Undecided in eschatology

[claninja]

you miss THE POINT


The PEOPLE in the parable/prophecy are the people of the (4th) Great Tribulation Kingdom
AFTER the Last Saint has been "sealed" (saved) and NOT the people in the (3rd) Christian Kingdom
BEFORE the Last Saint has been "sealed". [Rev 7:1-3]


NOW... I have already shown this to you. Please pay attention this time.


This establishes the CONTEXT of the passage (is it Third Beast of Fourth Beast)
NOTICE Jesus returned "having RECEIVED the Kingdom".


The people in the parable/prophecy are the people living on earth when the Lord Returns
These are NOT people in the Christian Great Commission BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed'
these are people in the Great Tribulation Kingdom AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed"


BEFORE you do anything else DEAL with the fact that Jesus RETURNED in the prophecy...
THAT is the Context of the prophecy.


Deal with the CONTEXT of the prophecy ... AFTER HE RETURNED.
You must read the text carefully


Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having RECEIVED the kingdom,
then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.



/

The very same people that reject the nobleman at the beginning of the parable, are the very same people that the nobleman returns to and destroys. Again, no way around that.

Was Christ rejected as king by first century apostate israel? Yes

John 19:15 They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.”

Was this same generation that rejected Christ as king destroyed? Yes

Luke 19:43-44 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

You continue to refuse to provide any serious scholarship for your proposed 3rd and 4th kingdom theology. Is this your own personal theology that you made up? I have no interest in debating a made up theology, unless you can provide and serious scholarship in support.

Here is an example of providing serious scholarship. Historic Premillennialist John Gill’s commentary on his Luke 19:27

“But those mine enemies,.... Meaning particularly the Jews, who were enemies to the person of Christ, and hated and rejected him, as the King Messiah; and rebelled against him, and would not submit to his government; and were enemies to his people, and were exceeding mad against them, and persecuted them; and to his Gospel, and the distinguishing truths of it, and to his ordinances, which they rejected against themselves:
which would not that I should reign over them; see Luke 19:14

bring hither, and slay them before me; which had its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, when multitudes of them were slain with the sword,”

 

[DavidPT]

you miss THE POINT


The PEOPLE in the parable/prophecy are the people of the (4th) Great Tribulation Kingdom
AFTER the Last Saint has been "sealed" (saved) and NOT the people in the (3rd) Christian Kingdom
BEFORE the Last Saint has been "sealed". [Rev 7:1-3]


NOW... I have already shown this to you. Please pay attention this time.


This establishes the CONTEXT of the passage (is it Third Beast of Fourth Beast)
NOTICE Jesus returned "having RECEIVED the Kingdom".


The people in the parable/prophecy are the people living on earth when the Lord Returns
These are NOT people in the Christian Great Commission BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed'
these are people in the Great Tribulation Kingdom AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed"


BEFORE you do anything else DEAL with the fact that Jesus RETURNED in the prophecy...
THAT is the Context of the prophecy.


Deal with the CONTEXT of the prophecy ... AFTER HE RETURNED.
You must read the text carefully


Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having RECEIVED the kingdom,
then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.



/

Your interpretation makes zero sense. You make a point to criticize others for not getting the CONTEXT, in order to properly understand something correctly, except you have no room to talk since your interpretation proves that you never got the CONTEXT of the Luke 19 parable in light of Christ's profitable and unprofitable servants recorded in the end of Matthew 24 and then involving all of Matthew 25, including the sheep and goats judgment.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.


The first thing to note, a certain nobleman is meaning Christ. went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, is meaning His ascension back into heaven after His death and resurrection. and to return, is meaning His 2nd coming in the end of the age.

As to these 10 servants meant here, when does the text indicate that He delivers them 10 pounds? Is it not before He ascends back into heaven the fact He tells them to occupy until He comes, meaning until He returns? If He then returns 2000 years later, but that He delivers this 10 pounds to these 10 servants before He leaves, why then are you making nonsense out of the parable by insisting it is only the last saints that are being brought before Him after He returns, in order to see how they used this 10 pounds? Of course though, it's not literally meaning 10 servants nor is it literally involving 10 pounds. But that is beside the point. The point is, He gives these servants the 10 pounds before He leaves, and then when He returns, He brings the servants before Him that He gave the 10 pounds to before He left.

Obviously, 2000 years later some of these servants would not still be alive. Since there is such a thing as a resurrection from the dead once Christ returns, that could mean a resurrection might explain some of this. Personally, I tend to see this involving the sheep and goats judgment, where I pay attention to the context leading up to that judgment, and note that it is involving professed servants of His, profitable and unprofitable. Which means in the Luke 19 parable, the ones He rewards with authority over cities when He returns, these represent His profitable servants. The one where he said to Jesus, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin, this represents His unprofitable servants and are meaning His enemies, which would not that He should reign over them, during His ascension.

Which means, this 10 pounds He gives before He leaves, this is applicable to servants throughout His ascension until He returns. Which means it also involves the last saints, but not just them. Why would anyone think that this---But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them--is only pertaining to the last saints rather than all saints during His ascension? His enemies per this context is meaning His professed servants that wouldn't allow Him to reign over Him during the ascension, thus they represent His unprofitable servants. They are meaning the goats.

 

[5thKingdom]

_________________________________

My response is that there are not multiple Kingdoms of Heaven - only one. Jesus never said that there was a Jewish, nor Christian, nor Great Tribulation, Kingdom of Heaven. What you are asserting is a gross twisting of scripture.

But you are wrong sir,
The phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" is found 33 times in the Bible.


EVERY TIME it represents either:


(1) the temporal Christian "Kingdom' of the Great Commission BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed" [Rev 7:1-3]
this Kingdom consists of BOTH saved "wheat/sheep" in the church and unsaved "tares/goats" in the Church Age.


