If Amils are right and we are in the Millennium "Kingdom" now, what other verses back this up?

[Guojing]

We are that!

Notice Paul did not say we are the seed of Isaac?

 

[Timtofly]

I'm not a farmer or anything, but it seems to me, in the agricultural world tares resemble wheat in the early stages. Obviously, in the parable the wheat are meaning saved Christians. This means the tares are someone who resembles saved Christians but are not, such as wolves in sheep's clothing, false prophets, etc. The tares certainly aren't meaning atheists, for instance. Since when do atheists resemble saved Christians? This is why context matters.

The same with the sheep and goats judgment. Context matters. It is a judgment of those within the church professing to be Christians. We can know that by how the goats answer Jesus, which tells us the goats are fully aware of Christ and believe in Him, except they are unprofitable servants not profitable servants.

Take Cain, for instance. If this judgment is involving all of the saved and lost since the beginning of time, obviously Cain would be among the goats, thus answering Jesus the same way----Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? As if it makes sense Cain would also be answering Him in that manner, as if Cain too lived during the time of the NT church age.

That is not how Jesus explained the parable.

That is how theology explains the parable. Theology is great for everyday practical purposes. Jesus said it was the end at the Second Coming. Jesus sowed the seeds personally, meaning they are Jesus' followers literally. Not by faith like the current church age. They were literally His "congregation". Satan sowed the tares, meaning in the same group there were followers of Satan.

Just like the crowds that followed Jesus around in the first century, it will happen again at the Second Coming. That is how Jesus explained the parable. The angels will literally harvest these souls to eternal life or eternal damnation.

This is not the church age. This is Jesus as Prince on earth after the Second Coming.

The sheep and goats is not a judgment on the church. This is literally Israel being called out of all nations after Jesus as Prince is on the earth after the Second Coming.

Any judgment on the church is ongoing and generational. God already knows who are His when all have died in each generation over the last 1992 years. The rewards ceremony happens at the end, but the church has been growing in Paradise already.

The Millennium starts out with a physical resurrection. It starts out with redeemed souls. It does not start out with any of Adam's dead corruptible flesh and sin nature's. The sheep live on earth forever righteous, no more sin. The wheat gathered into the barn are the firstfruits of the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus as Prince. These people were redeemed and changed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh into permanent incorruptible physical bodies. That is how the Millennium starts out. These people can never disobey God, nor can they ever be sinners again. They cannot be subjected to the second death in the LOF. They literally can only do God's Will. Their choices are directly related to the iron rod rule of The Lamb whatever that will entail.

 

[Trivalee]

What does people having different ethnicities have to do with anything we're talking about in this thread? Nothing.

I like to discuss with people where I can learn something, regretfully, I fear there's nothing to learn from you. So, go well.

 

[Trivalee]

How is it frivolous to question how a temple used by unbelievers could possibly be something Paul would call "the temple of God"? It's no wonder that you would try to avoid addressing that any further.

I have addressed your so-called "elephant in the room" many times in the past, so it's not something I avoid doing. You assume the reference to "the man of sin" is to an individual person that you call the antichrist. Do you take into consideration that John taught there are many antichrists instead of one?

Anyway, back to the phrase "the man of sin" supposedly referring to an individual antichrist. Is the following passage referring to an individual man of God?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

This is clearly not referring to an individual man of God but is generally referring to all people of God. I interpret the phrase "the man of sin" similarly.

And it is not frivolous to consider that no physical temple in the future could possibly be considered the temple of God. That is a very important consideration that you shouldn't just brush aside.

I find no gain in discussing the scriptures with you because you apparently still have a long way to go. Remain blessed.

 

[Trivalee]

He is simply saying, as I have also said

1. True Israel comprised of Jews from Israel who also believed Jesus is their promised Messiah
2. Natural Israel comprised of all Jews from Israel.

So only part of Natural Israel belongs to true Israel (Romans 9:6)

That is what Paul meant in Romans 9:6.

