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

[Eric B]

This resurrection is yet to take place. When it does occur, it is for EVERYONE!!!

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

Did Jesus know what he was talking about?

Well, a future Kingdom was still mentioned after the time you said it would begin, and it was associated with the resurrection. the only way for it to be both future to them, yet still be seen by some of the people Jesus was talking about, was for it to be in the years immediately after the NT was written (John's writing is assumed to have been written earlier than the 90's dates in this theory).

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

That's a common preterist fallacy. "Not of this world" does not mean "not physical, but spiritual ONLY. It means the RULE is not simply that of an earthly king taking over and ruling (with carnal, unregenerate people in positions of power). If that were the case, then since the Church is physical and visible, it couldn't be the Kingdom either. It's the Kingdom itself that is spiritual, not just the MEANS of ruling.

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by mman:

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

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

How is Shealtiel of the seed of Jechoniah?

 

[mman]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:

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

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

How is Shealtiel of the seed of Jechoniah? </font>[/QUOTE]I Chron 3:17 And the sons of Jeconiah were Assir, Shealtiel his son,

Matt 1:12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

(Also called Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24 and Jehoiachin in 2 Kings 24:8)

So, Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel and Mary was the decendent of Shealtiel therefore Jesus could not rule upon the Davidic throne and prosper.

 

[mman]

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

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

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

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

The Church is equated to the kingdom. Jesus did it in Matt 16.

Matt 16:18-19 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Mark 9:1 says some of them would see the kingdom come with power

Luke 24:49 They were told to stay in Jerusalem until they received power.

Acts 1:8 Jesus said they would receive power when the Holy Spirit came upon them

Acts 2:4 - The receive the Holy Spirit (or power)

Acts 2:15 - In those days Peter stood up among the brothers

Therefore, Peter, speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, i.e., with POWER, preached the first gospel message and opened the kingdom with the keys Jesus gave to him. The church was established and Mark 9:1 was fulfilled.

When Paul wrote to the Colossians, he affirmed that God “delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love . . .” (1:13). That is a done deal, not a future event!

When John wrote to “the seven churches that are in Asia,” (Rev. 1:4), he stated that Christ had loosed them from their sins by his blood and made them “to be a kingdom” (1:6). Further, he was a with them in that kingdom (1:9).

If the kingdom were some future event, this would have been a lie.

 

[mman]

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

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

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

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

Do the tenses really matter? If you really think they matter, why don't you look at the tenses in Col 1:13.

When Paul said God has “delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love . . .” (1:13). The term “translated” (methistemi) means to “remove from one place to another” (Arndt & Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, p. 500). The tense of the verb reveals that their entrance into the kingdom had already occurred at some point in the past.

Either Paul (writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) didn't know what he was talking about or your view of the kingdom is inaccurate.

 

[mman]

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, do you think the raising of Jesus from the dead is a future event?

Can you not tell from the context this has already taken place?

What happened when Jesus was risen from the dead? God "seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come."

When he says "not only in this age" does he mean a future age? If so, then what is "the age to come", a future, future age???

Ok, in this age (even as Paul was writing this), Christ is seated at God's right hand, far above ALL RULE and AUTHORITY and POWER and DOMINION and ABOVE every name.

If Jesus is already above all rule and dominion and power and authority, how could he possibly have more at some point in the future? HE COULDN'T!!!!

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by mman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by James_Newman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:

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

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

How is Shealtiel of the seed of Jechoniah? </font>[/QUOTE]I Chron 3:17 And the sons of Jeconiah were Assir, Shealtiel his son,

Matt 1:12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

(Also called Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24 and Jehoiachin in 2 Kings 24:8)

So, Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel and Mary was the decendent of Shealtiel therefore Jesus could not rule upon the Davidic throne and prosper. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry it took me so long to reply, I have just moved and I don't have internet access in my home right now, just at work. Anyway.

You are correct about Jechoniah and his seed not being able to prosper on the throne. But there is a strange thing in Luke, where Shealtiel or Salathiel is shown to be the son of Neri, not Jechonia. So while I do not fully understand the signifigance of the difference, I'm pretty sure that it is there for a reason. Perhaps that is not the same Shealtiel at all, or perhaps as Matthew Henry suggests, Jechoniah was childless as pronounced in Jeremiah and some how adopted Shealtiel. I think it would be strange of the Lord to curse the Messiah so that He could not reign as He was prophesied to do so.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

mman,

I read your posts. You debate about 'kingdom'. I agree with you. And also, I agree with you that the church is equal with kingdom.

Bible never call kingdon, 'millennial kingdom', because it doesn't say it is "a thousand years". To my understand that Christ tells us that we must be born again or we cannot see the kingdom of God - John 3:3. He means, if we repent our sins, then we shall have eternal life. Or, if we refuse to repent our sins, then cannot have eternal life.

I understand what Mark 9:1 talks about. It was not fulfilled when John, Peter, and James were there with Christ at the mount, saw Christ with Moses and Elijah as they were glorified body. I believe Mark 9:1 is speak of future rapture at the second coming that our body all shall be changed into immortality according 1 Cor. 15:51-54.

Yet, I believe Christ ALREADY bring kingdom to earth, it is not an observation with physical or thing, it is spirit come from above. My understanding that the kingdom already present among us with the Holy Spirit since at Pentacost Day.

By the way, we are already off the track on this topic. Let's back to the track again, and stay on the track. Yes, I believe that a servant(Christian) who have one talent, but not use it and not serve the Lord. One day shall face the judgment seat of Christ, and a servant, who hide a talent, and not use it, shall be cast away into the everlasting fire. It is not a temporary, it is an everlasting punishment same with Matt. 25:41 & 46.

mman,

I am curious, are you amill? I am amill. I agree with you on many things as what you saying about the kingdom. Amills believe the same thing as what you mentioned on kingdom.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!