Kingdom of Heaven [Archive] - Christian Forums

23rd May 2006, 08:30 PM

The essence of the Christian religion consists therein: that the creation of the Father, destroyed by sin, is again restored in the death of the Son of God and recreated by the grace of the Holy Spirit to a Kingdom of God. - Herman Bavinck

If you have not chosen the Kingdom of God first, it will in the end make no difference what you have chosen instead. - William Law

Jesus' good news, then, was that the Kingdom of God had come, and that he, Jesus, was its herald and expounder to men. More than that, in some special and mysterious was, he was the kingdom. - Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus: the Man who Lives

The kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power, the power of Godliness. Though now we are fallen upon another method, we have turned all religion into faith, and our faith is nothing but the production of interest or disputing; it is adhering to a party and a wrangling against all the world beside -- and when it is asked of what religion he is, we understand the meaning to be what faction does he follow, what are the articles of his sect, not what is the manner of his life: and if men be zealous for their party and that interest, then they are precious men, though otherwise they be covetous as the grave, factious as Dathan, schismatical as Korah, or proud as the fallen angels. - Jeremy Taylor

Is the Kingdom of God a big family? Yes, in a sense it is. But in another sense it is a prodigious biological operation - that of the Redeeming Incarnation. - Pierre Teilhard Chardin

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that whenever the Kingdom of God was concerned Jesus was absolutely uncompromising, even when he realized that for him personally the alternative to compromise was crucifixion. - Ernest Fremont Tittle

If I see a man who loves the Lord Jesus in sincerity, I am not very solicitous to what communion he belongs. The Kingdom of God, I think, does not consist in any such thing. - George Whitefield

Jesus brought the blessings of Abraham "first to the Jew" and then expanded the blessing "also to the Gentile" (see Galatians 3:14 and Romans 1:16). There are not two sets of Covenant promises and Covenant obligations, one for Jewish believers and one for Gentile believers, there is one New Covenant people and one faith (Eph. 2:16 and 4:5). - Rev. Fred Klett

StJohnCalvin

25th May 2006, 04:03 AM

Interesting quotations

:)

heymikey80

1st June 2006, 08:48 PM

Not to split the meanings more than they should be. I'm just interested in what the different terms meant to emphasize about the Kingdom.

There's the Kingdom of God; the Kingdom of Heaven; "Christ's Kingdom" (when it's referred-to as "your Kingdom" by those talking with Him); Christ's "return in Glory"; the Father's Kingdom (as in the Disciple's Prayer).

There's also subtle points made about the "ekklesia". I found recently the "ekklesia" was the core of Athens and other city states, their center of political power, the "town meeting" of the state's citizens.

The "Lord"-ship of Christ also brings up images of a King and His Kingdom.

And our citizenship in heaven and ambassadorship to the world are both images of the Kingdom playing a role in our lives.

I'm not sure the exact facets intended by each term, but I find it very interesting.

And I also realized on waking up this morning I'd neglected another one very obvious: Christ / Messiah

ddub85

2nd June 2006, 04:20 PM

heymikey80

2nd June 2006, 06:30 PM

@ JM

" ...there is one New Covenant people and one faith (Eph. 2:16 and 4:5)." - Rev. Fred Klett

Neither of those verses say such a thing. Neither even mention the New Covenant.

Also, wouldn't that contradict Jer. 31 and Hbr 8, which both say the New Covenant is for the house of Israel?

I know this brings controversy, but I feel that I must tell the truth, or learn the truth.

God Bless!
I'd assume Klett quoted the verse to deal with something outside the small phrase quoted. The wider context of the quote contains plenty to inform someone looking for covenantal implications as well as the unity of the people under the New Covenant in Christ:you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ... For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall Eph 2:12, 14
Paul says we were strangers to the covenants of promise. Are we still strangers to the covenants of promise? If so Paul is shouting meaningless statements into the air.

Paul says Jesus made the two groups into one. Do we still have the two groups? If so Paul is shouting meaningless statements into the air.

Instead I think Paul is saying something meaningful: we're no longer strangers to the covenants but recipients, no longer two groups of Jews & Gentiles but one group of promised children.

ddub85

7th June 2006, 12:36 PM

@ heymikey

I'd assume Klett quoted the verse to deal with something outside the small phrase quoted. The wider context of the quote contains plenty to inform someone looking for covenantal implications as well as the unity of the people under the New Covenant in Christ:

Great. That's what I'm looking for. Let's see it.
**you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ... For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall Eph 2:12, 14

Paul says we were strangers to the covenants of promise. Are we still strangers to the covenants of promise?

