Natural and Spiritual

[chuckt]

why are you qouting scripture at me anout the law??  :dontknow:

[Nathan]

O.K. Bobf, I will go through your posts and find it for you.

MacPherson, I agree wholeheartedly with you in that the hyper-spiritual attemp at understanding the parable of the wheat and tares does turn into a maze with no exit.

If you meant it as a slam on what I have been writing, then, please, desist from further puerile statements and keep to the topic at hand.  :HeartThrob:

I believe that my understanding of that parable is the most logical and which does have an entrance and exit to it.

To the one who wrote about Peter being sifted by Satan as wheat: Again, that is not part of the parable of the wheat and tares. We need to keep to the topic. In the parable the angels do not do any sifting, they kick out of the kingdom all who make snares and do lawlessness.

Does this make sense to you?

So basically Tony, what you're saying to those who are quoting Scriptures that are not DIRECTLY connected to your stubborn stand on wheat and tares . . .according to you, are irrelevant?  What ever happened to letting Scripture interpret Scripture?  The walls around your city of opinions seems to be so thick that noone can get in and you can't get out.  It's very difficult to continue extending my hand to you in friendship only to have you reject it because it's not clean enough for you.

You keep trying to force everyone who posts on this thread to conform to your thinking, to your topic, to your way of interpretation and the bottom line is . . . the people posting who have been trying to share with you their positions just can not be controlled that way.  These aren't rabbit trails bro . . .it's all one big net.  Each line of thought is connected to another and those that can't step back and see the big picture for what it is, get frustrated because in their tunnel vision, the pieces don't seem to fit . .but when you come to the place when you're willing to realize that the mind of man, as great as it is, just doesn't have the capacity to see the whole picture when it comes to the things of God, "that" act will allow you to be able to see things beyond your natural reasoning and logic.   That's what faith is.  

Faith is the realm where God reveals Truth and life . . .it's not in how hard we study or how much we dig into definitions.  Those are great and help out my mind to put pieces together and all, but the key to life is not knowledge about things written of God . . .the key to life is having an intimate relationship "with" God.  Knowledge simply leads me to him, but only spirit can become a part of him.  There needs to be a separation there so that I can become complete "in" God.

It's great that so many here quote passages and with those passages share what they see in them .  .that's the purpose of Scripture, to launch you deeper in your relationship with Christ.  I'm with Rose . . . if I were just passing through this thread and read all the responses, it wouldn't take long to see where who it is that emits the abundant life and who it is that reflects religion.  I choose life.

The interesting thing about what's been happening here is, there are so many people that are willing to love on not only those that are in agreement, but those that are not as well.  But yet there's a sense of rejection that comes across from others who get so hung up on technicalities that they seem to be blind to the fact that the evidence of life in a person is the fact that regardless of their "belief" in a thing, it's the relationship with each other that is most important.  

Jesus didn't come so that he could reinforce and clarify the rules of God, even though there were many that God did establish.  Jesus came so that relationship with God could be restored.  So what if my take on wheat and tares isn't the same as yours . . is it worth all of the arguing?  The points to both sides have been thoroughly shared out.  If people are still on the fence at this point in the discussion, it's only God who will be able to convince them
because words are not cutting it anymore.

I for one do not disagree that your take on the wheat and tares has credence.  I can totally see that tares and wheat could very well be those for Christ and those against.  But I also believe that there's another way to look at it that takes it "internal" which for me is the spiritual reality of it.  To see it literally as people, is the natural . . .to see it as characteristics within "one" person is taking what is natural and seeing it's spiritual intent.

And I'm sure you're going to argue that the wheat and tare is the natural and applying it as people is the spiritual . . .and as I said before, it is meant to be seen that way as well, that's why Jesus explained it to the disciples.  But "that" field was ready for harvest "then".  The field was "white" and harvesters were few . . ."then".  

If the field was ready for harvest "then". . .what does that say of us today?  That was 2000 years ago.  The field I believe Jesus was eluding to then was those following the old Covenant were the tares and those following the New Covenant were the wheat.  But to try to reapply that literally again is eating yesterdays manna . . it's full of worms by now.

