The kingdom of God.

[Checkpoint]

Some seem to think it is entirely future, while others give the impression they are always thinking of it as present, and to not be looking at the future in kingdom terms at all.

Jesus had much to say about the kingdom, including this:

Luke 16:

6 The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is being zealously urged into it.

So, where do you stand as to whether it is present, future, or has both a present and a future aspect?

On what basis?

According to which scriptures?

[myth-one.com]

The names written in the "book of Life" were written there from the foundation of the world (Rev 17:8), not a come to "Jesus" moment.

Yes, and all of them will be blotted out, except those who accept Jesus as their Savior:

Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

As for "believing Jesus Christ as one's Savior" saving one from the wages of sin, is a nonstarter, for the mark of sin, is disease & death, and I am supposing you have your plagues (sicknesses) of the nations, as well as you are on the road to death.

I'm on my way to the first death. Jesus never sinned, but He suffered His first death like every other human. So the first death is not the wages for our sins.

Your definition of "death" (permanent death) is wrong, as the righteous of Rev 20:4 all sinned yet will never face your defined "death" which is the judgment for sin (Jeremiah 31:30), which they all committed in order for them to die in the first place.

No one will suffer their second death until after judgment. But sin no longer controls our salvation anyway.

As for Jesus Christ being the savior, well that is not quite right.

So what must I do to be saved?

[2ndpillar2]

The names written in the "book of Life" were written there from the foundation of the world (Rev 17:8), not a come to "Jesus" moment.

Yes, and all of them will be blotted out, except those who accept Jesus as their Savior:

Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

As for "believing Jesus Christ as one's Savior" saving one from the wages of sin, is a nonstarter, for the mark of sin, is disease & death, and I am supposing you have your plagues (sicknesses) of the nations, as well as you are on the road to death.

I'm on my way to the first death. Jesus never sinned, but He suffered His first death like every other human. So the first death is not the wages for our sins.

Your definition of "death" (permanent death) is wrong, as the righteous of Rev 20:4 all sinned yet will never face your defined "death" which is the judgment for sin (Jeremiah 31:30), which they all committed in order for them to die in the first place.

No one will suffer their second death until after judgment. But sin no longer controls our salvation anyway.

As for Jesus Christ being the savior, well that is not quite right.

So what must I do to be saved?

One must "overcome" the world, whose leader is the "beast" (Constantine/Caesar) and his 'two horns like a lamb" (Peter and Paul) (Rev 20:4) to become ruling heirs of the kingdom. As Yeshua asked God to take the burden away from him (Matthew 26:39), there is much reason to believe it was not "Yeshua" that was nailed to the cross, but like Abraham and Isaac, a substitute (scape goat) was put in place, and Yeshua would have been the naked guy in a sheet that left the scene. There was no reason for Yeshua to be killed, for he and Elijah were able to heal and raise the dead regardless. Yeshua's message was not the "cross", the false gospel of "grace", but his message was the "kingdom of heaven", whereas those who "commit lawlessness" (Matthew 13:41-42) will be thrown into the furnace of fire, which is the "day of the LORD" (Joel 2:31-32), Har-Magedon. The false gospel of grace/cross, is the tare seed, the message of the "devil"/"evil one"/"enemy" (Matthew 13). As for the "second death", supposedly being thrown into the lake of fire, the "false prophet" was thrown into the "lake of fire" preceding the "white throne judgment" (Rev 20:10-12). Although he will apparently not die, for he will suffer apparently forever and ever. As for what Yeshua said in order to be saved per Matthew 24:13, he "must endure to the end", which is to say, one must overcome the world to the end, and not bow down to Caesar or his agents. He also said to "enter into life", one must keep the Commandments, which is along the same lines. (Matthew 19:17).

[myth-one.com]

So what must I do to be saved?

Basically, 2ndpillar2 replied that one must keep the commandments to be saved from the wages of sin.

And that would be the correct answer when the path to mankind's salvation was to be without sin -- but that path was closed after Jesus' death on the cross.

After Jesus died, man came under control of the New Testament Covenant to gain salvation. Under the New Testament Covenant one must believe in Jesus to gain everlasting life. And upon gaining everlasting life, believers are immune from any death. The wages of sin is death, but death will have no effect on them after they gain everlasting life.

You are trying to gain salvation in a way that vanished away more than 2,000 years ago!

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

When did the Old Testament vanish away and the New Testament become valid?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (Hebrews 9:15-17)

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #1409]

The idea that folk will be resurrected from the dead and made alive only to be judged unworthy and made to be dead again, is questionable, as there seems to be no logical reason for doing things that way. If YHVH has no use for the individual personality, then it can remain dead forever.

The resurrected will not resurrection what they did before their deaths (they have paid for those sins with their death) they will be offered everlasting life or condemed to eternal death depending on the decisions they make subsequent to their resurrection.

Can you reword this to make sense please.

[2ndpillar2]

So what must I do to be saved?

