Some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty

[ScottA]

And what exactly have I done?

Must I repeat what I have already said?

You pit what is natural against that which is spiritual, as if your rebuttal was righteous, when both God and his word are spirit.

 

[in His rest]

And it's apparent you don't have a firm grip on simple math, and don't know how this works.

Is that all you think the passage says? Apparently so. But that was just the beginning of the equation--the seeding and prospective harvest part. What of the end and the actual harvest? What is the measure of God dealing with the outcome? Did you even think to consider it? He who planted also harvests--and your believing only in the elementary principles of Christ is part--the strong delusion part. But you did not perceive the matter any further than you were able...and so you mock. Do you not know and understand that you risk even what you have being taken from you?

What shall be written of you?

Looks like some one is having a hard time of it. Sorry you are so bitter my Friend, we are actually expounding on what the text actually said....and you have acknowleded that.

Now you are speaking about something that is foreign to the actual context of the passage.

Here is the immediate context:

13"That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. 2 And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat down. And the whole crowd stood on the beach. 3 And he told them many things in parables, saying:


The Parable of the Sower Explained
18 “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.

What of the end and the actual harvest? What is the measure of God dealing with the outcome? Did you even think to consider it? He who planted also harvests--and your believing only in the elementary principles of Christ is part--the strong delusion part. But you did not perceive the matter any further than you were able...and so you mock. Do you not know and understand that you risk even what you have being taken from you?

Friend....lets continue this conversation so I can better understand you......Can you show me from the passage of the sower the parts I am missing? I would appreciate it greatly

 

[in His rest]

Must I repeat what I have already said?

You pit what is natural against that which is spiritual, as if your rebuttal was righteous, when both God and his word are spirit.

This is where Im having a hard time. Please explain your definition when you say what is spiritual. I explained what I meant by natural reading...please explain your terms. The word is deeply broad and can mean many things. I dont know what you are talking about are your meaning in the way you use it Kindly break it down please?

And taking a second look at this posting by you....I only gave you what the bible said in Matthew 13 from the context. It was the plain natural reading of the word. But you say at first I pit that agiant the spiritual. How can that be when I gave you bible? Friend you seem to have what is known as a strawman. I think I am being set up for a bunch of twist and turns.... for clarification...You said "Iwhen both God and his word are spirit"

I gave you written word of God, is that not good enough for you...you say I pit that [word of God} against the Spirit. I hope this isnt full of twist and turns....but lets kindly finish this converstation....its refreshing!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Like the Commandments, on those two false teachings hang all.

So you believe the Penteteuch and the New Testament are false teachings. I worry that you are even saved. Do you even know how one gets eternal life from god?

 

[ScottA]

Looks like some one is having a hard time of it. Sorry you are so bitter my Friend, we are actually expounding on what the text actually said....and you have acknowleded that.

Now you are speaking about something that is foreign to the actual context of the passage.

Here is the immediate context:

13"That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. 2 And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat down. And the whole crowd stood on the beach. 3 And he told them many things in parables, saying:


The Parable of the Sower Explained
18 “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.



Friend....lets continue this conversation so I can better understand you......Can you show me from the passage of the sower the parts I am missing? I would appreciate it greatly

I don't mean to sound negative, even if that has been the response of some, or at all change what the passage says. But rather point out what is not said, but is included in the overall salvation plan of God. Which is not adding to scripture, for which there are warnings. To which I would ask-- Has anyone actually sent by God, violated John's warning of adding or taking away?

But what did you think, that before they spring forth God would not also tell us the finish when the times were fulfilled? Why do those who claim "It is finished" does not mean all is finished, also claim it is when it comes to anything they themselves may or may not fully understand? There is much that is written regarding the finish of the harvest--but smack in the middle of just how that is understood by many, are also false teachers and strong delusion--and what...the result is a clear and accurate account based on the written word of God still, and all the more confused, over time?

That brings us to where the Priests and the Pharisees were when Christ began those immortal words. And these times are not greatly different. Which, sorry if this offends--but at that time Jesus said "all truth" was yet to come. And no, not just among the twelve, but unto the end of the age. By what pattern and established method of God who never changes? "Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.”

