When John the Baptist came on the scene, he preached that the kingdom was at hand (Matt. 3:2). Jesus told the Pharisees that if He casted out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom had come upon them (Matt. 12:28). I believe that is what John the Baptist meant when he said that the kingdom was "at hand." It was powerfully manifested through the personal ministry of Christ. If we define the kingdom strictly in terms of a Jewish theocracy, in what sense could the kingdom have come upon those to whom Jesus preached?
The Kingdom of God
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Primitive Baptist, Feb 24, 2004.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
The Kingdom is wherever the King reigns.
However, there is also an aspect of the kingdom which will only be realized through the millenial reign.
So it was already there, but not yet there. -
Daniel prophesied that the never-ending kingdom would begin during the Roman empire.
Jesus and John initially said it was "at hand".
Eventually Jesus said it was already forming.
Hebrews said that believers were on the verge of receiving the kingdom, sentiments echoed by other epistles.
If one thinks of "the kingdom" as only (note that word DD) a future Jewish theocracy--he must overlook an enormous amount of the New Testament.
Tim -
Tim,
In the days of what kings? Here is the text.
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. -Daniel 2:40-44 -
PB,
It is referred to as the fourth kingdom.
First--Babylon
Second--Medes & Persians
Third--Greeks
Fourth--Rome
That's history in that area of the world. -
Tim, a successful argument can be made that the Roman empire never died, is still going on, and actually has more influence today than ever before.
Therefore, my fellow premillenialists that focus on the 1,000 year aspect are not wrong to say it isn't here yet. -
The fourth kingdom was the Roman Empire. The toes of the image correspond to the ten horns on the fourth beast. The ten horns symbolize ten kings. These are the kings Daniel was referring to. Identify those ten kings.
-
Of course people believe that Roman Epire still exists today. They have to in order for thier Eschatological view to work. Foolish. -
Grasshopper, most premillenialists I am aware of do NOT believe the Roman Empire is still alive.
I simply said that argument can be successfully made.
At least try to know what you are talking about before you pop your mouth off. -
-
Grasshopper, what is your point? Do you even have one?
Just because someone can make an argument for something, evan a convincing argument, doesn't mean that everyone believes it. Hello. -
Another uplifting post from DD
-
During the last hour, I have been searching all the references available to me in order to research the alleged ten provinces of Rome in the first century. I did not come up with anything. What were those ten provinces?
-
DD,
What is the compelling argument that the Roman Empire still exists? Is it transferring the Empire to the Roman church? Or is it making the EU into the Roman Empire?
I think historians without a predisposition to believe it would have a hard time saying that either of those is the continuation of the Roman Empire.
Tim -
Tim, can history point to a specific close of Rome's empire?
The empire moved toward catholicism once Constantine made it the state church. The 'church' had such political power. It has continued in various forms throughout these last 1600 years. Is not the catholic church extremely powerful?
Look, it isn't MY argument. I am just saying it can be made. -
-
While you are searching, also identify the little horn who plucked up three of those Roman provinces by the roots. Also, identify the three provinces. Good luck!
-
The fall of the empire is often dated 476. That year, the Germanic chieftain Odoacer forced Romulus Augustulus, the last ruler of the empire, from the throne. Germanic chiefs had already begun to carve up the empire into several kingdoms...The Roman Empire transmitted its social and economic system to the Middle Ages, the period of European history that followed ancient times. During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church replaced the Roman Empire as the unifying force in Europe. The church modeled its administrative structure on the organization of the Roman Empire. It used the Latin language and preserved the classics of Latin literature. -The World Book Encyclopedia (16), p. 448
-
Ever wondered where the title "Pontifex Maximus" originated? It literally means, "Highest Priest." It was the title given to the Roman Caesars. It is now the title of the Pope. My point is that for anyone to say that a successful case cannot be made for the continuation of the Roman Empire through the ten kingdoms and the little horn is ignorant of history.
-
The Roman Catholic Church is an Empire unto itself
Page 1 of 2