(2) the temporal Great Tribulation "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 25:1] existing AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed"
this Kingdom consists of the "wheat and tares" living through the Revelation Beast.
This is a separate and distinct "Beast" than #1


(3) the eternal "Kingdom" consisting ONLY of the "wheat/sheep"
from #1 and #2 as well as the saved people from the Jewish Kingdom
AND the saved people from the Pre-Flood Kingdom


You need to look at the CONTEXT of the passage to determine WHICH of the definitions fits.
But EVERYTIME the phrase is used it represents either (#1) or (#2) or (#3)


I have studied this phrase and I understand
exactly how the Bible defines that phrase..


----------


Moreover...


What about the (2) Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven"?
Jesus specifically NAMES the Jewish Kingdom in Matthew 22:2

And what about the Saints living before the Flood? They are including in the Eternal "Kingdom of Heaven"
And they were a separate and distinct "Kingdom/Beast" than the OT Jewish Saints.


While it is a NEW understanding to some people, it is a Biblical fact the Bible talks about different "Kingdoms of Heaven"
because God's Salvation Plan was designed that way.

/

 

[5thKingdom]

5thKingdom said:
you miss THE POINT


The PEOPLE in the parable/prophecy are the people of the (4th) Great Tribulation Kingdom
AFTER the Last Saint has been "sealed" (saved) and NOT the people in the (3rd) Christian Kingdom
BEFORE the Last Saint has been "sealed". [Rev 7:1-3]


NOW... I have already shown this to you. Please pay attention this time.


This establishes the CONTEXT of the passage (is it Third Beast of Fourth Beast)
NOTICE Jesus returned "having RECEIVED the Kingdom".


The people in the parable/prophecy are the people living on earth when the Lord Returns
These are NOT people in the Christian Great Commission BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed'
these are people in the Great Tribulation Kingdom AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed"


BEFORE you do anything else DEAL with the fact that Jesus RETURNED in the prophecy...
THAT is the Context of the prophecy.


Deal with the CONTEXT of the prophecy ... AFTER HE RETURNED.
You must read the text carefully


Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having RECEIVED the kingdom,
then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Your interpretation makes zero sense.

I have not "interpreted anything.
I simply showed you a verse establishing the CONTEXT of the passage was limited
to the Saints living AFTER the Lord Returns (wait for it....) AFTER He has received His Kingdom.

The CONTEXT of the passage is (the Great Tribulation) Saints living at the time of His Return
NOT, as you assumed, the Saints living in the Christian Kingdom of the Great Commission.

You make a point to criticize others for not getting the CONTEXT, in order to properly understand something correctly, except you have no room to talk since your interpretation proves that you never got the CONTEXT of the Luke 19

Again, it is not ME that says the CONTEXT of the passage is (Great Tribulation) Saints living when He Returns.

Luk 19:15
And it came to pass, that when HE [Jesus] WAS RETURNED, HAVING RECEIVED THE KINGDOM,
then HE [Jesus] commanded these servants [the Last Saints] to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

The CONTEXT is not on Saints living in the (3rd) Christian Kingdom BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed" [Rev 7:1-3]
The CONTEXT is on Saints living in the (4th) Great Tribulation Kingdom AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed" (saved).
These are two (2) separate and distinct "Kingdoms/Beasts", this is an important Truth to understand.
It is "meat" and not "milk".

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

The first thing to note, a certain nobleman is meaning Christ. went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, is meaning His ascension back into heaven after His death and resurrection. and to return, is meaning His 2nd coming in the end of the age.

That is correct

As to these 10 servants meant here, when does the text indicate that He delivers them 10 pounds? Is it not before He ascends back into heaven the fact He tells them to occupy until He comes, meaning until He returns? If He then returns 2000 years later, but that He delivers this 10 pounds to these 10 servants before He leaves, why then are you making nonsense out of the parable by insisting it is only the last saints that are being brought before Him after He returns,

Because... as you noted, the CONTEXT is on the Saints living WHEN HE RETURNS.
These are the Last Saints. When do they live? They do NOT live during the Great Commission BEFORE the Last Saint is saved.
They live in the Great Tribulation Kingdom (the Revelation Beast) which is AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed" and Salvation ends'
These are two (2) separate and distinct "Kingdoms" and/or "Beasts"... you must not CONFLATE them.

Obviously, 2000 years later some of these servants would not still be alive.

Jesus has Saints on earth in 100AD and Saints alive in 500AD and Saints alive in 1000AD, 1500AD and 2000AD
they are NOT the SAME Saints... but they are His Saints.

/

 

[5thKingdom]

5thKingdom said:
you miss THE POINT


The PEOPLE in the parable/prophecy are the people of the (4th) Great Tribulation Kingdom
AFTER the Last Saint has been "sealed" (saved) and NOT the people in the (3rd) Christian Kingdom
BEFORE the Last Saint has been "sealed". [Rev 7:1-3]


NOW... I have already shown this to you. Please pay attention this time.


This establishes the CONTEXT of the passage (is it Third Beast of Fourth Beast)
NOTICE Jesus returned "having RECEIVED the Kingdom".


The people in the parable/prophecy are the people living on earth when the Lord Returns
These are NOT people in the Christian Great Commission BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed'
these are people in the Great Tribulation Kingdom AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed"


BEFORE you do anything else DEAL with the fact that Jesus RETURNED in the prophecy...
THAT is the Context of the prophecy.


Deal with the CONTEXT of the prophecy ... AFTER HE RETURNED.
You must read the text carefully


Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having RECEIVED the kingdom,
then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

The very same people that reject the nobleman at the beginning of the parable, are the very same people that the nobleman returns to and destroys. Again, no way around that.

