What is the Kingdom of God?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Matthew 11:11-12) . . .Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; [b]but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is.  But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are sei ...[text shortened]... y baptised him. Clearly it cannot be an inner state for Christ held John in the highest regard.[/b]

==================================
(Matthew 11:11-12) . . .Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is. But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.

John the Baptist, apparently not party to the Kingdom of the heavens, yet a greater personage has not been born, interesting statement to make, considering he was a herald of the King and personally baptised him. Clearly it cannot be an inner state for Christ held John in the highest regard.
=======================================

You must be born again.

That passage will not change this. No matter how "interesting" it is. That passage is about "the kingdom of the heavens," a term perculiar only to the Gospel of Matthew. And the "kingdom of the heavens" has a particular relationship with "the kingdom of God". It is a section of it and overlaps it but the two terms are not equivalent in every respect.

You must be born again to see or enter into the kingdom of God.

Do not assume that you have a real good case to make in Matt. 11:11 to give you an escape from John 3:3-7. You think you have a good case. I can handle it. But I will not right now because I only want to impress you that Jesus said "You must be born again".

So it is of that that you should be sure. Don't think you have a good lawyer's loophole with Matt. 11:11 .

Originally posted by jaywill
==================================
(Matthew 11:11-12) . . .Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is. But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and uld be sure. Don't think you have a good lawyer's loophole with Matt. 11:11 .[/b]

Of course they are the same, the Kingdom of the heavens IS the kingdom of God, you have not explained the text and no averting the topic to what it means to be born again can diminish this fact. Why is John the baptist not party to the Kingdom of the heavens?

I am interested not in winning arguments, for we shall come to what it means to be 'born again', I am interested in finding out about the Kingdom of God, clearly this scripture presents an insurmountable obstacle to your case!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Of course they are the same, the Kingdom of the heavens IS the kingdom of God, you have not explained the text and no averting the topic to what it means to be born again can diminish this fact. Why is John the baptist not party to the Kingdom of the heavens?

I am interested not in winning arguments, for we shall come to what it means to be 'bo ...[text shortened]... t the Kingdom of God, clearly this scripture presents an insurmountable obstacle to your case!

===============================
Of course they are the same, the Kingdom of the heavens IS the kingdom of God, you have not explained the text and no averting the topic to what it means to be born again can diminish this fact. Why is John the baptist not party to the Kingdom of the heavens?
==================================

Okay. But this will be brief. Do not use Matthew 11:11 to try to prove no inward new birth is needed for salvation.

What makes a person great is being close to the Great One Jesus Christ. The closer one is to Jesus Christ the greater on is. For only greatness is Him.

Now John the Baptist was the closest of all born men to Jesus for John was His forerunner. He came immediatly before Jesus to announce His coming. So John, of all people born of women, was the greatest.

But, he who is least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater then John. And WHY ?? Because he who is born again has Jesus Christ within them. The indwelling of Jesus Christ is closer and greater then that relationship John the Baptist had in that stage of transition.

This is brief and I am not going to argue long on this point. To be born of the Spirit is to receive the Great One INTO your innermost being. That makes you closer to Christ. And in THAT regard he who is LEAST in the new testament church life is greater then John the Baptist.

Marvel not that Jesus you MUST be born again.

Now the scope of the kingdom of God is greater then the scope of "the kingdom of the heavens" in Matthew's Gospel. The relationship is something like this:

To be in California is to be in the United States. But not every where in the United States is California. If I am in Anahiem I may say that I am in the United States. I may also say that I am in California. The two scopes interact at Anahiem.

But if I am in Dallas though I am in the United States I am not in California. The scope of the US includes but is larger then the scope of California.

In the same way the scope of "the kingdom of God" is larger then "the kingdom of the heavens" . So sometimes the two terms can be used interchangeably. But at other times they cannot.

You have come across Matthew 11:11 where the smaller scope of "the kingdom of the heavens" to "the kingdom of God" is evident.

So do not attempt to use that passage to persuade your heart the you may ignore the Lord's teaching that to enter into the kingdom of God you must be born again. It is concerning being born again that you should pray earnestly to Jehovah making certain that He has caused you to be reborn.

================================
I am interested not in winning arguments, for we shall come to what it means to be 'born again', I am interested in finding out about the Kingdom of God, clearly this scripture presents an insurmountable obstacle to your case!
====================================

It is not an insurmountable obstacle. It just calls for detailed study. In Matthew a careful analysis of the usage of the two phrases will reveal that one "the kingdom of God" was already there with Israel. But the kingdom of the heavens was at hand, near, coming.

