How Does Salvation WORK

[5thKingdom]

I"m asking you for scripture where it explicitly says.

"God was only saving Jews BEFORE Jesus came"

That is all I need from you, Chapter and verse, simple right?

Your saying in the Old Testament, doesn't quite cut it, or pin it down.

-------------

Joh 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews.

Are you happy now? Are you accepting that salvation
of the Jewish Kingdom was for the Jews?

Have you read Matthew 22:2 which speaks of the
Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven".

Have you read Matthew 21:43 and 21:

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Mat 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

I honestly cannot believe I am on a "Christian Forum"
and people do not understand the reality that Gentiles
were NOT part of God's salvation plan in the OT.

AND it was such a BIG DEAL for the NT Gospel to include
Both Jew + Gentile = "the world".

Just AMAZING

....

 

[JIMINZ]

-------------

Joh 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews.

Are you happy now? Are you accepting that salvation
of the Jewish Kingdom was for the Jews?

Have you read Matthew 22:2 which speaks of the
Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven".

Have you read Matthew 21:43 and 21:

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Mat 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

I honestly cannot believe I am on a "Christian Forum"
and people do not understand the reality that Gentiles
were NOT part of God's salvation plan in the OT.

AND it was such a BIG DEAL for the NT Gospel to include
Both Jew + Gentile = "the world".

Just AMAZING

....

I wish you would realize you are on a Christian forum and you are being abusive with every post you make, knock it off.

If you have something to say then say it, if you have verses to post post them, but your comments about other posters is not warranted or needed in order for you to prove your point.

Now, you said the answer to my question to you would be found in the Old Testament.

Now you give me a verse from John in the New Testament.

I know all those things but you said.

"God was only saving Jews BEFORE Jesus came"

Jesus brought the Kingdom to the Jews as their Messiah, they as a People (Nation) never accepted Jesus as their Messiah, and they rejected the Kingdom He brought to them as well.

SO, it was taken from them and given to another People (The Gentiles)
They the Jews never received the Kingdom of God that Jesus as their Messiah brought to them,.

Now you tell me, which Jews gained Salvation in the Kingdom of God before Jesus as their Messiah actually brought it to them?

The whole book of Hebrews speaks of how the Old Covenant was not sufficient with the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin, it atoned for the sin but it didn't remove it, as the NEW COVENANT does through the Blood of Jesus the Messiah.

Salvation WAS a totally NEW thing coming to the Jews by way of Jesus bringing them the Kingdom of God, but, before Jesus, the Jews could not attain Salvation as it is NOW available through the Sacrifice of Jesus.

Where then is it said.

"God was only saving Jews BEFORE Jesus came"

John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews.

That is 100% correct, but as I have said.

The Jewish People (Nation) rejected both Jesus as their Messiah, and the Kingdom of God which He brought to them.

Therefore, what was meant for the Jewish People (Nation) they never received and it passed on to the Gentile.

Salvation was not available to the Jews before Jesus, the Old Covenant was insufficient to give them Salvation, God was providing a better way, but they Rejected IT, as well as their Messiah.

 

[5thKingdom]

Salvation was not available to the Jews before Jesus, the Old Covenant was insufficient to give them Salvation, God was providing a better way, but they Rejected IT, as well as their Messiah.

I wish you would realize you are on a Christian forum and you are being abusive with every post you make, knock it off.

How am I being "abusive". Please be specific.

If you have something to say then say it, if you have verses to post post them, but your comments about other posters is not warranted or needed in order for you to prove your point.

I have been saying what I have to say and I have been posting
verses with very detailed CONTEXT. What "comments" did I make
about "other posters".... please be specific.

Is it not allowed to aay the Bible teaches Jesus PAID for the sins of
"His Sheep"? And then to show VERSES with detailed CONTEXT
as proof? Is it forbidden to say that Jew + Gentile = "the world"?

Or is it my SURPRISE to learn that "Christians" were not aware
that God's Salvation Plan did not include Gentiles during the
Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven".

I really do not understand WHAT you are talking about.
Someone asked me "have you read the Bible"...
and I asked him the SAME question back.
Is THAT what you are talking about?

Now, you said the answer to my question to you would be found in the Old Testament. Now you give me a verse from John in the New Testament.

I told you the answer was in the OT because only the JEWS
were being saved in the OT... you know, the Jewish "Kingdom"?
Is THAT what this is about? You think it is "abusive" for me to
send you a NT verse that supports the basic and essential
Gospel teaching that God was now saving Jew + Gentile (the world)?
How is that "abusive"? Please be specific.


I know all those things but you said.
"God was only saving Jews BEFORE Jesus came"

First, I have never used such large font... are you yelling at me?
Are you being abusive?

And what exactly is your problem with the reality that (before Jesus)
God was only saving JEWS (during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven")
Do you find that "offensive"?

Now, I did admit there were very few exceptions of Gentiles
being saved during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" but that
was so rare it is inconsequential.

Do you simply disagree (or are you offended) that God was
saving only JEWS during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven".
I REALLY do not understand why you are upset.
This is common knowledge.


Jesus brought the Kingdom to the Jews as their Messiah, they as a People (Nation) never accepted Jesus as their Messiah, and they rejected the Kingdom He brought to them as well.

SO, it was taken from them and given to another People (The Gentiles)
They the Jews never received the Kingdom of God that Jesus as their Messiah brought to them,.

First.... you have gone from chastising me for some (unnamed)
"offense" to PREACHING what you perceive to be the Gospel?
That is interesting.

Secondly... Jesus did not bring the Kingdom to the Jews until
His ministry. The Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" included Abraham
and Isaac and Jacob and Moses and Daniel and ALL the OT saints.

The fact that the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" was TAKEN
from the Jews and GIVEN to the Christian saints is not "news"


Mat 22:1-2
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables,
and said, The [Jewish] kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

If you read Matthew 22:1-7 you will see the CONTEXT is
the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven".

However, after that is destroyed [v7] the CONTEXT then
becomes the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven" in verses 8-14
with the finish being that MANY are called (called by the Gospel)
but FEW are chosen (chosen to be saved)


Mat 21:43
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be
TAKEN from you, and GIVEN to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof.


Of course verse 45 tells us the chief priests and Pharisees
KNEW Jesus was talking about TAKING the "Kingdom" away
from the Jews.

So for you to claim "the Jews never received the Kingdom"
is contrary to what the BIBLE says [in verse 21:43] since
it was TAKEN from them.

And... let's get real... they had the "Kingdom" since Abraham.
It is not like this is "news" to any mature Christian.
So you are just WRONG in what you said.
It THAT what you call "abusive"?
Really?


Now you tell me, which Jews gained Salvation in the Kingdom of God before Jesus as their Messiah actually brought it to them?

Well now... it seems that YOU are being "abusive".
Do you always start sentences with "Now you tell me..."?

But I will tell you. In fact, I will do BETTER than just tell you
"which Jews gained Salvation".

First the EASY PART. We know that Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob received salvation... is this "news" to you?

Mat 8:11
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.

Luk 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.

So we can know that not only was Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
SAVED during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 22:2] but
also "all the prophets" were SAVED. Is that "news"?
Seriously, I did not think that was "news" to
any mature Christian.

In fact... let me go farther.
I will say that Noah was SAVED. And Enoch was SAVED.
I bet that Adam was SAVED. Does this surprise you?


The whole book of Hebrews speaks of how the Old Covenant was not sufficient with the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin, it atoned for the sin but it didn't remove it, as the NEW COVENANT does through the Blood of Jesus the Messiah.


So this is NOT about me being "abusive" at all.
This is about YOU having a PROBLEM with the Scriptures
that I am talking about. Interesting.

Now... I agree the Book of Hebrews teaches animal sacrifices
were not sufficient (they were only a "shadow" of Jesus who
was the "Lamb of God"). But you are now CONFLATING
issues. We were talking about WHO was SAVED during
the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven". And we identified
several Pre-Flood saints and several Jewish saints.

Salvation WAS a totally NEW thing coming to the Jews by way of Jesus bringing them the Kingdom of God, but, before Jesus, the Jews could not attain Salvation as it is NOW available through the Sacrifice of Jesus

The NT Gospel was a totally new thing... no question about it.
However we have already established that THE BIBLE says that
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and ALL THE PROPHETS were saved.
So you are conflating issues again.

