many or few?

[complete]

What do you think the nations are made up of? Land? Cars? Buildings? Do you think these things will be judged?
The nations are made of of people. It is people being judged, for what they did or didn't do to other people. There is no escaping this fact. There is no getting around this.

Let us go with your statement, "these are hot believers or unbelievers". It says ...

Matt 25:34; Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Do you think 'nations' will "inherit the kingdom prepared for you" or do you think people will? And since you think there are unbelievers included in this group, do you think unbelievers will inherit this kingdom as well?

You don't think believers are in "all nations"?

You can't judge the nations without judging people. But even if you could, that wouldn't explain the wicked and lazy slave.

Hello @B-A-C,

As you said, 'People don't see what they do not want to see': be sure that you are not one of them my friend,

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[B-A-C]

As you said, 'People don't see what they do not want to see': be sure that you are not one of them my friend,

In your own words, what is a nation? What specifically is the part of a nation that Jesus would judge?

 

[B-A-C]

A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, or a common culture, and, in many cases, a shared territory. A nation is more overtly political than an ethnic group;[1][2] it has been described as "a fully mobilized or institutionalized ethnic group".

Nation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[complete]

In your own words, what is a nation? What specifically is the part of a nation that Jesus would judge?

'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 25:32)


Hello @B-A-C,

My words do not amount to much: I can only go by what is written. The words, 'the nations', are used of the Gentile nations, for Israel is never counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9). There are nations which will feign obedience in the last days and Satan is released to 'deceive' them (Revelation 20:8), but I do not know whether this has any bearing on Matthew 25:32.

The word, 'them', in the verse above, indicates that 'individuals' are being referred to, for it is masculine: while 'nations' are Neuter, and therefore are regarded collectively. (taken from my Bible marginal notes). They, 'the nations', will be separated one from another.

This is all I can glean from this, B-A-C,

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Sue D.]

Capitalizations are helpful, but not essential. In point of fact, they can be downright
misleading. A case in point is Matt 22:41-46, which was addressed in post No. 768.

Another case in point is John 1:1

FAQ: Which of the two versions listed below is closest to a precise translation?

1» John 1:1 . .The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2» John 1:1 . . The Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

A: Both are equally closest

The common Greek word for god/God is theós which is sometimes translated
in upper case when it's modified by the little Greek definite article ho

In other words: in some people's thinking; ho theós pertains to the supreme being
whereas theós is somewhat flexible when it isn't modified by ho. For example
John 1:18 and John 20:17 where theós is translated in upper case though it be not
modified by ho.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not
essential to speech. In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, ho can be
either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize theόs in John 1:1 or not to
capitalize, is entirely arbitrary rather than dictated by a strict rule of Greek
grammar. In other words: upper and lower case spellings sometimes represent
interpretations rather than translations.

Some folks prefer that the Word be a lower case theόs because it's agreeable with
their version of Christ's divinity; whereas others prefer the Word to be an upper
case theόs for the same reason.

FYI: When discussing John 1:1 with a well-trained Jehovah's Witness, it is highly
recommended to avoid making an issue of capitalization. That argument is just too
weak. It might be helpful to quote Dr. Robertson, but even that may not be
advisable when talking with an experienced Witness because they'll likely derail
the discussion by challenging your knowledge of the Greek language.

These people undergo hour upon hour of training to refute standard Christian
doctrines, so it's very important to show them the Bible not only in ways they've
already seen, but also in ways they've never imagined.

It is my personal opinion that unless you're a wiz kid with the Bible, it's not a good
idea to attempt to evangelize a well trained Watchtower Society missionary as I can
just about guarantee that a skilled JW is better at evangelizing you than you are
them. If you think that your own gospel message is some sort of silver bullet; you'll
find out right quick that their silver bullets are quite likely bigger than yours.
_

This response is out of sequence -- sorry -- however

The 1 response is the correct one. The second one does not agree with the rest of Scripture. It's messing around with the teaching of the trinity. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God / not a god/ created the heavens and the earth.

In the Old Testament various people groups had many 'gods' they worshipped. In Exodus 20 "You shall have no other 'gods' before "Me'".

Vs 2 "I am the Lord your God." not I am the Lord , a god'.

The world of Capitalization is very important to written communication.

Look at Psalm 46 for instance -- "God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble." It doesn't say 'a god' is our refuge and strength.

A person's name is always Capitalized.

 

[Beetow]

A person's name is always Capitalized.

• Gen 1:1 . . . In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The Hebrew word for "God" in that passage is 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which isn't a
proper noun, viz: it isn't the supreme being's personal moniker, rather, it's a
nondescript designation that pertains to all sorts of deities: both the true and the
false and/or the real and the imagined.