The POINT is the CONTEXT is on the Saints living WHEN HE WAS RETURNED (after He received the Kingdom)
and these are the Last Saints of the (4th) Great Tribulation Kingdom - the Revelation Beast...

these are the Last Saints, living AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed" (saved)
and NOT Great Commission Saints from BEFORE the Last Saint is saved [Rev 7:1-3]

This is an important distinction to understand.
It is "meat" and not "milk"

Was Christ rejected as king by first century apostate israel? Yes

This is entirely off point.
The Saints living WHEN HE RETURNED is the subject.

You continue to refuse to provide any serious scholarship for your proposed 3rd and 4th kingdom theology. Is this your own personal theology that you made up? I have no interest in debating a made up theology, unless you can provide and serious scholarship in support.

What in the world are you talking about?

You yourself understand the Saints living BEFORE the Flood were a separate "Kingdom" than the OT Jews... Kingdom #1

You already know the Saints living in the Jewish Kingdom were different from the Christian Saints... Kingdom #2
BTW: Jesus specifically NAMED the Jewish Era as a "Kingdom of Heaven" in Matthew 22:2
And He knew what He was talking about.


We both agree the Christian Kingdom is different than the Jewish Kingdom... that is Kingdom #3


What many people do not understand is the Biblical Truth there is a difference between
Saints living during the Great Commission - BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed" (saved)... Kingdom #3 and
Saints living in the Great Tribulation Kingdom (the Revelation Beast) AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed"... this is Kingdom #4


You ALREADY Know these are different Kingdoms.
So what are you debating?

Enjoy a deeper understanding of the Gospel.

Here is an example of providing serious scholarship. Historic Premillennialist John Gill’s commentary on his Luke 19:27

Luk 19:1227
He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. [that is Jesus]
And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. [at He ascends]

But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
And it came to pass, that WHEN HE WAS RETURNED, HAVING RECEIVED THE KINGDOM, [when Jesus has Returned]
then he commanded these servants [the Last Saints living in the Great Tribulation Kingdom and the Revelation Beast] to be called
unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant:
because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord,
thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou
art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him,
Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down,
and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have
required mine own with usury?

And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath
shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.


THE POINT IS;
The Saints in this prophecy are the Great Tribulation Saints living WHEN HE RETURNED
which is a different "Kingdom" or "Beast" than the Saints during the Great Commission.
AND this is an important distinction to understand the Gospel


/

 

[claninja]

Your interpretation makes zero sense. You make a point to criticize others for not getting the CONTEXT, in order to properly understand something correctly, except you have no room to talk since your interpretation proves that you never got the CONTEXT of the Luke 19 parable in light of Christ's profitable and unprofitable servants recorded in the end of Matthew 24 and then involving all of Matthew 25, including the sheep and goats judgment.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.


The first thing to note, a certain nobleman is meaning Christ. went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, is meaning His ascension back into heaven after His death and resurrection. and to return, is meaning His 2nd coming in the end of the age.

As to these 10 servants meant here, when does the text indicate that He delivers them 10 pounds? Is it not before He ascends back into heaven the fact He tells them to occupy until He comes, meaning until He returns? If He then returns 2000 years later, but that He delivers this 10 pounds to these 10 servants before He leaves, why then are you making nonsense out of the parable by insisting it is only the last saints that are being brought before Him after He returns, in order to see how they used this 10 pounds? Of course though, it's not literally meaning 10 servants nor is it literally involving 10 pounds. But that is beside the point. The point is, He gives these servants the 10 pounds before He leaves, and then when He returns, He brings the servants before Him that He gave the 10 pounds to before He left.

Obviously, 2000 years later some of these servants would not still be alive. Since there is such a thing as a resurrection from the dead once Christ returns, that could mean a resurrection might explain some of this. Personally, I tend to see this involving the sheep and goats judgment, where I pay attention to the context leading up to that judgment, and note that it is involving professed servants of His, profitable and unprofitable. Which means in the Luke 19 parable, the ones He rewards with authority over cities when He returns, these represent His profitable servants. The one where he said to Jesus, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin, this represents His unprofitable servants and are meaning His enemies, which would not that He should reign over them, during His ascension.

Which means, this 10 pounds He gives before He leaves, this is applicable to servants throughout His ascension until He returns. Which means it also involves the last saints, but not just them. Why would anyone think that this---But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them--is only pertaining to the last saints rather than all saints during His ascension? His enemies per this context is meaning His professed servants that wouldn't allow Him to reign over Him during the ascension, thus they represent His unprofitable servants. They are meaning the goats.

I think we definitely agree that the nobleman going off to a far away country refers to the ascension of Christ.

1.) The talents = the secrets of the kingdom of God when we compare Matthew 13. And if we continue in Matthew 13, we can see that those who understand are the disciples, while those that don’t understand are those also of israel, thus fulfilling Isaiah.

Luke 19:13, 26 13Calling ten of his servants,a he gave them ten minas,b and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away

Matthew 13:10-15 10Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” 15For this people’s heart has grown dull,

Further demonstrating that the talents are the secrets of the kingdom of heaven is the parable of the good seed. When the secrets are understood, the one who understands bears fruit and yields some times a hundredfold, sometimes sixty fold, just like the talents making 10 more and 5 more.

Luke 19:16 16The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’

23As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”

That means the ones not understanding nor bearing fruit, again, with audience relevance in mind, are primarily those of israel as Christ states this fulfills Isaiah.

14Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”

2.) The citizens not wanting the nobleman is obviously a reference to israel as well:

John 19:15-16 15They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” 16So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

And the very ones that didn’t want Christ as their king, are the very ones crushed by the stone at the coming of the vineyard owner.

