Prophecy Alert: "The Fig Tree Generation"

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
It seems a little strange to me that you are using a bible verse to prove you don't need to use the bible to know God. Also...kinda using this verse out of context.
I do agree that knowing scripture will not ultimately save you...I've never claimed it does. All I'm saying is that God gave us his word for a very good reason, and thus it's important to use it in conjuction with the Holy Spirit. Not using what God has given us is not wise, I would suggest.
God gave us Jesus and the Holy Spirit. so that all who believe in Him would have a teacher, but no one cares for Gods best, they prefer to work Him out by there own understanding.

I know God because of God, I know Christ because of a Christ, I came to Christ because it was my time, didnt even own a bible when I did. The very first day I stepped into a Christian church.

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

and

Eph_1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

it is by :revelation: we know Jesus, all the bible can ever do is give you an opinion of Him, like He said

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men.

True to this day, so many learned men who dont know Jesus, even though they speak of Him.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
It seems that you already have in attempting to take the mickey out of a twice removed Irishman.
Trying to take the mickey? No...not at all. I'm just trying to explain WHY people may find your posts extremely confuddling!

As for speaking about the sea rising. Could it have been a reference to king tides and an associated storm surge caused by the invisible air which we breathe.

I honetly wouldn't know, that was sort of my point. If you want people to know specifics...for example, it being a king tide you were talking about, why, in heavens name, didn't you just say that? Instead of talking about brothels? :rolleyes:

If you have read the sentence, I wrote, literally, like many people read the bible, literally, then it may not seem to make any sense at all, but if you allow the words to build a picture story then they might.

What...so now it's my inability to take scripture literally that means I'm incapable of understanding what you wrote? I'm not sure how to make it much plainer than I did. The sentences you wrote are not correct english. I don't know if it was a typing error (as we all have), or if english is your second language, but when words jumble together at random and don't actually have a specific meaning when read together, that's not an issue of reading something 'literally' or not, and it's not about being able to build a word picture either. It's just nonsense.

Now the word brothel can have more than one meaning and I was not necessarily referring to a place where certain types of "ladies" might gather to ply their trade from, but then again that might be the only meaning for that word that you know of.
If it does have more than one meaning, it is rather obscure, and therefore is probably not the best word to use for the intended description. Most people, upon seeing that word, would come to one conclusion about it....

Now needing to know your answer as to where you might live has become a boring past time.

Indeed. I think we can wrap this up.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Have you considered that Jesus as referring to prophetic prophecy that was given to Abraham in that around 4,000 years after the birth of Isaac around the year 2052 BC, that some of his descendants would return to the land of Israel in their own strength. That their return to the land of Canaan was part of their attempt to call out to God. That the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits. And those of the people who understand shall instruct many; yet for many days they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plundering. Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue. And some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because the lesson of the fig tree was a sign of the appointed season that would be coming.

Not sure of your point here.

The lesson of the fig tree is the only sign that Christ referenced as to when the Everlasting Kingdom of God would be established on the earth during the time of the Kings referred to in the Daniel 2 statue prophecy. Jesus also spent time explain what would be happening in the age that follows and the sign or events within that generation/age.
Ah...no, not really. The parable of the fig tree doesn't even mention the 'everlasting kingdom'. But we have other verses that do:

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” -Matthew 3:2

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” -John 18:36

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. -Matthew 12:28


Jesus is telling his Disciples that he has initiated the Kingdom then and there. But, as it is a kingdom "not of this world" we should not expect, as they obviously did, an earthly physical reign.

If we have a short term view of prophecy, then we will limit the timespan of what Jesus was presenting to a relatively short time period of around 70-120 years, but if we have a longer time frame in mind, then our understanding will extend past the 1,000 years mentioned in Rev 20 as the period of time that Jesus was referencing for all of the signs that He had mentioned.
Amillennialists often get accused of not taking bible prophecy seriously. After all, we have no conferences! The problem with that is, it is highly inaccurate. The thing is, because we see eschatalogical promises all throughout the covenants, we essentially see most scripture to be about 'end times'. Thus, we have 'bible' conferences, which, if done correctly, should always point to the great hope we have in Christ Jesus. For salvation, yes. For sanctification, yes, but also for our future glorification. We are sons and daughters of the king, fellow heirs with Christ. That ought to shade every understanding we have.
So no..I don't have a 'short' view of prophecy.

