood it his response was to ask Phillip how he could understand unless someone guided him. He was no dumbbell. He held a very responsible office in his government.

I don't understand. Which taught you that the office of pastor was valid, your own reading of Acts 8 or did some pastor have to read Acts 8 for you and tell you what it meant?

That, obviously, is a rhetorical question, the point of which, I hope, is obvious.

Of course, there is an appropriate place for pastors, teachers and preachers and elders, etc. The fact that there are people who have a talent for teaching and a passion for the word of God and a desire to dig down into the details and pull out treasures that others might never notice and all that sort of thing does not imply that there is some sort of special revelation given to such people. A pastor is just a regular human being and he has no more or less supernaturally given ability to read and understand the bible than any one of the member of his congregation. The difference between him and someone else an innate set of talents that drive him toward dedicating his time toward the study of God's word and a desire to make such studies and the teaching of God's word his vocation. Such people would be better at teaching the bible for the same reason a carpenter is better at building tables and a policeman is better at driving a car.

In short, I was not suggesting that bible study is easy or that one cannot become an bible expert or that some are not better at teaching than others, etc. I'm simply saying that the bible is not written in some sort of code that only the initiated know or that the only way for the scripture to be understood is if God does some sort of supernatural miracle that allows the code to be revealed to your mind.

Now, if you make the case that scriptures can be understood by just reading them it just means you have not been on this web site very long because there are not two people here who agrees with one another and yet they all claim to be saved and most of them want you to know how many books they have read and how smart they are.

This is almost a valid point, except that you immediately go into what is effectively an argument against this very point....

The reason they do not agree is because they do not define words the same way. You can test this yourself. Just start a thread and ask the posters to define the church of Jesus Christ. If some of these guys give honest definitions you will see some stuff that is wild. Then since we all use the term church, we just assume we are all talking about the same thing because we have forgotten said definitions. Remember Van; he thinks the church has morphed into Israel.

Errant definitions and other causes of doctrinal confusion are not caused by scripture, right? Van didn't get the idea that the church has replaced Israel from scripture, someone taught him that - some pastor taught him that. The gross distortion of nearly every word in the entire Christian lexicon that has been intentionally performed by Calvinists isn't something they got out of the bible, it's them conforming the bible to their doctrine. I isn't God's word that teaches them that God cannot change in any way whatsoever, it is the pastors and teachers (i.e. seminary professors) who drive their doctrine into the minds of their students by intentionally altering the definitions of common words for precisely the purpose of teaching something the the bible itself, if it were simply read and taken to mean what it seams to mean, would never even imply.

One time a few years ago I quoted the most simple worded passage in the whole Bible that explained who Jesus died for and was blown out of the water about who in the passage was ungodly.

Ro 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

No one agreed about who were the ungodly for whom Christ died. Mind boggling considering the context so far.

I have had hundreds of similar experiences. I know just precisely what you're saying here but don't you see that you're arguing against your own position? Was it not your intention for people to simply read Romans 5:6 and take it to mean what any third grade child would understand it to mean? Do you think that there is any pastor on planet Earth that has the words it would take to cause someone to understand that passage if they can't understand it by just reading it? Whatever errors that existed in the responses you got, would they not all be rectified by simply reading that text and taking to mean what it plainly states rather than for them to be trying to read their doctrine into the text?

Many years ago I was sitting on my front porch that faced the State Route Road I lived beside when a JW and his two pre-teen daughters passed by and saw me sitting there and I suppose he thought it would be a good time to give then some on the job training into how to proselyte among the Baptists. This was not a saved man and he did not know the scriptures by reading them, if indeed he had read them.

You can just about take it to the bank that he hadn't read them, right?
To whatever degree he has read them, they were almost certainly not the actual bible but the JW adulteration of the bible, the "New World Translation" or whatever.

After a while of discussing a few different subjects by which he became increasingly frustrated, he asked me a question about who raised Jesus from the dead, with the idea that he could trick me since he did not believe Jesus is God and he did not believe in the trinity. My answer was that the trinity raised Jesus from the dead. This caused a loud guffaw from his lips and he wanted me to prove it, so I gave him these three passages.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

So Jesus said he will raise himself from the dead, and he did.

Ro 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

This passage says the Spirit of God and Jesus raised his body from the dead.

Ga 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. How can these things be? To know will require some light on the ways of God.

This man could neither understand this nor could I teach him because he did not have the Spirit dwelling in him.

No. It wasn't because he was missing the Spirit but because the truth had been taught out of his mind by his pastor (i.e. cult leader in this case). JW's aren't JW's because God has forsaken them and thereby made it impossible for them to be saved. On the contrary, God's actual word is there for them to read and to understand if they so choose. The fact that you didn't instantly convince someone who had very likely grown up as a JW and been indoctrinated with its lies for his entire life by a single instance of quoting him four verses of scripture isn't surprising at all. So much so that it doesn't even count as evidence that he failed to be convinced because God failed to impart His Spirit to the man.

This caused him to scoop up his two daughters and angrily leave my driveway burning rubber.

Because you had exposed his lie sufficiently for even him to realize that he can't have his kids hear the plain reading of scripture if he desires them to grow up to be JWs!

I had been gracious with him and had reasoned with him out of the scriptures, This brings me to say that the Bible is not for unsaved people.

Romans 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”​

Just who is the preacher supposed to preach to, if not the unbeliever, and what is the preacher supposed to preach if not the word of God, plainly read and understood?

I know of nary a time that God sent a Bible to unsaved people, but he sends a preacher who has been saved and knows God through Christ.

Well, once again, the existence of preachers is a biblical thing but besides that...

They're all anecdotal, of course, but the Gideon Bible Society reports hundreds, surely thousands, of stories about people who have come to Christ as a result of encountering one of the bibles that were in a hotel room.

 

[CJP69]

A man must be born again to understand and make sense of the scriptures.

