Hi and our sphere of influnce will be heaven and Eph 2:7nreveals that we will shown to all God's creation in the heavenlies !!
dan p
Last edited:
ECT Where is the Kingdom of God?
- Thread starter achduke
- Start date
Hi and our sphere of influnce will be heaven and Eph 2:7nreveals that we will shown to all God's creation in the heavenlies !!
dan p
Interplanner
Well-known member
DanP,
Then the MAD people here invented the idea of him having another one, or they legitimized him having another one.
I don't accept what you are saying because of the eruption of Paul in Gal 1-2. How could there not have been another gospel, and one connected with Peter?
When Paul is straightening things out he has to say that justification is not by observing the law. Someone was teaching that that was gospel! There is hypocrisy on Peter's part for going along with the division from Gentiles and their foods, but it had a source. You'd think he would have known how to behave, but Paul (and the sheet vision and the tongues) made sure he knew there was a correct message: we are only justified in Christ and that translates into welcoming the nations, even to your table.
turbosixx
New member
I would like to know the same thing. If the 12 preached the gospel of the kingdom before the DBR and then the gospel of Christ after the DBR, what happened to the kingdom?
I haven't seen a good explanation from the MAD sect on this and was surprised to see there were not only two gospels, according to them, but four. LOL
Interplanner
Well-known member
Well, there are things that sound like there are two; that's one of them. But are there truly? The belief that there are is one of the things they depend on , and this is one of the supports.
But I don't accept it; I don't accept the idea that there was some other offer of a theocracy. Anything Jesus said about it turned out to mean the community that would form through Gospel of the atoning suffering. It is mentioned early enough: 'behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' That's John the Baptiser. That's early enough for me.
But I don't accept it; I don't accept the idea that there was some other offer of a theocracy. Anything Jesus said about it turned out to mean the community that would form through Gospel of the atoning suffering. It is mentioned early enough: 'behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' That's John the Baptiser. That's early enough for me.
turbosixx
New member
The reason I see the confusion of two, is timing and audience. Another reason is, people today are making the same mistake the Jews did then. They are looking at things physically, not spiritually. I understand the kingdom and the body of Christ are one and the same. Why else would Paul say this.
13For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Do you have the verses that show the chronology of what you are saying about Peter and later? That is, how do I know which was first?
Interplanner
Well-known member
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.
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.
achduke
Active member
Acts 9:11 was not about unclean food. It was an example that a Jew may fellowship with a Gentile that is clean. Peter and the other apostles were being discriminate against Gentiles. It does not say he broke dietary laws.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Sure does. That's what the sheet vision was about.
Several years I go I was having a great exchange with some messianic Jews. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, they asked 'what do you think about Acts 10?' I had no idea what they meant.
'We can't fellowship any further with if you think Peter ate that food. It's fine if you think he went to their homes, but not if you think he ate their food.'
So they terminated contact and blocked all ways of contact. That is the 'wrong' of Peter in action all over again. I hope you don't have it.
"Kill and eat... Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 10:15.
Several years I go I was having a great exchange with some messianic Jews. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, they asked 'what do you think about Acts 10?' I had no idea what they meant.
'We can't fellowship any further with if you think Peter ate that food. It's fine if you think he went to their homes, but not if you think he ate their food.'
So they terminated contact and blocked all ways of contact. That is the 'wrong' of Peter in action all over again. I hope you don't have it.
"Kill and eat... Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 10:15.
achduke
Active member
Peter explains in Act 11 what the vision was about.
God made the gentile believers clean. No where does it say he made Swine clean to eat.
And here is the interpretation of Acts 10
Peter being told to eat unclean food in a vision was an example that what God makes clean is clean. In this case God did not make Swine clean. He made the Gentiles clean with the baptism of the Holy Spirit! Peter should have no reservation about eating dinner with them. That still does not command him to eat swine or shell fish. Did God make Swine clean?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Did God mean 'kill and eat' Gentiles?
achduke
Active member
achduke
Active member
I would still like to know. If Paul is preaching a different Gospel then why is he also preaching about the Kingdom?
You say you want to know; but you don't really want to.
Matthew 19:
28. And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
John was given a vision wherein he saw this kingdom from Heaven as a city in that will come down to the Earth.
Revelation 21:
1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
This is the promise of His coming that Peter is talking about in 2 Peter 3 that Paul had told them God had delayed.
That is a city in Heaven, not Heaven itself.
Heaven itself is the following and will reign over that city and the rest of Creation - Colossians 1:
12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Note the two realms:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Its overseers:
18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
This Mystery has to be settled first; then the Earth issue "in the regeneration."
Why must the Heavenly realm be solved for [reconciled] first?
Eph. 6:
12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
No point in Luke 11:2's "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth..."
... until that spiritual wickedness in high places is out down.
The end result of all that - Ephesians 1:
10. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12. That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
That is "the end" mentioned in 1 Cor. 15.
But it is not going to match the mess the likes of Russell and Stout made of it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
MAD is one of many systems that gets up a head of steam about one thing but is not patient in their homework to wait on debatable things until it has a fuller and better picture, as it should. These systems end up with "problem passages."
In this you are clueless - MAD based on decades in the Word, not in the same time in books supposedly about the Word.
You are left with guessing at, and "perhaps this," and "maybe this meant such and so..."
Because your time is invested in the notions of other men's labors.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Paul preached two gospels. The gospel of the kingdom declares that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. The first message which Paul preached after being converted was the "gospel of the kingdom" in the synagogues of the Jews:
"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 again (Jn.20:31; 1 Jn.5:1-5).
Paul also preached the gospel of grace, which declares that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24). Those who believe that truth are saved.
achduke
Active member
I believe all this scripture. The Kingdom of God is inside of you. Believers in Christ are the Temple of Holy Spirit. Christ is the head.
achduke
Active member
What about when Paul preaches the Kindom of God? Where does that fit in the timeline?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nonsense, Jerry. he said there is one; the bio of Gal 1-2 says he preached one; he pronounced anathema on another and the only other he had in mind was what the false brothers from James had added on.