All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.

[Zao is life]

Right. So, what I always say about Isaiah's account of the new earth is that his audience at the time didn't really have an understanding of the concept of eternity or of there being no more death, which is a concept introduced in NT times, so he explained it in a way that they could understand at the time.

Yes.

Haha. Right. I just can't relate to preterists

Me neither.

or futurists because of how literally most of them take scripture. There needs to be a balance there instead of having a perspective that everything must be literal unless the text explicitly says otherwise. If that was the case, why does Paul talk about us needing spiritual discernment to understand these things (1 Corinthians 2:9-16), right? I'm pretty sure you agree with me on this. And, some people think of "spiritual discernment" as interpreted everything spiritually or figuratively and not literally in a physical sense. No, spiritual discernment has to do with being able to discern between what is figurative and what is literal and between what is spiritual and what is physical.

It's a rabbit-hole.

In my view we are given immortal bodily life at the last trumpet when Jesus returns so we then have eternal life as a gift from God.

That's my view too except that we already have eternal life (zoe) because of Christ IN us but we will only live | be alive (zao) forever, i.e immortal from the time you say above.

But this is important to me, because "life" (zoe) the noun attached to LIFE - the life that exists because God exists - is not the same word used for being alive (zao).

"For IN HIM (God) we live [zao], and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28).

Life [Greek: zoe] exists IN God and only because God exists. Without the existence of God there is no life.

**** The life (zoe) given to human beings is IN Christ through Christ IN US and is therefore not a separate or independent life (zoe) from the only life that has existed from eternity and which from eternity was in the Word of God (John 1:4), which the Son of God has in Himself.

Adam lost that source of life and with it, his immortality - because this is what happens to the flesh when the source of its life is lost:

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 12:7-8).

IMO God breathing a spirit into flesh (Adam) means that the flesh becomes a living [zao] being / soul, but if that flesh dies, then that life (spirit) goes back to its source after the death of the same flesh - because the flesh is no longer alive.

When Jesus raised a young girl from the dead, we are told that:

"Her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat." (Luke 8:55).

My big point of disagreement with you, which we have been through before:

IMO a created human being has life [zoe] (spirit) when it's born, but without also being born of the Spirit of God, a created human being does not also have life that is eternal [zoe] GIVEN to it;

and because a created human being does not have life [zoe] IN ITSELF, when the body dies, the created human being is no longer alive [zao], and the life [zoe] of the flesh that has died goes back to its source (the spirit goes back to its source).

I do not believe in a "dead" human spirit being "resurrected" or "quickened" when the person is born of the Spirit of God. Quickening and resurrection IMO are not talking about the human spirit, but about the human body being quickened because of and with the quickening of Christ's dead body, and about the fact that the human body will be resurrected because of and with the resurrection of Christ's body:

Maybe you will "abide" this when you have time - comparing these scriptures talking about quickening, and about resurrection:

"Fool ! That which you sow is not quickened [zoopoieo], except it die." (1 Corinthians 15:36)

When Jesus died, His Spirit did not die: His soul went into hades (Acts 2:27), where by the (omnipresent) Spirit of God he preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18-20), and His dead body, being quickened [zoopoieo] (made alive by the Spirit), was raised from the dead.

Note the Greek words [syzoopoieo] and [synegeiro] in the following verses, so we can check to see which New Testament verses use the same words:

Colossians 2:12-13
"Ye are buried with him in baptism, wherein also all of you are risen with him [synegeiro] through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him [egeiro] from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him [syzoopoieo], having forgiven you all trespasses."

It's talking about the positional reality in Christ of those who belong to Him.

The words [syzoopoieo] and [synegeiro] used in Colossians 2:12-13 (quoted above) are the same words used in Ephesians 2:4-6:

Ephesians 2:4-6
"God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, He has syzōopoiéō (quickened together with) Christ, (by grace ye are saved); and has raised us up together [synegeírō] and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:4-6).

"If then ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life [zōḗ] is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life [zōḗ], shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." (Colossians 3:1-4).

1 Corinthians 15:20-22
"Christ is risen [egeiro] from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection [anastasis] of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be quickened [zoopoieo: made alive]."

Romans 8:10-11
"If Christ's Spirit is in you,

1. your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit (of Christ) is your (eternal) life [zoe] because of (Christ's) righteousness.

2. Moreover, if the Spirit of the one who raised [egeiro] Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised [egeiro] Christ from the dead will also quicken [zōopoiéō] your mortal bodies through his Spirit who lives in you."

(i) The word zoopoieo (quickening, being made alive) is being applied to the mortal body in all the above verses.They are all talking about the positional reality in Christ of those who belong to Him.

(ii) The words egeiro, synegeiro and anastasis - whenever they are referring to resurrection from death - are always referring to the resurrection of the body in the New Testament (each and every verse referring to the resurrection of the body from death uses one of those four words).

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We agree on this even if we may not understand it fully the same.

Yes.

 

[claninja]

It is your opinion that verses 41-44 relate directly to the parable. I see no basis for thinking that those verses a part of the context of the parable when you consider that the Pharisees not only would be physically destroyed in 70 AD but also will be brought before Jesus in the future to give an account of themselves after which thy will be cast into the lake of fire. So, your OPINION that verses 41-44 relate to the context of the parable is eisegesis and not exegesis.

You talk about me supposedly ignoring the surrounding context while you are ignoring part of the parable itself that helps establish the context of the rest of the parable. You have no explanation for what the rewards were that Jesus supposedly gave when He supposedly returned in 70 AD.

LOL. It's all scripture. It's all the words of Jesus. Who cares if one thing He said is in one book and one in another? You don't think we should interpret the parable in such a way that lines up with the rest of scripture? We shouldn't take other scripture into account? You have to be kidding me here.

Remember, it's a parable. I see so many people on here trying to interpret parables literally for some inexplicable reason.

You understand that parables are made up stories that illustrate things in reality, right? Why do you take the reference to His enemies literally in terms of it talking about them being physically slaughtered, but you don't take the part about them first being brought before the king literally? Where is the consistency in your view?

The king in the parable is not a real king, the servants are not real servants and it's not talking about real servants being slaughtered. All of that figuratively represents something in reality. The king obviously represents Jesus. The rewarded servants obviously represent His people. The wicked servants obviously represent unbelievers. The only time scripture speaks of believers being rewarded and unbelievers being punished at the same time is when Jesus comes with His angels in the future at the end of the age (Matthew 25:31-46, Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50). That has not yet occurred. So, how can the parable of the minas refer to any other event?

Sure, it’s my opinion, based on exegesis best practices, to use the surrounding context in order understand the parable of the Minas. I’m not sure how suggesting the surrounding context is related to a parable is eisegesis?