This is definitely false. It is the gospel itself that is the power of God unto salvation.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”​

Combine that passage with the one I quoted above....

Romans 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”​

How can the gospel be the power unto salvation if you have be born again (i.e. saved) to understand the scriptures where the gospel is found?

A man is born again by hearing the gospel of Christ and believing it.

Well, hearing and believing (and by implication, understanding), but exactly! Where is the gospel found if not in the scripture?

One does not need a Bible to preach the gospel.

WHAT?! What is he to preach, if the the bible?

He needs a personal testimony from a man who has been saved and who has a firm conviction that God will save anyone who puts their trust in Jesus Christ.

People are NOT saved by the preaching of their personal testimony but by the preaching of the gospel of God as written in God's word. If that gospel happens to be couched within someone's testimony, then that fine, well and good, but it isn't the personal testimony that saves, it is Jesus Christ and Him crucified and raised from the dead according to the scriptures.

A man might be saved by believing the gospel of Christ yet never know the deep things God would teach him but dead sure an unsaved man has no chance of ever understanding the deep things of God.

This makes two errors. First you're simply incorrect. There are plenty of people who have read the bible for themselves and learned a very great deal about the deeper things of God. John Bunyan (author of Pilgrim's Progress - second most sold book in world history) was almost entirely self-taught, just to give one famous example.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly in the context of this discussion, is that you've now moved the goal post on me here. I would not try to argue that the average person would normally come to an understanding of many of the deeper truths without some help from someone who had already been educated in those deeper truths, but even granting that much is no victory for your side of our disagreement here because none of those deeper truths are written into the bible with some sort of secret code that is indecipherable except by those who are blessed with an extra layer divine revelation. Those truths are all very much biblical and can be taught or simply understood via the plain reading of it. Indeed, the more plainly read the scripture, the more valid the doctrine which comes from it.

They are mysteries of God that must be revealed to the heart by the Spirit through the words God has chosen for that task. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them which believe, he said.

1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

My next post will be back on topic concerning the kingdom.

Once again, you quote a scripture that I presume you desire for people to read and to take to mean what it plainly states in order to argue that the bible cannot be simply read and understood to mean what it plainly states. How can you not see that as a contradiction?


In closing, the correct paradigm or approach or attitude (whatever you call it) toward formulating doctrine happens to require three things, a sort of trinity of principles, if you will...

• A correct understanding of who God is.
• Sound reason.
• The scriptures plainly read.

Note that I didn't number those items, as there isn't any way to rank those three things. They are co-equal in importance. They overlap and undergird each other. You can neither read nor understand the scriptures without sound reason, you cannot understand who God is without both the scripture and sound reason and God Himself is Reason (John 1:1-4 - the citation there just circles you back to the scripture again and around and round it goes). It is an interwoven circle of wisdom that cannot be undone without visiting disaster upon one's doctrine.


Outstanding post by the way! I mean, seriously! If everyone here made actual arguments, good or bad, like you've done, I'd never have sufficient time to respond to it all. It's so refreshing and gratifying!

 

[JD731]

Van said: ↑
The kingdom of God (Heaven) is at hand. Is this a physical kingdom? Nope. It is a spiritual kingdom that can be entered right now. Colossians 1:13

For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. ​

Thus the physical kingdom was not at hand, and therefore not what Christ had in view when He said the Kingdom was at hand.

This is what I mean by saying the words are not believed by non word believing Christians. You are making the case that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven was at hand, which included the gentiles even after understanding that no gospel of any kind was preached to gentiles until well after the Jews had rejected every aspect of the kingdom of God, both physical and spiritual. The gospel of salvation, which brings the message of the new birth to gentiles was first preached to us, and believed, in the year 40 AD. This took place in Acts 10. In fact there has never been a gospel of the kingdom preached to gentiles. If you are a soul winner and go to your neighbors and witness to them I am sure you never mention that God is interested that they are going to be a member of the kingdom. Looking back at the reason Jesus began near the end of his ministry to speak to Israel, to whom he came, in parables, is so they would not understand the spiritual or mystery form of the kingdom that is the alternative to the physical kingdom they rejected and it would be a kingdom without physical boundaries and the king would not be present because this part of the kingdom is a heavenly kingdom and the citizens that will be secured during this time frame will be gathered to heaven to be with Christ, who is already there.These rulers were under a curse. They were not going to be citizens of this kingdom. It would be the next generations of Jews who will enter in.

Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

It is important that this curse is in Mt 12 because it is the harvest time that they missed and chapter 13 begins to speak of the world to come, which is a new planting season with the character of it described and Jerusalem being the part of the field where not a single seed intered the ground because of it's hardness. God takes unbelief much more serious than we do.

The word "world" here is the word Aion and it equals the word "age." The probation for this nation was during the 40 years between the resurrection in 30 AD and the dispersion in 70 AD. Because they did not repent, the church of Jesus Christ took on a distinctly gentile character, Jews being counted by God as gentiles when they are cut off from their land, thus separating them from their covenants, they being saved one by one over the age and made members of the body of Christ. This in no ways means he has forgotten his covenants to Abraham and his family. They are immutable and must come to pass.

 

[JD731]

The phrase "at hand" is in my Bible a total of 32 times beginning in Genesis. It is in the OT 11 times and the NT 21 times. Looking at how they appear in context will instruct us in how we should understand the term. In time it most often means to come near. Here is an example in the first mention in Genesis.

Ge 27:41 And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.

Obviously Esau used this about the nearness of Isaac's death. It was at hand, meaning his death was near.

In presence:
Jer 23:23 Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?

What is next after the fulness of the time for the Jews on God's calendar? Look!

Mr 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us (Hebrews) by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (Aions ages);
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world (kosmos = the planet): but now once in the end of the world (Aion = age) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Lk 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: (supper time is at the end of the day)
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
Mt 9:37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest. (the harvest is at the end of the growing season)

The coming of Jesus Christ with his appearing to Israel as their Messiah was the beginning of one thing at the same time it was the end of another.

