The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic

You can't get into the Kingdom of heaven (physcial, and seeing this is a pre-crucifixion teaching it is for Israel alone) without first being a member of the kingdom of God (spiritual).

That teaching about spiritual vs physical comes from the popularized teachings of a scholar named Scofield. It remains ironic to me to see your commentary in other threads condemning certain behaviour in relation to getting one's information from scholars when you demonstrate such fondness of their teachings (regardless if these teachings came to you indirectly, via other people who gave you the same ideas and arguments, I can still see that demonstration; and regardless if you feel you've figured this out on your own or it was made clear to you by Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost as you might say, divine revelation, spiritual insight, from studying the bible, etc., however you wanna call it, the origin of your beliefs and teachings is obvious to me). In the article below "KG" = Kingdom of God and "KH" = Kingdom of heaven (it's from a Baptist Seminary):

While denotative distinctions between the KG and the KH have been proposed elsewhere,[3] the distinction became widely known through the popular Scofield Reference Bible. Scofield noted five ways to distinguish between the KH and the KG.[4] The essential differences, however, can be sum­marized in two points. First,...
Second, the KG is eternal and spiritual in nature, while the KH is temporal[5] and physical in nature.[6]
...


[3] For instance, see Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (New York: R. Carter & Brothers, 1856), 4: 158.

[4] C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Study Bible (1917) [whereislogic: which falls in the period you decribe as "the Christian scholars between 1800 and 1990 who produced all the modern trash (NW, NASV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, RV, NKJV) that is on the market today", in your thread about scholars; can anyone else see the irony in all this? Of course this is a KJV based bible, so maybe Scofield doesn't count as part of that description for that reason in the eyes of those favoring the KJV over the translations mentioned there] (New York: Oxford, 1996), 1003.

[5] It is temporal until it merges with the KG at the end of the Millennium. [whereislogic: see, even this teaching is the same as your: "The kingdoms are two different kingdoms that in the not to distant future will be joined into one." You didn't come up with that one on your own and you didn't read it in the bible, allthough you probably have some twisted interpretations of other texts about the Kingdom of God that you occasionally use to support that teaching, belief, or interpretation that completely ignore and demonstrate their inconsistency with Mt 19:22-24, Mark 10:22-24 and Luke 18:23-25 as well. Pardon for putting it that way if that rubs you the wrong way. Just mentioning it because of what I earlier said about "condemning certain behaviour in relation to getting one's information from scholars when you demonstrate such fondness of their teachings" and that "the origin of your beliefs and teachings is obvious to me".]

[6] For more on the distinctions in Scofield and the early dispensationalists see Herbert W. Bateman, “Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, Herbert W. Bateman, ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 24–31.

Source: Kingdoms in Conflict: Examining the Use of “Kingdom of Heaven” in Matthew (Maranatha Baptist Seminary)

The Kingdom of God's Heaven--

Having noted that in the KJV bible there are 92 verses with references of the words heaven and God. But in these 92 verses the references are most likely to be understood as a spiritual realm of consciousness and not a spiritual realm of reality. An example of this can be understood in ------

Matthew 6:_
6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

By this is plainly understood that the scripture is not telling anyone that one can try to find a heavenly Gan Eden and that God will either show it in a vision, dream or in terrestrial reality. The scripture is telling us that if we seek God with all of our mind and heart, then He will reveal the truth of this in your mind [belief].

Matthew_2:28
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Once again, this scripture is not saying that upon this earth and in this physical realm, if one casts out a devil by the word of God then God will bring the physical terrestrial Gan Eden down to you. This scripture is once again telling us that if we cast out a spirit devil then you have the spiritual power of belief in your mind and soul.

This has nothing in reference to a celestial reality whatsoever.

The kingdom of heaven is found in the KJV bible in 41 verses of which 33 are in the NT. The other mentions of the words kingdom and heaven are found in 8 verses in the OT where they are not in context of the celestial abode.

Out of the 33 verses in the NT which use kingdom of heaven in context, only 9 verses of Matthew reveal this as a place in the third heaven where Gan Eden is found. Out of those 9 verses there two verses that cannot be denied as being a celestial physicality.