The Greek word γενεὰ is better understood if it has the meaning of an age and not the meaning of a descendant generation which is the usual understanding of the English word "generation." If we use the "descendant generation" understanding for γενεὰ, then we are already skewing the contextual meaning of what Christ was speak of with His disciples.

Can it mean that? Yes. But does the majority of times it's used in the NT see it used in such a context? No. Nor does the NT use the word in the context of a people group or race with any degree of regularity.
But let's suppose that the time we're talking about, Matt 24:34, is, in fact, talking about 'an age', as you suggest. Does this in any way change the idea that 'generation' is talking about a people group who sees Israel become a nation again, and therefore can be 'sure' they will see Christ return in their lifetimes? Even with the concession that 'generation' here might be used as 'age', does not get us to this conclusion. Not at all.

Yes, we are all looking for sign(s), but like Nicodemus, if our understanding of the things of the kingdom is lacking, like his was when he first went to see Jesus under the cover of darkness, our understanding of the signs that Jesus told to His disciples will not make much sense at all.

Shalom
I have no problem with people watching for Christ, I believe that is biblical. But sometimes people are so eager for his return (which I cannot fault them on!) that they see signs where there are none and misinterpret scripture to justify doing so. This is just as dangerous as ignorance on the kingdom, wouldn't you say?
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
God gave us Jesus and the Holy Spirit. so that all who believe in Him would have a teacher, but no one cares for Gods best, they prefer to work Him out by there own understanding.

I know God because of God, I know Christ because of a Christ, I came to Christ because it was my time, didnt even own a bible when I did. The very first day I stepped into a Christian church.

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This verse is Christ talking to his Disciples! The Holy Spirit will bring to rememberance in them what THEY heard Jesus speak to them, face to face. How can you 'remember' what was never spoken to you? If only there was some way to know what Jesus said.
Could the Holy Spirit give you Christ's words without you ever reading God's word? Sure, we're talking about God, who can do all things. But he chooses to work through his word and the Spirit. As Christ is called 'the Word of God', then I expect that explains why God would have us pour over the bible...we are, in point of fact, pouring over Christ's words...who he is. That is a precious thing and it's no wonder the Spirit recalls that in us and works through that.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. -Romans 10:14–17

Where do we get the "word of Christ"? From the bible.

and

Eph_1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

it is by :revelation: we know Jesus, all the bible can ever do is give you an opinion of Him, like He said

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men.

True to this day, so many learned men who dont know Jesus, even though they speak of Him.

Do not think I am discounting the work and presence of the Holy Spirit; I am not. But when we are told to "test the spirits" and that it is 'noble' to check everything we hear via the scriptures, then we can trust that God does, in fact, want us to walk hand in hand with the Holy Spirit and his word.

The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. -Acts 17:10–11

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. -1 John 4:1
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,902
2,568
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Trying to take the mickey? No...not at all. I'm just trying to explain WHY people may find your posts extremely confuddling!



I honetly wouldn't know, that was sort of my point. If you want people to know specifics...for example, it being a king tide you were talking about, why, in heavens name, didn't you just say that? Instead of talking about brothels? :rolleyes:



What...so now it's my inability to take scripture literally that means I'm incapable of understanding what you wrote? I'm not sure how to make it much plainer than I did. The sentences you wrote are not correct english. I don't know if it was a typing error (as we all have), or if english is your second language, but when words jumble together at random and don't actually have a specific meaning when read together, that's not an issue of reading something 'literally' or not, and it's not about being able to build a word picture either. It's just nonsense.


If it does have more than one meaning, it is rather obscure, and therefore is probably not the best word to use for the intended description. Most people, upon seeing that word, would come to one conclusion about it....



Indeed. I think we can wrap this up.

Then why did you reply?

