Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Jesus' coming Kingdom on land.


Recommended Posts

  • Members
On 11/11/2015, 9:51:02, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Concerning this verse I wish to ask you a question -- What is the meaning of the word "now" in the closing line of John 18:36?

The response from "Invicta" was: " Don't panic.  I don't rush to answer fatuous questions I will reply in due course.  "

 

Who is not reading the comment right? 

I then reply with scripture from the inerrant word of God.

You reply: "Your verses here are the usual 'hype' from 'unstudied' content, just rattled off from previous teachers 'of the word', that teach a bunch of mumbo jumbo and tell the sheeple what to believe instead of just accepting the pure word of God from HIS writings."

The Word of God is neither mumbo jumbo, nor is it inaccurate.  I didn't base my answer on what any previous teacher taught, other than the Lord Jesus being the teacher. I'm sorry if the Word of God offends you. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 minute ago, Ronda said:

The response from "Invicta" was: " Don't panic.  I don't rush to answer fatuous questions I will reply in due course.  "

Who is not reading the comment right? 

I then reply with scripture from the inerrant word of God.

You reply: "Your verses here are the usual 'hype' from 'unstudied' content, just rattled off from previous teachers 'of the word', that teach a bunch of mumbo jumbo and tell the sheeple what to believe instead of just accepting the pure word of God from HIS writings."

The Word of God is neither mumbo jumbo, nor is it inaccurate.  I didn't base my answer on what any previous teacher taught, other than the Lord Jesus being the teacher. I'm sorry if the Word of God offends you. 

Yes, you did reply with scripture. Scripture that does not say what you mean. And that is the norm with people that were taught a certain way about these verses.

I know! I taught them for years that way, and I was following what men of God taught me!

So don't go saying you were taught by Jesus, he said what he meant, and what you, and men I have known, teach, is not what Jesus said in these verses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Very interesting.  God's word doesn't mean what it says? It only means what YOU say it says? Read the verses I quoted. WHY would Matthew 15: 5:13-16 not have anything to do with Matthew 5:17-18?   If they are supposedly irrelevant to each other, WHY would Jesus have spoken them right afterwards? 

Edited by Ronda
15 erroneous, 5 was the chapter previously quoted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ronda,

Amen and amen.

Alan

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

"But now is my Kingdom not from hence."

 

'But my Kingdom is not from hence."

 

There is most assuredly a difference.  The word "now" indicates a specific time frame.  The present time in which Christ Jesus was speaking.  This leaves toom for a coming Kingdom,... a Kingdom that the Word of God declares is to come.

 

Why would Jesus even teach His Disciples to pray, "Thy Kingdom come" if His Kingdom would not be established on Earth at a future time?

 

Hence, the necessity of the word "now" in John 18:36

Standing Firm in Christ,

Amen and amen. Keep up the good work. Your interpretation is entirely correct and appropriate.

Alan

Edited by Alan
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

*Please read the bold type that I highlighted...please?

The text is speaking about Jesus Christ fulfilling the sacrifices of the Law to take care of our sin issue.

That has nothing to do with whether a text of a Bible is missing some words.

 

 

Your interpretation of the question of Pilate and the answer of the Lord Jesus is not accurate. The context is kingship in a coming kingdom; not salvation. 

Again, when you said, "That has nothing to do with a text of a Bible is missing some words." Whatever the subject matter, whether for salvation or the coming kingdom, that is the issue: the taking out of a word, a very important word, from the mouth of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the scriptures. This is the reason why Ronda responded the way she did and I commend her for it.

Alan

Edited by Alan
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 11/11/2015, 10:35:26, Invicta said:

So how was Abraham saved?  By the law, by circumcision or by faith?

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Genesis 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?

Genesis 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

Genesis 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

Genesis 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
----------
Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

God counted Abram’s belief in the LORD for RIGHTEOUSNESS. It really never says that Abraham was saved…but counted as “righteous”.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is the Term Israel

Used in the New Testament?

Covenant and reformed theologians believe that New Testament believers, including saved Gentiles, are the true Israel of God. Is it really Biblical to refer to Gentile believers as Israelites? Has God created a “new Israel” that is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles of this present age?

Let us search the Scriptures to see if these things be so. We will examine the 73 times in the New Testament where the term “Israel” is used. How does the New Testament use this term? Is it ever used of the church in general or saved Gentiles in particular?

The following article is taken from the book Israelology–the Missing Link in Systematic Theology, by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum. It is used with his permission.

CONCLUSION

For Dispensational Israelology, the conclusion is that the Church is never called, and is not, a “spiritual Israel” or a “new Israel.” The term “Israel” is either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant within. It is never used of the Church in general or of Gentile believers in particular.

The Israel of God of Galatians 6:16

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Very good study, Linda! Those who attempt to steal the blessings of Israel (yet strangely deny any of the curses) have to twist, spiritualize, and even omit massive amounts of scripture to do so. They pluck out a verse or two, entirely out of context, and apply it to themselves (when the contextual scripture proves their theory wrong). I am amazed by the people who refuse to believe that God said what He meant, and meant what He said.

Romans 11 speaks clearly to the fact that  God has not permanently cast off Israel. He has future plans for them. Not only do the replacement theologists throw out huge chunks of OT scripture, they also have to throw out Romans 11 (and others) as well.  I revere the word of God. What's more, I fear God, and wouldn't knowingly twist scripture to mean something other than what it clearly states. 

Again, Excellent study, Linda!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 minutes ago, Alan said:

Your interpretation of the question of Pilate and the answer of the Lord Jesus is not accurate. The context is kingship in a coming kingdom; not salvation. 

Again, when you said, "That has nothing to do with a text of a Bible is missing some words." Whatever the subject matter, whether for salvation or the coming kingdom, that is the issue: the taking out of a word, a very important word, from the mouth of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the scriptures. This is the reason why Ronda responded the way she did and I commend her for it.