The kingdom of God in its largest sense is from eternity to eternity. But the kingdom of the heavens is a section of the entire kingdom of God which is the new testament church and the millennium.

If you resist to see the need to be born again, it isn't mainly for reasons of kingdom verses. It will be because you just don't recognize Who Jesus Christ really is. And you trade the truth for a manmade opinion of who Jesus Christ is.

If I were you I would throw open the doors of my heart and confess Jesus as Lord and God Himself, get the new birth Jesus taught about in John 3.

I know though that it is a painful and humiliating thing to be disfellowshipped from the Jehovah's Witnesses. And once they found out that you were truly a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, most likely they would want nothing more to do with you.

But the Christians who are born of God would understand and would receive you. May I ask what city you live in or near ?

I am in the sourth of the metro Washington DC area.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
Of course they are the same, the Kingdom of the heavens IS the kingdom of God, you have not explained the text and no averting the topic to what it means to be born again can diminish this fact. Why is John the baptist not party to the Kingdom of the heavens?
==================================

Okay. But t ...[text shortened]... ou live in or near ?

I am in the sourth of the metro Washington DC area.[/b]

There is no basis Jaywill other than an attempt to impose your exegesis upon the scripture to state that it was made relative to Johns stage of transition, no basis whatsoever. It is pure and utter speculation for there is not any Biblical evidence that John was at a greater or lesser stage of transition. Clearly he was not in the Kingdom of the heavens, although fit to baptise Jesus. This is in no way connected to your attempts to introduce the idea of being born again, its a simple Biblical statement which has a bearing on what the Kingdom of God/heavens is.

I do not avoid the Lords teaching, we will come to what it means to be born again, in fact, i am looking forward to it, but at this moment there are lots of passages that have a direct bearing on what the Kingdom of God actually is.

Please can we leave off attacking Jehovah's Witnesses, i am into the Bible, i want to discuss scripture, what can i say, its my thing, it rocks my socks, etc etc

I live in Glasgow, West of Scotland, United Kingdom, Gods own country! Its not me you should be concerned with, its the English, probably one of the most atheistic and godforsaken people on the planet, next to the Germans and the Swedes! Look how they spawned Agers and Boobster, pure materialists with a contemptible prejudice against scripture.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is no basis Jaywill other than an attempt to impose your exegesis upon the scripture to state that it was made relative to Johns stage of transition, no basis whatsoever. It is pure and utter speculation for there is not any Biblical evidence that John was at a greater or lesser stage of transition. Clearly he was not in the Kingdom of the he ...[text shortened]... spawned Agers and Boobster, pure materialists with a contemptible prejudice against scripture.

=============================
There is no basis Jaywill other than an attempt to impose your exegesis upon the scripture to state that it was made relative to Johns stage of transition, no basis whatsoever.
=============================

It is hard for you to level the charge of imposing my exegesis upon others when you are doing so yourself.

Jesus said he that is least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater then John the Baptist, as great as he was.

If you have an alternative interpretation of this tell me.

================================
It is pure and utter speculation for there is not any Biblical evidence that John was at a greater or lesser stage of transition.
============================

It is not hard to regard John in a stage of transition. Christ had not yet accomplished redemption on the cross or resurrected from the dead.

Don't you regard this as Christ coming, yet, something not yet having been consummated by Him ?

=====================================
Clearly he was not in the Kingdom of the heavens, although fit to baptise Jesus.
====================================

I did not say John the Baptist WAS in the kingdom of the heavens. Did I? I affirmed exactly what Jesus said. That is that the one who was least in the kingdom of the heavens was greater then John.

The contrast should mean that John was not in the kingdom of the heavens. Incidently, both John and Jesus said the kingdom was at hand, as if approaching, on its way. But the kingdom of God was already present. The change of the terms is uncanny.

Compare: "Now in those days John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." (Matt. 3:3)

So the kingdom of the heavens has only drawn near. It has not arrived yet as John the Baptist is preaching. Jesus repeats the same thing - "From that tme Jesus began to proclaim and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." (Matt. 4:17)

So by that time of both John the Baptist's preaching and Jesus' preaching the kingdom of the heavens had only drawn near. But look at Matthew 21:43:

"Therefore the kingdom of God [KINGDOM OF GOD] sja;; be taken from you and shall be given to a nations producing its fruit."

So the kingdom of the heavens had oonly drawn near. But the kingdom of God will be taken away. This means that it was there, Right?

When the kingdom of God was taken away from Israel and given to another nation is when the New Testament church came into being. And it comes into being. So Matthew's term "the kingdom of the heavens" has to do with the new testament church life. But the kingdom of God refers to God's general authority and rule which was already there even with the nation of Israel.

Now I don't mind you objecting with observations as challenges. But respect that I did say I was not elaborating on this distinction too much at the time.

At any rate, you saying that the "default" position is to should disregard any such transition is just as much an imposition of your exegesis onto others.

==================================
This is in no way connected to your attempts to introduce the idea of being born again, its a simple Biblical statement which has a bearing on what the Kingdom of God/heavens is.
=======================================

Without the new birth, Jesus said, no one can see the kingdom of God. So it is wrong of you to trivialize the new birth.

=================================
I do not avoid the Lords teaching, we will come to what it means to be born again, in fact, i am looking forward to it, but at this moment there are lots of passages that have a direct bearing on what the Kingdom of God actually is.
====================================

I agree that there are many many passages on the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the heavens and the kingdom in general.

That does not mean the words of the Lord Jesus specifically in John chapter 3 we can afford to minimize. Nicodemus was a good and upstanding religious man. The Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity would have been proud to have him as a member. He was a "Victor of the People" as the name Nicodemus means.

But Jesus told him that he needed to be born again. Nicodemus came to Jesus for better teaching. Or at least he came for a clarification of doctrine. Jesus, however, immediately told him that his need was not a new teaching but a new birth.

And it is the same today. It is not better teaching that the condemned sinner needs. First off he needs to be born again so he can even see the kingdom of God. He needs the new birth so he can enter into the kingdom of God. Good teaching will not do it. A birth of Christ within him is mandatory - " ... you MUST be born again."

================================
Please can we leave off attacking Jehovah's Witnesses, i am into the Bible, i want to discuss scripture, what can i say, its my thing, it rocks my socks, etc etc
==============================

Jehovah's Witnesses can keep people back from being saved in spite of the fact that they talk much about the kingdom. So I feel compelled to warn some people that they could be kept from the kingdom of God.

Especially, by teaching that Jesus Christ the Son of God is the angel Michael rather than the Word of God Who is God and became flesh, they deceive people. They may have many Nicodemuses teaching and going from door to doorr. But they need to be born of the Spirit - born again.

==================================
I live in Glasgow, West of Scotland, United Kingdom, Gods own country! Its not me you should be concerned with, its the English, probably one of the most atheistic and godforsaken people on the planet, next to the Germans and the Swedes! Look how they spawned Agers and Boobster, pure materialists with a contemptible prejudice against scripture.
===============================

Atheism is on the fierce rise in Europe. That is true. The way for the Antichrist is being prepared IMO.

But Christ is God come in the flesh. Jesus loves you. And if you have not been born again you must be born again.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
There is no basis Jaywill other than an attempt to impose your exegesis upon the scripture to state that it was made relative to Johns stage of transition, no basis whatsoever.
=============================

It is hard for you to level the charge of imposing my exegesis upon others when you are doing so you you. And if you have not been born again you must be born again.[/b]

If you have an alternative interpretation of this tell me, - Jaywill

Yes clearly John was not destined to be part of the Kingdom of the heavens, for he was destined to be resurrected into the new earthly society, who will reside on a paradise earth, under the direction of Gods designate King , Jesus Christ, who will gradually bring mankind back to perfection. Gods purpose will thus be fulfilled of a new heavens ( a new heavenly government) and a new earth ( a new earthly society). The earth will be restored to a paradise as God intended.

But the kingdom of God refers to God's general authority and rule which was already there even with the nation of Israel - Jaywill

Yes it does, but the earthly part was only as a representation, David sat on the throne of God, merely as his representative, the real Kingdom is heavenly, beyond corruption and has a King, who has been tested and can therefore sympathise with our weaknesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses can keep people back from being saved in spite of the fact that they talk much about the kingdom - Jaywill

Presently conducting over two million Bible studies through a public ministry and having as their primary teaching the Kingdom of God, one finds that sort of statement quite ironic. We have not systematically removed Gods name from his word, nor have we watered down scripture with secularism, nor have we adopted the evolutionary model, nor have we engaged in politicising. The chances of learning about Gods Kingdom from a church member or even the clergy of Christendom is negligible to nil. I know i speak to them on their doorsteps every week!