This generation

[Hammster]

Are you purposely trying to avoid addressing my point? Jesus was saying that many people (Jews and Gentiles) are called, but (relatively) few of them are chosen. That doesn't line up with your view that many will be called and many (most) will be chosen.

You can’t just take the verse out of context. Well, I guess you can, but you shouldn’t.



Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. Again he sent out other slaves saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.”’ But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.
— Matthew 22:1-15

Who were the called? The Jewish people. When they rejected the king, he burned their city. But was the wedding hall filled? Of course it was. I know the temptation is to read this like it was written to us. It’s not. It was written for us to understand, though. And we must first understand it as a Jew would. Like the Pharisees.

 

[Hammster]

So, you used to know the truth and then you were duped by false teaching. It happens a lot.

Lol. Okay.

 

[Hammster]

Where are these solid arguments that you speak of? I must have missed them somehow.

That’s obviously the case.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

no way “around it” when one is a trinitarian. That’s why the Sanhedrin cried “blasphemy” when Christ said they would from now on see him coming on the clouds.

I have no idea of what your point is here. Can you elaborate? The parable differentiated between God the Father and the Son. The vineyard owner represents God the Father and it says the vineyard owner would destroy the tenants, not the vineyard owner's son.

The vineyard owner would “come” to destroy the wicked tenants. Do you agree the vineyard owner “came” to destroy the wicked tenants in 70ad?

Sure. I already told you this when you asked me this before. But, that is different from the coming of the Son of man, since the vineyard owner represents God the Father and not God the Son.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That’s obviously the case.

And, yet, you're not able to show me where these supposed solid arguments were made. So, I didn't really miss them. They're nonexistent.

 

[Hammster]

And, yet, you're not able to show me where these supposed solid arguments were made. So, I didn't really miss them.. They're nonexistent.

Yeah. Okay.

 

[claninja]

You're acting as if Matthew 24:31 says the angels would only begin to gather the elect from the four winds of heaven at that time, but it doesn't. It's clear to me that it's talking about the gathering of all of the elect at one time just like is the case in passages like 1 Thess 4:14-17. Matthew 25:31-46, which is referring to the same coming of the Son of man as Matthew 24:27-31, has all of the elect gathered before Christ at the judgment. So, this is further evidence that it's talking about all of the elect being gathered at one time rather than over a long period of time as you believe.

again, Jesus said “this generation” will not pass away until all these things occur. So, If your presupposition (literal bodies flying out of the grown into the air all at once of all those who have ever lived) is correct, then I agree, this never happened.

but I disagree with your presupposition BECAUSE Jesus said “this generation”. Therefore, I don’t believe Jesus was talking about literal bodies flying out of the graves into the air in Matthew 24:31. Instead, I believe Jesus was talking sending his servants out to gather the good and bad into the wedding feast following the destruction of Jerusalem as in Matthew 22:7-10. And such did occur during occur in the first century.

At this point, I could not care less if you know what I'm talking about or not. What's clear to me is that you are not the Greek expert that you seem to think you are.

one doesn’t need to be an expert to to know that the perfect tense in Greek never means continual.

your argument that it means continual is false. More evidence that you must change definitions and Greek functions to fit your presupposition.

Do you consider the translators of English Bible translations like the NIV, KJV and NASB to be trustworthy Greek experts? If so, then why do they interpret the Greek word "angelos" as angels in Matthew 24:31 while you don't? I don't know of even one English translation which translates the word "angelos" as "messengers" or "human messengers" in Matthew 24:31. But, you apparently think you know Greek better than all of them.

I never said it couldn’t be angels

So, what things in particular indicate that His coming is near, right at the door then? In my view it's things like what Jesus said here:

Well, we know there were plenty of false prophets and messiahs in the first century that lawless was already occurring and that many were already falling away from the church in the first century.

Additionally James literally alludes to Matthew 24:33 in James 5:8-9. And James use the perfect tense verbs

Wrong. I'm not changing anything. You know you are desperate when you have to resort to making false accusations like this.

Yes, you have changed multiple definitions to fit your presupposition.

1.) genea is never used to mean a group of people throughout time, unless it’s plural such as “14 generations from Abraham to David” or back to back, such as “from generation to generation”. I still have no idea where you are getting this source from.

2.) the perfect tense never means “continual”. Such is a twisted definition. The perfect active indicative means a completed past action.

Yep, you go ahead and continue misinterpreting what they meant if you want, which leads to you contradicting a lot of scripture. That's your choice.

generic argument. I could say the exact same thing of you, especially when you have been unable to provide any evidence besides your own presuppositions.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You can’t just take the verse out of context. Well, I guess you can, but you shouldn’t.

Well, I know you certainly know a lot about taking verses out of context, including Matthew 22:14. You've had a lot of practice.

Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. Again he sent out other slaves saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.”’ But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.
— Matthew 22:1-15

Who were the called? The Jewish people. When they rejected the king, he burned their city. But was the wedding hall filled? Of course it was. I know the temptation is to read this like it was written to us. It’s not. It was written for us to understand, though. And we must first understand it as a Jew would. Like the Pharisees.

