Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exactly! And even the entire human race was given over to Satan. HE OWNS the human race. That is why Jesus said we must be BORN AGAIN. We must obtain a NEW FATHER, to be pulled from the lineage of Adam. When a human is born again, their spirit is severed from the lineage of Adam, and become a NEW SPIRIT with God as their Father.According to what you said above, all references to a kingdom after Acts 2 is a "past/present tense context".
One simple verse by Apostle Paul completely dumps your theory that the Kingdom of God is now manifest upon this earth today...
1 Cor 15:50
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV
When you have put off this flesh on the "last trump", and at the "twinkling of an eye" have put on the "spiritual body" which Paul taught there in 1 Cor.15, then... you can say the Kingdom of God has manifested on earth. Until then, like Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world...":
John 8:23
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
KJV
John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence.
KJV
Yes, indeed the God of heaven in the form of Jesus Christ the Son, will set up an earthly kingdom.
According to what you said above, all references to a kingdom after Acts 2 is a "past/present tense context".
One simple verse by Apostle Paul completely dumps your theory that the Kingdom of God is now manifest upon this earth today...
1 Cor 15:50
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV
When you have put off this flesh on the "last trump", and at the "twinkling of an eye" have put on the "spiritual body" which Paul taught there in 1 Cor.15, then... you can say the Kingdom of God has manifested on earth. Until then, like Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world...":
John 8:23
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
KJV
John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence.
KJV
I wonder at your reading ability. This verse is about ONE MAN, Coniah.
Again I wonder. Do you take time to think about these things? This lineage is about Joseph. Sorry, my friend, but Joseph was NOT Jesus' father!
So Jesus says.....The end is not yet......and then proceeds to tell you what will happen next before the end......Nation against nation.....famines........pestilence.......earthquakes.You are free to believe this if you choose, but you will be wrong - mistaken.
Of course there are parallels in Matthew and in Rev. 6. And they both agree - no doubt about that. But did you miss this?
Mat. 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Jesus is telling us that He is NOT YET talking about end times, but rather, church age things.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
He is taking about end times, he is just saying the end is not with wars and rumors of wars. The Church age is over at the pre trib rapture.Notice the preposition "for?" He is continuing on church age and still NOT YET talking about end times.
The Church age is over at the pre trib rapture.9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Notice the preposition, "then?" He is STILL talking about "the end is not yet." So all these verses are speaking of church age events. The "beginning of sorrows" is church age.
If you read closely you would know that the Church age is over at the pre trib rapture.3 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
Now, finally, Jesus begins talking about the end times. So when one really reads carefully, and understands the Author's intent, they see this lines up perfectly with seals 1 through 5 being church age and seal 6 starting the end.
I don't keep up with modern prewrath thought and don't read what others are saying. However, if they are saying that there will be total darkness, THEY WOULD BE WRONG. The word says the SUN WILL BE DARKENED. Also, if the moon is as blood there is no light. Blood is very dark in color.Mat. 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Rev. 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
If you keep up with modern prewrath thought, they say that God will give a HUGE sign: total darkness! Neither the sun nor the moon nor any stars will give light. For reference, you might wish to look at Paul Dorgan on "the Day of the Lord." he does a magnificent job there of teaching this error.
Stop and think: HOW did John know the moon had become as blood? Of course, because HE SAW IT. This means, the moon was visible. Therefore, it cannot possibly be the same sign as we seen in Matthew 24, where there will be total darkness.
That's certainly a possibility, just not a likely one.Sorry, but you are just mistaken.
The Church age is over at the pre trib rapture.
The New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.
The New Covenant has made the Old Covenant "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.
The New Covenant of Christ is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20.
Therefore, God is not going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time.
I am sorry to say you failed to see the context of 1 Cor. 15. You fell for what you accused me of, cherry picking. I can see that you actually tried to come up with something (or so I assume), so I'll give you the time.
Look at the context fully, then come back to me. Paul is writing to people who are already in the kingdom. The Corinthians had done some things that Paul needed to confront them about.
....
I hope you are not going to have me go in circles explaining things.
Hello again and thank you for your time with me.
Let me narrow the points down and work with just one point for now. In response to me mentioning Jeremiah 22 and Matthew 1 you said:
You missed the words I put in bold! Allow me to shorten it with the point.
Jeremiah 22:30
"...for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."
You were half right in that it was talking about Coniah, but you failed to see that even his descendants would not rule on the throne of David anymore even in Judah.
So it was not solely about one man, but his descendants also. Jesus is a descendant and therefore cannot rule on an earthly kingdom.
Sorry, but verse 16 overrides verse 1. This is the lineage of JOSEPH. Joseph was not in any way in the lineage of Jesus. If you wish a true genology of Jesus, then look in Luke.Oh I did take the time. I repeatedly study the bible. After all, I do not want to be like the people Hosea spoke about in Hosea 4:6.
It is you that messed up. Did you not see the very first line in Matthew 1?
I still must question your reading / comprehending ability!
Matthew 1:
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
This is the Lineage of JOSEPH who was Jesus' STEP father. Therefore your theory is false. Jesus can and WILL have a Kingdom on earth.
My reading ability is just fine you see =)
Sorry, but verse 16 overrides verse 1. This is the lineage of JOSEPH. Joseph was not in any way in the lineage of Jesus. If you wish a true genology of Jesus, then look in Luke.
Admit it: you have been mistaken.
Very few understand why modern Dispensational Theology needs a pretrib removal of the Church.
I tire of the John Nelson Darby drivel. Can't you take 20 minutes to prove this is wrong.The original "classic" form of the doctrine brought to America by John Nelson Darby, claimed that God would go back and deal with the modern nation of Israel under the Old Covenant system after the pretrib removal of the Church.