I never said that the OT Jews could be saved LIKE the NT Jews.
You are trying to put words in my mouth. I simply showed you
SCRIPTURE that said OT saints were saved. Do you REJECT that
Biblical teaching (even after seeing the verses?)


Where then is it said.
"God was only saving Jews BEFORE Jesus came"

You are yelling again. Hard to remember that your message
STARTED with words about "abusive" behavior.

What I said above is 99.9% True.
We know (because we saw the Scriptures) that MANY
Jews were SAVED during the Jewish "kingdom of Heaven"
(and I bet many Pre-Flood saints were also saved) so there
really is not (Biblical) dispute about what you yelled (above).

I can only think of a couple (less than four) Gentiles who
were SAVED during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven". Just
out of curiosity... how many Gentiles do YOU THINK were
SAVED during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven"...
please give me their names.


John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews.

That is 100% correct, but as I have said.
The Jewish People (Nation) rejected both Jesus as their Messiah, and the Kingdom of God which He brought to them.


But we have already seen SCRIPTURE that says Jews
were SAVED during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven"...
the BIBLE names Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and
ALL THE PROPHETS. Do you REJECT that Scripture?
Why do you continue to contradict what the Bible say?


Therefore, what was meant for the Jewish People (Nation) they never received and it passed on to the Gentile.


Duh!
I already told you Matthew 22:1-7 talks about the Jewish
"Kingdom of Heaven" being destroyed and the Christian
"Kingdom of Heaven" was GIVEN in verses 8-14

In fact I already POSTED this verse and told you the Jews
KNEW [v45] the parable about the destroyed Kingdom was
talking about THEM.

Mat 21:43
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall
be TAKEN from you, and GIVEN to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof.


Salvation was not available to the Jews before Jesus, the Old Covenant was insufficient to give them Salvation, God was providing a better way, but they Rejected IT, as well as their Messiah.


So you are REALLY going to just REJECT Scripture.
You do not care WHAT Matthew 8:11 says and you
do not care WHAT Luke 13:28 says. You have decided
that "Salvation was not available to the Jews before Jesus..."
and it just DOES NOT MATTER what the Scripture says.
How interesting is that?


Mat 8:11
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.


Luk 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.


So... we have just learned that
(1) It is YOU that is "abusive"
(2) Your problem is you do not like what the BIBLE says
(3) You have decided to REJECT whatever verse you don't like
(4) You think it's MY FAULT that you contradict Scripture

This has been a very interesting discussion friend.
I appreciate you taking the time to reveal that you have
your own "gospel" and it does not matter (to you) what
SCRIPTURE says. In fact it make you ANGRY... to where
you are screaming at me in your frustration. That's sad.

When you find ONE VERSE in the Bible that contradicts
anything that I have said... please do me a favor and send
it to me. I am always open to correction FROM THE BIBLE.
But I am NEVER open to REJECTING Scriptures because they
do not say what I want them to say.

Have a nice night.

....

 

[5thKingdom]

I wish you would realize you are on a Christian forum and you are being abusive with every post you make, knock it off.

How am I being "abusive". Please be specific.

If you have something to say then say it, if you have verses to post post them, but your comments about other posters is not warranted or needed in order for you to prove your point.

I have been saying what I have to say and I have been posting
verses with very detailed CONTEXT. What "comments" did I make
about "other posters".... please be specific.

Is it not allowed to aay the Bible teaches Jesus PAID for the sins of
"His Sheep"? And then to show VERSES with detailed CONTEXT
as proof? Is it forbidden to say that Jew + Gentile = "the world"?

Or is it my SURPRISE to learn that "Christians" were not aware
that God's Salvation Plan did not include Gentiles during the
Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven".

I really do not understand WHAT you are talking about.
Someone asked me "have you read the Bible"...
and I asked him the SAME question back.
Is THAT what you are talking about?

Now, you said the answer to my question to you would be found in the Old Testament. Now you give me a verse from John in the New Testament.

I told you the answer was in the OT because only the JEWS
were being saved in the OT... you know, the Jewish "Kingdom"?
Is THAT what this is about? You think it is "abusive" for me to
send you a NT verse that supports the basic and essential
Gospel teaching that God was now saving Jew + Gentile (the world)?
How is that "abusive"? Please be specific.


I know all those things but you said.
"God was only saving Jews BEFORE Jesus came"

First, I have never used such large font... are you yelling at me?
Are you being abusive?

And what exactly is your problem with the reality that (before Jesus)
God was only saving JEWS (during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven")
Do you find that "offensive"?

Now, I did admit there were very few exceptions of Gentiles
being saved during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" but that
was so rare it is inconsequential.

Do you simply disagree (or are you offended) that God was
saving only JEWS during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven".
I REALLY do not understand why you are upset.
This is common knowledge.


Jesus brought the Kingdom to the Jews as their Messiah, they as a People (Nation) never accepted Jesus as their Messiah, and they rejected the Kingdom He brought to them as well.

SO, it was taken from them and given to another People (The Gentiles)
They the Jews never received the Kingdom of God that Jesus as their Messiah brought to them,.

First.... you have gone from chastising me for some (unnamed)
"offense" to PREACHING what you perceive to be the Gospel?
That is interesting.

Secondly... Jesus did not bring the Kingdom to the Jews until
His ministry. The Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" included Abraham
and Isaac and Jacob and Moses and Daniel and ALL the OT saints.

The fact that the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" was TAKEN
from the Jews and GIVEN to the Christian saints is not "news"


Mat 22:1-2
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables,
and said, The [Jewish] kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

If you read Matthew 22:1-7 you will see the CONTEXT is
the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven".

However, after that is destroyed [v7] the CONTEXT then
becomes the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven" in verses 8-14
with the finish being that MANY are called (called by the Gospel)
but FEW are chosen (chosen to be saved)


Mat 21:43
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be
TAKEN from you, and GIVEN to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof.


Of course verse 45 tells us the chief priests and Pharisees
KNEW Jesus was talking about TAKING the "Kingdom" away
from the Jews.

So for you to claim "the Jews never received the Kingdom"
is contrary to what the BIBLE says [in verse 21:43] since
it was TAKEN from them.

And... let's get real... they had the "Kingdom" since Abraham.
It is not like this is "news" to any mature Christian.
So you are just WRONG in what you said.
It THAT what you call "abusive"?
Really?


Now you tell me, which Jews gained Salvation in the Kingdom of God before Jesus as their Messiah actually brought it to them?

Well now... it seems that YOU are being "abusive".
Do you always start sentences with "Now you tell me..."?

But I will tell you. In fact, I will do BETTER than just tell you
"which Jews gained Salvation".

First the EASY PART. We know that Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob received salvation... is this "news" to you?

Mat 8:11
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.

Luk 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.

So we can know that not only was Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
SAVED during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 22:2] but
also "all the prophets" were SAVED. Is that "news"?
Seriously, I did not think that was "news" to
any mature Christian.

In fact... let me go farther.
I will say that Noah was SAVED. And Enoch was SAVED.
I bet that Adam was SAVED. Does this surprise you?


The whole book of Hebrews speaks of how the Old Covenant was not sufficient with the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin, it atoned for the sin but it didn't remove it, as the NEW COVENANT does through the Blood of Jesus the Messiah.


So this is NOT about me being "abusive" at all.
This is about YOU having a PROBLEM with the Scriptures
that I am talking about. Interesting.

Now... I agree the Book of Hebrews teaches animal sacrifices
were not sufficient (they were only a "shadow" of Jesus who
was the "Lamb of God"). But you are now CONFLATING
issues. We were talking about WHO was SAVED during
the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven". And we identified
several Pre-Flood saints and several Jewish saints.

Salvation WAS a totally NEW thing coming to the Jews by way of Jesus bringing them the Kingdom of God, but, before Jesus, the Jews could not attain Salvation as it is NOW available through the Sacrifice of Jesus

The NT Gospel was a totally new thing... no question about it.
However we have already established that THE BIBLE says that
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and ALL THE PROPHETS were saved.
So you are conflating issues again.

