AV1611 Bible Forum Archive - "Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)

- Doctrine (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - "Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1306)

Quote:

Winman,

a few reasons I see you always disagreeing

1) you will not rightly divide the word of truth
2) preconceived Ideas as to what the scriptures teach
3) failure to properly study to show thy self approved

Again, you accuse me of not rightly dividing the truth, as though you have the keys to this knowledge alone.

And you do not present one verse of scripture to support your views, while I have presented many. If you think I misunderstand these scriptures, then correct me and show me my error.

And you assume I do not study the scriptures. Really? Is that how I came up with all these scriptures that argues against your view?

I think my posts with many scriptures that argues against your views speaks for themselves.

study can be done wrongly and it can be done rightly. no one said or assumed you didn't study. I think I used the words failure to Properly study. we have presented plenty of scripture and you always come back with the same line "I don't see it that way"

One way to see if you are studying properly is to see how what you learned has lined up with those who do study properly. If you are always arguing and debating it comes from some point of seeing yourself as always right and everyone else as always wrong. That is why I back away after a few posts with you.

As I said earlier it is like trying to share with a JW. they don't study properly and never see it that way. it is obvious by your remarks like JW's you approach the scriptures with some preconceived Ideas of scriptures that you have learned from some other teacher you respect. and you set out to argue or debate that view and hang on to it no matter what.

so now I will back away from this thread as it is obvious that you don't see it any other way than Winman see it. there by it is of no use to share anymore with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 22075)

I disagree. Paul did teach of the slaying of Jesus. But notice he teaches the repentance of sins to everlasting life, not the restoration of the kingdom.

Acts 11:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Notice Paul tells this group who is primarily Jewish, that through Jesus is preached the forgiveness of sins.

And this is before Paul says he will go to the Gentiles.

Acts 11:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles

Here, Paul does say that the gospel was first to be preached to the Jews. Notice Paul says they judged themselves unworthy of "everlasting life", not the restoration of the kingdom. Then, afterward, he says he will go to the Gentiles.

Where we disagree is that you believe Peter was preaching the restoration of the kingdom of Israel in Acts 2. I completely disagree. Peter was preaching the same message as Paul here, that upon believeing on Jesus Christ they would receive forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.

The only verse(s) that could remotely be understood in Acts to be the restoration of the kingdom is Acts 3:20. But the verse before and after show differently.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began

First, the restoration of the kingdom is not mentioned. In fact, the term "gospel of the kingdom" is not found in Acts anywhere, check and see for yourself. Yes, Peter did preach Jesus would return, but this is the same message we have today. Notice it says the heaven must receive Jesus until the "times" of restitution of all things, so Peter was obviously speaking of more than one age, and could not have been saying that Jesus would return upon repentance of killing Jesus. Note that in verse 10 Peter says repent that your sins may be blotted out, and does not mention the restoration of the kingdom.

Later in Acts, Peter confirms that the message to the Jews in the early chapters was for the forgiveness of sins upon believeing on Jesus and not this "kingdom gospel" you believe.

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Here Peter says these Gentiles received the Holy Ghost just as they did on Pentacost. Note that these Gentiles received the Holy Ghost by hearing only, not baptism. Then note how Peter says God has granted to these Gentiles ALSO repentance unto life.

I say to you that I do not believe Peter was preaching a different gospel to the Jews. It was the same salvation message that Paul preached to the Gentiles. You have not a single verse that absolutely says that the apostles were preaching the restoration of the kingdom of Israel if they repented of killing Jesus. Peter was preaching the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life upon believeing on Jesus.

The Bible clearly teaches that the gospel was opened to the Gentiles when Christ rose from the dead in Ephesians chapter 2

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

So, it was not in Acts when the Gentiles were grafted in, it was when Jesus went to the cross, died, and rose from the dead.

And Paul clearly said that he persecuted "the church".

1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Here Paul is preaching to Gentiles. He tells them he persecuted "the church" of God. This clearly shows that the Jews in the early chapters of Acts were the same church as Paul spoke to much later after going to the Gentiles.

Winman, I want to thank you for your study and how plainly you lay it out. I have no idea why anyone would accuse you of not rightly dividing the word of God or failing to properly study and instead of giving scripture to refute what you said, refers you to someone else. It may by that he has no answer to what you have said. Once again I thank you for explaining this in such a logical manner.

George is the one who started this post and I will refer those who question the kingdom offer and Kingdom Gospel to George even if it is asked in another thread

I don't necessarily have time to pick through Winman's post right now, all though I do say that I do agree with a couple of things that he said. The only thing I have to ask right now is why did John the Baptist and Jesus keep saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand and then start telling people how to get in to the kingdom of heaven if it there was no possible way for it to show up for another 2000+ years?

Some have left out the Larger context of the Gospels of Matt thru John as to how that context applies to the preaching of the Apostles from Acts 1-8 in order to prove someone as being RIGHT and someone as being WRONG.

There is a whole lot of arguing and debating going on by a few and not a whole lot of edifying. And I think George's point in starting this thread is to edify the body of Christ as to the proper way to study the first 8 chapters of Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinvw (Post 22122)

Could it not be because the Kingdom was being offered to the Jews but because they rejected their Messiah it has been put off til after the Church Age? I have heard many say that no man was born again in the Old Testament even though the Lord Jesus Christ told an Old Testament Jew that he "must be born again." Some try to make "rightly dividing" too complicated sometimes.

Winman,

Maybe it would help us more if you would share something about yourself, your testimony. things like: are you a member of a denomination or independent? are you serving the Lord full time in ministry? what type of job you have? are you married? divorced? widowed? are you male or female? have you been to Bible college? are you a high school graduate?n Where when and how did you get saved?

you see, you have posted 427 post (to the time of this post) since you came on board here in late December and you have not shared anything about yourself to us here at AV1611 forums. I as some don't go to other forums where maybe you have shared some details of your personal life. And as a matter of fact this is the only forum I am active in because I am in good company with men of like minds like George and Brandon, Sammy and Steve, and Forrest. all of these men have at one time or another given some testimony of their lives and we can know them better by that.

but your post and profile shows nothing about yourself except for the fact you like to disagree and argue. so how about starting a thread in general chit chat and give us a taste of who Winman is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by premio53 (Post 22125)

But you see, when was the rejection? Was it before or after the crucifixion? The rejection was not the crucifixion, although it had some part to do with it. It was necessary for Him to die because He had to become a Priest first before He could become a King which was a major part of the stumbling of first century Jews. I see the rejection of the offer of the kingdom where Winman does not see it. I do say that rightly dividing the word of truth is not as clear cut as we would like it to be, but the preaching of the tribulation and Christ coming to sit on the throne of David was for Jews who were about to receive their kingdom if they were so willing, not to just get forgiveness of sins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 22126)

Why would it matter if he was Jehovah Witness, Morman or any other cult? Why not just answer the scriptures he has presented? Are you seeking some information to go after him personally?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinvw (Post 22127)

But you see, when was the rejection? Was it before or after the crucifixion? The rejection was not the crucifixion, although it had some part to do with it. It was necessary for Him to die because He had to become a Priest first before He could become a King which was a major part of the stumbling of first century Jews. I see the rejection of the offer of the kingdom where Winman does not see it. I do say that rightly dividing the word of truth is not as clear cut as we would like it to be, but the preaching of the tribulation and Christ coming to sit on the throne of David was for Jews who were about to receive their kingdom if they were so willing, not to just get forgiveness of sins.