It's the Peter experience all over again.  Everyone has their opinion of who they think Jesus is, just as everyone has their own opinion as to what Jesus said.  "But who do YOU say that I am???"  Which to me is saying . . . there's an external interpretation and an "internal" one.  And for me . . .beings I'm going long with this anyway . . .I'll again, throw out this thought that we, like the tabernacle, are 3 dimensional beings.  And God . .who is our creator, is also a 3 dimensional God.  And the written Word sent by God, manifested through Christ, inspired by the Spirit, is to be digested in 3 dimensions as well.  

You've got the literal down . .the natural . . a field of wheat mixed with weeds.  I believe what Jesus explained to the disciples is the moral piece, the field being the world, the wheat being New Covenant people, the weeds being the religious minded people . . .but the spiritual picture is what makes it personal . .it takes it "internally".  "I" am a field and planted within me are wheat and weeds.  And don't tell me that you don't have both good and bad thoughts in you . . .Paul himself confessed to this and considered himself to be a wretched man because of it.

Bottom line . . . all of this bickering from you isn't bringing life to anyone.  No one is condemning you and yet you see yourself as a victim.  All I'm saying is, there's ALWAYS more than one way to see Truth, it all depends on what God reveals to "you".  And what is revealed, simply share . .if others see it differently, fine, if they see it the same as you, all the better.  If they don't stay directly on topic . . .ever think that maybe God is leading the conversation to another place where someone else is really hurting and needs to hear or read about something that may not be so directly related to "this" subject?  Are not all things orchestrated by God?  Wasn't that what God Abraham in trouble when he decided to take things into his own hands and produce a son by his own logical means?

Okay, I'm done. :soap: :soap: :soap:

[Zeek]

why are you qouting scripture at me anout the law??  :dontknow:

Ok, sorry for my approach;

I thought what u were saying along the lines of many in this thread is that the wheat and tares are within each of us, and the tares need to be burned out, which to me would have to be by the "wrath of God", destroying the tares.  

you would have to be under law, or a part of you under law, in order for the wrath of God to burn up you, or your "carnal man"

For me, the tares are  in reference to those stuck in the old covenant mindset, which I believe the scripture shows were HIS people, those given the old covenant; who were "soon" to be judged, and see their house come crashing down.  


sorry,

z

[chuckt]

why are you qouting scripture at me anout the law??  :dontknow:

Ok, sorry for my approach;

I thought what u were saying along the lines of many in this thread is that the wheat and tares are within each of us, and the tares need to be burned out, which to me would have to be by the "wrath of God", destroying the tares.  

For me, the tares are  in reference to those stuck in the old covenant mindset, which I believe the scripture shows were HIS people, those given the old covenant; who were "soon" to be judged, and see their house come crashing down.  


sorry,

z

ok look what you wrote, if the tarres are those STUCK in the  old covenant mindset i.e the LAW,  how do they COME OUT? were you at anytime stuck in a mindset of do's and dont's? and if so, did God BURN it out of you? and if one does not come out will they not experience the ""fire"" at a later time? again...IS WAS and WILL BE  :mshock:

peace
chuckt

[Zeek]

why are you qouting scripture at me anout the law??  :dontknow:

Ok, sorry for my approach;

I thought what u were saying along the lines of many in this thread is that the wheat and tares are within each of us, and the tares need to be burned out, which to me would have to be by the "wrath of God", destroying the tares.  

For me, the tares are  in reference to those stuck in the old covenant mindset, which I believe the scripture shows were HIS people, those given the old covenant; who were "soon" to be judged, and see their house come crashing down.  


sorry,

z

ok look what you wrote, if the tarres are those STUCK in the  old covenant mindset i.e the LAW,  how do they COME OUT? were you at anytime stuck in a mindset of do's and dont's? and if so, did God BURN it out of you? and if one does not come out will they not experience the ""fire"" at a later time? again...IS WAS and WILL BE  :mshock:

peace
chuckt

Never have i been under law.  That was an agreement between God and his people.  God made the agreement/covenant with them.  He gave them the temple, he gave them the ceremonial rituals, etc.  These were never given to me. 

They have all been fulfilled in HIM. 