Mr 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Read these next verses carefully:

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

The gospel of Jesus Christ that began when he appeared was the gospel of the kingdom is at hand. This is what John the Baptist preached about him and is the reason for their repentance and was what he preached and it is what his apostles preached as well as the 70 elders he had chosen. His kingdom officers would be chosen by him and would do his bidding until they rejected him and decided to kill him. There was no possibility his kingdom could come if they killed him. It was sure evidence that they did not repent in their hearts.

Mr 12:1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

BE SURE TO READ ISA 5 before continuing here.

2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
11 This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
12 And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.

Joh 11:45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

The kingdom that Jesus came to establish with a born again citizenry was no longer on the table and the harvest passed with few reapers. It would be another generation of Jews that will reap the rewards of the kingdom and that time has not yet come.

 

[Van]

There is no mystery concerning the meaning of "at hand." Something at hand is near and available for the taking. Duh.

Does this represent or misrepresent what I said?

This is what I mean by saying the words are not believed by non word believing Christians. You [Van] are making the case that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven was at hand, which included the gentiles even after understanding that no gospel of any kind was preached to gentiles until well after the Jews had rejected every aspect of the kingdom of God,​

Of course not!!

1) Was the gospel presented "first to the Jews?" Yes See Romans 1:16

2) Was the gospel promised also to the Gentiles in the Old Testament? Yes See Isaiah 42:6

3) When Jesus began His public ministry, first to the Jews, many Jews rejected His claims. But He was the light for the nations of the world, so His message of good news was received by Gentiles before Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles.

4) Obviously the kingdom at hand was His spiritual kingdom.

 

[JD731]

[

I don't understand. Which taught you that the office of pastor was valid, your own reading of Acts 8 or did some pastor have to read Acts 8 for you and tell you what it meant?

That, obviously, is a rhetorical question, the point of which, I hope, is obvious.

.

I am going to summarize your points and answer generally because, like mine, your post is long. I do appreciate the exchange.

First of all, I am not advocating that one must read and understand the scriptures in order to be saved. I am advocating that he, the sinner, must believe the fundamentals of the faith whether he really understands their depths or not. He must understand that God is a holy God and morally perfect and he has a conscience to teach him that. He must understand the nature of sin and that he is guilty and because of this he has a death sentence on him, because the wages of sin is death. Not only does sin cause death of the body but also the death of the soul, which is called in the scriptures the second death. Death means nothing more or less than separation. The separation of the soul from the body, physical death, is something both the saved and unsaved experiences. The reason for this is because everyone is born into the world without the presence of God in them and it is impossible to resist sin in the absence of God's presence because sin is a sovereign over men, ruling unto death, through the weakness of his flesh.
Ro 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. See my Note #1 at the end of this comment.

However, the physical birth is not a sin and men being born is not a death penalty because they are born knowing nothing. Men must have three things to become a sinner. He must have knowledge, reason, and will. Any entity in this world cannot sin unless he is in possession of these three things. The conscience is the first safe guard for a child as he begins to develop and become able for self identity because God writes his moral code into it. Therefore it is possible to sin by a willful act through the body of that which his conscience condemns. Adam, for instance had no consciousness of good and evil before he sinned and sin entered into the world. Consciousness of sin was not necessary for Adam because he had the presence of God with him and in him and there was no corruption in the world.

I think this is the reason God pointed out that Adam was not deceived into sinning but did it deliberately with knowledge and forethought and will.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
There is no doubt that Eve transgressed the law of God before Adam but it was not deliberate and there does not seem to be a condemnation of Eve. There is no indication that she was guilty because this was during the time when she had no knowledge of good and evil. She would have had to be considered innocent because of this.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened,

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Here is the verse that says how and when sin entered into the world and it was not when Eve ate the fruit.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead,

It seems as if Eve was unwittingly the arm of the Serpent to cause the fall of man.

So why do all men sin? It is because they have no power in them to resist sin. So because of the perfect justice of God he must condemn sinful man to the second death in the lake of fire, the only place in all of God's creation that is without his omnipresence. But God is love, perfect love and he has made a way to renew the innocence and perfect righteousness of man that he originally created him with so he may always enjoy the presence of God. So God himself would come to the earth as a man, even in his weakness, and live perfectly righteous before God and man and then willingly endure the penalty of death, separation from God the Father and the Spirit, and then die physically on that cross, not for any sin he had ever committed, but for the sins of all men. God is a trinity, but not like man. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Man, created a trinity, body, soul, and Spirit in Adam, but sinned and died spiritual thus marring his trinitarian image and being separated from God, the Spirit who was the same life of Adam in Genesis 3 as he is in those of us who are saved as described in Romans 8. Jesus Christ was born a trinitarian man, the only begotten son of God and the power of his sinless life in a weak body such as ours was the Spirit who dwelt in him. It was God the Father and the Spirit in him who were the object of his cry when he paid the penalty of our sins on the cross and cried to God twice, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me. This is spiritual death. Three hours later he died physically when his soul departed his body and they buried his body. But death had no claim on him because he had no personal sins and God raised him from the dead, never to die again and glorified his body making it able to dwell in the heavenlies. Jesus Christ is the trinitarian God and he is a trinitarian man, body, soul and Spirit. He is the firstborn Son of God from the dead and the firstborn among many brethren that are born of the Spirit by faith in his substitution to suffer our fate. God has imputed his righteousness to us in the person of his omnipresent Spirit and clothed us with his person, never to see sin in us who are born again.