As regarding your usage of Galatians 3:26-29, you are again trying to make the Body of Christ, where it is indeed true that Jews or gentile doesn't matter, and squeezing that term into Romans 9:6, which as I said to you, is incorrect usage.

I concur.

Unfortunately, some take scriptures out of context and even Apostle Paul won't succeed in persuading them they are wrong. I've had to walk away from a few cases because we're I found myself irredeemably arguing at cross purposes with people who leave me pulling my hair to make sense of their position.

 

[Trivalee]

Did you read what I wrote? Then do not misrepresent.

I quoted what you wrote and don't believe I misrepresented you, at all.

 

[RandyPNW]

Notice Paul did not say we are the seed of Isaac?

Right, the "seed of Abraham" are the biological descendants of Abraham, to form into a nation. One of the descendants of Abraham was Christ. Paul's argument that the seed is "singular" is because he was presenting the descendants of Abraham as a corporate entity--a group. Just as it was a singular nation it was also singularly identified by relation to Christ. Though we are not all part of the nation of Israel we can all be associated with Christ, since God promised Abraham a fatherhood not just of Israel but also of many nations.

 

[RandyPNW]

Matthew 13 and the parable about the tares and wheat is not about Israel.

I was using a like kind of parable for myself--not actually referring to the parable of the tares Jesus used. I was applying my own parable to Israel so you can understand how I look at this. There are not two "Israels," but only one Israel that is being refined to be the nation of God called them to be. Only when the ungodly are removed from Israel will they finally achieve their Hope.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Interestingly, I was searching in this forum for my previous point made about the distinction between what God promised Abraham, regarding 2 types of descendants

• Stars in the heaven
• Sand in the shore

to answer your particular puzzle you were asking here.

The physical descendants of the ancient nation of Israel.

Guess what, that post was made to you too about a year ago. You claimed you totally could not understand what I was saying.

Does a year makes a difference? =)

No, I still don't know what you're saying. At all.

Note, it is perfectly alright to say "I understand what you are saying but I disagree with your point". =)

Yes, that's true, and I've never said otherwise. But, in this case, I don't understand what you're saying. And, it looks like you are not able to clarify it for me.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

When I said "So only part of Natural Israel belongs to true Israel", I am saying True Israel is a subset of Natural Israel.

No, it is not. That is not AT ALL what Paul indicated in Romans 9:6-8. Not even close.

True Israel and Natural Israel are each their own entities. If True Israel was a subset of Natural Israel then being part of True Israel would require also being part of Natural Israel. But, that is not the case. Paul indicated in Romans 9:6-8 that being a natural descendant is not a requirement for being part of True Israel. That's why he said "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children". He made it very clear that one's nationality has nothing to do with being part of True Israel, but you contradict that by saying one has to be part of natural Israel in order to be part of True Israel. Again, that is NOT at all what Paul said.

Natural Israel consists of believers and unbelievers. True Israel consists of believers who are the children of God and children of the promise (Romans 9:6-8) who belong to Christ. The children of God and of the promise who belong to Christ include all believers, whether Jew or Gentile (Galatians 3:26-29).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Notice Paul did not say we are the seed of Isaac?

But he did say "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (Romans 9:7) and "the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (Romans 9:8). That relates directly to what he said here:

Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

So, who are the children of promise? What Paul said in Galatians 4:28 was directed to both both Jew and Gentile believers. So, Christians are the ones who are the children of the promise like Isaac was, which means that Christians, whether Jew or Gentile, are "counted for the seed" (Romans 9:8).

Paul made it very clear in the following passage that all Christians are children of the promise (like Isaac) and ethnicity or nationality has nothing to do with it.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

You keep trying to separate into two groups what Jesus brought together as one.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Right, the "seed of Abraham" are the biological descendants of Abraham, to form into a nation. One of the descendants of Abraham was Christ. Paul's argument that the seed is "singular" is because he was presenting the descendants of Abraham as a corporate entity--a group. Just as it was a singular nation it was also singularly identified by relation to Christ. Though we are not all part of the nation of Israel we can all be associated with Christ, since God promised Abraham a fatherhood not just of Israel but also of many nations.

