Search results

This is an etymological fallacy because a word’s root doesn’t necessarily define how a word is used: “The Etymological Fallacy occurs whenever someone falsely assumes that the meaning of a word can be discovered from its etymology or origins. Example: The word “vise” comes from the Latin...

Wpm quoted 2a: “a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζεινΡ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 “ I was responding to that specific point.

I think covenantee may be applying definition c per post 819. “c. of things future; then (at length) when the thing under discussion takes place (or shall have taken place)” Not knowing the day nor hour, doesn’t mean the general time frame is unknown - Jesus said , when you see these things...

Welp, you’ve missed the entire point. Not surprising. As a reminder, I am in no way attempting to prove 1 Corinthians 15 fulfilled. The original argument is that we all have to negotiate with the text. All commentators provided were not to support fulfillment. That would be absolutely...

Sure didn’t - men of same family usage is found in 2a Men of same stock usage is found in 2b You only mentioned usage 2a, which you used incorrectly based on the example provided in Matthew 1:17.

ok, so it looks like you've chosen usage 2a - successive member of a genealogy - as how genea ought to be used in matthew 24:34 2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family; a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζειν...

From the standpoint that the son of man coming on the clouds must be understood as a literal, physical, and bodily, in vs 30-31, I can completely agree - that didn't happen in the first century. I just struggle with that framework because that means we are back to drawing lines through the text...

I can totally get behind that καὶ τότε in vs 30 could mean something that takes place in the future, and not immediately within the same time frame as vs 29. But then I always run into what comes next: Matthew 24:32-34 Now learn this lessone from the fig tree: As soon as its branches become...

I think I would differentiate between the soul, spirit, and body, with the soul going to hades prior to the first century, the spirit returning to the Lord, and the body to the tomb. But my point was hades - Hades no longer has victory WHEN the mortal puts on immortality. the dead are released...

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...