Now, why a preacher and not a book to read to get people saved? It is because salvation is in this person Jesus Christ and nothing else really matters in the book apart from him. It is what he has done for us that sinners must know to be saved. It is also by the lone principle of faith in him. Sure, the scriptures tells us this story while it is telling many other stories as well. The Bible is 66 books together with the whole counsel of God and one could possibly get saved by reading it but it might take a long time of reading. The preacher, the soul winner, has read it and knows it is true. He has been saved himself, not by knowing and believing everything the scriptures teach, though he does believe everything they teach, but he knows that it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that saves the sinner whether he ever reads and understands anything else in the book. Therefore, the soul winner focuses on the gospel, the way of salvation. That is what sinners must believe.

This reminds me of meeting a young college age woman during our street preaching on Sunday. She had questions about our being on the street with a witness for Jesus Christ. I was able to give her the gospel of Jesus Christ thoroughly in about 25 minutes, everything I have said above. I was the preacher that day. She thanked me for telling her and explaining why she must believe to be saved. She understood it. It would have taken a long time for her to come to that understanding by simply reading the Bible. God wants people to believe without having to work. He wants people to hear the gospel, not have to read it in a big Bible. By the way, her name was Denise. Pray she will be saved.


Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Continued

 

[JD731]

Continued from above:
Note #1 (The body, any body, without the Spirit in it is dead, separated from God). The body, any body, with the Spirit in it as a permanent member of it is alive)
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead (separated from God) because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The Spirit of Christ is the life of Christ and he is omnipresent. He is everywhere at one time.

I preached the gospel to Denise Sunday without an open Bible with me. The gospel of Jesus Christ was preached in my own words but she could have been saved by hearing what I said.

Salvation from sin comes by believing the gospel. Sanctification comes from believing the Bible. Glorification come by the resurrection.

 

[JD731]

There is no mystery concerning the meaning of "at hand." Something at hand is near and available for the taking. Duh.

Does this represent or misrepresent what I said?

This is what I mean by saying the words are not believed by non word believing Christians. You [Van] are making the case that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven was at hand, which included the gentiles even after understanding that no gospel of any kind was preached to gentiles until well after the Jews had rejected every aspect of the kingdom of God,​

Of course not!!

1) Was the gospel presented "first to the Jews?" Yes See Romans 1:16

2) Was the gospel promised also to the Gentiles in the Old Testament? Yes See Isaiah 42:6

3) When Jesus began His public ministry, first to the Jews, many Jews rejected His claims. But He was the light for the nations of the world, so His message of good news was received by Gentiles before Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles.

4) Obviously the kingdom at hand was His spiritual kingdom.

Van, I am going to appeal to logic and reason. The kingdom that Jesus Christ came and began preaching as good news was the kingdom covenanted to David. God had promised with an oath that his offspring would rise to sit on his throne forever. Jesus Christ said from his own lips, which you do not have to believe me, these words. Read them carefully.

Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

I have some questions for you.
1) Do you believe Lk 24:44 as quoted?
2) Was his crucifixion and resurrection foretold there in those writings?
3) Do the prophets say he will be the King of the Jews?
4) are the prophets and the psalms and Moses full of prophecies of his rule over all the earth?
5) Is there any promise that his kingdom would be a mystery kingdom?
6) If he would have had his prophets to prophecy of a mystery kingdom, would it have remained a mystery?
7) why did God make a covenant with David and what was his promise to him?
8) Why is the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven revealed after the harvest is past?
Jer 8:20 The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.
9) Are the covenant promises nullified by the unbelief of this generation who rejected the reign of Jesus Christ?
10) Why did God swear to the Davidic covenant if he did not really mean what he promised in it?

Ps 89:1 ¶ «Maschil of Ethan the Ezrahite.» I will sing of the mercies of the LORD for ever: with my mouth will I make known thy faithfulness to all generations.
2 For I have said, Mercy shall be built up for ever: thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the very heavens.
3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.

How long is for ever?

18 For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.

No mystery there!

34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

Now, here is the prophetic time that we are living just now and this has been true since 70 AD when Judah lost her national identity because of her refusal of her King.

38 ¶ But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed.
39 Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it] to the ground.
40 Thou hast broken down all his hedges; thou hast brought his strong holds to ruin.
41 All that pass by the way spoil him: he is a reproach to his neighbours.
42 Thou hast set up the right hand of his adversaries; thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice.
43 Thou hast also turned the edge of his sword, and hast not made him to stand in the battle.
44 Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.
45 The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.

Let me interject a passage spoken by James at the Jerusalem counsel that is relevant here;
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

If you will believe the words of my Bible you can learn that after the church, according to James, God is going to honor his promises to David in his covenant to him.

I have sworn unto David my servant,
4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
The Davidic covenant is given in 2 Samuel 7.

 

[Van]

Van, I am going to appeal to logic and reason.
SNIP
No mystery there!
SNIP
If you will believe the words of my Bible you can learn that after the church, according to James, God is going to honor his promises to David in his covenant to him.

There is no mystery concerning the meaning of "at hand." Something at hand is near and available for the taking. Duh.

1) Was the gospel presented "first to the Jews?" Yes See Romans 1:16

2) Was the gospel promised also to the Gentiles in the Old Testament? Yes See Isaiah 42:6

3) When Jesus began His public ministry, first to the Jews, many Jews rejected His claims. But He was the light for the nations of the world, so His message of good news was received by Gentiles before Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles.

4) Obviously the kingdom at hand was His spiritual kingdom.​

 

[JD731]

There is no mystery concerning the meaning of "at hand." Something at hand is near and available for the taking. Duh.

1) Was the gospel presented "first to the Jews?" Yes See Romans 1:16

2) Was the gospel promised also to the Gentiles in the Old Testament? Yes See Isaiah 42:6

3) When Jesus began His public ministry, first to the Jews, many Jews rejected His claims. But He was the light for the nations of the world, so His message of good news was received by Gentiles before Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles.

