eh, no, that would be the topic of my question, how could the kingdom have been within the grasp of the chief priests & elders, to be 'taken' and given to others, in re: Matthew 21:43-44, in re: Isaiah 28, etc.
Thief on the Cross
- Thread starter Wansvic
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
eh, no, that would be the topic of my question, how could the kingdom have been within the grasp of the chief priests & elders, to be 'taken' and given to others, in re: Matthew 21:43-44, in re: Isaiah 28, etc.
OT people had to follow different rules than NT people. Read Luke chapter 1.
As to why God chose to put His Spirit into John the Baptist and his father is something I cannot answer. Maybe due to transitioning from the Old to the New Testament. Jesus Himself said that if He did not ascend into Heaven the Holy Ghost could not come and infill people. (John 16:7)
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
It's all about rightly dividing the Word of God.
According to Jesus the way the NT church would enter into the kingdom of heaven was being preached by John the Baptist to the Jewish people. The Jewish religious leaders refused John's message. Therefore due to their rejection of the message the Gentile population would be given the opportunity to press into the kingdom through their obedience.
Those having been obedient to OT laws, as prescribed by God, are in Paradise awaiting the conclusion of God's plan.
"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." Luke 16:22-23
He doesn't say the Spirit couldn't infill people, just that the Comforter will not come while He is present -- if the Spirit could not infill people before He departed, then John the baptizer is a contradiction.
He also doesn't say no one can be born again until He departs and the Comforter comes - that would contradict John 3 + Matthew 21.
what i'm trying to get to the bottom of is whether it's true that no one could be born again until the crucifixion, the resurrection, or Pentecost/Firstfruits. I've heard this notion several times lately, but it seems to me that it cannot be true, because, John 3, Matthew 21.
Peter says this new birth is by the eternally abiding word of God:
love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever
(1 Peter 1:22-23)
he uses this terminology also in the same chapter, beforehand: (1 Peter 1:22-23)
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
(1 Peter 1:3)
linking it to God's mercy and His resurrection. it could be construed tho, that what is linked to His resurrection is the 'living hope' rather than the new birth, and this seems to me to be the better understanding, because when he says it again in verse 23, he doesn't mention the resurrection, but directly attributes it to the word of God. (1 Peter 1:3)
Eliphaz, to Job, speaks of this, too:
What is man, that he could be pure?
And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous?
(Job 15:14)
and Bildad repeats it:(Job 15:14)
How then can man be righteous before God?
Or how can he be pure who is born of a woman?
(Job 25:4)
there is an implication in their testimony that a knowledge exists even then, that a man born of woman cannot be righteous before God - which is to say, righteousness could be possible by a second, different birth. (Job 25:4)
if what Bildad & Eliphaz say is true, how were any who are called righteous in God's sight, in the OT, righteous?
how are harlots entering the kingdom of God in Matthew 21?
according to the law, adulterers are to be put to death - here is no sacrifice in the law to atone for such sin.
but Jesus tells the chief priests and elders that these sinners - people who have not been obedient to Moses' law - are entering at that very time, and He does not link their entrance to having been obedient to the law: to the contrary, He uses these examples of people disobedient in their walk but obediently believing in their hearts the message they received, to rebuke the elders who, one would suppose, were more obedient to the law in their actions, but who were standing there condemned by their unbelief.
Jesus' statement indicates that harlots and publicans are hearing and accepting John's message which will provide entrance into the kingdom of God upon obedience. The Jews would not even accept the message.
Keep in mind that the harlots and publicans could not have been entering into the kingdom of God at that precise moment since water baptism is just part of John's message. First, the person must believe that Jesus is the Messiah, then repent and get water baptized and receive the Holy Ghost. The record of John points to the fact that his ministry was to explain that Jesus was the promised Messiah and provide the water baptism of repentance. He also told the people that Jesus would be providing the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
The entire message of the spiritual rebirth was conveyed after the disciples were infused with the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost. The only change from John's message that day was everyone was told to be water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. The New Testament church had officially begun and continues unto today.
I thought Jesus said John the spirit of Elijah?
John 20:22 is interesting
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
That's correct. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah. He resembled Elijah. But he also told the Jews that he was NOT Elijah, or an incarnation of Elijah. But Elijah will definitely come to earth before the Day of the LORD, and during the reign of the Antichrist. See Malachi 4 and Revelation 11.
Mat 11:14 (KJV) And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
What part of that means Elijah didn’t come when Jesus said he had already come?
This was a portion of the Spirit breathed upon them. It was not the total infusion of the Holy Ghost/Spirit when the Spirit takes up residence into one's body.