Mar 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
I might add that after the crucifixion the commission was no longer strictly to the "house of Israel" (Matthew 10) but to "all nations" (Matthew 28:19).

Quote:

Originally Posted by premio53 (Post 22130)

And those Jews out of "all nations" were present at Jerusalem in Acts 2, and not manifest in Ephesians 3:

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The "great" commission of Matthew 28 was not the only "commission" given to the 12 Apostles, there were five "commissions", and all dealing only with the Jews. Our commission, Pauls', is in Acts 9:15.

Grace and peace

Tony

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinvw (Post 22122)

Good question and here is a good answer: They were given a choice to accept Jesus Christ as Messiah, King, and High Priest and chose not to and fell(Rom. 11), the Jewish-Gentile Body was called through Paul, not Peter, James and John(Ephesians 3)to provoke the Jews to jealousy. With right division you end up with the truth and understanding, without it you end up with Roman Catholicism and the Christian Talmud of semi-Catholic "fundamentalists" running around preaching the "gospel" of Peter, James, and John "to all the world" without signs following.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonybones2112 (Post 22131)

I missed the part where it said "Jews" out of "all nations." I do know that the apostle Paul said that said that the Gospel went to the "Jews first" (Romans 1:16).

I also know what Peter said.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

The same gospel as Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonybones2112 (Post 22133)

I know many old fashioned Baptist preachers who don't "end up with Roman Catholicism" but preach simply "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2):21) just like Paul did. Scripture can be wrongly divided as well as rightly divided.

Re: "Rightly Dividing The Book of Acts"

Quote:

Originally Posted by premio53 (Post 22137)

premio53,

Why don't you introduce yourself. Tell us a little about yourself. :confused: Here you are, a perfect stranger (we don't even know if you are a man or a woman), making a lot of comments, and we have NO IDEA WHO you are; or WHERE you've been; or WHAT you believe.

The only thing that we know about you (at this point) is you have Posted your "personal opinions" on Scriptural matters; and personally, I don't like discussing spiritual matters with total strangers. And in addition, people's "personal opinions" don't mean very much to many of us on the AV1611 Bible Forums. We get so much of people's "personal opinions" here (many of them totally wrong and contrary to Scripture) that people's "personal opinions" are just like water off a ducks back. :cool:

Quote:

Originally Posted by George (Post 22144)

Brother, this is the internet, not a local church. I just wanted to discuss scripture with other Christians. I will say that I am nothing but an old fashioned Baptist saved by the grace of God.

What makes my opinion any worse or better than anyone elses if I back it up with scripture?

Re: ""Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts"

Quote:

Originally Posted by premio53 (Post 22146)

premio53,

So the "internet" is an "EXCUSE" not to be courteous and hospitable? Since you CHOOSE to remain A "STRANGER" - I CHOOSE to have NOTHING to do with you - "old-fashioned Baptist" or not! :eek:

WHY would a genuine born again "old-fashioned Baptist" not want to share his "testimony"? Hmmm? :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by George (Post 22147)

I have no idea why you are offended. Do you disagree with what I have posted? If so you are welcome to show where I am wrong. I told you I am a Baptist saved by grace. I don't understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by premio53 (Post 22137)

You are correct brother, scripture can be wrongly divided.
I think you will find that there are several levels of dispensational doctrine being taught on this board. Most of us are going to subscribe to a "moderate" dispensational teaching, but there are a few on here that in my opinion go beyond that into the realm of Hyperdispensationalism, and their chopping never ceases, night or day. For more on that here are a few articles:
http://cnonline.net/~rkmiller/ultrad...m-ironside.htm
http://www.victory-baptist.net/hyper.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/books/hy...tionalism.html

On the other hand, I think brother George has done a good job warning about the quagmires associated with taking things too far, for example you will find that both George and Chette are in support of water baptism for believers. I think for the most part we have all tried to avoid the division this can create, while still allowing for some discussion. I think it is safe to say we ALL have disagreed with each other on SOME issues, at SOME time. But to me that is not a bad thing as long as it doesn't get out of control.

As I say, sometimes dispensationalism can be a divisive issue for Christians. But all of this in no way impacts our full support for the authority of the King James Bible, and even though we all may squabble from time to time on some issues, the heart of the forum is the inerrancy of the King James Bible and I can tell you that we all rally together as brothers to defend it when needed. My personal suggestion is that you "tread softly" here for a while until you get the lay of the land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 22149)

I will take your advice. I will sign out for awhile. I really don't know why George took such an offense though.

Re: "Rightly Dividing The Book of Acts"

Aloha brother Parrish,

If you are wondering what "set me off" with Premio53, the following Posts - made by Premio53 (criticizing brother Chette Nichols) might clarify:

Quote:

Premio53’s quote Post #43:
“Winman, I want to thank you for your study and how plainly you lay it out. I have no idea why anyone would accuse you of not rightly dividing the word of God or failing to properly study and instead of giving scripture to refute what you said, refers you to someone else. It may by that he has no answer to what you have said. Once again I thank you for explaining this in such a logical manner.”

Premio53’s quote Post #50:
“Why would it matter if he was Jehovah Witness, Morman or any other cult? Why not just answer the scriptures he has presented? Are you seeking some information to go after him personally?”

