FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

Well, unless you decided to investigate the topic yourself, your notes might not explain a lot. Thieme simply stated that Luke 19 was for OT, he didn't state why. I was asking God why, as the Thieme was speaking, and then the answer immediately hit me, that both Minas and Talents are Second Advent occurrences. That is the key.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Well, that's just it, clearly Luke 19 is 2nd Advent but not so clearly, Matt25. Thieme did teach that 'cities' award is strictly OT only. The OT awards are of cities because Christ is Lord of Israel, so Moses, David, etc. will all get PORTIONS OF ISRAEL (then mucn expanded in size) to rule.

Luke doesn't use anything in Matt25 as part of Luke 21. So the two stories are on related ideas, but are not the same. In the Matt25, the express 'kingdom of heaven' is used, so means believers, whereas in Luke 19 it's an end-of-age return to defeat the enemies, a 'wrapping context' not in Matt 25.

So the Matt25 is just on being ready for the master/bridegroom, so could well be the Rapture instead, which of course is parallel in idea, the rewards but not in the context of the rest of the world.

So we can't say that Luke 19 EQUALS Matt25 parable of the three servants.

Luke 13:31-35 tells you He's talking A FEW DAYS before he enters Jerusalem. Parallel in Matthew is 23:37-39. Luke 19:1, he's in Jericho. He enters Jerusalem Palm Sunday scene, just after he told the minas parable.

Matthew 26 is two days before official Passover (beginning on Saturday), so was a week before He'd die (not the two months I previously posited). He had also BEEN IN Jerusalem for at least a week. So Matt24-25 is told while IN Jerusalem.

So maybe the text from Luke 19 is UPDATED by Matt25 to apply to Church, hence the similarity in meaning but updated for Church. In any event, during the same two weeks between three days before he enters Jeru and three days before official Passover was to begin. The problem with that hypothesis is that Luke's supposed to be the one updating for Church. So why is Luke 21's timeline only 1085 (35 to old-Mill then next 1050 to reconcile both time tracks)? I wish I knew the answer. But it's timing is similar, IN Jerusalem, IN the temple.

John makes the same skip but used 4 days, in John 18-19, easily missed in English.

Depart from me

I decided to include Peter's statement in there too since I thought it was funny (and the fact that it accounts for the second 'depart from me' in Luke, meaning Matthew and Luke both have that statement twice). Assuming the KJV is translating the Greek consistently...

But something else caught my attention, Luke 13 and Matthew 7 both have the phrase 'workers of iniquity' (well that's how the KJV rendered the original greek words which I really should install BW to find out what they are). So let's see where these 'workers of iniquity' are exactly, because finding that out will give a clearer picture to WHO it's targeting: whether believes + unbelievers, or just unbelievers. I'm certain this was brought up previously too, but maybe I just didn't pay that much attention to it before.

Workers of iniquity

The KJV translators fell asleep when translating Titus 2:14, yikes is that ever awful.
Matthew 13 therefore links up with the phrases 'iniquity' and 'wailing and gnashing of teeth'.

There's a few things to note, Matthew 25 changes its ending statement after 'depart from me', so it's a bit different from the rest.

While Matthew 13 has some tie-ins, it's still not conclusive that that's who the workers of iniquity are (and it seems to be using that term of what's happening 'then', which is distanced from the other statements since it refers to it as CONSTANT form what I can tell). So... to get anywhere further on this I'll need to look at BW, I guess.

Good points. Frankly we've got so much similar information, we can be sure we're looking at parallels, but not so sure which parallels in which places. Wish the pulpits covered this stuff instead of the mishmash of morality that has no spiritual value anyway (kinda like package for food, morality, something that houses the real stuff but itself is not nourishing).

Come now, shoes have a lot of nutrition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY0DOnNK3Wg
(although to be fair that was a shoe made out of liquorice)

That's the thing, I don't think the Rapture was factored into Matt 24-25. If it was, then its a secondary meaning of the text, posed as a Plan B. The reason I say that is, in the Parable of Ten Virgins, the virgins are waiting to be let into the Wedding, same as the people in Matt 22:10. So I doubt the virgins are bride, but probably bridesmaids. So this looks closer to Second Advent than Rapture.

