Schemes...

[Spiritual Israelite]

The criteria in Daniel and Revelation concerning the little horn, man of sin, antichrist, beast etc, when everything is taken into consideration, demand a long surviving institution. Growing out of the western pagan Roman Empire, surviving a potential mortal wound along the way, yet still being here at the second coming, requires an existence of a minimum of 1500 years or more. Are you familiar with the SDA reasoning behind their identification of the Antichrist and its historical relevance to the reformation?

Yes, but I don't care about all that. I don't get my understanding from the SDA church. I rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding and not any church or religious organization. And that's how Paul said it should be (1 Corinthians 2:9-16).

As I said previously, historicism as a hermeneutic for arising prophecy had been around since the earliest centuries, and had been constantly used by Bible scholars ever since. Until the counter Reformation. Then most adopted the Catholic counterfeits.

So what? Is this supposed to matter to me? Again, I don't tie myself to any particular hermeneutic like that. I try to rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding of any given text instead of bringing heremeneutical or doctrinal bias into it.

Oh, I'm sure we'll be surprised by some developments that take place in the world, but I would remind you that our general eschatological understanding of the roles of the major players in the world of religion and politics has been only reaffirmed and accentuated since we first became a denomination in the 1860s. There has been nothing in current events or the tendency of movements over the decades to give rise to any consideration of revision of our major talking points.
One of our most popular publications, The Great Controversy, is more relevant today that it was when first published in 1888.

You are boring me with this. You can never convince me that we should put our trust in the SDA church for understanding, so don't bother even trying.

Let me give you an example of how I look at things and how it differs from how you look at things. You may have seen this before since I've explained my view of this before.

Anyway, take the Babylon referenced in the book of Revelation, for instance. Historicists like you believe that it references the Roman Catholic Church. To me, that is too narrow of a view. I believe it includes the false teachings of the RCC, but its scope is well beyond just the RCC.

It says that Babylon "is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.". Is the RCC "the hold of EVERY foul spirit, and a cage of EVERY unclean and hateful bird"? No. I'd say all cults and false religions are "the hold of every foul spirit". In my view, Babylon is the direct spiritual opposite of the heavenly New Jerusalem, which is "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9). The New Jerusalem represent the church, in other words. So, in my view, Babylon represents everything that opposes Christ and His church. She is the mother of all harlots (Rev 17:5), of which the Papacy/RCC is one with there being many others as well.

How can you or anyone else be so bold as disagreeing with our understanding of the mark of the beast, when you don't even recognise who the beast is?

LOL. Here's more of that arrogance that you deny having. It's very easy to disagree with the SDA understanding about that. Who are you to tell me that I don't recognize who the beast is?

The beast was before John wrote the book of Revelation, was not at the time he wrote the book and would ascend from the bottomless pit at some point in the future. That is what is indicated in Revelation 17:8.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

So, in what sense was the Papacy before the book of Revelation, in what sense was the Papacy "not" when the book of Revelation was written and in what sense did or will the Papacy ascend from the bottomless pit?

Revelation 13:8 indicates that all whose names are not written in the book of life worship the beast. Your narrow belief that the beast only references the RCC and the Papacy does not account for this. Surely, not all unbelievers follow after the Pope and the RCC.

The beast and Babylon encompass far more than just that. You're not recognizing that the beast and Babylon represent things that literally all unbelievers worship and follow after. That would include Mulsims, Buddhists, Hindus, secular humanists and so on. Those people do not follow after the Pope and the RCC. Again, all unbelievers worship the beast (Rev 13:8). What entity does scripture refer to which matches that description? This evil world and its ways. It is the kingdom of the wicked one which all unbelievers are part of (Matt 13:38). We are not of the world because the world opposes God and His ways.

It's his mark of authority over man. His. Ask him what his mark is?

Does the Pope have authority over all whose names are not written in the book of life? How can the following verse possibly be attributed to him?

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The mark of the beast is the spiritual opposite of the seal of God. All believers have the seal of God, which is the Holy Spirit. All unbelievers have the mark of the beast which marks them as being opposed to God and not belonging to Him.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus did not say that.
Read carefully...
“28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ”
John 5:28-29 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

You need to read carefully. That says exactly what I said that it does. A coming hour when all of the dead will be resurrected. You deny that.

Not one resurrection. Two separate resurrections. One for the righteous, one for the wicked.

I didn't say otherwise. You didn't address what I did say, which is that Jesus referred to one coming hour when the righteous and wicked will all be resurrected and not two coming hours when they will be resurrected as you believe. You're glossing over that part where He said an hour (not two hours) is coming when all of the dead will be resurrected. Why do you then have the resurrection of the righteous occurring at a different hour then the resurrection of the wicked? That contradicts what Jesus said about a singular coming hour when they all would be resurrected. That the righteous are resurrected separately from the wicked is besides the point that I'm making here. They still will all be resurrected once the hour Jesus said is coming arrives and not some resurrected at that hour and some resurrected at another hour in the distant future from then.

Revelation informs us how far apart they will be, and what takes place afterwards.

No, it does not. Look at this verse:

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Do you not know that Christ reigns now and His followers are "priests of God and of Christ" now? And that the second death has no power over those who belong to Christ now? If you didn't know that, then now you do. And you should read this verse accordingly.

You need to learn to interpret scripture with scripture. Since scripture says that Christ has been reigning since His resurrection (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23) and that His followers have been priests since then (1 Peter 2:9, Rev 1:5-6), then you should interpret Revelation 20 accordingly.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

See how this says that Jesus Christ IS "the prince of the kings of the earth"? See how this says that Jesus "HATH MADE us kings and priests unto God and his Father"? What does that tell you about the timing of Revelation 20:6? It tells me that Revelation 20:6 has been a reality for a long time already and that the thousand years are not a literal thousand years. The word "thousand" is not any more literal there than it is in verses that speak of God keeping His promises to "a thousand generations" (Deut 7:9) or that He owns "the cattle on a thousand hills" (Psalm 50:10).

For the saved, the first resurrection at Christ's soon very loud physical, visible, return, will mark the beginning of their reign with Christ in heaven, during which time all questions regarding God's judgement and justice and government will be answered.

Why would such a thing be necessary and where is that taught in scripture? We can learn about those things for all eternity.

When the wicked are raised at the end of the 1000 years, there will be no doubts, or unanswered questions regarding the just and fair judgement upon the wicked.

What does this even mean? There are no doubts or unanswered questions about that right now. You know that Jesus is God and is the Judge, don't you (John 5:22)? Why would you think that He would have any doubts or unanswered questions regarding the just and fair judgments upon the wicked?

Even they will now their knees along with Satan and all his demonic angels, and confess...too late... that Jesus is Lord and His judgement true and their execution just. Fire then comes down of heaven and destroys them all.

You need to read Revelation 20:7-9 more carefully. That describes a number of people "as the sand of the sea" throughout the earth" going up against "the camp of the saints". Why would you think that the wicked would have any opportunity to try to attack "the camp of the saints" after being resurrected? That's nonsense. No, they will be taken directly before the throne to be judged after they are resurrected. The ones who number "as the sand of the sea" who oppose "the camp of the saints" represent living unbelievers who oppose the church during the time just before the second coming of Christ. Fire will come down to physically destroy them just as is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12. After that, all of the wicked from all time will be resurrected and will stand before the throne to be judged and will be cast into the lake of fire.

 

[ewq1938]

This is what it spit out

Least of My Brethren​

In the passage from Matthew 25, Jesus distinguishes between the sheep and the goats, indicating that the sheep are those who have cared for "the least of these brothers of Mine".4 This suggests that the least of these brethren are not a subset of the sheep but rather the recipients of the sheep's actions. The sheep are those who have shown mercy and care to the least of these brethren.23
The least of these brethren are described as those who are hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, sick, and imprisoned.2 The focus is on the actions of the sheep towards these individuals, not on whether these individuals are part of the sheep group. The goats, on the other hand, are those who have not shown such care.

I asked it also:

In the passage from Matthew 25, is it possible the least of my brethren are a subset of the sheep?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes, it is possible to interpret the least of my brethren in Matthew 25:40 as a subset of the sheep in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31–46).