These are the kind of “cheap shots” that I despise! :mad: Premio53 doesn’t know WHAT he/she is talking about, or WHO he/she is talking about and yet he/she takes these “CHEAP SHOTS” against brother Chette! Just exactly WHAT is it that prompts “Christians” to do this? Hmmm? :confused:

When Premio53 said “I have no idea” – he/she said a mouthful! :tsk: Premio53 has “NO IDEA” WHO brother Chette is. And Premio53 has “NO IDEA” as to WHY brother Chette said WHAT he said. And on top of that Premio53 has “NO IDEA”HOW WELL brother Chette can handle himself on issues like these. In other words – even though Premio53 HAD “NO IDEA” about WHAT or WHO he/she was talking about, he/she ventured a derogatory “OPINION” of brother Chette ANYWAY! :(

WHO does Premio53 think he/she is? :confused:

Proverbs 29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
{This goes for women too – just in case Premio53 is a woman, since Premio53 has CHOSEN not to tell us anything about him or her self.}

Premio53 was taking these “cheap shots” at brother Chette Nichols. Brother Chette lays his life on the line every day on the remote Island of Palawan in the Philippines (awfully close to the radical Muslims!). Brother Chette has started at least three churches in the Philippines, and works more in the ministry in one day than I do in a month! Brother Chette subsists on anywhere’s between $50.00 and $500.00 a month and yet shares whatever God provides him (and his wife Tata; and there three children; and his mother-in-law; and sister-in-law) with those brethren in the church he pastors, and those outside the church as well.

WHO IS PREMIO53 TO QUESTION brother Chette’s character or ability? Hmmm? :confused:

I grow tired of these people who join this Forum and one of the first things they do is QUESTION the character, honesty, or ability of one of the members here. Or they jump into the middle of a Thread and disagree with something that someone posted without knowing anything about what has transpired on the AV1611 Bible Forums before hand (and are too lazy to check the Threads and Posts out). :p

Check out Premio53”s Thread and Posts – it’s either QUESTIONS (ALWAYS "QUESTIONS") or it’s disagreement, dissent, argument, contention, or controversy. What’s with “Christians” nowadays? Here we have a perfect "STRANGER" (about whom we know NOTHING about); and he/she gets right into the “MIDDLE” of some “CONTROVERSIAL” issue; and he/she “takes sides”; and then he/she criticizes someone (WHO THEY DON’T KNOW FROM ADAM!). Are we to take such a person seriously? Are we supposed to extend the “right hand of fellowship” to a STRANGER that REFUSES to share his/her personal testimony with us and yet sees fit to criticize one of the brethren on this Forum? I trow not! :eek:

Proverbs 26:17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

Chette said

Quote:

One way to see if you are studying properly is to see how what you learned has lined up with those who do study properly. If you are always arguing and debating it comes from some point of seeing yourself as always right and everyone else as always wrong. That is why I back away after a few posts with you.

That is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever read. So, you judge yourself the standard, or those you personally agree with. If I disagree with you or those you agree with, I am not properly dividing the word? Baloney.

Millions follow cults of people who have cleverly dissected the scriptures to preach a false gospel. The scriptures warn of these false teachers.

Look, I have presented many scriptures to support my view. If you think I am in error, show me from these very scriptures where I am wrong.

I believe Jesus was rejected on Palm Sunday when he entered Jerusalem. This is a very common belief with Baptists (I am an Independent Fundamental Baptist). I am not sure if it was this thread, but Brother Luke posted a link from Liberty College showing that Palm Sunday fulfilled many scriptures to the very day that Christ would offer himself as King to the Jews. So, this is not an unorthodox view whatsoever, and I happen to completely agree with it because that is what I believe the scriptures truly show.

I showed how the apostles asked Jesus in Acts 1 if Jesus was going to restore the kingdom "at this time" and Jesus told them it was not for them to know this information. And I personally do not believe the Holy Spirit would inspire Peter to preach scripture that contradicts Jesus.

I showed that in every instance in early Acts that the apostles were preaching "repentance unto life", or believeing on Jesus for forgiveness of sins and receiving everlasting life, never once mentioning the restortation of the kingdom. NOT ONCE.

I have been accused several times of not rightly dividing the word, but no one has shown me clearly where I am in error on the scriptures I provided. I am still waiting on that.

You can say what you will about me, I am not here to cause division or strife among the brethren. I am interested in truth, and truth only. I do not like to argue with anyone. But when I see someone who in my opinion is presenting false doctrine, I will stand up and say something about it. I do not think I know everything, but I do study carefully, and pray always for the Lord to give me understanding and discernment.

I think I have presented very strong evidence for my views that there is only one gospel, and that Peter and the apostles were preaching the very same gospel in the early chapters of Acts as Paul was preaching later on. If someone can clearly show me where I am in error (from the scriptures, not personal interpretation), I will listen.

I have looked at the evidence for this supposed "different" gospel preached to the Jews in early Acts. I am not convinced whatsoever from the evidence and scriptures provided. In fact, the more I have read and studied, the more convinced I have become that this teaching is an error.

Kevin said:

Quote:

Kevin, the Pharisees asked this very question of Jesus.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. 22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

First Jesus told them the kingdom comes not with observation, it is not something you can see with your eyes. Then he tells them the kingdom of God is within you. I understand this as receiving the gospel, believeing on Jesus. This may be describing the church age. Then the Lord describes his second coming. But first he must suffer and be rejected of this generation.

So Jesus did tell them the answer to their question, although they probably did not understand it.

And this is a point to be made. It does not matter what the Jews thought at the time, that has no bearing on reality. They expected the Messiah to come as a King and restore the kingdom. That is the very question these Pharisees asked of Jesus. And the apostles asked the same in Acts 1. The Jews did not know about the church age, they did not understand the Gentiles would be grafted into the body. But that does not change the reality that these things must happen. So, to argue that the Jews didn't expect this thing or that is not really valid. They got it wrong on many counts.

Re: ""Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts"

Aloha brother Winman,

I believe we are at “cross-purposes” in regards to this issue. You have continually ignored most of the points that I have made in this Thread, and then have proceeded to defend your beliefs (albeit with Scripture) without regard to what I have presented.

I will now proceed to demonstrate what I have claimed:

Winman’s Post #32 {with my comments & observations}

Quote:

Brother Winman's quote:

Quote:

"Bro George

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I completely agree with you that the apostles were first sent to the Jews. 100%

Where I disagree, and perhaps I misunderstand you, is that from the beginning of Acts, the Lord had also determined the gospel would go to the Gentiles."

WHICH “GOSPEL” were you referring to?

“the gospel of the kingdom”? [Matthew 4:23]

“the gospel of the uncircumcision”? [Galatians 2:7]

“the everlasting gospel”? [Revelation 14:6]

Or were you referring to Paul’s “Gospel” – better known as:

“my gospel” [Romans 2:16]
“our gospel” [2Corinthians 4:3]

“the gospel of the grace of God”[Acts 20:24]

“the gospel of God” [Romans 1:1]
“the gospel of his Son” [Romans 1:9]
“the gospel of Christ” [Romans 1:16]
“the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” [2Thessalonians 1:8]
“the gospel of peace” [Romans 10:15]
“the gospel of the uncircumcision” [Galatians 2:7]

If you say that the “Gospel” you are referring” to is “the gospel of the kingdom”, you have a serious “problem”. You see Paul’s “Gospel” was called many things – but it NEVER was called “the gospel of the kingdom”. {NOT ONCE!} When a person “makes” all of the above “Gospels” the SAME, they are “HARMONIZING” the word of truth, instead of RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth.