The Parable of Talents does not specify Second Advent or Rapture, so it was probably intended primarily for Plan A (no Church, therefore Second Advent), but since there was an early crucifixion, both Rapture and Second Advent could possibly be worked into that case. That would explain why it sounds so generic compared to Luke 19.

The separation of the sheep from the goats in Matt 25:31 is clearly Second Advent, possibly including the final Judgment at the end of the Millennium.

So I'm not seeing the Church or the Rapture as the PRIMARY focus anywhere in Matt 24 or 25.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

'You don't know the day or hour' means Rapture.

Matt 24:42: Γρηγορεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ κύριος ὑμῶν ἔρχεται.

25:13: γρηγορεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἡμέραν οὐδὲ τὴν ὥραν.

So it's Rapture. That's why Kingdom of Heaven.

2nd Advent is exactly predictable after the Rapture happens.

Yeah, and the day and hour that no man knows is also the Second Advent, because it will be shortened for the sake of the elect.

The tribulation measured in days:
365.242 days x 7 solar years= 2556.694 days or 2,556 days and 16 hours.

The people in the Tribulation will know when to start watching for the Lord's return. But 16 hours can overlap days. Therefore no one will know the exact day or hour.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

DUE TO Rapture. There's no such you don't know language in the OT. The date was calculated and plotted, 57 years after Christ died.

40 years after He died to the very day, Titus began the final assault on the Temple. That assault ended on 9th Ab, which with the Jewish piggyback sundown dating, meant 10 AB at sundown, same day as 1st Temple taken down.

So you see, the day is matched. And Daniel 12 tells you the number of DAYS, because you need to know that to avoid the Bdelugma.

So they DID know to the day, BEFORE CHURCH.

Maybe you're right, but I need to see for myself how Matt 24-25 all works together before I can accept that to be true. I used to believe the "no man knows" clause was in reference to the Rapture, but I couldn't make sense of Matt 24-25. When I changed my opinion and took it to be a primary reference to the Second Advent, then the whole Olivet Discourse just clicked into place for me.

So here are a few issues that I would need to resolve before I can say the Rapture is in the Olivet Discourse:

1) How can the 70th Week be cut short, yet at the same time be a set number of days? Even if it is cut short by a window of time as small as up to 14 hours, that still makes the Second Advent a day and hour which is unknowable.

2) The Parable of the Virgins looks like Second Advent/Wedding Feast to me, just like in Matt 22. The virgins are called παρθένοις, whereas a bride is called νύμφην and a wife, γυναικὸς. So given that the Wedding occurs shortly after the Second Advent, it would not make sense to consider the virgins in the parable the bride, nor would it would not make sense to consider this a Rapture parable. Finally, our Lord finishes the parable (which is about the Second Advent) with, “Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour." Our Lord was asked about His return in Matt 24:3, therefore everything in Matt 24-25 revolves around that question.

Maybe you could say that "no man knows the day or hour" can be applied to both the Rapture and Second Advent, but it appears to me that the Second Advent is in primary focus here. To be honest, I don't see the Rapture in any other Olivet Discourse accounts.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Okay, well you have to go about resolving it as you see fit. As for 'cut short', don't forget that its GIVEN length might BE the 'cut short' value. Meaning, had it been one day longer all mankind would have died.

NET or GROSS. You're thinking the end of the week is GROSS, when it might be NET.

As for the virgins, they aren't BRIDE until the WEDDING. So the virgins can be dual-entendre for a harem 'bride' waiting to be 'picked'. I'm still thinking that over, but 'kingdom of heaven' can't mean unbelievers.

My theory is that the 70th Week itself is the gross length, but that the violence occupying that gross length is cut short by a matter of hours (lets pretend 12 hours). The time doesn't disappear, but maybe its used to sort the Wedding guests before it actually starts. Just a possibility, but I don't know how long the actual Wedding is.

I'm sure both the foolish and wise are believers. Its a matter of who passes Bema. Some translations call them bridesmaids. That sounds more correct to me, for there is only one Bride in Rev 21, not 5 wise brides and 5 harem.

