When Did the Kingdom of Heaven Begin?

[Mr GLee]

I don't think we are told that Abraham was a born-again name. Indeed we are told why his name was changed by God from Abram (meaning "exalted father") to Abraham (meaning "father of a multitude):

“"No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.” (Ge 17:5 NKJV)

He is part of the second born seed which began with born again Abel. "Christ in us".

Luke 3:34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

 

[David Lamb]

He is part of the second born seed which began with born again Abel. "Christ in us".

Luke 3:34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

I agree, but that is no why God gave him a new name.

 

[Mr GLee]

I agree, but that is no why God gave him a new name.

Thanks

Why did he give a second born Jacob a new name?

 

[David Lamb]

Thanks

Why did he give a second born Jacob a new name?

Again, the meaning of the names. Jacob means "heel holder" or "supplanter." Israel means "prince of God.":

“And He said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed."” (Ge 32:28 NKJV)

 

[Mr GLee]

Again, the meaning of the names. Jacob means "heel holder" or "supplanter." Israel means "prince of God.":

“And He said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed."” (Ge 32:28 NKJV)

Thanks

Yes, the name was changed to represent a dying mankind must be born again.

Our father renamed His bride Christian in Acts.

A more befitting name to name the bride of all the nations of the world.

 

[David Lamb]

Thanks

Yes, the name was changed to represent a dying mankind must be born again.

Our father renamed His bride Christian in Acts.

But Acts doesn't say that God called them Christians, just that they were called Christians:

“And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” (Ac 11:26 NKJV)

 

[Mr GLee]

But Acts doesn't say that God called them Christians, just that they were called Christians:

“And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” (Ac 11:26 NKJV)

Hi Thanks

The word "called" used 9 times in the new to represent of God not of dying mankind.

As a demonym people by location. Christian . . .Residents of the heavenly city of Christ "Prepared for this wife the church. Named after its founder and husband, Christ.

I would think a more befitting name to name the bride of all the nations.

 

[David Lamb]

Hi Thanks

The word "called" used 9 times in the new to represent of God not of dying mankind.

As a demonym people by location. Christian . . .Residents of the heavenly city of Christ "Prepared for this wife the church. Named after its founder and husband, Christ.

I would think a more befitting name to name the bride of all the nations.

But the word "called" is also used in the New Testament about fallen man. For example:

“"It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!” (Mt 10:25 NKJV)

“"greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’” (Mt 23:7 NKJV)

“So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias.” (Lu 1:59 NKJV)

I still say that we are not told that God called the believers in the Lord Jesus Christ Christians.

 

[Eleanor]

Scripture reference?

Lk 11:20, Mt 12:28

 

[prism]

Lk 11:20, Mt

Fair enough, it is interesting that the Matthew reference used Kingdom of God.

 

[Eleanor]

Fair enough, it is interesting that the Matthew reference used Kingdom of God.

Not only in Mt 12:28, but again in Mt 19:24, 21:43.

 

[Lees]

Fair enough, it is interesting that the Matthew reference used Kingdom of God.

It is interesting and should prompt one to ask why? Since (Matthew) alone uses the term 'Kingdom of Heaven", why use "Kingdom of God" in these verses? (Matt. 12:28) (Matt. 19:23-24) (Matt. 21:43)

Is there a distinction? I believe there is.

Kingdom of God---where God is the King and sole authority.

Kingdom of Heaven---where God places man in authority over His Kingdom on earth, to implement His will.

Note (Matt. 6:10). Parenthesis mine. "They kingdom come, (Kingdom of God), Thy will be done in earth, (Kingdom of Heaven ) as it is in heaven."

The Kingdom of Heaven is in the Kingdom of God, but is unique in that God's will is exercised on earth through man.

Lees

 

[prism]

It is interesting and should prompt one to ask why? Since (Matthew) alone uses the term 'Kingdom of Heaven", why use "Kingdom of God" in these verses? (Matt. 12:28) (Matt. 19:23-24) (Matt. 21:43)

Is there a distinction? I believe there is.