And if it is the “gospel of the kingdom” - WHICH Kingdom would you be referring to? The “kingdom of heaven”? [Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 5:3,10,19-20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11-12; 13:11,24,31,33,44-45,47,52; 16:19; 18:1,3-4,23; 19:12,14,23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1,14]

Or the “Kingdom of God”? [Matthew 6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31,43; Mark 1:14-15; 4:11,26,30; 9:1,47; 10:14-15,23-25; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43; Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1,10; 9:2,11,27,60,62; 10:9,11; 11:20; 12:31; 13:18,20,28-29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20-21; 18:16-17,24-25,29; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16,18; 23:51; John 3:3,5; Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31; Romans 14:17; 1Corinthians 4:20; 6:9-10; 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Colossians 4:11; 2Thessalonians 1:5]

If you try to say that “the gospel of the kingdom”; and “the everlasting gospel” and “the gospel of the grace of God” - i.e. Paul’s “Gospel”, are ALL the SAME; you run into the “problem” of when you read about them (in context) they are clearly NOT spoken of as being the SAME!

{The first “problem” with your statement is you fail to identify - WHICH “GOSPEL”? If there is ONLY ONE “Gospel”, then you are correct. IF there is MORE THAN ONE “GOSPEL”, then you are assuming that the “Gospel” that you accepted when you got saved (Paul’s Gospel – i.e. the “Gospel of the Grace of God”) is the SAME “GOSPEL” as the “Gospel” of the Kingdom of God.}

We have gone through this before - Paul’s “Gospel” (simply put) is:

1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Did the Lord Jesus Christ “preach” the SAME “GOSPEL” as the Apostle Paul? You couldn’t PROVE it (in a "court of law") if your life depended on it! And the fact that - it was just before the Lord was taken by the nation of Israel’s leaders (to be killed) that He “forewarned” ONLY His disciples about His upcoming betrayal, death, and crucifixion [Matthew 20:17-19, 26:1-2] – does NOT “PROVE” that He “preached” His death burial and resurrection to the rest of the nation of Israel, or anyone else for that matter. {He came to the nation of Israel as their Messiah and King; (NOT their CRUCIFIED SAVIOUR!) and He presented Himself as such (He DID NOT “preach” His death, burial, and resurrection to the nation of Israel!). It wasn’t until He was about to be crucified that He revealed His betrayal, death, and crucifixion to His disciples – who refused to believe Him, even after He told them!}

Matthew 20:17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Matthew 26:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

What was the “Gospel” that the Lord “preached” (in Matthew)?

Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

Read Chapters 5, 6, and 7 of the Book of Matthew – those Chapters clearly DEFINE “the ‘Gospel’ of the Kingdom” [which “Gospel” - obviously is NOT the “SAME” as Paul’s “Gospel”!]

What was the “Gospel” that the Lord “preached” (in Mark)?

Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Read Chapter 16 of the Book of Mark – “the ‘Gospel’ of the Kingdom” described therein obviously is NOT Paul’s “Gospel” – They are NOT the “SAME”]

Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

IF the “Gospel of the kingdom” is the “SAME” as Paul’s Gospel” WHAT HAPPENED to the “SIGNS” that were promised to “them that believe”? I know that the Pentecostals (i.e. “Charismatics”) have been TRYING to “reproduce” those signs for about a hundred years now, but in the 50 years I have been saved I haven’t SEEN one genuine SIGN following “them that believe”! I “believed” in October of 1958 and NO SIGNS have followed me! WHY is that?

It’s because I have believed the “Gospel of the Grace of God” (Paul’s “Gospel”); I did NOT believe the “Gospel of the Kingdom” - that the Lord and His disciples (including Judas) preached (exclusively to the Jews) while He was here on the earth; and which “Gospel” the Apostles and Disciples continued to preach (exclusively to the Jews and Proselyte Jews) in the first Seven (7) Chapters of the Book of Acts.

IF the “Gospel” that the Lord told His Disciples to preach is the “SAME” as Paul’s “Gospel” – WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SIGNS that were promised to “them that believe”? Hmmm?

And what about the “Gospel” in the Book of Luke?

Luke 4:42 And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them.
43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.
44 And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.
Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Luke 9:6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

Whatever “Gospel” the Lord “and His Disciples “preached” – “SIGNS” and “HEALING” always followed that “Gospel” (including the first few Chapters of Acts). And although “signs” and “healing” followed the Jewish Apostles during most of their ministry, the gifts (extraordinary powers) of “signs” and “healing” did NOT TRANSFER to the Gentile “believers”; and even at the end of Paul’s ministry, Paul was unable to cure his “beloved son” Timothy of a simple stomach ache or Timothy’s “often infirmities”! [1Timothy 5:23]

Paul truly had “the SIGNS of an Apostle” [2Corinthians 12:12] for several reasons:

1. To convince the other Apostles and the Lord’s Disciples that he (Paul) was a genuine Apostle.

2. To prove his “Apostleship” to unbelievers {Apostles were supposed to have “signs”.}.

3. To prove he was a genuine Hebrew Apostle to the Jews who were “scattered abroad” in the various cities where Paul preached (always “to the Jew FIRST, and also to the Greek” i.e. Gentile) [Romans 1:16; 2:10]. You see, the Jews “require a sign” [1Corinthians 1:22] and God was obligated to give them signs. So as Paul went from town to town and city to city, he always went to the Jews’ synagogues FIRST. God’s “commission” to Paul was that he was to go “to the Jew FIRST”, and so God gave Paul the “signs of an apostle” to PROVE to those Jews (that were scattered abroad) that he was, indeed, truly an Apostle from God.

Please notice how “lengthy” my comments have been on just one of your sentences – i.e. your quote: “Where I disagree, and perhaps I misunderstand you, is that from the beginning of Acts, the Lord had also determined the gospel would go to the Gentiles.” And please observe that all throughout my comments I have used Scripture to support my beliefs. The fact that someone USES Scripture to PROVE A POINT, doesn’t necessarily mean that WHAT they say, or are trying to PROVE, is “TRUE”!

The sad fact of the matter is –ALL of the Cults USE the Scriptures (Mormons; Seventh Day Adventists; Jehovah’s Witnesses; etc.)! And ALL of the Heretical branches of “Christianity” USE Scripture (Church of Christ; Baptist Bride; most Pentecostal churches, etc.)! TRUTH is NOT determined by whether someone (or some Sect) USES Scripture – “TRUTH” is determined by whether we are “rightly dividing the word of truth” or NOT!

We are commanded to: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”[2 Timothy 2:15] The way to determine when a person is speaking the “truth” is to examine what they have said in their Posts and determine who is seeking to rightly divide “the word of truth”, and who is seeking to harmonize “the word of truth”. As to which one of us is presenting the “Truth” - I will leave THAT to the judgment of those on this Forum.

Here is the next part of your Post #32:

Quote:

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

”Here Jesus names the exact order that the apostles would witness to. They began in Jerusalem, then Judaea, then they went to Samaria, and then to the Gentiles.

So, I do not believe the apostles were sent to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected the gospel and stoned Stephen. The Jews had already rejected Jesus on Palm Sunday when he entered Jerusalem.”

These verses and the verses that follow have no bearing on the real differences between us because we all know (and agree) that the Lord Jesus Christ was REJECTED (by the nation of Israel) in the four Gospels. My “point” has always been that the nation of Israel REJECTED THE HOLY GHOST living in the Apostles and Disciples, and it is this final REJECTION, by the nation of Israel, of the last Person in the GODHEAD that led to God turning to the Gentiles.

In my Post #31 on this Thread I said:

“In Acts Chapters 1 through 7 – There are at least 107 references made exclusively TO the people of the nation of Israel and NONE made directly TO the Gentiles! WHAT MORE does someone “need” in order to understand that in the first 7 Chapters of the Book of Acts, the Lord God (through the guiding of the Holy Spirit) led the Apostles and Disciples to preach ONLY to Jews and Proselyte Jews, and DID NOT “extend” that preaching to the Gentiles until AFTER the stoning of Stephen (the rejection of the Holy Spirit by the nation of Israel - which is the turning point of the Book Of Acts!), whereupon the Lord began to turn unto the “Gentiles” – who are referenced 28 times (AFTER Acts Chapter 7) from Acts 8 through Acts 28!”

And so most of the following Scriptures (that you cited) are superfluous, since we are in agreement as to WHEN the Nation of Israel REJECTED the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here is the next part of your Post #32:

Quote:

Luke 19:29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,
30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.
31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?
34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him.
35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
36 And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.
37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;
38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Prophesy had foretold that the promised King would be riding a colt

Zech 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

”And Jesus said this was "thy day" and that the Jews "knewest not the time of thy visitation".

”So, where we disagree is when Jesus was rejected by the Jews. I believe he was rejected the day he entered Jerusalem as King. Many did receive Jesus as King that day. But the Pharisees, chief priests, scribes, and chief of the people did not, and sought to destroy him.”

I don’t know where you got the "idea" that we “disagree” on WHEN the Jews REJECTED the Lord Jesus Christ; or that I ever claimed that the nation of Israel REJECTED the Lord TWICE. I have always claimed that WHEN the Jews REJECTED the Apostles and Disciples between Acts Chapters 1 through Acts Chapter 7 – they were REJECTING The HOLY SPIRIT, Who was living in them and guiding them in what they said and did; and so most of your Post does not apply, and has little or nothing to do with our “real disagreements”. {I will have more to say about this “misunderstanding (on your part) in a later Post.}

Here is the next part of your Post #32:

Quote:

”In Luke 20 the Lord tells a parable that shows this rejection.”

Luke 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

So, here is the story of Jesus coming into Jerusalem as King. But he was rejected and killed. And because they killed his son (not Stephen) God says he will destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. So, I believe upon crucifying Jesus, God had determined to give the gospel to the Gentiles. And this is why the Lord included the Gentiles in Acts 1:8.

Again, since you and I are in agreement as WHEN the Lord Jesus Christ was REJECTED, all or most of your comments do NOT apply to our “real disagreements’.

Here is the next part of your Post #32:

Quote:

I do believe Stephen's stoning was very important. It was at this time that a great persecution rose against the church and many disciples fled. But this was to take the gospel to Judaea and Samaria, just as Jesus had said in Acts 1:8

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

And you see here, they went every where preaching the word. This was not the apostles, they remained in Jerusalem. But this was a partial fullfilling of Acts 1:8. The only region remaining to hear the gospel was;

"and unto the uttermost part of the earth." I am not trying to be argumentive with you, I simply see things a little differently. I see the Lord Jesus already preparing to go to the Gentiles in Acts 1:8, not because of a rejection after Christ's crucifixion, or the stoning of Stephen. The stoning of Stephen and the persecution in Jerusalem was necessary to spread the gospel as the Lord said in Acts 1:8.

And I think I have supplied scripture to support my view.

You can try to "explain away" the fact that at the stoning of Stephen the future Apostle to the Gentiles (Saul - Paul) shows up, and immediately following Stephen's death God leads Philip to the Samaritans (part Jews/part Gentiles) due to "persecution" alone; but that doesn't explain the SIGNS & MIRACLES that accompanied Philip's preaching (and which no longer follow "the Gospel of the Grace of God" - i.e. Paul's Gospel). And it surely wasn't "persecution" that caused God to GUIDE Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch (a Proselyte Jew - i.e. A GENTILE with NO "connection" to the Jews in Jerusalem). It wasn't "PERSECUTION" that "FORCED" Philip to seek out the Ethiopian Eunuch; it was the LEADING of the Holy Spirit - beginning to turn to the Gentiles! "PERSECUTION" had NOTHING to do with it!

You supplied a lot of Scripture, but most of it had NOTHING to do with our “real disagreements”. In other words most of the Scripture you supplied was superfluous, since we never had any “disagreement” as to WHEN the nation of Israel REJECTED her Messiah & King in the first place! We “disagree” as to WHAT constitutes the “Gospel” and WHY God turned to the Gentiles.

I shall have more to say about some of your other Posts soon.

Bro George

We will have to agree to disagree. I do see that Jesus told some Jews of his death, burial and resurrection.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Nicodemus may not have understood what Jesus meant by being "lifted up", but Jesus was speaking of going to the cross. And John 3:16 is absolutely the same gospel we Gentiles are saved by. God "gave" his son. That is the death burial and resurrection right there.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

These verses are to show that Jesus did tell the people of his crucifixion, although I am sure they did not really understand these sayings. But that is not the point. Jesus was clearly teaching the Jews to believe on him for everlasting life throughout the four gospels.

As far as signs, they ceased. But the early believers did speak in tongues and other gifts, including some Gentiles.

1 Cor 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

As for the "gospel of the kingdom", let's examine a verse.

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

If this gospel of the kingdom means the restoration of the kingdom of Israel, is this what preachers and pastors in churches across the world should be preaching on Sunday morning? Should we preach every Sunday that the Jews should repent of killing Jesus so that the kingdom would be restored?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

No, it is the gospel that Jesus is the Son of God, who came and died for our sins on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead. This is the gospel that is to be preached to all nations till the end.

In Romans 2 Paul explains that the Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same way.

Rom 2:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

And Acts clearly shows that Peter was preaching the gospel of believeing on Jesus for everlasting life in early Acts, not the restoration of the kingdom.

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Here you see Peter telling the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem that the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost just as they had on the day of Pentacost who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. And then the disciples said, then hath God ALSO to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

That is so very clear and easy to understand.

There is no mention of repenting of killing Jesus here. But it is mentioned that the apostles and disciples on Pentacost believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. And verse 18 shows that the message was "repentance unto life". That is speaking of receiving everlasting life (John 3:16), not the restoration of the kingdom.

Bro George, I respect you, but I am in total disagreement with you on this teaching. I see not one single verse in Acts where the apostles preached the restoration of the kingdom if the Jews repented of killing Jesus. But I clearly see the preaching of believeing on Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and receiving everlasting life.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I'm glad we can discuss these things without anger, it is a testimony to both of you and your walk with Christ. Pass the lemonade...

Quote:

Originally Posted by premio53 (Post 22129)

Why would it matter if he was Jehovah Witness, Morman or any other cult? Why not just answer the scriptures he has presented? Are you seeking some information to go after him personally?

that would matter a lot JW's, Mormon's or cult members are not saved and have not the Holy Ghost to help them study the word of God, and would do little to contribute to edifying of the Body of Christ of which they are not part of.

winman,

I referred you back to Georges post because he has presented the differences in the Gospels of what Peter taught from Matt - Act7. I referred you back to his post so that we would not be going over ground that was already covered. I referred you to George's previous post because it was obvious that you didn't understand what was being shared from solid scriptural evidence and you answer is always, "I disagree with you". that is it you, you always disagree, then you come back to argue the point that was already covered. you don't seem to be learning or being edified but you seem to be pushing your view as being right and everyone else is wrong.

We don't want to argue we come here to learn and to be edified. it gets ready tiresome dealing with you that is why I back away. but you always have one last word, one last shot. are you one of those types of people who must have the last word or you can't sleep at night?

here I give you the last word. please let me post it for you, I disagree with you. there you have the last word

Re; "Rightly Dividing The Book of Acts"

Brother Winman said:

Quote:

"Bro George

We will have to agree to disagree. I do see that Jesus told some Jews of his death, burial and resurrection. "

Aloha brother Winman,

The Lord Jesus Christ "SPOKE" of His death burial and resurrection on several occasions - always with His Disciples or in private.

You quoted several verses, supposedly in "opposition" to what I said. We will now examine those verses to see if they are truly "contradict" my words:

Quote:

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

I searched the entire Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John and could not find the word "RESURRECTION" IN IT! Part of the "Gospel" is MISSING! :tsk:

I never said that the Lord didn't "reveal" to some of His Disciples His death, burial, and resurrection. I specifically said: "He {The Lord Jesus Christ} DID NOT “preach” His death, burial, and resurrection to the nation of Israel"!

Nicodemus came to Jesus "by night" - this NOT the SAME as the Lord Jesus Christ "preaching" to the nation of Israel about His death, burial, and resurrection!

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

And now on to your other verses:

Quote:

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

The fact that the Lord spoke these words does NOT "MEAN" that He "preached" His death. burial, and resurrection (i.e. Paul's "Gospel") to the nation of Israel! Can you NOT SEE - that when the Lord spoke these words - NO ONE (that heard the words) understood WHAT he was talking about?

And not only that - NONE OF THE VERSES YOU CITED SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST'S "RESURRECTION", they only signified what kind of "death he should die". That's NOT much of a "gospel" - WITHOUT THE "RESURRECTION"! It surely isn't "the 'Gospel' of the Grace of God"! :tsk:

The verses that you cited DO NOT PROVE that the Lord Jesus Christ "preached" about His death, burial, and resurrection to the nation of Israel; on the contrary, they PROVE (along with verses that I cited before) what I claimed in Post #65:

George's quote - Post #65

Quote:

"{He came to the nation of Israel as their Messiah and King; (NOT their CRUCIFIED SAVIOUR!) and He presented Himself as such (He DID NOT “preach” His death, burial, and resurrection to the nation of Israel!). It wasn’t until He was about to be crucified that He revealed His betrayal, death, and crucifixion to His disciples – who refused to believe Him, even after He told them!}"

This is the "problem" I am having with you brother. I was very specific in the use of my words - i.e. I said: "He DID NOT “preach” His death, burial, and resurrection to the nation of Israel!" And you run off to three places in the Scriptures (where the Lord is clearly NOT "preaching" His death, burial, and resurrection TO the nation of Israel) and try to make those verses "MEAN" something other than WHAT they "SAY"! You can not possibly equate any of those verses with "preaching" to the nation of Israel the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ!

I repeat: The Lord Jesus Christ NEVER PREACHED TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL HIS DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION. {That is Paul's "Gospel" - "the Gospel of the Grace of God" - NOT "the Gospel of the Kingdom of God"}

With the verses you cited - You have FAILED TO DISPROVE what I so clearly stated. Instead, I am afraid that you have (in desperation to "prove" your point) USED the Scriptures to support a personal belief, (in spite of what the "words" actually said) instead of having SEARCHED the Scriptures for the "TRUTH"; the whole "TRUTH"; and nothing but the "TRUTH". :confused:

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

I must say that this is a strange forum. I simply wanted to discuss scripture and everything becomes a personal attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 21169)

winman,

I said it was taught but not for the application for the forgiveness of sins from Acts 3-8. it was taught as HISTORICAL facts to prove Jesus was the Promised Messiah for Israel and it was only taught to Israelite's and proselytes to Judaism.

You are still not seeing the truth of Acts three first if they believe what Peter is teaching about Christ being their prince the Holy one of promise (faith in the word preached by Peter not Christ finish work of the cross. NEVER NEVER NEVER does Peter even say that the death burial and resurrection are for the forgiveness of sins), then they are to secondly REPENT (a work), then they are to thirdly BE CONVERTED (a Work), and then they can have their sins blotted out (God's Grace or favor). The word THAT that is in "THAT your sins may be blotted out" it shows in clear English that if they didn't do the repenting and converting then no blotting out. There is a clear order of works based salvation here. none of Which we have to follow today to get saved. this is part of the Kingdom Gospel not the Gospel of Grace.

Failure to see the correct Gospel and to apply it would mean that some of you may not even be saved. and that would answer why it is you cant see the truth of the scriptures or rightly divide.