My thinking is that the Olivet Discourse was given before the early crucifixion was set in stone. I don't think the Church learned about the Rapture until Paul taught it. That's why he said, "I show you a mystery".

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Okay, well the Greek says VIRGINS (unmarried women, parthenoi). Not, 'bridesmaids', which is an interpretation. Matters to say VIRGINS if it's CHURCH, and a HAREM SELECTION, so very different meaning.

Regarding GROSS interp on the 70th week, where's the proof that's how to interpret it? When Christ says had those days not been cut short meaning that they ARE does not mean that the WEEK is cut short, but could mean it's cut short TO a week.

Sorry, but theological interpretation has proven so wrong so often lately, that I've become very skeptical of 'traditional' fiats on well-known Bible passages.

How Wallace can even posit that Mark is 1st Gospel is beyond insane. Stuff like that. Our 'experts' are proving to be rather stupid about Bible, and I'm all for revaluing everything de novo.

I understand. My interpretations are based on my own personal observations, not those of theologians. I either accept RBT's interpretation or I figure it out myself, so if it sounds like I'm parroting, I'm not.

My understanding is that 10 virgins are most COMMONLY interpreted as Bride (wise) and non-believers (foolish). Based on that, people like to says its Rapture, but they are ALL BELIEVERS, as you noted. So Rapture simply doesn't make sense to me anymore in this parable, hence my submitted interpretation.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Okay, well maybe I don't understand you. Who do you think the foolish virgins are? I thought you'd said (but we've had so many gyrations in this topic) that they were immature CA believers.

My unrefined opinion so far is that the foolish virgins are surviving apostate Tribulation believers, and the wise are surviving mature Tribulation believers. So Christ returns, wise are let in to the wedding, foolish are left out. Therefore the moral of the story is for Tribulation believers to watch for His return.

Foolish or not, if you assume any of these virgins to be Church Age believers, then that opens the window to Partial Rapture theory...I don't think any of us here believe in partial Rapture.


I asked you about this about a year or two ago. Back then I thought it was Church Age. Maybe that's what's causing the confusion.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I don't see how it opens to partial Rapture, and I don't see how you can claim ANY of them are Trib believers. The Trib people will ALL be able to know the EXACT number of days, and that the Lord comes at night MAKING it daytime. For they have to know whether to stay or leave, and if they misread that, what to do and how to count down until the 2nd Advent, which is a specific date given in Daniel 12.

WE don't know when that is, cuz the Rapture kicks it off. But they will exactly know, and need to know, to know where to be and go, whether to stay in Petra or wherever. Exact opposite of what the passage says.

Ok, so lets assume all 10 virgins are Church Age believers. The 5 wise get taken in, and the 5 foolish get left behind? Doesn't that sound like Partial Rapture to you?

Look at Zech 14:7

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Right, I was thinking of Zech 14 and you found the verse.

As for the virgins, the ones shut out would be CA still, but shut out of the perq of the wedding, similar to how Esther became queen but all the harem was 'married' to Xerxes. So the wedding was for her. So it's a RANK division. Goodies and privileges with RANK.

That's why 'outer' matters so much, what does it mean for Church. Nearest I can say now is just 'outside' the inner circle, whatever that means. Got to be a better description in Scripture, hence this thread and the metering God gave you.

Yeah, I agree that there might be Bride vs Harem, or even possibly Bride vs Aborted Bride, but I still don't think that is what the Parable of Virgins is about.

And I think the 'day known to the Lord' in Zech 14:7 is the 'day and hour which no man knows, but only God'.

Could you explain where you think the Rapture is in the Parable of Virgins?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

You don't know the day or hour refrain means Rapture (e.g., Matt 25:13). It's the NT, written after Christ died, he's talking about Church from Matt16:18 onward. Same refrain used in Acts 1, but there Christ no longer says HE doesn't know.

Zech 14 was written while Daniel still lived, see Zech 1:1, 7:1. Daniel 10 was written after Darius had died, Daniel was mourning his passing -- so much, he didn't even take Passover (see Daniel 10's opening). So then Dan 12 wasn't yet given, which was the exact days countings (both halves).

Ok, so at which point are the 10 virgins raptured? Verse 13 gives the warning, but where does it actually occur in the parable?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

That's the point of the parable and key to knowing it's a WHAT IF RAPTURE DOES NOT HAPPEN timeline. You don't know, Matt25:13. THAT is the lesson of the whole passage, and my smoking gun for why Paul's Eph1:3-14 is a carom timeline for denouement of Church.

That's why I'm so obliged to you. I didn't accept it as a timeline but you were sure it was. And, it is. Matt24 starts out with bam bam bam sequence of events which are CHURCH, not Israel. Then the Bdelugma, then hide -- which is Trib. Then the end. Panorama. But if a timeline, then it has to mean WHAT IF THESE EVENTS ARE NOT 'the final'. Then, they would be parallel, historical trends just the same, as Thieme kept stressing.

Matt 25 then continues the timeline. So it still has the same meaning. So the YOU DO NOT KNOW refrain (bookending Matt 24:42 so still same theme) certifies that it's still Church. For the Lord's Parousia is dual: Rapture for us, 2nd Advent for them.

But the NOT KNOW only applies to us, since once Rapture occurs, then they WILL know and MUST know. Criterion for knowing Scripture includes knowing prophecy, and when that prophecy is TIMED then the segment belonging to Trib would be in HERE, and they could COUNT it, when armed with Daniel 12. But not, before Rapture happens. So it's focused on what if Rapture doesn't happen.

Do I make any sense? Am too excited to type well, maybe.

I understand what you say, and for the most part I agree. The way I see Matt 24-25 meter is the indefinite stretching of time until the Day of the Lord.

Still, I don't see the Rapture in the text itself. That is where I still disagree, and I still think the Ten Virgins Parable is Second Advent. When you look at it metrically, the Church is then obvious as the means of stretching time. As a result, the metered text applies to the Church as a symbolic parallel.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Well, maybe part of the confusion is that for Church, the Rapture is its 2nd Coming. But we go up to meet Him, and the world doesn't see that (well, I actually don't know if the world doesn't see that). So HE doesn't come down to earth, but we meet Him in the air, 1Thess 4:17.

It is nonetheless parallel and significant to the passage, as much as a 2nd Advent (in which we come BACK with Him), to the earth.

The Bride has to be gathered first. That's why I'm sure the virgins parable means Church.

My conundrum has to do with what's 'shut out', and I'm thinking now, the Wedding festivities. For not all the harem is Queen Consort. Could be shut out of something else, with 'outer darkness' being a parallel as well.

The problem I have, is that Matt 22 makes it clear in my opinion that the Wedding happens on earth just after the Second Advent. So at what point in the Virgin Parable is the Bride returning with Groom to start the Wedding?

This is why I'm sticking to the Second Advent interpretation, thus the virgins can't be Bride in my opinion, but Bridesmaids.

Per Matt 22, the alternative to being a part of the Wedding is the Outer Darkness.

We go in the Rapture to be made ready for the Wedding. That means Bema. The foolish believers cannot be shut out of the Bema process.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

A Wedding Feast doesn't start right away. Remember how harems work from Esther?
1. The girls are COLLECTED.
2. The 'husband' reviews each one (or in ancient times, spent the night with each one).
3. THEN the Wedding. So those not selected as Queen, are 'shut out' of that rank.

So all of the harem are married to him, but he picks the Queen. So there is a division of rank, and those below the cutoff don't get to participate in the festivities. At the same time, there is a hiatus between the collection and the festivities. For us, that's the Bema.

So I'd read the virgins parable as explaining what gets you shut out AT the Bema, ties to 1Cor3, saved but no rewards.

Well, thats kind of my point. The Parable of Virgins does not show the 1 on 1 evaluation of the women. If you say that only the wise went in for evaluation, then the foolish never get evaluated at all. Based on that, this can't be a Rapture parable.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I guess you don't remember how a harem works. Other people gather the women for the harem. From that moment on they are 'married' to the master, even if he never sees them.

The ones selected would be selected based on criteria, i.e., here wise versus foolish. Even then, it's not personal, still sight unseen as in the parable. ALL who were there when the Groom arrived, go in with him. Again, it doesn't say bridesmaids, but VIRGINS. As in, harem.

I'm not saying this answer is wholly satisfactory. But there is no weeping clause. So it's not 2nd Advent where Baptism of Fire occurs (Luke 19, spoken BEFORE Luke 21 and in the same time period).. and not final judgment for eternity, which is the end of Matt25.

I agree with the Harem analogy, I just don't think it fits here.

1) The virgins are waiting together to meet the bridegroom (Matt 25:1). They are WAITING for Him, so there is no Rapture there. We meet the Bridegroom in the clouds, He does not meet us there.

2) At the midnight shout (Matt 25:6-9), the virgins wake up for the arrival of the Bridegroom, but the foolish have to leave to buy oil. No Rapture here either, since the foolish believers are separated from the wise believers (no partial Rapture). All of Church must go together.

3) The Bridegroom comes and takes the wise, leaving the foolish behind (Matt 25:10). This is definitely not Rapture because:
a. they were waiting to enter the wedding ceremony (which occurs on earth post 2nd Advent per Matt 22).
b. there is no partial Rapture, both the Wise and Foolish would have to enter together as a single body.

c. all of harem must face Bema for the selection of the Elect Bride before the ceremony can be held.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Replies in blue below.



Bottom line, every point you raise claiming proof it's not Rapture, is proof that it is a Rapture passage. Dunno how I can make it clearer, so talk to God about this. I won't talk any more on this subtopic, as whatever you seem to see as non-Rapture proof, is instead Rapture proof, so we'll be at a perpetual standoff. God knows what's needed, so ask Him.

I've been slowly back tracking while I worked on complex problems, and started thinking on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXbVSvfZSfQ
(of course byefigleaves took down his channel but that doesn't matter since I have all of the information that I need).

The three condensed groups that we're dealing with:
#1 matured kings (believers + maturity)
#2 immature kings (believers + no maturity & unbelieving believers)
#3 no-kings (unbelievers)

I've consolidated unbelieving believers and immature believers both into #2. However, it's also the most misunderstood group and the one we constantly go back and forth on--or at least I do.

Going on to getting Christ's attributes in you, that would apply to those who mature in Bible Doctrine. But this wouldn't apply to any of the other types. I think Christ exemplifies this on Luke 8:14, because to be fixated on non-mental things (riches) means you haven't gotten Christ's attributes. But at the same time of course, you can be saved.

So we can say with certainty that to be in outer darkness, it will be a requirement to (not) have Christ's attributes in you. But that still leaves the second group in a bit of a disparity--because it wouldn't make sense in my opinion, if everyone in group 2 was in that situation.

However... then we have to ask ourselves... what EXACTLY constitutes outer darkness then? I think the easiest passage (at least for me at the time) to think about would be where it's mentioned with the Centurion:

What was so remarkable that sparked Jesus' reply to include outer darkness with the centurion? Well it certainly makes this a unique passage because:
A) I don't know of anywhere else where you have TOSOUTOS pistis
B) it's the only time 'outer darkness' is mentioned when Christ isn't narrating a large parable, but rather directly with Centurion Tosoutos Pistis
C) in Matthew there's no transition, it's abruptly stuck in there, almost awkwardly

So here's a list:
#1 what is so profound about tosoutos pistis?
Answer: maybe an attribute? Obviously Christ is bringing it up for some reason / I'm guessing it's not the same as 'just another believer' scenario
#2 what does outer darkness have to do with the context of Christ's response? I mean, unless there was something that Centurion T.P. and others could get out of it, there'd be no point of even bringing it up. And clearly if you don't know the connection as to WHY it was pertinent to bring it up, it almost seems out of place...
--> It's almost like breaking out in an inside joke to a crowd of people / unless everyone gets the reference, it's just verbal white noise.
Answer: ?
#3 why bring it up with Centurion T.P. specifically?
Answer: because of tosoutos pistis-- which leads to something else?
#4 why is it the only time Christ mentions outer darkness OUTSIDE of a long parable?
Answer: ?
#5 why is this mysterious 'outer darkness' portion omitted in Luke?
Answer: because Luke isn't trying to emphasize the same points Matthew is -- so whatever Matthew is getting at, is also getting at this, too
#6 why was Matthew writing it so that it's so abrupt in conjunction with tosoutos pistis?
Answer: ?

