Search results

Genea means generation, as in group of people living at the same time: 3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew...

If wheat refers to all righteous of mankind in general and tares refer to all unrighteous of mankind in general, why would removing the unrighteous prematurely, also hurt the righteous, if this harvest refers to the 2nd coming at the end of the age? I mean Then they were never really wheat...

So in vs 24, the word "having sown" is a verbal participle, which means it acts more as an adjective. Its an aorist active participle in the dative case. While aorist can often, but not always, indicate the "past", its aspect is one of completion (and not continuous). So it renders it as "the...

Well, when we consider the parable of the wheat and the tares - prematurely uprooting the tares may uproot the wheat as well (matthew 13:29). This seems to be an agricultural reference as to how wheat and tares may look very similar prior to the harvest. It could be possible that the falling...

Contextually: A tare cannot become wheat or vise versa, And wheat, prior to maturation, is just about indistinguishable from a tare until the harvest. So much so, that prematurely removing the tares will also uproot the wheat - Matthew 13:29 Interpretively: Looking at Matthew 13:29, IF the...

i think you hit the nail on the head Wheat and tares are hard to distinguish when they are young. It’s when they are maturing, closer to harvest, that the wheat can be more easily distinguished from the tare. I think Jesus’ audience would have recognized that with the statement- “let them grow...

In the context of the parable specifically , no, a wheat cannot become a tare or vise versa. But how about this: Jesus states, in the olivet discourse, that there will be a mass falling away. Does the mass falling away apply to the wheat or to the tares?

I think there is decent evidence for both sides, although the majority of modern scholarship, including even some Christian scholars, hold that 2 peter was most likely pseudography. 2 Peter was not officially included into cannon until the 4th century, so for several hundreds years after...

I mean, it does seem you were intentionally trying to rile him up, which I don’t think is appropriate either.

so you believe yourself to be Elijah, and pinseeker a prophet of Baal in this comparison? Just seems like you’re going to “eye for an eye”.

I never said I was “holier than thou”, that’s quite the stretch.

I hope that if ever lose my temper and partake in childish mockery. Someone calls me out on it.

OT principal of an eye for eye?

It’s a public forum, if you don’t like me calling you out on your rude behavior, ie name calling, report me

You believe childish mockery is the same as Jesus, the lamb of God, calling the Pharisees sons of devils and Herod a fox?

Seems like you are trying to justify why you can be rude back - ie name calling. It’s not a fruit of the spirit.

It’s a historical fact, whether you personally find it ludicrous or not. I said IF

Turn the other cheek, brother. No sense in getting too worked up.

Similarities are not sole reason for inclusion. Its inclusion was heavily debated, even more so than revelation. Its inclusion was disputed up until the fourth century. so it’s not ludicrous in that sense. As to the olivet discourse Contextually, it answers 2 questions - the destruction of...

Textual negotiation with the olivet discourse: LINGUISTICALLY Dictionaries, concordances, lexicons, commentaries, and the majority of English Bible translations overwhelmingly translate genea to mean the English equivalent generation - group of people living at the same time within Matthew...