What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Kingdom Of Heaven

dirtfarmer said:
hello Nathan, dirtfarmer here

You don't see a difference in that Peter preached the cross as a murder indictment: Acts 1:23 last phrase, " ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."
Paul preached we should glory in the cross.
Peter did not preach redemption by the grace of God on the day of Pentecost but the message that John the Baptist preached: Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
Paul preached redemption by faith in the blood that was shed on the cross of Calvary. Neither did Peter preach salvation unconditionally.
Peter preached, repent and be converted , that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
Paul preached atonement is immediately.

These are just some of the differences in what Peter preached after Pentecost and what Paul preached after the Damascus road conversion.
Click to expand...

No, I do not see any difference in their message, same salvation. It was preached first to Jews, then to Gentiles, but it was never said to be different.

Acts 13:46 (ESV) 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

If you read the whole chapter of Acts 13 it becomes quite clear that Paul preached the same salvation as the Apostles did, and the one that Jesus did, even referencing John the Baptist.

Again, God called Paul out to carry on a specific work to the Gentiles, but it was not a different one. I truly believe it was because Paul was able to articulate in a way that the rest could not.

Acts 10
44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.
46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

The Apostles did not understand why God gave the same salvation, but when it happened they could not deny it. Don't look over the fact that it states "received the Holy Spirit just as we have". It's clear, Gentiles received salvation in the same manner as Jews.

If you read both letters from Peter you will see his thoughts line up the same with Paul's.
 
eddif said:
An ox and a bishop mean the same thing too. LOL

It just takes twelve posts to describe the differences and similarities. If folks are going to be rolling in the isles fighting, I will shut up.


eddif
Click to expand...
I don't at all understand what you mean.
 
Not_Now.Soon said:
This isn't info for the Kingdom of God verses the Kingdom of Heaven, but I've wondered about the blessings and promises in the gospels and in Revelation. Specifically the blessings in the beatitudes in Mathew 5 and the rewards, given to the churches in the first chapters of Revelations.

In the beatitudes, those poor in the spirit and those perscuted are promised that theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. (In a similar sermon in Luke those who are poor, and those perscuted are given this promise for the Kingdom of God). But then you have the meek who will inherit the earth, potentially a different responsibility or a different kingdom then the Kingdom of Heaven. For instance some old Testiment prophies tell of people of all nations traveling to Israel to learn from, or to see the King. And at least one prophesy gives a good blessing to Egypt and another nation. Blessing those two along with Isreal. Perhaps it's the gentile nations that are given to the meek, and Isreal is still God's special treasure. Or perhaps inheriting the earth means something different. Peace makers are promised to be called children of God, while those pure in Heart are promised to see God.

Though all these attributes are aspects we should strive for, the question can you recieve some of these blessings and not others? Can a person be in the Kingdom of Heaven but not be a child of God, or not have the privilege to see God?

Revelations 2-3 gives promises at the end of each address to a church. In the King James Version the promises are given to those that overcome, and simularily in the NIV translation the promises are to those that are victorious. Potentially promises that every Christian will inherit being victorious in our faith; or each promise us given only to the trials mentioned in each church's critism. For Ephesians the victorious could be those that fell away from their love for God, and returned. Promised to have the right to eat from the tree of Life. Pergamum on the other hand was critized for holding to the teaching of Nicolaitans. Perhaps those who overcome false doctrine and enticing sins are given the reward to eat the Mana from Heaven and be given a stone with a new name on it for their new name. Or perhaps both promises to Ephesian and Peramum churchesare meant for all who are victorious in Jesus and are sanctified by Him.

I'm sorry for the tangent. It's just the question of if the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God being the same, bring to mind similar thoughts of promises and blessings given might not be universally given to each person saved in Jesus.
Click to expand...

hello Not_Now.Soon, dirtfarmer here

It is my belief that Revelation was written to Jewish congregations.
 
Nathan said:
You don't believe there were any gentile believers in the seven churches written to?
Click to expand...

hello Nathan, dirtfarmer here

When the disciples were alive and walking on this earth after the resurrection of Jesus Christ there were churches that the congregates were only Jews. John was an apostle to the circumcision.
 
Free said:
Based on what, exactly?
Click to expand...

hello Free, dirtfarmer here

There are numerous reasons.
In chapter 1:6 it is stated; " And hath made us kings and priest" is Jewish according to Exodus 19:6 "A kingdom of priest"
In chapter 1:7 it is stated ; " and they which also pierced him:"
Chapter 1:9 I John, who am your brother and companion in tribulation."

The messages to the 7 churches state; " to him that overcometh" is never stated to the body of Christ, because Christ has overcome the world and all that pertains to it.
 
dirtfarmer said:
hello Not_Now.Soon, dirtfarmer here

It is my belief that Revelation was written to Jewish congregations.
Click to expand...

