Reviving Biblical Christianity (The Way) Part 2

[bdavidc]

EXACTLY! You are among the first to acknowledge what a 5 year old would see.

Ok, let's see if you can track what say a 10 year old would see.


The conclusion comes straight from the bible. Let me walk you through it. I owe you that much because you pass the 5 year old test.

Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.


9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Notice that being called to the wedding feast is to fill God's house with guests. When a guest presumes to be in the bridal party...without the appropriate garment, he is cast into outer darkness (as MANY modern believers will be). If the guest had stayed in his proper place he would not have been rejected. Just like when the Pharisees claimed to see when they couldn't. Jesus says because you say you see your sin (iniquity) remains. The same goes for the rejected guest. It's easy to be a guest. Guests are a mixture of bad and good...not holy. But the eternal destiny of outer darkness is for any who claim something for themselves that isn't true. My ministry is to avoid this scenario among the humble teachable ones.






A bride is not a guest and vice versa. Any 5 year old knows that.


John came by the way of righteousness. Jesus came to open up the way of holiness.


The saints rule over the righteous saved of the nations in the next age. The saints are citizens of the holy city....where no one can enter unless they are a saint. There are gates that keep out the righteous AND the filthy who make a lie.

And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. Rev 21:24

Only the kings (saints) of the earth are allowed into the holy city. Holiness is about GLORY...and God has MERCY on the righteous.

When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. 2 Thess 1:10

But my testimony is not being believed by very many






First resurrection unto honour and disgrace.

2nd resurrection for life or death.

The rest is SO FULL of error that one would have to explain too much for this forum.

You still have not produced the verse. Perhaps it is on a journey, or sleeping, or must be awakened. You have certainly had enough time to find it. Instead, you keep performing the same trick. You take a parable, assign meanings Jesus never assigned, connect it to unrelated passages, and then announce that your doctrine came “straight from the Bible.” It did not. It came straight from your imagination.

Matthew 22 does not say the guest tried to join the bridal party. It does not say he was cast out because he refused to remain in a lower class. It does not say he would have been accepted as an unholy but righteous guest if he had known his place. You invented all of that.

The text says he was cast out because he did not have a wedding garment: “Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?” (Matthew 22:12).

That is the reason Jesus gave. Your “presuming to be in the bridal party” story is nowhere in the passage. You have placed words into Christ’s parable and then built an eternal caste system upon them.

Then you say guests are “bad and good” and therefore not holy. Again, you are confusing those gathered by the invitation with those finally accepted by the king. The whole point of the king’s inspection is that being present among the invited does not guarantee acceptance. The unprepared man is removed.

Your conclusion is not merely unsupported. It reverses the warning of the parable. Jesus warns against presuming upon the invitation without being properly prepared. You transform that into a warning against believing one is too holy. That is astonishingly careless.

Your handling of Revelation 21 is no better. You claim the gates keep righteous saved people outside, but the passage says: “And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there” (Revelation 21:25).

You speak of gates keeping saved people out while John explicitly says the gates are not shut.

Perhaps the gates in your private revelation work differently from the gates in John’s revelation.

Verse 27 says who may enter: “They which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

It does not say, “Only the elite saints, while lesser righteous believers remain outside.” That distinction exists only because your system needs it.

You also inserted the word “only” into Revelation 21:24. The verse says the kings bring their glory and honor into the city. It never says only the kings enter. That is another word you supplied because Scripture refused to cooperate with your false doctrine.

Then you appeal again to 2 Thessalonians 1:10:

“When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe.”

Paul does not separate saints from believers. Believers are saints. Paul addressed ordinary Christians as saints repeatedly:

“To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:7).

“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Corinthians 1:2).

The Corinthians were hardly your spiritual upper class, yet Paul called them saints because they were sanctified in Christ.

Your system requires “saints” and “believers” to be separate castes, so you force that division into every verse where two descriptions appear. By that method, Christians must also be separate classes whenever Scripture calls them brethren, servants, children, sheep, priests, kings, branches, or members of Christ’s body.

This is not interpretation. It is word counting dressed up as revelation.

Your claim that the first resurrection contains honor and disgrace is directly contradicted by the passage:

“Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power” (Revelation 20:6).

John calls those in the first resurrection “blessed and holy.” Where is your disgraced class? Where are the scarcely saved righteous people raised to shame? The passage does not know they exist.

And then comes the most revealing statement of all:

“But my testimony is not being believed by very many.”

Paul’s testimony in 2 Thessalonians was the apostolic testimony of the gospel. Your testimony is your personal system of invented categories. You are not Paul, and disagreement with you is not rejection of apostolic truth.

You have elevated your own interpretation so highly that people who reject it become proud, blind, unholy, or destined for outer darkness. That is not humility. It is spiritual presumption.

Finally, when the contradictions become too obvious, you declare that the rest is “so full of error” that explaining it would be too much for the forum.

How convenient.

You have time to mock others, create classes Scripture never names, and announce four eternal destinies through arithmetic, but suddenly there is not enough room to answer the passages that dismantle your system.

The problem is not that the truth is too deep for the forum. The problem is that your doctrine cannot survive the text.

You have confused metaphors with populations, rewards with salvation, descriptions with castes, and your own testimony with apostolic authority. Then you present the result as profound spiritual insight.

It is not profound. It is false teaching.

You still owe everyone the one thing you have never supplied: a verse that plainly states there are two classes of redeemed people, one merely righteous and another holy, with different eternal destinies.

Cry louder for it. Perhaps your missing verse is talking, pursuing, on a journey, or asleep and must be awakened.

It is certainly not in the Bible.

 

[bdavidc]

A parable itself is its own prooftext I think but we need to be able to "see" it. The new testament doesn't explain and expound all the symbolism/parables of the old testament....or even all the parables of the new testament. They need to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. It is a matter of seeing.

But what we are talking about here is in line with other scriptures, and there are so many scriptures that speak to this same theme it’s hard to know where to start.

First of all we need to remember these things are a matter of faith, not sight…..so not necessarily certainty of the carnal mind. We, in the flesh, are always wanting black and white certainty. But the Israelites crossed the Jordan by believing , having faith in, God’s promise, not by having a logical certainty based on logical reasons that they could defeat the enemies there. I believe when Jesus obeyed the Father unto death on the cross, He did it by faith, not by a carnal minded certainty that He would be resurrected again. He had to overcome His natural instincts for self-preservation in order to surrender to the will of the Father and be able to say, “nevertheless not my will but thine be done”.


Jhn 12:24-25

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.


Mat 10:38-39

Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.


This is seen in the OT account of bondslaves. A bondslave is one who having served for the mandatory time and then is freed, returns to the Master out of love, no longer under compulsion, and because his life (wife/children) is with the Master. He has no life left in this world apart from the Master. So then he covenants to remain serving the Master for the rest of his days by having his ear pierced to the Master’s doorpost. This is very reminiscent of the cross. Think it also speaks to listening at the Master’s doorpost…..hearing/obeying the Shepherd’s voice. Mary called herself a bondslave….covenanting to bear and give birth to the Son. Paul also at some point called himself a bondslave.


Exo 21:1-6

“Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.

“If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.

“If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

“But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’

then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.



The idea of a complete surrender/consecration, giving up our rights to ourself so to speak, and it costing all that we have and are in this world to follow Jesus is seen here also:


Mat 13:44-46

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:

Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.


Mat 19:16-26

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.



Being a rich man is alluding to having our own life, autonomy, possessions and concerns and goals in this world, not necessarily being rich financially. Seems to me that in following/obeying the Lord we are on a journey of losing all that we have and are in this world in order to become living sacrifices and gain Christ and eternal life.

A parable is proof of what it actually teaches. It is not proof of every symbolic meaning someone assigns to its details. Saying the Holy Spirit must “reveal” an interpretation does not remove the obligation to prove it from Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired understandable words and commands us to “prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Biblical faith is not belief without evidence from God’s Word. Israel crossed Jordan because God had plainly promised them the land and commanded them to cross. Their faith rested upon revelation, not an interpretation no passage states.

Your claim that Jesus went to the cross without certainty that He would rise again is contrary to Scripture. He repeatedly said He would be killed and raised the third day (Matthew 16:21). He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19), and, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again” (John 10:17). His prayer in Gethsemane expressed submission in suffering, not uncertainty about His resurrection.

Exodus 21 concerns Hebrew servants. A servant could voluntarily remain because he loved his master and family. That may illustrate willing devotion, but the passage never says the pierced ear represents the cross, the doorpost represents hearing the Shepherd, or the servant represents a believer entering a second level of sanctification. Mary and Paul calling themselves servants of the Lord does not prove those added meanings.

The treasure and pearl parables teach the surpassing value of the kingdom. They do not teach that someone already saved must surrender enough possessions and autonomy to obtain a higher salvation. Again, you are seeing a phrase and attaching your doctrine to it without showing that Jesus gave it that meaning.

The rich young ruler was actually rich. The text says, “he had great possessions” (Matthew 19:22). Jesus exposed the idol controlling his heart and the impossibility of saving himself. The man began with the works question, “What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” Turning the passage into a process by which we finally gain eternal life through sufficient surrender simply repeats his error. Jesus concluded, “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

Christ certainly calls believers to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him. Discipleship may cost possessions, comfort, relationships, reputation, and physical life. But the cost of discipleship is not the price of justification.

Jesus said the believer “hath everlasting life” and “is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). Paul wrote that God justifies the one who “worketh not, but believeth” (Romans 4:5). Good works, sacrifice, obedience, and self-denial follow salvation. They do not purchase it, complete it, or move someone into a higher class of eternal life.

The original question remains unanswered. Where does Scripture say the wilderness generation represents the old man, their children the new man, Jordan a second baptism, Canaan entire sanctification, or the pierced ear the cross? You have offered similarities and personal symbolism, but not a passage that assigns those meanings.

You may see those connections, but that does not prove God put them there. There is nothing carnal about asking where Scripture teaches a doctrine. The danger is claiming private symbolism was revealed by the Holy Spirit and then implying that those who cannot see it lack spiritual sight.

Let us stay with what is written.

 

[amigo de christo]

Methinks 2 + 2 = 4

Me knows that any man that puts horse in cart is in dire trouble .
You wanna know what i know . Epi has a huge problem with those who remind of the dire NEED TO HAVE to BELIEVE ON JESUS .
You know what that tells me , SOMETHING WENT DEAD WRONG with that man . HE fell in love with a lie .
Now as for me , I SHALL POINT TO JESUS and remind all that WITHOUT HIM YE CAN DO NOTHING .
IT IS TRULY DIRE NECESSARY to BELIEVE ON JESUS THE CHRIST .

 

[Lizbeth]

A parable is proof of what it actually teaches. It is not proof of every symbolic meaning someone assigns to its details. Saying the Holy Spirit must “reveal” an interpretation does not remove the obligation to prove it from Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired understandable words and commands us to “prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Biblical faith is not belief without evidence from God’s Word. Israel crossed Jordan because God had plainly promised them the land and commanded them to cross. Their faith rested upon revelation, not an interpretation no passage states.

Your claim that Jesus went to the cross without certainty that He would rise again is contrary to Scripture. He repeatedly said He would be killed and raised the third day (Matthew 16:21). He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19), and, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again” (John 10:17). His prayer in Gethsemane expressed submission in suffering, not uncertainty about His resurrection.

Exodus 21 concerns Hebrew servants. A servant could voluntarily remain because he loved his master and family. That may illustrate willing devotion, but the passage never says the pierced ear represents the cross, the doorpost represents hearing the Shepherd, or the servant represents a believer entering a second level of sanctification. Mary and Paul calling themselves servants of the Lord does not prove those added meanings.

The treasure and pearl parables teach the surpassing value of the kingdom. They do not teach that someone already saved must surrender enough possessions and autonomy to obtain a higher salvation. Again, you are seeing a phrase and attaching your doctrine to it without showing that Jesus gave it that meaning.

The rich young ruler was actually rich. The text says, “he had great possessions” (Matthew 19:22). Jesus exposed the idol controlling his heart and the impossibility of saving himself. The man began with the works question, “What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” Turning the passage into a process by which we finally gain eternal life through sufficient surrender simply repeats his error. Jesus concluded, “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

Christ certainly calls believers to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him. Discipleship may cost possessions, comfort, relationships, reputation, and physical life. But the cost of discipleship is not the price of justification.

Jesus said the believer “hath everlasting life” and “is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). Paul wrote that God justifies the one who “worketh not, but believeth” (Romans 4:5). Good works, sacrifice, obedience, and self-denial follow salvation. They do not purchase it, complete it, or move someone into a higher class of eternal life.

The original question remains unanswered. Where does Scripture say the wilderness generation represents the old man, their children the new man, Jordan a second baptism, Canaan entire sanctification, or the pierced ear the cross? You have offered similarities and personal symbolism, but not a passage that assigns those meanings.

You may see those connections, but that does not prove God put them there. There is nothing carnal about asking where Scripture teaches a doctrine. The danger is claiming private symbolism was revealed by the Holy Spirit and then implying that those who cannot see it lack spiritual sight.

Let us stay with what is written.

I'm not sure that all parables can be proven per se......we walk by faith not by sight. And His sheep know His voice, or learn to know it as we grow. But any true interpretation will be consistent with all scripture, the whole counsel of God.

And of course there is this:

1Co 2:10-14

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The rich young man was literally rich and it is hard for the literally rich to enter the kingdom, if they remain rich, however there is also a deeper message which is consistent with the parable of the treasure in the field and pearl of great price.....and losing our life in order to find it.....the lesson in all those things is that it will cost us everything in this world....everything that our old man relies on and lives by in the world, all our idols. We are to carry our crosses for a purpose....to crucify something, put it to death........our old man nature. Jesus baptizes with fire.......the Holy Spirit = fire from heaven which falls to burn up, consume, what we are sacrificing on the altar/cross....our old man. WHOLE burnt offering. To become a living sacrifice which is our reasonable service. Complete consecration/surrender/rest which is what the Israelites crossing the Jordan is a picture of.....that is what the Lord was leading them to.

 

[amigo de christo]

I'm not sure that all parables can be proven per se......we walk by faith not by sight. And His sheep know His voice, or learn to know it as we grow. But any true interpretation will be consistent with all scripture, the whole counsel of God.

And of course there is this:

1Co 2:10-14

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The rich young man was literally rich and it is hard for the literally rich to enter the kingdom, if they remain rich, however there is also a deeper message which is consistent with the parable of the treasure in the field and pearl of great price.....and losing our life in order to find it.....the lesson in all those things is that it will cost us everything in this world....everything that our old man relies on and lives by in the world, all our idols. We are to carry our crosses for a purpose....to crucify something, put it to death........our old man nature. Jesus baptizes with fire.......the Holy Spirit = fire from heaven which falls to burn up, consume, what we are sacrificing on the altar/cross....our old man. WHOLE burnt offering. To become a living sacrifice which is our reasonable service. Complete consecration/surrender/rest which is what the Israelites crossing the Jordan is a picture of.....that is what the Lord was leading them to.

sister did you say that JESUS went to the cross without certainty that HE would rise again .
IF so . that is a mistake . HE KNEW and he even told them all at least three times the SON of man would be killed
and would rise again . Just in case you said that i wanted to make sure you knew this sister .
I seen the other man said you said that . SO i was not sure .

 

[Episkopos]

You still have not produced the verse. Perhaps it is on a journey, or sleeping, or must be awakened. You have certainly had enough time to find it. Instead, you keep performing the same trick. You take a parable, assign meanings Jesus never assigned, connect it to unrelated passages, and then announce that your doctrine came “straight from the Bible.” It did not. It came straight from your imagination.

Matthew 22 does not say the guest tried to join the bridal party. It does not say he was cast out because he refused to remain in a lower class. It does not say he would have been accepted as an unholy but righteous guest if he had known his place. You invented all of that.

The text says he was cast out because he did not have a wedding garment: “Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?” (Matthew 22:12).

That is the reason Jesus gave. Your “presuming to be in the bridal party” story is nowhere in the passage. You have placed words into Christ’s parable and then built an eternal caste system upon them.

Then you say guests are “bad and good” and therefore not holy. Again, you are confusing those gathered by the invitation with those finally accepted by the king. The whole point of the king’s inspection is that being present among the invited does not guarantee acceptance. The unprepared man is removed.

Your conclusion is not merely unsupported. It reverses the warning of the parable. Jesus warns against presuming upon the invitation without being properly prepared. You transform that into a warning against believing one is too holy. That is astonishingly careless.

Your handling of Revelation 21 is no better. You claim the gates keep righteous saved people outside, but the passage says: “And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there” (Revelation 21:25).

You speak of gates keeping saved people out while John explicitly says the gates are not shut.

Perhaps the gates in your private revelation work differently from the gates in John’s revelation.

Verse 27 says who may enter: “They which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

It does not say, “Only the elite saints, while lesser righteous believers remain outside.” That distinction exists only because your system needs it.

You also inserted the word “only” into Revelation 21:24. The verse says the kings bring their glory and honor into the city. It never says only the kings enter. That is another word you supplied because Scripture refused to cooperate with your false doctrine.

Then you appeal again to 2 Thessalonians 1:10:

“When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe.”

Paul does not separate saints from believers. Believers are saints. Paul addressed ordinary Christians as saints repeatedly:

“To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:7).

“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Corinthians 1:2).

The Corinthians were hardly your spiritual upper class, yet Paul called them saints because they were sanctified in Christ.

Your system requires “saints” and “believers” to be separate castes, so you force that division into every verse where two descriptions appear. By that method, Christians must also be separate classes whenever Scripture calls them brethren, servants, children, sheep, priests, kings, branches, or members of Christ’s body.

This is not interpretation. It is word counting dressed up as revelation.

Your claim that the first resurrection contains honor and disgrace is directly contradicted by the passage:

“Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power” (Revelation 20:6).

John calls those in the first resurrection “blessed and holy.” Where is your disgraced class? Where are the scarcely saved righteous people raised to shame? The passage does not know they exist.

And then comes the most revealing statement of all:

“But my testimony is not being believed by very many.”

Paul’s testimony in 2 Thessalonians was the apostolic testimony of the gospel. Your testimony is your personal system of invented categories. You are not Paul, and disagreement with you is not rejection of apostolic truth.

You have elevated your own interpretation so highly that people who reject it become proud, blind, unholy, or destined for outer darkness. That is not humility. It is spiritual presumption.

Finally, when the contradictions become too obvious, you declare that the rest is “so full of error” that explaining it would be too much for the forum.

How convenient.

You have time to mock others, create classes Scripture never names, and announce four eternal destinies through arithmetic, but suddenly there is not enough room to answer the passages that dismantle your system.

The problem is not that the truth is too deep for the forum. The problem is that your doctrine cannot survive the text.

You have confused metaphors with populations, rewards with salvation, descriptions with castes, and your own testimony with apostolic authority. Then you present the result as profound spiritual insight.

It is not profound. It is false teaching.

You still owe everyone the one thing you have never supplied: a verse that plainly states there are two classes of redeemed people, one merely righteous and another holy, with different eternal destinies.

Cry louder for it. Perhaps your missing verse is talking, pursuing, on a journey, or asleep and must be awakened.

It is certainly not in the Bible.

Ok, so maybe between 5 and 10 years old...

 

[MostlyConfused]

So I just noted something in revelation 20:6. Are “holy and blessed” two different people? If so, I may have completely misunderstood what I thought I had learned from episkopos and my drawing where I tried to work it out may in fact be wrong. I had thought he was saying the righteous are in the second resurrection and the holy and filthy are in the first. It won’t work. It would have to be the righteous in the first resurrection, or at least some of them…
It might be time for me to be silent again. When I get so confused it’s a sure sign I’m going wrong again.

 

[Lizbeth]

i

sister did you say that JESUS went to the cross without certainty that HE would rise again .
IF so . that is a mistake . HE KNEW and he even told them all at least three times the SON of man would be killed
and would rise again . Just in case you said that i wanted to make sure you knew this sister .
I seen the other man said you said that . SO i was not sure .

This is just my belief, and open for discussion, and I said that I believe He went to the cross by faith, not by a certainty of the carnal mind. He knew and believed the written prophecies about Him, and what He was essentially prophesying about Himself, but there is a difference between faith and certainty of the natural mind. Carnal minded certainty is based on something having been tested and proven.....but this had not been tested and proven until He rose from the dead. Faith is the evidence of things not yet seen....He was placing His trust in the Father and setting an example for us. Like Job said, "yea though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."

 

[marks]

i

This is just my belief, and open for discussion, and I said that I believe He went to the cross by faith, not by a certainty of the carnal mind. He knew and believed the written prophecies about Him, and what He was essentially prophesying about Himself, but there is a difference between faith and certainty of the natural mind. Carnal minded certainty is based on something having been tested and proven.....but this had not been tested and proven until He rose from the dead. Faith is the evidence of things not yet seen....He was placing His trust in the Father and setting an example for us. Like Job said, "yea though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."

Jesus said that He had the power to lay down His life and the power to take it up again. Are you saying that while Jesus spoke this with seeming certainty that He was not actually certain?

When He said, Tear down this temple, and in three days I will rebuild it, that secretly He didn't know if He could or not? That comes across to me as duplicitous, and I don't see Jesus that way.

Much love!

 

[amigo de christo]

i

This is just my belief, and open for discussion, and I said that I believe He went to the cross by faith, not by a certainty of the carnal mind. He knew and believed the written prophecies about Him, and what He was essentially prophesying about Himself, but there is a difference between faith and certainty of the natural mind. Carnal minded certainty is based on something having been tested and proven.....but this had not been tested and proven until He rose from the dead. Faith is the evidence of things not yet seen....He was placing His trust in the Father and setting an example for us. Like Job said, "yea though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."

I have the power to lay it down and i have the Power to raise it up .
Jesus knew sister . He even knew all about nathaniel who he had seen under the tree .
He even knew who would betray him .
As far as being tempted , YES he was tempted in all points , YET he without SIN .
And what worries me , IS MEN LIKE EPI and these inclusivians who do the work of their father .
As for this sheep , by grace i shall do the work of THE FATHER . And what was and what is the work of GOD ,
TO BELEIVE ON HE WHOM GOD DID SEND . Now raise those hands and praise the LORD .
This generation is fast falling in love with the inclusive god sister . And that god IS NOT MY GOD .
It once held power and sway over me and i too worshipped it by the lusts of the flesh and of the mind .
BUT JESUS , Thanks be TO GOD , saved this man and pulled me outta the darkness and into the Light and the kingdom
of HIS dear Son . We got a war sister . And many are now on the wrong side and follow the wrong
god beleiving it to BE GOD , to even be mercy and love , BUT its mercy , its so called love and so called grace ,
MADE VOID THE ONE TRUE GRACE and MERCY OF GOD . And i shun its inclusive doctrine .
HERE IS THE LOVE OF GOD . That WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS .
HERE is the COMMANDMENT , TO BELIEVE ON JESUS THE CHRIST and to have loved one another .
Inclusive love REMOVES THE DIRE NECESSITY TO BELIEVE ON JESUS . SO IT DARN SURE AINT THE LOVE OF GOD sister .
IT OF THE DEVIL .

 

[shepherdsword]

You still have not produced the verse. Perhaps it is on a journey, or sleeping, or must be awakened. You have certainly had enough time to find it. Instead, you keep performing the same trick. You take a parable, assign meanings Jesus never assigned, connect it to unrelated passages, and then announce that your doctrine came “straight from the Bible.” It did not. It came straight from your imagination.

Matthew 22 does not say the guest tried to join the bridal party. It does not say he was cast out because he refused to remain in a lower class. It does not say he would have been accepted as an unholy but righteous guest if he had known his place. You invented all of that.

The text says he was cast out because he did not have a wedding garment: “Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?” (Matthew 22:12).

That is the reason Jesus gave. Your “presuming to be in the bridal party” story is nowhere in the passage. You have placed words into Christ’s parable and then built an eternal caste system upon them.

Then you say guests are “bad and good” and therefore not holy. Again, you are confusing those gathered by the invitation with those finally accepted by the king. The whole point of the king’s inspection is that being present among the invited does not guarantee acceptance. The unprepared man is removed.

Your conclusion is not merely unsupported. It reverses the warning of the parable. Jesus warns against presuming upon the invitation without being properly prepared. You transform that into a warning against believing one is too holy. That is astonishingly careless.

Your handling of Revelation 21 is no better. You claim the gates keep righteous saved people outside, but the passage says: “And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there” (Revelation 21:25).

You speak of gates keeping saved people out while John explicitly says the gates are not shut.

Perhaps the gates in your private revelation work differently from the gates in John’s revelation.

Verse 27 says who may enter: “They which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

It does not say, “Only the elite saints, while lesser righteous believers remain outside.” That distinction exists only because your system needs it.

You also inserted the word “only” into Revelation 21:24. The verse says the kings bring their glory and honor into the city. It never says only the kings enter. That is another word you supplied because Scripture refused to cooperate with your false doctrine.

Then you appeal again to 2 Thessalonians 1:10:

“When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe.”

Paul does not separate saints from believers. Believers are saints. Paul addressed ordinary Christians as saints repeatedly:

“To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:7).

“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Corinthians 1:2).

The Corinthians were hardly your spiritual upper class, yet Paul called them saints because they were sanctified in Christ.

Your system requires “saints” and “believers” to be separate castes, so you force that division into every verse where two descriptions appear. By that method, Christians must also be separate classes whenever Scripture calls them brethren, servants, children, sheep, priests, kings, branches, or members of Christ’s body.

This is not interpretation. It is word counting dressed up as revelation.

Your claim that the first resurrection contains honor and disgrace is directly contradicted by the passage:

“Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power” (Revelation 20:6).

John calls those in the first resurrection “blessed and holy.” Where is your disgraced class? Where are the scarcely saved righteous people raised to shame? The passage does not know they exist.

And then comes the most revealing statement of all:

“But my testimony is not being believed by very many.”

Paul’s testimony in 2 Thessalonians was the apostolic testimony of the gospel. Your testimony is your personal system of invented categories. You are not Paul, and disagreement with you is not rejection of apostolic truth.

You have elevated your own interpretation so highly that people who reject it become proud, blind, unholy, or destined for outer darkness. That is not humility. It is spiritual presumption.

Finally, when the contradictions become too obvious, you declare that the rest is “so full of error” that explaining it would be too much for the forum.

How convenient.

You have time to mock others, create classes Scripture never names, and announce four eternal destinies through arithmetic, but suddenly there is not enough room to answer the passages that dismantle your system.

The problem is not that the truth is too deep for the forum. The problem is that your doctrine cannot survive the text.

You have confused metaphors with populations, rewards with salvation, descriptions with castes, and your own testimony with apostolic authority. Then you present the result as profound spiritual insight.

It is not profound. It is false teaching.

You still owe everyone the one thing you have never supplied: a verse that plainly states there are two classes of redeemed people, one merely righteous and another holy, with different eternal destinies.

Cry louder for it. Perhaps your missing verse is talking, pursuing, on a journey, or asleep and must be awakened.

It is certainly not in the Bible.

The thing is...and I haven't considered this until he pointed it out...there were both good AND bad invited to the wedding feast. How did that one guy even get there without a wedding garment?

 

[Lizbeth]

Jesus said that He had the power to lay down His life and the power to take it up again. Are you saying that while Jesus spoke this with seeming certainty that He was not actually certain?

When He said, Tear down this temple, and in three days I will rebuild it, that secretly He didn't know if He could or not? That comes across to me as duplicitous, and I don't see Jesus that way.

Much love!

Faith is confident but that is not the same thing as a carnal logical certainty. Jesus had to battle with Himself in order to be able to consent to His crucifixion and lay down His life. Faith often requires us to put our natural mind and inclinations under our feet. But this is not something I would argue over at length, just a passing thought. I was just trying to make a point that not everything in the bible is black and white logical but a matter of faith. We may not be able to "prove" everything that we see in scripture to someone else's satisfaction since it is the Holy Spirit who gives the sight to see.....IOW, it's by faith.

 

[Lizbeth]

I have the power to lay it down and i have the Power to raise it up .
Jesus knew sister . He even knew all about nathaniel who he had seen under the tree .
He even knew who would betray him .
As far as being tempted , YES he was tempted in all points , YET he without SIN .
And what worries me , IS MEN LIKE EPI and these inclusivians who do the work of their father .
As for this sheep , by grace i shall do the work of THE FATHER . And what was and what is the work of GOD ,
TO BELEIVE ON HE WHOM GOD DID SEND . Now raise those hands and praise the LORD .
This generation is fast falling in love with the inclusive god sister . And that god IS NOT MY GOD .
It once held power and sway over me and i too worshipped it by the lusts of the flesh and of the mind .
BUT JESUS , Thanks be TO GOD , saved this man and pulled me outta the darkness and into the Light and the kingdom
of HIS dear Son . We got a war sister . And many are now on the wrong side and follow the wrong
god beleiving it to BE GOD , to even be mercy and love , BUT its mercy , its so called love and so called grace ,
MADE VOID THE ONE TRUE GRACE and MERCY OF GOD . And i shun its inclusive doctrine .
HERE IS THE LOVE OF GOD . That WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS .
HERE is the COMMANDMENT , TO BELIEVE ON JESUS THE CHRIST and to have loved one another .
Inclusive love REMOVES THE DIRE NECESSITY TO BELIEVE ON JESUS . SO IT DARN SURE AINT THE LOVE OF GOD sister .
IT OF THE DEVIL .

Yes, and Jesus was speaking by faith, true? It's not quite the same thing as carnal certainty. I did my best to explain in my answer to Marks a minute ago.

 

[marks]

The thing is...and I haven't considered this until he pointed it out...there were both good AND bad invited to the wedding feast. How did that one guy even get there without a wedding garment?

Jesus said, "If I be lifted up (idiom = crucified), I will draw all men to myself. But this is not universalism.

Remembering that a parable is "a truth thrown alongside", the first question is, what is the truth that is being thrown alongside this culturally recognizable story? Jesus, as He sometimes did, tells us at the end plainly. For many are called but few are chosen.

Just because you are "the right sort", just because you appear with the others, these don't mean you have a right to be there, even if you were invited. You must be properly attired.

Along with asking how the man was there without the wedding garment, we can ask how it is "both bad and good" did all have the garments? What happened to create this situation?

Much love!

 

[shepherdsword]

Jesus said, "If I be lifted up (idiom = crucified), I will draw all men to myself. But this is not universalism.

Nope...it's the judgement when all will stand before Him and give account

Remembering that a parable is "a truth thrown alongside", the first question is, what is the truth that is being thrown alongside this culturally recognizable story? Jesus, as He sometimes did, tells us at the end plainly. For many are called but few are chosen.

Just because you are "the right sort", just because you appear with the others, these don't mean you have a right to be there, even if you were invited. You must be properly attired.

Along with asking how the man was there without the wedding garment, we can ask how it is "both bad and good" did all have the garments? What happened to create this situation?

Much love!

So what do you think the answer is?

 

[marks]

Faith is confident but that is not the same thing as a carnal logical certainty. Jesus had to battle with Himself in order to be able to consent to His crucifixion and lay down His life. Faith often requires us to put our natural mind and inclinations under our feet. But this is not something I would argue over at length, just a passing thought. I was just trying to make a point that not everything in the bible is black and white logical but a matter of faith. We may not be able to "prove" everything that we see in scripture to someone else's satisfaction since it is the Holy Spirit who gives the sight to see.....IOW, it's by faith.

I don't see that at all. Jesus was certain, and He spoke with certainty. Not like the scribes and teachers of the Law, but He spoke as one having authority.

"Let this cup pass from Me" was not a plea to avoid death. "You will drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized", this was the suffering of such a brutal death.

Of His death itself,

John 12:23-32 KJV
23) And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
25) He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
26) If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
27) Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28) Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29) The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
30) Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
31) Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Jesus said the time has come that He be glorified . . . this was how He saw His impending death. And He knew what would be the results of His death (lifted up, idiom of crucified), that Jesus Himself, again alive, would draw all men to Himself, the true light that enlightens every man, the grace of God unto salvation appearing to everyone.

Let's look at this another way.

Prophecies showed the Messiah suffering in death, then living again, that is, continuing to be alive after death.

Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, show the very same thing, that He would suffer death, and then afterword gather together His people.

Would you say that disbelieving God's Word to be not of faith, and therefore sin? It is righteous to believe God's Word? Is it righteous to not believe God's Word? To question whether God meant it or not? To presume to know better than God, or to think He's not being quite honest with us?

Jesus didn't have the corrupted mind as we do, that He would think the same as we do, grubbing about for our comfort and existence with our eyes no further than our noses.

Jesus, the Lord from Heaven, Who came from the Father, and was returning to the Father, who said, "For this cause I came into the world", who told followers over and over that they would kill Him, but He would rise again, I'll just say I take Him at face value. It's Jesus.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Nope...it's the judgement when all will stand before Him and give account

I've never thought of it that way.

Previously Jesus had told His disciples that only those the Father drew could come to Him. Then Jesus said if He be crucified, He would draw all to Himself. The Cross changed things. That's how I've understood this.

So what do you think the answer is?

To what the parable means? Or the follow-up questions?

Much love!

 

[Laurina]

So 2 lost, 2 saved.

No, 3 saved and 1 lost.

Rev. 16:19
"And the great city was divided into three parts, ..."

Matt. 13:33
"The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

 

[marks]

as a carnal logical certainty.

Interesting concept here. When you say "carnal" do you mean in a fleshy way, as we think of the old man? Or do you mean with our flesh brains while being in a state of being renewed by the Spirit?

Can you have any certainty in this life in the way I think you mean?

To me, the certainty of spiritual things rests in my relationship with God, and how He works in my life, and has made Himself knowable by me. I know it's Him, my Faithful Creator God. Was Jesus' relationship with the Father less than mine? Of course not!

Much love!

 

[shepherdsword]

I've never thought of it that way.

Previously Jesus had told His disciples that only those the Father drew could come to Him. Then Jesus said if He be crucified, He would draw all to Himself. The Cross changed things. That's how I've understood this.

I see the cross as being the ultimate sanction to His right to judge (as if being the creator wasn't enough)

Jn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

However, I won't debate the issue is anyone disagrees....it's just my opinion

To what the parable means? Or the follow-up questions?

Much love!

How did the guy get to the feast without a garment?