- Jun 10, 2010
- 7,562
- 55
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
1. God is love...
2. God never destined Judas for anything except for exactly what Judas did...
?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Judas was never destined for anything except for exactly what Judas did. Kinda sad in a way to think that, but this was for the word of God to be fulfilled.
Not two heavens. The kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of God. Matthew avoided using the name of God.So, there is a kingdom of heaven and heaven. Two heavens.
If I'm wrong, then what does the kingdom represent?Oh, you think the kingdom is heaven. Well, that explains your error.
Well, seems you don't understand what figurative language is. Remember, this didn't really happen. (your words)And you also think there will weeping and gnashing of teeth in heaven. Oh, boy.
Yeah. Got it. So what?Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (Matthew 22:13 NASB)
You've chosen to believe that some of the non-elect actually get into hell, while I believe He was once again talking about reward. I suppose you have read Matt 6, right?Either Jesus is describing hell, or just talking about people losing their rewards and crying in heaven.
Oh, that's a good one.The kingdom of heaven is not heaven. See the parable of the wheat and the tares. Do you believe that tares are in heaven?
Let's just cut to the chase. In that parable, what is meant by the kingdom of heaven? And don't say "the kingdom of God". Or I'll just ask, ok, what is meant by the kingdom of God?Not two heavens. The kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of God. Matthew avoided using the name of God.
RC Sproul,
If we were to look for one single theme that seems to be the most central and most important theme of the entire gospel of Matthew, it would be the theme of the coming of the kingdom. We see in the first instance that the term gospel refers to the gospel of the kingdom the good news of the announcement of the breakthrough of the kingdom of God. In Matthews case, he uses the phrase kingdom of heaven rather than the terminology kingdom of God. He does this not because he has a different view of the meaning or content of the kingdom of God; rather, out of sensitivity to his Jewish readers, he makes common use of what is called periphrasis, a certain type of circumlocution to avoid mentioning the sacred name of God. So for Matthew, the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven is the same kingdom that the other writers speak of as the kingdom of God.
Why Does Matthew Use "the Kingdom of Heaven"? - The Gospels
2The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.
He was invited but not chosen.
The kingdom of God.If I'm wrong, then what does the kingdom represent?
Okay. Then please explain what is happening if there's weeping and gnashing of teeth in heaven? What is that figuring?Well, seems you don't understand what figurative language is. Remember, this didn't really happen. (your words)
Same language. It's describing hell. Does Jesus use the same description of hell that He does of those who lose rewards in heaven?Yeah. Got it. So what?
I believe all non-elect are in hell. So I don't know what your point is.You've chosen to believe that some of the non-elect actually get into hell, while I believe He was once again talking about reward. I suppose you have read Matt 6, right?
The banquet hall represents the kingdom of God.And you have mocked my view that the kingdom is heaven, yet you claim the "outer darkness" does describe hell. So what does the banquet hall in the kingdom represent to you?
This gonna be good.
So, you believe the parable is about the universe. You know, where God rules.The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are synonymous. It's not talking about heaven.
Which is what, exactly? The universe, or what part of it?The kingdom of God.
Why do you bring a different text to the discussion regarding Matt 22?and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15 NASB)
The phrase refers to regret. Remember that the wiping away of "every tear" happens yet in the future. But you don't believe in eternal reward, so I don't suppose anything I say will be helpful.Okay. Then please explain what is happening if there's weeping and gnashing of teeth in heaven? What is that figuring?
Actually, several times.Same language. It's describing hell. Does Jesus use the same description of hell that He does of those who lose rewards in heaven?
I made a huge typo. I meant heaven, not hell. You still haven't explained how in that parable this so-called non-elect type actually got into the kingdom.I believe all non-elect are in hell. So I don't know what your point is.
OK, which part of the universe?The banquet hall represents the kingdom of God.
So, you believe the parable is about the universe. You know, where God rules.
OK, so the improperly dressed man was ejected from the universe then.
OK. So where did he go? To mars or the moon? The text isn't real clear on that.
I'm showing you that Jesus believed that the kingdom was here and now, and not some future place. I think He's an expert on it.Which is what, exactly? The universe, or what part of it?
Why do you bring a different text to the discussion regarding Matt 22?
Proof? I showed that it's the state of those in hell. But I'll listen to your argument.The phrase refers to regret.
i believe in eternal rewards.Remember that the wiping away of "every tear" happens yet in the future. But you don't believe in eternal reward, so I don't suppose anything I say will be helpful.
Well, you are trying to desperately wiggle out of your statement that there will be weeping in heaven. So I expect that you believe this.Actually, several times.
He actually didn't. He made it to the feast. You are trying to make a parable walk on all fours. You are missing the point. He showed up doing things his own way. That was not acceptable. That's why he's cast out.I made a huge typo. I meant heaven, not hell. You still haven't explained how in that parable this so-called non-elect type actually got into the kingdom.
I have no idea what you're asking.OK, which part of the universe?
God's provisions. Being with Him while He provides what we need. It's present, not future. See Mark 1:15.Also, what does the wedding banquet represent? Yes, the marriage of the king's son. Got that. But what does the banquet represent?
God's provisions. Being with Him while He provides what we need. It's present, not future. See Mark 1:15.
As I'm sure you know, there's been lots of scholarly discussion on this topic. I think the most straightforward reading of Jesus is that the Kingdom is both present and future. There is the seed growing secretly that will bloom in the future, but there is the present Kingdom that Jesus spent his life (and death) establishing.
I see the present Kingdom as a foretaste of the full Kingdom.
I was trying to convey the idea that Judas was excluded. And you seem to have a short term memory?
It is very much issue brought up by Paul in verses 6-13!
Paul talks about: only Abrahams descendent son Isaac (a Jew) is heir to the promise and not the other son descendant of Abraham being Ishmael (a gentile).
Paul then follows with the promise went to Jacob a Jew and not Esau a gentile. Yes, the Jews were a very select group to fulfill a very wonderful objective.
So what will the gentile Christians be thinking and feeling after hearing from Paul how they were treated by God compared to the Jews in the beginning?
Do those stories sound like God is being a little unfair to the gentiles?
Were there lots of things promised Abraham? (land, number of descendants, being their God)
Were these same promises made to gentiles?
There was a promise concerning the seed singular made to Abraham, but the context of Pauls discussion here is about, the Jewish people and the gentile people.
The King James version is not helping you here.
KJV Thou wilt say then unto me is to convey the idea one of you will ask (Meaning one of the Christians from Pauls imaginary student this one being an imaginary gentile Christian will ask).
Again the KJV is doing you a disserves with vessels of dishonor and that is the reason I referred you to 2 Tim. 2: 20 even in the KJV it reads: 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
Would there be wood and earth vessels that were worthless (disgraceful/ to be burned up) kept in a great house?
Paul is saying there are not only special vessels but common vessels are in a great house, which is the same analogy Paul uses in Ro. 9: 21.
Common vessels (made of wood and clay in Tim.) are not made for destruction but for good purposes, but not the same special objective other vessels are made for.
The problem is both special vessels and common vessels can become damaged (sin) worthy of destruction. Now God can be very patient with these damaged vessels (common or special) and (this is not being addressed) we know an all-powerful potter could repair his vessels.
Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
The vessels of His mercy come from both the vessels made for a special purpose and vessels made for a common purpose Ro 9: 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Again it is because you assume: vessels of mercy = vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor = vessels of wrath, but that is not what Paul is saying. A better translation of the Greek would help you. Any vessel that becomes damaged has made itself a vessel made for destruction, but that is not the way it left Gods shop. All common and special vessels become damaged and God will patiently wait for the opportunity to be allowed to repair them.
How were they made to begin with?
Do you have a problem with God the potter repairing a common vessels, so it can fulfill its common purpose?
Vessels of honour in a 'chosen to service' sense, but not 'chosen to salvation'. I think we agree on this.
Both vessels; those created for a special purpose (you translate honor) and those created for a common purpose (you translate dishonor) all have a wonderful objective, but not the exact same purpose. They all become damaged and in need of the Potters repair, those that do not allow the potter to repair them, wind up in hell.
He was invited but not chosen.
Why was he there, though?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?