ECT Where is the Kingdom of God?

A

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Jesus said the Kingdom of God is "within you" or "among you."

And Jesus used parabolic language to point to it.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Aikido,
I ask you to change your footer, because terrorism is how the Islamic caliphate (theocratic state) has spread in the modern period; isolated cells getting untraceable instructions from a leader in the caliph and doing so for effect, for intimidation, not for actual gain.
 
achduke

achduke

Active member
Interplanner said:
Nonsense. "Kill and eat" referred to the animals in the vision. You're not reading it clearly. You're mistaken.
Click to expand...

I do not think I am mistaken. Peter says nothing about how he really eats unclean animals. The visions and dreams need interpretation.

Read Acts 10 completely and how Peter is sent to Cornelius a believing Gentile.

Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?”
Click to expand...

See how the apostles receive the vision that peter tells in Acts 11.

Acts 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’
Click to expand...

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”
Click to expand...

There is nothing about food in Acts 10 and 11 except in the vision that Peter had. All understanding from Peter and the apostles had nothing to do about food.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Gal 1. in fact, there was only one other, the one Peter was sucked into believing by James or men from James. Read the account.

Any other Gospel is anathema--accursed of God.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The Gospel is the event of Christ, his atoning suffering in history, space and time. it is not a formula of things people do when responding to that.
 
achduke

achduke

Active member
DAN P said:
Hi and I know about 1 Cor 1:14-17 !!

Care to explain those verses ??:rotfl::rotfl:

Where does it say Paul , preached the Kingdom of Heaven ??

dan p
Click to expand...

How about where he preached the Gospel of Grace and the Kingdom of God.

Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

Acts 20:25 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more.
 
Jacob

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
Peter preached Acts 2 and 3. The people of Israel had sinned; there was no stopping the suffering of Messiah anyway. But they could be forgiven. The ch 2 sermon perfectly sets them up to accept the Gospel of forgiveness and 3000 did.

Ch 3's sermon repeats and adds the promise formulas. Ie, the promises to Abraham were now being offered because the promise to Abraham was justification from one's sins. (If you can be forgiven and justified from putting the Son of God to death, then...).

The times of refreshing are not a theocracy or anything like what they had in the OT. It was to be the outpouring of the Spirit so that they could take the Gospel to the world. The ideal of the new era was a believing Jew who was a missionary to the nations.

Paul says he did not have any conflict with the Gospel as such (after conversion!!!). "He is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." Gal 1:23. In 2:4 (14 years later) there is clearly still no pressure to keep a part of the Law (ceremonial), to limit freedom. But Paul does discover false brothers and that Peter has been pressured to add-on. In 2:12, some of them 'had come from James' and Peter pulled back from eating with Gentiles. So now we see there is a "circumcision group." Even Barnabas was affected. The rest of Gal 2 is the confrontation.

Now cp with Acts 9. In 9:29 some Grecian Jews tried to kill Paul. This would surely predate Gal 2 because it is right after conversion. The trouble must have started with them, and they must have affected James.

Acts 9-11 must be when Peter was still OK, but he does retract about ceremonially unclean food in 10:14. It seems he went to Gentile homes but retracted about foods. Yet he says he is not supposed to in v28, but that the Gospel trumps that distinction in v34+ which states the Gospel again through v43, when the Spirit comes on those listening. So everyone in leadership in Judea had accepted Gentile inclusion apart from the Law at that point (11:18).

The trouble for Peter (Gal 2) happened after this complete validation that the Gentiles could believe the Gospel and have Christian fellowship without any observance of the Law. That's the same Gospel.

Pressure from James, or those Grecian Jews, or the false brothers from James came later and Peter caved.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if it makes sense in my mind.

I feel a need to follow what occurred with both Peter and Paul.
 
A

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Since leaven was always regarded as unclean and corrupted...
And the actual mustard plant was a noxious weed that took over a farmer's garden...
And the Samaritans were always considered as unclean
And the guests to the party came from the streets and not the official invite list...

I feel that many of Jesus' parables indicated that the presence of God was in the unclean.

This would cohere pretty solidly with Jesus' actions to include all--even the unclean--into the society's circle of humans.

As he said himself "The Father makes his sun shine on the good and the evil alike and makes his rain fall on both the righteous and the unrighteous."