No. We are included in that promise. And by the way, the New Covenant isn't mentioned here. You're ASSUMING he's speaking of the New Covenant. Would that be a correct assessment?
If so Paul is shouting meaningless statements into the air.
But we're not excluded, so Paul's words have meaning.
Paul says Jesus made the two groups into one. Do we still have the two groups?
Paul says Jesus made the two groups one... get this, as you're leaving it out... ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE!!! That means, as it pertains to this single particular promise, the two groups share in that particular promise. It says absolutely NOTHING about the two groups sharing in the promises.

If so Paul is shouting meaningless statements into the air.

"ACCORDING TO THE (SINGLE) PROMISE." Let's don't leave that out. Otherwise, we would be adding or subtracting from what Paul actually said. If we do that, we change the meaning of Paul's words, thereby creating our own gospel. Paul said we share in that particular promise. Let's don't expand it to mean something else.
Instead I think Paul is saying something meaningful: we're no longer strangers to the covenants but recipients, no longer two groups of Jews & Gentiles but one group of promised children.

ACCORDING TO THE SINGLE PROMISE. As it pertains to the single promise, yes. But NOT as it pertains to the promises. Paul clearly told us we are to receive what we've been allotted. In the Bible, Gentiles are never allotted the promises. It is always the single promise. In Gal 3, Paul excludes all of the promises given to Abraham, and says we Gentiles were given the single promise. The Jews, on the other hand, are given the promises as stated in the Bible over and over again. Do you think that's some kind of accident? A misnomer? A mistake? NO!!! It's by design, as God doesn't make mistakes.
Look, that's what the Bible says. What you're saying, you can't prove biblically. It comes from YOUR understanding, but doesn't coincide with what the Bible says.

God Bless!

Tychicum

7th June 2006, 05:54 PM

The phrase "kingdom of Heaven" has a few applications.

Matthew ... forever the Jew's Jew that he was ... uses the phrase in his Book in place of what the authors in the other synoptics use when they say the "Kingdom of God".

Jews always avoiding the use of any name of God ... in honour to Him.

So ... Kingdom = Kingdom

There is also an application in which there is and has always been "a kingdom ... and of course ... it was always ... in heaven". Nothing what so ever to do with prophetic fulfilment but a Jewish idiom.

:)

heymikey80

7th June 2006, 10:44 PM

No. We are included in that promise. And by the way, the New Covenant isn't mentioned here. You're ASSUMING he's speaking of the New Covenant. Would that be a correct assessment?
Actually, no, that would not be a correct assessment. Paul says we're not excluded from the covenants of promise. Not simply one covenant, but multiple covenants. Covenants have separate promises (they have to, for "when a covenant is ratified no one adds conditions to it" Gal 3:15).

So there are indeed multiple promises, simply because (1) a promise is a stipulation in a covenant, (2) there are multiple covenants, and (3) the promises exist separately in those covenants. Paul has simply said, "were strangers to the promise covenants", that's multiple covenants with promises.
Paul says Jesus made the two groups one... get this, as you're leaving it out... ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE!!! That means, as it pertains to this single particular promise, the two groups share in that particular promise. It says absolutely NOTHING about the two groups sharing in the promises.
Nah. There's no implication that there's only one promise handed through. The other promises aren't ethnic, aren't fleshly, and are given by Christ to the recipients of the promise covenants.
"ACCORDING TO THE (SINGLE) PROMISE." Let's don't leave that out. Otherwise, we would be adding or subtracting from what Paul actually said. If we do that, we change the meaning of Paul's words, thereby creating our own gospel. Paul said we share in that particular promise. Let's don't expand it to mean something else.
Actually you're reducing what Paul has said without warrant. Paul hasn't made any such distinction and you haven't shown his intent to do so.

Find any explicit statement that the promises are not to the Gentiles.

You're just adding this to Paul's statement because you're mistaking his Greek terms. Paul has already pointed out all promises are at Christ's discretion and He delivers the promises, not through genealogical lines, ethnic lines, or legal lines.