4) Obviously the kingdom at hand was His spiritual kingdom.​

Van, I am not sure what your argument is and If I knew, I might be convinced, but, it seems to me like you are saying the specific kingdom on the earth that Jesus Christ ruling from Jerusalem over the regenerated state of Israel with both nations reunited into one and restored as one kingdom, every one of them from all twelve tribes, to their land and this sovereign reign is by extension over all the other nations who are left on the earth as promised to David in his covenant is not to be taken seriously and God is just involved in double speak, not being truthful at all. Do you think God's hand is shortened by Israel's unbelief and he cannot keep his promises to him? Why do you believe that when God's purposes for this age are clear?

Ps 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.

 

[CJP69]

I am going to summarize your points and answer generally because, like mine, your post is long. I do appreciate the exchange.

First of all, I am not advocating that one must read and understand the scriptures in order to be saved. I am advocating that he, the sinner, must believe the fundamentals of the faith whether he really understands their depths or not. He must understand that God is a holy God and morally perfect and he has a conscience to teach him that. He must understand the nature of sin and that he is guilty and because of this he has a death sentence on him, because the wages of sin is death. Not only does sin cause death of the body but also the death of the soul, which is called in the scriptures the second death. Death means nothing more or less than separation. The separation of the soul from the body, physical death, is something both the saved and unsaved experiences. The reason for this is because everyone is born into the world without the presence of God in them and it is impossible to resist sin in the absence of God's presence because sin is a sovereign over men, ruling unto death, through the weakness of his flesh.
Ro 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. See my Note #1 at the end of this comment.

However, the physical birth is not a sin and men being born is not a death penalty because they are born knowing nothing. Men must have three things to become a sinner. He must have knowledge, reason, and will. Any entity in this world cannot sin unless he is in possession of these three things. The conscience is the first safe guard for a child as he begins to develop and become able for self identity because God writes his moral code into it. Therefore it is possible to sin by a willful act through the body of that which his conscience condemns. Adam, for instance had no consciousness of good and evil before he sinned and sin entered into the world. Consciousness of sin was not necessary for Adam because he had the presence of God with him and in him and there was no corruption in the world.

I think this is the reason God pointed out that Adam was not deceived into sinning but did it deliberately with knowledge and forethought and will.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
There is no doubt that Eve transgressed the law of God before Adam but it was not deliberate and there does not seem to be a condemnation of Eve. There is no indication that she was guilty because this was during the time when she had no knowledge of good and evil. She would have had to be considered innocent because of this.

(Snipped some content to save on the length of the post)

It seems as if Eve was unwittingly the arm of the Serpent to cause the fall of man.

So why do all men sin? It is because they have no power in them to resist sin. So because of the perfect justice of God he must condemn sinful man to the second death in the lake of fire, the only place in all of God's creation that is without his omnipresence. But God is love, perfect love and he has made a way to renew the innocence and perfect righteousness of man that he originally created him with so he may always enjoy the presence of God. So God himself would come to the earth as a man, even in his weakness, and live perfectly righteous before God and man and then willingly endure the penalty of death, separation from God the Father and the Spirit, and then die physically on that cross, not for any sin he had ever committed, but for the sins of all men. God is a trinity, but not like man. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Man, created a trinity, body, soul, and Spirit in Adam, but sinned and died spiritual thus marring his trinitarian image and being separated from God, the Spirit who was the same life of Adam in Genesis 3 as he is in those of us who are saved as described in Romans 8. Jesus Christ was born a trinitarian man, the only begotten son of God and the power of his sinless life in a weak body such as ours was the Spirit who dwelt in him. It was God the Father and the Spirit in him who were the object of his cry when he paid the penalty of our sins on the cross and cried to God twice, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me. This is spiritual death. Three hours later he died physically when his soul departed his body and they buried his body. But death had no claim on him because he had no personal sins and God raised him from the dead, never to die again and glorified his body making it able to dwell in the heavenlies. Jesus Christ is the trinitarian God and he is a trinitarian man, body, soul and Spirit. He is the firstborn Son of God from the dead and the firstborn among many brethren that are born of the Spirit by faith in his substitution to suffer our fate. God has imputed his righteousness to us in the person of his omnipresent Spirit and clothed us with his person, never to see sin in us who are born again.

I agree with nearly all of this. You are the only person I have ever come across besides myself who understands what death is and believes that Jesus really did actually die the same way any other righteous person has ever died. That is quite amazing!

The main point of disagreement is with your doctrine concerning the omnipresence of God. You do well to deny that God will be in the Lake of Fire and that spiritual death is real separation from Him. The Lake of Fire, however, isn't "the only place in all of God's creation that is without his omnipresence". Biblically, God is able to be everywhere He wants to be at once but isn't required to be in any particular place if He doesn't want to be there. Any doctrine that goes beyond this, overstates what the bible actually supports. God, for example, is perfectly able and willing to give people privacy and He doesn't have any need to be a first person witness to every vile act of every perverse person.

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

Now, why a preacher and not a book to read to get people saved? It is because salvation is in this person Jesus Christ and nothing else really matters in the book apart from him. It is what he has done for us that sinners must know to be saved. It is also by the lone principle of faith in him. Sure, the scriptures tells us this story while it is telling many other stories as well. The Bible is 66 books together with the whole counsel of God and one could possibly get saved by reading it but it might take a long time of reading. The preacher, the soul winner, has read it and knows it is true. He has been saved himself, not by knowing and believing everything the scriptures teach, though he does believe everything they teach, but he knows that it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that saves the sinner whether he ever reads and understands anything else in the book. Therefore, the soul winner focuses on the gospel, the way of salvation. That is what sinners must believe.

This reminds me of meeting a young college age woman during our street preaching on Sunday. She had questions about our being on the street with a witness for Jesus Christ. I was able to give her the gospel of Jesus Christ thoroughly in about 25 minutes, everything I have said above. I was the preacher that day. She thanked me for telling her and explaining why she must believe to be saved. She understood it. It would have taken a long time for her to come to that understanding by simply reading the Bible. God wants people to believe without having to work. He wants people to hear the gospel, not have to read it in a big Bible. By the way, her name was Denise. Pray she will be saved.