Matthew 8:11-12
(11) And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
(12) But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

How should we understand these two verses? Verse 11 states that many justified and resurrected souls will join Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the New Jerusalem’s Gan Eden but then adds that the children of these justified souls who have not as yet been justified, will not be allowed into the New Jerusalem but are cast out of the city proper and onto the new earth.

What does this mean to you?

originally posted by: Seede
Matthew 8:11-12
(11) And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
(12) But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

How should we understand these two verses? Verse 11 states that many justified and resurrected souls will join Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the New Jerusalem’s Gan Eden but then adds that the children of these justified souls who have not as yet been justified, will not be allowed into the New Jerusalem but are cast out of the city proper and onto the new earth.

What does this mean to you?

As I see it, the New Testament offers just the two ultimate options;
Being in the presence of God.
Not being in the presence of God.
(These are the root ideas of the two concepts of Heaven and Hell, whatever those alternatives would look like in practice).
To me, "outer darkness" is meant to convey "not being in the presence of God".

If your question is about "children of the kingdom", Jesus isn't referring to the children of those who enter the kingdom.
He's talking about the Jews as those who should have been entering the kingdom. They are the "family" for whom the kingdom was originally designed, the intended "heirs".
Unfortunately, many will exclude themselves by their lack of faith, and will be cast out into outer darkness instead.
You need to look at the whole conversation; he is contrasting the faith of the Gentile with the lack of faith of some of the Jews around him, which is why many Gentiles will enter the kingdom, togther with the faithful among the Israelites, and many Jews won't.

a reply to: DISRAELI

TextAs I see it, the New Testament offers just the two ultimate options; Being in the presence of God. Not being in the presence of God. (These are the root ideas of the two concepts of Heaven and Hell, whatever those alternatives would look like in practice). To me, "outer darkness" is meant to convey "not being in the presence of God".

Thank you DISRAELI, I also see most of your explanation concerning these two verses. Especially as they are describing the kingdom of heaven. So in effect you are saying that your understanding is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in the eternal paradise of Gan Eden while some of their children are not among those who are in the kingdom of heaven.

Now the reason that I had asked that question was that when reading Revelation 22:14 - I see the similar message when read in the entire chapter 22 as the backdrop.

Revelation 22:14 - Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Could the two scriptures be the same message? In Revelation we see that there are those who are justified and in the celestial city of New Jerusalem which include Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and we also see those children who are cast out in utter darkness.

Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

The Holy City has 12 guarded gates to restrict those unjustified children who are outside the city and in total darkness. But then who are the children that live in the new world order and after the destruction of the universe and all human life? Why and how can they be redeemed? Is not all humanity destroyed in the last judgement and if so then how do we get sin outside the kingdom of heaven and on the new earth?

I see the very same message in both Matthew and Revelation with the exception that Revelation reveals much more than does Matthew..

Are these children of Revelation the very same as Matthew is talking about?

a reply to: whereislogic

Well all I know is it is found in the BIble. I am no familiar with any Scolfield's writings, nor have I ever had a Scolfield study Bible.

You would do well to do as I do not be follows of men and their religions, and study the scriptures the way God says in his word the Authorized Bible of 1611, for it is the inerrant, inspired English Bible for today. No other Bible is inerrant, that is why the only Bible that is openly attacked is the Authorized Version.

I will stick to my Inerrant Bible, and you can have your Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah Witnesses AWAKE Watchtower man made religion.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Then why is it you are trying to attach the subject three pronouns back unto a clear stand alone statement that clearly attached the subject "HE" to the Verb hideth?

The "which" is not connected to the "hideth" but to the "man". What he hideth is the knowledge that there is a treasure in the field. ", He hideth," is his knowledge hence, "he hideth,". . .

That old archaic (not archaic to me and others) English is stumbling you up because you don't believe their is a Bible that is without error today, or one that is inspired of God in English, or the Final Authority for LIFE and PRACTICE. You have no assurance of truth because you have an ever evolving scriptures of so called Original Greek or Hebrew, which you nor I nor any other man has ever seen.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Then why is it you are trying to attach the subject three pronouns back unto a clear stand alone statement that clearly attached the subject "HE" to the Verb hideth?