Most people understand the New Covenant. However, it matters what God says He is going to do. He says that Israel has been blinded and that He plans on regrafting them. I believe Him.What is wrong with this idea?
The New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.
The New Covenant has made the Old Covenant "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.
The New Covenant of Christ is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20.
Therefore, God is not going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time.
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant, the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology falls apart.
Most people understand the New Covenant. However, it matters what God says He is going to do. He says that Israel has been blinded and that He plans on regrafting them. I believe Him.
There's just that little condition that He includes:
Romans 11
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
I hope you're not overlooking that.
Right; so all Israel is all who "abide not still in unbelief."And you this
Rom 11
5 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
I am really sorry but you are grammatically incorrect.
Matthew 1 starts off by saying,
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
It is the book of Jesus's lineage. Joseph just happens to be in it due to the prophecy foretelling all that Jesus is descended from David's line thus being heir to the throne.
This line here,
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
Merely states that Jesus was born from Joseph. That's it. It in no way states anywhere in this chapter, that this is a book about Joseph. In fact, I have no clue how you even think this. Your grammar use is way out there. Take this to any English instructor who will look at this.
Compare:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
Tracing Jesus's lineage is what chapter 1 is about. It is to prove to us that Jesus is heir to the throne.
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
All this states is Jesus came from Joseph, to prove to us that Jesus is from David's line, and rightful heir to the throne.
You don't even have to admit it to me but at least admit it to yourself for your own sake. How can I even debate with you if you cannot get through simple sentence structure?
If you still think Joseph was Jesus real father, there is very little hope for you.
Question: have you ever read any commentaries? May I suggest you look up Matthew 1 in the commentaries?
Coffman Commentaries:
Perhaps the best, and certainly the simplest, reconciliation of these two lists is to view Matthew's account as the ancestry of Joseph, and Luke's genealogy as the record of Mary's ancestry
John Darby:
Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Her posterity was consequently legally that of Joseph, as to the rights of inheritance; but the child she carried in her womb was of divine origin, conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. The angel of Jehovah is sent, as the instrument of providence, to satisfy the tender conscience and upright heart of Joseph, by communicating to him that that which Mary had conceived was of the Holy Ghost.
We may remark here, that the angel on this occasion addresses Joseph as "son of David." The Holy Ghost thus draws our attention to the relationship of Joseph (the reputed father of Jesus) to David, Mary being called his wife.
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown: Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible
16. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus--From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned.
John Lightfoot Commentary:
16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.] The mother's family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's father. These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the 'seed of the woman,' and as the 'Son of David'; that, as a man, this, as a king. It was therefore needful, in setting down his genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the promised seed of the woman, deducing his mother's stock, from whence man was born, from Adam; Matthew exhibits his royal original, deriving his pedigree along through the royal family of David to Joseph, his (reputed) father.
Matthew Henry Commentary:
The line is brought down, not to Mary the mother of our Lord, but to Joseph the husband of Mary (Matthew 1:16); for the Jews always reckoned their genealogies by the males: yet Mary was of the same tribe and family with Joseph, so that, both by his mother and by his supposed father, he was of the house of David;
I could go one, but to what purpose? You probably will skip over them for they disagree with you.
so that, both by his mother and by his supposed father, he was of the house of David;
These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the 'seed of the woman,' and as the 'Son of David'; that, as a man, this, as a king. It was therefore needful, in setting down his genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both.
but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned.
Coniah was figuratively counted as childless, in that his descendants would never be king of Judah. The southern Kingdom.Moreover, there cannot be any physical kingdom anymore since God told Coniah in Jeremiah 22:30, that none of Coniah's descendants (basically descendants of David) will ever rule on the throne of David never mind even ruling in Judah anymore. Jesus is a descendant of David if you look at Matthew 1, and therefore Jesus cannot rule on a physical throne. However, Jesus can and IS ruling from the spiritual.
Jesus is a blood relative of God our Father, NOT of Coniah.Interesting,
I believe you were focusing on the wrong point I was making, except one thing...
Matthew 1 IS about Jesus's lineage. Look at verse 1, read it, there is no way around that use of wording.
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
With that said, I never said he was a physical copy of Joseph. I think you read into something I never was trying bring up in the first place. Misunderstanding on your part and I didn't catch that till now.
The point you missed, is that even since Joseph, by all respects, would be as you say a "step father", Jesus is still heir to David's throne. Read this again...
Matthew 1:1 "...the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David..."
The author Matthew is telling us (by divine inspiration mind you 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16) that Jesus's lineage is traced back to David. Even back to Abraham...
"...the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
With that said, no one since Coniah, Davids descendants, has ever or will ever rule on a physical throne ever again since Coniah.
Jeremiah 22:30
"Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."
Jesus is considered a son of Joseph, regardless that he is "step father". Read this again,
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
As some of the commentary you pulled-
Matthew Henry Commentary:
Exactly like I was trying to tell you as well as scripture
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
Will not rule a physical kingdom Jeremiah 22:30
John Lightfoot Commentary:
Again,
Exactly like I was trying to tell you as well as scripture
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
Will not rule a physical kingdom Jeremiah 22:30
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown: Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible-
This is the point that you were missing. Jesus still is the son of David, son of Abraham and heir to the throne. However, it will not be a physical throne as stated in Jeremiah 22.
I hope we are on the same page now?
Dan 2
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
All the previous kingdoms, as in Babylon, Medo-Persia, etc, were physical kingdoms. Why would not this kingdom be the same?
Dan 7
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Again, the kingdom of the Beast that is destroyed in verse 26 will certainly be a physical kingdom. The kingdom that destroys it must certainly be the same.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?