You're simply spreading out to other postings the same error as you've spread on a number of other threads.God can be trusted, and so can I, when I say that our answer to you has always been "Yes" and never "No." This is because Jesus Christ the Son of God is always "Yes" and never "No." And he is the one that Silas, Timothy, and I told you about. Christ says "Yes" to all of God's promises. 2 Cor 1:18-20

ddub85

8th June 2006, 11:40 AM

@ heymikey
Quote
Originally Posted by: ddub85

No. We are included in that promise. And by the way, the New Covenant isn't mentioned here. You're ASSUMING he's speaking of the New Covenant. Would that be a correct assessment?
Actually, no, that would not be a correct assessment.
No?
"you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ... For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall Eph 2:12, 14"

The words New Covenant aren't in the verses you list. Therefore you're ASSUMING that New Covenant is what is being spoken of. In other words, God doesn't say it, YOU say it. That is a fact, whether you admit it or not.

Paul says we're not excluded from the covenants of promise. Not simply one covenant, but multiple covenants.

And these covenants are tied to what? One promise. How do we know? Paul says so; covenants of PROMISE (singular). Are you also denying that fact? You're going to end up rewriting the entire Bible!

Covenants have separate promises (they have to, for "when a covenant is ratified no one adds conditions to it" Gal 3:15).

??? What are you even talking about??? Paul says these covenants are tied up in one promise. PAUL says so, not me. I'm just repeating what Paul said. You, on the other hand, are saying "promises" (plural), which Paul doesn't say. YOU, are rewriting the word of God.

So there are indeed multiple promises, simply because (1) a promise is a stipulation in a covenant, (2) there are multiple covenants, and (3) the promises exist separately in those covenants. Paul has simply said, "were strangers to the promise covenants", that's multiple covenants with promises.

Comical. Paul says black, you say white. Paul says covenants of promise, you say covenants of promises. Paul said promise, but you insist he meant promises. You are in direct contradiction to Paul, and the word of God. You're creating your own gospel.
-------------------------------------------
Quote Originally Posted by: ddub85
Paul says Jesus made the two groups one... get this, as you're leaving it out... ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE!!! That means, as it pertains to this single particular promise, the two groups share in that particular promise. It says absolutely NOTHING about the two groups sharing in the promises.
Nah.
Nah? Then why didn't you list any scripture here to prove your point? Because there is no such scripture. As you searched the scriptures, you discovered that there is no scripture that includes Gentiles in the promises. But there are scritpures that exclude Gentiles from the promises. Yet, you won't accept those facts. You'd rather say Paul MEANT promises, even though he said single promise.

There's no implication that there's only one promise handed through.

Sure there is. There's the word of God;
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to ((ALL)) that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world (GENTILES INCLUDED), [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the PROMISE might be sure to ((ALL)) the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], (((In thee shall all nations be blessed))).

Paul pulls this ONE SINGLE PROMISE from all of the promises to Abraham, and attributes it to the Gentiles. He EXCLUDES all of the other promises. Yet, you insist he MEANT to include us Gentiles in all of the promises. He didn't, but you insist that he meant to. You're superceding the Holy Spirit.

Gal 3:14 That the ((BLESSING)) of Abraham might come on the GENTILES through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the ((PROMISE)) of the Spirit through faith.
Why didn't Paul say blessings? Why didn't Paul say promises? Yet, you contradict the word of God and pluralize His words when they're not plural.

The other promises aren't ethnic, aren't fleshly, and are given by Christ to the recipients of the promise covenants.

Fleshly? No. Ethnic? No doubt about it.
Rom 9:4 Who are ISRAELITES; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the PROMISES;

Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the PROMISES [made] unto the fathers (JEWS):

Hbr 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Spoken to the Hebrews.

Hbr 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they (JEWS) were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Peter speaking to the Jews.

Fleshly? No. Ethnic? No doubt. This is what GOD says, not what I say. We need to trust Him in this. Does it make us less than they? NO!!! Are we receiving less? NO!!! But we have different backgrounds, and different needs.
-------------------------------------
Quote Originally Posted by: ddub85
"ACCORDING TO THE (SINGLE) PROMISE." Let's don't leave that out. Otherwise, we would be adding or subtracting from what Paul actually said. If we do that, we change the meaning of Paul's words, thereby creating our own gospel. Paul said we share in that particular promise. Let's don't expand it to mean something else.
Actually you're reducing what Paul has said without warrant. Paul hasn't made any such distinction and you haven't shown his intent to do so.
Notice how you used NO SCRIPTURE to make that point. I said "ACCORDING TO THE (SINGLE) PROMISE", and you respond with only your opinion. NO SCRIPTURE. Why? Because there is none to support your thoughts.

Find any explicit statement that the promises are not to the Gentiles.