At the very least, Jesus' God played no favorites.
 
A

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
Aikido,
I ask you to change your footer, because terrorism is how the Islamic caliphate (theocratic state) has spread in the modern period; isolated cells getting untraceable instructions from a leader in the caliph and doing so for effect, for intimidation, not for actual gain.
Click to expand...
I don't understand your point.

One thing I will say--every time anyone, anytime or anywhere gives their conjectures as to how terrorism forms and is sustained and enflamed is usually condemned as some sort of "friend" of the terrorists.

I am no friend to terrorism.

I do think I have a handle on what is making it spread. And I think the U.S. is unwittingly causing this.

When millions all over the world took to the streets to protest George Bush's vow to go to war with Iraq, I sat back and saw a horrific metaphor of Bush attacking a large nest of wasps with a weed-eater.

Subsequent events proved my point.

I had to laugh when Rumsfeld said during the riots in the streets of Bagdad that "democracy is untidy."
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
achduke said:
What about when Paul preaches the Kindom of God? Where does that fit in the timeline?
Click to expand...

When Paul preached the kingdom of God his emphasis was on the King:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).​

Those who believed that gospel received life when they were born of God (Jn.20:31; 1 Jn.5:1-5).

This is so simple!
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The King?

Messiah is mainly identified with Dan 9 and Is 53. Even in Jer 23-33, the LORD/KING OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS is providing righteousness.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
Do you deny that believing that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, results in salvation?
Click to expand...

This here is the agenda he is trying to lure you into, Interplanner.

Jerry not only believes "that believing that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, results in salvation" but us determined to ram it down everyone's throat.

Whether said belief is itself right or wrong, is not the issue for him.

Rather, is need to show the world he is right; coupled with his need to get the world to glory in his flesh with him about him.

His behavior fits the perfect description of a neurosis. In the absence of its setting, the neurotic will bring it into being.

That is what Jerry does every post he can, regardless of the actual topic that was being discussed.

The guy is an Acts 2 Pentecostal Dispensationalist.

Ever followed around in his own delusion [of grandeur, of course] by this "demon" he sees every where, that he believes he alone must root out, and stamp out to the glory of Jerry Shugart the ever bullying, arrogant, blow hart.

In fact, if he fails to turn this post into one of his now decades old infamous "so you're saying that you agree with me, me, me, me, me - that believing that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, results in salvation, is that right?" I, along with others who know him well as to this farce of his, will be surprised.

The poor man must just wants his own Jerry Springer show -he'd love nothing more than to here "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!"
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Danoh said:
This here is the agenda he is trying to lure you into, Interplanner.

Jerry not only believes "that believing that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, results in salvation" but us determined to ram it down everyone's throat.

Whether said belief is itself right or wrong, is not the issue for him.
Click to expand...

I am not determined to ram it down other's throat. Instead, I use this to defend my idea that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.

What do you think is the "good news" of what is in "bold" here?:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (Gal:2:7).​

Do you believe that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period? If your answer is "yes" then tell me what was being preached when Peter preached the "gospel of the circumcision"?

Show us that you can do something other than sling mud!

Ever followed around in his own delusion [of grandeur, of course] by this "demon" he sees every where, that he believes he alone must root out, and stamp out to the glory of Jerry Shugart the ever bullying, arrogant, blow hart.
Click to expand...

We know that you are good at name calling but I never see any evidence that you are nothing more than a natural man:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).​
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Do you deny that believing that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, results in salvation?
Click to expand...


No, Jerry,
it just sounds like Messiah has to do directly with kingship, from you line above. There was kingship but it was through the influence of the Gospel. "The government will be on his shoulders." The Gospel is the power of God for (whole) salvation. God's reign spreads through its proclamation.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
No, Jerry,
it just sounds like Messiah has to do directly with kingship, from you line above. There was kingship but it was through the influence of the Gospel. "The government will be on his shoulders." The Gospel is the power of God for (whole) salvation. God's reign spreads through its proclamation.
Click to expand...

None of that says anything about the fact that believers are " justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).

Common sense dictates that the "good news" that believers are " justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" is not the same "good news" that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."

Those proclamations represent two different gospels. And they were both preached during the Acts period. Belief in either of these gospels brought salvation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top