I can only answer that question by repeating the analysis I gave you earlier.
Please do this exercise for me; try putting it into that American-school tree branch system you were recommending, and really think through the structure of that whole sentence- not trying to make it fit a theory you've built up elsewhere, but honestly and with an open mind.
I know I'm trying to teach an old dog new tricks, whuch is proverbially difficult, but please just resolve yourself to face up to the issue honestly. Stop lashing out like a wounded bear, and think it through.
+++
"The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field."

The kingdom- Subject of sentence
Of heaven- Adjectival expression, attached to "Kingdom".
Is like unto- Verb
Treasure- Predicate of sentence.
Hid in a field- Adjectival expression, attached to "Treasure".

The which- Relative pronoun, attached to "Treasure" and beginning subordinate sentence.

When a man hath found- Adverbial clause within subordinate sentence.
[This breaks down into;
When- Temporal conjunction
A man- Subject of adverbial clause
Hath found- Verb of adverbial clause.
The which- Object (by anticipation) of the transitive verb "found".]

He- Subject of the subordinate sentence beginning with "The which".
Hideth- Verb of subordinate sentence.
The which- Object (by anticipation) of the TRANSITIVE verb "hideth".

And- Conjunction beginning fresh sentence (which is not under dispute).

Your mistake, you see, is that you are trying to understand "hideth" as an intransitive verb, which it isn't in this case, and completely ignoring the grammatical function of "the which".

This has nothing to do with "different translations". This is the correct grammatical reading of the sentence as it stands in the translation which you prefer.

The "which" is not connected to the "hideth" but to the "man". What he hideth is the knowledge that there is a treasure in the field. ", He hideth," is his knowledge hence, "he hideth,". . .

As the above analysis should be telling you, "the which" is connected with TWO verbs, as the object in both cases. "The which he hath found" (the subordinate clause) and "The which he hideth". That's the only way the overall sentence can be made to work.

a reply to: Seede
Yes, I would agree that both pictures of "exclusion", the exclusion from the feast and the exclusion from the city, are talking about the same group.
The question is what reality is being represented by these metaphors.

Ultimately, "not living in the presence of God" is the same thing as "not living". I don't think a middle state is a possible option.
So for me, "exclusion from God" has to mean either the old-fashioned picture of Hell, or simple non-existence.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic

Well all I know is it is found in the BIble. I am no familiar with any Scolfield's writings, nor have I ever had a Scolfield study Bible.

Like I said (and expected you to bring up):

It remains ironic to me to see your commentary in other threads condemning certain behaviour in relation to getting one's information from scholars when you demonstrate such fondness of their teachings (regardless if these teachings came to you indirectly, via other people who gave you the same ideas and arguments, I can still see that demonstration; and regardless if you feel you've figured this out on your own or..., from studying the bible, etc., however you wanna call it, the origin of your beliefs and teachings is obvious to me).

There's no need to point out that you're not familiar with "any Scofield's writings" or don't have a Scofield Reference Study Bible. Especially not when you've already demonstrated that your teachings are the same as that of Scofield. Then it doesn't matter if you know Scofield or got those teachings directly from Scofield or via other people who in turn, via via, got their teachings from Scofield. It is already understood you don't want to acknowledge the connection of your teachings to those of Scofield and claim that "it is found in the Bible" without quoting anything from the bible, not to yourself and certainly not to anyone else. You've not shown one text from the bible that clearly states that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven are "two different kingdoms", one being a spiritual kingdom and the other being a physical kingdom. Or that they are going to merge into one. Not to mention that even if you do bring up a text with one of your interpretations to help make your case, it's going to contradict the way these terms are used in Mt 19:22-24, Mark 10:22-24 and Luke 18:23-25.

A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear.

Just like comparing with Mt 19:22-24, Mark 10:22-24 and Luke 18:23-25 regarding any other text in the bible that talks about the Kingdom of heaven or the Kingdom of God. You can't just go with the interpretation that fits your argument or beliefs best and then conveniently ignore that that interpretation conflicts with Matthew's, Luke's and Mark's usage of those terms (well, technically you can of course, but you end up misleading yourself, "the heart is treacherous, who can know it?", Jer 17:9).

Source: Trinity: Reasoning From the Scriptures

In the K of Heaven, people will come from the East and the West to talk to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob all they wantppl

a reply to: GBP/JPY
Quite true.
You're quoting Matthew.
And in Luke, Jesus says exactly the same thing about the Kingdom of God, using precisely the same words.
That is the point of this thread.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

In the K of Heaven, people will come from the East and the West to talk to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob all they wantppl

Quite right as written in both Matthew and Luke as you have understood.

