Matthew 26:28

[k0de]

No, it was rejected and awaits future fulfillment.

Kingdom deniers think the new testament in Jesus' blood is so impotent that it had the ability be rejected.

The kingdom has come according to Matthew 12:28 and Luke 17:21; and the coming of the kingdom is still future according to Luke 19:11–12.

This is so puzzling, but the thing is this:

It threw the Pharisees into confusion. It took John the Baptist off guard. It caused one crowd to want to throw Jesus off a cliff and another wanted to make him a king. Pilate didn't understand it. And the apostles wereconfused and hopeless before the resurrection.

Looking at the evidence from the Bible I say that the kingdom is both already here and also future.

 

[Cntrysner]

There is no other remission of sins in any part of history other than the blood of Christ. Abraham was saved the same way we are, by faith. He had a little light, Moses had more, the prophets more, we have even more light. Heb 11 is a list of those who believed God's promise of redemption through faith and it was counted to them for righteousness.

It is new to the world in that it had not been heard before, not because it was not in effect. And it was the true covenant of God.

If they had believed in the blood of Christ they would have preached it. Even at pentecost it was not revealed by the apostles. We who are placed into His body are not merely saved as Abraham for a later time but truly set at the right hand of God in Christ. Abraham did not receive eternal life at that time but was saved because he believed God.The mystery revealed is... we are now saved by the faithfulness of Christ not our own.

 

[Right Divider]

The kingdom has come according to Matthew 12:28 and Luke 17:21; and the coming of the kingdom is still future according to Luke 19:11–12.

This is so puzzling, but the thing is this:

It threw the Pharisees into confusion. It took John the Baptist off guard. It caused one crowd to want to throw Jesus off a cliff and another wanted to make him a king. Pilate didn't understand it. And the apostles wereconfused and hopeless before the resurrection.

Looking at the evidence from the Bible I say that the kingdom is both already here and also future.

While I see that you can come to that conclusion. To actually believe the "now but not yet" is confused.

When Jesus says that "the kingdom of God is come unto you.", He's simply reiterating the kingdom at hand.

 

[k0de]

While I see that you can come to that conclusion. To actually believe the "now but not yet" it confused.

When Jesus says that "the kingdom of God is come unto you.", He's simply reiterating that the kingdom at hand.

But what about the parables of the Sower, of the Wheat and Tares, of the Mustard Seed, and of the Fishing Net. Many of these things haven't yet happened.

 

[Right Divider]

But what about the parables of the Sower, of the Wheat and Tares, of the Mustard Seed, and of the Fishing Net. Many of these things haven't yet happened.

Exactly! That agrees with my stance that the kingdom has not yet been established and will not be until the Lord returns.

 

[k0de]

Exactly! That agrees with my stance that the kingdom has not yet been established and will not be until the Lord returns.

Correct. And can we also agree that there has been some sort of fulfillment?

 

[Right Divider]

Correct. And can we also agree that there has been some sort of fulfillment?

"Some sort of fulfillment" is rather vague.

There are some prophecies that have been fulfilled. That is a separate discussion.

 

[k0de]

"Some sort of fulfillment" is rather vague.

There are some prophecies that have been fulfilled. That is a separate discussion.

Fair enough, thanks RD.

 

[Right Divider]

Fair enough, thanks RD.

You're welcome.

 

[Cntrysner]

What is this debated "kingdom"? Is it something I might miss out on. Seems it holds flesh. Don't think I need to completely understand it, I set at the right hand of God in Christ the King where there's no division. God's heart is working with Israel that they might all be with us...

 

[George Affleck]

JR is correct. Judas lost his place and was replaced.

Understood.

So one of the 12 people that Jesus included in this: Luk 22:30KJV is no longer invited to eat with Jesus and one that He did not include in the statement is now invited in his place.

It seems to me that you are very careful to stick to the letter of Jesus' words when it serves your purpose, but when it doesn't affect your eschatology, you are quite willing to relax your rules. I would have expected, if you were consistent in following Jesus' words exactly as you maintain, that you would at least exclude Matthias from your answer because he was not included at the time Jesus spoke the word "ye" in Luke 22.

But, when it comes to Act 10:41KJV the "fruit of the vine" very quickly becomes of utmost importance. It is quite clear to those of us who are not futurists that when Jesus ate and drank with the apostles after He rose from the dead that eating and drinking naturally included the drinking of wine which was the universal custom in those days. But for you it cannot be so because it messes with your system. If He did, it would clearly mean the Kingdom had arrived.