The called were not just the Jewish people. Where are you getting that from? They were the first to be called, but then the Gentiles were called as well. You are blatantly twisting the text to fit your doctrine.

The called are represented in the parable by those who were invited to the wedding. Did you not agree before that it's talking about the gospel being preached to the Gentiles throughout the world as well? But, now you're trying to say Jesus was only talking about Jews being called? Good grief. Unbelievable.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yeah. Okay.

Glad you agree.

Man, talking to you is increasing my number of posts very rapidly.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

again, Jesus said “this generation” will not pass away until all these things occur. So, If your presupposition (literal bodies flying out of the grown into the air all at once of all those who have ever lived) is correct, then I agree, this never happened.

but I disagree with your presupposition BECAUSE Jesus said “this generation”. Therefore, I don’t believe Jesus was talking about literal bodies flying out of the graves into the air in Matthew 24:31. Instead, I believe Jesus was talking sending his servants out to gather the good and bad into the wedding feast following the destruction of Jerusalem as in Matthew 22:7-10. And such did occur during occur in the first century.

Yeah, I get it. Your understanding of "this generation" is the basis for your understanding of everything. Even when that results in contradicting what other scripture says about the coming of the Son of man, the gathering of the elect and the end of the age.

one doesn’t need to be an expert to to know that the perfect tense in Greek never means continual.

your argument that it means continual is false. More evidence that you must change definitions and Greek functions to fit your presupposition.

Uh huh. Okay. I'm never going to fall for your supposed Greek expert act.

I never said it couldn’t be angels

How exactly did angels gather the elect in 70 AD then?

Well, we know there were plenty of false prophets and messiahs in the first century that lawless was already occurring and that many were already falling away from the church in the first century.

Additionally James literally alludes to Matthew 24:33 in James 5:8-9. And James use the perfect tense verbs

Paul was talking about something that would occur just before Christ's return and our being gathered to Him, which is an event that he wrote about in 1 Thess 4:14-17 as well. And 1 Thess 4:14-17 has not yet occurred.

Yes, you have changed multiple definitions to fit your presupposition.

LOL. No, I haven't. You can keep claiming that all you want, but you are not the ultimate authority on Greek like you think you are.

 

[Hammster]

Well, I know you certainly know a lot about taking verses out of context. You've had a lot of practice.

The called were not just the Jewish people. Where are you getting that from? They were the first to be called, but then the Gentiles were called as well. You are blatantly twisting the text to fit your doctrine.

The called are represented in the parable by those who were invited to the wedding. Did you not agree before that it's talking about the gospel being preached to the Gentiles throughout the world as well? But, now you're trying to say Jesus was only talking about Jews being called? Good grief. Unbelievable.

The Gentiles are the ones out on the highway. Remember:
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
— John 1:11

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The Gentiles are the ones out on the highway. Remember:
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
— John 1:11

Of course. But, they were also invited to the wedding so they are among the called of which few are chosen. That's my point. Please address the point.

 

[Hammster]

Of course. But, they were also invited to the wedding so they are among the called of which few are chosen. That's my point. Please address the point.

I have addressed it. Why were those on the Highway called? Because the kings own people refused. The kings own people weren’t the Gentiles.

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
— John 1:11

See also:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
— Romans 1:16

The Gentiles were even evangelized until Peter went to Cornelius. By some scholars reckoning, that was 3 1/2 years after the ascension.

Remember this one?


But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
— Matthew 15:24

I can keep going. All through scripture we see the Jews being the primary focus. Many were called. Many rejected Him. Few were chosen.


You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
— John 15:16

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I have addressed it. Why were those on the Highway called? Because the kings own people refused. The kings own people weren’t the Gentiles.

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
— John 1:11

See also:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
— Romans 1:16

The Gentiles were even evangelized until Peter went to Cornelius. By some scholars reckoning, that was 3 1/2 years after the ascension.

Remember this one?


But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
— Matthew 15:24

I can keep going. All through scripture we see the Jews being the primary focus. Many were called. Many rejected Him. Few were chosen.


You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
— John 15:16

Good grief. You seem to be purposely going out of your way to avoid specifically addressing my point.

Immediately after Jesus told a parable relating to both Jews and Gentiles being called to salvation (represented in the parable as being invited to a wedding), He then said "Many are called, but few are chosen". What basis is there for thinking He was only referring to Jews being called there when He had just talked about BOTH Jews and Gentiles being called? He clearly was saying that there are many people who are called, including both Jews and Gentiles, and few of them are chosen.

I challenge you to show me even one Bible commentator or one ECF who interprets (or interpreted) Matthew 22:14 the way you do.

 

[Hammster]

Good grief. You seem to be purposely going out of your way to avoid specifically addressing my point.