How I framed my sentence was for a true blue Aussie to read who is presently current with what is going on. I then provided more information in a further post to help the person I had addressed understand a little better and he apologised for not picking up on the change of topic and responded in the same vein.

You, on the other hand, chimed in and said that it had "everything to do with the fact that your last several posts have been nonsensical." If you were following the thread topic they would do, but what many on this forum post is also nonsensical even when on topic. As I admitted, I had become bored of the topic

What you are exhibiting is a blinked horse syndrome and that you are not capable of approaching a sentence by seeing a little outside of your visual range.

This is also true on the treads topic where you have provided the usual nonsensical understanding of the one verse prophecy concerning the learning from the Fig Tree. You have automatically pushed this one verse prophecy about when the Kingdom of God would be established and force into the time frame where Jesus was explaining how long the time frame for the Everlasting Kingdom would be before the end of the age of the ages. Now because you have no 20/20 long range ability to see, you have forced the time frame for "this generation" into a meaning that suits short sighted abilities.

Now, after I asked you where you lived and the region where your abode is, I now have to ask myself if you know what an abode is?

Now an abode is not a curve ball, if you know what I mean.
 
Last edited:

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Then why did you reply?

How I framed my sentence was for a true blue Aussie to read who is presently current with what is going on. I then provided more information in a further post to help the person I had addressed understand a little better and he apologised for not picking up on the change of topic and responded in the same vein.

You, on the other hand, chimed in and said that it had "everything to do with the fact that your last several posts have been nonsensical." If you were following the thread topic they would do, but what many on this forum post is also nonsensical even when on topic. As I admitted, I had become bored of the topic

What you are exhibiting is a blinked horse syndrome and that you are not capable of approaching a sentence by seeing a little outside of your visual range.
Uh, huh. Sure.
If you felt I butted in where I was not welcome, sorry. But, you know, this is a forum, and people jump in all the time. I was merely attempting to point out some facts that might help some understanding/communication along. Clearly...not so much. I'm dropping it.

This is also true on the treads topic where you have provided the usual nonsensical understanding of the one verse prophecy concerning the learning from the Fig Tree. You have automatically pushed this one verse prophecy about when the Kingdom of God would be established and force into the time frame where Jesus was explaining how long the time frame for the Everlasting Kingdom would be before the end of the age of the ages. Now because you have no 20/20 long range ability to see, you have forced the time frame for "this generation" into a meaning that suits short sighted abilities.
"Usual nonsensical understanding". Huh. Really. Well...let's see, I mentioned the passage doesn't mention Israel...which it doesn't. I mentioned the OT doesn't always use the fig tree to talk about Israel, which it doesn't. I mentioned that the passage in question doesn't put a timeframe on Christ's return, which it doesn't. And we've talked about the meaning of 'generation' and how it is usually used in the NT.
Thus far you have provided zero proof that the passage must be talking of Israel, that indeed when the term 'fig tree' is mentioned it has to be Israel and nothing else. You have provided no scriptual evidence showing that when Israel is returned to her land it will be the terminal generation, and indeed you've given no proof that generation does not mean generation.
So, unless you can make scripture say something it's not, or back up your ideas with biblical proof and verses, then I dont think it's my nonsensical understanding.

Now, after I asked you where you lived and the region where your abode is, I now have to ask myself if you know what an abode is?

Now an abode is not a curve ball, if you know what I mean.
Of course I know what it means.
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,902
2,568
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Uh, huh. Sure.
If you felt I butted in where I was not welcome, sorry. But, you know, this is a forum, and people jump in all the time. I was merely attempting to point out some facts that might help some understanding/communication along. Clearly...not so much. I'm dropping it.


"Usual nonsensical understanding". Huh. Really. Well...let's see, I mentioned the passage doesn't mention Israel...which it doesn't. I mentioned the OT doesn't always use the fig tree to talk about Israel, which it doesn't. I mentioned that the passage in question doesn't put a timeframe on Christ's return, which it doesn't. And we've talked about the meaning of 'generation' and how it is usually used in the NT.
Thus far you have provided zero proof that the passage must be talking of Israel, that indeed when the term 'fig tree' is mentioned it has to be Israel and nothing else. You have provided no scriptual evidence showing that when Israel is returned to her land it will be the terminal generation, and indeed you've given no proof that generation does not mean generation.
So, unless you can make scripture say something it's not, or back up your ideas with biblical proof and verses, then I dont think it's my nonsensical understanding.