If Jesus was providing the infilling at that time it would not have been necessary for Jesus to tell the apostles to wait for the Holy Ghost to come. (Luke 24:49)
Jesus made the following statement after breathing on the apostles previously:
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8
Acts 2:4 conveys when the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost:
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
hadn’t read Malachi 4 until know interesting thanks, in revelation says two prophets is this what your referring to one being of Elijah, who might be the other? is there any verses that might state the other.
Since you said this, "The spiritual re-birth experience, of which water baptism is a part was not available to anyone until after Jesus' resurrection." If this is true (which it's not) how come Jesus Christ said the following AFTER His resurrection?
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them (that is the disciples that are already saved because they are disciples) in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Now what is your excuse going to be wansvic? Are we suppose to just throw out the words of Jesus as if they don't count or mean what they say? What do I keep telling you to do wansvic? "THINK" and do your homework/Bible study before you keep embarassing yourself further.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
af
Bumped for wansvic, still no answer, why?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
He had said in a few days, there was two dinners, Thomas wasn’t there at the first one, second dinner is when it happened. At the the end of verse 5 yes wait In Jerusalem But in a few days the second dinner when Thomas arrives.
Act 1
4And while they were gathered together, He commanded them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift the Father promised, which you have heard Me discuss. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
Joh 1:21 (KJV) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
A little more info to add to this discussion. The priests and Levites asked if John the Baptist was the LITERAL INCARNATION of the man called Elijah. John told them the truth - He was not the literal incarnation of Elijah.
The priests and Levite’s saw the coming of Elijah as being the literal incarnation of Elijah just like some people today are still looking for the literal incarnation of Elijah in the future.
Jesus said “if you can receive it, this is Elijah”. Either Jesus was lying or Jesus wasn’t talking about the literal incarnation of Elijah but rather he was speaking of the man that Elijah REPRESENTED - John the Baptist.
Which one of those options is the reader today to believe? Agree with Jesus and accept that the passage is referring to what Elijah represented or did Jesus lie.
No contest, Elijah in the Old Testament was a FORESHADOW of John the Baptist. And to this Jesus agrees.
A little more info to add to this discussion. The priests and Levites asked if John the Baptist was the LITERAL INCARNATION of the man called Elijah. John told them the truth - He was not the literal incarnation of Elijah.
The priests and Levite’s saw the coming of Elijah as being the literal incarnation of Elijah just like some people today are still looking for the literal incarnation of Elijah in the future.
Jesus said “if you can receive it, this is Elijah”. Either Jesus was lying or Jesus wasn’t talking about the literal incarnation of Elijah but rather he was speaking of the man that Elijah REPRESENTED - John the Baptist.
Which one of those options is the reader today to believe? Agree with Jesus and accept that the passage is referring to what Elijah represented or did Jesus lie.
No contest, Elijah in the Old Testament was a FORESHADOW of John the Baptist. And to this Jesus agrees.
While specific names are not given in Revelation, the nature of the miracles performed by those two prophets speak volumes, since they replicate the miracles of Moses and Elijah while they were on earth:
MOSES:... and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. (study Exodus)
ELIJAH:..These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy... (study 1 Kings 16-21)
Elijah blocked off rainfall for 3 1/2 years during the reign of wicked Ahab (a type of the Antichrist). And he will do the same for the same length of time during the reign of the wicked Antichrist:
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
1260 days/30 = 42 months/12 = 3 1/2 years (one score is 20, therefore threescore is 60).
What Jesus meant is that Elijah had come metaphorically in the ministry of John the Baptist. Both of them have one objective: ...And he [Elijah] shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers... (Malachi 4:6)
And many of the children of Israel shall he [John the Baptizer] turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Luke 1:16,17)
But John himself EMPHATICALLY DENIED that he was the prophet Elijah: And they [the priests and Levites] asked him [John], What then? Art thou Elias? [Elijah] And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? [Christ, the one prophesied by Moses in Deuteronomy] And he answered, No. (John 1:21)
I have wondered whether the two witnesses will be Elijah and Enoch. The reason being is that scripture says that it is appointed man once to die. We know Moses already died once because Satan and Michael the Archangel struggled for his body. However, both Elijah and Enoch were translated to God without dying.
What are your thoughts?
Jesus appeared to the disciples 3 times (John 20:4, 26; 21:1) after His resurrection. He was with them a total of 40 days before His ascension into heaven. (Acts 1:8) Ten days after His ascension the disciples and 120 others were gathered in the upper room where the Holy Ghost was poured into them and they spoke in tongues. (Acts 2:1)