All I can gather is that tosoutos pistis is what provoked the statement of outer darkness afterwards--and it's specially what Matthew is to 'get home' about, because it's omitted in Luke. In fact, the rendition in Luke is WHAT YOU WOULD *EXPECT* the conversation to be and solves the conflict I have in my head about it. In Matthew... it's so abrupt because there's no transition-- at least not that I can tell since I'm not a Greek-expert.

If I had to take a guess, 'tosoutos pistis' could be an attribute -- I guess if you have THAT much believing, you'll be on the same page as God's thinking. Unfortunately not much else is really given of that centurion, how he came to believe, what he did prior etc. Pretty much the only thing people talk about that Centurion is claim the servant that was healed was his same-sex partner; I'll play the devil's advocate and say even if that was the case, that's SO MUNDANE in contrast to what's happening in that passage-- and to focus on that and ignore all of the other information, well, you're nowhere on being a king and doing the opposite of tosoutos pistis. Even then, I'm amused that Centurion T.P. gets maligned after all these years...

Now the fact 'outer darkness' is so out of place and random to be brought up in that, is bothering me / as I mentioned the Luke rendition is what I expect it SHOULD be. This is how I see it exaggerated in my mind:

Centurion T.P.: "Jesus Christ of the universe, heal my servant, I know you can do it instantly, you don't even have to be present"

Jesus Christ: "This centurion has the greatest believing ever. By the way there'll be an outer darkness where the sons of the kingdom will be punted off to--BUT wow, the belief of this Centurion! Hey Peter... PETER! Come over here for a second... take a LOOK at this centurion! Oh yeah and this will be during the kingdom of heaven with Isaac, Jacob and old Abram-- man Peter, the belief of that centurion is just unbelievable."

(yeah, I'm giggling to myself over that, poor Peter...)


In the end, I guess the answer lies within Matthew.

I guess we could say that the Centurion expressed:

1) impersonal love -- he made the journey to seek healing on behalf of his servant.

2) humility -- he recognized that Christ's ministry was far too important for the journey back to the servant.

3) faith rest -- the Centurion recognized that Christ had the power to heal regardless of geographical location.

Maybe looking back to the Parable of the Soils will clarify exactly who goes to Outer Darkness.



Matt 13:3-9 Lists five different types of soil, or categories of people. The first category are non-believers, the rest are believers. Of the four remaining categories, only the ones described as "good soil" yielded crops. As Brainout has pointed out before, some yield a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. So it seems to me that only those of the "good soil" are fit to rule in the kingdom. The good soil must then be the categories of believers who express consistent positive volition toward Bible and application.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

While reading both your posts, the idea hit me: what if outer darkness is simply, off-planet? It would be dual entendre, since the future Lake of Fire (how can we call that darkness) is also off-planet.

Still have to explain the weeping clause, as in heaven there is no more sorrow or tears...

Yeah, off planet would fit the description pretty well, I mean space is literally the darkness outside.



Revelation 2:4 says that all tears will be wiped away once the old things have passed away. That wont happen until the new heavens and new earth are created. So it is very possible that weeping and gnashing of teeth lasts 1050 years. That thought is hard to swallow, but it must be taken into consideration.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

This is what I'm struggling with:
A) trying to figure out what constitutes believers that aren't kings but saved (is that to say EVERYONE who sits on their talent under outer darkness?)
B) staying away from making it sound like purgatory / although a reverse purgatory would be amusing: a place where people feel the need to purge themselves with God not being responsible for it, at all. Re: people design their own misery.
C) What would the kings 'rule' if everyone is at camp outer darkness?



Who are the "many" (believers?) and why are the sons of the kingdom being punted into outer darkness AT THAT MOMENT. Clearly they weren't there before. So something happened to kick that off (unless I'm interpreting that wrong), and again... why did Christ feel the need to tell the Centurion that when telling him tosoutos pistis?

Okay, let's go through that passage again (and anonynomenon just brought it up as I am writing this):


What confuses me is the "he shall be my son", because if you contrast that back in matthew, you have the "sons of the kingdom". So... what's the difference being a son of God and a son of 'the kingdom'.

The only other verse where I can find "sons" and "kingdom" is this bit in Matthew (which I am certain I brought up before):


So, if there CANNOT be any "wailing and gnashing" of teeth in new jerusalem, then are the "sons of the kingdom" resigned to a special time out place while the kingdom is on earth?
(I haven't submitted to that view before, so I would have to backup and review my notes for possible contradictions and/or problems with it)

Okay, well when Christ talked of children of the kingdom, the near context is the JEWS listening. For the comparison is to a goy. Promise was to the JEWS but as Paul later explains in Romans 9-11, you don't inherit that promise UNLESS you believe. So slated kids who rejected their inheritance.

So by analogy, believers SAVED have a post-salvation inheritance they too can reject (key feature in Thieme's teaching). Rejection means you are still IN a kingdom, but UNDER someone who matured who gets crowned king. That's essentially what Isaiah 53:12 says, clause where HE shares out the booty to the 'mighty'. The booty, are PEOPLE. Saved ones.

The 'kingdom' of Canada has outer reaches where few live. The 'kingdom' of the US does, too. There are places where rich live, where poor live, and they are usually separated. So I'm thinking 'outer darkness' has a multi-level analogy for believers, who are in heaven and happy but.. oh so far away.

So if you become king in maturity by the time you die, your kingdom will have outer reaches where the spiritually-poor dwell. Relatively speaking, it's outer, and dark, cuz where you are in the center, it will be brightest (metaphor of strong BD).

@Hupostasis


It seems to me that the Millennial kingdom only has two main classes:

1) the authorities -- Kings (Church) and Governors/Mayors (OT)

2) the common citizenry -- Survivors of the Tribulation, and their children.

With that in mind, I don't see where abdicators (from Church and OT alike) would fit in. So its not really a purgatory, but a banishment for those who abdicated their office. They cant be integrated into society with sinners, so they must be removed from the kingdom until everyone is resurrected.

So I would say that anyone who sits on their talent are not of the "good soil", and therefore are cast out.



Since our Lord is setting up a contrast between the Roman Centurion and the Jewish Leaders + apostate Israel in general, I would say that "the sons of the kingdom" is more of an exaggeration directed towards the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and legalistic people of Israel.





The Millennium is Christ's rule until all enemies (even death) are abolished. After this abolition, Christ hands the kingdom back to the Father for the Eternal State. So I take son of the kingdom to refer to the Millennial kingdom, and "My son" to refer to the Eternal State. The emphasis shifts from Co-rulership with Christ in the Millennium to retirement in the Eternal State.



I don't think there will be any weeping or gnashing in the Eternal State (outside of the Lake of Fire), since by that time, the former things are passed away, per Rev 21:4 (old heaven and earth). I'm thinking that the Outer Darkness is limited to the Millennial Age for the sole purpose of segregating abdicators from the Millennial citizenry. There is no mention of the Outer Darkness in Rev 21 or 22 at all. It simply mentions New Jerusalem, Earth, and the Lake of Fire.

This is all my opinion. I'm open to alternative ideas.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

That's an interesting idea, that maybe weeping occurs among resurrected Church who are off-world ONLY during Mill. Yet the OT folks return at 2nd Advent too, the mature get cities and presumably the other OT resurrected are in them? Or only survivors of Trib?

@Brainout

Well our Lord said the sons of the kingdom would be cast out, so I guess that includes OT apostates and Church apostates together. Basically, if you're resurrected, you must qualify for ruling class, or you get Outer Darkness. At least, thats the impression I get. Seems like the Millennium is meant to provide perfect environment and perfect government for sinners. To mingle abdicated rulers in with the citizenry might violate the terms of the Angelic Conflict, for the same reason that Elect Angels are not active members of any human society. Plus abdicated believers would lack the capacity to function properly in a society of sinners.