Of course I know what it means.

Is this the best argument that you can bring against what I write. An attack on the style of my writing by calling what I present as being "nonsensical."

Does the passage have to mention Israel by name for it to be talking about Israel?
Does the passage in chapter 24 have to state emphatically , "I am returning at this time," to provide understanding of when Christ will return?
Does the passage speak of a long durational period, over a 1,000 year period, or a much shorter time period as you have suggested, i.e. 70 to 120 years in duration?

You have used a false argument to put down what has been presented by another poster to bolster your own argument.

The Mount Olivet discussion of Jesus with His disciples covers chapters 24 and 25 and to ignore the three parable in chapter 25 from any discussion on the Mt Olivet discourse is fraught with miss understanding of what Jesus was discussing. Jesus clearly indicates when He will return in the third parable. Jesus tells three parables which occur at the beginning, during and the end of the last age of the ages.

We must keep in mind that the second parable informs us of how Satan will counter his being imprisoned in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years, by empowering his "good and faithful servant" to continue his oppression of the people while he is imprisoned.

If you are to respond please do so without using a false argument. You can present your opinions but your opinions are just that, your opinions and this does not mean that your opinions are true.

Shalom
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Is this the best argument that you can bring against what I write. An attack on the style of my writing by calling what I present as being "nonsensical."
Actually, I was just echoing what you had called my logic. So, if you think 'nonsensical' is a harsh thing to say to a person, perhaps you need to check that log.

Does the passage have to mention Israel by name for it to be talking about Israel?
Does the passage in chapter 24 have to state emphatically , "I am returning at this time," to provide understanding of when Christ will return?
Does the passage speak of a long durational period, over a 1,000 year period, or a much shorter time period as you have suggested, i.e. 70 to 120 years in duration?
Does it need to mention any of those things to be speaking of those things? Well...it certainly helps your case if it does...which it does not. You would then need to prove it was speaking of those things though other means...which you have not, yet.

You have used a false argument to put down what has been presented by another poster to bolster your own argument.
I'm not sure that is a correct accusation. You've made claims about that passage and I've just pointed out that those direct claims are not, in fact, outright stated in the passage. If I've made false allegations or arguments against you, show me where it says "Israel". Show me where fig tree MUST be Israel. Show me where in the passage it says that Israel becomes a nation again and that is the final countdown to Jesus' return. Show me how 'generation' means race, and how that word is used most of the time in the NT.
I'm not closed to discussing biblical proofs if you provide them, you just haven't thus far. But it's not a false argument to point out what's obvious.

The Mount Olivet discussion of Jesus with His disciples covers chapters 24 and 25 and to ignore the three parable in chapter 25 from any discussion on the Mt Olivet discourse is fraught with miss understanding of what Jesus was discussing. Jesus clearly indicates when He will return in the third parable. Jesus tells three parables which occur at the beginning, during and the end of the last age of the ages.
See...this doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry. First, I don't ignore Chapter 25, like you, I recognize it's importance. But in Chapter 25 we find two parables and then a description of the Final Judgement...which is not a parable. So, I'm not too sure where you're getting this "third parable" from, sorry.
But let's say the Final Judgement is a parable, all it says is "when the Son of Man comes in his glory...". So...no real timeframe here, just "when".
Let's go back to the second parable. It doesn't give a timeframe either, it just says, "Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them."
So...again...Chapter 25 gives us NO expectation of 'when'. At all.

We must keep in mind that the second parable informs us of how Satan will counter his being imprisoned in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years, by empowering his "good and faithful servant" to continue his oppression of the people while he is imprisoned.
I'm sorry, but, what? Are you still talking about Matt 25? The Olivet Discourse? The second parable? The one about talents...the master goes away and the servants 'use those talents wisely'...or not. How on earth do you get "Satan empowering his good and faithful servant" from this, especially when that term is used to refer to God's "good and faithful servants". You are doing some serious mixing up here, I think.