Luke 20:16-18
He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “Surely not!” 17But he looked directly at them and said, “What then is this that is written:
“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone’?c
18Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

Matthew 21:45 45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them

 

[DavidPT]

I think we definitely agree that the nobleman going off to a far away country refers to the ascension of Christ.

1.) The talents = the secrets of the kingdom of God when we compare Matthew 13. And if we continue in Matthew 13, we can see that those who understand are the disciples, while those that don’t understand are those also of israel, thus fulfilling Isaiah.

Luke 19:13, 26 13Calling ten of his servants,a he gave them ten minas,b and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away

Matthew 13:10-15 10Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” 15For this people’s heart has grown dull,

Further demonstrating that the talents are the secrets of the kingdom of heaven is the parable of the good seed. When the secrets are understood, the one who understands bears fruit and yields some times a hundredfold, sometimes sixty fold, just like the talents making 10 more and 5 more.

Luke 19:16 16The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’

23As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”

That means the ones not understanding nor bearing fruit, again, with audience relevance in mind, are primarily those of israel as Christ states this fulfills Isaiah.

14Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”

2.) The citizens not wanting the nobleman is obviously a reference to israel as well:

John 19:15-16 15They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” 16So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

And the very ones that didn’t want Christ as their king, are the very ones crushed by the stone at the coming of the vineyard owner.

Luke 20:16-18
He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “Surely not!” 17But he looked directly at them and said, “What then is this that is written:
“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone’?c
18Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

Matthew 21:45 45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them

What all you submitted might make perfect sense if we ignore this part---And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading(Luke 19:15) Are you spiritualizing this part? Meaning no literal bodily return is meant?

As to me, in my mind, there is no way this return meant here is not meaning His bodily return in the end of this age. And that we have to keep in mind, according to the parable He gives His servants the talents before He ascends back into heaven, and tells them to occupy until He comes. Then we see Him returning, and it is after He has returned, thus not while He is still away, that He has these servants brought before Him. How should we explain that, the fact any servants 2000 years ago would be dead when He returns? A resurrection from the dead can explain that part. And why not, in light of the following?

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Why would after Christ returns(Luke 19:15), that none of that would be involving 2 Corinthians 5:10? Though, I do not believe the sheep and goats judgment is the great white throne judgment, I do believe the sheep and goats judgment is pertaining to the judgment seat of Christ per 2 Corinthians 5:10. The sheep and goats judgment, in my mind, is involving separating the profitable servants from the unprofitable servants in the body of Christ. One would have to be doctrinally biased to not notice, that from Matthew 24:40-51, then from Matthew 25:1 up unto the return recorded in verse 31, the context is profitable and unprofitable servants in the body of Christ.

 

[claninja]

What all you submitted might make perfect sense if we ignore this part---And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading(Luke 19:15) Are you spiritualizing this part? Meaning no literal bodily return is meant?

Your counter assumes Christ is talking about the 2nd advent. However, if we remain consistent with audience relevance on all the other components of the parable, which even you just agreed “makes perfect sense”, then maybe that assumption should be changed from 2nd advent to “coming judgement upon Israel”, as the destruction of Israel in 70ad was associated with the coming of the vineyard owner to destroy the very same wicked tenants that rejected the son as king AND the gathering of the good and bad.

One would have to be doctrinally biased to not notice, that from Matthew 24:40-51, then from Matthew 25:1 up unto the return recorded in verse 31, the context is profitable and unprofitable servants in the body of Christ.

I agree in sense that the sheep and goats judgement may not be the final judgment at the still future 2nd advent.

The goats that claim “when did we not do these things” are, imho, a reference to the Jews following the law for righteousness.

Romans 9:31 31but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousnessd did not succeed in reaching that law.

While the sheep that didn’t even know they were doing righteous acts for God represents the nations by faith.

30What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;

 

[5thKingdom]

I think we definitely agree that the nobleman going off to a far away country refers to the ascension of Christ.

Yes... that is the CONTEXT of the nobleman going away...


Now tell me what is the CONTEXT of this parable/prophecy?
The CONTEXT is when the Lord RETURNS... after He has RECEIVED THE KINGDOM
Therefore the PEOPLE (the Saints) in view are the Last Saints... the Saints LIVING on earth when the Lord Returns.


This is an important distinction to understand...
and a necessary understanding BEFORE you can assume to discern the MEANING of the passage.
You must understand the CONTEXT of a passage BEFORE you can hope to understand the MEANING.


Luk 19:15
And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom,
then he commanded these servants [the Last Saints] to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Further demonstrating that the talents are the secrets of the kingdom of heaven is the parable of the good seed. When the secrets are understood, the one who understands bears fruit and yields some times a hundredfold, sometimes sixty fold, just like the talents making 10 more and 5 more.

You deflect...
the CONTEXT of the passage is when HE HAS RETURNED... AFTER HAVING RECEIVED THE KINGDOM

Deal with the Context before you pretend to understand the meaning.


Luk 19:15
And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom,
then he commanded these servants [the Last Saints] to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

2.) The citizens not wanting the nobleman is obviously a reference to israel as well:

That is so increadably wrong it's unbelievable.
The citizens are the Last Saints... the Saints LIVING on earth when He Returns.

Read the text CAREFULLY

Luk 19:15
And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom,
then he commanded these servants [the Last Saints] to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

This is not hard.

Jim

 

[claninja]

Yes... that is the CONTEXT of the nobleman going away...


Now tell me what is the CONTEXT of this parable/prophecy?
The CONTEXT is when the Lord RETURNS... after He has RECEIVED THE KINGDOM
Therefore the PEOPLE (the Saints) in view are the Last Saints... the Saints LIVING on earth when the Lord Returns.


This is an important distinction to understand...
and a necessary understanding BEFORE you can assume to discern the MEANING of the passage.
You must understand the CONTEXT of a passage BEFORE you can hope to understand the MEANING.