'elohiym is grammatically plural but doesn't necessarily indicate plurality. For
example Baal and Dagon are 'elohiym and they aren't composite entities, viz: they
aren't double, triple, or quadruple beings, e.g. 1Kgs 18:25-29 and Jgs 16:23.

The thing is: 'elohiym is just fine the way it is, i.e. it need not be capitalized except
for convenience, and in quite a number of passages it isn't. For example Ps 82
which says:

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

In those two verses, "God" and "gods" are both translated from 'elohiym.
_

 

[complete]

In your own words, what is a nation? What specifically is the part of a nation that Jesus would judge?

Matthew 25:31-46
(reply 2)

Hello @B-A-C,

When the Lord has put down all earthly oppositions, then those nations which remain are gathered together, and their status for the Millennium is determined: and it is determined by their conduct to the Jew, as shown by the term, 'My brethren.' The result is, there are nations other than Israel, who enter into the earthly kingdom of the Son of man.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Sue D.]

• Gen 1:1 . . . In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The Hebrew word for "God" in that passage is 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which isn't a
proper noun, viz: it isn't the supreme being's personal moniker, rather, it's a
nondescript designation that pertains to all sorts of deities: both the true and the
false and/or the real and the imagined.

'elohiym is grammatically plural but doesn't necessarily indicate plurality. For
example Baal and Dagon are 'elohiym and they aren't composite entities, viz: they
aren't double, triple, or quadruple beings, e.g. 1Kgs 18:25-29 and Jgs 16:23.

The thing is: 'elohiym is just fine the way it is, i.e. it need not be capitalized except
for convenience, and in quite a number of passages it isn't. For example Ps 82
which says:

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

In those two verses, "God" and "gods" are both translated from 'elohiym.
_

Your Psalm 82: 1 NKJ "God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods." A footnote says to go to Psalm 81:15 "The haters of the Lord would pretend submission to Him, But their fate would endure forever."

The NIV doesn't capitalize the pronouns as the NKJ does.

 

[B-A-C]

When the Lord has put down all earthly oppositions, then those nations which remain are gathered together, and their status for the Millennium is determined: and it is determined by their conduct to the Jew, as shown by the term, 'My brethren.' The result is, there are nations other than Israel, who enter into the earthly kingdom of the Son of man.

This still doesn't answer why one group goes to one place, and the other group goes to the other place. You seem to be avoiding this.

 

[Sue D.]

@B-A-C -- sometimes we simply accept God's Word for what it says. There are only two places people go for eternity. The sheep are the followers of Jesus Christ -- the goats aren't. I think that usually we think of wolves in sheeps clothing.

 

[Sue D.]

Apparently goats represent the oppressors and wicked men.

 

[B-A-C]

@B-A-C -- sometimes we simply accept God's Word for what it says. There are only two places people go for eternity. The sheep are the followers of Jesus Christ -- the goats aren't. I think that usually we think of wolves in sheeps clothing.

What determines if they are a follower or not?

 

[JerryfromMass]

Apparently goats represent the oppressors and wicked men.

Hi Sue,

It's a funny thing with sheep and goats. Three shepherd's with their flocks of sheep can all intermingle for lunch, and you'd not be able to tell one sheep from the other. But when shepherd A, B, or C calls out to their flock with whatever call or noise he uses, all of his sheep hear the sound he makes with his voice and follow him. Goats are much more independent and will not do as the sheep do.

Check out this video.

 

[JerryfromMass]

What determines if they are a follower or not?

The follower hears, listens, and obeys the shepherd's voice.

 

[Sue D.]

Hi Sue,

It's a funny thing with sheep and goats. Three shepherd's with their flocks of sheep can all intermingle for lunch, and you'd not be able to tell one sheep from the other. But when shepherd A, B, or C calls out to their flock with whatever call or noise he uses, all of his sheep hear the sound he makes with his voice and follow him. Goats are much more independent and will not do as the sheep do.

Check out this video.

I Did notice that the gal who was Trying to get the sheep to listen , wasn't doing it anything like the last guy , the shepherd. Apparently the point is that the sheep recognized the shepherd and came when he called. They were used to his calling and obeyed him.

 

[complete]

This still doesn't answer why one group goes to one place, and the other group goes to the other place. You seem to be avoiding this.

Hello @B-A-C,
There is no avoidance on my part, for it has already dealt with, and if not the text will inform you. It was based on the treatment of the Lord's brethren specifically, and not on their works generally.
Redeemed Israel had taken on their divinely appointed role of priests unto God among the nations. Some nations received them kindly it seemed, others not so. It was in regard to this that they were judged.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Beetow]

• John 21:15 . . So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter:
Simon; do you love me more than these?

Some say that "these" refers to the other apostles, but I'm inclined to suspect that
Jesus was referring to the sea, and the fish they had just eaten, and to the boat,
and to the tackle, and to the fishing business. Certainly all of that was important to
Peter seeing as how fishing was his life.

The Greek verb for "love" in that passage is agapao (ag-ap-ah'-o) which isn't
necessarily an emotional kind of love, rather, it's related to things like preferences,
loyalties, and priorities. For example:

• Matt 6:24 . . No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love
the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

• Luke 14:26 . . If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother,
his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life --he cannot
be my disciple.

The verb agapao is employed several times in the 13th, 14th, and 15th chapters of
John's gospel relative to Jesus and his apostles, and relative to the apostles among
themselves.

But then Jesus asked Peter:

• John 21:17 . .The third time Jesus said to him: Simon son of John, do you love
me?

That time "love" is translated from the Greek verb phileo (fil-eh'-o) which is a very
different kind of love than agapao.

Well, the thing is: agapao is more or less impersonal; whereas phileo is personal. It's
an emotional, bonding kind of love felt among best friends, lovers, and kinfolk.

In other words: Peter wasn't asked what he thought of Jesus, rather, how he felt
about him, viz: Jesus question was: Peter; do you like me?

Of course Jesus already knew how Peter felt about him, but Jesus wasn't satisfied
with knowing; he wanted Peter to come out with it, and he did.

• John 21:17 . . He said: Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.

( I'd imagine that expressing his feelings was difficult for a rugged blue collar guy
like Peter. I worked as a professional welder for 40 years in shipyards and shops.
Not many of the men I worked alongside were comfortable talking about their
feelings. )

UPDATE: 242 days have elapsed since my first comment. If the figures in post No.5
are in the ball park, then something like 15,034,008 new arrivals have checked into
the fiery sector of Hades since Oct 08, 2020.
_

 

[B-A-C]

There is no avoidance on my part, for it has already dealt with, and if not the text will inform you.

Another avoidance. The text has informed me. Thank you for your reply.

 

[complete]

Another avoidance. The text has informed me. Thank you for your reply.

Why are you so combative, @B-A-C?

Another avoidance. The text has informed me. Thank you for your reply.

Hello @B-A-C,

I'm glad.

 

[JerryfromMass]

• John 21:15 . . So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter:
Simon; do you love me more than these?

Some say that "these" refers to the other apostles, but I'm inclined to suspect that
Jesus was referring to the sea, and the fish they had just eaten, and to the boat,
and to the tackle, and to the fishing business. Certainly all of that was important to
Peter seeing as how fishing was his life.

The Greek verb for "love" in that passage is agapao (ag-ap-ah'-o) which isn't
necessarily an emotional kind of love, rather, it's related to things like preferences,
loyalties, and priorities. For example:

• Matt 6:24 . . No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love
the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

• Luke 14:26 . . If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother,
his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life --he cannot
be my disciple.

The verb agapao is employed several times in the 13th, 14th, and 15th chapters of
John's gospel relative to Jesus and his apostles, and relative to the apostles among
themselves.

But then Jesus asked Peter:

• John 21:17 . .The third time Jesus said to him: Simon son of John, do you love
me?

That time "love" is translated from the Greek verb phileo (fil-eh'-o) which is a very
different kind of love than agapao.

Well, the thing is: agapao is more or less impersonal; whereas phileo is personal. It's
an emotional, bonding kind of love felt among best friends, lovers, and kinfolk.

In other words: Peter wasn't asked what he thought of Jesus, rather, how he felt
about him, viz: Jesus question was: Peter; do you like me?

Of course Jesus already knew how Peter felt about him, but Jesus wasn't satisfied
with knowing; he wanted Peter to come out with it, and he did.

• John 21:17 . . He said: Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.

( I'd imagine that expressing his feelings was difficult for a rugged blue collar guy
like Peter. I worked as a professional welder for 40 years in shipyards and shops.
Not many of the men I worked alongside were comfortable talking about their
feelings. )

UPDATE: 242 days have elapsed since my first comment. If the figures in post No.5
are in the ball park, then something like 15,034,008 new arrivals have checked into
the fiery sector of Hades since Oct 08, 2020.
_

Agape love is greater than any other kind of love. It is sacrificial, unconditional, charitable love. It's the sort of love that says: I will love you and care for you regardless of how you feel or what you say or how you react.