(snipped content to save on the size of the post)

And so, by your own statement, a preacher isn't "needed", right?

I mean, you could make a case, and in fact that's what you've done here, that a preacher is a more efficient and perhaps a more effective means by which people get saved, but that's a different question that whether or not someone is able to read the scripture on their own and understand it sufficiently to place their faith in Christ and be saved according to the gospel of grace.

Further, the preacher has his office because of the scripture, which is to say that a preacher's authority, message and activities are sanctioned by the scripture, not the other way around. The preacher is not superior to the scripture.

The Spirit of Christ is the life of Christ and he is omnipresent. He is everywhere at one time.

Everywhere He wants to be, at once.

All of the omni-doctrines overstate the biblical truth.

I preached the gospel to Denise Sunday without an open Bible with me. The gospel of Jesus Christ was preached in my own words but she could have been saved by hearing what I said.

I agree, but that does not prove, nor even argue, the inverse. That is, it doesn't follow from this true statement that she could not get saved by reading the bible itself for herself. She totally could.

Salvation from sin comes by believing the gospel. Sanctification comes from believing the Bible. Glorification come by the resurrection.

"Believing the gospel" and "believing the bible" presents, in this context, a false dichotomy. The gospel is biblical. To believe the gospel is to believe the bible and vice versa. I'd go so far as to say the presenting the gospel is the primary (i.e. not the only) purpose that the bible serves. Even the history it preserves is all about God's relationship to mankind and God's working towards a full restoration of the divine/human relationship for which mankind was created.

(No time for editing! Sorry for any typos!)

 

[JD731]

I agree with nearly all of this. You are the only person I have ever come across besides myself who understands what death is and believes that Jesus really did actually die the same way any other righteous person has ever died. That is quite amazing!

The main point of disagreement is with your doctrine concerning the omnipresence of God. You do well to deny that God will be in the Lake of Fire and that spiritual death is real separation from Him. The Lake of Fire, however, isn't "the only place in all of God's creation that is without his omnipresence". Biblically, God is able to be everywhere He wants to be at once but isn't required to be in any particular place if He doesn't want to be there. Any doctrine that goes beyond this, overstates what the bible actually supports. God, for example, is perfectly able and willing to give people privacy and He doesn't have any need to be a first person witness to every vile act of every perverse person.

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

We are probably closer to agreement than even appears and the difference might be in how we express ourselves. I could point out​

Pr 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

I mean, you could make a case, and in fact that's what you've done here, that a preacher is a more efficient and perhaps a more effective means by which people get saved, but that's a different question that whether or not someone is able to read the scripture on their own and understand it sufficiently to place their faith in Christ and be saved according to the gospel of grace.

Further, the preacher has his office because of the scripture, which is to say that a preacher's authority, message and activities are sanctioned by the scripture, not the other way around. The preacher is not superior to the scripture.

I just know that God gave the word to his prophets in ways that was not writing and the prophets did the writing, usually after they had spoken the word. I do not know if you have studied the introduction of Jesus Christ in the OT in the beginning of the third millennium, Gen 15, where two most important things about him are introduced for the first time. First he is introduced distinctly as "the word of the LORD" and he is a person who could be seen.
Ge 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD (first mention in the scriptures) came unto Abram in a vision, (he had personality) saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Secondly, we are introduced for the first time to his name, Lord GOD. (Ge 15:2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?) This is the name Adonai Jehovah. He is distinguished as this person of the godhead in many passages, but this is an example, and one that is quoted in the NT that clearly demonstrates the distinction. Ps 110:1, - «A Psalm of David.» The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

This is a tremendous transition in the ways of God going forward in making himself known to the world and it gets almost no recognition. You can see this person revealing himself to the prophets and speaking the words of Jehovah to them from here even 13 times in the NT. Look at one instance in the NT. 2Th 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: The word of the Lord be glorified? Really! Well, we know that this is the same person as that one in Ge 15:1 as the one we glorify Today, we do not have a vision of him or even an eye witness apostle of him who can speak with his same authority, but we have the written word. It is enough and should be glorified as having his same authority. The word in whatever form, knowing that it is he that is responsible for it. It is all we have in the physical at this time.

I could say much about Jesus in the OT but let me name this and move on. In Eze. 1 thru 48 he is speaking to Ezekiel in 60 verses as the word of the LORD. He is Adonai Jehovah 210 times. Jesus Christ is the personage in the OT who makes the Father and the will and his words known.

A reminder for you. These things are true in my Bible but they may not, and are probably not true in yours if your Bible is different from mine.

Everywhere He wants to be, at once.

All of the omni-doctrines overstate the biblical truth.


I agree, but that does not prove, nor even argue, the inverse. That is, it doesn't follow from this true statement that she could not get saved by reading the bible itself for herself. She totally could.


"Believing the gospel" and "believing the bible" presents, in this context, a false dichotomy. The gospel is biblical. To believe the gospel is to believe the bible and vice versa. I'd go so far as to say the presenting the gospel is the primary (i.e. not the only) purpose that the bible serves. Even the history it preserves is all about God's relationship to mankind and God's working towards a full restoration of the divine/human relationship for which mankind was created.

(No time for editing! Sorry for any typos!)

Again, I do not want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing but the model of history is having the truth spoken before it is written. That was the life of the prophets. They preached to the people and then wrote their prophecies. God was justifying people by their faith 2500 years before he ever wrote the first word. That teaches me something. Compare the sermon of the apostle Paul, his first recorded sermon in Acts 13 when he preached to the Jews with the sermon he preached to none but gentiles in Acts 17 in Athens Greece. He strongly referenced the scriptures to the first but hardly mentioned it to the last. The gospel is in a person.