Luk 19:15
And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom,
then he commanded these servants [the Last Saints] to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

The context is found in vs 11: “because he was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God should appear immediately”. The reason for the parable is to dispel the idea that the kingdom was to appear immediately.

“As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.”

But that doesn’t mean the kingdom wouldn’t come in their generation.

Luke 9:27 27But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

You deflect...

Lol Deflect what???? I was simply explaining my position to Davidpt on what I believe the talents represent.

Deal with the Context before you pretend to understand the meaning.

So you disagree that the talents represent the secrets of the kingdom?

That is so increadably wrong it's unbelievable.
The citizens are the Last Saints... the Saints LIVING on earth when He Returns.

Read the text CAREFULLY

Maybe take some of your own advice?

I was talking about the citizens that hated him and didn’t want him to be their king BEFORE his leaving for a far away country.

Luke 19 4But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’

John 19:15-16 15They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” 16So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

 

[DavidPT]

The context is found in vs 11: “because he was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God should appear immediately”. The reason for the parable is to dispel the idea that the kingdom was to appear immediately.

“As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.”

But that doesn’t mean the kingdom wouldn’t come in their generation.

Luke 9:27 27But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

It all depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that it means it will never physically appear ever, then I have to disagree. Apparently, the reason why it didn't immediately physically appear, it tells us that in verse 12---A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

If He has to go away first in order to receive a kingdom for Himself, how would it be logical that the kingdom could immediately physically appear at that time? It wouldn't be logical, that being the point. But the fact He returns after having received a kingdom for Himself, why would the kingdom not physically appear at that time? That does not contradict verse 11 since when He returns is obviously not involving the time period verse 11 is involving. The parable never says the kingdom of God will never physically appear. The parable says it doesn't immediately physically appear, meaning at that particular time, and that when He returns is no longer involving the period of time verse 11 is, and that when He returns it is after Him having received for Himself a kingdom.

Imagine living throughout eternity in a kingdom that never physically appears. As if that makes sense. Maybe you are not even disputing that the kingdom does eventually physically appear, but in case you think it doesn't, I don't see that being reasonable, based on some of the things I submitted above.

Yet, you do appear to be arguing that the kingdom does appear during their lifetime, though. And that Luke 9:27 for one proves that. But is that even meaning in the same sense Luke 19:11 is meaning, since that is obviously meaning in the literal physical sense?

 

[claninja]

It all depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that it means it will never physically appear ever, then I have to disagree. Apparently, the reason why it didn't immediately physically appear, it tells us that in verse 12---A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

If He has to go away first in order to receive a kingdom for Himself, how would it be logical that the kingdom could immediately physically appear at that time? It wouldn't be logical, that being the point. But the fact He returns after having received a kingdom for Himself, why would the kingdom not physically appear at that time? That does not contradict verse 11 since when He returns is obviously not involving the time period verse 11 is involving. The parable never says the kingdom of God will never physically appear. The parable says it doesn't immediately physically appear, meaning at that particular time, and that when He returns is no longer involving the period of time verse 11 is, and that when He returns it is after Him having received for Himself a kingdom.

Imagine living throughout eternity in a kingdom that never physically appears. As if that makes sense. Maybe you are not even disputing that the kingdom does eventually physically appear, but in case you think it doesn't, I don't see that being reasonable, based on some of the things I submitted above.

Yet, you do appear to be arguing that the kingdom does appear during their lifetime, though. And that Luke 9:27 for one proves that. But is that even meaning in the same sense Luke 19:11 is meaning, since that is obviously meaning in the literal physical sense?

Couple things to think about.

1.) the kingdom of God had drawn near (mark 1:15) in the first century.

2.) the kingdom of God was NOT to come with observations that they expected, such as “look here”, etc…(luke 17:20). ** this would address your position of “physically appearing”

3.) the coming of the kingdom of God was not to be immediate (luke 19:11)

4.) the coming of the kingdom of God would occur before those standing in front of Christ, in the first century, died (luke 9:27).

And so my position on understanding the kingdom of God in relation to the four points above is in agreement with Lightfoot:

From Adam Clarke on Luke 17:20:

Dr. Lightfoot has well observed that there are two senses especially in which the phrase "kingdom of heaven," is to be understood.

1. The promulgation and establishment of the Christian religion.

2. The total overthrow of the Jewish polity.

The Jews imagined that when the Messiah should come he would destroy the Gentiles, and reign gloriously over the Jews: the very reverse of this, our Lord intimates, should be the case. He was about to destroy the whole Jewish polity, and reign gloriously among the Gentiles. Hence he mentions the case of the general deluge, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. As if he had said: "The coming of this kingdom shall be as fatal to you as the deluge was to the old world, and as the fire and brimstone from heaven were to Sodom and Gomorrah." Our Lord states that this kingdom of heaven was within them, i.e. that they themselves should be the scene of these desolations, as, through their disobedience and rebellion, they possessed the seeds of these judgments.

And so my understanding of the kingdom not appearing immediately, nor observably, but before they would die, is in the establishment of Christianity and the overthrow of the Jewish polity.

In otherwords

1.) the giving the of talents (secrets of the kingdom of God) in which the good servants bear fruit and increase the talents = establishment of Christianity.

2.) slaying of the citizens that didn’t want him to be king = overthrow of Jewish polity.

 

[DavidPT]

Couple things to think about.

1.) the kingdom of God had drawn near (mark 1:15) in the first century.

2.) the kingdom of God was NOT to come with observations that they expected, such as “look here”, etc…(luke 17:20). ** this would address your position of “physically appearing”

3.) the coming of the kingdom of God was not to be immediate (luke 19:11)

4.) the coming of the kingdom of God would occur before those standing in front of Christ, in the first century, died (luke 9:27).