[Taffy]

For me, the tares are  in reference to those stuck in the old covenant mindset, which I believe the scripture shows were HIS people, those given the old covenant; who were "soon" to be judged, and see their house come crashing down.

personally Zeek, I have no problem withis take either  :icon_flower:

[chuckt]

They have all been fulfilled in HIM. 

i agree Zeek, im still sorta confused as to why we are discussing this.

Never have i been under law

good glad to hear it.


God bless
euty

[Cardinal]

Too often people have reduced it to speaking words while they're exercised in prayer.  That will move mountains if you doubt not in your heart; but, so much is happening daily by what we do or do not do and we may not be all that aware of it.  When you live holy before the Lord, your very presence is a rebuke to this wicked and perverse generation.  What you stand for in so many ways is like salt that preserves the culture from quick rot.

Humankind is meant to be God's wife.  When men in the church who are betrothed as a chaste virgin unto one, even Christ; that is, they are to joined directly to the Lord, but they have intimate relations instead with a religious system, tradition's doctrine or mere ritual practice, or are even more directly subservient to other men in those things in which they are to be faithful to God alone, it releases in the earthly realm those carnal perversions of men with men.  Trace it out and you will see this is true.

:cloud9: AMEN.

Pr 4:7 - Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

[Cardinal]

O.K. Bobf, I will go through your posts and find it for you.

MacPherson, I agree wholeheartedly with you in that the hyper-spiritual attemp at understanding the parable of the wheat and tares does turn into a maze with no exit.

If you meant it as a slam on what I have been writing, then, please, desist from further puerile statements and keep to the topic at hand.  :HeartThrob:

I believe that my understanding of that parable is the most logical and which does have an entrance and exit to it.

To the one who wrote about Peter being sifted by Satan as wheat: Again, that is not part of the parable of the wheat and tares. We need to keep to the topic. In the parable the angels do not do any sifting, they kick out of the kingdom all who make snares and do lawlessness.

Does this make sense to you?

So basically Tony, what you're saying to those who are quoting Scriptures that are not DIRECTLY connected to your stubborn stand on wheat and tares . . .according to you, are irrelevant?  What ever happened to letting Scripture interpret Scripture?  The walls around your city of opinions seems to be so thick that noone can get in and you can't get out.  It's very difficult to continue extending my hand to you in friendship only to have you reject it because it's not clean enough for you.

You keep trying to force everyone who posts on this thread to conform to your thinking, to your topic, to your way of interpretation and the bottom line is . . . the people posting who have been trying to share with you their positions just can not be controlled that way.  These aren't rabbit trails bro . . .it's all one big net.  Each line of thought is connected to another and those that can't step back and see the big picture for what it is, get frustrated because in their tunnel vision, the pieces don't seem to fit . .but when you come to the place when you're willing to realize that the mind of man, as great as it is, just doesn't have the capacity to see the whole picture when it comes to the things of God, "that" act will allow you to be able to see things beyond your natural reasoning and logic.   That's what faith is.  

Faith is the realm where God reveals Truth and life . . .it's not in how hard we study or how much we dig into definitions.  Those are great and help out my mind to put pieces together and all, but the key to life is not knowledge about things written of God . . .the key to life is having an intimate relationship "with" God.  Knowledge simply leads me to him, but only spirit can become a part of him.  There needs to be a separation there so that I can become complete "in" God.

It's great that so many here quote passages and with those passages share what they see in them .  .that's the purpose of Scripture, to launch you deeper in your relationship with Christ.  I'm with Rose . . . if I were just passing through this thread and read all the responses, it wouldn't take long to see where who it is that emits the abundant life and who it is that reflects religion.  I choose life.

The interesting thing about what's been happening here is, there are so many people that are willing to love on not only those that are in agreement, but those that are not as well.  But yet there's a sense of rejection that comes across from others who get so hung up on technicalities that they seem to be blind to the fact that the evidence of life in a person is the fact that regardless of their "belief" in a thing, it's the relationship with each other that is most important.  

Jesus didn't come so that he could reinforce and clarify the rules of God, even though there were many that God did establish.  Jesus came so that relationship with God could be restored.  So what if my take on wheat and tares isn't the same as yours . . is it worth all of the arguing?  The points to both sides have been thoroughly shared out.  If people are still on the fence at this point in the discussion, it's only God who will be able to convince them
because words are not cutting it anymore.