If you are to respond please do so without using a false argument. You can present your opinions but your opinions are just that, your opinions and this does not mean that your opinions are true.

Shalom
Well, see, here's the problem. I'm NOT using false arguments, just pointing out facts. Of course, you patently disagree with me and see this as "being false", apparently. But, sadly, that will need to rest on you, as I'm not really going to stop pointing out what is clearly the truth, sorry. If you can prove me biblically wrong I'll happily repent, but thus far you've provided no biblical proof, just opinions that I'm being false and that scripture must be saying what it isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keraz

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,902
2,568
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Actually, I was just echoing what you had called my logic. So, if you think 'nonsensical' is a harsh thing to say to a person, perhaps you need to check that log.


Does it need to mention any of those things to be speaking of those things? Well...it certainly helps your case if it does...which it does not. You would then need to prove it was speaking of those things though other means...which you have not, yet.


I'm not sure that is a correct accusation. You've made claims about that passage and I've just pointed out that those direct claims are not, in fact, outright stated in the passage. If I've made false allegations or arguments against you, show me where it says "Israel". Show me where fig tree MUST be Israel. Show me where in the passage it says that Israel becomes a nation again and that is the final countdown to Jesus' return. Show me how 'generation' means race, and how that word is used most of the time in the NT.
I'm not closed to discussing biblical proofs if you provide them, you just haven't thus far. But it's not a false argument to point out what's obvious.


See...this doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry. First, I don't ignore Chapter 25, like you, I recognize it's importance. But in Chapter 25 we find two parables and then a description of the Final Judgement...which is not a parable. So, I'm not too sure where you're getting this "third parable" from, sorry.
But let's say the Final Judgement is a parable, all it says is "when the Son of Man comes in his glory...". So...no real timeframe here, just "when".
Let's go back to the second parable. It doesn't give a timeframe either, it just says, "Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them."
So...again...Chapter 25 gives us NO expectation of 'when'. At all.


I'm sorry, but, what? Are you still talking about Matt 25? The Olivet Discourse? The second parable? The one about talents...the master goes away and the servants 'use those talents wisely'...or not. How on earth do you get "Satan empowering his good and faithful servant" from this, especially when that term is used to refer to God's "good and faithful servants". You are doing some serious mixing up here, I think.


Well, see, here's the problem. I'm NOT using false arguments, just pointing out facts. Of course, you patently disagree with me and see this as "being false", apparently. But, sadly, that will need to rest on you, as I'm not really going to stop pointing out what is clearly the truth, sorry. If you can prove me biblically wrong I'll happily repent, but thus far you've provided no biblical proof, just opinions that I'm being false and that scripture must be saying what it isn't.

In the Parable of the Talents, is the man who goes away and then returns entitled to the proceeds of the Harvest? The master agrees with the so termed "wicked" servant, that he is not entitled to the harvest. If he is not entitled to the harvest, then he is not Jesus.

Matthew 25:24-27: - 24 "Then he who had received the one talent came and said, 'Sir, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.'

26 "But his lord answered and said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. 27 So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest.
The answer as to who the Master is in this parable is found in the bolded sections of the quote above.

Scripture does confirm what I had posted.

Shalom
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,902
2,568
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Actually, I was just echoing what you had called my logic. So, if you think 'nonsensical' is a harsh thing to say to a person, perhaps you need to check that log.

I did, it was you who first used this term to describe what I had written when off topic. I just continued using that description to describe post since you felt justified to describe my posts as being nonsensical.

Perhaps you should check the thread before you go pointing your finger in justification of your righteousness.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
In the Parable of the Talents, is the man who goes away and then returns entitled to the proceeds of the Harvest? The master agrees with the so termed "wicked" servant, that he is not entitled to the harvest. If he is not entitled to the harvest, then he is not Jesus.

Matthew 25:24-27: - 24 "Then he who had received the one talent came and said, 'Sir, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.'

26 "But his lord answered and said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. 27 So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest.
The answer as to who the Master is in this parable is found in the bolded sections of the quote above.

Scripture does confirm what I had posted.

Shalom

Wait...so you're saying that the "Master" is not Jesus? Just because the wicked servant thinks he is a 'hard' man?
Let's put aside the fact that a lot of people who do not 'understand' Christ and do not love him, do in fact think this 'system' of Christianity to be unfair, hard and unjust. Let's instead look at the passage and a corresponding passage:


“For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ -Matthew 25:14–30



He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest? And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” -Luke 19:12–27

The similarities between these two passages are too much to ignore, even though the account appears earlier in Luke's gospel, it is the same story. Yes, it has certain differences, just as all the gospel accounts do, but we know that actually just enhances the strength of their authenticity.
My point in showing these two corresponding texts is that Luke's version makes it quite clear: "a nobleman into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return..." This parable is clearly referring to Jesus. He has, indeed, gone to receive a kingdom and will return. And in his absence we are to work with what he has given us, waiting faithfully for his return.
Just because one 'servant' was unfaithful and unwilling to use what God had given him, being selfish and undescerning aout God's will and character, does not mean the "master" or "Lord" is not Jesus. Clearly that is the intent.

So...in light of that, and in regards to our original conversation (and, come to think of it, even if it were NOT Jesus being spoken of here), this parable still doesn't tell us WHEN Jesus is returning like you claimed it did. No timeframes are mentioned, unless you count "a long time".
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,902
2,568
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Wait...so you're saying that the "Master" is not Jesus? Just because the wicked servant thinks he is a 'hard' man?
Let's put aside the fact that a lot of people who do not 'understand' Christ and do not love him, do in fact think this 'system' of Christianity to be unfair, hard and unjust. Let's instead look at the passage and a corresponding passage:


“For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ -Matthew 25:14–30



He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest? And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” -Luke 19:12–27

The similarities between these two passages are too much to ignore, even though the account appears earlier in Luke's gospel, it is the same story. Yes, it has certain differences, just as all the gospel accounts do, but we know that actually just enhances the strength of their authenticity.
My point in showing these two corresponding texts is that Luke's version makes it quite clear: "a nobleman into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return..." This parable is clearly referring to Jesus. He has, indeed, gone to receive a kingdom and will return. And in his absence we are to work with what he has given us, waiting faithfully for his return.
Just because one 'servant' was unfaithful and unwilling to use what God had given him, being selfish and undescerning aout God's will and character, does not mean the "master" or "Lord" is not Jesus. Clearly that is the intent.

So...in light of that, and in regards to our original conversation (and, come to think of it, even if it were NOT Jesus being spoken of here), this parable still doesn't tell us WHEN Jesus is returning like you claimed it did. No timeframes are mentioned, unless you count "a long time".

Naimo, you are welcome to express your opinion as to how you would understand these two parables. The Luke account is clearer that the master who goes away is Satan.

But just because you think you are right does not mean that you are. I would be happy for someone to prove me wrong in my understanding but your posts do not give me the confidence that you would be capable to do so.

Shalom
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I did, it was you who first used this term to describe what I had written when off topic. I just continued using that description to describe post since you felt justified to describe my posts as being nonsensical.

Perhaps you should check the thread before you go pointing your finger in justification of your righteousness.
I said I could't make sense of what you said about calling a certain location a "brothel" or "watershed"...yes, that it seemed nonsensical, and you questioned my intelligence over that. I'm not sure how pointing out a certain descriptor used is nonsensical to others is the same as BEING nonsensical, but whatever.
I had thought we'd moved beyond that and onto a conversation on the "fig tree parable". Post #83 was the first post in which I replied about the fig tree, and I did not call you nonsensical there as we were discussing issues that were clearly beyond our intial conversation. In post #85 you said that I made posts with "usual nonsensical understanding". Basically, instead of just saying I "made a nonsensical post", you're saying all of my posts are nonsensical.
I questioned you on how pointing out facts can be considered 'nonsensical' and on we went from there. I think at this point, it's best we drop the conversation as a whole.
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,902
2,568
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I said I could't make sense of what you said about calling a certain location a "brothel" or "watershed"...yes, that it seemed nonsensical, and you questioned my intelligence over that. I'm not sure how pointing out a certain descriptor used is nonsensical to others is the same as BEING nonsensical, but whatever.
I had thought we'd moved beyond that and onto a conversation on the "fig tree parable". Post #83 was the first post in which I replied about the fig tree, and I did not call you nonsensical there as we were discussing issues that were clearly beyond our intial conversation. In post #85 you said that I made posts with "usual nonsensical understanding". Basically, instead of just saying I "made a nonsensical post", you're saying all of my posts are nonsensical.
I questioned you on how pointing out facts can be considered 'nonsensical' and on we went from there. I think at this point, it's best we drop the conversation as a whole.