In this time, as these scriptures were recorded, the kingdom of heaven that we now understand was not revealed to humanity.

Matthew 8:11-12 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Luke 13:28-29 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. 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.

The kingdom of God is God who allows and disallows whatsoever He chooses to allow or disallow in His kingdom. Unsanctified living souls or unsanctified spirits of dead souls were not allowed in His kingdom. Sanctified souls of both the living and dead were allowed in His kingdom.

God’s kingdom is that in which all that He created and allowed to procreate acknowledges Him and abides in Him, both animate and inanimate.

As Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets were living they lived in sanctification and were in the kingdom of God. [abided in God] - As Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets died and entered Sheol they were still in the kingdom of God. [abided in God] At this time no human had as yet ascended into heaven. The heavenly abode was not offered as yet.

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.

As Jesus died and then offered His kingdom to humanity, which God has given Him, we then see Jesus’ kingdom revealed as the kingdom of heaven which is in the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 4:8-10 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

The kingdom of heaven, which is in one of God’s heavens, is in the realm of the third heaven [2nd Corinthians 12:2] and is a celestial city called New Jerusalem [Revelation chapter 21] ----

The celestial city of New Jerusalem sits upon a new earth with a new heaven.

Within the celestial city of New Jerusalem is paradise or otherwise known as the Garden of Eden.


Within the Garden of Eden [paradise] are the food and water of eternal life.

All of this is in the kingdom of heaven which is in God’s kingdom. So when we are told that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets sit in the kingdom of God, then you are being told that they sit in the New Jerusalem which is within one of the realms of God’s kingdom.

They sit in the kingdom of heaven and also in the kingdom of God. Both Matthew and Luke are correct with the understanding that the kingdom of heaven cannot be entered till one enters the kingdom of God first. By that is meant that one must first be sanctified through death and judgment before entering the abode of eternal life.

Only the dead can enter the kingdom of heaven which is in the kingdom of God’s third heaven. The living can enter the kingdom of God by sanctification but cannot enter the kingdom of heaven till death of the flesh and sanctification of the spirit [mind] is judged and sanctified.

A man went to England to study the sciences. This man was not a man who believed in the God of Abraham. He was not in the kingdom of God. At the close of his studies he had changed his belief and accepted the belief of the same God of Abraham whom he had rejected. As he journeyed home he realized that he had entered the kingdom of God. What changed? His mind changed from disbelief to belief. That is the kingdom that is of God.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic
No other Bible is inerrant, that is why the only Bible that is openly attacked is the Authorized Version.

In another thread you said:

...the Christian scholars between 1800 and 1990 who produced all the modern trash (NW, NASV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, RV, NKJV) that is on the market today....

How is that not openly attacking? (purely rhetorical question, no need to answer, it will be extremely unlikely that any interpretation arguing that this is not "openly attacking" will sound reasonable to me, and neither is it very appropiate to get into a debate about whether or not it is in this thread; or having to point out that your behaviour of "openly attacking" what you call "modern trash" refutes your own claim about "the only Bible that is openly attacked is the Authorized Version." I guess if one really likes twisting logic one can argue that what you call "modern trash" aren't actual bibles so it doesn't count in the other statement about "the only bible that is openly attacked"; sort of as another option to get out from under refuting your own statements by your own behaviour, shooting yourself in the foot; another option than arguing what can be counted as "openly attacked" or not, one starts arguing what can be counted as a bible or not. Just getting all that out of the way now I hope).

Somehow your description of the situation (as bolded) seems a bit warped, no matter how one wants to interpret "openly attacked". Adherents to and proponents of the arguments and teachings of the King James Only movement do hardly anything else to plenty of other bible translations than the AV/KJV (it's hard to even find the mildest of positive or complimentary commentary from that source about these specific other bible translations; sometimes with varying degrees of criticism for different translations I might add; which may display a pattern to some people who are aware of Mt 7:13,14). And they're not the only ones. Statements such as "the only Bible that is openly attacked is the Authorized Version" do little to help your credibility when it comes to honesty. Quite the opposite in fact. Even if it really is your perception of the matter, no matter how unrealistic (making it harder for someone else to believe that is actually the case here and it's not done on purpose to make those type of arguments that the King James Only movement makes and to promote a warped sense of reality in support of that with no regard for honesty but only wanting to promote and/or defend or argue in favor of your views including the bolded ones).