Again, just thinking out loud.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Could be. Thieme kept on thinking that the non-mature 'sit on the sidelines'. We all ARRIVE at 2nd Advent, but after that, well...

Maybe it would be a good idea to see if the Greek reveals any hints (re: tenses)? I can pull the verses once I find Bibleworks. I misplaced it and had to keep reinstalling Windows, of course I lose it when I finally get the installations sorted out...

How did I miss your post until now? Sorry!

Seems to me that we're supposed to search on outer darkness alone, then compare to gnashing. The no more sorrow line belongs to the eternal state, so maybe during Mill there's some upset? I'm just winging it here. Parallel is drawn, but in what way? Yeah, in the Greek but also Heb of OT cuz Christ is drawning parallel to those verses, too.

Hello,
Eirene here. Just wanted to mention that there is this huge book called Final Destiny writteby Joseph Dillow, THD which investigates the outer darkness and works vs. grace salvation. It is over 1000 pages. Alas, I have not finished it, but have read about 2/3 of the book. Very detailed and explains the verses used to justify so-called Lordship Salvation. This book led me to receiving a free magazine subscription to Grace in Focus" Magazine. They are a community of churches that teach the grace gospel and have free conferences in different cities. One was in San Antonio. Would love to go to one. In one of the most recent editions, there was a quote from Col. Thieme. Just in case anyone would like to check it out or the book by Dillow.
Eirene

So have you finished the book now? What do you think at this point?

No, I am more than 2/3rds through it. It is a huge book and I left it at home as I am now staying with my elderly Mom. Of what I read, I felt it brought glory to God and cast down the thoughts that we can merit salvation. Very scholarly with many footnotes.

It looks like David Reagan had a critical review of the book here:
http://christinprophecy.org/articles/eternal-security/
However, Reagan's assumptions seem to be based around the fact that HE'S confused (I think):

Okay... so, it appears that Reagan isn't familiar with the fact that the perseverance of the saints is not the same as the Bible's form of permanent salvation. Calvinists believe that one is "eternally secure" ONLY DUE TO THE FACT OF ELECTION AND NOTHING ELSE. So that is not a non-meritorious act, and they could care less about grace and Romans 4:5-6


Anyways, let's just wrap up a few more of David Reagan's vomit:

Okay... okay... Reagan can't comprehend the difference between FAITH (which he should be using 'belief' as a proper word) and METANOIA. METANOIA is post-salvation and is a precursor TO believing. It's just a flow of logical steps, because some people can't refuse to do metanoia and then NEVER BELIEVE. But of course Reagan doesn't comprehend any of that and just spits them all out in a giant gummy mess.

And then notice he gets tripped up on point 7, OF COURSE YOU CAN LIVE A LIFE OF SIN AND STILL BE SAVED. What the HELL is the point of 1 John 1:9 and the cross then?!

I'd love to get more insight to what David Reagan believes but unfortunately his book is $20, and the fact he gets bent out of shape with the concept of 1 John 1:9.
https://bibleprophecyresources.com/shop ... n-or-hell/
---
Now onto Dillow himself, there have been other people mentioning that he is a calvinist with 'preserverance of the saints', so I am more curious whether or not that's true. Preserverance of the saints isn't biblical because again, it's not permanent salvation due to the fact it bypasses metanoia and believing Christ paid for your sins.

Thank you for sharing that. I did not get the impression that he was a Calvinist at all. In fact, he spends much time in the book arguing against that viewpoint. I am home briefly and picked the book up again, only about 200 more pages to go (of over 1000)
Did I mention that it was a BIG book?

Well, whether he is Calvie or not, just remember Thieme used to be Calvie, too. Some of my first clients 30+ years ago, came from the church, left it when Thieme finally rejected Calvinism, so maybe Dillow is somewhere between the two. We all change.

If you're getting a lot out of the book, doesn't matte what are the beliefs of the person writing it. God uses everyone and everything for YOU.