The Thief on the Cross

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I do not know it. I think it rational because he was part of the earlier taunting unless the theory that there were more than two criminal sis correct. My claims about these events in that list I posted are not stating fact but what I believe is consistent with the facts.

Same reason and the fact he was sentenced to death for criminal actions. The Romans thought his recent behavior worthy of death and his title of thief suggests the chanrges were legitimate.


(Matthew 27:44):"The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_both_thieves_ridicule_Jesus_on_the_cross
or
"At that time two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and one on the left. . . .The robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words"
(Matthew 27:38, 44).
http://www.biblecourses.com/English/downloads/pdfs/CrossLessons/038.Between_Two_Thieves.pdf

Of Course without being there I can't be sure but it seems many people mistake the accounts in the Gospels about the thief’s to be synonymous when they are actually about events at different times. Every Chronological harmony I have ever seen has several sequential events giving details about the thieves. It appears one changed his mind.

Catholicism while doing some things better than any denomination (spiritual warfare, etc) has IMO done more damage to Christianity than any group of any kind. They unfortunately established "early" traditions of interpretation that unfortunately have superseded the scriptures many times. I think this is an example of that. I make every effort to exclude preference from my exegesis and read scripture as it is.

You don't know, which means your entire argument is one big assumption. Assumptions are not facts and should not be treated as such. I find it unwise to say, "Babtisim is not nessisary because the thief on the cross went to paradise and was not baptized." It is an invalid argument lacking facts.

 

[1robin]

The only portion to answer is highlighted.
And I have repeated and clearly stated as much in recent postings.

Try referring to the Prodigal Son.
No blood there.

The prodigal son is a limited scope allegory. In any lengthy text telescoping is employed. At certain places the whole scope is examined at other certain aspects only. The prodigal son was meant to examine the jealousy caused by a new concert for a long time believer and the rewards involved. It also dealt with the fact that sin produces misery and that it is only necessary to ask to be saved. It was never meant to elaborate on all aspects of salvation. Parables can't be warped, twisted, and meanings gleaned they were never meant to address to prop up some concept. That being said blood was involved as it is in every single covenant in the Bible. The father slaughtered a choice animal to "seal the deal" in the OT the blood of animals signified Christ's true blood. Look up types and shadows to get information on this practice in the OT.

 

[1robin]

You don't know, which means your entire argument is one big assumption. Assumptions are not facts and should not be treated as such. I find it unwise to say, "Babtisim is not nessisary because the thief on the cross went to paradise and was not baptized." It is an invalid argument lacking facts.

In every historical claim ever examined no conclusion is absolutely known. Historians and theologians examine explanations for what little is known and see what explains facts the best. Both your and my conclusions are based in speculation. The difference is yours are based on far more of it and account for less facts than mine does. Mine is consistent with all facts yours is not. Mine is based on far less speculation, but some none the less. The fact is water does not forgive and Baptism is only a symbolic ceremony celebrating and signifying what has already taken place. Forgive me if you have answered but I do not remember it if you did. Are you born again? Why do you think so?

 

[Thief]

The prodigal son is a limited scope allegory. In any lengthy text telescoping is employed. At certain places the whole scope is examined at other certain aspects only. The prodigal son was meant to examine the jealousy caused by a new concert for a long time believer and the rewards involved. It also dealt with the fact that sin produces misery and that it is only necessary to ask to be saved. It was never meant to elaborate on all aspects of salvation. Parables can't be warped, twisted, and meanings gleaned they were never meant to address to prop up some concept. That being said blood was involved as it is in every single covenant in the Bible. The father slaughtered a choice animal to "seal the deal" in the OT the blood of animals signified Christ's true blood. Look up types and shadows to get information on this practice in the OT.

Nay to all points.

The loyal son was taken back and surprised by his Father's acceptance of a wayward prodigal son.

So was the prodigal son.

The slaughter animal was not a sacrifice...just something for the feast.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Not buying it. Too much embellishment.

The Thief was caught, tried, and convicted under roman law.
There is no sacrifice to God.

There was admittance to his life style and acceptance of the consequence.
This is not confession.
The opportunity for repentance was long gone.