 

[percho]

The kingdom of God is at hand.

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Paul speaking to the Ephesians
1 Cor 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Should I assume the gospel preached to the Corinthians was the kingdom of God? The kingdom of God which is at hand?

Why does it appear Paul always begins by preaching the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ when preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God which is at hand?

Example: Acts 17:1-3 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

And how do we know this was relative to the kingdom? V 7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

Just would like all of your thoughts.

How is the kingdom of God, which is at hand, and the resurrection relative? Was it relative in Mark 1:14,15?

 

[Van]

Van, I am not sure what your argument is and If I knew, I might be convinced, but, it seems to me like you are saying the specific kingdom on the earth that Jesus Christ ruling from Jerusalem over the regenerated state of Israel with both nations reunited into one and restored as one kingdom, every one of them from all twelve tribes, to their land and this sovereign reign is by extension over all the other nations who are left on the earth as promised to David in his covenant is not to be taken seriously and God is just involved in double speak, not being truthful at all. Do you think God's hand is shortened by Israel's unbelief and he cannot keep his promises to him? Why do you believe that when God's purposes for this age are clear?

Ps 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.

Posting a word salad does not hide that the kingdom at hand during the time of Jesus until now is the spiritual kingdom of Christ Jesus.

 

[CJP69]

We are probably closer to agreement than even appears and the difference might be in how we express ourselves. I could point out​

Pr 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

Don't make the error of conflating the general with the specific.

Generally speaking, yes, God is aware of what people are doing but there are specific cases where that might not be the case, thus the proverb (proverbs are almost always generalized "rules of thumb", by the way) does not contradict the passage I cited in Genesis that dealt with a specific case.

Also, as is taught in the Genesis passage, even in cases where God has chosen not to be a first person witness to something, God is able to find out what He needs to know.

I just know that God gave the word to his prophets in ways that was not writing and the prophets did the writing, usually after they had spoken the word. I do not know if you have studied the introduction of Jesus Christ in the OT in the beginning of the third millennium, Gen 15, where two most important things about him are introduced for the first time. First he is introduced distinctly as "the word of the LORD" and he is a person who could be seen.
Ge 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD (first mention in the scriptures) came unto Abram in a vision, (he had personality) saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Secondly, we are introduced for the first time to his name, Lord GOD. (Ge 15:2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?) This is the name Adonai Jehovah. He is distinguished as this person of the godhead in many passages, but this is an example, and one that is quoted in the NT that clearly demonstrates the distinction. Ps 110:1, - «A Psalm of David.» The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

This is a tremendous transition in the ways of God going forward in making himself known to the world and it gets almost no recognition. You can see this person revealing himself to the prophets and speaking the words of Jehovah to them from here even 13 times in the NT. Look at one instance in the NT. 2Th 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: The word of the Lord be glorified? Really! Well, we know that this is the same person as that one in Ge 15:1 as the one we glorify Today, we do not have a vision of him or even an eye witness apostle of him who can speak with his same authority, but we have the written word. It is enough and should be glorified as having his same authority. The word in whatever form, knowing that it is he that is responsible for it. It is all we have in the physical at this time.

I could say much about Jesus in the OT but let me name this and move on. In Eze. 1 thru 48 he is speaking to Ezekiel in 60 verses as the word of the LORD. He is Adonai Jehovah 210 times. Jesus Christ is the personage in the OT who makes the Father and the will and his words known.

Do you suppose it is accidental that both Jesus and the Bible are referred to as "the word of God"?

A reminder for you. These things are true in my Bible but they may not, and are probably not true in yours if your Bible is different from mine.

I was with you until that last sentence.

I know of only one bible. It has been translated into a great many languages, and specifically into English more times than I can tell you, but no particular translation is THE bible and none of them are superior to the text in it's original language.

It is true that some translations are miserably bad and that there may be some (perhaps many) truths that get obscured in these translations, but one nice thing about the bible is that it is a very thick book written by many different authors and so its most important messages manage to come through in spite of the errors, and other shortcomings that inevitably come with translating something from one language to another.

Again, I do not want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing but the model of history is having the truth spoken before it is written. That was the life of the prophets. They preached to the people and then wrote their prophecies. God was justifying people by their faith 2500 years before he ever wrote the first word. That teaches me something. Compare the sermon of the apostle Paul, his first recorded sermon in Acts 13 when he preached to the Jews with the sermon he preached to none but gentiles in Acts 17 in Athens Greece. He strongly referenced the scriptures to the first but hardly mentioned it to the last. The gospel is in a person.

Again, do not conflate that which is generally true with specific cases. The observation you've made about the power and perhaps supremacy of the spoken word in regards to getting people saved may well be true in a general sense but that does not negate the possibility of someone getting saved purely by means of the written word.

Further, it is the written word, because of its relative permanence, and the fact that it's writing was inspired by the Holy Spirit, that is to be the source of our spoken message and the standard by which the spoken word is to judged.

 

[JD731]

The kingdom of God is at hand.

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Paul speaking to the Ephesians
1 Cor 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Should I assume the gospel preached to the Corinthians was the kingdom of God? The kingdom of God which is at hand?

Why does it appear Paul always begins by preaching the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ when preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God which is at hand?

Example: Acts 17:1-3 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

And how do we know this was relative to the kingdom? V 7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

Just would like all of your thoughts.

How is the kingdom of God, which is at hand, and the resurrection relative? Was it relative in Mark 1:14,15?

Percho, Thanks for continuing to give thought on the subject of the thread.

Was the kingdom of heaven really at hand when Jesus came?

