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.