Please note the context of the following:

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:29-30KJV

"Appoint" is a word that means to dispose of, as in a will or testament, a covenant or agreement. And it is in the present tense. Jesus is ceremoniously passing the torch to the 12 and appointing them as judges by the authority of the Father. This would all be brought to their remembrance after His resurrection and leading up to Pentecost. They would quickly come to realize that they had been appointed guardians of the new testament; the Kingdom of God.

 

[George Affleck]

If they had believed in the blood of Christ they would have preached it. Even at pentecost it was not revealed by the apostles. We who are placed into His body are not merely saved as Abraham for a later time but truly set at the right hand of God in Christ. Abraham did not receive eternal life at that time but was saved because he believed God.The mystery revealed is... we are now saved by the faithfulness of Christ not our own.

It was not necessary for those who did not know about the blood of Christ to believe in it or preach it. It is not the sinner/believers' work to invoke salvation by incantation. What is necessary is that it is available to the Father for the purpose of covering sin; original sin and sinners' sins. This is why God tells us that Jesus is the lamb that was slain from before the foundation of the world. Jesus' blood covers all in those history who, by faith, apprehend the blessing that is given by grace.

 

[George Affleck]

What is this debated "kingdom"? Is it something I might miss out on. Seems it holds flesh. Don't think I need to completely understand it, I set at the right hand of God in Christ the King where there's no division. God's heart is working with Israel that they might all be with us...

The kingdom is not debated by those who believe the Bible. The only debate is on the timing. All those who believe that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead are accepted in the beloved and cannot be left out of the kingdom. Some believe it is a present spiritual kingdom and some that it will have physical manifestations in the future. Still others embrace both to one degree or another.

 

[Right Divider]

Understood.

So one of the 12 people that Jesus included in this: Luk 22:30KJV is no longer invited to eat with Jesus and one that He did not include in the statement is now invited in his place.

FALSE... AGAIN....

Prophecy showed that Judas would be replaced. They used the prophecy to handle the situation of needing twelve and only having eleven.

It seems to me that you are very careful to stick to the letter of Jesus' words when it serves your purpose, but when it doesn't affect your eschatology, you are quite willing to relax your rules.

You are the one forcing your opinions onto the scripture. I stick to the scripture as written.

I would have expected, if you were consistent in following Jesus' words exactly as you maintain, that you would at least exclude Matthias from your answer because he was not included at the time Jesus spoke the word "ye" in Luke 22.

Your very limited knowledge of the scripture and willingness to twist it to suit yourself are apparent to us all.

But, when it comes to Act 10:41KJV the "fruit of the vine" very quickly becomes of utmost importance. It is quite clear to those of us who are not futurists that when Jesus ate and drank with the apostles after He rose from the dead that eating and drinking naturally included the drinking of wine which was the universal custom in those days. But for you it cannot be so because it messes with your system. If He did, it would clearly mean the Kingdom had arrived.

Ah the old argument from silence. Using fallacious reasoning does not help support your fairy tale.

Please note the context of the following:

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:29-30KJV

"Appoint" is a word that means to dispose of, as in a will or testament, a covenant or agreement. And it is in the present tense. Jesus is ceremoniously passing the torch to the 12 and appointing them as judges by the authority of the Father. This would all be brought to their remembrance after His resurrection and leading up to Pentecost. They would quickly come to realize that they had been appointed guardians of the new testament; the Kingdom of God.

Once AGAIN, prophecy demonstrated the failure of Judas and the need for his replacement.

Act 1:16-26 KJV Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. (17) For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. (18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. (19) And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. (20) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. (21) Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (23) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (24) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, (25) That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. (26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.​

 

[Zeke]

It was not necessary for those who did not know about the blood of Christ to believe in it or preach it. It is not the sinner/believers' work to invoke salvation by incantation. What is necessary is that it is available to the Father for the purpose of covering sin; original sin and sinners' sins. This is why God tells us that Jesus is the lamb that was slain from before the foundation of the world. Jesus' blood covers all in those history who, by faith, apprehend the blessing that is given by grace.

Yet if you follow 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 to interpret the dead letter allegories and parables that reveal the blood of Christ isn't temporal blood that keeps the physical body alive, it isn't anything but typology a pattern for the invisible spirit in all and through all creating a new man getting his lower nature which is a conscience state raised to a higher state of understanding, Hebrews 9:9, Galatians 1:12, 4:24, Paul didn't discover that while Saul who studied the law with no spiritual light to illuminate its dead letters, its revealed.