So your doctrine is that what is written about God's rule over the earth and heaven and men in the books of the OT scriptures have no relevance to us today, especially as they pertain to the kingdom that is coming? Are you thinking all those glorious promises of a perfect rule of righteousness of Jesus Christ over all the earth has been forgotten of God or that he did not really mean them? Do you teach that those promises in these everlasting covenants cannot ever come to pass because they have not yet come to pass? Do you think it is possible for God to establish his kingdom with two natures, a spiritual and a natural like he created Adam in the beginning, a body and a soul, and then breath his Spirit into him, making him into the image of God, a trinity?


I am thinking that maybe I should start a new thread and ask the question if you think Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses and David will be resurrected from the dead. I am assuming that you do not All of these men have been mentioned in connection to covenant promises that involved a family and a nation and a land on earth. The promises for Abraham, Isaac, and David involved unconditional and everlasting covenants. This means that promises made to these men did not require they do anything to bring them to pass but that God who gave them the promises will bring them to pass. These promises do not depend upon the faithfulness of any of these men but entirely upon the faithfulness of God. who gave them. They are contingent upon God raising them from the dead.

The church of Jesus Christ has a gentile character and were not included in those natural promises to these OT men. We are a distinct entity from them and yet we are of them. The same Spirit is in both of us and will be throughout eternity. The church will dwell with God in the heavenlies but the kingdom is one in three and three in one, a trinity.

Can you not see any of this?

 

[JD731]

Posting a word salad does not hide that the kingdom at hand during the time of Jesus until now is the spiritual kingdom of Christ Jesus.

I am not understanding "word salad" in the context of my post. Is not Ps 89 about the Davidic Covenant, one that God said he swore to David? Is it not prophetic , giving clarity to events of this age we are now occupying? Did I not add relevant context from Acts 15 where the time line for the establishing of it in it's glory is given us through a prophecy of James, after it had been cast to the ground according to the Psalmist in Ps 89? I would think prophecy fulfilled exactly as told would be a confirmation of the faithfulness of the word of God?

Read Acts 15 and come back and tell me what you think James meant by what he said about David and his tabernacle.

 

[Van]

I am not understanding "word salad" SNIP.

The issue is not your behavior. [Posting a word salad] (your post) does not hide that the kingdom at hand during the time of Jesus until now is the spiritual kingdom of Christ Jesus.

 

[JD731]

Do you suppose it is accidental that both Jesus and the Bible are referred to as "the word of God"?


I was with you until that last sentence.

I know of only one bible. It has been translated into a great many languages, and specifically into English more times than I can tell you, but no particular translation is THE bible and none of them are superior to the text in it's original language.

.

Please understand that my comments in this post is not my attempt to try to correct you. My comments are an explanation as to why I disagree with you but I fully acknowledge that you have the right to believe what you will and that you have your reasons for doing so.

I think that a person who has the personality of the word of God and that he has a title, the word of the LORD, and that whether visible or invisible in his person when bringing the words to the prophet, every word from God to us comes through and from him. In the NT he has a name, "Jesus," meaning Jehovah is salvation, but does not mean that he is in any way lesser than Jehovah, but his function in our redemption plan surely is different. The word of the LORD in the OT scriptures and the 13 times he is called this in the NT is more that an unattached voice, or an impression of the mind, or some ethereal emanation, but it is actually a person with a name that came to the prophets and gave the word. He is the same person as the NT Jesus, but in the OT he has a name "Lord GOD."

It is also significant that this name and title is revealed to us at the same time, after 2 millennium had passed and the third begun that Isaac and his miraculous birth began to be center stage. And that he would be ministering to this people under this name and title for the next 2 Millennium, which would bring us to the beginning of the incarnation of Jesus Christ by his appearing as the anti type of Isaac in the stable in Bethlehem where he would be presented as Jehovah is salvation, Jesus. He did not bring salvation, he is salvation. His next name in his kingdom office will be Immanuel, which means "God with us."

The kingdom of heaven really was at hand when Jesus came but it did not come because at that time he was rejected by his people. It will come just as the word of the LORD has said.

What we are taught today in the modern church concerning the word of the LORD is not consistent with the ways of God that we learn from his interaction with men throughout history. To preach and teach that God has left us scrambling to figure out on our own what are his words makes no sense to me especially after I know that Israel was repeatedly judged as a people as to how they received and obeyed the word of the LORD that came to them through the prophet, who did not speak his own words. The English speaking Christians, who represent the majority of Christians around the world, have given us 150 variations of the words they claim are from God since 1901 when the first modern English Bible was published for America.

What difference does it make? There is no authority in the words any longer and it has caused logic and reason to be thrown away. Today, Christians have only a message at best and nothing can be proven by words in their Bibles. This thread proves it. The words about the kingdom are not believed or different Bibles teach different words and there is no unity in doctrine.

I see the Satanic signature all over this modern Bible philosophy.

That is just me. I do realize that most of you fellows are smarter than me and maybe I am dead wrong about this even while I think I am right about it. God's word has been reduced to a preference of words and no one has ever said on Baptist board that their choice of the message they choose has come by a matter of prayer to God. The modern church is being taught by the words of men, not by the words of God and for that reason the world is flying apart quickly and the visible church is splintered and weak and in apostasy and has little salt and light for the world.

 

[JD731]

The issue is not your behavior. [Posting a word salad] (your post) does not hide that the kingdom at hand during the time of Jesus until now is the spiritual kingdom of Christ Jesus.

There is many reasons why this cannot be true, Van. I can name several and prove them with scriptures in context. However, I will just remind you that Jesus was crucified for claiming he was the King of the Jews. Everybody involved in his earthly ministry was aware of that and he even rode into the city of Jerusalem, the City of the great King, on a donkey with people shouting "behold, the King of the Jews.". They plaited a crown for him out of thorns and mockingly bowed in obeisance to him while he hung on the cross.

Yes, the kingdom really was at hand until his own people and nation rejected him in Mt 12 and sentenced him to death, but it was not immediate. To enter his kingdom required a new birth that could only be accomplishde after he had made the blood atonement and rose from the dead.