Possible Interpretations:​

1. The Least of My Brethren as the Needy Among the Sheep:
   • In this view, the least of my brethren refers to those among Christ's followers who are in need—hungry, thirsty, strangers, sick, or imprisoned.
   • The sheep would then include all the righteous, and among them would be those in need whom the others serve.
   • This fits with the broader biblical theme of caring for fellow believers (Galatians 6:10, James 2:15-16).
2. The Least of My Brethren as Christ’s Disciples (or Persecuted Believers):
   • Another view is that my brethren refers specifically to Jesus' disciples or persecuted Christians.
   • The sheep would be those (whether believers or not) who show kindness to these followers of Christ.
   • This would align with passages where Jesus identifies His disciples as His "brethren" (Matthew 12:49-50).
3. The Least of My Brethren as the Needy in General:
   • Some interpret the least of my brethren more broadly, referring to all those in need, whether they are believers or not.
   • The sheep would then be those who show kindness and compassion to the poor and suffering, regardless of identity.

Conclusion:​

If the least of my brethren refers to needy believers within the group of sheep, then they would indeed be a subset of the sheep—righteous individuals who are themselves in need. However, if brethren refers to Jesus’ disciples or all the needy in general, the sheep could be a distinct group—those who show kindness to them. The passage leaves room for multiple interpretations, and the specific identity of the least depends on one’s theological perspective.

 

[Brakelite]

The beast was before John wrote the book of Revelation, was not at the time he wrote the book and would ascend from the bottomless pit at some point in the future. That is what is indicated in Revelation 17:8.

So the entire book of Revelation is timestamped as having taken place while he was writing the book? Or just the parts you can't explain otherwise? Nothing was in the future to his writing? Revelation 17:8 refers only to his precise time? He couldn't have been writing from a perspective in the future, and referring to the past tense?
It's all well and good to believe you have the holy Spirit to teach you everything. We all need the holy Spirit as guidance, sure. But you don't think a study of history and comparing history to prophecy informs anyone about prophetic fulfillment?

 

[Brakelite]

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

You still haven't explained who the beast is. Nor have you explained what its mark is. Sure, it's a sign of loyalty to the beast, but as Revelation 14 describes, it brings down the most dire of God's judgements, surely we need to understand precisely what it is that we may avoid it, and how? You don't need SDA teaching to understand scripture. History tells you who the beast is. Prophecy gives you the identifying criteria, history, often written in the blood of the saints, tells you who or what fulfilled those criteria. From there, using those same criteria, is actually quite simple to figure out what the mark is. Of course, the aid of the holy Spirit helps. But you've still got to put in the leg work by spending time studying. By digging deeper.

 

[Verily]

I asked it also:

In the passage from Matthew 25, is it possible the least of my brethren are a subset of the sheep?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes, it is possible to interpret the least of my brethren in Matthew 25:40 as a subset of the sheep in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31–46).

Possible Interpretations:​

1. The Least of My Brethren as the Needy Among the Sheep:
   • In this view, the least of my brethren refers to those among Christ's followers who are in need—hungry, thirsty, strangers, sick, or imprisoned.
   • The sheep would then include all the righteous, and among them would be those in need whom the others serve.
   • This fits with the broader biblical theme of caring for fellow believers (Galatians 6:10, James 2:15-16).
2. The Least of My Brethren as Christ’s Disciples (or Persecuted Believers):
   • Another view is that my brethren refers specifically to Jesus' disciples or persecuted Christians.
   • The sheep would be those (whether believers or not) who show kindness to these followers of Christ.
   • This would align with passages where Jesus identifies His disciples as His "brethren" (Matthew 12:49-50).
3. The Least of My Brethren as the Needy in General:
   • Some interpret the least of my brethren more broadly, referring to all those in need, whether they are believers or not.
   • The sheep would then be those who show kindness and compassion to the poor and suffering, regardless of identity.

Conclusion:​

If the least of my brethren refers to needy believers within the group of sheep, then they would indeed be a subset of the sheep—righteous individuals who are themselves in need. However, if brethren refers to Jesus’ disciples or all the needy in general, the sheep could be a distinct group—those who show kindness to them. The passage leaves room for multiple interpretations, and the specific identity of the least depends on one’s theological perspective.

It only acknowledged two groups (not three) without having to use the word "subset". I already know this, that is no surpise. I am the one seeing three groups (not it) which I introduced before and did so here because I have been looking at this for quite awhile. This is why I said to you (about giving you a summary of how I am seeing this, I said...

The best I could do was give it to AI and ask if it could see my point by feeding it the scriptures I was looking at, and have it break it down into three groups as I was catching it.

I have said this before about AI, it will look at something and can change its stance depending on which scriptures you feed it (and how you are reasoning with them).

So the three groups come out of the scriptures I was feeding it and reasoning with it on. It validated from them three groups, although its initial stand is two.

Which is not surprising.

 

[Verily]

I wonder if any of it can be connected to judgment given the saints, and/or the saints judging the world in some way.

1 Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

1 Cr 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

 

[ewq1938]

History tells you who the beast is.

No, it doesn't. All of Rev 13 is future. The two beasts are still future, and when they rise to power they have only 42 months to rule this world, then Christ returns.

 

[ewq1938]

It only acknowledged two groups (not three) without having to use the word "subset".

No, I asked if there was a subset and it answered, "Yes".

The entire answer explains how the brethren is a subset of the sheep.

 

[Verily]

No, I asked if there was a subset and it answered, "Yes".

The entire answer explains how the brethren is a subset of the sheep.

I think you are misunderstanding, I was asking after I entered in how I was reasoning with it according to MY OWN scriptures added into it, it lays a framework and builds on that as you continue to ask. Its answer is really neither here nor there with me personally because I disagree with it, but it was running off of how I was reasoning with it from the start. You asked for me to ask it according to how you posted scripture to me (where it corrected me, and I told you I couldnt find your translation). But then you said, that was just how YOU see it, not that it was of any specific translation. When I am using the word subset (after going in my direction) it rejects it, but if I clear it and begin again it erases the former conversation and starts off at two groups (as usual)

Here is the new order of asking the question without my own mixed into it

First question

how many groups in Matthew 25:31-46

It answers

Matthew 25 Groups Explained
In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus describes a scene where he separates people into two groups: the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
These groups are metaphorically used to represent those who have shown compassion and kindness to others in need and those who have neglected to do so, respectively.

Hands off of my own imput (and right into your question)

Second question (Yours)

Can these brethen of mine in those groups be a subset of sheep

It answers

Matthew 25 Groups and Sheep

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus describes two main groups: the sheep and the goats. The "brethren of mine" mentioned in this passage refers to those who are taken care of by the sheep, which are the righteous who will inherit the kingdom. These brethren can be considered a subset of the people who are in need and are being cared for by the sheep.

The sheep are those who have shown compassion and care to others in need, while the goats are those who did not. The brethren of Jesus, who are cared for by the sheep, are those who were hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, or in prison.

The distinction between sheep and goats is based on how they treated these brethren in need, indicating that the brethren can indeed be seen as a subset of those who are cared for by the sheep

Then I ask

What if these brethen of mine are a third group which the goats and sheep are divided by

It answers differently this time adding to it saying

Matthew 25 Groups Explained
Matthew 25:31-46 describes three main groups: the sheep, the goats, and a third group referred to as "my brethren." These "brethren" are likely the 144,000 Jewish believers who will be closely identified with the Lord during the Tribulation period.
The separation of the sheep and goats occurs when Jesus returns in His glory, and He will judge them based on how they treated these brethren.

(Which it certainly did not bring in the last time to me, because I dont feed it eschatogly type questions because I dont get into this stuff, it did that on its own)

Then I ask again this way to see if I can sift out the details in the above

What if there are really three groups in Matthew 25:31-46 and not two, but rather the two, the sheep and the goats are divided by what they did to the third group

It answers

Matthew 25 Groups Clarified
The passage in Matthew 25:31-46 primarily describes a separation into two groups: the sheep and the goats. However, some interpretations suggest a third group based on the context of the passage. According to this view, the sheep and goats are judged based on their treatment of a third group, which consists of people in need, such as the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and imprisoned. The judgment is based on whether the sheep provided assistance to these individuals, while the goats did not. This interpretation emphasizes the importance of charitable works and caring for those in need as a reflection of one's faith and relationship with Christ. However, the traditional understanding focuses on the separation into two distinct groups, with no explicit mention of a third group in the text itself.