I couldn't possibly disagree more with what you said here.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

You're saying the seed is one group, but that would be many seeds in the one group. That isn't at all what Paul said. He didn't say the promises were made to one group of many seeds like you're saying. He said the promises were made to one, singular seed. Paul said that the seed of Abraham is Christ Himself. Period. Don't change what he said! It's the singular "seed" instead of plural "seeds" because Christ is obviously one, singular person. All of God's promises are fulfilled in Christ. And we share in those promises because of belonging to Christ, which is what Paul pointed out here:

Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

You are trying to say all of Abraham's natural descendants are included in the promises which completely contradicts what Paul said in Galatians 3:16-29. No, it's all of Abraham's SPIRITUAL descendants (those who have faith like Abraham whether Jew or Gentile) who inherit the promises and are part of Abraham's seed.

 

[DavidPT]

That is not how Jesus explained the parable.

That is how theology explains the parable. Theology is great for everyday practical purposes. Jesus said it was the end at the Second Coming. Jesus sowed the seeds personally, meaning they are Jesus' followers literally. Not by faith like the current church age. They were literally His "congregation". Satan sowed the tares, meaning in the same group there were followers of Satan.

Just like the crowds that followed Jesus around in the first century, it will happen again at the Second Coming. That is how Jesus explained the parable. The angels will literally harvest these souls to eternal life or eternal damnation.

This is not the church age. This is Jesus as Prince on earth after the Second Coming.

The sheep and goats is not a judgment on the church. This is literally Israel being called out of all nations after Jesus as Prince is on the earth after the Second Coming.

Any judgment on the church is ongoing and generational. God already knows who are His when all have died in each generation over the last 1992 years. The rewards ceremony happens at the end, but the church has been growing in Paradise already.

The Millennium starts out with a physical resurrection. It starts out with redeemed souls. It does not start out with any of Adam's dead corruptible flesh and sin nature's. The sheep live on earth forever righteous, no more sin. The wheat gathered into the barn are the firstfruits of the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus as Prince. These people were redeemed and changed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh into permanent incorruptible physical bodies. That is how the Millennium starts out. These people can never disobey God, nor can they ever be sinners again. They cannot be subjected to the second death in the LOF. They literally can only do God's Will. Their choices are directly related to the iron rod rule of The Lamb whatever that will entail.

If Jesus or anyone else are using real world imagery, it does not make sense to use real world imagery if it doesn't match with what it would mean in the real world. In the real world, tares apparently resemble wheat at some stage. Now it is just a matter of determining what 'wheat' in the parable is representing. Then it shouldn't be rocket science after that.

 

[RandyPNW]

I couldn't possibly disagree more with what you said here.

Sorry to hear that. But keep in mind that what *sounds* weird and orthodox may have been the traditional view over 100s of years. That's why my views have changed over the years, because the longer I dig below the surface of "modern views," the more balanced and the deeper I become. Not saying I'm right in this instance, but I'm "just sayin.' "

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

You're saying the seed is one group, but that would be many seeds in the one group.

Not exactly. In one sense yes, but in this sense no. Paul is saying that the "seed," which is to applied singularly, is to be extracted from a plural reality.

In other words, Paul himself assumed that the "seed" represented the descendants of Abraham. He is just acknowledging that *in context* this "seed" is a corporate whole, a plurality congregated into a group.

And since we naturally read the "descendants" of Abraham as grouped into a "nation," Paul is saying that this is a singular reality, a "nation."

Then Paul does something uniquely Christian. He identified the association between the nation as a corporate group and Christ as an individual. They are both singular realities, and both incorporate a plurality of elements into them.

The nation Israel is a corporate entity integrating many descendants of Abraham into one group. The man Christ is a corporate entity integrating all Christians into a single body.