Meaning, Jesus, and the twelve (including Paul), only began the "also to the Greek" (gentiles) portion--yes, finishing much from the start. But some things were only alluded to, and some sealed only to be revealed when the seventh angel is about to sound.

How far did you want me to go?

Shall I include that Paul's mission to the gentiles was just the beginning and a preparation for the long road ahead--of building what would be torn down just as no stone of the Temple was to be left unturned?

Do you need clarification before going on?

 

[ScottA]

This is where Im having a hard time. Please explain your definition when you say what is spiritual. I explained what I meant by natural reading...please explain your terms. The word is deeply broad and can mean many things. I dont know what you are talking about are your meaning in the way you use it Kindly break it down please?

And taking a second look at this posting by you....I only gave you what the bible said in Matthew 13 from the context. It was the plain natural reading of the word. But you say at first I pit that agiant the spiritual. How can that be when I gave you bible? Friend you seem to have what is known as a strawman. I think I am being set up for a bunch of twist and turns.... for clarification...You said "Iwhen both God and his word are spirit"

I gave you written word of God, is that not good enough for you...you say I pit that [word of God} against the Spirit. I hope this isnt full of twist and turns....but lets kindly finish this converstation....its refreshing!

The terms a abide by are not my own, but God's: God is spiritual. That which is natural, is against the spirit, without any actual communion. We do share the same space for a time. But we are first darkness, born of darkness, and fallen--and flesh is a mere covering of worldly elements for that time which is passing away. God is spirit, and those who are born of God (born again) are not of this world, and not natural according to the worldly definition. Being of one nature or another, is different. One born of the flesh has a worldly nature, but one born from the spirit of God has a Godly nature, a spiritual nature. Likewise, there are both good and evil "spirits", each having it own nature. Nature in that case, and by that definition, refers rather to ones standing, whether good or evil.

As for you pitting the natural against the spiritual, I had already begun to reveal more than what can be defined and natural. Hence your response. I don't blame you for doing so. The Bible is good--very good--but perfection was to come! And there is a clear line between the natural and the spiritual before God...which is not simply described by seed and harvest parable language. Those are the elementary principles of Christ--barely touch upon by Paul, but he did it for a reason. That is the purpose and the point I had hoped to transcend in this thread. Thank you--it's time!

 

[ScottA]

So you believe the Penteteuch and the New Testament are false teachings. I worry that you are even saved. Do you even know how one gets eternal life from god?

Well, no wonder! First you need to understand what I said, and not read into it your worse ideas.

And, no...you just "twisted" what I have said. Why should I even respond to you--do you not know that we should not "cast our pearls to swine?"

You deserved that. I have said nothing of what you have assumed and stated here above. After twisting, assuming, blaming--you then question my salvation, breaking a forum rule? And you scream when I report you--ha!

But, for those looking on, YES I believe all of scripture--and to the contrary, against your false witness--I have been advocating for what is True, and against the foretold "false teachings" that began in the first century and are still taught unto this day as what is considered the most believed and popular doctrine.

 

[CTK]

There are many lessons to be learned from Jesus' parable of the sower in Matthew chapter 13. And it is easy to see and understand Jesus speaking of different percentages of profit unto the kingdom that come from His words falling on good soil. But hearing and seeing--did you notice that those percentages chronologically--diminish and become smaller and smaller?

Which He did repeatedly saying: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" Three or more times in the gospels, and then again seven times in the book of Revelation. Only in the book of Revelation He actually says, what to hear: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

It is interesting that these parables of the sower discuss how the Word of God will be heard / received / and put into practice to produce fruit.

1) If we look at Matthew, he records the percentages in a descending order of 100 %, 60 % and then 30 %,

2) If we look at Mark, he records the percentage in an ascending order of 30 %, 60 % and then 100 %,

3) If we look at Luke, he records one percentage at 100 %.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the above?

 

[ScottA]

It is interesting that these parables of the sower discuss how the Word of God will be heard / received / and put into practice to produce fruit.

1) If we look at Matthew, he records the percentages in a descending order of 100 %, 60 % and then 30 %,

2) If we look at Mark, he records the percentage in an ascending order of 30 %, 60 % and then 100 %,

3) If we look at Luke, he records one percentage at 100 %.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the above?

I was specifically addressing the numbers as diminishing purposely, as it is so apparent during these present times.

But you make a good point--and yes, some is just the opposite of diminishing, and some is pure--Hallelujah! Two out of three ain't bad! Which is a good reminder that God is working all things together for good for those who love Him according to His purpose, in spite of those diminishing elements also among us.

Still, we have good reason to be concerned, as Zechariah (13) said, two-thirds will perish.

 

[CTK]

I was specifically addressing the numbers as diminishing purposely, as it is so apparent during these present times.

But you make a good point--and yes, some is just the opposite and some is pure--Hallelujah! Two out of three ain't bad! Which is a good reminder that God is working all things together for good for those who love Him according to His purpose, in spite of those diminishing elements also among us.

Still, we have good reason to be concerned, as Zechariah (13) said, two-thirds will perish.

Well, as you know, God does not do anything without a perfect reason. So, the very different percentages and the their order must be unpacked and interpreted - there is probably much behind this....

 

[bdavidc]

There are many lessons to be learned from Jesus' parable of the sower in Matthew chapter 13. And it is easy to see and understand Jesus speaking of different percentages of profit unto the kingdom that come from His words falling on good soil. But hearing and seeing--did you notice that those percentages chronologically--diminish and become smaller and smaller?

Which He did repeatedly saying: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" Three or more times in the gospels, and then again seven times in the book of Revelation. Only in the book of Revelation He actually says, what to hear: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

I do not believe the text supports what you are claiming here. Matthew records the fruit as “an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold” (Matthew 13:8, KJV), but Mark records it in the opposite order: “thirtyfold, sixty, and an hundred” (Mark 4:8, KJV). Luke simply says it “bare fruit an hundredfold” (Luke 8:8, KJV).

Therefore, the order cannot be used to teach that fruit chronologically diminishes over time. If the descending order in Matthew carries that meaning, then the ascending order in Mark would teach the exact opposite. Scripture does not contradict itself. The problem is not the text. The problem is reading a meaning into the order that Jesus never explained.

These are also not percentages of “profit unto the kingdom.” They describe different measures of fruit produced by those who truly receive and understand the Word. Jesus explained it plainly: “He that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit” (Matthew 13:23, KJV).

The words, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” are a command to pay attention and receive the truth. They are not a clue telling us to search for hidden chronological patterns. Likewise, when Revelation says, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches,” the message to be heard is the actual warning, correction, and promise Christ gives to each church.

We need to stay with what the text actually says. Matthew 13 teaches different responses to the Word and different measures of fruit. It does not teach a gradual historical decline based on the order of thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.

 

[ScottA]

I do not believe the text supports what you are claiming here. Matthew records the fruit as “an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold” (Matthew 13:8, KJV), but Mark records it in the opposite order: “thirtyfold, sixty, and an hundred” (Mark 4:8, KJV). Luke simply says it “bare fruit an hundredfold” (Luke 8:8, KJV).

Therefore, the order cannot be used to teach that fruit chronologically diminishes over time. If the descending order in Matthew carries that meaning, then the ascending order in Mark would teach the exact opposite. Scripture does not contradict itself. The problem is not the text. The problem is reading a meaning into the order that Jesus never explained.

These are also not percentages of “profit unto the kingdom.” They describe different measures of fruit produced by those who truly receive and understand the Word. Jesus explained it plainly: “He that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit” (Matthew 13:23, KJV).

The words, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” are a command to pay attention and receive the truth. They are not a clue telling us to search for hidden chronological patterns. Likewise, when Revelation says, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches,” the message to be heard is the actual warning, correction, and promise Christ gives to each church.

We need to stay with what the text actually says. Matthew 13 teaches different responses to the Word and different measures of fruit. It does not teach a gradual historical decline based on the order of thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.

That has already been addressed in post #49.

 

[ScottA]

Therefore, the order cannot be used to teach that fruit chronologically diminishes over time. If the descending order in Matthew carries that meaning, then the ascending order in Mark would teach the exact opposite. Scripture does not contradict itself. The problem is not the text. The problem is reading a meaning into the order that Jesus never explained.

As I said, there is much more also written regarding the diminishing effects over time. Just as Jesus, said, "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."

But the point--and I explained that too--is not to read anything into the text or change anything, but to point out how the scriptures have continuity, all supporting a bigger picture of what is or shall be. If some want to call that "hidden meaning" or "greater spiritual meaning"--so be it--God's word is alive and greater than the limited number of books that have been written...that "even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen."

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well, no wonder! First you need to understand what I said, and not read into it your worse ideas.

And, no...you just "twisted" what I have said. Why should I even respond to you--do you not know that we should not "cast our pearls to swine?"

You deserved that. I have said nothing of what you have assumed and stated here above. After twisting, assuming, blaming--you then question my salvation, breaking a forum rule? And you scream when I report you--ha!

But, for those looking on, YES I believe all of scripture--and to the contrary, against your false witness--I have been advocating for what is True, and against the foretold "false teachings" that began in the first century and are still taught unto this day as what is considered the most believed and popular doctrine.

I asked you about the bible and you said upon that all false doctrine hangs- I did not twist your words. Look at your post 29, I asked you if since the apostles false teachings havebeen going on, which would include the New Testament, and you answered.

But I suspect you wrote it hte way you did to give you plausible deniability and to slither out of the common normal meaning. YOu are very evasive when confronted with direct questions.

 

[ScottA]

I asked you about the bible and you said upon that all false doctrine hangs-

Are you well? Because what was posted (here it is below) is not hard to comprehend--and yes you just twisted it again! But no, you asked me about "false teachings." So, if you are not well, just say so and I won't engage you. And you likewise should not engage me.

Well you are saying that after the apostles a whole bunch of false teachings have been going on for 1900 years+. You have written two you believe are. what are the rest?

Like the Commandments, on those two false teachings hang all.

PS, For your understanding you might want to look at this: post.

Oh...and you should apologize, not just to me, but also those who have "liked" your accusations against me, because they too are simply filled with hate which you have encouraged.

 

[bdavidc]

As I said, there is much more also written regarding the diminishing effects over time. Just as Jesus, said, "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."

But the point--and I explained that too--is not to read anything into the text or change anything, but to point out how the scriptures have continuity, all supporting a bigger picture of what is or shall be. If some want to call that "hidden meaning" or "greater spiritual meaning"--so be it--God's word is alive and greater than the limited number of books that have been written...that "even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen."

You are still reading your conclusion into the parable rather than drawing it from the parable.

Matthew 24:12 says that because iniquity shall abound, “the love of many shall wax cold.” That is true, but it does not say that the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and hundredfold fruit in the parable represent a chronological decline over time. You are joining two passages together and then treating your connection as though Jesus explained it. He did not.

The fact that Scripture has continuity does not mean every similarity proves a hidden pattern. Scripture interprets Scripture, but one passage cannot be used to insert a meaning into another passage that its words and context do not support. God said, “that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Your use of John 21:25 is also misplaced. John was saying that Jesus performed many other deeds that were not recorded. He was not saying that the written Scriptures contain unlimited hidden meanings that readers are free to discover beyond what the text teaches. The verse concerns unrecorded acts of Christ, not permission to add interpretations to His recorded words.

God’s Word is alive and powerful, but “living” does not mean endlessly changeable. “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Truth has a definite meaning. When an interpretation cannot be demonstrated from the text, it is not a “greater spiritual meaning.” It is speculation dressed in spiritual language.

You say the point is not to read anything into the text, but that is exactly what you are doing. Jesus never said the order of the fruit describes diminishing effects over time, and Mark’s ascending order directly exposes the weakness of that claim. The larger biblical picture must come from what God actually wrote, not from patterns we create and then place back into His words.