I don't that's so. Some of the churches in Revelations 2-3 are the same churches that Paul started up, visited and sent letters to. John I think is said to have been one of the last Apstoles and could be said to be a disciple to the churches of Jews and Gentiles.
 
dirtfarmer said:
hello Nathan, dirtfarmer here

When the disciples were alive and walking on this earth after the resurrection of Jesus Christ there were churches that the congregates were only Jews. John was an apostle to the circumcision.
Click to expand...

Right, but I thought you were saying the entire book of Revelation was written to Jewish congregation. Maybe I misunderstood.
 
Nathan said:
I always figured it was kind of weird itself to think there is more than one kingdom. True kingdoms that is. One God, one kingdom.
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking that it means there is more than one kingdom. Perhaps something like, different aspects of the same kingdom.

Sorta like the united states. There's 50 states, but each state can say we are the united states and this would be accurate statement, but then all 50 together is also the united states. I'm not even sure what we have here, but it occurs to me that if they are exactly the same thing, then why didn't they say it the same exact way? The Kingdom of God is very complex the way it is run. It's an entire judicial system there. There is court. The courts of heaven are ran with an exacting set of rules and procedures, to effect pure righteousness and holiness. It is a just system, but we don't really know a whole lot about the etiquette of heaven. But a slight differentiation of terms used may just shine light on whatever is being discussed. Does that make sense? Am I making this clear to you all what I'm trying to say?

There's no reason for anyone to get defensive here about this. Just talking, trying to see what we can see.
 
reba said:
Your opinion is as valid as mine... :) to me when i read the scriptures they show me the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven are the same kingdom.. KofG and KofH have been are being used in attempts to divide God's people..

Are these different... Holy Ghost ? Holy Spirit ?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But no one is trying to divide anyone here. Please don't get defensive because I'm wondering if the different terms may indicate a different aspect of the Kingdom. It's a valid question.

Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are one in the same. No difference.
 
eddif said:
How about the KofG and KofH being used to unite God's people..

Romans 14:3 KJV
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

We are on the edge of one huge discussion of the slaves being free and the freeman being a slave to Christ. This discussion really hinges on the discussion going on right now. Of course I have forty years invested in one or two paragraph statements.

As an administrator you can see storms brewing that others can not. Romans 14:3 says there are differences, but suggests not insisting on a way. The differences are mentioned however (in some detail). The details just slip by the multitude though.

Redneck
eddif
Click to expand...

You should be a moderator, Brother. That's a very mature attitude and perspective to have. Some who seem to be insisting on a certain way probably have not read Romans 14. No scriptures have been posted to show that there is no difference. So how could such a adamant stance be taken against the thought? Taking a stance where there is no proof yet and from a position of authority could wind up being more divisive than asking a question! If it's not true, then it's not true. I'm not saying that it has to be true...I'm asking.
 
dirtfarmer said:
hello Free, dirtfarmer here

There are numerous reasons.
In chapter 1:6 it is stated; " And hath made us kings and priest" is Jewish according to Exodus 19:6 "A kingdom of priest"
In chapter 1:7 it is stated ; " and they which also pierced him:"
Chapter 1:9 I John, who am your brother and companion in tribulation."

The messages to the 7 churches state; " to him that overcometh" is never stated to the body of Christ, because Christ has overcome the world and all that pertains to it.
Click to expand...

Have you considered, in a serious manner, that believers in Christ must also overcome?

2 Timothy 2:12 (ESV)
if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
 
reba said:
I did not mean 'here' Edward I was referring to some of the teachings that divide the Scriptures into them and us theologies..
Click to expand...

Oh, ok. Well, thanks for that. I thought you meant that somehow I'm trying to bring division to the body. Sorry.
 
Based on the Scriptures themselves

Mat_4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Luk 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
 
Edward said:
You should be a moderator, Brother. That's a very mature attitude and perspective to have. Some who seem to be insisting on a certain way probably have not read Romans 14. No scriptures have been posted to show that there is no difference. So how could such a adamant stance be taken against the thought? Taking a stance where there is no proof yet and from a position of authority could wind up being more divisive than asking a question! If it's not true, then it's not true. I'm not saying that it has to be true...I'm asking.
Click to expand...

One thing to consider is it's hard to prove something that does not exist. You wouldn't be able to prove to an atheist that the God of the Bible is the the same as another religions god.

Proving two different kingdoms should reside on the one saying it's so. Yes?

Do we have to prove Jesus is God, or do we accept it because there is only one God?

We don't see two different kingdoms anywhere else, so just because the singular kingdom is called by two names, why do we consider that different than God being called by different names?
 
If there are different kingdoms, that would mean there are different 'residents' of each kingdom right? Do we find this to be the case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top