That is not how Jesus explained the parable.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.
I like to discuss with people where I can learn something, regretfully, I fear there's nothing to learn from you. So, go well.What does people having different ethnicities have to do with anything we're talking about in this thread? Nothing.
I find no gain in discussing the scriptures with you because you apparently still have a long way to go. Remain blessed.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 concur.He is simply saying, as I have also said
So only part of Natural Israel belongs to true Israel (Romans 9:6)
- True Israel comprised of Jews from Israel who also believed Jesus is their promised Messiah
- Natural Israel comprised of all Jews from Israel.
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 quoted what you wrote and don't believe I misrepresented you, at all.Did you read what I wrote? Then do not misrepresent.
Notice Paul did not say we are the seed of Isaac?
Matthew 13 and the parable about the tares and wheat is not about Israel.
No, I still don't know what you're saying. At all.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
to answer your particular puzzle you were asking here.
- Stars in the heaven
- Sand in the shore
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? =)
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.Note, it is perfectly alright to say "I understand what you are saying but I disagree with your point". =)
No, it is not. That is not AT ALL what Paul indicated in Romans 9:6-8. Not even close.When I said "So only part of Natural Israel belongs to true Israel", I am saying True Israel is a subset of Natural Israel.
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:Notice Paul did not say we are the seed of Isaac?
I couldn't possibly disagree more with what you said here.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.I like to discuss with people where I can learn something, regretfully, I fear there's nothing to learn from you. So, go well.
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: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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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?Apparently, I discern things about these parables that some of the rest of you don't.
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.The first thing I try and do is stick to context.
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.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.
Correct! He nailed it.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.