Since he knew he was guilty, he humbled himself and was willing to give up (sacrifice) his life and suffer the consequences of his guilt; because although he believed Jesus to be the Son of God, did not ask him to save his life; not like the other (first) criminal who wanted to save his life.

Criminal 1: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
Criminal 2: "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

For the 2nd criminal to have said his punishment was just, meant he was willing to pay the penalty for his sin while the first criminal was only concerned about his freedom. Obviously the 2nd criminal was admitting his sin, if he said his deeds deserve punishment.

Confess - 1. to make an acknowledgment or admission (of faults, misdeeds, crimes, etc.) 2. to admit or grant to be true; concede.
Repentance - Remorse or contrition for past conduct or sin. See Synonyms at penitence.
Penitence - the state or condition of regretting crimes or offenses and being willing to atone for them.
Sacrifice - the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform etc. - Definitions from the Dictionary

There was no pronouncement by the Thief, that the Man beside him might be the Son of God.

How did he know about his Kingdom then?
He asked Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom; referring to him as a king. However, obviously the kingdom he was referring to could not be on earth since they both were about to die. The thief must've heard about (or heard rumors about) Jesus being the Messiah.
Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
Mark 12:34-36 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ [h]
37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Remember how the religious leaders brought Jesus before the Roman authorities to have him convicted of blasphemy because his movement was growing stronger everyday.
John 11:48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
Matthew 26:4-5 and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. 5 “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”
Mark 11:18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

The mention of the Fear of God was not dealt to honor the Carpenter....
but to remind the other thief, the last hour belongs between you....and God.
It should not be spent in bitter pronouncement.

It was to remind him of God but if in fact the 2nd thief had any knowledge of God and asked Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom, then he must've known about the prohpesied Messiah. To respect the Messiah of God, is to respect or fear God.

If you wanted to justify the Thief by scripture....
you could have referred to the Prodigal Son.

The Prodigal Son doesn't apply to this scenario.

 

[Thief]

Criminal 1: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
Criminal 2: "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

For the 2nd criminal to have said his punishment was just, meant he was willing to pay the penalty for his sin while the first criminal was only concerned about his freedom. Obviously the 2nd criminal was admitting his sin, if he said his deeds deserve punishment.

Confess - 1. to make an acknowledgment or admission (of faults, misdeeds, crimes, etc.) 2. to admit or grant to be true; concede.
Repentance - Remorse or contrition for past conduct or sin. See Synonyms at penitence.
Penitence - the state or condition of regretting crimes or offenses and being willing to atone for them.
Sacrifice - the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform etc. - Definitions from the Dictionary

How did he know about his Kingdom then?
He asked Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom; referring to him as a king. However, obviously the kingdom he was referring to could not be on earth since they both were about to die. The thief must've heard about (or heard rumors about) Jesus being the Messiah.
Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
Mark 12:34-36 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ [h]
37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Remember how the religious leaders brought Jesus before the Roman authorities to have him convicted of blasphemy because his movement was growing stronger everyday.
John 11:48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
Matthew 26:4-5 and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. 5 “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”
Mark 11:18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

It was to remind him of God but if in fact the 2nd thief had any knowledge of God and asked Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom, then he must've known about the prohpesied Messiah. To respect the Messiah of God, is to respect or fear God.

The Prodigal Son doesn't apply to this scenario.

But of course it does.
How wayward are you if you are a Thief?

And where did that Thief go?.....home to the Father?

Or perhaps you don't believe we are sons of God?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

In every historical claim ever examined no conclusion is absolutely known. Historians and theologians examine explanations for what little is known and see what explains facts the best. Both your and my conclusions are based in speculation. The difference is yours are based on far more of it and account for less facts than mine does. Mine is consistent with all facts yours is not. Mine is based on far less speculation, but some none the less. The fact is water does not forgive and Baptism is only a symbolic ceremony celebrating and signifying what has already taken place. Forgive me if you have answered but I do not remember it if you did. Are you born again? Why do you think so?

I believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
First comes the hope for something better in this life (forgiveness, salvation, the fact that God might exist and that he might be aware of me)
Second comes the Faith, the desire to act upon my hopes. I hope that if I speak to God he will hear me and so I exercise faith and pray.
As I pray and continue to exercise the faith I have developed a knowledge of God comes into my heart and I realize that I need to change and be better in order to stand straight before God, I need God's forgiveness and so I pray and ask God for his forgiveness and strive to do my best to right my wrongs and be a better person and God invites me to make a covenant with him and be baptized. In this covenant I promise to follow God and keep his commandments and he promises me forgiveness and salvation and to help me keep my promises he blesses me with the Holy Ghost to be my constant companion and help me stand as a light unto the world. It is through this process that the natural man is uprooted out of me and I am born again as a spiritual man and so long as I stand worthy I will have the Holy Ghost as my companion to shine as a witness that I truly have been born again in Christ. Thus has been my experience in being born again.

How now have my speculations been inconsistent with all the facts? Which facts have they been inconsistent with?

In the fact that we are both reading in the white space in between the lines I do not see how your argument is based on any more facts than mine is.

 

[1robin]

Nay to all points.

The loyal son was taken back and surprised by his Father's acceptance of a wayward prodigal son.

So was the prodigal son.

The slaughter animal was not a sacrifice...just something for the feast.

Do you believe that the son was forgiven and welcomed "home"?

 

[1robin]

I believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I am unsure what this has to do with thief. I see nothing to which my contention is necessary here.

First comes the hope for something better in this life (forgiveness, salvation, the fact that God might exist and that he might be aware of me)

I think you are missing a step. In between your 1 and 2 there should by a realization of unworthiness and the shame of rebellion.

Second comes the Faith, the desire to act upon my hopes. I hope that if I speak to God he will hear me and so I exercise faith and pray.

Ok.

As I pray and continue to exercise the faith I have developed a knowledge of God comes into my heart and I realize that I need to change and be better in order to stand straight before God, I need God's forgiveness and so I pray and ask God for his forgiveness and strive to do my best to right my wrongs and be a better person and God invites me to make a covenant with him and be baptized. In this covenant I promise to follow God and keep his commandments and he promises me forgiveness and salvation and to help me keep my promises he blesses me with the Holy Ghost to be my constant companion and help me stand as a light unto the world. It is through this process that the natural man is uprooted out of me and I am born again as a spiritual man and so long as I stand worthy I will have the Holy Ghost as my companion to shine as a witness that I truly have been born again in Christ. Thus has been my experience in being born again.

Let me ask an additional question. At what moment in time were you saved "born again".

How now have my speculations been inconsistent with all the facts? Which facts have they been inconsistent with?

My claims of inconsistency were with your version of the thief not your version of being born again (though there will be inconsistencies and I believe I know where, but it is too early to claim to, as of yet). Your version of the thief has him either being baptized (for which there is not one single scrap of evidence) prior to being killed, or not being baptized but still redeemed which renders you argument moot. You have also invented a sort of heavenly half way house called paradise which the Bible does not support. Not one single fact in the Bible is inconsistent with my version of the thief.

In the fact that we are both reading in the white space in between the lines I do not see how your argument is based on any more facts than mine is.

Here is my original interpretation.

1. The thief was ungodly and had never truly repented.

(The Bible records he ridiculed Christ along with the other criminal, no repentant man facing death would criticise his savior)

2. He however knew of God and Christ but had never committed his life to either.

(Virtually everyone near Jerusalem was familiar with Christ, Crowds welcomed him as a king).

3. He wound up on the cross and in circumstances that forced a deep review of what he thought concerning God.

(Obvious)

4. He initially ridiculed Christ with the others. However he apparently began to think differently.

(Both criminal mocked him in scripture)

5. I believe God saw that his attitude was at such a state that with God's help the thief might come to believe (fully) in the messiah, repentance, and God.

This must have taken place because he was originally rebellious and disrespectful towards Christ then his words indicate he had a change of heart. No guess or reading between any line here.

6. With God's help the thief realized the truth and his heart repented of it's rebellion.

See above.