Basically, 2ndpillar2 replied that one must keep the commandments to be saved from the wages of sin.

And that would be the correct answer when the path to mankind's salvation was to be without sin -- but that path was closed after Jesus' death on the cross.

After Jesus died, man came under control of the New Testament Covenant to gain salvation. Under the New Testament Covenant one must believe in Jesus to gain everlasting life. And upon gaining everlasting life, believers are immune from any death. The wages of sin is death, but death will have no effect on them after they gain everlasting life.

You are trying to gain salvation in a way that vanished away more than 2,000 years ago!

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

When did the Old Testament vanish away and the New Testament become valid?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (Hebrews 9:15-17)

I think leaving your "salvation" with regard to Joel 2:31-32, to the unknown author of Hebrews, who is associated with the false gospel of Paul, is probably not the wisest move. As for the "new covenant" of Jeremiah 31:31-33, in which the "LAW" is written upon the heart of flesh, that is with respect to the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah" (Ezekiel 36:24-27). As for the "new covenant" of the last supper, well, that is with regard to eating the bread of life, the "Word of God" (Rev 19:13 & Matthew 4:4) without the "leaven"/hypocrisy of the Pharisees, such as the Pharisee of Pharisees, Paul. That would mean one must separate the chaff from the wheat, which is to say, separate the leaven/hypocrisy from the wheat, and drink the wine/blood, which is represented by the Spirit of God/Spirit of Revelation, which is the "rock" the church is built on (Matthew 16:17). Those who embrace lawlessness/wickedness will be thrown into the furnace of fire (the great tribulation) (Matthew 13:41-42 & Matthew 13:49-50).

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #1425]

The Bible contains two testaments or covenants between mankind and God. Under both covenants, God is the benefactor and man is the possible beneficiary.

Humans who qualify as heirs under either covenant will receive everlasting life as their inheritance.

There was a "fault" in the original Covenant, thus the New Testament was created.

Under the Old Testament one had to be without sin to become an heir unto everlasting life.

Under the New Testament one has to believe in Jesus as their Savior from the wages of their sins to become an heir unto everlasting life.

That's it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #1409]

The idea that folk will be resurrected from the dead and made alive only to be judged unworthy and made to be dead again, is questionable, as there seems to be no logical reason for doing things that way. If YHVH has no use for the individual personality, then it can remain dead forever.

The resurrected will not resurrection what they did before their deaths (they have paid for those sins with their death) they will be offered everlasting life or condemed to eternal death depending on the decisions they make subsequent to their resurrection.

Can you reword this to make sense please.

I'll try. You recognised correctly that if a person did bad things and died, there would be no point to bring that person back to life just to tell him, "because you did bad things you have to die". The person might justifiably say "Well why didnt you just leave me dead? "

So what would be the reason for bringing back a person that did bad things? Because given the right circumstancss perhaps he could be rehabilitated. Maybe with a better education he will make better choices. How can we find out?

In other words, bring the person back to life and say to him "The past is behind you, nobody is going to judge you for what you did before in your former life (the life you lead before you died). Now you are back , would you like to learn about Jesus and lead a better life? If the person says "Yes" and he goes on to lead a better life then he can live forever. If the answer is yes, but the person proves unfaithful after learning about Jesus, they will have to die.

Is that a little clearer?



JW

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #1427]

Can you explain the logic behind this belief that if a person is brought back to life, they would still choose to be dead rather than be blackmailed into serving Christ or facing death for refusing to do so?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #1427]

Can you explain the logic behind this belief that if a person is brought back to life, they would still choose to be dead rather than be blackmailed into serving Christ or facing death for refusing to do so?

People who are not moraly corrupt don't usualy call the opportunity to make good choices "being blackmailed"

Would you call it "blackmail" to be told that if you rape a child you will go to jail and if you rape and kill a child you will be executed? Most sane people would call that facing the justfiable consequences of your choices; not being blackmailed into not being a baby killer.

That said, most people dont like being "blackmailed", if someone does view the offer to submit to Christs rule and live as "blackmail" then logically they would not want to live indefinitley under such conditions.

Wouldn't you rather die than worship the God of the bible (if that choice were offered to you)?

If the Bible is a correct description of God then yes, I would absolutely rather die.

JW

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #1429]

Can you explain the logic behind this belief that if a person is brought back to life, they would still choose to be dead rather than be blackmailed into serving Christ or facing death for refusing to do so?

People who are not moraly corrupt don't usualy call the opportunity to make good choices "being blackmailed"

It is what it is and those who are moral, understand that. Others get confused.

Can you explain what is good and moral about ultimatums which have but two choices, one of those being death?

That said, most people don't like being "blackmailed", if someone does view the offer to submit to Christs rule and live as "blackmail" then logically they would not want to live indefinitely under such conditions.

Exactly. I would rather examine all the details of what is on offer, what is expected of me as a tradeoff and whether all is on the level, by testing the spirits.

Until then, I make no choices either way.