Just look at the scriptures listed above. It's amazing that you would challenge me to list scripture, and you have NONE that say Gentiles are to receive the promises of Abraham. Can you list scripture? We can list yours right next to mine, and compare.
You're just adding this to Paul's statement because you're mistaking his Greek terms.
Here's a difference between you and I. I've listed several scriptures in which Paul has said Gentiles/promise, and Jews/promises. You discount this by saying I'm mistaking his Greek terms. Even though he says it over and over, I'm "mistaken". Yet, you only have YOUR word, and you're asking me to accept that in leiu of scripture.

Paul has already pointed out all promises are at Christ's discretion and He delivers the promises,...

True,...

... not through genealogical lines, ethnic lines, or legal lines.

Flat out untrue. The Bible says we receive what we've been allotted. What's been allotted has been done ethnically to those in Christ. Part of the proof of that is Gentiles/promise, Jews/promises written consistently in the Bible. There's much more to it than that, the consistency runs throughout the Bible, but that much will suffice as you have no real rebuttal for this fact.

You're simply spreading out to other postings the same error as you've spread on a number of other threads.

The scary thing about your statement is that I'm using scripture, allowing scripture to speak. YOU are listing your opinion (Paul said promise, but meant promises, for instance), and you're claiming I'm in error.
Why don't you list all of the scriptures that say we Gentiles receive all of the promises? 2Cor lists the things that pertain to the promise of "all nations will be blessed", and Eph 2 says "covenants of (single) promise", so they don't help you. So what do you really have other than your opinion?

God can be trusted, and so can I, when I say that our answer to you has always been "Yes" and never "No." This is because Jesus Christ the Son of God is always "Yes" and never "No." And he is the one that Silas, Timothy, and I told you about. Christ says "Yes" to all of God's promises. 2 Cor 1:18-20

And what does that have to do with what we're discussing? Christ doesn't say yes to you when you ask to receive all of the promises because the Bible says different. You're badly misconstruing the scripture.

God Bless!

heymikey80

9th June 2006, 11:56 AM

Flat out untrue. The Bible says we receive what we've been allotted. What's been allotted has been done ethnically to those in Christ.
I'll believe Paul:
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. Gal 3:26-29
I've already awaited your prooftexts for this statement, and the examples you've mentioned are completely implicit in your view. You've protested that Paul "must've meant" to just limit his comments to the Jewish people at the end of Romans 2 ... yet I've shown his words readily apply to Gentiles as well ("an outward Jew isn't one, but an inward Jew is"). You've protested that the promises of Hebrews 6 are directed specifically at ethnic Jews, yet I've shown there's nothing in that text that would prevent it from applying to Gentiles as well ("by two unchangeable things in which it's impossible for God to lie").
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh Pp 3:2-3
And these covenants are tied to what? One promise. How do we know? Paul says so; covenants of PROMISE (singular). Are you also denying that fact? You're going to end up rewriting the entire Bible!
Jesus also says to "deliver us from the evil [singular]". I guess there's only one evil we need to be delivered from. :cool:

The fact of the matter is, ddub85, Greek says such things in the singular to talk about them in the abstract. "promise covenants" is what Paul says. 'promise' is an abstract, just as 'evil' is an abstract in the Disciples' Prayer. Therefore it's both're singular and both take the article.

I'm not rewriting the Bible. Instead you're limiting Greek's grammatical forms to what you want them to mean. They aren't so limited. 2000 years of the text tells far more than injecting whole new meanings into words, arbitrarily limiting what the words mean, or who the words are talking about, and creating a theology from it.

There're plenty of people much better at this than I am. NT Wright has a number of books on Paul out that're a quick read. He's a serious exegete. I don't agree with everything he says. But I'd recommend him above anyone who's demanding words mean something they don't have to.

heymikey80

9th June 2006, 12:09 PM

Nah? Then why didn't you list any scripture here to prove your point?
Now you're just lying:
God can be trusted, and so can I, when I say that our answer to you has always been "Yes" and never "No." This is because Jesus Christ the Son of God is always "Yes" and never "No." And he is the one that Silas, Timothy, and I told you about. Christ says "Yes" to all of God's promises. 2 Cor 1:18-20
I'm not going to quote this obsessively every sentence. My proof is Scripture, which doesn't lie, and which you haven't explained in any interpretation consistent with what Paul is saying here.