I never said that the OT Jews could be saved LIKE the NT Jews.
You are trying to put words in my mouth. I simply showed you
SCRIPTURE that said OT saints were saved. Do you REJECT that
Biblical teaching (even after seeing the verses?)


Where then is it said.
"God was only saving Jews BEFORE Jesus came"

You are yelling again. Hard to remember that your message
STARTED with words about "abusive" behavior.

What I said above is 99.9% True.
We know (because we saw the Scriptures) that MANY
Jews were SAVED during the Jewish "kingdom of Heaven"
(and I bet many Pre-Flood saints were also saved) so there
really is not (Biblical) dispute about what you yelled (above).

I can only think of a couple (less than four) Gentiles who
were SAVED during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven". Just
out of curiosity... how many Gentiles do YOU THINK were
SAVED during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven"...
please give me their names.


John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews.

That is 100% correct, but as I have said.
The Jewish People (Nation) rejected both Jesus as their Messiah, and the Kingdom of God which He brought to them.


But we have already seen SCRIPTURE that says Jews
were SAVED during the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven"...
the BIBLE names Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and
ALL THE PROPHETS. Do you REJECT that Scripture?
Why do you continue to contradict what the Bible say?


Therefore, what was meant for the Jewish People (Nation) they never received and it passed on to the Gentile.


Duh!
I already told you Matthew 22:1-7 talks about the Jewish
"Kingdom of Heaven" being destroyed and the Christian
"Kingdom of Heaven" was GIVEN in verses 8-14

In fact I already POSTED this verse and told you the Jews
KNEW [v45] the parable about the destroyed Kingdom was
talking about THEM.

Mat 21:43
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall
be TAKEN from you, and GIVEN to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof.


Salvation was not available to the Jews before Jesus, the Old Covenant was insufficient to give them Salvation, God was providing a better way, but they Rejected IT, as well as their Messiah.


So you are REALLY going to just REJECT Scripture.
You do not care WHAT Matthew 8:11 says and you
do not care WHAT Luke 13:28 says. You have decided
that "Salvation was not available to the Jews before Jesus..."
and it just DOES NOT MATTER what the Scripture says.
How interesting is that?


Mat 8:11
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.


Luk 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.


So... we have just learned that
(1) It is YOU that is "abusive"
(2) Your problem is you do not like what the BIBLE says
(3) You have decided to REJECT whatever verse you don't like
(4) You think it's MY FAULT that you contradict Scripture

This has been a very interesting discussion friend.
I appreciate you taking the time to reveal that you have
your own "gospel" and it does not matter (to you) what
SCRIPTURE says. In fact it make you ANGRY... to where
you are screaming at me in your frustration. That's sad.

When you find ONE VERSE in the Bible that contradicts
anything that I have said... please do me a favor and send
it to me. I am always open to correction FROM THE BIBLE.
But I am NEVER open to REJECTING Scriptures because they
do not say what I want them to say.

Have a nice night.

....

So... we have just learned that
(1) It is YOU that is "abusive"
(2) Your problem is you do not like what the BIBLE says
(3) You have decided to REJECT whatever verse you don't like
(4) You think it's MY FAULT that you contradict Scripture

Listen, I do have empathy for people when they learn that
the Bible does not teach what they want it to teach and they
have to decide to CHOOSE to follow the Bible or their teachers.

I grew up in a Catholic home (was an alter boy) and did not
start to read the Bible until I was 25-26 years old. They do
not exactly encourage Bible reading in the RCC (provided:
that was MY experience... I do not want to "offend" anyone)

I remember when I started reading the Bible I was AMAZED
at how many Scriptures contradicted my Bible lessons and
I remember that I had to CHOOSE to follow the BIBLE
or follow RCC teachings. I went with the Bible...
of course God was "drawing" me at that time.

So I do understand and empathize with your position.
I hope you always follow what the BIBLE says and you
put little (very little) "faith" in what men teach.

So now I've been preaching for about 50 years and
I know all kinds of things that are NEW to me and most.

For example I know that Jesus specifically NAMED
the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 22:2] and
the Jewish "Kingdom of God" [Mat 21:43]

And there is a difference between the five "Kingdoms of Heaven"
on earth and the one (1) eternal "Kingdom of God"

Not only did Jesus NAME the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven"
but He also specifically NAMED the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven"
[in 8 verses in just Matthew 13]

And Jesus specifically NAMED the Great Tribulation
"Kingdom of Heaven" in Matthew 25:1. This is the time
when the Last Saints go through the reign of the "Little Horn"
(commonly called the Anti-Christ) and they are taken into
the "Marriage" in the Final Harvest and the "Door was Shut".

The experiences of the Last Saints (called the "wise virgins")
is detailed in Matthew 25:1-13. It begins at the start of the
Great Tribulation (aka Revelation Beast) and it ends with the
Final Harvest and the "Door was Shut".

And Jesus specifically NAMES the Eternal "Kingdom of Heaven"
in Matthew chapters 5 and 7 and 8 and 19.

The (1st) Pre-Flood Kingdom and the (2nd) Jewish Kingdom and
the (3rd) Christian Kingdom and the (4th) Great Tribulation Kingdom
were all TEMPORAL "Kingdoms of Heaven" and they all had their
own unique Gospels (Pre-Flood, OT and NT) and they contained
BOTH saved people and unsaved people within them.
(called "wheat and tares" in Matthew 13:24-30]

The (5th) ETERNAL "Kingdom of Heaven" is not temporal
Kingdom and it ONLY contains the saved saints from EACH
of the previous four temporal "Kingdoms of Heaven".

In our last discussion we saw that Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob and ALL THE PROPHETS were saved during
the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven". And I believe that
several Pre-Flood saints were saved... like Noah
and Enoch and Adam and several others.

My POINT is that we LEARN what the BIBLE contains
over a lifetime of study and it's considerably different
than what is preached in most churches today. Again,
I always recommend trusting the Bible and not men.

I hope you continue to learn as you read the Bible and
I hope you submit yourself to what the Bible says instead
of whatever men are preaching.

Remember, the Lord Jesus PROMISED [Mat 24:15 and 24:33]
the Great Tribulation Saints (the Last Saints) "shall see" the
fulfillment of ALL Great Tribulation prophecies ("signs") so
there will be NEW INFORMATION all the way to the end.

No hard feelings.
I hope all goes well with you.

..

 

[FreeGrace2]

Personally, when I look at a thread that interests me, I take the time to read EVERY post made to that thread, that way when I ask a question, I already know what has previously been said by the person I am asking the question of.

That's nice.

It's Faith that we receive from God through His Grace, it isn't our Faith, it is given to us that we might(Would) believe.

Might means should. It doen't mean "would".

Therefore everything concerning our Salvation is ultimately by the Grace of God, nothing of ourselves.

I agree. All we can do is RECEIVE it. That's passive. He offers, we take. And Paul wrote that we believe from OUR heart. It seems to me that you don't really believe that.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Why is it that the death fo Jesus on the cross and His subsequent resurrection is enough to atone for not only MY sins but EVERYONE ELSES?

Romans 5:


12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13
for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20
The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21
so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


The technical term for all above is "Economy". (Divine Economy or more exactly Economy of Salvation)


"In the Orthodox Church, in Eastern and Latin Catholic churches,[1] and in the teaching of the Church Fathers which undergirds the theology of those communions, economy or oeconomy (Greek: οἰκονομία, oikonomia) has several meanings.[2] The basic meaning of the word is "handling" or "disposition" or "management" or more literally "housekeeping" of a thing, usually assuming or implying good or prudent handling (as opposed to poor handling) of the matter at hand. In short, economia is discretionary deviation from the letter of the law in order to adhere to the spirit of the law and charity. This is in contrast to legalism, or akribia (Greek: ακριβεια)—strict adherence to the letter of the law of the church.

As such, the word "economy", and the concept attaching to it, are utilized especially with regard to two types of "handling": (a) divine economy, that is, God's "handling" or "management" of the fallen state of the world and of mankind—the arrangements he made in order to bring about man's salvation after the Fall; and (b) what might be termed pastoral economy (or) ecclesiastical economy, that is, the Church's "handling" or "management" of various pastoral and disciplinary questions, problems, and issues that have arisen through the centuries of Church history.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.[3]"


Economy (religion) - Wikipedia

 

[FreeGrace2]

(1) You said:
The red words refer to believers; those who have believed in Christ for salvation. The blue words refer to the whole world of people. The purple words indicate for whom Christ died.
No, I am sorry, you are wrong.