You accuse Winman of maybe not being saved because he disagreed with your interpretation concerning two gospels and then in this thread after Winman presented strong arguments supported by scripture you accuse him of:

1) you will not rightly divide the word of truth
2) preconceived Ideas as to what the scriptures teach
3) failure to properly study to show thy self approved

I simply thanked Winman for presenting what I thought were strong scriptural arguments and couldn't understand why anyone would accuse him of not studying the scriptures. The next thing I know George comes out of a whirlwind and slams me for not being hospitable because he thinks I was attacking you while demanding to know everything about my personal life instead of addressing the scriptures!

I have no idea who George is but he seems to run this forum. That's fine. I'm new and understand my pecking order but I really don't understand the sensitive feelings. I will refrain from posting for awhile.

Re: " "Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts"

Quote:

Originally Posted by premio53 (Post 22183)

"I must say that this is a strange forum. I simply wanted to discuss scripture and everything becomes a personal attack.

You accuse Winman of maybe not being saved because he disagreed with your interpretation concerning two gospels and then in this thread after Winman presented strong arguments supported by scripture you accuse him of:"

1) you will not rightly divide the word of truth
2) preconceived Ideas as to what the scriptures teach
3) failure to properly study to show thy self approved

"I simply thanked Winman for presenting what I thought were strong scriptural arguments and couldn't understand why anyone would accuse him of not studying the scriptures. The next thing I know George comes out of a whirlwind and slams me for not being hospitable because he thinks I was attacking you while demanding to know everything about my personal life instead of addressing the scriptures!

I have no idea who George is but he seems to run this forum. That's fine. I'm new and understand my pecking order but I really don't understand the sensitive feelings. I will refrain from posting for awhile ."

premio53,

You conveniently "LEFT OUT" your "CHEAP SHOTS" against a brother in Christ who you NO NOT KNOW! You claimed: "I simply wanted to discuss Scripture". Is criticizing and insulting one of the brethren on this Forum - "simply discussing Scripture"? I trow not!

Quote:

Premio53’s quote Post #50:
“Why would it matter if he was Jehovah Witness, Morman or any other cult? Why not just answer the scriptures he has presented? Are you seeking some information to go after him personally?”

If you want to know WHY I got on your case - carefully read this link: http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...4&postcount=62

By your disingenuous reply above, it's obvious that you will easily "overlook" your personal insults to someone on this Forum; (someone about whom you know NOTHING about) and then you try to play the "innocent injured party" when someone calls you down for your "attitude".

For your information - I do not run this Forum. (If I did you would already be gone.) But when some "UNKNOWN STRANGER" comes on to the AV1611 Bible Forums and starts to "criticize" a fellow brother in Christ (and a personal friend of mine to boot), you can bet your bottom dollar that the "old curmudgeon" will admonish. reprove, or rebuke you for your "indiscretion".

We are very tolerant here, but we will not put up with some "newbie" (an "UNKNOWN STRANGER") joining our Forum and, without even a "Howdy Do", who starts to "criticize" one of the brethren here. If you knew anything about "common courtesy" you would not have made the remarks that you made about brother Chette Nichols, but since you obviously lack the "social graces", I'm here to remind you that we don't take kindly to "UNKNOWN STRANGERS" insulting our friends and fomenting trouble. :eek:

Oh, and by the way - I NEVER asked you about "everything in your personal life" (you do have a way of "twisting" things don't you?), but it is hard to understand WHY an "Old fashioned Baptist" is reluctant to at least introduce themselves and give a word of friendly testimony, before jumping into the middle of a "controversial Issue" and start insulting some of the brethren. We still don't know whether you are a man or a woman. :confused:

Read the Link, perhaps you will know "where I am coming from".

Proverbs 4:24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.

Proverbs 10:17 He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 22169)

As for the "gospel of the kingdom", let's examine a verse.

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Winman, I hope you don't skip my question again. (You have done so in another thread. This keeps us beating around the bush.)

The CONTEXT of Matthew 24:14 is Matthew 24:13. "But he that shall endure unto the end the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom..." (Mt. 24:13,14a)

Is Matthew 24:13-14 the same gospel that Paul preached? Yes or no?

Sincerely, I'd say this: you can ignore answer important questions like this one, but you'll never get to know "rightly dividing the word of truth" by doing that.

Hope you consider and meditate. Thanks!

Premios53,

you jumped into a hot spot without your fire gear on. You see Winman has been given all the scriptures to prove what we have said and that prove he is wrong in what he has been presenting as truth.

But Winman just doesn't agree. when it comes down to it you can show him clear biblical facts with scriptures. then the first words out of his heart are "I disagree" then he follows that with some out of context verses to continue to prove he is right and everyone else is wrong.

After 5 plus months of dealing with Winman I have learned just to back away after so many and leave it at that.

but one thing is for sure in five and half months Winman has never said anything about himself until yesterday and that was only to say he was Baptist. Like you we don't know if he is a she, how old is he, does he have his own web site. We got a little glimps into what was supposed to be Winman in an encouragement to pray in one of his posts. but again very little is known of him

please take time to introduce yourself and you willfind George I and the others are very good people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by premio53 (Post 22183)

I must say that this is a strange forum. I simply wanted to discuss scripture and everything becomes a personal attack.

You accuse Winman of maybe not being saved because he disagreed with your interpretation concerning two gospels and then in this thread after Winman presented strong arguments supported by scripture you accuse him of:

1) you will not rightly divide the word of truth
2) preconceived Ideas as to what the scriptures teach
3) failure to properly study to show thy self approved

I simply thanked Winman for presenting what I thought were strong scriptural arguments and couldn't understand why anyone would accuse him of not studying the scriptures. The next thing I know George comes out of a whirlwind and slams me for not being hospitable because he thinks I was attacking you while demanding to know everything about my personal life instead of addressing the scriptures!

I have no idea who George is but he seems to run this forum. That's fine. I'm new and understand my pecking order but I really don't understand the sensitive feelings. I will refrain from posting for awhile.

Lets address the underlined shall we?
Premio53 said "I have no idea who George is"

First of you are a member of the "FFF" Forums, so I am quite sure you know who Brother George is with the scorn he recieves from that place.

I will assume? that from your username Premio53 you are the same premio53 from FFF forums, and the same premio53 who goes by the name SOUTHERN BAPTIST
here http://www.topix.com/member/profile/premio53

Now, it seems that premio53 likes chess is that right?, just like Tandy1650 likes his chess? Striking similaritys here also with a snippet of testimony from Tandy1650 and premio53

Tandy1650

Quote:

When it came to lying and stealing, it didn't bother me and I had nothing but "religion" to comfort me. In 1971, while working at a grocery store, someone left a Chick tract entitled "This Was Your Life" in a flower pot. I took it home and after reading it, the Holy Spirit brought me under much conviction and I no longer tried to fool myself into thinking that I was saved. A week or two passed when after hearing a sermon by my pastor, I finally cried from my heart to the Lord to have mercy and save me for Jesus sake. There was a peace that passed over my soul that words can't describe and for the first time in my life I layed down in bed and wasn't afraid to meet God.