And so my position on understanding the kingdom of God in relation to the four points above is in agreement with Lightfoot:

From Adam Clarke on Luke 17:20:

Dr. Lightfoot has well observed that there are two senses especially in which the phrase "kingdom of heaven," is to be understood.

1. The promulgation and establishment of the Christian religion.

2. The total overthrow of the Jewish polity.

The Jews imagined that when the Messiah should come he would destroy the Gentiles, and reign gloriously over the Jews: the very reverse of this, our Lord intimates, should be the case. He was about to destroy the whole Jewish polity, and reign gloriously among the Gentiles. Hence he mentions the case of the general deluge, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. As if he had said: "The coming of this kingdom shall be as fatal to you as the deluge was to the old world, and as the fire and brimstone from heaven were to Sodom and Gomorrah." Our Lord states that this kingdom of heaven was within them, i.e. that they themselves should be the scene of these desolations, as, through their disobedience and rebellion, they possessed the seeds of these judgments.

And so my understanding of the kingdom not appearing immediately, nor observably, but before they would die, is in the establishment of Christianity and the overthrow of the Jewish polity.

In otherwords

1.) the giving the of talents (secrets of the kingdom of God) in which the good servants bear fruit and increase the talents = establishment of Christianity.

2.) slaying of the citizens that didn’t want him to be king = overthrow of Jewish polity.

IMO, your interpretation does not reasonably explain 'returned'(epanerchomai) in Luke 19:15, though. No one needs to return unless they go someone else then come back to where they initially were. The fact He was bodily present on the earth, then bodily left the earth and then bodily entered heaven, how then is it reasonable that His return is not bodily as well? How would that be an example of interpreting something in a consistent manner? If His initial coming is bodily, and that when He leaves, it is bodily as well, and then when He enters back into heaven He does that bodily, but when He returns, that is not bodily?? That would be like arguing, that when He died bodily He did not rise from the dead bodily, He rose in another sense. No Christian would argue that, though. So why would any Christian think His return per Luke 19:15 is not bodily, but that it is meaning in another sense instead?

 

[claninja]

IMO, your interpretation does not reasonably explain 'returned'(epanerchomai) in Luke 19:15, though. No one needs to return unless they go someone else then come back to where they initially were. The fact He was bodily present on the earth, then bodily left the earth and then bodily entered heaven, how then is it reasonable that His return is not bodily as well? How would that be an example of interpreting something in a consistent manner? If His initial coming is bodily, and that when He leaves, it is bodily as well, and then when He enters back into heaven He does that bodily, but when He returns, that is not bodily?? That would be like arguing, that when He died bodily He did not rise from the dead bodily, He rose in another sense. No Christian would argue that, though. So why would any Christian think His return per Luke 19:15 is not bodily, but that it is meaning in another sense instead?

If you are familiar with the OT language of national judgement when God descended from heaven, such as when He descended to judge David’s enemies. (2 Samuel 22:10), when he descended to judge Egypt (Isaiah 19:1), when descended to judge Samaria (Micah 1:3), etc……then there is no issue with understanding Christ as descending in the same manner to judge the very same nation of Israel that didn’t want him to be king.

Imho, it would be unreasonable to completely ignore these OT passages of God descending from heaven in national judgement, when attempting to interpret the israel centric parables of Jesus.

Again, my position is that the parables of the kingdom are about the establishment of Christianity and the complete removal of the Jewish polity. This is how the kingdom of God can be understood as 1.) at hand, 2.) not to come with observable signs, 3.) not to appear immediately, and 4.) to come with power before Jesus’ audience tasted death. Do you have an alternative understanding on the parables that better addresses those four points?

This is not to say that this parable is something that Christians struggle to fully interpret. “The return” has had many scholars divided on how to interpret “the return”. Even historic premils like John Gill.

Adam Clarke on 19:15
When he was returned - When he came to punish the disobedient Jews; and when he shall come to judge the world. See the parable of the talents, Matthew 25:14(note), etc.

John Gill on Luke 19:15
And it came to pass that when he was returned,.... Which return was either in power to Jerusalem, in the destruction of that city; or which will be in person to this earth, at the end of the world

 

[DavidPT]

If you are familiar with the OT language of national judgement when God descended from heaven, such as when He descended to judge David’s enemies. (2 Samuel 22:10), when he descended to judge Egypt (Isaiah 19:1), when descended to judge Samaria (Micah 1:3), etc……then there is no issue with understanding Christ as descending in the same manner to judge the very same nation of Israel that didn’t want him to be king.

Imho, it would be unreasonable to completely ignore these OT passages of God descending from heaven in national judgement, when attempting to interpret the israel centric parables of Jesus.

Again, my position is that the parables of the kingdom are about the establishment of Christianity and the complete removal of the Jewish polity. This is how the kingdom of God can be understood as 1.) at hand, 2.) not to come with observable signs, 3.) not to appear immediately, and 4.) to come with power before Jesus’ audience tasted death. Do you have an alternative understanding on the parables that better addresses those four points?

This is not to say that this parable is something that Christians struggle to fully interpret. “The return” has had many scholars divided on how to interpret “the return”. Even historic premils like John Gill.

Adam Clarke on 19:15
When he was returned - When he came to punish the disobedient Jews; and when he shall come to judge the world. See the parable of the talents, Matthew 25:14(note), etc.

John Gill on Luke 19:15
And it came to pass that when he was returned,.... Which return was either in power to Jerusalem, in the destruction of that city; or which will be in person to this earth, at the end of the world

Did you ever play odd one out when you were growing up? A game where you had to identify the odd one in a group of objects. Assuming you played this game or are at least familiar with it, let's try that with the following, keeping in mind the parable in question per Luke 19, the fact that involves Him initially being here, then leaving here, followed by a return.