Thanks for your opinion. Now, let's move on.

There is no reason whatsoever for you to decide that "sheep" represents the world.

Well, since you have ignored the FACT that Jesus noted 3 distinct sheep, it's no wonder you would say "there is no reason whatsoever".

But if you would open your eyes to the FACTS, you would see that there are:

1. My (Jesus) sheep
2. The sheep
3. Not My (Jesus) sheep.

If Jesus had actually died for ONLY those the Calvinists claim He died for, He would have said "I lay down My life for MY sheep". But He never said that. He died for THE sheep, which is MORE than just His sheep.

This is really very simple - According to Mat 13:24-30
The Bible teaches there are only three (3) groups of people
(1) The saved "wheat/sheep" in the church (sown by God)
(2) The unsaved "tares/goats" in the church (sown by Satan)
(3) The lost souls OUTSIDE of the church (also children of Satan)
like Moslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, etc.

Wrong. There are only 2 groups of people in the world.

1. saved
2. unsaved

Or you don't like those words, let's go with:
1. believers
2. unbelievers

Is that better?

You have no Biblical reason to claim that "sheep" means

(#1) in some verses and (#2 and #3) in other verses.

You are missing the whole point. I've pointed out FROM the text that Jesus identified 3 distinct KINDS of sheep.

1. His sheep
2. THE sheep
3. Not His sheep

So, among THE sheep we find His sheep and those NOT His sheep.

I can see NO WAY that you can support your theory with Scripture. The "sheep" are ALWAYS the saints (#1)

lol. Not in John 10 they aren't. But when one conflates Scripture, they always make this mistake.

Explain then, John 10:26 - but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. It is your own theory that cannot explain this verse. In the SAME chapter as His sheep, and THE sheep.

(2) You said:
I'm sure you are aware of the error of demanding specific wording. But there are a bunch of verses that clearly say that Christ died for everyone, which is the same thing.

There is no major doctrine in the Bible that is limited to only ONE PASSAGE of Scripture. And we can never find Biblical Truth unless our doctrine harmonizes
with ALL RELATED passages.

Well, I LOVE context too. So, now go back and prove that I have taken anything out of context when I proved that Christ died for everyone.

2 Cor 5:14,15, 19
Heb 2:9
1 Tim 4:10
1 John 2:2
1 John 4:14

I am simply asking for you to provide passages that support your statement that Christ died for EVERYONE.

I did. Apparently your eyes are quite closed. See above.

(3) You said:
2 Cor 5-
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

(a) The CONTEXT of that passage is ONLY the saints.
It does NOT include the unsaved "tares" sown by Satan or those OUTSIDE of the church:

2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

Your "rules" about context is quite flimsy. In ANY context, regardless of who the passage is about, doesn't preclude the writer or speaker from regerring to anyone else. That would be extremely absurd. Paul mentioned unbelievers in Eph 4:17, (Gentiles) and admonished the believers (those he wrote to) to STOP acting like Gentiles. So, this PROVES your theory about context all wrong.

(b) The CONTEXT of the passage is ONLY the saints.

Since I've already proven your ideas about context to be quite faulty, here's what you need to do to prove your theories. Show from the immedate context that "all" means only believers. That's what you can't do. So you make the false claim that just because Paul was writing to believers that every use of "all" can only mean believers. That is absurd. And I proved it from Eoh 4:17.

It does NOT include the unsaved "tares" sown by Satan or those OUTSIDE of the church.

The word "tares" was NEVER used in either 1 Cor or 2 Cor. So stop conflating.

2Co 5:14-19
For the love of Christ constraineth us [the saints];
because we [the saints] thus judge, that if one died for all [the saints], then were all [the saints] dead:
And that he died for all [the saints], that they [saints] which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them [the saints], and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we [the saints] no man after the flesh: yea, though we [the saints] have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [the saints] him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ [the saints], he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us [the saints] to himself by Jesus Christ, hath given to us [the saints] the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world [both Jew and Gentile] unto himself, not imputing their [Jew and Gentile] trespasses unto them [both Jew and Gentile]; and hath committed unto us [the saints] the word of reconciliation.

Nice job of confusion. It seems you conflate "us" with "all". That is absurd.

So, not only does Paul TELL US the CONTEXT of the letter in the first sentence (the church of God) but then he uses the word "us" and "we" to identify the SAME CONTEXT.

Well, at least I see why you have the unbiblical views you do.

You cannot hope to understand the MEANING of a passage when you have not discerned the CONTEXT of the passage.

Since you think "us" means "all", there is no reason to accept any explanation of yours.

That is why you ended-up with a mishmash of "sheep" in the previous passage... you did not understand the context.

I PROVED that there are 3 distinct kinds of sheep in John 10. But you are free to opine any way you want, in order to defend your opinion.

(4) You said:
Heb 2:9 - But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

(a) The CONTEXT of the passage is ONLY the saints.

No it doesn't. Here is the context for v.9-

5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.
6 But there is a place where someone has testified: “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him?
7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor
8 and put everything under their feet.”In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.
9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

So, you see to be arguing that "mankind" refers only to believers, huh? Then you have NO CLUE as to what the writer was even referring to.

It does NOT includes the unsaved "tares" sown by Satan and it does NOT include those OUTSIDE of the church.

Why don't you leave "tares" to ONLY where it occurs.

Heb 2:1-9
Therefore we [the saints] ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we [the saints] have heard, lest at any time we [the saints] should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we [the saints]
escape, if we [the saints] neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us [the saints] by them [saints] that heard him; God also bearing them [the saints] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we [the saints] speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we [the saints] see not yet all things put under him. But we [the saints] see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man [every saint].

How come you ignored the words I put in green? That is what precedes v.9 about who Christ died for.

 

[FreeGrace2]

(5) You said:
1 Tim 4:10 - That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
The CONTEXT of the passage is ONLY the saints.

Nope. You are guilty of conflation.

It does NOT include the unsaved "tares" sown by Satan or those OUTSIDE of the church.

I understand. You have to argue that UNLESS the word "tares" is used, you won't believe that "all" means everyone. lol.

What is the context for John 4:42, where many Samaritans said this:

They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

Can you point to any context where they meant ONLY believers?

1Ti 4:10
For therefore we [the saints] both labour and suffer reproach, because we [the saints] trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men [both Jew and Gentile], specially of those [saints] that believe.

lol. Go ahead and aparove that "all men" ONLY mean Jews and Gentiles in a general sense. I know why you think so, but you have to prove your claim. But you just DON'T WANT to admit that "all" means everyone.

You cannot hope to understand the MEANING of a passage when you have not discerned the CONTEXT of the passage. That is why you ended-up with a mishmash of "sheep" in the previous passage... you did not understand the context.

Your notions of "context" aren't even close to reality.

[QOUTE]BTW... you can TEST this by trying to put the word "unsaved" or "world" everywhere the text says "we" or "those" (who believe) It PROVES the context I showed you above.[/QUOTE]
I have ALREADY proven your opinions to be wrong from Eph 4:17.

(6) You said:
1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. The CONTEXT of the passage is ONLY the saints.

Oh, here we go again.

It does NOT include the unsaved "tares" sown by Satan or those OUTSIDE of the church.

Well, at least you know by now how ridiculous your claims are. John was CLEARLY saying that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (believers) and not only for ours (believers) but also for the sins of the whole world (unbelievers). But you won't see that because of your extremely biased opinions. Never does "whole world" mean ONLY the saved.

1Jn 2:1-5
My little children [the saints], these things write I unto you [the saints], that ye [the saints] sin not. And if any man [saint] sin, we [saints] have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our [the saints] sins: and not for ours [the Jews] only, but also for the sins of the whole world [the Gentiles also]. And hereby we [the saints] do know that we [the saints] know him, if we [the saints] keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we [saints]
that we [saints] are in him.

What fallacy! You cannot prove that "ours" means ONLY "the Jews", or "whole world"
means ONLY Gentiles.