To you the promises to the Corinthians are "Yes and no." To Paul the promises to the Corinthians are "Yes and never No."

heymikey80

9th June 2006, 12:14 PM

Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to ((ALL)) that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
This (singular) promise was made to those to whom you say all the promises were made to. You've also asserted that every promise (of the promises) comes through Christ (with which I agree), and so all are associated with salvation.

So this verse better not be a demonstration that there are no other promises. Because if it is the Jewish people are by this verse limited to precisely this one promise.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world (GENTILES INCLUDED), [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Again, if it's limiting it'll limit the Jewish people too. So this verse doesn't establish a limit.
Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the PROMISE might be sure to ((ALL)) the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
see above
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], (((In thee shall all nations be blessed))).
Y'see who this was promised to? If this limits Abraham to this one promise, it'd limit his entire descendancy to this one promise -- including every Jewish person.

So no, you haven't come up with a verse that says the Gentiles are limited to receiving one promise.

heymikey80

9th June 2006, 12:46 PM

ddub85

10th June 2006, 10:00 PM

@ heymikey

Quote
Originally Posted by: ddub85

Flat out untrue. The Bible says we receive what we've been allotted. What's been allotted has been done ethnically to those in Christ.

I'll believe Paul:
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. Gal 3:26-29
"ACCORDING TO THE (SINGLE) PROMISE"!!! Do you see those last three words in the verse you quote??? According to this single promise, we all are in Christ. That's what Paul says!!!
Now let's consider what else Paul said;

Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Fellowheirs, meaning; Sugkleronomos 4789
1) a fellow heir, a joint heir
2) one who obtains something assigned to himself with others, a joint participant
We Gentiles then obtain what we've been assigned, which is the promise of salvation.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Paul makes it crystal clear what we've been assigned. He leaves out all of the other promises to Abraham, and includes this single promise ONLY. We are joint participants in this one promise according to scripture.
You attempt to include us in all the other promises, but God does not. We have no need for them. We receive all of God in the one promise. We don't have a need for anything else. When you have God, you have it all. Why you want what you haven't been assigned is beyond me. But God surely has assigned us this single promise. You haven't shown anything that conflicts with this, and I've listed MANY scriptures thst collaborates this. The scripture you just listed, Gal 3:26-29, displays this right on the mark.

Believe Paul.

I've already awaited your prooftexts for this statement, and the examples you've mentioned are completely implicit in your view. You've protested that Paul "must've meant" to just limit his comments to the Jewish people at the end of Romans 2 ... yet I've shown his words readily apply to Gentiles as well ("an outward Jew isn't one, but an inward Jew is").
Simply untrue. Paul is speaking to the Jew in Rom 2 (v.17), he's speaking of the law, which we Gentiles never had, he uses us in comparison, while never including us in the subject, and in portion you quote, you'll notice that we Gentiles aren't even mentioned!!! And you base an entire theology upon that? It couldn't be anymore ridiculous.

You've protested that the promises of Hebrews 6 are directed specifically at ethnic Jews, yet I've shown there's nothing in that text that would prevent it from applying to Gentiles as well

You did? The book is speaking about the Hebrews! It is speaking about the law, the Levitical priesthood, their journey through the wilderness, and so on and so forth. It's specifically directed at the Hebrews, and that's not you and I, the Gentiles!

("by two unchangeable things in which it's impossible for God to lie").
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh Pp 3:2-3

So when you can stand up and deal with these facts, you won't have to worry about such things.
Quote
Originally Posted by: ddub85

And these covenants are tied to what? One promise. How do we know? Paul says so; covenants of PROMISE (singular). Are you also denying that fact? You're going to end up rewriting the entire Bible!

Jesus also says to "deliver us from the evil [singular]". I guess there's only one evil we need to be delivered from.
My Bible doesn't say "the evil". What Bible are you reading? Maybe that's part of the problem.

The fact of the matter is, ddub85, Greek says such things in the singular to talk about them in the abstract. "promise covenants" is what Paul says. 'promise' is an abstract, just as 'evil' is an abstract in the Disciples' Prayer. Therefore it's both're singular and both take the article.

Simply not true. The Bible says the "covenants of promise", and that can be hermeneutically confirmed by MANY other scriptures that attribute the single promise to Gentiles, INCLUDING the one you last listed, Gal 3:29. You're attempting to add plurality where God doesn't. Don't rewrite the Bible, let's just accept what God has written.

I'm not rewriting the Bible. Instead you're limiting Greek's grammatical forms to what you want them to mean. They aren't so limited. 2000 years of the text tells far more than injecting whole new meanings into words, arbitrarily limiting what the words mean, or who the words are talking about, and creating a theology from it.