You will never hear me call the KJV or AV: "trash". Come to think of it, I've never heard any of the translators of the NW, NASV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, (E)RV, or NKJV refer to the KJV or Authorized Version as "trash" either. Here's what the preface of the ASV, which was based on the text of the KJV, says about the Authorized Version (KJV):

“We are not insensible to the justly lauded beauty and vigor of the style of the Authorized [King James] Version.” Yet, the American Standard Version made a significant adjustment.

The preface explains this: “The American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries.”

It is not that the divine name, Jehovah, does not appear at all in the King James Version. It does appear in four places, namely Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; and Isaiah 26:4. The American Standard Version of 1901, however, restored the name to some 7,000 of its rightful places in the Bible.
...
Over the centuries, many have believed that the King James Version is the only “true” Bible. In 1870, work on a full revision of it started in England. Later a minor American revision of the resulting English Revised Version was published as the American Standard Version. In a more recent revision, in 1982, the preface to the Revised Authorised Version says that effort was made “to maintain that lyrical quality which is so highly regarded in the Authorised Version” of 1611.
...
Without question, the King James Version is a literary masterpiece, appreciated and valued for its unparalleled beauty of expression. But what about the importance of its message? The Bible’s inspired writings reveal the lasting remedy for the problems of our critical times.

Source: The King James Version—How It Became Popular

That lasting remedy being the Kingdom of God, i.e. the Kingdom of heaven, God's Kingdom, which the AV also shows to be the same kingdom as demonstrated in my previous commentary quoting from the AV (something you could do a bit more often as well when making claims about what the bible teaches or what "is found in the BIble" as you put it, seems like a good opportunity to quote something from the AV that clearly says the same thing as what you're saying about it, it would be even better if it was relevant to the questions I asked about the subject in relation to the quotations from Matthew, Luke and Mark. I find actual quotations along with such statements about what "is found in the BIble" or similar claims, to be quite rare when reading your commentary. It's not totally non-existent, I found a quotation of yours on page 2, but it's rare and usually presented a bit vaguely without detail or context to earlier claims made such as when you were talking about "two different kingdoms" or how it supposedly negates all the other information and conclusions one can draw from reading about the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of heaven, God's Kingdom, that would then contradict or conflict with your interpretation that the quoted text shows that they are "two different kingdoms" because supposedly one is physical and the other is spiritual, for example); to get back on-topic and not forget about Mt 19:22-24, Mark 10:22-24 and Luke 18:23-25 or get distracted from that with potential red herrings (as you will note, every comment of mine in this thread makes mention of those texts, hoping some people will not get distracted with accusations of "JW's greatest confusion of scripture to prove they have the keys to the Kingdom of heaven...knock Jesus off the throne...They change and remove and scripture that speaks of Jesus Deity...creating a disingenuous doctrine but the same rule as ever major Christian cult like RC, JW's,...You would do well to do as I do not be follows of men and their religions", etc.).

Back to:

originally posted by: whereislogic
...every comment of mine in this thread makes mention of those texts, hoping some people will not get distracted with accusations of "JW's greatest confusion of scripture to prove they have the keys to the Kingdom of heaven...knock Jesus off the throne...They change and remove and scripture that speaks of Jesus Deity...creating a disingenuous doctrine but the same rule as ever major Christian cult like RC, JW's,...You would do well to do as I do not be follows of men and their religions", etc.).

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying:
...
3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say. (Mt 23:1,3)

You would do well not to do as Chesterjohn does and follow, adhere to and be a proponent of the teachings, claims and arguments of the men who popularized the King James Only movement and men like Scofield. Anyone would do well not to do that (the "you" is a general "you"). So this message of Jesus is to anyone else as well. Do as they tell you when they tell you not to be followers of men and their religions, but remember not to do as they do, for they do not practice what they say. Sometimes without even realizing it, and often without admitting it even when it is made clear to them or it becomes clear to them (even to themselves). And a good example is those who are following, adhering to and are proponents of the teachings, claims and arguments of the men who popularized the King James Only movement (and those men themselves). Or Scofield and those admiring his teachings a bit too much (regardless if they realize these teachings were popularized by Scofield).