7. God forgave him (on the basis of what Jesus was doing), wrote his name in the book of life, applied God's grace to his account, and sent the Holy Spirit to live in his heart.

I think you would agree with this.

8. Apparently Jesus was aware of all this in his spirit and gave his oral ascent to what had taken place.

This also is obvious.
Are any of these contended by you and why? This is basic and obvious stuff here. There is no guessing or reading anything into any verses. There is also no invention of Baptism that are not mentioned.

 

[Thief]

Do you believe that the son was forgiven and welcomed "home"?

And by his own journey home.
Not by word or deed of any prophet.

 

[1robin]

And by his own journey home.
Not by word or deed of any prophet.

The gap (or distance) between us and God is infinite and no man can cross it. Manmade religions are efforts by man to reach God. Christianity is God's effort to reach man. However you rob it of its uniqueness and power then turn it into simply another man made dogma that never saved anyone. You thereby rob God of his ability to save you because in your arrogance you resolve to save yourself (which is impossible). You agree that he was forgiven. This verse should end the discussion if it was driven by theology and not preference. I imagine it will rage on. No fact or even divine word of God (apparently), can defeat preference.

New International Version (©2011)
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

 

[Thief]

The gap (or distance) between us and God is infinite and no man can cross it. Manmade religions are efforts by man to reach God. Christianity is God's effort to reach man. However you rob it of its uniqueness and power then turn it into simply another man made dogma that never saved anyone. You thereby rob God of his ability to save you because in your arrogance you resolve to save yourself (which is impossible). You agree that he was forgiven. This verse should end the discussion if it was driven by theology and not preference. I imagine it will rage on. No fact or even divine word of God (apparently), can defeat preference.

New International Version (©2011)
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Apparently you haven't spotted an item I have to post repeatedly.

Rogue theologian....
No dogma....no religion...no ceremony....no recitals....no prayer in repetition....
no rugs....no rituals....
I have no dogmatic faith.

No one can rob God of anything.

And no one will get in the way if you are truly on your way to heaven.

If you enter heaven.....it's because you belong there.

Apparently the Thief belongs there.
The Carpenter saw that quality.
And said so.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

But of course it does.
How wayward are you if you are a Thief?

And where did that Thief go?.....home to the Father?

Or perhaps you don't believe we are sons of God?

I understand what you mean but IMO the message behind the story about the Prodigal Son (remember there were two sons) is slightly different. Plus, the main point I'm trying to highlight to you is that of the Thief's acceptance of Christ but it seems you're trying to disregard that.
This is the view I hold regarding the Prodigal Son: What is the meaning of the Parable of the Prodigal Son? But as I mentioned before, I think that's beside the point.
Edit: I could've used the story about the lost sheep and the shepherd Luke 15:1-7. After all Jesus is the Good Shepherd.
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

 

[cataway]

Apparently you haven't spotted an item I have to post repeatedly.

Rogue theologian....
No dogma....no religion...no ceremony....no recitals....no prayer in repetition....
no rugs....no rituals....
I have no dogmatic faith.

No one can rob God of anything.

And no one will get in the way if you are truly on your way to heaven.

If you enter heaven.....it's because you belong there.

Apparently the Thief belongs there.
The Carpenter saw that quality.
And said so.

heaven ? not likely.
matthew 5:5

“Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.
psalms 37:11But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth,

And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

not heaven ! the earth !​

 

[Thief]

I understand what you mean but IMO the message behind the story about the Prodigal Son (remember there were two sons) is slightly different. Plus, the main point I'm trying to highlight to you is that of the Thief's acceptance of Christ but it seems you're trying to disregard that.
This is the view I hold regarding the Prodigal Son: What is the meaning of the Parable of the Prodigal Son? But as I mentioned before, I think that's beside the point.
Edit: I could've used the story about the lost sheep and the shepherd Luke 15:1-7. After all Jesus is the Good Shepherd.
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

So you then contend.....the Thief is not a prodigal son?

 

[Thief]

heaven ? not likely.
matthew 5:5

“Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.
psalms 37:11But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth,

And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.​

not heaven ! the earth !​

The kingdom is not of this world.