Yes we both are getting pointed in what we are posting.
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
11,694
2,521
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I feel I need to say a few things in regards to this: the first being that I do, in point of fact, see Israel as remarkable. It is a miracle that she has come back to her land and become such a powerful, thriving nation in such a short time. I believe God is, indeed, preparing to bring large numbers of Jews to Christ in a show that will mark his glory.
However, that does not necessarily mean that this has to be that generation, or that there is a 'separate' salvation plan for the Jewish people.
The passage about the Fig tree is highly regarded as a difficult one, no matter your end times perspective. Dispensationalists try and fix that by claiming that 'generation' means 'race' or the people group alive at the end, but that is not without huge exegetial problems. The foremost being, 'generation' just does't mean that. It means what it means....the people Jesus was talking to face to face. Then there comes a problem of defining "all these things"...what is Christ talking about? Is he talking about the "birth pang" signs? Is he talking about the temple destruction signs? Or is he talking about the cosmic heaven signs that precede his immediate return? Because there are clear distinctions between these signs.

Why don't you simply read it without applying Dispensationalist glasses to it? The Scripture existed before Dispensationalism ever began by John Darby in the 1830's. So what would you use when reading it prior to the start of Dispensationalism? That's where you might begin your study of it.

Jesus gave seven main signs of the end there in His Olivet discourse. They are the Seals of Revelation 6. That is the order of those signs in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. The final sign He gave was that of His second coming and gathering of His Church, a sign that even Dispensationalists get wrong by claiming that gathering of saints on that final sign are trib saints, and that the main Church is raptured prior to that tribulation He warned of there. In reality, the gathering saints examples in both Matt.24 and Mark 13 directly parallel the gathering events Apostle Paul taught about the Church in 1 Thessalonians 4.

So Dispensationalists have Christ's Olivet discourse wrong, and so do Preterists and Historicists. Those given to understand it don't follow any of those seminary factions of the doctrines of men.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Why don't you simply read it without applying Dispensationalist glasses to it? The Scripture existed before Dispensationalism ever began by John Darby in the 1830's. So what would you use when reading it prior to the start of Dispensationalism? That's where you might begin your study of it.

Jesus gave seven main signs of the end there in His Olivet discourse. They are the Seals of Revelation 6. That is the order of those signs in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. The final sign He gave was that of His second coming and gathering of His Church, a sign that even Dispensationalists get wrong by claiming that gathering of saints on that final sign are trib saints, and that the main Church is raptured prior to that tribulation He warned of there. In reality, the gathering saints examples in both Matt.24 and Mark 13 directly parallel the gathering events Apostle Paul taught about the Church in 1 Thessalonians 4.

So Dispensationalists have Christ's Olivet discourse wrong, and so do Preterists and Historicists. Those given to understand it don't follow any of those seminary factions of the doctrines of men.

Hi Davy. I'm wondering if perhaps we are getting some wires crossed. I am not a Dispensationalist, and I do not read things through Dispensationalist glasses. The answer you were commenting on above, was me attempting to point out the flaws in Dispensational thinking. So...actually, we agree. I agree with what you've written above.
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
11,694
2,521
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Davy. I'm wondering if perhaps we are getting some wires crossed. I am not a Dispensationalist, and I do not read things through Dispensationalist glasses. The answer you were commenting on above, was me attempting to point out the flaws in Dispensational thinking. So...actually, we agree. I agree with what you've written above.

Good! Sorry if I misunderstood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Naomi25