Premio53 (from the linked site above)

Quote:

If you stand before God and say “Lord I got baptized, I didn't have any musical instruments in the church, I quit my cussing, I quit getting drunk, I did this and this and this...” how much merit will that get you? Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the WASHING OF REGENERATION, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; When I was 18 years old in 1971 I cried out with a REPENTANT heart “God be merciful to me a sinner and save me for Jesus sake!” It was then that I “passed from death unto life.” Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I am beginning to think these two men are one in the same

In addition here is another snipet that confirms they are the same person
from this link from http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/...A7Q1OOH3APT/p4 POST 75
Premio53

Quote:

This is also where the Church of Christ has twisted scripture with human wisdom. I have talked with members of the Church of Christ and have read their tracts. This is the PROCESS that is given.

1.Believe
2.Repent
3.Confess
4.Be baptized

In scripture REPENTANCE always comes BEFORE faith! That is why Romans 10:10 says that it is with the HEART that man believeth unto righteousness; …

From these forums by Tandy1650 http://av1611.com/forums/showthread....+tracts&page=2 post17

Quote:

The problem with the Church of Christ is they reverse the God given order of repentance and faith and make salvation a process. They teach:

1. Believe
2. Repent
3. Confess
4. Be baptized
In other words just believe and then start working your way to heaven.

Baptists have always taught that repentance comes before faith. Repentance will bring about a change of heart and attitude toward their sin. They will see themselves guilty before God and in need of salvation. There will be a desire to forsake the sin and turn to God.

Romans 10:10 clearly states that "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Psalms 120:2 Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Well if that be true we are being deceived, and a man who lies in a son of the Devil. and then that would answer why Premio53 never gave testimony and jumped right in.

And seeing that Tandi was banned he may have wanted to come back into the forums by LYING and the Lord will deal with him on this for one cannot lie and hope that God will honor his study, or his teaching.

Great insight POW

Biblestudent asked:

Quote:

I will attempt to answer your question. Personally, I believe there is only one gospel, and this is what Jesus was preaching throughout the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John).

Here are some verses from those books that I think show this is so.

Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

I do not know of anywhere in the gospels that it says Jesus came to restore the kingdom. The Pharisees asked Jesus directly about the restoration of the kingdom, look how Jesus answered.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. 22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. 23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

First, Jesus told the Jews the kingdom of God cometh not with observation. The Jews had expected the Messiah to come and set up an earthly kingdom. But Jesus told them the kingdom does not come with observation. Then he tells them the kingdom of God is "within you". I believe this is speaking of the indwelling Holy Spirit that was to come and abide with all believers. I believe this is speaking of the church age we live in now. Jesus also said they would desire to see one of the days of the Son of man and shall not see it. I believe this is speaking of when Jesus would be crucified and no longer seen on the earth, Jesus gave many similar statements. Then he describes the tribulation period after the church age. Verse 25 again tells that Jesus must first suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.

So, to me, Jesus did answer their question although I doubt they understood the answer. First Jesus must be crucified and rise from the dead. Then there would be the church age, with the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers. This is the kingdom which cannot be observed with the eyes. Then the tribulation, then Christ would return to establish his earthly kingdom. This lines up with all prophesy that we now know.

And once again, the apostles asked Jesus directly in Acts 1 when the kingdom would be restored. If you read carefully, you see the same answer.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus answered the apostles and told them it was not for them to know the times (very important, take note) or the seasons (also plural), which the Father hath put in his own power. And then Jesus tells them they would be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and the uttermost part of the earth.

Notice Jesus said "times". This is also what Peter said in Acts 3:21

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Now, I do not know how anyone who believes in dispensations can miss the word "times" used in these verses. I believe in Acts 3:21 Peter is saying the heaven must receive Jesus until the "times" of restitution of all things. What this tells me is that there would be at least two times or ages that must take place first before Jesus would return. I believe this is refering to the church age, and then the tribulation.

So, Peter was not preaching the immediate return of Jesus if the Jews repented of killing Jesus, two times or ages must take place first. And this fits squarely with what we believe today.

And Peter tells in many places what they were actually preaching in early Acts. They were preaching the same gospel, of believeing on Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life, not the restoration of the kingdom.

This is enough for now, but I have many other scriptures I could show you (and will). I have not done any twisting of scriptures whatsover. Everything fits perfectly with what we know today. The supposed "gospel kingdom" teaching however has many problems, many of which I have already pointed out.

That therein lies the problem. You don't see the difference between the two kingdoms that Christ came and preached about. Jesus preached about the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven, and while it may seem they are one in the same because sometimes He speaks of them interchangeably, they are two different worlds. The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and the kingdom of Heaven is a worldly physical kingdom.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Did the angel Gabriel lie when he said that Jesus will rule on the throne of David which is on earth in Jerusalem? I mean if the kingdom of God is within us, why would Jesus need to rule on the physical visible throne of David? I mean even Jesus himself said that His kingdom is not of this world, so why is this angel Gabriel going around saying that He is going to inherit David's kingdom on earth?

Here is a website that will show you the difference between the kingdom of Heaven and the kingdom of God.

As far as what John the Baptist preached, Paul makes that clear in Acts.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

This is the gospel, believe on the Lord Jesus for forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. Nothing of the restoration of the kingdom mentioned.

And before Paul turned to the Gentiles, what did he preach to the Jews?

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

So, here was Paul preaching to Jews about the forgiveness of sins, not the restoration of the kingdom. But since they judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life, he turned to the Gentiles.

But did Paul stop preaching to the Jews here? No, the very next chapter finds him in the synagogue preaching again to Jews.

Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

And you see Paul preaching to Jews all the way to Acts 28 in Rome.

Acts 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. 25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

So, here again in Rome, Paul is still preaching to Jews to believe on Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Some did believe, but others not, and so Paul states that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles.

And here is where Peter shows forgiveness of sins was preached in early Acts.

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Not one mention of the restoration of the kingdom.

Quote:

I am not confused. I believe the Lord Jesus will return at the end of the tribulation and rule over his kingdom. This will be a literal kingdom you can see with your eyes.

What you are missing is what the Jews were missing, the kingdom of God which is within you. I believe this is all the believers of the church age indwelt by the Holy Spirit. You cannot see this kingdom with your eyes, but it is there.

Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

Do you not see you are making the very same mistake the Jews made? They expected the Messiah to come and immediately set up his earthly kingdom. They did not know of the church age and tribulation that must come first.

When Christ speaks of weeping and gnashing of teeth, he is speaking of the end.

Winman,
You have not addressed the verse in question.
How do you explain Matthew 24:13,14?