Immediately after Jesus told a parable relating to both Jews and Gentiles being called to salvation (represented in the parable as being invited to a wedding), He then said "Many are called, but few are chosen". What basis is there for thinking He was only referring to Jews being called there when He had just talked about BOTH Jews and Gentiles being called? He clearly was saying that there are many people who are called, including both Jews and Gentiles, and few of them are chosen.

I challenge you to show me even one Bible commentator or one ECF who interprets (or interpreted) Matthew 22:14 the way you do.

I see. You seem upset (“Good grief”)because I don’t agree with you. Yet you haven’t actually interacted with my arguments. I’ve given you the basis for my argument, and yet you act as if I haven’t. It’s an interesting debate tactic, to say the least. At this point, all I can do is point you to my previous post and ask that you interact with the argument in a way other than saying “you are wrong”.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I see. You seem upset (“Good grief”)because I don’t agree with you. Yet you haven’t actually interacted with my arguments. I’ve given you the basis for my argument, and yet you act as if I haven’t. It’s an interesting debate tactic, to say the least. At this point, all I can do is point you to my previous post and ask that you interact with the argument in a way other than saying “you are wrong”.

I'm not upset that you disagree with me. I'm annoyed that you are not specifically addressing my argument. I'm not just saying "you're wrong" and that's it. You must not be even reading my posts if you think that. You want me to interact with your argument before you even interact with mine according to what my argument actually is.

You might think you are addressing my argument, but you're not doing anything to explain how it's possible for Jesus to have only been referring to Jews being called in Matthew 22:14 after He had just talked about both Jews and Gentiles being called right before that. So, what is your explanation for that?

I'm trying to get you to address the text of Matthew 22:1-14 itself. Bringing up other passages that aren't speaking of the same thing as that passage speaks about or that only speak of part of what that passage is about isn't helpful.

It seems to me that to conclude that Matthew 22:14 is only in reference to Jews being called requires you to ignore or disregard the fact that Jesus had just talked about Gentiles being called as well. The context of the parable in Matthew 22:1-13 is in regards to both Jews and Gentiles being called, so why would that not be the case for Matthew 22:14 as well?

 

[Hammster]

I'm not upset that you disagree with me. I'm annoyed that you are not specifically addressing my argument. I'm not just saying "you're wrong" and that's it. You must not be even reading my posts if you think that.

You might think you are addressing my argument, but you're not doing anything to explain how it's possible for Jesus to have only been referring to Jews being called in Matthew 22:14 after He had just talked about both Jews and Gentiles being called right before that. So, what is your explanation for that?

I'm trying to get you to address the text of Matthew 22:1-14 itself. Bringing up other passages that aren't speaking of the same thing as that passage speaks about isn't helpful.

I posted my response to your argument and the scripture that supports it. I even posted the whole passage, and not just the one verse you thought was the silver bullet. I can break it down further, but I fear I’d be wasting my time since you’ll just respond once again that I didn’t address your argument.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I posted my response to your argument and the scripture that supports it. I even posted the whole passage, and not just the one verse you thought was the silver bullet. I can break it down further, but I fear I’d be wasting my time since you’ll just respond once again that I didn’t address your argument.

LOL. All you've done is shown how many Jews were called and few chosen, but that doesn't address the fact that it talks about Gentiles being called in the parable in Matthew 22:1-13 as well. Why are you seemingly just ignoring the fact that it talks about the Gentiles also being called and then interpreting Matthew 22:14 accordingly?

 

[Timtofly]

I explained it. If all you read was that it was symbolic, then I don’t know what else I can say.

You explained why you think it is symbolic. I keep reading that many just do not want it to be literal. You all don't have to explain that. It seems pretty loud and clear.

 

[claninja]

It's hard to tell what you're trying to say here. To me, it's clear that he was comparing a past global destruction event (the flood in Noah's day) that was caused by flood waters to a future global destruction event that will be caused by fire. This text isn't contained within a book like Daniel, Isaiah or Revelation where there's a bunch of figurative language. There's no basis for taking Peter figuratively here.

as previously stated, i don’t believe the flood was global, as it’s not supported by any real evidence. There is, however, a evidence for a massive deluge in the Middle East around the time associated with Noah, which would have been understood as “world wide” to them.

I believe the flood was punishment for the sons of God (lineage of Adam) intermingling with the daughters of men (those not of the lineage of Adam), which resulted in the sons of God being lead astray, away from covenant with God and into sin with the surrounding pagans. Thus God destroyed the “heavens and earth” of that world with the flood. That world being the localized region of the Middle East that suffered a massive deluge.

just as the “heavens and earth” of that world was destroyed, the present “heavens and earth” of Peter’s generation was to be destroyed with fire. And it was in 70ad.

Do you not think that Christ will destroy all His enemies when He returns? If you do, then how do you think He will do it?

again, I’m not talking about the future “2nd advent” based on your presupposition. I’m talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened during the generation of the disciples.

If he was intending to write about something figuratively in the sense that you're talking about, then why did he not write about it in a similar way as it was written about figuratively before?

he literally contrasts 2 different “heavens and earth” one pre flood and one now existing. That’s definitely not literal.