Alan

One unfounded opinion, Alan. Sorry to hear this of you.

Just because you want something to be in a text, doesn't mean it is.

 

36 minutes ago, Ronda said:

Very interesting.  God's word doesn't mean what it says? It only means what YOU say it says? Read the verses I quoted. WHY would Matthew 15: 13-16 not have anything to do with Matthew 5:17-18?   If they are supposedly irrelevant to each other, WHY would Jesus have spoken them right afterwards? 

Huh? When did I say that?

But I do find it humorous that you think they do. Once again...read your own reference below please.

Matthew 15 - 

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

 

1 minute ago, Ronda said:

Very good study, Linda! Those who attempt to steal the blessings of Israel (yet strangely deny any of the curses) have to twist, spiritualize, and even omit massive amounts of scripture to do so. They pluck out a verse or two, entirely out of context, and apply it to themselves (when the contextual scripture proves their theory wrong). I am amazed by the people who refuse to believe that God said what He meant, and meant what He said.

Romans 11 speaks clearly to the fact that  God has not permanently cast off Israel. He has future plans for them. Not only do the replacement theologists throw out huge chunks of OT scripture, they also have to throw out Romans 11 (and others) as well.  I revere the word of God. What's more, I fear God, and wouldn't knowingly twist scripture to mean something other than what it clearly states. 

Again, Excellent study, Linda!

You have plenty to learn in making statements like this in a public forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
34 minutes ago, Alan said:

Your interpretation of the question of Pilate and the answer of the Lord Jesus is not accurate. The context is kingship in a coming kingdom; not salvation. 

Again, when you said, "That has nothing to do with a text of a Bible is missing some words." Whatever the subject matter, whether for salvation or the coming kingdom, that is the issue: the taking out of a word, a very important word, from the mouth of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the scriptures. This is the reason why Ronda responded the way she did and I commend her for it.

Alan

Ok, we are back to the word "now".

You are mixing things up here Alan. I never said Pilate's convo with Christ Jesus had to do with salvation.

Please tell me where I did, I looked over my posts and cannot find such a thing.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

*Please read the bold type that I highlighted...please?

The text is speaking about Jesus Christ fulfilling the sacrifices of the Law to take care of our sin issue.

That has nothing to do with whether a text of a Bible is missing some words.

 

 

You said the above: "The text is speaking about Jesus Christ fulfilling the sacrifices of the Law to take care of our sin issue." That, referring to the salvation of our soul, is not the context. The context of the conversation of Christ and Pilate is the coming kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, Alan said:

You said the above: "The text is speaking about Jesus Christ fulfilling the sacrifices of the Law to take care of our sin issue." That, referring to the salvation of our soul, is not the context. The context of the conversation of Christ and Pilate is the coming kingdom.

I see your confusion. This was in reference to Matthew 5:17,18, not the other reference.

Read Ronda's previous statement with my response, and you will see what I mean.

  2 hours ago, Ronda said:

In reading Matthew 5, Jesus spoke to His disciples in verses 13-16 about being the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Do you not find it interesting (I do) that directly after those verses (13-16) comes verses 17 & 18:
17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
18  "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."*

It strikes me as I read this that in order to be the salt and the light, Jesus includes the importance of accuracy. I have studied on "jots and tittles", what I found was not what I expected... the jot (yodh) is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The "tittle" is a decorative mark drawn on the upper right edge of the "jot" (yodh).
You can see clearly why Jesus wouldn't want the letter (jot) to be taken out, but even more amazingly, He didn't want the "tittle" to be taken out either. Not even the smallest letter or even its decorative spur will ever disappear from the "God Breathed" Word until all is fulfilled. 

 

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I see your confusion. This was in reference to Matthew 5:17,18, not the other reference.

Read Ronda's previous statement with my response, and you will see what I mean.

In reading Matthew 5, Jesus spoke to His disciples in verses 13-16 about being the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Do you not find it interesting (I do) that directly after those verses (13-16) comes verses 17 & 18:
17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
18  "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."*

It strikes me as I read this that in order to be the salt and the light, Jesus includes the importance of accuracy. I have studied on "jots and tittles", what I found was not what I expected... the jot (yodh) is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The "tittle" is a decorative mark drawn on the upper right edge of the "jot" (yodh).
You can see clearly why Jesus wouldn't want the letter (jot) to be taken out, but even more amazingly, He didn't want the "tittle" to be taken out either. Not even the smallest letter or even its decorative spur will ever disappear from the "God Breathed" Word until all is fulfilled. 

 

Genevanpreacher,

Thank you for clarifying the issue and the confusion as to exactly what we are to referring to now.

As you may, or may not have noticed, I did not respond to any of the posts concerning the Matthew 5:13-16 and the 17-18 previous statements. I did this as I felt both of you and Ronda had valid points and I did not want to interfere with that discussion; but just sit back and read.

When the Lord Jesus said, "Think not that I am not come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."  Matthew 5:17 can be applicable to all of the prophecies concerning salvation and future prophecy. So, according to that context, I have no bone of contention with you.

Alan

Edited by Alan
forgot a word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The ss, and the Jesuits and many others specialized in death, like the horse of the Apocalypse called death, it was given power over a large part of the earth, death was its sole purpose( the previous horse brought war which included death) hell followed with it to cover the evidence and hide it îf possible, but all will be discovered.

Rome and co do genocide of those whom they perceive to be Gods people, then there academics team work from that point onward to cover it from the face of the earth using every lie under the sun.the Jesuits the ss and skull n bones all have the skull as symbol.

or in other words my interpretation of the rider called death. but its a footnote really.

 

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
un duplication!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...