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well then, Let's apply your English Structure to another verse that is exactly found between two commas and already has a noun or pronoun attached to it. I'll even keep it in context of the book of Matthew.

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If your reasoning is correct then Peter is the rock upon which Jesus would build his church and we should all drop our Bibles and follow the Roman Catholic Church.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
You are still trying to distract from the issue. We need to continue looking at that one verse.
That is not "my" structure, but the structure of anyone who understands how English sentences work. Try it out on someone who really does understand how sentences work.
This is important, because if you base your teaching on a falsely understood text, then you are presenting untruth as a gospel message..
In that case, you are doing God's word a disservice, and you are not honouring God.
You are doing God's word a disservice, and you are not honouring God.
You are doing God's word a disservice, and you are not honouring God.
There is a lot at stake here. This is serious.

For God's sake, stop being deliberately evasive and face up to something honestly.

a reply to: DISRAELI

No the context of all these verses is the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, no distractions, but to prove that scholars change, add and remove words from the word of God.

Compare what you have been teaching in all your threads. In everyone you agree with the same so called scholars since the 1800's. Making the word of God nothing but spiritualized nonsense taking if from a clear literal translation to foggy its anyone's guess in a every changing and evolving Bible versions. And dropping any historical connection to man past, present and future, and the Kingdom promise (Kingdom of Heaven) to Israel, and God's coming judgement that involves Israel and the Gentile nations (the UN).

Stop trying to redo the works that have already been done and let God teach you via the Holy Ghost and you just might see some truth's that men have not been teaching. I went to a Christian University and experienced all their nonsense first hand. I have sat in the office of the two highest people in the Seminary there and asked them if they thought there was any Bible that did not have and errors. After they answered no, I immediately asked them how could they then with a clear conscience teach that God's word is inerrant. there answer like all the rest was "they were in the originals" something they also told me they have never seen. Because they haven't. Read the book "Manuscript Evidence". For a detailed study on the issue of the so called "Originals". Everyone of their "Originals" don't date back any further than 250AD. Those aren't originals they are Origen's Fifth column of his Hexapla, his private interpretation that is the foundation of the roman Catholic church.

The context of Matt 13:44 is not the treasure or the field, it is the Kingdom of Heaven for which Israel (only) was to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and keep the law of Moses.

The Gospel is "the gospel of Grace of God" as taught by Paul as seen in Eph 2:8,9, Rom 10:9-13, 1 Cor 15:1-4. You seem to be supporting that people follow "the Gospel of the Kingdom" which is repent and be baptized and obey the Law of Moses (only Jews could do that or the stranger that is with them in the land, one law for both the stranger and Israel).

a reply to: ChesterJohn
None of this is relevant.
I am challenging you, and I believe God is challenging you, on the meaning of an English sentence written in your preferred translation.
My previous observations stand.

P.S. Theology is controlled by the meaning of God's word, and not the other way round.

a reply to: DISRAELI

...a little mystique about the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven...

Sometimes in the gospels it will just say, "The Kingdom", without specifying if it is the kingdom of God or of Heaven. I think in these cases, it just means the religion of the Hebrews, and Jesus' be a Jew and living in close proximity to Jerusalem, then more specifically, "The Jews", or the Jewish religion. But I think Jesus is not really endorsing the religion so much as the idea that somewhere behind all that facade, the actual true God was there in a way that did not exist among all the pagan beliefs that had multiple personalities who were really not much more than glorified normal people. The idea being that the true God did rule over the world but that rule or anyone paying attention to that rule, happened to be people in one way or another associated with the Jews and the Jerusalem temple cult.
As for the "Kingdom", whether of God or Heaven, that Jesus was talking about was actually his person, as representing how God was exercising His rule by intervening in the affairs of Mankind to bring about a better way of life that would in the end benefit everyone.

a reply to: LolliKum
In the gospels, "kingdom" means simply the fact that God rules, so the three expressions effectively mean the same thing.
I think of the Jews as the "first point of contact" for God in establishing relations with the world in general. He started with them, but did not finish with them alone.