And that's why we use other scripture to collaborate what's being said. One scripture must coincide with another. If they don't, then your interpretation is most likely incorrect. So,... when you say Rom 2 is stating we Gentiles are Jews, what do you collaborate that with? When you say Eph 2 states we receive all of the promises, what do you collaborate that with? When you say we are the Hebrews, what do you collaborate that with? I show you a STACK of scriptures which say promise/Gentiles, and promises/Jews. I show you a STACK of scriptures which consistently have Gentiles as Gentiles, and Jews as Jews. There are none that say Gentiles become Jews. And you accuse me of limiting the text? Come, come now.

There're plenty of people much better at this than I am. NT Wright has a number of books on Paul out that're a quick read. He's a serious exegete. I don't agree with everything he says. But I'd recommend him above anyone who's demanding words mean something they don't have to.

Then why don't you just quote him, and say it that way? I look forward to it, as it's the truth that's important. But until it can make sense, it's unfair to Christianity to expound upon things that aren't biblical, and attribute them to the Bible. Many can be misled by it.

God Bless!

ddub85

10th June 2006, 10:02 PM

@ heymikey

Quote
Originally Posted by: ddub85

Nah? Then why didn't you list any scripture here to prove your point?

Now you're just lying:
God can be trusted, and so can I, when I say that our answer to you has always been "Yes" and never "No." This is because Jesus Christ the Son of God is always "Yes" and never "No." And he is the one that Silas, Timothy, and I told you about. Christ says "Yes" to all of God's promises. 2 Cor 1:18-20
That's not what's in question. The question is, does God say all of the promises are for you, a Gentile? Does He say yes to this? That is what we're discussing. No one is arguing if Christ says yes to all of the promises! Does Christ say all of the promises are to Gentiles? NO!

I'm not going to quote this obsessively every sentence. My proof is Scripture, which doesn't lie, and which you haven't explained in any interpretation consistent with what Paul is saying here.
To you the promises to the Corinthians are "Yes and no." To Paul the promises to the Corinthians are "Yes and never No."

Again, you're proving the wrong thing. The promises are in Christ, and the promises are for those in Christ. HOWEVER, we receive what has been assigned to us. I know you would prefer to ignore that fact, but it's what Paul said. It's what is consistent with the Bible, the Old and New Testaments. God doesn't change, nor does His word.

God Bless!

ddub85

10th June 2006, 10:05 PM

@ heymikey
Quote
Originally Posted by: ddub85

Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to ((ALL)) that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

This (singular) promise was made to those to whom you say all the promises were made to. You've also asserted that every promise (of the promises) comes through Christ (with which I agree), and so all are associated with salvation.
So this verse better not be a demonstration that there are no other promises. Because if it is the Jewish people are by this verse limited to precisely this one promise.

Once again, you're missing the point. The call to salvation is a universal call. It's for both Jew and Gentile. For the Jew, you have no other promises without the promise of salvation. It is the key to man's relationship with God. All other promises are insignificant without it. So of course this single promise is to them as well as us. But they aren't limited to this one promise as there are MANY instances, Old and New Testament, in which the Jews are assigned the promises. There are NO instances in which we Gentiles are assigned promises outside of salvation. Also, Paul avoids all promises, and singles out ONE promise, assigning it to us Gentiles. What more proof could there possibly be?
Quote
Originally Posted by: ddub85

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world (GENTILES INCLUDED), [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Again, if it's limiting it'll limit the Jewish people too. So this verse doesn't establish a limit.
This verse establishes that all are included in the promise of salvation, and when the other promises are included, we Gentiles are excluded. It establishes the fact that we Gentiles have been assigned the promise, and NOT the promises.
Quote
Originally Posted by: ddub85

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the PROMISE might be sure to ((ALL)) the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

see above
See above.
Quote
Originally Posted by: ddub85

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], (((In thee shall all nations be blessed))).

Y'see who this was promised to? If this limits Abraham to this one promise, it'd limit his entire descendancy to this one promise -- including every Jewish person.
So no, you haven't come up with a verse that says the Gentiles are limited to receiving one promise.

Now you're really reaching for something that may work. The verse doesn't limit Abraham, it limits us Gentiles. It explains that this is the promise that justifies us Gentiles through faith. It's our inclusion into the family of God. It's what we're included in.

God Bless!

tomis

11th June 2006, 04:23 AM

:priest: