Offenders in the kingdom

[grafted branch]

Can you tell me where this heavenly kingdom is located on a map or do you say it is on another planet?

I have come to the heavenly Jerusalem which is in the kingdom of heaven. There currently is no one physical location where it exists in its entirety. Your question is kind of like asking where God is.

I hope you have come to the heavenly Jerusalem. If you have, you can answer your own question.

 

[tailgator]

I have come to the heavenly Jerusalem which is in the kingdom of heaven. There currently is no one physical location where it exists in its entirety. Your question is kind of like asking where God is.

I hope you have come to the heavenly Jerusalem. If you have, you can answer your own question.

So you read the text and deny the word of God concerning where this heavenly kingdom is .

Hmmmm

That's why you can't learn who is being cast out of the kingdom of heaven.You can't figure out how the children of the devil got into the kingdom.of heaven to begin with.

 

[Davidpt]

Matthew 8:11-12 definitely fits my view of how the offenders got into the kingdom.

Those who entered the kingdom through the Old Testament laws but refused to acknowledge Jesus was the Messiah, were cast out in 70AD, that’s when the old covenant that was decaying vanished.

Those who come from the east and west and enter the kingdom have to be born again. People can no longer enter the kingdom through the old covenant laws, they can now only enter through the blood of Christ (new covenant).

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.


IOW, according to Matthew 13:37-43, the above would be understood like such.

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto the Son of man which sowed the children of the kingdom in the world :
25 But while men slept, the devil came and sowed the children of the wicked one among the the children of the kingdom, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, the children of the kingdom brought forth fruit(compare with Matthew 7:17a) , then appeared the children of the wicked one also(compare with Matthew 7:17b) .
27 So the servants of the the Son of man came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow the children of the kingdom in the world? from whence then hath it the children of the wicked one?
28 The Son of man said unto them, the devil hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But the Son of man said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the children of the wicked one , ye root up also the children of the kingdom with them.
30 Let both the children of the kingdom and the children of the wicked one grow together until the end of the world : and in the time of the end of the world I will say to the angels, Gather ye together first the children of the wicked one, and bind them in bundles to burn them(compare with Matthew 7:19, 22-23) : but gather the children of the kingdom into my barn.


How then are you interpreting any of this to mean what you have it meaning? The end of the world is meaning the end of this present age, not 70 AD. The world is meaning this planet not Jerusalem. You are obviously saying the Jews are the children of the wicked one even though there is not a single mention of any Jews anywhere in this parable. You are not interpreting this parable, all you doing is adding your own spin to in based on doctrinal bias.

In Matthew 24 His disciples ask the following question.

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


The end of the world is clearly connected with His coming. Which means because of His coming it leads to the end of the world at the time, meaning the end of this present age. The present age didn't end in 70 AD nor does it end after the millennium, assuming the millennium is after the 2nd coming, keeping in mind the end of this age is connected with His coming. IOW, one can't divorce the end of this age with that of His coming, a coming that hasn't even happened yet. But once it does happen it leads to the end of this age at that time. Which means if the millennium follows, there won't be any tares in it since the tares are dealt with in the sheep and goats judgment when He returns. That's who the goats are meaning, they are meaning the tares within the body of Christ and not meaning all of the lost unsaved in general.

Matthew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.


Clearly, the end of this age meant here is the same end of the age meant in Matthew 24:3, and according to Matthew 24:3 the end of this age involves His coming. You might argue, well He came in 70 AD, therefore, I don't see the issue? Except He never came in 70 AD, it was the Father that sent forth His armies, not the Son that sent forth His armies.

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

The king in this parable is obviously meaning the Father not the Son, and the text says The Father sent forth His armies, and not instead, the Son sent forth His armies. Verse 2 makes it crystal clear since the Son is meaning Jesus, this means the certain king has to be meaning the Father.

Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son

 

[grafted branch]

How then are you interpreting any of this to mean what you have it meaning? The end of the world is meaning the end of this present age, not 70 AD.

The word “world” in Matthew 13:38 is <2889> which is the cosmos. The word “world” in Matthew 13:40 is <165> which means an age. The field is the cosmos, the angels come at the end of the age.

The old covenant age ended or vanished in 70AD. The current age we are in is the new covenant age.

You are obviously saying the Jews are the children of the wicked one even though there is not a single mention of any Jews anywhere in this parable. You are not interpreting this parable, all you doing is adding your own spin to in based on doctrinal bias.

In the parable the Son of man sows in His field. The word “sow” is present tense, so Jesus was sowing when He was physically on earth. While Jesus was on earth He said He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel in Matthew 15:24. I’m interpreting this parable with the facts of what was occurring at that time.

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

The king in this parable is obviously meaning the Father not the Son, and the text says The Father sent forth His armies, and not instead, the Son sent forth His armies. Verse 2 makes it crystal clear since the Son is meaning Jesus, this means the certain king has to be meaning the Father.

Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son

So you’re saying there are two separate sets of armies in heaven with one set belonging to God and another set belonging to the Son?



Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Jesus was given the power over the armies in heaven prior to 70AD.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:24 Jesus doesn’t deliver up the kingdom to the Father until He had put down all rule, authority, and power. This doesn’t happen until after the last enemy death has been destroyed.

Now, since you are making the distinction between the Father’s armies and the Son’s armies, how could it be possible that the Son didn’t put down all rule, authority, and power with His armies so that the Father has to finish the job with His armies?

 

[Taken]

The Truth in context is that Jesus is on the earth at the 6th Seal. That is the Second Coming.

Your error. Scripture says no such thing.

SEALS…No mention of Jesus.

7 Seals…Rev 6, Rev 8…Wrath of the Lamb of God, who is IN Heaven.

7 Trumps…Rev 8, Rev 9, Rev 11 …Wrath of the Devil who is ON Earth.

Son of Man SEEN on a WHITE cloud…(Cloud, is NOT EARTH)…Rev 14
Dividing people.

7 Bowls/vials…..Rev 16….Wrath of God who is IN Heaven.

KING of kings arrives…WHITE Horse, Crowns ON the Word of God (Jesus) with Power (Christ) ….KING ON Earth.
Rev 20

Step by step reveals WHO is where and doing WHAT.

 

[Taken]

Ok, so are you saying unsaved people can physically enter and exit the kingdom but only people who are born again can spiritually enter the kingdom?

What about 1 Corinthians 15:50 flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption? The word inherit includes partaking of the inheritance so it doesn’t seem possible to me that the unsaved could enter and partake of a future kingdom.

Jesus’ Kingdom ON Earth is already Established…(just not YET manifested)….
(Promised land / throne Jerusalem)

OUTSIDE of the “Kingdom…other lands”, nations where MORTALS are “repopulating” the earth.
WHY “repopulation” ?
Devastation from the …
Wrath of the Lamb
Wrath of the devil
Wrath of God…all during the Tribulation.

Those who “repopulate” are a “remnant”…
A FEW…from the Tribulations….believers…not killed…BUT NOT converted…(soul saved)…

They BELIEVE…they can travel from nation to nation….to The Lords Kingdom….and entry to His Kingdom ….is like going to the White House……a visitor…you might see the President…you might not…you might a foreign visitor….but the VISIT would not MAKE YOU A CITIZEN…and a VISITOR to the Lords Kingdom…will not MAKE a moral man SAVED…

Every Nation the Lord Rules over…ON EARTH…(not Gods Heavenly Kingdom)…ARE Nations of Mortals…(for 1,000 years)…

Jesus came in the LIKENESS AS A “human” man…so Human men “COULD” see Him.
Jesus “RETURNS” in the LIKENESS AS A “human” man….so Human men “CAN” see Him. (For 1,000 years)….then shall the existence of MORTAL MEN CEASE….and ALL the Saved and Born Again SHALL SEE the Lord God……as His IS…..in His own Spiritual BODY…

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[grafted branch]

Jesus’ Kingdom ON Earth is already Established…(just not YET manifested)….
(Promised land / throne Jerusalem)

OUTSIDE of the “Kingdom…other lands”, nations where MORTALS are “repopulating” the earth.
WHY “repopulation” ?
Devastation from the …
Wrath of the Lamb
Wrath of the devil
Wrath of God…all during the Tribulation.

Those who “repopulate” are a “remnant”…
A FEW…from the Tribulations….believers…not killed…BUT NOT converted…(soul saved)…

They BELIEVE…they can travel from nation to nation….to The Lords Kingdom….and entry to His Kingdom ….is like going to the White House……a visitor…you might see the President…you might not…you might a foreign visitor….but the VISIT would not MAKE YOU A CITIZEN…and a VISITOR to the Lords Kingdom…will not MAKE a moral man SAVED…

Every Nation the Lord Rules over…ON EARTH…(not Gods Heavenly Kingdom)…ARE Nations of Mortals…(for 1,000 years)…

Jesus came in the LIKENESS AS A “human” man…so Human men “COULD” see Him.
Jesus “RETURNS” in the LIKENESS AS A “human” man….so Human men “CAN” see Him. (For 1,000 years)….then shall the existence of MORTAL MEN CEASE….and ALL the Saved and Born Again SHALL SEE the Lord God……as His IS…..in His own Spiritual BODY…

Glory to God,
Taken

Can we take a look at John 3:1-5?

In John 3:3 it says a man can’t see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. Then in John 3:5 is says unless a man be born of water and spirit he can’t enter the kingdom of God.

From looking at the commentaries on this it appears to me that John 3:3 says a person has to be saved or they can’t perceive or understand the kingdom of God. Then John 3:5 goes one step further and say not only can’t you understand what the kingdom is, you can’t get into it either.

You have unsaved people visiting but not citizens of the kingdom. I can understand how you interpret “entering” with becoming a “citizen” but how are you interpreting John 3:3 where only believers are able to “see” the kingdom?

 

[ewq1938]

No, I’m agreeing with you, we are not physically translated into the Son’s kingdom but that wasn’t my point. My point was that currently no unbelievers are translated into the Son’s kingdom. Therefore the kingdom that currently has both the wheat and tares cannot be the Son’s kingdom.

I already said that but thanks for agreeing with me.

Since you have the wheat and tares in Satan’s kingdom this means the Son of man sows in Satan’s kingdom which doesn’t fit the parable where the enemy comes to sow the tares only after the wheat was sown in His field and the servants slept.

It fits the parable just fine. The world became satan's. It didn't start out that way. All the parable tells us is that there are good and bad people in this world and the bad can seem like good people but they aren't.

Ah, here is another problem, you have the tares enter and remain in Christ’s kingdom for 1,000 years.

"you have" is wrong. The bible tells us this and Rev 19 confirms they will be ruled over with a rod of iron. The parable applies to the Millennium because the burning of the tares is the LOF which happens AFTER the Mill is over.

People who are not born again can’t enter the kingdom.

False. They can't spiritually enter or be of it but physically they can exist in the world after Christ has come and made it his kingdom. You seem to conflate the spiritual kingdom with the physical kingdom. One is inside people! It is never inside the unsaved when when they are physically in the kingdom of this world in the Mill.

This view doesn’t mesh with verses such as John 3:5.

That's a different kingdom than the Son's kingdom (the Father's kingdom). No one can physically enter that kingdom or exist within it physically unless they are saved. Mortal flesh cannot exist ion it either. It doesn't mesh because of the constant conflation of the various kingdoms. happening. The Son's kingdom is not the same kingdom as the Father's. A spiritual entering of a spiritual kingdom is not the same as a physical entering of a kingdom.

 

[Davidpt]

The old covenant age ended or vanished in 70AD. The current age we are in is the new covenant age.

I will try and take this on for now.

Hmmm. Apparently, you don't agree that the moment Christ resurrected was when the OC age officially vanished and the NC officially age began. So what if there was still the 2nd temple and that they were still sacrificing animals for another 40 years. How does that prevent the NC age from beginning much earlier? All it means is that they continued for another 40 years to reject the NC age which began with Christ's death and resurrection. That's hardly the same as insisting the OC age didn't end until 70 AD, 70 AD then being when the NC age initially began. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are still Jews yet today, and it's way past 70 AD in 2024, that are still living per the OC age rather than the NC age. They might not still be sacrificing animals, yet sacrificing animals is not everything the OC age pertains to. It involves more than just that.

 

[Taken]

Can we take a look at John 3:1-5?

In John 3:3 it says a man can’t see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. Then in John 3:5 is says unless a man be born of water and spirit he can’t enter the kingdom of God.

From looking at the commentaries on this it appears to me that John 3:3 says a person has to be saved or they can’t perceive or understand the kingdom of God. Then John 3:5 goes one step further and say not only can’t you understand what the kingdom is, you can’t get into it either.

You have unsaved people visiting but not citizens of the kingdom. I can understand how you interpret “entering” with becoming a “citizen” but how are you interpreting John 3:3 where only believers are able to “see” the kingdom?

Kingdom of God…IS IN HEAVEN.
Jesus’ 1,000 year Kingdom…IS ON EARTH.
Expressly…I said mortal “BELIEVERS”….(not saved, not converted….BELIEVERS…shall be ON the Earth during the 1,000 yr reign….

(The definition of Believer…does not mean “saved”. a Believer can believe, doubt, deny, stop believing…a Sav-ED individual never CAN stop believing.)

As mortal believers begin over the course of the 1,000 years begin falling away…they have nothing to do with Jesus…same as mortals Now…don’t read, don’t hear, don’t pray, don’t go to church, don’t believe….
Men going to Jesus’ Kingdom is akin to going to CHURCH…the House of the Lord….to hear, to praise, to learn…
Over the course of 1,000 years generation after generation fall away…like now…having all their needs met…no need for Jesus, for God.

 

[grafted branch]

False. They can't spiritually enter or be of it but physically they can exist in the world after Christ has come and made it his kingdom. You seem to conflate the spiritual kingdom with the physical kingdom. One is inside people! It is never inside the unsaved when when they are physically in the kingdom of this world in the Mill.

1 Corinthians 15:46 (NIV) The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

The physical kingdom has already happened we are now in the spiritual kingdom. We are not going backwards to a physical kingdom again.

It doesn't mesh because of the constant conflation of the various kingdoms. happening. The Son's kingdom is not the same kingdom as the Father's. A spiritual entering of a spiritual kingdom is not the same as a physical entering of a kingdom.

There are interpretations where we don’t have to have multiple kingdoms, each with its own unique characteristics, in order to understand the parable. It’s really not that complicated once you see the preterist view.

 

[Davidpt]

"you have" is wrong. The bible tells us this and Rev 19 confirms they will be ruled over with a rod of iron. The parable applies to the Millennium because the burning of the tares is the LOF which happens AFTER the Mill is over.

I'm Premil too, yet you are not making much sense here, IMO. In Revelation 19 it involves the 2nd coming, then notice verse 21. Who do you take that to mean? Why wouldn't they be meaning the tares but would be meaning someone else? Surely, the tares would be part of the beast's armies. Or at least you would think so.

Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


Do you perhaps take Revelation 19:21 to be meaning after the millennium as well? I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from here, because whoever verse 21 is referring to, they couldn't possibly be present during the millennium if before the millenniium verse 21 is their fate.

I do agree there will be mortal survivors that enter the millennium. But why do they have to be the tares, though?

 

[Davidpt]

We are not going backwards to a physical kingdom again.

When Christ bodily returns you don't think the kingdom will be physical, but will be spiritual forever? Which would mean saints experience the kingdom forever by faith rather than by sight. Which means saints still won't be able to see angels, for example, with the naked eye, because the kingdom never becomes physical, it remains spiritual forever. Surely you can't believe that, can you?

 

[grafted branch]

Hmmm. Apparently, you don't agree that the moment Christ resurrected was when the OC age officially vanished and the NC officially age began.

I most certainly do think the new covenant started the moment Christ was resurrected, but just because the new covenant started doesn’t mean the old covenant vanished.

I agree with Hebrews 8:13 which clearly states the first covenant was made old and was ready to vanish away when the book of Hebrews was written, this was well after His resurrection. How else can we interpret that verse? What is your explanation of Hebrews 8:13?

All it means is that they continued for another 40 years to reject the NC age which began with Christ's death and resurrection.

How do you explain Acts 21:20 where there were thousands of Jews who both believed and were zealous for the law? How could that be possible if the old covenant vanished just after the cross and they were just rejecting the new covenant? Have you not read Acts 15 where it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to have different burdens for Gentiles than the Jews?

I don’t think you have taken a serious look at the events that happened after the cross. For example Peter didn’t want to eat the unclean things when he had the vision in Acts 10. Have you ever asked yourself why he would act that way?

 

[grafted branch]

When Christ bodily returns you don't think the kingdom will be physical, but will be spiritual forever? Which would mean saints experience the kingdom forever by faith rather than by sight. Which means saints still won't be able to see angels, for example, with the naked eye, because the kingdom never becomes physical, it remains spiritual forever. Surely you can't believe that, can you?

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

I’m not here to claim I know what shall be, I’ll leave that up to the futurist.

 

[tailgator]

When Christ bodily returns you don't think the kingdom will be physical, but will be spiritual forever? Which would mean saints experience the kingdom forever by faith rather than by sight. Which means saints still won't be able to see angels, for example, with the naked eye, because the kingdom never becomes physical, it remains spiritual forever. Surely you can't believe that, can you?

When it becomes a physical kingdom In this world with borders ,then the occupants who do not belong to Christ will be cast out of the kingdom promised to him.The unsaved will not walk through the fire but will burn up.


Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

 

[ewq1938]

1 Corinthians 15:46 (NIV) The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

Perfect cherry picking out of context example.

The physical kingdom has already happened we are now in the spiritual kingdom.

No. The spiritual kingdom came already in believers but the physical kingdom is coming at the Coming.

We are not going backwards to a physical kingdom again.

The physical kingdom has not yet come.

There are interpretations where we don’t have to have multiple kingdoms, each with its own unique characteristics, in order to understand the parable. It’s really not that complicated once you see the preterist view.

The bible speaks of multiple kingdoms. Preterism is false.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm Premil too, yet you are not making much sense here, IMO. In Revelation 19 it involves the 2nd coming, then notice verse 21. Who do you take that to mean? Why wouldn't they be meaning the tares but would be meaning someone else? Surely, the tares would be part of the beast's armies. Or at least you would think so.

A population often is composed of civilian and military. Rev 19 is the military not civilians.

Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


Do you perhaps take Revelation 19:21 to be meaning after the millennium as well? I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from here, because whoever verse 21 is referring to, they couldn't possibly be present during the millennium if before the millenniium verse 21 is their fate.

Rev 19 is before the Mill.

I do agree there will be mortal survivors that enter the millennium. But why do they have to be the tares, though?

In the parable people are either tares or wheat. The tares are born and die at various times but there is one time when they are all burned at the same time, which would be at the timeframe of the GWTJ and LOF, Rev 20.

 

[grafted branch]

The bible speaks of multiple kingdoms. Preterism is false.

I’ll tell what I’m going do, this is a one time limited offer that’s just too good to pass up. I’ll let you try the Preterist view for free for 30 days. And if after 30 days, for any reason, you decide you no longer like the Preterist view you can cancel and keep any unused portion as our gift to you, no questions asked.

What you say, are you ready to try Preterism?

 

[MatthewG]

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Also see Matthew 5:20 & 18:3).

I have a question, how did those that offend and do iniquity get into the kingdom? Is it possible to be born of water and Spirit and not be saved?

A clue might be found in the parable of the wedding banquet in Matthew 22:1-14. In verse 11-12 the king sees a man without a wedding garment and asks him how he came in without a garment, but no explanation of how that happened is given.

So, how do those that offend get into the kingdom?

Hello Grafted branch,

It seems to me a great question! Im reminded of those who were of Christ by did not proclaim Jesus cause they were afraid to get discharged from the temple, as an example. There is probably one more instance in the bible somewhere about this as well concerning people who were saying they were of the Lord but was not, and I believe its somewhere in the other letters and not the 4 gospels themselves.