I for one do not disagree that your take on the wheat and tares has credence.  I can totally see that tares and wheat could very well be those for Christ and those against.  But I also believe that there's another way to look at it that takes it "internal" which for me is the spiritual reality of it.  To see it literally as people, is the natural . . .to see it as characteristics within "one" person is taking what is natural and seeing it's spiritual intent.

And I'm sure you're going to argue that the wheat and tare is the natural and applying it as people is the spiritual . . .and as I said before, it is meant to be seen that way as well, that's why Jesus explained it to the disciples.  But "that" field was ready for harvest "then".  The field was "white" and harvesters were few . . ."then".  

If the field was ready for harvest "then". . .what does that say of us today?  That was 2000 years ago.  The field I believe Jesus was eluding to then was those following the old Covenant were the tares and those following the New Covenant were the wheat.  But to try to reapply that literally again is eating yesterdays manna . . it's full of worms by now.

It's the Peter experience all over again.  Everyone has their opinion of who they think Jesus is, just as everyone has their own opinion as to what Jesus said.  "But who do YOU say that I am???"  Which to me is saying . . . there's an external interpretation and an "internal" one.  And for me . . .beings I'm going long with this anyway . . .I'll again, throw out this thought that we, like the tabernacle, are 3 dimensional beings.  And God . .who is our creator, is also a 3 dimensional God.  And the written Word sent by God, manifested through Christ, inspired by the Spirit, is to be digested in 3 dimensions as well.  

You've got the literal down . .the natural . . a field of wheat mixed with weeds.  I believe what Jesus explained to the disciples is the moral piece, the field being the world, the wheat being New Covenant people, the weeds being the religious minded people . . .but the spiritual picture is what makes it personal . .it takes it "internally".  "I" am a field and planted within me are wheat and weeds.  And don't tell me that you don't have both good and bad thoughts in you . . .Paul himself confessed to this and considered himself to be a wretched man because of it.

Bottom line . . . all of this bickering from you isn't bringing life to anyone.  No one is condemning you and yet you see yourself as a victim.  All I'm saying is, there's ALWAYS more than one way to see Truth, it all depends on what God reveals to "you".  And what is revealed, simply share . .if others see it differently, fine, if they see it the same as you, all the better.  If they don't stay directly on topic . . .ever think that maybe God is leading the conversation to another place where someone else is really hurting and needs to hear or read about something that may not be so directly related to "this" subject?  Are not all things orchestrated by God?  Wasn't that what God Abraham in trouble when he decided to take things into his own hands and produce a son by his own logical means?

Okay, I'm done. :soap: :soap: :soap:

:cloud9: Nathan, there are so many good points in this, all I want to say is, AMEN.  :thumbsup:

[Taffy]

Okay, I'm done. :soap: :soap: :soap:

Can I quote you on that :laughing7:

[Nathan]

Okay, I'm done. :soap: :soap: :soap:

Can I quote you on that :laughing7:

I thought your response was cute . .but I also thought it was responding to Cardinal . . . when I realized it was directed to me . . . it made me LAUGH OUT LOUD . . .A LOT. 

So for the Taffy's out there, let me clarify the "doneness".  I was not suggesting I'm done in all fields . . I'm just done harvesting THAT particular one. 

That better Taf????

[Taffy]

Okay, I'm done. :soap: :soap: :soap:

Can I quote you on that :laughing7:

I thought your response was cute . .but I also thought it was responding to Cardinal . . . when I realized it was directed to me . . . it made me LAUGH OUT LOUD . . .A LOT. 

So for the Taffy's out there, let me clarify the "doneness".  I was not suggesting I'm done in all fields . . I'm just done harvesting THAT particular one. 

That better Taf????

I didnt think you were Done for a Minute Nat..Kinda sounded funny to me when I read it thou  ,and yup I know what ya mean :laughing7:

[bobf]

Dear Bob,
Here is what you wrote earlier. I will italicize it and make it blue and bold:

So you see Bob, I am correct.

No Tony you are not correct.  Find where I said the underlined part and then quote me please:

"The important point I was making was that Bob was saying that "sons of the kingdom" can't be people because a kingdom can't beget people."

[Tony N]

Dear Nathan,
I'm sorry you think that I believe anyone who disagrees with me is so unclean I cannot even shake their hand. That, friend, is a slam and is a tactic called poisoning of the well and ad hominum attack as if it proves anything. I never thought that about anyone here.

Secondly, Your saying my stand is a "stubborn stand" again is an ad hominem attack, which again, friend, proves nothing. After all, I started the thread and should be allowed to try to keep people on track. All the personal chit chat that has gone on in this thread should have gone to the other message board.

I have found that when someone such as you posts a very long thread attacking me and what I write about the thread is usually locked down. So I can only surmise this is just another attempt to lock the thread so people don't get more understanding on this topic. Maybe I'm wrong but this is just what I've seen.

I could reply in depth to your letter. It is nice you see what I believe concerning the wheat and the tares while at the same time you bloody my nose  :laughing7: But if I reply to all you've said I will be going off topic.

I'm not saying there are not any spiritual meanings to the things we take as natural in the Scriptures. But I am saying that Jesus told us exactly what the two different seeds were and they are not what Bobf stated.
To state that something is not what my Lord said it is is not of faith. Faith is believing what God has said. Unbelief is not believing what God has said.

The more Bob and I connect on this matter and Molly and Fireinfolding and others the more we all understand each others stand on the matter. That is good, wouldn't you say?

[Nathan]

Sorry about the bloody nose, but that axe does swing both ways.  You threw some punches at Rose with no apologies so I figured it was a free fight.  The only difference between her and I was, I knew going in my post would have a bite to it, and she had no idea that her prayer would be taken in offense.  And to be honest, I really considered deleting some of the sting out of it.  But in my own flesh, I elected to leave it as originally written.  It was from the heart . . which is to say, I don't mean to beat you up because it's fun.  But some of your stuff is just as aggressive so I figured you could handle what little I do throw out from time to time.

[Tony N]

Dear Bob,
Here is what you wrote earlier. I will italicize it and make it blue and bold:

So you see Bob, I am correct.

No Tony you are not correct.  Find where I said the underlined part and then quote me please:

"The important point I was making was that Bob was saying that "sons of the kingdom" can't be people because a kingdom can't beget people."

You stated:
How do you know Christ's explanation of the wheat & tares was literal & plain?
How can a kingdom literally have children?
How can Satan literally have children?  Serpent seed doctrine?
Will unbelievers literally be burned in a literal furnace of literal fire?  Is a lake a furnace?
How would removing unbelievers from the midst of the faithful uproot the faithful?
If Jesus was speaking plainly then why did He say "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear"?

So I took from what you wrote above in blue that the kingdom cannot literally have children.
If someone came up to me and asked me "Tony can a turtle literally have kittens" I would take that to mean he does not believe that a turtle can beget kittens. When Bob asked the question "How can a kingdom literally have children" he is telling me that the kingdom cannot beget people.

Now I will say I was wrong in saying bob said "sons of the kingdom cannot beget people." I meant to say that  Bob was saying in a round-about way that "the kingdom cannot beget people" according to what Bob said.

But my post still stands. Bob thinks the good seed is a concept and not people. He also believes that the bad seed is a concept and not people.

[bobf]

You stated:
How do you know Christ's explanation of the wheat & tares was literal & plain?
How can a kingdom literally have children?
How can Satan literally have children?  Serpent seed doctrine?
Will unbelievers literally be burned in a literal furnace of literal fire?  Is a lake a furnace?
How would removing unbelievers from the midst of the faithful uproot the faithful?
If Jesus was speaking plainly then why did He say "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear"?

So I took from what you wrote above in blue that the kingdom cannot literally have children.
If someone came up to me and asked me "Tony can a turtle literally have kittens" I would take that to mean he does not believe that a turtle can beget kittens. When Bob asked the question "How can a kingdom literally have children" he is telling me that the kingdom cannot beget people.

Now I will say I was wrong in saying bob said "sons of the kingdom cannot beget people." I meant to say that  Bob was saying in a round-about way that "the kingdom cannot beget people" according to what Bob said.