Kingdom of God---where God is the King and sole authority.

Kingdom of Heaven---where God places man in authority over His Kingdom on earth, to implement His will.

Note (Matt. 6:10). Parenthesis mine. "They kingdom come, (Kingdom of God), Thy will be done in earth, (Kingdom of Heaven ) as it is in heaven."

The Kingdom of Heaven is in the Kingdom of God, but is unique in that God's will is exercised on earth through man.

It can get confusing.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It is interesting and should prompt one to ask why? Since (Matthew) alone uses the term 'Kingdom of Heaven", why use "Kingdom of God" in these verses? (Matt. 12:28) (Matt. 19:23-24) (Matt. 21:43)

Is there a distinction? I believe there is.

But Christ uses both of those terms interchangeably in Matthew 19 verses 23 and 24. They are one and the same.

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you" (Christ is repeating the very same message a second time) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." No distinction between them.

 

[Lees]

But Christ uses both of those terms interchangeably in Matthew 19 verses 23 and 24. They are one and the same.

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you" (Christ is repeating the very same message a second time) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." No distinction between them.

Yes, Christ did use them interchangeably in (Matt. 19:23-24) because His statement concerning the difficulty of a rich man entering into the Kingdom, is true of both the Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God.

The 'Kingdom of Heaven" is in the 'Kingdom of God'. The Kingdom of Heaven is the Kingdom of God upon earth, but is exercised through man. That is the distinction.

Lees

 

[prism]

The Kingdom of Heaven is the Kingdom of God upon earth, but is exercised through man. That is the distinction.

Reference (where this is taught) please

 

[Lees]

Reference (where this is taught) please

In the few posts I have made I have given where this is taught. Of course there is much more.

How about you give the definition of 'the Kingdom of Heaven' as asked of you already. And where it is tarught? You want to stay safe and sit back and ask questions but don't want to answer any. So, based solely on that, I can only assume you don't know. Which means you have started a thread of which you don't know anything about.

If you're not willing to define the subject of your own thread, why should I be willing to define both it, and show it's beginning, and where it is taught?

Do you disagree with post #(9). Why or why not? (references please)

Lees

 

[prism]

In the few posts I have made I have given where this is taught. Of course there is much more.

How about you give the definition of 'the Kingdom of Heaven' as asked of you already. And where it is tarught? You want to stay safe and sit back and ask questions but don't want to answer any. So, based solely on that, I can only assume you don't know. Which means you have started a thread of which you don't know anything about.

If you're not willing to define the subject of your own thread, why should I be willing to define both it, and show it's beginning, and where it is taught?

Do you disagree with post #(9). Why or why not? (references please)

Lees

No need to get defensive, I only asked for supportive scripture verses.
As far as ‘the definition of the Kingdom of heaven’, I already explained‘, I don’t know, that’s why this thread.

 

[Lees]

No need to get defensive, I only asked for supportive scripture verses.
As far as ‘the definition of the Kingdom of heaven’, I already explained‘, I don’t know, that’s why this thread.

Really? Where was it that you explained that? I don't see it.

If you don't know, then you have nothing to contribute. So, don't ask for Sripture references when you fail to acknowlege the Scripture references I already gave.

Lees

 

[prism]

Really? Where was it that you explained that? I don't see it.

In so many words posts #4 & #8.

If you don't know, then you have nothing to contribute

Now you are catching on.

So, don't ask for Sripture references when you fail to acknowlege the Scripture references I already gave.

You want to stay safe and sit back and ask questions but don't want to answer any.

I acknowledge the references you gave but reserve the right to ask questions.

So, based solely on that, I can only assume you don't know. Which means you have started a thread of which you don't know anything about.

Right, that's why this thread with me asking questions.

Do you disagree with post #(9). Why or why not? (references please)

I believe I gave post #9 a 'like' last Fri. at 5:30pm.