(7) You said:
1 John 4:14 - And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

The CONTEXT of the passage is ONLY the saints. It does NOT include the unsaved "tares" sown by Satan or those OUTSIDE of the church.

Realy getting tired with this.

1Jn 4:6-14
We [saints] are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us [saints]; he that is not of God heareth not us [saints]. Hereby know we [saints] the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved [saints], let us [saints] love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth [the saints] is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us [the saints], because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world [both Jew and Gentile], that we [saints] might live through him. Herein is love, not that we [saints] loved God, but that he loved us [saints], and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our [saints] sins. Beloved [saints], if God so loved us [saints], we [saints] ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we [saints] love one another, God dwelleth in us [saints], and his love is perfected in us [saints]. Hereby know we [saints] that we [saints] dwell in him, and he in us [saints], because he hath given us [saints] of his Spirit. And we [saints] have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world [both Jew and Gentile].

lol. Wrong again.

You cannot hope to understand the MEANING of a passage when you have not discerned the CONTEXT of the passage. That is why you ended-up with a mishmash of "sheep" in the previous passage... you did not understand the context.

I have PROVED that there are 3 distinct sheep in John 10, so all the mishmash is with your faulty opinions.

 

[FreeGrace2]

---------- contineud ----------


(8) You said:

I only need verses that indicate that Jesus died for everyone.
And I have done that.

No... not by a long shot. You have just shown that you are
not able to discern the CONTEXT of Scripture. I am sure that
you THINK you can but the verses above cannot apply to the
(#2) unsaved "tares" in the church or the (#3) lost souls
OUTSIDE of the church... they can ONLY apply to the
(#1) saved "wheat/sheep" in the church.

You need to remember what I said above about the three
groups of people on earth and see WHICH group applies
in EACH verse you read... although it's the saints 90%
of the time.


(9) You said:

Here's a question for you.
Please share a verse that says He DIDN'T pay for the sins of each of your 8 points.

If you can do that, you will have refuted my view


That is easy:


Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
Joh 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
Joh 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers

Joh 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say
unto you [saints], I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came
before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep [saints] did not
hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be
saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh
not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that
they [the saints] might have life, and that they [the saints] might
have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good
shepherd giveth his life for the sheep [the saints]. But he that
is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not,
seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and
the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep [saints].
The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not
for the sheep [the saints]. I am the good shepherd,
and know my sheep [the saints], and am known of mine.
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father:
and I lay down my life for the sheep [the saints].


But HERE is my favorite... Jesus was NOT the "propitiation"
for the unsaved "tares" in the church (children of Satan) or
the lost souls OUTSIDE of the church (also children of Satan)

Herein is love, not that
we [saints] loved God, but that he loved us [saints], and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our [saints] sins.




BTW... you said:
Because no one pays for their own sins.


But the BIBLE contradicts you. The Bible PROMISES
that men will PAY for every sin they commit...
even every idle word. (even sinful thoughts)

Mat_12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word
that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof
in the day of judgment.

Mat_5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart.


The RESULT of your false doctrine that Jesus PAID for
every sin ever committed by anyone who ever lived...
including all the "children of Satan" is that you teach
a gospel that says everyone in the Lake of Fire is
PAYING for the single sin of not "accepting" Jesus.

I do not mean to be rude. But you are preaching
"another gospel" than preached by Jesus and the
Apostles.
.......

Your last post was way too long winded and I've already proven your theories about context to be in serious error. I had to split your post into 2 separate posts in order to address everything.

And since you have no idea what context is or means, I don't see any benefit in further discussion. Your mind is made up; you are not interested in the facts.

All you need to do to prove your claims is share any verse that specifically indicates that Christ's death was on behalf of ONLY a certain group. Your attempts to define "all" and "everyone" and "whole world" is woefully wrong.

 

[5thKingdom]

Your last post was way too long winded and I've already proven your theories about context to be in serious error. I had to split your post into 2 separate posts in order to address everything.

And since you have no idea what context is or means, I don't see any benefit in further discussion. Your mind is made up; you are not interested in the facts.

All you need to do to prove your claims is share any verse that specifically indicates that Christ's death was on behalf of ONLY a certain group. Your attempts to define "all" and "everyone" and "whole world" is woefully wrong.

Joh 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say
unto you [saints], I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came
before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep [saints] did not
hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be
saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh
not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that
they [the saints] might have life, and that they [the saints] might
have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good
shepherd giveth his life for the sheep [the saints]. But he that
is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not,
seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and
the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep [saints].
The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not
for the sheep [the saints]. I am the good shepherd,
and know my sheep [the saints], and am known of mine.
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father:
and I lay down my life for the sheep [the saints].

 

[5thKingdom]

Thanks for your opinion. Now, let's move on.


Well, since you have ignored the FACT that Jesus noted 3 distinct sheep, it's no wonder you would say "there is no reason whatsoever".

But if you would open your eyes to the FACTS, you would see that there are:

1. My (Jesus) sheep
2. The sheep
3. Not My (Jesus) sheep.

If Jesus had actually died for ONLY those the Calvinists claim He died for, He would have said "I lay down My life for MY sheep". But He never said that. He died for THE sheep, which is MORE than just His sheep.


Wrong. There are only 2 groups of people in the world.

1. saved
2. unsaved

Or you don't like those words, let's go with:
1. believers
2. unbelievers

Is that better?


You are missing the whole point. I've pointed out FROM the text that Jesus identified 3 distinct KINDS of sheep.

1. His sheep
2. THE sheep
3. Not His sheep

So, among THE sheep we find His sheep and those NOT His sheep.


lol. Not in John 10 they aren't. But when one conflates Scripture, they always make this mistake.

Explain then, John 10:26 - but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. It is your own theory that cannot explain this verse. In the SAME chapter as His sheep, and THE sheep.


Well, I LOVE context too. So, now go back and prove that I have taken anything out of context when I proved that Christ died for everyone.

2 Cor 5:14,15, 19
Heb 2:9
1 Tim 4:10
1 John 2:2
1 John 4:14


I did. Apparently your eyes are quite closed. See above.


Your "rules" about context is quite flimsy. In ANY context, regardless of who the passage is about, doesn't preclude the writer or speaker from regerring to anyone else. That would be extremely absurd. Paul mentioned unbelievers in Eph 4:17, (Gentiles) and admonished the believers (those he wrote to) to STOP acting like Gentiles. So, this PROVES your theory about context all wrong.


Since I've already proven your ideas about context to be quite faulty, here's what you need to do to prove your theories. Show from the immedate context that "all" means only believers. That's what you can't do. So you make the false claim that just because Paul was writing to believers that every use of "all" can only mean believers. That is absurd. And I proved it from Eoh 4:17.


The word "tares" was NEVER used in either 1 Cor or 2 Cor. So stop conflating.


Nice job of confusion. It seems you conflate "us" with "all". That is absurd.


Well, at least I see why you have the unbiblical views you do.


Since you think "us" means "all", there is no reason to accept any explanation of yours.


I PROVED that there are 3 distinct kinds of sheep in John 10. But you are free to opine any way you want, in order to defend your opinion.


No it doesn't. Here is the context for v.9-

5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.
6 But there is a place where someone has testified: “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him?
7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor
8 and put everything under their feet.”In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.
9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

So, you see to be arguing that "mankind" refers only to believers, huh? Then you have NO CLUE as to what the writer was even referring to.


Why don't you leave "tares" to ONLY where it occurs.


How come you ignored the words I put in green? That is what precedes v.9 about who Christ died for.

-----------------

You said
Wrong. There are only 2 groups of people in the world.

1. saved
2. unsaved

Or you don't like those words, let's go with:
1. believers
2. unbelievers


According to JESUS [Mat 13:24-31] there are TWO GROUPS
in the church
(1) the saved "wheat" (in the church) sown by God
(2) the unsaved "tares" (in the church) sown by Satan

And... as anyone knows there is another GROUP in the world:
(3) the lost souls OUTSIDE of the church.

There... I fixed you mistake for you.
You did not make the distinction between the
unsaved "tares" in the church (sown by Satan)

And the lost souls OUTSIDE of the church.
You do know (I hope) that some people are OUTSIDE
of the Christian church
You are welcome.

---------

 

[bling]

You said (and I quote)
Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the Hebrew author describe the atonement process as a literal ransom/kidnapping scenario and not some like a ransom scenario.

Can you provide some Scriptures to support that statement?
No need to quote them, just cite chapter and verse please.

(NIV)Mark 10:45

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

(NIV)1 Timothy 2:6

who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

(NIV)Hebrews 9:15

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

(NRSV)1 Peter 1:18

You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold,

(NRSV)Revelation 5:9

They sing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;

You said (and I quote)
When you go to a nonbeliever, you are not trying to sell them on a book, theology, doctrine or culture, but you are trying to get them to accept: “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he/she accepts Jesus Christ and him crucified, a child is released to enter the Kingdom, yet if the individual does not accept “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” a child is kept from entering the Kingdom.

I am not aware of any Scripture that talks about "accepting"
Jesus. Can you please cite the chapter and verse that you
think teaches this doctrine.

The word “accepting” is not used much, but words like: “Whosoever”, “everyone”, “anyone”, “all who”, “if you” and so on.

But let us look specifically and see if you can come up with a better word to describe what the unbeliever is doing, because “accepting” seems to be the very best word to describe what he is doing.

We only have a few examples in scripture of actually teaching non-Christians who then go on to accept or reject the teaching, but on Pentecost (Acts 2) we have Peter’s giving an excellent “Christ and Him crucified” sermon.

Acts 2: 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

If you go back to Peter’s sermon the “message” was “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”.

Peter goes on in Acts 3 preaching a very similar sermon which resulted in Acts 4: 4 But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.

As you are aware, there are MANY who "accept" Jesus and
they call Him LORD... but they never had their sins PAID
(the Atonement did not cover them) and will spend eternity
PAYING for their own sins.

Mat 7:21-23
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast
out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:
depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

.

Wait just a minute: “Just because you verbally say: “Jesus is Lord” does not mean you have accepted Christ as your Lord.”

 

[FreeGrace2]

Joh 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say
unto you [saints], I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came
before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep [saints] did not
hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be
saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh
not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that
they [the saints] might have life, and that they [the saints] might
have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good
shepherd giveth his life for the sheep [the saints]. But he that
is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not,
seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and
the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep [saints].
The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not
for the sheep [the saints]. I am the good shepherd,
and know my sheep [the saints], and am known of mine.
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father:
and I lay down my life for the sheep [the saints].

I'm not going to bother with any more of your grievous errors about context.

I will ask one last thing.

Exegete Titus 2:11 please.

 

[FreeGrace2]

-----------------

You said
Wrong. There are only 2 groups of people in the world.

1. saved
2. unsaved

Or you don't like those words, let's go with:
1. believers
2. unbelievers


According to JESUS [Mat 13:24-31] there are TWO GROUPS
in the church
(1) the saved "wheat" (in the church) sown by God
(2) the unsaved "tares" (in the church) sown by Satan

Here's just another example of your faulty understanding. Jesus NEVER even referenced the "church". Don't you know that Jesus was born in the age of the Jews? The Church wasn't even in existence then.

And where do you think Jesus equated "tares" with unsaved "in the church" anyway?

The "wheat" and "tares" aligns exactly with my 2 groups; saved and unsaved. Your ideas are WAY OFF BASE.

There... I fixed you mistake for you.

You need to fix your own.

You did not make the distinction between the
unsaved "tares" in the church (sown by Satan)

There is none of those. And you haven't shown any evidence that there are. Even your claim about what Jesus taught is way off base, since Jesus never taught about the Church age.

And the lost souls OUTSIDE of the church.

It is quite false to make up this silliness about unsaved in the church and unsaved outside the church. And unsaved person is unsaved whether in or out of the church.

 

[XAPLTOS]

I grew up in church, and I understand that His death and the resurrection are essential to salvation, but I have been asked before and have even asked myself the same question.

"HOW does it WORK, though."

Why is it that the death fo Jesus on the cross and His subsequent resurrection is enough to atone for not only MY sins but EVERYONE ELSES?

Edit:
Perhaps a deeper explanation of my question is needed. Logically speaking, how does it work. Some of you have quoted scripture stating that it works, but I am not asking to be told THAT it works, but HOW it works. WHY was His death and resurrection enough?

Perhaps my points have been brought up already I didn’t take the time to read the whole thread.


Our transgressions/offenses (sin and trespasses) that we owed a debt to God for were placed on the Lord Jesus Christ and He paid the penalty. He was raised so that we may be justified (shown as innocent, acquitted, free of all charges) Jesus did not need to be justified we did. The placing of the Jewish transgressors hand on the sacrifice in the temple was an act of faith that their sins were being imparted into the innocent sacrifice. The priest would then sacrifice the innocent animal clearing the guilty of their transgressions before God. When we place our faith in Jesus we are placing our sins/failures on the cross with Him by faith that He would be our substitute. Jesus becomes the innocent lamb, an acceptable sacrifice to God, our High Priest taking away our sin and therefore making us righteous (acquitted of all charges). Life is in the blood and the blood of Christ is not tainted with the sin of Adam for Jesus came from His Father, also we have learned that the mother does not distribute her blood to the fetus. Jesus is perfectly God and man.

 

[5thKingdom]

Here's just another example of your faulty understanding. Jesus NEVER even referenced the "church"

---------------


Here's just another example of your faulty understanding.
Jesus NEVER even referenced the "church". Don't you know
that Jesus was born in the age of the Jews?
The Church wasn't even in existence then.


(1) If you say so... it must be true.
Even though many think Jesus came to establish His "church"


Mat 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.


Mat 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them,
tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church,
let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


Rev 2:1
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write;
These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand,
who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;


Rev 2:8
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things
saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;


Rev 2:12
And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things
saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;


Rev 2:18
And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things
saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire,
and his feet are like fine brass;


Rev 3:1
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things
saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars;
I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest,
and art dead.


Rev 3:7
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things
saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David,
he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;


Rev 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the beginning of the creation of God;


And where do you think Jesus equated "tares" with unsaved "in the church" anyway? The "wheat" and "tares" aligns exactly with my 2 groups; saved and unsaved. Your ideas are WAY OFF BASE.


(2) I have already given you this SCRIPTURE several times.
Why do you think that you STILL do not submit to it?


Mat 13:24-30
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,
The kingdom of heaven [Christian Kingdom = church age]
is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But
while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the
wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up,
and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the
servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst
not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath
it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The
servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather
them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares,
ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together
until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the
reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in
bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

-------------------------
Kingdom of Wheat and Tares explained [see Mat 13:36-43]
---------------------------

(1) The "Kingdom of Heaven" is an earthly Kingdom

(2) The sower of good seed represents the Lord Jesus Christ

(3) The sower of bad seed represents Satan, the King of Babylon

(4) The "Word of the Kingdom" (the seed) is the Gospel of the New Testament

(5) The "field" represents the world, as the Gospel goes forth
to both Jew and Gentile (Jew + Gentile = "the world")

(6) The "fruit" of the field (both wheat and tares) represents
the (3rd) "Kingdom of Heaven" [aka the church age]

(7) The "Word of the Kingdom" gathers good fish and bad fish
during the (3rd) Christian Kingdom

(8) The (saved) "wheat" and the (unsaved) "tares" LOOK similar,
and grow together until the end-of-the-age

(9) At the end-of-the-age, the "wheat and tares" (good fish/bad fish) are separated in the "Final Harvest"

--------------------------


Whether you like it or not (whether you submit to it or not)
THE BIBLE is very clear there are THREE GROUPS in the world
and TWO of these GROUPS are in the church

(1) The saved "wheat/sheep" (in the church) sown by God
(2) The unsaved "tares/goats" (in the church) sown by Satan

(3) All the lost souls OUTSIDE of the church (also children of Satan)
like Moslims and Buddhist and Hindus and Atheists and Agnostics
and Secular Humanists and Pagans and Satanists, etc.


While I have carefully explained this to you before...
I will do it one LAST TIME. You have no hope of ever
understanding the CONTEXT of passages if you do not
understand this basic and essential Biblical reality. And,
when you cannot understand the CONTEXT of Scripture
you have no hope of understanding the MEANING.



Finally, I have no desire to have any "discussions" with you.
Not that we have "discussions". I have already shown you
the things above and yet you still do not submit to what the
Bible says. So we can just agree to disagree.

....

 

[5thKingdom]

Wait just a minute: “Just because you verbally say: “Jesus is Lord” does not mean you have accepted Christ as your Lord.”

-------------

Thanks for the response.

(1) My question was:

You said (and I quote)
Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the Hebrew author describe
the atonement process as a literal ransom/kidnapping scenario
and not some like a ransom scenario.


(NIV)Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

(NIV)1 Timothy 2:6
who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

(NIV)Hebrews 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

(NRSV)1 Peter 1:18
You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited
from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold,

(NRSV)Revelation 5:9
They sing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;


I must have misunderstood your original comment because
it was the "kidnapping" statement that I could not understand.

I (of course) agree that Jesus PAID for "His Sheep" and, in that
sense, He was a "ransom"... but I did not (and still do not)
understand the "kidnapping" comment because Jesus
willingly PAID the price.

If there is a "kidnapping" component... then maybe you could
try to explain that to me because I just don't see that.
But I do agree with the ransom.


(2) I said:

I am not aware of any Scripture that talks about "accepting"
Jesus. Can you please cite the chapter and verse that you
think teaches this doctrine.


You said:
The word “accepting” is not used much, but words like:
“Whosoever”, “everyone”, “anyone”, “all who”, “if you”
and so on.


I don't think the word "accepting" is "not used much"...
I think it is never used AT ALL for a very good reason.

As to words like "whosoever" and "everyone" and
"anyone" and "all who" and "if you" and so on...
must all be examined within the CONTEXT of the
use and within the harmony of all related Scripture.

In fact, in most (or all) of the cases that I have seen
the CONTEXT is often talking about those who have
already been regenerated... while "teachers" often
try to apply it to people who are still unsaved.


But let us look specifically and see if you can come up with a better word to describe what the unbeliever is doing, because “accepting” seems to be the very best word to describe what he is doing.


Again, I do not think that "accepting" is an appropriate word
for the process... but am willing to be corrected by the BIBLE
if shown otherwise. In my view the act of salvation is one
where the person is completely passive.

In other words, all (real) repentance is the RESULT
(and not the cause) of regeneration.


Eph 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that [faith is] not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.


We only have a few examples in scripture of actually teaching
non-Christians who then go on to accept or reject the teaching,
but on Pentecost (Acts 2) we have Peter’s giving an excellent
“Christ and Him crucified” sermon.


I am jumping a little ahead here but I suspect this will be
an issue in the future. The Bible teaches that all people
fall into one of three (3) groups:

(1) The saved "wheat/sheep" in the church (sown by God)
(2) The unsaved "tare/goats" in the church (sown by Satan)
(3) The lost souls OUTSIDE the church (also children of Satan)
like Moslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists,
Pagans, Satanists, etc

Therefore, to understand the MEANING of any passage you
must first discern the CONTEXT of the passage... is it talking
about group (#1) or group (#2) or group (3)?


Acts 2: 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

If you go back to Peter’s sermon the “message” was “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”.

Peter goes on in Acts 3 preaching a very similar sermon which resulted in Acts 4: 4 But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.


My KJV uses the word "received" instead of "accepted" but I think
that's a difference without distinction. My POINT is simple, that
the CONTEXT of passages like this must be harmonized with
all related passages... including this:


Act 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad,
and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as
were ordained to eternal life believed.


(LITV) And hearing, the nations rejoiced and glorified the Word of
the Lord. And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.


(YLT) And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe--as many as were appointed to life age-during;


I have studied (really studied) the Bible for about 50 years and
realize that it teaches those who are "ordained" believe... and
those who are "chosen" are saved... and those who are
"elected" inherit eternal life.

The Arminian gospel preached in almost all churches today says
MEN decide to "accept" (or reject) salvation before regeneration.
And THAT is the basis for my question to you about your use of
the word "accepting".


(3) I said:

As you are aware, there are MANY who "accept" Jesus and
they call Him LORD... but they never had their sins PAID
(the Atonement did not cover them) and will spend eternity
PAYING for their own sins. (then I cited Mat 7:21-23)


You said:
Wait just a minute: “Just because you verbally say:
“Jesus is Lord” does not mean you have accepted
Christ as your Lord.”


Of course that is PART of my point (which is why I cited Mat 7)
But that only begs the question about people who "accepted"
Christ as their Lord... which many/most of those in Mat 7:21-23
had clearly done... and yet they were rejected by Christ.


If you believe the Bible teaches that men "accept" or "reject"
salvation then I suspect verses like those in Acts will not be
much help in this discussion and we will need to look at the
verses you mentioned (below)


You said:
The word “accepting” is not used much, but words like:
“Whosoever”, “everyone”, “anyone”, “all who”, “if you”
and so on.


(4) Assuming you believe the Bible teaches men "accept"
or "reject" salvation - then can you show me anywhere in
the Bible that teaches that the words you mentioned above
apply to UNSAVED men? And harmonize with all RELATED
Scriptures.

For example: When John 6 says that NO MAN can come
to Christ unless the Father FIRST "draws" them and ALL MEN
the Father draws "shall come" and Christ will lose NONE of
His Sheep... then a passage saying "whosoever" is limited
to those who CAN because they have been regenerated.

Another example: When Romans 3 says that NO MAN
"seeks" God (no, not even one) then passages that show
a man seeking God are showing someone who God "draws"
or someone who is already regenerated.

Another example: When Romans 9 says that God CREATES
some men to be "vessels of mercy" (they can "believe") but
when He CREATES others to be "vessels of destruction" then
God does not "draw" them and they cannot "receive" or
"believe".

So... are you aware of any passages that teach the words
you mentioned apply to UNSAVED men?

...

 

[FreeGrace2]

---------------


Here's just another example of your faulty understanding.
Jesus NEVER even referenced the "church". Don't you know
that Jesus was born in the age of the Jews?
The Church wasn't even in existence then.


(1) If you say so... it must be true.

Well, thanks. Just doing my job.

Even though many think Jesus came to establish His "church"


Mat 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.


Mat 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them,
tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church,
let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


Rev 2:1
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write;
These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand,
who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;


Rev 2:8
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things
saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;


Rev 2:12
And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things
saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;


Rev 2:18
And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things
saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire,
and his feet are like fine brass;


Rev 3:1
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things
saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars;
I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest,
and art dead.


Rev 3:7
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things
saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David,
he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;


Rev 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the beginning of the creation of God;

I see you have a Bible software to look up words in Scripture. Nice. However, have you ever looked into a lexicon regarding the Greek word translated "church"?

Let's take Matt 16:18 as an example:
ekklésia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Original Word: ἐκκλησία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ekklésia
Phonetic Spelling: (ek-klay-see'-ah)
Definition: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Usage: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.

But please note that "the Church" as used throughout the NT epistles, isn't what Jesus was referring to. In fact, no believer in the Messiah was called a "Christian" until after Christ's resurrection. Jesus didn't live during the Church Age. I guess you were unaware of that fact.

You quoted 2 verses from Matt, and all the rest were from Revelation, which was written IN the Church Age.

And where do you think Jesus equated "tares" with unsaved "in the church" anyway? The "wheat" and "tares" aligns exactly with my 2 groups; saved and unsaved. Your ideas are WAY OFF BASE.

You really need to read my posts, at least, before you fire off your quips. You want to create 3 groups, when there are only 2: saved and unsaved. Or believers and unbelievers. Your ideas of tares is what is off base. Way off base.

The only place we find the word "tares" is in the parable of the WEEDS in Matt 13.

This is how Jesus explained the parable:
36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one,
39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.
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.
42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

As can be easily seen, the tares have NOTHING to do with unbelievers "in churches".

Both good seed and tares were planted in a field. Jesus SAID the field represents the WORLD. That means the population of the world. Not the church.

(2) I have already given you this SCRIPTURE several times.
Why do you think that you STILL do not submit to it?

I have no idea what you are referring to. Where have I NOT "submitted" to any verse?

Mat 13:24-30
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,
The kingdom of heaven [Christian Kingdom = church age]
is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But
while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the
wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up,
and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the
servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst
not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath
it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The
servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather
them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares,
ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together
until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the
reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in
bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Oh, I get it. You think you have the authority to ADD to Scripture, huh? Where did those blue words come from? Your imagination, I suspect. What I KNOW is that those blue words don't occur in ANY translation.

btw, the "kingdom of heaven" is where ALL believers go when they die. From Adam on. Your notion that it refers to the "Church Age" is quite absurd.

Kingdom of Wheat and Tares explained [see Mat 13:36-43]

(1) The "Kingdom of Heaven" is an earthly Kingdom

(2) The sower of good seed represents the Lord Jesus Christ

(3) The sower of bad seed represents Satan, the King of Babylon

(4) The "Word of the Kingdom" (the seed) is the Gospel of the New Testament

(5) The "field" represents the world, as the Gospel goes forth
to both Jew and Gentile (Jew + Gentile = "the world")

(6) The "fruit" of the field (both wheat and tares) represents
the (3rd) "Kingdom of Heaven" [aka the church age]

(7) The "Word of the Kingdom" gathers good fish and bad fish
during the (3rd) Christian Kingdom

(8) The (saved) "wheat" and the (unsaved) "tares" LOOK similar,
and grow together until the end-of-the-age

(9) At the end-of-the-age, the "wheat and tares" (good fish/bad fish) are separated in the "Final Harvest"

Yes, I just explained all this. To show you your claiims about what "tares" means is in error.

Whether you like it or not (whether you submit to it or not)
THE BIBLE is very clear there are THREE GROUPS in the world
and TWO of these GROUPS are in the church

Your explanation shows nothing of the sort.

Again, saved and unsaved, or believers and unbelievers. I suggest you go back and re-read the parable again.

However, when you do, please remove the blue words from the text, since they don't occur there and don't belong there.

In the human race, there have ONLY BEEN 2 groups. Saved and unsaved.

(1) The saved "wheat/sheep" (in the church) sown by God
(2) The unsaved "tares/goats" (in the church) sown by Satan

No. The "field" represents the WORLD, not the church, as you keep presuming.

(3) All the lost souls OUTSIDE of the church (also children of Satan)
like Moslims and Buddhist and Hindus and Atheists and Agnostics
and Secular Humanists and Pagans and Satanists, etc.

Please explain what is different between the unsaved "in the church" vs the unsaved "outside the church".

Finally, I have no desire to have any "discussions" with you.
Not that we have "discussions". I have already shown you
the things above and yet you still do not submit to what the
Bible says. So we can just agree to disagree.....

This is typical of posters who cannot answer my questions, nor refute my views.

I have shown your own errors in interpretation.

So you are correct. There is no reason to continue.

 

[5thKingdom]

I have no idea what you are referring to. Where have I NOT "submitted" to any verse?

Respectfully... Many of your comments are just embarrassing.
They demonstrate your ignorance of both Scripture and history.

Jesus NEVER even referenced the "church".

Mat 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.


Mat 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them,
tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church,
let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Let's take Matt 16:18 as an example:
ekklésia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Original Word: ἐκκλησία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ekklésia
Phonetic Spelling: (ek-klay-see'-ah)
Definition: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Usage: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.

(1) The word translated "church" in the Matthew verses quoted above
are used 160 times in the New Testament. So clearly your statement
that Jesus never referenced the "church" is shown incorrect 160 times.
Let me say that again... the BIBLE CONTRADICTS your words 160 times.

So your attempt to "save face" by showing it refers to an "assembly" or
a "congregation" or the "church" or the "body of believers" only demonstrates
(as I already did) that your original statement was 100% WRONG.
You cannot "save face" on this one buddy.

(2) The Bible uses the word "church" to represent TWO different contexts.
Again, as I have patiently explained to you MANY times... when you cannot discern
the CONTEXT of a passage then you have no hope of understanding the MEANING.

The FIRST context of the word "church" is the local (temporal) congregations...
the "church" on every street corner... consisting of saved "wheat" sown by God
and unsaved "tares" sown by Satan.

This is the CONTEXT Jesus was using in Matthew 18:17 (above) when He said
".And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect
to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

The SECOND context of the word "'church" is the ETERNAL Kingdom containing
ONLY the saved "wheat" (sown by God) throughout history but NONE of the
unsaved "tares" (sown by Satan).

This "church" is often called the "Bride of Christ" or the "Body of Christ"

This is the CONTEXT Jesus was using in Matthew 16:18 when He said:
"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.

-----------

Bottom Line: The saints have ALWAYS understood the "church" could represent
EITHER the local (temporal) congregations containing BOTH saved "wheat" and
unsaved "tares"... or the ETERNAL Kingdom which ONLY contained the saved
from throughout history.

BTW... this reality (of both temporal "churches" and an eternal "church")
is NOT NEW INFORMATION. This reality has been known by the saints
for almost 2000 years - and is the subject of countless sermons.

The fact that this reality is "news" to you is the reason I said that
you have embarrassed yourself with you lack of understanding
of both Scripture and history.

....

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"I have no idea what you are referring to. Where have I NOT "submitted" to any verse?"

Respectfully... Many of your comments are just embarrassing.

How does this opinion relate to my queston? Or, maybe you don't really have any evidence where I have not submitted to any verse?

I sure don't submit to your interpretations of any verse.

They demonstrate your ignorance of both Scripture and history.

Nice ad hominem.

Mat 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.


Mat 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them,
tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church,
let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

OK, we've been over this already. Why are missing your error? The Greek word means "assemblyl", ok? The Jews assembled in their synagogues, ok?

That's what Jesus was referring to, ok?

(1) The word translated "church" in the Matthew verses quoted above
are used 160 times in the New Testament.

So what! One MUST interpret verses and passages from the timeframe in which they were written. The Church Age hadn't even begun yet. How can you not know that?

So clearly your statement that Jesus never referenced the "church" is shown incorrect 160 times.

This is absurd. Jesus was speaking of Jewish assemblies, ok? You charge me with ignorance of the Word, yet you are the one demonstrating ignorance.

Let me say that again... the BIBLE CONTRADICTS your words 160 times.

No it doesn't. Not even once.

So your attempt to "save face" by showing it refers to an "assembly" or
a "congregation" or the "church" or the "body of believers" only demonstrates
(as I already did) that your original statement was 100% WRONG.

I actually PROVED what the word means. I copied and pasted from biblehub.com.

You cannot "save face" on this one buddy.

I don't need to. But I believe that you are in great need of it.

btw, I'm not your buddy. I'm your brother.

(2) The Bible uses the word "church" to represent TWO different contexts.
Again, as I have patiently explained to you MANY times... when you cannot discern
the CONTEXT of a passage then you have no hope of understanding the MEANING.

The FIRST context of the word "church" is the local (temporal) congregations...
the "church" on every street corner... consisting of saved "wheat" sown by God
and unsaved "tares" sown by Satan.

This is the CONTEXT Jesus was using in Matthew 18:17 (above) when He said
".And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect
to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

I don't see the word "tares" in this verse. Where do you see it?

The SECOND context of the word "'church" is the ETERNAL Kingdom containing ONLY the saved "wheat" (sown by God) throughout history but NONE of the
unsaved "tares" (sown by Satan).

You aren't making your point.

This "church" is often called the "Bride of Christ" or the "Body of Christ"

This is the CONTEXT Jesus was using in Matthew 16:18 when He said:
"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.

No He didn't. But you are free to presume that He was.

Bottom Line: The saints have ALWAYS understood the "church" could represent EITHER the local (temporal) congregations containing BOTH saved "wheat" and unsaved "tares"... or the ETERNAL Kingdom which ONLY contained the saved
from throughout history.

There are only 2 kinds of people in the world. Saved and unsaved or believers and unbelievers. Period. You've only proven your confusion in the matter.

BTW... this reality (of both temporal "churches" and an eternal "church")
is NOT NEW INFORMATION. This reality has been known by the saints
for almost 2000 years - and is the subject of countless sermons.

This has no bearing on your incorrect view about 3 kinds of people.

The fact that this reality is "news" to you is the reason I said that
you have embarrassed yourself with you lack of understanding
of both Scripture and history.

lol. There are only 2 kinds of people in the world. Those who are saved and those who are unsaved. Period.

You claim about 3 kinds of people is what is embarrassing.