But my post still stands. Bob thinks the good seed is a concept and not people. He also believes that the bad seed is a concept and not people.

Ok Tony I see where you got that, but no, that was not the argument I was making at all.  I was not arguing that because a kingdom can not literally beget people that therefore "children" must refer to non-people (the kingdom or satan could figuratively beget certain types of people).  I was arguing that Chirst's words are not 100% literal because a Kingdom can not literally have (literally beget) children (people or otherwise) and Satan does not literally have (literally beget) children, which is the sepent seed doctrine.  Since no one here (just about anyway) believes the serpent seed doctrine, we all take those words non-literally to some extent.  That is what I was arguing.

"he is telling me that the kingdom cannot beget people"  no, he is telling you that a kingdom can not literally beget people and that the language is therefore figurative whether one takes "children" as people or not.  If someone asked "Can Beethoven literally give birth to the 9th Symphony?" it means that the phrase "Beethoven gave birth to the 9th Symphony" is figurative, but it would not mean that the person is arguing that the "9th Symphony" is figurative.  I do not believe that the phrase "children of the kingdom" is synonomous with "certain people God elected to enter the kingdom", but not for the reason you stated.

[Tony N]

Dear Bob, can we both agree that a figure can only go so far?

The Daughters of the Revolution, are they literally daughters?
Sure, the Revolution did not literaly beget them but this does not mean that the literal daughters of the literal revolution were not originated by literal daughters who were part of the literal revolution.

Likewise the sons of the kingdom. We know that a kingdom cannot literally beget sons. But the sons can be part of that kingdom and live amongst that kingdom.

Now He, answering, said, "He Who is sowing the ideal seed is the Son of Mankind."  (Mat 13:37)
Did mankind literally beget the Son, Jesus Christ? That is a figure. Yet we know that there is a literal Son of Mankind.

Now the field is the world. Now the ideal seed, these are the sons of the kingdom. Now the darnel are the sons of the wicked one."  (Mat 13:38)

I believe that there is such a literal place I know as the world.
I know that there are literally sons of the kingdom.
I know that there literally is a "wicked one" and that there are literally sons of the wicked one.

Now the enemy who sows them is the Adversary. Now the harvest is the conclusion of the eon. Now the reapers are messengers.  (Mat 13:39)

I know there really is a being called the Adversary.
I know there really a conclusion coming to this eon.
I know there really are messengers or angels.

Even as the darnel, then, are being culled and burned up with fire, thus shall it be in the conclusion of the eon."  (Mat 13:40)

I know that at least the farmers in Israel used to cull the darnel and burn it up with fire. It will be like that when the conclusion comes to this eon in which we live.

The Son of Mankind shall be dispatching His messengers, and they shall be culling out of His kingdom all the snares and those doing lawlessness,  (Mat 13:41)

I believe the Son of Mankind literaly is Jesus.
I believe the messengers He will dispatch are literally angels.
I believe those angels literally will take out of His kingdom all the snares and those doing lawlessness.

and they shall be casting them into a furnace of fire. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth.  (Mat 13:42)

When Israel was held captive over 400 years by Egypt they were said to be in a furnace.

Deu 4:20  But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.
1Ki 8:51  For they be thy people, and thine inheritance, which thou broughtest forth out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron:

Isa 48:10  Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.
So it is affliction's furnace. The affliction was like a furnace in that one cannot get out and it is hot and miserable inside.

Jer 11:4  Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God:

Jeremiah saw the future in which Israel would again go into the furnace:
Eze 22:22  As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I the LORD have poured out my fury upon you.

No, it is not a literal furnace of fire but it represents the Lord pouring out His fury on them.

And now, once again, the sons of the wicked one, those making snares and doing lawlessness are going to go into the furnace of fire. Not a literal furnace of fire but it will be a fiery trial for them cast outside of the kingdom.

Was it a literal furnace? No. But there is a literal chastening they must go through. There is nothing "spiritual" about this. It is a judgment upon them.

I have asked this of you several times and didn't receive much of a response:

You stated earlier this:
"- Tares means children of the adversary, but not literal children, those who do the works of Satan."

