Search results

In general, I agree with what today’s Christianity traditionally teaches: starting in the in the first century, the dead righteous were raised to heaven, and the living righteous no longer go to hades upon physical death, but immediately rise to heaven. I guess I would reconcile it with the...

The rewards seem to mostly be described as “eternal life” and “kingdom inheritance, and are often described as “in heaven”. The NT also often portrays the believers as having these now (especially in gospels and epistles of John, and even parts of Paul’s theology) but also possessing these...

Good stuff here David. Yea, I completely agree, the lesson is the same in each parable: For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Interestingly enough, this same lesson is also found in...

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...

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. when a premil...

kingdom inheritance/possession 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 Eisegesis is also the interpretation of...

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

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. Depends on the surrounding context of said passage, right? For example, if we just just...

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...

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...

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...

If your ignoring the surrounding context, arguing that vs 41-44 are completely unrelated to the parable, and then imposing your own framework onto the text to get it to align with said framework, that’s literally eisegesis That’s Matthew, not Luke. Where does Matthew’s use of the parable...

I think the “explanation” of Minas is found in Luke 19:26 He replied, ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him This same explanation is provided earlier in Luke, specifically, chapter 8, in regards to...

The belief that Luke 19:27 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is not exclusive to full preterism. For example, John Gill, a historic premillennialist, saw this verse fulfilled in the Roman judgment on the Jews. So let’s avoid that strawman argument. the surrounding context of Luke...

Importing your presupposed eschatological view onto the parable, while ignoring the surrounding context, is literally the definition of eisegesis. How does that not make me think that? Because the events of the parable in regards to the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and their...

My post #120 was a response to Scott downey’s post #115, in which Scott Downey used the parable of the Mina’s, specifically vs 27, to demonstrate that the nobleman slays ALL his enemies in general. THAT’S why I’m focusing on that specific aspect of the parable and not the rewards……I disagreed it...

Wow, ok let’s add strawman to list of fallacies you’ve already used. Discussing one part of the parable (the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and their subsequent slaughter) and how it should be understood in light of of the surrounding context (Jesus’ triumphal entry where the kingdom...

You are conflating thematic elements (like rewards) with narrative context, which is a misuse of the term context. Context doesn’t mean “one part of the parable that supports my interpretation.” It refers to the surrounding narrative material, historical setting, audience, and literary flow in...

It’s unfortunate it took you multiple posts of not addressing the context to realize you were wasting your time.

Why should I take you seriously if you are always claiming context is important, but now keep shifting and deflecting when pressed about context? Why would the surrounding context of the Jesus’ arrival to Jerusalem and the kingdom not immediately manifesting, but instead the Pharisees reject...