Why would the surrounding context of Jesus being rejected as king by the Pharisees, immediately followed by a prophecy of Jerusalem’s slaughter be completely unrelated to the VERY SAME elements in the parable - citizens rejecting the nobleman as king, subsequently being slayed?

Your presupposition seems to be that it’s about the final judgement, and therefore the surrounding context of vs 41-44, which is about 70ad cannot be related to the parable.

let’s use your argument from a premil perspective. Let’s say I’m premil and import my premil framework bias into the parable in Luke 19 in order to make it flow with how I fit scripture together. I disregard some of the surrounding context and then argue it’s not about the final judgement but about the saints reigning over the nations in the millennium because it says Jesus rewards the servants with authority over cities. Is that eisegesis or exegesis?

• Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to justify or confirm a position already held. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective. (Eisegesis - Wikipedia)

Using a passage, like Luke 19, to confirm your already held framework, while Cherry picking which parts of the surrounding context to exclude because they don’t fit with said framework, is eisegesis.

Nonsense. I'm ignoring nothing. How does it abide by your framework? Who did Jesus give rewards to in 70 AD and what rewards were they?

in the parable the rewards are given to servants who multiply the minas. The reward is authority over cities.

Are the subjective interpretations of the rewards (whether the amil or premil view) the main point of the parable?

Are the subjective interpretations of the rewards (whether the amil or premil view) explained in the surrounding context, or only according to an already held presupposition? If the former, exegesis. if the latter, eisegesis.

Glad you agree on that, at least. It's a wonder that you even agree with me about that. This shows that you at least understand where I'm coming from on this and how I could see Jesus as referring to both events in Luke 19 similar to how I believe He did so in the Olivet Discourse as well.

Right, so why wouldn’t you draw a line in Luke 19 like you do in Luke 21?

In other words, why argue vs 41-44 are not related to vs 27? why not just argue the parable of the minas is about 70ad in vs 27, and about the final judgement in the previous verses? We know the point of the parable is not the final judgement, and so you could simply argue chronological order is not the main point - it’s a parable.

Side note, isn’t interesting that we can recognize the thematic elements of a parable can be symbolic, but our western mind set often requires the same passage to fit a strict literal chronology?

Why?

The line is harder to draw in the parable of Luke 19 because both the rewards and the slaying of the citizens that rejected the nobleman occur at the kings return.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sure, it’s my opinion, based on exegesis best practices, to use the surrounding context in order understand the parable of the Minas. I’m not sure how suggesting the surrounding context is related to a parable is eisegesis?

Why would the surrounding context of Jesus being rejected as king by the Pharisees, immediately followed by a prophecy of Jerusalem’s slaughter be completely unrelated to the VERY SAME elements in the parable - citizens rejecting the nobleman as king, subsequently being slayed?

Your presupposition seems to be that it’s about the final judgement, and therefore the surrounding context of vs 41-44, which is about 70ad cannot be related to the parable.

let’s use your argument from a premil perspective. Let’s say I’m premil and import my premil framework bias into the parable in Luke 19 in order to make it flow with how I fit scripture together. I disregard some of the surrounding context and then argue it’s not about the final judgement but about the saints reigning over the nations in the millennium because it says Jesus rewards the servants with authority over cities. Is that eisegesis or exegesis?

• Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to justify or confirm a position already held. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective. (Eisegesis - Wikipedia)

Using a passage, like Luke 19, to confirm your already held framework, while Cherry picking which parts of the surrounding context to exclude because they don’t fit with said framework, is eisegesis.




in the parable the rewards are given to servants who multiply the minas. The reward is authority over cities.

Are the subjective interpretations of the rewards (whether the amil or premil view) the main point of the parable?

Are the subjective interpretations of the rewards (whether the amil or premil view) explained in the surrounding context, or only according to an already held presupposition? If the former, exegesis. if the latter, eisegesis.




Right, so why wouldn’t you draw a line in Luke 19 like you do in Luke 21?

In other words, why argue vs 41-44 are not related to vs 27? why not just argue the parable of the minas is about 70ad in vs 27, and about the final judgement in the previous verses? We know the point of the parable is not the final judgement, and so you could simply argue chronological order is not the main point - it’s a parable.

Side note, isn’t interesting that we can recognize the thematic elements of a parable can be symbolic, but our western mind set often requires the same passage to fit a strict literal chronology?



The line is harder to draw in the parable of Luke 19 because both the rewards and the slaying of the citizens that rejected the nobleman occur at the kings return.

None of this is convincing to me at all. Let me know if you ever come up with an explanation for how believers were rewarded in 70 AD. Until then, I can't take you seriously about this. You try to say the parable is primarily about the punishment of the king's enemies. That is a baseless claim. Most of the parable deals with the rewards for the faithful servants.

 

[claninja]

None of this is convincing to me at all. Let me know if you ever come up with an explanation for how believers were rewarded in 70 AD. Until then, I can't take you seriously about this. You try to say the parable is primarily about the punishment of the king's enemies. That is a baseless claim. Most of the parable deals with the rewards for the faithful servants.

strawman - I’ve never said the parable was primarily about the punishment of kings enemies. I stated the main point is to demonstrate that the kingdom was not to manifest immediately upon Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem based on the surrounding context. The reason the punishment of the enemies was brought up was because Scott Downey (post 115) used vs 27 to demonstrate that Gods slays all his enemies in general.

the problem with your argument of focusing on the rewards, is that 1.) the point of the parable is not about the rewards 2.) the parable doesn’t explain the meaning of the rewards 3.) the surrounding context does not explain the meaning of the rewards, nor mention anything of a final judgement.

As such, any interpretation of the rewards in Luke 19 will be subjective, biased by one’s own framework. I could say it means paradise. You could say it’s the spiritual rewards at the final judgement . a premil could say it’s the authority to rule of over the nations in the millennium. Focusing on the rewards doesn’t address the purpose of the parable, nor any of its surrounding context.
Focusing on the rewards only attempts to confirm your already held framework - eisegesis.

Let’s say vs 41-44 didn’t contain a prophesy of Jerusalems destruction/slaughter, but instead mentioned the righteous receiving the kingdom and unrighteous receiving eternal punishment for rejecting Jesus. Would you still argue that vs 41-44 are not related to the parable?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

strawman - I’ve never said the parable was primarily about the punishment of kings enemies. I stated the main point is to demonstrate that the kingdom was not to manifest immediately upon Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem based on the surrounding context. The reason the punishment of the enemies was brought up was because Scott Downey (post 115) used vs 27 to demonstrate that Gods slays all his enemies in general.

the problem with your argument of focusing on the rewards, is that 1.) the point of the parable is not about the rewards

LOL. Part of the point of the parable is certainly about that. How can you deny that? Why do you try to avoid that part of the parable? In order to discern what the parable is about requires first understanding that it involves an event where believers are rewarded and unbelievers are punished. Did such an event occur in 70 AD? No. Will such an event occur in the future? Yes. All will stand before Jesus to give an account of themselves when Jesus comes with His angels in the future (Matthew 25:31-46).

2.) the parable doesn’t explain the meaning of the rewards

So what? That doesn't mean you can just ignore that rewards are given when the King returns.

3.) the surrounding context does not explain the meaning of the rewards, nor mention anything of a final judgement.

So what? Also, you are mistaken in including all of the surrounding verses as if they all determine the context of the parable. That is not the case. Jesus had their near physical destruction as well as their eventual eternal punishment in mind and spoke of both in Luke 19.

As such, any interpretation of the rewards in Luke 19 will be subjective, biased by one’s own framework.

Whatever. Just tell me what rewards Jesus gave in 70 AD. Why do you keep trying to get around this?

I could say it means paradise. You could say it’s the spiritual rewards at the final judgement . a premil could say it’s the authority to rule of over the nations in the millennium.

Sure, but at least in each case it's not being ignored that rewards are being given at the same time as the punishments. So, tell me what rewards were given in 70 AD.

Focusing on the rewards doesn’t address the purpose of the parable, nor any of its surrounding context.

LOL! I am focused on all of the parable, not just that part of it. You, on the other hand, want to ignore the part about the rewards.

Focusing on the rewards only attempts to confirm your already held framework - eisegesis.

LOL! I'm not focusing on the rewards, I'm using that to help establish what the parable is about and the timing of it. Which is a much better approach than acting as if that part of the parable doesn't exist.

Let’s say vs 41-44 didn’t contain a prophesy of Jerusalems destruction/slaughter, but instead mentioned the righteous receiving the kingdom and unrighteous receiving eternal punishment for rejecting Jesus. Would you still argue that vs 41-44 are not related to the parable?

No, because in that case it would be related to the parable. But, Luke 19:41-44 relates to what happened in 70 AD which had nothing to do with any rewards being given. Also, Jesus did not return in 70 AD.

 

[claninja]

LOL. Part of the point of the parable is certainly about that. How can you deny that? Why do you try to avoid that part of the parable? In order to discern what the parable is about requires first understanding that it involves an event where believers are rewarded and unbelievers are punished. Did such an event occur in 70 AD? No. Will such an event occur in the future? Yes. All will stand before Jesus to give an account of themselves when Jesus comes with His angels in the future (Matthew 25:31-46).

Sorry, no, the point of the parable was not to demonstrate the rewards. The reason Jesus gave the parable is found in vs 11.

For some reason, you keep using your framework to "prove" your interpretation of the passage. I disagree with your presupposed framework. Since we disagree on framework, surrounding context should be used for debate. Prove your position on surrounding context. It's like a premil saying "see the parable says the servants are rewarded with ruling over the nations, thus proving the millennium". You disagree with premil framework. I'm sure you wouldn't agree Premil framework proves their interpretation of the passage?

Whatever. Just tell me what rewards Jesus gave in 70 AD. Why do you keep trying to get around this?

I've already listed my subjective opinion on what I think the rewards are in previous posts.

No, because in that case it would be related to the parable.

Bingo! Thank you for proving my point. You cherry pick which surrounding passages are context or not depending on if it fits with your frame work. Classic eisegesis.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sorry, no, the point of the parable was not to demonstrate the rewards. The reason Jesus gave the parable is found in vs 11.

Goodness sakes. So, you think He mentioned the rewards for no reason then? We should not think that any rewards are given at the same time as the punishments?

For some reason, you keep using your framework to "prove" your interpretation of the passage.

Do you not believe in the concept of interpreting scripture with scripture?

I disagree with your presupposed framework.

How about showing how the parable fits your presupposed framework.

Since we disagree on framework, surrounding context should be used for debate.

No, we can't just ignore the rest of scripture and we cant just ignore part of the contents of the parable as you do.

Prove your position on surrounding context.

I disagree with you on which surrounding verses relate directly to the context of the parable, so that does not solve the problem, either. It looks like our views are just too far apart to be able to discuss the parable in a reasonable way.

It's like a premil saying "see the parable says the servants are rewarded with ruling over the nations, thus proving the millennium". You disagree with premil framework. I'm sure you wouldn't agree Premil framework proves their interpretation of the passage?

Of course not, but I would not blame them for using their framework to help interpret the parable.

I've already listed my subjective opinion on what I think the rewards are in previous posts.

I must have missed that somehow. Can you give me a post number of just say it one more time?

Bingo! Thank you for proving my point. You cherry pick which surrounding passages are context or not depending on if it fits with your frame work. Classic eisegesis.

Nonsense! It's eisegesis to try to act as if the part of the parable involving rewards has no significance and can't be used to help determine what the parable is about and what the timing of it is.

 

[Zao is life]

Honestly, I don't even fully understand what you say about all that, but what I do understand of what you're saying, I disagree with some of it. You already know that. We've already discussed it in depth. I'm not going to respond to it anymore because we'll probably just never agree about that.

I have to come back to this, because of what you kept saying about "this has only been revealed to me". Because it's a false statement. It's not "something that was revealed to me" or "only to me". It's in the Bible.

The things that that Jesus said and the apostles recorded Him saying, and the things that the apostles and Mark and Luke were inspired to write, were not revealed to me until I read them in the Bible, just like everyone else - so I don't know where you get the idea from that if my studies in the Bible have caused me to interpret the things about eternal life and being alive differently to what the churches are teaching, this does not mean it was "revealed to me" - because I never wrote the scriptures.

The Greek New Testament uses two words:

Zoe: (spiritual) Life. God is Spirit. Only God possesses eternal life [zoe]. Only God has eternal life [zoe] IN Himself.

Zao: To live [zao], to be alive [zao].

God has zoe [life] IN Himself. God is therefore alive [zao]. The New Testament teaches that the living [zao] God - the God who is alive [zao] - has (spiritual) life [zoe] IN Himself. He is un-created.

God's creation is a physical thing: The creation is not a spirit:

Created humans that are ZAO are created things that are alive, but not all human beings have eternal spiritual life [ZOE] IN them,

and (THIS IS IMPORTANT) - NONE OF US have eternal life [zoe] IN OURSELVES. Only THE MAN JESUS CHRIST- the Son of God - has eternal life [zoe] IN Himself, and as we know, He is not a CREATED human. He was begotten of God. Eternal life [zoe] existed IN Him before the world began (John 1:4).

Created things die - we stop living / being alive [zao] - but those created humans who have been born of the Spirit of God have eternal life [zoe] IN them because they have the Spirit of Christ IN them. But we do not have eternal life [zoe] IN ourselves. Our eternal life is IN Christ; and

"If Christ's Spirit is IN you,

1. your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit (of Christ) is your (eternal) life [zoe] because of (Christ's) righteousness.

2. Moreover, if the Spirit of the one who raised [egeiro] Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised [egeiro] Christ from the dead will also quicken [zōopoiéō] your mortal bodies through his Spirit who lives in you."

If the Spirit of Christ is IN you, you have eternal life [zoe] NOW. But you do not have immortality now. You will not be alive [zao] forever if you die before your bodily resurrection from death.

When our bodies have been resurrected from death, then we will be alive [zao] forever in our glorified bodies because we will have eternal life [zoe] abiding IN us, but if anyone at any point were to stop abiding in the source of eternal life [zoe], then his body and soul will be destroyed in the second death. He has done what Adam and Eve did.
​

The Spirit of God is life [zoe] and remains the (only) source of our life - even after our bodily resurrection from death:

--- I am the vine, ye are the branches. Abide in me, and I in you, because if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned, and as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. --- (John 15:4-6, verses rearranged).

Those who overcome are promised by Christ that the second death will not have power or authority over them. They are also promised that He will not blot out their names out of the book of life [zoe].

The book of life [zoe] is not the book of living / being alive [zao] forever (immortality). The former is referring to those who have the life of the eternal Spirit abiding in them. But a created human being who loses the source of life IN him will die. And the source of our eternal life is the Word of God in whom is eternal life [zoe] - John 1:4. Satan's word says, "You will NOT surely die.

The the first three and the last three chapters of the Bible are talking about the same conditions and events, the latter three being the restoration of what Satan, sin and death did. But the first time mankind was expelled from the garden of Eden and prevented from eating of the tree of life [ZOE].

Then Christ, who IS the resurrection from the dead, came, took our sin upon Himself, and, sacrifiicing HIS ZAO for us, died. Then He rose again from the dead, and all those who are IN Him and He IN them [ZOE IN YOU, the hope of glory] will rise from the dead when He returns.

But there will be no SECOND sarifice made for sins and no SECOND resurrection from the second death. It's final. It's the destruction of death and hades in the lake of fire and all souls NOT written in the LAMB'S book of life [zoe] will perish in the lake of fire with death and hades.

Christ created ALL things. He is able to destroy both soul and body in the lake of fire. If created human beings who are alive [ZAO] forever (immortal) and able to eat of the tree of life [ZOE] are incapable of dying, then Adam and Eve would never have died. But Satan's word said, "You will NOT surely die:

Sadly, many Christians who live | are alive [zao] today, don't believe either what Jesus says, or what the Bible says in this respect, many having been taught something very different to what the Bible says regarding eternal life and immortality:

They are told, "God has given us eternal life" (period), but the rest is almost always left out:

"and this (eternal) life [zōḗ] is IN His Son." (1 John 5:11);

and they are taught: "Following the resurrection of the dead, we will be immortal, and God has given us eternal life" (period).

As a result many Christians believe that they possess eternal life in themselves, and (following the resurrection of their bodies from the dead), they will possess their own immortality in themselves, so they believe that unlike the first created human being (Adam), they will be incapable of dying once they have been raised from the dead.

Genesis 3:4 is talking about something that happened in the past, at the beginning of the biblical history of mankind.

What's written below is a prophecy about something that will happen in the future, following the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead bodies of those who belong to Him, (hence) during a time when human beings have once again become immortal:

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea." (Revelation 20:7-8).

The first deception and the very first lie ever told was,

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die." (Genesis 3:4).​

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I have to come back to this, because of what you kept saying about "this has only been revealed to me". Because it's a false statement. It's not "something that was revealed to me" or "only to me". It's in the Bible.

The things that that Jesus said and the apostles recorded Him saying, and the things that the apostles and Mark and Luke were inspired to write, were not revealed to me until I read them in the Bible, just like everyone else - so I don't know where you get the idea from that if my studies in the Bible have caused me to interpret the things about eternal life and being alive differently to what the churches are teaching, this does not mean it was "revealed to me" - because I never wrote the scriptures.​

You don't believe that the Holy Spirit helps you understand what you are reading in the Bible? I'm only speaking of something being revealed in that sense. And, I can't really accept that only one person would be able to discern the truth of this particular thing you're talking about that is in the Bible. That's all. But, I acknowledged that I don't know what everyone in the world believes, so I don't know for sure that no one else agrees with you about this particular thing. With that being the case, I will try to refrain from making such statements in the future since you are obviously bothered by it.

 

[claninja]

Goodness sakes. So, you think He mentioned the rewards for no reason then? We should not think that any rewards are given at the same time as the punishments?

I think that the olivet discourse was fulfilled in the first century, so I have no problem with the destruction of of Jerusalem and the coming of the son of man on the clouds to be about the same event.

Do you not believe in the concept of interpreting scripture with scripture?

Depends on the surrounding context of said passage, right?

For example, if we just just completely forget surrounding context -

Does the Matthew 23:35 interpret revelation 18:24?

How about showing how the parable fits your presupposed framework.

Luke 21: 31So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.

I disagree with you on which surrounding verses relate directly to the context of the parable,

if you are not committing eisegesis by excluding vs 41-44 BASED on your framework, then……

Maybe you can explain How vs 41-44 are not part of the context? Is it a scene change to a completely different event or setting?

Of course not, but I would not blame them for using their framework to help interpret the parable.

Bingo again!

I must have missed that somehow. Can you give me a post number of just say it one more time?

Being gathered into the wedding feast, Heaven, access to paradise, ruling over the nations with Christ, crown of life, hidden manna, becoming a permanent pillar in the temple of God, etc…..basically, whatever is in heaven when we arrive.

Nonsense! It's eisegesis to try to act as if the part of the parable involving rewards has no significance and can't be used to help determine what the parable is about and what the timing of it is.

Deny all you want, but IF your excluding surrounding verses from understanding a parable because it doesn’t fit with your framework, that’s literally the definition of eisegesis.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Bingo again!

So what? Wow. All these supposed "gotchas" that you com up with. What a joke. Why would anyone want to interpret the parable in such a way that contradicts how they interpret the rest of scripture? You try to interpret to fit your framework as well. Bingo bongo!

Being gathered into the wedding feast, Heaven, access to paradise, ruling over the nations with Christ, crown of life, hidden manna, becoming a permanent pillar in the temple of God, etc…..basically, whatever is in heaven when we arrive.

Hold on now. You are missing that that the rewards are given at the same time as the punishments which is when King Jesus returns.. This does not line up with that. Talk about missing context! Wow.

Deny all you want,

Okay, I will.

but IF your excluding surrounding verses from understanding a parable because it doesn’t fit with your framework, that’s literally the definition of eisegesis.

I deny that Luke 19:41-44 has to do with the context of the parable because no rewards were given in 70 AD and Jesus did not return in 70 AD. That's exegesis because exegesis involves looking at all of scripture to determine the meaning of any given verse or passage. My interpretation lines up with all scripture and does not contradict other scripture as yours does. The parable clearly involves an event where believers are rewarded at the same time as unbelievers are punished and nothing like that happened in 70 AD.

 

[Zao is life]

You don't believe that the Holy Spirit helps you understand what you are reading in the Bible? I'm only speaking of something being revealed in that sense. And, I can't really accept that only one person would be able to discern the truth of this particular thing you're talking about that is in the Bible. That's all. But, I acknowledged that I don't know what everyone in the world believes, so I don't know for sure that no one else agrees with you about this particular thing. With that being the case, I will try to refrain from making such statements in the future since you are obviously bothered by it.

OK I see that you are determined to insist that the Holy Spirit has helped only me to see this. Not so. It's written in scripture so the apostles and the earliest Christians would ALL have understood it,

and the more you do so, the more I will continue to reply to your false insinuiation - because the reason why you and "the church" has become so blinded to reality is because of the vestiges of many centuries of Roman Catholic doctrine and the Amillennial theology that has caused you to become so spiritually minded that the biblical gospel of salvation from sin AND death has become corrupted in your theology - the theology that you believe.

- to such an extent that you believe that the eternal life [zoe] that is given to you is your possession instead of the Spirit of Christ IN you, forgetting that the Son of God alone has eternal life [zoe] IN HIMSELF;

and forgetting that God created Adam as a body, soul and spirit (only one body) and that death is the death of the body due to a loss of the source of life [zoe] abiding IN him so that he could not continue to be alive [ZAO] in a body that does not die; and forgetting that the Bible teaches that:

"For this reason Christ died [apothnesko] and rose again from the dead [anistemi], and lived again [anazao: lived again in a body that is not dead], so that he may be the Lord of both the dead [nekros] and living [zao: those who are alive in a body that is not dead]." (Romans 14:9).

The church doctrine that has corrupted what the New Testament is talking about each and every time the New Testament refers to the quickening of the dead (the dead body) dishonors Christ, because in its effect it diminishes the incredible sacrifice of Christ and either grossly under-emphasizes or even ignores THE PURPOSE for which SCRIPTURE tells us Christ came into the world, and went through all that He went through.

Because you say, "God has given me eternal life" without even truly knowing what you are talking about and hence without completing the sentence, which is, AND this eternal life [zoe] is ONLY IN CHRIST - while failing to understand that it is Christ IN you, and CHRIST IN YOU = eternal life IN you,

and so you say things like you said in your previous post when you referred to "the eternal life that you WILL be given when your dead body has been raised and you have become immortal".

You do not understand the difference that SCRIPTURE contains between the eternal life [ZOE] which is the life of the Spirit of God and being alive [ZAO] in your CREATED body. So in your statement quoted above you temporarily forgot that you have ALREADY been given eternal life [ZOE] IN CHRIST through Christ IN you, and this is why, through the quickening of HIS body and the power of HIS bodily resurrection, your dead body will be quickened from the dead and rased from the dead.

So by saying "we will be immortal and will be given eternal life when Christ returns" you betrayed THE FACT that in your religious thinking you have immortality (which is being ZAO - alive - in a body that does not die because THE SOURCE of its life is the ZOE [eternal life] of God - who is Spirit - abiding IN it), conflated with the life itself of God which only God and the Son of God possesses IN HIMSELF.

Your statements also betray the fact that your hyper-spiritualized Amillennialist church doctrine-produced understanding of the gospel has caused you to partially forget that the God who has life [ZOE] in Himself and is alive [ZAO] CREATED mankind to be alive [ZAO] in a CREATED body on God's CREATED earth, and breathed the Spirit of eternal life [ZOE] in him so that he could become a soul that is alive [ZAO],

and that unbelief of the Word of God and belief in the "you will NOT surely die" lie of Satan is what caused mankind to wind up sinning and losing the source of eternal life [ZOE] - because the Spirit of God - of the Word of God in whom is life [ZOE] stopped abiding in Adam, and so his flesh also began to decay, so that he died.

You also seem to forget that God DID NOT create Adam and Eve or human beings so that we could "die and go to heaven when we die" and IT IS "For this reason Christ died [apothnesko] and rose again from the dead [anistemi], and lived again [anazao: lived again in a body that is not dead], so that he may be the Lord of both the dead [nekros] and living [zao: those who are alive in a body that is not dead]." (Romans 14:9).

And because God CREATED human beings with one body and the soul attached to it, and gave the CREATED human being a spirit of life [ZOE] which is part of THE Spirit of life [ZOE], it means that when the body dies (when the flesh dies), the soul becomes limbless until the resurrection from the dead, and the spirit goes back to its source

- and "For this reason Christ died [apothnesko] and rose again from the dead [anistemi], and lived again [anazao: lived again in a body that is not dead], so that he may be the Lord of both the dead [nekros] and living [zao: those who are alive in a body that is not dead]." (Romans 14:9).

ZOE: Life / eternal life. Source: God.
ZAO: being alive. In the case of CREATED human beings: to be alive IN THE BODY, to be living.
DEATH: The death OF THE BODY through the loss of the source of eternal life no longer abiding IN IT, causing the soul to become limbless and the spirit of life to go back to it source. Scripture NEVER calls a human being whose body has died, "ZAO".

*Once death came to Adam, the only thing that can reverse it is THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY FROM DEATH.

Christ IN you = ZOE IN you, and you IN Him. Paul says it's the hope of your glory:

"When Christ, who is our life [zōḗ], shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." (Colossians 3:4).

Paul is also talking about the resurrection of the body when Christ returns in the above verses.

I would cousel you and every believer in Christ to STOP beliving the lie which you attach to your statement "I have eternal life" which is "You will NOT surely die", and to START beliving the Word of God, which says to you:

--- I am the vine, ye are the branches. Abide in me, and I in you, because if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned, and as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. --- (John 15:4-6, verses rearranged).

Jeus the Messiah, the Word of God who became flesh, is the vine of eternal life [ZOE]. Our eternal life is IN HIM, THROUGH CHRIST IN US, THE HOPE OF OUR GLORY.

Adam's death is proof of the fact that if a CREATED human being believes the lie, you stand the chance of being deceived by the author of the lie (Satan) and wind up sinning against God, and dying - dying a second death - and following the resurrection, dying IN THE second death.

Whether or not you have eternal life abiding IN your MORTAL body now, or WILL have eternal life abiding IN your IMMORTAL body then, makes no difference - it made NO DIFFERENCE to Adam. If you BELIEVE the "you will not surely die" lie now, or when you have become immortal, you still stand the chance of being deceived by the author of the lie (Satan) and wind up sinning against God, and dying.

THIS IS SCRIPTURE. God has not "revealed this to me" let alone "to me alone" as you falsely claim. IT WOULD NOT BE WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURE if it was "revealed to me" or "to me alone". But with few exceptions it HAS (obviously) been hidden from the post-apostolic church by Satan's subtle introduction of his subtle false doctrines (which Amillenniannial theology is saturated with).

Just because YOU are among those who don't understand it because it has been hidden from YOU, this DOES NOT MEAN that God "revealed it" to post-apostolic saints who DID and who DO understand what SCRIPTURE is saying - because all New Testament scripture was already written BEFORE the days of post-apostolic Christianity, and BEFORE the days when false theology and false doctrine began to HIDE what scripture is saying from believers in Christ. SCRIPTURE AND THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE IS NOT MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD "ONLY BY CERTAIN SAINTS".

This is only one board which only a small tiny fraction of Christians will bother to post in. Basing your false claim only on Christians whom you know is a logical fallacy in the extreme.​

 

[claninja]

So what? Wow. All these supposed "gotchas" that you com up with. What a joke. Why would anyone want to interpret the parable in such a way that contradicts how they interpret the rest of scripture? You try to interpret to fit your framework as well. Bingo bongo!

So what? So You just agreed framework does not prove one's interpretation of a passage is correct.

Hold on now. You are missing that that the rewards are given at the same time as the punishments which is when King Jesus returns.. This does not line up with that. Talk about missing context! Wow.

I'm not missing that. I just stated that I think the coming of the son of man on the clouds (return of the king) and the destruction of Jerusalem (slaying of citizens that rejected the nobleman) occurred in the first century. So I don't know what you are talking about.

I deny that Luke 19:41-44 has to do with the context of the parable because no rewards were given in 70 AD and Jesus did not return in 70 AD. That's exegesis because exegesis involves looking at all of scripture to determine the meaning of any given verse or passage. My interpretation lines up with all scripture and does not contradict other scripture as yours does. The parable clearly involves an event where believers are rewarded at the same time as unbelievers are punished and nothing like that happened in 70 AD.

You are conflating exegesis and Systematic Theology. They are not the same. What you are describing is eisegesis. Your Systematic theology states that Christ didn't come on the clouds in 70ad. You are introducing this presupposition into the parable. Therefore, when you interpret the parable of the minas through that lens (reading your presupposition into the text), you then argue that certain parts of the surrounding context aren't related (vs 41-44) because it doesn't fit with your systematic theology - classic eisegesis.

• Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to justify or confirm a position already held. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective. (Eisegesis - Wikipedia)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not missing that. I just stated that I think the coming of the son of man on the clouds (return of the king) and the destruction of Jerusalem (slaying of citizens that rejected the nobleman) occurred in the first century. So I don't know what you are talking about.

What rewards were given in 70 AD?

You are conflating exegesis and Systematic Theology. They are not the same. What you are describing is eisegesis. Your Systematic theology states that Christ didn't come on the clouds in 70ad. You are introducing this presupposition into the parable. Therefore, when you interpret the parable of the minas through that lens (reading your presupposition into the text), you then argue that certain parts of the surrounding context aren't related (vs 41-44) because it doesn't fit with your systematic theology - classic eisegesis.

• Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to justify or confirm a position already held. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective. (Eisegesis - Wikipedia)

Nope.

exegesis (noun): critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture.

So, exegesis simply refers to the interpretation of scripture. That's what I'm doing. Comparing scripture with scripture is not eisegesis. To see that it talks about both rewards and punishments occurring at the same time when the king, representing Jesus, returns in the parable is not eisegesis. That's exegesis. Once the passage itself has been looked at thoroughly to pull out what is indicated in the passage itself, then we can look at surrounding verses to see if they might aid in determining the context of the passage or not. But, we can't stop there. After that we can compare what has been pulled out of the passage itself and any possible supporting context in surrounding verses to other scripture to see how it fits with other scripture while ensuring that our interpretation of the passage does not contradict any other scripture. That's all exegesis.

So, in my exegesis of the parable, which involves looking at all of scripture, I discover that no other scripture supports the idea of Jesus returning in 70 AD nor of any rewards being given in 70 AD, so I cannot possibly conclude that the parable has anything to do with 70 AD. Whether you want to admit it or not, exegesis does involve comparing scripture with scripture and not only examing the passage itself and the surrounding verses.

The way I exegete scripture is based on my hermeneutics and that is the case for you as well. But, you cannot tell me that I'm doing eisegesis rather than exegesis because that is not true. My hermeneutics includes comparing scripture with scripture and I exegete scripture accordingly. Your hermeneutics may be different and does not include comparing scripture with scripture.

 

[claninja]

What rewards were given in 70 AD?

kingdom inheritance/possession

exegesis (noun): critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture.

Exegesis (noun): critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.

Eisegesis (noun): the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas

So, exegesis simply refers to the interpretation of scripture.

Eisegesis is also the interpretation of scripture.

Comparing scripture with scripture is not eisegesis. To see that it talks about both rewards and punishments occurring at the same time when the king, representing Jesus, returns in the parable is not eisegesis. That's exegesis. Once the passage itself has been looked at thoroughly to pull out what is indicated in the passage itself, then we can look at surrounding verses to see if they might aid in determining the context of the passage or not. But, we can't stop there. After that we can compare what has been pulled out of the passage itself and any possible supporting context in surrounding verses to other scripture to see how it fits with other scripture while ensuring that our interpretation of the passage does not contradict any other scripture. That's all exegesis.

Step 1- I 100% agree it is exegetical to say the parable puts forth the idea that the rewarding/punishment of the servants AND the slaying of the citizens occur at the Kings return. I never said this wasn’t exegetical.

Step 2: Is there any surrounding context to help interpret the thematic elements of the parable? Is there any mention of rewards in the surrounding context? No. Ok, is there any mention of citizens, who reject the king, being slain? Yes vs 38-41.

Step 3 - Does applying the surrounding context of vs 38-41 and Jerusalem’s destruction for rejecting the king, help interpret the part of the parable where the citizens reject the king and are then slain or does it contradict other scripture?

Now here’s the real question: what NT scripture, NOT YOUR PERSONAL FRAMEWORK, but what specific NT scriptures are contradicted with accepting that the surrounding context of vs 38-41 ,and Jerusalem’s slaughter, help interpret the parable?

Is it your framework that contradicts it, or is other scriptures? And if scriptures, which ones?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

kingdom inheritance/possession

What scripture can you use to help support this interpretation? What kingdom was inherited in 70 AD? You can't say the kingdom of God. Believers were already in the kingdom of God spiritually before that by way of being born again.

Exegesis (noun): critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.

Eisegesis (noun): the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas

Uh huh. I'm doing the first one.

Eisegesis is also the interpretation of scripture.

With bias. I'm not doing that.

Step 1- I 100% agree it is exegetical to say the parable puts forth the idea that the rewarding/punishment of the servants AND the slaying of the citizens occur at the Kings return. I never said this wasn’t exegetical.

But, you also don't seem to want to talk about this.

Step 2: Is there any surrounding context to help interpret the thematic elements of the parable? Is there any mention of rewards in the surrounding context? No. Ok, is there any mention of citizens, who reject the king, being slain? Yes vs 38-41.

Does that text refer to anyone being brought before the king to be slain? No.

Step 3 - Does applying the surrounding context of vs 38-41 and Jerusalem’s destruction for rejecting the king, help interpret the part of the parable where the citizens reject the king and are then slain or does it contradict other scripture?

Only if there were also rewards being given at the same time, which there were not in the case of 70 AD.

Now here’s the real question: what NT scripture, NOT YOUR PERSONAL FRAMEWORK, but what specific NT scriptures are contradicted with accepting that the surrounding context of vs 38-41 ,and Jerusalem’s slaughter, help interpret the parable?

It is your assumption that vs. 38-41 relate to the context of the parable, not mine. It's not a valid question in my view. What contradicts other NT scriptures like Matthew 13:24-30 (36-43), Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46 is the idea that rewards and punishments were given in 70 AD.

Is it your framework that contradicts it, or is other scriptures? And if scriptures, which ones?

All this talk about framework, exegesis, eisegesis and so on is becoming nauseating. What matters here is to determine when both rewards and punishments are given when Jesus returns and to determine if He would return more than once. Were rewards given in 70 AD? No. Nothing says that anywhere. Did Jesus return in 70 AD? No, He did not. Therefore, the parable is not related to 70 AD.

 

[claninja]

What scripture can you use to help support this interpretation? What kingdom was inherited in 70 AD? You can't say the kingdom of God. Believers were already in the kingdom of God spiritually before that by way of being born again.

Luke 21:30-32 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near.31So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.

Uh huh. I'm doing the first one.

when a premil imports their framework onto the parable of the Minas to claim it’s not about the final judgement, but the about the millennium, is that eisegesis or exegesis?

But, you also don't seem to want to talk about this.

You believe it’s about the final judgement. premils think it’s about the millennium. I think it’s Jerusalem’s destruction.

Arguing framework, doesn’t prove one’s interpretation correct. So we should look to surrounding context. Does the surrounding context of Luke 19, mention the final judgement, the millennium, or the destruction of Jerusalem to help interpret the parable?

Does that text refer to anyone being brought before the king to be slain? No.

So is your argument: if the parable’s surrounding passages only contain similar elements but doesn’t line up word for word, then it’s completely unrelated?

In other words, you seem to be arguing:

The surrounding passages of the kingdom not manifesting immediately near Jerusalem and the Pharisees rejecting the jesus’ kingship are only similar, not word for word the same, to the citizens rejecting the the nobleman as king, so they are completely unrelated

The surrounding passages of the prophecy of Jerusalem’s slaughter for rejecting Jesus are only similar, not word for word the same, as the citizens being brought near the king to be slain for rejecting him, so they are completely unrelated

Thematic echoes and passage similarities are important tools for determining if surrounding verses are context. However, apparently if it disagrees with your framework, it seems not so much.

Only if there were also rewards being given at the same time, which there were not in the case of 70 AD.

Only according to your framework, though.

It is your assumption that vs. 38-41 relate to the context of the parable, not mine. It's not a valid question in my view.

Right, why would I assume vs 38-41 are not a part of the same narrative flow as vs 11-37? Verses 11-44 all take place “near Jerusalem” and with the “same crowd”. There is no distinct setting change nor audience change to suggest that 38-44 is all of the sudden not a part of the context.

The parable is told BECAUSE they were near Jerusalem and because the crowd thought the kingdom would immediately manifest (vs 11) . Following the parable Jesus is still near Jerusalem with the same crowd. The triumphant entry happens near Jerusalem with the same crowd and the kingdom does not immediately manifest (vs 28-37), where Jesus is then rejected by the Pharisees, and Subsequently makes the prophecy about Jerusalem’s destruction near Jerusalem with the same crowd (vs 38-44)

There is no distinct literary or grammatical change to suggest that vs 38-44 are not a part of the same context as vs 28-37.

So it seems you are cutting out vs 38-44 solely based on your framework - eisegeis.

However, if it’s not because of your framework, what grammatical or literary reason are you using to claim it’s not part of the context?

What contradicts other NT scriptures like Matthew 13:24-30 (36-43), Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46 is the idea that rewards and punishments were given in 70 AD.

Historical context: If the gospels were written pre 70ad, how does this contradict? It doesn’t seem like the author of Matthew knew there would be thousands of years between the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad and the coming of the son of man on the clouds.

Matthew 24:19 Immediately after the tribulation of those days:

Again, I asked for scriptural contradictions, not contradictions with your personal framework.

All this talk about framework, exegesis, eisegesis and so on is becoming nauseating. What matters here is to determine when both rewards and punishments are given when Jesus returns and to determine if He would return more than once. Were rewards given in 70 AD? No. Nothing says that anywhere. Did Jesus return in 70 AD? No, He did not. Therefore, the parable is not related to 70 AD.

It only matters according to your personal framework.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Luke 21:30-32 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near.31So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.

That relates to the future return of Christ. Tell me how exactly you think the kingdom of God came and was inherited in 70 AD.

when a premil imports their framework onto the parable of the Minas to claim it’s not about the final judgement, but the about the millennium, is that eisegesis or exegesis?

It's eisegesis, but when did I say that the parable proves Amill? Never. Instead, I'm saying that only the future return of Christ fits what the parable talks about. Whether it's talking about the final judgment of all believers and unbelievers of all-time is not specifically indicated in the parable.

You believe it’s about the final judgement. premils think it’s about the millennium. I think it’s Jerusalem’s destruction.

The parable itself does not indicate anything about Amill or Premill, but it does indicate that rewards are given at the same time as punishments at Christ's return and no such thing happened in 70 AD.

Arguing framework, doesn’t prove one’s interpretation correct. So we should look to surrounding context.

We should look at any possible surrounding context AND other scripture. We can't interpret any passage of scripture in isolation from the rest of scripture or else it can result in contradictions.

Does the surrounding context of Luke 19, mention the final judgement, the millennium, or the destruction of Jerusalem to help interpret the parable?

Not necessarily. And, again, I'm not saying that the parable has anything to do with the millennium. Not sure where you got that from.

So is your argument: if the parable’s surrounding passages only contain similar elements but doesn’t line up word for word, then it’s completely unrelated?

Goodness sakes. How can Luke 19:41-44 be related when it's not about Christ's return and no rewards were given at the same time that event took place?

In other words, you seem to be arguing:

The surrounding passages of the kingdom not manifesting immediately near Jerusalem and the Pharisees rejecting the jesus’ kingship are only similar, not word for word the same, to the citizens rejecting the the nobleman as king, so they are completely unrelated

No. This is getting to be ridiculous. The kingdom will be inherited in its fullness when Jesus returns in the future, so those verses are related. When He returns, He will have those Pharisees who never repented and all unbelievers cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt 25:41).

The surrounding passages of the prophecy of Jerusalem’s slaughter for rejecting Jesus are only similar, not word for word the same, as the citizens being brought near the king to be slain for rejecting him, so they are completely unrelated

Not to the parable, no. But, they relate to their PHYSICAL punishment for rejecting Christ. Jesus, however, was talking about their eternal punishment in the parable that they will be sentenced to when He returns.

Thematic echoes and passage similarities are important tools for determining if surrounding verses are context. However, apparently if it disagrees with your framework, it seems not so much.

LOL.

Only according to your framework, though.

You interpret it according to your framework as well because you, too, are careful to not create contradictions in your own view of scripture. What is wrong with that?

Right, why would I assume vs 38-41 are not a part of the same narrative flow as vs 11-37? Verses 11-44 all take place “near Jerusalem” and with the “same crowd”. There is no distinct setting change nor audience change to suggest that 38-44 is all of the sudden not a part of the context.

Look. If you can provide a convincing argument that rewards were given to believers in 70 AD then that would help your case. So far you have come nowhere near doing that. You can't get around this. Address it.

 

[claninja]

That relates to the future return of Christ. Tell me how exactly you think the kingdom of God came and was inherited in 70 AD.

Jesus taught in parables and stories about the kingdom, its manifestation, and those who would partake. An important aspect (not the entire point) of the Kingdom, its manifestation, and those that would be brought into inherit it, is the destruction of Jerusalem:

• Matthew 8:11-12 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
• Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.
• Matthew 22: 7-10 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
• Luke 21:31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near

Not necessarily. And, again, I'm not saying that the parable has anything to do with the millennium. Not sure where you got that from.

The point wasn't that YOU believe the parable has anything to do with the millennium. The point was that when Premil interprets the parable of the minas THROUGH THEIR FRAMEWORK so as to confirm their already held position that its not about the final judgment, but the millennium, you agree, its eisegesis. But for some reason when you interpret the parable through your framework so as to confirm your already position that its not about 70 ad nor the millennium, but the final judgement, its all the sudden not eisegesis. It's quite ironic.

We should look at any possible surrounding context AND other scripture. We can't interpret any passage of scripture in isolation from the rest of scripture or else it can result in contradictions.

I think looking at surrounding context is the first step in helping to interpret a passage. If the surrounding context helps to interpret the passage, and that interpretation fits in with my subjective framework, then great! If the surrounding context interprets the passage in such a way as to disagree with my subjective framework, then my framework is the problem. not the surrounding context. Cutting out surrounding context that doesn't agree with my framework is eisegesis.

All frameworks have contradictions, its just a matter of what contradictions are you willing to put up with. But What specific contradictions, from the historical context of the gospels being written pre 70ad and not YOUR personal framework, are produced by understanding the parable of the minas in luke 19 as having the destruction of jerusalem in 70ad occur at the same time as the return of the king?

Goodness sakes. How can Luke 19:41-44 be related when it's not about Christ's return and no rewards were given at the same time that event took place?

only according to your subjective framework.

You have to yet to explain WHY vs 38-41 are not a part of the context, other than it disagrees with your framework - eisegesis

WHY are vs 38-44 not a part of the same narrative flow as vs 11-37? Verses 11-44 all take place “near Jerusalem” and with the “same crowd”? There is no distinct setting change nor audience change to suggest that 38-44 is all of the sudden not a part of the context. What reason, besides your own personal, subjective framework, are you using to suggest they are not a part of the context?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus taught in parables and stories about the kingdom, its manifestation, and those who would partake. An important aspect (not the entire point) of the Kingdom, its manifestation, and those that would be brought into inherit it, is the destruction of Jerusalem:

• Matthew 8:11-12 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
• Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.
• Matthew 22: 7-10 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
• Luke 21:31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near

The point wasn't that YOU believe the parable has anything to do with the millennium. The point was that when Premil interprets the parable of the minas THROUGH THEIR FRAMEWORK so as to confirm their already held position that its not about the final judgment, but the millennium, you agree, its eisegesis. But for some reason when you interpret the parable through your framework so as to confirm your already position that its not about 70 ad nor the millennium, but the final judgement, its all the sudden not eisegesis. It's quite ironic.



I think looking at surrounding context is the first step in helping to interpret a passage. If the surrounding context helps to interpret the passage, and that interpretation fits in with my subjective framework, then great! If the surrounding context interprets the passage in such a way as to disagree with my subjective framework, then my framework is the problem. not the surrounding context. Cutting out surrounding context that doesn't agree with my framework is eisegesis.

All frameworks have contradictions, its just a matter of what contradictions are you willing to put up with. But What specific contradictions, from the historical context of the gospels being written pre 70ad and not YOUR personal framework, are produced by understanding the parable of the minas in luke 19 as having the destruction of jerusalem in 70ad occur at the same time as the return of the king?



only according to your subjective framework.

You have to yet to explain WHY vs 38-41 are not a part of the context, other than it disagrees with your framework - eisegesis

WHY are vs 38-44 not a part of the same narrative flow as vs 11-37? Verses 11-44 all take place “near Jerusalem” and with the “same crowd”? There is no distinct setting change nor audience change to suggest that 38-44 is all of the sudden not a part of the context. What reason, besides your own personal, subjective framework, are you using to suggest they are not a part of the context?

We are just repeating ourselves at this point. Nothing new is being brought to the table. The bottom line here is that you have no reasonable explanation for any rewards having been given when Jesus supposedly returned in 70 AD, so that is a MAJOR weakness in your interpretation of the parable.

Also, scripture does not teach anywhere that Jesus would return more than once. If you think He returned in 70 AD and will return again in the future, then show me where scripture ever teaches Him returning more than once. Scripture only teaches about Him leaving BODILY and returning BODILY and never anything about Him returning non-bodily to deliver God's wrath.