Since Jesus despatches the angels when this eon is ending to kick out of the kingdom all the sons of the wicked one, how was the seed of the wicked one taken out of Paul since his conversion was almost 2000  years ago and the eon has not ended yet?
Remember the tares have to grow up with the wheat until the end of the eon and then at the end of the eon Jesus sends the angels to take out of the kingdom all the tares.

consider this please:

Mat 13:47-50  Again, like is the kingdom of the heavens to a dragnet cast into the sea, which gathers of every species,  (48)  and, when it was filled full, hauling it up on the beach and being seated, they cull the ideal into crocks, yet the rotten they cast out."  (49)  Thus shall it be in the conclusion of the eon. The messengers will be coming out and they will be severing the wicked from the midst of the just.  (50)  And they shall be casting them into a furnace of fire. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth.

How can the drag net be the human body having a mind and flesh?
This parable is likened to the parable of the wheat and tares.
How can the teachings of the adversary (according to you) being the tares (according to you) lament and gnash its teeth when it comes out of the person?

You stated that:

Jesus sows His Seed which are His Words of Truth into the minds & hearts of people.
Satan sows his seed which are his lies & deception into the minds & hearts of people

How can lies and deception lament and gnash its teeth?

Can you please answer these questions?

BTW I'm not mad at anyone nor being mean in my posts. I just want to know what you believe about these things.

Tony

[Paul Hazelwood]

I know that there literally is a "wicked one" and that there are literally sons of the wicked one.

We can get into muddy waters over this.   Spiritual things are literal because they exist, not necessarily being what is literally described. 

I think there is a fine line between the physical and spiritual, natural, supernatural.  These terms are used because it is about the only way we can describe things.  In reality everything can be physical and natural because they all exist.

Literally God is a consuming fire, but not literally a flame at the end of a match, yet, the flame at the end of a match could not exist without God.


A literal son of the wicked one is what?

[bobf]

Likewise the sons of the kingdom. We know that a kingdom cannot literally beget sons. But the sons can be part of that kingdom and live amongst that kingdom.

I agree, but I was never making the argument you thought I was making.

When I said "children of the kingdom" are not people, I meant it in the sense that your interpetation implies, that the "children of the kingdom" is synonomous with certain people, elected and designated as "wheat" in this world.

Based on you earlier comments (esp. about election)  my understanding of your view of the parable runs like this:
God elected certain people before they were even born, to enter His kingdom.
Let's say one of those certain people is John Smith.
God "planted" John Smith in the world (I'm not sure what/when you think "planting" corresponds to).
John smith is an example of "wheat" in the parable
John Smith lives out his entire life as "wheat" and if alive at the end of the eon he is harvested into the kingdom, otherwise he's resurrected and harvested.

So "wheat" becomes synonomous with certain people whom God elected and "tares" becomes synonmous with other people.  And that is what I disagree with and why I said "wheat are not people" and "tares are not people".

John Smith, although elected and in the world, was not always a "child of the kingdom", in fact John Smith was a "child of the wicked one" at one time.  I know this because John Smith was doing unrighteousness at one time which is the definition of "child of the devil".

• Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

In the parable, the wheat and tares in the field do not change identities.
In the world, a physical person changes identities from "child of the devil" to "child of the kingdom"
The spirit of God born within a person never changes hats.
The carnal mind never changes hats.
That is the reason I associate the tares & wheat with those spirits rather than certain people elected or not.

At the same time, a whole person led by the spirit of God is a Son of God, a child of the kingdom.
A whole person led by the carnal mind is none of His, a child of the devil.

IOW it is not whether a person was elected by God before he was born that makes him a child of the kingdom.  It is whether he is doing righteousness or not.

I have asked this of you several times and didn't receive much of a response:

You stated earlier this:
"- Tares means children of the adversary, but not literal children, those who do the works of Satan."

Since Jesus despatches the angels when this eon is ending to kick out of the kingdom all the sons of the wicked one, how was the seed of the wicked one taken out of Paul since his conversion was almost 2000  years ago and the eon has not ended yet?
Remember the tares have to grow up with the wheat until the end of the eon and then at the end of the eon Jesus sends the angels to take out of the kingdom all the tares.

I believe I did answer.  The ends of the eons were come upon Paul.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world [ends of the eons] are come.

Mat 13:47-50  Again, like is the kingdom of the heavens to a dragnet cast into the sea, which gathers of every species,  (48)  and, when it was filled full, hauling it up on the beach and being seated, they cull the ideal into crocks, yet the rotten they cast out."  (49)  Thus shall it be in the conclusion of the eon. The messengers will be coming out and they will be severing the wicked from the midst of the just.  (50)  And they shall be casting them into a furnace of fire. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth.

How can the drag net be the human body having a mind and flesh?
This parable is likened to the parable of the wheat and tares.

I don't equate the net with the human body.  I equate the net & separation process with judgment.

How can the teachings of the adversary (according to you) being the tares (according to you) lament and gnash its teeth when it comes out of the person?

You stated that:
Jesus sows His Seed which are His Words of Truth into the minds & hearts of people.
Satan sows his seed which are his lies & deception into the minds & hearts of people.

How can lies and deception lament and gnash its teeth?

The lies and deception is only the seed that is planted in the heart of man.  It grows into a spirit, which I think of as a type of mind, a nature, a way of being, and thinking.  Just as Paul's inner man (which I think is the spirit of God) delights in the law of God, the carnal mind can weep and gnash when it's desires are denied.  If the carnal mind can "lust" and be "enmity agaisnt God" why can't it wail and gnash?

Can you tell me exatly what it means to you for God & Satan to PLANT seed in the world.  What's are they actually doing and when?  What literal events do those correspond to.

[Tony N]

Hi Bob, thanks for further clarifying of your position.
In a sense I feel like the goal posts keep getting moved. It is going to take me some time to digest what you have just written.

Fireinfold, thanks for your kind comment. It is appreciated as are you.

Tony

[MacPherson]

So it is going off on a rabbit trail to try to get the ole hound to go sniffing after other things rather than what the thread is about, if you get my drift.

I know I get it :laughing7:
More like a maze with no exit than a rabbit trail though. :happy3:

Those that do not remember the past; merely repeat it.

That's why I'm staying out of this thread for the most part. :happygrin:

[MacPherson]

If you meant it as a slam on what I have been writing, then, please, desist from further puerile statements and keep to the topic at hand.  :HeartThrob:

Just calling them as I see them, and will continue to poke yer ribs, as I take a notion.

Interesting thing about that word "puerile". I've seen people use it on the internet. Usually a young person wanting to bolster his vocabulary. But I don't believe I've actually ever heard it spoken.

I believe that my understanding of that parable is the most logical and which does have an entrance and exit to it.

Well, that's one opinion. Ever get nosebleeds at that altitude, bro? :icon_jokercolor:

[Tony N]

If you meant it as a slam on what I have been writing, then, please, desist from further puerile statements and keep to the topic at hand.  :HeartThrob:

Just calling them as I see them, and will continue to poke yer ribs, as I take a notion.

Interesting thing about that word "puerile". I've seen people use it on the internet. Usually a young person wanting to bolster his vocabulary. But I don't believe I've actually ever heard it spoken.

I believe that my understanding of that parable is the most logical and which does have an entrance and exit to it.

Well, that's one opinion. Ever get nosebleeds at that altitude, bro? :icon_jokercolor:

Hi friend, Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. My altitude is so low I have to look up to everyone. O.K. false humility. But really, any knowledge espoused by me should not be construed to mean that I am higher than anyone else. Sometimes the best way to become perspicacious as to  another's position is to cause one to explicate it in a way that is more apprehensible. Hence the questions and answers. This is also an excellent way to learn new things concerning one's position and other's positions as to scriptural matters. There seems to be a common thread from posters here who do not fully agree with what I have written on this topic that I am mean, biting, proud, etc. etc. etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who truly knows me knows that I am meek and lowly of heart. But I will say this: I am like a pit bull dog and won't let go till I understand something.

[MacPherson]

Hi friend, Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. My altitude is so low I have to look up to everyone. O.K. false humility. But really, any knowledge espoused by me should not be construed to mean that I am higher than anyone else. Sometimes the best way to become perspicacious as to  another's position is to cause one to explicate it in a way that is more apprehensible.

Huh? :tease: