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.
I have no doubt that God's kingdom will come to earth, but that is not the point that it was not offered to the Jews.I am not expert in such things so it's best to ask someone else if these verses actually apply ...
9 "Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. (Matthew 6:9-13, NRSV)
15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign forever and ever." 16 Then the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17 singing, "We give you thanks, Lord God Almighty, who are and who were, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign. 18 The nations raged, but your wrath has come, and the time for judging the dead, for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints and all who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying those who destroy the earth." 19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation, 11:15-19, NRSV)
See Post #49 and #57, etc.I have no doubt that God's kingdom will come to earth, but that is not the point that it was not offered to the Jews.
That's an excellent point and verse and one that is often used to support no literal kingdom on earth.There is no earthly kingdom. "My kingdom is not of this world." To insist upon an earthly, physical kingdom, is to argue with the king himself.
\However Jesus goes on to say that "now" my kingdom is not of this world. Most dispensationalists would be quick to point that out to you.
Like the one that says that His kingdom is not of this world - iIt's a very prominent verse and one that a dispensationalist would not choose to ignore or fail to comment on. Nor do many do so.I have never heard any that mentioned the Kingdom of God is within you.
I don't think this is true. Also, it seems biased. However, if it is true, please quote some living dispensationalist that illustrates this point.Like the one that says that His kingdom is not of this world - iIt's a very prominent verse and one that a dispensationalist would choose to ignore or fail to comment on.
I have never claimed to be a dispensationalist. Nor is it my job to comb the archives to find quotes from them.\
IF SO, then please , at least one, >>
QUOTE ONE PRESENT . (on the forum) (IF there are any dispensationalists on the forum?)
Notice that I added the word "not" to my statement in post number 85. Perhaps it cause confusion the way it was written.I don't think this is true. Also, it seems biased. However, if it is true, please quote some living dispensationalist that illustrates this point.
THe "not"makes all the difference - total reversal, good. Thanks !Notice that I added the word "not" to my statement in post number 85. Perhaps it cause confusion the way it was written.
Be that as it may - please read my last post number 87 and apply that reply to this post as well.
Thanks.
Without the "not", it looked like you knew what they thought or said or believed in a negative way to them.I have never claimed to be a dispensationalist. Nor is it my job to comb the archives to find quotes from them.
I have never claimed to be a dispensationalist. Nor is it my job to comb the archives to find quotes from them.
Any dispensationalists care to comment?
Please quote Scripture for this.Jesus came to offer a physical kingdom to the Jews.
Please quote Scripture for this.
The Scripture is never contradictory , true.
But to try to 'harmonize them' , is a human method, isn't it? i.e. fleshly concept, not spiritual as Revealed By the Father from Heaven ....
I have never heard that one. But it fits right into their general hypothesis. He will come back later and do that, according to them.As I read the op the fatal flaw is the belief God planned to institute a physical kingdom on the physical planet with Jesus as the physical king.
From the OP:
"This thread focuses on the most basic idea of Dispensationalism, besides dispensations. Dispensationalism claims that God offered the Jews a chance to make Jesus their earthly King. Jesus would then have overthrown the Romans and established Israel as a theocratic Kingdom, eventually covering the world. Since this was God's original plan, Christianity came about when the Jews rejected the Kingship of Jesus. God went to Plan B, which included the (crucifixion), the (resurrection), the (ascension), (Pentecost), and the (church age).
'This offer of the kingdom which was extended through Christ, John, and the disciples to the nation [Israel] was rejected by that nation, notwithstanding the fact that it was in complete fulfillment of every divinely given prediction. It was a bona fide offer and, had they received Him as their King, the nation's hope would have been realized.'"
Great book! A little (unnecessarily) harsh but must read. Are you a reconstructionist, Al?That's what all of this end-times nonsense is about. "God's coming back and he's going to give us a front row seat view of your torture!"
A good book I recommend though I think in some places he goes to far, is https://www.amazon.com/Last-Days-Madness-Obsession-Modern/dp/0915815354
ie; not every passage of New Testament prophecy points at ad70 (though many do).
I don't get this. Is it a double reverse negative?Whether any quotes are provided for you by dispensationalists in this forum or not - does anyone really think that, in all their studies, writings and thousands of hours of college lectures, the likes of Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dwight Pentecost or John Walvrood never noticed or commented on the scriptures that were recently referred to here in this thread concerning the present kingdom?
Not sure if it is good to read or not. I think it was written by a preterist. I'm not going to read it to find out though.Great book! A little (unnecessarily) harsh but must read. Are you a reconstructionist, Al?
So ?P.S.
Whether any quotes are provided for you by dispensationalists in this forum or not - does anyone really think that, in all their studies, writings and thousands of hours of college lectures, the likes of Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dwight Pentecost or John Walvrood never noticed or commented on the scriptures that were recently referred to here in this thread concerning the present kingdom?
Great book! A little (unnecessarily) harsh but must read. Are you a reconstructionist, Al?
Did you understand what Dale posted regarding the "only" in the op?I'm assuming this is a mistake as to what you think I was talking about.
It may be that a parenthesis is...………...
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?