1) the first coming is bodily, meaning after He left heaven

2) His leaving of the earth after His death and resurrection is bodily

3) His returning back to heaven is bodily, thus when He reaches heaven, He enters it bodily

4) His return back to earth after that of 3) is bodily

5) His return back to earth after that of 3) is not bodily, it is in another sense

Which one of these would be the odd one out?

It's obvious that it is 5). 5) doesn't even make sense to begin with, the fact His return is after 3) is no longer true, and not instead while 3) is still true. Your interpretation has Him returning while He is still away. Though, the parable in Luke 19 has Him returning after He is no longer still gone. The way you try and get around this, the odd one out in the above, it is not meaning 5), it is meaning 4). Which could mean that if you did play that game growing up, maybe you weren't very good at it if you insist 5) wouldn't be the odd one out here.

The point being, sometimes something as simple as what I brought up here, involving a kids' game, can easily debunk an interpretation such as you are proposing, the fact 4) can't be the odd one out, when it is obvious that 5) is the odd one out. And the fact either 4) or 5) has to be the odd one out since both can't be true at the same time.

The only way that what I presented above is not valid, one first has to prove that anything involving 1) 2) and 3), that any of those facts are not true. But if those facts are true, either 4) or 5) has to be the odd one out.

 

[parousia70]

1) the first coming is bodily, meaning after He left heaven

2) His leaving of the earth after His death and resurrection is bodily

3) His returning back to heaven is bodily, thus when He reaches heaven, He enters it bodily

4) His return back to earth after that of 3) is bodily

5) His return back to earth after that of 3) is not bodily, it is in another sense

Which one of these would be the odd one out?

It seems to me you need to establish a few things first....

Is your contention that Jesus did not have a Body of any kind before the incarnation?

Is your contention that Jesus was not returned to the Glory He formally had before the foundation of the world? That The Father refused to grant His wish after He ascended? (John 17:5)

In Revelation John describes His post ascension bodily form quite differently a couple different times, and in neither of those does John describe it in any way that resembles His earthly form.

Is Jesus BODILY a Lamb with 7 Horns and 7 Eyes today?

Why not?

John, as an eyewitness of the Resurrected Jesus, makes it perfectly clear he had absolutely no idea what Jesus Looks Like post ascension.

Clearly there was some sort of Bodily change that happened to Jesus post ascension (Which I contend fulfills Jesus petition in John 17:5), otherwise John would not have expressed such uncertainty about His Bodily appearance in 1 John 3:2.

Perhaps you know more about what Jesus looks like today than John did?

When Jesus siad:
For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

Is He Bodily there? or is He there in spirit only while His spiritless Flesh Body remains dormant in Heaven?

When the resurrectedd Jesus "vanished from their sight" (Luke 24:31) did His Body go away, or did he simply shut their eyes to Him?

Is there a Biblical reason to Conclude is it impossible for the Resurrected, ascended and Glorified Jesus to be BODLIY present on earth without being seen?

 

[DavidPT]

It seems to me you need to establish a few things first....

Is your contention that Jesus did not have a Body of any kind before the incarnation?

Is your contention that Jesus was not returned to the Glory He formally had before the foundation of the world? That The Father refused to grant His wish after He ascended? (John 17:5)

In Revelation John describes His post ascension bodily form quite differently a couple different times, and in neither of those does John describe it in any way that resembles His earthly form.

Is Jesus BODILY a Lamb with 7 Horns and 7 Eyes today?

Why not?

John, as an eyewitness of the Resurrected Jesus, makes it perfectly clear he had absolutely no idea what Jesus Looks Like post ascension.

Clearly there was some sort of Bodily change that happened to Jesus post ascension (Which I contend fulfills Jesus petition in John 17:5), otherwise John would not have expressed such uncertainty about His Bodily appearance in 1 John 3:2.

Perhaps you know more about what Jesus looks like today than John did?

When Jesus siad:
For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

Is He Bodily there? or is He there in spirit only while His spiritless Flesh Body remains dormant in Heaven?

When the resurrectedd Jesus "vanished from their sight" (Luke 24:31) did His Body go away, or did he simply shut their eyes to Him?

Is there a Biblical reason to Conclude is it impossible for the Resurrected, ascended and Glorified Jesus to be BODLIY present on earth without being seen?

By bodily I'm mainly meaning physically as opposed to spiritually or any other sense. I'm mainly meaning as in physically visible to the naked eye as opposed to not physically visible to the naked eye. When He walked the earth 2000 years ago, was that bodily, as in physically visible to the naked eye? Or was that in another sense instead? When He left the earth, was that bodily, as in physically visible to the naked eye? Or was that in another sense altogether?

If He is initially present on the earth bodily, as in physically visible to the naked eye, and that He then leaves the earth bodily, as in physically visible to the naked eye, and that after He is no longer away, thus returned, how does it make sense that His return is not bodily, that it is not physically visible to the naked eye, but it is in another sense altogether? Which then ignores the fact that the return meant in the Luke 19 parable, it is meaning after He is no longer still gone, and not while He is still gone. IOW, while He is gone, it involves the ascension back into heaven. When He returns, it is meaning after His ascension to heaven has expired. This is simple not complicated.

Even if some things Preterists propose is correct, look what this view is doing over all, it's causing Preterists to misinterpret something as plain and simple as the parable in question per Luke 19 the fact they are trying to force the text to fit Preterism rather than what the text actually fits. It's almost as if some partial Preterists are trying to deceive us here by insisting they are not full Preterists, the fact no Scriptures in the NT appear to involve the 2nd coming of Christ in the end of this age, yet they insist they believe that to be true. Based on what Scriptures, though? The parable in Luke 19 doesn't prove that to them, so, Preterists can't use that Scripture. Nothing in the Discourse proves that to them, so, Preterists can't use that Scripture. So on and so on.