You may choose....kingdom...paradise....or heaven....
but without the presence of The Lord?

So choose your term or noun.
I don't think that portion of wordplay matters.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I am unsure what this has to do with thief. I see nothing to which my contention is necessary here.
I think you are missing a step. In between your 1 and 2 there should by a realization of unworthiness and the shame of rebellion.
Ok.
Let me ask an additional question. At what moment in time were you saved "born again".
My claims of inconsistency were with your version of the thief not your version of being born again (though there will be inconsistencies and I believe I know where, but it is too early to claim to, as of yet). Your version of the thief has him either being baptized (for which there is not one single scrap of evidence) prior to being killed, or not being baptized but still redeemed which renders you argument moot. You have also invented a sort of heavenly half way house called paradise which the Bible does not support. Not one single fact in the Bible is inconsistent with my version of the thief.
Here is my original interpretation.
(The Bible records he ridiculed Christ along with the other criminal, no repentant man facing death would criticise his savior)
(Virtually everyone near Jerusalem was familiar with Christ, Crowds welcomed him as a king).
(Obvious)
(Both criminal mocked him in scripture)

This must have taken place because he was originally rebellious and disrespectful towards Christ then his words indicate he had a change of heart. No guess or reading between any line here.
See above.
I think you would agree with this.
This also is obvious.
Are any of these contended by you and why? This is basic and obvious stuff here. There is no guessing or reading anything into any verses. There is also no invention of Baptism that are not mentioned.

I was born again the moment I made a covenant with God through baptism.

The the main hole you and I stand on is whether or not the thief was baptized. You have no evidence saying he was not and I have no evidence saying he was, other than him going to paradise. Now if you could share some examples of some other people who went to paradise without the ordinance of baptisim that might be something.
I have claimed one possible scenario where the thief confessed his sins was baptized and was crucified for doing so. Another possible scenario is that the thief was baptized at an earlier time in his life and like the prodigal son walked away from the Kingdom of God and then before death realized his folly softened his heart and came unto Christ.
This also would have granted access to paradise, yet it leaves unexplained the whole part of why he wanted to be remembered, without having done anything worthy of remembering.
Now you say the hole in my argument was why did the thief mock Christ.
I would have you know that according to Luke, only one of the malefactors that were crucified railed on him, not both.

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Mark Mentioned the two malefactors, but never mentioned either of them railing on Christ

Matthew however mentioned the two malefactors and mentioned them saying through their teeth that if Christ could save himself then would they believe; however Matthew never said anything concerning the one turning to Christ and being promised admittance into paradise. Neither did John for that matter, all he said was that two other people were crucified with him.

It appears the only way you are getting a story of one thief repenting while on the cross and at the last second being born again in spirit is by mixing the account of Matthew and the Account of Luke. I feel it is clear that Luke was the one who was much more observant to the others who were being crucified with Christ. I find it unclear as to whether or not the one malefactor who plead for rememberence actually mocked Christ while he was on the cross. If you can tell me exactly how many angels were at Christ's tomb and exactly where they stood or sat when they spoke to Mary Madeline, then you might have something for each account stands as evidence of the incongruencies between the accounts, showing evidence of inaccuracies and that it is very likely that the one thief never railed against Christ while on the cross.

 

[cataway]

The kingdom is not of this world.

You may choose....kingdom...paradise....or heaven....
but without the presence of The Lord?

So choose your term or noun.
I don't think that portion of wordplay matters.

we are in the presence of The Lord.

 

[Thief]

we are in the presence of The Lord.

And while dying upon the cross.....the Carpenter spoke...
'Where are You?.....why have you forsaken Me?'

Presence of the Spirit at that moment?

Apparently....not.

 

[cataway]

3

While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”​

​

4​

​

And in answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU; 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 YOU are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that YOU are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet.​

​

7​

​

“For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.​

​

9​

​

“Then people will deliver YOU up to tribulation and will kill YOU, and YOU will be objects of hatred by all the nations on account of my name. 10 Then, also, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and mislead many; 12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off. 13 But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.​

​

all theses things have happened with in one generation . we know he is now present in kingdom power​

​

​