So its different every time, and whether it agrees with me or not is neither here nor there with me, it will tell you the traditional view is just two groups (not three).

When following the framework of my questions it did not allow for a subset because they were already separated per reasoning with it according to the scriptures I was feeding into it.

So when you are asking me to ask about the subset why would it be surprising that it would reject the question on my end but give you the answer you want on your end?

On my end my questionings werent cleared and given a fresh slate. It would have been best to simply ask it on your end and put in your own results.

Regardless, it showed two groups even from the start (and no third group) without your subset question, because by default if it sees two groups (even as it says two groups are what are traditionally understood to be there), this would naturally make it a subset of one of them (without asking). So I dont get plugging it in that way for proof. I used to see it as two (but now three).

Edit typos

 

[ewq1938]

Regardless, it showed two groups even from the start (and no third group) without your subset question, because by default if it sees two groups (even as it says two groups are what are traditionally understood to be there), this would naturally make it a subset of one of them (without asking). So I dont get plugging it in that way for proof. I used to see it as two (but now three).

Who are the sheep?

 

[Verily]

Who are the sheep?

Not the goats

 

[Verily]

I like AI's answer here


In John 10:2, Jesus clarifies that the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

Jesus, who is the door, enters in through Himself

 

[ewq1938]

Not the goats

Christ's sheep and Christ's brethren are the same people, Christians:

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Mar_14:27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

In one we have Christ and his followers are brethren.
In the second, Christ is the Shepherd and the sheep are his followers, Christians.

brethren = sheep


Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

 

[Verily]

Christ's sheep and Christ's brethren are the same people, Christians:

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Mar_14:27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

In one we have Christ and his followers are brethren.
In the second, Christ is the Shepherd and the sheep are his followers, Christians.

brethren = sheep


Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

I still agree with this either way, but I just see three there

 

[ewq1938]

I still agree with this either way, but I just see three there

Goats on the left and sheep on the right. Which side would the brethren be on?

 

[Verily]

Goats on the left and sheep on the right. Which side would the brethren be on?

We can go back and forth if you'd like, but I would rather put something forth very simply as to why I consider them three groups after the manner that I do using another example. Perhaps not the best example but you can get the gist of why I might be leaning in that direction.

For example, Jesus prays for these (for they are thine)

John 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

So there are two groups here, we have the world (which Jesus specifically says he prays not for) and for these others (who, are equals among themselves as you yourself stress) these being his brethren

And then there is another group

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word

And so "for them also" who shall come to believe on Jesus through their word (His brethren)

And Jesus prays they would all be one. He sends these firstly (having prayed for them, and those who believe in him through their word)

John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

All things being equal Jesus also said this concerning those he sends

John 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

So it would make sense to me that there are three groups,

Those Jesus (he who sanctifieth) sends, which is them also that are sanctified/ His brethren (who are sent). The world (Jesus prays not for). And those that will believe in him through their word.

Similarly, a picture of not receiving his

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you,
It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

So it makes sense to me to see those sent (by Christ) whether they be recieved (by sheep) or rejected (by goats) to be considered three groups in a picture, where other's rejection of these brethren of mine (in whichever way) has implications in the day of judgment.

 

[ewq1938]

So it makes sense to me to see those sent (by Christ) whether they be recieved (by sheep) or rejected (by goats) to be considered three groups in a picture,

So you see those Jesus sent out as not sheep themselves but sent to go to those who are sheep?

 

[Brakelite]

So it makes sense to me to see those sent (by Christ) whether they be recieved (by sheep) or rejected (by goats)

One is not designated a sheep or goat until the final judgment... those who were sent to the lost sheep of Israel did return with some fruit...lost sheep (or goats) that were found and converted... surely the reverse would be true also? Some of those lost sheep rejected the message of the gospel and became permanent goats.
When Israel's probation ended, and the gospel was sent to the Gentiles via Paul and Peter, many of those unbelieving goats became sheep yes?

 

[Verily]

So you see those Jesus sent out as not sheep themselves but sent to go to those who are sheep?

I can certainly see them as sent sheep even as I would see Jesus a sent Lamb. I have not disagreed with the words of God posted concerning this.

I understand your game of words here for the sake of toppling an argument