The Texas Chainsaw Bible Massacre
- Thread starter Dave-L
- 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.
The Difference Between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven
Posted on August 16, 2019
"...The phrase “kingdom of God” is used 68 times throughout the New Testament. As a comparison, “kingdom of heaven” is only used 32 times and found exclusively in the book of Matthew. Many (in fact, very many) theories exist about the difference between the “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” and some even say they are the same thing. It seems there is no one, straight forward answer. "
"...Scofield’s View of the Kingdoms
The Scofield Reference Bible makes five distinctions between the KH and the KG, but they boil down to two main points.
First, the KG is made of only believers, both human and angelic, who willingly subject themselves to God’s authority. The KH is made only of humans who profess God, whether they are actual believers or not.
Second, the KG is eternal and spiritual in nature, while the KH is temporary and physical.
Both of these ideas relate to what’s called dispensational theology, which we won’t get into here. But they can quickly be dismissed if you believe the KG and the KH are one and the same."
Posted on August 16, 2019
"...The phrase “kingdom of God” is used 68 times throughout the New Testament. As a comparison, “kingdom of heaven” is only used 32 times and found exclusively in the book of Matthew. Many (in fact, very many) theories exist about the difference between the “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” and some even say they are the same thing. It seems there is no one, straight forward answer. "
....
"...Scofield’s View of the Kingdoms
The Scofield Reference Bible makes five distinctions between the KH and the KG, but they boil down to two main points.
First, the KG is made of only believers, both human and angelic, who willingly subject themselves to God’s authority. The KH is made only of humans who profess God, whether they are actual believers or not.
Second, the KG is eternal and spiritual in nature, while the KH is temporary and physical.
Both of these ideas relate to what’s called dispensational theology, which we won’t get into here. But they can quickly be dismissed if you believe the KG and the KH are one and the same."
The Difference Between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven
Posted on August 16, 2019
"...The phrase “kingdom of God” is used 68 times throughout the New Testament. As a comparison, “kingdom of heaven” is only used 32 times and found exclusively in the book of Matthew. Many (in fact, very many) theories exist about the difference between the “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” and some even say they are the same thing. It seems there is no one, straight forward answer. "
"...Scofield’s View of the Kingdoms
The Scofield Reference Bible makes five distinctions between the KH and the KG, but they boil down to two main points.
First, the KG is made of only believers, both human and angelic, who willingly subject themselves to God’s authority. The KH is made only of humans who profess God, whether they are actual believers or not.
Second, the KG is eternal and spiritual in nature, while the KH is temporary and physical.
Both of these ideas relate to what’s called dispensational theology, which we won’t get into here. But they can quickly be dismissed if you believe the KG and the KH are one and the same."
Posted on August 16, 2019
"...The phrase “kingdom of God” is used 68 times throughout the New Testament. As a comparison, “kingdom of heaven” is only used 32 times and found exclusively in the book of Matthew. Many (in fact, very many) theories exist about the difference between the “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” and some even say they are the same thing. It seems there is no one, straight forward answer. "
....
"...Scofield’s View of the Kingdoms
The Scofield Reference Bible makes five distinctions between the KH and the KG, but they boil down to two main points.
First, the KG is made of only believers, both human and angelic, who willingly subject themselves to God’s authority. The KH is made only of humans who profess God, whether they are actual believers or not.
Second, the KG is eternal and spiritual in nature, while the KH is temporary and physical.
Both of these ideas relate to what’s called dispensational theology, which we won’t get into here. But they can quickly be dismissed if you believe the KG and the KH are one and the same."
“the kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17) = “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15)
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 5:3) = “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20)
“Among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist, notwithstanding he who is least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than him.” (Matt. 11:11) = “Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than him.” (Luke 7:28)
“the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:11) = “the mysteries of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11 cp. Luke 8:10)
“the kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed” (Matt 13:31) = “the kingdom of God...is like a grain of mustard seed” (Mark 4:30-31 cp. Luke 13:18-19)
“The kingdom of Heaven is like leaven” (Matt. 13:33) = “the kingdom of God...is like leaven” (Luke 13:20)
“Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3-4) = “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein” (Mark 10:15)
“Allow little children, and do not forbid them to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt. 19:14) = “Allow the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14 cp. Luke 18:16)
“a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 19:23) = “How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” (Luke 18:24)
In other words, “kingdom of God” = “kingdom of Heaven.”
You’re too funny and judgmental. Do you adhere to the sermon on the mount for the Jews? No Christians were at the sermon, Christ’s Church was not formed yet.
If you call someone a fool, are you in danger of hell fire?
Verse 23, an alter? The Church has no alter. That’s a Jewish thing.
Verse 29 is the body of Christ? Lol
I could go on and on...
If you call someone a fool, are you in danger of hell fire?
Verse 23, an alter? The Church has no alter. That’s a Jewish thing.
Verse 29 is the body of Christ? Lol
I could go on and on...
-
1
- Show all
“Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.” Romans 12:17 (KJV 1900)
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:19–21 (KJV 1900)
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:19–21 (KJV 1900)
The standard for true prophecy is within the Bible -- not the fantasies of men. We are to take Bible prophecy in its plain literal sense, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture, arrive at a proper interpretation through exegesis. We cannot allegorize or spiritualize things at random or at will.
The Reformers failed to reject the ideas of the Catholic Church and Augustine. Hence all the confusion about future events, calling the pope the Antichrist, interpreting days as years, applying future prophecies to historical events, etc.
The Reformers failed to reject the ideas of the Catholic Church and Augustine. Hence all the confusion about future events, calling the pope the Antichrist, interpreting days as years, applying future prophecies to historical events, etc.
-
1
- Show all
7
it seems you are doing your best to tempt weak or new Christians or those who have not studied the Bible (but should) to question literally everything they thought they understood
in most cases, I would venture...nay I am certain....you would destroy their faith by whatever prompts you so to do, instead of the flack you get which you so richly have earned with all your hard work creating your personal opinion ops
I have never ever since I have belonged to this forum (and since this is my 2nd profile cause I left and then came back so my time is longer than it would seem) seen anyone do so much in as little time as do you to discredit just about everything scripture plainly states
you seem very busy trying to create 'little yous'
reminds me of something Jesus said to the Pharisees
just discredit what Christ Himself said because it does not fit your narrative
this is how you discredit the truth
everyone really should take what you say as from someone who keeps missing the mark.
The thread has gotten off on a tangent. Matthew uses 'kingdom of heaven' in places where Mark uses 'kingdom of God.' There was a Jewish custom to substitute words for God's name. We see this in Judaism today.
That's not the issue. It's hard to 'prove' anything to you from scripture when you can allegoricalize away anything scripture says. The Old Testament has numerous prophecies for 'Israel.' 'Israel' is often used to refer to the largely disobedient people of God, descendants of Jacob. It is not consistently used for God's righteous remnant. In Romans, the nation is referred to as 'Israel'. Part of them are blinded. "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for.' The idea that Israel means the church just does not stand up to the way the term is used throughout the New Testament, and certainly not in Romans.
If you allegoricalize passages that make promises to Israeli to arrive at a certain eschatological view, it is difficult to 'prove' anything to your satisfaction because you interpret the proof as an allegory for your theory. I haven't met an amil who could actually go through the promises of the Old Testament and say this word or phrase stands for that in a consistent way. They may have a few key phrases or words like clouds, air, etc.
A problem with supercessionist amil is from the perspective of those who immediately received the prophecies, how would supercessionist interpretations of promises be an honest fulfillment of the promise. The nation is promised that it will be restored and returned, but supercessionist reinterpret the nation to refer to another set of people.
There is also no evidence that the apostles or early church held to these highly allegorical interpretations of Old Testament prophecy. There is no reason for us to think that when the apostles asked about the restoration of the kingdom of Israel they had in mind them being fulfilled allegorically through a primarily Gentile group of believers in the Messiah. Why should we superimpose supercessionist interpretations onto the scriptures? The earliest information we have about what early Christians, including at least one who heard apostolic teaching directly, is that they held to a much more literal interpretation. Isn't it anachronitic to use an interpertation method that become popular in later centuries.
That's not the issue. It's hard to 'prove' anything to you from scripture when you can allegoricalize away anything scripture says. The Old Testament has numerous prophecies for 'Israel.' 'Israel' is often used to refer to the largely disobedient people of God, descendants of Jacob. It is not consistently used for God's righteous remnant. In Romans, the nation is referred to as 'Israel'. Part of them are blinded. "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for.' The idea that Israel means the church just does not stand up to the way the term is used throughout the New Testament, and certainly not in Romans.
If you allegoricalize passages that make promises to Israeli to arrive at a certain eschatological view, it is difficult to 'prove' anything to your satisfaction because you interpret the proof as an allegory for your theory. I haven't met an amil who could actually go through the promises of the Old Testament and say this word or phrase stands for that in a consistent way. They may have a few key phrases or words like clouds, air, etc.
A problem with supercessionist amil is from the perspective of those who immediately received the prophecies, how would supercessionist interpretations of promises be an honest fulfillment of the promise. The nation is promised that it will be restored and returned, but supercessionist reinterpret the nation to refer to another set of people.
There is also no evidence that the apostles or early church held to these highly allegorical interpretations of Old Testament prophecy. There is no reason for us to think that when the apostles asked about the restoration of the kingdom of Israel they had in mind them being fulfilled allegorically through a primarily Gentile group of believers in the Messiah. Why should we superimpose supercessionist interpretations onto the scriptures? The earliest information we have about what early Christians, including at least one who heard apostolic teaching directly, is that they held to a much more literal interpretation. Isn't it anachronitic to use an interpertation method that become popular in later centuries.