As such, Paul is interpreting the promise of Abraham not just as an ethnic reality, but also as a spiritual reality. After all, Abraham is promised a biological nation, an ethnic reality. His descendants would form into a nation that can be said to have been descended, ethnically, from Abraham.

But the reality isn't just biological when it comes to either Israel or Christ. Both are identified by the faith of Abraham, because the promise came to one who it is said to have had faith. And so, the seed of Abraham, whether Israel or Christ, is characterized by faith, and not just by the ethnicity of Israel.

You are trying to say all of Abraham's natural descendants are included in the promises which completely contradicts what Paul said in Galatians 3:16-29.

No, I didn't say that, and I'm not saying that! I'm saying that in order for Abraham's biological descendants to be "true Israel," they must have Abraham's faith, as well. Those in Israel who don't exhibit faith will be cut off from Israel.

Please try to understand my position, because it runs contrary to some popular modern views. But I believe my view runs closer to what Paul intended to say. Of course, it's just *my view.*

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I like to discuss with people where I can learn something, regretfully, I fear there's nothing to learn from you. So, go well.

I believe you could learn a lot from me, but you have decided to believe false doctrine instead. That's your choice and I would never try to take your choice away. You go well, too.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If Jesus or anyone else are using real world imagery, it does not make sense to use real world imagery if it doesn't match with what it would mean in the real world. In the real world, tares apparently resemble wheat at some stage. Now it is just a matter of determining what 'wheat' in the parable is representing. Then it shouldn't be rocket science after that.

It also doesn't take rocket science to determine what the wheat represent. I assume you understand that the good seed is what produces the wheat. This is what Jesus said the good seed represents:

Matthew 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

The wheat represent the children of the kingdom of God, which includes us and all believers. The tares, in contrast, represent "the children of the wicked one". Who are the children of the wicked one? Unbelievers. What unbeliever isn't a child of the wicked one? They all are. So, the wheat represent all believers and the tares represent all unbelievers.

Just compare that parable to the parable of the fishing net where Jesus taught the same thing.

Matthew 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

In the parable of the wheat and tares, the wheat represent the children of the kingdom and the tares represent the children of the wicked one. In this parable the good fish represent "the just" and the bad fish represent "the wicked". We know this represents all people because it says they gathered fish "of very kind" until the net "was full". We also know that Jesus said shortly before He told those parables that anyone who is not with Him is against Him (Matt 12:30). So, the parables line up with how Jesus put every person into one of two groups (with Him or against Him).

Also, notice how the tares (children of the wicked one) and the bad fish (the wicked) are both "cast into the furnace of fire". This is referring to the day of judgment when all whose names are not written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15). So, the tares and the bad fish represent all of those whose names are NOT written in the book of life. And the wheat and good fish represent all of those whose names ARE written in the book of life.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Not exactly. In one sense yes, but in this sense no. Paul is saying that the "seed," which is to applied singularly, is to be extracted from a plural reality.

Sorry, but I find your view to be rather wishy washy. In one sense yes and one sense no? I'll just disagree and leave it at that.

In other words, Paul himself assumed that the "seed" represented the descendants of Abraham. He is just acknowledging that *in context* this "seed" is a corporate whole, a plurality congregated into a group.

No, he said the seed is Christ. Period. You are changing what he said. I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. It's too painful and cringeworthy to read.

 

[DavidPT]

That is not how Jesus explained the parable.

That is how theology explains the parable. Theology is great for everyday practical purposes. Jesus said it was the end at the Second Coming. Jesus sowed the seeds personally, meaning they are Jesus' followers literally. Not by faith like the current church age. They were literally His "congregation". Satan sowed the tares, meaning in the same group there were followers of Satan.

Just like the crowds that followed Jesus around in the first century, it will happen again at the Second Coming. That is how Jesus explained the parable. The angels will literally harvest these souls to eternal life or eternal damnation.

This is not the church age. This is Jesus as Prince on earth after the Second Coming.

The sheep and goats is not a judgment on the church. This is literally Israel being called out of all nations after Jesus as Prince is on the earth after the Second Coming.

Any judgment on the church is ongoing and generational. God already knows who are His when all have died in each generation over the last 1992 years. The rewards ceremony happens at the end, but the church has been growing in Paradise already.

The Millennium starts out with a physical resurrection. It starts out with redeemed souls. It does not start out with any of Adam's dead corruptible flesh and sin nature's. The sheep live on earth forever righteous, no more sin. The wheat gathered into the barn are the firstfruits of the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus as Prince. These people were redeemed and changed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh into permanent incorruptible physical bodies. That is how the Millennium starts out. These people can never disobey God, nor can they ever be sinners again. They cannot be subjected to the second death in the LOF. They literally can only do God's Will. Their choices are directly related to the iron rod rule of The Lamb whatever that will entail.

Apparently, I discern things about these parables that some of the rest of you don't. The first thing I try and do is stick to context. In the end of Matthew 24 and 25 leading up to the sheep and goats judgment, the contexts involved those within the church who were being profitable servants, and those within the church who were not.

Then all of a sudden, there is the sheep and goats judgment. Hmmmm...wonder if any of that might be involving these contexts leading up to this judgment? I guess it all depends on who you ask. If you ask someone that isn't discerning that the contexts leading up to this judgment, that this is involving profitable and unprofitable servants in the NT church, this person is obviously going to misinterpret what the sheep and goats judgment is involving.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Apparently, I discern things about these parables that some of the rest of you don't.

Obviously, you're including me among "the rest of you" since I gave my view of those parables. For some reason you decided to create this post addressed to no one instead of addressing what I said. Why is that? You're coming across here like you're saying you have more discernment than me. Just because you relate different scriptures to the parables than I do that means you have more discernment than me? You relate the sheep and goats judgment to the parables and so do I, but just because I interpret Matt 25:31-46 differently than you do means I have less discernment than you when it comes to those parables?

The first thing I try and do is stick to context.

So do I. I just do it in a different way than you. You're acting like you're the only one who sticks to context.

For example, I use what Jesus said shortly before He told those parables for context. He said in Matthew 12:30, "He who is not with me is against me". All people are either with Him or against Him. So, I use that context to determine the identity of the wheat and tares and the identity of the good fish and bad fish. The wheat/good fish are those who are with Him and the tares/bad fish are those who are against Him.

Based on your view of the fishing net parable, the net is not full with every kind of fish before it is brought to shore because it only contains those within the church and not anyone else. But Jesus indicated it is brought to shore after it is full of every kind (not just some kinds) of fish. So much for sticking to context.

In the end of Matthew 24 and 25 leading up to the sheep and goats judgment, the contexts involved those within the church who were being profitable servants, and those within the church who were not.

Then all of a sudden, there is the sheep and goats judgment. Hmmmm...wonder if any of that might be involving these contexts leading up to this judgment? I guess it all depends on who you ask. If you ask someone that isn't discerning that the contexts leading up to this judgment, that this is involving profitable and unprofitable servants in the NT church, this person is obviously going to misinterpret what the sheep and goats judgment is involving.

So, it looks like what you are ultimately saying here is that Revelation 20:15 is wrong when it indicates that all whose names are not written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire at the same time. You apparently believe that only some whose names are not written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire at Christ's return and then the rest will be cast into the lake of fire 1000+ years later.

I say that because those parables refer to what will happen when Christ returns as does Matthew 25:31-46. And all of those passages refer to people being cast into the fire at that time. But, somehow, you conclude that not all whose names are not written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire at the same time even though that is what Revelation 20:15 indicates. Again, so much for sticking to context. Your context should include the timing of Revelation 20:15, but it doesn't.

 

[eclipsenow]

Oh you are a covenant theologian.

You would like this reformed pastor who said the same thing as you did above

What are some misconceptions about covenant theology? | Reformed Theological Seminary (rts.edu)

In that case, I can understand better why you won't make a distinction between the 2 groups. Thanks for sharing.

Correct! He nailed it.
And you disagree with how the NT interprets the OT because....?