 

[parousia70]

When He walked the earth 2000 years ago, was that bodily, as in physically visible to the naked eye? Or was that in another sense instead?

What sense do you say it was at the moment of Luke 24:31 when He "vanished from their sight"? Do you agree it is at least possible that He was Still Bodily present but just invisible to them at that moment? Do you agree that there is nothing in that text preventing us from understanding He was Bodily present and just unseen at that moment?

When He left the earth, was that bodily, as in physically visible to the naked eye? Or was that in another sense altogether?

Visible in the flesh.

If He is initially present on the earth bodily, as in physically visible to the naked eye, and that He then leaves the earth bodily, as in physically visible to the naked eye, and that after He is no longer away, thus returned, how does it make sense that His return is not bodily, that it is not physically visible to the naked eye, but it is in another sense altogether?

Again, you'd have to demonstrate that His Body did NOT undergo any sort of chnage or transformation once He ascended... and scripture is clear that the Ascended Christ looked nothing like the pre ascension Christ, demonstrating some sort of change did indeed take place.. Also, if your contentiont is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to be BODILY present on earth without being seen, then you need to explain where He went in Luke 24:31. He had not yet ascended, so was still present on earth, BODILY at that moment, no?

Which then ignores the fact that the return meant in the Luke 19 parable, it is meaning after He is no longer still gone, and not while He is still gone. IOW, while He is gone, it involves the ascension back into heaven. When He returns, it is meaning after His ascension to heaven has expired. This is simple not complicated.

No disagreement here.

Even if some things Preterists propose is correct, look what this view is doing over all, it's causing Preterists to misinterpret something as plain and simple as the parable in question per Luke 19 the fact they are trying to force the text to fit Preterism rather than what the text actually fits. It's almost as if some partial Preterists are trying to deceive us here by insisting they are not full Preterists, the fact no Scriptures in the NT appear to involve the 2nd coming of Christ in the end of this age, yet they insist they believe that to be true.

What do you mean "Involve"?
There are no scriptures, other than prophetically, documenting the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem either.

It must follow that your assertion is we must therefore take the position that it didn't happen, right?

 

[claninja]

Did you ever play odd one out when you were growing up? A game where you had to identify the odd one in a group of objects. Assuming you played this game or are at least familiar with it, let's try that with the following, keeping in mind the parable in question per Luke 19, the fact that involves Him initially being here, then leaving here, followed by a return.



1) the first coming is bodily, meaning after He left heaven

2) His leaving of the earth after His death and resurrection is bodily

3) His returning back to heaven is bodily, thus when He reaches heaven, He enters it bodily

4) His return back to earth after that of 3) is bodily

5) His return back to earth after that of 3) is not bodily, it is in another sense

Which one of these would be the odd one out?

It's obvious that it is 5). 5) doesn't even make sense to begin with, the fact His return is after 3) is no longer true, and not instead while 3) is still true. Your interpretation has Him returning while He is still away. Though, the parable in Luke 19 has Him returning after He is no longer still gone. The way you try and get around this, the odd one out in the above, it is not meaning 5), it is meaning 4). Which could mean that if you did play that game growing up, maybe you weren't very good at it if you insist 5) wouldn't be the odd one out here.

The point being, sometimes something as simple as what I brought up here, involving a kids' game, can easily debunk an interpretation such as you are proposing, the fact 4) can't be the odd one out, when it is obvious that 5) is the odd one out. And the fact either 4) or 5) has to be the odd one out since both can't be true at the same time.

The only way that what I presented above is not valid, one first has to prove that anything involving 1) 2) and 3), that any of those facts are not true. But if those facts are true, either 4) or 5) has to be the odd one out.

David, I hope you understand that your counter argument is very subjective. I could also list 4 points in favor of my position and 1 not, and claim that is the “odd man out”, thus “proving” my position in my own mind as well.

Again, there is still a couple issues with your presupposition on the “return” aspect.

1.) the citizens that didn’t want the nobleman to be their king are the very same ones that are slain at the return. No way around that. This is supported by the historical fact that the very same apostate Israelites that didn’t want Christ to be their king were destroyed in 70ad

2.) The OT language of national judgements involved God descending from heaven. Why Is it unreasonable to understand apostate Israel’s national judgment in association with Christ, who is God, descending from heaven, similar to the OT.

3.) yes, Christ was in the flesh from birth to ascension. I have no disagreement there. BUT I don’t believe Christ was in the flesh in heaven prior to his birth nor do I believe Christ is in the flesh once he entered heaven.

based on these 3 points, and your inability to address them, I don’t find your argument of “visible body” in regards to the return in the parable of the nobleman as convincing.

It's almost as if some partial Preterists are trying to deceive us here by insisting they are not full Preterists

David, how many times have I posted commentaries from non-full preterist, serious scholarship that believe the entirety of the OD completely fulfilled, and yet you still need to make a claim such as this? I literally just posted a commentary from PREMILLENNIALIST john gill who wrote the “return” of the nobleman in luke 19 could refer to the coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel…….. it’s almost as if hyper futurists need to continue to ignore serious scholarship in order to foist up hyper futurist speculation and guesses……

 

[claninja]

What do you mean "Involve"?
There are no scriptures, other than prophetically, documenting the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem either.

Always been curious, who has the authority, today, to claim when a prophecy is fulfilled according current events?

I mean, we have all these Holy Spirit inspired NT letters that claim when prophecy is fulfilled. We even have Jesus prophetically declaring the days of vengeance on Jerusalem FULFILLS ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN.

So who today gets to claim when something is fulfilled in our day?