You being a believer who I hope believes 1 Corinthians 3:16, by giving temporal carnal blood to another doesn't make them believe by being imputed with carnal blood, the one blood all men are made of is the one conscience everyone moves and has their being, the sacrificial place that was only symbolized in animal symbolism.

The kingdom of Spirit Luke 17:21, is the consciousness of man not the blood of a human that was wrongly interpreted, Psalm 40:6, John 5:22, Perfect love is the blood of Christ an invisible spirit dramatized in a man, speaking through a man to carnal man who wouldn't except the spiritual meaning while spiritually asleep, Romans 8:6, who reads 1 Corinthians 15:15-19, as a carnal event, but when the spiritual man the Christ within reads it he knows its a spiritual event Ephesians 5:14, is that rising!.

Matthew 23:13, tells the religious outward man he is blind and a hypocrite, because the kingdom is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, their doctrine made them easily offended just like the literalist here are when shown the carnal story isn't for spiritual adults, Hebrews 6:1-5, 2 Corinthians 5:16.

 

[George Affleck]

Yet if you follow 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 to interpret the dead letter allegories and parables that reveal the blood of Christ isn't temporal blood that keeps the physical body alive, it isn't anything but typology a pattern for the invisible spirit in all and through all creating a new man getting his lower nature which is a conscience state raised to a higher state of understanding, Hebrews 9:9, Galatians 1:12, 4:24, Paul didn't discover that while Saul who studied the law with no spiritual light to illuminate its dead letters, its revealed.

You being a believer who I hope believes 1 Corinthians 3:16, by giving temporal carnal blood to another doesn't make them believe by being imputed with carnal blood, the one blood all men are made of is the one conscience everyone moves and has their being, the sacrificial place that was only symbolized in animal symbolism.

The kingdom of Spirit Luke 17:21, is the consciousness of man not the blood of a human that was wrongly interpreted, Psalm 40:6, John 5:22, Perfect love is the blood of Christ an invisible spirit dramatized in a man, speaking through a man to carnal man who wouldn't except the spiritual meaning while spiritually asleep, Romans 8:6, who reads 1 Corinthians 15:15-19, as a carnal event, but when the spiritual man the Christ within reads it he knows its a spiritual event Ephesians 5:14, is that rising!.

Matthew 23:13, tells the religious outward man he is blind and a hypocrite, because the kingdom is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, their doctrine made them easily offended just like the literalist here are when shown the carnal story isn't for spiritual adults, Hebrews 6:1-5, 2 Corinthians 5:16.

No idea what you just said or why.

 

[Cntrysner]

There is no other remission of sins in any part of history other than the blood of Christ. Abraham was saved the same way we are, by faith. He had a little light, Moses had more, the prophets more, we have even more light. Heb 11 is a list of those who believed God's promise of redemption through faith and it was counted to them for righteousness.

It is new to the world in that it had not been heard before, not because it was not in effect. And it was the true covenant of God.

If it had not been heard before how could it possibly have been "in effect"? New means "new" not a refresher...it's new in the sense of performance and none could have its benefits or even understand it because it had not been revealed. It is definitely a new covenant that supersedes all covenants before it.
God will hold to all His covenants but the end result will be the fulfillment of the last covenant for all.

 

[Right Divider]

If it had not been heard before how could it possibly have been "in effect"? New means "new" not a refresher...it's new in the sense of performance and none could have its benefits or even understand it because it had not been revealed. It is definitely a new covenant that supersedes all covenants before it.
God will hold to all His covenants but the end result will be the fulfillment of the last covenant for all.

That's simply not true and unsupportable from the Bible.

 

[Cntrysner]

The kingdom has come according to Matthew 12:28 and Luke 17:21; and the coming of the kingdom is still future according to Luke 19:11–12.

This is so puzzling, but the thing is this:

It threw the Pharisees into confusion. It took John the Baptist off guard. It caused one crowd to want to throw Jesus off a cliff and another wanted to make him a king. Pilate didn't understand it. And the apostles wereconfused and hopeless before the resurrection.

Looking at the evidence from the Bible I say that the kingdom is both already here and also future.

I'd say you're on to something here. In Christ is the kingdom, He is it's body therefore it is here.

 

[Right Divider]

I'd say you're on to something here. In Christ is the kingdom, He is it's body therefore it is here.

The "kingdom come" where God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven is not here now.

When God's will is done on earth, it will not be the corrupt mess that you see today.